Duality of Human Nature

I believe that The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the most relevant example of the duality in human nature. Much like the politicians of today, Dr. Jekyll has two sides. Unlike people today though, Dr. Jekyll tries  keeps his two lives completely separate by making them literally two separate people. Jekyll emphasizes that man is "not one, but two", there is a good side and a bad side and only by separating the two can each part become purely it's own rather than fighting for dominance within the human soul. Much like in Oscar Wilde's A Picture of Dorian Gray, Hyde is the pure representation of Jekyll's evil like Dorian's portrait is of him. Once distinction is that while Jekyll has completely removed his evil from him and forced it into the persona of Hyde, Dorian's evil still resides within him. Dorian's soul is still to half's fighting against each other with the protist being merely a reflection of his soul. Each bit of evil that Dorian partakes in causes some sort of blemish on  his portrait. As Dorian continues to partake in evil, his portrait becomes more hideous, just like Dorian's corrupted soul. This is shown as well in Hyde. As Hyde is already a reflection of pure evil, he does not gradually become more and more hideous, he begins that way. He is pure evil and such is reflected in his looks much as Dorian's supposed 'goodness' is reflected in his more handsome features.

A Sinner's Punishment

I believe that a supposed sinner is punished for their actions, perhaps not exactly how the 'universe' thinks they should be, but more so how society thinks they should be. For instance homosexuality is often looke upon as a sin an is something many people shy away from or try to hide. Once such person who supposedly hid such acts from the world was Oscar Wilde. Wilde was alleged 'sodomite' and appeared in court twice to address these allegations. I believe that is is reflected in Basil Hallward from The Picture of Dorian Gray. Basil seems to have an almost infatuated sort of regard for Dorian. There is one instance for example where, before beginning Dorian's porait sitting, Basil requests that Lord Henry leave so that he, Lord Henry, does not disturb them. He has no desire to share his portrait, and in turn his obsession with Dorian, with the world and declares he shall never place the painting in any gallery. He hides his supposed sin from the world much like the other characters in the story. Dorian's sins, like Basil's, are hidden from the world within the form of his painting. It is curious to think that sins are seen as something that should be hidden away when it is Dorian and Basil who suffer for their sins, rather than Lord Henry who wears them upon his sleeve.

February - The Return of Tariq

Tariq's return was an excellent way to establish the final line of Lilia's life with Rasheed. Lilia was miserable but without Tariq she no longer had anything outside of her children to live for. She could not leave Rasheed and leave her children. Tariq's return gives Lilia the ability to fight back and Mariam the courage she needs to kill Rasheed because she knows that there's is not way they are both getting out alive but with Tariq around at least Lilia stands a chance.

January - The Loss of Nana

I believe that Mariam's loss of Nana was an essential occurrence in A Thousand Splendid Suns because without that loss Mariam never would have become the woman she was at the end of the story. She finally realizes that's Nana was right and her father was a spineless man only to return to find Nana dead. This causes her to live by Nana's rule of endurance that helps her to survive her life with Radheed. Nana's role is and essential catalyst for the progression of Mariam's character. Without those lessons and loss Mariam would not have been able to endure Rasheed, protect Lilia and eventually sent them free.

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

The issue from the article is whether or not the Cultural Differences Argument is sound logic or not. For instance just because the people of Okonkwo's village found it acceptable to have multiple wives and the white did not, marriage, monogamous or otherwise, is not objectively right or objectively wrong. It is nearly a matte of opinion. Or perhaps that some cultures deem is acceptable to eat bugs and others do not makes the consumption of bugs neither right or wrong, merely a matter of opinion.  I personally do not agree with the Cultural Differences Argument because just because opinions differ doesn't mean that they both can be correct depending on cultural differences. Such as in the article, just because some one believes the earth to be flat and someone believes it to be flat based on their cultures, doesn't mean that the geography of the earth is something that it is not.

Tragedy: Aristotle Versus Miller

I believe that Aristotle has the better basis for tragedy simply because it is simplistic yet in depth at the same time. His seven elements embody a tragedy that has a single story flow without other sub-stories to interfere with the main one. All of the Aristotelian tragedies feature the fall of a good, believable and consistent character. That character is usually male and of noble birth. I believe this so be one of the most important features. Even today people flock to anything involving royalty. Whether it be the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, the birth of their son, or the new Disney movie Frozen, there has always been something about royalty that has captured people's attention. From Arthur Miller's perspective, tragedy should be available to the common man. I disagree with this because the common people suffer everyday. If we were to be surrounded by plays and books filled with the everyday mans woes, no one would ready them because they have enough troubles of their own. People much rather hear about the newest scandals of the rich and famous because they remind us that even though these people are movie stars or singers, or even royalty, they still have problems and make mistakes just like the common people.

Fighting Fate

Through out the reading of Oedipus the King, we were recently confronted with the idea of Fate. In Oedipus none of the characters have any contr over their Fate. The more they try to struggle against it, the harder they push themselves into it. By learning the Fate of the their son the king and queen of Thebes decide to leave their son in the mountains. This leads to Oedipus being given to one Shepard by another and then making his way in the hands of that Shepards king. At one banquet a drunkard tells Oedipus that his fathe is not really his father which then leads Oedipus to see an audience with the oracle of Delphi. She tells him he will kill his father and marry his mother but does not answer his true question. Oedipus is searching for his identity. In trying to discover is what the drunkard says is true, he is learns his Fate which causes him to flee his home. During this process he kills his true father unknowingly and, after solving the Sphinx's riddle, he becomes king of Thebes like his father before him. This entitles him to all that was the previous kings, including the Queen of Thebes, Oedipus' mother. Both Oedipus and his mother/wife spurn the Seers because they believe that they have changed their fate when, in actuality, it was tw struggle to avoid their fate that led them right to it. Oedipus left who he thought was his parents in order to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother so it stands to reason that if his parents had never abandoned him in the first place there is a very high chance that none of this would have ever happened. The plan of Fate in Oedipus the King seems to be a final ending that cannot be escaped.