Why Should I Believe any of these authors?

Why should we believe any of these writers? hmmm...

I think that whether or not you believe in an authors ideas depends on multiple things like:

• The state of mind you are in while reading... do you have an open mind?
• The conditions under which you were raised
• The credibility of the author's argument
• Whether or not you agree with the authors, even if they are credible, depends on the first two

So, which authors do I believe? And why do I believe them

IPCC: It just sounds right. They have government backed authority... why would I not believe them!!

Primo Levi: He demands us not to judge people. Says there is a gray area in every area of life. I don't really like to think of it like this. But, who doesn't believe a man whose survived the Holocaust?

Charles Darwin: Sure, its another scientific writing. But as a biology major, how can I not believe him? It happens right in front of us every day!

Benazir Bhutto: Okay, just the fact that SHE is ruling a MUSLIM country should tell me something about Muslims, correct?

So why should I believe any of these writers? Because, some how, some way, they relate to ME, they make sense to ME, and, even if I don't agree, their stories are so convincing that I still trust them... (this is going to be one crazy paper)

Jahli

Read page 145 of the CIE Reader in Qubt's Chapter 7. It is RIDICULOUS!

Islam....

I really need a history lesson or something. The quiz that Nathan had us all take.... yea I got a 50% on that thing. Apparently, I know nothing about Islam. And just like with any thing that I think is graded I got nervous and didn't even know the answer to "What language is the Qua ran written in?" (The answer is Arabic in case you're stumped!)

Anyways, what is my perception of Islam? I feel like "Islamic fascism" is the communist party of the 1960's. Instead of McCarthyism and the Vietnam war, we have George Bushism and the Iraq war. But, back on topic, what does this have to do with Islam and the Western world?

I'm certain that the more each American knows about Islam, the more accepting they will be of the faith. Obviously if 20% of the world is Islamic, don't you think we should learn something about it? (Probably not in public schools any time soon!)

Before I go, I just want to comment of Ali Sharati's piece on America. Even though Islam isn't even mentioned, (probably by stereotyping), Sharati (the name) sounds Middle Eastern. His views on American, British, French, and overall European colonization is strange. (As in different from what I learned in high school) At any rate, he states that colonization is actually modernizing the rest of the world to want the goods of Europe and excess from all the manufacturers. Weird, but sounds strangely correct huh?

Levi and The Slum King

Today in class, Nathan said that when someone is being degraded, we want to hate that person or help them. Hitler knew how to use this human judgement. Obviously, he was a smart guy...but still, how do you"force" a bunch of people to slaughter and starve others for what? Personal gain? Maybe, but not at that exact moment. Moral obligation? To exterminate a bad race (maybe a radical few thought this) I guess I still do not know how to answer that. But Hitler and the SS sure knew how to use people.

Anyways... When can one person judge another person about the grayness of their moral decisions? Sure, everything in life isn't black and white. But that doesn't mean that most people still can't be placed into the category of black and white...unless you know all the circumstances surrounding their decision to do something. I still think that judgement should and can be placed on those grayer areas of moral decisions.

Social Darwinism

So I forgot to read the title of Karl Pearson's work and just dove right in...only to discover that the man is as crazy, if not crazier that Hitler himself. At least Hitler honestly thought he was bettering his nation....

Waiyaki, The Tribe, and the Missionaries

As we finish off our discussions on The River Between, many questions arise about the missions group... (also involving the essay)

• A culture cannot go unchanged completely when it experiences such a strong outside force like Reverend Livingston
• Livingston and these missionaries have the right idea: Convert one and many will follow
• Does Livingston mean to break up the tribe? No! This is better for his mission though. It's loads easier to convert more then they are all disunited (if that is word)....
• I think that Waiyaki uses education as a force to unite, whereas the Missionaries use their education as a force to separate. This separation results due, in part, to a generational breach.
• So does Waiyaki's unification mission, in fact, separate the tribe further by educating the young? Hmmm... Loads to think about, and even more to write an essay about

Ecce Homo

The priestly involvement in good and bad

• Being pure is not necessarily being good, but according to priests being impure is the same as being bad or evil
• But what is the difference evil and bad? And how would priests define these differences since impure means both?
• Nietzsche says that priests are the most evil enemies (Maybe as bad as the Jews???)
• Those who have power determine the values of the age
• This is why values continue to change all time
• Since Christians have the power today, they determine the values and priests decide what is right and wrong

The dialogue:

• Mr. Rash and Curious is really just the author's crazy side. He most definitely wrote this during one of his rages.
• OR...
• Maybe he just had some strange ideas about how to get his point across

So what is the point of Section 14?

Good Steaks and Good Deeds

Hmmm...some food for thought. What is the meaning of the word good? Try defining it without using the word or the emotions it evokes. Does a good steak evoke the same pleasure as good deed? Is there even such a thing as an entirely unselfish good deed? And why is this deed good in the first place?

Nietzsche raises so many questions about the origin of good and evil and bad. Let's start from what I think I know: Evil and bad are not the same thing. Both are opposites of good, but they have different meanings. So when you use good, there is obviously more than one meaning right? Maybe we just forgot the connection between evil and bad and good...there must be one word to unite them all.

The meanings of good and bad and evil change over time. (By the way, the whole world is stupid and it is everyoneelse's fault, expect Nietzsche's, that good and evil and bad cannot be defined. The Jewish, the Germans, and the Aryans keep messing up the definition!)

Neee- Chee

On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche:

First, I would like to point out that there is a dead ( I assume) man on the cover next to a tree (now that is deep!) But onto the real point this whole rambling essay and some questions about this strange, strange author.

1. Nietzsche wants to discuss the roles of good and evil and how we have defined good and evil.
2. So how did good judgement come about? Nietzsche answers this... but I'm still confused on the second essay.
3. So... the rich are good and the poor are bad/evil.
4. What is the difference between bad and evil? Is there a difference? Why are both used as antonyms for good?
5. So how did this guy come up these philosophies in the first place? Why did he even bother?
6. Ressentiment = resentment (or at least that is what I understood from the introduction)

...... More on this later......

Karl Marx

I must admit.... I had to force myself to read Marx, which is first for all of the readings this semester. But, if you actually try to look into what he is saying, it becomes quite a bit more interesting. (I also find Marx himself interesting, the crazy man he was)

First, Marx exotic claim that all struggles come the fact that class struggles forms the basis for his entire argument. Without a reason for change, why would anyone want to listen his lovely argument anyways? Class struggle is the reason the laborers (proletariats) must overcome and overthrow their masters (the bourgeoisie people).

Second, Marx's argument seems to follow logical format. Why shouldn't the workers control the means of production? Why should the bourgeoisie decide prices and wages? The most shocking thing about Marx's argument is the removal of private property (though he admits it seems strange, because it is).

Also, Marx proposes no mechanism to undertake all of these measures...very strange man....very strange ideas.

Poetry, Particularly Tintern Abbey

I have realized, in the small amount of poetry that I partake of, that I like reading poetry but I fear analyzing it. My favority poem, of the 7 that were assigned, is Proverbs of Hell. (sinister, I know!)

Proverbs of Hell has interesting messages in it, and I just love how Blake entitled teh poem. (Of the three, Blake is my favorite, though I like Byron the best of them all). Proverbs of Hell has the idea of truth, wisdom, selfishness, and morals. Blake has an interesting style with all of his poems, and his grammer in this one proves no less strange. I love the last line of irony: Enough! or Too much

But, back to Tintern Abbey. Wordsworth (great name by the way...do you think he changed it to that or just decided to live up to his name) wrote a poem full of many...words. I think the most important word in this poem is TIME. Time changes, nature changes, views on nature change, and people change. Wordsworth is telling his sister how she should view nature and he reminisces about the days when say nature differently. I don't think it is necessarily bad that the narrator's view on nature has change, change is inevitable. I think the point of this poem is to appreciate nature and understand how one's ideas about nature change over time.

John Locke's Ideas on Religion

Are the religious concepts that appear in the Second Treatise central to Locke's political argument? Why, or rather, exactly why not? In hopes of clarifying my essay, I will undertake a blog post involving ideas on both why religion is central to Locke's political argument and why religion is in fact NOT central to Locke's political argument?

Yep, Religion is Central to Locke's argument because

• Locke mentions God so much...why would he bother if it wasn't revelent
• People fo the time truly believed that the church and God were central to life, in order to make his argument seem valid to these lovely people
• Acceptance with the common man is really important (since this is a main idea in the State of Nature and so on)...the best way to ensure success is to establish some common ground

No! Religion is a minor detail to John Locke

• His ideas are all his own and he just uses God as some examples
• He's a religious man but his ideas are totally separated from this
• He mentions God for fun?
• He reasons through some arguments without using religious terms exactly