Wikipedia

Admittedly I love Wikipedia. Through the collective knowledge of internet users, people can learn and discover things about a subject that an encyclopedia couldn't or wouldn't record, which is fantastic when you want to find out random facts about your school or a specific episode of a TV show you watched when you were a little kid. But there's a time for Wikipedia and there's a time for scholarly and well-researched material and I think most Wikipedia users are well aware of this. I looked up global warming on Wikipedia, a hot topic as you may well assume, and the page features a very scientific approach to the idea. However, I know that it's important to subconsciously keep in mind that despite all the scientific "facts," there is a pro- or anti- spin in the way things are presented and in the tone. In the discussion section the very first claim is that wikipedia's article is pro-global warming and he or she goes on to point out which sections he thinks are false. This person also quotes specific areas and adds what he considers facts instead of just spouting on about why global warming isn't true and why hippies suck; he actually seems to know what he's talking about. I think Wikipedia is great because it allows a researcher or reader to come up with their own ideas and to absorb opinions from all sides as long as they utilize the site to its full extent.

What celebrity has influenced your notion of the good life?

For the most part, I really believe that everyone carves their own path to their "good life" without relying on the same paths others have taken before. However it's undeniable that celebrities influence us in many ways; in my case, it is the celebrities I profoundly respect that have influenced me the most. Last night at the Oscars, I was positively head-over-heels at the sight of Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg, and Scorsese standing on the same stage and all those people standing and applauding when he finally won Best Director. That's something Lindsay Lohan could never do to me. Peter Jackson (director of The Lord of the Rings) was my biggest hero in high school, I absolutely have to watch a Quentin Tarantino movie when it's playing, and I learn something new from every director and every one of his or her films I see. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not just one celebrity that has influenced me; I learn something from all the greats. It's not just directors, but filmmakers in general. Because making films is such a collaborative way of working, everyone in the business learns from each experience and inspires each other in their own ways; the more I learn and the better I get at my job means getting to a place where I am free to do what I want and love. That's my idea of the good life.

In terms of the more relevant celebrity culture we're talking about, I respect the ones that know how to carry themselves, the ones that are as honest as they can be, and the ones that give as much as they can without using their good deeds as publicity stunts. I can't stand the Lindsay Lohans, Paris Hiltons, or Britney Spears of the celeb-kingdom not because they are so talked-about in the tabloids but because they constantly play to the media to get attention. They're all a great example of how not to live your life. However, it is my choice not to buy into that aspect of media so it doesn't affect me as much; it is a negative side of journalism (if the paparazzi can be considered "journalists"), should be reformed, and hopefully will be one day. Overall, it's more important to take the positive stories and role models, be inspired to work hard, and actually work toward your goals instead of dwelling on the negative aspects of celebrity. If you think CNN isn't covering an issue of real importance because they're busy talking about the Anna Nicole Smith trials, tell CNN or work to spread the word on the issue you care about. In the end, actions speak louder than words and it's more important to do something positive than to complain about something negative.

What makes an analysis innovative?

Innovation, in itself, means the invention of something new or never done before so when someone creates an innovative analysis, the perspective and idea are creatively fresh. It breaks the expectations a culture may have on a certain issue or topic and establishes new opinions and new interpretations that can influence the audience. Zora Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes both write on the relevant issue of racism but instead of playing to the negative connotations associated with it, they show that racism is a strong part of who they are as people and as African-Americans.

Through Bop, Hughes shows that though racism is a harsh reality of his past, it is a huge part of his ancestral roots and he takes pride in who he is. The beautiful music that plays as he walks by could not have been made if he and his ancestors didn't suffer from racism. This outlook completely breaks the mold of the common opinion of racism. Hughes does not see it as negative and insulting in Bop; he sees it as an essential piece of his identity and his culture. Therefore, his analysis is innovative in that it paints the subject of racism in an almost positive light.

Hurston's essay takes this perspective one step further by addressing the issue directly as opposed to Hughes' story. She readily acknowledges the presence of racism in her life, especially when it is directed at her. However, she makes a strong point in stressing her individualistic ideals that racism may occur around her but does not affect her or who she is. She also notes that she only recognizes racism when she is thrown in a situation of comparison, or a "sharp white background." Hurston constantly stresses her own strength and her belief that we are all part of the "Great Soul." Her analysis is innovative in that it addresses the issue of racism but makes a point that the individualistic spirit can and should overtake the negative pitfalls of dwelling on racist behavior.

Hughes and Hurston both make powerful statements on racism in their essays because they don't condemn it like most papers do. They analyze it in a way that realistically acknowledges the issue but also how it has created their culture and who they are. They take pride in who they are and therefore, in how racism has shaped them. An innovative analysis breaks the stereotypes and the expectations and shapes new perspectives as a result. The impact can be subtle or powerful but most importantly, it establishes thought within the audience.

What does the individual owe the community and vice versa?

In today's culture, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish and choose between the needs of the individual or the needs of the general community. Is it more important to protect the individual's rights, the very ones our country has championed since its birth, or to look at the bigger picture in terms of the greater good of society? And if we do look at the latter, at what scale should we look at life; is the bigger picture our state, our country, or all humans in general?
In personal lives, both are equally important; the individual and the community must have a symbiotic relationship, as both dynamics should understand that they have a mutual sense of responsibility for the other. The community should protect the rights of the individual while shaping a character that understands his responsibilities towards his group. This person should then take what he has learned, go out into the larger scale of society and eventually, return and give back to the community that raised him.

There is the question of whether this "responsibility" should actually be an "obligation." There is a fine line between what we should do and what we must do. Our culture tells us that we should give back to our communities, but there is nothing that absolutely forces us to do so, reflecting the present society's commitment to individual rights. If Congress passed a law that stated each citizen must donate a certain portion of their income to a charitable cause, it is probable that most Americans would consider this an infringement of their rights. Would such a law mandating the donation of a percentage of a person's income even have positive repercussions and benefit the communities? It is arguable but it would most likely be much too radical to have beneficial results. Giving back to the community should be a very important priority and a goal we should all strive to accomplish, but we should never be legally or socially forced to do so.

In our culture, the community has an even less sense of obligation to the individual. Though societies that create environments that allow individuals to flourish are seen in a very positive light, they are not the norm. Communities should look out for their people but in most cases, they are not required to do so. However, if they want more citizens to live within the group, they will create environments positively affecting individuals.

In Maxine Hong Kingston's "No Name Woman", the characters she describes paints a picture where the community controls every aspect of the individual. In that case, too much is expected of the individual, especially when contrasted against American society. On the day the narrator's aunt is to give birth, the community storms into the house and tears it apart, destroying the family's way of life. In the end, the pressures of the community drive the girl to commit suicide, crushing any sense of individual rights. Even though the individuals' dedication to the family and village is admirable, this society's philosophy is not beneficial towards people in the long run and clearly shows why communism cannot effectively work in a society with positive results. There is no way for the community to control every individual and there never should be; if this was applicable to the whole world, human progress would never be able to advance.

The only level that we, as individuals, can control is within our own scale. We cannot smile at or give advice to one person and expect to change the world but things can change when we set examples. The individual and the community work in a cyclical pattern; community influences individual, individual takes lessons learned and goes out into society, individual returns to influence community. In the end, individuals don't "owe" the community anything but they should have an innate sense of duty to give something back. If the community wants to grow positively, they need to create settings beneficial for individuals. The most important aspect of the relationship between the two should be that decisions are made by choice, not obligation.

Can and should one live the unquestioned life?

To live without questioning aspects of your life is not only possible but it is also damaging to the fulfillment of true happiness. Throughout the past, people have relied on religion, destiny, or nothing at all to answer their most difficult questions about life. However, experience plays a huge role in whether someone learns to pose questions about life and the way it works. If a child is raised as a strict Christian, chances are he or she will grow up believing that God is responsible for many aspects of life. However, there is always the chance the child might reject the same ideals he or she was instilled with and question the foundation of Christian faith. This falls in line with Twain's idea that no one is capable of original thought but that we are all deeply affected by conformist ideals. My opinion is that it doesn't matter whether we accept or reject the standard; the fact that it affects us in the first place is what makes it significant. It's true that when we are children, our thoughts are heavily influenced by the "association and sympathy" of the family we are raised in. However as we grow with more experience, "reasoning and examination" play a greater role in how we ask questions. The idea that everyone conforms to a standard and follows that idea, no questions asked, is too general to be taken seriously.

While it is very possible to live with complete faith in one's beliefs, doing so is the same as turning a blind eye to the rest of the world. Faith is only relative to the individual and cannot provide answers for everyone. As Socrates says, questioning aspects of your life can help one find true happiness by seeking out all possibilities, analyzing each one through your own sense of reason and experience, and deciding what is truth in your eyes. People who go through this process of questioning and analyzing the various gray areas of life are the ones who can make peace with their conclusions. It allows them to be open to all the possibilities life can offer and determine what works for them. Happiness isn't found in a certain path of life; it's in the ability to choose which path to take.