"'I've got more faith in Hitler than anyone else. He's the only one who's kept his promises, all his promises, to the Jewish people.'" - The faceless man in the hospital, pg. 77
I like this quote a lot. It's really sad, of course, but it's well put and mostly true (I won't say completely because I don't know the history of the Jews very well).
It's true because people tend not to keep good promises to others. Politicians, for example, when they want to get elected, like to give impressive and nice-sounding speeches to everyone about how they're going to help them, what they're going to do for them, blah blah blah, but in the end they don't care, and they don't do anything. Confucius talked a lot about that, and how one's words should never exceed one's actions. This reminds me of the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, and how Napoleon gave big speeches about everyone being equal, and how he would treat everyone right, but in the end he just becomes a drunk and a tyrant and orders people killed. Or the movie Buscando a Miguel, in the beginning, and all Miguel's ploys to get elected, as well as his hypocrisy and contempt for the people he said he wanted to help (people are stupid because they're poor. Just for that, I think he deserved everything he got). It's much more usual for people who promise horrible things to keep those promises than for people who promise good things to keep them. Like Hitler, as the man said.
"An SS man would examine us. Whenever he found a weak one, a musulman as we called them, he would write his number down: good for the crematory." (pg. 66)
I found this curious because there had to be some French people in the concentration camps, and in French musulman means a Muslim. Is calling weak people Muslims some sort of racist slur? I know that Muslims and Jews tend to dislike/mistrust each other. And if they hate each other, it would probably be pretty offensive to a weakling to be called that. Is it actually supposed to be an insult to the infirm? Or does no one have any idea what a musulman is and just call people that for some reason that only they know? I find it kind of sad that in a place where people are being brutally tortured and murdered every day because of their religion, they still have the inclination to hate other people because of their beliefs.
I don't think Confucius would approve of this book. because of all the very un-filial moments in it. One of them was the pipel who beat his father in page sixty, because he hadn't done the kid's bed properly. There were also two kind of parallel events, one where a priest's boy tries to let his father die so that he only has to take care of himself (pg. 87), and the other when Eliezer himself admits to being glad that his father died because now, he also could take care of himself only (pg. 106), although he's redeemed by the many other very filial things he did, such as risk his life helping his father escape from the crematories (pg. 91). And the worst of all is on the train, when the boy Meir murders his father to get his morsel of bread (pg. 96). Unfortunately, everyone else then discovers the bread and chaos ensues. So in the end, father and son are both dead (and for one tiny piece of bread!).
I liked this book, although, strange as it may sound, the book made the Holocaust sound better than I thought. Maybe it's because I've read too many exaggerated books/articles on concentration camps (I once had a morbid obsession with them), but the Nazis seemed kinder in here, there didn't seem to be hundreds of dead bodies lying everywhere, and the people seemed to be treated better than I'd heard. Although someone in the book did mention that the concentration camp they were in wasn't that bad, so Eliezer could just have been lucky (actually, I just realized how stupid that sounds. Let's say luckier than other Jews in Europe). Still, this was a great book, and I have to admit I found it more interesting than some of the other texts we've read so far.
martes, 27 de noviembre de 2007
lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2007
Night, by Elie Wiesel: Part I
One thing I noticed (although it was fairly obvious), was a connection with The Book of Job. There's a part in page forty-two, once everyone has arrived in their concentration camp,where everyone is realizing the full horror of their situation, and people try to figure out what on earth is going on, and why on earth it's going on.
"Some talked of God, of his mysterious ways, of the sins of the Jewish people, and of their future deliverance." (pg. 42)
This is almost exactly what Zophar the Naamatithe said to Job when they were talking about his sufferings. Unfortunately, since I don't have the Bible with me I can't quote him directly, but I remember because that's what we talked about in class. At first Zophar tells Job that he must have done something wrong in order to be punished this way (the sins of the Jewish people), and if he accepted his punishment and learned to worship God properly he would find happiness (their future deliverance).
I've also made a connection with the book, "Mathilda," by Roald Dahl. There's a part where Mathilda and her friends are talking about why kids don't complain to their parents about the evil headmistress, and the friend replies that they do, but the headmistress' greatest strength is that she does things so horrible parents don't believe their kids when they talk about them. It reminds me, on a bigger scale, of when Moshe the Beadle escapes from a camp and tries to tell everyone about what he witnessed there, but everyone just rolls their eyes and say that either he's gone crazy, or he just wants people to pity him. I wonder if Roald Dahl was, in any way, inspired by that part of the book.
"Some talked of God, of his mysterious ways, of the sins of the Jewish people, and of their future deliverance." (pg. 42)
This is almost exactly what Zophar the Naamatithe said to Job when they were talking about his sufferings. Unfortunately, since I don't have the Bible with me I can't quote him directly, but I remember because that's what we talked about in class. At first Zophar tells Job that he must have done something wrong in order to be punished this way (the sins of the Jewish people), and if he accepted his punishment and learned to worship God properly he would find happiness (their future deliverance).
I've also made a connection with the book, "Mathilda," by Roald Dahl. There's a part where Mathilda and her friends are talking about why kids don't complain to their parents about the evil headmistress, and the friend replies that they do, but the headmistress' greatest strength is that she does things so horrible parents don't believe their kids when they talk about them. It reminds me, on a bigger scale, of when Moshe the Beadle escapes from a camp and tries to tell everyone about what he witnessed there, but everyone just rolls their eyes and say that either he's gone crazy, or he just wants people to pity him. I wonder if Roald Dahl was, in any way, inspired by that part of the book.
Responses to Other People's Blogs
Sofia Linares-Stalin and Confucius: I hadn't thought about the whole deal of turning your parents in to be punished, and how wrong that is. I agree with her completely, kids should be loyal to their parents and cover up for them at all times. I've always found the idea of hitting your parents (physically) appalling, and turning your parents in can sometimes be like condemning them to death. It's outrageous, and people who do that need a serious lesson in respect.
Lorenza Rodriguez-Analects books 12-14: I disagree with what Lorenza says about the fact that you're happier if you give than if you receive. While that may be true for some people who are very noble, I don't think it applies to most of the world. A good example is World War II. In concentration camps, food was so scarce that everyone fought each other, and even killed each other, for it. That's also why stealing happens, and why people get envious. Humans are naturally selfish, and they like to have things, not just watch other people enjoy the things they want. Imagine you hadn't eaten for three weeks, and were staring to death. You see someone eating a fat, greasy turkey, and you don't get any. Would you be happy for that person, or would you think to yourself, "I WANT that turkey!!!"? Probably the latter, unless, of course, you are a strong, generous, and extremely selfless person.
Lorenza Rodriguez-Analects books 12-14: I disagree with what Lorenza says about the fact that you're happier if you give than if you receive. While that may be true for some people who are very noble, I don't think it applies to most of the world. A good example is World War II. In concentration camps, food was so scarce that everyone fought each other, and even killed each other, for it. That's also why stealing happens, and why people get envious. Humans are naturally selfish, and they like to have things, not just watch other people enjoy the things they want. Imagine you hadn't eaten for three weeks, and were staring to death. You see someone eating a fat, greasy turkey, and you don't get any. Would you be happy for that person, or would you think to yourself, "I WANT that turkey!!!"? Probably the latter, unless, of course, you are a strong, generous, and extremely selfless person.
domingo, 25 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects Summary
There were many recurring themes throughout the Analects, and those are the ones I'm going to talk about, since Confucius must have believed them to be very important since he emphasized them so much. They all have to do with being Good, which is the central theme of this book.
One thing about Confucius is that he is very specific when he decides what is Goodness and what is not, and he doesn't believe that being pure, or wise, or courageous, is the same thing as being Good. There are many times when a disciple comes to him with an example of someone, and asks the Master if he is Good, only to have him answer that he is this, this, or this, but maybe not good. The best example is 5.19, when Zilu brings up and example of a minister. Confucius states that he is dutiful and pure, but that he has done nothing to deserve being called Good.
Another thing that Confucius preaches is the importance to have a love for learning, complaining about who can't study for more than three years without thinking about money. He states that, "In any village of ten households there are surely those who are as dutiful or trustworthy as I am, but there is no one who matches my love for learning," (5.28), and laughing at someone who believes that he should become more learned in one subject than the others (9.2). He also believes that all good qualities, unless balanced by a love for learning, will turn into vices (17.18). For example, "Loving Goodness without balancing it with a love for learning will result in the vice of foolishness."
Confucius also talks a lot about the importance of observing the rites, yet with a right mixture of "native substance and cultural refinement." Native substance is genuine belief of your religion and cultural, and cultural refinement is the elaborate way of doing your rituals. If you have too much native substance, you become a crude rustic, but if you have too much cultural refinement you become foppish. You need both to become a gentleman (6.18). His love for the rites is related to his love for antiquity; "I am not someone who was born with knowledge. I simply love antiquity, and diligently look there for knowledge." (7.20) He does not believe in innovation, but believes that if something has worked for a long time, then it proves it good and should be continued, which is funny because that was actually one of rhetoric fallacies. He also believes in following the Odes, insisting that they don't lead you astray (2.2), which is another instance of using the old ways of thinking as guidance.
The last thing that Confucius really emphasizes is the importance of being filial (1.6). He also talks about the fact that being filial is more than just giving his parents food and taking care of them (2.7). Even animals can do that. Humans need to respect their parents, and follow their wishes (1.11). You need to protect them, as well as cover up for them if they get into trouble, and even if they do something illegal. He really stresses the importance of behaving his way towards your elders, parents, and older brothers.
These are the most recurring themes throughout the Analects. He talks about them over and over again, all the while showing different aspects of them and giving us examples of how they should be done. I think he did this to show us that these are the most important characteristics of being Good, so that we can see who is Good and try to follow their example (16.4, 12.24, 4.17).
One thing about Confucius is that he is very specific when he decides what is Goodness and what is not, and he doesn't believe that being pure, or wise, or courageous, is the same thing as being Good. There are many times when a disciple comes to him with an example of someone, and asks the Master if he is Good, only to have him answer that he is this, this, or this, but maybe not good. The best example is 5.19, when Zilu brings up and example of a minister. Confucius states that he is dutiful and pure, but that he has done nothing to deserve being called Good.
Another thing that Confucius preaches is the importance to have a love for learning, complaining about who can't study for more than three years without thinking about money. He states that, "In any village of ten households there are surely those who are as dutiful or trustworthy as I am, but there is no one who matches my love for learning," (5.28), and laughing at someone who believes that he should become more learned in one subject than the others (9.2). He also believes that all good qualities, unless balanced by a love for learning, will turn into vices (17.18). For example, "Loving Goodness without balancing it with a love for learning will result in the vice of foolishness."
Confucius also talks a lot about the importance of observing the rites, yet with a right mixture of "native substance and cultural refinement." Native substance is genuine belief of your religion and cultural, and cultural refinement is the elaborate way of doing your rituals. If you have too much native substance, you become a crude rustic, but if you have too much cultural refinement you become foppish. You need both to become a gentleman (6.18). His love for the rites is related to his love for antiquity; "I am not someone who was born with knowledge. I simply love antiquity, and diligently look there for knowledge." (7.20) He does not believe in innovation, but believes that if something has worked for a long time, then it proves it good and should be continued, which is funny because that was actually one of rhetoric fallacies. He also believes in following the Odes, insisting that they don't lead you astray (2.2), which is another instance of using the old ways of thinking as guidance.
The last thing that Confucius really emphasizes is the importance of being filial (1.6). He also talks about the fact that being filial is more than just giving his parents food and taking care of them (2.7). Even animals can do that. Humans need to respect their parents, and follow their wishes (1.11). You need to protect them, as well as cover up for them if they get into trouble, and even if they do something illegal. He really stresses the importance of behaving his way towards your elders, parents, and older brothers.
These are the most recurring themes throughout the Analects. He talks about them over and over again, all the while showing different aspects of them and giving us examples of how they should be done. I think he did this to show us that these are the most important characteristics of being Good, so that we can see who is Good and try to follow their example (16.4, 12.24, 4.17).
martes, 20 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects; Books 9,10, and 16
I think that what is different between books 9 and 10 (although especially 10) is that they talk more about the Master and his habits, for people to use as guidance and a model of how they should behave.
Unfortunately, some of them don't apply much anymore, because our habits and culture have changed, such as, "He would not sit unless his mat was straight." (10.12). Actually, I revise my opinion. These principles can still be applied to us, if not interpreted so literally. The quote I just said cold be interpreted to mean that you have to be neat, or 10.23 could mean that you should only be truly grateful for a gift if it benefits someone else, not just you. All of the sayings in Book 10 can actually in some way be modified to give us advice on how to behave today.
Book 9 also tells stories about the Master's life, although near the end he reverts back to general wisdom.
"Zigong said, 'If you possessed a piece of a beautiful jade, would you hide it away in a locked box, or would you try to sell it at a good price?'
The Master responded, 'Oh, I would sell it! I would sell it! I am just waiting for the right offer!'" (9.13)
I wonder about this anecdote. Does it mean that if you have something beautiful, you shouldn't hide it away but share it with everyone, or that something is only worth what you can get for it. That is to say, the piece of jade isn't worth anything in itself, but the money you can get for it is. If that's what it means, I disagree. Things or people or events can be great just to have around, because they're fun/interesting, not because of what you can get from them.
"The Master said, 'Surely there are some sprouts that fail to flower, just as surely as there are some flowers that fail to bear fruit!'" (9.22)
I agree with this saying. There are many people who never manage to become smart, kind, responsible, and those that do don't always become Good, even though they had the potential. Something I find very interesting is that you always hear about people, "S/he didn't use his/her potential," but you rarely hear about anyone, "S/he used up his full potential." I wonder why it is that so few people ever become all that they could have become.
Book 16 was different because Confucius talked about things in3's a lot (three things a Good man stands in awe of, three kind of good joys and friendships, and three kinds of bad joys and friendships.
I found 16.13 funny. It was almost like a joke, a fool talks, a wise man listens to himself, restates what he learned, then makes fun of the fool, which is the punch line.
I didn't like 16.9. I think that people who've had to work hardest to understand are the best, because they've put more effort into it and have had to work harder, whereas those who understand things naturally have no problem with everything and don't have to work as hard as the others. That's why I think that people should respect not-so-smart people who get grades nearly as good as geniuses more than those geniuses. They've worked harder, and have proven more about their character.
In conclusion, I think the main difference between these particular chapters and all the others is that in all the other chapters it was general wisdom, kind of observations about life in general, whereas these chapters actually gave you advice on how you should live your daily life, what kind of friends and pleasures you should have, and how you should treat the people around you. That's why we read these chapters separately.
Unfortunately, some of them don't apply much anymore, because our habits and culture have changed, such as, "He would not sit unless his mat was straight." (10.12). Actually, I revise my opinion. These principles can still be applied to us, if not interpreted so literally. The quote I just said cold be interpreted to mean that you have to be neat, or 10.23 could mean that you should only be truly grateful for a gift if it benefits someone else, not just you. All of the sayings in Book 10 can actually in some way be modified to give us advice on how to behave today.
Book 9 also tells stories about the Master's life, although near the end he reverts back to general wisdom.
"Zigong said, 'If you possessed a piece of a beautiful jade, would you hide it away in a locked box, or would you try to sell it at a good price?'
The Master responded, 'Oh, I would sell it! I would sell it! I am just waiting for the right offer!'" (9.13)
I wonder about this anecdote. Does it mean that if you have something beautiful, you shouldn't hide it away but share it with everyone, or that something is only worth what you can get for it. That is to say, the piece of jade isn't worth anything in itself, but the money you can get for it is. If that's what it means, I disagree. Things or people or events can be great just to have around, because they're fun/interesting, not because of what you can get from them.
"The Master said, 'Surely there are some sprouts that fail to flower, just as surely as there are some flowers that fail to bear fruit!'" (9.22)
I agree with this saying. There are many people who never manage to become smart, kind, responsible, and those that do don't always become Good, even though they had the potential. Something I find very interesting is that you always hear about people, "S/he didn't use his/her potential," but you rarely hear about anyone, "S/he used up his full potential." I wonder why it is that so few people ever become all that they could have become.
Book 16 was different because Confucius talked about things in3's a lot (three things a Good man stands in awe of, three kind of good joys and friendships, and three kinds of bad joys and friendships.
I found 16.13 funny. It was almost like a joke, a fool talks, a wise man listens to himself, restates what he learned, then makes fun of the fool, which is the punch line.
I didn't like 16.9. I think that people who've had to work hardest to understand are the best, because they've put more effort into it and have had to work harder, whereas those who understand things naturally have no problem with everything and don't have to work as hard as the others. That's why I think that people should respect not-so-smart people who get grades nearly as good as geniuses more than those geniuses. They've worked harder, and have proven more about their character.
In conclusion, I think the main difference between these particular chapters and all the others is that in all the other chapters it was general wisdom, kind of observations about life in general, whereas these chapters actually gave you advice on how you should live your daily life, what kind of friends and pleasures you should have, and how you should treat the people around you. That's why we read these chapters separately.
lunes, 19 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 15,17, and 18
I find the way that Confucius talked to the Music Master strange. He would point out everything to him clearly, and then when his disciple asked him if that was how you were supposed to talk to a Music Master, Confucius answered that yes (15.42). I would think that this is somehow a slur on musicians, and that they mustn't be very smart if that's the job they end up with, but Confucius repeatedly stresses the importance of music, and how great and wonderful it is, so I don't understand his behavior towards the Music Master.
15.24 also says that the word that should guide you throughout your whole life is understanding, and that you should do to others what you would like others to do to you. I find this interesting because it is also something that we read about in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," which is listed as one of the rules in Exodus. I found the connection curious.
"The Master said, 'Human beings can broaden the Way-it is not the Way that broadens human beings.'" (15.29)
I think that this means that it is human beings that add new thing unto he way, and that the Way is just something that teaches us how to achieve our goal of becoming Good. It's the humans that can add things and wisdom unto the Way, but the Way just helps people and shows them what they should do if they ant to become Good, the mere fact that they're interested in doing that proving they're already pretty impressive (The Master said, 'Is Goodness really so far away?If simply desire Goodness, I will find that it is already here.'" 7.30)
"The Master said, 'By nature people are similar, they diverge as the result of practice.'" (17.2)
I agree with this saying. Deep down, I think that all humans are pretty similar, some of them may be smarter, or kinder, or more willful, but everyone has ambitions and desires and hopes. The difference lies in what those beliefs support those desires and ambitions. If someone wants to join the Peace Corps and then become President so that they can help humanity, then that person has really the same ambitions than, say, Hitler,who, in hos won way, really believed that what he was doing would help his country and the world in general (please note that I am not a neo-nazi. I'm just using Hitler. In fact, I absolutely loathe/hate/despise/detest him, but I'm using him as an example because he's a good contrast for what I'm trying to say). Those two people have the same ambition, it's just their beliefs, and the way they go about supporting those beliefs (one becomes a President through fair means and helps people peacefully, the other becomes a cruel and ruthless dictator that slaughters millions of people for no good deed), that make them different people, and that makes one revered and the other hated.
I also found 17.25 to be true, although not just for women and servants, but for all people as well. If you get too close to people, they begin to pry a lot, and pay too much attention to you, and care to much about you (although that's not necessarily a bad things with friends and family, but it is with people you don't care for), and if you stay away, they think you're a snob and think you're better than them, or are way too self-absorbed, and so they grow resentful and start to dislike you, even though you never gave them any particular reason to do so, and probably always treated them right and were nice to them. They want more than that. They want you to be interested in them and like them and pay attention to them. It's a very strange human characteristic.
I did not really understand the two stories in Book 18. They basically talk about the fact that some people prefer to stay away from bad things rather than deal with them. I think that that's a mixture of laziness and cowardice. Laziness because you just look at them and think to yourself, "Why bother? They're all loser anyway, and nothing I can do will change that. I migh as well sit back and do my thing while feeling superior to the rest of humanity." It's a way to excuse the fact that they think it's too hard to work for bettering society, so they might as well do nothing. It's also cowardice because they're scared to mix with the crowd, get their hands dirty, and maybe even get hurt trying to make the world a better place. I hate people who look at problems, think that it's impossible to take care of so why bother, then go watch TV. It really shows a lot about your character, and not good things either.
15.24 also says that the word that should guide you throughout your whole life is understanding, and that you should do to others what you would like others to do to you. I find this interesting because it is also something that we read about in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," which is listed as one of the rules in Exodus. I found the connection curious.
"The Master said, 'Human beings can broaden the Way-it is not the Way that broadens human beings.'" (15.29)
I think that this means that it is human beings that add new thing unto he way, and that the Way is just something that teaches us how to achieve our goal of becoming Good. It's the humans that can add things and wisdom unto the Way, but the Way just helps people and shows them what they should do if they ant to become Good, the mere fact that they're interested in doing that proving they're already pretty impressive (The Master said, 'Is Goodness really so far away?If simply desire Goodness, I will find that it is already here.'" 7.30)
"The Master said, 'By nature people are similar, they diverge as the result of practice.'" (17.2)
I agree with this saying. Deep down, I think that all humans are pretty similar, some of them may be smarter, or kinder, or more willful, but everyone has ambitions and desires and hopes. The difference lies in what those beliefs support those desires and ambitions. If someone wants to join the Peace Corps and then become President so that they can help humanity, then that person has really the same ambitions than, say, Hitler,who, in hos won way, really believed that what he was doing would help his country and the world in general (please note that I am not a neo-nazi. I'm just using Hitler. In fact, I absolutely loathe/hate/despise/detest him, but I'm using him as an example because he's a good contrast for what I'm trying to say). Those two people have the same ambition, it's just their beliefs, and the way they go about supporting those beliefs (one becomes a President through fair means and helps people peacefully, the other becomes a cruel and ruthless dictator that slaughters millions of people for no good deed), that make them different people, and that makes one revered and the other hated.
I also found 17.25 to be true, although not just for women and servants, but for all people as well. If you get too close to people, they begin to pry a lot, and pay too much attention to you, and care to much about you (although that's not necessarily a bad things with friends and family, but it is with people you don't care for), and if you stay away, they think you're a snob and think you're better than them, or are way too self-absorbed, and so they grow resentful and start to dislike you, even though you never gave them any particular reason to do so, and probably always treated them right and were nice to them. They want more than that. They want you to be interested in them and like them and pay attention to them. It's a very strange human characteristic.
I did not really understand the two stories in Book 18. They basically talk about the fact that some people prefer to stay away from bad things rather than deal with them. I think that that's a mixture of laziness and cowardice. Laziness because you just look at them and think to yourself, "Why bother? They're all loser anyway, and nothing I can do will change that. I migh as well sit back and do my thing while feeling superior to the rest of humanity." It's a way to excuse the fact that they think it's too hard to work for bettering society, so they might as well do nothing. It's also cowardice because they're scared to mix with the crowd, get their hands dirty, and maybe even get hurt trying to make the world a better place. I hate people who look at problems, think that it's impossible to take care of so why bother, then go watch TV. It really shows a lot about your character, and not good things either.
domingo, 18 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 12-14
I would like to know what those famous rituals are. Confucius seems to believe that following them is the key to being good:
"Do not look unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not listen unless it is in accordance with ritual, do not speak unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not move unless it is in accordance with ritual."
This seems a bit extreme. There can't be rituals that guide you as to when it is appropriate to move, or to say something, and especially not listen. You should just listen to whoever is speaking, unless that person isn't saying anything worth hearing.
Confucius also talks a lot about how if you just set the right example, everyone around you will be good.
"To govern means to be correct. If you set an example by being correct yourself, who will dare to be incorrect?" (12.17)
In the next book, he also talks a lot about how you should rule your people. You need to be upright and respectable in all ways, so that people are drawn closer to you ("The mere existence of such a ruler would cause the common people throughout the world to bundle their children on their backs and seek him out." 13.4)
I disagree with his statement that people should govern by being Good, then everyone would copy his example and become good as well. People aren't like that. Maybe some would follow his example and try to behave correctly, but most of the people would like him yet not change their ways, or else just walk all over him. This way of ruling would never work in a society full of different kinds of people. Granted, the rulers should be good, and want the best for their people, but that also means they need to have laws and punishments if they want order.
It's also interesting that he thinks that people should cover up for each other's crimes:
"Among my people, those who we consider upright are different from this: father cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. "Uprightness" is found in this." (13.18)
While I understand that this has to do with being filial, I don't see why friends should cover up each other's crimes. It's not good; it encourages people to do bad things, then tell each other, "Well, Confucius said that you have to cover up for me." It's not right. Loyalty is fine, but not that kind of negative fidelity. It just cause trouble, and in the end two people are hurt/affected instead of only one.
Confucius also talks about Virtue, and what makes a good man Good, by doing such things as only speaking when the times was right, only laughing when you were truly happy, and only taking that which is yours.
I think he has an interesting way of judging gentlemen. He does not seem to care about what sins they refrain from doing, but rather if they always behave above and beyond the goodness of other people, following the rules of Goodness religiously, and never, not for one second, stop trying to be Good.
"Do not look unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not listen unless it is in accordance with ritual, do not speak unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not move unless it is in accordance with ritual."
This seems a bit extreme. There can't be rituals that guide you as to when it is appropriate to move, or to say something, and especially not listen. You should just listen to whoever is speaking, unless that person isn't saying anything worth hearing.
Confucius also talks a lot about how if you just set the right example, everyone around you will be good.
"To govern means to be correct. If you set an example by being correct yourself, who will dare to be incorrect?" (12.17)
In the next book, he also talks a lot about how you should rule your people. You need to be upright and respectable in all ways, so that people are drawn closer to you ("The mere existence of such a ruler would cause the common people throughout the world to bundle their children on their backs and seek him out." 13.4)
I disagree with his statement that people should govern by being Good, then everyone would copy his example and become good as well. People aren't like that. Maybe some would follow his example and try to behave correctly, but most of the people would like him yet not change their ways, or else just walk all over him. This way of ruling would never work in a society full of different kinds of people. Granted, the rulers should be good, and want the best for their people, but that also means they need to have laws and punishments if they want order.
It's also interesting that he thinks that people should cover up for each other's crimes:
"Among my people, those who we consider upright are different from this: father cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. "Uprightness" is found in this." (13.18)
While I understand that this has to do with being filial, I don't see why friends should cover up each other's crimes. It's not good; it encourages people to do bad things, then tell each other, "Well, Confucius said that you have to cover up for me." It's not right. Loyalty is fine, but not that kind of negative fidelity. It just cause trouble, and in the end two people are hurt/affected instead of only one.
Confucius also talks about Virtue, and what makes a good man Good, by doing such things as only speaking when the times was right, only laughing when you were truly happy, and only taking that which is yours.
I think he has an interesting way of judging gentlemen. He does not seem to care about what sins they refrain from doing, but rather if they always behave above and beyond the goodness of other people, following the rules of Goodness religiously, and never, not for one second, stop trying to be Good.
Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 7,8, and 11
Confucius really wasn't an innovator. Here are some of his quotes:
"I transmit rather than innovate. I trust in and love the ancient ways. I might thus humbly compare myself to Old Peng." (7.1)
"I am not someone who was born with knowledge. I simply love antiquity, and diligently look there for knowledge." (7.20)
I wonder why that is. Does he just think that if something has worked for a long time, it will continue to work for a long time? But that was actually one of the fallacies we looked at a couple of weeks ago. I'd like to hear his complete आर्गument for why that is, if he ever wrote one.
The Master also seems to use himself as an example a lot.
"The Master was affable, yet firm, awe-inspiring without being severe, simultaneously respectful and relaxed." (7.38)
"In his leisure moments, the Master was composed and yet fully at ease." (7.4)
I think that this is a good idea, as long as it's true. Confucius talks a lot about the fact that you shouldn't say things and then not follow through with them ("The Master said, 'The gentleman is ashamed to have his words exceed his actions'" 14.27) and this allows us to see that he follows through with what he says and acts the way he tells everyone they should act, as well as setting up an example.
In Book 8 Confucius just lists different rules that people should follow to achieve Goodness. One rule that seemed the simplest and therefore applicable to everyone was the following:
"The Master said, "Find inspiration in the Odes, take your place through ritual, and achieve perfection with music.'" (8.8)
These rules are pretty basic, but I guess they say it all. People need inspiration to do right and help others, the Odes, they need some kind of way of managing themselves, rituals, and they need entertainment, music. I don't think that's what he meant for music, but since I personally don't understand what music has to do with anything I put my own interpretation of what he said.
"The Master said, 'The common people can be made to follow it, but they cannot be made to understand it.'"
I agree with that. People often do things for reasons they don't really understand, but they just think to themselves, "Whatever, I might as well do it." This has happened to me many times, in school especially, when teachers tell me to do things , without me having any clue why, but I just do it anyway. Especially in PDR.
Book 11 is a collection of stories that happened to Confucius and his disciples.
Yan Hui just died, which is sad considering that he was obviously the guy everyone looked up to, full of intelligence and wisdom and goodness.
There is also a story about the fact that Confucius disapproves of people who, even if they have a lot of money, want more. He also seems to disapprove of any ambition, because he talks about the fact that a complete man should be free of desires.
Yet I believe that it is good to have ambition. Of you have ambition, you have an incentive to work harder and educate yourself. And if no one had ambition, where would we get our rulers? Who would write books or become actors or generals, if all everyone wants to do is lie around all day doing nothing? Ambition is a really important and necessary part of any functioning society, and it should be encouraged, not repressed.
"I transmit rather than innovate. I trust in and love the ancient ways. I might thus humbly compare myself to Old Peng." (7.1)
"I am not someone who was born with knowledge. I simply love antiquity, and diligently look there for knowledge." (7.20)
I wonder why that is. Does he just think that if something has worked for a long time, it will continue to work for a long time? But that was actually one of the fallacies we looked at a couple of weeks ago. I'd like to hear his complete आर्गument for why that is, if he ever wrote one.
The Master also seems to use himself as an example a lot.
"The Master was affable, yet firm, awe-inspiring without being severe, simultaneously respectful and relaxed." (7.38)
"In his leisure moments, the Master was composed and yet fully at ease." (7.4)
I think that this is a good idea, as long as it's true. Confucius talks a lot about the fact that you shouldn't say things and then not follow through with them ("The Master said, 'The gentleman is ashamed to have his words exceed his actions'" 14.27) and this allows us to see that he follows through with what he says and acts the way he tells everyone they should act, as well as setting up an example.
In Book 8 Confucius just lists different rules that people should follow to achieve Goodness. One rule that seemed the simplest and therefore applicable to everyone was the following:
"The Master said, "Find inspiration in the Odes, take your place through ritual, and achieve perfection with music.'" (8.8)
These rules are pretty basic, but I guess they say it all. People need inspiration to do right and help others, the Odes, they need some kind of way of managing themselves, rituals, and they need entertainment, music. I don't think that's what he meant for music, but since I personally don't understand what music has to do with anything I put my own interpretation of what he said.
"The Master said, 'The common people can be made to follow it, but they cannot be made to understand it.'"
I agree with that. People often do things for reasons they don't really understand, but they just think to themselves, "Whatever, I might as well do it." This has happened to me many times, in school especially, when teachers tell me to do things , without me having any clue why, but I just do it anyway. Especially in PDR.
Book 11 is a collection of stories that happened to Confucius and his disciples.
Yan Hui just died, which is sad considering that he was obviously the guy everyone looked up to, full of intelligence and wisdom and goodness.
There is also a story about the fact that Confucius disapproves of people who, even if they have a lot of money, want more. He also seems to disapprove of any ambition, because he talks about the fact that a complete man should be free of desires.
Yet I believe that it is good to have ambition. Of you have ambition, you have an incentive to work harder and educate yourself. And if no one had ambition, where would we get our rulers? Who would write books or become actors or generals, if all everyone wants to do is lie around all day doing nothing? Ambition is a really important and necessary part of any functioning society, and it should be encouraged, not repressed.
jueves, 15 de noviembre de 2007
Paraphrasing Excercises
1. "The Antarctic is the vast source of cold on our planet, just as the sun is the source of our heat, and it exerts tremendous control on our climate," [Jacques] Cousteau told the camera. "The cold ocean water around Antarctica flows north to mix with warmer water from the tropics, and its upwellings help to cool both the surface water and our atmosphere. Yet the fragility of this regulating system is now threatened by human activity." From "Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.
Paraphrase: The Antartic is the Earth's largest source of coolness. Its cold water migrates north and merges with the hot tropical water, which helps to cool both our water and the atmosphere. Unfortunately, humans are now starting to damage this delicate system.
2. The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.
Paraphrase: The early nineteenth century was the time where unruliness ruled America, police men didn't know how to enforce the law, people drank even though it was illegal, jazz became hugely populars and great musicians, such as Bix Beiderbecke and Count Basie, became the idols of the kids in America. More than anything, women began wearing short hair and revealing skirts, the biggest sign that America was changing its traditional way of life.
3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.
Paraphrase: Most of the many hundreds bicycling accidents every year, half of which kill school-age children, are caused by injuries to the head which could be avoided if people wore helmets. There has even been a study that proved that helmets reduce the risk of your head being hurt by more than three fourths . In an accident, the helmets absorbs most of the impact, and softens the blow to your head.
4. Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.
Paraphrase: The painter Henri Matisse is excellent at making people feel as they´re close to what they see being painted due to his incredible realism. His famous ¨The Casbah Gate¨is a great example of this. His use of color and texture makes you feel like you're at the scene of the painting.
5. While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.
Paraphrase: Though the Sears Tower is known as one of the best-designed skyscraper that has yet to be built, architects are still trying to make bigger buildings. Yet people wonder how tall it is possible to build a building. Architect Robert Sobel insists that it could be possible to build a skyscraper a couple of hundred of stories tall, and engineer William LeMessurier has already designed a building two times as tall as the Sears Tower.
Paraphrase: The Antartic is the Earth's largest source of coolness. Its cold water migrates north and merges with the hot tropical water, which helps to cool both our water and the atmosphere. Unfortunately, humans are now starting to damage this delicate system.
2. The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.
Paraphrase: The early nineteenth century was the time where unruliness ruled America, police men didn't know how to enforce the law, people drank even though it was illegal, jazz became hugely populars and great musicians, such as Bix Beiderbecke and Count Basie, became the idols of the kids in America. More than anything, women began wearing short hair and revealing skirts, the biggest sign that America was changing its traditional way of life.
3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.
Paraphrase: Most of the many hundreds bicycling accidents every year, half of which kill school-age children, are caused by injuries to the head which could be avoided if people wore helmets. There has even been a study that proved that helmets reduce the risk of your head being hurt by more than three fourths . In an accident, the helmets absorbs most of the impact, and softens the blow to your head.
4. Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.
Paraphrase: The painter Henri Matisse is excellent at making people feel as they´re close to what they see being painted due to his incredible realism. His famous ¨The Casbah Gate¨is a great example of this. His use of color and texture makes you feel like you're at the scene of the painting.
5. While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.
Paraphrase: Though the Sears Tower is known as one of the best-designed skyscraper that has yet to be built, architects are still trying to make bigger buildings. Yet people wonder how tall it is possible to build a building. Architect Robert Sobel insists that it could be possible to build a skyscraper a couple of hundred of stories tall, and engineer William LeMessurier has already designed a building two times as tall as the Sears Tower.
martes, 13 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 4-6
These Books are basically divided into two parts: where Confucius discusses his ideals and the Way of Good, and examples of good and bad people.
Here are some quotations I liked:
"The Master said, 'People are true to type with regard to what sort of mistakes they make. Observe closely the sort of mistakes a person makes-then you will know his character.'"
The literal meaning of this would be that if someone breaks his back because he tripped over the stairs when he was trying to throw his friend a birthday party, you should like him. If someone breaks his back trying to get into his least favorite teacher's house so that he can murder her, you should probably stay away from that kid.
However, I think that it means you should look at why people make mistakes. If someone gets a bad grade because he was lazy, then that person is not Good. However, if someone burns to death in his house because his father told him not to go out, and he was being filial, that's good.
"The Master said, 'People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up their words.'"
Which means, "Practice what you preach."
I agree with this statement. I hate it when people go on and on about how doing this is bad, then they proceed to do it themselves. It's hypocrisy. A good example of that would be the old Jacobean priests, such as Andrewes. When the Black Plague hit England, he went on and on about how you wouldn't get sick of you were good, because God wouldn't punish you, and so Andrewes wasn't afraid. However, as soon as the disease hit his parish he left town, the imprisoned someone who'd dared to comment upon that fact. He had said something, but behaved in a contradictory way. All those other priests, too, preached the word of God and said that corruption and sin is bad, and you should live a spare life, yet they took bribes and engaged in adultery and had tons of luxuries. They, quite literally, did not practice what they preached.
There are a couple of stories that basically go this way:
Zhoug: Is [insert name] Good?
Master: I dunno.
Zhoug: He did [insert good deed] and [insert good deed]?
Master: He is pure, but I have no clue of he's Good. Why does he deserve to be good?
So how does he judge who's Good and who's not? Does he base what he thinks upon his everyday life, not just a couple of Good deeds?
He also stresses the importance of being a gentleman ("The Master said to Zixia, 'Be a gentlemanly ru. Do not be a petty ru.'" 6.13). A gentleman is someone who follows the Way of being Good, which is to do certain things, the biggest example being Be a Good Son. He actually writes down a set of rules for sons (4.18-4.21).
He also says there's a difference between being wise and being Good.
"Fan Chi asked about wisdom.
The Master said, 'Working to ensure social harmony among the common people, respecting the ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a difference-this might be called wisdom.'
He then asked about Goodness.
The Master said, 'One who is Good sees as his first priorities the hardship of self-cultivation, and only after thinks about results or rewards. Yes, this is what we might call Goodness.'" (6:22)
But if you think about it, it's the same thing. Being wise is trying to improve a place, and therefor the people in that place, so that everyone is more respectful and lives better lives. Being Good is improving yourself (and what does he mean, "Only after thinks about results and rewards"? If you're working to improve yourself, then you're doing so with the plan of the result being that you'll be a better person. And while this is a very noble cause, you're still, in a way, thinking of the results when you're doing it), so that you'll be a better person by the end, and thus will improve society. Being wise is just doing that on a larger scale, so I would argue the wisdom is better than Goodness, because it is less self-centered. You don't just improve yourself then say, "Oh, I'm done. There is nothing else I can do." Whereas being wise is saying, "Well, I'm done with myself. But that's not enough; I need to work on other people as well." Or maybe being wise is just being nosy, and that's not Good.
Here are some quotations I liked:
"The Master said, 'People are true to type with regard to what sort of mistakes they make. Observe closely the sort of mistakes a person makes-then you will know his character.'"
The literal meaning of this would be that if someone breaks his back because he tripped over the stairs when he was trying to throw his friend a birthday party, you should like him. If someone breaks his back trying to get into his least favorite teacher's house so that he can murder her, you should probably stay away from that kid.
However, I think that it means you should look at why people make mistakes. If someone gets a bad grade because he was lazy, then that person is not Good. However, if someone burns to death in his house because his father told him not to go out, and he was being filial, that's good.
"The Master said, 'People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up their words.'"
Which means, "Practice what you preach."
I agree with this statement. I hate it when people go on and on about how doing this is bad, then they proceed to do it themselves. It's hypocrisy. A good example of that would be the old Jacobean priests, such as Andrewes. When the Black Plague hit England, he went on and on about how you wouldn't get sick of you were good, because God wouldn't punish you, and so Andrewes wasn't afraid. However, as soon as the disease hit his parish he left town, the imprisoned someone who'd dared to comment upon that fact. He had said something, but behaved in a contradictory way. All those other priests, too, preached the word of God and said that corruption and sin is bad, and you should live a spare life, yet they took bribes and engaged in adultery and had tons of luxuries. They, quite literally, did not practice what they preached.
There are a couple of stories that basically go this way:
Zhoug: Is [insert name] Good?
Master: I dunno.
Zhoug: He did [insert good deed] and [insert good deed]?
Master: He is pure, but I have no clue of he's Good. Why does he deserve to be good?
So how does he judge who's Good and who's not? Does he base what he thinks upon his everyday life, not just a couple of Good deeds?
He also stresses the importance of being a gentleman ("The Master said to Zixia, 'Be a gentlemanly ru. Do not be a petty ru.'" 6.13). A gentleman is someone who follows the Way of being Good, which is to do certain things, the biggest example being Be a Good Son. He actually writes down a set of rules for sons (4.18-4.21).
He also says there's a difference between being wise and being Good.
"Fan Chi asked about wisdom.
The Master said, 'Working to ensure social harmony among the common people, respecting the ghosts and spirits while keeping them at a difference-this might be called wisdom.'
He then asked about Goodness.
The Master said, 'One who is Good sees as his first priorities the hardship of self-cultivation, and only after thinks about results or rewards. Yes, this is what we might call Goodness.'" (6:22)
But if you think about it, it's the same thing. Being wise is trying to improve a place, and therefor the people in that place, so that everyone is more respectful and lives better lives. Being Good is improving yourself (and what does he mean, "Only after thinks about results and rewards"? If you're working to improve yourself, then you're doing so with the plan of the result being that you'll be a better person. And while this is a very noble cause, you're still, in a way, thinking of the results when you're doing it), so that you'll be a better person by the end, and thus will improve society. Being wise is just doing that on a larger scale, so I would argue the wisdom is better than Goodness, because it is less self-centered. You don't just improve yourself then say, "Oh, I'm done. There is nothing else I can do." Whereas being wise is saying, "Well, I'm done with myself. But that's not enough; I need to work on other people as well." Or maybe being wise is just being nosy, and that's not Good.
lunes, 12 de noviembre de 2007
Confucius: The Essential Analects, Books 1-3
These Books are basically just little codes of conduct, written and devised by Confucius.
In the first Book, he really emphasizes filial conduct, which is basically respect for your elders,and being a good younger brother (I assume that it can also be meant as being a good younger sister). It also means being courteous, refined, respectful, restrained, and deferential (1.10) to everyone around you.
I think this is really good advice. Nowadays people (or at least teenagers, which is worse since that's not "respect for your elders") tend to be loud, insolent, exuberant, and very selfish/self-centered. I'm not saying that in a self-righteous way. I've noticed these things in myself too; everyone behaves like that. Yet the world would probably an much more pleasant and respectful place if everyone behaved like that (although hearing, "after you," "no, after you," "I insist, after you," "no, please, after you," might get old pretty quickly).Especially considering that this example was used when an official visited another state, which could prevent a lot of silly fights by not offending anyone (if you would like an example I suggest you read about President Evo Morales of Bolivia's relationships with the American ambassador of Bolivia).
Book Two also speaks about how behaving in a good manner can improve relationships between countries. At one point it talks about how people were asking why Confucius wasn't a government official, and he replied that being filial exerted an influence over others who worked for the government, so what need was there for him to join?
The Book Three talks about how it's useless to have rituals if you do them just for show, and it doesn't matter how elaborate they are, in fact, the simpler, the better (I'm assuming he's talking about religious rituals).
I also agree with this. There are many people who do things not because they mean them, but because they want people to think well of them for doing them, such as donating a large sum of money to a charity you couldn't care less about just to have it say on the news the next day "Senator X gave three billion dollars to the charity Vote For Me! yesterday. Isn't he kind? By the way, he's running for President." Or also movie stars' publicity stunts, such as adopting orphans from third world countries, so that they can look so kind and generous. These actions don't have any meaning behind them. Senator X isn't a better person because of what he did. His motivations were selfish (which refers to Book One). It is much better for Average Joe to give away a hundred hard-earned dollars to a charity because he genuinely feels that that charity is a worthy cause, than for Ronald Mump to givea million dollars of his five billion dollar inheritance to that very same charity because he wants people to like him. I believe that is what Confucius means.
Also, I wonder what the Odes are. Confucius says that "The Odes number several hundred, and yet can be judged with a single phrase, "Oh, they will not lead you astray." (2.2)
Who wrote them? What are they about?
In the first Book, he really emphasizes filial conduct, which is basically respect for your elders,and being a good younger brother (I assume that it can also be meant as being a good younger sister). It also means being courteous, refined, respectful, restrained, and deferential (1.10) to everyone around you.
I think this is really good advice. Nowadays people (or at least teenagers, which is worse since that's not "respect for your elders") tend to be loud, insolent, exuberant, and very selfish/self-centered. I'm not saying that in a self-righteous way. I've noticed these things in myself too; everyone behaves like that. Yet the world would probably an much more pleasant and respectful place if everyone behaved like that (although hearing, "after you," "no, after you," "I insist, after you," "no, please, after you," might get old pretty quickly).Especially considering that this example was used when an official visited another state, which could prevent a lot of silly fights by not offending anyone (if you would like an example I suggest you read about President Evo Morales of Bolivia's relationships with the American ambassador of Bolivia).
Book Two also speaks about how behaving in a good manner can improve relationships between countries. At one point it talks about how people were asking why Confucius wasn't a government official, and he replied that being filial exerted an influence over others who worked for the government, so what need was there for him to join?
The Book Three talks about how it's useless to have rituals if you do them just for show, and it doesn't matter how elaborate they are, in fact, the simpler, the better (I'm assuming he's talking about religious rituals).
I also agree with this. There are many people who do things not because they mean them, but because they want people to think well of them for doing them, such as donating a large sum of money to a charity you couldn't care less about just to have it say on the news the next day "Senator X gave three billion dollars to the charity Vote For Me! yesterday. Isn't he kind? By the way, he's running for President." Or also movie stars' publicity stunts, such as adopting orphans from third world countries, so that they can look so kind and generous. These actions don't have any meaning behind them. Senator X isn't a better person because of what he did. His motivations were selfish (which refers to Book One). It is much better for Average Joe to give away a hundred hard-earned dollars to a charity because he genuinely feels that that charity is a worthy cause, than for Ronald Mump to givea million dollars of his five billion dollar inheritance to that very same charity because he wants people to like him. I believe that is what Confucius means.
Also, I wonder what the Odes are. Confucius says that "The Odes number several hundred, and yet can be judged with a single phrase, "Oh, they will not lead you astray." (2.2)
Who wrote them? What are they about?
miércoles, 7 de noviembre de 2007
Sources for Persuasive Speech
Here is are my sources for the persuasive speech:
Primary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2223823.stm
Secondary:
http://www.hfgf.org/statistics.pdf
Tertiary:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=orphans
Primary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2223823.stm
Secondary:
http://www.hfgf.org/statistics.pdf
Tertiary:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=orphans
martes, 6 de noviembre de 2007
The Book of Job: Chapters 37-42
Job claims he knows too much about God, such as the reason why men fear him:
"Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." (37:24)
This is also subtly claiming that Job knows more than God about people who are wise or idiotic, and that he understands God.
Then God appears and tells him the numerous reason why He is wiser and more knowledgeable than Job ("Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" 38:2, it then goes on to explain all the things that God did and saw while Job's Great-Great-times a thousand Grandmother still wasn't born), and asks him what right he has to judge God's decisions and motives.
Job is humbled, and agrees he had no right to speak:
"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore I have uttered that I understood not; things to wonderful for me, which I knew not." (42:3)
God forgives him, though He gets mad at his three friends, and makes him twice as rich as before, with lots of kids, thousands of camels, sheep, oxen, and she asses, as well as the renewed respect of his neighbors.
One thing that intrigued me about the appearance of God was how similar it was to the myths. In them, a human would always be presumptuous and claim to be equal to/as good at something than some god or another. That god would always show up and prove him/her wrong. The difference is that the humans were rarely ever forgiven in the myths, much less made very wealthy once they realized that they were wrong, yet that's what God did.
Also. we were talking about the "God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh," part of Exodus a couple days ago. I also wondered about that at first, but then I interpreted it in two ways.
Maybe it was just the idea of God that hardened the heart of the Pharaoh. God didn't do anything personally, the Pharaoh just thought about God and he became annoyed.
Or else God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he could show all the Hebrew people how powerful he was, so that they would obey him.
At least that's how I saw it.
"Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." (37:24)
This is also subtly claiming that Job knows more than God about people who are wise or idiotic, and that he understands God.
Then God appears and tells him the numerous reason why He is wiser and more knowledgeable than Job ("Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" 38:2, it then goes on to explain all the things that God did and saw while Job's Great-Great-times a thousand Grandmother still wasn't born), and asks him what right he has to judge God's decisions and motives.
Job is humbled, and agrees he had no right to speak:
"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore I have uttered that I understood not; things to wonderful for me, which I knew not." (42:3)
God forgives him, though He gets mad at his three friends, and makes him twice as rich as before, with lots of kids, thousands of camels, sheep, oxen, and she asses, as well as the renewed respect of his neighbors.
One thing that intrigued me about the appearance of God was how similar it was to the myths. In them, a human would always be presumptuous and claim to be equal to/as good at something than some god or another. That god would always show up and prove him/her wrong. The difference is that the humans were rarely ever forgiven in the myths, much less made very wealthy once they realized that they were wrong, yet that's what God did.
Also. we were talking about the "God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh," part of Exodus a couple days ago. I also wondered about that at first, but then I interpreted it in two ways.
Maybe it was just the idea of God that hardened the heart of the Pharaoh. God didn't do anything personally, the Pharaoh just thought about God and he became annoyed.
Or else God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he could show all the Hebrew people how powerful he was, so that they would obey him.
At least that's how I saw it.
lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2007
The Book of Job: Chapters 11-36
About Friday's class: I changed my mind. I now believe that the Architect is like the Pharaoh. Actually, I believed it by the end of the class, but I was arguing because I didn't want to be proven wrong.
I didn't like The Matrix that much. I just found Morpheus incredibly annoying, with his arrogant little smile, and I thought the writers should have been more creative with the names they gave their characters/places/boats. I just found the movie a bit pretentious. Of course, maybe it has the right to be pretentious. Many of our great geniuses have been extremely arrogant (ex: Picasso), and that was okay because they proved they had the right to indulge in a bit of self-worship. So maybe, if I watched the whole Matrix Trilogy, I would say it's genius and it has the right to be affected. I'll only find out if I watch all the movies.
This is a continuation of the conversation between Job and his four friends. Job has gotten over his suicidal phase and now he's merely very depressed.
They discuss many things, and though again I found their phraseology a bit confusing, I managed to gather this much:
Job's friends tell him that he must have sinned to be punished this way, because God would not punish him this way without any reason:
"The heaven shall reveal his iniquity; and the earth shall rise up against him." (20:27)
This is one Job is denying that he did anything wrong, and his (very unsympathetic) friends say that though they do not know what he did, God does, and He is punishing him.
Job maintains that he never did anything (although not once does he curse God), and that he would like to defend himself before God:
"I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments," (23:4)
He also talks about the fact that he used to be respected, but now the people who bowed to him cursed him.
"But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." (30:1)
Then someone called Elihu speaks up, and he said all of them were wrong. God is just, and he punishes and forgives easily. None of them should claim to understand him.
I didn't like The Matrix that much. I just found Morpheus incredibly annoying, with his arrogant little smile, and I thought the writers should have been more creative with the names they gave their characters/places/boats. I just found the movie a bit pretentious. Of course, maybe it has the right to be pretentious. Many of our great geniuses have been extremely arrogant (ex: Picasso), and that was okay because they proved they had the right to indulge in a bit of self-worship. So maybe, if I watched the whole Matrix Trilogy, I would say it's genius and it has the right to be affected. I'll only find out if I watch all the movies.
This is a continuation of the conversation between Job and his four friends. Job has gotten over his suicidal phase and now he's merely very depressed.
They discuss many things, and though again I found their phraseology a bit confusing, I managed to gather this much:
Job's friends tell him that he must have sinned to be punished this way, because God would not punish him this way without any reason:
"The heaven shall reveal his iniquity; and the earth shall rise up against him." (20:27)
This is one Job is denying that he did anything wrong, and his (very unsympathetic) friends say that though they do not know what he did, God does, and He is punishing him.
Job maintains that he never did anything (although not once does he curse God), and that he would like to defend himself before God:
"I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments," (23:4)
He also talks about the fact that he used to be respected, but now the people who bowed to him cursed him.
"But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." (30:1)
Then someone called Elihu speaks up, and he said all of them were wrong. God is just, and he punishes and forgives easily. None of them should claim to understand him.
jueves, 1 de noviembre de 2007
The Book of Job: Chapters 6-11
This is a continuation of what I read yesterday in the first chapter. I don't really know what to say about this. It records a conversation between Job and someone called Bildad the Shuhite (and who is he???? And where did he come from???? And what is he doing there???).
I don't completely understand what they're telling each other, but it seems important. They seem to be discussing why man can't be as great as God, but they do so in such a complicated fashion, using so many similes and metaphors, that I just don't get what they're trying to say.
Well, that's not true. I get the individual metaphors/similes just fine, but when they put them all together, add their archaic way of speaking, and mix, and I'm left staring at the book with befuddlement.
However, I understand that Job is feeling suicidal and is begging God to kill him. His friends are telling him that he should not speak so, that God has the right to try him.
Well, there's not much more I can say. I'll try reading it again tomorrow and post something more profound...
I don't completely understand what they're telling each other, but it seems important. They seem to be discussing why man can't be as great as God, but they do so in such a complicated fashion, using so many similes and metaphors, that I just don't get what they're trying to say.
Well, that's not true. I get the individual metaphors/similes just fine, but when they put them all together, add their archaic way of speaking, and mix, and I'm left staring at the book with befuddlement.
However, I understand that Job is feeling suicidal and is begging God to kill him. His friends are telling him that he should not speak so, that God has the right to try him.
Well, there's not much more I can say. I'll try reading it again tomorrow and post something more profound...
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)