Entry 37: Civil Disobedience

There are times when authority should be challenged, those are the times when the authority is morally wrong and no one cares to change it. You should stand up and fight against it because you know it is wrong and that it isn't a correct use of authority. The only times that you should obey authority is when you know it would result in a better outcome and that it benefits all people. In my live since I am still a teenager I have many people that I have to obey. Number one on the list would be my parents because they are the ones raising me and supplying me with my daily needs. Then The head of school and teachers can also control me because if I go against their authority there is a chance of getting kicked out of school. However I don't always listen and obey to all of them many times I disobey because I find the things they want from me or the rule they set up to be unreasonable. For example there was once in school when a teacher wanted to punish me for doing something I didn't do but another kid that he liked did. He told me to stand outside of the class room for 45 minutes and not to move but just stand there. Of course I found it outrageously unreasonabl and therefore I stuck my butt to the seat and didn't stand up to move out. It wasn't until the principal came did I move out into the hall way but when I told him about what happened he let me in and told the teacher he wanted to talk to him after class.

Entry 36: Red Badge Film

The movie didn't turn out as I expected, as always, movies are never the same as books. It is because books allow the reader to imagine the characters but the movies give a face and personality to them that you may not what imagined. The difference of between the movie and book is mainly that time seems to go by faster because in the book its split up into chapters and the movie is one that continues without stops. The rest was pretty much the same only how I imagined it was different. Mainly the people looked different from what i had in mind. Especially Henry, I took he would be very young like a boy my age 17 or 18 but he looked 28 and almost 30 and therefore the name youth didn't really fit his face. Then an other character that shocked me was Jim. I imagined him being older but not that old, he looked like he was 70 years old when I imagined him being 38. Another thing was the battle field and the armies. I thought the battle field was a little smaller and not huge flat land surrounded by forest and mountains. The characters seemed to have troubled me the most because the faces never fit the character in my head, expect for Wilson.

Entry 35: Government

In many countries today a government that doesn't govern at all is best for that country, but only because the government is corrupted. I don't agree nor disagree with Thoreau's statement of "That government is best which governs not at all", and I do have explanations for me saying this. Many times in a society order is needed and resulting from that is the set up of a government or leadership rule. The idea of having a government is one that is ideal because it's purpose is to keep order and to makes decisions based on the well being of it's people. However now a days many governments/government officials are taking that authority for their own advantage. Governments are no longer think on behalf of the people but for themselves. They make laws that benefit their own kind and package it to make it seem reasonable and to appeal to all citizens. This is when governments become corrupt, twisted, unjust. The government is no longer there for the well being of the society as a whole and therefore loses it's purpose. That is when a better government emerges, one that doesn't govern at all because then it will never be corrupt and the citizens will all be treated they way they want to be because their is no one else forcing them otherwise. Other than that governments are good as long was they govern the way they are meant to be governed.

Entry 34: Theme of Self- Reliance

Emerson believes that everyone has a unique talent and that it takes different way of bring it out and it can only be done so personally. Self-reliance is not the same as selfishness and Emerson believes so too. Self-reliance is depending on yourself to do things and to be independent where as selfishness if you take advantages of other for the benefactor of yourself. Having self-reliance you can also be helpful to others instead of using others and not helping them. Emerson uses figures of speech such as "Society is a joint-stock company" which expresses his view of society being bad for people. He believes that society leads to conspiracy and that it only brings out the worst in people. Unlike nature which he believes to be very beneficial to people and society is only taking people away from nature. Emerson believes that self-reliance is good and that society makes people to dependent on each other. I myself believe that self-reliance is good however the perceptive that Emerson and I have are very different. I think self-reliance as being independent yet i believe society is good because it bring about teamwork. Therefore I say both being independent and being a team player is good. 

Entry 33: Imagery in Nature

Emerson as a Romantic writer used a great amount of imagery in both "The Nature" and "From Self-Reliance". He uses imagery to symbolize and express his love for nature and how great nature is from his perspective. For example he writes "rays that come from heavenly world", implying that nature gives off heavenly light and that nature is great and holy. He is expressing the Romantic belief that nature is great and provides passage to heaven. He expresses how nice nature is by saying that it is never mean or appears mean. I believe that his imagery creates a clear picture in the readers mind (or at least it is clear to me). He is very descriptive and by doing so it makes his ideas more clear. Unlike the writers before him who uses imagery that is too deep, his isl lighter but easier to understand and also matches his optimistic personality. However not everyone would agree that imagery is a effective way of explanation but I think that imagery allows the reader to imagine it in his own way and find a more personal way of understanding the idea. Instead of stating facts and cutting off the imagination of the reader using imagery and allowing them to imagine is a more effective way, in my opinion.

Entry 32: The Saddest of All Prisons

Guilt is a thing that has many causes and today we have more causes than we ever had before. People today like the people before also carry around guilt for keeping ugly secrets of the past to themselves. Not only can this guilt isolate people but it can also make people shut down parts of their own mentality. Keeping secrets of past sins can cause guilt that would slowly rot away inside of someone. I have felt guilty about past actions of mine and some I am still guilty of. However I try to get rid of the guilt and there are many ways. The quickest way of getting rid of the guilt is to open up to it and confess for the things that you have done. However that is also the hardest way because no matter who you are it takes a lot of courage to admit that you are wrong or you have done something wrong. The slowest way would be to let time take over and hope that one day you will forget about it. However somethings you can never forget, and the smallest things can remind you of it and bring the guilt back again. I myself try to talk it out all the time but it is very hard and many times I end up using other methods to make it up for the people effected by my actions.

Entry 31: Comparing Poems

Both of Longfellow's poems talk about death but only in different points of view, one being subjective and one objective. "The Tide Rises, The Tide Falls" talks about death casually and says that death happens all the time and that there is no need to worry about. This poem is the more objective one. Then in "The Cross of Snow" he grieves upon the death of his second wife. Doing so he contradicts his first idea completely, making this one is the subjective one. Even though the ideas are contradicting, it doesn't mean that they aren't both correct. I would say that both ideas are correct and that they only apply in different situations. Yes, death is unavoidable and we shouldn't take it so hard and be afraid of its coming. However if someone you love and care about dies before you do, you have the right to grieve. The death of a loved one is not something that can be easily forgotten. Even if you think you are over it just one simple thing can trigger a memory of the both of you and bring back that grief. Yet I wouldn't fear death as much as I use to now because I accept the fact the death is inevitable and that it is only a matter of time. 

Entry 30: Image of Grief

Grief is like a great flood. It washes away the past and keeps you stuck in the present dilemma, unable to run away from, the flood engulfs you and blinds you from everything else. When ever sorrow falls upon a person that person would ignore all other things around him and focus on the event that caused the sorrow. He would try to think of a way to fix it or to find a reason as to why it has happened. Sometimes because we shut ourselves down from the outside world more disasters happen and only end up causing even more sorrow.

Longfellow expresses his grief through the use of a metaphor, comparing his grief to a cross of snow that is deeply imprinted on to a side of the mountain. The sun's warmth can not reach it to melt it and so no warm that Longfellow feels can melt his grief for his wife's death. Like my metaphor of the flood it blinds you from other things and nothing can change it. Only time and time can be the factor that would change this grief. The mountain gets eroded and the water of the flood slowly finds its way back to the rivers and the ocean.

Entry 29: Human Life: A Cycle?

I as life as a one time only process. You may or may not be reborn but even if you are reborn you won't remember anything from the past and you can never prove that there was this cycle of life, death, and rebirth. I believe you only get one chance in life and that when you die you die nothing more happens, you don't get a second chance. Unlike the natural cycle where thing life, die, and get reborn for a second chance. Everyone else around me is the same they live and die and nothing more.
It isn't easy to talk or think seriously about the death of myself or the people around me, even if I believed in the natural cycle. When someone dies it not their physical body that I would miss but all the memories and emotions that I have for them seem to die with them too. Also when a person dies that soul is gone, gone and the spirit of the person disappears.Even in the natural cycle if something dies that meaning of it or the essence that it gives fades and disappears. Its never about the physical being of a person but the spiritual and emotional being that we connect with. Since everyone dies someday and we may never be reborn, my take on life is to live it to the fullest. Don't let anybody rain on your parade, and have the guts to throw yourself a parade in your life and let it continue as you life never stop it.

Entry 28: Thanksgiving

There are many things that I can be thankful for in life and since it's thanksgiving today, I would like to list some of the things that I am thankful for. First of all I would like to thank my parents, for raising me, and supporting me as much as they can. Even though they get on my nerves and push my buttons a lot of the times, I still thank them because they are the ones who truly love me. I would to thank my friends, the ones who help me past those hard times. They are the people I laugh until I am gasping for air with, I thank them for being there when I need them. I thank art for letting me express my emotions and ideas freely without grammar errors. I would like to thank music of all forms, because it helps me relax and think

Now on to more materialized objects. I thank the invention of computers and the internet we use today. They entertains me and keeps me from sleeping. I would like to thank 7-11 for opening 24-7 so that I can get a cold beverage when ever I want. I thank Steve Jobs for going back to Apple many years ago so that the Ipod was invented and so I can listen to music whenever I want.

Entry 27: More Thanatopsis

In Bryant's poem Thanatopsis he shows he views on live and a version the natural cycle. He sees the process of live of being a cycle to return back to the starting point. We come from the earth and when we die we are mixed back into nature. In his poem he explains the cycle from start to finish, we get born, we live, we die, we get buried, and we become one with Earth (a great big tomb) again. Then he also shows us his view on individual life. He shows that individual life should be liberal and we shouldn't worry about all the bad things that happen around us nor should we think to much about luxury good. Like Anne Bradstreet's poem he also believes that all material object don't last and that if you waste your time on collecting or treasuring them you are wasting your chance at enjoying what life is suppose to be about. We are suppose to appreciated nature and to accept the fact that everyone is going to die and that when we die it is not sad. We only rejoin with earth and everyone who has died before us in turning into nature. We are reborn as part of tree, a flower, or even the mold on the rocks. My own view on life is that we should make the best out of it. Don't worry weather you are going to die or live tomorrow but to enjoy the moment and make sure you fill everyone minute and second of your life with things that you want to do.

Entry 26: Thanatopsis

In the poem a man (the narrator) speaks with nature and nature speaks back to him. In the beginning he was afraid of death and had no knowledge as of what happens after death. However nature speaks back to him and say that everything that is living dies sooner or later. When a living thing dies it returns to earth. It is dissolved and mixed as one with the earth. He reveals a cycle of birth from the earth's matter and the return to earth again once they die. They become one with the earth again; however it was unclear if he nature ever spoke of rebirth. The hint given about rebirth was that we become one with the earth and we live newly as parts of nature's visible form. Then the tree in nature dies and it gets dissolved and the cycle starts over again. Through the tone and diction of the author it seems like the narrator accepts the fact of a nature cycle and welcomes it with comfort knowing that it will happen. I myself take it as a warning because everyone is going to die sooner or later so why not make the best out of life as you know it? I take chances if I can and I never look back because I want to live a full life, one filled with all the adventures and friends possible for me.

Entry 25: Natural Cycle

In nature we see the natural cycle all the time. Every year trees die in the winter, seeded in the fall, born in the spring, and grow in the summer. This just one example of the cycle there are many other thing in life that follow it and one that is most adhering to some is the process of human life. In many religions people are born, they live, they die, and they are reborn. However we can never prove that we get reborn because those who know we can't see or are already reborn and has forgotten about it. I find this cycle both comforting an disturbing. Disturbing in being that I know that I am going to die some day and I am afraid that I wouldn't live life to the fullest before I die. The comforting part is that I know I have time in life to for fill my goal to try my best in achieving what I can. In nature death is the most disturbing thing to me whenever someone dies no matter how near or far away from me they are I feel a little bit upset. Some I get over soon and some I don't get over for a long time. The cycle is shown in nature and in our human life but who is to know if rebirth is a real thing or just someone's wistful thinking.

Entry 24: Freedom and Equality

I don't see both freedom and equality as America's founding principle. It is because that in the beginning the Americans only gave freedom to those who were white, men, and privileged. They discriminated against blacks and women; therefore going against belief of freedom and equality. However in modern day it is a true American belief because of all the laws and regulations set up to protect the rights of all citizens. To me freedom and equality are very important things in a society. Freedom allows us to express ourselves and equality make us feel like a part of a society instead of being an outcast. In a free society there are things that you can do that in a restricted society can not be done. For example I can listen to any type of music I want and any where I want. I like having the freedom of changing up the mood/atmosphere around myself. In a free society people can do as they please and express their thoughts in their own way. Individuality is then pushed and that improves the society as a whole. With someone trying to restrict your rights you would never try to push the lines and to push the boundaries.

Entry 23: Tom Walker and John Edwards

There are many things that the sermon of John Edwards and the story of Tom Walker have in common. They both show the result of sinning; however Tom shows the process and John shows the part of burning and suffering. Both stories show a sense of connection between the actions of the people and supernatural justice. Justice is done to those who commit a sin and by committing that sin the wrath slowly builds up. In the Sermon it was drops of water which accumulate into a flood and the story a blow of the ax each time which eventually ends up with the falling of the tree. The sermon was made to strike fear into the hearts of those who read it or hear it, the story is the same; however not on the same level of fear. The sermon was to completely scare the living crap out of the people leaving them so hunted that they would never commit a sin. The story has a lighter fear factor, and the main point is to just warn the people of the results of sinning. Edwards believes that the only way of salvation was to believe and accept Jesus Christ the savior and the story reflects it when Tom begins to pray and believe towards the end. However it was too late for him and he still got dragged to hell

Entry 22: The Devil and Tom Walker

The exploration of the bad side of human nature is the example of American Romanticism, greed was shown through Tom's actions. The dark Romantics exposed of the bad traits that are hidden with in the man kind and in this story it was the trait of stinginess and greed. I would have classify this story in the genre of fiction and a story with a moral. The story expresses the Romantic goal of improving man kind and by teaching of such morals would benefit the society. I think that if the story was written in a more contemporary way the plot wouldn't be so different. The only change would be the setting, characters, and interactions between the characters but the ultimate lesson would still be the same. I think that people being more optimistic and always trying to be happy might change the way the story ends. The story might end with a character like Tom tricking the devil and ends up living a happy life while the character also learns the evil of greed. The setting would be modern in a urban city. The main characters would not be married but in a relationship the guy would be a smart guy but never had a chance to shine. Finally a man in a suit offers him an opportunity with the condition of a trade, a trade for his soul. The young man takes it and beings his path of wealth and later realizes the deal he made with the devil wasn't worth it and tries to find a way out. He wins and everyone learns the moral.

Entry 21: Darkness

Transcendentalists express optimism and the good with people, as the anti-transcendentalists express the worst side of the human kind. Their styles of writing are all similar grammatically, however the content is different. The anti-transcendentalists aren't completely opposite from the transcendentalists, they do share similar views on nature being good and God being the creator. However the anti--transcendentalists try to show the aspects of man kind that is ignored or unmentioned by the transcendentalists. They explore the darker traits of man kind the evil and the wicked. As for the transcendentalists they look to find the more optimistic view of life and they like to display the good traits of the man kind. They focus on how nature brings out the best in people and that people have no bad side. I myself would prefer the anti-transcendentalists because I think that everyone being good and having no bad traits is total bullshit. I don't like reading about a perfect world were everything is so optimistic, there is no suspense and not realistic. I like darker stories and stories with a more universal and meaningful moral.

Entry 20: Compare Heroes

Romantic heroes compared the modern heroes are not that much different, other than the fact that modern heroes are more civilized. Romantics loved nature so they put their heroes being more primitive and in touch with nature, yet still speaking like everyone else does. Modern heroes are more one with the civilization, modern and city like. That is only comparing the romantic heroes to heroes of our movies today. However in real life heroes aren't that. Today our real heroes are the ones who save lives and most of the time are ordinary people who are brave enough to stand up against fear, or a corrupt system. Heroes today are the ones who make a change in the world either politically or economically. I don't find any evidence in the influence of Romantics hero's in our public figures today. They might reflect on geeks who sit at home reading these Romantic novels but they aren't heroes nor are they known to society. I myself would like it more if thee was a actual "hero" like the ones depicted in the novels of both modern and Romantic times, just because they are cooler. However I would have to say the real heroes are the ones on the news saving other people's lives while risking their own just because they have a big heart.

Entry 19: Strengths and Weaknesses

There are many ways to discover strengths and weaknesses in people, however it isn't as easy as it sounds. The fastest way to compare different people's strengths and weaknesses is to put them through a test. By test I do not mean answering question on a sheet of paper but to put them through a challenge of some sort. A challenge that would show their why of thinking and reaction to the situation. Under stressful and challenging situations people tend to show what they are truly capable of doing, because they are pretty much being forced to do so with out acknowledging it. My personal view of strengths and weaknesses are kind of blurred. I know my weaknesses but my strengths I am unsure of. For my weaknesses they are that I am careless, too emotional, and gullible(and those are only a few of them). However being unsure about my strengths I think that I am a good critical thinker, team player, and I work well under stress. I have been put into situations where I had to depend on my strengths to get pass it and through the process it helped me find my weaknesses. The basic situation was that a group of friends and I had to work together to solve a problem(not academical). I used all the critical thinking I could and also brought the group together so that we could make it through together. In this case my critical thinking allowed us to react fast to the situation and stop it before it got worse. In other situations I found my weaknesses by failing the test by messing up because I was careless.

Entry 18: Rational or Transcendental?

Rationalism and Transcendentalism are two similar yet different ways of thinking. Rationalists think with reason and back inferences with evidence, when Transcendentalists go with intuition. They both believe in God and that human beings are born with a good nature and that life is the progress to reaching perfectionism. The ways that they approach perfection is every different though. The Rationalists believe that civilization and experimentation would being them to perfection and the Transcendentalists believe that perfection is achieved by getting in touch with nature. The Transcendentalists think that nature contains all the clues and answers needed and that civilization only pulls people away from the truth. However both groups are trying to find the truth. To sum it all up Rationalists would be like scientist who work in labs that try to perfect everything and find the why. The Transcendentalists are like explorers who go out into nature and find the mysteries of life. I myself believe in a bit of both. I believe in the Rationalists way of finding the answer by experimentation and reason, because only then is the truth backed up. However I don't believe that civilization is helping the human race, because it is slowly stripping away our instincts and machines are replacing many jobs that us to be manually completed. With the Transcendentalists I agree that nature is good and that it holds many answers to the mysteries of life.

Entry 17: The American Romantic Hero

Characters that would be considered heroes today can either be a great man or a person with super powers. Most of the times today when we hear the words hero we would think about superman, batman, spiderman, and other comic characters. There are also daily heroes that appear on the news instead of the movie screen or comic book. These heroes are what I consider true heroes, because they actually risk their lives for others. The heroes in the movies and comic books are just too unrealistic. They're cool and all but they really are only imagination. Same as the heroes during the Romantic period they weren't real. The writer wrote the character with idealistic ideas in mind, wanting to create a perfect hero. However no one is perfect and to be a hero you still must have human qualities, and that is why you never see comic book heroes in america like like aliens. The Romantic heroes are similar to our comic book heroes in the sense that they are both idealistic and both seem to own super human qualities. However in real life heroes are just people, ordinary people who are no different from the rest of us. Other than the fact that they have a heart big enough to be willing to give up their lives or the lives of others.

Entry 16: Intro to Romanticism

Romanticism is an 18th century art and literature movement. Unlike the movements before it it focus more in the beauty and naturalness of things. They focused on bring back the nature to be more "barbaric". The romanticism was seen as being vulgar and primal. Many saw it as being bad but later learned to accept it and become part of it. The book and painting made during this time period showed the true nature of man kind. It also showed a lot about nature and how it brings out the best of people. Nature and the original form of human being is the best there can be and that is what the romantic movement is trying to bring back.   The transcendalists were a group of people who like rationalist believed in the original good nature of man kind and to find truth on must go beyond oneself. Americans today believe the same concept that man kind is born with a good nature and that one must challenge oneself to achieve more.

Entry 15: American Ideal

"We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak with our own minds"
This quote expresses many of the American ideals, such as individualism and freedom. Walking on their own feet symbolizes their independence and no need of support from others. Working with their own hands also symbolizes their independence and individuality. Then speaking with their own minds symbolizes freedom of speech and also individuality. It doesn't just apply to the American society in colonial times but also modern times too. Americans today are even more independent than ever, further expressing the old American ideal. It also applies to the society around me. Everyone is wanting to be more independent, to prove that they can do it on their own. The freedom of speech is also very important,everyone wants to speak their mind and they want to do it without anyone trying to stop them. I myself sees this as a global and not just american ideal. I like being a independent person trying not to depend on anyone for completing my work. I also think that people who don't want to be independent is either immature or just lazy. I have meet many people who just depend on others to help them complete their work, they use people. Therefore because I believe in this ideal I despise people who practices it's opposite version. 

Entry 14: Persuade me

Don't work for other people, work for yourself. You will not find happiness in the work you do for other people, if you can make it so that your working for yourself then you should quit and change jobs. What I mean by not doing work for others doesn't mean you have to create you own company and be the boss, but to find a personal purpose in the things you do. If you are always doing thing because other people tell you to or to please someone else, no matter how great the result you will never be happy. To be happy with what you have accomplished you must do it for yourself, do it because you want to do it, not because someone told you to do it. If you are doing it for someone else they will always have a opinion on the work, you'll be doing in their perspective putting nothing of your own into it, but time and sweat. For me the art works that I do I never do it for someone else. My art works I do it because I want to do it, I do it for my own pleasure and that is why I love it so much. The things I do for classes such as posters, or even for school events I usually don't like it. I don't like things that I have made just for the purpose of getting the grade, because I see no joy in viewing it or in the process of making it. That is why I try to find a personal reason of making very thing, of doing everything I do. Such as making a poster for a class I try to view it as my personal way of knowing the material better, to see it as a learning tool. For school events I see it as a learning experience for my future, to let me get a taste of what is to come, so I give it all the effort I can put in.

Entry 13: Give Me Liberty or...

I think words such as independent, competitive, and creative shape our society today. Everyone is independent or want to be independent. To be on their own and living off their own pay check. Competition is very intense in the 21st century and to be successful one must be competitive. Creative people always stand out and today being different is good. Being different means you have something good others don't have and having creativity is a large part of being different. They are different but not completely different because both stress individuality. I was to hear the words "freedom" or "liberty" it would makes me think of more freedom on the weekends. Instead of freedom in rights and laws, I think about my parents allowing me more time to go out of the house. As for liberty, it hardly makes me think of anything other than my US history class I took last year. Thins have changed but the way people value freedom and rights haven't change, they are only expressed differently and different word help shape a free society.

Entry 12: Sin

Sin, an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. That is the dictionary definition of the word sin. Society usually defines it as the same thing and it is most of the times related to a religion. I my self define it as anything that is against my morals or principles. If I was to see someone go against my principles I would have negative opinions about them. However others may not think what I think, they may consider my wrongs to be right or OK thing to do. Everyone has a different set of principles they follow, no matter if they not it or not. The only reason you would have great amount of common principles yes if you share a common religion or you grew up together. I have done things that some people would consider to be sinful but some wouldn't, so its really hard to tell if its a real sin. However in my opinion it is and I regret what I have done. I have also witnessed or people sin and felt that they were doing the wrong thing. I couldn't just stand back and watch so I told the person what I thought was wrong and now we share a common moral. The moral of not lying, unless it is completely 110% necessary. If one is to sin and publicly shamed, I believe the only way of atone for it is to change. By change I mean change the why you live by changing yourself so that you would never do it again. For someone to change is very hard and I have had to change myself before, it was a difficult process. I had to mentally challenge my own mind and control my actions. I did this to control my anger problem which made me act upon many moral sins. Changing isn't easy but if you could be determined to change, it will be successful.

Entry 11: Fear as a motivator

Fear is a very powerful thing, and if used right can cause people to do things they have never imagined doing. Fear is not a great motivator but it is a very effective one. John Edward puts fear into the people he's preaching by telling them of the wrath of God and how unmerciful God can be. He uses sensory details and figurative language to project a clear image of what he wants the people to be afraid of. I have been motivated by fear before and I hated how the person did it. Instead of being encouraging he was threatening and the threatening was what made me do it. I believe that something that is motivating should be encouraging not frightening. The person used my fear of a secret being told to make me doing things he told me. It was still back in middle school and the kid used me for things he didn't want to do himself. Such as lining up for lunch (because our lunch lines has a 30 minute wait), homework, and carrying his things for him. By the end I decided that it was enough and I could no longer take his oppressing attitude. He made me feel like a slave and I stood up against him. I told him that I wasn't afraid of him telling others and the oppression passed away. I really hate people who use fear as a motivator, however sometimes it seems like the only way, and on rare cases do people use it for the better.

Entry 10: Church, anyone?

I have been in contact with many different religion's and practices before. I have been an atheist all my life but it seems like my friends aren't. First of all a lot of my friends back in Shanghai are Christians. They go to a "retreat" every year, similar to camp but about God. They also have something called KG (know God) every few weeks and they go to church every Sunday. I have never been to their "retreats" before but I did go to one of their KG meetings. It was a place where they chatted about what was happening in their lives and relating it to the bible. It was really confusing for me because I've never read the bible before, and probably never will. I have never been to church, but I have been to temples. Buddhist and Taoist temples look pretty similar to me and the things they do there also look the same. I had a friend's mother who was a devote Buddhist. I have seen her pray time I go to my friends house. When I say pray I don't mean talking to God with your hands held together, but I mean nailing down and bowing to a statue. I was pretty surprised the first time I saw my friend's mother do that but I got use to it over the years. Compared to the puritans none of them seem to be ass strict. however each one believes in their God as being the almighty.  Usually when I see these things I don't react much different I just see it as a way for them to have a sense of safety or support.

Entry 9: Motivation

In all the poems we have read, the authors express a certain aspect of their religious beliefs. I believe that they are caused to believe these reasons or actions because of their surrounding culture. As they grew up they were surrounded by this culture and the religion. Everyone they knew believed it, so why would they be different? They won't, people always tend to want to stick to the group no matter what. Even if what the group is doing is wrong you would still want to fit in if everyone else is doing it. That's how pear pressure works. Their beliefs are not only things that they practice at home but it greatly effect everything they do. For example Puritan's would only do what "God" told them to do. As for someone who is a Rationalist would do things they find reasonable. Everything they do may come naturally to them because they grew up with it, but to others they would have to think about the religion. My own action are guided by a set of principles set by myself through the progress of my life. The list changes, things get added and deleted. I don't think about it, it also comes naturally like the religion for the authors. There is one principal I would always stick by " Bros before Hoes". To me it doesn't just better friends with your boys, but to value friendships before anything else.  If my "bros" were to ask me to do a favor and a girl who I like also asks me to do a favor. I would help my "bros" first. I wouldn't put anything before them other than family, but they are pretty much family with me any ways.

Entry 8: Compare and Contrast: Bradstreet v Sor Juana

The two poems we read in class about puritan and catholic beliefs and way of dealing with loss. Bradstreet's and Sor Juana's beliefs are different on many aspects. First of all the Puritans had a strong belief in simplicity however the Catholic's believe in creativity in expressing their devotion to God. In Bradstreet's poem she continues to regard God as being the taker and giver as for Sor Juana she only regards God as being a greater power but she is the one to decide on her actions.  Bradstreet's poem talks about the loss of her house in a fire, and Sor Juana talks about riding of the material world and embracing what is in the mind. Bradstreet towards the end of her poem also implies that the material world wouldn't last and only what is in side of you could. So the two poem share the same theme. Having a lot of things is not important what is important is to have a lot inside of you. You can only keep what knowledge you have but not the objects you own. The format of their poem is also similar however Son Juana's is shorter and more direct. Bradstreet uses a lot of passive actions when referring to the event. Son Juana uses a active voice while telling that the material world is a waste of time and that she is going to give it up so she can keep what is important. The two authors may have different ways of practicing their religion but both express the same belief that the material world is a waste and that only the intellectual world is what is important.

Entry 7: Hounding

The title conveys a clear perspective of how the author views the material world. The word hounding is a strong word and using it in the title makes it seem as if she was very confident about her choice. She was not afraid of showing other people her perspective, which is that the material world is of no use only what is in the brain is good. My personal point of view is that intellectual matters are more important than material goods but not to the extreme of giving it all up. Over the years in high school I have slowly given some material goods in my world and moved on to intellectual property. Materials can be stolen or broken but intellectual properties can not be. The theme conveyed in the poem is that world is trying to force feed you all this material good but you shouldn't accept. You should only value your intellectual goods. When I first realized the theme I disagreed temporarily but after thinking about it for a few minutes I realized that she was right and that I was already following that. However mine was not that extreme I didn't see the world hounding me but only temping.

Entry 6: Poem about loss

He asked for my help
but he was i not therefore
he was facing issues that were hard to deal with
i was busy messing around
he was over whelmed by the problem
he asked me but I didn't move
all i did was stop and stare
i could have helped but for some reason i didn't
he hated for for that
and understand i could
it was a taste of betrayal and bitter sadness
i couldn't believe what i have done
or what i didn't do
lost a friend i id
and it was to late to make it up
all i could do was apologize
however he wan't ready to forgive me
i only looked to the bright side
new he has only loyal friends
not ones who bail at the time most needed
i myself have lost a once close friend
i felt sad but happy for him
i began to change my ways
become more loyal and a better friend
for i would not like it to happen again
my lost has changed my ways

Entry 5: Guilt

Hester's treatment was completely fair, she violated a clearly stated law. She was guilty because she knew what she has done but felt as if it wasn't wrong. There is the fact that she thinks her husband is dead and therefore it is perfectly fine to get involved with other people. However no body was found so by law she was still married to her husband; therefore not being allowed to get involved with other men. A baby is not something you can hide back in the days, it acted as pretty solid proof of adultery. I believe she felt a bit guilty but also felt that it was justified.
Everyone feels a sense of guilt in their lives, and if you don't then you are a very arrogant person who cares for nothing but yourself. I remember that one time when I was still in elementary school I did something that was pretty unforgivable.Me and a group of friends were playing soccer during the lunch break, and I tripped someone on purpose. The kid fell and hit a stone with his elbow which ended up breaking his arm. I felt so guilty and afraid that I would get into major trouble. I didn't even have the courage to tell him I was sorry. The guilt hunted me for days and I finally let it out. I went to school and apologized to the kid face to face and hoped for forgiveness. He forgave me and the guilt disappeared; however thinking back at the event I still feel a sense of guilt.

Entry 4: Puritan Poetry

In Bradstreet's poem she sees God as being all mighty and whatever h does is always right. It is a very puritan point view, not many others would take it so easily and forgiving. As long as it was God's action or command it is right to her and all puritans. To me that seems very unreasonable because I agree with the Rationalists that we were created to find our own path, our own way of solving something. God is not there to give or take. God is only there as a guider giving only what he thinks we need to complete journey, not to take away. A rationalist would have written this poem differently, with less forgiveness and more reasoning as to way it has happened.  Why did the house burn down? If it was God who did it, why did God do it? Rationalist would try to find an answer instead of justifying it without reason. On the other hand a Deist would also be less forgiving, since they believe that God only creates and watches. A poem that is written by a Deist would probably contain more a more hateful tone, trying to find the reason or even blaming it on others. I personally would write the poem full of hate expressing every bit of ungratefulness I have. I do not believe that God has the write to take away as he pleases or if God even exists. It has a disheartened mood to it and not one of forgiveness.

Entry 3: Possessions

In the poem Anne Bradsheet wrote, she speaks of God being the giver and the taker. If God was to give you something he can always take it away without warning or mercy. Her house burned down with all her possessions but she only thanked God for allowing her to live. She believed that God had the right to take what ever he wanted and she was grateful that God burned it all, because they were only temporary items, things that don't last. She believed that in her after life, when she goes to heaven, she will have all she'll ever need. Therefore she did not complain but only showed gratitude.
On the other hand if the house I live in was to burn down with all my possessions inside, I wouldn't take it so well. First of all I do not believe in God being the all mighty, I may not believe in God at all. If someone was to take away my possessions without a justified reason I wouldn't hold back on my anger, no matter who that person is. To me possessions are not all just temporary things. Yes things may break and be retired from use, but there is always a memory that is attached to it. Such as your favorite toy as a child, every time you see it a memory of you playing with it would appear in your mind. Each item that I see as my possession have a certain amount of emotional value to them. It is not the lost of the material value that would anger me, but the lost of the emotional values will. Memories can't be bought in stores, they can only be made if it has happened to you, and taking an item that links you to it is like taking that memory away from you.

Rationalism v Puritanism

Compared to the old days back when America was a newly found land and society has just began to settle, the modern society has even more tenets and explanations to why life is. The old society believed in two main isms rationalism and puritanism. The rationalist thought that world as being reasoned and logical, everything is done with reason and logic. The puritans believes the world to be made by god and god was the one who decided everything; therefore everything they did was under god's order and everything that god didn't order to do is wrong. Rationalist thought of things with more reason and questioned what was right an wrong, makings things more complex compared to the puritans. The puritans only did what god tells them to do(which is pretty much whatever the church leader says because he is the one who talks to god), making things simple and to the point. Due to the fact that puritans aren't suppose to do anything out of order they are more narrow and they have a more strict system. The rationalists have more freedom to think and do as they please as long as the goal is reached. For example the rationalists would be the ones who believe in the "Big Bang" and puritans would oppose any ideas other than that god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.
I consider myself was being more of a rationalist because I like to be free to take actions of my own, and to question actions of others, to make things reasonable through experimentation. I am an atheist and therefore I would not agree with many of the puritan ideas; however this doesn't mean the rationalist are all atheists. Rationalists may still believe in a religion if they choose to do so. I can see how both isms can be applied into life but I stand strong iwth my choice of being more of a free thinker, a rationalist.

A new nation

As the puritans started their journey towards the new world they had a goal in mind. They were sent there under God's commands as the passage states to set an example for all others to be going to the new world. If they were to fail God was to take back all he has given to them and they would become bad example people refer to, only to warn people of their mistakes. The puritans were simple people who had a clear goal in mind; however they may have been too simple. The puritans thought in an simplistic way with may have caused them to over look certain things. They didn't see the Native Americans as equals or as friends, the Native Americans were competing against them. They brought disease to the Native Americans and took many things from them. The reason behind it was because they believe that they were ordered by God and that the only goal was to create a great civilization. America today still hold certain attributes of the puritans. Their never dying determination and will power has allowed them to become one of the most powerful countries in the modern world. The puritans would be happy to see the success of America today, for filling all their goals of the manifest destiny and becoming a "city upon the hills" for everyone to see.