12/9
I found our reactions to the different scriptural texts this week to be rather interesting. There wasn’t much of a reaction to the new testament, which I think is understandable, as many of us have grown up hearing many of the stories. On the other hand, I think that very few of us have taken time to read the Koran. The things that I think struck me the most about the Koran was that it seems so strict and that it is ok with justified warfare. For example, the Bible tells people how to live their lives and to be good and whatnot, but the Koran goes so far as to say that when you die, you need to divide your property like this, except in this occasion, where you do this, or in this instance, you do something else. It seems like there are so many little things to keep in mind when following the Koran. I was also a little shocked at one section where it said it was ok to beat a wife that disobeys. That’s generally frowned upon nowadays… The idea of a justified war or violence also differs from that of the Bible. The Koran says not to instigate warfare, but if the unbelievers strike first, have at it. The Bible, though, pretty much says that God doesn’t care who started it, you don’t finish it. This idea of a just and acceptable war is something both sides are guilty of several times over, though. I feel like both sides have huge misconceptions about the other. I actually recently learned in my history class that the Muslim faith (in its truest form) is actually fairly tolerant of Christians and Jews. They believe that if these groups adhere to their own beliefs, they will reach heaven. Christianity and Judaism are alternative paths to God, though they, in the Muslim eye, tend to have a few mistakes. I find it interesting that this isn’t the side that we normally see of this religion.
12/2
Peer Review
I ended up reading Emma Brown’s paper on Greek gods and their Roman counterparts. It was well researched and was interesting to someone like me who didn’t know the difference between Greek and Roman gods other than the names. I actually learned a lot from the paper and I think it makes a pretty solid topic. The paper is pretty solid both in terms of research and in terms of grammar, and it’s interesting to read as well, which I always think is a plus in papers like this. There was a lot of research done and it makes a good distinction between the two groups of gods. There were only a couple of things that I think could have used a little work in. The introduction starts out as a narrative and is very informal. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s actually really interesting to read, but I just find it odd as an opening to a research paper. It may just be the result of how I was taught to write papers, but it seems a little informal to me in the context of a research paper. Another thing I noticed is that, while the paper does a good job of comparing Greek and Roman gods, there didn’t seem to be a lot of connections to any of the texts we had read in class. In the introduction, the Aenid is mentioned as the beginning point behind the paper, but it doesn’t really appear elsewhere in the paper. The conclusion also sounds a little abrupt and feels like the last sentence is unnecessary. Other than that, I feel like it’s a pretty solid paper and very well done.
11/18
Art Museum
I’m just going to start off by saying that I love the Ball State Art Museum. That might just be the art major in me, but it’s hard to deny that it’s an impressive collection. Not only does the museum own an extensive collection of ancient works from Egypt, Greece, the Mayan civilization, and the Pacific Islands, but it also has (if not on display at least in the collection) several Lee Krasner paintings, a Jackson Pollack, and a Degas sculpture. The building itself is that gorgeous red brick exterior. It just has an overall collegiate, archaic, and academic feel to it. It was designed to be big and beautiful and just gives off the feeling that what it holds within is a big deal and culturally relevant. I always love walking into the sculpture court, especially now that the “Be Like Water” piece is hanging from the ceiling. The whole thing just exudes this feeling of being majestic and grand. It’s very bright and open and welcoming, but at the same time makes you feel very small and insignificant in comparison to the literally hundreds of years of history that it holds. I tend to feel drawn off to the right into the ethnic art gallery just because it’s this huge room with this vibrant red color against the calm, white and light colors of the sculpture court. After that, one heads up the stairs and is faced with a layout that has them winding back and forth into each of the little alcoves of the main galleries, trying to take in everything the museum has to offer. The whole thing tends to be loosely circular, so you eventually end up right where you started.
I have several favorites in the museum, but I think the highlight might be the enormous Lee Krasner painting, Right Bird Left. It’s just a monumental piece that is so full of movement and color and life.
I would like to do my essay on Greek idealism in terms of what made a god or a hero. The perfect man/hero still had faults...is this what made him appealing? In Greek sculpture, the gods are always portrayed as humans, in incredible shape, but human. What makes the divine so divine? What do the Greek ideas of heroes and gods tell us about what it was like to be perfect, a model citizen, and how one should live their lives?
11/12 The Aenid
This one was a lot more difficult to follow. I found myself wishing for the Odyssey with every wordy passage. I do think it is interesting, though, to look at the different styles of writing in the two stories. Writing something down does give you the opportunity to expand ideas and ramble on and on and on for pages.... When you actually get to the heart of the story, though, I find it almost laughable. There are just moments that make you wonder what is going on and what is going through these people's heads. I firmly believe that Dido was more than a little crazy. Yes, Aeneas had to obey the gods and find his destiny, and maybe was just a little bit of a jerk about it (though it wasn't entirely his fault), but Dido was legitimately crazy. Her first husband died and she was so distraught that she swore off ever marrying or falling in love again. And then comes Aeneas. Oh, nevermind. I guess I'll just throw myself at this guy and get so wrapped up in him that I can't live without him. Literally. And so she goes and offs herself? You're coming across a little desperate, dear. And her sister, who apparently wanted to kill herself too? Sure! There's plenty of room on the pyre for overreacting estranged female characters, hop on.
Another thing I found amusing was how easy it was to get to the underworld. Yes, the hard part was getting back or whatever, but in all these old tales, it just seems to easy. Odysseus did it, Hercules did it, and now Aeneas. Loved one died in battle? No worries. Family member killed themselves? It's cool. Just go visit them in the underworld, because apparently it's not as hard as it seems.
11/4 Taoism and the Analects
One of the things that has really helped me to understand what all of these philosophical texts is their historical context. We studied Confucianism and Taoism recently in my history 150 class and the two philosophies did tend to oppose each other. In this time period, China was at the hands of various warlords, well, warring with each other for control of various regions. Confucianism taught that the way to solve this problem, or any problem for that matter, as well as achieve eternal life, was to live by a certain moral standard. Confucius taught that the way to solve life's chaos and problems was to be the best you could be. If everyone was doing their best and being respectful, then eventually everything would work itself out. Taoism focuses more on the self and a person achieving happiness for themselves by looking within themselves.
The whole Taoist idea of inaction has been really frustrating this past week. It's difficult to wrap our minds around just because our idea of inaction instantly implies a negative connotation. The Greek/Roman idea of a genius has really helped me to sort of get a feel for what the text is trying to explain. When it came to creating something, whether you were an artist, a sculptor, a painter, an architect, a musician, a playwright, only a little bit of what you actually created was based on personal skill. Your work was the combination of your physical effort and a spiritual genius. I think it sort of illustrates the fact that we can sit around and try to do things on our own (like hacking our way through a piece of meat) or that we can do what we can and after that just do what comes naturally. Going with the flow is just doing something, I think, that we were just born to do, maybe almost like a sense of destiny...? Maybe inaction speaks of proficiency? That you have learned a skill or an ability so well to the point where it is now effortless.
10/28 The Good Life
One of the interesting things that was brought up towards the end of class today was whether or not people in our modern society ascribe to these ancient schools of thought. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were people who followed the works and writings of Socrates, or Stoicism, or the teachings of Epicurus. I think that we tend to believe that just because these modes of thought are not only so different from our own, but so archaic that they seem to literally be outdated. We think that oh, no one really thinks like that anymore, no one really follows the teachings of Socrates or Plato or Epicurus anymore, but what they write and teach on are actually still applicable to our society today. I think that part of this may just be because the actual teachings of these ancient philosophers aren’t exactly something that you’d use as your everyday conversation starter. People might believe in being content with what they have, but they don’t attribute that to the ancients. Many might believe that a little suffering in life can bring later pleasure, but they certainly don’t say that they got the idea from Epicurus. I think that people still very much believe the ideals of the ancient philosophers, whether or not they know that’s where they came from. It’s just something that we take for granted as a part of our culture and mindset to the point where we don’t even know where it originated anymore.
I like to think that the people of these ancient societies had a better idea of what it meant to live a good life than we do nowadays. So many taught on having a good mindset, being a good person, obeying laws, serving the gods, telling the truth, things that you don’t really see in our modern advertising of the good life. As society has grown, I think the idea of luxury has turned our idea of the good life from the spiritual aspect to the materialistic ‘American Dream’ that we think of today.
10/21 Midterm Review
I think overall this class has gone really well. To be honest, when I learned the class was all about ancient literature and culture and such, I wasn't exactly thrilled. Most of it is hard to understand, and the rest of it just tends to put me to sleep. I think the thing that makes this class so successful is the fact that we just sit and talk. We don't come to class with all the answers, but we tend to figure things out as we go, bouncing ideas back and forth between each other, and it makes it a lot easier to sort of wrap your mind around some of the complicated themes we tend to find in all this literature. It's especially helpful when trying to decipher all of this ancient philosophy.
I think that for the most part, we've done pretty well with covering the course goals. I mean, there's the discussion aspect of it that's taken care of itself, along with comparing and contrasting different themes we find in different pieces of literature or culture to other works or even to modern day stories. Just today we were comparing the various works of Socrates to one another, and there have been more than several references to Star Wars and various other pop culture icons throughout the class. Of the goals, I think the only thing that maybe we haven't come to yet would be the reconstructing of ideas or using context to create new ideas. I feel like part of it may be that we still aren't all one hundred percent sure what exactly those goals are supposed to mean in the terms of this class specifically. I don't particularly think it's a bad thing though. While we may not be 'reconstructing ideas' or making new groundbreaking theories or anything, we are discussing things in a way that helps us as students to understand and appreciate these works and cultures in a way that we may have never even thought of before, and I think that that is perhaps the most beneficial thing that a class like this can do for a student.
Here is my parody project, the Oddity. It's written like a screenplay, and the final version had story boards off to the right, which explains why all of the text is crammed into a column on the left side of the page.
Antigone 10/13
Antigone was, as can be expected from a Greek tragedy, an incredibly morose and depressing tale. Despite this, I found it much easier to follow and more interesting than Agamemnon. It gave us a chance to actually meet and feel for the characters, or victims in this case. With Agamemnon, he comes home from war, steps on a carpet, and gets killed. With Antigone, we learn of her desire to do what she thinks is right, despite the consequences. It’s an admirable quality that makes you hope that somehow she’ll live through this ordeal. With Agamemnon, he’s easily swayed to change his mind or do something, while Antigone will not have anything or anyone change her mind, not threat of death or her own sister. She is determined to put her family over the law.
Creon, on the other hand, is seen as a prideful, power mad king. He makes this decree that seems a ittle over the top. While you do not want to condone treason as a king, the punishment seems a little extreme, but that probably just comes from a modern bias. In our modern era, there is much debate over the idea of capital punishment, but you have to keep in mind that Greek and ancient cultures in general tended to be more violent.
Creon, in my opinion, does not change at all throughout the tragedy. He is just as prideful at the end of the story as he is at the beginning. While he does change his mind to go and free Antigone, he only does so out of fear of a prophecy from the seer. I’m almost wondering if the tragedy of Antigone has sort of a moral to it. It sort of implies that it’s important to stand up for what you believe in, despite the adversity or consequences one may face, but I also wonder if it’s a lesson in pride. Creon was unable to forgive not only the traitorous brother but Antigone as well. As a result, he wound up all alone, his family having taken their own lives.
Agamemnon 10/7
I hate to sound (for a lack of a better word) insensitive, but despite Agamemnon being a tragedy, I found it almost, well, amusing. Between the lack of the violence we became so accustomed to in other ancient texts, Agamemnon's habit to be wishy washy, and the presence of a chorus, I just couldn't take it seriously. Agamemnon seems easily influenced by others. Go to war for your brother? Sure. Sacrifice your daughter? Why not. Step on a red carpet after coming home from war? What could possibly go wrong? He just doesn't seem like a character that you feel sorry for when he finally gets killed. I honestly felt more for Cassandra than I did Agamemnon. Here's this girl who is taken from her home after it is destroyed and taken in the war, brought back with Agamemnon only to be killed alongside him. I just couldn't understand, however, why she would enter the hall even after prophesying her own death. Agamemnon, on the other hand, the so called hero/victim of the story doesn't have enough of a backbone to tell his wife that he doesn't want to step on a carpet? And when Agamemnon is finally killed, all we get is a couple of screams? What happened to the bloody battles of the Odyssey? I know that the feel is supposed to be tragedy rather that the previous idea of glory, but it almost seems a little ridiculous. The whole idea of a chorus also struck me as odd. I know that a lot of Greek stories or epics were often spoken to music or considered lyrics, so back then, it would probably be normal. In our modern context, though, I just can't help but find it a little strange. These men singing the equivalent of a lengthy monologue? Agamemnon the Musical, anyone?
Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Song of songs... 9/30
Most of the older Hebrew texts are pretty well known in today's society, but I thought it was really interesting to look at them by comparing them to all the other things we had read. For example, considering Moses as an epic hero. Here's a guy who is thrown into this huge position of responsibility and leads an entire nation out of slavery and (eventually) into the promised land. These people go through these trials and then on a long journey where some pretty amazing things happen. They're led by a pillar of fire, fed with manna from the sky, led to safety by crossing the Red Sea...all to eventually get to their promised land. I think that part of what makes an epic, well, epic, is the journey or quest, if you will, that is told in the story. These people went on a crazy journey and wandered the desert for quite a long time. I know that in my group one of the things that we talked about was that a lot of the Old Testament seems to be almost a collection of short stories that, while they may not be considered epics themselves, often have strong heroes overcoming amazing odds. For example, yes, there's Moses, but there's also young Daniel who was thrown into the lions' den, and David, made famous for the slaying of Goliath. While there may not be epics in the sense of ridiculously long stories told around the campfire, I think that they may, in a way, be considered epics in they're own way. They tell of often unlikely heroes overcoming amazing odds and incredible circumstances to create a tale that is significant to culture even today. While the Old Testament may not be made up of epics, it certainly focuses on its fair share of heroes.
Sappho and the Creation Myths 9/24 (A day late...)
I have to say, compared to the Odyssey and the Epic of Gilgamesh, I felt more of a...connection, if you will to Sappho's poetry than I have any of the other ancient texts we've been looking at. When they say that her writing is more emotional, it's true, you get just this raw, honest writing and explanation of what life was like and how this woman felt. With the Odyssey or other ancient writings, you (or at least I) tend to feel a little more detached from it, like, ho hum, this is how the story goes according to some dead guy who lived thousands of years ago. Sappho, on the other hand, just has this deep, emotional feeling in her poetry that is just as relevant and easy to relate today as it was in the time it was written. The interpretations, though, just sort of blew me out of the water, particularly the 'He is More than a Hero' one. I was reading through her other poems and got to this one and was just really amazed at this woman and just how much was conveyed but just a few words in this simple poem of hers. She described how it felt to be smitten, to fall for someone, to have a crush, however you want to put it, in a way that is just as valid as a description today. When I read through it, I got the first impression that she was speaking about a man that she loved, but could not have. The line 'he who sits beside you' struck me as meaning a man who is already taken by another, and I felt like there was just this heartache over a man she couldn't have. Then I read on and saw how often it changed to random pronouns and was a little confused, but I'd seen that done before in some literature (granted, it doesn't always make sense...). Then to go in class and find out that it is interpreted as her speaking about the woman? To tell you the truth, it actually makes the whole random pronoun switching make sense, and does nothing to make the emotions portrayed throughout the poem any less valid than if they had been talking about the man.
The Odyssey - The End 9/17
After finishing the Odyssey, I've noticed a few things that I had never really picked up on before. For example, the differences in how many books Odysseus spends doing various tasks. When we are told of all of his adventures, it seems that they take a relatively smaller amount of books or is at least less in depth than all the time he spends in disguise before killing the suitors. I also think the reactions of Telemachus and Penelope are really interesting. I agree in the fact that, at least in the beginning, Penelope seems like this really intelligent and strong woman. While she may always be considered clever throughout the story, she does spend a lot of time up in her room moping and crying. She also almost gets a little bipolar it seems when Odysseus finally reveals himself. I mean, she sits down with the beggar/Odysseus and he says that Odysseus is going to return soon and she seems really excited at the possibility, only wishing that it were true and that he would return. Then when he finally whips off his disguise she just sorts of turns around and says 'No way'. It just seemed weird to me that she would be wishing for him to return for so long and then as soon as she sees him, her first reaction is denial and disbelief. I suppose I can understand her wanting to test and make sure that this man she hasn't seen in twenty years is truly her husband, but she seems so distant that it almost seems cruel.
I also found it odd that book 24 was added at all. I agree with the theory that it was added later because it just seems extraneous. After all of that time at sea, I figure that Odysseus, like all the rest of us, is just tired of all these trials and just wants a happy ending.
Odyssey 9/9
I have to admit, the more I read, the more I tend to realize that Odysseus is not quite the hero I had imagined. In the beginning of the story, we are told of Penelope doing her best to keep all of the crazy suitors at bay, faithfully awaiting the day her husband and hero returns triumphantly and they live happily ever after the end. We get the idea that Penelope, like a lot of women in the Odyssey, is intelligent, a strong woman, and very loyal to her husband. When we finally meet Odysseus, he's crying. Ok, I can understand that. He's been through a lot and wants to get home. But as he later tells of all of his adventures, I sort of find myself rooting for him less and less. Half of the troubles and trials he's gone through have been a lot of his own fault. For example, when they reach the Cyclops' cave, it's his decision to stay there and wait until this awful beast comes home and ends up with his men being eaten. Then when he finally escapes the Cyclops, his pride makes him shout out to the beast, giving his name that makes it oh so convenient for the now blind Cyclops to curse him. Later, when he finds himself with Circe, he defies her, but only at first. She asks him to sleep with her, and at first he says no. Then it's almost like he changes his mind as long as she "works no more enchantment to his harm". It's almost like he says "Well, I suppose I could, but no more of that crazy voodoo stuff on me or my men". He runs into the same sort of thing with Helios' island. He was going to sail right past it, and he would've been just fine, but his men complained and said they needed a break to go aground. Again, he just sort of gives in, this time to his men, and says "well, ok, we'll stop...but you better not touch those cows!" And we all know what happens next. I suppose it's meant to show that Odysseus is mortal, flawed, makes mistakes, and apparently doesn't learn from them, and is tempted like anyone else, but it also sort of lends to the idea of double standards. Penelope has been waiting faithfully for twenty years while Odysseus is out sleeping with all these immortal divine beings for years at a time. In a way, it almost makes me think that, at least in the terms of marital loyalty, Penelope is the stronger one here.
Thoughts on the Odyssey 9/2
I have always enjoyed the story of the Odyssey. At my high school, it was a very popular part of the English class curriculum, no matter how many times it had been taught to you before. I had to read through different parts of it several times, write a few essays, and even watch a few cheesy movies in which the Cyclops that Odysseus battles looks like a bad, rubbery costumed cousin to Godzilla. In all the times of having gone through the story, however, I had never had the chance to read through the entire thing. Any class that I had taken simply focused on the journey of Odysseus and his trials in getting home. There was never any of the introductory chapters and I had never before had the chance to read about Telemachus and his mother's trials at home with the suitors, much less Telemachus' journey to find news of his father. The point of his journey in my mind that stands out the most, though, is when Telemachus meets with Menelaus and is told all these war stories about how great and brave his father was in battle. It really sort of sets Odysseus up on a pedestal as this powerful, almost god like being, the picture of a true hero.
I enjoy the fact that there is so much set up in the first couple of chapters. While we were discussing why they add this instead of just going straight into the plights of Odysseus, I almost feel like it was simply done for the sake of storytelling. I'm going to be very nerdy here and draw another Star Wars parallel. In a Episode IV: A New Hope, we are introduced to Leia and learn of her distress at the hands of Darth Vader before we meet our hero, Luke Skywalker. I feel like this is simply how the story is told. All good stories tell of conflict and how it is overcome. Surely Odysseus' story of his journey home is riddled with conflict, but the presence of the trouble at home as it is presented to the reader only makes his triumphant return even more so.
Thoughts on Gilgamesh 8/26
To be completely honest, I wasn't very fond of the story the first time I read it through. Afterwards, however, I went back to the class wiki and looked up the video and watched it, and it actually threw the story into a new light for me. I went back and reread it and picked up on a lot more than when I had gone through the second time. There's really a lot of strong, recurring themes of love and personal growth, change, loss, and the ever present fear in the hearts of man as to what truly happens to us when we die. One of the things that I found truly interesting about the story was that there are so many different parallels between the Epic of Gilgamesh and many other stories, particularly the Bible. The story tells not only of a man surviving the flood, but of a god speaking to him, telling him to build a boat, an ark if you will, and to save the 'seed of the earth'. After the gods flood the world, those aboard the arks survive, sending out various birds to search for land. Utnapishtim is then granted eternal life for having saved the animals and mankind from the flood. The Bible talks of Noah having built an ark and saved the animals and his family by taking them aboard, later sending out a dove in search of dry land. The interesting thing is that after Noah disembarks, he later goes on to live to the happy old age of about nine hundred and fifty years old. Not eternal life, but close enough. It almost makes one wonder if both stories are simply telling different accounts of the same event. One of the points that the video brought up was that many people said that this was proof that the stories of the old Testament were true because here we have another account of a huge flood. Others say that it proves the stories false, saying that the Bible story was just based off of the one told in Gilgamesh. It makes an interesting point and leads me to wonder how or if the stories are truly connected.
I found our reactions to the different scriptural texts this week to be rather interesting. There wasn’t much of a reaction to the new testament, which I think is understandable, as many of us have grown up hearing many of the stories. On the other hand, I think that very few of us have taken time to read the Koran. The things that I think struck me the most about the Koran was that it seems so strict and that it is ok with justified warfare. For example, the Bible tells people how to live their lives and to be good and whatnot, but the Koran goes so far as to say that when you die, you need to divide your property like this, except in this occasion, where you do this, or in this instance, you do something else. It seems like there are so many little things to keep in mind when following the Koran. I was also a little shocked at one section where it said it was ok to beat a wife that disobeys. That’s generally frowned upon nowadays… The idea of a justified war or violence also differs from that of the Bible. The Koran says not to instigate warfare, but if the unbelievers strike first, have at it. The Bible, though, pretty much says that God doesn’t care who started it, you don’t finish it. This idea of a just and acceptable war is something both sides are guilty of several times over, though. I feel like both sides have huge misconceptions about the other. I actually recently learned in my history class that the Muslim faith (in its truest form) is actually fairly tolerant of Christians and Jews. They believe that if these groups adhere to their own beliefs, they will reach heaven. Christianity and Judaism are alternative paths to God, though they, in the Muslim eye, tend to have a few mistakes. I find it interesting that this isn’t the side that we normally see of this religion.
12/2
Peer Review
I ended up reading Emma Brown’s paper on Greek gods and their Roman counterparts. It was well researched and was interesting to someone like me who didn’t know the difference between Greek and Roman gods other than the names. I actually learned a lot from the paper and I think it makes a pretty solid topic. The paper is pretty solid both in terms of research and in terms of grammar, and it’s interesting to read as well, which I always think is a plus in papers like this. There was a lot of research done and it makes a good distinction between the two groups of gods. There were only a couple of things that I think could have used a little work in. The introduction starts out as a narrative and is very informal. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s actually really interesting to read, but I just find it odd as an opening to a research paper. It may just be the result of how I was taught to write papers, but it seems a little informal to me in the context of a research paper. Another thing I noticed is that, while the paper does a good job of comparing Greek and Roman gods, there didn’t seem to be a lot of connections to any of the texts we had read in class. In the introduction, the Aenid is mentioned as the beginning point behind the paper, but it doesn’t really appear elsewhere in the paper. The conclusion also sounds a little abrupt and feels like the last sentence is unnecessary. Other than that, I feel like it’s a pretty solid paper and very well done.
11/18
Art Museum
I’m just going to start off by saying that I love the Ball State Art Museum. That might just be the art major in me, but it’s hard to deny that it’s an impressive collection. Not only does the museum own an extensive collection of ancient works from Egypt, Greece, the Mayan civilization, and the Pacific Islands, but it also has (if not on display at least in the collection) several Lee Krasner paintings, a Jackson Pollack, and a Degas sculpture. The building itself is that gorgeous red brick exterior. It just has an overall collegiate, archaic, and academic feel to it. It was designed to be big and beautiful and just gives off the feeling that what it holds within is a big deal and culturally relevant. I always love walking into the sculpture court, especially now that the “Be Like Water” piece is hanging from the ceiling. The whole thing just exudes this feeling of being majestic and grand. It’s very bright and open and welcoming, but at the same time makes you feel very small and insignificant in comparison to the literally hundreds of years of history that it holds. I tend to feel drawn off to the right into the ethnic art gallery just because it’s this huge room with this vibrant red color against the calm, white and light colors of the sculpture court. After that, one heads up the stairs and is faced with a layout that has them winding back and forth into each of the little alcoves of the main galleries, trying to take in everything the museum has to offer. The whole thing tends to be loosely circular, so you eventually end up right where you started.
I have several favorites in the museum, but I think the highlight might be the enormous Lee Krasner painting, Right Bird Left. It’s just a monumental piece that is so full of movement and color and life.
I would like to do my essay on Greek idealism in terms of what made a god or a hero. The perfect man/hero still had faults...is this what made him appealing? In Greek sculpture, the gods are always portrayed as humans, in incredible shape, but human. What makes the divine so divine? What do the Greek ideas of heroes and gods tell us about what it was like to be perfect, a model citizen, and how one should live their lives?
11/12 The Aenid
This one was a lot more difficult to follow. I found myself wishing for the Odyssey with every wordy passage. I do think it is interesting, though, to look at the different styles of writing in the two stories. Writing something down does give you the opportunity to expand ideas and ramble on and on and on for pages.... When you actually get to the heart of the story, though, I find it almost laughable. There are just moments that make you wonder what is going on and what is going through these people's heads. I firmly believe that Dido was more than a little crazy. Yes, Aeneas had to obey the gods and find his destiny, and maybe was just a little bit of a jerk about it (though it wasn't entirely his fault), but Dido was legitimately crazy. Her first husband died and she was so distraught that she swore off ever marrying or falling in love again. And then comes Aeneas. Oh, nevermind. I guess I'll just throw myself at this guy and get so wrapped up in him that I can't live without him. Literally. And so she goes and offs herself? You're coming across a little desperate, dear. And her sister, who apparently wanted to kill herself too? Sure! There's plenty of room on the pyre for overreacting estranged female characters, hop on.
Another thing I found amusing was how easy it was to get to the underworld. Yes, the hard part was getting back or whatever, but in all these old tales, it just seems to easy. Odysseus did it, Hercules did it, and now Aeneas. Loved one died in battle? No worries. Family member killed themselves? It's cool. Just go visit them in the underworld, because apparently it's not as hard as it seems.
11/4 Taoism and the Analects
One of the things that has really helped me to understand what all of these philosophical texts is their historical context. We studied Confucianism and Taoism recently in my history 150 class and the two philosophies did tend to oppose each other. In this time period, China was at the hands of various warlords, well, warring with each other for control of various regions. Confucianism taught that the way to solve this problem, or any problem for that matter, as well as achieve eternal life, was to live by a certain moral standard. Confucius taught that the way to solve life's chaos and problems was to be the best you could be. If everyone was doing their best and being respectful, then eventually everything would work itself out. Taoism focuses more on the self and a person achieving happiness for themselves by looking within themselves.
The whole Taoist idea of inaction has been really frustrating this past week. It's difficult to wrap our minds around just because our idea of inaction instantly implies a negative connotation. The Greek/Roman idea of a genius has really helped me to sort of get a feel for what the text is trying to explain. When it came to creating something, whether you were an artist, a sculptor, a painter, an architect, a musician, a playwright, only a little bit of what you actually created was based on personal skill. Your work was the combination of your physical effort and a spiritual genius. I think it sort of illustrates the fact that we can sit around and try to do things on our own (like hacking our way through a piece of meat) or that we can do what we can and after that just do what comes naturally. Going with the flow is just doing something, I think, that we were just born to do, maybe almost like a sense of destiny...? Maybe inaction speaks of proficiency? That you have learned a skill or an ability so well to the point where it is now effortless.
10/28 The Good Life
One of the interesting things that was brought up towards the end of class today was whether or not people in our modern society ascribe to these ancient schools of thought. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were people who followed the works and writings of Socrates, or Stoicism, or the teachings of Epicurus. I think that we tend to believe that just because these modes of thought are not only so different from our own, but so archaic that they seem to literally be outdated. We think that oh, no one really thinks like that anymore, no one really follows the teachings of Socrates or Plato or Epicurus anymore, but what they write and teach on are actually still applicable to our society today. I think that part of this may just be because the actual teachings of these ancient philosophers aren’t exactly something that you’d use as your everyday conversation starter. People might believe in being content with what they have, but they don’t attribute that to the ancients. Many might believe that a little suffering in life can bring later pleasure, but they certainly don’t say that they got the idea from Epicurus. I think that people still very much believe the ideals of the ancient philosophers, whether or not they know that’s where they came from. It’s just something that we take for granted as a part of our culture and mindset to the point where we don’t even know where it originated anymore.
I like to think that the people of these ancient societies had a better idea of what it meant to live a good life than we do nowadays. So many taught on having a good mindset, being a good person, obeying laws, serving the gods, telling the truth, things that you don’t really see in our modern advertising of the good life. As society has grown, I think the idea of luxury has turned our idea of the good life from the spiritual aspect to the materialistic ‘American Dream’ that we think of today.
10/21 Midterm Review
I think overall this class has gone really well. To be honest, when I learned the class was all about ancient literature and culture and such, I wasn't exactly thrilled. Most of it is hard to understand, and the rest of it just tends to put me to sleep. I think the thing that makes this class so successful is the fact that we just sit and talk. We don't come to class with all the answers, but we tend to figure things out as we go, bouncing ideas back and forth between each other, and it makes it a lot easier to sort of wrap your mind around some of the complicated themes we tend to find in all this literature. It's especially helpful when trying to decipher all of this ancient philosophy.
I think that for the most part, we've done pretty well with covering the course goals. I mean, there's the discussion aspect of it that's taken care of itself, along with comparing and contrasting different themes we find in different pieces of literature or culture to other works or even to modern day stories. Just today we were comparing the various works of Socrates to one another, and there have been more than several references to Star Wars and various other pop culture icons throughout the class. Of the goals, I think the only thing that maybe we haven't come to yet would be the reconstructing of ideas or using context to create new ideas. I feel like part of it may be that we still aren't all one hundred percent sure what exactly those goals are supposed to mean in the terms of this class specifically. I don't particularly think it's a bad thing though. While we may not be 'reconstructing ideas' or making new groundbreaking theories or anything, we are discussing things in a way that helps us as students to understand and appreciate these works and cultures in a way that we may have never even thought of before, and I think that that is perhaps the most beneficial thing that a class like this can do for a student.
Here is my parody project, the Oddity. It's written like a screenplay, and the final version had story boards off to the right, which explains why all of the text is crammed into a column on the left side of the page.
Antigone 10/13
Antigone was, as can be expected from a Greek tragedy, an incredibly morose and depressing tale. Despite this, I found it much easier to follow and more interesting than Agamemnon. It gave us a chance to actually meet and feel for the characters, or victims in this case. With Agamemnon, he comes home from war, steps on a carpet, and gets killed. With Antigone, we learn of her desire to do what she thinks is right, despite the consequences. It’s an admirable quality that makes you hope that somehow she’ll live through this ordeal. With Agamemnon, he’s easily swayed to change his mind or do something, while Antigone will not have anything or anyone change her mind, not threat of death or her own sister. She is determined to put her family over the law.
Creon, on the other hand, is seen as a prideful, power mad king. He makes this decree that seems a ittle over the top. While you do not want to condone treason as a king, the punishment seems a little extreme, but that probably just comes from a modern bias. In our modern era, there is much debate over the idea of capital punishment, but you have to keep in mind that Greek and ancient cultures in general tended to be more violent.
Creon, in my opinion, does not change at all throughout the tragedy. He is just as prideful at the end of the story as he is at the beginning. While he does change his mind to go and free Antigone, he only does so out of fear of a prophecy from the seer. I’m almost wondering if the tragedy of Antigone has sort of a moral to it. It sort of implies that it’s important to stand up for what you believe in, despite the adversity or consequences one may face, but I also wonder if it’s a lesson in pride. Creon was unable to forgive not only the traitorous brother but Antigone as well. As a result, he wound up all alone, his family having taken their own lives.
Agamemnon 10/7
I hate to sound (for a lack of a better word) insensitive, but despite Agamemnon being a tragedy, I found it almost, well, amusing. Between the lack of the violence we became so accustomed to in other ancient texts, Agamemnon's habit to be wishy washy, and the presence of a chorus, I just couldn't take it seriously. Agamemnon seems easily influenced by others. Go to war for your brother? Sure. Sacrifice your daughter? Why not. Step on a red carpet after coming home from war? What could possibly go wrong? He just doesn't seem like a character that you feel sorry for when he finally gets killed. I honestly felt more for Cassandra than I did Agamemnon. Here's this girl who is taken from her home after it is destroyed and taken in the war, brought back with Agamemnon only to be killed alongside him. I just couldn't understand, however, why she would enter the hall even after prophesying her own death. Agamemnon, on the other hand, the so called hero/victim of the story doesn't have enough of a backbone to tell his wife that he doesn't want to step on a carpet? And when Agamemnon is finally killed, all we get is a couple of screams? What happened to the bloody battles of the Odyssey? I know that the feel is supposed to be tragedy rather that the previous idea of glory, but it almost seems a little ridiculous. The whole idea of a chorus also struck me as odd. I know that a lot of Greek stories or epics were often spoken to music or considered lyrics, so back then, it would probably be normal. In our modern context, though, I just can't help but find it a little strange. These men singing the equivalent of a lengthy monologue? Agamemnon the Musical, anyone?
Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Song of songs... 9/30
Most of the older Hebrew texts are pretty well known in today's society, but I thought it was really interesting to look at them by comparing them to all the other things we had read. For example, considering Moses as an epic hero. Here's a guy who is thrown into this huge position of responsibility and leads an entire nation out of slavery and (eventually) into the promised land. These people go through these trials and then on a long journey where some pretty amazing things happen. They're led by a pillar of fire, fed with manna from the sky, led to safety by crossing the Red Sea...all to eventually get to their promised land. I think that part of what makes an epic, well, epic, is the journey or quest, if you will, that is told in the story. These people went on a crazy journey and wandered the desert for quite a long time. I know that in my group one of the things that we talked about was that a lot of the Old Testament seems to be almost a collection of short stories that, while they may not be considered epics themselves, often have strong heroes overcoming amazing odds. For example, yes, there's Moses, but there's also young Daniel who was thrown into the lions' den, and David, made famous for the slaying of Goliath. While there may not be epics in the sense of ridiculously long stories told around the campfire, I think that they may, in a way, be considered epics in they're own way. They tell of often unlikely heroes overcoming amazing odds and incredible circumstances to create a tale that is significant to culture even today. While the Old Testament may not be made up of epics, it certainly focuses on its fair share of heroes.
Sappho and the Creation Myths 9/24 (A day late...)
I have to say, compared to the Odyssey and the Epic of Gilgamesh, I felt more of a...connection, if you will to Sappho's poetry than I have any of the other ancient texts we've been looking at. When they say that her writing is more emotional, it's true, you get just this raw, honest writing and explanation of what life was like and how this woman felt. With the Odyssey or other ancient writings, you (or at least I) tend to feel a little more detached from it, like, ho hum, this is how the story goes according to some dead guy who lived thousands of years ago. Sappho, on the other hand, just has this deep, emotional feeling in her poetry that is just as relevant and easy to relate today as it was in the time it was written. The interpretations, though, just sort of blew me out of the water, particularly the 'He is More than a Hero' one. I was reading through her other poems and got to this one and was just really amazed at this woman and just how much was conveyed but just a few words in this simple poem of hers. She described how it felt to be smitten, to fall for someone, to have a crush, however you want to put it, in a way that is just as valid as a description today. When I read through it, I got the first impression that she was speaking about a man that she loved, but could not have. The line 'he who sits beside you' struck me as meaning a man who is already taken by another, and I felt like there was just this heartache over a man she couldn't have. Then I read on and saw how often it changed to random pronouns and was a little confused, but I'd seen that done before in some literature (granted, it doesn't always make sense...). Then to go in class and find out that it is interpreted as her speaking about the woman? To tell you the truth, it actually makes the whole random pronoun switching make sense, and does nothing to make the emotions portrayed throughout the poem any less valid than if they had been talking about the man.
The Odyssey - The End 9/17
After finishing the Odyssey, I've noticed a few things that I had never really picked up on before. For example, the differences in how many books Odysseus spends doing various tasks. When we are told of all of his adventures, it seems that they take a relatively smaller amount of books or is at least less in depth than all the time he spends in disguise before killing the suitors. I also think the reactions of Telemachus and Penelope are really interesting. I agree in the fact that, at least in the beginning, Penelope seems like this really intelligent and strong woman. While she may always be considered clever throughout the story, she does spend a lot of time up in her room moping and crying. She also almost gets a little bipolar it seems when Odysseus finally reveals himself. I mean, she sits down with the beggar/Odysseus and he says that Odysseus is going to return soon and she seems really excited at the possibility, only wishing that it were true and that he would return. Then when he finally whips off his disguise she just sorts of turns around and says 'No way'. It just seemed weird to me that she would be wishing for him to return for so long and then as soon as she sees him, her first reaction is denial and disbelief. I suppose I can understand her wanting to test and make sure that this man she hasn't seen in twenty years is truly her husband, but she seems so distant that it almost seems cruel.
I also found it odd that book 24 was added at all. I agree with the theory that it was added later because it just seems extraneous. After all of that time at sea, I figure that Odysseus, like all the rest of us, is just tired of all these trials and just wants a happy ending.
Odyssey 9/9
I have to admit, the more I read, the more I tend to realize that Odysseus is not quite the hero I had imagined. In the beginning of the story, we are told of Penelope doing her best to keep all of the crazy suitors at bay, faithfully awaiting the day her husband and hero returns triumphantly and they live happily ever after the end. We get the idea that Penelope, like a lot of women in the Odyssey, is intelligent, a strong woman, and very loyal to her husband. When we finally meet Odysseus, he's crying. Ok, I can understand that. He's been through a lot and wants to get home. But as he later tells of all of his adventures, I sort of find myself rooting for him less and less. Half of the troubles and trials he's gone through have been a lot of his own fault. For example, when they reach the Cyclops' cave, it's his decision to stay there and wait until this awful beast comes home and ends up with his men being eaten. Then when he finally escapes the Cyclops, his pride makes him shout out to the beast, giving his name that makes it oh so convenient for the now blind Cyclops to curse him. Later, when he finds himself with Circe, he defies her, but only at first. She asks him to sleep with her, and at first he says no. Then it's almost like he changes his mind as long as she "works no more enchantment to his harm". It's almost like he says "Well, I suppose I could, but no more of that crazy voodoo stuff on me or my men". He runs into the same sort of thing with Helios' island. He was going to sail right past it, and he would've been just fine, but his men complained and said they needed a break to go aground. Again, he just sort of gives in, this time to his men, and says "well, ok, we'll stop...but you better not touch those cows!" And we all know what happens next. I suppose it's meant to show that Odysseus is mortal, flawed, makes mistakes, and apparently doesn't learn from them, and is tempted like anyone else, but it also sort of lends to the idea of double standards. Penelope has been waiting faithfully for twenty years while Odysseus is out sleeping with all these immortal divine beings for years at a time. In a way, it almost makes me think that, at least in the terms of marital loyalty, Penelope is the stronger one here.
Thoughts on the Odyssey 9/2
I have always enjoyed the story of the Odyssey. At my high school, it was a very popular part of the English class curriculum, no matter how many times it had been taught to you before. I had to read through different parts of it several times, write a few essays, and even watch a few cheesy movies in which the Cyclops that Odysseus battles looks like a bad, rubbery costumed cousin to Godzilla. In all the times of having gone through the story, however, I had never had the chance to read through the entire thing. Any class that I had taken simply focused on the journey of Odysseus and his trials in getting home. There was never any of the introductory chapters and I had never before had the chance to read about Telemachus and his mother's trials at home with the suitors, much less Telemachus' journey to find news of his father. The point of his journey in my mind that stands out the most, though, is when Telemachus meets with Menelaus and is told all these war stories about how great and brave his father was in battle. It really sort of sets Odysseus up on a pedestal as this powerful, almost god like being, the picture of a true hero.
I enjoy the fact that there is so much set up in the first couple of chapters. While we were discussing why they add this instead of just going straight into the plights of Odysseus, I almost feel like it was simply done for the sake of storytelling. I'm going to be very nerdy here and draw another Star Wars parallel. In a Episode IV: A New Hope, we are introduced to Leia and learn of her distress at the hands of Darth Vader before we meet our hero, Luke Skywalker. I feel like this is simply how the story is told. All good stories tell of conflict and how it is overcome. Surely Odysseus' story of his journey home is riddled with conflict, but the presence of the trouble at home as it is presented to the reader only makes his triumphant return even more so.
Thoughts on Gilgamesh 8/26
To be completely honest, I wasn't very fond of the story the first time I read it through. Afterwards, however, I went back to the class wiki and looked up the video and watched it, and it actually threw the story into a new light for me. I went back and reread it and picked up on a lot more than when I had gone through the second time. There's really a lot of strong, recurring themes of love and personal growth, change, loss, and the ever present fear in the hearts of man as to what truly happens to us when we die. One of the things that I found truly interesting about the story was that there are so many different parallels between the Epic of Gilgamesh and many other stories, particularly the Bible. The story tells not only of a man surviving the flood, but of a god speaking to him, telling him to build a boat, an ark if you will, and to save the 'seed of the earth'. After the gods flood the world, those aboard the arks survive, sending out various birds to search for land. Utnapishtim is then granted eternal life for having saved the animals and mankind from the flood. The Bible talks of Noah having built an ark and saved the animals and his family by taking them aboard, later sending out a dove in search of dry land. The interesting thing is that after Noah disembarks, he later goes on to live to the happy old age of about nine hundred and fifty years old. Not eternal life, but close enough. It almost makes one wonder if both stories are simply telling different accounts of the same event. One of the points that the video brought up was that many people said that this was proof that the stories of the old Testament were true because here we have another account of a huge flood. Others say that it proves the stories false, saying that the Bible story was just based off of the one told in Gilgamesh. It makes an interesting point and leads me to wonder how or if the stories are truly connected.