From Arthur Conan Doyle’s short story “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton”, Watson formed an understanding when Holmes stopped him from interfering with the murder of Milverton. As soon as Holmes grabbed a hold of his wrist, Watson realized that the situation that was occurring in front of them wasn’t their business. It was okay for them to let it happen as “justice had overtaken a villain” (Doyle 7).
I found this quote, really this whole situation very interesting as I feel it deals with this concept of moral-based perception. From the actions of Watson and Holmes, I can’t even say with certainty whether I agree or disagree with what they did. From a focalization standpoint, this story can be read through the lens of Watson’s eyes. And with Watson, he believes that Holmes had the right idea of letting nature take its course. I feel like this dilemma can be applied as a general concept to a wide variety of different scenarios. Either way, it came as a surprise to me when they let the murder happen, even despite Watson mentioning how much of a thrill it was to be on the “other side” of their work.
The situation that Watson and Holmes were put in brings me to wonder. I question where the line is drawn. Sometimes it’s okay to let nature take its course and in this case, it was letting a major criminal die by the hands of an individual that they’ve wronged in the past. But, at what point does the bystander ever become worse than the “villain” for letting actions against the villain, which could have been prevented, go? Can this perceived notion of justice ever be considered unjustified?
This writing is not just based on the poem “Ode on a Grecian Urn” by English poet John Keats, but it is also based on the criticism towards this work from author Cleanth Brooks from an excerpt of her article “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes”. The main problem that Brooks points out revolves around the last stanza of Keats’s poem, specifically the last two lines which mention that “beauty is truth” and how that concept is all humans “know on earth, and all [they’d] need to know” (Keats). This idea raises a question that transcends outside of just the specific poem by Keats. By applying this idea to other pieces of work, one can begin to ponder about the relationship between “the beauty of a poem to the truth or falsity of what it seems to assert” (Brooks 140). Furthermore, Brooks asks if Keats “was able to exemplify that relation in this particular poem” (Brooks 141). The actual relationship between the concepts of beauty and truth may not reveal itself to the reader, no matter the extent of the “study of Keats’s reading” (Brooks 141). However, despite other critics, such as T.S. Eliot, claiming that the last few lines are “a serious blemish” to the poem, Brooks would argue otherwise. Brooks emphasizes that discovering the actual meaning behind the supposed relationship between beauty and truth shouldn’t be the main focus of the analysis of the poem, but rather how Keats’s ending to the poem actually had a foundation being actively created for it within the previous stanzas. Brooks compares this logic to how Eliot viewed the line “Ripeness is all”, in how the statement is “put in the mouth of a dramatic character” and “governed and qualified by the whole context of the play” (Brooks 141). Brooks seeks to point out that these factors are indeed present in Keats’s poem, which would ultimately make Keats’s last statement “not clearly false”, like Shakespeare’s in “King Lear” (Brooks 141).
Brooks begins his analysis by pointing out Keats’s immediate use of a paradox within the first stanza of the poem. Keats stresses “the silence of the urn”, yet the object also speaks the truth as it’s deemed a “Sylvan historian” in the poem by Keats (Brooks 142). Throughout the second stanza, Brooks identifies that the paradox continues, branching off from the first stanza. The actions that happen within the second stanza also start to create this underlying tension within the poem, how melodies “unheard Are sweeter” and how the “Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss” (Keats). There is an “ironic undercurrent” behind Keats’s words that Brooks emphasizes throughout the poem, but particularly revolving around the idea of love and its placement on the urn. The ideas of the urn may be warm and full of artistic thought, but the object itself remains cold and still. Yet, its cold and still nature is what remains to tell history in the cold abandoned setting in the end that was once filled with warmth. Though still, the urn has been telling its story the whole time, and humans would perceive the beauty told in those stories to essentially be the truth. Brooks’s analysis is interesting as it takes an organic approach to the work at hand. By observing the poem as a whole and not giving in to the temptation of dealing with assertions made in the poem “in isolation”, the reader would be able to deal with the philosophical aspects of the poem as a whole (Brooks 152). This approach would remove the neglect of appreciating certain aspects of a poem or any literary work due to the blinding of paraphrase.
Personally, I really found it interesting how Brooks took elements of paradox and irony and tied them together to connect to the ideas of the last two stanzas. Some of the lines he mentions really supports the dramatic build up towards the end of the poem. I don’t really find myself questioning the analysis too much. I too would like to know the answer behind the relationship between the ideas of truth and beauty, but I also feel like we may not truly understand what Keats meant for that relationship to be (extending outside of the poem). I would want to take the analysis towards the idea of eternity and see if Keats hinted at that within the early stages of the poem as well. This would further support the idea of observing literary work as a whole.
Works Cited:
Brooks, Cleanth. “Keats’s Sylvan Historian: History without Footnotes.” The well wrought urn:
studies in the structure of poetry. 1947
Keats, John. “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” Poems. Chiswick Press, 1897, p. 236.
Do you ever get in arguments with people who just won’t listen? Well, that’s a dumb question, everyone does. It could be as simple as getting into an argument with an older authoritative figure in your life. A parent? A teacher? All you know is that by the end of the day, they’re right and you’re wrong, no matter what. You tried to argue your point, but it was never heard and now your opinion has been blown away by whoever it was you were arguing with. Your side of the story was never reported. Take your situation and imagine it applied on a larger scale. The voices of the oppressed silenced as their opinion vanished away, not even making it into elementary history books. Sad right? Well, there isn’t a loss for hope just yet. Times are constantly changing and so is the perception of historical events. The lost voices are now coming into the light, which is causing a bit of controversy. So, do we take down controversial monuments? No. Doing that would be attempting to erase history, disrespecting artwork, and in a way, destroying another perception of the story as well. Oppressing as a form of retaliation doesn’t change the past. An alternate solution to this conflict was proposed by artist Titus Kaphar. He proposes amending the statues seen today through processes, specifically art. This way, the statues would stay up, still telling their story, but the bigger picture would highlight the sophistication of historical scenarios as lost voices are now included. Author Michael Zirulnik is focused on finding resolution for these conflicts and amending art may be the solution to this conflict. In order to find common ground among conflicts of opposing perceptions in history, amending history must be utilized by the people.
The Start To Finding Common Ground
The main goal revolving this topic, and really every other controversy out there, is conflict resolution. How can both parties see eye to eye? The main problem currently is that two parties are only focused on a one way approach to solving this problem, one party wants them taken down while the other wants the opposite. This non-ending argumentative discussion will ultimately go nowhere because no alternative is being provided so both parties could see eye to eye. This grey area may now be cleared up due to ideas brought forth by Titus Kaphar. In his Ted Talk, Kaphar states that he can find more about the woman’s lace “then he can about this character here, about his dreams, about his hopes, about what he wanted in life” (7:14). This painting that he references is about a Caucasian family with an African American child. There is much detail put into the family, but not the child. The child represents the oppressed voices throughout history. This oppression leads to retaliation by those affected, which causes the conflict present today. Amending this art can bring this oppressed voice out while also keeping the story of the Caucasian family present. As Zirulnik explains, “once people begin to understand each other, they are more likely to believe, as I do, that in a free society, nobody should have to walk among monuments to their oppressors”. With every side being explained, people would understand the alternate point of view. Tearing controversial monuments down is the same as attempting to silence a voice in history, even though that voice caused oppression. Erasing history is impossible and doing this wouldn’t change what happened in the past, but by amending for the lost voices, more details from the past are being uncovered. This is how humanity learns. The conflict isn’t done there however, as conflict still arises with contextualization of these monuments.
The conflict that surrounds with perception of certain statues is depicted in this picture of a vandalized confederate statue.
Problems With Perception
Controversial monuments are perceived differently depending on who’s viewing the artwork. The main concern here is that when one’s admiration becomes offensive to another viewer, conflict arises. Zirulnik informs that “the goal is not to persuade or allow yourself to be convinced to change your mind, but rather to identify what everyone believes in”. The key to finding the common ground is finding the best possible resolution that fits as many demands from both parties as possible. The key isn’t for one side to completely take over, and although fitting these demands is difficult, it’s not impossible. Kaphar shares this interest as he wants to “wrestle with the struggles of our past but speak to the diversity and the advances of our present” (10:45). By contextualizing every side to the bigger picture with monuments, both sides would have even ground. Amending art would solve this problem. The stories of the oppressors and their good sides wouldn’t go away, but instead have other art highlighting the stories they silenced. Every voice would be heard and audiences would have the opportunity to contextualize what they see knowing the whole story. Conflict that stems from contextualization often needs an audience and there’s no better example of this than the Equestrian Statue.
Being The Center Of Attention
The public space just begs for controversy and the Equestrian Statue in front of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City doesn’t disappoint. With this statue being out in the open, people don’t have to pay or go inside the museum to see it. They can see it driving to work or going out for a run. With the amount of people that see this statue, conflict is bound to rise, as the New York population is such a diverse group of people. Many think this statue should be taken down. Many think it should stay up. Many think it should be relocated. There are so many opinions regarding this statue and all of it conflicts with humanity’s values. Why should a man who did so many great things for his country like the creation of national parks be taken down? Or why should a racist who thought Native and African Americans were inferior to him be held up? These are great questions, but “demands to ‘take them down’ – and the retorts to ‘leave them up’ – serve only to polarize communities, rather than promoting understanding of each other’s history and helping to build a shared future together” (Zirulnik). What needs to happen is finding a common ground. In this case, some people want the stories of the Native and African American to be brought out. This can be achieved without taking down the statue by amending the art. Creating art that highlights these two closeted stories would bring out every aspect within the historical context. Roosevelt would still be recognized for the great work he put into this country and his history would not be erased, but the histories of the oppressed finally get their share brought out into the public. The only way for society to develop from history is to learn the most out of the past as much as possible so society doesn’t create those same mistakes. Learning about oppressed stories can give more insight into what was missed from the past. Knowing everything only makes society develop. But conflict still arises in any situation, even with possible solutions.
The Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt depicts Roosevelt accompanied by a Native and African American. Conflict is present due to historical context.
Additional Roadblocks
Some may argue that by amending history, one is changing the perception of historical outcomes. These monuments have hard work put into them with a lot of historical context and by creating art that highlights a different part of the bigger picture, the original piece would be ignored for its artistic value. While this argument has a fair point, it’s not like the original piece is being taken down or removed from history completely. In fact, it’s still going to be up and running with people still admiring it. Zirulnik explains that “people must ask themselves and each other how they wish to represent the full story of history” (Zirulnik). Amending art is merely adding the unknown into being a part of the mix, not replacing the original with new artwork. This means that both sides can be admired, just that the oppressed side has a fair chance of being admired as well instead of not existing. As far as disrespect towards either side of structures, well, that’s up for the people to be mature enough to see both sides. They probably won’t, not for a while anyway, but currently, this is the best way for finding common ground.
Resolving Conflict
In conclusion, amending art is the best solution for finding common ground among controversial monuments. By preventing art from being destroyed while also sharing the voices of the unheard, even ground can be found based on historical context. Amending art is the first step. Contextualization highlighting every aspect of historical situations is the next. Finally, respect. This may be the only chance for finding common ground among this controversy. Follow it, because with the amount of conflict within society in modern age, it’s one step away from civil war.
Claim 1: People need to see each other as human beings in disagreements. I agree with this and I don’t really know how to explain why. Everybody deserves respect.
Claim 2: Finding shared values across a community divide can resolve conflict. I agree with this. The more people are together and share one vision, the more likely there will be less conflict.
Claim 3: Demands and retorts without understanding of the opposing side just polarizes communities. I agree. Close mindedness holds humanity from developing.
Claim 4: Everyone in the public must acknowledge the grey area in a topic and not just community leaders. I agree. Everybody should have a say in a topic that could be used for further development in a situation. By voicing your opinion, you’re helping others find a solution. This doesn’t mean being close minded, rather just having a say in something while also acknowledging the other side.
I honestly can’t think of the last debate I got into, so I’m just going to reference an argumentative essay I wrote in my sophomore year in high school. This was the debate about gun control. Nothing really offended me about any debate I’ve ever gotten into. This may stem from the fact that I absolutely hate politics and have no passion or interest in it whatsoever. The only thing that really upsets me doesn’t really offend me and that’s ignorance, or close mindedness. I most probably won’t get offended in any sort of debate, but I would be upset if my opposing side wasn’t listening to anything I had to say and only cared about their opinion. That’s upsetting. When dealing with debates, I could spark up emotion if it’s a topic I’m actually interested in or passionate about, like CRISPR, but I like to treat it with more intellect instead. Facts don’t care about our feelings, and while it’s an unfortunate circumstance, it is a true statement. My understanding of conflict resolution starts with the base of open mindedness. The only way humanity will develop is through this as being close minded will only just keep us still.
I did really well on my analysis and synthesis as I explained how the quotes I chose benefited my essay and tied back to my thesis. I could have fixed up comma splices a bit more. I think the number one thing I need to work on, or my complete overhaul, would be my works cited page. It was fine for the Dalai Lama, but my “The Week” article citation was wrong. That would be a goal for me to work on this November.
I chose Mount Rushmore because I know the monument and I was hooked when Professor Spain mentioned controversy surrounding it. I hadn’t heard about this controversy before and apparently people want to blow it up. I disagree with this course of action. The statue does not offend me, in fact, not a lot from history does. I believe that the past is the past and that people need to move forward regarding anything that might have hurt their social group in the past. However, I wouldn’t be against amending the monument so that the unheard stories around this “bigger picture” are revealed. This would be a way more effective solution rather than just taking it down. Taking it down means trying to forget about it and that doesn’t really help as history is about learning from humanity’s past mistakes. You can’t erase history. By amending history however, humanity is accounting for the unheard stories from the past while also acknowledging the truth behind what happened. Nothing is sugar coated and everything mentioned is facts.
6 sentence summary: Throughout time, humanity has left its mark on a multitude of different situations in history. We have come to accept these historical facts for what they are and the truth behind them, but we often forget the unknown stories surrounding the bigger picture. As we look into a biased narrative, our perception tends to block the surrounding opposing narratives around the main focus, like a camera focusing on one subject. As important as the bigger picture is, humanity needs to understand the tiny little specifics inside the bigger picture, or the unknown stories surrounding the one famous larger story. This does not mean getting rid of the bigger picture completely however. In order for us to learn from history, we must identify and understand these surrounding unknown stories, but we must also keep the bigger picture in mind as a benchmark on contrasting the two stories and for the use of a “before and after” interpretation.
2 claims: 1. We can’t just eliminate the bigger picture of history as we need it as a representation of how we’ve developed as a society. 2. Unknown stories need to be brought up no matter how inspirational the bigger picture story is in order to learn as much from history as possible.
I completely agree with Titus Kaphar’s approach. Every point of view must be heard in order to fully understand a situation. This is relevant everywhere in society and still applies to history. These unheard points of views must be publicized in order to inform the members of society as much information of a situation as possible. Moving forward only comes when society has accepted its mistakes from the past and this can only really happen if every mistake is caught, which is why every point of view matters. Art is probably the largest communication center in the entire world, even extending farther than politics. Most people only know of political situations because of art they admire. By utilizing the gift of being an artist, they can communicate messages to those that admire their art in order to bring about information that was unheard of until then. This can move society.
Titus Kaphar depicts the reality of parenting while being black in his artwork.
One helpful hint I picked up when reading was not to patch write. I never knew patchwriting had an actual term for it and I didn’t know that it was considered plagiarism. Good to learn something new.
It is evident that gene modification is our future, but some serious thought must be given to the long-term consequences of this technology. Dalai Lama states, “One of the social and cultural consequences of new genetic technologies is their effect on the continuation of our species, through interference with the reproductive process” (66). Lama explains the ethical concerns behind this process such as manipulating genes to benefit an individual’s wants. Whether or not it’s right to choose a child’s sex or their physical appearance is really what Lama is trying to explain. Long term consequences are a thought to think about not only in just humans, but in the environment as well. The Week 13 writes, “The federal Environmental Protection Agency has approved a plan by a British biotech company called Oxitec to release about 1 billion genetically modified (GM) mosquitos in the Florida Keys and, next year, Texas”. Scientists still don’t know the long term effects of the genetic modification inside these mosquitos nor do they know the long term effects it would have in the environment. Releasing these mosquitos would kill off a huge amount of the species, ninety percent to be exact. We don’t know how this would effect food chains as mosquitos are a primary food source for multiple animals. The food chain being affected would cause the ecosystem to be affected. This could lead to negative environmental impacts. CRISPR has too much unknown information on its long term consequences and risking utilizing it could lead to the amplification of possible negative consequences on both society and the environment.
Intro with 2 thesis statements:
You can edit yourself. You can edit your kids. You can edit your hair color, eye color, skin color, body mass, height, basically any physical feature about yourself. Don’t like the way you look? Change it. You can now. You can even do this with your kids as well. Want them to have attributes you don’t? Edit your kids. You must be dying to know what game I’m talking about. Well, I’m talking about life. CRISPR is a scientific tool that allows for genes to be manipulated in any way its user pleases. At first, this sounds amazing. So many positive outcomes can result with this breakthrough. We can cure cancer or appear how we want to others. The only major problem is that there’s so much unknown to CRISPR. Humanity doesn’t know its long term effects and we don’t know possible consequences we can suffer by utilizing this science. Dalai Lama, “the leader of the Central Tibetan Administration”, discusses the topic of CRISPR and how genetic modification weaves in with humanities ethical standards. He even offers a solution through a list of ethical principles that would help humanity keep control of CRISPR. On the other hand, there’s biohacker Josiah Zayner, who believes there shouldn’t be limits to the use of CRISPR and even wants to turn it into a consumer product. This is dangerous. Without knowing possible long term effects, CRISPR can turn catastrophic, ranging from within our own human bodies to bigger playgrounds like the environment. This is why CRISPR shouldn’t be developed in the first place, but it’s development won’t stop anytime soon. Not everybody is going to play fair either, so a set of ethics wouldn’t work globally due to differing religions, cultures and values. Until side effects are discovered, CRISPR should only serve to defend.
2nd thesis:
Dalai Lama’s ethical principles set has high value, but it’s unfortunately unrealistic. Somebody will always disagree with somebody. We’re alive because nuclear war would cause Armageddon. With genetic manipulation, I don’t think the main fear is the end of the world, rather that of a new world order, and I think different powers are willing to fight for that based on individual benefits.
While I think he meant well and feedback he’s been getting might be a little too far, I do believe He Jianku has lost his moral compass. He wasn’t fully sure of the long term effects his experiment may have on the babies and that’s huge for a scientist. It’s a scientist’s job to inform the public on new information based on the environment revolving around society, but one enormous factor to this is making sure the public is one hundred percent safe. You can’t just conduct experiments on people without knowing what the full term consequences are. Whether or not he had consent for the parents (I couldn’t really tell from the articles I read, maybe I just skipped over) isn’t the bigger picture. What is the bigger picture is that if these kids grow up, they might possibly obtain features in the future they might not be too happy with. Let’s say they gain mutations in the future because of the unknown long term effects of CRISPR. These are possibilities Jianku should have been thinking about before conducting his experiment, but he was too busy fantasizing about how amazing it would be if he found a pathway to being HIV free. While it’s good to be optimistic, you absolutely have to be more cautious as a scientist. I don’t think Dr. Doudna should have any blame put on her. I wasn’t able to catch much of her involving this topic, but from what I gather, she had nothing to do with Jianku’s actions. Even though she taught him, she shouldn’t really be held responsible over someone else’s actions that she had no involvement in. Also, I just recently learned from reading more articles that Jianku was mostly in it for fame and money. I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, then that’s extremely shameful. Members of the scientific community must educate the public with their findings for the purpose of the public’s well being, not for selfish needs such as money and fame. He should have chosen a career in pop culture if that’s really what he’s been looking for. Now, on the topic of culture, I get that different cultures contain different values, but some things are just morally wrong. This topic can lead to a whole other discussion/argument, but the main focus here is CRISPR. This is obviously personal opinion, as everybody has their own moral standards, but selfishly playing with another human being’s life without knowing possible future consequences on that said human being for the sake of personal benefits such as money and fame is extremely unethical. Overall, I think what he did was wrong, and I know different cultures have different values, but some things are just completely unethical and this is a good example of that.
