A Life Choice

When I was younger I had many ideas on what I wanted to be when I grew up. But the biggest one to me was on being a doctor. I thought growing up to be a doctor would be easy all I have to do is go to school for a couple of years and graduate to get my degree than get hired as a rich doctor. I was so sure that I was going to grow up to be a doctor that I bought books on medical stuff to be ready in collage. But as I got older I realized that there are much more than to going to school to become a doctor.
I realized that to become a doctor you must love your job and not to be in it for the money or you end up being bad at what you and just working for the money. So as I got older I started watching stock shows and I realized that I love math and that stocks or a type of business man would be the right choice for me. So now I study stocks. I plan on going to one of the top collages in the U.S. for business to get a masters in business or a masters in a type of economics.
I guess I can say that this affected me by me studding anatomy for all these years went to waste kind of because I will never need the information that I know about the human body unless I was to become a doctor. I could have use that time to study business or stocks. To me this was life change to be by the amount of money I would be able to make in my future and the amount of money that I would spend on In collage. If I would of became a doctor I would only make around a half a million a years as if I became a CEO of a major company I could make multi-millions every year or month. Plus a doctor works almost every hour of his or her life. I mean you are always on call I think that I made the right choice and that this decision will and can affect my future for life.

1.6.010 Oedipus Part 2 (Free Write)

Yay or Nay to that of Oedipus?

Based on the first portion of the reading I seemed to not just agree with Oedipus on the majority of things but actually took a liking to the way he carried himself and how he ran his kingdom. However, if something seems too good to be true then all to often it turns out that way. I don't think scenario strays from this common opinion. Although I do not favor or support Oedipus any longer I do not think he is all of a sudden the bad guy. It's a two way street should he possibly be characterized as the "new" antagonist not just due to speaking lies, disgrace, and demeaning words to his people and to those close to him. (The main example being Creon), but because if these well-supported accusations are true then the previous antagonist, the killer, never changed. The antagonist was if anything then revealed as a specific character versus the more vague person he/she was described as. The way he handled the fact that he may very well be guilty of this haineous crime opened the possibility of my sympathizing slightly for him. Seriously, it was not his fault that "fate" chose to pick on him and place him with the wrong parents AND decide for him to kill off one of his real ones! Does FATE JUSTIFY murder?! I would like to point out the first thing that came to mind when "FATE" "JUSTICE" & a comparasion to the past and present was made: Religion. Then, "fate" was 99.9% of the time (based on my current knowledge) linked/caused to/by the God's. Would that mean Oedipus might actually be considered innocent or even pitied by his people now? After all, he "Followed orders of the Gods" in a way ; a way he could very well use to his advantage should the accusations turn out to be verified (as I have a funny feeling they will). Then nowadays, religion, STILL a highly controversial topic alone becomes all the more when falling in play with the law. Might have something to do with the fact that I am painfully agnostic but would it not be simple to make up something like "The God's told me to!" if you did something wrong? Could that not have been used in a case such as Oedipus' or in a current day situation? It might not necessarily be the God(s) you use as your alibi/justification but perhaps another religious figure. Tossing religion aside in Oedipus' predicament and the increased possibilities that lie in his hands to worm his way out of something he very well might have done, I STILL emphasize. He comes of as genuinely freaked out about the fact that he might have not just killed his real father but a KING, the KING before he got to take over. Maybe there is more good in him than many might have thought after reading this section. I am however, NOT impressed by how terrible he all of a sudden chose to handle difficulties as soon as they started to hit him in the face. I am disappointed by the big change he went through initially going from handling everything so admirably to making me want to just knock.him.out should I have been Creon. Then again, Creon probably wouldn't whack the King but errr...nevermind. The part that he switched from being appreciated and supported from my end to getting me ticked off at him, his ignorant, close-minded, insaneness sticks out the most to me. I am just realizing how complex of a character he truly is. The beyond freaky family tree romance aspect tossed aside with the family troubles that went on before then, emotionally you can't really peg him as anything specifically yet. He's sort of just as confused as we are at this point!

-Emilie(:

1.5.010 Homework (Oedipus)

The first passage indicating foreshadowing discovered from the Prologue was, “We’re here as suppliants all begging you to find some help for us, either by listening to a heavenly voice, or learning from some other human being.” (41) I think this is specifically hinting the two options King Oedipus has to solve their problem. It struck me as though there weren’t any other choices he was allowed or could make. This could either mean that he would choose one or the other, both, or, to twist the story a bit, go against what is anticipated and decide upon another method to help get their city out of this rut.

The second passage found was, “Don’t let our memory of your ruling here declare that we were first set right again, and later fell. No. Restore our city...” (50) First off, if it was not for the whole “three lines or less” deal I totally would have added the first sentence too. Anyways...This gives the reader different kinds of information as it does not just foreshadow a possible rebellion/revolt, disgrace upon the king his city and his people, loss of power, and maybe even exile or death (hey, anything could happen), but gives us a glance back in time with a flashback indicating Oedipus had done something noble and good enough for them to remember now and expect a continuation. It hints the many negatives that might follow should he not follow through with what the people and city want and need while simultaneously giving him a sort of (really bad) “pep talk”. The priest is basically telling him, you’ve helped us out of some serious...doo-doo before and have won our trust and faith in you...Don’t screw that up.

Lastly, the third passage, “But when I count the days--the time he’s been away--I now worry what he’s doing. For he’s been gone too long, well past the time he should have taken.”(72) This could be nudge-nudge, wink-wink...foreshadow-foreshadow--? (:/) (I’ve used hint too much) --ing a few things. Then again, almost any sentence could go more than one route...such as the unexpected. However, plain and simple, he stated he is worried and the entire passage just gives you this eery feel that something is wrong.

First off, just based on this speech, I think Oedipus is a smart one. He offers more than reasonable solutions and possibilities for the people to do for the good of not just themselves but for the common good of the rest of the citizens, King included, and the city. He also stated these with what seems to be good judgement and maturity. He could have just been like, “Listen up! You people better start talking about who killed whatshisface or you all get to die and we’re doomed.”...But he did not. The speech, even for me, was intriguing and had I been in the place of any of the citizens or even the murderer, yeah, it would take some guts, but I think it’s obvious to just come forward and say what you know, if you know.

Oedipus proposed for anyone who knows any vital information, mainly WHO the murderer and thence the reason for their city’s hell-like stated, is, to come forward. Should they do this, killer included, would nothing bad (apart from the light and ONLY punishment of exile in regards to the murderer) occur. He is asking them out of better judgment, bravery, safety for everyone, himself and the city included, faith, and desire for justice to come forward.

If that does not already say how intelligent, calm, reassuring, fair, good, and decently selflessly (he does not want to die himself so he’s no saint) he approaches justice (the first time around), I do not know what would.

I think it depends a lot on how you define fate personally for you to be able to state how both it and justice co-exist. If you think fate is what is meant to happen then I’d say justice and fate might as well be the same word...if fate is considered a positive thing as justice is (or should be viewed as in all situations). But if you believe fate is more ‘everything happens for a reason’ then it gets tricky. Should a criminal walk free from punishment does that mean justice has been served? Not in my opinion. Yet, with their freedom and knowledge of although they committed a crime they got away with it might they choose to change for the better. Fate is more a game of chance whereas to me, ‘justice needs to be served’.

In this way do I think yeah, if you are lucky or have certain opinions on the takes of both words, you could have both simultaneously (they can coexist).

Wreathed: A curled/circular formation ((most often in regards to a decorative piece) (commonly created with foliage))

Enigmatic: Confusing.

Countenance: Appearance/expression upon a face; support, permittance encouragement, or approval; Composure.

Didn’t read the “300 words or less overall” until, of course, AFTER I was done. Don’t know how to do a “word count”...don’t think I want to either...EEP! *Hangs head in shame beforehand*

-Emilie(:

tues hw

I STRONGLY disagree with Dave and his first question that there are three examples of foreshadowing in the epilogue. if so, please tell me where because i have no idea.
Oedipus’s speech shows his views on punishment for harboring a traitor, killing the king, and knowing information about criminals. He believes that harboring a traitor that has killed the king deserves banishment but if he turns the traitor in he is banished but not harmed at all. For killing the king it is death and death only. The reason for that is because they think death is the worst punishment possible. For knowing information and openly stating them for Oedipus then they will receive his thanks as a reward.
the words below are to answer #3. Question #4 is now #7. All definitions referred from www.dictionary.com
1. howling (line 226) - to produce a howling noise; desolate or dismal.
2. countenance (line 223) - there are several definitions. on is the face, another is apperance, another says approval or favor, and the last one says a calm facial expression; composure.
3.suppliants (line 15) - both definitions say the same thing. They state that a suppliants is “a tragedy”
comment: I do not yet have one. =)

In Ancient Greece the some of the main arts were dram and art like paintings and sculptures. Also some pottery and ceramics. Myron, Phidias, Polyclitus, Praxiteles, Scopas, and Lysippus are some of the most famous artist in Ancient Greece.
Some of the architecture in Greece was dominated by religion and so temples of ancient Greece were the biggest and most beautiful. They also had a political purpose as they were often built to celebrate power and pride, or offer thanksgiving to the patron deity of a city for success in war. So some of the different types of Greek architectural system were called orders, each with their own distinctive proportions and detailing. there were three different types of orders in Ancient Greece called doric, ionic, and corinthian. Doric is were the top is plain and ionic is thinner and more classic. its top is also decorated with a scroll like design, and corinthian has different types of deigns and is mostly a roman template.
In Ancient Greece pottery was important to them for storage. Everything was stored in pottery from wheat to wine. Pottery was made by a wheel. Most of there pottery was known for geometric designs. Their pottery showed there gods and everyday life. Most of their clay was red from iron. The cost of pottery was from one to two drachmas. But with more designs the pottery was more expensive.
The Ancient Greeks love brightly painted pantings. Most of their paintings were mostly made of marble. Fresco was a famous artist in Ancient greece and loved to paint murals on walls. To this day there are few wall murals still up today. Greeks also used titles and rocks of different colors to create floor mosaics. One Mosaic found at Olynthus reportedly cost 3,500 drachmas, or the equivalent of ten years of wages for the average worker. Only the wealthiest of the Greeks had Mosaic paintings
The Greeks had lots of different types of literature. Around 700 BC, Homer wrote two connected epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Epics are long poems which tell the story of a hero. To this day these epics still exist and have been translated for us to read to day.
Two early Greek examples of poetry are Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days, both from around 700 BC. There are also many other of shorter poems by Archilochus and Sappho from the 600's BC. Sappho's poems are the only surviving literature by a Greek woman.
Theater in Ancient Greece was very interesting. Three well known Greek tragedy playwrights of the fifth century are Sophocles, Euripedes, and Aeschylus. Comedy was aProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

important part of ancient Greek theatre. All comedies of note during this time are by Aristophanes. Aristophanes, who competed in the major Athenian festivals, wrote 40 plays.
So the Greeks had many types of arts styles and cultures. They are a very fancating culture.

athenian housing

Athenian Housing
Housing for the Athenians seems like a joke for us today, but back then it was the only protection and shelter they had, which was not good enough.
The city had no planned housing and houses were built where the owners wanted to build their house. The random development caused houses to be very varied in price and extremely varied throughout the whole city. As one of socrates statements was written down it expressed how varied and difficult housing prices were. Socrates states to his rich friend krioboulos, “I expect that if I found a good buyer, everything [the barn and fields] including the house would fetch 5 minai, whereas your house, I bet, would sell for more than a hundred times that amount”. The majority of the housing was poor and simple. The great ... wrote that “Most of the houses are mean, the pleasant ones few. A stranger would doubt, on first acquaintance, that this was really the renowned city of the Athenians.” This clearly states the Athenians effort for the construction of houses and shelter for themselves and their families were way below minimum standards for a city like Athens.
Up to three generations of the same family, along with wives and children, lived in one extremely small to moderately large house, which was insanitary and very crowded all of the time. The daughters would move out to their husbands house when they were married. When they married the bride permanently moved to the grooms house.

The houses were of no use to the protection of families or valuable items. The walls were so thin and weak that people could literally knock a hole through the wall and enter the house. The walls were made of brick that could be baked but was not necessary. We get the term burglar, which literally means “wall digger”, from the robbers ability to just go through walls steal and then disappear, thanks to these weak walls they could.
Very few houses are left even partially preserved today, but there are a few houses of the bronze age that were hit by a volcano and perfectly preserved. Quite a few with paintings all over the walls and even though the second floor was gone one the best examples, the rest of the building was still perfect and most of the second floor was salvageable. Even though these houses were found untouched, the houses before the golden age were, like stated, very simple, varied, and unstable. The previous houses also lacked any sort of luxury, which was not normal for the Athenians.
At first housing was hard and complex for the Athenians. Later on they were able to prefect housing, the costs to build and sell, and the structural stability for a stable shelter.

Daily Life Essay (Metic)

In Ancient Greece, the populations of poleises were greatly made up of foreingers/aliens. Whether they were just stopping in for some sight-seeing, doing business, or even taking up a temporary residence they did not get the same rights as born-citizens even if they worked the same, and sometimes, were even more powerful due to their common successes. Although many of the poleises labeled themselves as democracies, with so many aliens occupying their land they adjusted the cognizant meaning a bit more to work with their desired ways of running their government.

To be so lucky as to be referred to as “a metic” and to be quasi-accepted within that city was a cherished rarity. When a metic, you were, “halfway house on the way to citizenship, though a metic’s chances of becoming a citizen were always doubtful at best. They always remained citizens of their native poleis” (Evans). The mass majority of the immigrated citizens couldn’t rise to that status and were, surprise-surpise, frowned upon, shunned, and treated harshly due to their differences. When considered a medic your rights were still unfairly limited. For example, you could not legally be married with an Athenian, and were not protected through Athenian law. However, you could actively participate in a commercial life. Also, foreigners could not invest in property, however, could invest in an prominent asset and money-maker at that time, slaves.

For a metic to even be able to live in a city, it was necessary for each metic to have a citizen acting as a sponsor for him, be registered in the deme (his residenciary town) as they keep lists of citizens, and pay a head tax annually (metoikion) as well as the same taxes an average citizen needed to. In addition, you could not own property on Athenian land without a special privilege granted. And yet, it was required to serve in the army where they often were the ones rowing the warships. Even with much being throw against them, it is likely (although there aren’t enough statistics to back up this hypothesis) in many cities metics were dominating the trades. Metics often increased their already steady income through the generous loans commonly given out.

“As the Hellenistic age wore on, there was a subtle change in the status of metic in Athens,” (Evans). Through evidence have we uncovered inscriptions indicating the requirements for citizenship grew more relaxed. For example, the metoikion disappeared and should one of your parents be a citizen, you were accepted by society. This occurred in not just Athens and “made the old exclusive citizenships increasingly obsolete,” (Evans). The values towards citizenship did not wear away with time and should a metic have citizenship they must have felt a sense of belonging and could now own property and the hosting of the city’s religious cults was now accessible. Throughout time, foreigners/metics were given more lee-way and were accepted at a positively respected level.

Works Cited

Evans, James A. Daily Life Online - Login. Web. 03 Dec. 2009. <http://dailylife.greenwood.com>.

*** WHEN COPIED AND PASTED IT ISN'T DOUBLE SPACED :/ ALSO CHOPPED MY TITLE OFF...L A M E ***

-Emilie