Mel Gibson used to be cool.

So this week in Class, we watched and read "Hamlet" by Billy Shakespeare. I had heard the basic story behind Hamlet but actually seeing it for myself was something entirely different. Mel Gibson does crazy good, which ironically, he is kind of crazy now, but I digress. I think the madness of Hamlet is real, between grief and anger, his mind is lost. I almost find the movie to be scary. It has a myserious, thriller feel to it. I found myself asking, "What is this mad man going to do next?!" My heart goes out to Ophelia, who is lost between duty to her family and love for this lunatic, and the movie left off today where Ophelia is losing her mind. With all the madness going on in Denmark, you think that Hamlet could count on his mother and friends, but to be honest they're pretty crazy too (with the exception of Horatio).

Hamlet's mother is WEIRD. I don't know what Danish customs were back then, but there is way too much mother-son bonding going on. I feel like you can see the sexual chemistry radiating off them. Also, unless Gertrude was like ten when Hamlet was born, she seems very young to be his mother. From what I understand Glenn Close and Mel Gibson are very close in age. Awkard casting unless they meant to do it intentionally.

I can feel the tension building in the plot, and I can't wait for next Monday when they all kill eachother! (Or so I am told happens)

Montaigne

Michel de Montaigne is quite the optimistic guy! It sounds weird to say that an essay about death made me laugh, but I felt like I was watching an episode of "1000 Ways to Die". When he told the story of how his brother died from getting hit by a tennis ball, I caught myself midway in between a gasp and a giggle. Sounds terrible, I know. After reading this and watching the video in our short, short class period today about Montaigne, I think I can say with confidence that I would've been friends with Montaigne. He seemed like a guy that could carry on interesting conversation and have a great outlook on life. With all this being said though, I would have to say though that I do not agree with him on everything. Repentence is one. While I understand what he means by saying that everything that happens has purpose, it is still necessary, in my opinion, to repent for our actions- this being a religious thing. I, however, think that atonement is not necessary for repentence. I differentiate the two by atonement being between humans, i.e. I will make up for my actions against someone by doing good actions, whereas repentence is divine and occurs between human and God. It is not textbook fact, but it is how I see the two. I believe that everything happens for a reason; we all have a journey with bumps in the road along the way. These bumps aren't something we should regret, but something we should learn from. God wants us to live in the here and now, we can not become consumed by the past because it can not be changed, and we can dwell on the future because it is not something we can predict. We must make the best of what we have now, and try to live as justly as possible.
This quote by Fulton Ousler sums it up, "Many of us crucify ourselves between two thieves - regret for the past and fear of the future.”

Break Wasn't Long Enough

So making decisions on hopeful thinking is never really wise, I hopefully thought that I didn't need to blog over our Mid-term break, and therefore decided that I didn't need to...I was wrong. So here, in belated fashion, is my blog.

I read the first section of Montaigne's "An Apology for Raymond Sebond" last night and was really intrigued and in agreement with his philosophies. I was just starting to get into the reading when I went to class only to find we wouldn't be reading the rest of it for class, I think I'll finish it anyway though. Montaigne's writing, from my perspective, is greatly Christian. He writes of the true meaning of Christianity and points out the hypocrsy of many so-called followers of Christ. In humanist fashion, he incorporated the philosophies of Plato and other ancient thinkers. What most struck me of the whole section though, is it's raw truth. He does not tip-toe around the feelings of clergy or church-goers, when he says with outrage that Christians fashion religion to meet their passions. What I believe he means by this is that we take the Word and the doctrine and we pick at it and follow only that which meets our personal vendettas. Instead of revolving our lives around God, we make him revolve around our lives. Furthermore, these personal vendettas cause us to drown in hatred. He points out boldly that, "Christians are very good at hating their enemies". This is the greatest hypocrasy of all; is "Love thy neighbor as thyself" not a golden rule of Christianity?

I think that Montaigne hit the nail on the head. I can't wait to read more.

I bet in Utopia theres no such thing as mid term exams.

So this week was a fun week! Okay not so much, but Dr. Tucker was back and we actually got to do stuff so that was cool. This week's focus was on good ol' Saint (Sir) Thomas More and his book Utopia. Basically what happened is that Thomas and Peter Giles ran into this guy who traveled with Amerigo Vespucci, and he found this island called Utopia. Basically to cut the story short, Utopia was Russia, just without Stalin, the frigid cold winters, and labor camps. All the people had jobs, helped out with farming, wore the same clothes, and had no private property, and it seems all good and dandy until you realize while you're reading that this wouldn't be a fun place to live. Here's why:

1) Everyone wears the same clothes, and as a girl I just don't like this. There would be no individualism!
2) No private property means that everyone would have free reign over everything. I would need my space!
3) Only essential jobs would mean that there wouldn't be any cultural or political advancement. We'd be stuck in a rut, doing the same exact thing, day after day.
4) Everyone helps out with farming- sorry some people aren't cut out for farming.
5) Everyone's one big happy family, and that's just not human nature.


I know I probably sound like a Debbie Downer, but there is a reason that communism and Utopian societies, don't really last, it's because it's against our nature. We are competetive beings; we are ambitious; and we don't really like sharing. Somewhere in the middle of all the feel good stuff, greed and jealousy creep in. I am not saying that we are born evil, I am not going Machiavelli on you, but we are very susceptible to evil thoughts. Corruption will arise in these type of societies sooner or later.