Dana Schaufert
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200- Seminar in Composition
1 October 2008
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200- Seminar in Composition
1 October 2008
The Progression of Life
Aside from an author’s perspective on the topic, I have formed my own opinion as well. Peoples’ purpose in life is a collection of ideas all revolving around a central principle. This sole intention is to progress life. If humans did not exist, the world would forever be stuck at a standstill. An animal does not have the capabilities or intelligence to progress life to the extent that humans can and surely is unable to advance technology. It is obvious how essential humans are to the development of life and this answers the question of what are people for?
In agreement with progressing life, humans must establish themselves as individuals. If everyone performed at the same level and accomplished the same tasks, development, if any at all, would be minimal. Humans must build up their own characteristics, which distinguish themselves from a group. Without this factor of individualism, the world’s progression would not move at its potential rate.
To support my theory, author Bill McKibben stated in his book entitled Enough that, “…in the last century, the invention of the car offered the freedom of mobility, at the cost of giving up the small, coherent physical universes most people had inhabited. The invention of the radio and television allowed the unlimited choices of national or a global culture, but undermined the local life that had persisted…” (McKibben 44). Although McKibben partners a negative with each advancement, he demonstrates the progression of life humans have created. McKibben continues by saying, “These changes came upon us like the weather; ‘we’ ‘chose’ them only in the broadest sense of the words. They were upon us before we could do anything about them. You may keep the TV in the closet, but you still live in a TV society (McKibben 45). This just shows how progression and establishing individualism is almost inevitable, which leads me to my next author, Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Hawthorne, in his novel The House of the Seven Gables actually puts forward somewhat of a negative attitude against this idea of individualism and progression of life. Hawthorne, a man against change and stuck in his time, created characters who were also static. A number of his main characters, for example, Phoebe Pyncheon and Judge Pyncheon, had personalities that connect to characters from the past. Phoebe Pyncheon paralleled Alice Pyncheon, and Judge Pyncheon represented the former Colonel Pyncheon. Giving these characters a corresponding personality to one from their past ancestry demonstrates how Hawthorne, and the Pyncheon family in general, was opposed to progression of life and individualism. Similarly, the characters Hepzibah and Clifford found difficulty in advancing their lives and bettering themselves. The two were content with living their lives in the House of the Seven Gables and having little connection to the outside world.
Despite the apparent inability to advance, by the end of Hawthorne’s novel, the idea of progression and individualism being inevitable is proven. Not only did the Pyncheon family discover good fortune in the final chapters of the novel, but Phoebe and Holgrave unite, despite their family’s differences. This comes as a surprise considering Holgrave is related to the old Matthew Maule, who was supposed to have put a spell on the Pyncheon family. Phoebe and Holgrave’s tie demonstrates separation from the past and a progression of life. Change is a naturally occurring process among people, it is inevitable.
In conclusion, the answer to the question What are people for? can be answered quite simply and sensibly. The purpose of people in this world is to establish themselves as individuals and progress life. As McKibben agrees, this progression of life is unavoidable. The House of the Seven Gables demonstrates the idea as well through static characters that show development by the end of the novel. Life will always advance, as long as people are around to establish themselves as individuals and put forward change.
3 comments:
When asked the question ‘what are people for,’ we sit pondering the meaning of our own lives and creation stories of different civilizations. What we should ponder is what we have already accomplished. “If humans did not exist, the world would forever be stuck at a standstill.” This earth that we inhabit needs our intelligence to move forward, to advance into the next stage.
Humans act alone in this fight of progression, for animals and nature are incapable. God-given attributes such as intelligence and innovative minds enable our kind to propel evolution. People have the intention and purpose of combining all our individual characteristics, just as Hawthorne creates characters, all with different purposes and personalities, to create a plot that will progress his story page by page.
We have found that other forms of life that co-exist with mankind do not have that one distinction, the ability of provoking change. “Change is a naturally occurring process among people, it is inevitable.” This inevitability is exactly what sets us apart and what will answer the question of what people are for.
In conclusion, people have the sole purpose of progressing time and technology in order to create a richer and meaningful existence. Change that we provoke and our known sense of given capacities is what establishes our worth.
Dana Schaufert
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200- Seminar in Composition
5 October 2008
The Progression of Life
Bill McKibben’s novel Enough mentions an essay collection by Wendell Berry titled What are People For? When looked at as a question, rather than just a title to an essay collection, one may find themselves at a loss for words. However, although the question of what people are for is debatable and abstract, it can be answered logically with support from the work of various authors.
Aside from an author’s perspective on the topic, I have formed my own opinion as well. Peoples’ purpose in life is a collection of ideas all revolving around a central principle. This sole intention is to progress life. If humans did not exist, the world would forever be stuck at a standstill. An animal does not have the capabilities or intelligence to progress life to the extent that humans can and surely is unable to advance technology. It is obvious how essential humans are to the development of life and this answers the question of what are people for?
In agreement with progressing life, humans must establish themselves as individuals. If everyone performed at the same level and accomplished the same tasks, development, if any at all, would be minimal. Humans must build up their own characteristics, which distinguish themselves from a group. Without this factor of individualism, the world’s progression would be unable to move at its potential rate.
To support my theory, author Bill McKibben stated in his book entitled Enough that, “…in the last century, the invention of the car offered the freedom of mobility, at the cost of giving up the small, coherent physical universes most people had inhabited. The invention of the radio and television allowed the unlimited choices of national or a global culture, but undermined the local life that had persisted…” (McKibben 44). Although McKibben partners a negative aspect with each advancement, he demonstrates the progression of life humans have created. McKibben continues by saying, “These changes came upon us like the weather; ‘we’ ‘chose’ them only in the broadest sense of the words. They were upon us before we could do anything about them. You may keep the TV in the closet, but you still live in a TV society (McKibben 45). This just shows how progression and establishing individualism is almost inevitable, which leads me to my next author, Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Hawthorne, in his novel The House of the Seven Gables actually puts forward somewhat of a negative attitude against this idea of individualism and progression of life. Hawthorne, a man against change and stuck in his time, created characters who were also static. A number of his main characters, for example, Phoebe Pyncheon and Judge Pyncheon, had personalities that connected to characters from the past. Phoebe Pyncheon paralleled Alice Pyncheon, and Judge Pyncheon represented the former Colonel Pyncheon. Giving these characters a corresponding personality to one from their past ancestry demonstrates how Hawthorne, and the Pyncheon family in general, was opposed to progression of life and individualism. Similarly, the characters Hepzibah and Clifford found difficulty in advancing their lives and bettering themselves. The two were content with living their lives in the House of the Seven Gables and having little connection to the outside world.
Despite the apparent inability to advance, by the end of Hawthorne’s novel, the idea of progression and individualism being inevitable is proven. Not only did the Pyncheon family discover good fortune in the final chapters of the novel, but Phoebe and Holgrave unite, despite their family’s differences. This comes as a surprise considering Holgrave is related to the old Matthew Maule, who was supposed to have put a spell on the Pyncheon family. Phoebe and Holgrave’s tie demonstrates separation from the past and a progression of life and confirms that change is a naturally occurring process among people, it is inevitable.
In conclusion, the answer to the question What are people for? can be answered quite simply and sensibly. The purpose of people in this world is to establish themselves as individuals and progress life. As McKibben agrees, this progression of life is unavoidable. The House of the Seven Gables demonstrates the idea as well through static characters that show development by the end of the novel. Life will always advance, as long as people are around to establish themselves as individuals and put forward change.
Siatta - interesting but in some ways underdeveloped response (isn't evolution change, too?)
Dana - your first paragraph is pure filler.
Now, on to the substance. You shift from having one argument "to progress life," to adding a second "to a establish themselves as individuals." I think you started out intending the second argument to somehow support the first, but then accurately (if unintentionally) realized that they don't obviously relate to one another -- that is, you don't give us any reason to think that individualism = progress (and, in fact, recent evolutionary history has arguably moved against individualism - people are social animals, after all, and if there has been a great evolutionary success other than us, it's the social, totally non-individualistic insects).
Beyond that, though, you never explain what it means to "progress life?" Do you want it to be more complicated? More diverse? More technologically sophisticated? If the latter, what do *that* mean?
You end up with two arguments, not one, with one argument resting on an unclear idea, and the relationship between the two arguments being completely unclear. I also think that your argument about H7G is incomplete - not absurd, by any means, but why are you so confident that moving into the judge's house and adopting his lifestyle is a triumph for individualism?
Post a Comment