Blog Five: Breaking Free!

What does the uncharted forest represent in Anthem?

I think that the uncharted forest represents many things that the society is trying to keep from the community. I believe this because the uncharted forest is supposed to be a place where people don't go because they fear what will happen and it would express individuality and free will. There are said to be many more forests than the main one discussed and they are all said to have grown over ruins of the Unmentionable Times. I think that the uncharted forest represents education and intellect. The community fears the forest like they fear education because they know the details of the Great Burning and no one wishes to have the same fate. They fear education because it requires change and the changes might not be that easy. The people fear intellect because they do not wish to have their own thoughts or make their own discoveries. Equality is the perfect example of someone that does not fit in with the rest of his crowd because he develops his own thoughts and he makes his own discoveries. Equality escapes to the uncharted forest after his attempt to bring his community to individuality and curiosity fails. He says earlier in the book that he feared the forest, but he also said that he did not remember running to the forest; that his feet had just taken him there. His mind knew that he was different and that he needed to be separated from the community that feared everything. The uncharted forest represents determination, free will, curiosity, individuality and intelligence.

Describe the house from Chapter X and its contents in your own words, and explain why Liberty and Equality find it so strange and unique.

The house which Equality and the Golden One find was left over from the unmentionable times. The walls are made of glass and there are electric appliances everywhere inside the house. There are mirrors and light bulbs on the walls and ceiling, and there is a whole room dedicated to books. Equality and the Golden One didn't understand much of what they saw, and they were confused for the majority of the exploration of the house. There are basically appliances that we use in modern times to be found in the house that was left over. They find the house so strange because they've never experienced anything like it, and they don't know how to operate many of the objects that they discovered. Equality and the Golden One find everything in the house unique because they don't realize that at one time it was the norm to have everything that they found in the house. They don't understand that everything could be considered regular when everything is so new to them.



Re-read the incident with the Saint of the pyre. What was he trying to communicate to Equality?

I think that the Saint of the pyre was trying to communicate that Equality should discover what he had discovered. Equality said that the Saint looked straight at him and smiled, as if he wanted to speak the unspeakable word to him. I think that the Saint was trying to communicate the word with him, but in a different method than what Equality thought. The fact that the Saint made Equality curious might have been what caused him to start thinking individual thoughts and making his own choices. If that curiosity hadn't arisen in him, he might have kept his fear of education and individuality. The Saint was trying to communicate that there was something hidden, and that anyone with the right intentions could find it.

Blog Four: Society

In a well-organized paragraph, describe the society in which Anthem is set. Some areas to consider are the political structure, degree of technology, social relationships, quality of life, and education. Would you want to live in this society? Explain why or why not.

Anthem is set in a collective society. Everyone in this book is supposed to follow the same rules, refrain from asking questions, and abide by the life morals given to them by someone else. Everyone earns the same exact thing, no matter how hard they worked or didn't. There are no individual wants and there is no originality or creativity. In Anthem, everyone is the perceived to be the same. Technology is not very advanced in the society, and it shows in various ways. The characters do not use electricity, and science is apparently a restricted subject. People are not supposed to form friendships or bonds, and no one should show a preference for a certain person. Everyone has the same life plan set out, and Equality thinks that he is the only one who can see everything from the outside looking in. Education is not very extensive in the book, almost restrained. Only certain people, for a certain amount of time, gain an education. Work comes after the completion of education, unless the individual is chosen to be a scholar. I would be unable to live in a society like this, because I am an individual and I love intelligence. I am very creative and I rely on my best friends. I am curious and I always want to learn. This type of society would not be able to support me.


When does this novel take place—in the past, the present, or the future? How do you know? Please provide specific clues from the text.

This novel takes place in the future, and there are a few clues to support it. Throughout the book, something called the Great Burning is brought up and explained. The Great Burning was an event that consisted of the burning of all books and paper information that were considered evil. I think that these books and papers are our modern-day information. There are places and things left over from the Unmentionable Times, which are considered to be evil, as well. All of the forbidden places and objects are things that are commonly used in our society, and over time, they were considered evil with the new society.


What does Equality discover in Chapter III? How important is this discovery? Describe 4–5 ways in which it would help society, and make life easier or more enjoyable.

Equality discovers light in chapter three. This could help the society by technologically advancing it and showing the scholars that there are many things that they are ignorant to. This is a very important discovery, because Equality discovered it by himself, and that shows individualism. It could make the lives of his brothers and sisters easier because they wouldn't be as restricted with supplies. Equality discovered energy, and that could lead to even better inventions. The scholars could follow Equality's example and start looking more into science. His discovery might spark other people to become curious about electricity and how energy flows. Equality's discovery could open many doors to help his society.


How would your teachers react if you had Equality’s “curse”? Why do Equality’s teachers disapprove of his quick mind? At this point in the novel, does Equality accept the moral teachings of his society? If so, why doesn’t he initially feel shame or remorse when he knows that he’s committing a crime? Find textual evidence to support your answer. Does this change as the novel progresses?

At a younger age, I did have the same "curse" as Equality. My teachers often told me to be quiet, and let other children answer questions. I always understood everything before they taught us, and I didn't understand why I was getting into trouble for understanding my work. I was eventually put into advanced classes and a program for gifted students, but Equality didn't have this option. His teachers did not approve of his quick mind because he was only supposed to know what they taught him. Equality does not accept this, because he knows that there are far better things than what their society is being taught. He doesn't feel shame for committing a crime because he knows that he is bettering himself, and he knows that he is capable of more. He laughs when he thinks of himself as Damned because he knows that he has done nothing but better his knowledge.

Blog Three: Indivisualism

What might it be like to live in a society with no "selves" and where "we" has replaced "I"?

A society is an ordered community, or a particular system of ordering a community. The society that I grew up in, and have always known as right, is a Capitalistic sort of organization. There are many, many, individuals making up our society, instead of one large group of people. Everyone makes their own decisions, and there is an abundance of freedom. People in America choose where they want to go to school, and what they want to do with their lives. Everyone here has a free will, and no one is forced to be something that they despise. When people in America, and every other country for that matter, say "we", they are referring to a group of people, and not just themselves. If we were to stop using the word "I", there would be no individualism. I wouldn't be hungry, but we would, even if I was the only person hungry. This is more of a hypothetical situation, more than it is actually explaining something, as it wouldn't make sense to say, "we are hungry," when walking in from school. There would be no free will if we stopped using the word "I", and everyone would want the same thing. If you were to take away the world's ability to be full of individuals, everything would, in a sense, would be collective. Everyone would aim for the same things, and no one would step up to be a leader. Everyone would go along with the "group's" wants. If we lived in a society with no "selves", someone would eventually step up and change it, just like Equality 7-2521 did. The world is full of intellectual people, and there is no way that EVERYONE could be the same. Sure, they wouldn't be accepted if they were different, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist. Take away individualism, creativity will go with it. There will be no new ideas, the world won't advance anymore; everything will stop.


Explain the significance of the names that Rand gave her characters. Why do you think particular names were used?

There were many characters in this book, and some of the names repeated various times. The main character was named Equality, and I think his name is slightly ironic. Equality stood up for the right for everyone to be individual and successful. Equality wanted everyone to have proportional chances and equal success, but in a different sense than equality that is achieved through collectivism. Everyone was already equal, but he wanted people to be able to have the right to gain what they earn. Equality stood up against a collectivist society, and a few of the collectivist characters had names to represent that. Fraternity, Alliance, International, Similarity and Unanimity are some of the names that Rand chose to represent collectivism. The names of these scholars all represent people sharing things in common, be it a small or large group. I think that she chose these names to show what an individual would have to stand up to in order the achieve equality.


Equality talks about the unspeakable word on page 51. What do you think that word is, and why is it unspeakable in this society? What would happen if this word was used, and how would it change the way people think of each other and themselves?

Before I finished the book, I thought the unspeakable word was "I". I thought this because there are no individuals in the book (that society knows of), and it is forbidden to be a single person. If people were to start using the word "I", there would be no collectivism, and there would be far less group control. People would start developing opinions and thinking for themselves. They would become aware of "themselves" and their emotions. Everyone would start to think of themselves as individually capable, and they would think the same about other people. No one would rely on a single person to tell the world what to do, and people would choose to do things to benefit themselves instead of the group.

Blog Two: Intro to Anthem

Question A:

In a sense, I agree with Peikoff when he says that there is no such thing as a collective brain. In a slightly smaller sense, I might disagree with him. I think that there is no such thing as a collective brain because individual people make up groups; therefore everyone in the group may have a different channel of thought. I think that I disagree with his opinion, as well, for the simple fact that everyone must come to a common opinion and make a final decision; therefore the group is making a choice. There are many people in a society that try to be non-conformist, while in their efforts, they are really doing the exact opposite. On a psychological level, non-conformists try to be different than what they expect other people to be; therefore a group of non-conformists might all think the same thing, in hope that no one else shares their opinion. Because of this, non-conformists might not really exist, because they are all hoping for the same thing. While there are people in a society who are more concerned about putting out their opinion and their thoughts, there are also people who only want to fit in with the majority of the group. The psychological side of this situation reflects in the final decisions of a group, known as collective decisions. I don't really think that these types of decisions exist, for the simple reason that not everyone could have the exact same opinion about a choice made using group effort.

I don't think that Peikoff's opinion would have changed if he would have known how advanced technology would become, because I think that some of our highest levels of technology don't really affect the way we think. Although technology makes many things more convenient, it does not affect our moral opinions of situations. I do not think that anything could become a collective brain, because collectivity consists of individual opinions. IF a super source of intelligence had access to all of the knowledge in the world, I might be typing a completely different blog. Things would be different, IF that were possible. If there was a source of intelligence that had every piece of knowledge in the world, no one would have to worry about anything. The source wouldn't really have to strategize, because everything would be available to it. It would respond to changes in the best possible way- with efficiency and accuracy. It would know EVERYTHING. We cannot associate this sort of super power with human intelligence, because it is impossible for anything lower that "super". Computers do not have brains of their own, they simply record information and programs that are put into them, and allow access to those programs use. Computers cannot think for themselves- everything takes place in a system that has been programmed into them. Computers could not replace human intelligence, because human intelligence is needed to create and upkeep a computer. Nothing could have access to all of the knowledge in the world, but if anything did, then it could be considered a collective resource.


Question B:

In Rand's philosophy, she was referring the possibilities that individuals can accomplish, but groups cannot. In example, she was talking about individual thoughts, opinions, and perceptions. Individuals can accomplish their dreams, hopes, and goals, where groups can only accomplish group effort projects. Groups cannot have individual hopes, because then the group could never be on the same page. Individuals can live up to these things simply because individuals have individual thoughts, hopes, and decisions. Groups must combine everything, and not everything is one person's aspirations. Rand looked at men and saw individual people, with original thoughts and actions, working together, but independently at the same time.


Question C:

I disagree that Rand attacks the "ideals of the sacred," but I do agree that Rand attacks the general idea of religion. She doesn't so much talk about what is wrong with different religions, but the idea of believing in a religion. People do not need religion to have morals, because religion does not control what people think, or how they make decisions. Although a choice can be affected by the morals of a religion, people can have those morals without having a religion. I personally know this, because I am Atheist and I have morals. I know many people that are part of the Christian religion, who have no morals at all, but claim to be fine because all they have to do is "ask for forgiveness." People think that a lack of religion can cause immorality, and in some instances, they could be right. The absence of religion does not necessarily imply the absence of morals, but the implication of religion can imply morals that were not there to begin with. I do not think that religion effects how a person can survive, because in that sense, many things just come into science. Religion may affect the way a person thinks, or acts, but it cannot effect how you think if you know nothing of it. I know many things about Christianity, but that does not imply, in any way, that I am a Christian. Religion does not effect the development of morals, because I grew up without the prescience of religion. I learned about Christianity when I was older, but that does not effect what I see as right and wrong.

Blog One: Man's Rights and Collectivized "Rights"

In Rand's article about "Man's Rights", she specifically says that she feels man's only true right is the right to be alive. It seems that she feels this way in coordination with the fact that life is something that people sustain themselves. She says that it is a man's right to own anything that he earns, and that someone that earns nothing should have fewer rights than someone who earns everything. Rand says, “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” She elaborated on how she felt about the idea that one man's rights cannot interfere with another man's rights, and if they do then they are not truly rights. Rand says, "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.” A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy." There are ideas in Rand's essay about rights that I agree with, but others that I do not. She puts out the idea that every right is taken for granted, and that most things are not rights, but wants. She says that the only way to preserve all rights is to have a completely capitalist society. In a way, it seems that Rand is contradicting herself in the first article by saying that life is the only fundamental right and that the eight rights she listed should be given regardless, and then explaining the idea that everyone should earn their rights instead of expecting to receive them. "The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them. Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights."

In Rand's essay about "Collective Rights", she says "Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms." That idea was portrayed in the article about individual rights, but it is now used to make a different point. She seems to be strongly opposed to the existence of rights for a society, because the society is pretty much deciding what they want to do. Rand seems to think that anyone who believes that a group can have rights is uncivil, or ignorant. She says, "A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching." While supporting the theory that groups cannot have rights, she also makes clear the point that nation's rights can differ with the rights of the individuals of the nation. It almost seems as if she is contradicting herself again, but it could just be a play on words. She talks about how nations decide on their government; is not that a national right? "Observe the double standard: while, in the civilized countries of the West, the “liberals” are still advocating internationalism and global self- sacrifice—the savage tribes of Asia and Africa are granted the sovereign “right” to slaughter one another in racial warfare. Mankind is reverting to a pre-industrial, prehistorical view of society: to racial collectivism.Such is the logical result and climax of the “liberals’ ” moral collapse which began when, as a prelude to the collectivization of property, they accepted the collectivization of rights. Their own confession of guilt lies in their terminology. Why do they use the word “rights” to denote the things they are advocating? Why don’t they preach what they practice? Why don’t they name it openly and attempt to justify it, if they can? The answer is obvious."

The two essays that Rand wrote correspond in various ways, and they are both very thoughtful opinions. Although I may not agree with certain ideas she stated, that does not take away her right to express them, or my right to respond to them. She says that individuals' rights can only truly be obtained in a capitalistic society, even though society has no rights. She has many points, but she constantly contradicts herself. She says that society achieves what society aims for, and the people that make up the society are mere individuals (who of course obtain their own rights). She makes it clear that she would rather be under a capitalistic society than a collective government. Some of the major things that tie into her writing revolve around the different types of societies, and what rights are allowed within them. Her opinions have changed my own about rights, and the impact that certain thoughts may have on other's rights. She talks about her belief that society is, and should be, controlled by rights, and how certain rights impact the way a society works. Some of her ideas and opinions are brilliant, but others are slightly redundant.

Blog One: Definitions

Collectivism- Collectivism describes the importance of a group's goals over the importance of individuals' goals. It identifies people as a group instead of individuals.

Individualism- Individualism is a theory that supports the freedoms and rights of individuals, rather than groups. It puts individuals' feelings, thoughts, and desires over the desires that a group would have.

Socialism- Socialism is an economic system which functions more around the government distributing everything in a group form, rather than allowing individuals to make their own choices. Everything is collectively controlled by the government in a socialist situation.

Capitalism- Capitalism is a society in which individuals own the means of production, rather than the government. In a capitalist situation, individuals are given more freedom to decide what they want to buy, and how much of what products and resources they need.

Communism- Communism is the economic and social system which promotes equality on the outside, but nothing more on the inside. Everything is publicly owned, and individuals all receive the same amount of economic goods.

Reminiscing Sixteen

On June 3, 1992, I was named by my father. I am definitely unable to recall the first time I heard it, but I have always loved my name. One reason I like my first name is because it is a small purple flower with a sweet fragrance. I have a passion for nature, so my first name suits me well. The second reason that I like my first name relates to the fact that carries a slight sense of originality. Although my middle name is rather common, I like it because it shows that I can be just like anyone else on certain levels. My last name is Spanish, although I have no Spanish family members. No one in my family is sure why we have a Spanish name, but I find it rather amusing. I like my last name because it gives me a sense of cultural diversity. Not everyone that lives in my home has the same last name as I do.

In my home, one would find my father, his girlfriend, her nephew, and of course me. My home is a very chaotic place and there is rarely a quiet moment there. My dad works night shift so the only time I see him during the week is before school. His girlfriend, works day shift so she can be home when my little cousin gets off the bus from school. Dylan is seven years old, and still in the process of discovering his “inside voice.” Although my home is very noisy between Dylan’s voice and my music, the feeling of love is always constant when we are all home. The temperature is usually very low in my house because I love the cold and so does my dad. There are many preferences that my father and I team up about, to get our way, concerning physical matters in our home. There is usually some sort of food being cooked in the kitchen and the smells travel all through the house. My room is far different than any other place that I have ever been. My walls are a scrapbook and my ceiling is a photo album. There is writing, in multiple languages, and drawings, in multiple colors, spread all across my walls. I am so comfortable in my house that I feel unconfined to boundaries otherwise placed upon myself. I freely talk about my feelings and memories in my room and show my opinions in various manners. I know that I will not be judged in my home.

Throughout my childhood my father was an alcoholic, and I will never forget the first time I asked him to stop drinking. He began drinking heavily while I was in fourth grade and I was not able to confront him about it, due to a mixture of fear and anxiety, until I was in the seventh grade. I believe that he first started drinking due to stress from his job, pressure from his wife, and depression from everything else about his life. After battling with him over the fact that alcohol only intensified his troubles, he began listening to me. He did not actually stop drinking until I persisted that he really should, but now he does not drink at all. I know that if I would not have been able to convince him to stop drinking that my life would be far different right now. I believe he stopped drinking because I made him see that he was hurting me every time he stayed the night at a bar. I was always worried that he wasn’t going to come home, or that he would come home and lose control due to intoxication. I gained a lot of courage and reasoning from confronting my father about drinking. I think that I became a stronger person when I stood up to him and told him that what he was doing was wrong. Shortly after I asked my dad to stop drinking, my parents made a very big decision that still currently affects my life.

While I was in the eighth grade, my parents got a divorce and my biological mother moved out of the house. I chose to stay with my dad and my mother received set visiting hours. I did not particularly enjoy going to see my mother but I have matured since then. I chose to stay with my father because I saw so much more in him than I did in my mother. He was passionate, strong, determined, and independent while my mother was apathetic, weak, indifferent, and reliant. For a few months, I thought that if I would have been a better daughter that my parents would have worked everything out, but I matured enough to see the real reasons they got divorced. All through middle school and my parents’ divorce I accumulated quite a few thoughts and ideas that all fit together later that year.

On the last day of my eighth grade year, I successfully put everything in my life into perspective. One reason that I was able to start understanding life deals with the conversations that Danni, one of my best friends, and I started having about our opinions. We realized that we agreed about many things, and that we shared some of the same problems. Danni had a big influence on my personality because I was a rather shy and conservative person, but she taught me to voice my opinions. I learned a lot from Danni, and I will always love her because I know that she helped me mature. She helped me realize that everything I had endured had a positive effect on me by making me a stronger person. I could see that I was starting to change and that new expectations awaited me. I reached a point where I saw that I was at a new level of maturity. I understood that I was responsible, open-minded and optimistic. I began to think about how everything was going to change, and how some people would not be ready to make that transition. I knew that I was ready for my world to shift and my work ethic to improve. From that point in my life, until I turned sixteen, I have been growing into the person that I wish I could be for the rest of my life.

I spent my sixteenth birthday with my parents and one of my best friends, Jiffer, in Destin, Florida, during the first week of June 2008. We went to a water park and the beach. We went out to eat at Fudpucker’s and we went shopping. We had an awesome time, and I would love to relive it. The moments about my birthday that really stood out to me all took place in my thoughts. I realized that I was happy with my parents, even though my step-mom had not adopted me. I saw that one of the best friends that I could ever ask for was sitting right beside me. I discovered that I had my life plan set out in front of me. I saw that after all of my maturing and development that I was in a state of bliss that I never wanted to end. The greatest thing that I understood was that my bliss was not cause by ignorance, but acceptance. I accepted the fact that I was in control of my life and that I am able to help people. The understanding that I might be able to change the world catalyzed an abundance of thoughts and ideas. I was in such a state of bliss because everything in my life was so great, and there were not any issues that were negatively affecting me. One hard thing about life is that everything eventually changes- even well-earned, perpetual bliss. I experienced the mixed feelings of loss, guilt, depression, and hopelessness when I returned home from Florida.

On June 23, 2008, one of my best friends hung himself. His name was Eric and he was the brother-in-law of someone who I consider to be my sister. I went through a very rough time when he committed suicide because it hurt everyone that cared about him. I did the best I could to stay strong for everyone that was affected by his decision. I felt empty inside and a part of my life is now gone forever- not to be replaced. This event stands out in my memory because I feel I could have changed his mind about committing suicide if I were given the chance. There is a part of me that thinks I could have saved one of the few reasons for my existence from experiencing so much pain and suffering. In a way, I feel that if he would have known how much we cared about him that he might not have came to the end that he did. The feeling that I could have done something will forever linger in my mind. There are many things about Eric that changed the way I see life. Never will I forget the optimism that he constantly spread, or the happiness that he always seemed to carry. Eric made a big impression on my life because he taught me a lot about being open-minded. Even though we were not related, he treated me just like a sister. The last conversation we held was about his plans for the future. However, these plans will not be carried out. Eric told me many things about how he wanted to live his life, and he inspired me to set goals for myself.

I aspire to accomplish many things in my lifetime and graduating high school is just a small step. I am going to create many charities and possible hold classes with children about ways they can help the environment. I want to earn a higher education in every way that I possibly can. I have a goal of helping every person that I come into contact with. I want to make a major difference in the way people see things. I wish to get married and have a child. I feel that I can help people see how every decision that they make is important. Another of my goals is to be a great person and one day, being able to look back on my life, and not regret the things that I have done.