Transcendentalism to Me

I think transcendentalism means something different to every person; it is not a term that can have one concrete definition. My definition of transcendentalism is going to be unique to my beliefs and values and will differ from everyone else. To me, transcendentalism is going against the social norm, and standing up for something that is important to the individual.

I am, in a sense, envious of transcendentalists. They have the confidence and will to stand up against the masses, for what the believe. It really only takes one person to start a movement, and if no one ever stands up, then there will never be change.

I do not consider myself a transcendentalist. I am more passive and try to avoid confrontation. I think it takes a special person to stand against popular opinion, especially if they are standing alone.

I think that transcendentalism is a good thing. One person can really start a movement for change, and without people who will take those first steps, progress would never happen. They have to accept the risks of standing up for what they believe, and it can come with some very steep ones. When a population is used to something, there can be some resistance to change.

Bowling for Columbine

American values about gun control have changed in the recent years --  events such as Columbine have the power to morph and persuade opinions to wanting stricter gun control laws. Moore provides a very compelling, however one sided argument that addresses this issue with first hand examples. His documentary connects many different events together and addresses gun control as well as political corruption, and poverty. As this documentary unfolds, the viewer gets many different opinions and sees real change being made before the documentary even was released.

America is place with an ever changing system of values. America today is a different America than it was when Columbine happened, and a very different America from when the Declaration of Independence was written. When reading the article about Japanese and American gun control laws, I found it interesting that Max Fisher connected Americans need for guns roots from its violence with Britain when it was first being made. Being able to bear arms was important to Americans In today's world, that is not really a huge part of our culture anymore, making lots of gun freedom not very important. What has become more valued is safety. Events such as Columbine have been widely known as a tragedy, and there has been many steps taken to try and avoid other events like that.

I think that overall, in his documentary, Moore did create a compelling argument. He talked to people on both sides of the argument, but did tend to stay on the side of wanting more gun laws. This did make his argument seem one sided. I think the people that he interviewed did help to make his argument more convincing. What was really impressive was that while promoting his argument, he also was able to touch on concepts of poverty. When he was talking about the mom of the boy who shot the girl, he seemed to blame it on the welfare system, and was able to get people to think about that as being a problem as well. At the end of the documentary, the viewer is really left with the impression that steps need to be taken to avoid any more gun related tragedies, and they can see some of the corruption in the system.