|Sources / references
|any number of sources / references
|Description / paper instructions
I included my Final instructions in attachment and also my midterm just in case if you want to refer.
Basically, you must answer question 1 which can be short or long and after that you can choose any kinds of questions. 3 questions must be in short answers in one page and 1 question must be in long answers in 2 pages.
For question 1, I have my books on my Amazon kindle if you like to use.
To read the book, login Amazon and go to your account in Account & Lists at the top right. You’ll be able to see order history and clikc veiw your kindle orders. You’ll see the book lists and click Actions button and then clikc Read now. That will allow you to read the book.
Final Exam—Comparative Studies 3603 –Early Release (Additional questions and directions may be added before the Exam Review day.)
For the final exam, choose 3 of these questions to answer in short form (about 1 page, typed single spaced 12-point times New Roman font with 1” margins), utilizing 2 or more texts discussed during the term to illustrate your point. Focus mainly on the 2nd unit of class. Then choose a 4th question to answer in long form (at least 2 pages typed single spaced 12-point times New Roman font with 1” margins), utilizing 3 or more texts from class. This portion can focus on the class as a whole. Any question may be answered in either form, but you must answer the first question. Clearly indicate which question you are answering. No extra credit will be given for additional or longer answers. Turn in a printed, stapled version by the due date as directed. Should you wish to propose a variant on this exam, schedule a meeting with me to establish a plan and an agreement about length and number of questions. Otherwise, turn it in as it is described here.
(Please note: Answers given on the midterm duplicated on the final will be treated as academic misconduct. Submit only newly produced essays for this exam.)
1) Give a brief sketch of the thesis of any one of our theorists. How can this be usefully applied to The Pickup or God of Small Things? * [You MUST ANSWER this question in either long or short form.]
2) Several times throughout the term we have sought to understand love by looking at what is not love (or what is warped or twisted love). To what extent is this approach useful to analysis of the subject from a global perspective? To what extent does it hinder productive cross-cultural inquiry? Use examples from the texts to illustrate your points.
3) Use examples from the texts we have read to analyze the relationship between personal identity, cultural identity and love relationships with which our authors grapple. (You may wish to choose 2 characters and discuss the ways in which their identities determine the ways they give and receive love. Do their identitites change or solidify as a result of love? Is a strong stable sense of self necessary for love or does love inevitably change who one is?.. these are just some possibilities you might consider in answering the question.)
4) Thinking about the binaries our authors so far are negotiating, is there one that stands out to you to be particularly informative about the nature of love? What is it, what are some of our authors’ claims about it, and what meaning do you derive from comparing these claims?
5) Comment on the differences and similarities between cultures when it comes to love as represented in several of the texts we’ve read or watched this term. That is, to what degree is it useful to think of love as a universal human concept, and to what degree is it important to respect the particularity of concepts about love and its expression in different parts of the world?
6) Many of the authors we read in this class are in conversation with one another, either explicitly or implicitly. Describe one productive line of inquiry (i.e. authors building a further point off of others’, authors arguing against each other) or, if you would rather, put them into conversation now. What would they say to each other concerning each other’s formulations?
7) Trace a strand of a claim or theme about love (or directly conflicting ideas about love, for example: can a person deserve or earn love? does nostalgia affect love? what’s the relationship between love and cultural institutions?) through multiple texts we’ve read or watched this term. What insights have you developed from noticing this pattern?
8) What is the most insightful new idea or new question you have about love as a product of our extended inquiry? How did you develop it? Cite specifics from the texts.
9) The second half of this class was designed to investigate ideas about love in the world by looking at literary representations that examine conflicts and/or issues of culture, identity, and society as it relates to love relationships. Which text or texts did you find most useful for your own exploration and why?
Bonus question to meet length requirements (optional, 1/2 page or less): Which presentation (other than your own) gave you the most insight into love and how did it do that?
Love an Impairer or an Enhancer (Q3)
One of the arguments of love presented by several authors is that love is an impairer or enhancer of judgment. An impairer, meaning that it distorts judgment and an enhancer meaning that it leads to a better judgment.
Among the authors who holds one of these views is Nussbaum. In one part of her book, Love’s knowledge, Nussbaum argues that love is an impairer of judgment. Using Plato’s philosophical views to back her arguments, Nussbaum explains that feelings of love are an enemy to the search for truth. These feelings distract the search for truth by either distorting one’s outlook of the world or by distracting this search. Love comes with desire and this binds the soul within the body meaning that decisions made in such a state are always distorted (Nussbaum 263). By its own, Nussbaum explains that intellect is not self-deceptive and does not present a biased view of the truth. Although it may fail, intellect always reaches this truth. But love, as explained earlier distorts this intellect. While still using Plato’s philosophies, Nussbaum claims that for true judgment to be made, passions, which in this case stand for love must be dropped. She explains that intellect alone is sufficient when seeking truth as it does not impair judgment.
Nussbaum view is different from Hook’s as she views love as an enhancer of judgment. Using her owns life account, Bell Hooks explains that for us to make true judgment about our partner, we have to critically analyze ourselves. We also have to analyze our desires and our longings. For this reason, Bell advices people to choose to love instead of falling in love. When combined with intentionality and communication of one’s feeling, Hooks argues that love helps in making the right decision about a certain relationship. She also explains that those who have applied her advice in their lives has been successful either in their sexual lives or in their relationship (Hooks 173).
Although Bell views love as an enhancer, she argues that erotic attraction, which she strongly differentiates from love leads to poor decisions. Most people, as she explains, are led by some parts of their bodies, by their desire, and in such cases, they end up with people who they do not have common goals.
Just like these authors, Campbell too argues on one side of love and explains that love can impair judgment. Campbell uses myths, legends and religious examples to explain his points and one of the best examples is that of Satan who loved God to an extent that he chose to disobey him when asked to bow to man. Campbell explains that Satan’s love to God was so loyal and because God commanded his angels to bow to no other God, but him. His change of mind after creating man led to Satan’s disobedience for he could not love anyone else (Campbell 148). He also explains about other cases of love like the one where the earth god and goddess love the world and the child they bore too much that they decided to eat it.
A look at these viewpoints shows that they are different in one way or the other. For example, Nussbaum sees love as an enhancer while Hooks and Campbell views love as an impairer. Each of these authors also choose different context to explain about love, which can be explained as affecting their judgment. Campbell, for example, explains love as an impairer from a mythology or religious point of view, which is different from worldly judgment. Nussbaum, on the other hand, chooses philosophical view points, which do not seem to present the real meaning of love as they combine desire and love into one meaning. Because of these reasons, Hook’s arguments seem to be the only logical argument as they are based on real life experiences and not philosophy or mythology.
Issues of Control or Skill in Love and Loving (Q4)
On the issues of control in love and loving, different authors seems to have different viewpoint. Most of them, however, agree that control and love is needed in loving.
In her argument on this, Hook explains about love and desire. She argues that people ought to differentiate the two as desire, which often leads to uncontrollable situations is not love and neither is it a sign of love (Hooks 174). She explains that lack of control, which always comes as a result of desire often lead people to the wrong relationships where they do not have common values or interests. The most affected by this lack of control, according to Hook, are men as most are always pressured to be with those they have some sexual attraction. This control is too much to an extent that most men forget everything else for this desire.
Women, however, are explained by Hooks as being more in control when it comes to love and desire. Most women understand and acknowledge that sexual desire is not all there is to building a strong relationship. Women are therefore more skilled than men as most of them are always able to speak about their need for love. Apart from being in control, women loving skills, according to Hook are so good that they are able to find satisfaction with only those they love (Hooks 176).
Although women seem to be more skilled and in control when it comes to love, Hook explains that the change in the world in terms of increase in sexually transmitted diseases have changed people’s skills and control of love and desire. She therefore argues that people can become skilled in love by shifting their ways of thinking and attitudes on love and falling in love. What Hooks means in this case is that circumstances have increased people’s love skills and this has led to her conclusion that love skills can be attained and control can be gained without experience and through accepting to change one’s views and attitudes about love and control (Hooks 177).
On his views of control and skills in loving, Campbell touches on the issue of control when explaining about the types of love. He argues that passionate love is the one that is associated with lack of control and this love is illicit or illegal. The love is also destroying like the example of the Indian god who had a relationship with a mortal who eventually sacrificed all herself just to see the face of this god (Campbell 155).
In her book, Nussbaum speaks of love, control and skills and at one point, she emphasizes on skills. She argues that some people like Albertine, one of the characters used in her book to explain love, can control themselves through skills. She calls these skills a cost-benefit analysis using intellect and not desire or love to make decisions (Nussbaum 264). It is after we apply strategies and intellect in understanding love and the truth that we come to acknowledge and discover love.
A look at these different arguments on love, control and the associated skills shows that all the authors support the need for control in love. Campbell and Hook seem to agree on the fact that control leads to increased skills. In addition, control leads to real love. Nussbaum seems to only support the fact that lack of control, which is found in passionate love, is illegal and often leads to disaster.
What Love is not (Q9)
When describing love, most authors find themselves discussing what love is not. In most cases, these authors use illustrations of what love is not and they do this in order to raise people’s understanding of true love.
One of the authors who largely discusses what love is not is Hook. In her book, All about Love, Hook seems to explain that love is not desire and the two do not have similar outcomes. One of the illustrations used by this author is her own example. She explains that satisfying and best sex, which are based on two opposing things, which is love and desire are not the same. She gives examples of the men she has had sex with in her life, all who had different personalities and whom she had different feelings about. With men who she just had sex with for the sake of the desire, Hooks explain that she has good sex. However, with loving partners, Hooks explains that her sex with them was fulfilling despite the fact that some of them did not possess the skills and know-how need for fulfilling and good sex.
As explained earlier, the reason why Hooks presents this example is to show that love, which should not be confused with desire is fulfilling in all ways. She also tries to clarify most people’s myth that fulfillment is only obtained when there is sexual attraction among the two lovers. This is why she explains that she has gained fulfillment with me with whom they shared mutual love and they were fulfilling despite the fact that most of them did not possess some sexual skills.
Apart from distinguishing love from desire, Hooks also distinguishes love from basic goodwill and care using illustrations. She gives an illustration with what everyone experiences and argues that most of us in one time or the other feel something that we think can take us to the other level of connection and deep bonding. In some cases, others have explained that they did not find their partners as appealing as such during their first meeting, but they somehow felt connected with those individuals.
Hooks does this to point out that true love is not goodwill or basic care, which is why in the illustrations, she gives story of people who loved each other even after not finding any connections during their first meeting. This is also why she gives the story of people who felt some basic care connection in their first meeting, but their relationship did not make it as it was not true love (Hooks 182).
Another good illustration of the same argument that true love is not rooted on care and goodwill is presented by Nussbaum who starts her arguments with the story of Albertine. In this story, the character involved only realized that he was in love when the woman went away and this led to a lot of anguish and pain in his life (Nussbaum 261).
To crown these authors arguments, Campbell, who mostly deals with divine or supernatural love argues that love, which is related to charity, compassion or agape love is supernatural. This means that it is beyond all differences like loyalty. It is also of higher spiritual order meaning that it cannot be compared to the usual love that humans feel for one another.
Campbell, Joseph. Myths to Live by. New York: Viking, 1972. Print.
Hooks, Bell. All about Love: New Visions. New York: William Morrow, 2000. Print.
Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Oxford UP, 1990. Print.