One Conclusion

By watching Herzog's Grizzly Man and reading through Noys' "Antiphusis: Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man," one can infer that Treadwell and Herzog have completely opposite views about human position in nature.  Treadwell has a "sentimentalized" view of nature.  He believes humans and nature should coexist, and gets extremely angry when he believes humans are mistreating nature or the grizzly bears.  He constantly feels like he needs to protect the bears from human cruelty, putting his life in danger in order to "save" the bears.  Treadwell believes humanity is corrupting nature.  He thinks humans do not respect or appreciate nature. He also believes he has formed a deep connection with the Alaskan nature and the bears, and feels like he belongs with them in the natural world.

On the other hand, Herzog believes nature is "discordant and chaotic."  He believes nature is unkind, unconcerned, and violent towards human activity.  He also believes that Treadwell cannot face "the harsh reality of wild nature."  Treadwell thinks nature is innocent and harmless, and believes humanity is the key factor in the corruption of nature.  On the contrary, Herzog believes nature is corrupt in itself, and humanity has no part in its corruption.  Herzog, unlike Treadwell, does not believe nature and humans can exist in harmony.  Herzog also states that the bears did not need or appreciate Treadwell's protection.  He thinks that humans and nature do not belong together in the world.

Both Treadwell and Herzog believe humans do not belong in the natural world, but approach that conclusion in different ways.  Treadwell believes humanity is cruel and is destroying the natural world, while Herzog believes nature is corrupt in itself and is hostile towards human activity.

Herzog and Treadwell- More Similar Than You Think

It seems to me that there is an outstanding difference in philosophy between Herzog and Treadwell. They have completely different opinions on the characteristics of nature. Treadwell believes that it is innocent and pure- nothing in nature is harmful or wrong. Herzog believes that nature is indifferent, wild, and hostile. While Treadwell believes that anything deemed as "evil" in nature by society is caused by human corruption, Herzog believes that nature itself is corrupt, by human standards. Although, at first glance, these two philosophies seem incompatible, upon further inspection they are quite similar.

The similarities begin in how they perceive humanities role in nature. Both believe that humans do not belong, but display their beliefs in completely different ways. Throughout the film, it is apparent that Treadwell yearns to become a bear. These tendencies, paired with the fact that he lives with them for months at a time while feeling outcasted from society, leads to the conclusion that Treadwell believes that humans, except him, have no place in nature. That all humans do is destroy and ruin the purity of the natural world.

Herzog also believes that humans do not belong in the natural world, although his intentions are entirely different. Herzog believes that humans do not belong in nature because we cannot handle it. Again, he believes that nature is too wild, hostile, and indifferent. His reasoning is completely different, but the results of both are the same. Humans do not belong in nature- whether it is nature's or human's fault, no one can rightly say.

Humans Place in Nature

The thoughts of Herzog and "Grizzly Man" Tredwell both show the dramatic difference in the beliefs of humans place in nature. The documentary and the writing evoked my own personal beliefs to arise, along with new ideas of nature.

I think what Herzog does is try to show nature as it is. It is unfair, unequal. Animals do not reason or concern one another. The strongest survive. This outlook brings reality to nature as being raw, dangerous and chaotic. Herzog wanted to take away the romantic notion that nature is pure beauty without the rogue destruction that it truly is. How he portrayed nature showed people the truth that is out there. I do however feel that he separated humans from nature. This is impossible, for we are made of and depend on every aspect of our environment. Maybe we don't belong living in the unsheltered wilderness, but we do need to begin to understand its cycles and our effect on it. I like how Herzog took the romanticism away, but do not agree with his separation of humans and nature.

Tredwell on the other hand saw nature as a romantic being. In many ways you could say he was in love with nature, or his own perception of it. Tredwell romanticized nature as being in its own perfection, separate from the evil that is human. This is exactly the opposite of what Herzog depicts. Tredwell had good intentions, but he was a very warped individual on his views that nature would not harm him. He wanted to show that nature needs our help and protection, and he saw nature as harmless and vulnerable.

Both Herzog and Tredwell have strong points on the reality that nature is. It is raw, chaotic and unfair, but is also effected by humans, both vulnerable and sensitive.

Juxtaposition of Treadwell and Herzog

      Herzog and Treadwell are both artists specializing in closeness to nature, however, they both have radically differing views on nature.  Treadwell has a certain craziness to him.   He finds himself, his whole self, in nature.  Treadwell alienated himself from humanity and found his sacred space in the nature of Alaska.  He would find himself wishing he was back with the grizzlies, with the ones that actually made him feel alive and happy when he was away for an extended period of time.  A sacred space is somewhere that you can feel calm and one with themselves.  It is almost like being away from humans made him feel more like a human.  This view differs very much from Herzog's.
       Herzog has a much more pessimistic view on nature.  Herzog saw what Treadwell did as unnatural and detrimental to nature.  He thinks that Treadwell was actually hurting the natural order because he should have never involved himself.  To Herzog, the bears never needed a savior.  It was really Treadwell who needed the bears.  Herzog does not think that humans can really be connected with non-domesticated animals because they will always see humans as either danger or food.  Herzog believes that humans must be with humans to feel human.  Their two views differ so greatly that making a movie containing both, one passively and one actively, made for a very interesting film.

A New Definition of Human

Some people called Timothy Treadwell a madman, while at the same time, others respected him for his courage, selflessness, and his love for nature. He found that his purpose was not to further his own success in life, but to protect the Grizzly bears of Alaska that were threatened by the humans that disturbed them in their natural sacred space. He found that the best way to do this was to live in the wilderness with the bears each summer. Many would argue his intentions were good but his means were reckless. Being human for Treadwell was making a connection to nature by sharing the sacred space of the Alaskan wilderness. 

In the modern day and age, most humans would not view being human as embracing the natural world and giving up the everyday grind that we all must live through. To Treadwell, being human was exactly the opposite of what most of us think. After years of being a severe alcoholic, he needed something to help him overcome the adversity facing him. Treadwell discovered his true passion in life when he first went to Alaska and encountered the indigenous Grizzlies there. He felt that the bears were not monsters, but beautiful and majestic creatures that were actually victims of human poaching and development. Over thirteen summers, Treadwell not only learned a lot about true wilderness, but he learned a lot about himself and what he believed in. He lived in just a small weather-resistant tent surrounded by the bears, foxes, and birds, who he viewed as his friends. In what most humans would view as foreign and scary, Treadwell found a home in which he discovered true happiness.

Timothy Treadwell felt entirely at peace surrounded by the untouched wilderness that the Alaskan Grizzlies called home. He told his close friends that if he didn't survive the wild, he would be completely happy the way he led this world. And he did just that in his thirteenth summer in Alaska in 2003. Thats what human meant to Treadwell; being happy through his own eyes. He achieved this state by living amongst the most primitive and vicious creatures and sharing their home. This is how Treadwell found himself and his sacred space.

Perspectives of Nature

After watching the documentary film Grizzly Man, by Werner Herzog, one will realize the different perspectives people have on life and nature.  Werner Herzog's film is about a person named Timothy Treadwell who decides to live in a national park in Alaska for 13 years. While Treadwell is living in Alaska and trying to form friendships with the grizzly bears, he gets brutally eaten and killed by one of the bears.  When Treadwell was living there, he decided that his purpose in life was to protect the wildlife and nature in the area.  His opinion was very different from Herzog's opinion.  Herzog believed nature was perfectly fine on its own and it was Treadwell who disrupted it.

Herzog pieced together many hours of footage that was filmed by Treadwell over the last 5 years that he was living in Alaska.  You can clearly see in Treadwell's videos that he believes the grizzly bears are his friends.  Although Treadwell is aware that the grizzlies are very dangerous creatures, he believes that he has earned the trust of the bears by showing no fear.  Treadwell even gets a few shots on camera of him petting the grizzly bears and playing with the foxes. He believes that the bears are in a lot of danger and need protection from poachers and other harmful humans.

Herzog believes the opposite of Treadwell's opinion.  He thinks that nature can protect itself from humans and that Treadwell was doing more harm to the bears than good.  By familiarizing the grizzly bears with human contact, Werner Herzog believed that the bears would be more likely to approach human habitation in search of food which would lead to the use of animal control.  Also, Herzog thinks that because of Treadwell's contact with the bears, it would take away the bears fear of humans and cause the grizzlies to approach poachers.

Although both Treadwell and Herzog have different opinions about the way humans should view wildlife and nature, they both have one similar intention.  This intention is to keep the peace between humans and grizzly bears, whether or not it involves interacting with the creatures.  I personally believe that Timothy Treadwell was wrong and should have kept the bears alone simply because of what happened to him.

Connections

For many people being alone in the wilderness surrounded by bears would be a nightmare, but for Timothy Treadwell it was where he found himself. Treadwell believed that he could live peacefully among the bears. Being in the wild is scary for most people. We like the safety of our homes, with our electricity, running water, and families. We crave the attention we get from other humans. The feelings of love, compassion, and friendship that go along with the human experience give us a place in the world. The people around us make us feel important and needed. However for Treadwell he found these among the bears.

Timothy Treadwell believed that the bears need his protection. In the wilderness he thought he was doing a service to the bear that they needed and respected him for. Frequently he talks of the fact that he was the only one willing to live out in the wild and protect the bears from the terrible human beings that would harm them. However it seems that Treadwell probably needed the bears more than they needed him. He connected better with the bears than with humans. In his eyes the bears were his friends and companions.

Through close human contact Treadwell believed he could relate to the bears. He had an idealistic view of nature and the relationships between animals. In his close encounters with the bears, he exhibits a belief that the bears were his friends. This concept goes against many people's ideas about nature. He believed he could teach the bears to treat him as a friend not an enemy. However just because he believed the bears were his friends doesn't mean they felt the same way. He was trying to change the very nature of the bears. On the nature vs. nurture discussion, Treadwell believed in the power of nurture, to tame the bears.

Throughout the film Herzog exhibits a distaste for Treadwell's thoughts, actions, and idealistic representation of nature. Herzog viewed nature as a wild thing to be left to its own devices. The contradicting concept of nature and the role humans should play in it divided Herzog and Treadwell and the film. Treadwell found himself in the wilderness but at the expense of the bears. He, as the Alaskan people say, did not respect the bear's home. By camping out deep within their habitat, Treadwell forced himself upon the bears.

Timothy Treadwell was a troubled man with an idealistic view of nature. He connected with the bears in a way that he never seemed to be able to do with people. In many ways his actions display a disrespect for the bears which he cared for so deeply. No matter where he was Treadwell seemed unable to fit in comfortably. He felt more connected to the bears but in a very idealistic manner. The bears cannot reciprocate the feelings Timothy had for them, That didn't stop him from trying to connect with them, something he continued to do up until his death.

Differing Human Perspectives of Nature

        Grizzly Man, a documentary by Warner Herzog, which documents the life and the untimely death of the Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell.  Treadwell was a man who decided to leave human society four months each year and live among grizzly bears and foxes in the Alaskan Wilderness. Herzog uses Treadwell's footage to depict Treadwell's perspective of nature, while using interviews and his own narration to state his own ideas on nature. The two perspectives of nature are completely opposite of each other.

        Treadwell saw nature as something that is pure and good. He felt that he was in tune with nature, he thought that he had a connection with the bears that he interacted with, feeling like they actually understood what Treadwell was saying. He even went as far as naming each of the bears. Treadwell also felt that it was his duty to protect the bears from the rest of humanity, in which he often felt at odds with.

        Herzog, in contrast with Treadwell, sees nature as dangerous and wild, something not to be messed with. There is a fine line which humans should not cross, and Herzog felt like Treadwell completely crossed that line, and he even disrespected the bears by living so close to them. In the documentary, Herzog interviews an Alaskan aborigine, who shares the same view has Herzog; nature is beautiful, but it is also very harsh, but it also has to be respected by everyone.

The Controversial Perspectives of Our Existence

There is something incredibly strange about seeing a human so dedicated to nature that they choose to live directly in the middle of it. Nature isn't something the average person thinks about everyday, but to a few, it's the only thing on their mind. Timothy Treadwell was one of those few, and his perspective on life is quite interesting. After watching the film Grizzly Man, it was difficult not to focus on analyzing Timothy's personality. However, Herzog's main focus was Timothy's belief that he is the protector of nature. Timothy believed that he, like the bears, lives within nature and is equal to all other animals. In his footage, he claims to feel nature's pain and truly care for the animals, and he believes that he must be their savior. To Timothy, he is the most caring, compassionate, giving, and unselfish person on the planet. He truly believes that what he is doing puts him above others, and that he sees what others do not. Werner Herzog, on the other hand, sees the foolishness in Timothy's actions, and expresses it through his film, Grizzly Man.

In Noy's "Antiphusis: Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man.", Noy writes about Herzog's perspective of Timothy. This text might initially cause the viewer to believe that Werner Herzog was an incredibly critical person. After watching the film, however, the viewer would be able to understand Herzog's perspective. Herzog believed that what Timothy was doing was foolish. He saw how Timothy treated the bears and other animals with unnecessary care and equality, and believed that Timothy had no understanding of the boundary that needed to be kept between man and animals. One of the many valid points that Herzog made was that Timothy's treatment of the animals could be considered highly disrespectful. Timothy should not have been so close to the animals, he should have respected their space and way of life. Herzog saw how other peoples, such as the Aborigines and the Alaskan tribes, treated animals and the nature around him and noted how these tribes respected and appreciated nature without getting in the way of it's natural processes.

The controversial question that arises from Grizzly Man is about human's place in nature. Should we, as humans, be incorporating nature into our everyday lives? Should we be acknowledging and interacting with nature? There are many answers to these questions. Some people, such as the Australian Aborigines, believed that nature was sacred. Nature was a part of their culture, and they believed that they must allow nature to flourish without their interference. There is a very big difference between the Aborigines perspective of nature and Timothy Treadwell's. The Aborigines painted pictures of the animals to help them continue to grow. Timothy Treadwell attempted to live with, feed, and protect these animals. The Aborigines would have been very confused with Timothy's way of living. Another group of people that would disagree with Timothy were the Alaskan native tribes. In the film, a few alaskans expressed their distaste for Timothy's lifestyle. They explained how nature was important, but not something one should mess with. For them, the most obvious factor was the danger of being so close to the wild bears. Some people just thought Timothy was an idiot for risking his life in such a way, and trying to interfere with the natural habitat of the bears. Werner Herzog was one of those people, and he made sure to express that.

Different Worlds-Human and Animal

Werner Herzog's documentary Grizzly Man presents two very different viewpoints on the world of humans and the world of animals.  For Timothy Treadwell, humans should accommodate animals.  It is the job of human beings to protect nature, and since it is us who encroached on their territory, it is up to us to learn how the animals live, and mimic that way of life.  For Werner Herzog, nature and humans should not interact except for humans to meet their own needs. 

Herzog views nature as being cruel and violent.  It is an entity that human beings can never reconcile with because it is unpredictable and in conflict with humans.  To Herzog, that conflict with nature is, in part, what makes us human.  It is people who are civilized, rational, and should ultimately be in control.  Nature is unruly, chaotic and antagonistic.  In the eyes of Herzog, the natural world is a reminder of the base level we came from, and a warning not to return to that state of being.

Timothy Treadwell sees the human world as treacherous and in direct conflict with everything that is good about nature.  To him, it is not the natural world that is cruel and violent, but the so-called civilized world.  Humans take the most innocent and precious aspects of life and abuse them.  Treadwell felt very mistrustful of people and wanted to escape to the world of grizzly bears.  While it might be easy to pass of Treadwell's actions as "dysfunctional" or "crazy," I think that it's important to realize that he didn't think living with bears was without risk.  Treadwell recognized that the natural world can be harsh and dangerous; however, unlike the civilized world, the motivations of nature are not cruel, they are pure and for the purpose of survival.  Human beings do not need an excuse to bring harm to other living organisms, nature on the other hand does not do anything needlessly.  Treadwell recognized the difference between these two worlds and chose to live in a world he felt was more pure.  As a quote from an unknown author says: "the human spirit needs places where nature has not been re-arranged by the hand of man."  Perhaps the bi-polar tendencies that Treadwell experienced where a product of the way we live in our modern society, a reaction to the re-arranging that humans have done to nature, and his response to leave and live with bears, was more sane than what he is given credit for. 

Ultimately human beings need nature.  Be it violent as Herzog perceived, or ideal and simplistic as Treadwell saw it, the human world cannot survive without the natural world.  While the human and animal world have been divided, Treadwell saw the importance of meshing the two once again. 

The Jungle Book

Herzog's Grizzly man is a documentary on a man and his quest to unite humanity with the natural world. Timothy Treadwell leaves the life of a normal human to essentially live with the grizzly bears in Alaska. Treadwell believes his purpose in life is to save the grizzly bears will do anything he can to make the bears safer.

Treadwell believes that the only reason that people are afraid of the bears is through misunderstanding. To counter this, he teaches kids for free about the bears and shares his experiences. However, while misunderstanding is very likely a huge factor, the fear is very much common sense and healthy for humans to have of the bears. Despite what Treadwell would like to believe, that the bears are naturally friendly, the reality is that grizzly bears are a very serious danger if proper safety measures are not taken. Treadwell repeatedly gets close to the bears and even within a small enough distance to pet them (which he kind of does) which is highly dangerous. While children should be educated in the lives of these majestic animals, they should absolutely not be encouraged to try to pet bears.

The bears live on a national park in Alaska so that they can have their own space away from humans. Treadwell invades this space and imposes himself on the bears. He gets close enough to make them nervous and even intervenes when he feels that nature is not doing a good job. In one instance, Treadwell sets up a "runway" for the salmon so the bears can have an easier time catching their food. Eventually, Treadwell gets eaten by the very bears he is protecting along with his girlfriend. This gives even more reason to fear the bears which is unfortunate because that is exactly what Treadwell was trying to stop. While Treadwell had his heart in the right place, he most likely did more harm than good in his lifelong attempt to save the bears to both humans and bears.

A No-Wonder-Sort-Of Thing

It’s a no-wonder-sort-of phenomenon that Timothy Treadwell viewed humans as enemies to the bears and the habitat they live in. To Treadwell, nature was his sacred space and humans interfered and destroyed it, either by hunting the animals within it or destroying the place they called home. It's not that Treadwell hated humans, its that humans caused a disruption, in his mind, to the forces of nature.  Treadwell's distinct view of himself being a part of nature and being its protector and advocate can be attributed to the fact of his obsession over it and the mentality his set forth for himself. 

Treadwell's mentality can be claimed genius and a different understanding of life to psychosis, particularly the disorder known as dissociative identity disorder. This disorder, commonly known as DID, or multiple personality disorder, is just that, where an individual becomes another person and acts as a totally different individual. This state can last from six months to even a few decades, and can be triggered by many forms of stressors, an example for Treadwell might be his alcoholic abuse, warping his brain chemistry, or the event of seeing the grizzly bears in need and the idea of people harming nature in its home. Treadwell's idea of nature was that it was perfect, beautiful, and humans should interact and respect it -- living in it and protecting it, all while trying to understand the wildlife. As romantic as Treadwell's idea is, nature isn't just beautiful, it's also reckless and powerful and lacks the one sense humans have: the sense of morals and ethics, or higher thought processing humans uniquely possess.

Treadwell's altered view of nature and reality is an example of how frail human beings are and how our minds can become chemically and neurologically changed, even by natural causes. Humans are a part of nature, which is cruel and notorious, as Herzog points out in contrast to Treadwell. There is a point at which compassion can be shown, as miracles do happen, but often there is an unspoken line that shouldn't be crossed with humans and nature, and each force needs to be shown respect from the opposing one. Many claim, even the Native Americans in the area, that Treadwell crossed this in a way, by his direct interaction with the bears and other animals in the area (like the adorable foxes). 

I believe that Treadwell had good intentions overall, in advocating for the grizzly bears, but he did cross the unspoken line with his relationship, as a human being, with the wildlife in the are his was camping in. Along his journey of self-discovery, he identified himself as a bear, not a human, and lost the focus of his sojourn as a partial study of the bears. He became confused and lost, with only the bears and his self-interest at heart, which is what ultimately got him killed. He forgot he was in nature's habitat, not his home, and lost the mental process of survival as a human being in the wild Alaskan grizzly country. He lost the insight that he was intruding on the bears' sacred space, an uninhabited area by humans, a place they could feel safe and live their lives as bears, dealing with their own worries for survival and ideas of peace. Timothy Treadwell left a legacy of ferocity and controversy, one that establishes the human being as being a lesser and weaker force to nature and gives a powerful lesson of not to mess too much with nature in its sacred space. 

The Human Perspective is Blind to Nature

Timothy Treadwell was the self-proclaimed shepherd of nature: its guardian, its speaker, and its lord. Admittedly, there are aspects of nature that are threatened by humanity's actions, and Treadwell could indeed be indicated as champion of that cause. However, he fell into the same trap that many individuals who may contemplate the status of the world do; he romanticized it and he believed it helpless. Nature is ill-equipped to handle the toxins that modern humans are capable of creating as a result of industry, but Treadwell's belief in having to shield nature from the world, even shielding nature from the natural order, is something of a paranoia. On an individual level, even a small scale level, nature is more than a match for humanity, and has endured for more than four and a half billion years. To treat such an unfathomable phenomenon as a newborn child is insulting to its existence.

Just as a lack of trust is insulting, romanticizing nature may be considered one of the ultimate expressions of naiveté. The flowers that bloom in the summer are easily torn from the earth and fade, and the freshly birthed creatures of the wild do indeed have fragile lives. Yet, to view such things as a representation of nature in its entirety is a blindness that humans who no longer contend with nature on a daily basis suffer. For millions upon millions of years, animals have died as a result of weakness or merely because there is a creature that holds a higher place in the food chain. Natural disasters plague the world and leave chaos in their wakes. The natural world as a whole cannot possibly be depicted as some pure maiden that may be ravaged by such blights as death, disease, or destruction: those traits are part of the natural order as well, and failure to acknowledge those facts invites the possibility of courting death as well.

From the point of view that nature does have a darker side, one may consider Werner Herzog's view of the natural world as being justified. Yet, Herzog's opinon is no more sensible than Treadwell's, and it is just as blind. Herzog considers nature as a volatile force of chaos, an engine of destruction driving the earth towards a swirling mass of putrefaction and madness. In his ardor, he seems to forget that life on Earth has existed for hundreds of millions of years, and it continues to exist today. It is true that there is a shadowy part of nature, containing the darker parts of life and forcing the living to engage in gladiatorial combat, with survival as the prize. Yet, does not light have to exist in order to cast such deep shadows? If peace and order never existed at any point in time, and humans came from another world describing peace as a regular procession of the natural order, the humans of this world describe the earth they live in as peaceful.  It is only due to the positive aspects of the world that the negative aspects may be identified as such.

Labeling all aspects of the natural world as evil or chaotic is a crime very few may even be capable of committing. Watching the sky on an unclouded day would only be the calm before the storm, or the silence of the sky would be the weight of death pressing down on the earth. Seeing a waterfall cascading down a cliff, surrounded by lush greenery would only be a reminder of the oppressing force applied by the natural world, the falling water a premonition of the end that awaits all living beings: sudden, violent, and hard. In short, such a view would render all parts of this world a living hell, and would strip away any reason for living. Such a view contradicts human instinct, and indeed condemns it for its existence.

All encompassing hatred or love for nature renders an individual as blind to the natural world as if he or she had lost an eye. Something as broad and as old as nature cannot be described in one aspect, or from one viewpoint. Herzog and Treadwell allowed their personal beliefs to interfere with what they saw, even dictating what crossed their respective fields of vision. Nature can only taken in in its entirety through true introspection and thought. Perhaps it may never be fully understood, for how can something so old be understood by a species so young?

Interference in Nature: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Grizzly Man is a fascinating documentary for many reasons. It highlights the struggle for survival of the Alaskan grizzly bears, but that's just the beginning. It also features a potentially mental film maker, a skeptical narrator, and a cast of other related characters, any of which could be considered at least somewhat 'eccentric.'

Possibly the most interesting part of the film is the way in which Timothy Treadwell, the focus of the movie, is portrayed. Since he was creating the film originally (and because he's a narcissist), Treadwell glorifies himself throughout in the most extreme way possible, proclaiming himself as "savior and defender of the bears". Werner Herzog, the creator and narrator of the final product (Grizzly Man), seems to be fascinated by Treadwell and his ideas surrounding the issues covered in the film. While Herzog respects Treadwell, he seems to have quite a different opinion on whether what Tim is doing is really the right thing.

Treadwell's actions throughout the film are clearly products of his opinions regarding nature. He seemed to feel that humans could coexist with other species in nature, and that nature was actually a beautiful, friendly atmosphere, one that invited him in to help to preserve it and its inhabitants. Treadwell felt completely at home in nature; that he had been chosen in some manner to protect it from his fellow humans. He seemed to believe that intervention was needed in order to save the natural world from those who would disrupt it. What he may not have considered is that he himself may have been one of the very defilers he swore to defend against.

Herzog's narration throughout the film is pretty reserved, but he does let on that he is quite skeptical of Treadwell's thoughts about his place in nature. In "Antiphusis: Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man", (Herzog) voices his opinions on the human relationship with nature, stating that there is an invisible line that one should never cross when interacting with the wild world. He also says that Treadwell's eventual fate may be a direct result of his violation of this rule. Through interviews with Native Alaskans, Herzog found that his opinion was not an uncommon one: They too believed there was a line, and that Treadwell had gone far past where any human should in regards to it.

Timothy Treadwell may have had all the best intentions when it came to protecting a world he so quickly fell in love with, but many felt (and still feel) that he crossed the line, and in doing so disrupted a world humans were never supposed to get involved in. While Treadwell saw nature as an opportunity to start a new meaningful relationship, one that was beneficial to both him and the creatures around him, Herzog viewed nature as dangerous and unpredictable; not a force to be meddled with. These contrasting opinions became extremely apparent in Grizzly Man, and were a large reason why the documentary was so intriguing.

A Different Side of Nature

             The film Grizzly Man documents Timothy Treadwell, a man hopelessly enamored with nature, specifically grizzly bears. In this film, the viewer is taken on Treadwell's journey of "saving" and "protecting" the Grizzlies of Alaska, particularly on Kodiak Island. Treadwell experiences a deep connection to these animals, and the nature that surrounds him. This strong love for both things often causes him to become suspicious of people who he believes are out to discredit him, and harm the bears. The director of Grizzly Man, Werner Herzog, gives his opinion, which is almost polar opposite to Treadwell's, in regards to nature. He believes that Treadwell's love for nature and belief that he could become one with it and specifically the bears, is misplaced. Herzog's take is that nature is chaotic and unbalanced. It is inherently bad and as human beings, it is not our place to become one with it, but rather distance ourselves from it. 
         Timothy Treadwell eventually died by being eaten by a bear, along with his girlfriend at the time. According to many of his friends and relatives, he would've been happy at the time of his death. By being eaten, he was in a way providing for the bears as was his "duty" the good thirteen years he spent in Alaska. The cause of Treadwell's death would've been solid proof of Herzog's belief that nature is inherently bad, and unforgiving toward human beings. The bear did not view Treadwell as he viewed it. It was by no means a mutual love - the bear did what it needed to survive, never taking into account the life he was ending. 
         Treadwell definitely wouldn't have taken the side of Herzog and been at all under the assumption that nature is evil, if he was seeing another person being eaten by a bear, or their death caused by a bear. Treadwell's opinion would have been, probably more so than before, that nature is beautiful and we as human beings, can integrate ourselves into it if we act as "warriors" and be strong. He would've viewed this event as a lack of conviction on the human's part. This, in my eyes, is direct proof that Treadwell saw a different side of nature than Herzog. This could be because of his experiences with human beings and his fascination with the bears, but nature to him was sacred and worth dying for. 
        

Nature From Two Perspectives

Grizzly Man, a documentary by Werner Herzog, focuses on Timothy Treadwell's experience with bears in southern Alaska. It is evident that Treadwell sees himself as a man of the bears. Not only does he feel the need to protect them, but he feels as though he is a bear and classifies them as family, naming every bear he encounters. Throughout the course of the documentary, Herzog makes it known that his views differ from Treadwell's, "[believing] the common denominator of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder". He sees the bears as violent creatures, and perceives Treadwell's summers in Alaska as dangerous and harmful to wildlife.

These two varying views provoke a serious topic humanity has to ponder. It has been said that Treadwell's relationship with the bears was disrespectful to them and their territory, but Treadwell believed the complete opposite. Although Treadwell saw them as aggressive animals, he believed they would do no harm to humans as long as they did not show weakness toward the bears. He wanted to provide awareness for the bears and protect them from poachers and other harmful acts, so he took it upon himself to live with them and give them the protection they need. 

Many spectators of Treadwell's behavior saw this a sign of disrespect to the animals. As Noys states in "Antiphusis: Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man", "[Herzog] accounts for Treadwell’s fate as the result of a transgression of an ‘invisible’ boundary between humans and nature". Herzog's point was supported in the documentary by an Alaskan Native, who stated "[Timothy] tried to be a bear. He tried to act like a bear, and for us on the island, you don't do that. You don't invade on their territory". Herzog believes that nature is dangerous, violent, and should be left untouched by humans, therefore he sees Treadwell's behavior as a disruption to nature. 

Both views portray a different set of ideals regarding nature. Treadwell believes humans are nature and they need to exist in nature in order to protect it and keep it at it's full value. Herzog believes the opposite, stating "[he] discovers no kinship, no understanding, no mercy [with nature]. [He sees] only the overwhelming indifference of nature". Both Treadwell and Herzog have different beliefs when it comes to nature, but neither one is considered truthfully accurate; it's up to humanity to decide where humans belong in nature. 

Just A Person

For someone to spend that much time alone in nature, it makes sense that Treadwell’s view of the world was skewed compared to ours. However, that doesn’t mean that his view was wrong. Sure, we’ve discussed how we believe he has some mental illnesses, but he based his thoughts and feelings off of what he saw and witnessed. That is something we in the “real” world have generally lost. We are so commonly told how to feel, act, and respond that we might lose contact with our surroundings. I think that this is why nature is so abused today. We no longer have the spiritual connection to the forests and lakes and wild animals that our ancestors once had. Treadwell saw through the veil that civil life leaves upon us. He was able to spiritually bond with nature, but this altered his personality, which is why his behavior is so strange to us.

I think he wanted to be a bear and to belong in nature so badly that eventually he really did become a part of the wild. He saw the natural world as something beautiful and dangerous and in need of protection. His desire to belong made him crave understanding of his surroundings, which led him to return year after year. And as he saw more destruction, be it natural or caused humans, his rage slowly built. Eventually, he just started blaming human society and government for everything. This rage in conjunction with his altered personality traits led to his explosive behavior we saw in the film.

Treadwell saw humans as the enemy. I think this started long before he began spending his summers alone. When he was an alcoholic and constantly in trouble his frustration with life really emerged. His mission in Alaska gave him an outlet for that frustration. Although he was camped illegally in the reserve, he did have good reasons to be angry at the humans who would go there. People hunted the bears and harmed his precious environment, and the authorities did little to help out. I’m not saying Treadwell was perfect by any means, but I definitely see where he was coming from when he expressed his frustration.

I think that it’s important to remember that Treadwell was a person, not some enigma to laugh at on screen. He died for what he believed in, which to some may seem foolish. However, Treadwell’s combination of isolation, troubled past, and misfitness led him to have a very unique life. As his friends and family described in the documentary- he wouldn’t have had it any other way.

Treadwell, Herzog, and the Tendency to Romanticize Nature

The documentary Grizzly Man closely chronicles the story of Timothy Treadwell, the Alaskan bear-hermit, as he attempts to connect on both a spiritual and physical level with the Alaskan wilderness and specifically the grizzly bears that roam Kodiak Island.  For Treadwell, it isn’t enough to live in nature near Alaska’s bears.  He has to physically interact with them in order to protect and “become” a bear.  At the end, it’s revealed that Treadwell and his partner had been killed in 2003 by a grizzly bear that had become desperate for food.  In meeting his demise, Treadwell had finally become “part of a bear”.

Grizzly Man is easy to discredit as simply representing the ideals of a bipolar, disillusioned outcast, however, there are general themes that Treadwell’s life represents that raise questions about our own ideals of nature.  Perhaps one of the major points that Treadwell’s life raises is that our society has a tendency to romanticize our relationship with nature.  When we see the foxes in Grizzly Man, our hearts inflate with affection for the “cute thing”.   We all would love to curl up next to a red fox in the Alaskan wilderness.   This gut reaction to want to curl up and embrace nature is part of being human.  Our ancestors grew up hunting and gathering off the land.  However, today, many of us lack an understanding of the pure power of nature, and the hardships life in nature brings.  Today, we have a tendency to romanticize nature as being a pure, friendly sanctuary just as Treadwell did.   This romantic reaction contrasts with Herzog’s belief that nature is a hard, corrupt, violent place.  Throughout Grizzly Man, he makes a point to make us know his beliefs about how we should interact with nature.  Instead of “returning to nature”, we should give nature as much space as possible.  Nothing good can come out of man attempting to return to nature.   While both Herzog and Treadwell love nature and deeply appreciate its power, they have deeply contrasting views of how man should interact with and protect it. 

One place where these contrasting views of nature are deeply apparent is in the environmental movement.  Perhaps more than anywhere else in our society, the community that makes up the environmental movement romanticizes our relationship with nature.  Instead of trying to “decouple” from nature, and leave as much space for it to grow freely, many environmentalists assert policy changes that would encourage us to return to our origins.  Cities, nuclear energy, natural gas, and economic development are the enemies of the Alaskan bears.   Instead, man should return to living a rural life powered by distributed energy sources such as wind and solar power.   The origins of such beliefs are interesting.  “Back to the Wild” environmentalism originated with the first industrial revolution in the mid-19^th century.  Romantics saw the changes and destruction that was associated with the rise of the steam engine and textile mill and started to argue that the only way to undo this destruction was to return to our early agrarian society.   In stark contrast to the romantics within the environmental community are ecological pragmatists.  Instead of viewing nature romantically, they argue that the best way to preserve nature is to create as much room for her to grow freely through technological innovation.  Nuclear energy uses far less energy than wind power for example.   While eco-modernists don’t necessarily share Herzog’s ideals that nature is violent, they agree that man should limit interactions with her. 

The contrasting beliefs within the environmental movement are similar to the contrasting beliefs of Herzog and Treadwell.  While Treadwell looks at nature in a romantic way, Herzog looks at nature as a corrupt, violent place.  Similarly, the majority of the environmental movement looks at nature from Treadwell’s perspective.  A small minority known as the eco-pragmatists or modernists looks at the preservation of nature from the perspective of “we have to decouple from it”.   While these people’s ideals strongly contrast, they all share a passion for preserving nature.  This is what is critical to recognize.

More Grizzly than Man

The story of Timothy Treadwell as documented by...himself...and presented to us by Werner Herzog is quite an interesting one. While there is no doubt that Tim has his mental issues, his time spent in pure nature can be treated like an experiment. How did it change him, if it did?

Tim's treks into the Alaskan wilderness did more than just raise awareness for grizzly bears and the problems that face them (or don't as argued by some experts in the film). He also managed to offend and enrage many people while acquiring the unending praises of others. Among the people he angered were the native Alaskans who have been living in harmony with the bears for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. His behavior, living with the bears in an attempt to become more like them, was seen as disrespectful to the bears.

Can a human ever truly become like a bear? Herzog would argue that we couldn't. His views on humanity seem to be that we are too different from what nature is. It's as if nature and humans are on a split timeline of evolution. Somewhere our paths diverged. Nature continued to act as it always had, only blinking when us humans meddled in its business. Humans on the other hand developed their own way to be and act which is completely unlike the savagery and chaos experienced in nature.

Treadwell would argue differently. He might say that humans are just another on a facet of the wondrous jewel which is nature. We can "transform" ourselves into the worlds which surround us. We can just fold ourselves into nature's gooey dough and act on our basic instincts in a completely natural fashion.

It would seem to me that the conclusion of Treadwell's filming contains the very answer we are searching for. In his death, we see that, despite his 13 summers of dedication to these animals, they still saw him as no more than a meal when they needed it most. He failed to become more than a means to make it through the winter. The dramatic transformation he was searching for was simply replaced with a sad struggle for life.

EC: The Happiness Cliche

       Reading My Own Life by Oliver Sacks was enlightening. We very often discuss the concept of living with no regrets and being able to look back on our life and say that we were happy and lived well. This concept is almost a cliche. That being said, I feel like Sacks takes this concept to a different level and/or explains it from a different perspective. This isn't coming from our high school principal on graduation day, but from a man whose very breaths are numbered by days. I think that this shows how real and important it is to be happy and fulfilled when it is one's time to leave this life. 
      It is common that when one is faced with death, their view of the world and the life that they're living is altered. Oliver Sacks describes his personal alteration as a "detachment" from the world. He realized that his time would soon be over. It was no longer his duty to contribute to the world, but rather to recognize his contributions. It was not a time for him to busy himself with the mistakes of his past, but rather what he has accomplished and what was important in that very moment. Sacks didn't want to be burdened with the world's problems nor any extra distractions. He explains it perfectly well here: "I have to live in the richest, deepest, most productive way I can". 
     As I ponder Oliver Sacks' words, I am once again thankful for this cliche, as I believe it to be one. I think that living life to the fullest and that the most important thing in life to be is happy, rings true despite its repetition and overuse. As we discussed in class, our society has a skewed view of what happiness is and it is almost always equated to success - monetarily mostly. This article helped clarify that happiness can be completely separate from money and as demonstrated in different cultures, money often is out of the "happiness equation". Oliver Sacks gave me hope that when it comes time for me to say goodbye to all I love, that I will be able to do so with a smile, confidence that I am leaving the world in a better position than it was before me, and an extreme sense of happiness. 

Stem Cell Research

For my first book, I read most of The Stem Cell Divide: The Facts, the Fiction, and the Fear Driving the Greatest Scientific, Political, and Religious Debate of Our Time by Michael Bellomo. I decided to specify my topic to just stem cell research and all the controversy surrounding the topic. This book is non-fiction and basically outlines the facts associated with stem cell research. It also contains interviews with various scientists that are very experienced in the stem cell field. It is basically an overview of stem cells and explains what it is and why there is so much debate about the topic. The author didn't provide his opinion on the topic.

This book will be a good baseline for my research paper and I will use the facts and information provided by the book in order to form an opinion on the topic.

I plan on reading The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot for my next book, another non-fiction book about a woman named Henrietta Lacks who's cancerous tissue was taken without consent and used for stem cell research. 

On Liberty

For the first book of my research paper, I chose to read the book On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. In this piece, Mill details his views on societal intervention on an individual's personal freedoms. The book is heavily influenced by the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Founded by Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism espouses the belief that an individual should decide upon their course of action based upon an action's utility, both in how it aides themselves and others. To this end, Mill wrote that government intervention should only be permitted when an action would negatively impact others. Other than this instance, Mill believes that the government should be prevented from regulating a person's individual freedoms. Mill also decried unfair democracy, when the majority imposes their will upon the minority. Rather, he argued for a more pluralistic and egalitarian form of government.

I plan to use On Liberty, along with the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, as counterpoints to the Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx. Through my research paper, I plan on synthesizing the views of all three writers in order to create a more modern view on the role of government power over the individual and society. At some point, I plan on finding a more modern analogue to these works, and discussing how the views have evolved. In addition, I could examine how each system of government has fared in actuality.

EC: Something to think about

It seems as if it would be an incredibly difficult thing accept the fact that you are dying. Personally, I have no idea how I would react if I was told I had months to live. I feel as though death terrifies most people, but those who accept death I think are no longer afraid. It is definitely inspirational; the way Oliver talks about how he will spend his last few months. Wanting to fill it with as much love and excitement seems like a lovely thing to do. Coming close to death, or knowing that it is near, makes one think about their life in a new kind of way. Perhaps colors seem more vibrant, music sounds more beautiful, and sex turns into making love. I don’t think that there is a way to fully understand what he is going through without having been through it yourself- but it’s definitely something to think about.

EC: The Way We Live

Oliver Sacks writes about the way finding out he had terminal cancer changed his perspective or more his priorities. The idea of what you would do when faced with a deadline for your life is an interesting concept. Many people's priorities change with a diagnosis such as this one. They spend more time with the people they love doing what they love. Its curious that you need a deadline to live the way you want to.

In the face of death he is continuing to live but he is no longer concerning himself with matters such as the economy or the environment. His explanation for this is detachment. These issues no longer belong to him but to the people of the future. This was one of my favorite lines from the article. The concept that he has taken his turn with these issues and now he is giving up his control to the future generations. This idea that at the end of our life we pass the world onto the next generation is important to me, as it is our generations duty to create the best possible world to pass on to our children. But it is also our duty to know when it is our time to pass the torch to the next generation.

Evan mentioned that this article reminded him of a speech he read that was given at the end of high school. The end of high school is a much less serious deadline than death itself, but a deadline none the less. As students near the end of high school, they evaluate their life and choices thus far in a similar manner. Where you the person you wanted to be? Are you proud of what you accomplished? What do you regret? Who will you miss? As I near the end of high school and look back over four years that are nothing I imagined when I started. I am grateful for the experiences I have had and the people I have spent time with. At the end of the day, I have memories that I can't imagine life without. For four years I experienced and learned and loved it all, crazy happiness and crushing disappointments combined. I hope that at the end of my life I can look at my life similarly to how I look at high school. Being able to say that I experienced it all (or as much as I could, I'm still upset I'll never experience a sports team) but also that now I'm ready to be done. I don't have many what ifs or things I was to afraid to try in high school and I hope that I don't at the end of my life either.

Earlier today I was reading an article, The Test of Time, by Brigid Schulte, a working mother, about the way in which we spend our time. In the world we live in today so many of us are doing 196475197485694 things at the same time that sometimes I'm not sure we even know what is important to us. She wrote of never feeling like she accomplished anything and having a seeming disgust for the way she spent her time. Today we look at our lives and try to cram as much as possible in the 24 hours we have a day. But of those tasks which are really important. Do those that fill us with joy even make the to do list? Sacks writes, "It is up to me now to choose how to live out the months that remain to me. I have to live in the richest, deepest, most productive way I can". This idea of living a fulfilling life doesn't always add up with the American view of time well spent. For her article Schulte tracked her time usage in journals at one point writing, "I was afraid they'd show that I don't work very hard, because I never feel I've accomplished enough".  We live in a society that marks time well spent by accomplishments. Sacks too points out that in the last 15 years he wrote 5 books and autobiography along with having several more to almost finished. However he describes his work as something he loves. It seems that the real test is to discover a passion that can fill you time but also your heart. Make each day count and spend it doing what you love with the people you love. After all at the end of life you are left with your experiences.

How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare

        My research topic is exploring Shakespeare and his views on philosophy in relation to the specific work of Hamlet. To begin the research process, I read Will in the World by Stephen Greenblatt. This book is an overview of how Shakespeare's childhood and life experiences affected his future career and works as a playwright. Shakespeare's father held important civic offices in their town of Stratford-upon-Avon, allowing the family to have many connections with the happenings of the town/country. One important aspect that particularly benefited Shakespeare was when traveling troupes of actors came to perform, with the approval of the queen or nobles. From their plays and stories, Shakespeare was inspired. Many of his most famous works are based off of the basic story lines of said plays. His plays also incorporate many of the religious connotation that the plays he saw as a child possessed. These actors were not the only inspiration for Shakespeare, though. In school, specifically during Latin lessons, plays such as The Two Menaechmuses were performed, which allowed the students to practice their Latin. From these, Shakespeare first experienced theatre and the concept of plays. These two specific experiences helped Shakespeare's love for writing and theatre grow, making him one of the best playwrights, if not the best, in the world.

        I plan to use this book as a background for why Shakespeare wrote what he wrote and to incorporate how his childhood and life experiences play parts in his works - his philosophy is inspired and affected by what was happening around him and how he responded to that. I hope that my next book will focus solely on Hamlet and how Shakespeare's personal experience with his son, Hamnet's, death encouraged/inspired him to write the Hamlet we know today. This book gave me the first stepping stones in discovering how his personal experiences affected his writings and beliefs/philosophy (and vise versa - how his philosophy and beliefs affected what he wrote about). 

Parallel Myths

My book is called Parallel Myths, by J. F. Bierlein. It begins by giving an introduction to myth and why it was as important for its worshipers as it is for us today. Then, it paraphrases myths from cultures across the world, including Christian, Hebrew, Greek, African, Native American, Indian, Japanese, Norse, Hawaiian, Egyptian, Aztec, etc. It contains a huge variety of cultures, but it is astounding to see how many commonalities there are between them all. The myths are separated into sections such as ‘Beginnings- The Creation Myths’,  ‘The Flood Myths’, ‘Some Brief Myths of the Hero’, and ‘The End- Visions of the Apocalypse’. My favorite section may have been ‘Four Parallel Stories’ which is ingeniously titled after four very similar myths from Blackfoot Indian, Egyptian, Greek, and Genesis.

What I really like about reading this book is that I get to compare cultures in a way we never have in a class. Generally in social studies classes we only study one culture at a time, whereas in reading my book, I can learn about five different cultures in only three pages. I enjoy being able to compare and contrast their belief systems, which really speak to the influence of the community’s environment and the setup of its social structure.

I still want to look at myths about the sky and celestial concepts, however now I know more about earth myths and want to include more about the formation of the earth and what they believe the earth to be like. I want to compare sun and moon gods in different cultures, since almost every polynomic culture has one, or at least has a myth about how the sun and moon got there. I also might include constellations and what meaning they have in different cultures. I haven’t found a book yet so if anybody has any suggestions they would be more than welcome!

My Own Life

Perhaps it was the fact that I read this on the plane ride home from El Salvador, but in reading My Own Life by Oliver Sacks, a slew of question popped into my head about how I plan on living my life and standing by the decisions I make.  If anything this article, coupled with the experiences that I had in El Salvador showed me that perspective is everything.  

In the article, Sacks brings up a point that in hearing the news that he has terminal cancer, he soon thereafter felt a sort of detachment from politics and the issues of the future.  These problems are no longer his, and it was now his duty to live the remainder of this life to the fullest.  As we progress throughout our lives, our perspective greatly changes as we mature and grow as an individual.  The way we view the world one day may dramatically change the next should a massive event like the death of a family member or the birth of a child take place.  

One of my favorite essayists is Paul Graham, who made his name as a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.  Throughout the past decade, he’s written several hundred essays on topics ranging from Parallel Computing to the idea of what success is.  While reading “My Own Life”, I was reminded of his essay “What You’ll Wish You’d Known”, which is the transcript of a speech he gave as the commencement speaker at his former high school.  In his paper, he talks about his idea of what it means to be successful and to pursue your goals.  The central point of the essay is that in order to do something well, you have to love it.  The difficulty comes in finding what it is you love to do.  

The common theme between Sacks and Graham’s work is that in order to live without regrets, you have to live life very intensely.  Graham argues that in order to find fulfillment and purpose, you have to find what it is you love to do. Sacks comes from more of a perspective of "I've live my life to the fullest, and as a result, I look back fondly on my life without regrets". While both present slightly different perspectives, they both ultimately are saying that if you live life to it's fullest, you'll find happiness.

RP: How we came to be

I started by reading In the Beginning: Creation Stories from Around the World. Each story is different but many include similar ideas, concepts, and characters. The stories all included a little commentary about the story as well as information about where it originated. The theme of a god like being is present in many cultures around the world including the Genesis story we read in class. An alternative to a god-creator being is the concept of animals creating humans.

These stories are the way that people from around the world answered the question of how they came to be. However today science has given us an answer: evolution. My research paper seems to have shifted slightly away from just creation stories and into the question of defining how we came to be. Instead of just looking at creation stories I'm going to look at how people use science and religion to answer the question of how they came to be. The next book I am going to read is Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. This book describes the importance of evolution and how rejecting evolution hurts people, science, and our ability to move forward as a species.

Scientology

    For my first book I read Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of belief by Lawrence Wright.  It is a non-fiction book about Scientology.  It has interviews from many current Scientology believers, but is written from a skeptics point of view.  Both L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, and David Miscavige, the current leader of Scientology were both interviewed for the book.  The book gives great info on the founding of Scientology, the beliefs of Scientology, and the members of the Scientology.

    I will be using this book mostly for information on the beliefs of Scientology.  Using the information from this book I will compare the creation stories of Christianity and Scientology, which have the same basic principles.  I will also compare the rituals and practices of these to religions.  Depending on the direction of my paper I may also compare the similarities in the scandals of both religions.  

Spellbound

The book Spellbound, written by Dominic Alexander, explores the historical relations between science, magic, and religion. There are stories referenced from ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Europe on people who were originally great creators, being scientists and architects, who were later called magicians by the descendants of the culture. There is also extensive information concerning the dark ages and Christianity's approach to magic and witchcraft. Between religions, there are also claims of the opposing faith using magic or sorcery rather than prayer. Spellbound follows a timeline, from ancient Egypt to the present, and focuses on different elements depending on the time period. Egyptians revered magicians; Greeks had little use for magic, but spoke of magic in stories as an obstacle, or something ordained; Romans classified types of magicians and did not approve of them, passing a law that banned seeking out sorcerers; the church then followed by rooting out magic. Yet, when magic was being sought out for the purpose of being destroyed, the most frequent practitioners used folk lore and magical skills for aid. The use of magic for human aid and the persecution of magic for its characteristic mystery is a theme followed through the evolution of religion and the passage of time.

This book has helped focus me towards the interaction between magic and religion, both the conflicts and the places where the two are like minded. The evolution from acceptance to rejection as far as the tolerance of magic is concerned is intriguing, and to explore why magic became such a taboo might prove to be the focus for my paper. Another question that the book brings up for me is the place of folk magic in culture and why it was practiced, especially in times of low tolerance for such activities.

Freud and Psychoanalysis

The book Freud and Psychoanalysis by W.W. Meissner, was my first step, as well as a change, in my research for my topic. I say it was a change, because I shifted my topic from humanistic psychology to psychoanalysis due to the lack of materials and deeper ideals put forth. The book goes through and, in detail, touches upon the development of psychoanalysis, sets forward the fundamental keys Freud, himself, put on the table and their origins, along with his beliefs and ideals on furthered investigations on that of the state of hysteria. It goes through and names the cases Freud first dealt with, which in part sparked his revolutionary concepts, hist interpretation of dreams, the stages in which human beings go through in a psychosexual way, and the development and ideas behind the infamous id, the mediating ego, and the conscientious superego. Added on top of that the author mentions of the growth of anxiety and how it is often placed in traumatic childhood situations -- with other aspects of human development from infancy to adulthood -- and how goes along with the on-going growth taking place in the psychology of human beings. The book goes on to also mention Freud's idea of therapeutic treatments for hysteria and psychosis, along with their specific characteristics.

I plan to apply this item of research to the way cultures could develop their initial rituals and beliefs in aspects of life. I want to delve deeper especially into the concept of dreams and the many ways to interpret them. Carl Jung is a definite figure of interest in my study, as his interpretation of dreams evolves into the concept of archetypes and symbols. This being so, symbols, along with archetypes, are a very prominent aspect in all cultural settings, rituals, and religions. The deduction of such ideas gives us more insight to how a culture functions, views certain objects, etc or they at least give us insight on how they once did.

In the Jewish Tradition

In the book I chose for my research project, there are a lot of explanations to many important Jewish holidays.  I found this book to be quite helpful because it had specific prayers that went with specific holidays as well as some informative facts about the history of why we celebrate certain holidays. The prayers in the book were transliterated and then translated so they were easier to understand. Along with history, prayers, holiday descriptions, and countless Jewish recipes, this book showed certain significant symbols like the shofar, that are very sacred to the Jewish people.  A shofar is preferably made of a rams horn and makes distinctive sounds during certain holidays. This book was great because it gave me some specific details about multiple different topics that I could have for my research paper.
After reading my first book for my research paper, I decided that I really want to look specifically into the music of Jewish prayer.  This book did not have specifics on that topic, but it gave a nice starting point for my second book to read.  I still want to keep some of the information about the history and meaning of the prayers, but my main focus is going to be about music. In the back of this book, there were many prayers with the tunes and lyrics.  I found this the most fascinating because I wanted to see if I recognized any of the tunes.

An Introduction to Hinduism

      For my book, I read Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction by Kim Knott. It lays out Hinduism in an easy to understand way. Each chapter focused on an important aspect of the religion, The Gods and Goddesses, important Hindu scholars, the concepts of karma and dharma, and the stories such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. It gives the stories of not only the Gods; Vishnu, Krishna, Brahma, and Ganesha and the Epic heroes we have all heard of before, but also of lesser known people like Gurus who have made an impact on modern Hinduism; Anandamayi Ma, a modern woman who defied gender roles and become a mother and Guru to many Hindu women in India.

      After reading this, I feel like I have expanded my knowledge of Hinduism, not only on things that I already knew, but things I never knew. I was able to expand on the Hindu idea of the self and how they value their inner beings. But I learned a lot of interesting new things, such as the three famous Hindu philosophers, Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, whose ideas changed the way many Hindu scholars understood the readings of the Vedas, the Hindu sacred texts. This book also helped me discover the path I wanted to follow for my research paper. After reading this, I think I want to focus on the idea of karma, or the spiritual side of yoga, how it affects the mind as well as the body. Hinduism is such a unique religion it's hard to choose one thing to focus on!

Mad in America by Robert Whitaker

For the beginning of my research I chose to read Mad in America by Robert Whitaker.  The book gives a detailed history of the ups and downs of mental health treatment through the history of the United States, beginning in 1750 and traveling into the present day.  One aspect of this book that I found very helpful to my research process was that Whitaker did not just discuss the treatments for mental illness in America, he also discussed the roots of those treatments.  One of the major roots of change in the care of the mentally ill that this book talks about, is the constant fluctuation in our society between a highly scientific, and a highly behavioral approach to treating insanity. During the beginnings of psychology, insanity was first considered to be either purely medical, or purely behavioral, those two perspectives have battled each other for most of the history of psychology.  Currently, we are treating psychology with more of a balanced perspective, that is, recognizing that both environment and biology affect mental health.  However, in American society today, patients are often medicated hastily and without consideration to a more wholistic picture of their illness. 

Reading Mad in America helped me to understand how much society's interpretation of religion changes our views on caring for mental illness, and how as a society we have separated mind, body, and spirit to such a degree that wholistic treatment is not often achieved.  I am hoping from here to explore different religions that do have a more wholistic way of viewing the mind, body, and spirit, and comparing their treatment of insanity to ours.