Prompt #5: To Wiki or not to Wiki?

The notion that much of academia is still uneasy about acknowledging wikipedia as a valid and acceptable source is understandable. It is relatively new and select details in the content may not be completely accurate, but what makes it different from an up and coming magazine? The exact thing that makes wiki unique, its thousands of user/editors, seems to be the problem with its credibility, but like any magazine, newspaper, or other media source, there will be typos, small gaps in logic, and maybe even a few falsities. The point is that wikipedia may have more(quantity) "experienced" editors than most established media sources. I mean, how often have you been dissatisfied with wiki or found an actual falsity? Or better yet, how many of you have seen vandalism ortried to vandalize a page on wikipedia? That stuff is changed back to normal within seconds.

From personal experience when researching my topic (and random searching/browsing), I encountered something in an article; it was an insult in bold words to a specific person that im sure 99% of users didnt know (ie CARL SMITH IS A F@G AND LIKES BALLS). By the time I said, "wtf" and refreshed, it was already gone. Thats wiki editors on top of things.

Prompt #4: What Celebrity has influenced your notion of the Good Life?

The celebrities of our modern culture do not merely entertain the masses. They define and set the standards for the Good Life. In particular, singers/rappers and sports stars are envied and even idolized for what they do and what they have. It's easy to turn on the TV and see one of your favorite celebrities doing their thing on National Television, whether it is getting paid for performing or getting paid for endorsing a product they never use.
These celebrities, who seem to live the good life, live a life of success and luxury in nerally all the aspects of life that seem to matter to the viewers. We can usually tell who is living the good life, but exactly what do they have that makes them able to live the good life?
Lebron James is a sports star and icon at this point for his atheletic deeds thus far and the hype for what is to come in the future. For those who don't know who Lebron James is, he was some kid, who at 18 years of age came straight into the NBA from high school. He was greatly hyped up to be the next BIG thing. Now, this was a couple of years ago, and since then, he has more or less proven himself. He is very much so envied and respected by many for his good life, and there really is good reason to envy him. He is young, famous, successful, talented, and filthy rich (did I mention the 100 million dollar nike contract he received before he even played his first NBA game?). Lebron James is just an example. We can substitute his name many other celebrities; it just so happens that Lebron is living the good life in the definitions of many more people than say... pauly shore, whom is considered a low tier celebrity.
It all comes down to what people tend to respect and desire the most. We find out that fame, success, talent, and money is on the top of the list for many people, but even these luxuries seem to lack something. Could it be happiness? Well, happiness is not a prerequisite of being a celebrity, but it usually is for celebrities that are envied. And after much thought, I realize that the celebrities I really believe are living the good life are the ones whom achieve all those luxuries(success, money, fame) from doing something they really enjoy and love.



Another thought is that perhaps people look at celebrities and assume they are living the good life. Then, they look at themselves and many people will conclude that they are not living the good life. So whats the difference between those people and the celebrities? Some will think that its must be money and fame(for that is the obvious difference); and therefore, they will try their hardest to achieve those things in pursuit of the good life.
On the other hand, some people will look at themselves and realize they ARE living the good life. They may or may not be rich and famous, but perhaps, their happiness (however derived) is enough for their notion of the good life.

Prompt #3: What makes an analysis innovative?

An analysis is innovative when the reader feels a sense of intrigue. This kind of analysis has the power to turn the most overused ideas into someting unique or present completely new and unexpected revelations about the subject. In general, analytical innovation can come about in a number of ways. One way is from new thoughts and ideas drawn from unique experiences. One of the most powerful methods in making an analysis innovative is the presentation. I believe "Bob" by Langston Hughes uses both of these methods very effectively, especially in the presentation. The passage awakens the reader by not only presenting information, but sharing the powerful story in an innovative and strong dialouge. Through the dialouge, we live and learn about the different aspects of his life(e.g. music) along with narrator as we read.
With Zora Neale Hurston, we see her unique point of view that seems odd at first, but simply true for her life. She views racism as something totally unnecessary and pointless. She acknoledges that such ridiculousness exists, but refuses to let it keep her down. This type of attitude in itself is innovative and rarely heard of. We always expect people to fight against racism and be furious with its existance. It usually ends up in an angry rant about equality and change. While this view may be warranted, Zora Neale Hurston's view isn't the typical. It's innovative and inspiring that she can try to live her life respectively without letting racism keep her down.
All in all, the readings were innovative in different senses, with the authors using different methods. As a writer(or a student in Writing140), I can appreciate the innovation and see what made these essays so special. They didn't try to emulate innovation. They embodied and created innovation.

Prompt #2: What does the individual owe the community? And vise versa?

The individual is nothing without his/her community. What is a man with no one to talk to, no one to care for, no one to love? Most people take their community for granted, but each individual has an obligation to their given community. It is the individual's duty to contribute something to the community and work together toward everyone's best interest. The individual could not live a life of worth without a community because society and other people provide possibilities of higher joy for the individual. Given the importance of community to an individual, the individual should do everything in his power to protect the community. In the case of the Maxine Kingston excerpt, the aunt dishonored the community. This was an interesting example for this point since women were not respected equally and she "didn't have a choice," but nonetheless she wronged her community by offending the honor of their family. Given she was stuck in a moral dilemma and would be harmed either way, she chose to try and hide the dishonorable pregnancy rather than resist the rapist. Either way, she would risk her life, but by resisiting the rape, she may would be defending the honor of herself, her husband, and the community. I know it is not fair to judge, but she is still morally blameworthly for wronging herself and the community. She had a duty toward the community and family's honor.
At the same time, the community wronged the "no named woman" as an individual and her whole family by raiding their house. It is the community's duty to protect its members, and though she was a great dishonor, the raid upon the house was completely unjustified. A community is obviously made of a number of individuals. Its function is to ensure the the security of all and best interest of the majority. A community is more than just a group of people. A community is comprised of relationships that should ideally be based on empathy, caring, and love. When an individual has a problem, such as the case of the aunt, the community is suppose to come together and lift individual off his/her knees, supporting the individual through the tough times, not condemn them, ravage their home, and break their will for living. Previously, I held the aunt blameworthy for her actions, but it did in no way justify the communities extreme course of action. The community was completely unwarranted in their pilaging violence.
All in all, both the individual and the community have obligations to the other. Both sides, especially the community, must be held responsible for their actions. I say that because once the community has wronged an individual, punishment is hard to allocate; therefore, justice enforced by the community should be thought over and made sure the fit the crime. The lone human is weak. The individual will always make mistakes without fail, but community wrongdoings can always be prevented with some effort by community members.

Prompt #1: Can and should one live the unquestioned life?

In Mark Twain's article, the unquestioned life is a life of predictability, a life of conformity. It is a life that has been designed by the expectations of others and accepted by the individual. It is possible to live the unquestioned life, yet still ask questions. Living the unquestioned life does not mean you are ignorant at all. In fact, even a philosophy professor may be living the unquestioned life if the case was that his parents wanted him to be a philosopher Ph.D. and he merely complied. It is very difficult to not live the unquestioned life because conformity is all around us, but it is very possible. There is a difference between simply conforming and reasoning to a genuine agreement.

Many people tend to like others simply because they dress, act, and believe in the same things they do. If the similarities are justified, then so is the affinity, but many times, the similiarities are created to attract those affinities . This is the aspect in our nature that feeds comformity. People's lives and their opinions should be genuine, and thoroughly reasoned through.

Conformity is the alcohol that slowly poisons our minds, yet brings us much pleasure. Doing whatever everyone else is seen doing gives a feeling of false security, and false confidence. People use conformity to cover up their insecurity of being different. As a side effect, it can also cover up their greatness. Mother Teresa, Bill Gates, Martin Luther King Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ghandi, and Muhammad Ali are some of the greatest people at what they did. They weren't afraid to be different. They weren't afraid to lead. They weren't afraid to be great. When was the last time someone great conformed to society?

One of my friend's favorite quotes is a quote by Marianne Williamson. I think his choice is very justified.

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

-Marianne Williamson