Fahrenheit 451 Pt. 2

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury connects to Divergent by Veronica Roth. In Divergent, people are being controlled. They are forced to mindlessly do what they are told because of a mind-control serum in their blood. In Fahrenheit 451 the people are also mindless, but not because they are directly being forced. There is no serum controlling them, but they are led to have no desire to really do anything or think about anything. 

In both stories there are people that can rise above the control and think for themselves. They are different. Fahrenheit 451 has people like Montag. These people are not content with the "normal" lifestyle. They want to think for themselves, read, and learn. I don't know how these certain people become aware, but few do. In the other book, people who are not influenced by mind-control serum are called Divergent. This includes people like Tris. 

Both of these groups of people are constantly in danger. The government does not want anyone to be different or to know what is going on. Both Tris and Montag are hunted and they are often close to being killed. The two books have many parallels. 

Montag is not happy with the way he is living. But are there some that are happy? Mildred, Montag's wife seems happy. She is content with staying at home. She sits and talks to the tv's that are covering three of their parlor walls. Mildred would rather talk to the fake people on the walls that to her husband. She is a perfect model citizen, very against books and any conversation, law abiding and quite average. And she seems very happy. The only thing that brings her distress is when Montag starts breaking the law and reads books. 

So are these laws actually for the best? If Mildred, and most everyone else can be so perfectly happy when they are distracted from real life, distracted from any worries, why isn't this a utopia? Is thinking really a good thing if it brings so many other unpleasant things with it? 

We need thinking. We need it because, even if it brings some bad things, it also brings good. You can sit and think about whatever you want, choose to think about war and poverty or choose to think about freedom and the miracle of human existence. That the thing, you can choose. Because when thinking is taken away from Montag's world, they aren't just taking their thoughts. They are also taking away freedom and individuality. 

"I just want someone to hear what I have to say. And maybe if I talk long enough. it'll make sense."

Even if you have time to think of bad things, you can't have good without bad. Mildred may think she is happy, but what is there to compare to? Nothing will ever bring her any real emotion. The only thing she can really ever feel is ok. There will be no heart wrenching sadness, but there will also be no glowing joy. The sadness we experience just contributes to make the happiness feel that much better. 

"Stuff your eyes with wonder... Live as is you'd drop dead in ten seconds. See the world. It's more fantastic than any dream made or paid for in factories. Ask no guarantees, ask for no security, there never was such and animal. And if there were, it would be related to the great sloth which hangs upside down all day, sleeping its life away. To hell with that, shake the tree and knock the great sloth down on his ass."

Fahrenheit 451

In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, the world is much different than it is now. Everyone is mindless. They are constantly watching their giant, room-filling TVs, or listening to their earpieces- feeding them constant music or news or just noise. All to distract them from real life.

I think this lifestyle was originally made to make everyone happy. If they are constantly distracted, they have no time to think about anything, let alone anything wrong with the world. In fact, sitting and thinking are almost outlawed. There are no longer porches, gardens, or rocking chairs, all places where people like to think. No one is allowed to talk to one another for the sake of talking, have a real conversation. If you want to converse you are considered an oddity and are kept watch on by the government. All so that you don't think, or discover that there is evil in the world .

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names or state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change."

Because the people are being kept from knowledge, they are also kept from books. Owning books is a crime, if you are found in possession of one, the 'firemen' come and burn your house down with the books inside. This makes most people think that books are some great evil, an elusive force that must be kept far away. They think that the books have power, but the power is in the knowledge that the books contain. 

"This is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us."

Within the mindless society there are a few that are 'aware'. They don't really go along with everything. They actually think. Montag is one of these people. What I wonder is what makes a person able to resist the messages everywhere telling them to just go with the flow and stop thinking. Are there certain people that are stronger and are able to see through the fake society? Or do they all need help? Montag is aware because Clarisse showed him how to slow down. Clarisse has her family to show her what to think. Does everyone need someone else to help guide them?

But it is dangerous to be like them. The government does what it can to lock them away. When they find someone who owns books, they take that person away. If someone has too many ideas, they might mysteriously disappear. So these people hide. 

"With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual', of course, became the swear word it deserved to be."

Montag is just realizing how to be alive himself, maybe he can still become strong enough to help others think, and be alive too.

Julius Ceasar

Julius Ceasar needed to be killed. At least that's what it seemed like most characters in Julius Ceasar  by William Shakespeare would say. Ceasar was plotted against from the beginning of the story. But why was he so hated?

Many call Ceasar weak. And he was very weak, physically.

Cassius- Ceasar said to me, "Darest thou, Cassius, now
Leap in with me into this angry flood
And swim to yonder point?" Upon the word,
Accoutred as I was, I plunged in
And bade him follow. So indeed he did.
...
But ere we could arrive the point proposed,
Caesar cried, "Help me, Cassius, or I sink!"
...
He had a fever when he was in Spain,
And when the fit was on him, I did mark
How did he shake. 'tis true, this god did shake!
His coward lips did from their color fly,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his luster. I did hear him groan,
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans
Mark him and write his speeches in their books-
"Alas" it cried, "give me some drink, Titinius,"
As a sick girl. Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the palm alone.
(1.2. 104-133)

Cassius talks about how he had to save Ceasar from drowning. I think this is one of the reasons that Cassius, and some others, may hate him so much. Ceasar is very weak, but he has power, he has the power that Cassius wants. It makes Cassius mad that such a weak man could end up with more power than him, a strong, healthy man.

Cassius- Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Ceasar- what should be in that "Ceasar"?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
(1.2. 136-144)

Ceasar was also very self centered. He sometimes even referred to himself in the third person. This may have been another factor in why he was disliked. Because such a selfish person should not have control over so many. He would think of himself before he would think of his people. His overconfidence was a source of fear to some.

These growing feathers plucked from Caesar's wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch,
Who else would soar above the view of men
And keep us all in servile fearfulness
(1.1. 72-75)

They were afraid of what would happen if Ceasar gained any more confidence. Some were so afraid, and loathfull, they wanted to kill him. But, others thought differently. Some worshipped Ceasar. They had nothing bad to say about him.

Antony- I shall remember,
When Ceasar says 'Do this', it is performed.
(1.2. 12-13)

Antony knew Ceasar better than some and he was loyal to Ceasar. But, even the peasants who didn't know Ceasar idolized him.

Three or four
wenches where I stood cried, "Alas, good
soul!" and forgave him with all their hearts. But
there's no heed to be taken of them. If Ceasar had
stabbed their mothers they would have done no
less.
(1.2. 268-273)

So feelings towards this man are varied greatly at two ends of the spectrum. People seem to feel very strongly about him, either good or bad. They either love or hate him. Want to kill him or would die for him. But, there is one in the middle.

Brutus- It must be by his death, and for my part
I know no personal cause to spurn at him
But for the general. He would be crowned.
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder
And that craves wary walking. Crown him that,
And then I grant we put a sting on him
That at his will he may do danger with.
Th' abuse of greatness is when it disjoins
Remorse from power. And, to speak truth of Ceasar,
I have not known when his affections swayed
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber upward turns his face.
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Ceasar may.
Then, lest he may, prevent. And since the quarrel
Will bear no color for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus: that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities.
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg-
Which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous-
And kill him in the shell.
(2.1. 10-35)

Brutus sees good in Ceasar. Good that will soon disappear. He thinks that too much power changes people, and will change Ceasar for the worse. It will make him look down on everyone, and be a very bad person, and ruler. So they needed to kill Ceasar before that happened.

It is interesting how people can have such conflicting views on the same person. Julius Ceasar is one person but there are infinite ways he is perceived. As a cowered, a leader, a weakling, a hero. And which of these views are right? Maybe all of them, or maybe none.

Animal Farm Readers Notebook

In my opinion, the story A good man is hard to find by Flannery O'Connor connects to Animal Farm. A good man is hard to find showed that a person can have good and bad in them but can never be completely good or completely bad. It is impossible to be 100% good or 100% bad, there must be something else there, even if you can't see it. That's why a good man is so hard to find.

I think the same is true for leaders. There can never be a perfectly good or bad leader. In Animal Farm by George Orwell, Napoleon is the leader for most of the book. He is far from being a perfect leader, he is very selfish. A good leader acts for the people, not for their self. But he isn't a purely bad leader either. He is smart and manipulative, he could have been a better leader if he put his intelligence to use helping the animals, instead of just helping himself.

So Napoleon isn't a perfect leader. But could any of the other animals on the farm have done better? The dogs Bluebell, Jessie, and Pincher are all followers, they do not have their own opinions. Clover the horse, is compassionate to a fault. Benjamin the donkey is old and not very ambitious. The mare, Mollie, is very selfish. And Boxer the horse, though very hardworking, is not extremely smart. So, every animal has a different kind of flaw. A good leader is hard to find, none of these animals, at least on this farm could be a perfect leader.

Throughout the book the animals work very hard to build a windmill for the farm. I kept wondering why this windmill was so important to the animals.

"(The windmill) could be made to operate a dynamo and supply the farm with electrical power.This would light the stalls and warm them in winter."

The Windmill was going to be used to generate electricity. This goes against the general thinking that man-made inventions are bad and shouldn't be used. If wearing mens clothes and sleeping in beds is such a bad thing, shouldn't using their electricity also be bad? Anyway, the animals lived without electricity for a long time and I don't see a great reason why they needed it now.

I don't think that building the windmill would have been such a big deal and a high priority. I think that the windmill could have been a distraction. Napoleon didn't want the animals to figure out how badly he was treating them so he made the animals work even harder. Every second they weren't farming seemed to be taken up by the building of the windmill. If the animals were working they had no time to think about rebelling.

If the animals knew about the real purpose of the windmill, it didn't show. The animals were all very protective of it. I think that another theme in the book is pride. When the windmill was knocked down, the animals were very disappointed.

"They had just noticed this when a cry of despair broke from every animal's throat. A terrible sight had met their eyes. The windmill was in ruins. With one accord they dashed down to the spot. Napoleon, who seldom moved out of a walk, raced ahead of them all. Yes, there it lay, the fruit of all their struggles, levelled to its foundations, the stones they had broken and carried so laboriously scattered all around. Unable at first to speak, they stood gazing mournfully at the littler of fallen stone."

Besides the fact that they worked really hard on the windmill, I think they were also sad because the windmill was a symbol of Animal Farm and what it could accomplish. No matter how bad the farm was doing, they would still be proud because that was their home, and it was probably the first of its kind. The Beasts of England song was another way they showed pride for their farm, like their anthem to be sung at special occasions. Just like we have pride for our towns or schools, the animals have pride for their farm. I think that pride was a major factor in keeping the farm going and uniting the animals.

So, Animal Farm held messages about leaders. That a good leader is hard to find, and that there are no perfect leaders. It also showed how important pride is, and how that alone can keep people (or animals) close.

Why All Schools Should Have Weighted GPAs

Students are constantly told that if they just work hard and do their best they will succeed. But it's much more complicated than that. A common goal for a student to work towards is getting into a good college. It would make sense that the smartest people would have the easiest time getting to college. But this may not be the case.

If a student is at a higher level of learning they might participate in advanced classes. Advanced classes are good because they get the students involved and challenge them more than a regular class. What isn't good is that because of the challenge, the students get lower grades.

Think about a third grader learning in a fifth grade class. Would they do better in the higher level class? They may be smart enough to participate in the class, but they will still get worse grades than if they were in their third grade class. Advanced classes are like that, with a less drastic change. If a student could be taking a regular class and get perfect grades, why would they want to take an advanced class, get much worse grades, and bring their GPA down?

This Review of Literature Related to Weighted Grade Point Average and Rank in Class stated that "The majority of college admissions staff at highly selective schools concluded that weighing GPA does give high achieving applicants an advantage in the college admission process" So, having a good GPA is an important factor in applying for college and weighing GPAs would give the students a better chance of getting into a good college.

Weighting GPA to Assist in Improving Student Achievement says that there is still no standard weighting system. If there were a standard system it would be easier to compare your standing to other students, the grades would all be weighted the same way.

An article called Weighted Grades: A Conundrum for Secondary Schools describes a system of weighted grades where the more challenging the class is, the more weighted that class is. Getting an A in a normal class is not equal to getting an A in an advanced class. The basic classes are the least weighted and the Advanced Placement classes are the most weighted.

Schools want students to challenge themselves and get more out of their education. But by taking advanced classes, students could be losing points from their GPA. That class is doing more harm than good. Students that take advanced classes should be rewarded not punished. If taking a high level class does nothing but lower your GPA and chances of college acceptance, what's the point? Schools need to adjust to weighted grading and recognise that it could be very important in determining their students futures.

Logical Fallacies

Have you ever argued with someone, who could never make a good point? I hate when someones only reasoning is "Well you're annoying so..." or "Wow you are so stupid to think that." You know that it's not fair or right, but there is nothing you can really say back to that. Well, there is a word for this kind of reasoning. A logical fallacy. (In this case the fallacy is personal attack)



A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Fallacies are almost like reasoning cheats, sometimes they work but they aren't quite right. Fallacies are usually used in arguments or to convince someone to do something. These are used all the time in everyday life. You have probably used one yourself, whether you tried to or not. If you know what fallacies are and how they work, you will start to notice them in your life.

Fallacies are often used in advertising. Many times ads aren't really selling you their product. They might be selling you friends, appearance, or happiness. An ad will show someone using their product and smiling, and having fun with lots of friends. They are selling you more than just the product. This is the Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, showing you that popularity is associated with whatever they want you to buy.

This ad uses the  Hasty Generalization Fallacy by saying that 9/10 dentists recommend it. This is not a good estimate, they are showing you only 10 dentists of their choosing.

I think we use fallacies to help get around problems. If you don't have a good argument or answer it is easy to use these fallacies, even if they aren't legitimate reasons. They often work because not many people can spot them or know when they are being used.

Fallacies helped me realize that there are actually reasonings that "don't count". Fallacies are not real points. But, even if they don't always make sense, they are easy to use and usually pretty effective. Keep your eye out for tricky fallacies and you will have an advantage in your next battle of reason.


The Appeal to Flattery Fallacy.

The type of teachers we need more of.

Have you ever had a school teacher that wanted to cut your head off and voiced that want? Good. Spiteful teachers make the world go 'round.

Having a teacher tell you how stupid you are helps develop self acceptance, through this teacher you find out who you really are inside. They always tell the 100% truth, they never just yell random stuff at you out of pent up anger. This will obviously raise your self esteem. Nothing can make you feel better about yourself, that an adult who says you are worthless!

If this teacher hates the world- and they do, they will also hate you. This teacher will always give you bad grades, the worst grades you have ever received. When you realize that you will never be capable of getting a good grade, you will give up. This type of teacher will help you realize that you will never be good enough and that you will never get a good grade. Never. Accept it.

The next best type of teacher you can have is a slacker. These teachers do absolutely nothing productive while expecting you to be amazing at their class in every way. Now why would a teacher ever want to teach you? Teaching does nothing for the students. It is so much more effective to make the children read mindlessly from textbooks or watch useless videos out of class. Teaching is hard for teachers so they shouldn't have to go through that stress. Instead put the students through twice the work by making them teach themselves! 

We pay teachers to teach, so the slackers simply pretend they are teaching and collect money. This is a foolproof way to make a living and can be applied to your own daily life once you get a job. This type of teacher helps you to realize that you should never have to do anything besides sit down and be lazy to become successful in life. Except if you are a student. Then they will overwork you until you either graduate, or die. So have fun with that.

These are the kinds of teachers that we really need more of in our school systems. If your teacher has never threatened you or physically abused you, you are really missing out. If you have never experienced the empowering feeling that you have done 26 times the work this week than your teacher has done in their entire life, I am truly sorry for you. I believe that every student should have the opportunity to learn from these types of teachers and have the scars (physically and emotionally) to prove it.