Wednesday, October 31, 2007

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.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

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.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

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.

Monday, October 22, 2007

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.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

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.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

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.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

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.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

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!

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

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.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

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.