Sunday, August 14, 2011
Can Justice and Mercy Co-exist?
I feel that Mercy and Justice can co-exist, unlike what Portia claims in the Merchant of Venice. What Portia said was not true, and she only said that so as to persuade Shylock to forgive Antonio and give the judge more reason to support Antonio. If we look at the trial from a neutral’s perspective, what Portia did was unfair and although was because of mercy, it had no justice.
If this trial were to be judged entirely on justice and mercy, Antonio would have to give the pound of flesh to Shylock, in which the latter was in the right.
First of all, Antonio agreed to the bond and should not be pleading for forgiveness just because he wants to protect his life.
Secondly, Shylock has been insulted by Antonio before and if Shylock were to get justice, Antonio would have to be punished either way. Justice and mercy can co-exist together whenever judging a crime or sin or anything at all.
Justice can exist at all times, but there are a number of factors that determine whether mercy can exist. For example, the severity of the crime.
For example, if a boy steals something from a shop, he should be punished based on justice. But through mercy, he can have his punishment lightened, and instead of going to jail, can just be imposed with a fine. But if the crime committed is much heavier, such as murder, then it is up to the victim’s family to decide on the mercy.
This factor would be the something like the decision of the victim’s family. Another factor would be the intention of the crime. For example, if someone wants to help another person but ends up committing a crime, he should be forgiven based on mercy, although this act does not fully uphold justice.
This factor is related to the factor of the ‘committer’s past history’. If someone who has never committed a crime before is accused, he should be forgiven based on mercy and if the evidence is supporting him. However, if someone like a serial killer is suddenly accused of killing someone, yet only some evidence points to him, he should be punished if not jailed, based on justice and modern intelligence and a little bit of mercy.
The final factor would be the committer’s relation to the victim. If a stranger kills a person, the committer would most likely be guilty. However, if someone kills a close relative suddenly for no reason, he should be interrogated and put to jail or this case should be taken to court instead of immediately punishing the committer.
In conclusion, I feel that justice and mercy can co-exist, but there would be a balance between justice and mercy, and that they must be based on the above factors or more.
Do you think that Shakespeare is biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in The Merchant of Venice?
Do you think that Shakespeare is biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in The Merchant of Venice?
I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in the Merchant of Venice. While he portrayed Shylock as a mean, cruel and greedy Jew who was out for Antonio’s blood, he gave adequate reason to explain why Shylock had this personality, as Antonio was racist towards him and personally insulted him before. Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, who is also a Jew, is unlike Shylock, and is even ashamed of being his son and vows not to turn out like her full-of-hatred father. Antonio, seems like a decent man at the start of the book but later, is revealed by shylock to be a racist Christian who looks down on shylock and insults him with hurtful remarks. Thus, based on the saying that “nobody is perfect”, I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in M.O.V. as he shows both the positive and negatives sides of the characters.
I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in the Merchant of Venice. While he portrayed Shylock as a mean, cruel and greedy Jew who was out for Antonio’s blood, he gave adequate reason to explain why Shylock had this personality, as Antonio was racist towards him and personally insulted him before. Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, who is also a Jew, is unlike Shylock, and is even ashamed of being his son and vows not to turn out like her full-of-hatred father. Antonio, seems like a decent man at the start of the book but later, is revealed by shylock to be a racist Christian who looks down on shylock and insults him with hurtful remarks. Thus, based on the saying that “nobody is perfect”, I feel that Shakespeare is not biased in terms of the portrayal of the main characters in M.O.V. as he shows both the positive and negatives sides of the characters.
Term 3 Week 4 (Blogging Assignment)
You are required to respond to one of the questions in the Anti-Semitism handout. The question is as follows:
What do you think is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? Support your opinion with examples.
I think Shakespeare’s intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was to reveal the racism towards Jews and hopefully give the people in his time reason to stop being racist against the latter, with Shylock representing the Jew in his time.
Shylock is supposedly the antagonist in M.OV, yet his hatred and ruthlessness towards Antonio is understandable if viewed from a neutral’s perspective.
Shakespeare makes Shylock seem like a cruel, evil, greedy and money-minded Jew who is out for Antonio’s blood and his pound of flesh, yet also shows Shylock’s weaker side, the reason for his hatred towards Antonio.
Shylock explains in some parts of the book, that he hates Antonio as Antonio has personally insulted him several times just because Shylock is a Jew, such as calling Shylock a “devil” and a “cut-throat dog”, criticizing Shylock for lending money at interest and lending out money without charging interest himself so as to reduce Shylock’s profits. Antonio also hates Jews.
This is why Shylock hates Antonio so much, and when Antonio is out of money buts wants to help Bassanio woo Portia, Shylock seizes this opportunity to get revenge against Antonio, and lends Antonio a loan on the condition that if he is unable to return the money on time, Shylock has the right to cut off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, near his heart, knowing that Antonio definitely would not be able to return the money on time as his ships are facing the dangers at sea.
Although Shylock may seem cruel and bloodthirsty in this scene, wanting to torture and kill Antonio by cutting off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, he has understandable to do so as he has suffered the racism of being a Jew, especially after Antonio repeatedly insulted him personally.
Later on in the book, in the trial, Shylock again, faces unfairness as Portia persuades him to forgive Antonio and persuades the judge to decide based on mercy and not justice, which is not actually fair towards Shylock but is allowed in this trial as the judge too, wants Shylock to forgive Antonio, and even pleads for this indirectly.
In the end, Shylock faces unfairness once again as he did not managed to get that one-pound of flesh off Antonio’s chest.
What do you think is Shakespeare's intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice? Support your opinion with examples.
I think Shakespeare’s intention of creating Shylock in The Merchant of Venice was to reveal the racism towards Jews and hopefully give the people in his time reason to stop being racist against the latter, with Shylock representing the Jew in his time.
Shylock is supposedly the antagonist in M.OV, yet his hatred and ruthlessness towards Antonio is understandable if viewed from a neutral’s perspective.
Shakespeare makes Shylock seem like a cruel, evil, greedy and money-minded Jew who is out for Antonio’s blood and his pound of flesh, yet also shows Shylock’s weaker side, the reason for his hatred towards Antonio.
Shylock explains in some parts of the book, that he hates Antonio as Antonio has personally insulted him several times just because Shylock is a Jew, such as calling Shylock a “devil” and a “cut-throat dog”, criticizing Shylock for lending money at interest and lending out money without charging interest himself so as to reduce Shylock’s profits. Antonio also hates Jews.
This is why Shylock hates Antonio so much, and when Antonio is out of money buts wants to help Bassanio woo Portia, Shylock seizes this opportunity to get revenge against Antonio, and lends Antonio a loan on the condition that if he is unable to return the money on time, Shylock has the right to cut off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, near his heart, knowing that Antonio definitely would not be able to return the money on time as his ships are facing the dangers at sea.
Although Shylock may seem cruel and bloodthirsty in this scene, wanting to torture and kill Antonio by cutting off a pound of flesh from Antonio’s chest, he has understandable to do so as he has suffered the racism of being a Jew, especially after Antonio repeatedly insulted him personally.
Later on in the book, in the trial, Shylock again, faces unfairness as Portia persuades him to forgive Antonio and persuades the judge to decide based on mercy and not justice, which is not actually fair towards Shylock but is allowed in this trial as the judge too, wants Shylock to forgive Antonio, and even pleads for this indirectly.
In the end, Shylock faces unfairness once again as he did not managed to get that one-pound of flesh off Antonio’s chest.
Term 3 Week 4 (Blogging Assignment)
Read the following Newsweek article, How to Raise a Global Kid, byLisa Miller (July 18, 2011)
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/american-kids-immersed-in-chinese-asian-education.print.html
What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.
Jim Roger’s main argument is that parents should not focus so much on raising their children up to be "brave, curious, hardworking, and compassionate" but rather raise them up and teach them to be “Global kids” who are able to view things with a global perspective, and are able to reach out to people of all languages.
He uses his daughter as an example, who is a blonde American who knows how to speak mandarin and understands the need for it, saying that it would make her “better and smarter.”
As China is becoming the world’s powerhouse in the 21st century’s economy and the many years to come, Jim Rogers and many other Americans are making their children learn the Chinese language and learning it themselves so as to be able to communicate with the Chinese if they ever have the opportunity to do business with them in the future. Some Americans, like Jim Rogers, deliberately employ Asian nannies so as to let their children naturally grow up speaking mandarin in ‘mandarin-speaking environment”.
Asia too, not only China, is rising up in the world. Countries like Japan, Korea, and even Singapore, are advancing in technology, business, service and many other fields. Jim Rogers and some other Americans can see this, although most Americans are still so arrogant that they don’t realize Asia is catching up with America, if not already overtaken them. Jim Rogers stated that, “ We think we’re (America) the world leader. But we’re not.” recognizing that America may no longer be or is already no longer the world’s strongest country, after Asia has caught up.
I agree with his argument. Even as a student, I can see that China is rising up in the world’s economy, advancing in technology, business, and many other fields, overtaking many European countries and maybe even America. Japan has also become one of the most advanced countries in the world. Japan is well known for its peoples’ high degree of discipline and politeness, and is now probably the best in the world in technology. China is rapidly urbanizing too, transforming rural villages into modern cities where everyone is rushing and working hard. As we can see from the article “How to raise a Global Kid” and many other real life examples, Asia is rapidly growing stronger and beginning to dominate the world’s economy and thus more Americas are seeing the need for their younger generation to learn mandarin so as to be able to communicate and work with the Asians in the near future.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/american-kids-immersed-in-chinese-asian-education.print.html
What is the main argument Jim Rogers is trying to make in this article? Do you agree with his argument? Justify.
Jim Roger’s main argument is that parents should not focus so much on raising their children up to be "brave, curious, hardworking, and compassionate" but rather raise them up and teach them to be “Global kids” who are able to view things with a global perspective, and are able to reach out to people of all languages.
He uses his daughter as an example, who is a blonde American who knows how to speak mandarin and understands the need for it, saying that it would make her “better and smarter.”
As China is becoming the world’s powerhouse in the 21st century’s economy and the many years to come, Jim Rogers and many other Americans are making their children learn the Chinese language and learning it themselves so as to be able to communicate with the Chinese if they ever have the opportunity to do business with them in the future. Some Americans, like Jim Rogers, deliberately employ Asian nannies so as to let their children naturally grow up speaking mandarin in ‘mandarin-speaking environment”.
Asia too, not only China, is rising up in the world. Countries like Japan, Korea, and even Singapore, are advancing in technology, business, service and many other fields. Jim Rogers and some other Americans can see this, although most Americans are still so arrogant that they don’t realize Asia is catching up with America, if not already overtaken them. Jim Rogers stated that, “ We think we’re (America) the world leader. But we’re not.” recognizing that America may no longer be or is already no longer the world’s strongest country, after Asia has caught up.
I agree with his argument. Even as a student, I can see that China is rising up in the world’s economy, advancing in technology, business, and many other fields, overtaking many European countries and maybe even America. Japan has also become one of the most advanced countries in the world. Japan is well known for its peoples’ high degree of discipline and politeness, and is now probably the best in the world in technology. China is rapidly urbanizing too, transforming rural villages into modern cities where everyone is rushing and working hard. As we can see from the article “How to raise a Global Kid” and many other real life examples, Asia is rapidly growing stronger and beginning to dominate the world’s economy and thus more Americas are seeing the need for their younger generation to learn mandarin so as to be able to communicate and work with the Asians in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)