Argumentative Essay

Personal privacy and space is never granted throughout 1984. Every person is always subject to observation, even by their own family members and friends. Furthermore, since Big Brother is always watching and the Thought Police are always on the lookout, it is impossible for any kind of individualism to flourish. The sacrifice of individual rights cannot be constituted by the protection of a collective.

In 1984 by George Orwell, the citizens of Oceania have quite obviously given their individual rights to a higher entity in exchange for protection as a collective, not a person. These citizens are under constant surveillance, even in their own homes and thoughts, by the government, through “telescreens.” These citizens are also monitored by their own children and several government agencies. When an individual has negative thoughts about Big Brother, the personification, or face, of the government, they are taken to the ministry of love, where they are “convinced” of Big Brother’s righteousness, occasionally under the gentle touch of torture.  The citizens of Oceania are plagued with frequent power outages, which do not affect the telescreens, little food, and other issues; however, since Big Brother withholds the information that things could be better, as they once were, and that it has the citizens best interests at heart, they do nothing. The government often sacrifices a person to save the collective, and itself.

In the case of Katz v. US, extended 4^th amendment rights were extended to include objects of immaterial state obtained via technological means (Justia Law). This applies to information sent over the internet, such as instant messages, emails, and search queries. To obtain this information without a warrant is made illegal by this Supreme Court decision.

The word “individual” appears to be quite similar to the word “indivisible,” implying that to be one’s self, one must be inseparable from one’s self.  If this is truly the meaning of the word, then does individualism exist in the world of 1984, as evidenced by Winston’s submissiveness to “the Party,” or is it that individualism has fully escaped that world in such a way that one is separable from one’s self? If so, are the citizens of Oceania still human, or have they simply become part of the collective machine that fuels “the Party”?

Bibliography:

"Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)." Justia Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2015.

Seminar Reflection #4

      The seminar did little to influence my perceptions of "The kite runner." One thing that was of particular curiosity was the discussion of  the importance of one's own father in one's life, and the difference such a presence, or lack there of, could inflict upon one's life.  I found it quite inquisitive that the other members of the discussion placed such value on such a presence, and whispered quiet traces of malice for the lack of such presence. Many of them also felt that the success of one's life is directly tied to this presence, an opinion that is, in practice, quite incorrect. The success of one's life is not determined by the presence of another being, but by the individual's choice to be successful, or an abhorred failure. For some persons, they do not wish to make this choice, and instead to blame their misdeeds, and lack of success, on others, whether it be a failure of action or mind, when it is solely their responsibility for those actions that they have caused to transpire, for by not choosing one is choosing to fail, and it is imperative that this fact, not opinion as those misguided peers so willingly spake, be held at the forefront of social interactions, for when one chooses to grant the opinions of other a great weight in their mind, they are choosing a course of pain, and failure. For instance, the solution to oral and cyber bullying is, in fact, quite simple compared to the multitude of proposed means many individuals ignorant in the subject propose. The perception of only one party being at fault in such deliberations inhabits the genesis of these false perceptions. There are indeed two parties at fault in these unfortunate incidents, the original aggressor, the "bully," and what most people consider the "victim." The "bully" is at fault for being the -- perceived -- instigator of such incidents, as is commonly accepted; however, what is uncommonly accepted by the general populace is the "victim's" own guilt in these incidents, no matter how unfortunate. This guilt stems from a choice made by the "victim," a choice that ultimately determines whether or not any mental stress or pain is gained, or afflicted, respectively, unto the "victim." This choice can be stated as thus: is this being's opinion of any importance? If the "victim" simply answers "no," then the "incident", or at the very least future "incidents," no longer increase the burden upon the "victim's" soul; in truth, they become quite trivial. If the "victim" answers "yes," then the responsibility of such pain as is inflicted falls upon the shoulders of the "bully" and the "victim." Now, if what the "bully" states is indeed a fact, and not an opinion, then denial of such a fact evolves from the denial of reality, something that is considered in today's society as a mental health disorder. This disorder is most commonly used as a "defense mechanism" against an event that posses enough traumatizing power to break the individual's mind. Bullying in itself cannot be the cause of this, for the above proposed solution quickly and effectively eliminates it, but it is not the lack of a presence that was aforementioned. For the individual's mind to break from this lacking need, the individual must have chosen to accept that presence as a necessity, instead of perceiving ther life from a more objective, self-serving focal point, thus implying that human compassion, and willingness to aid and interact with others, is the source of such pain, thus generating a larger spread of itself.

     Calm discussion worked best for the seminar. There was neither fighting nor displays of anger. This produced a continuously smooth conversation that allowed the staggeringly slow generation of new concepts and ideas.

     People could attend to the provided task.