Oh yeah! new education yeah!

                                In the video I watched on changing educational paradigms created by Sir Ken Robinson and he explains a universal truth about where the educational system is heading. The section in the video that really connected with me thinking about the Brave New World context is when Robinson starts talking about how the educational system of this day and age splits groups of children by age or "date of manufacture" and educate them like that. Furthermore, Robinson makes a lot of good points but the two points that stuck out at me was the two main ones being Economics and Cultural. The economic point of view is based around, how can you teach the younger generation how to take a place in the 21st century economic stand points. Furthermore, the other point is Cultural, which entails each culture trying to give the younger generation a cultural identity. Therefore, they can pass on there cultural genes. The cultural aspect of the video to me draws a major parallel. In the Brave New World the more intelligent and higher ranking individuals pass on the cultural gene. Furthermore, the cultural identity is displayed when as toddlers and babies they were tested by displaying them books and flowers and as they interacted with said items a loud siren went off, lights started, to flash, and they got shocked.
                                   Connecting The Brave New World with the concepts of Sir Ken Robinson is very thought provoking. The way Robinson talks about how kids are just feed ADHD pills to help them pay attention, but instead of being ill these kids are just distracted not hyperactive. Furthermore the consistence on the way the people in Brave New World take soma as if there the distracted kids in our world.  "Although the repeated doses of soma have made them almost completely oblivious to the world around them." This quote tells us that they residents of this society don't just take one dose they take as many as they think they need.  

SHOCKING BABIES!

"Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment." This quote by Mustapha Mond could be difficult to grapple with if you don't have the right text , but in "Brave New World" Huxley applies this dialogue to portray man's importance in a society. The quote puts emphasis on "sane men and obedient men" telling the reader that the sane men are the alphas and betas the smart ones in the book then the obedient ones are the gammas, deltas, epsilons that hardly think only about there insignificant job. Therefore, know matter how smart or how dumb a person is they can still contribute to society by either making big decisions or digging ditches. In Mustpha Mond's speech he quotes Henry Ford saying "History is Bunk" proving that is the reason why the director is not teaching to them  the citizens. The idea of stability in a society is a major aspect in this novel. Mond again says "Strong emotion, inspired by family relationships, sexual repression, and delayed satisfaction of desire, goes directly against stability. Without stability, civilization cannot exist." All the aspects of a normal life are thrown out the window because of the fear of instability. Furthermore, he goes on to say that from this instability comes disease, war, and social unrest resulting in millions of casualties. Can normal family values and emotional attachment or even intellectual knowledge about your surroundings can harm a society that bad? In my interpretation of what Huxley is trying to tell us in these few chapters is that regulation is good in fact a necessity but to much regulation then you get the radical and extreme point of views that will help no one. Hence, that in the novel to much regulation can lead to mass production of people and eventually SHOCKING BABIES!

Disscusions for the Tempest

In the discussions regarding the Tempest, one controversial subject  has been between colonialism and imperialism and whether or not Shakespeare supports either of them. On one side of the argument you have a political commentator George Will that claims literature is important cause of its beauty. Will opposes the practice of reading important literature in a way that is not a very good way to understand it therefore not respecting the literature. On the other hand you have Stephen Greenblatt a Professor at Harvard in the department of Humanities, and he argues that more critical thinking and reading the piece of literature the way that best helps you understand is the side of the argument he supports. Furthermore this makes reading more enjoyable and not just memorizing text but, ultimately understanding what the main purpose of the literature is. Others may even maintain a different view such as taking a little from both sides of the main argument and fusing Greenblatt's ideas and Will's ideas to make and ultimate policy, but i think i would be quite difficult in reaching a compromise between the Greenblatt and Will since they are so attracted to there own ideas they may not want to accept outside ideas. However the view that i am taking is one siding with Stephen Greenblatt, but there are still different parts in Will's philosophy that I can stand firmly on.

Literary Debate

In George Will's article "literary politics", he talks about a woman by the name of Carol Lannone and how she was turned away the NEH(National Endowment for the Humanities) advisory board. George Will often takes the role as the politician in a sense. Will says, "as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized: the striking of poses and the enjoyment of catharsis are central in the theater of victimization in academic life." George is ultimately trying to attack critical thinking gesturing that there is no need for it when you have political reference to different texts. Also Will debates on trying to preserve Shakespeare's works and not letting different professors  of literature destroying the image Shakespeare was attempting to create by stating "it is a symbolic issue such as imperialism."  Greenblatt says it is " collective amnesia and deculturation." Greenblatt on the other hand says its impossible to understand Shakespeare without mentally grappling with it and try to critical think and understand and formulate ideas. studying both sides of this argument i have sided with George Will in the fact that he is attempting to preserve they teachings of Shakespeare works and upholding the image Shakespeare wanted.