This week brought an interesting change of pace with listening to classical music. Mozart is always mind-blowing with his innovation and complexity in his pieces. I think our discussion today was the most intriguing.
An interesting topic of discussion was how the shift from traditional sacred art to more secular art as a result of the Enlightenment occurred. Sacred art and music revolved around Church themes like Christ and Biblical ideas and the Virgin Mary while secular art and music could be anything. It would make sense that creativity could flourish as a result of the Enlightenment bringing about change in art. If everyone was not painting Christ or the Virgin Mary and music was not exclusively composed to be played or sung in Church, a world of creative opportunities was opened.
It's also interesting to ask if the Enlightenment had been delayed a few hundred years, would these famous composers like Mozart or Haydn still have composed such great music? They would have most likely had to work within the confines of the Church, which would make their creative control limited at best. These are just some interesting questions to ponder, as many can be with hypothetical aversions to history.
Response 11-15-13
For Paper 2 I will be completing the creative option with Evan, Brittni, and Benjamin. We will be making a video on the contemporary relevance of Dante's Inferno. We will place Dante's journey into a modern college campus setting with the effect of creating a parody. We will be sort of poking fun at many of the punishments and it will involve a good number of popular songs. I am quite excited for it.
Can't wait to see it. -MH
Response 10-25-13
Today's class was rather entertaining, I must say. Everyone's different takes on how the first European-Native American relations started were so great. I loved the satirical nature many of them had. I think this was great evidence of how every story changes based on perspective. Bias is nearly unavoidable, especially in early history.
This begs the question of how reliable our history really is. Which portrayals of our history can we actually trust? "History is always told by the victors." The reading for today definitely pointed some of that out. I think the last line was particularly insightful. Knowing that Native Americans would always be seen as those who "don't wear breeches," certainly foretells of the hardship they would face in this country and continent.
Response 10-1013 Daniel, this would be an interesting comparison. There's so much you can work with. Their ideas about pride and sin are a great place to start. Both Dante and More create imagined spaces to work out their ideas, and it seems like they both want to have some kind effect on the behavior of their readers, though it's harder to tell what the intended effect is with More. I'm looking forward to finding out what you come up with. -MH
For our first paper I would like to do a comparison of Dante's Inferno and Utopia. I think it would be interesting to compare the views of sin of the works. Dante discusses all types of sin and basically asserts that most of mankind is sinful, while Moore depicts a society that has greatly influence of sin. I don't think either work is particularly believable in the way they handle sin, but I think it would be interesting to delve into.
Inferno focuses on levels of sin and separation from God, which will be a big point of comparison in my paper. Utopia discusses that the community has somehow found a way to do away with pride, which many would consider the root of all sin. This will be another large point in my paper, seeing as Dante doesn't have a specific circle for the prideful but perhaps sees pride as an overarching area of sin.
I am looking forward to looking into this topic further and discovering what exactly these two classics have to say about sin. Even if I don't agree with their views, it will be cool to see how these influential pieces may have shaped people's view of sin in their time period.
Response 10-4-13
Our discussion of Utopia was rather insightful for me. I thought the description of Utopia using adjectives on the board was helpful. The general consensus was that while Utopia was the ideal place, it was also unattainable. Many of the details of the workings of Utopia seemed outlandish and impossible, like the idea of them having zero property, but still having slaves, or the concept of no war unless it's completely justified. The concept of marriage was a little strange too.
I think Utopia was most unbelievable when Raphael described how they had somehow done away with pride. This would indicate that Utopia is nearly free of sin, because pride is the root of almost all sin. Utopia is then a sort of heaven on earth. This simply cannot exist, at least this side of the rapture. I thought it interesting that More included that detail. It would've obviously appealed to his Christian audience, who were perhaps ready to suspend belief to do away with this core vice.
Response 9-27-13
I enjoyed going through some of The Canterbury Tales this week. Having never read them, it was interesting to see the layout of this beloved and often-taught work. I thought the large number of characters seemed a bit much to keep track of at first, but after realizing that all but three or four of them are less-than-reputable characters, it made it much simpler. That could indicate Chaucer's feelings toward Medieval society as a whole: almost everyone is corrupt in some way and only a few actually serve the ideals they stand for.
There are several interesting characters like the Miller, who seems like a shorter, more obnoxious version of the Brawny Man. He is described as always vulgar, very strong, and cheating. Even though he would cheat you out of corn, he was fairer than most millers. Another funny character was the Friar. He basically mooches off of everyone. He would help people who could help him and he would make deals with those who could get him food and drink. He seems like one of the greediest characters. He even says that he doesn't help the homeless or sick because they can't offer him any money. His lack of compassion is comical.
The Wife of Bath was actually one of my least favorite characters. It just seems like she wants to have sex all the time and have power over men, so she makes all these outlandish claims to justify such actions. Her prologue seemed to go on and on. The Friar even remarks how long it is. With all of the buildup, one would think the story is better than many others, but it seemed predictable to me. it simply reflected what she values and believes.
Response 9-18-13
Hashing out some of the details of Dante's punishments was rather helpful to me today. I feel like it cleared up some of the logic behind them. Our group took a look at the gluttons and discovered a greater significance to certain details of the ring. Cerberus is also glutton, which explains his presence there. Virgil makes him eat dirt to keep them alive. I wonder if the supernatural beings in the different circles are guilty of the sins they rule over. It seems appropriate to have centaurs by the violent: centaurs are pretty warlike creatures. However, the significance of harpies ruling over the suicides is lost on me. Perhaps I need to brush up on my mythology.
The discussion of the heretics was particularly helpful, because that one confused me the most so far. It makes sense to "put their sin to rest" in the tombs. Also, confining their ideas to stem the spread of them makes a lot of sense. I think the most interesting part is the idea that many of them believed that nothing happened after death, that they simply remained in their grave. They do remain in their graves, but in the horrifying way of being cooked for all eternity. It is a sort of slap in the face.
Also, the idea of the shades' ability to see the future becoming basically useless hadn't occurred to me. It makes sense, after some consideration, that as the future becomes the present, they wouldn't be able to see it. So they know their fate, but they don't necessarily know when it'll happen. It makes their situation all the more hopeless.
Response 9-13-13
Our discussion of the structure of hell was rather interesting today. I think the debate over the structure draws attention to the fact that some sin shouldn't be considered worse than other sin. Sin is sin. Any given sin is not what sends someone to hell, it is their living for something other than God and not accepting Christ as their savior. I think it is unfortunate because many people have this view of hell, and it is simply not accurate. There is no scriptural evidence to support this depiction of hell.
That being said, Dante shows incredible imagination in his most famous work. The world he creates is frightening because it depicts the shades' lack of hope so well. The concept of eternal punishment becomes very real. I especially appreciate the punishments for the various sins. Each punishment seems catered to each sin. I think the flatterers' punishment is my favorite. They must sit in a pit of human excrement, which makes sense because flatterers are full of crap. Making them sit in their own poop seems justified.
Response 8-23-13
I thoroughly enjoyed our class discussion of artwork depicting Jesus in Wednesday's class. Comparing and contrasting the two provided a great opportunity to see distinct stylistic attributes and ideas conveyed. I found that the differences made the two even more compelling.
The first piece showed Jesus after just descending from the cross. He is surrounded by his loved ones, who all show great pain and sorrow, but all point to Christ either with the way they are facing or with body lines. Jesus is obviously the focal point of the piece. The angels in the background contrast greatly with the human figures in the foreground, with their bodies contorted in grief. The detail I find most interesting is that Jesus' wounds are hardly noticeable. I feel like, especially having just been crucified, he would be bleeding profusely. His piercings seem like little dots on his hands and feet and there is no spear wound in his side. The reason for his cleanly appearance could be either that it was culturally insensitive to show gore in art back then, or that the Church was not comfortable with Jesus being depicted that way. Seeing as the Church funded much of the art produced in this period, they likely had a great amount of pull in these matters.
I actually enjoyed the second piece more. I thought it showed much greater depth and detail, even though many of the dimensions seem to be off. Especially when compared to the previous piece, Jesus' wounds appear much more noticeable and unapologetic, which I actually prefer. even though Jesus' dead body takes up much of the work, the grieving women next to him appear to be genuinely in pain. This brings up one of the key differences in these two pieces: the first shows more of Jesus' divine nature while the second highlights his human nature. Angels lament his death from above in the first while the women mourn the man more privately. Obviously because of my Christian background, I enjoy this subject matter. Discovering the subtleties of how Christ was depicted back then is fascinating to me.
Response 8-30-13
I thought our discussion of the Qur'an today was very interesting and certainly raised many questions for me. As a devout follower of Christ, I really enjoy comparing other belief systems to that of my own, and have been looking forward to learning more about Islam for some time.
One of the first things I noticed was in Sura 2, actually in the first line: "This Book is not to be doubted." It goes on to say that this text is a guide for the righteous and those who wish to follow God, but I couldn't help but compare it to my view of the Bible. Christians such as myself view the Bible in a much broader sense. John 1 says "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." Not only does the Bible instruct us of how to properly walk with God, but it gives us life. Just as God breathed life into Adam, He breathes life into us through His word. The Qur'an is described much more as a sort of instruction manual for how to be righteous and submit to God, but it gives no detail of how to have a personal relationship with Him, which I believe is what He wants for everyone on this earth.
Also, many passages seemed rather contradictory or intense to me. It seemed very specific in calling out other religions, namely the Christian and Catholic Churches. However, there were many sections that made perfect sense to me, and I thought were basically true and good, even from a Christian point of view. I kept reading through and thinking "Wow, that is so clear and true," and a few sentences later thinking "That is so incredibly wrong." It was like a non sequitur after non sequitur. I could see how people could buy into this belief system hastily and perhaps later be appalled by it. I did, however, enjoy learning about what my spiritual half-brothers and half-sisters (because that is what Christians and Muslims technically are to each other) believe.
This week brought an interesting change of pace with listening to classical music. Mozart is always mind-blowing with his innovation and complexity in his pieces. I think our discussion today was the most intriguing.
An interesting topic of discussion was how the shift from traditional sacred art to more secular art as a result of the Enlightenment occurred. Sacred art and music revolved around Church themes like Christ and Biblical ideas and the Virgin Mary while secular art and music could be anything. It would make sense that creativity could flourish as a result of the Enlightenment bringing about change in art. If everyone was not painting Christ or the Virgin Mary and music was not exclusively composed to be played or sung in Church, a world of creative opportunities was opened.
It's also interesting to ask if the Enlightenment had been delayed a few hundred years, would these famous composers like Mozart or Haydn still have composed such great music? They would have most likely had to work within the confines of the Church, which would make their creative control limited at best. These are just some interesting questions to ponder, as many can be with hypothetical aversions to history.
Response 11-15-13
For Paper 2 I will be completing the creative option with Evan, Brittni, and Benjamin. We will be making a video on the contemporary relevance of Dante's Inferno. We will place Dante's journey into a modern college campus setting with the effect of creating a parody. We will be sort of poking fun at many of the punishments and it will involve a good number of popular songs. I am quite excited for it.
Can't wait to see it. -MH
Response 10-25-13
Today's class was rather entertaining, I must say. Everyone's different takes on how the first European-Native American relations started were so great. I loved the satirical nature many of them had. I think this was great evidence of how every story changes based on perspective. Bias is nearly unavoidable, especially in early history.
This begs the question of how reliable our history really is. Which portrayals of our history can we actually trust? "History is always told by the victors." The reading for today definitely pointed some of that out. I think the last line was particularly insightful. Knowing that Native Americans would always be seen as those who "don't wear breeches," certainly foretells of the hardship they would face in this country and continent.
Response 10-1013
Daniel, this would be an interesting comparison. There's so much you can work with. Their ideas about pride and sin are a great place to start. Both Dante and More create imagined spaces to work out their ideas, and it seems like they both want to have some kind effect on the behavior of their readers, though it's harder to tell what the intended effect is with More. I'm looking forward to finding out what you come up with. -MH
For our first paper I would like to do a comparison of Dante's Inferno and Utopia. I think it would be interesting to compare the views of sin of the works. Dante discusses all types of sin and basically asserts that most of mankind is sinful, while Moore depicts a society that has greatly influence of sin. I don't think either work is particularly believable in the way they handle sin, but I think it would be interesting to delve into.
Inferno focuses on levels of sin and separation from God, which will be a big point of comparison in my paper. Utopia discusses that the community has somehow found a way to do away with pride, which many would consider the root of all sin. This will be another large point in my paper, seeing as Dante doesn't have a specific circle for the prideful but perhaps sees pride as an overarching area of sin.
I am looking forward to looking into this topic further and discovering what exactly these two classics have to say about sin. Even if I don't agree with their views, it will be cool to see how these influential pieces may have shaped people's view of sin in their time period.
Response 10-4-13
Our discussion of Utopia was rather insightful for me. I thought the description of Utopia using adjectives on the board was helpful. The general consensus was that while Utopia was the ideal place, it was also unattainable. Many of the details of the workings of Utopia seemed outlandish and impossible, like the idea of them having zero property, but still having slaves, or the concept of no war unless it's completely justified. The concept of marriage was a little strange too.
I think Utopia was most unbelievable when Raphael described how they had somehow done away with pride. This would indicate that Utopia is nearly free of sin, because pride is the root of almost all sin. Utopia is then a sort of heaven on earth. This simply cannot exist, at least this side of the rapture. I thought it interesting that More included that detail. It would've obviously appealed to his Christian audience, who were perhaps ready to suspend belief to do away with this core vice.
Response 9-27-13
I enjoyed going through some of The Canterbury Tales this week. Having never read them, it was interesting to see the layout of this beloved and often-taught work. I thought the large number of characters seemed a bit much to keep track of at first, but after realizing that all but three or four of them are less-than-reputable characters, it made it much simpler. That could indicate Chaucer's feelings toward Medieval society as a whole: almost everyone is corrupt in some way and only a few actually serve the ideals they stand for.
There are several interesting characters like the Miller, who seems like a shorter, more obnoxious version of the Brawny Man. He is described as always vulgar, very strong, and cheating. Even though he would cheat you out of corn, he was fairer than most millers. Another funny character was the Friar. He basically mooches off of everyone. He would help people who could help him and he would make deals with those who could get him food and drink. He seems like one of the greediest characters. He even says that he doesn't help the homeless or sick because they can't offer him any money. His lack of compassion is comical.
The Wife of Bath was actually one of my least favorite characters. It just seems like she wants to have sex all the time and have power over men, so she makes all these outlandish claims to justify such actions. Her prologue seemed to go on and on. The Friar even remarks how long it is. With all of the buildup, one would think the story is better than many others, but it seemed predictable to me. it simply reflected what she values and believes.
Response 9-18-13
Hashing out some of the details of Dante's punishments was rather helpful to me today. I feel like it cleared up some of the logic behind them. Our group took a look at the gluttons and discovered a greater significance to certain details of the ring. Cerberus is also glutton, which explains his presence there. Virgil makes him eat dirt to keep them alive. I wonder if the supernatural beings in the different circles are guilty of the sins they rule over. It seems appropriate to have centaurs by the violent: centaurs are pretty warlike creatures. However, the significance of harpies ruling over the suicides is lost on me. Perhaps I need to brush up on my mythology.
The discussion of the heretics was particularly helpful, because that one confused me the most so far. It makes sense to "put their sin to rest" in the tombs. Also, confining their ideas to stem the spread of them makes a lot of sense. I think the most interesting part is the idea that many of them believed that nothing happened after death, that they simply remained in their grave. They do remain in their graves, but in the horrifying way of being cooked for all eternity. It is a sort of slap in the face.
Also, the idea of the shades' ability to see the future becoming basically useless hadn't occurred to me. It makes sense, after some consideration, that as the future becomes the present, they wouldn't be able to see it. So they know their fate, but they don't necessarily know when it'll happen. It makes their situation all the more hopeless.
Response 9-13-13
Our discussion of the structure of hell was rather interesting today. I think the debate over the structure draws attention to the fact that some sin shouldn't be considered worse than other sin. Sin is sin. Any given sin is not what sends someone to hell, it is their living for something other than God and not accepting Christ as their savior. I think it is unfortunate because many people have this view of hell, and it is simply not accurate. There is no scriptural evidence to support this depiction of hell.
That being said, Dante shows incredible imagination in his most famous work. The world he creates is frightening because it depicts the shades' lack of hope so well. The concept of eternal punishment becomes very real. I especially appreciate the punishments for the various sins. Each punishment seems catered to each sin. I think the flatterers' punishment is my favorite. They must sit in a pit of human excrement, which makes sense because flatterers are full of crap. Making them sit in their own poop seems justified.
Response 8-23-13
I thoroughly enjoyed our class discussion of artwork depicting Jesus in Wednesday's class. Comparing and contrasting the two provided a great opportunity to see distinct stylistic attributes and ideas conveyed. I found that the differences made the two even more compelling.
The first piece showed Jesus after just descending from the cross. He is surrounded by his loved ones, who all show great pain and sorrow, but all point to Christ either with the way they are facing or with body lines. Jesus is obviously the focal point of the piece. The angels in the background contrast greatly with the human figures in the foreground, with their bodies contorted in grief. The detail I find most interesting is that Jesus' wounds are hardly noticeable. I feel like, especially having just been crucified, he would be bleeding profusely. His piercings seem like little dots on his hands and feet and there is no spear wound in his side. The reason for his cleanly appearance could be either that it was culturally insensitive to show gore in art back then, or that the Church was not comfortable with Jesus being depicted that way. Seeing as the Church funded much of the art produced in this period, they likely had a great amount of pull in these matters.
I actually enjoyed the second piece more. I thought it showed much greater depth and detail, even though many of the dimensions seem to be off. Especially when compared to the previous piece, Jesus' wounds appear much more noticeable and unapologetic, which I actually prefer. even though Jesus' dead body takes up much of the work, the grieving women next to him appear to be genuinely in pain. This brings up one of the key differences in these two pieces: the first shows more of Jesus' divine nature while the second highlights his human nature. Angels lament his death from above in the first while the women mourn the man more privately. Obviously because of my Christian background, I enjoy this subject matter. Discovering the subtleties of how Christ was depicted back then is fascinating to me.
Response 8-30-13
I thought our discussion of the Qur'an today was very interesting and certainly raised many questions for me. As a devout follower of Christ, I really enjoy comparing other belief systems to that of my own, and have been looking forward to learning more about Islam for some time.
One of the first things I noticed was in Sura 2, actually in the first line: "This Book is not to be doubted." It goes on to say that this text is a guide for the righteous and those who wish to follow God, but I couldn't help but compare it to my view of the Bible. Christians such as myself view the Bible in a much broader sense. John 1 says "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." Not only does the Bible instruct us of how to properly walk with God, but it gives us life. Just as God breathed life into Adam, He breathes life into us through His word. The Qur'an is described much more as a sort of instruction manual for how to be righteous and submit to God, but it gives no detail of how to have a personal relationship with Him, which I believe is what He wants for everyone on this earth.
Also, many passages seemed rather contradictory or intense to me. It seemed very specific in calling out other religions, namely the Christian and Catholic Churches. However, there were many sections that made perfect sense to me, and I thought were basically true and good, even from a Christian point of view. I kept reading through and thinking "Wow, that is so clear and true," and a few sentences later thinking "That is so incredibly wrong." It was like a non sequitur after non sequitur. I could see how people could buy into this belief system hastily and perhaps later be appalled by it. I did, however, enjoy learning about what my spiritual half-brothers and half-sisters (because that is what Christians and Muslims technically are to each other) believe.