Mandy's CIE Blog

2007-12-06T15:31:00.000-08:00

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

2007-12-04T23:36:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-29T17:10:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-11-18T13:19:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-11-13T18:46:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-11-12T16:15:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-11-06T17:58:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-11-02T06:07:00.000-07:00

It seems that many people decided to write about the topic that we ended with in classs on Wednesday, how exactly are science and religion different and how do they relate? I agree that both science and religion require faith. Not everything in the field of science can be proven outright, and nothing in religion can be completely supported by proof either. Yet, I believe that the two are interrelated. Religion tends to look at the big picture of life and what comes after life, while science focuses on the details of life and what had happened or will happen here on Earth.

I think that the issue of science versus religion can become confusing because science is presented as being truth and fact, the same things are known to be true in reference to science (for the most part anyway) throughout the world. However, there are many different beliefs in the broad picture of religion all over the world and the majority of people are not forced to believe in something. One does not have to be taught in school about a certain religion if he does not want to, yet everyone is taught about science in school. I guess the biggest confusion is that in order to avoid offensiveness, most people are taught science in school, and then, if they wish, about religion or their own specific religion, during other times, and people must then try to figure out where the two combine.

2007-10-28T20:17:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that the main thing that Montaigne admires, at least in the case of the "barbarians" is purity in the sense of not having yet been tainted by European society. He appears to admiringly go on at length about how although their customs may seem barbaric and foreign they are actually as noble and "beautiful" as one may expect in the circumstances.

I find it very fascinating that he seems to find his own society's customs more barbaric, which must have been a very different mindset compared to others of the time period. The fact that he sees European society has something like a disease, that can infect and destroy the purity and naturalness of other parts of the world, says a lot about Montaigne as a person and a thinker as well as the timeperiod itself. Politics, beliefs, customs have become very materialistic and they all cause animosity between different people. Montaigne recognized that a society that functions simply on basic and natural human instincts and an appreciation for nature is a rare and extraordinary thing.

2007-10-23T17:42:00.000-07:00

Towards the end of class on Monday we discussed whether or not something can be determined to be right or wrong universally, or based on different cultural beliefs. After reading Of Cannibals, it does seem as if different cultures and ways of life promote different beliefs (this goes back to the first paper, but rather different societies that exist simultaneously rather than being separated by numerous generations). However, I think that the bases for these different beliefs are the same the majority of the time.

In Of Cannibals, Montaigne speaks of the wars that the people of the New World fight are very different than those of the society that he lives in because they fight solely for valor and pride; their goal is to never completely surrender, whereas, the Europeans fight wars over land. Yet, I think that these two motives are technically one in the same. A fight over land is a fight over pride, every nation wants the most and the best land because it wants to succeed more than any other nation; it wants to be able to have more to be proud of than other nations, so it can therefore also be thought of as a fight for pride. The only difference is that the fight over land is more superficial, in a way. It has the same basis, it has just developed into more of a sense of pride over material things than soley a sense of pride for oneself.

Beliefs and values develop into different things between different societies, but they all seem to be the same for everyone originally.

Commercial Religion

2007-10-21T19:22:00.000-07:00

In class on Friday we had to bring in two "religious" images. I submitted an image of a MP3 player in the shape of a cross, and an image of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus. I chose these two images partly because they are two extremes of the same religion.

I chose the image of the MP3 player because, like John's image of the costumes, it shows a very commercial representation of Christianity. Religion, (whatever the definition may be), has been in existence in some form since mankind has been, and it is combined with a device that is of the young generations of the 21st century. Was it created perhaps (like some argued the costumes were) to have Christianity appeal to the "younger, hipper" generations?

I chose the second image because it was such a large contrast, it is a typical, classic, Christian image, and (to me personally at least) the relationship between mother and child has always seemed exceptionally special and religious in nature. It is an old-fashioned image, unlike the other, and I think that this shows that religion has spanned multiple generations, all of time, and can be applied and interpreted to and in many different things. Whether or not the extreme commercialization of religion used to accomplish this is a good thing, I am not sure.

2007-10-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

I just finished looking at the art images and I'm interested to see how the discussion takes place in class, discussing art as opposed to texts, especially art depicting some of the stories that we have read and discussed. I must say that I found some of the images to be a little overwhelming, very busy, with a lot to look at and some of the images just did not make sense to me. The images from the Sistine Chapel were easier to determine what image was being depicted, although I found some aspects of them confusing. In the images in which Noah's sons are covering him up, they also appear to be naked, as well as the majority of the people in the other scenes. Doesn't this kinda go against the point of the story of Noah's sons covering him up? I also thought it was really interesting that God is depicted as well, in human form (if I am correct in assumming that that was God). I'm sorry if this does not make sense, just wanted to share some thoughts before we began discussing these images.

Holding the door open...

2007-10-08T18:15:00.000-07:00

Towards the end of class of today we were discussing whether or not it is feasible to actually commit an action, particulary a noble action, without considering the consequences. Can people carry out a good action without thinking about what they may get out of it. I think that the example of holding doors open for people, today in class, proves that this is possible, performing good deeds jhust as become habit. I think that many people get to the point when they can hold a door open for someone without even realizing it or really thinking about why they are doing it. This is because that that is what they were taught is the right thing to do in our society. And I think that this is what the Gita means about performing action without considering the "fruits of actions". Once good deeds become habit, one can achieve peace.

It is true that there are many things that one can not do without considering the rewards, but I think that this is the real test, and it is a very difficult one. This also seems to be the point of reincarnation. It gives one the oppurtunity to develop the soul and learn from past lives until all good deeds become habit, as easily as holding the door open for someone, and complete peace can be achieved.

2007-10-05T05:59:00.000-07:00

I think that the Second Teaching of The Bhavaghad-Gita may be one of my favorite in the text for many different reasons including that it seems to open up some ideas that are later elaborated upon that I had never really considered before.

I thought that it was really interesting and kind of different that Arjuna, who is a great king and about to wage a tremendous war, suddenly has second thoughts and can not go through with the act because he feels that killing is unforgiveable and he wonders if it is worse to conquer or to be conquered. I think that this is problem that many people face in some way. Someone may not want to committ an act because he does feel that it is immoral, but he feeld that he must go through with it or else he will be shamed. Krishna, however, answers this for Arjuna, telling him that it would be worse to be shamed than to be killed or to kill. It seemed that this occurred throughout the book. Arjuna has some of the same questions and fears and that we still face and question today, which is what I liked the best about the book, only Arjuna actually received detailed answers from Krishna.

Krishna goes on to explain to Arjuna that if goes through with the battle, he will no really be killing anyone since he can not destroy the true "self". Death is inevitable for all and all face rebirth as well. He must not focus on what may come of the action, only the action itself. If he does this through discipline and can feel undisturbed in m ind by the things around him, then he can find peace.

Again, I think that it is natural for man to struggle with the things that occur around him and to search for peace of mind and insight that is sure. The interpretations and how when one may accomplish them may be different but I think that these universal ideas and questions that everyone contemplates no matter what religion.

No Answer

2007-10-02T19:29:00.000-07:00

Discussion in class on Monday seemed to be very all over the place but I guess that that it appropriate for discussing Socrates. We discussed the "gibberish section" and whether or not it is a good or bad thing for the dialogue to end with no conclusion, and I think that these two things relate to one another.

The paragraph in which Socrates is trying to explain to Euthyphro how something can be loved because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved is confusing, but this passage does make sense to me and I think that Socrates is trying to say that everything is circular (or rather this is my interpretation of what he is saying). There doesn't necessarily have to be a beginning, an end, or an exact definition or reason for why something is what it is. This passage reminds me of the age-old question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg". There are just some things that can not be defined or explained for why they are what they are. I think that man always needs a complete explanation and definition for everything, but there never is an easy answer. And even if one does come up with an answer some people may not always agree with that answer, especially in such a case as piety.

I think this is why we are left hanging at the end, because there really may be no exact answer to the question at hand. And if there was an answer supplied, not everyone would agree and I think that that would ruin the story for many people. Instead, you get to be left wondering and able to form your own conclusion about what you think is pious or impious and why, which is what Socrates was trying to get Euthphryo to do the entire time. With this ending he is able to get everyone who reads the text to go through the same experience on his own.

Can't Win

2007-09-25T20:45:00.000-07:00

Towards the end of class on Monday we began to discuss what may happen if Abraham met Socrates. Many people were of the opinion that Abraham would be able to defend his views of God and be able to explain what is pios and what is impious to Socrates. I agree that Abraham would be able to defend and explain much much better than Euthyphro, because Abraham actually knows what he is talking about, but I do not think that Socrates would ever be satisfied with what Abraham said.

Socrates seems to never seem satisfied, his personal mission in life is to question everything and anything and never accept an answer. He always ask questions that can never be answered, even ones Abraham can not answer. Abraham could have a perfect explanation for everything and Socrates would never be satisfied. For example, if Abraham did indeed say that whatever God likes or approves of is pious and vice versa, than Socrates would probably reply with Does God approve because it is pious or is it pious because God approves. Personally, if I was Abraham, my reply would be "Huh? How am I supposed to answer a question like that?" I don't think anyone can, but Socrates seems to never cease his vocal bombardment until every questioning question is answered. I don't think anyone can really win with Socrates, including Abraham, unfortunately.

2007-09-23T22:42:00.000-07:00

I discovered one thing with this text that frustrates me. The whole circular discussion begins with Socrates questioning Euthyphro's prosecuting his father as being the right thing to do or not. He tries to get Euthyphro to deine what is pious and what is impious but while doing this it seems that Socrates thinks he has a pretty good idea about what is pious and what is impious, either that or he is firm in believing that there is no right answer. But how does he know if his opinion is right? Who is he to question what Euthyphro believes? If there is no right answer, then don't people have the right to make their own decision based on their beliefs and society? I guess that what I'm getting to is the old question of is it better to what you believe is right, or what society as a whole thinks is right? Although, no matter what a person has to make a decision about what he thinks is right and wrong, whether based on society, religion, or personal beliefs.

Euthyphro made a choice about what he thought to be right, it may not be what society or even Socrates believed to be right, but it was his decision. So I think the other question that I am wondering about now is whether or not it is good to try to change someone's mind about what he believes to be right just because you may think it is wrong. I know that there are definitely some cases in which people who are crazy think that it is fine to do very bad things (Ex. Hitler), but it's not necessarily right to try to change someone's religion just because you think that it is the wrong thing to believe. I'm not sure if any of this has made sense but they are just some thoughts I had...

Teach Yourself

2007-09-21T11:27:00.000-07:00

I was surprised by the amount of sarcasm and humor that was in this reading. When most people think of Socrates, they think of some boring old guy who would spout out philosophy. But I found it really interesting that he seems to play dumb about topics that he clearly has an opinion on in order to get others to really think about their own thoughts and learn something new.

Socrates seems to clearly be wiser than Euthyphro (at least in my opinion) but he acts like he is ignorant of topics and that Euthyphro is much smarter than he really is. Euthyphro seems to think that he is much more brilliant than he actually is and Socrates is trying to get him to realize that his ideas are not as well thought out or as wise as he seems to think that his ideas are. Socrates does this by saying many statements about what Euthyphro should be thinking about in terms of what is pious and what is impious, but he does it in question form to make Euthyphro think that he is really the one who is doing the teaching. Socrates even asks Euthyphro if he will teach him and he refers to him as "O wondrous man". I think that Socrates does this because people value and understand ideas and concepts when they reason them out themselves. If someone just tells you what they think or what you should think, than you can never figure stuff out on your own and appreciate them.

2007-09-16T14:30:00.000-07:00

In class on Friday we were talking about the stories of Noah and his sons and Abraham and his son. I already gave my opinion about Abraham, and I still feel that I would not be able to worship, trust, or love a god that had asked me to slaughter my son for a sacrafice, even if it was a test. Although I do understand that God didn't want him to kill his son, just make sure that Abraham was completely devoted to God. This story is a difficult one to read and interpret because, as was said in class, no emotion is discussed, only actions, so we can not determine how Abraham and his son felt.

The story of Noah is also difficult to understand for the same reason. Although with this story I have trouble understanding Noah's actions and motives. It seems to me that Noah was taking out his anger and embarrassment on Ham. I don't understand why he isn't angry with his other sons too, instead he blesses them even though they were the ones who covered him, which showed that they were ashamed of their father too. I think that maybe because Noah showed weakness by getting drunk and becoming naked and Ham saw him in such a shameful and weak state (at least by their standards) that he was very angry and embarrassed so he took out his feelings on Ham and his son by putting a curse on them that would cause them to feel weak and ashamed. This seems to show that even though Noah was chosen above all others on Earth, he is still human. This seems to be a bit of a theme in other stories in Genesis. Humans seem to make mistakes quite a bit in the Bible maybe as a way to enforce that man is not perfect and is lesser than God, although God makes some mistakes too, which is why he made the flood in the first place, so I think I am now confusing myself even more. I guess that Noah and others made mistakes to show that even though they have been chosen by God, they are still human like all others who have not been chosen to be prophets.

2007-09-14T06:14:00.000-07:00

There really is so much conflict over religion in our world, way too many wars have been fought over differences in beliefs. So I think that it is great that even though our class has a range of different beliefs, everyone gets along, and we all really respect one another. It seems to me that we lucked out on having the greatest CIE class on campus.

I'd also like to touch upon the fact that the reason there is so much conflict over religion is because people all have different interpretations of the Bible and other texts, and many people, tend to believe that our personal interpretation and opinion about something is correct. Unfortunately, some people's interpretations of the Bible seem to go against the human philosophy of acceptance. I really hope that our class continues to be very accepting of everyone.

2007-09-11T07:46:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that it is at this time in our lives when people tend to either question more or be reaffirmed in their beliefs. When we are younger, we usually believe what we are told without question, because we can not imagine being lied to by the people who are caring for or helping us. So, we believe what we are told about religion, what certain people's interpretations of the Bible are. Then, when we get older we learn that there are other beliefs in the world. We are now at a time in our lives when we are trying to figure out who we are and our place in the world, so it is only natural that we either begin to question what we believe or our faith becomes even stronger.

I was raised as a Christian, going to church and Sunday school every Sunday, and while I still go to church on a regular basis, I have not actually sat down and read the Bible in quite a few years. This is what I found the most difficult about the reading, that I read it at a time and in a context in which I was able to really look at the texts and perhaps come up with my own interpretation. What I found was that there are a lot more contradictions in the Bible than I had thought and there are many more guidelines that we as humans are supposed to follow than we actually do. While I still feel very firm in my faith, this reading showed me that Christianity is much more complex than I originally thought.

2007-09-06T11:53:00.000-07:00

I have been sitting here at my desk thinking about the penny exercise and it occurred to me just how many everyday things that there are in the world that we take for granted, even though these could be the same things that future civilizations base their assumptions on about our values and ways of life (although hopefully this does not happen since it means that our civilization would have been destroyed). It is true that we have been able to identify and interpret many of the information that has been uncovered from ancient civilizations, but only to a certain degree. Will we ever really be able to have a firm grasp on the value and moral system that existed at the time of Gilgamesh? Also, our technology is amazingly more advanced than the resources that were available to Mesopotamia. It is probably safe to say that items recovered from archaelogical sites were used for basic means of survival as opposed to the items such as DVDs, computers, and designer clothing that many people today unfortunately see as basic needs.

What is our society saying about itself through the millions of man-made products that exist and how would someone with little to no background knowledge about our society judge us? Especially since people seem to assume that many people are the same. For example, we see a push pin as a means of hanging things up such as a photo, calendar, or reminder note, but a more violent society that has no previous knowledge about ours may determine a push pin to be a torturing device with different colors to code for different parts of the body (sorry to seem so violent myself). These products can also be misinterpreted through the fact that many of them can apply to our entire society, such as a penny, but there also many products that people possess due to personal tastes and beliefs even if the majority of the population does not hold the same view. There are many food products, books, and even pills that are designed for people who want to lose weight. An outsider would assume that our society values people who are thin as a result of this, and unfortunately this is true some of the time, but the majority of the population, especially men, probably do not use all of these products despite their great abundance in our society.

Objects from our society could be very decepting to civilizations that have no knowledge of ours, it is therefore difficult to make clear assumptions about the values of civilizations that we have little knowledge of.

Some Thoughts on Gilgamesh

2007-09-02T20:47:00.000-07:00

I'm not really sure if we are supposed to be writing about Gilgamesh or Genesis but since this is the first blog and Gilgamesh is the first book that we read and discussed, I decided to write about that
The thing that I find the most interesting about the story is the moral system that existed at that time period and how different it is from the one in place today. I believe the point came up in class that it is difficult to read Gilgamesh because we tend to look at the storyline and judge the characters based on the morals and beliefs that we have today, but the belief system and morals from that time period are very different. I completely agree with this idea. What is deemed right and wrong has changed throughout time, for example, slavery.
Although, I have found it difficut still to determine exactly what morals Gilgamesh or other people from his time. Gilgamesh did not think it was wrong to rape women, others in the city thought that it was wrong for him to rape women. But I wasn't sure if they thought it was wrong because he was violating women or because he was being disrespectful to the men whom those women already "belonged" too. I have a feeling it might be the latter, but I think that we expect it to be trhe first choice because that is how we think today. Just something I was pondering.
Although this is off topic from my first though, I also noticed that in Gilgamesh the gods tend to act like humans more than in any other story I have read relating to mythology. For example, when Gilgamesh refuses to marry Ishtar, she runs to her parents and throws a huge tantrum, much like any human teenage girl who did not get what she wanted. I was wondering if this could be significant in some way?