Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Galileo

The first thing that came to my mind when reading the expert from Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief Systems of the World- Ptolemaic & Copernican were the similarities in structure between it and Euthyphro. Not only is the structure of both pieces almost identical, the overall tones also mimic each other.

For the structure, Euthyphro and Simplicio are characterized in very similar matters. Both are supposed experts in their respective fields, and yet their ideas are easily refuted by their "challenger." Obviously, Salviati is Aristotle's parallel. Both take very sarcastic tones with their opponent and openly poke fun at their ignorance. Both men are also very planned in the attacks they make. They lull their opponents into a false sense of security about their own ideas, and then quickly bring them down with their logical reasoning. It appears that both characters intend to embarrass their opponents, simply to accentuate their view's validity. Dialogue is also broken up into four days, each presenting a different argument. This mimics the four arguments Euthyphro presents, all of which Aristotle refutes.

The overall tone of both pieces is similar as well. In both texts, the man refuting the ideas held by the "expert" (and society) takes a very sarcastic and at times openly hostile attitude. It is obvious that both Aristotle and Salviati lack respect for their opponents. Both believe their opponent's theories are bogus and they cannot understand how any person could belief such things. Neither man ever directly states these opinions, but through the tones they use it is obvious to the readers that both men feel this way.

While reading this excerpt, it was obvious how influential Aristotelian reasoning was on Galileo. His entire piece is modeled after it. Galileo lived during the Renaissance, a time when ancient texts were being rediscovered and held in high regard. Therefore, it only seems practical that Galileo would model his argument after one of the greatest, in his opinion, philosophers.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Of Cannibals and The Jesuit Relations

Recently in class we have begun discussing Of Cannibals and we will soon discuss The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. Both of these sources deal with "barbarians" or "savages" from the New world, as viewed by European contemporaries. In both texts the authors have had their own eyewitness accounts or have heard eyewitness accounts of the culture and lifestyles of the aboriginal societies within the New World. Such accounts appear to have made the men question the culture of Europe. I noticed that both documents encourage their European readers to look inside themselves and consider how their actions may be more barbarous than those whom they refer to as barbarians.

Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, when these pieces were written, was going through large social and intellectual revolutions. There was a large outpouring of political and social theories, criticizing the medieval mindset that had its grips on Europe for so long. These documents appear to be part of this proliferation of writing.

Based on that conclusion, I wish to hypothesize, as we attempted to do in class, that these papers were written to initiate change within Europe. While the writers may have cared about the "savages" in the New World, the view Europeans had of them was not their main concern. This was simply a tool employed by these men to bring to head a larger social issue in a time period when they could not directly state such grievances.

This conclusion made me wonder what effect photographs of the same cultures described in these two essays would have on the people of Europe. I don't believe they would cause the introspection these essays can cause. Rather, it seems that such photographs could support the Euro-centric beliefs held by the majority of people. We often talked about the differences between texts and photographs. In this instance I believe that the photographs have many more limitations than the texts would. The emotive value of such photographs may impact Europeans. However, the background necessary to explain their cultural practices (cannibalism in particular) that came with the texts and pointed on the hypocrisies of European society, would not come with the photographs. Thus, this would negate any emotional impacts they possess.

Friday, October 12, 2007

The Threat of Mediocrity

Are our discussions really mediocre?

I'm in no way attacking your statement Anton but what you said really struck me. Before we discussed this in class I was always impressed with our discussions. From talking with people from other CIE classes, it always seemed as though our class held impressive discussions. I've heard a lot of complaints about classes where no one wants to contribute or where one person dominates or even where the professor dominates the discussion. We never have any of those issues. Our discussions always flow very well and everyone always seemed comfortable enough to share their honest opinions.

However, since Anton made this statement I have been thinking more about the actual content of our discussions. It is true that at times we talk about "significant" and interesting issues, but there are also many times when I feel like we are simply bantering back and forth. This seems to be what is bothering Anton. But for me, if we held serious, profound discussions all the time our discussions would falter. There needs to be times of lightheartedness and insignificance. I honestly don't believe that humans can be serious all the time; its against our nature. This is why we all need to let loose and have fun once in a while. The same must go for our discussions. We need to treat our mental state in the same manner as our physical state.

So as much as I understand Anton's frustration, I think that it is important to have these periods of mediocrity in our discussions. Without them, our discussions could become tired and worn out. The lightheartedness allows for interesting twists on our discussions and allows people to think about various issues in ways they normally wouldn't.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Contradictions?!?

I just have one question from our discussion today.

We discussed action and intent again today. We seemed to decide that when Krishna spoke of action he was also referring to the mental state of that action. He believes that people must be in the right mindset, "thinking about nothing," to perform actions in the right manner.

So this led me to the question: Does Krishna expect people to act on impulses without thinking before they act?

It seems like he might. He placed such a strong emphasis on duty and thinking about nothing, that it would lead me to reach this conclusions. He also discussed how everyone is born into a class and the work they do is intrinsic. From this I would garner that the proper actions a person must perform are intrinsic. Thus, impulses are always the correct actions.

However, acting on impulse seems to contradict the idea of discipline that is such an overarching theme within the BAG. Discipline of the body and mind is the direct opposite of impulsive action. Discipline requires much thinking, contemplating, and restraining of oneself. How can two such differing ideas be necessary to live a life free of karma? To me it seems almost impossible to escape the cycle of reincarnation.

Friday, October 5, 2007

There was one passage in the second teaching of BAG that really has me thinking.

Lord Krishna says:
When your understanding turns,
from sacred lore to stand fixed,
immovable in contemplation,
then you will reach discipline.

In response Arjuna asks:
Krishna, what defines a man
deep in contemplation whose insight
and thought are sure? How would he speak?
How would he sit? How would he move?

This passage really struck me. Lord Krishna is telling Arjuna how to mold his mind to reach discipline. Why then does Arjuna ask about the physical features of a man "deep in contemplation?" Why is Arjuna so stuck on the physical actions, rather than the spiritual and emotional aspects that Krishna is referencing?

This brings back the discussion we had a few classes ago, about what is more important, thought or action. It appears to me that Krishna believes thoughts are more important, but Arjuna believes action is more important. I would like to assume that because Krishna is the "teacher" his view is right. But the culture also seems to place a strong emphasis on action. This is why Arjuna is so torn. He does not want to kill his family in the battle, but he also knows that it is his duty to fight. His physical battle is just as significant as his internal battle.

However, as I continued to read further into the teachings, I discovered that Krishna places an emphasis on both action and inaction. This led to further confusion for me. How can one place equal emphasis on two opposite traits? Arjuna seems to always place his emphasis on action. There are many other similar passages within the other teachings to the one I listed above. Arjuna always wants to know about the physical representation of disciplined or knowledgeable person.

So after finishing the book, I have not found an answer to which is more important: action or inaction. Krishna has placed an emphasis on both, while Arjuna seems to lean more towards action. However, Arjuna is the student questioning Krishna about how he should live, so I don't know if I can trust Arjuna's ignorant views. Personally, I believe that action is more important than inaction. Action is the physical representation of your thoughts and beliefs. How can you demonstrate how you have disciplined your mind or body if not through actions? Why would you work so hard to mold your mind if such discipline can't be put into action?

So as I leave, I am still pondering the significance of action and inaction. Hopefully further analysis of the text will provide me with some answers.

Monday, October 1, 2007

???

As a class we decided that humans are rational beings. We need reasons and logic to gain an understanding of the world around us. We also decided that the gods of the ancient Greeks are subject to the same rationality. If this is true than I am still confused as to what separates humans from gods. If gods are subject to the same rationality than how are they immortal? How do they have such powers? What makes them better than humans? How can humans and gods ever be grouped within the same category? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being a god? Humans are supposed to be subservient to the gods, so how can we share qualities? This evens the playing field.

I can't seems to grasp this concept. I understand what Nathan said in class about the gods having other powers and attributes, but the logic didn't make sense to me. To me, rationality has proven that humans are not immortal. So why are gods, who are subject to the same rationality, immortal? Examples like this just don't make sense to me.

I feel like I am missing something important from our discussion today, so if someone could explain it to me I would really appreciate it.