I have a very basic and rather undeveloped background in art history. However, I am always amazed with the quote on quote “maturing” that art in general experienced between the medieval time period and the renaissance. Art during the middle ages was very basic. The intricacy of classic painting and sculpture was totally lost. What were left were very poorly developed paintings. Most paintings were very dark. There were few bright colors, and it was easy to see where the term “dark ages” came from. Additionally, the range of subjects was very limited. Most pictures were of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus. Almost every painting from this time period was religious in nature or at least had strong religious undertones. Perspective was also very poor. The idea of vanishing points and depth was still highly undeveloped. My personal favorite feature of medieval paintings is the babies. During this time period, children were painted to look exactly like adults, only smaller. They had adult faces, full heads of hair, and shaped muscle tone. Needless to say, the Middle Ages was where art went to die. Renaissance art on the other hand was a much needed respite after the underdeveloped “art” of the middle ages. With the renaissance came perspective. All of a sudden paintings had depth and perception included in them. Colors also became much brighter. Themes diversified as well including subjects other than simply religious figures. I love to compare and contrast paintings from these two time periods simply because the differences are so striking and obvious. To an extent the art from the Middle Ages is almost rather humorous to dissect. It simply baffles me that society went from the incredibly developed and civilized artwork of classic ancient civilizations, to such a mockery that was present during the middle ages.
#2
As a disclaimer, I do realize that most followers of any religion are very peaceful and that these wars are disputes are the result of extremist groups or individuals such as Hitler or the Taliban. I realize that each of these religions promote peace and I have no prejudice towards any of them.
I am very interested in why there is so much dispute and even violence between people of different religions, especially those of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. When the theology of each of these religions is studied, the similarities are absolutely spectacular. All three religions are monotheistic, all believe in the same god, Christianity and Judaism share at least part of a common religious text, all preach morals, etc. After reading the Bible and parts of the Qur’an in class, it is very evident that these religions are relatively similar with the exception of certain intricacies and of course their belief in Jesus, Muhammad, or a messiah who has yet to come. However, some people in these religions openly bash and often approve the condemnation of individuals of the other religions. Isn’t sad that we have major wars and even genocides over such minor differences? Isn’t it even sadder that there is death and destruction over even smaller differences, such as different ideologies within the SAME RELGION? Take for instance the Sunni and Shiites. Both of these groups follow the Islamic religion, however, there are ever so slightly different, and these differences plunge entire regions of the world into turmoil for decades. In fact, most of these disputes are more cultural and less about religion. Many times these differences are in things such as lifestyle, dress, treatment of women, diet, etc. The sheer hypocrisy of some people is amazing. If people adhered to the peaceful and tolerant practices that their religions preached, the world would be a much happier place. I realize that this is the most basic and obvious standpoint on world peace that exists, but if it’s so obvious, then why is it not implemented, and why do we as a society allow it to happen? That is my question. How is it possible for peaceful establishments to cause war?
#3
In class we discussed why fraud was of a more severe punishment in hell than murder. In class we proposed a few theories. The main was of Aristotle’s idea that fraud was a strictly human trait. Animals and other life forms are incapable of committing fraud, so therefore it is something that sets us apart from other creatures on Earth, and it is of the utmost importance to avoid it. During our discussion, Daniel also brought up a very interesting point about the breach of trust. You can kill a person without ever getting to know them. However, in order to commit fraud against someone, it is necessary to know them on a deeper level and develop a certain sense of quote-on-quote “intimacy” or “trust” with them. You must enter into some sort of contract, either monetary or information based, before fraud can be committed.
My theory about this situation calls into question the time period. It is a well known fact that death was viewed with less severity a long time ago. I realize that it precedes Inferno by a long long time, but take for instance Hammurabi’s Code. Many of the punishments for crimes that would be seen as minor today were death. Even up until recently, there were many more capital crimes, and death sentences were not meant to be painless or torture free. Death and dying was much more common in a society with a lot of capital crimes, where executions were a public spectacle, torture was common, life spans were short, and religion was everything. I think it is 100% plausible that people in a more “death-centric” society than ours viewed fraud or breaching trust as more severe than taking someone’s life away from them. I’m not saying that the other theories presented were wrong, I just think that these ideas can be taken further, and that there are multiple reasons for Dante’s reasoning.
#4
I spent a majority of class on Friday pondering why Satan stayed silent while in the presence of Dante. While it would be easy to simply say that Satan had a person in each mouth and was unable to speak, that seems naïve. I would rather delve deeper into why Dante choose to incapacitate Satan and not have him speak during The Inferno. Be prepared that this theory is rather crude and undeveloped and may be slightly difficult to convey and comprehend.
Satan is supposed to be the overall evil of the world. He is the cause of all evil. Whether this is natural disasters, personal evil, societal evil, disease, etc., Satan influences people to do bad in life, and bad to happen to people. However, Satan does not present himself as Satan when influencing people to sin. He comes to people and presents himself in the form of the first person to each individual. Allow me to explain. When an individual commits a sin, the though process is not “Satan is making me commit this sin,” however, according to popular theology this is technically what happens. Theology states that people are influenced by Satan. Instead the process is more like “I’m going to harm that person.” Satan influences and talks to people in the first person to avoid individuals noticing his presence and persuasion. Additionally, he influences people to commit different types of sin. Everyone sins differently, hence the levels of hell. Therefore, it would be physically impossible for Dante to present Satan as saying something general. Satan has infinitely many forms, infinitely many causes, and infinitely many voices in order to avoid being noticed, and to cater himself to each individual in the world. It is not possible to put one identity and one voice to an entity that is inherently infinite in his forms.
#5
I think that Chaucer’s approach to writing the Canterbury Tales is very smart. He could have easily written the same novel portraying the same people and made it incredibly boring. He could have done so by portraying each individual how we would expect them to act. Or, he could have made each character very stereotypical and based their personality on how society expects people to act. Clergy are expected to be holy, honest, celibate, etc. Wives are expected to be honest, loyal, quiet, god fearing, etc. Instead he throws us constant curveballs. We expect the Wife of Bath on a pilgrimage to be a typical holy and god fearing house-wife. Instead, she is a rough and tumble, bible refuting woman who is currently on her 5th marriage. Another example is the Friar. We would expect this man to be a humble god fearing man as well. Instead he is a money hoarding, immoral person. He works for money, and avoids helping the poor and homeless who truly need his help because they won’t be able to pay him for his services. I think that this approach to writing is fascinating because it kept the reader interested. In a way, this novel acts almost like a medieval tabloid. It keeps the reader interested by constantly uncovering dirt on people. It takes us past the façade that this person keeps because of their particular career or place in society. It provides us with the juicy facts about their actual way of life. In addition, by introducing all the characters in the prologue, it keeps the reader reading in order to hear their tales and what they have to say. If he were to introduce each character before their story, the reader would simply expect each successive character to be mundane and boring and stop reading. Instead, Chaucer hooks us with the tantalizing facts, then gets us to keep reading to get the juicy details of each characters story.
#6
Throughout my school career, I have studied utopias many many times. I have covered this subject in middle school, high school, and college settings. After studying this topic so many times, I have began to see more and more why Utopias are doomed to fail, and impossible to achieve. As an economics major, I can see that Utopias are impossible to achieve. Human nature, and the study of economics, states that humans have unlimited wants. Utopias state that people will have everything that they could ever need, and in turn this will lead to a society without crime. However, just because people have everything they need, doesn’t mean that they have everything that they want. In all actuality, I have everything that I “need,” because I am still alive, happy, healthy, fed, educated, etc. However, I still have desires for more. People in a utopia will always want more, and there will always be a few bad apples willing to commit a crime in order to get that. A lot of crime is not committed out of necessity, but rather a desire for more. A lot of criminals are not dirt poor, but instead have plenty of money and want even more. Therefore, utopias cannot be based on material possessions or needs alone. In order for a Utopia to have any chance of succeeding, the people of the society must be 100% moral individuals. Human behavior is not always based on material objects, but rather feelings, emotions, hatred, etc. It is impossible to get a large society of 100% moral people who all like each other and will work well with them without complaining or ever wanting more from life. Utopias may be plausible on a very very small scale, but on a large scale, human nature impedes people’s ability to live in a perfect society.
#7 Quinn, these two works make for a great comparison. You have a good handle on what Machiavelli is trying to do in The Prince, and you say his goal is the opposite of More's. What is More's goal, do you think? Why does he imagine this ideal society? Is he also giving advice? - MH
For my paper I aim to compare and contrast Thomas More’s Utopia and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Both of these works were written at essentially the same time. However, they both present a very different point of view of society, government, and power. Utopia aims to present a crimeless perfect society where everyone works together to accomplish common goals and the people have everything that they could need and more. The Prince on the other hand describes how a prince should hold power, how he should deal with his subjects, and certain bad things that must be done to effectively rule a society, such as breaking promises. The main goals of both these works are directly contradictory. Many of the problems that The Prince helps someone solve simply do not exist in Utopia. For example, The Prince talks about acting rashly in order to achieve goals during bad times. However, in a perfect society knowledge like this may never be necessary.
On the other hand, there are certain issues that are perfectly applicable to a utopian society. Certain things such as acting humanely and ruling so that your subjects like you are perfectly applicable to utopian societies.
My goal with this essay is to compare and contrast these two works and their overall compatibility. Some of the guidelines in The Prince meld perfectly with the agenda for society put forth in Utopia, whilst others are directly contradictory. I aim to point out and analyze these similarities and differences.
#8
As we studied the discovery of America by Columbus, I couldn’t help but to ponder the question of whether or not we should celebrate Columbus Day in America. My personal feeling on this subject is that, no, we shouldn’t celebrate this holiday in America, and if we must, it shouldn’t be on the same scale as we currently celebrate it. Children know the saying ‘Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 14 hundred 92.’ They are told that Columbus set out on a heroic mission to find America, not knowing if he would fall off the edge of the Earth. However, there is so much that is withheld from children, leading to their brainwashing. First off, Columbus didn’t know he would find America. He thought he was going to find a faster way to Japan and India. Secondly, he didn’t find America. He found the Bahamas, and the Caribbean. That in itself detaches the importance of Columbus Day from Americans. Thirdly, children are not taught of the long lasting effects that Columbus created. He created a trend of persecuting natives and running them off of their land. A model to be followed in Mexico, and later the United States. Columbus did not have the aura of heroism that children are taught that he did, plus he didn’t find ‘America’ as we know it. For these reasons, I raise the question as to why we still celebrate this holiday. I have no problem if we as a society want to make note of this occurrence each year on our calendars, but let’s not take it any further. We don’t need days off of school and work to celebrate a meaningless, accidental, and mean spirited discovery. In addition, children need to be told the truth about this holiday. Columbus is not who he is portrayed to be.
#9
On Monday, we cast a modern set of characters for Tartuffe. I feel that a modern application is a very pertinent thing when studying humanities, and especially in Honors 202. Most of the works that we read were written a long time ago. While we as 21st century students can read and comprehend these works, we often miss crucial lessons, morals, points, etc. due to the age of these works. Tartuffe, although we haven’t read the entire play, obviously teaches about treating people correctly, honesty, being shallow, greed, pride, etc. When this play was written, readers understood the plot much better. They were familiar with family structure, marriage traditions, morals, religion, etc. of the time. Things were written to convey certain messages to its readers. However, due to the difference in times and societies, we often fail to pick up on certain lessons, as well as small time dependent tidbits. To me, Tartuffe is a story about someone leaving her son for someone who treats her better. I understand the large messages in the story, but I can’t fully understand the impact of the character’s actions. Let me explain. Say for instance leaving your son was considered unthinkable when this play was written. I don’t know if this is true but let’s assume it is for the purpose of this argument. Because I did not know that leaving your mother was so awful, this play would not have as profound of an impact on me. Whereas if someone from this time period read it, they would be struck in a much different way. This applies to works such as Utopia also. For its time, Utopia seems like a novel idea. However, because I live in the 21st century, it sounds stupid. If we spent time researching these works and trying to fit them to modern parameters, the messages received might be much different and far more impactful.
#10
I feel as though satire, like that found in Candide, is the most effective means to incite change. So often, people decide to outright attack other groups for their short comings. They tear them to shreds stating everything that is wrong with them, or has ever been wrong with them. That in turn just makes the person angry. They naturally become defensive and upset. They start to fight back, and before long the issue is much bigger than it ever was in the past. Satire on the other hand is different. It involves humor. It is not an outright attack of an individual or an issue. Instead it is an extreme example of a situation. It is not directly criticizing the individual or issue, and it is obviously overblown for comedic effect. Satire makes people laugh and think. It may upset the individual that it is directed at, but in a different way. The person is not automatically inclined to become defensive. Instead, through the overblown example, they see why their actions or stance may be worthy of change. Plus on top of it, they are tickled by the humor of the situation which lessens the blow even more. Satire does not tear apart, but rather it brings things to people’s attention and allows them to view them in a humorous way. I firmly feel that directly attacking doesn’t work. A shouting match, and the exchanging of insults, never solves anything. Making fun of people is not very effective either. However, when valid points are combined with humor, the result makes people laugh, as well as evaluate their decisions. And this is all without ever becoming overly mad or irritated. As they always say, laughter is the best medicine.
#11
I proposed this topic for the last essay, however, I chose to take that paper in a different direction. For my second essay, I would love to revisit this topic again. To be honest, I love this topic but didn’t have enough time to fully develop a finished product last time. This is basically the same proposal, but I did incorporate the suggestions you provided me with the first time. For my paper I aim to compare and contrast Thomas More’s Utopia and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Both of these works were written at essentially the same time. However, they both present a very different point of view of society, government, and power. Utopia aims to present a crimeless perfect society where everyone works together to accomplish common goals and the people have everything that they could need and more. More’s goal in Utopia is to solve the problems of society. From crime, to poverty, to greed, More desires to present a society in which people can live in perfect harmony without conflict or excessive political turmoil, like that presented in The Prince.The Prince on the other hand describes how a prince should hold power, how he should deal with his subjects, and certain bad things that must be done to effectively rule a society, such as breaking promises. The main goals of both these works are directly contradictory. Many of the problems that The Prince helps someone solve simply do not exist in Utopia. For example, The Prince talks about acting rashly in order to achieve goals during bad times. However, in a perfect society knowledge like this may never be necessary. On the other hand, there are certain issues that are perfectly applicable to a utopian society. Certain things such as acting humanely and ruling so that your subjects like you are perfectly applicable to utopian societies. My goal with this essay is to compare and contrast these two works and their overall compatibility. Some of the guidelines in The Prince meld perfectly with the agenda for society put forth in Utopia, whilst others are directly contradictory. Additionally, I aim to compare and contrast the overall goals and motivations both of these authors’ presents. I aim to point out and analyze these similarities and differences.
Quinn, this sounds good. Make sure you keep the overall goals of the authors in mind. This can be kind of tricky with Utopia. Keep in mind that Thomas More isn't actually recommending creating the utopia that he describes, and his utopia isn't absolutely perfect. While Utopia has a lot less crime than England, and while some kinds of crime don't exist there (theft, and other property crimes), there is still some crime. - MH
#12
Music is an excellent cultural indicator that often times goes un-noticed. Music reflects many world events, political events, cultural revolutions, shifts in morality, etc. Think of music from the last century. Songs from the 40’s talked of war and love. Songs of the 50’s introduced rock and roll, greasers, rebellion, etc. Songs of the 60’s talked of peace, free love, drugs, etc. While many songs are catchy and easily become stuck in your head, the lyrics tell as story. If the lyrics are dissected and analyzed, often times one can get a great sense of what the world looked like at the time the song was written. Additonally, the breakdown of traditional morality is easily witnessed. Over the past century, music has gotten progressively more profane. In the 30’s and 40’s the introduction of mild cursing was a huge deal. In the 60’s, discussions of free love and drugs in songs were a major cultural shift. In modern music, profane language, topics, racial slurs, etc. are very prevalent. All of these things paint an image of society and what it values. Additionally, the design of new technologies is present in music. From microphones, to electric guitars, to synthesizers, music reflects technological advancements in society. These rules are also applicable to older music from the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries. Operas had lyrics that would represent common events experienced in everyday life. Symphonies would tell the stories of wars or love. Just because there were no lyrics, electronics, or swearing doesn’t mean that old “classical” music doesn’t provide cultural clues. If one deeply pays attention and analyzes old music, cultural trends and patterns are just as obvious as in modern music. Music is the universal language. People of all cultures can enjoy music and convey their opinions and feelings about anything at all.
Renaissance art on the other hand was a much needed respite after the underdeveloped “art” of the middle ages. With the renaissance came perspective. All of a sudden paintings had depth and perception included in them. Colors also became much brighter. Themes diversified as well including subjects other than simply religious figures. I love to compare and contrast paintings from these two time periods simply because the differences are so striking and obvious. To an extent the art from the Middle Ages is almost rather humorous to dissect. It simply baffles me that society went from the incredibly developed and civilized artwork of classic ancient civilizations, to such a mockery that was present during the middle ages.
#2
As a disclaimer, I do realize that most followers of any religion are very peaceful and that these wars are disputes are the result of extremist groups or individuals such as Hitler or the Taliban. I realize that each of these religions promote peace and I have no prejudice towards any of them.
I am very interested in why there is so much dispute and even violence between people of different religions, especially those of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. When the theology of each of these religions is studied, the similarities are absolutely spectacular. All three religions are monotheistic, all believe in the same god, Christianity and Judaism share at least part of a common religious text, all preach morals, etc. After reading the Bible and parts of the Qur’an in class, it is very evident that these religions are relatively similar with the exception of certain intricacies and of course their belief in Jesus, Muhammad, or a messiah who has yet to come. However, some people in these religions openly bash and often approve the condemnation of individuals of the other religions. Isn’t sad that we have major wars and even genocides over such minor differences? Isn’t it even sadder that there is death and destruction over even smaller differences, such as different ideologies within the SAME RELGION? Take for instance the Sunni and Shiites. Both of these groups follow the Islamic religion, however, there are ever so slightly different, and these differences plunge entire regions of the world into turmoil for decades. In fact, most of these disputes are more cultural and less about religion. Many times these differences are in things such as lifestyle, dress, treatment of women, diet, etc. The sheer hypocrisy of some people is amazing. If people adhered to the peaceful and tolerant practices that their religions preached, the world would be a much happier place. I realize that this is the most basic and obvious standpoint on world peace that exists, but if it’s so obvious, then why is it not implemented, and why do we as a society allow it to happen? That is my question. How is it possible for peaceful establishments to cause war?
#3
In class we discussed why fraud was of a more severe punishment in hell than murder. In class we proposed a few theories. The main was of Aristotle’s idea that fraud was a strictly human trait. Animals and other life forms are incapable of committing fraud, so therefore it is something that sets us apart from other creatures on Earth, and it is of the utmost importance to avoid it. During our discussion, Daniel also brought up a very interesting point about the breach of trust. You can kill a person without ever getting to know them. However, in order to commit fraud against someone, it is necessary to know them on a deeper level and develop a certain sense of quote-on-quote “intimacy” or “trust” with them. You must enter into some sort of contract, either monetary or information based, before fraud can be committed.
My theory about this situation calls into question the time period. It is a well known fact that death was viewed with less severity a long time ago. I realize that it precedes Inferno by a long long time, but take for instance Hammurabi’s Code. Many of the punishments for crimes that would be seen as minor today were death. Even up until recently, there were many more capital crimes, and death sentences were not meant to be painless or torture free. Death and dying was much more common in a society with a lot of capital crimes, where executions were a public spectacle, torture was common, life spans were short, and religion was everything. I think it is 100% plausible that people in a more “death-centric” society than ours viewed fraud or breaching trust as more severe than taking someone’s life away from them. I’m not saying that the other theories presented were wrong, I just think that these ideas can be taken further, and that there are multiple reasons for Dante’s reasoning.
#4
I spent a majority of class on Friday pondering why Satan stayed silent while in the presence of Dante. While it would be easy to simply say that Satan had a person in each mouth and was unable to speak, that seems naïve. I would rather delve deeper into why Dante choose to incapacitate Satan and not have him speak during The Inferno. Be prepared that this theory is rather crude and undeveloped and may be slightly difficult to convey and comprehend.
Satan is supposed to be the overall evil of the world. He is the cause of all evil. Whether this is natural disasters, personal evil, societal evil, disease, etc., Satan influences people to do bad in life, and bad to happen to people. However, Satan does not present himself as Satan when influencing people to sin. He comes to people and presents himself in the form of the first person to each individual. Allow me to explain. When an individual commits a sin, the though process is not “Satan is making me commit this sin,” however, according to popular theology this is technically what happens. Theology states that people are influenced by Satan. Instead the process is more like “I’m going to harm that person.” Satan influences and talks to people in the first person to avoid individuals noticing his presence and persuasion. Additionally, he influences people to commit different types of sin. Everyone sins differently, hence the levels of hell. Therefore, it would be physically impossible for Dante to present Satan as saying something general. Satan has infinitely many forms, infinitely many causes, and infinitely many voices in order to avoid being noticed, and to cater himself to each individual in the world. It is not possible to put one identity and one voice to an entity that is inherently infinite in his forms.
#5
I think that Chaucer’s approach to writing the Canterbury Tales is very smart. He could have easily written the same novel portraying the same people and made it incredibly boring. He could have done so by portraying each individual how we would expect them to act. Or, he could have made each character very stereotypical and based their personality on how society expects people to act. Clergy are expected to be holy, honest, celibate, etc. Wives are expected to be honest, loyal, quiet, god fearing, etc. Instead he throws us constant curveballs. We expect the Wife of Bath on a pilgrimage to be a typical holy and god fearing house-wife. Instead, she is a rough and tumble, bible refuting woman who is currently on her 5th marriage. Another example is the Friar. We would expect this man to be a humble god fearing man as well. Instead he is a money hoarding, immoral person. He works for money, and avoids helping the poor and homeless who truly need his help because they won’t be able to pay him for his services. I think that this approach to writing is fascinating because it kept the reader interested. In a way, this novel acts almost like a medieval tabloid. It keeps the reader interested by constantly uncovering dirt on people. It takes us past the façade that this person keeps because of their particular career or place in society. It provides us with the juicy facts about their actual way of life. In addition, by introducing all the characters in the prologue, it keeps the reader reading in order to hear their tales and what they have to say. If he were to introduce each character before their story, the reader would simply expect each successive character to be mundane and boring and stop reading. Instead, Chaucer hooks us with the tantalizing facts, then gets us to keep reading to get the juicy details of each characters story.
#6
Throughout my school career, I have studied utopias many many times. I have covered this subject in middle school, high school, and college settings. After studying this topic so many times, I have began to see more and more why Utopias are doomed to fail, and impossible to achieve. As an economics major, I can see that Utopias are impossible to achieve. Human nature, and the study of economics, states that humans have unlimited wants. Utopias state that people will have everything that they could ever need, and in turn this will lead to a society without crime. However, just because people have everything they need, doesn’t mean that they have everything that they want. In all actuality, I have everything that I “need,” because I am still alive, happy, healthy, fed, educated, etc. However, I still have desires for more. People in a utopia will always want more, and there will always be a few bad apples willing to commit a crime in order to get that. A lot of crime is not committed out of necessity, but rather a desire for more. A lot of criminals are not dirt poor, but instead have plenty of money and want even more. Therefore, utopias cannot be based on material possessions or needs alone. In order for a Utopia to have any chance of succeeding, the people of the society must be 100% moral individuals. Human behavior is not always based on material objects, but rather feelings, emotions, hatred, etc. It is impossible to get a large society of 100% moral people who all like each other and will work well with them without complaining or ever wanting more from life. Utopias may be plausible on a very very small scale, but on a large scale, human nature impedes people’s ability to live in a perfect society.
#7
Quinn, these two works make for a great comparison. You have a good handle on what Machiavelli is trying to do in The Prince, and you say his goal is the opposite of More's. What is More's goal, do you think? Why does he imagine this ideal society? Is he also giving advice? - MH
For my paper I aim to compare and contrast Thomas More’s Utopia and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Both of these works were written at essentially the same time. However, they both present a very different point of view of society, government, and power. Utopia aims to present a crimeless perfect society where everyone works together to accomplish common goals and the people have everything that they could need and more. The Prince on the other hand describes how a prince should hold power, how he should deal with his subjects, and certain bad things that must be done to effectively rule a society, such as breaking promises. The main goals of both these works are directly contradictory. Many of the problems that The Prince helps someone solve simply do not exist in Utopia. For example, The Prince talks about acting rashly in order to achieve goals during bad times. However, in a perfect society knowledge like this may never be necessary.
On the other hand, there are certain issues that are perfectly applicable to a utopian society. Certain things such as acting humanely and ruling so that your subjects like you are perfectly applicable to utopian societies.
My goal with this essay is to compare and contrast these two works and their overall compatibility. Some of the guidelines in The Prince meld perfectly with the agenda for society put forth in Utopia, whilst others are directly contradictory. I aim to point out and analyze these similarities and differences.
#8
As we studied the discovery of America by Columbus, I couldn’t help but to ponder the question of whether or not we should celebrate Columbus Day in America. My personal feeling on this subject is that, no, we shouldn’t celebrate this holiday in America, and if we must, it shouldn’t be on the same scale as we currently celebrate it. Children know the saying ‘Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 14 hundred 92.’ They are told that Columbus set out on a heroic mission to find America, not knowing if he would fall off the edge of the Earth. However, there is so much that is withheld from children, leading to their brainwashing. First off, Columbus didn’t know he would find America. He thought he was going to find a faster way to Japan and India. Secondly, he didn’t find America. He found the Bahamas, and the Caribbean. That in itself detaches the importance of Columbus Day from Americans. Thirdly, children are not taught of the long lasting effects that Columbus created. He created a trend of persecuting natives and running them off of their land. A model to be followed in Mexico, and later the United States. Columbus did not have the aura of heroism that children are taught that he did, plus he didn’t find ‘America’ as we know it. For these reasons, I raise the question as to why we still celebrate this holiday. I have no problem if we as a society want to make note of this occurrence each year on our calendars, but let’s not take it any further. We don’t need days off of school and work to celebrate a meaningless, accidental, and mean spirited discovery. In addition, children need to be told the truth about this holiday. Columbus is not who he is portrayed to be.
#9
On Monday, we cast a modern set of characters for Tartuffe. I feel that a modern application is a very pertinent thing when studying humanities, and especially in Honors 202. Most of the works that we read were written a long time ago. While we as 21st century students can read and comprehend these works, we often miss crucial lessons, morals, points, etc. due to the age of these works. Tartuffe, although we haven’t read the entire play, obviously teaches about treating people correctly, honesty, being shallow, greed, pride, etc. When this play was written, readers understood the plot much better. They were familiar with family structure, marriage traditions, morals, religion, etc. of the time. Things were written to convey certain messages to its readers. However, due to the difference in times and societies, we often fail to pick up on certain lessons, as well as small time dependent tidbits. To me, Tartuffe is a story about someone leaving her son for someone who treats her better. I understand the large messages in the story, but I can’t fully understand the impact of the character’s actions. Let me explain. Say for instance leaving your son was considered unthinkable when this play was written. I don’t know if this is true but let’s assume it is for the purpose of this argument. Because I did not know that leaving your mother was so awful, this play would not have as profound of an impact on me. Whereas if someone from this time period read it, they would be struck in a much different way. This applies to works such as Utopia also. For its time, Utopia seems like a novel idea. However, because I live in the 21st century, it sounds stupid. If we spent time researching these works and trying to fit them to modern parameters, the messages received might be much different and far more impactful.
#10
I feel as though satire, like that found in Candide, is the most effective means to incite change. So often, people decide to outright attack other groups for their short comings. They tear them to shreds stating everything that is wrong with them, or has ever been wrong with them. That in turn just makes the person angry. They naturally become defensive and upset. They start to fight back, and before long the issue is much bigger than it ever was in the past. Satire on the other hand is different. It involves humor. It is not an outright attack of an individual or an issue. Instead it is an extreme example of a situation. It is not directly criticizing the individual or issue, and it is obviously overblown for comedic effect. Satire makes people laugh and think. It may upset the individual that it is directed at, but in a different way. The person is not automatically inclined to become defensive. Instead, through the overblown example, they see why their actions or stance may be worthy of change. Plus on top of it, they are tickled by the humor of the situation which lessens the blow even more. Satire does not tear apart, but rather it brings things to people’s attention and allows them to view them in a humorous way. I firmly feel that directly attacking doesn’t work. A shouting match, and the exchanging of insults, never solves anything. Making fun of people is not very effective either. However, when valid points are combined with humor, the result makes people laugh, as well as evaluate their decisions. And this is all without ever becoming overly mad or irritated. As they always say, laughter is the best medicine.
#11
I proposed this topic for the last essay, however, I chose to take that paper in a different direction. For my second essay, I would love to revisit this topic again. To be honest, I love this topic but didn’t have enough time to fully develop a finished product last time. This is basically the same proposal, but I did incorporate the suggestions you provided me with the first time. For my paper I aim to compare and contrast Thomas More’s Utopia and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Both of these works were written at essentially the same time. However, they both present a very different point of view of society, government, and power. Utopia aims to present a crimeless perfect society where everyone works together to accomplish common goals and the people have everything that they could need and more. More’s goal in Utopia is to solve the problems of society. From crime, to poverty, to greed, More desires to present a society in which people can live in perfect harmony without conflict or excessive political turmoil, like that presented in The Prince.The Prince on the other hand describes how a prince should hold power, how he should deal with his subjects, and certain bad things that must be done to effectively rule a society, such as breaking promises. The main goals of both these works are directly contradictory. Many of the problems that The Prince helps someone solve simply do not exist in Utopia. For example, The Prince talks about acting rashly in order to achieve goals during bad times. However, in a perfect society knowledge like this may never be necessary.
On the other hand, there are certain issues that are perfectly applicable to a utopian society. Certain things such as acting humanely and ruling so that your subjects like you are perfectly applicable to utopian societies.
My goal with this essay is to compare and contrast these two works and their overall compatibility. Some of the guidelines in The Prince meld perfectly with the agenda for society put forth in Utopia, whilst others are directly contradictory. Additionally, I aim to compare and contrast the overall goals and motivations both of these authors’ presents. I aim to point out and analyze these similarities and differences.
Quinn, this sounds good. Make sure you keep the overall goals of the authors in mind. This can be kind of tricky with Utopia. Keep in mind that Thomas More isn't actually recommending creating the utopia that he describes, and his utopia isn't absolutely perfect. While Utopia has a lot less crime than England, and while some kinds of crime don't exist there (theft, and other property crimes), there is still some crime. - MH
#12
Music is an excellent cultural indicator that often times goes un-noticed. Music reflects many world events, political events, cultural revolutions, shifts in morality, etc. Think of music from the last century. Songs from the 40’s talked of war and love. Songs of the 50’s introduced rock and roll, greasers, rebellion, etc. Songs of the 60’s talked of peace, free love, drugs, etc. While many songs are catchy and easily become stuck in your head, the lyrics tell as story. If the lyrics are dissected and analyzed, often times one can get a great sense of what the world looked like at the time the song was written. Additonally, the breakdown of traditional morality is easily witnessed. Over the past century, music has gotten progressively more profane. In the 30’s and 40’s the introduction of mild cursing was a huge deal. In the 60’s, discussions of free love and drugs in songs were a major cultural shift. In modern music, profane language, topics, racial slurs, etc. are very prevalent. All of these things paint an image of society and what it values. Additionally, the design of new technologies is present in music. From microphones, to electric guitars, to synthesizers, music reflects technological advancements in society. These rules are also applicable to older music from the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries. Operas had lyrics that would represent common events experienced in everyday life. Symphonies would tell the stories of wars or love. Just because there were no lyrics, electronics, or swearing doesn’t mean that old “classical” music doesn’t provide cultural clues. If one deeply pays attention and analyzes old music, cultural trends and patterns are just as obvious as in modern music. Music is the universal language. People of all cultures can enjoy music and convey their opinions and feelings about anything at all.