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....