the elephant man

1. John merrick is not a monster. however, he does fit the description of a monster. in folklore, monsters were creatures that differed from humans in appearance and usually took on a grotesque form. however, Merrick is not a monster in the sense of conscience. he is well adapted to society. he recognizes language and is well adapted to the felling of emotions. he also is, in the British context, a cultured man.

2. Merricks claim that he is not an animal, but a human being. what he means by this is that he is not something to be judged and ridiculed. we treat monsters and animals with a degree of disrespect because they are not like us humans and cannot be like us. John Merrick says he is a human. he knows this because he is able to use emotions to judge what he believes is true. he is also able to read, and comprehend.

3. Treves' asks his wife " am i a good man or a bad man?" he is referring to his relation with John and introducing him to the people of england. he believes that even though he tried to introduce John as a man of culture, he has turned John Merrick back into a side show freak. he knows this by the use of emotion. he views the reactions that the visitors have on John.

4. the role of mob mentality plays a dark role in the film "the elephant man." the mob plays the role of the dark side of humans, wanting to see what the monsters is. individually the people are weak, but when they gang together, it appears to mentally scar John Merrick because of the abundance of judging people mocking him.

5.. the community's reaction differed upon the "monster" that they view. the reactions differed depending on similarity between the monster and humans. the more human it looks, the less serious the reaction. however, the monsters that appeared the least human get the greatest reaction from the crowd of people. this is why John Merrick was most often pursued by a mob and why he had to be kept in the isolation ward.

6.i agree with the phrase "we are afraid of what we do not understand." throughout history, many animals have been killed because of this reason. Tiger and lions were hunted for the reason that they were thought to be man eaters. i believe that this phrase can be applied to modern days. however, we do not misunderstand monsters, but rather people, especially religions people. nowadays, we fear those of other religious groups, because we perceive those people to be radicals.

Karadzic justifications

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role ofKaradzic and Milosovic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster". kjglhj after reading and learning of these events i believe that claiming that Karadzic was a "monster" was pushing the envelope too far. however, i am not denying that what he did was inhumane and immoral, but compared with others in the field of destruction, he is still recognized as being less severe in which he allowed there to be refugees from sarajevo instead of capturing everyone and have one large scale massacre

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims. i believe that the people who claimed this phrase justified it using all 4 platonic justifications. for the reporters who visited the camps personally under the power and control of the serbs, the sheer shock of seeing men depreived of food and being beaten by guards is enough to call the ones beating the prisoners monsters. however, when someone listens to Karadzic's speach in the death of yugoslavia, he states the if the muslims did not get out of the serb's way, that they would be exterminated. from there, people can use reason to justify how the camps were established and why the events in the camps were going unpunished by those in power.

3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations). under the established definition of "monster" it is stated that it is a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc. however, in the viewing the video and reading the independent article on the bosnian war, in the the context of Karadzic i believe that a monster is defined as a person who knowingly, and willingly, commits attrocities against human life for either a gain in power, or a tactic of terror.

4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not? since my first entry, my answer has not changed on the assumption that Karadzic is a monster. however, i do believe that he is a man of terror who ranks with those in history who have been known as monsters.

kradzic is a monster? how do we know?

The Independent refers to Karadzic as a "Monster." Think back to last year and consider: "How do they know what they know?" How have they attempted to justify their knowledge claims? Please be specific.

the reporters make claims that Karadzic is a"monster." many reporters have come to this conclusion through their use of empiricism and knowledge by authority. some reporters have been allowed to enter the "interogation" camps in Bosnia as reported in "love thy neighbor." these reporters have witnessed the attrocities that the guards are performing on the prisoners. the reporters then are able to deduce that Karadzic is a monster because the camps are under contol of the Serbian government. also, independent report attempts to justify the claims using knowledge by authority. many credible reporters have been into these camps and brought back the conditions of these people. also, the reporters justify their claims that Karadzic is a monster becuase of the way that he runs the politics. in "the independent" article, Karadzic makes false press releases specifically on the events in which serbian snipers were killing bosnians. he states that "We (the Serbs) have no snipers." he even goes as far as to blame the events on bosnians who were trying to provoke the Serbs.