Lucy Mac's CIE opinions

Global Climate Change

2008-05-01T09:40:00.000-07:00

First off I am sure you are unaware that even though universally it is called global warming, the correct term is global climate change.

Second I will be using this data that i collected in class tomorrow

Third- there is Global Climate Change and I have no idea how you can be so blind

Forth- see you all in class tomorrow

NOTES

Theories
1. Astronomical theory of climate change.
· Which is the tilt of the earth relative to its plane of travel about the sun is what causes seasons. The theory that the poles will switch and winter will become summer and vice versa.
· This ice age theory is expected to occur in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years

Laws
1. Clean Air Act
· is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
2. Clean Water Act (CWA)
· establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
3. Atomic Energy Act
· utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public… meaning- to develop guidance for federal and state agencies containing recommendations for their use in developing radiation protection requirements.

Facts
· Climate is the average pattern of weather over the long term. The earth’s climate has warmed and cooled for millions of years, since long before we appeared on the scene. There’s no doubt that the climate is growing warmer currently; indications of that change are all around us.
· The oceans, which cover more than 70% of the earth’s surface, play a fundamental and complex role in regulating climate. The oceans absorb huge amounts of solar energy; ocean currents transport this heat from the equator toward the Poles. In the past, long-term, natural oscillations in the oceans’ capacity to store and transport heat have led to global temperature changes. Ability to tell data through satellite measurements of microwave energy emitted by ocean waters. Microwave energy—like visible light and infrared radiation—is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
· Changes in climate dramatically alter the planet’s snow- and ice-covered cryosphere. With variations in the earth’s temperature, thousands of square miles of snow and ice can accumulate or melt. Changes in snow and ice cover, in turn, affect air temperature, sea level, ocean currents, and storm patterns. Snow and ice help keep the earth cool by reflecting between 60% and 90% of the solar energy that shines on them back into space. Reduction of snow cover and sea ice may lead to increased warming, as more solar energy is absorbed.
· Many species inhabit precisely bounded ecological niches, and even small changes in climate may cause fundamental disruptions in habitat or food availability. In the past, animals could respond to these pressures by moving from one place to another. Today, however, land development has constrained and fragmented ranges and travel routes, making species migration in response to climate change much more difficult. Moreover, loss of key predator or prey species may affect the life cycles of other organisms in the food chain.
· Interpreting past and present climate data is difficult, but predicting future climate change—and its possible effects—is even more challenging. Researchers use complex computer simulations called climate models to predict long-term weather patterns. A model’s reliability depends on the number of variables taken into account and the accuracy of measurements used.

Disease—like malaria
Flooding of homes
Drought

Waiyaki and education (NOTES)

2008-04-15T23:21:00.001-07:00

What does education signify for Waiykai? à Meant rebirth, as in raising the white man’s wisdom- Learn the white man’s education and then use it against them. Another factor, it is his response to his father’s call and the mission his father gave him. Education is not only the fulfillment, but the fulfillment of the prophesy. We never find out what he teaches the students, he beats them though. What do you think is being taught in the school? My guess is teaching them how to read. What is important to teach- other ways of life; How to more or less survive in other cultures. Know your enemy- be aware of their tactics. Spreading a political message in a sense; it is easy for the children to believe messages that are taught, it is simple to brain wash. Inoculate against colonial influence. Tactical warfare- understands your enemy in order to fight back.
Page 92, their children can speak a foreign language; their children can read and write.
Page 93- song. Showing school to community, and has children sing song. Interesting. What is left- the battle of wits and the mind. Waiyaki is intimately connected to the things he learned at the mission.
What exactly is the purpose of education in Waiyaki’s mind, how does he think about it? Is it a set of skills? Is it an idea of rebirth?
I think education is used in order to survive. He uses it as a tool to not be colonized. He uses it to bring people together. He does not want to fight the white people. The purpose of education is not to overthrow, it is a way to survive in their world. That explains why there is a group not accepting his methods.

thoughts on circumcision

2008-04-02T10:07:00.000-07:00

Alright, well like other students in the class i was unsure of the exact practice which takes place during a femal circumcision. So i looked it up- wholey hell was my first though. First off there can be different forms of female circumcision; one of which merely involve minor cutting of the anatomy, but in the case of ritual defloration more radical forms require the complete removal of the parts of the labia. Even more appalling is infibulation, in which the entire parts of the female anatomy are removed and then fastened shut with either thorns or a thread. for those of you who are always inquisitive in class- there is a small opening for urination and "that time of the month". This is all done to ensure that she is virginil, which was seen as desirable. Once married, the woman has to be cut open before intercourse. In some cultures the anatomy is cauterized or rubbed with nettles to destroy the nerve endings! Wholey hell!!! No thank you. That is so desterbing, but then again- that is our culture. Our culture sees the strange in the familiar, meaning giving up the familiar idea that we live our lives only in terms of what we decide in favor of the intially "strange" notion that society shapes these decisions, as it does all our experiences. To give you, reader, and idea an example would be; much like the selection of a mate, the choice of how many children to have woudl seem to be personal. Yet social patterns apply- in the united states the average number of children per family is 2, while in Cambodia it is 4, and in Niger it is 7. So i guess my point behind that is, who are we to say what is culturally acceptable when we are not even intergated in such a society? For our society it is acceptable for the male to be cirsumcised, but odd for the female, this would be strange for the Kikuyu area and its people.

March 24th, thoughts on Nietzsche

2008-03-24T07:05:00.000-07:00

Well, there are a lot of things I think about when I think of Nietzsche. First off, Nietzsche's views are very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of philosophers of his time. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme if taken out of context or misinterpreted. Also, if looked at from a different perspective, Nietzsche's work seems to parallel that of the Nazi ideology (not to say he was). For instance, Hitler and the other Nazi leaders did not to indulge in any act of independent creative thought in order to arm their movement with ideas. And in the first few pages of the assigned reading, or the preface, Nietzsche express how "we are necessarily strangers to ourselves" and we are absent minded. Then Nietzsche points out a few more things; firstly, the basis of Nietzsche's philosophy is the complete lack of authority. No God, no order, no rules, only the individual and their own short life. This in itself suggests anarchy which is generally chaotic and dangerous in itself, much like Hitler and the Nazi regiem. With this statement alone, he lays a treacherous foundation for one's thoughts and beliefs.

Next, this only occured about page 17; Nietzsche states that he has given honor to God, but then soon-there-after states that God is the father of evil. So here was my shock... as I have stated several times, I am not that biblically well rounded: but I was shocked when he refered to God as the creater of evil. How could he be? I immediatly thought... he created the heavens, Adam and Eve, all creatures, the Earth!! Then, when I actually stepped back and looked at the broader picture, Nietzsche is right... if God created good and moral, then he had to have created evil. It was just that I have never envisioned God to do such a thing, but as Nietzsche says, "as was only fair" to say such a thing.

And those are my thoughts for today, that I was going to express in class, and I was super pumped for class today- but after I sat there for about 10 minutes and realized no one was there, and that maybe I should check my email just to find out that it was cancelled, a little piece of my died inside... that is how much I love CIE! Alright, later class.

the idea of intellectual laziness

2008-03-19T08:21:00.001-07:00

Early this class, Ed claimed that maybe people are using the bible incorrectly, and there is a lack of intellect when interpreting it. Yes, i am not as well rounded biblically as I would like, but I still have an opinion towards the matter. I think that there is no right or wrong way to interpret the bible. An opinion is just that, an opinion. Due to such, the world has such a religious diversity. I am very glad that there is not just one main religion, I would hate to be a part of global lemmings, all following one idea. Even then, I think someone would be rebellious enough to come up with their own idea. So, i do not agree at all that the bible was misinterpreted... I don’t think a belief can be misinterpreted. That is what it is- a belief. One’s own interpretation- Lots of intelligent thinking, with numerous ramifications.

Why does Darwinism matter? (creationism v. darwinism)

2008-03-19T07:10:00.000-07:00

Why does Darwinism matter? In a sense, it shouldn't because it is a belief- there are so many religions, opinions, and beliefs that this "problem" should be just a fly on the wall. Never-the-less, humanity is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

There is a difference between Darwinism and Creationism, one is based on data and the other is based on belief. So why does it matter? Well in the earlier days of Christ, about 6,000 yrs. ago, the only belief was the of the lbreal interpretation of the bible. Everything that occured in the bible, was the actual happening of that time. The idea of “creation science” is derived from most religions that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once in the relatively recent past. Creationists say that creatures started out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution. There and then lies the conflict, the problem lies when Creationism argues that faith should take precedent over science, basing its beliefs on one book for guidance, the Bible.

My question is, what if you were not raised with this biblical guidence?! Darwinism concerns itself as a science, which is explained by scientific methodology. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Additionally, Darwinism greatly impacted the scientific world purely through its specific doctrine. The enlightenment had paved the way for rational thinking and observation. People were willing to accept scientific data as fact and they were able to objectively consider theories that went against the church.

Even with that biblical guidence, why does it matter which side you believe? Neither idea can be proven right or wrong. Yes, there is a certain realism that dictates over the other. Creationism is based primarily on ones interpretation of the bible. As opposed to Darwinism: which is based on data. But who cares! Why do people choose to believe what they believe?

I think it has a great deal to do with the way in which you are raised. If you are raised with the guidence of the bible, and attend church every Sunday, then you may leave towards the more mystical belief of Paley. If you are more individualistic and brought up as so, then you may lean more towards Darwinism. My theory comes to: which idea gives people more comfort?

Personally, I lean more towards Darwinism due to its data and realistic view. Yes i would live to live with a mystical view much like Paley, but I was not raised with the bible. In all honesty, I have only read the children's bible, and I only truely know the story of Christmas. Due to my lack of biblical knowledge, do I not have an appreciation for Paley? NO! Because of my lack of biblical knowledge, is it assumed that I will jsut surpass the biblical beliefs all together... no, thank you very much! I like the belief of evolution.

You can't tell me that the world is undergoing evolution even now as I type. Fact- Global Climate Change. The world is re-setting itself from humanitarian mistakes. Fact- babies have tails, until born. Why does it fall off? So yes, due to factual things (also I am an environmental major so that helps) I believe in evolution. On the other hand, I do not liek the idea that we are on the earth just to live, and our life comes to an end at the grave. I like the comforting idea that there is a life after death, because then what are we living for?

All in all, I lean more towards Darwinism, because I am a more factual person. And then I also support Paley, with his idea that everyone is here for a reason, and there is a life after death.

Darwinism thoughts

2008-03-19T07:00:00.000-07:00

The text book version of Darwinism is said to be the descending from a common ancestor. However, in all honesty is is nothing more than a mutation (which are random on a microscopic level). More complex species evolve into simpler ones. There is also a need for species struggle, competition, and the manifest of reproductive success.

Branching off from Darwinism is the idea of natural selection. Again the text book version of the term is: it is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Additionally, as we have discussed in class: Natural Selection was key to Charles's understanding of the process of natural selection. Darwin realized that the most fit individuals in a population are the ones that are least likely to die of starvation and, therefore, are most likely to pass on their traits to the next generation.

Karl Marx The communist Manifesto Notes

2008-02-27T10:41:00.000-08:00

Communism is a theory that states that society should own all property. There should be no private ownership and labor is organized so that all members of society will benefit. Communism is based on the theories of Karl Marx and writing.

Karl Marx was an idealist. He observed the cruelties and injustices that the poor working class endured during the period of industrial revolution, and was then inspired to write of a society in which no oppression existed for any social class of people. Marx believed in a revolution that would end socialism and capitalism, and focus on communist principles. The Manifesto describes the goals of the communist party for ending exploitation of the working class and creating a society in which there is equality in society without social classes.

Marx uses reason to explain what will happen to society due to the materialism of the Industrial Revolution. Marx reasons how society will become classless under the rule of communism. The proletariat, defined as the lower working class, will take over the bourgeoisie, defined as the upper class, because of the difference in capital between the two classes. The two classes clash because both are consumed with wants of material items and power but only the bourgeoisie has an abundance of these two items. The proletariat then revolts to gain equality and thus society becomes classless. Marx's manifesto was inspired by the emergence of the modern working class- he seems to developed a socialist outlook through the principle of socialism. Marx’s "scrutiny" illustrates his belief in the unless change that's occurring between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. The class relationships are defined by an era's means of production.

One of Marx's arguments is that the society created by the bourgeois is so powerful and out of control that it can no longer be controlled. Thus the illusion to the Sorcerer. The modern bourgeois society, he explains "a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, [it] is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world when he has called up by his spells." His remedy for this situation was an overthrow of the ruling bourgeois society and the beginning of the proletariat society.

Another argument that Marx brings out that is relevant in today's society is the distinct class differences. He mentions how 10% of the people have virtually all the property.

Notes/ thoughts about William Blake's Proverbs of Hell

2008-02-25T08:08:00.000-08:00

In Blake's Proverbs of Hell, it seems as though he is expressing that; with the good, there always is the bad or the opposite. It seems paradoxyl and almost expresses dualism. How people actually act as opposed to how they ought to act. The proverbs express ideals verses reality.

The author is discussing vitality of life force, philosophical power or thoughts. Morality. Blake is using the expression of power or energy as being better. Excess leads to wisdom. He is expressing how it is overall better for things not to be contained, more or less to be set free. For instance the line about the bird flying with it's own wings.

The author also eludes to God and is associating God with physical power. It seems as though Blake's conception of Hell is not as a place of punishment, but a source of unrepressed, philosophical energy. Blake eluded to the readers a repressive nature of conventional morality and institutional religion. A life force that is hard to contain in words, something that is or reflects a violent force about it. Blake praises carnivorous animals that survive based on predatory habits.

Overall, within Blake's suggestive, simple, and rich with illusions proverbs, which reflect wisdom. There is a hopeful, faithful, and positive mood expressed by the numerous proverbs. It is a strategy for simplifying ideas. There is a kind of beauty to these statements even though they are not clear- which in turn draws in the reader with a sense of depth.

Last thoughts on Tintern and it comparative to London

2008-02-20T07:58:00.000-08:00

Due to the beginning of class and "google-ing" Tintern Abbey (which is beautiful) I realized that perhaps Wordsworth really was touching base on religion. It would make sense, due to every other poem he writes expressing God or some biblical reference. The poem seems to have a subtle strain of religious sentiment; though the actual form and structure of "Abbey" does not appear in the poem, the idea of Tintern Abbey-- which, thanks to google, is a place consecrated to the spirit and had the Cistercian monks (or White Monks) who lived at Tintern followed the Rule of St. Benedict--fills the scene, almost as though the fields and forest themselves the speaker's abbey. Pretty much what i am saying is that even though he did not refer directly go God or biblical references, he did allude to it with the title and main point of the poem. As we also discussed in class, there are several different ways to relate to nature, poetry in the way wordsworth presents it is just one form of that. Nature represents a counterweight to society. Nature ought to be with us all the time as a state of mind, as opposed to an actual forest.

Okay, well for the last 30 seconds we had of class, we touches base on London by William Blake. London is a dismal and sad poem, it is sensually filled and emotionally as well. The poem London expresses the tension, sounds, and meanings of a collapsing city. The poem expresses a dark and sad city to the reader, through the tension within the poem’s "voice." As opposed to Tintern Abbey which is a reminisence of childhood and beautiful nature. Wordsworth says that in those days, nature made up his whole world: forrests, waterfalls, mountains, and woods gave shape to his passions and his love. Due to both time and innocense has now past, he does not mourn it. I think Wordsworth realizes he cannot resume his old relationship with nature, but he has been somewhat compensated with new set of "mature gifts." (For instance, he can now "look on nature, not as in the hour / Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes / The still, sad music of humanity.") Due to this he can now sense something more powerful, and fundamental in things such as the light of the setting suns, the ocean, and the state of mind.

Feb. 18th thoughs/ notes

2008-02-18T07:59:00.001-08:00

Alright, so this class we only touched base on one poem (Tintern Abbey). The question was raised- What is nature according to Wordsworth? I believe he thinks nature is a state of being. An escape one can go to when needing to get away from the non natural aspects of the world. It is as though his state of nature is a meditation or spiritual bond with such. However, Tabbie raised an interesting point, that it is possible that Wordsworth's religion is nature itself. I can see where she is coming from, i think that he is so connected mind, body, and soul with nature that it in turn has become his prayers and religion and spiritual connection. The brilliant thing about it is that nature is so general and available that anyone willing and aiming can attain it. There is yet a label on it. He is ascribing a quasi religious reference to nature, and we can recognize the spiritual power to nature with a capital “N”. Another question that was raised was what is nature and what is it's opposite. Nature is, foundationally, anything spacious and green. It is untouched my humanity. Nature brings out, especially in Wordsworth and his writtings, the appreciation for the aesthetics (which is the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty) that consoled him by incorporating all together, the wonders of nature, his past experiences, and his present mature perception of life. As opposed to "not nature" which is anything that has been tainted by human hands, anything that has not naturally evolved. Anything that is materialistic or concrete. It is industrialization, migration, expansion, politics, rules, laws... Again, another question was raised- What kind of person do you think Wordsworth was? I think that wordsworth was a young man coming to realization. He was realizing his loss of time is his loss of innocence. For example, when you are young you are constantly outside in nature. Nothing it ailing you and you are somewhat set free to explore. I have come to realize that as you grow older and being to have a mature outlook on life and nature is no longer an escape. Life begins to hit you, and you cant escape it anymore. Lastly, the underlying message of the poem, to me, is that even though life comes at you fast and your childhood is soon just a memory in the past, you are still able to escape everything (humanity, life, the hustle and bustle) and come into touch with your inner self. Whenever you want to come into contact with who you truley are, go to nature. Go to a place in which you cant be touched by anything but emotions, beauty, and self. I think that at first i did not have such an appreciation for this poem as i do now. Due to writting this blog and our class discussion i better understood the angles of the poem and actually have gained a great appreciation for this poem.

2008-02-17T22:04:00.000-08:00

Song to the Men of England
In "Song to the Men of England" Shelley addresses the impoverished working class who are exploited by the ruling class. Again, he criticizes the system, but pays special attention to the mistreatment of those who work with the land. Shelley sympathizes with the working class, all the while demanding to know why they allow themselves to be exploited. The purpose of "Song to the Men of England" is to motivate the laborers to revolt. Shelley recognizes that they work only to have their products and profits seized by the ruling class; however, he urges that they take action rather than just complaining about their problems.

…There really wasn’t a word that stuck out in particular to me as much as the phrase “Bees of England,” because it really classifies the people as the working class. He compares the masses to bees, insects that work their whole lives away so that the Queen (or King, in the case of England) does not have to perform any honest work herself. Shelley seems to both pity and scorn the working class for allowing themselves to be victimized by those in power.

Sonnet: England in 1819

...The word that really sticks out to me in this poem is “leech-like,” because I find it interesting how it seems as though all of Shelley’s poems mimic the same pattern which is England at its worse; especially since he directs this phrase/ word at the rulers and higher class of England.

William Wordsworth's poems

2008-02-17T22:03:00.000-08:00

Lines (Tintern Abbey)
This poem uses the dramatic monologue, a poem in which the poet is addressing a listener who never speaks but is referred to, in order to take you on a series of emotional states by trying to sway himself, his sister, and eventually his readers. The loss of innocence and intensity over time is compensated by gathering knowledge and insight. Wordsworth proves that although time was lost along with his innocence, he in turn was able to gain an appreciation for the aesthetics (which is the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty) that consoled him by incorporating all together, the wonders of nature, his past experiences, and his present mature perception of life.

Note- Wordsworth was inspired to write Tintern Abbey after a fifty mile walk with his sister. It was added at the last minute to the end of the Lyrical Ballads. Though its inception was impulsive and it did not fit with the rest of the poems, Tintern Abbey undoubtedly had a “worthy purpose” of its own. Tintern Abbey is renowned for its references to politics and society and its insight into the life and mind of Wordsworth.
(http://ssad.bowdoin.edu:8668/space/Manipulation+and+Reception)

…The word that stood out the most to me was “pleasure,” because it seems as though it sums up the importance of the poem. Wordsworth has just went on a 50 mile walk with his sister, and all he can talk about is how it was a riveting experience to be out in the wild and alone with just his thoughts, and emotions.

Composed upon Westminster Bridge, Sept. 3, 1802.
“Composed upon Westminster Bridge, September 3, 1802” is a prime example of the way in which nature captured Wordsworth’s heart.

…The word that stood out to me the most was “splendor,” because this expresses Wordsworth’s love for London. This is expresses how he looks upon London as a place of splendor, and is in awe of the vision of beauty he sees before him. The fact that he uses the words “Dear God!” shows that he is taken aback by what he observes.

The World is too much with us; late and soon
The speaker of this poem is Wordsworth, talking about materialism. "The world is too much with us; late and soon, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers" is basically saying lately no one has payed attention to anything except for money and greed, using their (industrial revolutionaries/citizens of London) power to gain more power.
In line 8, Wordsworth speaks of being "out of tune", meaning the people are not doing as nature intended; greed and control is taking over everyone's life course.
There is a reference to three religions at the end of the poem ("Great God!" - Christianity, "a pagan suckled..." - Paganism, and "Proteus... Old Triton" - Greek Mythology). As the greater majority of people in London at this time were Christians (or catholic), the way Wordsworth says he'd rather be a Pagan (or his sight and sound of the Greek Gods) shows how disgusted he is in the demoralization of ideals at this time (further emphasizing the materialism at the time).

…The word that stuck out to me the most was “Nature,” because there is so much biblical references, that the word Nature or even God leaves it somewhat open ended. As opposed to A Pagan or even Proteus (the Sea God) is more specified. It seems to relate to all.

William Blake's poetry

2008-02-17T22:00:00.000-08:00

London

This poem is a lyric ballad that expresses the tension, sounds, and meanings of a collapsing city. The poem shows the reader a dark and sad city by through the tension in the poem’s voice, expressing sounds and anger that escapes beyond the boundaries of the poem itself. It is a sense based poem; there is sight, emotion, things heard, etc.

…The word that stood out the most to me was “weakness,” because following that word there is a repetition of the phrase “in every…” To me it seems as though every person, man or woman, is feeling the same way, with weakness in their hearts. It seems as though the society is being eroded by the strict policies of London.

Proverbs of Hell
It seems as though Blake's conception of Hell is not as a place of punishment, but a source of unrepressed, somewhat philosophical energy. Blake eluded to the readers a repressive nature of conventional morality andinstiutional religion.

…The word that stood out the most to me was “God,” just because throughout the poem, the poet declares the uniqueness of his vision when compared to the conventional wisdom of "the present world," not to mention the vision of the angels and demons. So it was just interesting to me that his poem was directed towards both evil and goodness.

Connection between personhood and the ability to feel pain.

2008-02-17T21:54:00.000-08:00

This passage is about the question that was raised in class when we were on the topic of Elizabeth Cady Staton. Nathan asked what the connection between, or assuming, personhood (in a broad sense) and the ability to feel pain was.

The ability to paint a picture is at odds with cold hard truth. Staton is suggesting that the slave holder can recognize the oppressiveness of the slave situation. And at the same time essential saying, the slave doesn’t feel it, or it is different that it doesn’t hurt so much. By extension, Stanton is also saying the same thing about the statement, that all woman are in the position of slaves in respect to male dominant society. Men might recognize, but woman don’t experience this as brutality. Therefore, slaves and woman both have the capacity to be hurt, they therefore have rights...

February 11. Pg. 44-73 in reader

2008-02-11T11:52:00.000-08:00

So the reading, within the homework which we had to do, that caught my eye the most, was Fredrick Douglass's "What the Fourth of July Means to the Negro." I found it interesting that the first part of Douglass's speech praises what the founding fathers did for this country, but then the speech soon developed into a condemnation of the attitude of American society toward slavery.

I also have a question, did Douglass considers himself a citizen of America, and an equal to the spectators in attendance....?

I found it interesting how he tells the audience that they have gathered to celebrate the Fourth of July, but all the while reminding them that the nation is young, and, like a young child, it is still capable of positive change. Therefore he was advocating for them, but then he apologizes to them... so did he feel as though he was different than them?

And lastly, i found that the real subject of his speech is American slavery. He condemns America for being untrue to its founding principles, in both the past, and the present. The audience must fulfill what the founders of the country advocated.

Overall, it was very powerful, and i enjoyed the read, because history has always been of interest to me, especially the civil war and slavery periods.

heart disection

2007-12-06T10:11:00.000-08:00

So, I know we discussed a lot of this in class, but i just feel like reiterating my view. Well, first off... I either go into a gory situation, like a movie or dissection, without any thought and feel fine or I walk in feeling wearing and queasy. It is always a crap shoot, and of course this time, in the case of the heart dissection, i was queasy... Because I was so, I just sat there for a period of time before I began butchering it. In that time, I really got to think... where did these hearts come from? How many did the school get and how many have we gone through? It just bothered me to be holding the heart of another animal. I literally had it in my grasp, dangling there... bloody and cold. I guess this was a realization for me... I know humanity is evolving, but this was the straw on my back. I was holding a once living organism's heart. Its heart... what you love with, what is easily broken but then again at the same time saved by love... What beats 80 times a minute for the entirety of your life... Granted it was a pig, but I still related it to a human. I gave the pig humanistic qualities, the ability to love, and of course to feel pain! Yes, the human race needs to feed, and evolve... but it really upsets me when large industries and business make a dollar over raising a living thing from birth. And that is not the bruit of it... these animals are kept in cells, not knowing what is it to see the sky, or run "wild" in a field (as lame as that sounds, but it is true). And here I am promoting this by sitting there in a room full of kids butchering the hell out of these heart for their own entertainment and inquiries. The kids across from my group were cutting their heart up into tiny pieces and making crude comments and jokes about it. The teacher running the lecture came over, took the heart away just to return with a new one... It was if she were handing the hearts out like gum. Anyone want a piece? Then my partner told me "you just have to not think about what you're doing, and do it." True, and as I put my moral values aside, I just began cutting what was once a living organism, now just an inanimate object. I can butcher things when I don't think about it or care... but that initially meant I had to lock up my feelings. It was ridiculous I thought. Then it got me thinking... what if everyone was shut up, and mechanically put to work? I don't know. Overall, I am just so used to "dissecting" things in lab, but this dissection was different for me. Now, I am not turning into some activist that is going on strike or something, I am not even a vegetarian... but I did have a vegetarian wrap today! Just the experience changed my view, but in all honesty... nothing will change, but the guilt that I felt. Overall, I guess one does what you have to in life.

Class discussion

2007-12-03T08:35:00.000-08:00

This is what we were saying in class...

How do you know that what your senses are telling you are reality? Senses give an accurate picture of reality. It is not true for everyone- ex. Skitso. You can not assume that everyone is relying on their senses to give them a clear reality.
We can be self aware of what our senses tell us, but you can defy your senses. ex- mirage.
How we interpret masses of sense data? Example, the masses that believed the world was flat.
Proof of existence, can't judge the world is real, but look back on own thoughts and judge whether they are real
If you cant escape it, it is a reality...?
Sense are an individual thing. Only you can sense and feel it, and believe it to be true.
your rational mind is telling you what you see with your senses could not possibly be real. Your senses tell you things in which your mind says no, that can't be real.

Discussion Questions in depth

2007-12-02T19:28:00.000-08:00

How does Descartes argue for his own existence?
Descartes realizes that he is a being that thinks, doubts, desires and questions countless things. However, the notion that Descartes has of a Supreme Being, or God, is the clearest and most distinct when compared to his other philosophies. Descartes realizes that since he is a being that thinks, there must be a supreme being more perfect than him to help him realize his imperfections. For instance, how could he know what his shortcomings are supposed to be, without a perfect more supreme being to compare himself to…? Also, how can he exist without a more supreme being to create him…? These ideas led to the conclusion that a God does in fact exist. Yes, at times Descartes ponders his very own existence, however, he realizes that he is a being that thinks, stating, “I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I exist”. He concludes that because he doubts, realizes his imperfections, and is an objective thinker, that he is a finite being. This leads to his confrontation on the existence of a God. Descartes states and believes that something cannot develop and evolve from nothing. He associates this with ideas.
What is his theory of knowledge, and what makes it different from a belief?
Descartes was a rationalist. He said that he believed, and that he had to doubt everything known to him to really understand knowledge… When Descartes started his thoughts, during the rise of science, he decided to set up a new system of knowledge to replace the knowledge of the church. (Kind of like Galileo, with the religion vs. science) This is where Descartes introduced his 'Method of Doubt'. In his method, he couldn't question every single object, so he concentrated on three main things:
1. The Senses (can be deceiving, you think you see something when it's not there, ex. Optical Illusions)
2. Physical Bodies
3. Math’s and The Sciences

What are two most important questions philosophies have to demonstrate? What are the two kinds of beliefs in which Descartes distinguishes? What does Descartes say about his proofs?

Mathematics of Descartes

2007-12-02T15:49:00.000-08:00

Woops, disregard the post below... okay so in part 3 there is a list of things in which Descartes gives his reader. The first time I came across it was in the first paragraph. It states "I formed a provisional moral code for myself consisting in only three or four maxims..."

Number 1.... to obey the laws and customs of my country, and to adhear to the religion in which God by His grace had me instructed from my childhood.
Number 2.... to be as firm and resolute in my actions as I could, and to follow no less constantly the most doubtful opinions, once I had adopted for them, than i would have if they had been the most certain ones.
Number 3.... to endeavour always to master myself rather than fortune, to try and change my desires rather than to change the order of the world, and in general to settle for the belief that there is nothing entirely in our power except our thoughts and after we have tried, in respect of things external to us, to do our best, everything in which we we do not succeed is absolutely impossible as far as we are concerned.
Number 4.... I decided to review the carious occupations that men have in his life, in order to try to select the best one.

Descartes being inspirational...

2007-12-02T15:35:00.000-08:00

Page 11....

I could discover much more truth from the reasoning that we all make about things that affect us and that will soon cause us harm if we misjudge them, than from the speculations in which a scholar engages in the privacy of his study, that have no consequence for him except insofar as the further they are from common sense, the more he will be proud of them, because he has had to use so much more ingenuity and subtlety in the struggle to make them plausible.
... to look into myself and to use all of my mental powers to choose the paths I should follow.

This blog is short, yes, but I was just sharing the quotes I really have come to love in the text.... which in this blog seem to be just on page 11.

Good quote, may discussion worthy in class

2007-12-02T15:29:00.000-08:00

The quote that really stopped me in my tracks and made me read over it a few times, because it is so true, and somewhat powerful... is on page 9, first full paragraph. It says...

Those who reason most powerfully and are the most successful at ordering their thoughts so as to make them clear and intelligible will always be best able to persuade others of what they say, even if they speak in the thickest of dialects and have never learned any rhetoric. and those whose linguistic expression is the most pleasing and who frame their thoughts in the most eloquent and agreeable way would always end up being the best poets, even if they did not know a single rule of poetic composition.

So yea, I thought this quote was very powerful... it discussion persuasion, and understanding your thoughts... kind of going along with a blog i posted early about... if you believe you are right there is no one else to disprove you're wrong. okayy!

Descartes' Views on the topic of the Philosophy of Mind

2007-12-02T15:18:00.000-08:00

It is as though Descartes has indeed made some notable contributions towards the philosophy of the mind throughout his "time". Descartes came off as being an avid dualist- This is the view that the mind and body are understood to be separate and distinct from each other, but in some way "causally" connected. I found Descartes was no exception, and he believed that the mind and body are two completely different substances. I think (hopefully i got this right, i tend to get their views wrong) he defines the body as an extended, non-thinking substance and the mind as a non-extended, thinking substance... It is not just these definitions that allow Descartes to adopt a dualistic point of view- Descartes came to the conclusion of his discourse of method that any data received from the senses could be doubted and therefore unreliable. Yea, my thoughts... aha okayy!

Discussion Questions

2007-12-02T15:15:00.000-08:00

How does Descartes argue for his own existence?
What is his theory of knowledge, and what makes it different from a belief?
What are two most important questions philosophies have to demonstrate? What are the two kinds of beliefs in which Descartes distinguishes? What does Descartes say about his proofs?

2007-12-02T15:04:00.000-08:00

These are a few notes that I have gathered from the reading...

Descartes lived and worked in a period that had one way of thinking, and one worldview.
Descartes deduces that truth can only be attained by the mind, as it is the only reasoning organ man possesses. He therefore proceeds to abandon any and all sensory knowledge on the grounds that our senses often deceive us.
Descartes realizes though that, whatever else this powerful being might deceive him about, it could not deceive him into thinking he existed if he didn't. This is his first certainty - which he is thinking, therefore he exists.
Branching off of the bullet above... I've come to realize that there can be several problems in Descartes reasoning's. First off, it is not possible to doubt everything... For instance, take Descartes claim that the senses have sometimes deceived him. How does he know they have? It seems as though, Descartes judges on the basis of other sensory experience which he takes to be accurate.... (okay, just storming)
Descartes seems to employ the method of doubt in his search for certainty. He rejects any belief that can possibly be doubted... until he finds a belief that cannot possibly be doubted.
My thoughts on the blog above.... To examine every single belief would be an impossible task, so it seems that Descartes instead of doing so, tries to doubt the basis for whole groups of beliefs. First he doubts the senses. (Which Galileo called, God given). Since the senses have at times deceived him in the past, the question is, how can he be so sure that they will not deceive him now? Finally, he considers the possible existence of a powerful being whose sole aim is to deceive him about everything, even the basic 'truths' of mathematics... (which will be an upcoming blog).

Branching off of more descartes....

2007-12-02T14:58:00.000-08:00

From the certainty of Descartes expanding knowledge, it seems as though he admits to the existence of God and the reality of the physical world- which he held to be "mechanistic" and entirely "divorced" from the mind. The only connection I can see between the two is the intervention of God. Descartes, it seems, evaluates and discerns what is actually true when he divides the foundations of knowledge into three sources: the senses, reality, and context.

More Descartes

2007-12-02T13:19:00.000-08:00

Rene Descartes, believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method contains some of his most important philosophical theories. Especially mathematical, in which he found his passion lied. He intended to extend the mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge. He seemed to discarded the authoritarian and aristotelian systems of the scholastic philosophers, which was, according to the Aristotelian tradition, the mind proper—what is exclusively "inside the head." This is limited to reason and understanding. Senses, imagination, will, etc. make reference to things outside the mind. (not purely mental). Rather, they link the believer and thinker to the "outside" world. Thus, sensory experience gives us direct and immediate knowledge of objects in the world. Okay, carying on... Descaertes discarded that and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. Man is thus a thinking thing which you know evolved from the Descartes slogan "Cogito Ergo Sum" ---> I am, therefore I exist" You can doubt everything you want, but you cannot doubt doubting because you are thinking. Thus thinking exists! You exist!

2007-12-02T13:11:00.000-08:00

In the method, the text is broken up into 6 parts. In the first, will be found various considerations touching the Sciences; in the second, the principal rules of the Method which the Author has discovered, in the third, certain of the rules of Morals which he has deduced from this Method; in the fourth, the reasonings by which he establishes the existence of God and of the Human Soul, which are the foundations of his Metaphysic; in the fifth, the order of the Physical questions which he has investigated, and, in particular, the explication of the motion of the heart and of some other difficulties pertaining to Medicine, as also the difference between the soul of man and that of the brutes; and, in the last, what the Author believes to be required in order to greater advancement in the investigation of Nature than has yet been made, with the reasons that have induced him to write. AKA- the heart... which we are disecting on tuesday!! so pumped.. aha no pun intended.

thoughts on descartes

2007-12-02T13:01:00.000-08:00

Rene Descartes' overall objective in the "Discourse of Method" is to develop a new system of knowledge that is free of prejudices for establishing the truth of things. Most of Descartes "things" worth discussing are in Part 4 of the book. In part 4, he explains the philosophical basing (the meditations) for establishing the new system. These "meditations" are based on rationalism: that if someone truly knows something then they could not possibly be mistaken. (Which, I agree with, because those are your thoughts) He then goes on to provide a solid argument for his ideas. He comes to term with three certainties in meditation- the existence of the mind is/as the thing that thinks, the body is/as an extension, and God is/as the supreme being. (Which reminds me at this point of Galileo, because he mentioned God and the supreme being). He came to these conclusions by doubling all he learned in his formal education, and all he received through the senses..... Again with the senses thing, much like Galileo.

The difference between religion and science

2007-11-02T13:00:00.000-07:00

Science versus Religion is a tough topic to discuss without letting ones own views interfere. It is also a difficult topic for me to accept both sides of the case because i am not that religious to begin with, and also my major is science, and i am just known to follow my scientific roots. I am also a very visual learner and "doer." therefore, it is difficult to accept the fact there is a greater being than ourselves, when i have yet to see it first hand, as opposed to science which i have seen experiments done, as well as been a part of them. Religion, more specifically Christianity, believes that God created the world, the universe and everything in them. It believes that God takes an ever-present and very active part in this world. Science, and evolution states that over long periods of time the world changes- bit by bit, change by change, the world was created and life began.

Another very obvious factor between Darwinism and Creationism, one is primarily based on data and research and the other is based on belief. Darwinism concerns itself as a science, that is explained by scientific methods and experiments. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change gives rise to new species. On the other opposing side, the ideas of creation is that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once (in 7 days) in the past. Creationists say that creatures started out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution.

But then I guess I have a question concerning religion... Every aspect of life in a Puritan society, way back when, revolved around religion. No matter what, they obey God. However, Puritanism reflects the notion of pre-destination. So if everything is pre-determined and whatnot, then how does life as a whole obtain any meaning what-so-ever, if technically someone is "pupeteering" your entire life? Science is about discovery, and not having a pre-determined understanding of what is going to happen... for instance Global warming. I am not quite sure what I am getting at here, I am kind of just letting the ideas flow.

Of Cannibals

2007-10-24T10:29:00.000-07:00

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.

Notes about Montaigne

2007-10-23T13:44:00.000-07:00

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!

The main thesis of Montaigne's "Of Cannibals"

2007-10-22T09:33:00.000-07:00

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.

5 different teachings within the Gita

2007-10-21T19:56:00.000-07:00

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.

values

2007-10-08T20:41:00.000-07:00

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.

in class

2007-10-02T08:03:00.000-07:00

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!

chillin

2007-09-27T13:46:00.000-07:00

hey class, i dont know what i am really going to say this blog, but i am exctied for fridays class because we will be getting revising our papers! (aha yea..) Just kidding, i am super excited because it is friday and my family is coming down from NY to visit me! I have to clean up a bit though... Um hope all is well, see you in class. (something relevant for class.. Socrates leave Euthyphro alone, let the man believe what he wants... without people like him, and without people like you, there would be no diversity, thus no excitement to living!)

Socrates- What's his deal

2007-09-24T10:57:00.000-07:00

I would have to say Socrates is an annoying character in this story, but i love how he questions Euthyphro. I was always brought up to question things not only for curiosity purposes, but so that i can better understand and share them with others. However, this entire story Socrates just keeps running into a brick wall. He is trying to have a better understanding of where Euthyphro is coming from, but seems to get no answer, much like the reader at the end of the story.

I think that with any situation, Socrates would question the actions and philosophies of the opponent. It seems as though it is much easier for Socrates to beat on Euthyphro because he believe in numerous gods, which according to both characters, all want something different. Yet, if Socrates was arguing with a person who believed in only one god, I'm sure the questions would alter a little bit, but generally be the same. I feel as though Socrates is just asking why each time. It reminds me of the tostidos commercial with the little girl who is told to eat her food, and she asks why, and the father replies because it is good for you and she replies once again with why... and it goes on and on much like a circle.

Even if Socrates made Euthyphro question himself, I'm sure moments later Euthyphro would be back on his high horse telling anyone who will listen what life is all about, and it's pieties, and impieties. If one truly believed they were correct they would not back down.

Socrates just likes to argue. I mean he is on death row, why not go out with a bang, and piss off as many people as possible.

Socrates compared to Euthyphro

2007-09-22T10:48:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what to think about Euthyphro prosecuting his own father. I suppose that for the sake of justice (or impiety), it would be the right thing to do. To judge him on terms of piety, I would have no clue how to do that. All i know is I could never view my oen father as a killer, let alone take him to court. I also wasn't really sure exactly what piety was when I began reading the story. Of course I looked it up in the dictionary, but even though i have a definition, doesn't mean I understood it any better. Quite honestly, I did not receive an answer at the end of the reading either. I found myself going in the circles that Euthyphro was going in.

I found it somewhat humorous how Socrates goes about asking Euthyphro about the meaning of piety. It seemed as thoguht the entire restof the story was about Socrates one uping Euthyphro. Socrates actually seems a bit condescending in his questioning, but Euthyphro never seems to notice. Euthyphro's character seemed to be pleased in being thought of as an expert on the matter of piety (and impiety). I don't think Socrates expected to receive a definite answer to his questions from Euthyphro at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Euthyphro: he seems to be a bit power hungry, and attention hungry as well. he thrives ont he attention that Socrates is giving him and just keeps rambling on throughout the story until finally Socrates starts to fire back.

Socrates: I believe Socrates too was a bit hungry when it came to the spot light. He also loved pulling Suthyphro's chain, which Euthyphro never notices. it was kind of like the story "whose on First..." it kept going in circles and no one was getting the answer or response they wanted.

class

2007-09-15T09:20:00.000-07:00

My thoughts about Noah and his sons is much simlar to that of the classes. Noah was ashamed of the fact that his youngest child witnessed Noah in such a free and expressive state. In addition, his son went to the eldest sons as well, and told them what he has just seen. So instead of fixing the problem on his own, he brought his brothers in to cover Noah. So maybe Noah was upset the grandson didn't step up and show respect for his grandfather and protect him by covering him. It shows that he to some extent did not step up to the plate.

Then again, yea so he didnt cover you up Noah, get over it youre the only family on the Earth right now, and you are going to start a fight between you. There is no where to go, and no one to talk to, so way to create drama.

As for the story of Abraham and Issac... I have to agree with Mandy. To love someone is to love God, because we are "all Gods children." So I don't understand why God would test Abraham by asking him to kill his son. I thought that was a little bullyish again by God. Then again, I truly thought about it, and that is a true measure of how much Abraham is willing to give up for God. So this was confusing, but I would have to say I still think it was wrong of God to do that to Abraham.

which is tougher... Genesis or the Packet

2007-09-11T18:43:00.001-07:00

Either way, anything relating to the biblical text is tough for me, becuase I hardly ever go to church, and when I do it is once a year (Christmas mass). Anyhow, if I had to choose one of the texts that was a "tougher" read for me it would have to be Genesis.

The beginning part of Genesis provides what seems to be a chronological framework which is extreemly repetitive as well as having a rigid style. Not to mention God is just creating things left and right. He says let there be light, so there is light, and he says let there be animals and soon enough there is some fuzzy creature roaming around.

I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much as difficult to read and interprit (because there are sparknotes at the bottom) but because it is tough for me to believe in anything that is being said. Also to the extent that I do believe that God is somewhat a tormenter in the sense that what he says goes, and you better obey him or else. And it upsets me, because humans shouldnt have to obey God, but be guided by him and follow him. (Im not sure if I'm making sense, but it makes sense in my head).

The reason the packet was easy for me to read and understand was, because it was just sentences on how people and humanity should abide by or follow the religion. It was more or less rules. And becuase I really don't follow those as closely as others (not saying I go out and murder people) I am not as threatened to break them as others may be (I mean breaking the "respect thy father and mother one- relax people!). Also, the second part of the reading we had to do (the one that has an eye for an eye) was easier for me to understand, becasue in social studies all throughout high school, we learned about those rules. Also, no one really practices those anymore, so there is no sense in paying as much attention to them as the Ten Commandments.

Even so, the material we learn and go over in class doesnt really stay with me that long. As soon as I am out that door, all I can think is LUNCH TIME! It's not that I do not respect the views of the people at all, or God for that matter. I just don't know where I stand in belief. I do however, believe it is important to believe in something... anything at all. It's great to have belief when you've hit rock bottom or are as scared as can be, or any other time you just need to feel comfort when youre all alone. However, for me, I feel as though I can discuss this in class and have no feeling what-so-ever on the topic. Which can be good in a debate or a paper, becuase my own feelings don't come into the matter. I guess thought to some extend my feelings have to come into play

I would just like to stress again, I mean no disrespect when I say it doesn't effect me as much as others. I just did not grow up with it. I know I would have an entirely different view if I had though. I also would like to reilliterate the fact that it is interesting to me, but just not as emotional as others.

So all in all, the hardest read of Genesis because of my inability to believe in what was said to have gone down. I still find it interesting to hear everyones point of view, and express my own. So yup, I guess that's it... okay, well i am now going to finish my americano coffee (it has 4 shots of xpresso in it- and im not even a coffee drinker... can you say late night!?) Night gang!

Activity in class (sept 4/07)

2007-09-06T16:38:00.001-07:00

Hey guys!

I thought the activity we did in class (look at the penny) was very interesting. It made me realize how i take the most simplistic things for grantide. Meaning, my entire life i have exchange countless amounts of pennies, and money and other things in general without actually ever truly looking at them. For instance on the penny I noticed Abraham in the building for the first time. Also it's interesting to know when things are made (or at least i think so). Our penny was made in 2006, but what about the pennies made in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s?! Think about everything that happened in those decades, and that very penny had been cirulating through them all along.

It would have been interesting to do the activity with anything really. Yet, i was thinking, what if we had to do it with ancient text? What about the bible!? That would take forever, even to get through one page! I wonder what antone would say (I hope i spelled that right, im SOO bad with names and spelling).

It didnt occur to me in class, but i got to thinking, if that penny did not have a date it would not have impacted me as much. It really made me think of everything its been through. Especially with anything from the past. Time is truly of the essance. I wonder where my pennies are going to end up. I hope they go places i never get to visit.

All in all, that was a very interesting activity! I cant believe i thought that in depth about a penny!

See all ya in class!