Since I was absent for the Socratic Seminar on Hamlet, I have decided to write about question 16, "Is Hamlet's intellect a source of strength or weakness in his character?"
 
I believe that Hamlet's intellect is both a strength and a weakness in his character. I see his intellect as a strength because this shows that he is able to think rationally and make clear decisions.  It also shows that he is educated.  Finally, his intellect is something that makes me believe that he is a person that is able to clearly see others and can understand them to help them. These are qualities that a strong leader would need.
 
I believe that Hamlet's intellect is a weakness because in his intellectual processes of accomplishing things, he spends so much time thinking and not acting.  He is too busy weighing consequences and planning his every move to actually act.  By the time he finishes his calculated plan to avenge his father's death and expose his corrupted uncle, several people have died and it is too late for his plan to go into action.

I think these ideas could relate to today's world because the nations of this world are all trying to put the "perfect" person in power so their country can be the best that it possibly can be.  I don't believe that there are perfect people to put in power, but I do believe that they would need a good amount of intellect.  They need to be able to think things through and make decisions so as to best benefit their nation.  But, unlike Hamlet, they would have to be able to curb their intellect, so to speak so they can act accordingly and at the appropriate times.

Fate

 

Throughout the ages, fate is a common theme.  It is seen all over - in books, movies, video games - and usually there is one main question that fate is boiled down to: do you have the ability to control your fate? This is the main question explored in Shakespeare's Oedipus the King. In more recent times, this is also the main question explored in the film Run, Lola, Run.



This question is explored in Oedipus in the fact that Oedipus is trying to escape the fate that has been set before him: he will kill his father and marry his mother. He consistently tries to escape this fate, but inevitably fails because of the intervention of the gods.  His fate leads to his downfall: his knowledge leads to blindness and exile.

It is the opposite in the case of Lola. She sees her fate and stares it in the face. She knows that if she and her boyfriend Manni don't scrounge up $100K by noon, they will be killed. So, instead of trying to run from her fate like Oedipus, she tries to change it. In a manner of ways, she tries to get the money without having to break the law. In a series of events, she is able to decide at the end of each scenario of time if this was an acceptable way for her life to go. She is obviously not satisfied by some since she dies in one. She eventually gets it right, though, and was able to change her fate for the better.

Although fate is a common theme for fictional things like books and movies, it can still apply to today's world. Many people believe in fate, usually to a varying degree.  There are people that believe that fate is uncontrollable but there also are people that believe fate doesn't really exist (like me).  The people that strongly believe in fate would say that fate, even if it is chaotic, controls everything. Anything that happens has an effect on something else and that cannot be changed. On the other hand, people like me might say that things like chain reactions are possible, but since there is no fate, everything just happens and there's no cosmic being or whatever in control of the universe.

So, to link all of this pile of words about fate together, it could be said that on the spectrum of belief of fate to nonbelief, Lola and Oedipus are pretty much huge believers. Then there's me floating over on the extreme other end.  Depending on your beliefs, you could think that fate is controllable or it isn't.  It really depends on circumstance.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!! :]

On the Relationship of Roark and Dominique

Question 39 in The Fountainhead Socratic Seminar questions intrigues me.  It is about the scene in which Roark rapes Dominique, and what the actions of the two characters could possibly mean.  It is stated in the question that Dominique pursues Roark aggressively, which I agree with.  She basically stalks him to the quarry each day and cannot stop thinking about him, almost admitting that she is in love with him.  The odd thing is that when he appears to her in her bedroom, she physically resists him even though she wants nothing more than to make love to him.  I believe that she resists him because giving in to anyone else completely contradicts her sense of self.  She would never give up control over her life for anyone but Roark. She believes that if he had not been so harsh and physical toward her, she would remain a cold and unfeeling person.  To me, it seems that this act that, which to others may seem like a horrible thing, actually aids Dominique to become free.  She has broken away from society’s conventions of the belief that rape is a horrible thing, and this allows her to be her true self.
 
                Now, in no way do I constitute rape as a good thing.  I think that it is one of the vilest things one human being can do to another, short of murder.  However, in this strictly literary context, it helps to characterize Dominique: she is a strong individual that, without control, cannot function as a person.  Rand stated about this scene that “it is rape by engraved invitation,” which I believe she means that both members involved must have some degree of responsibility for it to occur.  In the sense of Roark and Dominique, this makes sense.  She wanted him as much as he wanted her.  I believe, even though she originally resisted him, the only reason that she allowed it to continue was the fact that she was able to free herself in this act.

I thought about how this could apply to the world today.  There are many activists in this world that speak out against rape and vouch for the victims of it.  In this world, rape is seen as I see it: an evil act that should never be inflicted upon another person.  This world also sees rape as something in which one person has no control and the other completely overpowers the former.  Ayn Rand would disagree with that statement because of how she wrote the relations between Roark and Dominique.  I believe that she would agree that rape is mostly seen as a power struggle, but again both members would be responsible.  Rape in the literary and real world can be very different from each other, and although it can never be justified, it can be explained and, with reasoning, apply to the characterization of a person.