Progress's Trade-Off History

In biology class, we talk about trade-offs between how many eggs a mother can produce and the size of all those eggs.

But in CIE, how does the trade-off between progress and human aggression work? If we already know all we can possibly need to know about a pigs heart, then no one would probably dissect it just for giggles without using the rest of the pig to feed someone. In my AP Bio class, little pigs were developed just for a bio company that sold dead fetal pigs to dissect... poor little Spanky. Anyways, what is the connection between human aggression and progression? Descartes obviously put his heart to good use. Doctor's learn on a cadaver's body so that at a later time they don't kill someone in the OR. (Novel concept, huh?) But how do we define what is amoral when it comes to human progress? Should only certain medical students that want to be surgeons be able to open up cadavers? How do we put away our own biases when it comes to defining what is moral and amoral about something that humans dominate? Do animals have all the rights that humans have? Should they? If we used Descartes method we could perhaps find out the reasonable and logical answers to these questions. But would anyone accept them as true?

What Is Real?

Well, we've have certainly gotten into the deeper aspects of CIE.... something that I think is pretty cool. On the order of discussion today: do animals think, distinguishing what reality is, and the implications of Descartes thoughts.

1. Animals rationalize...based on their instincts. Humans can rationalized based on common sense and reasoning, and we are aware that we can do this. Existing, in Descartes sense, implies that you can make decisions for yourself based on your own reasoning and sense, not on the genes that tell you to do this. (Not that Descartes knew about genes....Mendel was a bit after his time)

2. I think that defining what is real and what is not real differs from person to person. Just because your sense tell you that it real, the logical part of your mind may tell you differently. This is the difference between us and animals, I doubt that animals can consciously control their thoughts as they run away from a predator.

3. One of the questions today was: Why didn't Descartes publish his other works during his life. Apparently he was a hell of a lot smarter than Galileo. The Discourse had such strong implications that topping that could have been pretty hard. Or maybe he did not want to touch on the whole religion and science aspect and thus shyed away from distrubing anyone in order to keep his private life private. I think most people favored free thought during the time of Descartes books but never actually came and decided for themselves that they could question the reality of some issues.

Cartesian Discussions...

Let's just say that if Henry Clay wasn't my favorite historical person, it could be Rene Descartes at a close second. Why you ask (and look at me like I'm crazy)? Well, I do enjoy calculus, and Descartes kind of helped with that whole scene quite a bit. I also enjoyed Dr. Florca's lecture on Descartes. The man doesn't lie... he promised 120 slides of pure fascination, and I must admit, my ADD barely kicked in during the hour long talk. (The slide with his head on his dog.... downright creepy though!)

But onto a real post about what I thought of The Discourse. First, I would like to point out that I think Dr. Florca made an excellent point in the fact that the title doesn't say it defines the method, it just kind of explains the rules, the points and such. I liked the first part the best so far. I like how Descartes explained why he chose philosophy, though he says he didn't to describe his method. He even discredits mathematics and yet writes books later on that topic. Whatever, anyone crazy enough to move when they found out his address probably didn't think straight all of the time. ( I guess all geniuses are a bit weird). Descartes says that his Method has four rules to it. They all seem so impossible to follow. And how would you know if broke the rules? Wouldn't it just be your own biased judgement telling you if you did indeed break those rules? I'm this will come up in class at some point... but overall, I found the rules and goals of his method kind of hard to comprehend as realistic....

Gender and Religion

Wow.... I think I still may have a bit of shock from CIE today. First, I definitely thought that Kelly was teaching again, but instead we had a nice surprise! (too bad he didn't visit on Halloween). Anyways, our substitute began the class by talking about how men used to play women in what he termed a "gender f**k" (can I swear in this? hmmm) anyways, I really enjoyed CIE today. It was quite the class.

So for Monday I must become a Duke for 150 lines (I must find a pimp crown!)

Onto a real blog post about real ideas however. Does Shylock really become Christian? Does Jessica become Christian by marrying Lorenzo? What defines becoming a real Christian, and how do you go about this? Why does Jessica want to become Christian so badly? Why, of all punishment, must Shylock become Christian? What does this mean to Antonio and Bassiano that they force him to convert? (there are a lot of questions to be answered)
1. Converting to Christianity involves Baptism and accepting Jesus as your Savior right? But what if Shylock lies about this and doesn't accept his new beliefs?
2. If Jessica marries a Christian, is she converted automatically by the system? It seems that she wants to become Christian, unlike her father. It must mean a lot to her to convert to Christianity. I cannot imagine her life was easy a Jew with people like Antonio around...

Anyways, I'm quite excited for Monday and extra-credit for dressing up as a Duke.

More Merchant of Venice

I just want to write down, in plain text, my interpretation of what occurred in part of the book and my interpretation:

Antonio has all these ships on the ocean and expects a large profit from their goods. His little friend Bassiano, wants to marry a rich heiress, Portia. But he needs collateral to marry her (like a dowry). So, he borrows 3,000 ducats from Antonio. Antonio borrows 3,000 ducats from the Jew, Shylock, with a promise to repay with interest. Shylock's servant, Lancelaut, decides he doesn't want to work for a Jew anymore and becomes Bassiano's servant. Jessica, the Jew's daughter, runs away with a Christian Lorenzo. Bassiano then goes to Portia's (who has all of these suitors) along with Gratiano. Bassiano picks the correct casket (lead) and then him and Gratiano get rings from Portia and her servant, Nerissa.

First, what does the lead casket mean? Isn't Portia worth more than lead? Lead is dark and heavy! It is not a precious metal like silver or gold. Also, the anti-Jew sentiments starts here. Lancelaut decides that he doesn't want to become like a Jew and refuses to be Shylock's servant any longer. He also helps his daughter escape and convert to Christianity by marriage. This very strong message early in the book shows how important it is. Also, Portia and Nerissa give the men rings and almost hold a power over the men. It is the like the roles were reversed. Portia is definitely a strong character in the book and I really enjoy that about The Merchant of Venice. (Poor Merchant of Venice, he loses everything!)

Galileo Continued

Peaceful Coexistence. It sounds like we're talking about animals and how they fill different niches and stuff. (I'm such a bio nerd sometimes....) Can religion and science peacefully coexist? When do they come into conflict? How exactly did Galileo usher in the new era of free thought? Is that why his little book created such a huge uproar within the church? Lots of things to think about....

Galileo, according to Nathan, ushered a new era of choosing what to believe and how to believe. I think that this actually raised more conflict between religion and science. A person could no longer just stick with what their parents thought and completely erased the other from their thought process. With the new ideas swarming around, everything could be taken into account when deciding which path to take. I whole-heartedly believe that the conflict is internal and that people cannot erase biases when they make decisions. A person does not just forget about an entire book that contradicts what they already believe. Sure, they can reject the book as invalid, but in a little corner of the mind, the ideas still rest. When a person makes a decision they take into account so many things, whether on purpose or by accident.

This was probably the reason the Catholic Church did want these new ideas out in the open. People could read this material and take it into account when donating to the church (oh no!). Even if the good Italians did not believe Galileo, the book still showed that there is room for free thought everywhere! (This post is really a jumble of ideas....wow)

Merchant of Venice, Women, and Our Paper

First, I have decided that I do like the prompt for our essay (I swear, I'm not just sucking up). But, I had a hard time getting to my point when I was developing my ideas. I'm bad at that anyways, but in this essay I actually realized that I couldn't clarify my points (Maybe that is sign my writing is improving, but I seriously doubt it).

On to the Merchant of Venice....
Can I just say that I think Portia is like my idol. Shes smart, witty, rich, pretty, and tricks her own husband!! (hahaha, evil laugh) The text kind of confused me at first. I think that Shakespeare takes of thought to read, so I read it in parts (ADD kicks in too). Anyways, the sarcasm is usually easy for me to pick up, but when I miss it, it seems like the next page or so doesn't make sense anymore. But I love reading plays and this one was probably one of my favorites of Shakespeare's. Like I said, I love how Portia tricks Bastiano.

In Shakespeare's time women couldn't act in plays. They were toys for society. So what is Shakespeare trying to say about the women of Europe at this time? He creates Portia has to dress as a man to help her husband and his friend out. I really think a strong point is expressed here and I'd like to discuss it more....

God's Universe

After listening to Dr. Owen Gingerich speak for about an hour, I realized how much he really provokes you to think. My friends and I actually talked about him and his ideas on the way back to the dorm (surprising, I know!). I never thought anyone could take such a strong stance half-way between intelligent design (not Intelligent Design) and evolution. I really thought this was going to be a lecture on the stars and astronomy, but what he talked about was much better. He even asked the infamous CIE question, What does it mean to to human? Dr. Gingerich thinks there is a special spark in Homo sapiens. This part of his argument makes me lean more towards intelligent design as the driving force rather than evolution. I really don't think genes can make a special spark.

In biology, we learn how little slime molds can help each other out (they even act like humans, trying to cheat the system). Is this the special spark? I think with Evolutionary Biology and CIE all in one semester, it makes on interesting time for a college freshmen. I think since I am still sorting out my own ideas, those ideas from the lecture, and how Galileo argued for God's work in every aspect of life, it can confuse the hell out of someone. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture (Amino acids, with a long i)!

Religion and Science

In the world today, it is easier for us to accept the cold hard facts (at least that is what we think they are) of science rather than the word of ancient texts that seem strange in their claims. But think like your Greek (or Italian, since that was what Galileo was). The church expects money from you and in return, promise this great afterlife. The church denounces many aspects of science and tells it followers to do the same. Science can not be seen (not everyone had telescopes and little lab kits), and usually only read about in underground texts. So why shouldn't the Italians of the sixteenth century accept the word of their priest (who guarantees them all these great things) over the word of an outcast (who makes outrageous claims that seem to have no evidence).

Part of the problem with the church accepting Galileo's interpretation of the solar system was that the faith in the church was slowly eroding. Also, its not like Galileo's reputation with the last Pope was too stellar to begin with. But what is the church's problem with science in the first place? Is the fact that the Catholic leaders thought that accepting science as truth would decrease their power? Or did they just hate change within the church because it was such a pain to convince every one that they were correct? Or did the leaders honestly believe (deep down in their very pure souls) that science was inherently bad and false? hmmm.... I think that Pope Urban may have had his own agenda in not banishing Galileo....

Galileo

I love history, and reading about famous scientists, so obviously I'm all about the Galileo introduction. But moving on to the difference between science and religion. I want to discuss why I think that the church was so afraid of science.

People have trouble dealing with change, I don't think anyone likes to change if their current situation is nice and comfortable. The Vatican had enough problems with various branches breaking off during Galileo's period. Admitting the fact that what every Catholic priest claimed as true for as long as anyone could remember was actually false, how do you think the already wavering followers would have reacted? For the Pope, it was easier to silence on man that admit that maybe the Earth the heavens weren't arranged as everyone had proclaimed. Even though Pope Urban apparently agreed with Galileo at first, it wasn't like he went and corrected this with all the priests. In order to maintain power, the Pope probably had to compromise to keep the people around him happy. Also, during this time, not everyone was literate and religion was at the center of attention for most people. Accepting the word of some crazy guy that looked at the stars too long probably seemed so irrational, compared with accepting the word of God, via the Pope, who could grant someone eternal life. (My thoughts are sooo unorganized here.... oh, well at least its a blog and not a paper)

Onward to the difference between science and religion. (I really wish we did Darwin with this segment too) I don't think that the difference between science and religion involves faith. You either have faith in a God(s) or you have faith in the evidence that scientists present to you. I also don't think that the difference in religion and science involves the type of evidence, you can accept either the facts of an experiment or the facts of an ancient book. I guess its really hard to define the difference, but there definately is a difference.... maybe after Friday's class I will have a better idea.

Montaigne's Text

So what is the point of Montaigne's text? Hmmm.... According to Wikipedia (which is almost better than Google, in my professional opinion) Montaigne wanted to describe man, including himself with "utter frankness". But does Montaigne have an alternative motive that involves his views on the religion and his own society? Montaigne is apparently the father the 'anti-Conformist French spirit'. But what does this mean about the text Of Cannibals?

I think that Montaigne thinks there are flaws in all of human cultures. But, I think that he disagrees that one culture can judge another when it comes to defining the superior culture. (This reminds me of slavery in the US based on skin color, what was used to judge that white was superior? In this case, it was the Bible!) Montaigne basically degrades his own culture by criticizing the cannibalism of other cultures. He is so good at subtley putting hints in there. The first time I read the text, I never would have guessed he was talking about the fight between Catholism and Protestants.

So which side does Montaigne agree with? He is a practicing Catholic, yet from what I can gather, he thinks the whole fight is stupid and too brutal. Montaigne is so witty and saracastic in a way that was very difficult for me to pick up.

More Cannibals

What defines barbary? How do you define barbary? These are two of the questions raised with Montaignes's text, Of Cannibals. Of the two ideas on how to decide what is barbaric and what is not barbaric, I think that Montaigne uses reason to define how other cultures are barbaric. If he used the social standards of where he lives, he would not call his own society barbaric (as he seems to imply).

Montaigne thinks that his society is bias in the way in which they view barbary because they do so without reason. He states at the bottom of page 20 the following:
"And lest it be thought that all this is done through simple and serivle bondage to useage and through the pressure of the authority of their ancient customs, without reasoning or judgement, and because their minds are so stupid that they cannot take any other course."
I think that Montaigne is making a subtle point here: it is the history of the society to use authority of ancient customs and not reason or judgement to decide whether or not something is barbaric.

You know how it is impossible to not think about the reward of some acts, as demonstrated previously in class? Well, I think that is almost as impossible to suppress the influences of the society that you live in when you judge other cultures.

Of Art and Cannibals

First, I would like to point out that my last blog pretty much discusses what we talked about in class today. And I would also like to say that Religion Department at UC is pretty much awesome.... anyways... back to art.

I think that the points our substitute professor brought up today were very interesting. Which allows for more interpretation: art or literature? This is one of those questions that doesn't have a definite yes answer. I honestly think it depends on the situation. And there are a lot of factors that go into how one person interprets art. Does that person look at the symbolism, the bias, the colors, and the effects of a work of art? What does the art make someone think about and feel? Comparing the story of Noah with Michelangelo's masterpiece make the story seem almost trivial. Though the story is necessary to understand the picture better, I do think that the picture opens the readers mind to the emotion felt by all the sons. Genesis is so vague about emotions and thoughts of the characters that the painting gives the viewer a better feel of what exactly went on that day (kind of a strange course of events).

I would like to add to my last blog and elaborate a little more on what I think what defines art as art is at the discretion of the viewer. Depending on the knowledge, ability, and openmindness (not a word, but I just made it one...HA!) of the viewer, anything can be art. So basically the interpretation about a piece of art and what defines art go hand in hand.

What Makes It Art?

Okay, so it sounds like one of those really abstract questions, probably because it is. But what exactly qualifies art as art? If there like an art professional that says yes and no? (Just look around our campus, what makes those brown stake things art?) This questions is really hard to answer. I do not think that the costumes of the Jesus and other characters really qualified as art. I think personal opinion is important in determine what art is, and in this case, I don't think that is art at all.

But, hypothetically, lets say the both of John's pictures are pieces of art. The Hindu gods have very mythical, beautiful costumes that strike the viewer. Each is as intricate as the next and very symbolic of the cultures that worship these Gods. On the other hand, the picture of Jesus is just ridiculous. What does this say about Western culture? We commercialize every aspect of life that we can? (Probably) We don't really think about how our culture looks, just as long as we sell some funny looking costumes to parents who want to woo their kids ? (More than likely) Walk around any neighbor hood at Christmas time, and roughly 7 out of 10 houses have bright lights somewhere. Let's face it: seven out of ten people in the United States do not go to church each weekend to celebrate the birth of Christ. But, on December 25, all of these people spend hundreds of dollars on their loved ones. (Okay, now I'm way off prompt and topic)

Anyways, my favorite piece from Friday was Jesus pulling John out of the water. My least favorite piece was the costumes of Jesus and other biblical characters.

Sorry I haven't been up on my posting... with no class on Wednesday and then fall break, I've been slacking. But today's class was really interesting. I love learning about history in general, and I think that religious artwork can be particularly fascinating. It has such a long history and after I read the Da Vinci Code, I like it a little more.
Anyways, the Sistine Chapel had to have been painted by some sort of genius. Did Michelangelo have assistants who painted half of it for him? Even the detail in Ham and his brothers in Noah's little block amazes me, considering how much he painted in just 8 years. Having absolutely no artistic bone in my body, I think it makes me really appreciate those people that can paint.
Of the three PowerPoint artworks, my favorite is the crazy 3 piece panels. (There's some special word for a painting like this, but I can't remember it at this moment in time....) I like the sequence from the Garden of Eden to the depths of hell. There are strange images that the other two pieces of work do not have at all. Like drums, thermometers (?), birds eating a woman, dice and rabbits all jumbled together in hell.
I think that art can be interpreted in a similar way to literature, except the bias of the author's words are not in art. Instead, the way the artist interpreted the original idea is the bias in art. Overall, I really like discussing art as though it is a piece of literature.

The Conversationalist

Okay, so after writing about half of my paper, I still like the prompt. But, what I really want to talk about are the five places in the Gita that basically sum it up.



There are so many ideas strung throughout the entire text. Even Arjuna, who is there with Krishna, has to ask for clarification in Krishna's teachings. And Arjuna probably has a background in the stuff anyways, he knows some stuff about tradition and discipline! I think the text can be so confusing because of all the ideas and that fact that my background information on the Gita and Hinduism ranges from nothing to just about nothing. But, Wikipedia really is a wonderful thing. (you can even put yourself in there.... but then the editors take it out)



I think that reincarnation is a huge deal to me because there is nothing like it in the Chirstian culture that I live in. Also, I think that the whole lost in translation thing plays a pretty big role in the story. Even replacing action with charisma makes the story so much easier to read. But the limited vocabulary of the English language can only take a reader so far.



Another important topic that plays, obviously, a huge role throughout the lessons of Krishna, is discipline in action and such. But how does mediation play into this? and with ASAT and SAT are these just abbrevations, or is it something else when its in a native language? Either way, narrowing downt the Gita to 5 of the most imporant lessons is definately difficult. There is so much in each of the lessons that it is no wonder that Arjuna has all those questions.

The Second Teaching

First, I would like to say that I really do like the topic for our second paper. It's a good one, and the pre-writing was actually enjoyable. But, onto the Gita.

If they had translated action to charisma within the text, I think the whole teaching would have been so much easier to understand. It just sounds funny and confuses the reader using the words action and inaction. I understood the text a bit better with that clarification. Anyways... I think it sounds like Sanjaya is telling this story around a campfire or something. He even includes description of how they are talking to each other. I thought that Arjuna and Krishna were on the same level of intelligence, unlike Euthyphro and Socrates. But then Krishna begins to mock Arjuna a bit. Thankfully, Arjuna does seem to actually understand exactly what Krishna is trying to teach him, whereas Euthyphro was too arrogant to take in others ideas. This could be because Arjuna earnestly wants to learn from Krishna and he has a open, intelligent mind. The conversation between Arjuna and Krishna is actually fascinating. If Arjuna knows Krishna and asks his council, shouldn't he know what Krishna's teachings are all about? And why in hell are they still the in middle of the battlefield? This conversation is long, and people are jonesing to kill someone! Talk about killing the spirit of a battle with a long talk about how to live your life.

The reason I first had a difficult time grasping this text (other than the action thing) was the fact that it is sooooo different from anything else I've read or learned before. Hinduism is something the I've researched extensively. But, I have found it enjoyable to read about the characters in the story (they are a lot more developed than the characters in the Bible). I think that the teaching itself is how to be a devout and become a more perfect person through resisting temptation. This sounds familiar huh? I also noticed that a lot of ideas are packed into each teaching. I really want to move forward with this text in class and discuss a few more of the lessons!

The Gita: Krishna's Counsel to Arjuna

So if there is an epic battle going on between all the people of the world, why is this God-like figure standing in the middle of the battle, grilling a 'dejected' Arjuna (Arrr- JUNE- a) about why he isn't fighting? But beyond my initial wonderment about that little detail, the name Sanjaya also caught my name. (I wonder if he can sing....)

But back to some deeper thoughts on the text. Sanjaya must be like the narrator of the text. And it seems that pretty much everyone involved in the battle is somehow related to an all powerful man named Dhitarastra. Sanjaya begins telling the story about running the chariot between the two armies. Clearly Arjuna knows Krishna, he knows his name and such, but why would a god be driving a chariot? And the first teaching is also confusing because the following 17 are all taught by Krishna, but the first is like an epiphany to Arjuna.

I think that this initial epiphany results in Arjuna's dejection. He realizes the destruction of what is about to happen. Dejection, to me, usually involves rejection. Arjuna removes himself from the battle and could potentially suffer defeat because of it. But Arjuna's dejection is due to the fact that he is so conflicted inside. I think the following 17 teachings really clear up what exactly Arjuna is supposed to do in this situation.

Overall, I find that the Gita is fairly fascinating. I love that there are the same characters all the way through and their thoughts and development can be tracked throughout. However, I usually find religious texts like this interesting, just because it exposes me to a different culture.

The Most Confusing Part

I guess Mondays are not good days to discuss the deepest aspects of Socrates thoughts. The discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates that takes place on page 53 really is fascinating. It just amazes me that two humans could actually discuss this in a conversation, and that Socrates didn't sit around for years writing these things down (though he may have formulating these ideas for years, we will never know).

I think Anton's carrying bag example really helped me understand why are labeled as they are. The sentence by sentence piecing of the text also helped me understand the text better. I still do not feel like I completely grasp what Socrates means at each point in the text, but I do get the overall logic now.

Socrates basically proves that all Euthyphro has said to him is empty ideas based on the logical reasoning that Socrates goes through step by step. Even Socrates knows that Euthyphro could be confused by his explanation, and keeps asking him if he understands exactly what is going on. Of course Euthyphro would understand all of this, after all, HE is Euthyphro. Socrates argument really does follow logical steps of reasoning which basically end in disproving everything Euthyphro has said. Poor Euthyphro, he's already emotionally disraught over his father and now all of his pious reasons have been shot to pieces.

And the worst part of this whole situation, at least for Euthyphro, is that he doesn't even leave Socrates with a new definition. He just leaves really confused. This is how I felt when I first put down the book as well. All the definitions given in the text were clearly wrong, but Socrates didn't even find one to prove right. At first, this upset me, I like direct, clear answers! But now I realize that is would detract from teachings within the text itself of Socrates gave a definition. He wants Euthyphro to find for himself what the pious includes. And I think the reader can take the same message from the text.

Wise Men

Euthyphro is one of those people that thinks so highly of himself, that defeat is really, really hard to accept. Even after Euthyphro has been morally wounded for life, he tries to maintain his ego (though he fails miserably at this attempt). He continues to answer Socrates, even once it is obvious his vast knowledge (very vast according to him) does not cover the area of defining piety. I don't Euthyphro could ever accept the fact that something does not have an answer or that piety cannot be defined. He is the guy who has the answer to every question, no matter the topic.

"nor would Euthyphro be any different from the many human beings, if I didn't know all such things precisely." Euthyphro is just so much better than every one else and his intelligence level is so much higher than everyone's, I do not see how he walks the streets with these people. Clearly Euthyphro, alone, is bettering the society through all of actions.

I would say this is pretty much how Euthyphro views himself. This is why he continues to try to answer the question Socrates has asked. He thinks that he possesses the answer, and that Socrates legitmately needs his help. I do think that after a bit, Euthyphro realizes he has been tricked, but still tries to make the best of the slightly embarrassing situation.

Abraham Visits Socrates

First, I would like to point out that Euthyphro isn't actually that religious. Everyone has their own version of religion, and to them it is perfect. Euthypohro epitomizes this. He seems to think that how he views his piety to the Gods is the way that everyone should do it. Euthyphro is confident in how he shows his piety as well. The pompous little man tries to teach Socrates (who he MUST know is a great mind) how to be a pious soul.

So if Abraham met Socrates, what would go down? Would Socrates even waste his time trying to make Abraham see piety in a different light? Does Socrates think anyone is a lost cause for learning? And what in heck would Socrates think about Abraham taking his son up a mountain to kill him? In the Bible, piety is described in kind of a one tract mind. I don't think that Socrates would deal well with the mind set of a man like Abraham. I wonder if Socrates could make Abraham break down like Euthyphro or if he would just give up on the lost cause. At least Euthyphro tries to reason with Socrates ideas, since they are clearly valid. But some people become very blunt during intellectual conversations. The more I think about how Socrates would react, the more I think he would just be in awe about Abraham's somewhat crazy ideas.

Euthyphro Continued

Can I just say that after reading the text one more time, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro seems almost useless. Socrates knows what he wants Euthyphro to say, he even admits it. So why not just save some time (and Euthyphro the energy) and explain his theory on piety?
I understand that Socrates wants Euthyphro to teach him so that Socrates gets out of his little indictment (which seems like it is a common occurrence). Anyways, onto how a I think Euthyphro answers Socrates never-ending question.
First, Euthyphro compares piety to righting the wrongs of a society. In this context, it really makes sense since they are both going to trial for something. But who says that it was Euthyphro's job to make the society the perfect place to live? What if it only makes the society the perfect place for him? I think Euthyphro is very bias when he gives his first example/definition of piety.
The society in which Socrates and Euthyphro live clearly does not separate church and state like the more modern countries of today. The remaining three definitions all involve abstract ideas that are impossible to sum up in one sentence, let alone in the presence of a great mind like Socrates.
After failing miserably at his first attempt, Euthyphro makes his job even harder by defining pious using undefinable things like love and gratification. Poor Euthyphro.... he looks even dumber the longer he talks (he looks stupid to begin with I think...he's persecuting his father!)

Euthyphro

Wow... the first of four texts on Socrates has really scared me away from wanting to read the rest. I could grasp the first 10 (ish) pages, though not fully. After that, I think I was a lost cause.

I think that Euthyphro is a prominent (though not as important as he thinks) member of the society. Socrates clearly knows him well enough to confuse the hell out of him. Socrates must have conversations like these quite often, because he is pretty skilled and quick at making people concede their defeat. But back to Euthyphro. What could he possibly gain from persecuting his own father. If he doesn't speak out against him, disgrace will come to his family, but people can separate father from son. If he does persecute his father, he viewed as an arrogant jerk in case that has some strange twists (to say the least).

Euthyphro thinks he is being pious to the Gods. I think he was just looking for a really good excuse, and instead, ends up fighting Socrates over what piety is. I cannot figure out what Socrates is trying to prove about Euthyphro actions by discussing piety. I think being pious is one of many reason Euthyphro is persecuting his father. Socrates takes piety to a whole new level of reason (that I can't exactly understand).

I'll write more later after I re-read the text and figure out the four places where Euthyphro tries to explain exactly what he thinks piety involves. I am betting that his explanation is a lot easier and more compact than Socrates explanation on piety.

Intentions or Actions

I think the prompt that was brought up in class about how we judge people based on either intentions or actions was too deep for a Monday morning. Actually, without prior thought that is a tough question to answer.

In Genesis, God bases his judgement of Noah and Abraham on their actions. God makes Abraham nearly burn and slaughter his own son like a common animal. If God could tell in Abraham's heart that he was this devout to God, why would he make him do this in the first place? If God knew in that Eve would consider disobeying him one day, why did he even bother to wait? The all powerful, all-knowing God changes from Genesis to the book of Matthew.

In Matthew, even lusting after a women in your heart, not even committing adultery seems like a rash way to judge a human race. I enjoyed the discussion in class on Monday, because so many interesting topics were brought up, which raised some questions in my mind. Who were all the different authors that skewed Gods word in this way? Or, was this way that God intended to judge the human race throughout time? And why did his mind change after Jesus came to Earth?

The Genesis Debate

I am fascinated by the stories of Noah in general. Both the stories of the flood and the wine growing make me wonder about Noah's status with God.

In Gilgamesh, when Utnapishtim escaped the wrath of the Gods (the flood), he became immortal. Noah seems to be able to get away with whatever he pleases. God established a covenant between himself and Noah. But Noah's end of the deal just involved repopulating the Earth. And since Noah dies, apparently he was not immortal (at least in the Earthly sense). There seems to be the understanding between God and Noah that Noah will be left alone, to do as he pleases with his huge family. (On a random note, I really dislike that only the sons names are mentioned when various families are discussed.) I guess the gift from God for keeping his own creations alive, was keeping Noah himself alive by telling him about the flood. I think that the characters of Gilgamesh expect more from their many, temperamental Gods.

The scene with Noah drinking too much wine carries a lot of meaning and discussion in the ten lines that discuss the situation. For Ham seeing Noah's nakedness, his one of his son's lineage is punished eternally. I think this whole situation is very weird. In the Garden of Eden, God did not care that Adam and Eve say each other naked since they had no knowledge that they were in fact naked. On the other hand, he is mad that they cover themselves since they figured out that they were naked. There are very few themes that reoccurred like this in Genesis. What was author trying to tell us about nakedness? How are knowledge and sight so different, when knowledge is portrayed as sin in Garden of Eden?

Why CIE Rocks!

Okay, so I am too scared to swear in the title of my blog entry that a teacher will read but anyways. I just want to reflect on my CIE experience so far and discuss why, in fact, CIE does rock.
First, each one of the 16 people our CIE class had at least a slightly different background. Even though some people have all gone to church each Sunday, they too have had different experiences. This is part of what makes CIE so great. Every person's background makes every one's interpretation a little different. But also, I think that our class is particularly accepting of others ideas. This is not to say that we all come to some agreement at the end of class, but I think that everyone respects the thoughts and opinions of others. It is very important in a class to respect others opinions as much as your own. It may be a different story if all of us had grown up together and some managed to still interpret the stories this differently. I hope that by the end of the semester, the creativity of the class will not decline at all since we will all know each other quite a bit better. On the same note, I hope that the tension in our class doesn't increase too much. Overall, I just love CIE. I also think that our fairly cool teacher makes class better. I think that Nathan offers great points of discussion without pointing us in only one direction. Tangents aren't a bad thing after all. (I love math references) Also, I've heard some of my friends talk about their CIE professors (who shall remain unnamed) who only allow them to talk about one train of thought for an exact amount of time. I usually love lots of structure to classes, but I think that our class has the perfect amount of loose structure.

First, I think it is hard to separate experiences in your mind without meshing the ideas. Trying to separate what is preached in church versus critically reading Matthew and Exodus is very difficult. I think this plays a role when the whole class analyzes the literature. First, each person has SOME perception of the Bible before they entered the classroom. I doubt that anyone is completely in the dark about all the aspects of the Bible. Probably every person in America has come in contact with some form of the Christian religion, whether it be a sermon in church or on TV, or hearing a friend talk about one part of the Bible. Thus, I think this background information changes how each person first interprets the text the first time around. But hearing classmates interpretation can change or just tweak your views. Overall, I think it is fascinating to hear how others interpret five pages of Biblical reading.

The thing I find hardest to understand is the God's message and behavior. It is the same problem I had in Genesis. God tells man in Matthew not to be a hypocrite, and see yourself clearly. Yet God himself fails to do this. He tells man he is jealous god. Admitting fault is a good first step, but God insists that man corrects these faults. I cannot grasp how a man so powerful cannot be a better model for man. And if Jesus is God in the human form, does Jesus have these same faults? But is he not described as the perfect man?

When I did read this in a critical way, a good message did come through in the text; however. The morals that I try to live by each day were personified in an eloquent way. However; I think that the text flows better in the poem form. It is easier read, and can be followed as a story. Also, some of the verses are meant to be read as one sentence or thought. When these are broken up, it becomes difficult to grasp the same understanding as when the lines are all together as in the Bible. However; the new format does allow for easier interpretation, as breaks are automatically given for extra thought.

On the whole, I think that message sent in the readings from Matthew and Exodus is great, but the story is hard to understand since God's words about himself seem contradictory to the message.

A Penny for My Thoughts

If Gilgamesh gives insight to us about the Babylonian culture and society, what does a penny say about American culture? Its really hard to take yourself away from the situation and regarding a penny as just that, a penny. I find it really difficult to NOT use background information for once. Prior knowledge is what any student or person uses to assess situations, ideas, and actions of others. It is basically pounded into your to make connections with other areas of your knowledge every day. But what I would really like to discuss is a hypothetical situation.



What if in 5000 years, archaeologists dug up the remains of America (acting like it was destroyed and kind of built over in various places as Babylon was). My first thought was, what if Harry Potter turned into an Epic. If archaeologists dug up various copies of only these books, what would it tell them about our society? We would look ridiculous! On a more realistic if I had to chose one specific story for archaeologists to find in 5000 years, I would chose a children's story. These stories show the morals we value and what Americans love most about life.



In 5000 years, I would want archaeologists to learn about our civilization but how would they learn about the superficial things we love? What about our cars and homes that we cherish and spend too much money on? It makes you think about what should be important in your life. I would want our society to be remembered for its greatness, not consumerism. This is all off on a big tangent, but, seriously, how would you like to be remembered?

Overall, I really enjoyed looking closely at something that just flies in and out of peoples pockets each day.

Genesis: The Beginning

I would like to start by evaluating Adam and Eve and coming of knowledge and mortality to humans. There are two trees (one of life, immortality, and one of knowledge). God specifically says to ADAM that he may not eat from the tree of knowledge. Once God creates Eve (referred to as woman) no one other than the serpent told her about the trees of knowledge and life. The temptation would be too great for any human. Every has the desire to discover, learn about something. I don't think Eve should be blamed for the serpent's trickery. It is human nature that caused her to do so. But on the other hand, some view it that human nature developed from the knowledge. I think that the door swings both ways. In some aspects, Eve must have had some knowledge about her curiosity, but more knowledge also invokes curiosity.

Moving on in the book, sin is not mentioned, but murder certainly is! If God created man in the image of himself some questions come to mind including the following: Shouldn't all humans choose the correct path when temptation arises? (I guess not since Eve and Cain did not do so) Does this particularly exclude women or does God classify man as both men and women as some new interpretations think?

The most important thing I took from these chapters includes God's erratic behavior. First, he wants to kill all humans with a huge flood (real original by the way). Then, he proceeds to save enough animals and humans to repopulate the earth. And how did God choose Noah in the first place? I'm sure others had been just as devout and innocent as Noah. Also, God forces confusion upon the world by creating different languages, it is almost as though he fears humans will become too powerful for their own good. (They have knowledge, what could be next?) And destroying Sodom, is that entirely necessary. But again, God changes his mind for a few souls, when even more could have been innocent. The whole erratic behavior makes me feel as though could potentially be diagnosed with some mental disorder (Okay, its a bit of humor, not to be taken too seriously!)
A whole chapter of a blog could be devoted to Sarah and her one son. First, God refuses to let Sarah have any children at all. So Abraham sleeps with some slave girl at Sarah's command. Then after all the fighting and awkwardness of having a child by a different mother, God decides that maybe after Sarah reaches 100 years of age, she could bear children. But the child God essentially created is forced onto a burning alter by his father at the will of God. Could it get any more dramatic. I never realized the Bible could almost be a soap-opera.

Overall, I am really fascinated by the style of writing and the content of Genesis. All the people have different encounters with a different type of God it seems. It is very hard to get a clear image as to what God wishes his followers to act like when he changes his mind and never clearly develops one idea.

Gilgamesh: Power, Wisdom and a Tragic Hero

When I reviewed my notes from this week I decided to write about the two most common topics of the CIE class. First, I would like to say that I think Gilgamesh relates in some ways to the modern world, but over-analyzing the whole book makes these connections hard to see sometimes. I think you definitely have to accept the fact that Gilgamesh was written so long ago, that some of the cultural ideas won't be acceptable today. For example, treatment of women and the way in which men rule has changed in 3000 years (obviously). Seriously, entire species evolved over the period of time since the poem was written.
On the other hand, I think the attitudes and ideas about wisdom (from women?) and power can be very relate-able to today. Even if these attitudes aren't exactly the same as they are today, doesn't the book still have value since it deals with power and wisdom in different ways? I think new ideas are great and force you to take them into consideration, even if you don't want to so. Wisdom seems to have a general evil theme in both Gilgamesh and Genesis (more on Genesis after Monday's class). It is as though the maturing and realization of wisdom results in the downfall of both Enkidu and Gilgamesh. After Enkidu gains wisdom of civilization from the women (that is what I think occurs at least) he is destined to die. And Gilgamesh finally does something worthwhile as a ruler and then dies too.
This brings me to the tragic hero part. Exact tragic hero definition: a literary character who makes an error of judgment or has a fatal flaw that, combined with fate and external forces, brings on a tragedy (Dictionary.com). I think Gilgamesh's fatal flaw is his pride since he disobeys his fate. By doing so he automatically puts himself in the line of fire of the gods, even though he attempts to avoid his fate through many adventures (which helps Uruk by obtaining cedar lumber, getting rid of evil mountain monsters, and making the city pretty wealthy). Gilgamesh also gives up the thing most important to him, Enkidu, when he angers the gods with all of his nonsense with that Bull of Heaven. (Yea, never make a goddess really angry). Overall, I have to say I really enjoyed all the discussion on Gilgamesh and can't wait to get to Genesis.

Testing My Blog

Hey CIE Classmates! So we've discussed Enkidu's de-animalizing by a harlot. And everyone else is trying to create blogs, but its a slow process!

(Now I actually have a posting on my blog! Yay!)