Volvo Vernensis

I think the most important part in determining the answer is defining the object [Vern's Volvo] in the question. From there it's obvious which entity is the correct choice.

Perhaps the more common definition fits into a context of verbal usage of the term "Vern's Volvo" similar to the way that we might refer to our cars: "Did you hear about how that taxi driver put another dent in Vern's Volvo?" similar to "This morning I followed Sophie's Saab to school." Each of these refers to the vehicle owned and driven by a certain person during a certain instance. Supposing a more specific (accurate) representation, "Did you hear about how that taxi driver made another dent in the Volvo brand car that Vern holds ownership to and drove to work this morning?" which notes that the use of "Vern's Volvo" in the first sentence could refer to multiple sets of Volvo brand parts arranged in the company's proper car form. Vern's Volvo a week after the incident will refer to a slightly different set of parts: one with dent-less panels. Most listeners assume conditions based on the sentence, identifying "Vern's Volvo" as the Volvo vehicle that Vern drives, obviously the one he drove that day when it was dented. With such an assumption, [Vern's Volvo] must be the car at the time of the question, which fits most of our assumptions that [Vern's Volvo] is the Volvo car that Vern owns and drives.

Another possible usage for the term [Vern's Volvo] is as the name for the vehicle (made up of specific parts) that Vern purchased or inherited or something twenty years before this question: his (original car). I imagine it as something like "Herbie the Love Bug," maybe a personalized decal on the Volvo, or even just Vern's name for that specific vehicle; that is, independent of Vern's usage of the (original car) and giving that combination of parts its own label. Assuming [Vern's Volvo] as the name of this (original car), the answer cannot be the car that he is driving at the time of the question, since it does not fit the condition of being made of those specific parts. Note that if the identity becomes a concept, as "Herbie the Love Bug" becomes the name of any talking, specifically painted beetle in a "Herbie" movie, then we return to the first interpretation of context and not the definition as a certain set of parts.

Assuming that [Vern's Volvo] refers to the (original car) alone, the answer to the question may be the pile of parts. The nature of the question is determined by the one asking it, so if the set of parts, perhaps more accurately referred to as "the parts formerly composing Vern's original Volvo," satisfies his or her query then the pile is the answer. If the original conditions for [Vern's Volvo] include not only that it is made up of specific parts, but also that they are fashioned in a specific manner into a car, then neither is the answer.

I, making the assumption that [Vern's Volvo] refers to the Volvo brand car that Vern drives, would say that it is the car that he considers his at the time the question is asked, that is, the assembled car. This is because I assume that the question is asking for the car he currently drives because the question is likely asking with the hope that the answer would, in the future, again be identified as [Vern's Volvo], as the car that Vern currently drives would likely be. If I knew that the question was asked by the dealer that sold Vern the car twenty years ago and has always loved the alliteration and referred to that car that he sold as "Vern's Volvo," then I might assume his definition of [Vern's Volvo] refers to specific parts and identify the pile in Grace's Garage, giving this friend the condition that the car is in a fragmented form, should that violate his definition of what constitutes [Vern's Volvo].

Mat. 5:5

c. I wish I could just list off strengths of mine, especially if I could do so without feeling like I’m making enemies through annoyed listeners. First among my strengths, shown by that feeling, is humility. Believe me, I would never feel compelled to write about my strengths unless an English assignment or, say, Common Application asked me to; it’s sometimes off-putting to hear someone list their praises (without being asked), so I don’t like to take the risk that I offend anyone. Even saying that I try not to offend anyone makes me feel like I’m showing off my care for others’ feelings, while implying that I have a long list of achievements that I could be bragging about. That’s the sort of feeling that makes me know I’m humble, because, on the more honest than modest side, I could be showing off a little more. But please, whenever I praise myself in some way in the next paragraph, imagine my wince, imagining a reader seeing me as arrogant.

I think that my actual strengths, aside from knowledge of my own humility, are my natural talents. I am fortunate to have a good mind. I assert that based on some test scores (which I will not, of course, mention), some math problems (on which I will not, of course, elaborate), and two parents with graduate degrees (whom I will not, of course, continue to extol). Not that mental skill is necessarily dependent on any of these, but to this evidence I give credit for my natural talents, which I assume that I have. I have a rather sharp memory, fairly acute senses, and reasonably good reflexes as my top three among those talents. Hopefully somewhat keen insight is on my list, too, but I myself would never say that it is.

a. Self-insight actually seems very useful to me. To me self-knowledge is knowledge of why one thinks the way he or she does and understanding all of his or her desires, abilities, faults, and quirks. It is, naturally, impossible. One could perhaps argue that it is extremely improbable, but I think that no one person can completely understand all of the thoughts and shortcomings of any person, let alone do so through their own eyes for themselves. Self-obtained self-knowledge is looking at everything that one does with the thought of, “of course I like reading more that ping pong,” and then thinking, “but why?” Understanding the intricate setup of the mind that makes this opinion vary is beyond the grasp of humans, barring exceptions like blindness. I would have had difficulty coming up with a complete list of my strengths and it would be even harder to think of, if not admit my faults. There are some faults that I know because others have pointed them out, and to them I am extremely grateful. Myriad other quirks of mine that would be called faults for their uselessness or annoyance are beyond my recognition or, more frightening, my concern.

b. I think that one fault of mine is a touch of apathy. I know that I shouldn’t respond to questions people write on desks, it’s obviously defacing school property and a bad idea, but should I really care?* Will I be caught? Isn’t pencil erasable? More importantly, what if my unnamed acquaintance in period two never finds out how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? I recognize a fault (a big step for self-knowledge), but without the desire to correct myself, apathy keeps me more flawed than I could be. Not to distract from my own shortcomings, but apathy is a fairly common affliction. As my neighbor, Mr. Scapegoat, once said to my mom, “Sure, I could be leaving my newspapers out for recycling, but I have to make a trip to the [transfer station] anyway, and who’s going to know if I throw them in with the trash?” His indifference is more passive than my blatant effacing of an official educational tool, but I would say that it is more dangerous in the long run and certainly more widespread. Environmental activism is a topic that obviously affects all of humankind, being a race of earthlings, but also one that doesn’t presently show that effect to all of us. Inherently involving activity, activism is not instantly popular with most people, comfortable in their indifference. I suppose that I cannot fault the uncaring, being that they never promised to recycle, to watch their energy usage, but I consider a lack of concern for fellow humans, if not our habitat, to be a personal weakness.

My other most notable personal weakness, in my opinion, is indecision, but please let me know if you think of something else, I’m looking for suggestions to improve upon. As you can see, I was so torn up about selecting a strength and a weakness that I decided to disregard the assignment and double the quota. After all, I have many valid strengths and weaknesses and it kills me to have to say to the rest of them, “Sorry, ‘mental skill’ is going to have to be the one.” I could convey indecisiveness as a strength: the ability to see merit in many faces of a decision. Possible point reduction on this assignment would be one example of a reason why I have listed it among my weaknesses. For more examples, imagine me taking the same path when deciding between two cars and then two houses and then trying to figure out why I have two banks chasing me down for loan payments. As far as my attempts to amend these weaknesses, I believe that I have already mentioned that growth occurs through the will to iron out the shortcomings that one is aware of. For me, I would turn to developing my strength in mental facilities to run through my indecision fast enough to make it look like plain decision. As far as fixing my first weakness, I think it would be too ironic to try to do anything about it, but there is hope for me because I list apathy among my weaknesses.

d. My difficulty in thinking about my strengths and weaknesses is mainly that I might be assuming something that I should not or, more likely, forgetting some amount of more important strengths or more dire weaknesses than I came up with. I think about it in terms of a survey among my friends, family, peers, and acquaintances, in which everyone answers these questions on my behalf. After tallying votes, I see myself realizing that I was blind to my obvious fault of stealing bags and purses from passersby, which I had never thought of as a disagreeable activity.* My own experiences have kept me from seeing my character relative to the rest of my world. I could argue that society’s definitions for right and wrong need not apply, but I tend to think that things forbidden by laws and general consensus usually are so for good reason, and I’m not interested in the effort of investigating.

Regardless of my success at it, self-examination is a useful tool for self-improvement. Knowledge of faults and the desire for growth help give one control over their life. For example, if I had only known that I need to use toothpaste when brushing my teeth, I would have been able to make friends in elementary school.* Understanding the extent of one’s capabilities and limitations allows more successful use of them. This is why we find ourselves to often be so incompetent, not noticing the piece of the puzzle that we are missing or the offense that are making. Fortunately, successful self-understanding isn’t expected of any of us and, more fortunately, we have critics that help us along in the process. So I find self-examination to be very useful, a bit uncommon, and extremely difficult. Hopefully that excuses my doubtlessly faulty responses, but, of course, I don’t see my success in answering the responses as crucially important.**

...and Don't Accept Candy

“Okay, boys, I’ll just be inside, see you in an hour and work hard.” That was what my mom said one warm afternoon to her two eleven-year-olds. We were alone in the car behind the Ansonia YMCA, left to entertain ourselves with books on tape and school worksheets. It was the only time that we sit alone at the Ansonia YMCA, the only time that both Ansonia’s and our own Milford’s resources for children would be closed. We were mature and responsible eleven-year-olds, familiar with the workings or the world, certainly of the car, and how to handle ourselves alone.

What child’s parents haven’t told them not to talk to strangers? Any middle school student knows the basic tenet of dealing with unfamiliar people, surely a competent sixth grader should know as much.

The scene which a particular stranger found was a minivan, running to play a cassette, with two small children in the front two seats. We had climbed into the front to get control of the cassette player and I was filling out a worksheet on the steering wheel.

She looked interested in what we were doing, so when she stopped next to the driver’s side window, I thought I should roll the window down and see if we could help her out.

“Where are your parents?” she asked, somewhat shocked to be finding us alone.

“She’s in the YMCA.” I replied. There was not much to say; everything was pretty simple. There was no one there, we were not tall enough to drive, and we were in the YMCA parking lot.

That was the last that we saw of her, still a stranger to us, but she went into the building to ask whose children were left unattended in a vehicle outside. Eventually the staff found our mother, who received a short lecture from the woman, who had reported our situation to the police and, as we would later find, the DCF.

We stopped at the police station on our way home to look for some confirmation that we had not misjudged the competence of us sixth graders and to explain any complaints that were filed. When the officer asked us, “Did you feel threatened or uncomfortable?” neither of us did. There was no lasting trauma and actually no significance in the incident for us until the DCF officers came to our house. Once we were questioned, with our parents out of the room of course, about abuse or negligence and a letter was obtained from the school principal about my mother’s character, we were set to happily continue our elementary school experiences.

So while some forms of child care are more reliable than others and it is important to educate children about the workings of cars so that they can be trusted sitting in their front seats, the simplest advice is just “Don’t talk to strangers.”

Louder than Words because they Speak

Actions define value. Deeds that eliminate others’ pain or brighten their lives earn people value. Our thoughts and intentions drive our actions, but are themselves useless. The only thing of value that a person can do is of beneficial value to someone. Being self-sacrificing and willing to help others is without value unless put into action, while an accidental act of kindness has value, while no purpose behind it. In this way the assignment of value is unfair.

The occasion on which value is determined is not set. Whenever a person learns of another’s actions, he or she at that point defines the other’s value as a person for themselves. Value does not depend on us to exist, though. A good deed that goes unnoticed certainly has value, though in no one’s eyes. Some omniscient narrator of our lives assigns value to these deeds that humans do not have the chance to appreciate.

Trying to assign a purpose to passive existence is a flawed concept. Life is a state, a starting point for people to accomplish things and cause changes. It is more like a clear board than an undefined time limit on a goal. There are things for us to do in life, but our desires to do them exist because we create the desires, not because they are inherent to existence.

I am confused by the three-part question. Asking for things that I want to possess or experience cannot be followed by asking how these things will benefit humanity, and asking why I want them makes me feel cruel or selfish. If I say that I want to be married or even be loved, I feel that the desire is rooted in lust, useless to humanity and important to me as a natural desire of the human race. Even if I say that I want to eliminate homelessness or stop the spread of AIDS, the desire is rooted in a lust for the satisfaction of accomplishment or of praise. When the desire is phrased that way, asking the benefit for humanity seems unimportant because it is not the goal of my desire. Asking why the desire exists requires going into human nature and the nature of desire for power or anything for one’s own benefit, and that makes me feel frighteningly human. I do know that one such desire for me is my desire to be recognized by others. I wish to feel unique by earning the notice and respect of others, for no benefit of theirs and only my own advancement.

Everyone's a Hero

One thing that can be said about The Odyssey, Beowulf, The Adventures of Huck Finn, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Lord of the Rings besides that they all have a male protagonist is their popularity. I do think that all of these works’ protagonists are heroes. I think that anyone who can blow up the Death Star is a hero.

I find that a hero is someone worthy of admiration and therefore, heroism comes from the beholder. I happen to think that the ability to functionally use a whip is pretty cool, so I would say that Indiana Jones is a hero. If I thought that grappling with Grendel and ripping off an arm wasn’t very special, then I might not think of Beowulf as a hero at all. To say that each of these works’ protagonists can be considered a hero is absolutely true, because they have all done spectacular things that are, for some, worthy of respect.

This type of heroism leaves a lot of room for variation. Heroic actions and behaviors may follow some trends, but they aren’t really nailed down to anything. Bravery, strength, and skill tend to produce the best-known or most widely-accepted heroes because people value those traits. A middle-aged father with an office job who manages his time and his money well could be a hero to someone who values his skills. I hesitate to say that a villain could in fact be considered a hero, but certainly a group of aspiring ne’er-do-wells must idolize each of the above works’ antagonists and therefore sees him or her as a hero.

There is no reason why a woman cannot be a heroine. There could be a few reasons why perhaps the most popular stories have male protagonists. I would think that a male author would find it easier to identify with a hero than a heroine and Tolkien, Twain, and Homer, along with Lucas and Spielberg are all men. Perhaps the scenes in Beowulf would be less believable if a woman had been the warrior main character (as, of course, only men can hold their breaths for days at a time). It is also possible that the admiration of bravery and strength, the most exciting and therefore popular heroes’ qualities, appear more commonly in men, who have since the beginnings of war been, more commonly, the warriors.

I would certainly say that the presence of heroes is useful to society. The simplest evidence is the fun of talking about the most amazing parts of a movie while walking out of the theater. But heroes have been created by many different authors in vastly different times and been greatly well-accepted by readers and viewers.

Heroes can serve as sources of inspiration. Although not one of the six titles mentioned has the potential to be recreated in reality, each hero's bravery and success can serve as a model for people in any time. There may have been a time when a warrior or a king actually saw Beowulf as a model, but today imagination can let people think of the satisfaction of mimicking any sort of heroism, regardless of whether they may ever have to flee from a rolling boulder. Even if a viewer cannot relate to or imagine being in any of a hero’s situations, they can still be impressed by a tactic and appreciate a hero’s skill. This imagination gives people a joy as though they already had accomplished something great. When I saw Transformers, I felt as though I had helped save the world, not as though I had sat still for two hours. I was in a good mood, confident and satisfied with myself for doing nothing. Heroes cheer people up and it’s perfectly fine with me if they provide hope and joy to people who find their lives to be boring because they make people happy.

This is why I see the merit in saying that a land that needs heroes is unhappy. A land of people that is excited about fantasy heroics and one that uses its imagination to escape from reality is sort of sad. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying a tale of heroism, but relying on it can be dangerous. Reality is still what matters, but if some heroism can brighten reality, then it has use. I think that humans don’t need heroes, but we desire them and, whenever a person helps someone with a flat tire or blinds a Cyclops, they tend to just appear.