Islam Readings

I have noticed a lot of connections between the Islam readings we were assigned for tomorrows class and the River Between. They both say the same thing and presents the same criticisms against European colonialization in two different manners. Through The River Between the read learns about the hardships and difficulties the Europeans bring to the African villagers through a humanistic realm. We can directly relate with the characters and the tribulations they endure. And through the Islam readings we can see the mechanical and systematic destruction to the individual cultures brought on by this phenomenon. The combination of both really helps to shed some light on all aspects of the colonialization and the many different ways it ruined the local cultures it affected.

What Makes a Person Adopt a New Religion?

At the end of class today Nathan proposed the question "what makes a person adopt a new religion?" This question has stuck with me through this afternoon. As I have been contemplating this question I have reached the conclusion that there are a number of reasons why someone would choose to adopt a new religion. These include a desire to fit into a new society, sensing an opportunity for power, an act of rebellion, intuition or a profound feeling from the religion, or a need for something more or some sort of fulfillment. I'm sure people have other reasons for adopting specific religions as well but these seem to be the most obvious to me.

However, as I was compiling this list I thought about a point Nathan made in my Christian Traditions class. Regardless of the reason a person had to adopt a new religion it always involves a personal choice. No one ever simply falls into a religion. Conversions personal choices that are purposefully made. This shows a lot about the nature of religion. You must choose to believe in such a thing before you can adopt it. I have yet to actually figure out the repercussions of such a notion, but I can't help but shake the feeling that this is a really profound quality. I think it may have something to with the connection people feel with those who share in their religion. No matter what your purpose for conversion was, you must still possess a faith in that religion. This faith is something you share only with those of your religion; its a special connection only a select group of people have. This quality is constant through out every religion.

I'm not sure where this conclusion is taking me but I felt it was important to address in context of the question "what makes a person adopt a new religion?" All of the reasons I listed above could be driven by the desire to develop this spiritual connection with others in society as well as a spiritual connection with some higher power.

Ramblings About Nietzsche

Nietzsche's break down of the moral code of his time period seems very difficult to handle. On the surface he seems to simply support the barbaric and animalistic nature early civilizations. He condemns the new Christian morality found across Europe because it makes everyone weaker. Rather than allow the strong to prosper and continually better the society, civilization evolved to protect everyone. Thus, rendering the entire population mediocre.
As disturbing as some people may find this, I believe there is an even deeper issue at work within Nietzsche's conclusions. He demonstrates how morality has evolved over time. This completely destroys our basic concept of morality. Many people believe morality is either natural ingrained in people at birth or it was placed on Earth directly from God. But if we believe Nietzsche's argument then morality can be neither. It removes the sacred nature from morality, reducing it to another social invention. This presents a huge issue. If morality does not have that divine power, then why follow the code. Why not act unjustly, taking advantage of the weak to better yourself? Embracing Nietzsche's concept of "master morality" seems like the smarter option.
Yet, I can't help but wonder what such a decision on a massive level would do to our society. Humanity as we consider it will be transformed into something we currently consider barbaric and unjust. Justice would be eradicated in favor of an attitude of survival of the strongest. As Nietzsche argued this would eliminate the "mediocre" quality of society that has developed, but I cannot concede to the idea that this would better the society.

CIE Movie

In class today Nathan brought up the possiblity that we, as an audience, project our own views about humanity and morality onto representations of nature, like the video we watched. As a collective bod, I believe we had a tendency to root for the lions and wished harm upon the hyenas. Disregarding the biases included within the film, I really believe we can gain a strong understanding about our ideas of justice from this experience. In Plato's Republic one definition of justice he suggests is that justice is simply the rule of the stronger. I believe our willingness to cheer for the lions stems from our natural inclination towards this definition of justice. Lions are naturally stronger, thus we will naturally support their victory. The lion's victory appears just. On the contrary, the successes of the hyenas appears to go against the laws of nature. Even when the young hyena princess is ostracized by her clan, I struggled to sympathize with her situation. I found myself almost happy when she fell from her glory. However, any time one of the lions was harmed it pained me to watch, especially if it was caused by the hyenas. It does not seem like these judgments are conscious decisions, but they are ingrained in our subconscious. Some may argue that we have a tendency to root for the underdog, but that cannot be validated in our consideration of justice. I believe people root for the underdog because they subconsciously believe it is against the natural order for them to win. This still supports my notion that our natural inclination is to believe justice is the rule of the stronger.

The Role Christianity Played in Darwin's Popularity

After reading all of the Darwin pieces and our discussion in class, I really began to think about why the theory of evolution became so influential in such a short period of time. To really consider this point I think it is essential to look at Paley's attempt to defend the doctrine of Creation.

Growing up in the church I always had a tendency to lean towards Creation, since that is what I had always been taught. However, after reading both Darwin's arguments and Paley's arguments there is no way I could subscribe to Paley over Darwin. Paley completely failed to convince his readers of the inaccuracy of Darwin's ideas. Paley used the concept of a watch to disprove Darwin's ideas about animals. Any logical person can see that these two items simply cannot be compared. Paley argued that since an artificer had to create a watch for it to come into existence, Creation must be true as well. All organisms must need a similar artificer for them to exist. However, this argument does not line up. There is no logical connection between an inanimate object like a watch and an animate object like a cat. Why should the method in which one comes into existence have any effect on the way the other comes into existence? To the rational mind it can't.

I believe this may have been one of the reasons why Darwinism caught on so quickly; the religious groups seemed to have failed to provide adequate arguments to convince people of the illegitimacy of evolution. They may have even made themselves look more foolish by creating such illogical arguments are the one present by Paley. Had Christians been able to provide better reasoning to support their own ideas they may have been able to prevent Darwinism from becoming so widely accepted.

The Communist Manifesto

This was not my first time reading the Communist Manifesto. However, after reading it for CIE rather then a history class I was able to take a much different perspective of the text. It is amazing to see how revolutionary this piece of text really is. Not only does Marx claim the needs to be a proletariat revolution to save society, he says a violent revolution is the only way. Reading this from a modern perspective and with all of the previous conceived notions we have developed about communism, it is almost difficult to take this text seriously. Communism has such a horrible connotation since its institution in Russia. Everyone knows that ideologically Communism may seem to work, but as a society it is not only impractical, but impossible as well. We do not have the capacity to treat everyone as equals and not embrace advantages or improvements as they present themselves. Marx had good intentions with his creation of the Communist Manifesto but his goals were too lofty and his perception of humans was too positive.

Reflections on Today's Class

After our class today I really began to think about the purpose of poetry and the way authors intended their writing to be read.

After reading the poem 4 times, I have come to the conclusion that many of the statements made in class today were products of superficial interpretations of the text. Wordsworth wanted his audience to read the text literally, but this does not detract from the necessity to read into the deeper meanings embedding within the text. I believe Wordsworth was discussing physical nature throughout his entire poem, I don't see any text that points to nature being a metaphor for a larger idea.

It also seems to me that we tended to jump to the conclusion that Wordsworth was angry at his corruption through his loss of his childhood outlook on nature. Again, I don't really see any evidence in the text to support this claim. Rather it seems that he is content with his new perspective on nature. He is now able to see the deeper purpose and benefits of nature. Instead of losing a connection with nature, Wordsworth has actually just developed a different, more mature relationship.

It's important that we remember not in interject our own assumptions into the text. We can only base our conclusions on the evidence we have in front of us. It is true that there are historical clues that can help us speculate some of the author's motives, but it can never be more than speculation. Conclusion need to have textual support to hold any validity.

I didn't mean to rant but I'm worried we may lose some of the integrity of our discussion if we continue to fail to properly support our assumptions and conclusions.

First Blog Post of the Second Semester

So this is our first blog of the second semester. Nathan is currently teaching the rest of the class how to make the blogs, but since we already have our blogs established our assignment is to write our first blog post.

Descrate's Assumptions

Descarte argues that the only thing we can be sure are real are our thoughts. This led our class to begin a discussion on the legitimacy of our own senses to observe our reality correctly. According to Descarte these observations are the only thing we can be sure are true. However, there are many instances where people experience sensory experiences or even incorrect thoughts. How would Descarte explain such happenings?

Through out recorded history many people have developed incorrect assumptions about the world based on false thoughts and interpretations of their sensory observations. Yet, according to Descarte these things were the only things such people could be 100% sure were real.

This leads me to question what reality is. Could reality simply be each person's own interpretation of the world around us? Can reality be different for every person? This seems to contradict the general connotation of reality. Reality is supposed to be free from personal interpretations and the same for everyone. If this is the case, then is our hold on reality as secure as we think it is? Do we even really know what reality is?

While in class I also wondered if people have the ability to realize when their sensory observations are false? Can reason and/or logic allow people to recognize this flaw?

I think Descarte's assumption that the only thing we can be 100% sure exists is too bold. Yet, when I really sit down and contemplate it, I can't think of any more logical assumptions. It is very scary to think that we may be living in an illusion. Maybe this is why it seems so implausible that everything around us may not exist. But it seems impossible to prove that anything exists but your own personal thoughts.

In Descartes’ fourth section (I believe) he claims that because he thinks he exists. This assumption is completely plausible. There is no way to challenge your own existence. It is the one thing that, to each individual, is permanent, no matter what else around him changes. This, however, is the only part of Descartes’ reasoning that I find completely plausible. As he continues on he discusses the existence of God and how there must be a perfect being above him to allow him to think. This, though slightly less plausible, still convinces me enough to support his argument. However, his next claim, that we all must abandon every assumption we hold about the world around us to allow us to discover the world for ourselves, is not only implausible but downright impossible.

First I will discussion how it is implausible, then I will explain how even Descartes himself demonstrated the impossibility of such a task. If it was possible for a person sitting in a stove-heated room to abandon everything he knew about the world, then when he began to observe and create his own assumptions about the world he would be limited to the space he can observe, i.e. the stove heated room. Since his mind is a blank slate the only things he could be sure existed are the components of this room. His entire world view would be based upon this room. This would become the starting point for all of this thought processes. Not only would this make his world view very obscure, it would also severely limit the purpose Descartes had for abandoning his knowledge in the beginning. No matter what method a person uses to understand the world, they must have a starting point. Now rather than the education he received as a child being his basis for understanding the world, his own personal assumptions and observations about this room would be his initial influence. To me this seems completely absurd.

In addition to this method being implausible, Descartes also, unknowingly it seems, demonstrates how impossible it is to employ. During his time in the stove-heated room, Descartes contemplates some proofs on triangles. In his attempt to prove to himself the correctness of one such proof, he fails to abandon all of his previous knowledge about triangles. In his contemplation he holds onto the fact that the three angles of a triangle must sum 180 degrees. Never does he record figuring this information out for himself. Rather he failed to abandon this knowledge he learned in his youth. In his attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of his own method he actually points out its flaws.

It is a shame that Descartes did not recognize such a flaw in his work for he had such an influence on the way people thought about the world during his time period. His empirical method did revolutionize the way scientists conduct their experiments and research, but his intention to bring this thought process to the masses failed because of errors like the one I have just discussed.

The Enlightened Worldview

I find it very interesting that all of the Enlightened minds we have read in the second half of this semester have taken a similar attitude towards people. Starting with Montague we have seen these men display a general faith in mankind. Montague placed his faith in other cultures, he believed they were more "civilized" and Europeans had much to learn from them. Shakespeare demonstrated his faith in humanity through his writings. He encoded many social and political messages within his plays and he expected his audiences to be able to decipher his work. By publishing his work and thinking the public would accept it, Galileo displayed his faith in mankind. He thought they would see the truth in his discoveries and embrace his revolutionary ideas. Finally, DesCartes believes all humans have an equal ability to reason. How each person uses this ability may differ, but each person possesses the same potential. Few people during DesCartes' time were willing to make such a generalization, placing all of humanity on the same level.
Many people argue that to this day this trend has continued. I have not seen enough of the world yet to make such a generalization. But from my experience so far, it seems that the "educated" sector is socially more liberal, which seems to be the modern day equivalent of the Enlightened thinkers. Does this mean that education opens your eyes to humanity's abilities? Does a greater education allow people to view people with more compassion? Or are there just as many people in the "uneducated" sector who share these beliefs but just do not have the means to vocalize them?

We haven't talked about this much in class, but being the history nerd that I am, I keep getting stuck on this point. The Church was under so much attack and looked so bad at this point in history (due to the Great Schism, the Reformation, the religious wars, etc) those in power were willing to take drastic measures to preserve what little power they still maintained. The Medieval mindset was one of repetition. No one expected change; life was very cyclical for almost 1000 years. The Church controlled everything, even how people thought, and no one ever considered challenging this way of life. However, as the Petrarch led the revolution in Italy towards Humanism, certain people in society began to embrace change. Reading the rediscovering, and translating for themselves, ancient texts by Greek and Roman philosophers, these forward thinkers began to realize it was "ok" to challenge authority. The process began in the 14th century and by the 17th century (when Galileo lived) it was still in its infancy. People were, however, now making some attempts to explore their worlds, make their own observations, draw their own conclusions, and challenge the current doctrine and truths.

This "thinking revolution" posed a great threat to the Church. They had controlled everything for so many years, they did not know how to handle such change. It has been a pattern through out history, who ever is in power wants to do whatever it takes to ensure they remain in power. This is not an outrageous claim, but in doing so, the Church prevented itself from incorporating scientific discoveries and other revelations into its doctrine. The actual discoveries made by someone like Galileo or Newton did not threaten the power of the Church, they could have been easily assimilated into the belief system. But, because the Church was so afraid of losing power, this was not an option. Thus, the Scientific Revolution, and later the Enlightenment, bloomed as oppositions to the Church, rather than as physical and philosophical support for the Church.

I'm not really sure where I was going with this post, or why I ended up where I did. But these were some thought that have been going on in my mind during our classes recently and I just felt like writing them down. Sorry for the "stream of consciousness" writing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

???

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.

Euthyphro and Socrates

Since our discussion Wednesday I have been thinking a lot about the blessing of naivety. There are many instances in life in which lacking knowledge is more of a blessing than a curse. There seems to be a common belief among our society that the more knowledge a person has the better off he is and, therefore, we should always seeking further knowledge. However, I don't think that is always the case. For example, Euthyphro felt he had all the knowledge he needed in life. He was perfectly content with his present situation. That was, of course, until Socrates began to argue with him and demonstrate the lack of knowledge Euthyphro actually possessed. Socrates crushed Euthyphro, not only in the argument, but also in the sense of his confidence in himself. By the end of their discussion Euthyphro was begging for an excuse to get away from Socrates and save any last scrap of dignity that remained. Had Euthyphro remained in the dark about his lack of knowledge he would have maintained his confidence and continued to live a content life. However, now that he has realized he does not have all the answers, he may begin to question other things in his life. He may realize that he really does not, like most people, have any answers. We all may just be living in naivety, hoping that our eyes are never opened to the truth like Euthyphro's were, because if that occurs we may receive the same devastating blow to our sense of life and the world.

"Socrates and Abraham Walk into a Bar..."

So during class Nathan played upon the two men walk into a bar joke to help us compare the views of Socrates and Abraham on religion and piety. While I found this statement very humorous, I can't help but sit and actually wonder what would the two men have discussed.

I believe it is true, as I think Carrie said, Abraham appears to be so strong in his faith that he would be able to provide a stronger argument for Socrates. Abraham worships only one God, so that would eliminate Socrates' first challenge to the definition of piety. Abraham might actually be able to persuade Socrates that piety is what God loves and the opposite is what he hates. Abraham would be able to back up this theory because he has actually conversed with God. From the view of Abraham his argument seems plausible.

Unfortunately I believe Socrates is too intelligent to ever allow himself to give in to defeat. I believe that he would attack Abraham's statements that he talked to God. Abraham can never prove that he actually talked to God. How can Abraham be sure he wasn't talking to the Devil or that the voices he heard were not a figment of his imagination? He cannot, and because of this, Socrates will have the opening he needs to go in for the kill.

Socrates is at a distinct advantage both against Euthyphro and Abraham. Socrates must simply sit back and wait for the other men to disclose a flaw in their arguments. Once they do so, he can pounce and make a fool of them. Socrates himself does not need to provide any definitions. Many people assume that Socrates has already come to his own conclusions about the topics he asks others about. I, however, am not convinced. I believe that Socrates may have questions just like the rest of society and he actually is interested in collecting data to formulate his own conclusions as he goes along.

The questions that Socrates asks are always so broad and influenced by opinions and beliefs that it is almost impossible to establish one solid definition. There is always room for interpretation and change.