I thought that, once again, class discussion on Wednesday was very interesting. The heart dissection the night before was also interesting but in a different kind of way. When I first received the heart I was a little stunned, and I agree with Lucy that the entire process was too desensitized...but I guess that in processes like that, it kinda has to be. In high school I had to dissect a number of different animals including a frog and a fetal pig. I always seem to find the actual subject of studying different animal systems fascinating, but the only way I can actually follow through with the dissection is if I do not think about or focus on the whole idea. I can only think, "Ok this is an aorta", not "this is an actual heart, that came from a living animal" I know that I if I focus too much on the overall idea and process, I won't really be able to handle it. An d part of the reason why is that I also wonder what is the actual purpose? Is this really necessary? What gives us, as humans, the right to do this to other living creatures?

I don't think I really know the answers to these questions and I don't think that there is one definitive answer, there are so many good and bad points to all sides of these questions that it seems impossible to really evaluate them.

Reality

Class discussion was very interesting on Monday discussing reality versus non-reality, how one knows what is real and what isn't, and whether or not anything is actually real, which I guess is almost the same question as what exactly is reality? If our current state of consciousness is not reality, then what exactly is? How do we know such a thing exists?

This makes it rather difficult tgo determikne how secure one's grip on reality actually is, but I think that everyone thinks that they have a a firmer grasp of reality than anyone actually does. It is extremely easy for someone to become convinced that something happened or did not happen. Dreams, hallucinations, hypnosis, deja vu, false memory, and even the power of suggestion can alter someone's own reality very easily and quickly, but one just believes that it was part of what actually occurred, or part of reality. One, therefore, may think that they know their reality very well, when he actually does not.

Reason

In A Discourse on Method, Descartes speaks of reason and how everyone naturally has good sense. He then states in Part Two that "...it is almost impossible that our judgements are as pure or as solid as they might have been if we had had full use of our reason from the moment of our birth, and had been guided by that alone." This statement is very logical, everyone is brought up in different ways but everyone is taught morals and do's and don't's, and everyone is influenced by their parents and everyone that surronds them from the time of birth. Even television, movies, games, everything that is a part of daily life has an influence over reason and judgement. But is that necessarily a bad thing?

A person's reason, especially when one is still very young, may not always be as sound as a person who has had more experiences. Experience combined with reason seems to result in the best judgements and decisions. A person is being influenced by people who have had to reason through and experience the same dilemmas so a person is therefore being influenced by someone who can make the issue needing reason easier by providing first-hand advice. Better judgment and reason can then form.

I do agree though that a person's reason can be manipulated and influenced for the worse by another person. Although I think that advice to help with reason is better than a completely uninfluenced reason.

In class on Friday the question of whether or not Shylock would really become a Christian when forced to convert arose. Legally and in literal terms, yes SHylock would become a Christian. There is nothing that he could do to change the fact that in the eyes of all others he would be a Christian rather than a Jew. Although, I think that in the back of everyone's mind, he may still be thought of as a Jew, or at least the Christian who was once a Jew. Preconceived ideas, especially about others and in relation to stereotypes, are difficult to get rid of.

Although I think that in the case of Shylock himself, his self knowledge of being Jewish, would be even stronger. Techniqually he would be a Christian, but I think that in his mind, he will always be Jewish. No one can force you to alter your own personal beliefs. They may force him to become a Christian, but they can not force him to believe like a Christian.

I admit that I went out SparkNotes for help with the plot of The Merchant of Venice and something that was said in the Themes section really struck me because it relates to something that we had discussed in class with Genesis. In the play, the conflict between Shylock and Antonio in the trial obviously relates to a conflict between Jews and Christians. This also relates to a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament that was thought at the time, and is something that had been brought up in class before as well.

Shylock not showing mercy to Antonio is thought to reflect the idea that there is a difference regarding mercy in the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God is more strict and quicker to punish while in the New Testament he is depicted as being more forgiving. Elizabethian Christians apparently would have found the argument of mercy in Merchant as being pro-Christian and anti-Jewish.

I found this information very interesting since we had discussed an idea similar to this in regards to how God is depicted in the Old and New Testaments, if I recall correctly, but I would have never considered applying that idea in such a negative way.

While I do find and always have found the topic of how or even if science and religion can interconnect, I feel that for some strange reason I have a mental block when it comes to Galileo which was why I felt that I had not yet fully formed an opinion enough on the topic today in class to share it with the rest of the class. I felt that everyone was bringing up very valid and logical points throughout the discussion and I agree that everyone is going to believe what he chooses to believe. Not everyone has the same views of religion, so of course not everyone is going to have the same opinion about whether or not and how science and religion overlap. There may never be a definitive answer, and I think that there will always be contradictions because no one can ever agree on everything, especially when it comes to science and religion, and then to combine the two, it would pretty much be impossible.

I, however, do believe that science and religion are just two different versions of the same story. Nothing needs to be sacrificed from either perspective, necessarily, for the two ideas to combine, one just has to look at the big picture rather than two separate pictures.

I will admit that I have had some trouble fully comprehending the Galileo readings . I do however agree with Galileo that when studying "physical problems" one should not necessarily look to the Bible right away for an explanation or answer, but one rather should look to Nature. I agree with this not because I think that the physical world and spiritual world should be separated, I actually think that Nature is extremely spiritual. Rather, I think one should not look to the scriptures right away only because the Bible can be interpreted in so many different ways, it would be impossible to determine what is correct using only religious teachings to decide precisely in every detail the physical environment around us. I agree that one must also use observations of the world around us.

I think that the spiritual world and physical world are interconnected, one can not exist withouth the other, as I said in class. Therefore, it does not make sense for one to look solely at the religious and spiritual or solely at the physical environment to determine how the world around us works, was formed, and its relationship to the universe.