Cultural Relativism

I have always been a firm believer of keeping an open mind, especially when experiencing new and unusual things. The article titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism addresses this statement very thoroughly. I thought its messages was a little too redundant, but the point proven was understood nevertheless. I picked up a couple of main points that the article stressed:

1. There is no clear right and wrong.

2. Each society has their own opinion.

3. Since every society is different, there are no "universal truths".

4. Don't take anything too seriously.

5. We aren't as different as we seem.

Once or twice I have pondered over these general statements before reading this article, but never realized they had any connection to each other. Apparently I was wrong, it even has a name. Cultural Relativism. The purpose of the article was to expose this type of thinking to the audience, then criticize it, and at the end still support the idea but warn it has serious shortfalls. Kind of random, but coherent and very thoroughly explained for the most part.

As for the five major points above, I agree with all of them.

Number three I was a little less convinced of at first, but then later in the article, my doubts were addressed. After reading the topic sentence of that section, I immediately thought of two of the ten commandments; Lying and Murder...I suppose Stealing could be added now that i think of it. These are all "universal no-nos", that each society would crumble to the ground if these actions were not a forbidden taboo. Rule number five I particularly liked. "The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values." It goes on to say that everyone agrees that we shouldn't eat grandma, but whether grandma is reborn as a cow or not is where the divide is placed. Rule number four was my favorite, stating that Cultural Relativism should not be taken too seriously and is up to discretion. Cultural Relativism states that "We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own." Sounds okay, right? Unless applied to slavery and anti-Semitism, which are wrong no matter what, but under this ideology, these cruel practices would be just a perfectly acceptable "different way of doing things". Very similar to this is Communism. Everyone being equal and treated the same? Awesome! Sign me up! Unfortunately, when put into practice, Communism fails, or at least isn't appealing as it may seem. Discretion must be applied.

Overall, Cultural Relativism is a very interesting and highly appealing idea with some kinks that should be ironed out. Whether or not this is possible can only be determined if the idea is put to the test. I do not think it is a practical plan, because it is hard enough for a single room of people to all agree on a common belief much less a compilation of all societies. Imagine how difficult that would be. It remains to be (as the article is most appropriately titled) the CHALLENGE of Cultural Relativism.

Beowulf

I want to start off by saying that Beowulf is a simple poem. I don't understand the mass hysteria in the literary community about over analyzing it. Not once while I was reading it did I marvel at the so-called parallels between Beowulf and Christ nor the perfect representation of a Christian Anglo-Saxon world. I just thought that the poem was about a self absorbed man who thought he was indestructible, but in the end he was conquered by death just like all humans. This is why I agree with Martin Camargo's assertion that "Beowulf, an 'exemplary pagan,' falls as far short of the Christian ideal as Grendel falls short of Beowulf ." I agree that Beowulf is an extraordinary pagan, risking his life to protect the lives of entire villages, those that aren't even in his homeland. Riches, weapons and fame are a reward for his heroic actions, and all of this goes to his head. Beowulf develops the notion that he is an immortal War-God, this places him far from the Christian ideal. Not once does he give thanks to a God for helping him to defeat some monster, he gladly takes all of the credit. Beowulf thinks he can retain his strength and youth forever, but time remains true and takes a toll on his body. Around the age of 70, Beowulf is defeated by the Dragon, and is proved to be nothing but a mere mortal.

I also agreed with Marion L. Huffines argument that "in his three fights, Beowulf becomes more monster-like, the monsters less clearly evil." Tis very true. In the first fight all readers side with Beowulf. He is the knight in shining armor, while Grendel is the evil beast who has been terrorizing the village. Grendel trespasses into the Hall, and Beowulf defends, rightfully so. The next battle occurs between Grendels mom and her son's "killer"(even though at that point he had only ripped off Grendel's arm). Grendels mom has revenge in her mind and therefore has a reason to boil her blood. Even though she starts by sneaking into the Hall and killing a few men, Beowulf retaliates by attacking in her home. Beowulf is more vicious this time as he slays Grendel and his mother. Beowulf even boasts his kill by decapitating Grendel's head and bringing it back as a trophy. In all of the battles, the "monster" is defeated and the third battle is no different; Beowulf and the Dragon are both claimed. "It was wrong to treat the dragon as a symbol of evil..." says T. M. Gang, and I agree, especially after reading Grendel, and observing the Dragon's wisdom. Beowulf enters the third battle with no true grievance against the Dragon. The Dragon portrays no real signs of said "monster"...yes I understand he is a large reptile that expels flames, but only when provoked. A man came into his lair, uninvited, and stole a cup. How rude. This made the Dragon was very angry and he proceeded to scorch the land with his fiery rage. Beowulf further angers the Dragon by storming into his cave and attacking him. In combination with his age and monster-like disposition, Beowulf, like all monsters, is claimed by death in the end.

"You Can't Handle the Truth!"

One of the Socratic Seminar questions from Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest drama asked about the theme of "dishonesty" in both society and the individual. This reminded me of the quote used in the title, taken from the movie A Few Good Men. In Wilde's play, various individuals were dishonest in order to make their identities appear more attractive. (Actually, only male characters were dishonest :/ hmmm.) Jack and Algernon both claimed to be named Earnest while courting. They did this not to be deceiving or hurtful, but to become the ideal man and win their ladies hearts. In society, being dishonest was also commonly practiced. Young Cecily was 18 years of age, but admitted to being 20 at parties. Lady Bracknell listened and nodded approvingly to this statement. Most people lie because they think the truth to be unsuitable, so they cover it up with a fallacy that seems more acceptable. It must have been pure coincidence that our english class took a psychology survey on Wednesday on the topic of lying. I think that lying or stretching the truth is never morally right. This does not mean that dishonesty can be deemed excusable by those who choose to waive the transgression, minor as it may be. In Algernon's case, it would have been easier just to tell the truth, a lie was not necessary, and he was not trying to protect her from anything. Later, his dishonesty came back around to bite him in the butt. The worst part about lying is when the truth becomes uncovered, and the whole trust factor is lost, sometimes forever. Algernon should have revealed his true name in the first place, and if it was not to little Cecily's liking, oh well, her loss. In our society, people; particularly the government of the people, tend to lie in order to protect our innocence from the harsh truth. The media fills the minds of thousands with news that is usually impartial or sugar-coated. Maintaining order is crucial, and sometimes the general public is better left in the dark on certain issues; we cannot always handle the truth.

September Blog

A Modest Proposal

Last year in English class, we read The Great Gatsby, and one of the main themes was: Money is the corrupter of the American Dream. Mrs. Holmes went on to say that money poisons all that is good. So I propose that we just simply eliminate the problem and get rid of all money. One might ask "where would all the money go?" The simple solution would be to use it as kindling, and provide warmth for the household. For those who live in the South and have no need for heat, paper money should be taken to the local recycling plant. Then money would be turned into something useful like a stationary set. The only thing that money does is make people greedy, and power hungry. By getting rid of currency, all the filthy rich scum bags would be brought down to their knees. Without money, there would be less evil people in the world. I think that the Native Americans and Egyptians had the right idea. TRADE. I'll give you this fish for that piece of bread. No extra steps, or complications. All of the credit/debit scores and issues wouldn't exist, because a fish on credit doesn't work too well. Either a trade is successful or its not, end of story. I do believe that certain types of competition is healthy, but bits of paper should not instill any measure of self value. People should compete with sports, school, beauty(?) and knowledge. Those who excel in a particular area should have power. The amount of 6 inch paper slips in a wallet should have no impact on what type of person someone is. Money is just a plain old bad idea.