Letters to the Editor: April 10, 2008
Regarding ‘Creative thesis slots highly prized by '09s,' (Tuesday, April 8, 2008):
I was quoted in The Daily Princetonian in an article expressing the opinions of students applying for a creative thesis. Upon reading the article I found that part of my interview had been misinterpreted. I do not think that writing a creative thesis is easier, or harder, than a traditional thesis; the two are simply very different. Traditional theses require students to research topics thoroughly, identify information that supports or does not support their views, and present that information with poise, style and a touch of the personal; the creative thesis, on the other hand, is entirely personal. While a traditional thesis deals in facts, a creative thesis allows much more room for error, possibly causing students to second guess themselves, doubt their abilities and anguish over why they chose this route. As cliche as it sounds, a creative thesis bares one's soul to one's advisers and - more frighteningly - to one's peers.
I may never get over the fear of what someone will think about my writing, but I do know that people will never know the real me through a traditional thesis. I am very glad that Princeton offers this opportunity to students who are more creatively inclined to express not only themselves, but the education they have gained here. It was never my intention to suggest that I or any student would apply for a creative thesis in the hope of having less work, only that for me it would be a more personally fulfilling body of work to leave behind.
Sophia Echavarria '09
Is pleasure prohibited?
Regarding ‘Sex: Beautiful, meaningful, marital,' (Tuesday, April 8, 2008):
Shivani Radhakrishnan '11 claims that pursuit of pleasure "dissociated from the pursuit of other intrinsic human goods such as full marital communion, treats the body as a mere instrument and disrespects the fundamental worth of human beings."
But even the chastest among us do things all the time solely for the sake of pleasure. Ever add seasoning to your food so it will taste better? You've just done something solely for the sake of "mere pleasure" and instrumentalized your taste buds.
I highly doubt the Anscombe Society wants us to give up oregano. Why should sex be any different? What if we were to grant its claim that marriage adds something special to sex. I - and, I'm sure, many others - don't see why we shouldn't just enjoy some less-special sex in the meantime. Perhaps sex is different from other activities because it involves instrumentalizing another person, but so does playing tennis. Unless the Anscombe Society is going to bite the bullet and denounce all leisure activities, their argument must boil down to the idea that our sex organs deserve a special kind of reverence that we withhold from the rest of our bodies. I have seen no good argument for this idea. I'm not denying that there might be some special magic sex that only married people get to have - it sounds great. I'm saying that I really don't see why having safe, consensual sex in the meantime is morally different from the other things we do for pleasure every day.
Matt Strohl GS
Good point, now welcome to reality
Regarding ‘Forbesians call for new shuttle route,' (Thursday, April 3, 2008):Forbes students have it hard. Not only must they attend classes and carry their books like every other student on campus, but they must walk slightly further, and cross a road to do it. That's too bad.
At Princeton, we expect the best for the large sums we pay to attend. Reasonable enough, as the institution we are attending is ranked number one in the nation; our expectations, however, extend beyond an excellent faculty and a beautiful, functional campus. Apparently, not only should we be housed and fed and provided with an education, but we should not have to go even a little bit out of our way to get it. Excuse me, we should not have to go even a little bit farther out of our way than anyone else.
Forbes College is farther from the rest of campus than any other dormitories. I get it. It is inconvenient to have to walk outdoors with all this weather happening. I know, I have to do it too. If there were a shuttle all would be forgiven and people would wait at the shuttle stop those 10 minutes they would ordinarily be walking to class. Sorry, I don't buy that.
Your classes are far away and sometimes you don't want to get up and walk to morning lectures? I am sorry, but I hear that all the time, and not just from Forbesians. We all have to walk, and if we want to spend less time walking, we bike.
But who knows, maybe that old adage "life's not fair" is suspended on this campus and the complaints of Forbesians are an appeal to the special reality that exists on this campus and not in the outside world.
Stephanie Hill '10
Digg it!
Share on Facebook
Post to Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Reader Comments
View all 8 comments on "Letters to the Editor: April 10, 2008".
An anonymous commenter claims that Shivani was only appealing to a principle that dealt with sex, and that it wasn't supposed to apply to any cases involving instrumentalization or pleasure-seeking outside the context of sexuality. That is a strained reading of her article: "The pursuit of pleasure, when dissociated from the pursuit of other intrinsic human goods such as full marital communion, treats the body as a mere instrument and disrespects the fundamental worth of human beings." Maybe there's a good argument for why the pursuit of specifically sexual pleasure, when divorced from other intrinsic goods, is immoral, but the pursuit of other kinds of pleasure, when divorced from other intrinsic goods, can still be perfectly acceptable. But that argument hasn't been given, as far as I know. I suspect that the reason Matt Strohl made the accusation of intellectual dishonesty was that it seems like we're arguing against a moving target. Each time a relatively clear claim made by Shivani or one of her defenders is shown to have absurd consequences, we get the response: "that's not what we really meant, what we were actually saying was [insert some completely different claim]." It's frustrating to argue against somebody who keeps changing their rationales for the positions they hold, and it's easy to suspect that their arguments are mere rationalizations for positions held on independent grounds. If you think the accusation is shrill, tired, or useless, then stake out a position, defend it consistently, and admit defeat if it is shown to be absurd. If you instead disavow support for positions you previously endorsed, don't cry foul when your dialectical opponents accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.
It's very puzzling to me that Strohl and others continue to miss the point by miles, despite the fact they seem to consider themselves experts on the matter in question. Shivani was NOT speaking GENERALLY about (a) instrumentalization as such, (b) seeking pleasure as such, or (c) seeking means for only some of their ends. She only mentioned their debatability in the CONTEXT of SEXUALITY, and nowhere else. The charge of intellectual dishonesty is a tired, shrill, and useless one. More importantly, it's unjustified. I might also claim that Strohl's position is founded on a non-theistic worldview. Would that get us anywhere? Intellectual dishonesty is a very serious accusation, and one he should not carelessly hurl about.