Am I a Transcendentalist?

From what I understand, transcendentalism is a religious movement that took place during the early to mid 1800s in the United States. At the core of this movement is the belief that there is an inherent goodness in people, and that in order to find this purity we must look deep inside ourselves. Transcendentalists also believe that society and its institutions corrupt people, and that individuals who are self-reliant and independent must work to create a community in which everyone can be their own self without the evils of society.

I feel that there is a natural goodness in everyone, but I also believe that, for lack of better phrasing, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Essentially, there is also natural meanness in everyone as well. We are luckily evolved enough to realize that this nastiness is not well received by others, and therefore attempt to hide it deep inside ourselves.

This corresponds with the one big problem that I have with transcendentalism: the idea that society corrupts the individual. Individuals created society. If there is nothing but goodness and purity in individuals, society should be pure by default. In order to create an environment that is supposed to be so awful, wouldn't the people creating it have to have a bit of awfulness in themselves? Transcendentalism is a great idea, it makes us feel good to know that it's not our fault when we do something bad; that it's the environment we're in that influences our bad choices. But this is not the reality.

Gatsby the Great

There is an overzealous use of motifs and symbolism in both the novel and the movie. It is my opinion that Fitzgerald was focusing on quantity over quality while writing The Great Gatsby. There are several "symbols" that never seem to be given any significant meaning and distract from legitimate symbols and motifs that contribute to the overall purpose of the book. While in the novel I would consider this a stylistic flaw, I believe that Luhrmann stacked the film with symbols to mock Fitzgerald's carelessness.

While there are many similarities between the novel and the movie, there are glaring differences; the most obvious being the way in which Nick tells the story. In the novel, Fitzgerald does not give the time at which Nick his account of Gatsby and grand setting. The reader simply slips into the book, only aware of the fact that Nick is the narrator. In the film however, Luhrmann creates an equally elaborate time in the present as he does in the history of Nick's story.

Gun Control and Fear Control

It seems that the American mindset is that if there is a threat or a fear, protect yourself with a gun. But why? Wouldn't stashing a handgun in the linen closet create opportunity for more threats and cause more fear? Michael Moore attempts to make the audience aware of Americans' overzealous use of guns in his 2002 documentary, Bowling for Columbine.

At the forefront of Moore's persuasive tactics are the number of school shootings throughout the United States. He presented the audience with stories of Columbine, Flint, and an overall American climate of fear. To explore this fear, Moore went to Canada to see if it was strictly home to America -- it was. While Canada is home to more guns than the United States, there are shockingly fewer murders. In one interview, a Canada resident hypothesized that this was because the Americans are afraid of their neighbors while Canadians are more trusting.

But is it a matter of trust? Some say it their social responsibility to carry a gun. And keep it loaded and stashed under their pillow. Moore made a great use of people with similar views in order to create an image of an aggressive America. A short clip of Chris Rock stating that we don't need more gun control, but rather more bullet control also supports this image. Whether it be gun control, bullet control, or fear control; Moore's message is clear; something needs to change.