Poetry kills....

Poetry kills me, it really does. At least it did. Before this class, i had heard a few poems and we would read them in class in like 5th grade; and I always thought they were rediculous. I mean, there are poems for everything. Even urns have their place. And I could never understand why in the heck someone would sit down and write a poem. Is it that they had too much time on their hands? Were they sane? What made them want to write this junk? And so, of course, some of the first poems we read in class are absolutely awful at first glance, but then, after carefully disecting each line, you start to see a hidden meaning, a moral, something more beneath it all. Maybe thats why im starting to like it. I love deep stuff. And poetry, when it can be decifered, is an amazing thing. So maybe one day I will go get high on moth balls or Opium and it will get the creative juices flowing. I mean, look what it did for Coleridge.....and the Beatles.....

peace

Opium: Publicity stunt?

In high school when studying "Kubla Khan", it was always presented as the drug-induced poem. And in some strange way, that made it all the more fasicinating, mysterious, and cool. I think this may have been exactly Coleridge's aim. While the poem is difficult to understand and has a "creative" thought pattern, it seems to be much too coherent and easily explained when looked at closely. It seems impossible that such a work of genius could be nothing more than the effects of a drug-induced high.

The story behind "Kubla Khan" does contribute to its popularity, however. Sometimes a little scandalous press is exactly what is needed to draw attention to a work. Just as now, celebrities often perform publicity stunts or pay to be written up in gossip magazines when their career needs a boost. I believe this may have been exactly what Coleridge was trying to do and it worked. Now, whenever "Kubla Khan" is thought of it is inevitably connect with opium. In some ways, Coleridge's plan has to be admired as a very shrewd career choice.

Kubla Khan

Kubla Khan was definitely a rather confusing poem. I mean we dissect every word or phrase Coleridge uses to determine his underlying meaning. I did a little research on the work itself in search of clarity and did discover that he was in fact on opium while writing this. Supposedly he dreamt the entire poem up after taking some opium. He had amazing and fantastic visions while he was sleeping. He also wrote a 300 line poem in his dream. When he awoke he tried to write down the entire poem as he dreamed it and ony got down the first three stanzas that we have today. After he began writing he was interrupted by a man on business from Porlock and interrupted him for an hour. By this point he could not remember the rest of his story and he then wrote the last stanza as best as he could remember it. Now this is the explanation Coleridge gives for himself. After reading this backgound information, and if it's true, I feel as though this poem had no real meaning whatsoever.

I posted on the blog written in rhyme

In all honesty, who in the world has time to sit around and write an ode to an urn…really?

Lately I have found myself to be extremely busy. So busy, in fact, that I have lost sight of many of the beautiful things in life which I used to enjoy. I love to write poetry, for example, yet I haven’t found much time to do this lately. In class on Thursday, Dr. Abernathy provided us with a beautiful definition for lyrical poetry: “the celebration of one moment.” I have found it somewhat difficult to celebrate a moment which has not come! I feel like I don’t even have one moment, much less a few minutes to stop and ponder something long enough to be inspired to write about it and “celebrate” it through words. Life is clearly more stressful and busy than it was in Keats’ time. I’m sure he had other important things to do in addition to writing poetry, but he made time to write. He made time to be still and ponder things around him. He took enough time to sit there and stare at an urn that he was inspired to write a very detailed and wordy ode to it! If I could but make myself sit still and quiet for five minutes, once every week I could write something beautiful and meaningful about a concrete cinderblock!

God’s Word says, “Be still and know that I am God.” I am certainly guilty of failing to do this. If it wasn’t an important thing, He would not have taken the time to tell us to do it! So, whether I actually compose an ode to the cinderblock or not, I am going to try my best to take inspiration from Keats and notice the small things in life. We shall see what marvelous masterpieces come out of it…

I commented on "Poetry's Confusing, A Post in Rhyme."

I am using my free blog for last week.

???

Within the past year or so I have created about 40 paintings. I never really think about the effect that these paintings will have on someone; I just paint. But I think that maybe I should start thinking about how the things I do affect everyone else. Mill would say that as long as I am not harming anyone else, I am free to do whatever I want. But who's to say that something I do doesn't harm anyone else? Even if I don't think what I'm doing will hurt someone, it just might. Have you ever said something and then like a week later, someone came to you because what you said hurt them? And you had no idea. I believe that people are too lazy to think and I am most definitely one of those people.

Poetry's Confusing, A Post in Rhyme

Poetry’s confusing
I just thought I’d say
And I don’t understand
The readings for today

Poetry’s a subject
For which you need a guide
Because when read alone
The meaning, it can hide

Now you’ve been subjected
To some bad poetry
And although it is short
This ends the post from me!


P.S.(I would like to claim last weeks post as my free one, if that is acceptable)

An Ode

The word "Ode" seems to show up quite a bit in poetry, and it made me question what the technical definition for it was?

–noun
1.
a lyric poem typically of elaborate or irregular metrical form and expressive of exalted or enthusiastic emotion.
2.
(originally) a poem intended to be sung.

Origin: 1580–90; < MF < LL ōda < Gk ōid, contr. of aoid song, deriv. of aeídein to sing

Being a science major I'm aware of another "ode" that comes from a different word of origin:

-ode (2) 
a combining form meaning “way,” “road,” used in the formation of compound words: anode; electrode.

I find it interesting that one ode means 'way' and the other means 'to sing'. I'm sure your minds have already connected the implication of this: Jesus is the way, and we should sing to the Lord. Whether this is just an interesting coincidence or product of my mindset, I find connections like this to have its own kind of sublime feel to it.

I posted on 'Nature'.

Memorized Consumation

In covering lyric poetry, Dr. Abernathy covered the three familiar steps in creating that poetry: anticipation, consummation, and lamentation. While all three are important and experienced by everyone, I think we would all agree that we would rather live in the consummation state where everything is right in the world. I thought of love and happiness, all things good, but then Dr. Abernathy applied our consummation with our relationship with God. She said that we have memorized lyrics about our consummation with God, which seems all fine and dandy until you really think about it. If we have memorized these lyrics, then do we really know them or live them out or do we just bring them to mind when it is convenient for us? This is a question I asked myself and I'm urging you to do the same. Am I really consumed with God's love for me and my love for Him or is it just a mask that I put on when I feel like doing so? When we memorize things the material may stay fresh on our mind for a while, but eventually it will fade as we continue to memorize other information. Do we want our consummation with God to be just merely memorized material that we will replace with new found knowledge or do we want our consummation for God to be the very being of our soul and person to the extent that it is impossible for us to hide Him in us?

I commented on Sara Dye's The Sublime.

Nature

When was the last time you appreciated nature? I would hate to see what Wordsworth would say about us today, where we prefer our florensce lights to sunlight. Where, for some of us, the closes we get to nature is on the Discovery channel.
When was the last time you went for a walk in the woods? Or simply read a book outside?
What many people don't know (and some don't care to find out) is the peace in one's soul that being in nature brings. For example, as most of you know, I run cross country (XC) for the school. I will tell you now, it case you don't know, there is a big difference between track and XC (hence the reason I cringe when someone says "Hey, don't you run track?").
With cross country, when we run our meets, we don't have a concert track to run on. We don't run on a road. We run on the dirt, the grass, sand, rocks, through the woods, and sometimes, huge puddels. For this very reason, I choose XC over track. I mean, running is great, but when you leave the road for the woods, it just brings a peace to me that I cannot explain. There is no exhast from cars to choke on (which with my lung issues, is a blessing in itself). No people staring at you, no one to judge, to make you think you are not good enough. It is just you pushing yourself to be better then yourself, and it is an amazing feeling. This feeling, that I can only find when I escape into nature.
Yes, I run into spider-webs (have you ever seen a banana spider?). I get strached up, muddy, bitten. However, it is truely worth it. So I channel you, to escape into the woods next time you get a chance. Read a book outside rather than in the library. Have a pinic! Do something outside for a change...

Post

Free blog post this week.

Kubla Khan

I would like to use my free blog post for this week. :)

How do we know?

One thing that was mentioned in class when discussing Wordsworth, was the "fact" that when we're born, we forget everything we knew when we were born. My question, is how do we know that we knew anything to begin with? If we forget everything when we're born, does that necessarily mean that we knew anything at all? Is it possible that we didn't forget anything because there was nothing to forget? We all believe in life after death, so does this statement suggest that there's life before life?

Just one of those weird things that keeps coming to my mind :)

i commented on Malory's post

The Sublime

The sublime: absolutely great, tending to inspire awe.

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you read those words?

I asked this question to some friends and these are a few of their answers:

"Sunsets."

"Artists."

"Hurricanes."

For me several things come to mind, breathtaking sunsets/sunrises, looking out over the ocean, looking at a mountain range, looking at a starry nighttime sky, etc...

But three of the first things that come to mind are these:

1. A newborn baby, full God, yet fully man, in a dirty, filthy stable in Bethlehem.

2. The same baby, now a man, hanging on a cross, dying, bloody, and beaten beyond recognition.

3. An empty tomb. Where the same man was buried, but no longer is His body there, for death has been conquered and He is risen!!!

This inspires awe in me, because He did all of this for me. And He did it for you...

The Sublime: The Lord Jesus Christ.

Best to stay a child forever?

I hope my blog doesn't sound too much like Malory's, but I was thinking along those lines, and she put it excellently.
Wouldn't it just be best to stay a child forever? Things were so simple. Our biggest responsibility was to keep our room clean so our parents wouldn't ground us. We appreciated nature, in a way. When I think of my childhood, the first thing that pops into my head is riding my bike on April Lane. Years of my life were spent in those woods, biking, hiking, searching for who knows what. But can I say I want to go back to it? Not necessarily. Like Wordsworth, I wish I could have some of my mindset back, my appreciation and naivety. But I've found love, I've found passion, work, discipline, and character since my childhood days. Responsibility is heavy, but we need to remember that it's a gift. I sometimes think that I wish I didn't have so much to do, but then I look around, and I realize that God has put me at the college that I've hoped for for so long now. Even the pain is new. The most pain I felt as a child was scraping my knee on the sidewalk. Now, I've experienced heartbreak, depression, distrust, I've been stabbed in the back, had crises of beliefs, wished I didn't exist anymore, all the pain that comes with being a teenager. But the pain, I wouldn't take back. I do not wish myself to be rid of bad circumstances and once again playing in the dirt and forming superhero clubs.
What I'm trying to say is that yes, life was simple and happy when we were children. But ignorance is not bliss. The richness of life I've acquired is something I would never want taken away. My deep love for Kyra, my hard work required of me, the satisfaction from simply carrying out my daily responsibilities, my character and personality crafted from my past, my ever-growing relationship with my Savior -- these things make growing up not an inevitable evil, but something quite beautiful that we should appreciate, and cultivate, because we can never go back to now.

Wordsworth's help

Last Tuesday we were supposed to read some poems by Wordsworth. One of the poems that we didn’t get to talk about in class really got my attention, or a certain part of it did. Last weekend I was feeling overwhelmed by many of my classes, and the work I knew I would have to do before the end of the semester. I was having a lot of trouble with certain homework assignments, and wasn’t able to feel completely happy with the work I had done. I kept thinking that it just wasn’t good enough, other class member’s would be much better than mine, and mine would completely fall short. This thought really got to me and continually brought me down.

After I had finished a lot of the homework that was stressing me out, I still wasn’t wholly pleased with the work I had done. Then I read Wordsworth’s poem, “Introduction- Childhood and School-Time.” These lines really jumped out at me,

“Far better never to have heard the name of zeal and just ambition, than to live baffled and plagued by a mind that every hour turns recreant to her task; takes heart again, then feels immediately some hollow thought hang like an interdict upon her hopes.”

I don’t know if I have the right understanding of those lines, but to me it’s saying that you tell yourself that your work is good, it’s fine, and it’s going to be ok. Then, you get this one bad thought and all of sudden you are back down in the slumps. Your mind and heart are back to where they were at the beginning, and your thoughts start turning back from good to bad.

I took these lines from Wordsworth as a lesson. I shouldn’t let my work, or the thought of how difficult something might be, get me down. Instead, I should look at it as an exciting new lesson. A way to learn something new, which I might not have ever gotten the chance to learn in any other situation.

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:6-7

The Brothers Sublime

Bonsoir mon petit Honors poetry analysists!!! so after a week's abscence from the blogging scene [je suis desolee, Honors Council.. I do love you guys *sheepish grin*] I am back with a renewed vigor and a sigh of relief that we are into a realm I understand.. not to knock Dr. Biskner but I hate politcal philosophy.

sorry guys, I'm digressing badly.. getting to the point... now!

So last week was Romantic poetry part 1 with the Brothers Sublime, a.k.a. Coleridge and Wordsworth and I have to say, their poetry is simply amazing, especially when talking about the idea of the sublime. The sublime is a very scary thing, if you think about it.. something completely awe-inspiring, mystifying and dark-tinged.

It reminds me a lot of God.. not that God is dark but God is mysterious and awe-inspiring and He creates awe-inspiring creations that have been the subjects for the poetic greats. Take Wordsworth's "Lines Composed Miles Above Tintern Abbey" for instance. The abbey that Wordsworth is at is a crumbling, out of use sort of place most likely with moss growing on it and looking run down and dismal yet to Wordsworth, this abbey symbolized the sublime and Nature's dark beauty. God created the humans who built the abbey and He created the ruining of it so Wordsworth could see with his own eyes the way God turns our lives upside down with mystifying and monumental power.

It makes me humble to read this kind of poetry because the imagery calls to mind dark sunsets and fog-covered ruins that make one shiver with incontestable yet delicious fright for the intensity of it all.

Does it to you also?

think about it, darlings and I shall bid you all adieu until next we meet upon this subliminal shore!

commented on Willy D's blog.

Trees are made for climbing :)

Aah. Child-like innocence. We spend our whole childhoods wishing we could grow up and understand the things that the "grownups" talk about and despite how many people tell us to hang on to our childhoods, we run in the other direction. Wordsworth's poem remembers his childish view of nature. Everything is brighter, clearer, sunnier, and more vivid as a child. We don't know about the evils of the world. We don't know that one day there will be something horrible that comes to try to claim us disguising itself as success. I say this as I believe that money/greed is the root of most evils of the world. It certainly is the cause of every war from the beginning of time. Greed for money, resources, land, people...it doesn't really matter. As long as it's useful and self serving, we want it.
As a child, we don't know that the dog might bite us, we just know that it's pretty and fluffy and we want to pet it. We don't know that it will hurt to fall out of the tree, just that we might be able to see more things up there. It's a challenge. At least, that was my childhood. It resulted in some pretty quickly learned lessons in animal bites and falling out of trees but I believe if you go around scared all the time you don't really live. As a child, the world is your oyster. You set out unafraid. I wish I could be like that again. Innocence may hurt you in the short term as you learn new things but I think a happier life is lived in the midst of it. If we're constantly afraid of failure, when do we learn to try? If we're constantly afraid of falling, when do we learn to fly?

Kubla Khan

I just read part of an interesting interpretation of the poem that we read in class the other day, Kubla Khan. We looked at alot of posibilities of the meaning of this poem, but I don't remember if we ever decided on what it was actually about. I remember people talking about how they thought it was about sex, and some about drug abuse and the like, but I tend to agree with the writer of the review that I just read.

This person seems to think that the poem is not just about a certain man, but men in general, trying to create for themselves a paradise. Although, as imperfect men, any paradise we can create will be imperfect, so this "pleasure dome" is vulnerable.

This analysis suggests that Kubla Khan is a contrast between the best that Man has to offer, compared to true paradise.

What do you think?

SUBLIMinal MessagEs

How many times do we find ourselves caught in a spell that some sublime act, or happening, or event has cast over us? Whether it be a breathtaking sunset, the writing of a poet,or the memories a song triggers in your mind, we seemingly always can connect with something that is'nt tangible yet becomes real to us. That, in my opinion, is Poetry, Poetry at it's finest. Poetry paints a picture using vowels and consonants, similes and metaphors. An Artist uses shading and texture, color and tone to tell a story without uttering a single word. Both of these are prime examples of poetry. I like how Kayla put it in her post, that both can "powerfully represent Truth." So why are we so drawn to the Truth? Accoring to Scripture, Truth sets us free. Who's not drawn to that? Freedom releases our minds from the normal constraints we place on them, it frees our individuality and perspective, it frees our creativity. Every single atom of our make-up desires to be free. The Sublime inspires, the Truth enlightens, we are left to simply act upon what we take in. Be receptive to Truth and Responsible with Freedom starting Now.

Why Poetry?

I've been having a hard time thinking about what to write this week. We talked about some great things, but I just wasn't feeling a particular one...do you know what I mean? Haha. But then I thought back to a completely different class last week. I'm taking Introduction to British Literature with Dr. Stutz this semester, and it is an incredible class. I have it right after Honors Lit on Tuesdays and Thursdays. So I walked into class last week...after we've been reading poetry all class in Honors...and guess what we're reading in British Lit. Poetry. Go figure. I'm not going to lie - poetry is not my strong point. But between the two classes, I learned something...something so important.

Dr. Abernathy brought up what poetry is - it's place in the "circle" of literature. Dr. Stutz asked us "what exactly is poetry?" I couldn't find the answer! It thoroughly frustrated me. But I think I'm on the right track to the answer now, after reading Sir Philip Sidney's Apology for Poetry. Between that and Dr. Abernathy explanation, some dots are starting to connect.

Poetry aggravates me sometimes. It bothers me that I have to read the same thing over and over and over again to get the meaning - or even a possible meaning! Why not just tell it in a story? But that's the point! To quote Dr. Abernathy, "It''s when you want to skip that word or line that you need to go back and search it out." The poet and the writer of prose can both powerfully represent Truth. But perhaps the way the poet presents the Truth is what makes it so confounding...and so beautiful once it is understood. The poet limits his language; he uses rhyme and rhythm to surround his message and symbolism to display it in a new light. The poet can say the same thing - the same Truth - in fewer words. It seems to me that it is like a treasure. A person could run aground on an island and find a heap of gold and jewels on the shore. But what if he ran aground, found a cave, and inside it was a huge chest that was locked. What if he searched the entire island for they key, or for some way to open it...and when he did, the treasure itself was of no more value than the treasure on the shore. But to him, it was even more precious because of the process it took him to discover it. It was locked and hidden from him, which made him desire even more strongly to open it. Dr. Abernathy used a phrase Thursday referring to a line in Coleridge, "forbidding something in order to excite desire." Perhaps that what a poet does...writes his words differently...conceals them in a chest...encloses them from the obvious...forbids us from knowing the Truth easily...hiding the key so that we have to search for it...making the treasure all the more beautiful after the journey to open the chest.

Maybe I'm naive.

Why do I always have trouble posting on this dumb blog? Every time I try, I end up losing what I posted.

Try this again.

I don't think that every author is trying to make their literature into a sexual inuendo. I think some do, obviouslly, but not them all. But, I am the type of person who reads something and just sees what is written, I can't pick apart every little detail. So, when we read something I just don't see it. When we were reading Kubla Khan on Thursday, it was brought up that it sounded like he was talking about sex. And, after that point was brought up I could definately see what they were talking about because of the emphasis he has on certain words and phrases and the style he uses, but I have a hard time thinking that that is why he wrote it. However, I know some authors purposely do make it about sex, becasue it is a way of talking about something your not suppose to talk about. In Gullivers Travels, the first chapter Gullier talks about his master on a ship, James Bates, or who he calls Master Bates. Which.. is sexual. But I didn't see that until after my high school/d.e. english teacher told me that. I just have a hard to seeing stuff like that. But I definately think he is talking about sex there.

Maybe I'm naive and don't want to see it. I don't know.

What would Mill think about Chavez?

I think most of you are familiarized with the social problems of Venezuela for these last couple of years. Hugo Chavez has been the president of Venezuela since 1999, and his mandate will end, if it actually does, in 2013. He has impulsed this new political system called "The Bolivarianist Revolution" or "Socialism of the XXI century", which has only caused terrible problems for the people. He has changed the constitution and each day he is gaining more power, while people are just losing their liberty. His primary idea is to convert Venezuela into a communist nation like Cuba, in which the dictator will be him. He doesn't think that one country is enough; actually he wants Latin-America to follow this same path, as he has mentioned it when he addresses the Bolivarian Integration.
What would Mill think about this? I really think he would be absolutely against Chavez. One of the policies that Chavez has implemented was to shut certain means of communication down. So, I think this will be completely against Mill's believes, because then people will not be able to express their thoughts or ideas. Mill believed that diversity and individuality were necessary components for reaching happiness and progress. He stated that when individuals cannot express their ideas, their lives will be empty, and they will have a lack of energy.

I commented on Kyle's post, Mill with a touch of Bentham.

Kubla Khan is kool, yo.

I'm a pretty big fan of this poem by Coleridge. Anyone can make this statement, but his work in Kubla Kahn greatly resembles the way I write on occasions. At least the part we were able to read online. XD

That said, I'm a little skeptical about the near-unanimous conclusion we made about how his poem was influenced, or at least how it wasn't: through a mind trip while high. I haven't been high before, but depending on my state-of-being and how consistent it is (and whatever emotional/physical influences are present at the moment I'm writing), my writing can be influenced, and it can come out just as it did in Kubla Kahn, provided his explanation was true. I've come up with an idea and begun writing, then something would come up that I had to work on for a bit, and by the time I came back to write the rest, I had already lost a majority of my idea. There's one piece of work I did where it played out almost like this: the idea was presented and extrapolated to an extent, a point is nearly made, and then an interlude-turned-reflection would finish the rest, looking back in confusion at the previous section of the work and questioning what the final point would have ever been.

It's entirely possible that the poem was influenced by, well, the influence. But I won't say either way, just to remain neutral. And lazy. :P

The Sublimity of the Soul

Wordsworth was bummed because he couldn’t retrieve the “something more” he longed for. He was quite clear about longing for the transcendent experiences of the past (think of his poetry as an 18th century country song). He describes the transcendence of the soul in Tintern Abbey, lines 45-49:

Almost suspended, we are laid asleep
in body, and become a living soul:

While with an eye mad quiet by the power

of harmony, and the deep power of joy,

we see into the life of things.

I can’t help but notice that this longing for something beyond ourselves is alive in modern society as well. Regardless of the generation, we never seem to be quite satisfied with the current state of affairs in society. But I submit that it’s not the affairs of society that we are dissatisfied with, but the affairs of the soul.

So then, if our souls don’t fit in society, then what do we do with our souls? I believe this is what Jefferson was referring to when he edited the Declaration from “property” to “the pursuit of happiness.” We cannot just submit ourselves to “the heavy and the weary weight of all this unintelligible world” (Tintern Abbey, lines 37-39), without acknowledging that our souls aren’t satisfied. So again, I reiterate - what do we do with our souls?

Well, for one, we create. Whether it’s art, or music, or even a new expression of faith. Though this overflow of creativity can make us feel better for a little while, it is often an end within itself. In order to truly reconcile these distorted souls of ours, we have to get to the source.

The still, sad music of humanity,

Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power

To chasten and subdue. And I have felt

A presence that disturbs me with the joy

of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime

of something far more deeply interfused,

Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,

And the round ocean and the living air,

And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;

A motion and a spirit, that impels

All thinking things (Tintern Abbey, lines 89-99).

Wordsworth said it himself: it’s not a created thing, but a presence that disturbs the complacent longing of our souls.

“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires” (2 Peter 1:3-4).

We are longing for an escape that has already been provided through divinity revealed to us by the one who wrote it on our hearts.

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Divinity is not holding back. In fact, He is relentlessly pursuing us through - not apart from - this desire for divinity engrained so deep within us. Even though college is intended to enrich our souls through the search for knowledge, we must remember that without the fear of the Lord, it’s not enough. So, escape. Take some time to get out from the routine of reason and go soak in some sublimity.

Wordsworth was so close to the answer ...

"My soul will be satisfied with seeing your likeness . . . " (Psalm 17:15).

Soli Deo Gloria.

Life is Absolutely Great!!!

What are things that exist that cannot be measured or weighed? -Love-Joy-Peace-Anger-Deceit-
What about these things could give them potential to be great?
Kant would say it is their ability to shock and awe us, and I agree!
When was the last time you looked at any natural phenomenon and thought "Man, that really was pointless.Whoever thought of that is an idiot!"? Sunsets take your breath away. Sunrises give you a reason to get out of bed. Finding the one you want to spend the rest of your life with causes you to feel things and do things that were absurd to you before.
Now are these things Romantic or Neo-Classical? Individuals can feel them and experience them and break class barriers (such the case many romance stories). However they seem to follow a pattern or be predictable. But Love has the ability to transcend reason, balance, class structure and sanity! Just things to think about.

I commented on Kyle's Mill, with a touch of Bentham.

As Life Progresses

When we were young, everything seemed better to us. Santa was real, everyone seemed nicer, and war was just a scary story about the real world. But now, that is not so. As we've grown up into the people we are today, we have lost our innocence, and the evils of this world really do afflict us now. Each day is a new challenge to us, sometimes we pass this challenge, and, sometimes we fail this challenge.
When I was young I believed in Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, and other fantasical creatures. Now that is not so. When I learned that those things were non-existent, the world seemed less bright,..it grew dimmer to me.
Our world is completely different than it was when we were children. The government is constantly interferring with our lives, we have to work for money, and not everyone is as nice as we thought. We get into relationships that can hurt or help us,we have to manage our time, and we have to deal with the pressures of this world.
Life may be different now, but I love my life, I enjoy it, and I live every day to its fullest. I'm not afraid to try new things, and I fear nothing,..except God. We must make the most of our time here, in the realm of the mortals, and we must be thankful for each day, because you could die at any given time.
So even though the world isn't as it used to be to us, we must push forward with our lives. Dwell on the past, but not in sadness for what once was. Remember the good times that you've had, and most importantly, enjoy every minute.

I commented on "Worsworth Today", by Daniel Watter.

Mill, with a touch of Bentham.

I just remembered a few minutes ago that I also had to write a blog on top of the bibliography, so this is gonna be short and sweet.

Im doing my Paper on John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Both were huge factors in England in the 1700 and early 1800. And the reason I gravitated to doing a paper on them is because of their political theories. Mill and Bentham believed in Utilitarianism. A form of thought that said "The ultimate goal of a life, is to find pleasure, and avoid pain." And I find it striking how right they are. When I thouroughly examined my own motives and the reasons I do things, I found that it almost always leads to me trying to get pleasure, or aviod pain. My paper is going to be on this topic, and how it relates to the big issues of government today. I think that if everyone united under Mills ideas of freedom and the like, that the world would be a better place. And christians could finally agree on something, politically speaking, and not contradict each other.

Im looking forward to seeing what I believe after this paper is done and over.

peace,

Mill's idea of freedom

In class last week we discussed Mill's idea of freedom. Basically his idea was that everyone can do whatever they want as long as no one else gets hurt. We discussed various scenarios in class and decided if Mill was for or against it. One scenario we had the most debate on was if a man is abusing his wife but apologizes afterwards is it okay? The woman still loves and forgives him, and if she does not want to leave doesn't she have the right to stay? I think that Mill would have to agree at this point that the woman is making a decision here that is harming herself. The best solution would have to be that the man be removed from their home and even put in prison because he is harming her. At this stage the woman is not fit to make the decision on her own, and I think Mill would have to agree in this instance.

Wordsworth today

I'm a fan of poetry in general, so i enjoyed reading the selections of Wordsworth over the weekend. However, one piece stuck out in particular to me and that is his "The World is Too Much With Us; Late and Soon." In such a bold passionate outcry, he expresses his disgust with life as it was in his time, how materialistic society had become, 'getting and spending, we lay waste our powers.' He is so disgusted that he wishes he were raised pagan! Think about that for a minute, in Christian England, one didnt often make such a radical wish.
With all this in mind, how much more disgusted would Wordsworth be in todays society? How much farther have we gone down that road to materialism that he warned us about all those years ago? And the real question, how much farther will we go? How long will it take us to realize where we are and decide to make the change?

Majority Rules

Ok, so Mill states that as long as you do not invade other people's rights, than you are free to do whatever you want. Sorry Mill, but I disagree with this...
There are certain actions that should not be done in public (and I'm not talking about just picking your nose...but for real, keep that at home...) There are numerous actions that need to be under control, even if they don't physically harm us. Not only that, but I find it impossible for Mill theory to actually be put in pratice. For instance, you have the right to wear whatever you choose, but if you come to the YMCA wearing a very revealing swim suit, or perhaps a female wearing just a white tee and bra, I can guarentee that you will recieve a very akward conversation with one of the guards about your appreal...
The quote use to explain Mill's theory, "Your freedom to swing your arm stops at my nose," really isn't true. Its more like "Your freedom to do whatever you want stops as soon as your actions are deemed unapproiate by the majority of the public." So, are we really free? or is the "majority" free, and everone elsa just has to suffer?

But under certain circumstances?

In class on Tuesday we mentioned several situations and whether or not they should be against the law. My group talked about situations including eating rather disgusting things on a bus, listening to music too loud on the bus, and 2 other related situations.

I would like to bring up something said in relation to the loud music situation. At first, someone thought it meant they had headphones in and the music was really loud, not that they had a open radio on extremely loud. My question is, does it really make a difference? Aren't you being bothered by both situations? While the open radio may be more damaging to your ears specifically, having the headphones up loudly are not only dangerous to the listener, but it's annoying to have to hear all the static and buzzing and noise. My point is, does it really matter if the person has headphones or speakers? Aren't the other passengers on the bus being "disturbed" either way?

I commented on Malory's post.

Give me Liberty

The New Colossus

By Emma Lazarus, 1883

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

These words are boldly proclaimed to the world on the tablet that our Statue of Liberty holds for the world to see. Proclaiming that our land, this land, America, will be a land of freedom. A land of liberty. A land that even in a dark world, will shine brightly the light of hope. But as our once given liberties and freedoms are slowly being taken away from us, right out from under our own noses, are you ready to take a stand and stop it? Are you ready to fight for your freedoms? I sincerely hope you are ready. Buckle up and hang on guys, it's gonna be a crazy ride.

Think Then Act

So going along with the same topic as everyone else, I want to discuss Mill's belief that one shouldn't interfere in others' lives unless that person is causing harm to others, but I want to look at it in a different light. So here goes nothing. First off, it is important to remember that most of the time people harm themselves because they crave attention. Knowing this is the case most of the time, when we see others harming themselves, we shouldn't judge them and jump to conclusions. We have no idea what they are going through, and to be honest we probably don't want to know. So instead of judging and writing them off, we should show compassion in some form or another. Whether it be spoken words of encouragement or acts of kindness, both go a long way. I believe that it is important to first build a relationship with them. From there we can proceed to share our convictions with them and attempt to show them how they are ultimately harming themselves and others. Trust must be the foundation, and that takes time and effort to build up. So next time you encounter someone who is harming themselves, take a moment to think about these points I have mentioned before you act. You never how your actions may just turn that person's life around.

I commented on Kimberly's Leave or Intervene.

Leave or intervene?

Mill believes that everyone should have maximum freedom, basically meaning we can do anything we want as long as it’s not harming anyone else. The only thing I had a problem with this topic was, when someone is harming himself or herself should we let them continue harming themselves, or should we intervene? Mill believes we can either suggest for them to stop, or not hang around them and warn others of what they’re doing. I do believe the person has a right to decide for himself, but it’s hard to just watch someone do something that’s hurting them, and not stop them from doing so.

I believe that if anyone I knew was doing something that were really going to hurt them in the long run, it would take a lot for me not to say anything to them. My first instinct would be to go up to them and tell them what they are doing wrong, and make them stop. However, I should understand that it’s their life and their decisions. So really the only thing I can do is follow what Mill says and either suggest they stop, but not force, or stop hanging around them all together.

Prostitution affects no one else...you have to be kidding me

Well, at the risk of being the 65th person to write about Mill, I really don't think there's much else blog worthy out there as my procrastination has struck once again and I haven't read Wordsworth yet. :) It will come soon though.

I'm writing on a topic that is close to my heart. We discussed in class whether or not prostitution affected anyone but the woman. For the most part, the consensus seemed to be that it affected mroe than just her but just to say my whole point, I will elaborate on my view.. This summer, God gave me the oppurtunity to work with a mission organization who was able to minister to the children of prostitutes as well as the prostitutes themselves. I can't look at a child whose little feet are forever scarred for walking up and down the street every night with his mother believe no one is affected. I can't look at a little girl who is paranoid to meet every new person and believe no one is affected. I can't look at a child of God whose body is forever maimed because of birth defects brought on by their mother's choice and believe that. I can never believe no one else is affected by prostitution. Not only are the children at stake, but take adulterous men. When they pay for prostitution, if that woman has an STD, does it not stand to reason that the man has a good chance of getting it and passing it on to his wife, or even if he is not married yet, to his future wife or girlfriend. Now, let me back up and say that I do not believe that sex before marriage is right but I think I could make a pretty safe assumption that a man who is using a prostitute would not suddenly gain morals when he left the brothel.
Back to my thesis, prostitution does NOT just affect the woman. It directly affects any child that may be born as well as any other partner that the men might have, or that the woman might have down the line when she leaves that life. I don't count the men who pay for her services in this because they bring it on themselves.
As for the fact that she was doing it to pay for her husband's medical bills. Yes, my heart goes out to her. Yes, I believe that she needs money. But, this is not an excuse to hurt other people to get it. There are organizations that pay for such things as well as government programs that will help offset the costs as well. I know firsthand how expensive medical bills can be but this is when we must let go and let God provide for us. Let Him be Jehovah Jireh. If the people are not Christians, that is the first thing they need to take care of. There are Christian health care cooperatives that can help as well as insurance agencies. But as I said a moment ago, He is Jehovah Jireh. He will provide.

Advise

In On Liberty, Mill states that we must "prevent generation after generation from falling over the same precipice which has been fatal to their predecessors."

I can distinctly remember trying to share the outcome of an experience of mine with my sister when she began going through a similar situation. I tried to caution her against choosing to respond as I had. She chose to anyway (and later regretted it). It caused me to think "Why do we ignore people who share their hurt, their pain, and their experiences to try and help us? Why do we feel the need to go our own way in spite of warning?" Now of course, I can't say I blame her, had she tried to do the same thing to me I probably wouldn't have listened either, after all, we are siblings. But I genuinely wanted to help her and had her best interest at heart in this situation.

Of course you must be on your guard when seeking advice. Some people will give you "advice" because it works to their benefit or in their best interest. You must be able to think for yourself and detect lies and manipulation. You must also be very careful in getting advice from friends and peers that, however concerned and sincere, don't have enough life experience to give sound advice. However, I think it would behoove us all to take a little more time to seek out and heed the counsel of those older and wiser than us; our parents, teachers, pastors, mentors, and friends. You never know what pain and trouble you might save yourself by doing so...


I commented on Camila's post "Celebrating 250 Years of Candide!"

yay for UN-originality!

So, I suppose it is my turn to post a blog on the same subject as everyone else...

I agree with Mill's theory of having maximum freedom, as long as you aren't harming anyone else...to an extent. One of the topics we discussed in class was drug use. Does it harm others, or is it just harming the user, and if it is only harming the user, should it be legal? I think that the answer is no. If a person is high on crack, they are not only harming themselves, but harming others' well-being. Sure, they're setting an example to kids of what NOT to do, but what about the kids who don't have parent to tell them that what the crack-lady is doing is wrong and will mess up their lives? These kids may see drug use as fun...

So, there is my two cents...drug use should be illegal, for the users well being, as well as others. The end. :)

Mills.. I disagree.

I hate to write on what everyone is going to say, but our options are limited due to the wonderful Thursday Constitution activities. It was a close battle....
Anywho, on to Mills. He states that it is fine for an individual to harm himself so long as it harms no other. I agree on certain terms. First, it is wrong for someone to harm themselves. We are in God's temple; our bodies are not our own. But honestly I wouldn't want my government telling me I can't eat fatty foods or smoke. That's my decision, so I agree with Mills that the government can't regulate such petty things. A more difficult scenario is drug use. I disagree with Mills that drugs should be legalized, because it is nearly impossible to use them without causing some kind of harm to others. Drugs induce false and crazy states of mind, putting those around the user in major risk of being harmed.
Overall, the government must be wise in deciding where the boundaries are in limiting citizens' freedom. There are certain choices we have to make for ourselves that government should not limit, but I disagree with Mills that it should not interfere at all.

The idea that someone can hurt themselves and not hurt anyone else is crazy. As far as expressing yourself or your opinion is fine. I can tell you how I believe and you can tell me what you believe. If we don't agree then oh well. I can't get mad at you because you don't believe as I do. So, I agrees with him on that.

But can someone honestly, physically abuse themselves without hurting someone else. I think he didn't consider how someone's actions could mentally affect someone.

So, I think his ideas can be tweeked a little.

Disturbed.

Our reading of Wordsworth was a little difficult for me at the beginning. I struggled with making the transition between the law/political science side and going straight into the world of poetry. But I think I've made a connection now...

If there is anything that one can gather from Wordsworth's writings, it is his display of Nature. So I began to wonder...does Wordsworth believe in natural rights? I believe so.

In his poem "Lines", there are a few lines (ha! that's funny) that struck me. Beginning in line 93, he says:

...I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply infused...

In "Ode", Wordsworth writes in stanza V:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises within us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home.

In stanza IX, he continues:

...power to make
Our noisy years seem moments in the being
Of the eternal Silence: truths that wake,
To perish never;
Which neither listlessness, nor mad endeavor,
Nor Man nor Boy,
Nor all that is at enmity with joy,
Can utterly abolish or destroy!

In the First Book of "The Prelude", line 401 begins more thoughts on the spirit of man:

Wisdom and Spirit of the universe!
Thou Soul that art the eternity of thought
That givest to forms and images a breath
And everlasting motion, not in vain
By day or star-light thus from my first dawn
Of childhood didst thou intertwine for me
The passions that build up our human soul;
Not with the mean and vulgar works of man,
But with high objects, with enduring things --
With life and nature - purifying thus
The elements of feeling and of thought,
And sanctifying, by such discipline,
Both pain and fear, until we recognise
A grandeur in the beatings of the heart.

In all of these lines, there is a ringing of the unnatural - 0f the Divine - of eternity. Wordsworth obviously believes that while we are a part of nature (and at points he displays nature so lovingly that he almost seems to worship it), we are somehow separated from it. We belong to another world. There is a desire, a passion, a longing, a "presence that disturbs" us. So if we, then, are part of the eternal plan of GOD - if we answer to a standard that rules but is outside of nature - then we must have that standard engraved into our hearts. If GOD is good, if He is holy, if He is perfect....if He is RIGHT...and we are made in His Image, then has He not put inside of us the yearning for Him - for RIGHT? This is where I believe natural rights begin, with a yearning to be the way GOD made us. GOD made us to be free - accountable only to His love. He made us to love in return. He made us to be responsible. He made us to be in perfect communion with Him and therefore with the rest of His creation. Then we fell...

...and now we have to seek for the Right in the world - in nature. We have to find what "natural right" is. Whether it's life, property, freedom, the pursuit of happiness...the desires are there. The longings did not diminish with the fall. They just became harder to satisfy. Perhaps if we pursued GOD - our only Right - we would be fulfilled instead of seeking the rights that stem from Him. Then we would be "disturbed" with His Presence. How beautiful that would be...

Mill's Ideas.

Ok, lets try this again. I already tried writing this and something happened and I deleted it.

I love the way Mill thinks. But I do think his ideas are too simplistic for todays society. If we had the idea that you can do anything as long as it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself, your freedoms would still be limited. Almost anything negative you do today can hurt someone else. If I wanted to smoke pot, and claimed I was only damaging my body, it would still be hurting my roommate by making her smell it and put up with me being high. There are so many consequences. You would have to be very isolated to do anything that wouldn't hurt someone else. You would have to go out to the woods, smoke your pot, and wait for it's effects to wear off before going back to your house. Because if you went back high, you would be hurting people both on the way and when you got there. It just wouldn't really work in today society. That is why we do have laws that are placed to tell us what we can and cannot do becasue it does hurt other people. And when you do hurt other people, you can be punished. Even if you only hurt yourself sometimes, you can still be punished. In Mill's philosophy that can still be hurting others.

In the end, I just think Mill's ideas are too simple for today.

I posted on Ashley's blog.

Celebration of the 250 years of Candide!!

Yesterday, when I was checking Colombia's newspaper, "El Tiempo", I found out that due to the 250 year anniversary of Voltaire's, Candide, literarure experts from all around the world were gathering at Oxford, England, in order to celebrate this special event. These experts debated the work from wednesday until friday of this week. "Candide" was first published in 1759 in Ginebra, just after Lisboa's earthquake. Experts believe that Candide is the perfect prototype of modernity, not only because of its style and humor, but also because of how it still attracts modern readers.

I commented on Whitney's post: "No good answer"

What's the Point?

Do you ever get into that mood where you start to question the purpose of everything you do? Well, I am in that mood right now. I absolutely hate it.

But seriously, what's the point of doing anything? We will all die one day and nothing we have done, and none of the possessions we have accumulated will matter.

What is the point of doing this blog post? The most obvious answer is so I can make a good grade. But is there a deeper answer? Am I missing something? What is the point of going to college? So I can get a better job. What is the point of getting a job? So I can make money and give it to someone else for possessions I will probably never use and that will not matter when I die. I know I am being pessimistic here, but I just cannot comprehend the purpose of doing the things we do. Who says we have to do these things? What gives them the right to impose their ideas on us? I know God created us to worship and praise Him, so why do we have to waste our time with everything else?

These were just a few things that were on my mind and I thought I would share. I hope that it has some kind of affect on you. Even if it is just, "Wow, this girl is dumb." ha ha :)

My view on Mill's view.

Hooah, time for another dose of philosophical ruffage, vis-à-vis the outlook one John Stuart Mill had on society and how far 'individuality' should go.

Let us proceed with this analytical confoundedness...

We summarized, for the most part, that Mill thought individuals should have entire freedom, especially when applicable to property, but under some basic laws (or "provisions") to make sure everyone has the resources they need, and people are not harming others in the process of just living. We also used some examples to analyse what Mill would think on specific issues, how the United States handles those issues today, and if we felt there should be any changes in Mill's/the US' approach.

Well, all of you heard my opinion on gambling. XD

But I feel individuality should go by the definition, and now that we've got a look at Mill's outlook on this subject, I've decided now that the government should only step in if the resources required to sustain the society physically is put at-risk, or if someone is being harmed by another. Self-destruction is a personal choice, just like hoarding food stuffs or torturing someone would be. But it is to do solely with the self, so the line should be drawn exactly between the negative involvements between one's own self and the others around him. Just as well (related to the prostitution example), there should be provisions made to ensure that everyone is at least able to sustain themselves by having jobs, or some sort of temporary-based income when labor is not available -- which shouldn't ever happen, provided we're still on this green Earth.

I'm not sure if it was necessary to go through all of this, since we already discussed this topic. But it's the only thing that comes to mind to use for a blog. I'm stagnant for now since I have this bloody annotated bibliography to work on, and few resources available for my subject on EBSCO. You can at least use this something to comment on. So, a question for the commenter:

What is your viewpoint on MY viewpoint? XD

His Kingdom Come?

There’s something that really, really, bothers me about politics.

Don’t misunderstand me here - I’m not opposed to politics. In fact, I rather enjoy it - I am the nerd that reads Fox News, watches house proceedings on C-SPAN, and starts dinner table conversations on modern political philosophy. But even so, there’s one question about political involvement that gets me every time: How can we reconcile faith in politics?

This question was addressed briefly in Tuesday’s class when we were discussing the various scenarios in which we determined how we would define liberty. As we discussed our opinions on matters like, “should this religious cult be allowed to have polygamous marriages?”, “should this man be allowed to wear a swastika on his sleeve?”, and “should this woman be allowed to harm herself through daily use of harmful substances?”, I quickly recognized that our political opinions and religious opinions often contradict. Though many of us believe that polygamous marriage is morally wrong, we still established parameters for which this man should politically be allowed to exercise his liberty through polygamous marriage. And that really, really bothers me.

Religion and morality go hand-in-hand. Though this is fiercely debated in the philosophical realm, I personally believe that there can be no moral law without a moral law-giver. Though our nation has clearly established a standard of right and wrong, (morality), at times, our sense of morality is distorted because we have tried to separate morality from its Maker. Thus, people start creating their own “truths” and demanding more liberty to practice what may or may not be distorted morality.

So, as Christians in politics, can we impose our inherently religious morality upon that of somebody else?

According to Mill, Paine, and even Scripture, the answer is no. Christ never tried to establish a theocracy (in fact, he called the theocrats a brood of vipers ... but that was because they were hypocrites). Our king actually made the theocrats really mad. But that aside, I believe we can still “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God’s what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21), without being hypocrites. As representatives, we can still defend the Christian morality in which we were called to live, though we may not be able to impose it on others through politics. In fact, giving them the liberty to choose it will be more effective than imposing it. By preserving our freedom to live moral lives and defend that of those who cannot defend themselves, we can effectively “become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life—in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing” (Philippians 2:15-16).

So, go ahead. Take the courage to live above reproach, without fault, holding out the word of life, even when you’re the only one.There is a perfect King coming who will establish a Kingdom where all this philosophical jargon will be obsolete. Until then, let this Kingdom be established in your heart, your mind, your life, your everything - and you will not labor in vain.

A Little Heart Please.

In this blog I wanted to address the situation we touched on last Thursday about the university buying footbaths for the Muslim students. We talked about the financial situation and the majority as opposed to the minority, but one issue we didn’t address was Christian kindness. It seems to come up in every other discussion that we have in class, but for some reason it was absent in this one. I personally believe that installing the footbaths was the right thing to do, but I had to really think about why I felt that way. I found that the true reason was in my heart. We could, and did, discuss all the technical aspects of the situation, but sometimes the right answer comes from the heart, from the want to do good and what’s right. That’s how I feel about the situation. When the money is available, it will benefit students, and it shows that someone actually cares, why would you not help those who can use it? When I really think about it, I can’t help but feel that sometimes the right answer has nothing to do with facts or statistics. Now, when following what you feel is right in your heart and when following those facts and statistics should be used is an entirely different subject altogether, but I do believe that in some cases, the heart can make the right decision.

I commented on Ashley's blog a perfect solution.

The Bible in Politics

What would it look like to have a biblical scholar in politics today?

In "Common Sense," Thomas Paine extensively abhors the idea of hereditary succession, and provides an impressive and ample ammount of biblical background to prove that 'Divine Right of Kings' does not exist. It didnt hit me at first while reading through this as any more than just another scholar sharing his biblical views. But after letting it sink in a little i realized that Paine's political views and ideals are entirely secular. He would not claim to be a 'religions political thinker.'
Think about this for a minute...why is it that this man, who professes no ties to a christian worldview, can so easily express in detail and length a biblical truth about government, and what it should and shouldnt be, when, in our current government, we have many professing 'christian' politicians who have less biblical understanding or concern than you or I?
Can you imagine what it would look like if those leaders who claim to be Christians even made an effort to live that claim?

*I commented on Whitney's Blog*

John Smith and the Bible Agree...

In class, we discussed something that to me began to sound like Robin Hood aka a redistribution of wealth. I couldn't help but be reminded of John Smith's statement, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." This philosophy was necessary in Jamestown and I believe it is still applicable today. People need incentives to work and be productive and be simply giving government handouts (except in certain situations obviously) we take away people's motivation for working. We know that John Smith's statement is really an adaptation of 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'" Most things in life, excepting salvation, are not free and work must be put in to acheive them.

The perfect solution??

Last week in class we discussed if it was okay for a university to install footbaths for the 10% of the students that were Muslims. Since they are required to pray so many times a day and wash their feet each time the university could find a need for these students. After all prior to this they just washed their feet in the sink of the bathroom and got water all over the place, creating a hazard for others. However, while there was a need for this in that 10% how important is it for the 90% majority? Someone suggested it could be used for the athletes or other things like that, but do they really need it? I mean, sure they could use it if they had it but couldn't the school find a better way to use that money that would help more students. And what else will the school open itself up to by allowing these footbaths? I highly doubt the rest of the student body are all the same religion and denomination, and if the school makes that sort of adjustment for one group wouldn't it be unfair and even discriminating not to make adjustments and changes for everyone else.

While I understand that not everyone believes the same thing, and that everyone does not worship, if at all, in the same way. But I do think that by allowing this sort of thing for one group, it will only create more controversy later on as other groups also think of things that would accomadate them at their university better.

Private Property

Private property…what does that really mean? I have been thinking a lot about this lately, partially because of our class discussions, and also because it interests me. Ok, so it doesn’t exactly interest me – it infuriates me. Allow me to vent, I mean, explain. I have dear, close friends who are very involved with the laws being passed about eminent domain. I have not studied it as much as they have, but I have overheard enough dinner conversations to know the gist of what is being done. Basically, if you own land and the government wants it, they can take it. It is perhaps a little more involved than this, but that truly is what is happening. So, as I said before, THIS INFURIATES ME! Why should the government be allowed to take something for which you have paid, something for which you have worked, something that is rightfully yours? The answer: THEY SHOULDN’T! And yet, they do.

Locke would certainly not agree with eminent domain. In class we discussed that Locke said the purpose of the state (or government) is to protect private property. Clearly our government isn’t doing such a hot job of this nowadays. We pay property taxes, we “mix our labor” with our property, and we “own” it, until one day when the government decides they want it back. So they take it, and we practically give them the right to do this. Every time we ask the government to do something for us, we give up a portion of our freedom. I personally do not believe that we should give more power to the government, state or federal. I think that the founding fathers would agree with me (the documents which they wrote prove this point). I value my freedom for many reasons; I am not willing to give it up for any light cause. The freedom to own private property is one which I would like to keep, but if our nation continues to look to the government to solve all of our problems, we may soon have very few freedoms indeed.

(I commented on Camila's Post)

Reading The Signs

What did the author mean by this? That is probably one of my least favorite questions to hear emerge from the mouth of the teacher. Let us consider, shall we?

Picture this: You’ve been dropped in the midst of a foreign country where English is not the first language. For simplicity’s sake, lets say Japan(if you can speak Japanese, replace it with another applicable foreign country mentally). Someone walks up to you and points to a sign by the road. “What does that sign mean?” They say. You look at them, at a loss for how to answer. You can guess by its shape that it is a road sign, perhaps pointing to a museum or some other tourist attraction, but you lack the ability to truly understand the information it is trying to impart.

This is where it is imperative to have a tour guide. Someone who has studied the language and culture, and can immediately look at the sign, and declare with confidence that it is saying the museum is to the left. This brings me back to my original question, what did the author mean by this.

This question can cause many rather awkward silences as the students try to puzzle out the meaning of a particular work. Well, seeing as they have been dead far longer than I have been alive, I can’t merely ask them to impart this knowledge upon me. I clearly didn’t pick it up from the reading, as my silence will attest to. So how am I to know?

We have, my friends, our very own tour guides (and very good ones at that) to help us through our conundrum. They are learned in the culture and knowledgeable about the language that we are attempting to read. They help us to answer these questions and to better understand just what it is we were assigned to muddle through.

This brings me to my point. Yes, you can read these works without a teacher, just as you can go to a foreign country without a tour guide. But, without some explanation or some seriously insightful research, can you truly understand them?

IF I WORKED FOR IT I SHOULD KEEP

Should we all get equal share of everything? If we all do equal share, sure. We should all get the same benefits. But no one can really get mad if one gets more than the other if that one is contributing more. It should motivate the one that's got the lesser to work harder, but instead it sometimes causes complaints.

I understand there are people out there that need help and should get it. But I shouldn't feel bad because I have and others don't. If someone is in need and I have it to give I will give it. I just don't think it would be fair if I work and someone else benefits. If it's my child or someone unable to take care of themself, yeah I feel obligated to give. But some people take advantage of other people's kindness. A healthy relationship of any kind is of equal give and take. If I'm always the giver eventually I'm going to get tired of giving. If I'm the taker I'm just going to remain lazy. So, I feel if I go out there and put in the time and effort to bring that money in then I should dictate how it is spent. But the taxes are fine. At the end of the day I'm not in the world alone so we have to make sure the community is maintain. So that part I don't mind.

and why this?

Well, I suppose this is what I get for waiting until 12:52 am, the night before class to post my blog. As I sit here in my bed and read through the past few blogs posted, I see that they all are quite similar to what I was planning on blogging. Oh well, I will proceed with my short and simple opinion...or lack there of. :)

In class on Thursday, we discussed the installation of the foot-baths for the Muslims at a private Christian college, where 90% of the students were NOT Muslim. At the beginning of the discussion, I agreed with the decision made about the installation: to go ahead an install the foot-baths, even though it was for the minority because, in the long run, it would aid in the safety of the majority as well (since they had been washing their feet in the sink...YUCK!). However, as we continued the discussion, a statement was made about the Muslim population coming together to raise the money for the foot-baths themselves. Since that addition to the discussion, I have not been able to decide which side to go with. Should the university have spent money to please the vocal minority; or should they have told them that if they felt the foot-baths to be necessary they would have to build them themselves. Either one sounds like a good plan to me. The first, because it does aid in the safety and somewhat well-being of the majority; and the second because, well, if they need these foot-baths so desperately, can they not fund them themselves?

I suppose it is time for me to head off to dreamland and still think about this ever-so-important issue of Muslim foot-baths and some christian university in who knows where?...oh the things I think about too much.

No Good Answer

Why is government so inherently evil and yet so entirely necessary? Especially in the case of trying to please the minority as well as satisfy the majority(which I think we all agree is much easier). I think the simple and entirely complicated answer is selfishness. Deep down, we all want exactly what we want, when we want it, and exactly how we think we should get it; and nobody ever wants the same things. The problem comes when we refuse to have our minds or our ways changed and we try to make everyone else figure out how to fix it. If we have a problem, we should try to fix it ourselves! I don't think we should stage a coup, but I don't think we will fully come to a conclusion until we come up with logical solutions to our own problems and stop trying to fix everyone else's problems.

Majority Rule or Minority Rights?

Im not really sure why my computer did this, but if this is posted by scarlettfan, it's Ashlee Lassiter. Now onto my blog.

This past week in class, we have been discussing government. On Thursday, we addressed the issue of majority rule. Is it right for the majority to dictate the lives of the minority? On the other hand, would it be wrong for the minority to get what they want when they clearly do not speak for most citizens?

This brings to mind the issue of the installing footbaths for a muslim minority at a school. The school board voted in favor of the footbaths, but many were against the idea. Personally, I believe that the school board granted this request in the best interest of the students. Prior to the installation of the footbaths, muslim students used the sinks in the bathroom to wash their feet. This was hazardous and unsanitary. The footbaths provided a safe and sanitary area for the muslim students to wash their feet. If the request had been for something that would not have benefitted all, I doubt the school board would have approved it.

As a minority in any setting, should you be forced to settle for what the majority choose? There must be a healthy balance. The minority must not be completely overlooked, but neither must they be granted everything while the majority remains unappeased.


I commented on Ashley H.'s post

Majority vs. Minority

In class on Thursday, we discussed how Locke argued that whatever the majority rule is, a government should go by it. And, I agree that we should go by the majority rule in many situations. But at the same time we must find a way to meet the minorities needs. If the same majority vote on something, then every time the group comes to make a decision, the majority will win. And even if that is the case, the minority group's voice must be heard, and their problems must be solved also. We also discussed how a minority can become the majority if the faith and will is stronger that the majority. If the minority group decides that they want to be heard, and they can somehow grow stronger than the majority, it doesn't matter how many people or what the count is. The heart of the people will overpower the majority, and eventually the minority will get their way. But that isn't always the case either, so it is the governments job to make sure that all of the people have their needs met. And even with that, the government shouldn't have to meet all of the peoples needs all the time. There are many lines that can be drawn in these situtaions, but in the end, minority voices need to be heard, and all peoples needs need to be met.

I commented on Josh H.'s blog.

The triviality of politics...

Politics. Every one of us is influenced by it. And in turn, we influence it. All of the excerpts we have read in the past weeks have been about the "politics" of nations. What is right, what is wrong, and everything in between. As I think about those things, the thought of how trivial it all is constantly pops in my head. I dunno why, but it does. I think of the U.S for example. Every term a president is elected. If Democrat, he will probably raise taxes, promote tolerance and acceptance, make abortions easier to obtain, and help homosexuals to get marriage rights. Something to that effect at least. Then, if Republican, he will probably lower taxes, give more power to the people and businesses instead of the government, make abortions harder to get, ban homosexual marriage, etc etc....

Now those descriptions dont accurately describe EVERY Democrat or Republican, but its a good generalization. And think of it in those terms. Every time a president is elected, usually every two terms the power switches from democrat to republican. For example, Pres. Obama will probably make the U.S into a socialist-like nation. Then in a few terms a Republican will come along and reverse all of it.

So, how trivial is it all?

It leads me to ask myself, just because I know it willl change, does that mean that I shouldnt do what I can now to change the world for the better? To change politics for the better?

Do I have any right at all to propose Christian doctrine for public use in politics?

I dont know. I want to know. As always, writing these blogs help me sort through what I believe. And hopefully someday I will find the answers I seek.

peace and love

Conflict of Interest

Good morrow good sirs and ladies of the Honors Literature guild!

To be perfectly honest, I'm at quite a loss as to what to blog about and so it shall be quite short.


"necessary evil"

Our goverment will never satisfy everyone.. indeed households are split every day over political factions and stances., yet if we didn't have some sort of government we'd end up like the Yahoos of Swift-lore.

Government is inherently evil because of the part of our sinful, human nature that defies authority rebels against the God-sanctioned right to establish control yet necessary for humans to have a society. We're torn in two with the issue; for both sides of our minds conflict with the purpose.

Obviousy God put it into the minds of our ancestors that we need a government but at the same time we still refer to it as a necessary evil. Fie upon our determinedly terrible conflictin sides!!!

yes i know this doesn't make much sense but it's what was going through my head :-)

until next time, good sirs and ladies. Adieu!!

Fallen from Virtue

I am ashamed to say that I am one of “those people” who lives in the United States of America – one of the most blessed nations in the history of mankind – and I do not truly know or understand what government truly is…or what it should be. But I’m on the journey to learn!
I’ve been struggling while reading all of the different views from Burke, Paine, Locke, Hobbes…I’m trying so hard to pick a side, a theory, a belief, but I’ve yet to find one that I totally accept as right. I don’t know if I will, but while I was wrestling with the questions this week, I found something that has at least tied all of their arguments together for me to a certain degree. There have been hints of the foundation of virtue (or lack of) throughout all of the excerpts we have read so far, but Thomas Paine addresses it strongly in his Common Sense.
Paine states, “Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world.”
Paine obviously views government as a “necessary evil.” Evil is the lack of perfection, the lack of good. So if government is evil, it is falling short of something…which is virtue. That means that virtue has to exist in order for it to be lost. The question then arises: since we know that virtue can be lost (it was lost in Eden), are people more virtuous or vicious by nature? I don’t know if I know the answer, but this is what I’ve concluded so far…
GOD is Virtue. If man is indeed created in His image, then there is something desirous of virtue inside of us, for we desire Him. Yes, we are fallen. It’s easier to be fallen. But we are fallen and unsatisfied when we do not pursue GOD and all that He is…when we do not pursue virtue. I believe that government would not be needed if not for the fall. It is a type of evil, for it is a result of sin. But since the world we live in is infused with evil, government is a necessity. We are no longer in Eden. So since we must have it, what is its purpose? This is where I agree with Paine. Not everyone will be virtuous. People sin. People commit evil every day. Yet all people desire virtue. Some just realize it more and pursue it harder. Paine says that proper end – the goal – of government is to help us come closer to virtue. (So should government then draw us closer to GOD? I won’t even begin that argument now, but it’s something to ponder. J) If people will stray from virtue, from morality, then perhaps government is GOD’s instrument in bringing us back.
Here is my conclusion – it’s rough, but I’m still seeking these things out : We are fallen. GOD is sovereign. He uses evil for good. He can use government – like all things – for His glory and our good. Government without Him, is…well, that is a topic for another blog. This one may not make too much sense…but it’s part of the process to find the answer. I’ll end with a quote from class Thursday…
“Virtuous people can produce a good government; a good government is not guaranteed to produce virtuous people.”
GOD is the root of all virtue. Without Him, where are we left? And what of our government?

~I commented on Seth's blog post~