Socratic Seminar Preparation Sheet #4

Socratic Seminar Preparation Sheet #4

Summary

Within "Book Three" of 1984, Winston is taken by the though-police and tortured until he ultimately betrays his love, Julia. This then shows the police that he is now a full party member, and when he is released he lives his life only caring about the appreciation of Big Brother.

Level 2 Questions

1.Why does Winston start to love O’Brien even though O’Brien is the person that is torturing Winston?

Winston starts to love O’Brien because the pain that O’Brien inflicts on Winston is affecting Winston’s mind.  O’Brien has power over Winston so when O’Brien lessens the torture it makes Winston love O’Brien for not inflicting as much pain on him.  This plays to the reader’s emotions because how in the world could Winston love a person who is causing him to suffer, in answering this question I employed a PATHOS appeal, by the way I answer the question using emotion.

2. How might the Party have known of Winston's fear of rats?

I believe that it was when Julia betrays, Winston that she tells the thought police of his fear, in order to begin to control him, and torture him into becoming a full party member. In answering this question I employed both a LOGOS and PATHOS appeal, since I contrasted emotion and logic.

3. Based on what Obrien states to Winston, when he asks if Big Brother is alive, to you think Big Brother is truly alive?

I think that he is alive, because of the way that he responds, it seems that he was very peculiar and evasive in the way that he answers the question. In answering this question I used a LOGOS appeal, by the way that used logic to answer the question. 

4. What would be your biggest fear, that would be found in "Room 101".

My fear that would be found in this room, would be myself having to watch people die. I feel that this is something that is just absolutely chaotic and apocalyptic and I hope no one would ever have to watch this happen. In answering this question I used a PATHOS appeal.

5. With the book being broken into three parts, what is the significance of each part?

I feel that Book 1, would be the introduction the text and its characters and the story itself, while Book 2 further goes in depth to the story and shows the climax, while Book 3 shows the end result of the text and the resolution in a way. In answering this question I applied a LOGOS appeal, by the way I used logic to answer the question.

6.Why does the Party look to change the mindsets of its criminal rather than simply kill them?

As expressed by O’Brien himself, the party’s system ensures “…there are no martyrdoms.” The party wishes to completely suppress rebellion, and ensure that revolutionary thoughts die before the thoughtcriminals do. The danger of martyrdom is that it only encourages others to fight, and even die for their beliefs.

Level 3 Questions 

1. How powerful can a person be against the government?

I feel that one person alone, can sometimes be extremely powerful, especially if in a result of themselves rebelling or causing some type of chaos, they can cause others to join them in their fight. In answering this question I employed a LOGOS appeal, through the way that I used logic and analysis to answer the question.

2.When is it okay to betray someone you love?

I feel that it is never acceptable to betray someone, if the person has done nothing to harm you, the thing that people are always told is, "Do to others, what you would want done to you."

In answering this question I employed a PATHOS appeal, by the way I play on emotions.

3.How strongly is human emotion influenced by other people?

Without the influence of other human beings, things like love and pain cannot exist because they are impossible to apply to someone else.  Therefore, human contact is necessary for the development of emotion. In answering this question, I applied a emotional appeal by the way that I use emotion to answer the question completely.

Quotation Tracking

1. Pg : 248, "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past, repeated Winston obediently. ”

2.Pg : 241, “The beatings grew less frequent, and became mainly a threat, a horror to which he could not be sent back at any moment when his answers were unsatisfactory.” 

Socratic Seminar Reflection #3

Socratic Seminar Reflection #3

This socratic seminar influenced my thinking on the way that love and affection is portrayed in this text. Most of my classmates talked instead about the relationship between Winston and Julia and the definition and veracity of love in the book's totalitarian society. This allowed me to think about 1984 in a more emotional way, and relate it back to my own life and the relationships I have both seen and experienced, instead of simply thinking about it in terms of similarity to historical events.

I think that the thing that i disagreed with most in the socratic seminars would be when someone said that they would rather live in the world of 1984, that just seems like an unbearable living that i would never want to subject my life to. Whereas the statement that I agree with the most would be when someone said that they believed that it was more than Julia and Winston attraction to each other, was because of their mutual hate for the party. I feel that this is greatly true by the way that, it seems that whenever they are together though they are constantly in intercourse it would seem that they genuinely care for each other. I don't feel that there is anything that I would have wanted to say during this seminar that I hadn't said.

I feel that thing that worked well in the seminar would be the way that before Ms. Hunter came, the conversation just went more fluidly. It just seemed that people were less focused on the points, and just felt that there was a regular conversation going on. This was shown by the way that there were more opinions and emotional appeals shown because people were just stating what they though about the text, without feeling that they had to analyze in depth or even back their answers up with any evidence, but that they could just say what they wanted to say without being graded or ridiculed. this is truly the way that the seminars should be.

I think that one good way to change this would be to include more level three questions in the discussions, so that even students who didn't have the chance to read the selection or didn't understand it fully would be able to get some points and participate in the conversation. Such as the way that I know a certain person wasn't able to fully complete their work, because they were focused on reading there independent novel and 1984 while doing the work for both. this may and will probably be a thing that is evident all the future seminars, but it is also something that might be inevitable.

Socratic Seminar Reflection #2

Socratic Seminar Reflection #2

The seminar influenced the way I thought about the right for people to have privacy. After having the seminar, I found myself asking many questions relating to this subject. How much privacy is one allowed? At one point does supervision become a violation of privacy. One thing said in the seminar which I hadn’t thought of in depth before was how Big Brother could possibly not be a real person, and that he might just be a figure head of power that had died many years ago, but was still used to influence the minds of others.

I agree with the statement that the proles could defeat the police. I agree with this because the book says the proles overpower the police in numbers. The proles make up 85% of the population and do not have they don't have tele screens, which would allow them to plot and plan without fear of being seen or viewed by the Thought Police. During this Socratic seminar, I did not find any statements that I disagreed with as it seemed as though everyone was in agreement with each other, and most of the discussion was spent using historical examples and evidence from the text to back up the popularly held opinion. In fact, I think that something we should work on is ensuring that there are more "controversial" topics brought up during the seminar in order to provoke meaningful discussion where we can learn from each other, instead of reiterating the same information and points of view that everyone already agrees on. I do have something I would have wanted to say, I would have wanted to give a quote to the group and see there responses to it.

I think the thing that constantly works well throughout the seminars, is the way that our discussion leaders consistently try to get everyone into the discussion. Even if a person wasn't exactly fully prepared, everyone tries to find a way to get them well involved into the discussion. Such as whenever Tyree or Li, don't try as hard as others to insert themselves into the discussion. We all try our hardest to get them involved and to make sure they get their points.

I think the thing that still and will need work on for these seminars is for there to be more question that are somewhat controversial and will spark different opinions, because I feel that at times the people who aren't talking are the people with the contrasting ideas, and I feel that it would be great to hear these ideas.