Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

12/16/18

Review of ERH- 421WX – One Text: Frankenstein

 

Review of ERH – 421WX – One Text: Frankenstein

 

Being able to take an entire semester to focus on one work of literature has truly been a blessing. I had read “Frankenstein” for Lieutenant Colonel Ticen’s “British Literary Traditions” last spring, and that honestly made me a little bit nervous for this course. When I read “Frankenstein” for the first time in that course, it was long, intricate, and I found the descriptive nature of Shelley’s writing to be both confusing and tiring. So I came into ERH 421 both excited and scared about the work load. So when Lieutenant Colonel Ticen started off the course with an information sheet on how much we all knew about “Frankenstein”, I was not sure where to start. Having a basic understanding of the text, I knew most of what to expect when it came to reading the course. While I was worried about the reading load of the course, I also wrote about the cultural context of the text, including the gothic and romantic elements. While these are two accurate aspects of the course, both of my ideas were changed throughout the semester. First off, while the reading load was, at times, quite intense, I found that it was at best manageable for me to complete all of the work. But the most extreme change in my knowledge of “Frankenstein” came from my understanding of the meaning and culture of the text.

Coming into this course, I only had a general idea behind the culture of “Frankenstein”. As stated above, I had focused only on the style of the book, primarily the gothic and romantic elements. But the main thing I learned from the course was the warnings that Mary Shelley offered, and how they have remained relevant for two hundred years. In every assignment in ERH 421, I evaluated and wrote about these warnings. I focused on the context in which she wrote, and the current context that the course can be taken. When she was writing “Frankenstein”, she was living in a society of political and scientific change. Feminism and industrialization were spreading through Europe. Mary Shelley’s own father and mother were progressive activists, writing on philosophy and feminism. Shelley’s husband, Percy Shelley, was also a progressive philosopher. Needless to say, Mary Shelley’s mind was open to the ideas that teach you how to best treat others and to improve the world and society as a whole. So it is no surprise when she writes a warning for future generations in her story.

In “Frankenstein”, Victor Frankenstein uses a combination of many varieties of sciences, new and old, to stitch together a human being from several corpses that he exhumed. He was so concerned with having a creation that is totally his, and that he never stopped to question the morality of what he was creating. So when he finally brought his creature to life, he realized that he had created a creature that was not wholly human. He was terrified by the gruesome appearance of the creature, leading him to run away and leave the creature alone and afraid in the cruel world that he lived in. While the creature did educate himself rapidly, he had little to no formation on what it meant to be a good person. Without a parent or teacher to teach him morality, and while living in a world that constantly abused and took from him, the creature turned to the one thing that he understood naturally, vengeance. Therefore, Victor was responsible for any actions that the creature took, both because he did not conduct his research with morality in mind, and that he did not guide the creature to be a good being. Shelley uses this situation to instill in her readers the understanding that if they do not act responsibly towards others, and do not take responsibility for their actions, some evil will come because of their irresponsibility. This understanding of responsibility has helped me understand culture as a whole. It leads to an understanding of the cause and effect nature of our world, and has helped me analyze cultural occurrences in many situations.

Developing an understanding of responsibility helps in daily life, and also helps you understand what causes people or groups to take specific actions against others. This helped me analyze the creature in “Frankenstein in Baghdad”, and the way that it was written. Being able to analyze the cause and effect nature of our world is very useful, as seen above. It has helped me analyze other texts that I have read, as well as to understand the contexts of issues such as arguments with others in my personal life. Due to this, I would highly recommend anyone reading this to take a good long time to analyze Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. To those people who may be considering taking this course, I would say that you must keep an open mind. You must read ahead of time and do work far before it is due (that is just for your own benefit so that you do not get swamped with work). Finally, you must strive to see the deeper meaning behind Shelley’s works, particularly when it comes to responsibility for your actions and for your creations.

Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

12/16/18

Overview of Reception

 

Themes of Responsibility in Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”

 

For my overview of reception of the “ERH-421WX – One Text: Frankenstein” course, I have chosen to focus on the contemporary dilemmas of science that were warned about through the entirety of “Frankenstein”. Throughout “Frankenstein”, Mary Shelley constantly shows how Victor, the creator of the monster, is to be held responsible for how the creature turned out. I focused on this concept in every paper and project that I have worked on for this course. I am fascinated how such a general warning can live on and remain relevant for two hundred years. Shelley, who wrote “Frankenstein” in a time of great scientific achievement, as well as political and societal change, realized that there should be things done in order to prevent science from getting out of hand. When Victor Frankenstein ran from his creation, he left it to a hard world that ended up turning him into a monster. If Victor had given him guidance and raised him as a child, the creature would have been (we suppose) a functioning and healthy member of society. But Shelley also warns us of our actions towards others, showing how the creature was also turned to vengeance because of how all other people treated him. She shows how his morals were inverted by the poor treatment he received at the hands of all whom he encountered, forming him into a true monster. As a whole, she is reminding her readers to be good people, and to be responsible enough to care for and further develop their productions, lest they grow bad and cause more harm than good.

 

Sources:

“The Gentleman’s Magazine”. 88: 334-335. April, 2018.             http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/gentlemansmag

Reed, Edward S. “From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to   William James”. Yale University Press, 1997. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt32bjtm.6.pdf?refreqid=search%3Aaf7a05a4816df74401f53109d9c89a2c

Ziolkowski, Theodore. “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth”. The Sewanee Review, Vol 89. The     Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27543797.pdf?refreqid=search%3Aaf7a05a4816df74401f53109d9c89a2c

Baumann, Rebecca. “Frankenstein 200: The Birth, Life, and Resurrection of Mary Shelley’s         Monster”. Indiana University Press, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt22p7j32.11.pdf?refreqid=search%3A76d1935e8fa51431c0373ed7c473ddd9

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/16/frankenstein-in-baghdad-by-ahmed-saadawi-review

“Frankenstein in Baghdad”, written by Ahmed Saadawi, is a rendition of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” meant to show that sort of narrative taking place in Iraq after the US invaded. There are many similarities and differences in these two versions of the “Frankenstein” story. Shelley’s largely romanticized narrative is traded for stories pieced together from several people perspectives, focusing more on the Gothic tradition than the Romantic. Saadawi used this style to reflect the culture of the Middle-East. In his society, where warfare between tribes is an every day occurrence, he reflected that in his writing by having each story teller take place of a tribe. As for the plot, Shelley used the story largely to warn people to be responsible for their actions towards others and what they create. Saadawi largely used his writing to explain the intricacies and culture of the Iraqi people. Both stories had a monster that was pieced together. While Victor was responsible for the creature turning towards revenge, Saadawi’s creature, “Whatsitsname” was geared towards revenge since it’s body was filled with a spirit killed in an Improvised Explosive Device attack. Both stories largely end with the tales of vengeance being taken by their monsters. So both stories are largely related and warn readers about responsibility. Shelley warns us of our responsibility to our offspring and others, and Saadawi warns us about our responsibility to find peace at all costs.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/181762534934967403/

The National Theater Production of “Frankenstein” was, in every sense, a beautiful show and rendition of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. The artistic ability of the producers was astounding. The transitions from scene to scene were practically flawless. The sets they used were simple, yet begged the audience to think for themselves, and to create their own powerful images of the environment in their minds. I only had two issues with production. The first was the steam punk scene, which may have been necessary to show the changing climate of late 1700’s Europe, but it just seemed over the top. My main complaint of the production was its grand over-sexualization of the text. Throughout the entire production, there were tiny elements of sexuality such as the creature placing his face in a whore’s crotch. But the thing that I saw as over the top was the second to last scene of the play, where the creature brutally raped Elizabeth. This was never in the novel, and it was a totally unnecessary addition to the story. While there is some merit to making the creature seem more brutal, it did not add anything to the story as a whole. Besides that, the production was fantastic, and I would recommend it to any mature audience.

My third essay for ERH 421WX was an analysis of 3 scholarly articles, and the conversation that they told. I focused these essays on the science used in Frankenstein, and Mary Shelley’s advice to her readers on how to treat science. Overall, I wanted to show my audience that Shelley does not want her audience to fear science, but to treat science with care and a sense of responsibility towards it. It also shows how society, and how we treat others, can make or break a new being. Overall, Shelley argues that we are responsible for every interaction we have with others, and especially our produce. We must support and guide our children, those who need help, or any creation that we make, or they may turn against us. The scholarly articles continue by explaining how the world we live in today is so interconnected that we need not worry about “Frankenstein” situations, but that we must still treat others well or else their morals may be “inverted” in the same way that the creature’s were.

 

 

Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

12/12/18

Frankenstein Paper #3

 

The Burden of Responsibility

 

Mary Shelley, author of “Frankenstein” one of the most prominent books of the 19^th century, which is still widely publicized today, would be disappointed if she saw how society views her “Frankenstein”. “Frankenstein” has gone from a work of literature that warned people of their responsibility to their creations to a term that means to fear scientific discovery itself. Any time some new science is discovered or used, people refer to it as a “Frankenstein” science, where it will likely become some monster that has no benefit to civilization (200). Frankenstein, whose name is now practically interchangeable with the creature, created a monster that he could not control. That is how people view Shelley’s marvelous work. What they fail to realize is that if Frankenstein had raised the monster with good morals, respect, and fair treatment, there would have been no story. The scene would have played out into a wholesome and peaceful ending. But this message has largely been lost to modern audiences. Countless articles, journals, and books have been published on this topics, not only by philosophers and literary critiques, but they have also been written by scientists who are concerned with “Frankenstein’s” false message that is resonating throughout much of modern society.

When Mary Shelley was writing “Frankenstein”, scientific knowledge was very different from today. Many competing theories were present in anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Having recently learned about electricity, scientists were not sure of its capabilities or applications, begging the question of whether it could re-spark the life force in humans. Shelley, who lived near a prison, often heard the bells ringing for prisoners who were receiving the death penalty. Often after their penalty was complete, their bodies would be offered to scientists to study the anatomy and physiology of the human body. There are many different reports of scientists testing electricity on the human body, and seeing the body react in ways that were only thought possible when the subject was alive. This furthered the curiosity about the possibility for humans to resurrect corpses. Shelley, who with her upbringing and marriage to a profoundly educated and intelligent husband, was naturally curious about these scientific experiments that she heard about so often. This curiosity is reflected by Shelley’s creature in “Frankenstein” (200).

Victor Frankenstein’s creature committed murder and arson on several occasions, making him seem like a morally bankrupt being that is incapable of reasoning. From what Shelley wrote, that is anything but true. The creature is shown as highly intelligent, being able to learn English in a matter of months without the aid of other humans. The creature is supernaturally athletic, being able to bound over mountains and the arctic. When he was first created, he had no ability to reason, think, or understand anything around him. All that he knew was what felt good and what felt bad. In this way, “Shelley had thus picked out what was deemed most objectionable in this underground psychology: that feelings associated with ideas were or are more important than the provenance or meaning of ideas” (Franken sci 51). Victor’s creature, while learning how to function as a basic human being, was also absorbing information from those good or bad feelings he received. Whenever he went into public, or tried to do anything for anyone (like help a little child by a river) he was greeted with screams and hatred. This, obviously, made him feel like an outcast, resulting in him feeling bad. Eventually, the creature had to act in some way that was vengeful. Taking vengeance upon his enemies felt good, resulting in him finding that to be an acceptable behavior. After the creature kills the boy at the river, his taste for vengeance ever increases. He finally goes to the man who gave him the greatest pain, Victor.

Victor, the father of the creature, had failed to raise him, running away in terror the first time he saw the creature awake. Instead of guiding him to be a morally responsible creature, he left him on his own to survive. After years of learning and wanting to feel like he belonged, the creature returned to Victor. On the glacier where they met, Victor again treated the monster poorly (albeit it was after his brother had been killed by the creature). The creature, in return, justified his actions against Victor’s brother by stating his need for vengeance. Over and over again, throughout the entirety of the novel, Shelley enforces and reinforces that Frankenstein’s creation “is not evil in itself but has been made that way by society” (scienc myth 42). This serves as a warning to all of those who are conducting new research or supporting scientific advance. Shelley, who was more curious about science than anything, wanted to promote scientific advances, while reminding society as a whole that they are culpable for making sure the research progresses in a way that does not get out of hand. This warning has been largely ignored in modern iterations of the “Frankenstein” story, but society has unknowingly already made advances that make it almost impossible for research to go completely awry as it did in “Frankenstein”.

The world is more connected than it has ever been in the entirety of human existence. Due to this interconnection, science has been publicized far too much, making matters of scientific advance widely known to all. While this does take away from scientist’s abilities to conduct “pure” research, it keeps scientists ethically culpable for their experiments. This is not directly the result of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, but it would please her to know that what she wanted society to get out of her story has largely occurred. Whereas Victor Frankenstein’s research was kept completely private, most research today is publicized and readily critiqued by ethics committees around the world. There are many examples of this ethical judgement from society and ethical committees, such as stem cell research, genetic engineering, and cloning. These issues, while they can be greatly beneficial to humanity, are largely restricted because they have been deemed unethical and potentially dangerous. With these restrictions in place, there will be no “Frankenstein” stories occurring in our society (Science myth 51 and 42).

Mary Shelley did not fear science, and it was not her aim to make others fear scientific advances. Her goal was to promote responsible research, where scientists and society would take care of their research and would act responsible for any good or bad results that came to fruition. She told this by showing the child-like and innocent nature of Victor’s creature. The creature is corrupted by a society that reacts only with fear towards the creature, instead of nurturing it, which results in the creature developing “inverted morals” where he chooses vengeance over forgiveness because it is the only thing that makes him feel good (Frankenstein’s Science 53). The message rings true today, in a time when science is advancing rapidly, that we must maintain accountability for what we produce, lest it harm humans or humanity as a whole.

 

 

Works Cited:

Baumann, Rebecca. “Frankenstein 200: The Birth, Life, and Resurrection of Mary Shelley’s         Monster”. Indiana University Press, 2018.

Reed, Edward S. “From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to   William James”. Yale University Press, 1997.

Ziolkowski, Theodore. “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth”. The Sewanee Review, Vol 89. The     Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.

 

The first essay that we wrote for ERH 421WX- One Text: Frankenstein was a Critical Review of “Frankenstein”. My essay consisted of the major themes that I recognized in the Novel. These essays were the necessity of developing what you create, and the necessity of being responsible not only for what is yours, but also for all other beings. These messages are seen throughout “Frankenstein”, particularly by Victor Frankenstein’s lack of responsibility for the creature turning the creature into a monster that only knows hate and vengeance. I applied these concepts to the modern world, stating that while scientific advancement is a good thing, we must be cautious and constantly make sure that modern advancements are regulated and controlled so as to not get out of hand.

“The Gentleman’s Magazine”. 88: 334-335. April, 2018.             http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/gentlemansmag

“The British Crititc”. N.S. 9:432-48. April, 1818.

https://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/bcrev.html

Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

10/5/18

Critical Review: Frankenstein

 

When you drive through rural Ohio, you see signs, painted barns, banners still standing in memorial of the Bicentennial celebration of Ohio becoming a state. Many Ohionians are (or at least pretended to be) proud of their state. It is their heritage. It is a common bond that, to some extent, they all share. It is this same rural area in which we can, and should, review the ideas of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. This year, 2018, happens to be the Bicentennial of her publishing this most famous and timeless work of art. The lessons that she taught us in her work are not to be diminished. Two of the main messages from “Frankenstein” are particularly relevant in these small rural communities in Ohio, around the United States of America, even around the world. These lessons are that men need to be responsible and careful with their creations and their studies.

In the first few years of its publication, “Frankenstein” received many different critical responses. Some reviews were positive. In “The Gentleman’s Magazine”, one or two authors wrote of their appreciation of Shelley’s writings. They greatly praised the beautiful descriptions of scenery, and several other facets of her writing in which she excels, going as far as to praise Victor as “a Noble Poet”. Many other reviews were… not so positive, to put it lightly. “The British Critic (TBC)” wrote one of the more brutal reviews of “Frankenstein”. This article, as well as others, found the first fault in the darkness of the story. They said that it was too dark and twisted for there to be any real profit to reading the book. The other issue that most critics had with Shelley’s work is that Mary was a woman. “Frankenstein” was written when women had little to no rites. TBC said, “The writer of it (Frankenstein) is, we understand, a female; this is an aggravation of that which is the prevailing fault of the novel… and we shall therefore dismiss the novel without further comment”. Thankfully, many of the concepts which Shelley portrayed in “Frankenstein” are still relevant, and two hundred years removed, we can view the book objectively. By not shutting the book down for disagreeing with the patriarchy or with strict religious restrictions, there is much to learn from the story.

The “Frankenstein” story takes place in the late 1700’s. This is a turbulent time, with the French Revolution taking place before and around it, women’s suffrage starting, and racism still being relevant throughout the world. But this is also a time of great discovery and the re-invigoration of the sciences. All of these factors lead to Victor Frankenstein’s infatuation with the art of animating life through the use of new technologies such as conducting electricity. Through his countless hours and nights without sleep, Victor finally reached the climax of his research. He created a perfect being out of many corpses. With his research, he bought this mix and matched creature to life. As soon as the creature was animated, Victor was terrified, and fled the poor man. This man, without a parent to teach him how to function, relies on pure instinct, becoming more of a creature than a man. Because the creature had no guidance in life, he grew to cause great harm and strife for Victor and his entire family. Which is where the story comes to relevance in the modern era.

Many people view scientific advances as a positive thing, and in many cases they are. Regardless of how positive or revolutionary the immediate effect of the new research is, there should always be constraints or precautions when passing through unchartered territory. When Victor did not prepare for the effect of the creature coming to life, he turned the creature into a monster. Without proper guidance, the creature became a murderer. Modern research and technology can and should be seen the same way. For example, smart phones are a magnificent technology, but there have been countless of personal security breaches every year resulting from the lack of preparedness of phone making companies. Another example is GMOs. Those countless corn fields in Ohio, while beautiful and necessary, are quite a creature of their own. There is not enough data on the effects of their genetic mutation on those who eat it. The public does not know much about the restrictions put on companies that change the very makeup of what we eat. This technology could easily get out of hand, and even abused, in order to effect the people that it is feeding. There are countless example of this, more coming to light each day. Victor’s mistake that lead to his great suffering is the perfect example of the necessity of precaution, development, and care.

As you can (hopefully) see, this book remains entirely relevant over two hundred years after it was published. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” hits on many contingent issues, which were just as valid back then as they are now. We live in a time where scientists are working on creating life from nothing. In order to understand what kind of effect this would have, it should be a necessity for all scientists working on that project to read “Frankenstein”. In fact everyone should. Not only could “Frankenstein” potentially cause someone to make a decision that will save lives (instead of recklessly experimenting), but it is also a very enjoyable book. As “The Gentleman’s Magazine” wrote, it is a very beautifully written, descriptive, and exciting book to read. Unless you are a sexist, or easily scared and or offended, I would highly recommend reading “Frankenstein” (all the way through) to anyone. I believe that if someone puts in the effort to read this book, it will grasp them, entertain them, and help them think about the dangers of acting without preparing, and inspire them to take better care of others. Those skeptics or people just wondering whether they should read “Frankenstein”, I highly encourage you to do so. As you can see, there is much that can be learned from a beautiful, enjoyable, and well done book such as this.

Nicholas Schweers
Maj Brown

12/12/18

Literature Review

 

Research Topic:

For this Capstone, I intend to find the best COA (Course of Action) for the people of the United States to resolve difficult issues, such as the Collin Kaepernick kneeling for the National Anthem. I intend to use the ideas on Greek Tragedy from Hegel’s “Aesthetics” to help me understand the division in the country, its effects, and possible solutions. I then intend to analyze political party ideas about the issue, using a multitude of sources to get a general idea from both sides.

Research Questions:

For such a bitterly dividing issue, where are the party lines drawn, why is there so little legitimate discourse between sides, why are there such definite lines, how can these lines be broken down into discourse and compromise.

 

Carroll, Charlotte. “NFL Says Social Justice Issues Raised By Colin Kaepernick ‘Deserve Our Attention and Action’”. NFL. September 04, 2018.

 

Charlotte Carrol, a reporter from the NFL, wrote this article primarily to inform those who watch or read from the NFL about the NFL’s position on the Kaepernick issue. While much of the Rhetoric in this argument seems to point towards the NFL handling this inappropriately, the NFL is handling this more reasonably than most people on either side of the argument. This article cites the NFL as promoting discourse, discussion, and peaceful talks between both sides. It seems that the NFL understands that compromise is the solution to this problem.  Citations such as this help me shape my paper, closing in the target group that I am looking to study. Instead of studying the NFL, I will look more deeply into those who seem completely opposed to Kaepernick’s views, most likely the far right activist groups that have such a large presence in social media.

G.W.F. Hegel, from Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art (1835)

Hegel was a prominent German philosopher in the 1800’s. In Hegel’s “Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art”, he provides his standard understanding of “Tragedy”, how the tragic hero is formed, and begins showing how Tragedy could have been avoided if the hero and the opposing side just sucked up their emotions and worked together, or even just talked. Essentially, Hegel states that true Tragedy stems from two equal and opposing ideas/actions that are both equally good. When they are pitted against each other, to side with one good would inherently mean that the other good is forsaken, resulting in a net loss. It is tragic, for if either side would have compromised, there would have been a much greater amount of good produces. Yet, since neither side compromises, there is destruction on both sides, and some amount of good is usually done, but it is done too late for the repercussions to be appreciated, for both sides have been grievously wounded in the process. The keys to avoiding these tragedies are discourse and compromise. I will use Hegel to evaluate the modern day National Anthem crisis, and hopefully find a way to peacefully and effectively resolve this issue.

Wagoner, Nick. “Collin Kaepernick Protests Anthem over Treatment of Minorities”. The   Undefeated. ESPN.COM News Services, August 27, 2016.

Nick Wagoner, a journalist for “The Undefeated” wrote this article largely to inform the pages followers of Kaepernick’s case. It seems as though he wrote objectively as to not offend either political side of his followers. This article largely goes over the reasoning behind Collin Kaepernick’s decision to not stand in respect for the National Anthem. It is his form of protest against the poor treatment of minorities in the United States. He could not stand for the National Anthem of a country that had minorities lying dead in the streets while their shooters barely get reprimanded. This article writes about Kaepernick but also those other Athletes who sacrificed their own careers in order to get their message across to the public. In many ways, the actions which Kaepernick took make him a sort of martyr for this social justice movement. This movement, unfortunately, has caused great debate in the United States, largely stemming from the fact that he chose to not respect the National Anthem which is a sign of the sacrifice’s and freedoms that Americans have made and enjoy every day.

 

Alexander, Michelle. “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”.      The New Press, New York, 2011.

Michelle Alexander is a Lawyer that works primarily with minorities. In her experience, she has gone through a paradigm shift on her beliefs of racial disparity in the United States of America. She is quoted becoming almost bitter at a sign that stated that the United States of America was going through another Jim Crow phase as a whole. Throughout the continuation of her career, she slowly became more exposed to racial prejudice within the United States Government and society. This led to her fighting for her beliefs and attempting to pass laws and regulations that did not target people of color. Throughout the book she gave excellent demonstrations of the actions being taken against people of color, which is what I mainly used from her source for my essay.

She seems to have failed to view the topic from a conservative standpoint, not allowing her to grasp the picture fully from a conservative mind frame. Her ethos was hardly impacted due to the fact that she supported her claims with a cornucopia of information from databases, statistics, and her own personal experience as a social worker that worked primarily for the people that are being prejudiced against.

 

Houlgate, Stephen. “Hegel and the Arts”. Northwestern University Press, 2007.

Stephen Houlgate’s, “Hegel and the Arts” covered exactly what one would think. He focused primarily on Hegel’s views on Art and Tragedy. He effectively covered these topics, synthesizing a vast amount of Hegel’s dense and spread out information into fairly simple to understand concepts. He reinforced my understanding of Hegel’s Tragedy, particularly by making clear the concept of a “Family” versus “State” argument that is so essential to Hegel’s Tragedy. He also portrayed information on how Hegel sought to find a sort of solution to Tragedy, which is supplied by the Chorus’s ability to reason with the opposing groups as a sort of unbiased mediator, which could perhaps cause the groups to reason instead of take action with one another, therefore preventing the Tragedy.

One thing that made Houlgate’s analysis rather painful was the lack of citations he provided for his knowledge about Hegel. While doing my own research, I validated the points he was making, but it was incredibly difficult to sift through Hegel’s writings, whereas if Houlgate had cited his sources, it would have been far easier.

 

Todd, Brad. “Kneeling NFL Players Should Choose a Different Form of Protest.” Fox News,       FOX News Network, 24 May 2018.

 

I would start of by saying that one would expect less politically charged news, even if is from a party dominated news source. Brad Todd, author of “Kneeling NFL Players Should Choose a Different Form of Protest”, and a Fox News Journalist, wrote a rather hefty article on the National Anthem Protest. In his article, he vividly attacked the Protesters, particularly Colin Kaepernick, and even the Democrats that support him.

While I used to be of the same mind as Todd, his journalistic professionalism seems absent through the amount of pathos and ad-Hominem attacks he used in order to invalidate the points that were being made by the protesters. He cited very valid reasons on why the protesters should choose a different form of protest, but the manner in which he did it was so heavy handed with Conservatism and refute for the protesters that his ethos was all but torn down for me.

 

	Carrol	Hegel	Wagoner	Alexander	Houlgate	Todd
Poor treatment of people of color.	Protests about police brutality	n/a	“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag…”	80% of inner city blacks have criminal records (7).	n/a	n/a
Division between the Democratic party and Republican Party	Donald Trump Criticized Kaepernick section.	Family Vs State (Hegel 461).	n/a- shows division between people, but they are rational and are not specific to party lines.	n/a	Describes in depth the conflict between Family and State. (148).	“Those on the political left have recoiled…”

Nicholas Schweers

Maj Brown

9/21/18

Capstone Project Proposal

 

1- Basic Information

a- Nicholas Schweers

b- “Tragedy in America: How Reason can Bring Us Back Together”

c- Maj Knepper:

2- Background and Rationale

a- I am an English Major at VMI, but the courses that I most directly effect this project are Rhetorical Traditions (one and two), American Literature, and Philosophy.  Between my understanding of rhetoric and how it should be used properly, philosophy, and the philosophy/rhetoric behind tragedy, I believe that I am particularly well equipped to find solutions to tragedy-esque political issues. The main focus for this issue will be using rhetoric to convince two completely polarized groups to engage in rhetorical discourse with each other.

B- I am invested in this topic because it is so utterly important. Todays’ world is characterized as bitter, divided, harsh, and many other negative attributes.  One of the main catalysts for many of these issues is the complete disregard of the legitimacy of other’s opinions. In a world dominated by pathos-based arguments, there is no room for anything that does not agree with your own particular emotional bias. Without the ability to be challenged in thought and feeling, those with opposing views will completely polarize themselves and have to resort to physical action to bring about any change. The conflict between the NFL, and their athletes who seek to kneel during the National Anthem, is, and will remain to stay at a stand-still. While neither side is particularly more in the right or wrong than the other, the debate is tearing the country apart. The issues make it seem as though there is no way to compromise between the two groups. Hegel’s idea of Tragic hero’s and how their tragedies could have been prevented perfectly fit this model, and my familiarity with these traits will hopefully allow me to strive towards a more peaceful and tragedy resistant nation.

3- Project Proposal Abstract

A- Today’s world, dominated by a constant barrage of bad news, has failed to realize that rhetoric and logic are the common tools that allow us to make wise and efficacious decisions. Situations such as kneeling for the National Anthem could be greatly changed if the media’s use of pathos was not the soul dictation of the people’s minds. The people (mass media and its audiences) tend to not look at situations from all sides, focusing often on their own feelings, allowing them to make poorly informed, emotionally controlled decisions. Both sides use little to no arguments from their opposing views, creating a completely polarized argument which is almost impossible to settle. Hegel realized that decisions informed by emotion could often lead to disaster, particularly when they are made in opposition to another emotionally based, yet equally relevant idea. By understanding Hegel’s philosophical and rhetorical ideas on deciding between two (nearly) equal but opposite goods, people may be able to make rational decisions that will benefit society as well as not cause consternation throughout the nation. Focusing on the kneeling for the National Anthem, I will use Hegel’s ideas to show both sides of the argument, how they are both wrong, and how they are both right. As commonly found in Hegel’s dissection of two opposing goods, this debate comes down to a group you identify with (Family) and the greater good of all (Nation/nationalism). Both sides are founded in a protection of values, and desires of promoting peace and care for all. But since they are opposing, they are both causing consternation, fighting, and hate, all in the name of doing good. After dissecting both sides of the argument, I aim to find a way to resolve the argument most peacefully, and with the greatest outcome of good. This paper is an attempt to involve philosophy, rhetoric, and evaluation of the current events to find how to most effectively promote peace, prosperity, and most importantly agreement between two completely opposing ideas of the National Anthem in the modern day United States.

 

4- Preliminary Bibliography

G.W.F. Hegel, from Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art (1835)

In Hegel’s “Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art”, he provides his standard understanding of “Tragedy”, how the tragic hero is formed, and begins showing how Tragedy could have been avoided if the hero and the opposing side just sucked up their emotions and worked together, or even just talked. Essentially, Hegel states that true Tragedy stems from two equal and opposing ideas/actions that are both equally good. When they are pitted against each other, to side with one good would inherently mean that the other good is forsaken, resulting in a net loss. It is tragic, for if either side would have compromised, there would have been a much greater amount of good produces. Yet, since neither side compromises, there is destruction on both sides, and some amount of good is usually done, but it is done too late for the repercussions to be appreciated, for both sides have been grievously wounded in the process. The keys to avoiding these tragedies are discourse and compromise. I will use Hegel to evaluate the modern day National Anthem crisis, and hopefully find a way to peacefully and effectively resolve this issue.

Wagoner, Nick. “Collin Kaepernick Protests Anthem over Treatment of Minorities”. The Undefeated. ESPN.COM News Services, August 27, 2016.

This article largely goes over the reasoning behind Collin Kaepernick’s decision to not stand in respect for the National Anthem. It is his form of protest against the poor treatment of minorities in the United States. He could not stand for the National Anthem of a country that had minorities lying dead in the streets while their shooters barely get reprimanded. This article writes about Kaepernick but also those other Athletes who sacrificed their own careers in order to get their message across to the public. In many ways, the actions which Kaepernick took make him a sort of martyr for this social justice movement. This movement, unfortunately, has caused great debate in the United States, largely stemming from the fact that he chose to not respect the National Anthem which is a sign of the sacrifice’s and freedoms that Americans have made and enjoy every day.

Carroll, Charlotte. “NFL Says Social Justice Issues Raised By Colin Kaepernick ‘Deserve Our Attention and Action’”. NFL. September 04, 2018.

 

While much of the Rhetoric in this argument seems to point towards the NFL handling this inappropriately, while it seems that the NFL is handling this more reasonably than most people on either side of the argument. This article cites the NFL as promoting discourse, discussion, and peaceful talks between both sides. It seems that the NFL understands that compromise is the solution to this problem.  Citations such as this help me shape my paper, closing in the target group that I am looking to study. Instead of studying the NFL, I will look more deeply into those who seem completely opposed to Kaepernick’s views, most likely the far right activist groups that have such a large presence in social media.

Nicholas Schweers
Maj Brown

12/12/18

Capstone Works Cited

 

WORKS CITED:

Alexander, Michelle. “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”.      The New Press, New York, 2011.

Britzky, Haley. “Most Americans Don’t Think NFL’s Anthem Protests Are Unpatriotic.” Axios, 7             June 2018.

“Compromise.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. “Aesthetics”. Clarendon Press, 1975.

Houlgate, Stephen. “Hegel and the Arts”. Northwestern University Press, 2007.

Mindock, Clark. “All You Need to Know about Why NFL Players Are Taking a Knee and           Where It Came From.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 4 Sept.       2018.

SB Nation NFL. “The Real Reasons Why NFL Players Are Protesting and How Their Message    Gets Lost in Politics.” SBNation.com, SBNation.com, 21 Oct. 2018.

Todd, Brad. “Kneeling NFL Players Should Choose a Different Form of Protest.” Fox News,       FOX News Network, 24 May 2018.

“U.S. National Anthem Protests (2016–Present).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Dec.       2018.

“Writing@CSU.” Welcome to Writing@CSU.

Zarella, Anthony. “Why are so many conservatives upset about black athletes kneeling during       the national anthem?” Quora, 24 September, 2017.

Notes from In Class Discussions, peer reviews, Easybib.com, and Major Knepper’s course on Philosophy in Literature as well as American Literary Traditions.