In class on Friday, I talked about how the stresses of modern life contribute to a sense of helplessness and "disconnected connectedness" many people feel.
I think this helps explain why people don't feel they can make a difference in the way the modern world is run. For all the talk of democracy and freedom, there is actually little any one person can do. People innately want to have some control over their circumstance, and, when they feel there is nothing they can do to change anything, they lose the desire to act. Oftentimes, they seek out unimportant "decisions" to make in their free time (e.g., TV, sports, video games, shopping, etc.) to give them the sense of control their "real" life apparently lacks.
I think this going to be my last post for CIE200.
Take care everyone!
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
More Global Warming
I've been thinking about what it would take to make any progress in solving the problem of global warming.
Eventually, we will run out of readily accessible fossil fuels and be forced to find new sources of energy or regress technologically. One way or another, the problem of global warming will be solved: either soon with legislation designed to motivate people to behave for the greater good or much later by sheer necessity.
As optimistic as I want to be, I am inclined to believe that people (and leaders) will not act in any powerful way unless necessity compels them.
Americans especially just do not believe any steps to at least mitigate the problem are politically or economically feasible or even warranted. As untrue as it may be, this sense of inertia is fostered by vested corporate influences in our political and economic system who do not wish to risk future profits until absolutely necessary.
Eventually, we will run out of readily accessible fossil fuels and be forced to find new sources of energy or regress technologically. One way or another, the problem of global warming will be solved: either soon with legislation designed to motivate people to behave for the greater good or much later by sheer necessity.
As optimistic as I want to be, I am inclined to believe that people (and leaders) will not act in any powerful way unless necessity compels them.
Americans especially just do not believe any steps to at least mitigate the problem are politically or economically feasible or even warranted. As untrue as it may be, this sense of inertia is fostered by vested corporate influences in our political and economic system who do not wish to risk future profits until absolutely necessary.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Global Warming Readings
In reading through the article, one of the most compelling things I found out about global warming was that studies of fluctuations in oceanic currents and glacial opaqueness showed a feed-back loop is created that exacerbates the effect anthropogenic global warming.
I really don't understand how people can reject the idea of man-made global, which has the "scientific consensus," when they readily accept other scientific ideas that also have the blessing of the "scientific consensus." These people make themselves hypocrites and attack the scientific community with faulty logic and find radical "scientists" (who they claim are mavericks) to back up their ideas with poorly done research.
I am always inclined to believe it comes down to either an economic or a religious argument. Either these people are using positions of power to cast doubt on science for profit and more power over the masses, or they are doing it because they feel dealing with global warming is a moot point if the world is going to end soon (I guess the logic is to screw it up while there's still time?). In fact, I argue both these motives ultimately come down to self-gain in the vast majority of cases.
I really don't understand how people can reject the idea of man-made global, which has the "scientific consensus," when they readily accept other scientific ideas that also have the blessing of the "scientific consensus." These people make themselves hypocrites and attack the scientific community with faulty logic and find radical "scientists" (who they claim are mavericks) to back up their ideas with poorly done research.
I am always inclined to believe it comes down to either an economic or a religious argument. Either these people are using positions of power to cast doubt on science for profit and more power over the masses, or they are doing it because they feel dealing with global warming is a moot point if the world is going to end soon (I guess the logic is to screw it up while there's still time?). In fact, I argue both these motives ultimately come down to self-gain in the vast majority of cases.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
One More Islam Post
I really found the contrast between the Bhutto and Qutb readings quite shocking. Where Bhutto used history, logic, and the Qur'an itself to try to prove extremist views wrong, Qutb seemed openly and unabashedly against any interpretation that would "weaken" Islam.
Qutb writes, "This group of thinkers, who are a product of the sorry state of the present Muslim generation, have nothing but the label of Islam and have laid down their spiritual and rational arms in defeat. They say, 'Islam has prescribed only defensive war'! and think that they have done some good for their religion by depriving it of its method, which is to abolish all injustice from the earth, to bring people to the worship of God alone, and to bring them out of servitude to others into the servants of the Lord."
By contrast, Bhutto writes, "I know that some authors have speculated that women in Islamic countries can never achieve self-actualization or a degree of assertiveness unless they look at this [their situation] from a non-Islamic point of view. I don't agree with that at all. I believe that Islam within it provides justice and equality for women, and I think that those aspects of Islam which have been highlighted by by the mullas [religious scholars] do not do a service to our religion."
Only enough, they both try to blame thinkers and scholar for the prevalence of the opposing view.
Qutb writes, "This group of thinkers, who are a product of the sorry state of the present Muslim generation, have nothing but the label of Islam and have laid down their spiritual and rational arms in defeat. They say, 'Islam has prescribed only defensive war'! and think that they have done some good for their religion by depriving it of its method, which is to abolish all injustice from the earth, to bring people to the worship of God alone, and to bring them out of servitude to others into the servants of the Lord."
By contrast, Bhutto writes, "I know that some authors have speculated that women in Islamic countries can never achieve self-actualization or a degree of assertiveness unless they look at this [their situation] from a non-Islamic point of view. I don't agree with that at all. I believe that Islam within it provides justice and equality for women, and I think that those aspects of Islam which have been highlighted by by the mullas [religious scholars] do not do a service to our religion."
Only enough, they both try to blame thinkers and scholar for the prevalence of the opposing view.
Another Islam Post
Rein mentioned in class that Tariq Ramadan has written quite a bit on the Muslim minority in non-Muslim countries.
Ramadan argues that the only way to end the current cultural/political/military conflict between the West and Islam is for both sides to embrace a more reasonable approach that respects the sensitivities of each party.
Ramadan writes, "The fracture is not between the West and Islam but between those who, in both universes, are able to assert who they are and what they stand for with measure in the name of a faith and/or a rational reason and those drive by exclusive certainties, bind passions, reductive perspectives of the other, and hasty conclusions."
I believe that this sums up much of Ramadan's belief about what causes strife between these two societies and what can be done about it.
Ramadan argues that the only way to end the current cultural/political/military conflict between the West and Islam is for both sides to embrace a more reasonable approach that respects the sensitivities of each party.
Ramadan writes, "The fracture is not between the West and Islam but between those who, in both universes, are able to assert who they are and what they stand for with measure in the name of a faith and/or a rational reason and those drive by exclusive certainties, bind passions, reductive perspectives of the other, and hasty conclusions."
I believe that this sums up much of Ramadan's belief about what causes strife between these two societies and what can be done about it.
Friday, April 25, 2008
First Post in a while
Sorry I haven't kept up with posting. I had a chem test this week, and we only met once this week (today). There really wasn't much to talk about, but I'll try to stretch what we did talk about to three posts over the next few days.
Today in class, we talked about the reading by Tariq Ramada. Actually, we really didn't talk about it per se. We just talked about how perceptions of religion vary with culture. Western culture has come to place more emphasis on internal rather than external expressions of religion, something that is relatively unique when considered in the broad scheme of other cultures.
Middle Eastern/Islamic culture, from what we gathered from the reading, is basically the opposite, placing more emphasis on external rather than internal expressions of faith.
In class I talked about why that might be. In the West, culture has developed a sense of tolerance in response to religious pluralism. Events such as the Reformation and periods such as the Enlightenment made tolerance a necessity if society where people hold different things to be indisputably true is to remain stable.
This is not true of Islamic culture which, while not homogeneous, has responded differently to the challenge of religious diversity.
Today in class, we talked about the reading by Tariq Ramada. Actually, we really didn't talk about it per se. We just talked about how perceptions of religion vary with culture. Western culture has come to place more emphasis on internal rather than external expressions of religion, something that is relatively unique when considered in the broad scheme of other cultures.
Middle Eastern/Islamic culture, from what we gathered from the reading, is basically the opposite, placing more emphasis on external rather than internal expressions of faith.
In class I talked about why that might be. In the West, culture has developed a sense of tolerance in response to religious pluralism. Events such as the Reformation and periods such as the Enlightenment made tolerance a necessity if society where people hold different things to be indisputably true is to remain stable.
This is not true of Islamic culture which, while not homogeneous, has responded differently to the challenge of religious diversity.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Islam Readings
For today we read 3 readings on Islam (2 by Tariq Ramadan and 1 by Ali Shari'ati).
I didn't really like the reading by Shariati because it seemed to blame the situation of third world countries and the Middle East solely on Western capitalism and culture it carries with it.
I contend that this is a dramatic oversimplification of the reality of events. While those in power may have misused Western ideas and forced them upon the inhabitants in many situations, I argue that many Western ideas can improve the quality of life and not damage pre-existing cultures.
I am also critical of his characterization of Western culture as a homogeneous entity. There is more variation and flexibility than he seems to acknowledge.
Sorry I couldn't cover everything we read in this post. I'll try to cover more on Saturday or Monday.
I didn't really like the reading by Shariati because it seemed to blame the situation of third world countries and the Middle East solely on Western capitalism and culture it carries with it.
I contend that this is a dramatic oversimplification of the reality of events. While those in power may have misused Western ideas and forced them upon the inhabitants in many situations, I argue that many Western ideas can improve the quality of life and not damage pre-existing cultures.
I am also critical of his characterization of Western culture as a homogeneous entity. There is more variation and flexibility than he seems to acknowledge.
Sorry I couldn't cover everything we read in this post. I'll try to cover more on Saturday or Monday.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Drowned and the Saved (Continued) Again!
In class today, we didn't talk about the new reading we had to do for today. Instead, we continued talking about The Drowned and the Saved.
We talked about the meaning of the Holocaust and whether anything could be learned from it.
I argued that learning about the Holocaust may help prevent future atrocities of the type from occurring in the future.
We talked about the meaning of the Holocaust and whether anything could be learned from it.
I argued that learning about the Holocaust may help prevent future atrocities of the type from occurring in the future.
Even if, as Levi seems to argue, there is really no way to prevent people from falling into the raw hatred encouraged by totalitarian regimes (a point I personally contest), one can still watch for the warning signs and work to prevent the rise of governments that use atrocious acts to condition their people into a "violent submission."
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Drowned and the Saved (Continued)
Now that I've gotten in the routine of posting two times a week, I am going to try for three times a week starting today.
I there isn't much time left in the year, but I hope this will help make up for the three weeks when I didn't post at all.
Rein's comment in class today connecting Locke's arguments about power to the situation in the concentration camps as described in The Drowned and the Saved.
I think it is interesting the extent to which the Nazis when to dehumanize prisoners in the concentration camps, especially Jews.
In my mind, it must have required a combination true sadism on the part of the orchestrators of this plan for genocide and an insane lust for maintaining power by any means.
The latter, in my view, helps to explain why they would encourage such sadism among soldiers. People are not naturally sadists. It is an "acquired taste."
In essence, the drugs Nazi leaders chose to control both their population and soldiers were raw hatred and sadism.
Indeed, this is short-sighted if your goal is to keep yourself in power. No stable society has ever been founded on such principles. If left unchecked, eventually "the magician loses control of his spells," and all this hatred turns upon the leadership.
Not to mention, such a society can only exist as long as their are places to conquer and people to torment.
Even in theory, such a society is unsustainable.
This is why the choices Nazi leaders made baffle me, in on a pragmatic level.
I there isn't much time left in the year, but I hope this will help make up for the three weeks when I didn't post at all.
Rein's comment in class today connecting Locke's arguments about power to the situation in the concentration camps as described in The Drowned and the Saved.
I think it is interesting the extent to which the Nazis when to dehumanize prisoners in the concentration camps, especially Jews.
In my mind, it must have required a combination true sadism on the part of the orchestrators of this plan for genocide and an insane lust for maintaining power by any means.
The latter, in my view, helps to explain why they would encourage such sadism among soldiers. People are not naturally sadists. It is an "acquired taste."
In essence, the drugs Nazi leaders chose to control both their population and soldiers were raw hatred and sadism.
Indeed, this is short-sighted if your goal is to keep yourself in power. No stable society has ever been founded on such principles. If left unchecked, eventually "the magician loses control of his spells," and all this hatred turns upon the leadership.
Not to mention, such a society can only exist as long as their are places to conquer and people to torment.
Even in theory, such a society is unsustainable.
This is why the choices Nazi leaders made baffle me, in on a pragmatic level.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
The Drowned and the Saved
Again sorry for the late posting this week.
For Monday we had to read The Drowned and the Saved, chapters 2 and 5.
Much of chapter 2 had to do with how one can judge people in the "gray zone," those who in some ways collaborated with the Nazis in perpetrating the Holocaust yet who were also victims of the Nazis.
The author explains that the both the desire to survive and the desire for power motivated Nazi victims to do things they would never think of doing in a more stable environment.
As one example, he discusses the role of the "Special Squad," the group of prisoners in the concentration camps given the task of running the crematorium and other parts of the extermination process.
He argues that for two primary reasons these people should be considered victims rather than perpetrators: 1st, With the help of the extra rations they would receive, they could better preserve the memory of the atrocities committed if they were liberated or found a way to escape. 2nd, They took this job to avoid being immediately killed. No one is really fit to judge them, as we do not really know for sure what we ourselves would do in the same circumstances.
In chapter 5, the discussion shifted to the "uselessness" of Nazi violence. In contrast to the author, I believe there had to be an element of sadism involved in what the Nazis did. It couldn't have all been conditioning. It boils down to the innate human ability to enjoy another human beings suffering if all the inhibitions have been removed and this behavior is encouraged (these are, in fact, two sides of the same coin).
As much as human beings are social creatures and our an innate drive to work with others for a common goal keeps us from hurting others, there is still sadism in the human equation.
It is mindboggling how much evil humans are capable of working.
I thought both of these sections were interesting, especially since they discussed the morality and philosophy behind the events of the Holocaust.
For Monday we had to read The Drowned and the Saved, chapters 2 and 5.
Much of chapter 2 had to do with how one can judge people in the "gray zone," those who in some ways collaborated with the Nazis in perpetrating the Holocaust yet who were also victims of the Nazis.
The author explains that the both the desire to survive and the desire for power motivated Nazi victims to do things they would never think of doing in a more stable environment.
As one example, he discusses the role of the "Special Squad," the group of prisoners in the concentration camps given the task of running the crematorium and other parts of the extermination process.
He argues that for two primary reasons these people should be considered victims rather than perpetrators: 1st, With the help of the extra rations they would receive, they could better preserve the memory of the atrocities committed if they were liberated or found a way to escape. 2nd, They took this job to avoid being immediately killed. No one is really fit to judge them, as we do not really know for sure what we ourselves would do in the same circumstances.
In chapter 5, the discussion shifted to the "uselessness" of Nazi violence. In contrast to the author, I believe there had to be an element of sadism involved in what the Nazis did. It couldn't have all been conditioning. It boils down to the innate human ability to enjoy another human beings suffering if all the inhibitions have been removed and this behavior is encouraged (these are, in fact, two sides of the same coin).
As much as human beings are social creatures and our an innate drive to work with others for a common goal keeps us from hurting others, there is still sadism in the human equation.
It is mindboggling how much evil humans are capable of working.
I thought both of these sections were interesting, especially since they discussed the morality and philosophy behind the events of the Holocaust.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Mein Kampf and other readings
Sorry for posting late in the week. I've had quite a bit going on. I'll give a follow up post tomorrow.
For today, we read Hitler's Mein Kampf and some other documents on Social Darwinism.
The general class consensus was that the whole idea of "master races" and innately "inferior" and "superior" people was utterly ridiculous.
We discussed the conditions of Germany and its people when Hitler came to power and that gave us more context through which we could understand how the German people came to follow Hitler and accept his ideas.
I think it is important to understand how downtrodden the German people felt after WWI, and that, in turn, made them more receptive to ideas we today would consider inhuman and overall detrimental to the stability of greater human society.
For today, we read Hitler's Mein Kampf and some other documents on Social Darwinism.
The general class consensus was that the whole idea of "master races" and innately "inferior" and "superior" people was utterly ridiculous.
We discussed the conditions of Germany and its people when Hitler came to power and that gave us more context through which we could understand how the German people came to follow Hitler and accept his ideas.
I think it is important to understand how downtrodden the German people felt after WWI, and that, in turn, made them more receptive to ideas we today would consider inhuman and overall detrimental to the stability of greater human society.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Ending of The River Between
I really didn't like the ending of The River Between.
It left the reader hanging and didn't resolve the fundamental conflicts in the story.
We never find out what ultimately happens to the village, Waiyaki personally, or the relationship between Waiyaki and Nyambura.
I told somebody in class Friday (while waiting to see if Rein could make it) that I almost wanted to rewrite the ending and provide some real answers to the cliffhangers.
I also wish there had been more development of some of the characters (Joshua in particular). Some of the characters (especially the "bad" characters, e.g., Joshua, Kabonyi, Kamau, etc.) were laughably "cookie-cutter."
If I ever wrote a fuller ending to this book, I would take the time to develop these characters far more than Ngugi does.
It left the reader hanging and didn't resolve the fundamental conflicts in the story.
We never find out what ultimately happens to the village, Waiyaki personally, or the relationship between Waiyaki and Nyambura.
I told somebody in class Friday (while waiting to see if Rein could make it) that I almost wanted to rewrite the ending and provide some real answers to the cliffhangers.
I also wish there had been more development of some of the characters (Joshua in particular). Some of the characters (especially the "bad" characters, e.g., Joshua, Kabonyi, Kamau, etc.) were laughably "cookie-cutter."
If I ever wrote a fuller ending to this book, I would take the time to develop these characters far more than Ngugi does.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
On The River Between
For class today, we read the first half of The River Between.
From just what we read, thought the book was mediocre (a B- as I told someone in class).
In class we talked about initiation rituals as they pertain to circumcision in the story.
The children of the tribe become adults through this ritual, and it is deeply meaningful for them, so much so that one girl undergoes it over her father's opposition and dies from it content that she will die a woman.
The initiation rituals in the story physically mark new members, but not all initiation rituals do so. In fact, modern initiation rituals are far more psychological or tests of will and stamina.
More after Friday's class!
From just what we read, thought the book was mediocre (a B- as I told someone in class).
In class we talked about initiation rituals as they pertain to circumcision in the story.
The children of the tribe become adults through this ritual, and it is deeply meaningful for them, so much so that one girl undergoes it over her father's opposition and dies from it content that she will die a woman.
The initiation rituals in the story physically mark new members, but not all initiation rituals do so. In fact, modern initiation rituals are far more psychological or tests of will and stamina.
More after Friday's class!
Friday, March 28, 2008
No Class
Today class was canceled (Hope you feel better soon, Rein!).
I wasn't sure what to write about since we only had class one day this week.
I did some reading on Wikipedia to give more more background on Nietzsche.
I found a page on Master-Slave Morality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
The way I think about it, that is the crux of what he is discussing in the first section.
The conflict between these two "moral systems" explains much of society for Nietzsche.
Personally, I don't understand how he went on living believing what he thought and believing what he believed.
I wasn't sure what to write about since we only had class one day this week.
I did some reading on Wikipedia to give more more background on Nietzsche.
I found a page on Master-Slave Morality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
The way I think about it, that is the crux of what he is discussing in the first section.
The conflict between these two "moral systems" explains much of society for Nietzsche.
Personally, I don't understand how he went on living believing what he thought and believing what he believed.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Nietzsche (NOT!)
Class was canceled today, but I'm still trying to get back into my routine of posting at least twice a week.
Whenever I hear about Nietzsche, I think of the Monty Python sketch with the Philosopher's Drinking Song, here reproduced for your reading pleasure:
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
LOL! Gives me a chuckle every time!
Oh, and Rein, if you're reading this, don't think I wasted my time off since class was canceled today!
There wasn't a moment I didn't spend (hardly!) working!
I hope you feel better and that every thing works out (and starts smelling better! Yikes!).
Hope the little song helped cheer you up a bit!
Whenever I hear about Nietzsche, I think of the Monty Python sketch with the Philosopher's Drinking Song, here reproduced for your reading pleasure:
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
LOL! Gives me a chuckle every time!
Oh, and Rein, if you're reading this, don't think I wasted my time off since class was canceled today!
There wasn't a moment I didn't spend (hardly!) working!
I hope you feel better and that every thing works out (and starts smelling better! Yikes!).
Hope the little song helped cheer you up a bit!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Nietzsche
For Friday's class, we read Nietzsche's Preface and the First Essay of On the Genealogy of Morals.
I don't know. I've read (parts of) some of his other work, and I don't think it was as interesting as Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Every time I read Nietzsche, I feel depressed. I suppose it's the nihilism more than anything else. Being slapped in the face with the supposed sheer meaninglessness of it all isn't particularly enlightening to me.
Now, what I do like about Nietzsche is his willingness to be candid and question everything.
Personally, I don't think getting an objective viewpoint requires nihilism at all.
The way he goes about it is silly to me. On pages 46-48 he gives a dialogue that, while stylistically interesting (though that may be just as much the work of the translator), is inconsistent overall. As he reduces "selfless" morality into just another kind of "control-seeking," he never turns his analysis back to himself or his own endeavors. What is their value if there is no true standard, no method of judgment that has any basis outside of human selfishness?
I guess this is why I'm not a nihilist. I really don't think it makes someone any more objective. All this hopeless and destruction of values would just make me want to stop living.
I don't know. I've read (parts of) some of his other work, and I don't think it was as interesting as Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Every time I read Nietzsche, I feel depressed. I suppose it's the nihilism more than anything else. Being slapped in the face with the supposed sheer meaninglessness of it all isn't particularly enlightening to me.
Now, what I do like about Nietzsche is his willingness to be candid and question everything.
Personally, I don't think getting an objective viewpoint requires nihilism at all.
The way he goes about it is silly to me. On pages 46-48 he gives a dialogue that, while stylistically interesting (though that may be just as much the work of the translator), is inconsistent overall. As he reduces "selfless" morality into just another kind of "control-seeking," he never turns his analysis back to himself or his own endeavors. What is their value if there is no true standard, no method of judgment that has any basis outside of human selfishness?
I guess this is why I'm not a nihilist. I really don't think it makes someone any more objective. All this hopeless and destruction of values would just make me want to stop living.
Monday, March 17, 2008
More Darwin
Today in class we talked more about the Darwin and Paley readings. Rein asked us more about why we thought evolution remains controversial to this day. I said it had a lot to do with the fact that, at least in some peoples' minds, "reducing" people to animals subjected to the forces of nature just like any other can wreak havoc with systems of morality and ethics, especially religiously based ones. This not to say one cannot have both evolution and traditional morality. Quite the contrary, all it takes is reanalysis and reinterpretation. One may even say one's beliefs would be stronger for it.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Long Time, No Post
Yeah, I haven't posted in about 3 weeks. Time has just not permitted. Today, we started talking about the reading on Darwin. I got up early this morning to read everything, and then most people in class hadn't even read it. So, discussion was kind of pointless even though Rein tried to sir up thought on why evolution is so controversial. Personally, I never saw much controversial about it. There's no part of it that denies the existence of God, and there are many interpretations of religious texts that are fully compatible with evolution.
Tonight we also saw a movie about lions and hyenas as an example of Darwinian competition. Overall, I think it did a good job, but I still thought several parts were a bit gruesome (though definitely less gruesome than it could have been).
Tonight we also saw a movie about lions and hyenas as an example of Darwinian competition. Overall, I think it did a good job, but I still thought several parts were a bit gruesome (though definitely less gruesome than it could have been).
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Another Post
Yeah, I haven't had time until now, so it's time for another post!
On Monday, we saw the movie Glory. I didn't really like the Matthew Broderick character (Colonel Shaw(sp?)). He didn't seem like an accurately portrayed Civil War colonel. He was far too wishy-washy and never really seemed to act on any well-thought principle. He never seemed sure of himself, and it never seemed like he learned anything from his experiences (even when his behavior changed). I also agree with Rein that the film centralized the "plight" of a white man who could not "not be a bigot" to the point where the film took on some racist undertones.
On Monday, we saw the movie Glory. I didn't really like the Matthew Broderick character (Colonel Shaw(sp?)). He didn't seem like an accurately portrayed Civil War colonel. He was far too wishy-washy and never really seemed to act on any well-thought principle. He never seemed sure of himself, and it never seemed like he learned anything from his experiences (even when his behavior changed). I also agree with Rein that the film centralized the "plight" of a white man who could not "not be a bigot" to the point where the film took on some racist undertones.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Continuing on my previous rant, The Declaration of Sentiments has a of list grievances highly reminiscent of the list in The Declaration of Independence. I feel that in this case, the following the form of The Declaration of Independence definitely has its setbacks. It lends a disorderly feel (as it also does in The Declaration of Independence) to the work as whole.
The next document, Stanton's Address to the New York Legislature, included the question, "How could man look thus on woman? She, at whose feet Socrates learned wisdom -- she, who gave the world a Saviour [sic], and witnessed alike the adoration of the Magiand the agonies of the cross. How could such a being, so blessed and honored, ever become the ignoble, servile, cringing slave, with whom fear of man could be paramount to the sacred dictates of conscience and the holy love of Heaven" (p. 54).
I though it was interesting and really showed the religious influence in early(er) feminism.
The next document, Stanton's Address to the New York Legislature, included the question, "How could man look thus on woman? She, at whose feet Socrates learned wisdom -- she, who gave the world a Saviour [sic], and witnessed alike the adoration of the Magiand the agonies of the cross. How could such a being, so blessed and honored, ever become the ignoble, servile, cringing slave, with whom fear of man could be paramount to the sacred dictates of conscience and the holy love of Heaven" (p. 54).
I though it was interesting and really showed the religious influence in early(er) feminism.
So, I finished the CIE reading for class on Monday. The one by Frederick Douglass reminded me of the lecture we had last Tuesday. They mentioned something about the dedication of a statue of Lincoln at the Freedman's Bureau where Douglass said that Lincoln was primarily "the white man's president," which is strikingly similar to the suggestion in the passage that the Fourth of July is a white man's holiday.
The next section, the "Declaration of Sentiments," I had seen before. I always though it was a bit silly for them to copy and reword parts of the Declaration of Independence, yet I definitely understand where they were going and the point they were making with that strategy.
Well, that's all for now. If I get more time later today, I'll write more!
The next section, the "Declaration of Sentiments," I had seen before. I always though it was a bit silly for them to copy and reword parts of the Declaration of Independence, yet I definitely understand where they were going and the point they were making with that strategy.
Well, that's all for now. If I get more time later today, I'll write more!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)