of montaigne

in our class we kinda decided that montaigne was trying to say two different things. the first was that most people judge other civilizations based on popular say and the second was that people should judge based on logic and reason. i dont think these two things can be separated. no matter how reason based you are there will undoubtedly be some aspect of your culture or life experience that factors into that reason. your upbringing and those around you will always have some sort of influence on you. you could either be in agreement with that popular say or you can disagree with it. even if you disagree with what the majority says, they are still having some sort of influence on you. in montaigne's case he has lived in france and he thinks it is full of problems. he is convinced that france is wrong. there may be many things wrong with how the country is run or its principles but there can still be an argument made for several positive aspects of france. it seems as though montaigne appreciates the brazilians for their culture, but it also seems like he appreciates them because they are not france. there is more distaste for france in this piece than admiration for brazil. he can say that based on reason and logic brazil is less barbaric than france but that reason is based off of what he does not like about this own culture.

judging other societies

we talked about differences between cultures and what if anything makes certain beliefs correct and others wrong. the example of stealing and lying came up and what would happen if there was a culture where those actions were accepted. what would i say to them because i believe that they are both wrong except for a few special cases? i would like to think that i would be able to accept all other cultures and respect their beliefs, but in the end i know i would try to convince them that they are wrong. its not just that they believe in something different than me but those beliefs clash with my own. i dont steal from others because i dont want them to do it to me. there is mutual respect for others and their property. if stealing was ok then everyone would do it and the society couldnt function because everything would be in disorder. so even though stealing is a very extreme example i do think there are some ideas that would not work in a society. people can impose their beliefs on another culture but i think it is very important how that is done. the manner in which you present your ideas can dictate the success of those ideas. people always act negatively if they feel that their way of life is threatened. this is just like in a classroom discussion. if you are trying to make a point, if you logically present your argument and are respectful, there is a much greater chance that it will be welcomed.

religious images

so the other day we all had to bring in some sort of religious images and share them with the class. i found what i thought was a humorous image of jesus and some animals associated with christianity. the image was not meant to be insulting to anyone's beliefs and i dont know if it was actually perceived to be insulting. it caught my attention when i saw it because of the ridiculous portrayal of jesus. his head is larger than life and his facial expression is basically nonexistent. it seems to take away from the human aspect of who jesus was. in this picture he is a character not an actual person. this reflects how some in our society have changed their views and commercialized parts of christianity. i dont think this is good. it detracts from what is important in the religion. i dont really understand that aspect of what the christians do. the vatican takes in so much money for the church but why does the church especially the vatican need that much money to operate. i could understand if there was something broken in the building or a heater needed to be fix, and that might require fund raising, but churches have become so over the top and lavish that it seems pointless. why does it need to be so luxurious. i dont know if there is something in the bible that says god wants his followers to create great churches worth millions of dollars. that seems unnecessary as long as you devote yourself to god completely.

michelangelo

all of Michelangelo's paintings are of nude people. in several stories, nudity is shown to be bad and represents a fall from grace. however michelangelo painted all of these scenes with nude people. this gives the viewer something else to focus on. when everyone is naked, the concept of shame through nudity disappears. for example, in the story of noah and his sons there is much emphasis placed on the father's nudity. in michelangelo's version of the story, the meaning changes from shame of nudity to shame of something else. it is perhaps simply noah's drunkenness that should be shameful. through a media other than text, michelangelo is able to portray a familiar idea or story in a different way and invoke a completely different response. it would be interesting to have the responses of other people that were around at this time to get there reaction. people back then were familiar with the stories from the bible but they would be experiencing these images for the first time without any bias. now if you mention michelangelo, people will automatically think of a masterful artist with amazing works of art. im sure there were many people from michelangelo's time that would not accept the images he was painting.

important gita passages

in the teaching "the renunciation of action" stanza 16, Krishna speaks about knowing thyself and ridding yourself of ignorance in order to reach a higher understanding. i really agree with this idea. i think self understanding is very important in life. when you know yourself, you know your limitations and your strengths. you can use this knowledge to succeed in life by working with your strengths and protecting your weaknesses. it may not lead to a higher state of being but i do think it will lead to a better life. people make mistakes in life because they dont understand something. understanding yourself is the first step into better understanding your surroundings. knowledge does give people some kind of power or advantage in life. i find most of the gita very interesting in theory but i believe this passage in particular is relevant.

the gita

there is a big difference between Christianity and Hinduism. in christianity life seems to be one long journey and the goal at the end is entering heaven after death. with heaven there is the promise of salvation. however in hinduism, there is no end to the journey, it is an endless cycle in which there is birth, life, death, and rebirth. the body is only a shell or vessel for what is inside, the embodied self or what some believe to be a soul. this soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed. in christianity, emphasis is placed on obeying god and devoting yourself to god's wishes. if this is done throughout ones life, then when the person dies, they will enter paradise forever. the hindu beliefs seem to focus on karma and accumulating good karma so that the next life will be enriched. this continues forever, so that each life you try to improve the next life for your embodied self. in these terms christianity seems much more finite and defined. you live, you die, you go to heaven (hopefully). however with hinduism, there is no end, life continues and will always be. the physical body will diminish but you will always live in some form or another. krishna tells arjuna that nothing of nonbeing comes to be, nor does being cease to exist.

and still more socrates

so at the end of class we discussed the ending of the conversation between socrates and euthyphro. some believed that there should have been a conclusion to the question, "what is pious and what is impious." i think the ending has more of a meaning if there is no answer to the question. on some level everyone wants to know the answer to that question and others like it, but regardless of the answer there would be naysayers who will find fault with it. the entire point of socrates questioning euthyphro is to get him to realize that some questions dont have answers. socrates wants people to question. most people in this society accept religious ideologies as being true without understanding them. i dont think socrates has an answer to the question and he knows that euthyphro does not either. on can see in this exchange that socrates is attempting to teach euthyphro that there are limitations to the human mind and our ability to comprehend. if at the end of all of this, socrates had told euthyphro, "ok the pious is ____,"he would have simply rendered his lesson meaningless and succeeded only in making a fool out of euthyphro.
in a way, not having an answer makes socrates seem even more intelligent.