Thursday, March 6, 2008
What makes us human?
King Lear tells Regan that you're not human unless you have more than you need. ("Allow not nature more than nature needs...") Then in the storm, King Lear cries out that only the poorest person, who owes nothing to anyone (not even the animals), is truly human ("... the thing itself.") Which do you think is right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Actually, I think that neither of Lear's statements are correct. Children starving in Africa are human; therefore, Lear is wrong in the first sense. However, because I consider people who are not starving on the streets human, Lear is not correct in the second sense, either. Shakespeare is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Humanity is defined by the ability to reason, in my opinion, and not by possession of material belongings.
I don't think that either of the statements are correct. We are all human, and subject to the same rights (and rules) as all other humans. Material possessions should not and do not determine your humanity.
Humans are defined almost entirely out of the ability to make choices. Whether they have anything in life has very little to do with it. It's all about choice. Animals act almost always out of pure instinct, whereas humans often act out of desire to act, not out of the "necessity" placed by nature. Hence a reason to call it human nature. You don't hear of cat nature or dog nature, just nature and human nature.
honestly, your humanity can only be "proven" by you. what you believe to be human and what others believe may not be the same thing.....idk...so, in my opinion, neither is correct. posessions do not make a person human because animals have possesions too. but to have nothing also does not make you human, because it is virtually inpossible to owe nothing to the entire world...
I'm with Matt on this one, Neither statements are correct. All humans have choice, while animals act out of instinct...
I think King Lear's statement out in the rain is correct. A human is supposed to be an individual, having free will to do what they want and does not have to be held responsible to anyone if they dont want to be. This is what separates us from animals. We can control animals but nothing can control a person. That is why when a person owes nothing to anyone they are truly a person because they can do what they. They are not controlled by anyone because they do not owe anything to anyone.
First of all, King Lear is crazy. Why are we making the definition of humanity according to a choice between two ravings of a fictional character?
A belief in purpose..... and the ability to PARTY!!!! BWAHAHAHA
ROFLCOPTER BBQ
O RLY?
m'kay blakes an idiot but really...
http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi256.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh184%2Futelektr%2Fevolution.jpg&searchTerm=evolution&pageOffset=7
this is the correct answer. behold! 'nuff said!
The ability to pluck someone's eyes out...."Out vile jelly! Where is thy luster now?"
:)
Wait! Hasn't Lear figured out that what he once thought set him apart--his servants, his wealth, his nobility-was actually not what made him special or important? Hasn't he made the jump that the independent man who owes or owns nothing is the more noble; therefore further from uncivilized?
Oh, sure, Mrs. Calkin. He's dropped the assumption that wealth makes the man. It may be a big move in his character, but it's not a question that still plagues us today.
Our dear AP IV have decided that the question is "Which type is a human being?" when I think you're aiming more for the concepts associated with being /humane,/ worthwhile, successful, and above the selfish beasts.
And today, we have a system of moral codes--thanks to the religions of the day--that separates the worth of a human from their value in money.
Caligula, I must congratulate you on successfully going against the system of moral codes that you believe prevents people from clicking on the link to another class's blog section.
Furthermore, I am inclined to say that you are absolutely correct on your first statement according to what 'dear AP IV' have determined is the question being asked and what Calkin meant for us to take it as.
That is just the thing isn't though? To be, to be humane, worthwhile, successful, and above selfish beasts is to be individual and not let others determine what you should or should not get out of say, a question or a play, this comment, or even an essay on education in america.
And Mrs.Calkin, we can only hope that Lear has made that jump, because if he, as a crazed old man,
can make that leap, that gives hope to a society that is obsessed with wealth and superiority. Proof being that Caligula believes that this is no longer a problem today when it is more present than ever.
*claps hands* Thank you agb!!! Caligula, you might want to stop and take a look at the text from Mrs. C at the top of the homepage. You know, the part where she says to keep it civil. Just a little tip, but we don't go on your page essentially undermining all of your opinions. We say everything we do on here for a reason you know. Have you ever stopped and thought that we say what we do because its an inside joke? Or because we understand what's really going on and the irony in the situation and we think it's funny?
Of course you don't, that's you're not in our class so you're not privvy to what goes on. So unless you know what you're talking about, please don't pretend like you do. There's a reason we call you guys Puritans. In a friendly way, of course. :)
You cannot measure need. Even the poorest person has too much of something. It may be something bad, but it's still something. If we restrict people to just the bare minimum to meet their needs then they are no better than animals. Lear (who is crazy anyway) still effectively turns the argument back on his daughters, who are undoubtedly vain.
Post a Comment