Are you a Transcendentalist?

From my understanding, I see transcendentalism as being a movement for individualism. Transcendentalists believe that institutions and religion organize people and limit them from being their self. They want people to be free from control and express themselves in whichever way they feel would benefit the world. Transcendentalists also believe that people who are self-reliant and independent make a true community. The limitations and boundaries that political parties, religion, or institutions set up take away that independence and make a communities that include people who are not truly themselves. Also, transcendentalists believe in the inner goodness of people and nature.. Some people it may be easy to see the good, but there are others who you have to search a little deeper to find that positive part of them. Transcendentalists do not need facts or physical experience to believe in their principals, they instead use inner spiritual thoughts and the mental essence of a human.

There are some areas that I agree with transcendentalists and other areas I don't. I agree with transcendentalists when it comes to the idea of finding the good in everyone. I think all people have goodness in them it just may be hard to see the good from their physical actions. Also, I think it is important for people to be their self because everyone has a special talent that can add to the world and make it a better place, but on the other side I think it is important that we have institutions and religion to set guidelines and rules to keep order in communities.

Overall, I do not see myself as a true transcendentalist. I do agree with some of their ideas including the goodness within everyone, but I do not think I live life like most transcendentalists do. I believe it is important to have some order in life to keep everyone safe. Most transcendentalists are more easy-going and support less structure and more freedom to express themselves which I think could potentially lead to problems in communities. Also, transcendentalists base their decisions and ideas off of spiritual thoughts and for the most part it is hard for me to agree with something if it is not supported by facts.  

The Great Gatsby

All Americans have heard at one time or another about the Great Gatsby. It is commonly used to teach the American Dream to students and give people a sense of life during the roaring 20s. The movie and book are filled with many similarities but also include many differences as well. 

To start out, in the book and movie are different when it comes to Jordan and Nick's relationship. They seem to be inseparable in the book. While I was reading the book, I felt like Jordan and Nick had a believable connection that added to the whole love atmosphere in the book. For example, multiple times Jordan and Nick go out on dates and Nick describes them and includes dialogue for what is said on those dates. At one point, the reader learns about Jordan's take on being a bad driver. On the other hand, in the movie, not once did I ever sense a connection between Jordan and Nick. I simply saw them as friends of Daisy and nothing more. They never once went on dates and when they talked it never seemed like they were more than friends. Another difference between the movie and the book is the choice of music. This book is written in the 1920s when the Harlem Renaissance and Charleston were very big. In the movie, it seems like it is set in more modern times. They used some old songs with a modern twist to them or other songs that recently had come out but still have that 1920s feel to them. This was an interesting choice by the producer, but I think it was smart in the end to give the movie and commonly known book a little bit of a change and to fit the time period. 

The movie and book are also very similar. The main similarity between the two is the mentioning of several symbols that add to the themes in the movie and book and the overall idea of the American Dream. One symbol that is clearly shown and mentioned is the green light on Daisy's dock. This symbol represents optimism for Gatsby and his dream to repeat the past with Daisy. The scenes that involve the light in the movie often don't involve much more than the light itself, this shows that it is very important. In the book, the light is also singled out and described in a very detailed way so that the reader recognizes the importance of it. Another aspect of the movie and book that was the same is the sense of color in different scenes. The parties at Gatsby's included tons of glitter and bright colors which represented more symbols of wealth. In the book, the parties are described using color too and tons of description of the amount of wealth that was at the parties. Then in the movie and book when the characters leave West Egg, color is no longer a thing. Everything is described as dull and presented in blacks, grays and browns. 

Overall, there are a lot of similarities as well as differences in the movie and book that add to overall presentation and perception of the movie and book.

 

Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore used many different persuasive strategies to tackle the gun law arguments. His main persuasive strategy was using a deductive argument. He believe that their should be stricter gun laws. He supported his general argument with several details and examples that also used persuasive techniques like logos, ethos, and pathos.

For example, he used a logos example to support his main argument when he involved multiple statistics that showed how the United States had way higher hand-gun deaths than most places around the world. The article "A Land Without Guns" also mentioned several hand-gun death statistics comparing Japan to the United States. In 2008, the United States had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides and Japan only had 11 firearm-related homicides. Using logos, Michael Moore was able to provide proof to people that the facts show that there is a problem in the United States since other countries don't have the same struggle with gun related killings. This is a good persuasive strategy because people can't argue facts; they are the truth.

Michael Moore also used pathos in his examples to help support his main argument. He showed footage of the Columbine High School shooting which emotionally affects people as they are watching. It makes them fearful and wanting to help the students that are seen in the videos. Also, emotion is expressed with the shooting of the six year old in Flint, MI. When people hear that a little girl was shot they immediately feel attached because they think about all the possible accomplishments and life goals that girl could have achieve and experience. Teachers were shown crying in the video also which makes the viewer emotionally connected and concerned. Overall, using patho examples to support his general argument was a good idea to form a meaningful connection between the argument and the people he wanted to persuade.

Lastly, Michael Moore used a lot of etho examples. Each of his interviews dealt with a person who shared a specific view on gun laws. Those people may or may not have valued the gun law but they all had specific values and beliefs of how guns should be represented in America. For example, the president of anti-gun law club clearly showed his values of having a loaded gun in his household. He believed that the gun provided a sense of safety even though he was never using it and had never been affected by a crime.

Overall, the persuasive techniques that Michael Moore used in this documentary were very helpful in supporting his main argument of having more gun laws. He showed both sides of the argument but used great rhetorical strategies to show that his argument was the better one. I personally liked how he connected the gun laws to interesting events that have really affected our nation and also how he included many different facts that not a lot of Americans are aware of. This documentary definitely provided me with a clearer vision of my views on guns and gun laws in the United States.