Reply to comment

From the post above me (Catrina), I'm surprised how different the discussions in each of our classes are! Not just in content but in mood and direction... where your class seemed to philisophically ponder the mysteries of life as a whole, my class immediately launched into probably the most heated, passionate discourse I'd ever seen there. Our Tuesday class started off debating the infantalizing effects of education-- Is classical education something constraining? Does it keep us from learning?

Half of us said "Yes, it is infantalizing" and half of us said "No, education is a responsibility". What I realize now as I write this is that we were pretty much divided along a line of age. The more mature students saw education as a privelage and a tool to make the world a better place, while the rest of us (myself included), fresh out of high school, were a bit more pessimistic. Education, we said, removes the consequences of screwing up. In school, if you confuse a formula or turn a paper in late, you correct your mistake (hopefully) the next time, no harm done but to your grade. In life, you get fired from your job or crash a plane or run into debt.

"Life," someone said, "is like Orgo lab."

"But life isn't as complicated as Orgo lab!" somebody else replied.

"How about raising children?"

On Thursday we finally moved onto Flatland, opening class BEFORE the professor arrived with some speculation on two-dimensional sexuality. On a more serious notre, when she finally did get there, we reflected on the previous class's discussion with the question "Do we have responsibility for what we say in the world of education?" We rapidly segued into the merits of being politically correct and to sensitivity to others' feelings; hence we entered some choppy seas right from the outset. Every opinion, the majority of us concluded, offends somebody, no matter how sensitive it may be. Perhaps the centerpiece of Thursday was trying to answer whether or not Flatland was a satire of Victorian classism/sexism, or rather just outright offensive.

A few people were obviously highly offended.

So assuming Flatland is a satire, does satire as an "art form" perpetuate bigotry? The general consensus was that it does, that it relieves tension about the ugly bits of our culture, allowing those ugly bits to continue. However, a few disagreed-- satire, well-crafted, is a means by which we point out the absurd reality of those ugly bits. There is a fine line, it seems, between real and funny. But who says something can't be both?

So is Flatland a farce? We never decided. Those who said it was remained staunchly in that opinion, and those who said it wasn't did the same.

Also in question was the value of evangelism and enlightenment, a theme which we extracted from the highly religious overtones of Flatland. Is religious belief a result of first-hand enlightenment? Is it right to then impose that belief on others? And how effective is this? The mood turned slightly existential: "Is knowledge of the other side something that disconnects you and makes you unhappy with your own world?"

The one element uniting our discussion with Catrina's discussion was the comparison of Flatland to Galileo. Mr. Square, we decided, was Galileo, imprisoned for his discovery of another story which redefined the second dimension.