One of the things I didn’t share as much with the class was my thought on the difference between Boethius and Augustine. The biggest difference between the two was the way they had developed in their faith. I think the difference resembled that of a person raised in the church and some one who comes to Christ later. We are told that Boethius was raised with philosophy and knew everything, for he studied since he was young. Augustine, on the other hand, tells us of stories about him sinning all the time when he was growing up. As a matter of fact, Augustine says that his upbringing, at least from his father’s side of the raising, was against God. Now as we read their writing, as the class has agreed upon, they are at very different stages in coming to Christ. The class agreed that Augustine has already come to Christ, while Boethius is transforming. The class also agreed that they are both being punished. Augustine is punishing himself for being a sinner, while the government is punishing Boethius although he believes himself to be innocent. It appears that the one who has lived a life of sin accepts that he is wrong and deserves a punishment. Boethius, on the other hand, questions Philosophy as to why something like this is happening to him. He even brings up the fact that he has been studying and practices all the right behaviors. It’s like he assumes he is already perfect, although no one is perfect. Augustine acknowledges that he is not perfect and is thankful for being forgiven of the awful things he knows he has done. Boethius on the other hand is angry with God and feels that he hasn’t done anything wrong. This, to me, was the biggest sign of the fact that they were in different periods of their journey in faith. I think it’s rather interesting that they have ended up in these positions when put in context with the way they were raised.
September 13,2013
The thing that stuck out in my mind the most while reading this was the concept of Dante as the writer and character. How did he get the job of deciding how to define hell? On top of that, he gets to be the main character to the story. The main character whom has been chosen by a figure in heaven to be shown through heaven. I do not know if Dante felt called to write this story and let the world know what he had been shown about hell in a premonition or by some Godly means. However, I feel like it was still a little self righteous for him to decide that he would be the character to the story. The ideas to the story of hell match reasoning. The things that the people have done as sin relate to their eternal punishment. Also, his choice to use characters from literature helps his case. If he was just calling people out and deciding how to judge where they belong in hell, that would mean he was taking the role of a deity. I struggle to find it okay for someone on earth to decide each detail of a part of life we have never seen. He does not include details in his story of hell being illusive and uncertain. Instead, by the help of Virgil, he is clearly relaying all of the details of hell to us. On top of this he put himself in the story. I understand that he might be trying to make the story relatable with his character and an “every man” story, but I think that could be done with a fictional character. It is a little odd that he allows himself to be a character that is a special, chosen person.
September 19, 2013
As I write this or even just think it, I feel a little crazy. In fact, I wrote it down on the top of my notes as a possible journal topic and a classmate noticed it, and she acted like I was crazy. I wonder why this hell Dante has developed is so routine. Everyone that comes in to a set level does the exact same thing over and over again. I understand that this would serve as an endless reminder of how they deserve this punishment based on their sin. However, I can’t help but wonder if the people feel the effects of it just being a routine. I imagine I could be wrong. Certain things I can’t handle over and over again. I don’t even like the idea of eating one food for a long time. Their punishments are clearly more difficult to withstand. At the same time, though, I picture it like a factory job. Everyone clocks in to this job they hate where they do the same thing as everyone else, and they all hate it. They know it sucks, but at the same time they have coped and they just know what is expected and they carry on. I can imagine people thinking, “Yeah, this is awful, but I’m used to it by now.” For example, the people with their heads turned backwards. They feel awful about what they did, they have been punished, and the punishment never wares away, nor are they able to work their way out of it. At some point though, wouldn’t this just be the norm though. Their heads are backwards. So what? It’s always been like that. It’s like a workout routine. If you do the same thing all the time, your body gets used to it and your muscles no longer strengthen because there is no challenge. Shouldn’t hell be something ever changing so that your body doesn’t adjust? You should never get used to hell. There shouldn’t be a thought in your mind that, “Well, it sucks, but we get by and we might as well get used to this.”
September 27, 2013
Personally, I admire the wife of Bath for standing up and telling her story. I even find her responses to be witty and a little comical. I always find it interesting to hear responses from someone who feels differently about things than accepted norms. Putting a character like this in literature reestablishes the idea of people being different. Everyone has been through different things that have changed their views and make them who they are. The wife of Bath is different from the religious figures of the time for the most part. First off, she is a woman and has experienced life from the opposite end of relationships than males do. Also she has been married multiple times. I appreciate the way she goes about sharing her views because she acknowledges what the other side has to say. She even quotes them at times. She has taken a look at God’s word and has put her own spin on things. She acknowledges the things they point out from God’s word, but then she explains how it could be viewed. I like that we took the time to find the comparisons during class. The approaches she took for her argument went at every angle. When she showed her opinion on why it is okay to remarry, she used the fact that the people that are admired in the Bible had multiple wives. When discussing if marriage was a necessary evil, she showed that she partially agrees with their beliefs. She agrees that marriage is necessary, but she doesn’t think it is evil. She makes a point on the fact that something they believe to be is true is not what is commanded. That still happens today, and is usually off-putting to people outside of the religion. They say it is best to remain single to stay focused on God, but that was never commanded.
One of the most interesting parts of this part of the tales is the contrast of male and female views. The last argument we talked about in class was whether men or women should be in control. The fathers believe males and the wife believes women. Just as someone pointed out at the end of this class, this story could be viewed as a satire on both genders. The story kind of represents the stereotypes of both genders. The crazy woman and the anecdotes of her marriages satirize both sides.
October 4, 2013
The Prince is an interesting piece to tackle, as is Utopia. The Prince catches my attention more because it is more realistic and I can relate it to what I’ve seen political leaders in the real world. The reason my mind struggles with the piece is that I would like to say that I disagree with what he says to do, but on multiple occasions I really think he is right. The fact is that Machiavelli’s piece is very different from Utopia because it acknowledges human nature. People aren’t perfect, and, unfortunately, they have tendencies to do bad things. When looking at one person versus many, the one being the prince and the many being the people, it is fair to say that as a majority you can’t trust the many. In a group that big they are going to do things wrong and see the things you do in the wrong way at times. For example, when he tells the prince to be stingy, he is protecting him against the fact that the people won’t understand in the long run that the prince was being nice if he gives freely. The larger concept of being feared or loved is what really makes the piece difficult. I would like to say that it is better to be loved. Everyone wants to love and be loved. The problem is that people can do more damage to someone that loves them. Fear is the strongest tool when ruling people. When people are consumed with fear, they don’t have time to think about taking over or betraying. It’s interesting to think about. Christians use this method too. The all mighty King rules by fear. He loves and is loved by his followers, but there is also the fear aspect. It’s also similar to a relationship between parents and children. The child loves their parent but they know the parents are in control, and therefore the kid doesn’t break the rules. They fear getting in trouble. Realistically, this is the best way to keep control over people. However, just like Machiavelli says, it is important tat the love aspect is still there. Being loved always helps in the long run.
October 11, 2013
Megan, I like this idea for comparing The Prince and On the Dignity of Man because it gets at very important ideas in each. Both writers explain their views of human nature, and they both use those views to justify their recommendations for how people should act. I'm interested to find out what views you think they have in common. - MH
I think I would like to save the contemporary relevance essay for later in the semester. To be honest, I can already tell I connect better with the more recent works of literature, and I am quite certain that will continue as the works we read become more contemporary. Then I will write about the contemporary relevance. For now I am going to stick to comparing two works. Those works would be Machiavelli’s The Prince and Pico’s On the Dignity of Man. I was debating between comparing The Prince with Utopia or with On the Dignity of Man. In both situations, I wanted to look at the theme of human nature in the works of literature. I feel like Utopia and On the Dignity of Man contrast with The Prince on the views of human nature. The Prince is a guidebook for being a prince. It warns against trusting people because humans will be humans, and you just can’t trust a human. Utopia goes for the other extreme. It tells a story of life in an ideal place. For the story to work out, it would be completely dependent on human nature being different. Human nature would have to be more positive than Machiavelli views it. Everyone would have to trust everyone and never do anyone wrong. On the Dignity of Man also talks a lot about the character of people. The writer’s perspective almost comes at a halfway point between the two previous views. Pico points out that humans are made in God’s image. Humans are far ahead of all other living things. Humans can change from what they are born as. They view all the other creatures and learn and grow. He even throws out the idea that humans are still getting better, and if they work at it, they would be divine too. This is different from Utopia in the fact that it acknowledges that people could end up going either direction when it comes to what kind of character they have. It’s different from The Prince because it believes people are beautifully made and wonderful creatures. In fact he even says they can be divine. That’s a lot different than the view Machiavelli takes when he warns princes in training from trusting their people. For the paper I’m going to compare The Prince and On the Dignity of Man. There is some common ground between them on their view of human nature, but they definitely lean opposite ways on how they think people typically act.
November 1, 2013
“Ignorance is bliss” is a complicated idea. We don’t like to be a fool. It leads to things like being taken advantage of and lost as to what is going on. The idea is presented, though, that not knowing all of the complications of life lets a person live a simple happy life. Not knowing what troubles are in life means you do not have to worry about them. It’s like having the joy of being a child through life. Kids are seen as happy because they do not have to face the scary parts to life yet. In “Tartuffe”, Orgon plays the role of the “ignorant father”. In class, we discussed whether or not the father was a greater villain than Tartuffe. The main argument of the side that disagreed with the idea was that he was just ignorant. He did not notice that he was being strung along. He was victim to Tartuffe’s evil ways. As one student put it, blaming Orgon for his wrongs would be “victim blaming”. Tartuffe was the one with the plan. Orgon was being taken advantage of. The problem I have with this is that he’s a full grown man still going with the ignorance is bliss method to life. Is there a point where someone can no longer use that as an excuse. The members of his family tried to tell him. He chose to ignore them and believe the villain instead.I don’t like to think of him as a villain, because I think that’s harsh. However, at some point, he needs to start taking responsibility for himself and not use the bliss of ignorance to get through life. The king forgave Orgon and put things back into order for Orgon. It was close, though. That’s a risky line to walk. Ignorance is bliss is not a safe method. It’s easy to step off the line.
November 8, 2013
I find Voltaire’s views on the different roles of characters a little bit shocking. Obviously, the people of the time were shocked too. In their case, it was because it was offensive. His sarcasm and attitude to a lot of figures in society is offensive. I am mostly shocked because of how many different figures he has a problem with. As we discussed in class he satirizes colonialism, religion, philosophy, science, aristocracy, human form, and military figures. Who is left for him to choose the side of? In particular, though, he pokes a lot of fun at religion. As the class pointed out, he satirizes morality, inquisition, religious conflict, and persecution. The two flaws he points out in religion that stuck with me were the concept that everything happens for a reason and the idea that we all have the same religion but we think we are different. The idea of everything happens for a reason is pretty widely accepted among religious followers. The idea is that God has an ultimate plan and everything that happens in your life He is in control of. The things that happen, good or bad, happen for a reason and they are leading us closer to God. The way Voltaire writes about it, he makes it seem comical to believe that. He shows how even when awful things happen to us, we still act fine because we know it happened for a reason. I think this form of logic helps. Even people who are not pushing their beliefs believe that having spirituality helps a person’s well being. It comforts people to think that things happen for a reason. I’m not saying it’s wrong to get upset and mourn, but it does help to have positive thoughts to get you through things. On the second point, I don’t think I have a clear view on it yet. The idea that we all believe in a God and it could be the same one is interesting. I think it’s possible. The fact is that we all find salvation in some almighty power. The problem is that we all have key parts that tell us that our religion is unique because of x reason and we can’t follow the other religions because of reasons y and z. There is something in our practice or beliefs that makes our religion incompatible with the other ones. I think he has a point, though. I know the idea is that we want to bring everyone to believe the things we believe because our beliefs are right and we want everyone to have the salvation we believe is right. However, can’t we still respect each other and each other’s beliefs? I don’t think the methods people often use to convert people are reasonable. Fighting, killing, hating, etc. seem to hurt more than they help. On top of that, it doesn’t even match the religion we claim.
November 15, 2013
I want to write my contemporary relevance essay on the short reading “What is Enlightenment?” I think the question it presented to the class is interesting to look at now. We questioned if enlightenment is possible. I think the concept is interesting to think about at any point. Are we really enlightened? Can we get to that point? In class, we looked at differences since the time when the piece was written. America has progressed a lot since that time period. However, there are still gaps. The class pointed out that we might just believe we are enlightened. Today, we’ve reached a lot of goals that were established then, but we aren’t quite enlightened. We still depend highly on outside sources to make our opinions on things. In the writing, he pointed out three main points on public vs. private reason. He says that you have to follow the rules, and if you do that, you can have your own separate beliefs. You can think what you want, but you have to practice what is accepted. As a clergyman, you must follow the rules of your church. Citizens have to pay taxes. Officers need to abide by the laws and enforce them. However you can openly proclaim that you don’t agree. This is the part that a lot of people struggle with. When people become associated with something, they take on all of the beliefs that come with it. Seldom do they object to parts of something they are associated with. It’s kind of like politics. People pick Democrat or Republican, and then they rarely discuss that there are flaws in the views of their party. Today we still have outside factors that keep us from being fully enlightened, because we let them decide how we feel on topics. This writing brings up thoughts that are relevant to today because the same questions are still being asked. Are we enlightened? What is enlightenment? Can we be enlightened?
Megan, this is a great topic for the paper, since there is so much to think about, as you mention. You might consider whether, if Kant were to write this essay today, he would write it any differently. The challenge in writing this paper will be to give yourself some focus and not to just write a long response paper. - MH
December 6, 2013
The idea that classical music opens music to the middle class, yet it is more complicated and people don’t understand it seems contradictory. That is the thought that I have struggled with the most this week. The thing is, the “complicated part” is the science behind it. It makes it ordered, balanced, etc. This is what makes the music so pleasing to the ear. Watching how it could all be broken down with science showed that science was really behind it all. Also, the fact that this is true of all the songs, shows that it was something they all recognized and were using. This was a style that they all used because it worked so well. The music almost serves as proof for believing in science. Music is proof that science makes things work. It makes beautiful music. Just like any crazy or new concept people need a reason to believe that science really is behind every thing. Music is something so many people can connect to. Putting science into music shows people that science is behind everything and you can rationalize and use science to understand different things. I think it’s interesting that they could use an artistic form as proof of why science applies to so much. It is also interesting that the style caught on and then everyone used it. Classical music is universal. This helps the message to spread further.
December 12, 2013
Colonialism
I think most Americans by the time they have reached our age know that the conquistadors treated the Indians awful when they came. It still amazes me how inhumane they could be. I think that’s why the movie was interesting. It fully exposes the overriding desire for power. They were so power thirsty that they would turn on people from the same side as them. He killed the leader because he felt like the leader was not power thirsty enough. The people even put their family at risk. At times, they kept working at it when there was no chance. The power thirst drove them mad. The fear of dying as a nobody is greater than the fear of dying. They were longing for a big success story that would live through the ages. Who wouldn’t like a legacy. A lot of careers work for having something durable that will last through generations to come. However, there is a line that should be drawn. There is an even better concept for life about living for the now. We are given so much in life that we can enjoy. Constantly worrying about the future distracts you from what you have now. Then you never fully get to appreciate anything. The gifts you aspire to are ones that are not in your lifetime. What do you actually get out of it?
One of the things I didn’t share as much with the class was my thought on the difference between Boethius and Augustine. The biggest difference between the two was the way they had developed in their faith. I think the difference resembled that of a person raised in the church and some one who comes to Christ later. We are told that Boethius was raised with philosophy and knew everything, for he studied since he was young. Augustine, on the other hand, tells us of stories about him sinning all the time when he was growing up. As a matter of fact, Augustine says that his upbringing, at least from his father’s side of the raising, was against God. Now as we read their writing, as the class has agreed upon, they are at very different stages in coming to Christ. The class agreed that Augustine has already come to Christ, while Boethius is transforming. The class also agreed that they are both being punished. Augustine is punishing himself for being a sinner, while the government is punishing Boethius although he believes himself to be innocent. It appears that the one who has lived a life of sin accepts that he is wrong and deserves a punishment. Boethius, on the other hand, questions Philosophy as to why something like this is happening to him. He even brings up the fact that he has been studying and practices all the right behaviors. It’s like he assumes he is already perfect, although no one is perfect. Augustine acknowledges that he is not perfect and is thankful for being forgiven of the awful things he knows he has done. Boethius on the other hand is angry with God and feels that he hasn’t done anything wrong. This, to me, was the biggest sign of the fact that they were in different periods of their journey in faith. I think it’s rather interesting that they have ended up in these positions when put in context with the way they were raised.
September 13,2013
The thing that stuck out in my mind the most while reading this was the concept of Dante as the writer and character. How did he get the job of deciding how to define hell? On top of that, he gets to be the main character to the story. The main character whom has been chosen by a figure in heaven to be shown through heaven. I do not know if Dante felt called to write this story and let the world know what he had been shown about hell in a premonition or by some Godly means. However, I feel like it was still a little self righteous for him to decide that he would be the character to the story. The ideas to the story of hell match reasoning. The things that the people have done as sin relate to their eternal punishment. Also, his choice to use characters from literature helps his case. If he was just calling people out and deciding how to judge where they belong in hell, that would mean he was taking the role of a deity. I struggle to find it okay for someone on earth to decide each detail of a part of life we have never seen. He does not include details in his story of hell being illusive and uncertain. Instead, by the help of Virgil, he is clearly relaying all of the details of hell to us. On top of this he put himself in the story. I understand that he might be trying to make the story relatable with his character and an “every man” story, but I think that could be done with a fictional character. It is a little odd that he allows himself to be a character that is a special, chosen person.
September 19, 2013
As I write this or even just think it, I feel a little crazy. In fact, I wrote it down on the top of my notes as a possible journal topic and a classmate noticed it, and she acted like I was crazy. I wonder why this hell Dante has developed is so routine. Everyone that comes in to a set level does the exact same thing over and over again. I understand that this would serve as an endless reminder of how they deserve this punishment based on their sin. However, I can’t help but wonder if the people feel the effects of it just being a routine. I imagine I could be wrong. Certain things I can’t handle over and over again. I don’t even like the idea of eating one food for a long time. Their punishments are clearly more difficult to withstand. At the same time, though, I picture it like a factory job. Everyone clocks in to this job they hate where they do the same thing as everyone else, and they all hate it. They know it sucks, but at the same time they have coped and they just know what is expected and they carry on. I can imagine people thinking, “Yeah, this is awful, but I’m used to it by now.” For example, the people with their heads turned backwards. They feel awful about what they did, they have been punished, and the punishment never wares away, nor are they able to work their way out of it. At some point though, wouldn’t this just be the norm though. Their heads are backwards. So what? It’s always been like that. It’s like a workout routine. If you do the same thing all the time, your body gets used to it and your muscles no longer strengthen because there is no challenge. Shouldn’t hell be something ever changing so that your body doesn’t adjust? You should never get used to hell. There shouldn’t be a thought in your mind that, “Well, it sucks, but we get by and we might as well get used to this.”
September 27, 2013
Personally, I admire the wife of Bath for standing up and telling her story. I even find her responses to be witty and a little comical. I always find it interesting to hear responses from someone who feels differently about things than accepted norms. Putting a character like this in literature reestablishes the idea of people being different. Everyone has been through different things that have changed their views and make them who they are. The wife of Bath is different from the religious figures of the time for the most part. First off, she is a woman and has experienced life from the opposite end of relationships than males do. Also she has been married multiple times. I appreciate the way she goes about sharing her views because she acknowledges what the other side has to say. She even quotes them at times. She has taken a look at God’s word and has put her own spin on things. She acknowledges the things they point out from God’s word, but then she explains how it could be viewed. I like that we took the time to find the comparisons during class. The approaches she took for her argument went at every angle. When she showed her opinion on why it is okay to remarry, she used the fact that the people that are admired in the Bible had multiple wives. When discussing if marriage was a necessary evil, she showed that she partially agrees with their beliefs. She agrees that marriage is necessary, but she doesn’t think it is evil. She makes a point on the fact that something they believe to be is true is not what is commanded. That still happens today, and is usually off-putting to people outside of the religion. They say it is best to remain single to stay focused on God, but that was never commanded.
One of the most interesting parts of this part of the tales is the contrast of male and female views. The last argument we talked about in class was whether men or women should be in control. The fathers believe males and the wife believes women. Just as someone pointed out at the end of this class, this story could be viewed as a satire on both genders. The story kind of represents the stereotypes of both genders. The crazy woman and the anecdotes of her marriages satirize both sides.
October 4, 2013
The Prince is an interesting piece to tackle, as is Utopia. The Prince catches my attention more because it is more realistic and I can relate it to what I’ve seen political leaders in the real world. The reason my mind struggles with the piece is that I would like to say that I disagree with what he says to do, but on multiple occasions I really think he is right. The fact is that Machiavelli’s piece is very different from Utopia because it acknowledges human nature. People aren’t perfect, and, unfortunately, they have tendencies to do bad things. When looking at one person versus many, the one being the prince and the many being the people, it is fair to say that as a majority you can’t trust the many. In a group that big they are going to do things wrong and see the things you do in the wrong way at times. For example, when he tells the prince to be stingy, he is protecting him against the fact that the people won’t understand in the long run that the prince was being nice if he gives freely. The larger concept of being feared or loved is what really makes the piece difficult. I would like to say that it is better to be loved. Everyone wants to love and be loved. The problem is that people can do more damage to someone that loves them. Fear is the strongest tool when ruling people. When people are consumed with fear, they don’t have time to think about taking over or betraying. It’s interesting to think about. Christians use this method too. The all mighty King rules by fear. He loves and is loved by his followers, but there is also the fear aspect. It’s also similar to a relationship between parents and children. The child loves their parent but they know the parents are in control, and therefore the kid doesn’t break the rules. They fear getting in trouble. Realistically, this is the best way to keep control over people. However, just like Machiavelli says, it is important tat the love aspect is still there. Being loved always helps in the long run.
October 11, 2013
Megan, I like this idea for comparing The Prince and On the Dignity of Man because it gets at very important ideas in each. Both writers explain their views of human nature, and they both use those views to justify their recommendations for how people should act. I'm interested to find out what views you think they have in common. - MHI think I would like to save the contemporary relevance essay for later in the semester. To be honest, I can already tell I connect better with the more recent works of literature, and I am quite certain that will continue as the works we read become more contemporary. Then I will write about the contemporary relevance. For now I am going to stick to comparing two works. Those works would be Machiavelli’s The Prince and Pico’s On the Dignity of Man. I was debating between comparing The Prince with Utopia or with On the Dignity of Man. In both situations, I wanted to look at the theme of human nature in the works of literature. I feel like Utopia and On the Dignity of Man contrast with The Prince on the views of human nature. The Prince is a guidebook for being a prince. It warns against trusting people because humans will be humans, and you just can’t trust a human. Utopia goes for the other extreme. It tells a story of life in an ideal place. For the story to work out, it would be completely dependent on human nature being different. Human nature would have to be more positive than Machiavelli views it. Everyone would have to trust everyone and never do anyone wrong. On the Dignity of Man also talks a lot about the character of people. The writer’s perspective almost comes at a halfway point between the two previous views. Pico points out that humans are made in God’s image. Humans are far ahead of all other living things. Humans can change from what they are born as. They view all the other creatures and learn and grow. He even throws out the idea that humans are still getting better, and if they work at it, they would be divine too. This is different from Utopia in the fact that it acknowledges that people could end up going either direction when it comes to what kind of character they have. It’s different from The Prince because it believes people are beautifully made and wonderful creatures. In fact he even says they can be divine. That’s a lot different than the view Machiavelli takes when he warns princes in training from trusting their people. For the paper I’m going to compare The Prince and On the Dignity of Man. There is some common ground between them on their view of human nature, but they definitely lean opposite ways on how they think people typically act.
November 1, 2013
“Ignorance is bliss” is a complicated idea. We don’t like to be a fool. It leads to things like being taken advantage of and lost as to what is going on. The idea is presented, though, that not knowing all of the complications of life lets a person live a simple happy life. Not knowing what troubles are in life means you do not have to worry about them. It’s like having the joy of being a child through life. Kids are seen as happy because they do not have to face the scary parts to life yet. In “Tartuffe”, Orgon plays the role of the “ignorant father”. In class, we discussed whether or not the father was a greater villain than Tartuffe. The main argument of the side that disagreed with the idea was that he was just ignorant. He did not notice that he was being strung along. He was victim to Tartuffe’s evil ways. As one student put it, blaming Orgon for his wrongs would be “victim blaming”. Tartuffe was the one with the plan. Orgon was being taken advantage of. The problem I have with this is that he’s a full grown man still going with the ignorance is bliss method to life. Is there a point where someone can no longer use that as an excuse. The members of his family tried to tell him. He chose to ignore them and believe the villain instead.I don’t like to think of him as a villain, because I think that’s harsh. However, at some point, he needs to start taking responsibility for himself and not use the bliss of ignorance to get through life. The king forgave Orgon and put things back into order for Orgon. It was close, though. That’s a risky line to walk. Ignorance is bliss is not a safe method. It’s easy to step off the line.
November 8, 2013
I find Voltaire’s views on the different roles of characters a little bit shocking. Obviously, the people of the time were shocked too. In their case, it was because it was offensive. His sarcasm and attitude to a lot of figures in society is offensive. I am mostly shocked because of how many different figures he has a problem with. As we discussed in class he satirizes colonialism, religion, philosophy, science, aristocracy, human form, and military figures. Who is left for him to choose the side of? In particular, though, he pokes a lot of fun at religion. As the class pointed out, he satirizes morality, inquisition, religious conflict, and persecution. The two flaws he points out in religion that stuck with me were the concept that everything happens for a reason and the idea that we all have the same religion but we think we are different. The idea of everything happens for a reason is pretty widely accepted among religious followers. The idea is that God has an ultimate plan and everything that happens in your life He is in control of. The things that happen, good or bad, happen for a reason and they are leading us closer to God. The way Voltaire writes about it, he makes it seem comical to believe that. He shows how even when awful things happen to us, we still act fine because we know it happened for a reason. I think this form of logic helps. Even people who are not pushing their beliefs believe that having spirituality helps a person’s well being. It comforts people to think that things happen for a reason. I’m not saying it’s wrong to get upset and mourn, but it does help to have positive thoughts to get you through things. On the second point, I don’t think I have a clear view on it yet. The idea that we all believe in a God and it could be the same one is interesting. I think it’s possible. The fact is that we all find salvation in some almighty power. The problem is that we all have key parts that tell us that our religion is unique because of x reason and we can’t follow the other religions because of reasons y and z. There is something in our practice or beliefs that makes our religion incompatible with the other ones. I think he has a point, though. I know the idea is that we want to bring everyone to believe the things we believe because our beliefs are right and we want everyone to have the salvation we believe is right. However, can’t we still respect each other and each other’s beliefs? I don’t think the methods people often use to convert people are reasonable. Fighting, killing, hating, etc. seem to hurt more than they help. On top of that, it doesn’t even match the religion we claim.
November 15, 2013
I want to write my contemporary relevance essay on the short reading “What is Enlightenment?” I think the question it presented to the class is interesting to look at now. We questioned if enlightenment is possible. I think the concept is interesting to think about at any point. Are we really enlightened? Can we get to that point? In class, we looked at differences since the time when the piece was written. America has progressed a lot since that time period. However, there are still gaps. The class pointed out that we might just believe we are enlightened. Today, we’ve reached a lot of goals that were established then, but we aren’t quite enlightened. We still depend highly on outside sources to make our opinions on things. In the writing, he pointed out three main points on public vs. private reason. He says that you have to follow the rules, and if you do that, you can have your own separate beliefs. You can think what you want, but you have to practice what is accepted. As a clergyman, you must follow the rules of your church. Citizens have to pay taxes. Officers need to abide by the laws and enforce them. However you can openly proclaim that you don’t agree. This is the part that a lot of people struggle with. When people become associated with something, they take on all of the beliefs that come with it. Seldom do they object to parts of something they are associated with. It’s kind of like politics. People pick Democrat or Republican, and then they rarely discuss that there are flaws in the views of their party. Today we still have outside factors that keep us from being fully enlightened, because we let them decide how we feel on topics. This writing brings up thoughts that are relevant to today because the same questions are still being asked. Are we enlightened? What is enlightenment? Can we be enlightened?
Megan, this is a great topic for the paper, since there is so much to think about, as you mention. You might consider whether, if Kant were to write this essay today, he would write it any differently. The challenge in writing this paper will be to give yourself some focus and not to just write a long response paper. - MH
December 6, 2013
The idea that classical music opens music to the middle class, yet it is more complicated and people don’t understand it seems contradictory. That is the thought that I have struggled with the most this week. The thing is, the “complicated part” is the science behind it. It makes it ordered, balanced, etc. This is what makes the music so pleasing to the ear. Watching how it could all be broken down with science showed that science was really behind it all. Also, the fact that this is true of all the songs, shows that it was something they all recognized and were using. This was a style that they all used because it worked so well. The music almost serves as proof for believing in science. Music is proof that science makes things work. It makes beautiful music. Just like any crazy or new concept people need a reason to believe that science really is behind every thing. Music is something so many people can connect to. Putting science into music shows people that science is behind everything and you can rationalize and use science to understand different things. I think it’s interesting that they could use an artistic form as proof of why science applies to so much. It is also interesting that the style caught on and then everyone used it. Classical music is universal. This helps the message to spread further.
December 12, 2013
Colonialism
I think most Americans by the time they have reached our age know that the conquistadors treated the Indians awful when they came. It still amazes me how inhumane they could be. I think that’s why the movie was interesting. It fully exposes the overriding desire for power. They were so power thirsty that they would turn on people from the same side as them. He killed the leader because he felt like the leader was not power thirsty enough. The people even put their family at risk. At times, they kept working at it when there was no chance. The power thirst drove them mad. The fear of dying as a nobody is greater than the fear of dying. They were longing for a big success story that would live through the ages. Who wouldn’t like a legacy. A lot of careers work for having something durable that will last through generations to come. However, there is a line that should be drawn. There is an even better concept for life about living for the now. We are given so much in life that we can enjoy. Constantly worrying about the future distracts you from what you have now. Then you never fully get to appreciate anything. The gifts you aspire to are ones that are not in your lifetime. What do you actually get out of it?