can we write about editing essays?

today we read a few essays from the class and reviewed them. i liked breaking up into samller groups and discussing a specific essay. i dont think we had enough time to go through all 4 thoroughly. when focusing on the one essay, we were able to go through and closely examine each part. i think this process allows for good feedback and a chance for the writer to improve their paper. even if this only allows for 4 essays to be read, i think we can all learn what works and doesnt work in these papers. when editing your own paper, you can sometimes get stuck in a pattern of predictable writing. reading others essays can show just how differently everyone thinks, and with this kind of exchange, new ideas can be formed. Hopefully this will lead to a better way of conveying your ideas. i think next time it would be better to spend time reviewing more essays in groups and giving more thorough critiques to each essay rather than trying to compare them to others.

socrates and his society

in class today we discussed socrates' method of questioning people and some in the class believed that it was the way socrates questioned everyone in an aggressive manner that got him in trouble. i disagree. i think it is what socrates is saying that pissed everyone off. he is basically questioning their belief system and in some cases turning it upside down. not many people like it when they think someone is threatening their beliefs and in this time period, their way of life. i think socrates is trying to teach people and trying to help, even though his methods make him out so be a crotchety old man. in most cases the people in socrates' community follow a fixed set of beliefs and rules governing religion. their religious beliefs are so strong that they impact most aspects of their lives. these citizens like euthyphro believe in these ideas because they know they are supposed to. they dont understand what it really means. if you believe something just because it follows the status quo, then there is little power in the belief. socrates is not trying to devalue their beliefs, he wants them to actually believe and comprehend them. by questioning the towns people and confusing them, socrates causes the towns people to question themselves. and through this questioning they can actually learn what is important to them and why it is important. he wants the towns people to learn that there is meaning in everything we do and if we can understand that meaning, we can better understand ourselves and what our purpose is.

socrates and euthyphro

this is the first time i've read a text with socrates. i had heard about him from many secondary sources but i had never actually read anything about him. i had this image of him being a noble and brilliant man, who was honored for his ideas and innovations. now after reading this story, i have a radically different view of socrates. he seems like an ornery old man that likes to cause trouble. he is indicted for some mediocre charge of disturbing the peace and poisoning the minds of the children in the village. he spends the entire story arguing with euthyphro and trying to confuse him. he enjoys the idea of outsmarting other people. Socrates knows that euthyphro is arrogant so he asks him a question about piety that he knows euthyphro will try and answer. euthyphro is led into a trap and socrates plans everything. this makes socrates seems even more arrogant and malevolent. i think that socrates is bored. he wants something to do so he picks a target and verbally runs circles around him to the point where euthyphro will say whatever he wants. although euthyphro may seem unreasonable for prosecuting his father, he is doing what he thinks is right. he may be doing it for the wrong reasons (he may want to save face in the community by severing his ties with his father.) but the person did die as a result of his fathers actions and there must be some consequences for that. yes euthyphro is pompous and arrogant but that should not get in the way of what is right and wrong. reading this story did make me think of a bugs bunny cartoon with daffy duck. there are many similarities regarding the characteristics of these four characters. bugs bunny is socrates because of all the tricks he pulls and his circuitous reasoning. daffy duck would be euthyphro because he is outspoken and arrogant. bugs tricks daffy just like socrates tricks euthyphro.

the other day in class we continued our discussion on the bible. i was asked some thought provoking questions by tabatha. one of which i was not expecting was "how would i raise my kids?" this question caught me a little off guard manly because i am nowhere near ready to have kids and we have never really discussed how our beliefs would affect our kids . the answer to this question would have to be, i have know idea how i am going to raise my kids. yes there are certain things i will teach them and how to act with other people(dont kill anyone and dont steal), but as for trying to guide their spirituality, i think thats a little bold for me to presume that i have the right to do. i will teach my kids to respect authority and try to guide them between what is right and wrong, but sunday school is not on the top of my list. i am not saying that i will not let my kids go to church, quite the opposite, if they really want to go i will encourage them to pursue their passion. i think they should have the right to choose whether or not they believe in a greater power and whether or not to adopt certain beliefs instead of teaching them to accept them from a very young age. many young children see church or religious services as a chore either because they are bored or dont really understand what is happening. its not until people mature and grow that they can really understand some of the beliefs and ideologies from different religions. thats why i think its important to wait until the children are old enough to think for themselves so that they can form their own ideas on spirituality and really choose for themselves if church is right for them. its their life, they have to live it.

god vs man

today at the end of class we started to discuss how god is supposed to be very different from man, how the distinction between what is human and the characteristics of god are clear. but from what i have read, i think god is very similar to humans. he shares many traits with man and are now considered to be natural human instincts. in genesis god has made mistakes, he is not perfect. after the flood he admits that it was a mistake to wipe out humanity. humans make mistakes, we are fallible. later when faced with the destruction of sodom and gomorrah, god changes his mind. abraham talks to god and reasons with him. This shows that god is open to debate at least in this instance and can be persuaded to think a certain way. Humans are always thinking, changing, and evolving, which is what god does in this passage with Abraham. Later in exodus god says that he is jealous and he decrees that humans should not be jealous. Now at some point in every one’s life they have been jealous of someone or something. This is part of human nature, we have unlimited wants and limited resources to get those wants. However humans usually don’t want to admit they are jealous or have “undesirable” traits. Perhaps this is why god is seen as different from humans. He knows he is jealous and he admits it. Maybe he knows his true self and has reached some sort of higher understanding of the universe because of it.

penny day

today was an unusual day in cie. for the first time ever in school i examined a penny. at first i didnt quite understand what we were doing and why this was necessary but by the end it all made sense. something like a penny is a perfect artifact to examine because it is so overlooked in our society. by taking a step back and removing ourselves from our society and trying to make as many educated guesses about whoever produced the penny i learned how telling something as simple as a penny can be. there are little details that tell all about our society. for example the words in god we trust reveal how central god and worship are in our society. if currency that is made by the government which is supposed to be separate from the church has an inscription about god then religion must influence many other parts of our lives that we may not realize. we are supposed to examine ancient texts and make discoveries about the societies that produced them. this will require the ability to take a step back and rid ourselves of previous experiences and notions that we may already have. the penny exercise helped me do that because it was something that i already knew about and i had to force myself to ignore what i already knew. as for gilgamesh, i dont know anything about his society or what life was like back then. all i have to go on is the text we are given. like the penny there are many details in these texts that must be given credit for their significance and what they mean about those ancient societies.

Genesis

so we discussed genesis today in class and there were a lot of interesting points raised. its hard for me having very little education in the bible or religious studies to understand others that have had a "religious" upbringing. there are so many beliefs that i have a hard time comprehending. i guess the biggest one would be faith in god. what is faith? the belief that as long as you obey and trust god, you will be safe and blessed? i mean thats basically what i took faith to be from reading the first part of genesis. for example, abram had faith in god and god commanded him to take his son and kill him as a sacrifice to god. abram did as he was told and right before he cut his sons throat, the messenger of god told abram to stop and that he had proven his devotion to god. so now abram and his son are blessed. god is awesome, he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. so god knows abram and he knows what he is going to do. so he knows that abram is dedicated to him. what is the point of making him go through the pain of almost killing his son and making the son go through such an ordeal. to me that is just like burning an ant with a magnifying glass. if life is so precious why torture those living it with ridiculous tests. the garden of eden is another one of these tests. god knows by putting the forbidden tree in the garden that eventually adam and eve will eat from it. so he is basically letting them live in paradise to get a taste of it and then snatches it away when they fail to remain "true" to god. if he wanted them to stay innocent he could have removed the snake, the tree, or stop them before eating the fruit. god also makes mistakes. when in a brilliant move he decides to cleanse the world with a flood, he wipes out all of the "evil" people. afterwards, he tells noah that he made a mistake and he would never flood the earth again. (also there have been a few floods since then which have plenty of people regardless of their moral standing) so far in genesis, the god depicted is not a god that i would be able to believe in or have faith in that god.