Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Of Cannibals

Today in class we were able to go more in depth with the text, and came up with; the first thesis is more of a thing done universally (like logic, math, and even smiling!), and the second thesis is more so done in practice. There is no standard by which one culture can judge another.
One of the most important paragraphs within the entire piece in on page 18, in which it states: "So we may well call these people barbarians...but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity." There is a somewhat scale in which we are being placed on comparatively to the barbarians.
On page 19, the paragraph about the Hungarians tells the reader how the Hungarians will torture their enemies until they confess to the crime committed, and then they let them go. Why? Well, their honor and worth of a man is dependent on the man's heart and will and soul... that is where his real honor and valor lies. It's an honor based culture, and once the opponent is humiliated they are trusted they will not do it again, because that is the lowest a man can feel, and will no longer attain that honor again.
On page 20, the author calls these cultures and their ancient customs lacking in reasoning and judgement and their minds are stupid that they can not adapt to any other course. This was shocking that he would call the cultural differences stupid. I mean it could be a kind of satirical humor, much like comedy with a purpose.
Lastly, when he is discussing the three things in which travelers had found most amazing about the culture; and Montaigne is only able to remember 2 of the 3. I think he is lying. He is such a careful and detailed writer that there is no way he forgot, and even if he had forgotten, he would not have mentioned there were 3! Its almost as though he wants the careful readers to depict what the third point is. Maybe cultural differences, and adaptations. Not sure yet.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Notes about Montaigne

This is what i gathered while reading the piece...
The first thing is the introduction of what was thought to be the thesis. Then, the history and discovery of new lands is introduced. It begins with the description of Atlantis, and then preludes into Aristotle. There seems to be like a sub plot of the story involving "i" and then the actual history and gathered notes and recollections of the discoveries. Next is the introduction of the second "thesis." Then i found it interesting the description of Art vs. Nature, and visa versa. Then the rest of the story is about the natives, and their ways of life, and eventually adapting to the more advanced cultures, somewhat like today with the underdeveloped countries. Ah! Then it gets into the actual cannibalism of the different cultures. For instance, the killing and roasting of enemies by the Scythians. What really got me was the dogie bags they sent to their friends who were unable to make the cook off. And in the final paragraph, I found a little comical relief in the sentence "they don't wear breeches."
Alright, now my thoughts... well, to be honest this piece was a little "all over the place" for me in a sense that, Montaigne's first couple pages are all about different cultural names, and the discovery of the new lands and laws and such, which to me was both irrelevant (with all of the characterisation and information), as well as, dragged on. I feel as though it could have been summed up in a few paragraphs. I mean, the title is "Of Cannibals," yet it takes almost half of the text to get into the actual cannibalism that is happening. Just the beginning lost some of my interest as a reader. The moment i read "...they roast him and eat him, in common and send some pieces to their absent friends" my attention was grasped! I didn't mind that he discussed the homes, bed, relationship between wife and husband, because it made it seem like this cute little culture off set from the advances of humanity. It reminded me of Pocahontas. I got so settled in and comfortable as a reader that the moment I read roast em and eat em, I was like WOA! hold up! That was defiantly an attention grabber.
I found it interesting the cultural differences of the then and the now. Could you imagine eating a murder or cooking and serving up an arsonist?! Ridiculous. All together i gathered that the main thesis is the one on page one; judge by reason, not popular opinion. I believe this is so, because the discoverers im sure were quick to judge the justification and reasoning behind this horrible act. Yet, there was an open "law" system, in the sense that there really wasn't one, they just knew what is right and what is wrong. One who is a foreigner coming into a new, undiscovered country has to realize the differences between the two.
Alright, dinner time.. YUMMMMMMMMM!

Monday, October 22, 2007

The main thesis of Montaigne's "Of Cannibals"

On page one; "Thus we should beware of clinging to vulgar opinions, and judge things by reason's way, not by popular say." --> We had said the message here is judge by reason, not by popular opinion.
On page two; "...it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in." --> We had said the message here is that there is no other test of truth, and reason than popular say.
Until i have formulated a solid opinion myself on the reading, and which thesis is which, then i will leave ya'll with this.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

5 different teachings within the Gita

First Teaching: Arjuna’s Dejection
In this first teaching, the important value and lesson is that of Compassion – based on notions of atman, and the ability to feel for others as we feel for ourselves. The value and feeling of compassion is seen when Arjuna requests Krishna move his chariot between the two armies. When Arjuna sees his relatives on the opposing army side of the Kurus, he loses courage and decides not to fight.
Second Teaching: Philosophy and Spiritual Discipline
In this teaching, an important value that is represented is; Ahimsa (non-violence) – which is based on the concepts of atman and reincarnation. Atma is the individual self, from which all individual souls derive, and to which they return as the supreme goal of existence. Atma can neither be slain or slay. Atma is not destroyed when the body is. Atma is eternal, all pervading, and unchanging.
Third Teaching: Discipline of Action
In this teaching, there are three value that are respected, one of which is; Mind and sense control – considered essential for any form of mortality, and another is Wisdom – knowledge is contrasted with ignorance, the Hindu equivalent of “good-evil” paradigm, and finally Austerity- which is essential to gain the wisdom in addition to mere knowledge. Mind, Wisdom, and Austerity are presented when Arjuna asks why he should engage in fighting if knowledge is more important than action. Krishna urges Arjuna that performing his duties for the greater good, but without the attachment to results is the appropriate cause of action.
The Eighth Teaching: The Infinite Spirit
The value of Celibacy – Which is the important for spiritual life, is an important teaching and value in this chapter and the book. Krishna explains how one can remember him at the time of death and attain his supreme abode.
The Twelfth Teaching: Devotion
In this teaching, aside from the value of devotion, the value of Respect – for all living beings and for the sanctity of all life, is also prominent. This is because Krishna describes the process of devotional service, otherwise known in the story as Bhakti Yoga, which is the spiritual practice of fostering loving devotion for God, called Bkakti. Even when defined, the value of Hospitality – demonstrating magnanimity and the value of service, can even be fit in the teaching.




Monday, October 8, 2007

values

In Gita, especially in the second teaching, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to shake off the weakness and just slay as many people as he can in battle, because that is his duty as a warrior. He says how because the bodies are much like shells, and only the soul counts, then he should have no problem slaying them. Lord Krishna refers to this as Atma. Atma is not destroyed when the body is, and atma is forever eternal, all pervading, and unchanging. He says that death is certain for those who are born, just as life is certain for those who are destined to die.
A lot of what Lord Krishna says to Arjuna strikes me as strange, because I, much like Arjuna, do not understand how a body can feel no pain, and the only thing that is important is the soul. . . Atma, the eternal soul, can neither slain or be slain. However, its "capsule" can be. I do not understand how a knife to the gut can justify life and heroism, especially among family and friends! Alright, so this atma is indestructible. But i would find myself mourning for the bodies non the less. It would be like slaying someone near and dear to me, and then telling myself as i stand over their destroyed body, oh its okay, they are going to a better place, their atma is moving on. Just a strange concept.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

in class

So this class we discussed Socrates again and how Euthyphro can not support himself in the argument at all. Euthyphro does a decent job in the beginning, but as the story continues he begins to only give Socrates one sentence or even one worded answers. You would think if one were confident they would not back down from the idea at hand. Socrates seems to also not back down either for the satisfaction of winning the argument and proving Euthyphro wrong, or because he truly cares... All in all, Euthyphro is unable to answer Socrates's questions, which results in the readers questions unanswered as well.
But honestly, i thought this story was interesting, and the more we explained it in class the more i understood it. I had already had a concrete understanding of it because i picked it apart, but it helps to discuss it and get opinions out in the classroom. The one paragraph on page 53 about the "it is something seen that it is seen, but the opposite: because it is seen, it is something seen..." I understand what he is saying, but I have no idea how to re explain that to any of you. The best way I can put it right now is; because someone sees whatever it is it is then seen, not that it is seen and then recognized is it seen... Aha man i have no idea how to put it. But I get it.
I would also like to say i am super pumped for Gilgamesh this week! and i promise not to eat my brochure during the show, only before and after will i attempt. (aha). See you all around campus and in class! Have a beautiful day!