March 24th, thoughts on Nietzsche

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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.