Slaughterhouse Five Seminar Reflection
1) When Ian made the statement about your life being predetermined and you could alter it within limits, I thought of free will as more of a choice than a decision that would shape your path, because the way I see it now is a preset path that can be altered minimally. The thought that free will doesn’t exist is kind of scary though. It brings up the question of whether or not we have any say of what happens in our life, and I think that because humans are so power hungry and want to be as close to god-like as possible, that maybe this idea of free will was made up to make us feel more powerful, when in essence, if we had free will truly the concept might not have ever been brought up or questioned, because there was no doubt.
2) Before this seminar, I thought that this book was just a book that didn’t take a hard stance on anything and just presented philosophical theories; but now I think that this book is an anti-militarism book that talks about the values and inevitability of our time. The last chapter has a passage that talks about how many people on average are born and die each day, and that by a certain year, and overwhelming population will inhabit the earth. By including this passage, Vonnegut implies that war can be seen as population control. By also questioning our idea of free will, he implies that our life is predetermined, and that this war is inevitable. What I take from those two passages are that, in blunt terms, war will be happening anyways so we might as well put it to good use. I realize that this is kind of an extremist take on both this book and the war, but this book’s ideas and theories are so extreme that it cannot be helped.
3) During this seminar, when we were discussing free will, I connected to Brave New World, and how their free will compared to Slaughterhouse Five’s. We were arguing that there was no free will in Vonnegut’s novel, that there was something predetermined, but in Huxley’s novel, there was a pre-determined destiny, but it was determined by other people. This brings up the question of whether or not there is free will in the first place or if there is and it was simply taken away. It also made me wonder how the savages will compare to those of society’s norms in BNW, and how the savages compared to Vonnegut’s society, Billy Pilgrim specifically. I think that the only connection between these two stories is the questioning of free will, because either version of what is being perceived as free will in each story is completely different.
4) In this seminar, I think I improved substantially in the communication area from the last seminar. I didn’t dominate the discussion, and I also helped move it along, discussing different ideas or moving on from a kind of repetitive area. I think that what I need to improve on from this discussion is using outside connections. I don’t think I have ever used an outside connection or realized this because I was so focused on not monopolizing the conversations, which I finally did! In order to include outside connections in the future, I think that if we are in the middle of a question during the seminar, and not a lot is being said, that, if it is relevant, I can bring in an experience and see if that goes anywhere, but if it doesn’t, I might wait until something is too closely related to what we are talking about to not share.
2) Before this seminar, I thought that this book was just a book that didn’t take a hard stance on anything and just presented philosophical theories; but now I think that this book is an anti-militarism book that talks about the values and inevitability of our time. The last chapter has a passage that talks about how many people on average are born and die each day, and that by a certain year, and overwhelming population will inhabit the earth. By including this passage, Vonnegut implies that war can be seen as population control. By also questioning our idea of free will, he implies that our life is predetermined, and that this war is inevitable. What I take from those two passages are that, in blunt terms, war will be happening anyways so we might as well put it to good use. I realize that this is kind of an extremist take on both this book and the war, but this book’s ideas and theories are so extreme that it cannot be helped.
3) During this seminar, when we were discussing free will, I connected to Brave New World, and how their free will compared to Slaughterhouse Five’s. We were arguing that there was no free will in Vonnegut’s novel, that there was something predetermined, but in Huxley’s novel, there was a pre-determined destiny, but it was determined by other people. This brings up the question of whether or not there is free will in the first place or if there is and it was simply taken away. It also made me wonder how the savages will compare to those of society’s norms in BNW, and how the savages compared to Vonnegut’s society, Billy Pilgrim specifically. I think that the only connection between these two stories is the questioning of free will, because either version of what is being perceived as free will in each story is completely different.
4) In this seminar, I think I improved substantially in the communication area from the last seminar. I didn’t dominate the discussion, and I also helped move it along, discussing different ideas or moving on from a kind of repetitive area. I think that what I need to improve on from this discussion is using outside connections. I don’t think I have ever used an outside connection or realized this because I was so focused on not monopolizing the conversations, which I finally did! In order to include outside connections in the future, I think that if we are in the middle of a question during the seminar, and not a lot is being said, that, if it is relevant, I can bring in an experience and see if that goes anywhere, but if it doesn’t, I might wait until something is too closely related to what we are talking about to not share.