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

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)!