A Better Ending?

In A Doll’s House by Henrick Ibsen, that Nora, the main character, should never have left her children. Though the ending was unexpected and surprising, I am not sure that I like it. I think that it is contradictory of Nora to leave in the end of the story when throughout the whole story she is so convinced that her husband is going to be mad at her and she does not know what to do with herself. I understand where she is coming from and why she would want to learn and figure out things for herself, but like I said it completely goes against everything that she was trying to accomplish for most of the story. Though I do not quite agree with the ending, I do not think that I would like an ending where she stays and has a happily ever after with her husband and it is as though none of the troubles ever happened. I think that the ending provided gives a nice twist on the story and makes it more interesting and versatile. However, I do not like the fact that she left her children. I think that even though her marriage was not exactly what she wanted it to be does not mean that she needed to completely abandon her children. They should mean more to her than anything, and if she chose not to be with her husband anymore that does not necessarily mean that she shouldn’t see her children anymore. She could have done what Mrs. Linde was doing and gotten a little room and tried to work and support herself somewhere near the children so that she could still see them. Personally, I would not be able to leave my son no matter what happened, what I was going through, or what situation I was in. I just would not be able to do it, my love for my son overcomes all. Since this was in a different time though, I guess not everyone would think that way, and even still today not everyone thinks that way.
I think that the ending should have been left the way it was and that way maybe people would better understand the enormous diversity that there is in the world with the way that people act and the way that they handle situations. I admire Noras strength and courage to want to figure out how the world works and wanting better for herself than just settling as being someones “doll”, though I do not fully agree with her choices. I think that the alternate ending was made solely to please people and discourage women at the time from attempting anything of the sort in their own lives, little did the people back then know that one day women would have just as many rights and just as much say as men do. I guess it all just depends on where your piorities ly and what things are the most important to you at the time.

Who am I?

There are so many different characteristics about people, the way they dress, the things they like or do not like, the way they act, how they view life, the things they want out of life, or do not want. All of these things define personal taste. But why do we like the things we like, do the things we do? Some reasons are pretty clear and commonly used and reason or excuses. The way you grew up or did not grow up, the things your parents taught you or didn’t teach you, the people you chose as friends and the people you didn’t choose. I think that the saying “Show me who your friends are, and I will show you who you are”, is accurate to a point, but not fully. I do not have a lot of friends but the friends that I do have I hold dear. All of my friends and I have very different personalities but the same sense of morals and values. So when my friend acts a certain way or does something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I would do it too, or even that I agree with it. Deep down though, we all connect on a different level and influence each other in some way. I’m sure, I, like many people, go to my friends for advance and for comfort, understanding, etc. I think that in some way everything in our lives tells a little bit about who we are.
The way that I dress, the music I listen to, the books I read, the friends I have, the habits, and the values all define who I am to a certain extent. Obviously these are things that I am interested in and things that I like to spend my free time enjoying. I am not really sure how I came to like my style of clothing, music, books, etc. The clothes I wear I like because they look nice and they reflect the things that I like, dirt bikes, motocross, God, etc. I was raised with dirt bikes and it is one of my favorite hobbies, therefore when I am shopping notice brands like FMF and Fox. Same thing with the music that I like, I grew up listening to country and when I hit my early teens my sisters listened to pop and rap so that’s what I started listening to.
I think that the things that you like mostly come from how you are raised, you either want better, want less, or want the same. I have friends that grew up not having a lot, as a result of that most want better for themselves. I also have friends that grew up privileged and because of that they want equally good for their lives. I think that when you look at someone, the way they are dressed can tell you a lot about who they are or what they like. People can look approachable, mean, nice, happy, cheerful, depressed and numerous other things just by the way they dress and the way they present themselves. I think that the way that I dress shows people that I take pride in the way I look (not in a vain way) and that I am very approachable. All in all, of course you habits and the things that you like are going to define who you are to a point, if they didn’t then people wouldn’t really like too many things.

Collateral Damage

Collateral damage is defined as damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome. To me that is a very broad view of this topic because there can be so many different types of collateral damage, affecting people, places, things, the environment, animals, etc. The extend of things that can be damaged is infinite. Originally, the term was used in the military and was defined as inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations. But because there was collateral damage does that mean that it was actually unintended?
In my opinion, if the damage that is done is actually accidental and was not meant to harm or endanger anything other than its intended purpose then it would be forgivable, not necessarily morally justified. There are so many times however where collateral damage takes place and sometimes people do not know that there is any damage at all. For instance, what if collateral damage takes place outside of a war zone? When your talking to you're significant other? When you're talking to you're friends or your family? What if there is unintended damage that happens through words? I'm sure pretty much everybody has been in a situation where someone said something to them, not intending to hurt them at all and did. This could happen when you are joking with someone or having a serious talk with them, our words don't always come out the way we want them to and people get hurt. There are also many other kinds of inadvertent damage that people suffer from, the list could go on an on.
On the other hand, what if someone intends to infict damage on someone else, or to hurt them? Morally justified? I think not. Maybe there are a few situations where people have good intentions but end up hurting someone accidentally, but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What about when someone is just plain mean? When they like to hurt people or things, just to do it? A perfect example is World War 2, when the Nazi's were trying to take over Germany. Those soldiers meant to take peoples lives, meant to hurt people, meant to starve and to kill. Is that justified? No, it is clearly plainly immoral. These people were just plain vicious and there actions are not justifiable in the least.
All in all, there are so many different kinds of collateral damage that it is hard to put an exact definition to it and when collateral damage happens how can we really know the intentions of the person inflicting it?