Group 2

REMEMBER: every time you make a post, be sure to choose the label "Group 2" so that your post ends up in the proper place. If you don't do this, your post won't appear in your group and you won't get credit for it.
Also: if you put a link in your posting: highlight it to select it, then click on the "link" tool on the toolbar. (Click image below to enlarge).

For links in comments: enter the following HTML code into the comment box: 

<a href="www.google.com">Home</a> 

Change "www.google.com" to whatever website you want to link to. Change "Home" to whatever text you want to display as the link.

Group 1

REMEMBER: every time you make a post, be sure to choose the label "Group 1" so that your post ends up in the proper place. If you don't do this, your post won't appear in your group and you won't get credit for it.
Also: if you put a link in your posting: highlight it to select it, then click on the "link" tool on the toolbar. (Click image below to enlarge).

For links in comments: enter the following HTML code into the comment box: 

<a href="www.google.com">Home</a> 

Change "www.google.com" to whatever website you want to link to. Change "Home" to whatever text you want to display as the link.

Weekly Post on Adam Smith and his 'Wealth of Nations'

I will present you two videos that can help you understand Adam Smith and Karl Marx better.

The video above summarizes some key points from Adam Smith's and Karl Marx's ideas. It clarifies the relations of cause & effect and gives examples concerning the philosophers' ideas. It covers Smith's Wealth of Nations, but does not touch upon the Estranged Labour or the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Instead, it gives insights about Marx's ideas about the class system and his views on Capitalism.

At the beginning, Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand" came somewhat complex and ambigious to me but the video HERE helped me better understand what it actually is and how it works and regulates the economy. You can find indormation regarding the simple relation between businesses, supply and demand relations, laizzez-faire and a brief glance at how economy changed over the course of time.

Weekly Post#4: A New Perspective for Macbeth's Personality

Above is the graphic of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth after killing Duncan the King, illustrated by R. T. Bone. In this image, Macbeth's wide open eyes indicate that he is horrified by what he has just done. He cannot stand on both legs balancedly, so he leans towards Lady Macbeth and holds her hand, which suggest that he has lost his control due to his shock, and is in need of help to carry on, not only psychologically but physically, too. Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, is still very confident, powerful enough to support and (still) manipulate Macbeth, as inferred from her upright posture, frowned looks and left arm and fingers that connote of giving orders or instructions for a new task.

The image made me able to criticize Macbeth's character, because I was more prone to blame external factors for evil deeds Macbeth committed, yet now I believe it is a personality flaw to be manipulated so easily and have a weak stance in terms of personal decisions and plans. Aristotle asserted that all tragic heroes have some sort of fatal flaw which causes the character's downfall; and in this case I argue if it was the real evil inside Macbeth or his weakness against Lady Macbeth and her manipulations that leads to Macbeth's downfall.

Weekly Post#5: All hail the play 'Macbeth'

"To mankind in general Macbeth and Lady Macbeth stand out as the supreme example of all that a host and hostess should not be." – Max Beerbohm

I am very surprised to find out some interesting sides of Shakespeare's play Macbeth - from the real names of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth to a "curse" caused by the 'unlucky'ness of the play. I would recommend you to take a look at this link!

I believe that all what we learn from this website are evidence for how powerful a play Macbeth is. 

To begin with, the idea of flattering a king's reign by a character in a play sounds ridiculous at first; but is the play is a one which flatters the concepts of fair and foul, dream and real, right and wrong, and which ends in a way that nothing in the world really has any meaning, yes, it can flatter a non-fictional king's reign as well.

Besides, the supposedly "curse" of Macbeth in theatres and the 1849 riot that took place in New York concerning the play both indicate how seriously the play was taken centuries after it was written.

The last point made on the page reminds us the contributions of the play to English language, although it is only indirectly related to what Shakespeare wrote... While we talk about all the hidden meanings behind the metaphors, symbols, long passages or the soliquys, we are so concerned about the meanings that probably very few of us pay enough attention on the language Shakespeare used. We appreciate all the ideas and emotions the play gives us, but we should appreciate the beautiful and neat language and style in which the play was written.

Smith & Marx's Definitions of Man

“Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this - no dog exchanges bones with another.”

The quotation above belongs to Adam Smith and it is not only his way of defining humans but also the distinction that separates humans from other animals, which reminds me of Karl Marx’s concept of ‘species being’.

Well, now it seems very tempting to compare Smith’s and Marx’s definitions and comparisons.

Bargain is the attempt to get something by paying less than its pre-decided price and it is a common thing in man’s world. Adam Smith believed that both the customer and the seller benefits from economic relationships as long as they get what they need. However, by nature humans are never satisfied with what they have, and have a never-ending desire to attain more; so, they try to get something while paying as little as possible. Marx, on the other hand, believes that man is a ‘species being’ who is universal in terms of needs and production; they produce more than necessary for later use, because satisfaction for the moment is not enough; instead, they organize their needs and production universally – considering any time and place.

In my opinion, while Marx’s definition is praise for humans, Smith’s definition is more prone to be understood as a criticism for humankind. For Marx, man is a higher being than non-human animals due to his superior way of living; however, Adam Smith’s quotation reminds me of the greedy, insatiable nature of humanity. Marx’s and Smith’s comparisons of humans to other animals support the conflict as well:

For Marx; humans are capable of working and enjoy working as a part of their lives for the chances of expressing themselves and meeting their needs; from this point arises their quality to build the future rather than the present moment only. This makes humans different from and pretty much superior to other animals. However, Smith highlights greed in his quotation because man is not seeking for an innovation or development but is merely showing his desire to have more in exchange of less. Besides, he does not compare man with an animal known for its hard work, serenity, etc. but uses dogs as the example of animal which is known for their aggression and violence for present needs. Considering these, I believe while Marx praises humanity in his definition of ‘species being’, Smith criticizes human nature. In my opinion, Smith has a more realistic explanation because even though Marx is right about human universality, humans maintain their greed and the desire for more even while practising this universality.

My Own Parable: What Do We Struggle For?

It was a rainy afternoon and on the street, with a fifteen-meter-distance between, were sitting two children with worn out clothes stained with mud and the raindrops. Their feet were naked and clothes too thin to protect them from the coldness the rain brought. They were calling the passers-by with their soft childish voices distinguished by reluctance and desperation. They resembled very much to each other, both had brown hair and brown eyes in the same shape and pale, thin lips which widened for a few seconds with every coin dropped before them; and with every coin each boy look at the other and smiled blithely.

A man, dressed in a radiant black suit, wearing polished black shoes and a navy tie, carrying a large black briefcase, dropped something out of his pocket to the hat where the boy’s coins accumulated; it did not fall down right away like a coin, it hovered in the air while the boy’s eyes widened and glowed with what he saw – it was a $100 banknote. When it fell on the coins, the boy took it up, his mouth opened in amazement and his eyes glimmered with joy. When he managed to take his eyes off from the banknote and look at his brother, he saw him watching with curious eyes. He folded the banknote quickly and put it in his pocket, tried to hide his astonishment, to act as usual and not to make an eye contact with his brother again. But his brother was collecting the coins before him and putting them in his pocket and was soon running towards him.

First he asked him what it was that he put into his pocket and the boy replied “Nothing.” His brother shouted and attacked onto him trying to take the money off from his pocket. Two little boys began to roll around the pavement, biting each other’s limbs and pulling each other’s hair whenever they could, shouting at each other sometimes in anger and sometimes in pain. The banknote passed from one boy’s hands to the other’s, and soon began to wrinkle, rip and fall apart. The coins in their pockets scattered around as they turned and rolled from one side to other. The many pieces of the banknote were scattering around and there were none left in the boys’ little hands. But they were still struggling, snarling and growling at each other, with blood on their teeth and limbs.

A passer-by man approached and stopped the two boys from hitting each other, and asked “What are you two fighting so hard for?” The two boys looked at the man and then each other blankly, and only after a while remembered the banknote and turned their heads to the ground where the coins and the pieces of the banknote were scattered around.