Leader: Do this. Follower: Yes. Leader: Do that. Follower: Yes. ….. *Leader dies*. Follower: Now what?

Think of your family as a totalitarian government. Your mom and dad are the co-dictators. You, a simple proletariat are merely a shadow. Your subservience keeps you alive. Disobey–and be prepared to pay the consequences. Obviously, not all families are similar to totalitarian governments. However, in most families, the child or children listen to their parents–most of the time.

If our parents suddenly disappeared, what would we do? Where would we get our sense of direction? Who would tell us when it was time to get off of the computer? Who would make us clean our rooms? Would we be able to function without them?

This situation resembles the condition of the Incan Civilization when the Spanish conquistadores invaded their homeland. As soon their leader was captured, no one knew how to act. They never had freedom—at least our perception of freedom. They had been passive and obedient for their entire life. They were incapable of making individual decisions. Mario Vargas Llosa calls it a state of “selfless obedience”.

In “We”, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, the Benefactor is the dictator. Each year, he is unanimously voted as the leader of the One State, on a day appropriately named Unanimity day. The Benefactor makes the rules, tells people what to do, and oversees the dystopian society. If the Benefactor was to suddenly disappear, chaos would ensue.

People talk about free will and freedom, but do they really know what they are asking for? Everybody needs direction, but to what extent? That is what distinguishes freedom from oppression. If you were to let anybody do whatever he or she pleased, surely you would end up with anarchy. If you were given a totalitarian society, everyone would conform to the dictator. In my opinion, a functional, equal, pragmatic society is one where there are a number of rulers, a middle class, and a lower class.

I believe that if the Incan civilization was built on these foundations, the conquistadores would have had a demanding task. The Incans had the clear advantage in numbers; the Spanish would not have stood a chance even with their superior weaponry. However, the ultimate cause is the Incan’s lack of “individual sovereignty”. They lacked self-determination unlike the Spanish. The Spanish had fought against their fellow men, all because they wanted a change. They believed in a cause, and collectively, they fought for that cause.

The Incans were not used to this much individual freedom. They were not a backwards society by any regard. It was more of a case of self-determination. “The individual could not morally question the social organism of which he was a part, because he existed only as an integral atom of that organism and because for him the dictates of the state could not be separated from morality”. To change the Incans mindset from follower to self-ruler would change the outcome of the conquistadors’ adventures, essentially changing the course of history.

So next time you wish you didn’t have parents, ask yourself—maybe you should think again.

Free Will –> Fate?

Bordering Mr. Clinton’s desk is a bulletin board. On the bulletin board read two words. “Fate” and “Free Will”. There are no pictures–no bullet-points that provide a definition. The words simply rest on the bulletin board, open to all types of interpretation. Personally, I believe the two are intertwined.

When I think of fate, I think of predestination. People believe that fate determines their entire life. Fate is rigid, it is incontrovertible. If I were fated to become a doctor, I would become a doctor. However, I am one of the many non-believers of fate. Rather, I am a skeptic of flawless arrangements. There are always outside forces that interfere and hinder one’s fate. I’ll refer back to the doctor argument; say a pre-med student is studying for his final medical exam. If he passes, he receives his PhD. If he fails, he would have wasted a valuable amount of time in medical school. The majority of his friends are not pre-med students, and finished their graduation ceremony in the morning. Tonight was the party of all parties, to signify the end of a grueling 4 years in undergraduate school. This is where free will plays its part in fate. The student can either attend the party, or study for his exam the next morning. This is a very rudimentary example of free will determining “fate”.

Evidently, there is no such thing as fate. Surely we all have a high probability to do certain things in life, but that does not mean that we are fated to do it. Anything can be affected by change, no safe haven exists, and nothing is definite. If outside factors do not influence our “fate”, free will shall affect us.

Our definition of “free will” has changed significantly over the years. Free will used to simply refer to equality. Does a mailman have the same opportunity as a banker? Are different classes in society restricted by their superiors?

I believe that free will currently encompasses those ideas and more. A truly controversial topic is the free will of slum children. The following is a conversation between a student and a strong believer of fate:

Student: Do slum children have free will? Are they free to do whatever they please?
Believer: Surely they are free in that regard, but that is not what free will represents.
S: So then what is free will?
B: Free will is the privilege of having the opportunity to gain an education, earn a living, and raise a family as an AES student would?
B: Of course not, they live in the slums, there is no education there.
S: But why are they in the slum?
B: Because they were born there.
S: Well why were they born there?
B: It was fate.

Are slum children fated to be uneducated, poor people? Of course not, but the majority are because of the lack of free will.

In an ideal society, everybody would have free will and therefore, would be able to determine their fate. In the story We, the population of the One State do not have free will. The Benefactor, the ruler of the One State, predetermines their fate. The protagonist, D-503 develops a soul, and therefore the necessity to determine his own fate. Similarly, I-330, believes that we must not succumb to fate. We determine our future, we control ourselves, and we control our fate. Without free will, we lose our individuality. In the One State, nobody has free will. They all take orders from the One State, and are a group of followers rather than a group of individuals.

As human beings, we cherish our individuality and diversity. What would the world be like if we were all the same, if all our fates pointed in the same direction? If we as humans are to create an ideal society, we must provide everyone with free will.

William Zinsser: Writing English As a Second Language

English is my first language, so this article does not completely apply to me. However, it raises a number of points that I agree with. As William Zinsser points out, “what’s considered good writing in Spanish is not good writing in English”. As a Spanish student for the past 3 years, I have realized that I don’t necessarily write in Spanish. This isn’t to say that I write my Spanish papers in English, it means that I don’t write as a native Spanish speaker would. A native Spanish speaker would use numerous nouns to express a single emotion or expression, whereas I would simply stick to a single noun. One would think that I’d be the better writer, because I would be expressing myself succinctly, but this is a common misconception. I would certainly be the better English writer, but as a Spanish writer my writing would be colorless. When it comes to my Spanish essays or even oral presentations, I tend to organize my ideas in English, and then translate those concepts into Spanish. Zinnser’s article showed me how wrong my methodology is.

Zinsser’s perspective of long Latin words corresponds with my observations of how modern-day English has become so convoluted. Nowadays, people strongly believe that by using long and complex words, they sound smarter. I guarantee that at least one article in any international newspaper will have an article with language that perfectly fits Zinsser’s description of how Latin words “strangle and suffocate”.
I myself am guilty to that flaw of modern-day English. I thought that using “Latin words” would make me sound smarter than those who used brief or simple words. I remember going through the dictionary and thesaurus regularly, looking for complex, “smart” words to replace my “dumb” ones.
Thankfully, my perspective changed over time. While writing my articles for Talons Post last year, I would always stop and think to myself, “there must be a way to explain this concisely”. I forced myself to break away from my thesaurus addiction and returned to my previous method of writing. Sometimes I still feel that I don’t use enough explanatory words in my writing and I go back to the thesaurus, but I try not to go overboard with pretentious words every few sentences.

I don’t consider myself to be a passive writer. I like to believe that my sentences are fairly to the point, and that I use active verbs as frequently as I can. While studying the SAT this summer, the grammar section highlighted the difference between passive and active writing. In the case of the SAT, a sentence with a passive voice would be marked incorrect on the grammar portion. For that reason, I was able to identify with Zinsser’s viewpoint on passive writing. I agree, passive writing weakens and lengthens the point your trying to make. Hopefully, I can stay away from these unconscious habits of the modern-day English writer throughout the course of these two years and beyond.

Welcome to my Blog

Welcome to my Blog. Feel free to comment on and view my various posts.

Thanks,

Gautam

Hello world!

Welcome to The Literature Machine Sites. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!