Topic: For people that read Lord of the Flies (Read 8251 times)

Mikekillerus · « **on:** December 18, 2006, 11:27:50 PM »

In your opnion, does the author present Lord of the Flies in a way that would support Lockes or Hobbes views on humanity?

xolik · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2006, 11:31:07 PM »

It's a bunch of kids stuck on an island. You're reading too deep into it.

Oh, and are you tring to get us to do your homework for you?

Mikekillerus · « **Reply #2 on:** December 18, 2006, 11:36:00 PM »

Actually, i just want a start on my homework. the assignment is to actually write why it is. that is why i hate english classes. Its so much BS and to much analyzing. How do we even know the author wanted to portray it so deeply. And here we are, analyzing everything. We even got on the subject that Simon represents Jesus, and some good points were brought up

Chris · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2006, 01:28:23 AM »

Quote from: Mikekillerus on December 18, 2006, 11:36:00 PM

Actually, i just want a start on my homework. the assignment is to actually write why it is. that is why i hate english classes. Its so much BS and to much analyzing. How do we even know the author wanted to portray it so deeply. And here we are, analyzing everything. We even got on the subject that Simon represents Jesus, and some good points were brought up

I've always thought the same thing about that and other works students spend months on in high school English classes. Honestly, is it rational to think that William Golding really thought of all of this still before/during the composition of the book?

BizB · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:31:22 AM »

Lord of the flies sucked! There was no polar bear, no Others, no black cloud, etc. Need I say more?

ivan · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2006, 11:41:27 AM »

What are Locke's and Hobbes' views on humanity?

BizB · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2006, 12:35:56 PM »

I think Locke is probably just glad to be able to walk again. Humanity must leave a completely different taste in his mouth after being stranded on the island with a polar bear, a black cloud, an underground complex, a french woman, a priest who isn't a priest, a drug addicted rock-n-roll guy, blah blah blah.

Hobbes, on the other hand, probably sees humanity from the view of a 6 year old boy's stuffed animal. That must be nice.

ivan · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2006, 12:51:48 PM »

I was pondering the idea of humanity leaving a taste in one's mouth, as juxtaposed with the concept of being stranded on an island with a French woman, and found the concept intriguing. But then I remembered the polar bear and reached for the mouthwash.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2006, 03:41:25 PM »

I absolutely hate people who overanalyze things to death. I mean, I've talked for hours with people about things in Fight Club, but that's by choice...I think people should be free to go crazy on things that THEY care about, and fuck what some old dead dudes said about a mouldy old book. I could write a book's worth of material analyzing every facet of...God I don't know...the 'Spongebob Squarepants' where I would give opinions culled from every philosopher from Nietzsche to Calvin, but that doesn't make it sophisticated, or worth reading.

BizB · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2006, 04:03:37 PM »

I just watched the original movie of Lord Of The Flies and I have to say, I was impressed. I wasn't impressed because of the cinematography or the special effects, but by the story telling.

The first 5 minutes of the movie is still pictures of airplanes and war with some background music. Then, we're introduced to Piggy and Ralph on the beach (Ralph goes skinny dipping!) If they were to remake that movie today, I'm sure there would be a billion dollars spent to recreate the WWII era plane and the crash and the first 90 minutes of the movie would be about what the director imagines must have happened on the plane before it crashed. 20 minutes would be spent on the book and then 90 minutes would be spent telling of the one boy's longing to be touched by Ralph.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:20:47 PM »

This comes down to issues of authority and who decides on what something means. (Is there one true meaning?)

Just spent a semester doing this, and the final is due Thursday. Maybe I'll discuss it later.

xolik · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:08:51 PM »

Jack kicks ass.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2006, 07:56:29 PM »

Quote from: Mikekillerus on December 18, 2006, 11:27:50 PM

In your opnion, does the author present Lord of the Flies in a way that would support Lockes or Hobbes views on humanity?

Neither. Golding obviously supported the FSM's view on humanity.

PyroFX · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2007, 12:30:00 PM »

Quote

Lord of the flies sucked! There was no polar bear, no Others, no black cloud, etc. Need I say more?

Polar bears? I'm reminded of the His Dark Materials trilogy.... and Animal Planet. As for the former, good books, there. Others are replaced by the church and black cloud... um, well, one of the main characters is from Oxford. Plus some gypsies, daemons, wars within wars, etc.

Apollyon · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2007, 02:17:52 PM »

I think the author got an idea for a book and then sat down and wrote it

What happened to the good old days when teachers made us pick a book and write a report on it? Its like my english teacher this year who had our class sit down and debate on in issue. The debate would have been fine, I like a good debate. However, she chose the topics, and she chose which side of the issue we were on. How do you have a good debate when you don't agree with or care about the topic you have to debate on?

BizB · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2007, 03:15:17 PM »

Welcome to the world of thought. She's challenging you to actually do something beyond write down your thoughts/opinions.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2007, 03:46:15 PM »

Sounds like a good teacher to me. Teaching perspective.

Apollyon · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2007, 04:08:33 PM »

I get the idea that we are supposed to see things through other people's eyes, but why can't we support our own opinion? The debate would be much more meaningful if we could support something we believed in.

Quote from: BizB on January 18, 2007, 03:15:17 PM

Welcome to the world of thought. She's challenging you to actually do something beyond write down your thoughts/opinions.

and are you saying that supporting your own opinion does not take thought? I'm not talking about simply stating your opinion, I'm talking about fighting with facts, persuading, trying to make other people believe in you and stand behind you. There is no way this takes less thought than debating something you don't believe in. Also, wouldn't you put more effort and thought into the matter if you believed in what you were saying?
I guess it is a good idea though, to teach perspective like this. It would have been better if this would have been one of several debates throughout the year, debates that you could support your opinion in. Maybe she could have had one where everyone picked their side on an issue and then made you switch your side and protect it. As I said, I always like a good debate

BizB · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2007, 04:22:48 PM »

Quote from: Apollyon on January 18, 2007, 04:08:33 PM

I get the idea that we are supposed to see things through other people's eyes, but why can't we support our own opinion? The debate would be much more meaningful if we could support something we believed in.

The best debaters (purposely not called 'master') are able to debate any number of sides of a given argument. You can't defeat a point if you don't anticipate that point in your preparation - unless you resort to "God said so and that's all I need! And this lamp."

Quote

and are you saying that supporting your own opinion does not take thought?

My argument is more that it takes more effort on your part to present a position that you don't support and make a convincing case.

Quote

I'm not talking about simply stating your opinion, I'm talking about fighting with facts, persuading, trying to make other people believe in you and stand behind you.

If you can accomplish that for a topic/standpoint that you don't believe in, doesn't that say more than having the ability to make someone believe something about which you are passionate?

Quote

There is no way this takes less thought than debating something you don't believe in. Also, wouldn't you put more effort and thought into the matter if you believed in what you were saying?

No. That's my point, exactly. The amount of effort required to convince someone of something about which you don't believe far exceeds the amount of effort required to accumulate the ammunition that you'd need to convince someone of your actual beliefs and opinions.

Quote

I guess it is a good idea though, to teach perspective like this. It would have been better if this would have been one of several debates throughout the year, debates that you could support your opinion in. Maybe she could have had one where everyone picked their side on an issue and then made you switch your side and protect it. As I said, I always like a good debate

Perhaps she's too busy teaching to the standardized tests requirements imposed by the state/feds to be able to have this type of flexibility.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2007, 04:25:11 PM »

Quote from: Apollyon on January 18, 2007, 02:17:52 PM

How do you have a good debate when you don't agree with or care about the topic you have to debate on?

It's the mark of a good debater that they don't have to believe in the viewpoint yet can debate it well anyway. I personally love debating in favour of creationism, despite the fact that I think it's a pile of shit.

Apollyon · « **Reply #20 on:** January 19, 2007, 01:03:54 AM »

Alright, you got me.
I still think its better to debate with what you believe in, but I guess it would take more effort to debate on something you don't believe in. However knowing what the other side is going to say and having a smart comeback to it is also a part of debating.

By the way why do you debate for creationism when your against it?

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #21 on:** January 19, 2007, 01:25:46 AM »

Because it is for me an excellent opportunity to show my mental dexterity (and often my opponent's lack thereof) in proving the point of something I know to be completely daffy.

Apollyon · « **Reply #22 on:** January 19, 2007, 01:35:43 AM »

But who do you debate with I mean, I don't suppose you get that opportunity often.
Its kind of hard to find a good chance to debate lately. Too many people follow the leader like stupid sheep... dissapointing

TheJudge · « **Reply #23 on:** January 19, 2007, 08:18:01 AM »

That's why we have the intraweb!

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #24 on:** January 19, 2007, 08:52:19 AM »

Quote from: Apollyon on January 19, 2007, 01:35:43 AM

Too many people follow the leader like stupid sheep... dissapointing

Breaking their fragile ties to reality is also a fun pastime of mine.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: For people that read Lord of the Flies (Read 8251 times)