That's It

That's it for the semester -- thanks for participating on the blog!

No Title

In A Discourse on Method, self-intellect is cast as the most important of human traits. Descartes speaks out against those who accept the word of others or the church without first asking the most important question of "why?" When looking at the skyline of A Discourse on Method, the most prominent building that stands out is logical thought. While Descartes uses the term self-intellect, a more appropriate term should be logical thought. The ultimate goal of his writings is to encourage the population to think through the basis of what they believe. Rather than just accept the religious teachings as truth and believing anything the church says, Descartes wants people to consider what the teachings imply and judge on a case by case basis which teachings are worth listening to and which should be disregarded. The most relevant modern day example comes with the government. Some people blindly accept government policy as it is given. However men like Stephen Colbert and John Stewart act as Descartes. These men ask American citizens to look at their blind faith in the government and reconsider it. They ask vital questions about why certain policies have been made and make even the most carefully crafted policy seem ridiculous. Their careful analysis of the government helps people realize the ridiculous nature of what they are trained to think. This training can happen unintentionally just from people choosing to ignore what is happening in the world. Just like Descartes, Stewart and Colbert find the most important thing to be the ability to think for oneself and develop valid arguments to back up one’s own opinions.

Descartes

Descartes focuses on widening his understanding of the world. He sets out to do this by (1) abandoning his previous preconceptions about right, wrong, and the like, (2) reading and travelling in order to expose himself to the most of what is available to him, and (3) rebuilding and refining his beliefs. Descartes begins by realizing that his teachers and his studies were biased on the whole; he rests with the idea that he “could discover much more truth from the reasoning that we all make about things that affect us and that will soon cause us harm if we misjudge them, than from the speculations in which a scholar engages in the privacy of his study” (11). On this note, he holds that because students are fed the ideas of their schools and teachers, they are not easily able to formulate their own opinions based on experience. He argues that “our judgments are [not] as pure or as solid as they might have been if we had full use of our reason from the moment of our birth, and had been guided by that alone” (13), thus he seeks to revise his judgments from their base. Descartes describes this process in four parts: (1) only accept what has been proven or is incontrovertible, (2) break the ideas down into separate parts, (3) reevaluate the parts from simplest to most complex, and (4) expose himself to ideas that may conflict with his, so that he can really see all that he has taken it all into account. After the end of these processes, after nine years, Descartes comes to the conclusion that his moral code – that is, what is most important to him – is to: obey laws, customs, and God; be firm in his actions and opinions; and control his desires (in a similar fashion to what Krishna would promote) by trying his best and accepting defeat.

Friendship is like peeing on yourself, everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feelin that it brings

Rene Decartes shows that self-intellect is the most important thing a person should have. He doesn't like it when people just go off of what philosophers and what the church tells people to do. He feels that people start to only believe what they say and then that gives people narrowed views on a topic when they should be able to think in a large general way. Decartes does not feel that everyone should know all the information about all topics and that sometimes their is guidance needed, but never should someone just hear one persons view on an argument and then make that their own stance. They should use the guidance as a guide and that is all and then form their own self opinions. This is shown when Decartes says "So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine." Decartes holds self-intellect very high on what every human should have and he will disagree with anything that tries to take individuality out of people's opinions.
'

One's Own Path

In Rene Decartes book, A Discourse on the Method, he seeks to show people that they need to use their own intelligence to find what is the truth. However, he does not wish for those people to just blindly jump to conclusions and become single minded and think that their own way is the only right way. This is why he frowns upon the church and philosophers. They all believe that their way of thinking is correct and become single minded. Rene Decartes seeks to promote the idea of thinking with an open mind to all possible answers, not just one's own, and respecting the answers of others “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine,” (6). He wants people to use their intelligence to spread the knowlege around so as to make all of the people better. This is done to attempt to break the two different types of minds that Decartes believes exists, the minds of people who have too much confidence in their own intelligence and the minds of people who only follow the "intelligent people." He wants everybody to realize the fact that people are all intelligent on some level“Good sense is the most evenly distributed thing in the world” (Descartes 5). This fact however can be debated but according to Decartes beliefs, people should be open minded and not think like that.

I believe that in A Discourse on the Methods, René Descartes is showing how self-intellect is very important to him. He is concerned about people having a strong foundation for their beliefs. He states “I concluded that nothing solid could have been built on such shaky foundations” (10). He is describing how many disciplines just take knowledge and ideas from philosophers and use them as fact, without any further thought of their own.

Descartes comments how “I learned not to believe too firmly in anything that only example and custom had persuaded me of” (11). This is a similar ideal to that of Socrates when he was questioning Euthyphro. It is important to both Socrates and Descartes that people understand the things that they put so much faith in. they urge people not to follow philosophers with blind loyalty, but to think for yourself and discover on your own terms what is true. In part 1, Descartes tells how, no matter how much literature he read, he never really learned anything for himself, he was just accepting other’s words as fact. Thusly, he abandoned all this reading and literature and set out for 9 years of traveling to experience things for himself.

Rene Descartes

It appears that Descartes holds a similar opinion regarding knowledge as Socrates. For instance, throughout the first three parts of Descartes Discourse on the Method, he details his travels to various cultures, and he uses each experience to challenge and solidify his own opinions. Because, as Descartes points out in the beginning of the reading, all men have the equal ability to judge, but “we have different ways of directing our thoughts, and do not take into account the same things” (5). So, the experience of a singular culture does not guarantee in any way the correctness of an idea, but rather each society should be utilized so as to examine every perspective of the topic at hand. Descartes then emphasizes that with this challenged and subsequently strengthened knowledge, we should be sure to act upon it. “The most important thing, is to apply it correctly” (5). So, as Descartes outlines the methods by which he has reached this conclusion, he hopes the Discourse on the Method will be used as a guideline for others to discover the same. In effect, Descartes appears to be concerned with two main things. One, is to emphasize that opinions should be challenged and explored and solidified so that the subsequent knowledge can applied. Second, the Discourse is intended specifically to guide people in the method by which Descartes reached this conclusion that regards the appropriateness of how life should be lived.

Storytime

I believe in the book A Discourse on the Method, Descartes is trying to get across a point. In part one, I believe he is trying to portray and paint a picture of his early childhood. He goes on to say on page 6, “…in this essay, I shall gladly reveal the paths I have followed and paint my life as it were in a picture, so that everyone may come to a judgement about it.” Also, I believe that Descartes is also trying to introduce a new of thinking and teach and or educate people about his positions. After my first quote, he goes on to say, “I shall add a new way of acquiring knowledge to those which I habitually employ.” Also, he goes on to say, “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine.” These quotes I believe just supported my argument on what Descartes is trying to say early on in his book. In part two, I believe he continues telling a story and painting a picture of his life. He starts off part two by telling the story of his hiatus and arrival at Germany for the wars and keeps telling the stories. The way I interpreted was that Descartes was just trying to give some background on his life to set up chapters later in the book.

Descartes

Rene Descartes writes his essay ­A Discourse on the Method on the importance of using your intelligence and making the most of what you are given. He says, “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine,” (6). He wrote the essay with intentions of others using it as a sort of step-stool towards good actions yet not to follow verbatim. He feels everyone has their own mind and should use it to its full potential, and some just need help being guided in the right direction.
Descartes feels there is nothing more discouraging than a great mind that is not used to its full potential. He quotes “it is not enough to possess a good mind, the most important thing is to apply it correctly,” (5). One who possesses a high IQ but chooses to not study or apply themselves Descartes feels is a waste of potential and he feels it is wrong to those who were not blessed with the gift but use what knowledge they do have to the best of their power. Knowledge is an incredible gift and if used right is a gift to more than one. The magic and power can be spread throughout a community and that is exactly what Descartes wanted.

Challenge

Descartes cares about reasoning. He wants people to actively think about what they are doing and have a clear method and steps instead of simply going through the motions that someone else instructed them to perform. He says “…There are those who, believing themselves cleverer than they are, cannot stop themselves jumping to conclusions, and do not have enough patience to govern their thoughts in an orderly way…Second, there are those who…must content themselves with following the opinions of others rather than seeking better ones from themselves,” (15). With this quote Descartes is telling you what he cares about. He wants people to make up their own minds and use their own ideas, but to do it in a way that is logical so other people will be able to understand it. He continues with this when he says “The first was never to accept anything as true that I did not incontrovertibly know to be so…and to include nothing in my judgments other than that which presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly, that I would have no occasion to doubt it.
“...The third was to conduct my thoughts in a given order, beginning with the simplest and most easily understood objects, and gradually ascending…to the knowledge of the most complex…” (17). This makes it clear that Descartes cares about thinking for yourself, but documenting your steps in a way that will allow others to go back and follow what you have done and recreate it. Descartes wants people to challenge what they accept as true and try to come up with an alternative, as long as it is well documented.

Rene Descartes states the purpose of his essay right on page six. He states, “So my aim here is not to teach the method that everyone must follow for the right conduct of his reason, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine,” (6). He wants his essay to be a useful guide to people for actions they should imitate, and not follow.

However, I believe Descartes is concerned with how people utilize their minds. He wanted to be very clear that each person is given the same tools for success (good sense and reason). Descartes said, “The diversity of our opinions arises not from the fact that some of us are more reasonable than others, but solely that we have different ways of directing our thoughts, and do not take into account the same things. For it is not enough to possess a good mind, the most important thing is to apply it correctly,” (5).

By telling people his story, he is encouraging them to use their own minds and form their own conclusions. Descartes wants people to gain as much knowledge as they can in their life time and reap all the benefits from it. As Anya said, he wants people to know how to use their intelligence and interpret their learning’s with it.

In his essay, A Discourse on the Method, Descartes is concerned for the common good of the people. He wants people to get as much out of their lives as possible, and live their lives to the fullest extent by learning.

Triumph of Experience

One of the more minor notes about Descartes' text is the avocation of equality among men that he emphasizes in the first few pages. He feels that all men have been created with the same amount of reason and that there is no aristocracy of inherent understanding as had been suggested in the past. This seemed to stray a bit from his thesis about his own reasoning, but was probably added just so he could come off a humble. The heart of his writing was the fact that he feels a formal education leaves the curious mind hungry for more knowledge. He seems to feel that the various subjects and histories he learned in his schooling are irrelevant to his life in his time and separate him from what is going on around him. To soothe this academic hunger he decided to leave his education in favor of traveling the world to gain his knowledge first hand. This represents Descartes' values in the field of knowledge and wisdom. He feels that true knowledge can only be gained through one's own first hand experience and that it is far more valuable than simply knowing facts from civilizations past. This has a number of implications, as it redefines what knowlege is and who is knowledgable. So it is not the Stanford graduate with a 4.0 GPA, but the plumber who has worked all over the United States that is more intelligent by Descartes' definition. And it will typically be the old who are more intelligent than the youth, as they have likely been many more places and done many more things. This is not set in stone, however, as if the old person was a shut in their entire life. Descartes would likely consider them rather stupid. It is an interesting claim Descartes makes and one that is not entirely valid in my view.

Descartes Skyline

Rene Descartes is a very interesting person to read about. His style of writing portrays a man who is intelligent, but is modest about it and does not brag. While reading the parts one, two and three in his A Discourse on the Method, what he cares about most is the application of one’s mind.

This is what Descartes cares about most because he makes many references to it within those three sections. He even begins his book with a statement about intelligence: “Good sense is the most evenly distributed thing in the world” (Descartes 5). This sets the rest of the book up to hear about intelligence and mind application. Descartes discusses the two types of minds: the ones who are overly confident on their intelligence, and the ones who follow the overly confident ones. This proves that Descartes spends much time deciphering what people think and feel about opinions and how they express that feeling.

Descartes wants each human to use their mind well; not blindly following opinions of others, but searching for our own answers while simultaneously not jumping to our own conclusions. He says that although intelligence is wide spread, not many people know how to use it correctly which, as he points out, can be a problem, especially when it comes to interpretations.

This is what Descartes cares about because he is trying to end some conflict which seems to be similar to the Galileo/Church conflict. But Descartes is attempting to end to conflict from a different approach, one of trying to lead people to learn to interpret things with an open mind. Maybe we could all learn a little something from Descartes and apply it to our daily lives.

Blog Assn #22: Descartes

Please post on the following by 8 PM Tuesday night.

"Skyline" time again: What does Descartes' ­A Discourse on the Method indicate about what most matters to him?

religion and science

There are definitely conflicts between religion and science. I think that one of the biggest conflicts right now is the dispute between evolution and intelligent design. Many people believe that humans first began existing with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, now more recent evidence are starting to convince people that we evolved from apes and came out of Africa. There has been such a big change in views on this issue that now evolution is being taught in schools. I don’t think that we can follow the Bible literally at all times. There are some things that I believe that are just meant to be metaphors. In Galileo’s time people believed that God made the sun to revolve around the earth, but we know now that that is not true. There are also many treatments that are offered to patients that are against their religious views, such as blood transfusions. Religion operates more on faith while science operates more on physical evidence, and I think that is why more people are turning away from religion. People want to be sure of things, so they look for the facts in many situations, and science looks to provide these facts. When these facts don’t go along with what religion says, more people begin to give up their faith. There are definitely many conflicting issues with science and religion.

Mitchell no longer sounds like death!

Galileo makes several interesting points in terms of science and religion in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Within the first two paragraphs, Galileo writes that scientists have no right quoting the Bible, especially if they are going to misquote and not-understand the Bible. However, as his arguments progress, he cedes that the Bible may be quoted as long as the user fully understands the meaning of what he or she means to say using the quote. In fact, Galileo uses a quote from the Bible early on in his argument to the Grand Duchess. He says, "...we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way..." (173). Galileo manages to use a Bible quote correctly to further his logical argument, while the others attempt to just beat him over the head with the Bible. Further into his letter to the Grand Duchess, Galileo’s argument gets more heated. He claims that priests and people of the church would have followers abandon their views just to test to see if they’d follow, even if it is a misinterpretation. Looking at the way his argument is constructed, this is probably not far from the truth. Galileo claims that, “they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our sense in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense” (179). An interesting example of this is the not-so-recent chalkings at Ursinus. I have heard many groups complain that the Leviticus quotes are not so much offensive as they are misquoting the Bible’s true meaning in the phrase. Galileo is making the same argument here as he tries to separate the poor religious arguments from true scientific arguments.

Cassie likes to cough on people and get them sick

In my opinion, I do not think that it is possible to compare both science and religion. Science uses logic, reason and lots of evidence to come up with the answers to people questions. This is a vital part of our life and it is the main bases for our society. However, there are some answers that science has not yet been able to answer, and that is where religion comes in. People hate not knowing answers to questions and they feel like they need an answer. So when the question comes up "What happens when we die?" science can't find an answer with the facts to answer the question. So people turn to religion and religion answers the question, for example if you live a good life you go to heaven and if you live a bad life you go to hell. There are also some questions like "how we were made?" and religion also helps answer this question saying god created us all. Overall I feel that religion and science were to have a conflict it would be that religion has no evidence for their answers and science criticises them for not having evidence, but I think that the main conflict between science and religion is that religion answers the questions that science can't answer.

Religion and Science

My personal views set aside, Galileo seems to find that there is a combination of religion and science. It frustrates him more than ever when people quote Scripture as to support scientific ideas, because no one is qualified enough to really interpret the Bible correctly. It is purposefully left open-ended. The Bible “was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which,…could not be made credible by science” (183). The Bible and science are two separate things, though religion and science, he feels, are one in the same. In a sense, God is nature because God is everything and everywhere, so nature would be included. The Christian religion does not have scientific flaws in it because God is without imperfection. The Bible, on the other hand, does not talk about science. It speaks only of “essential matters more directly [relating]… to their salvation and to the benefit of the holy Church” (185). Therefore the Bible cannot be held as a scientific source.

Conflict

There is clearly a conflict between science and religion. When Galileo is talking about how the earth rotates around the sun, those who didn’t agree with him had direct support from the Bible. “…In the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still.” (181). With support like this, there is obviously a conflict. Religious people believe everything the Bible says and takes everything literally, so any contradiction to the Bible is seen as a huge threat. There can be no reconciling science with religion when science directly opposes the Bible. Galileo takes this a step further when he says “It is obvious that such authors, not having penetrated the true senses of Scripture, would impose upon others an obligation to subscribe to conclusions that are repugnant to manifest reason and sense, if they had any authority to do so.” (190). Galileo is creating enemies of all those in positions of power within the Church, for he is saying that they are misinterpreting the Bible. With this Galileo makes it so that his ideas will probably never be accepted by the Church, simply because he called everyone foolish. With this Galileo has deepened the conflict between science and religion, a conflict that still exists today. While the issues are different, it still boils down to the difference between what the Bible says and what research proves to be true. Religion and science will always be in conflict as long as scientists continue to conduct research that the religious disagree with.

To say the religion and science conflict is an understatement. Each ones stands for what the other dismisses. Religion pushes faith: believing without seeing. Science advocates physical evidence before belief. Some topics bring about more controversy between the two than others. Especially in the matter of less explored practices. Suppose a scientist wanted to prove something wrong that was mutually accepted as true in a religious community. The religious advocates would have, as Galileo puts it, “endeavored to spread the opinion that such propositions in general are contrary to the Bible and are consequently damnable and heretical”(177). It is commonly seen that people damn what they do not understand/believe; A fear of the unknown.

As I was growing up, I went to a catholic school until 8th. Before the time I transferred I can honestly say I was never informed of the theory of evolution. Everything was made in 7 days by God. No questions asked. The teachers seemed to “abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage”(179). I don’t see why it is so hard for them to believe someone could be a Catholic and believe in evolution. Like Galileo points out, even Nicholas Copernicus “was not only a catholic, but a priest and a canon”(178). I think the conflicts are pointless. If something a scientist says doesn’t suite you, then don’t believe in it. People can fight and butt heads all they want, but most scientists aren’t set out to shatter someone’s religious beliefs. They just want to find answers to their questions, just like someone of faith can find answers in God.

I personally believe there are more than one difference between science and religion. The first difference that comes to my mind is abortion. Abortion, according to the Christian religion is strictly prohibited to any of its followers. However, it is quite a popular commodity in modern day science. Another difference that comes to my mind is stem cell research. To people who follow the Christian religion, they believe it is murder as they believe abortion is murder. To scientists and supporters, it is a health survival technique that keeps quality human beings alive and able to keep whatever of their independence is left. Also, in Florida a few years back, there was a woman a few years back by the name of Terry Shivo. Terry Shivo was brain dead, living off a life supporter and had been given no chance of any sort of comeback. All amongst the nation, groups wanted to take her off the life support or opposing groups wanted to keep her on the life support, pleading that it would be murder to take her off of it. This was a difference between science and religion. The science group basically said there was no hope for her and she needed to be taken off the life support while the religious groups said she needs to stay on, citing that it is murder to take her off.
There are more conflicts but these are the two conflicts that are the most popular and are the most modern and contemporary. People fight over these subjects and it has even reached the highest levels of government, being the Supreme Court. Even as time goes on, the fight between religion and science continues.

Collaboration is key

Religion and science are commonly at odds in more respects than one. In a farfetched form of science, there is the science of performing an abortion and the confrontation that religion brings to that science. Religion feels it is wrong to perform such acts, which science feels it is an important stride that is necessary to be made.
However, in terms on Galileo, his confrontation of science and religion is that of the motion of the Earth and sun. While the Bible states that the sun revolves around the Earth, Galileo uncovered the truth that the Earth actually revolves around the sun. He faced much opposition due to the fact that it is said in the bible otherwise, yet he is able to face his challengers in debate. “The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes,” (Galileo 186). Many felt that whatever the Bible said was the absolute truth and should not be refuted, but Galileo knew in his heart that through his research and careful experimentation that the Bible was actually incorrect in regard to the motion of the planets.
Religion and science also butt heads in the area of experimentation. Experimentation on humans or animals alike is frowned upon by religion, however in science it is thought to be the only way for us to grow and learn. The two may never come together, but they must learn to collaborate.

The disciplines of science and religion have always been at odds, as evidenced by Galileo’s letter to Her Grand Duchess Christina, and continue to be at odds today. During Galileo’s time, there were many aspects of the world yet to be understood and explored. For example, the rotation of the Earth and the alignment of the universe were very controversial topics during Galileo’s time, especially taking into consideration the conflict with other texts within the Bible. Here lies some of the initial conflict between science and religion. One of Galileo’s arguments against strict adherents to the Bible is, “I do not feel obligated to believe that that same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended to forgo their use and by some other means to give us the knowledge which we can attain by them” (183). Or, rather, why would God give us the faculties to observe and learn, but then provide us with all the answers without giving us the opportunities to utilize those faculties? In present day the debate between science and religion is still obvious. Controversial topics including abortion, stem cell research, and human experimentation all color the ethics argument, and how far science can go without crossing the moral boundaries dictated by religion. And, though progress has been made, the debate between science and religion does not appear to lessen in the future any more than it had in the past.

Science and religion are two completely different concepts that cause conflicts in theories and ideas. However, the conflicts between religious theories and scientific theories do not occur as much as they did in Galileo’s time. In Galileo’s time, the world was extremely religious, and scientific theories were just starting to be proven. Any idea or theory that differed from the Bible was shunned, causing numerous conflicts between religion and science.
This can be seen from a passage in Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. He stated, “The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still is that in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err, it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes an erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun in inherently motionless and the earth moveable.”
Today, this is no longer a problem. All scientific theories have been proven, and even the Catholic church has admitted that the earth is not the center of the universe. The only conflict that remains is if you choose to believe what science has proven or what the Bible says. It was only a larger conflict back in Galileo’s time because the Bible was the supreme rule, and you were considered un-religious if you strayed from what the Bible stated.

Science's Restraining Order

Science and religion will always clash as they are conflicting philosophies, at least if one takes religion seriously enough. When I think of this argument it reminds me of Santa Claus. On one end you have the advocates that say there is a slightly obese man with hundreds of elvish slaves who makes toys and delivers them to every child in the world on a single night. On the other side you have the people who say "Grow up, your parents put the toys under the tree." Guess which side is religion. While the Santa Claus myth is fine for a little child who needs something magical and fun to believe in, a 36 year old man who believes in Santa is just creepy. The same goes for religion. Using God and all his powers was well and good for early humanity to answer the difficult questions like why is the sky blue or why does it thunder, but we have progressed as a people to an advancement in thought and technology to where we can discover why the sky is REALLY blue. In essence, we are now mature enough to understand that our parents put the presents under the tree. But a conflict remains as there are still the full grown adults who believe in Santa spreading their opinion. This is the conflict we find ourselves in today. Religion thought to explain the entire world and every aspect of it a long time ago and is now being proven wrong at every turn. This makes it defensive and conflict oriented when dealing with science. Because if the Bible is wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe, perhaps it is wrong about this God character. There have been attempts made to tie science and religion together and I believe this is perfectly feesible, as long as either side is open minded. This is the dilemma Galileo presented and why he was placed under house arrest (and why he founded the Illumnati, but that is a different story), because religion was afraid and still is to this day. It took the Catholic church until the 1990's to admit the earth is not the center of the universe. Overall, it is the conflict of understanding based on human development and the loverly defensive nature of religion that brings this conflict about and I fear it will remain unsolved until one of the subjects is done away with.

Note: I do not mean to offend any religious advocates with this post, I merely state the nature of conflict in my humble opinion

Galileo vs. the Church

After going to a school where there was no religious affiliation, to a Catholic school where there was no questioning of anything, I understand what Galileo is going through with the church in his Letter to the Grand Duchess. Galileo cites a few examples of where there is conflict between religion and science.

Theoretically, there should be no conflict between these two forms of thinking because they are separate schools of thinking. Yet the church, in Galileo’s time, was thoroughly convinced that he was a heretic. The issue here lies in interpretation. The Bible is a difficult thing to interpret, and easy to interpret in a childish way. From the way Galileo explained it, the church officials interpreted the Bible in an “Amelia Badelia” sort of way: too literally. An example if this is when the church officials say the Bible can never err, and it says the earth is the center of the universe, therefore it must be right. But the issue here is that the Bible never claimed to be infallible on historical or scientific things; only on things of the spirit and with God. For if this claim were correct (that the earth is the center and therefore the Bible is never wrong), snakes would have to be talking creatures and even the officials in Galileo’s time knew snakes do not talk, and never did talk.

The other issue of interpretation lies in the fact that church officials take certain passages out of context for “their deceitful purposes” (Galileo, 179). This just jumbles the Bible up and makes no sense of it. Galileo refers to it as hypocritical and I believe he is right. The Bible is a holy book which is not to be used in vain, yet the very officials who preach that are doing what they preach against. Nowhere in the Bible does God command his people to not use their talents of discovery or experimentation. I believe He actually encourages it. Galileo was not trying to disprove thousands of years of knowledge; he was simply stating a new discovery to be examined. But the church shut down all of this with a simple “No, the Bible says you’re wrong.”

Blog Assn #21: Galileo, Science and Religion

Please post on the following by 8 PM Thursday night.

With Galileo pp. 173-197 in mind, write about what -- if any -- conflicts there are between science and religion.

Cassie hit me last night

In Galileo's Dialogue, Galileo is trying to prove to eveyone that the sun does not revolve around the earth, but that the earth revolves around the sun. He tires to show that it is hard to break a common understood theory. It seems that it takes even more information than just the right theory to get people to start believing the theory. No one likes to think that they have been wrong or have been lied to and so it is hard to start to make people believe in something even if they don't want to. Even if it is the right theory. The Dialogue itself is just another way to put his theory in a less obvious way. He tries to make it suttle in the way that other authors that wrote Cannibals tried to do. It is a way to get people to understand what he is saying but not trying to bash previous views.

Galileo

I believe that the point that Galileo is trying to make in his dialogue is very similar to the Socratic method of thinking. Galileo, just like Socrates, does not want us to just accept one way of thinking. We cannot accept what the majority of society thinks. Just because there is a majority does not make it right. There needs to be room for new ideas and people need to be look beyond the majority view. People need to be willing to question everything that this thrown their way, rather than simply accepting everything as fact. If we can get more people to think outside of the box then there are so many more things that we can discover. Back in Galileo’s time, some of the greatest thinkers were seen as weird or outcasts because they went against what everyone else saw as fact. These days there are too many people who accept everything as fact and don’t really search to find their own truths. Galileo is trying to get people to ask themselves how they really know things are true. There are so many things in our world that can seem like they are one way but are actually another, and if we just question things sometimes we can find what is really true, rather than following everyone else’s ways of thinking.

In his Dialogue, Galileo is trying to prove the same point he wrote about in Assayer. He wants people to stop and take a second look at the theories currently being used to explain phenomena. By posing a hypothetical argument, Galileo brings in strong arguments against his cause and proceeds to refute them. Just in the first day, he has the one character bring up both arguments for the Earth being the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it and vice versa. While this may not seem like a good idea, providing instant answers to strong questions prevents more people from attacking his theories without first thinking through their arguments. Galileo’s goal in the Dialogue was essentially two fold then. First, he wants people to consider his theory as plausible. Even if the best evidence is not there yet, he wants people to consider what he is proposing and not to instantly shut down and call God as their evidence for their arguments. Second, Galileo wants people to consider their arguments more carefully. By having the men pose trying questions of one another’s theories in the piece, Galileo is pointing out to the reader that he will most likely be able to refute most of their first claims to the contrary. Even if they do not agree with him, Galileo wants the people to provide proper arguments when they confront him and to make their decisions based on well thought-out ideas.

In Galileo’s “Dialogue” he is trying to prove two things. The first is that he is trying to prove his theory that was brought up in the Assayer. Galileo is attempting to have the reader understand his theory and what makes it correct. However, that is not the only thing Galileo is up to in the “Dialogue.” I agree with Josh Henry in the belief that Galileo was trying to get people to realize that you cannot just accept a fact, but instead question it and discover your own answer and conclusion to the question. This is exemplified by what Sagredo said about Aristotle’s text that nerves originate from the heart. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it, stating clearly that the nerves originate to the heart, I should be forced to admit it to be true,” (2). Sagredo is saying that Aristotle gave such valid arguments and proof that no person ever tried to find the truth for themselves, they believed his findings that were incorrect.

That statement made by Sagredo is what Galileo wanted people to realize about his theory. Galileo wanted people to realize that even though his theory on the earth revolving around the sun is not the popular view, it can very much be true. He wanted people to try and discover their own conclusion on his theory to try and add validity to it. Galileo was basically trying to say, you cannot say a theory is wrong just because of known fact, you can only say a theory is wrong if you tested it and proved it incorrect.

Don't be a follower, be a leader

In today's society, people are told things and told not to question them. With a lot of the facts of today, this is an easy way for people to learn and absorb information. This was the same back in Galileo's time except the facts were a lot more controversial. The people of that time were told that certain theories were correct. In Galileo's "Dialogue", Galileo tries to get people to understand the concept that they should not just accept the answers that they are given at face value. They should question the answer and then should look deeper into the situation and reach the conclusion by themselves. In the "Dialogue", Sagredo explains a situation of a philosopher and nerves. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text …I should be forced to admit it to be true” (2). Then Galileo questions Simplicio until he admits that he has never tested any of the theories that he has been told but believes them because he was told that they were fact. By forcing Simplicio to admit that he blindly accepted what he was told, Galileo proved his point that people just accept what they are told and don't seek truth for themselves. Galileo portrayed his point in what seemed to be a calm manner which would express his overall mastery and belief in his position. It also would allow him to look like the "bigger man" in his discussions which often leads more people to believe what he said. Ironically this would be against what his point was trying to make. Therefore while some people would actually get the point and search for truth, others would simply think exactly what Galileo was saying and not search for their own truth.

I truly believe that in, “The Dialogue”, Galileo is trying to portray the truth and distribute the truth to its rightful owner. I also believe that he is trying to simplify things. The way I interpreted it, in the beginning of the dialogue, it seems there is some sort of argument or disagreement over the truth and who came up with the truth. On the second page, the characters seem to disagree with the claims of Aristotle. While, Simplicio is praising the works of Aristotle-Sagredo and Salviatui are questioning his works, saying that he will praise Virgil and Ovid while he does not really acknowledge the great works of Aristotle and also saying that Aristotle is getting undeserved desire for his authority. Also, I believe Galileo is trying to persuade the reader that is not particularly difficult to understand how the universe and all of the stars, etcetera work. Also, to prove my point about distributing the truth to its rightful owner, Simplcio seems to just strip Aristotle of the guide of Philosophy and force a new owner to the guide of philosophy. I think one cannot just have the guide of philosophy be one person one minute, and then just proclaim another guide of philosophy.
I cannot say Galileo completely succeeded despite his best efforts. I would say he did not succeed because I classify myself and I still do not completely understand the universe. Also, I do not believe Galileo succeeded in distributing the truth to its rightful owner because I believe there was some uncertainty and confusion about who was the guide for philosophy.

Teaching in a normal way

In “the Dialogue” by Galileo, Galileo was attempting to explain his recent findings, in a manner that could be understood by the common people of the time. His findings were unheard of and never even thought of before he announced his ideas to the world. He was obviously a very intelligent man having developed the ideas of the earth being in motion and since he was an intelligent man he was smart enough to realize not everyone would be able to understand the science behind it. Not only not everyone but a majority of people would have great difficulty understanding his findings in other forms of presentation such as lecture or paper.
Galileo knew his findings were mind boggling and deeply troublesome to understand yet he wanted to spread his knowledge to the world. His idea was one that he knew was extremely likely to get rebuttal as well so his form of handling his was to put possible rebuttals and explanations for why they don’t work in a dialogue form which yet again is easier to understand.
Another easy way to display why Galileo chose to explain his new discovery in a dialogue manner is with teaching styles. Many students complain when their teachers simply lecture for an entire period and do not include them in discussion. Interaction while learning helps to make it less stressful and easier to comprehend due to the more normal, familiar setting, and Galileo wanted his students to learn the best way possible.

Blind Acceptance

In the Dialogue Galileo is trying to prove that people accept what has been told to them without asking for any proof, which leads to incorrect conclusions. When Sagredo uses his example of the philosopher and the nerves, the philosopher replies with “’You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it …I should be forced to admit it to be true.’” (2). This quote is the pivotal point in what Galileo is trying to do. He gets Simplicio to admit that he has never actually tested any of the theories, but goes believes them solely because he has been told they are true. Salviati says “You yourself are sufficient evidence that that these authorities have offered it without having preformed it, for you take it as certain without having done it, and commit yourself to the good faith of their dictum. Similarly it not only may be, but must be that they did the same thing too – I mean, put faith in their predecessors, right on back without ever arriving at anyone who had preformed it.” (11). With this Galileo is effectively proving that everyone accepts what has been told to them, and do not bother to check for themselves to see if there is any truth to the so-called facts. Galileo wants people to question what has been told to them, to try and find out for themselves if there is truth to the what is commonly accepted as such, and to look for a better explanation if there is one. Galileo wants people to think for themselves, and be open to new ideas if they are supported by fact, such as the Copernican theory. Galileo is proving the Copernican theory is correct by showing that people blindly accept what has been told to them, when they should be questioning to see if it is truth.

I think that Galileo’s Dialogue is a cleverly crafted argument. I think he was trying to prove the point that all this stuff about the earth, planet, and stars isn’t that complicated and that people who aren’t scientists should be able to understand it. To get his point across, Galileo makes has argument in the form of a dialogue. By doing this, he is able to be completely in control of how his facts and arguments are presented. He makes the arguments, the defenses, and the oppositions.

Doing this made such information available to the more common person, because it was presented as a dialogue, not a fancy scientific paper. It’s not like he hasn’t presented ideas about astronomy before. He just reforms his way of presenting it, and thus succeeds in making his point. Because a vast majority of the people of the time were convinced the Earth was not in motion, he had to appeal to more than just the few highly educated. By using the characters in his dialogue, he is able to convince more people that just because a theory is seen as true, that doesn’t make it unchangeable. Galileo was opening people’s minds to the possibility that their well accepted truths were incorrect.

No Exemptions

Galileo’s “Dialogue” discusses in great detail the factual basis of Aristotle’s texts, and other texts including Copernicus and Ptolemaic. However, even though scientific arguments dominate most of the Dialogue, I believe the point of the text is found almost immediately after Sagredo quotes a philosopher in the beginning of the exchange. “You have made me see this matter so plainly and palpably that if Aristotle’s text were not contrary to it…I should be forced to admit it to be true”(2). After this, Simplicio comments that Aristotle’s texts are so widely accepted do to “the strength of his proofs and the profundity of his arguments”(2). However, Sagredo and Salviati proceed to explain that just because a text is widely accepted does not mean that throughout the course of time, logic and reason can expand and even correct the initial theories, and in this case involving Aristotle’s hypothesis on the motion of the Earth. Salviati even proposes that had Aristotle been presented with the new theories that contradict his own texts, then Aristotle, assuming he be the logical man his texts suggest, would accept what is now being proven as truth. In effect, I believe that Galileo’s point that widely accepted doctrines are not exempt from correction is very clearly made, especially in the end of the Dialogue in which Simplicio accepts that the Earth is in motion, despite the contradiction to Aristotle.

Proving his Point

The dialogue of Galileo seemed to be entirely constructed to illustrate the point that he is trying to make in the rebuttal that we read over the weekend. However, that writing in the book is somewhat convoluted and very difficult to just pick up and read. It seems as though Galileo felt the same way and constructed this dialogue to explain his point, the objections to his point, and his explanation for those objections. The dialogue simply serves as a refined and more craftily created explanation of his theory in a method that can be easily read and interpreted. I feel Galileo does succeed in his effort to provide an articulate scientific argument through his creation of a narrative, as he is able to control the battle field. He is also able to appear more humble in his discovery and not as opinionated, as he claims when he states it as impossible for him to know exactly how the world works and simply ignorant to assume he does, but he can get closer. This also serves as a message to those who turned to God for all of their and explanations, seeming to cut off their argument. He also makes a grand statement about those hopelessly devoted to any scientist or philosopher, using Aristotle in this case, to state that anyone who follows a doctrine so blindly that they don't believe their own senses is a complete fool. He believes that if Aristotle had the evidence Galileo had, he would revise his books completely. It is subtleties like this that make Galileo's dialogue effective. He almost approaches the situation with a calmness shown by Socrates and does not insult or belittle his opponent's philosophy, but gradully brings about new evidence or points out flaws to prove his own point.

Blog Assn #20: Galileo

Please post on the following by 8 PM Tuesday night.

What is Galileo trying to do in the "Dialogue?" Does he succeed?

Galileo and His Tricks

Throughout the text of Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he attempts to denounce one of the systems, while promoting the other system. Yet he makes this attempt in a humorous way, trying to safeguard himself from his enemies who were trying to crush him.

Galileo has two main characters debating between a Geocentric and a Heliocentric universe. The man debating on the Geocentric side’s name is Simplicio. This name was not an accident; Galileo had a point to his name. His point was that the people in favor of a Geocentric universe were simple minded and unwilling to even consider any change to what they had known for many, many years. The other character, who is a substitute for Galileo himself, is named Salviati. This man argues that the universe is set up in a Heliocentric way. This man uses reason and science to defend his answers, while simultaneously refuting Simplicio.

What Galileo attempts to do, is show both sides of the raging debate of his time. He shows the accepted point of view, that of Simplicio’s, and of the new view, his own, which is coming under extreme criticism. By showing these different views in a funny, light-hearted way, Galileo hopes to sway some people his direction, or at least open their minds to the possibility that the old idea might be wrong. While succeeding is making a light, yet fact-ridden dialogue, Galileo gives himself away as the author by clearly promoting a Heliocentric universe. The fact that he named the Geocentric debater ‘Simplicio’ says a lot for itself.

My mother’s view:
“Tall, handsome young man who dresses himself very well. Charming with an outgoing personality. Must be able to carry out an intelligent conversation with others and understand the meaning of the conversation. Attractive and outgoing, but not obnoxiously so.”

My Father’s View:
“Funny kid. Can’t keep his mouth shut most of the time but about half of what he says is worth listening to. Not bad looking. Looking for a girl that’s good looking and is bright and interesting to talk to. Likes someone who is just as interested in me as I am in them.”

Help Needed

This is probably what my parents would say.

Searching for single woman around the age of 18-20. Religious and is well educated. Able to help a slob clean up and can cook. Also may not do any drugs or anything illegal. Must be well respected and be presentable in formal situations. Must be fun to be around and be able to keep the attention of my son. Must be able to hold a job.

If you can't tell my parents are very elitist.

Help Wanted

So quoth my mother,

"Agh. If I had to write such a message, I'd probably include stuff like "should love books, be very energetic, have a lively mind, a intellectual bent, an appreciation of the unconventional, and a quirky sense of humor...must enjoy horror movies, homemade cookies, good coffee, long walks, classical music(?). Two-faced, self-important, image conscious, spineless, lemming-like trend followers need not apply. The ability to debate would be a plus"

Sounds dandy.

Attention

It is actually quite ironic, I hung out all day with my mother today and I found out what she really thought about having a son.

"Attention All-Seeking to find a better half for my son. Despite his looks, he means well. Despite how dumb he looks, he can be half a good guy. I do not how it is possible, because he drives my crazy, but I think he can make people happy. Whether mood you are in, he will always be there for you and make you laugh. He will take a bullet for most, and hopefully take one for you. Whatever your interests may be, he will be able to help you. He can make you frustrated to the core, but then make you laugh til you vomit. Ladies-He minds his own business, if you like that. Regardless, he will rock your world.

Personal Ad

Seeking a female for my son before I croak:
Looking for a brunette, who is tanned and fit. Has to be into to sports and excercising. Female has to be smart because no one likes an air head. This female also has to be fun to be around and like to have a lot of fun. My son likes to laugh a lot so it is also very important for this woman to have a good sense of humor so that my son does not get bored with you. My son is not that tall so this woman cannot be too tall.

Here is the awkwardness my mom wrote for me!

"Now accepting applications for a partnership position. Applicants must be open minded, adaptable, fun loving and well read. The ability to show affection and be cool headed in emergencies are paramount traits for this position. The successful candidate will have the ability to discuss varied topics from current events to emotions. They must demonstrate their commitment to womens equality in all aspects of life from the board room to the bed room. A generous nature and sense of social responsibly are required. Knowledge and appreciation of the arts is a plus for the applicant. An excellent sense of humor needed to successfully fulfill the duties of this position. Athleticism or an appreciation of sports is helpful. A Post Baccalaureate degree and comeliness will give applicants preference but are not required. Applicants sincerely interested in making this life long commitment may apply."

Wanted, young man single and free

A suitable suitor is wanted here
or else my daughter may never wed. I fear
for her future so this ad I put out.
The right man it will find, of this there’s no doubt.

Eighteen she is now, with brown curly hair.
She stays out of the sun, her complexion is fair.
The sax and bassoon, she can play both. Soon
the two of you will begin to play in tune
and beautiful music shall you two create.
Once you have met her you’ll swear it was fate
that brought you together. She loves to cook,
and bake, and so you’ll always be well fed.
She’s good with her hands – she can massage your head!
There’s not really anything we ask of you,
if you want her come take her, this is your cue.

A ladder outside her window they’ll be
climb up it and take her, you can have her for free.

World Series Champions 09

Stud

As written by my dad himself,

If the intent of the assignment is to get us to leave our cultural “comfort zones” to challenge our values and beliefs, the instructor succeeded. The thought of seeking suitors for our child- inferring her loss of will and assent in the process – conflicts with our deepest held values. That said, parental involvement in arranging marriages is a tradition of many cultures, and needs to be respected in the context of faith traditions and mores:

Be it known that Jean and Paul Adams of Kingston, PA wish for their daughter, Lindsay, a suitor to complement her many wonderful qualities and values. Lindsay is special because she understands her gifts and talents and openly shares them;she is unafraid to stand alone for what she believes; she selflessly goes the extra mile in support of those in need; and she has always used wisely her power of choice to help others. Suitors who will love and respect Lindsay, and who possess values and qualities that complement hers, should make their intentions known directly to our daughter.

Add

So I went right to the source and had my mom create this list of requirements.

Looking for a male that fits these requirements:
IQ≥140
Income≥85% of single working males
No genetic defects
A blood type (least incidence of cancer)
Weight≤170
Height≥5’10
No obesity history in family
No masochistic tendencies or history of sexual abuse
Must have a psychological screening

and preferably these too:
Asian
No chest hair
Good looking with a good sense of humor
Youngest child (no eldest or only childs)

Suitor for 18 year old female with blonde hair brown eyes needed. Ideally looking for …..
http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/brett-favre-si-cover.jpg

Personal Ad

http://www.pemberley.com/photos/firth/IBM_ColinFirth.jpg

Male Seeking Female

Age: 18-23

I am a college freshman who stands about 6'1", has dark brown hair and blue eyes. I am an avid reader and am looking for someone who is willing to discuss the deep art of tragic literature. I also enjoy combat sports and cage fight occasionally. I exercise often and like to stay in good shape. I enjoy the outdoors and would like to go camping more often. I am also an avid politic and follow governmental happenings with great interest. I am an atheist, and would prefer if my partner was not overly religious as it would inevitably spark a conflict. Must love to party (and by party I mean chase squirrels throughout random parks). Must love dogs, horses, and other traditional lunch meats you can think of. Must be taller than wide. Must have an IQ greater than shoe size. My Rossy *cough* um... I mean I am super special and need the right girl.

Ad For Anya

My dad said:

Looking for a Husband:
Husband sought for smart, beautiful daughter. Must be flexible and willing to be the brunt of much sarcastic humor. Must be very attentive, loving and willing to make whatever sacrifices necessary to keep spouse happy. Dumbasses and mean people need not apply. Would also be helpful if financially secure.

***********************************************************************************

My mom said (sticking with the olde English theme of Shakespeare):

What many men desire:
A lady wise, fair, and true. Quick wit and loyal of heart. Golden locks that frame her head like a halo, eyes that speak to you of deep affection. A heavenly picture. A kinder lady you will not find. A fool you would be to not chooseth this fair maiden.

Blog Assn #19: Parent-Written Personal Ad

Please post on the following by 8 PM Thursday night.

Your parent, nearing death like Portia's dad, as a last desperate action to help your life go well posts a personal ad in your behalf, attempting to maximize the chances that you end up with the right person. Write the personal ad your parent would compose.

Antonio

Antonio is obviously one of the key characters in this play. He seems to be the character that needs the most help. He is the character who likes to act selfishly and doesn’t seem to care if his views are wrong, he is still going to stick by them. He also seems to have a lot of self-pity. He is always is portrayed as very sad and possibly even depressed. In the first Act we can see that this depression may be due to love and Antonio’s unsuccessfulness with it. Even though Antonio wants to deny this, it does seem to be the root of his depression. I know that in present times the majority of our society would not accept the bias views that Antonio has towards Jewish people in particular Shylock. However, since in Shakespeare’s time there was a large population of Christians, and I would think that back then Christians had no problem blaming Jews for the death of Christ. So it makes me wonder what Shakespeare really wants us to think about these prejudiced views. Perhaps even Shakespeare had no problem with these views? I just wonder whether these views of Jews were actually commonly accepted back in this time period.

The Rays are still going down!!!!!!!

I think the most interesting character in The Merchant of Venice is Antonio. Shakespeare tries to show him as being one of the truest friends to Bassanio and that he is just trying to make his friend happy by taking responsibility for paying the loan to Shylock. He happens to be taking a major business risk that doesn't pay off and he is now bankrupt and in debt to Shylock. The tables have now turned on Antonio, because he is now broke and Bassanio, now in a relationship with the wealthy Portia, has become rich. Now with the change of wealth it is now up to Bassanio to save his friend Antonio who supported him when he had no money or credibility. Even though Antonio has treated Shylock poorly, Shakespeare still tries to get the point across that Antonio is a great friend and that he is loyal to his friends and puts his neck out for them.

Throughout the first act, Shakespeare seems to use some of the characters as sounding-boards in order to get his person ideas on political issues out there. In particular, Portia seems to be one of the characters that Shakespeare wants us to think about the most. When we think about Portia, Shakespeare wants us to think of weakness while at the same time thinking of purity of mind. While Shakespeare portrays Portia as a weaker woman, having all of the men do the work in the play, he does give her several character-defining lines. When the loan cannot be coerced from Shylock, Portia offers to pay triple to cover the cost. This shows that Shakespeare wants us to think that she’s weak because he has her just giving money away. However at the same time, he portrays Portia as a person of true good. She trusts fully and offers assistance with little ego involved. Shakespeare also wants the reader to realize that Portia is important not only because she is the center of the male attention but because of her character traits. By making her the most predominant of the three women introduced so far, Shakespeare is telling the reader ahead of time that something about the general demeanor of this character is important.

The Tragic Hero Antonio

In most of Shakespeare's plays a tragic hero is often central to the plot, whether it be Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or Macbeth. The Merchant of Venice is no different. Antonio takes up the role as the tragic hero and through the definition of a tragic hero, they must have one deadly flaw. For Hamlet it was his honor to his father and his urge towards revenge and for Antonio it is his naivete. This naivete plays a constant role throughout this play and leads to his downfall, like all the Shakespearean tragic heroes before and after him. Antonio constantly loses his funds because he is extremely naive in his dealings with other people. A good example of this is when he begins to place all of his money in a transaction overseas which he probably knows little if anything about. Since this is his only investment, when he loses his money because of this he has none to rely on. “Thou know’st that all my fortunes are at sea; neither have I money nor commodity.” This is what causes him to take out the loan, costing him a pound of his own flesh. Since the loan is costing him that amount it is probably either from a horribly unreliable businessman and/or it is an emphasis on how horribly naive Antonio is. If Antonio were not as naive he would not have taken out the loan or have even been put in that position in the first place. His naivete is what Shakespeare is trying to emphasize to the readers because that is what he does with all of his tragic heroes.

Portia

I disagree with Cassie about women in terms of Shakespeare and his typical female characters. True, there were some damsels in distress, lacking strength (Ophelia springs to mind), but there were many very strong and witty women in Shakespeare (Juliet, Calpurnia, Lady Macbeth) and I think that Portia is another one of them.

That said, Portia is a free spirit, though bound by her father’s will. The irony of this situation, however, does not cause her to succumb to the terms of the will completely or forget her wants. Portia surprisingly adapts to the situation and ends up getting what she wants: Bassanio. Through all the suitors that want her hand in marriage, she keeps her eye on what would make her happy, while still abiding the will. I find this truly admirable: she remains secure in her dreams while still adhering to a will that could very well turn against her. Portia is resourceful and stubborn despite restraints.

More than just the will is restraining her, as well. Portia is a rich heiress, but falls in love with Bassanio, who is simply a well-to-do businessman. The expectation of Portia, though really never stated, is to marry anyone who can choose the correct casket (which I find very ironic: wedding versus funeral). Portia finds ways to bend the law and the will to her side (and this is more evident at the end of the story). When we first meet Portia, I think one’s first impression of her would be a spoiled child who is helplessly waiting to be wed. We are introduced to a somewhat and seemingly weak and hopeless woman who is bound to her dead father’s will, but later we find out how truly strong she is. Often in Shakespeare lovers who face adversity do not prevail in the end but rather find death (not that these women weren’t strong, but that societal influences were stronger). The fact that Portia and Bassanio are different proves that Portia is a powerful feminine figure who can easily take care of herself.

I believe that Shakespeare wants to portray Shylock as the antagonist in the story, The Merchant of Venice, who raises a lot of problems and creates a lot of controversy. Early in the story, Bassanio seeks a loan from Shylock. Shylock agrees to the loan with Bassanio. Once he agrees to the meeting, Shylock confesses his hatred for the Christian man. However, he continues to agree to give Bassanio the money and continues to go about his business. As he is figuring out the interest on Bassanio’s loan, he remembers all of the times Bassanio has cursed and soiled his name in the past. He goes on to say “…If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”
I believe that Shakespeare is introducing Shylock this early in the story for a reason. He wants the reader to believe that Shylock conflicts Bassanio and are going to create conflicts later in the story. I think he wants the reader to see that name in the book and have the reader think, what conflict is Shylock going to create now? The way Shakespeare set up the way Shylock asked for a pound of flesh in return for his loan, it really portrays Shylock as a monster. What kind of a human being would do that? I believe this is exactly what Shakespeare wants the reader to think.

Portia

From the beginning, Portia is clearly portrayed as the heroine of the Merchant of Venice, especially compared to the very small roles of other women depicted, Nerissa and Jessica. Portia also has entire scenes dedicated to the finding of her husband, but she even appears to have more lines than the male protagonist Antonio. However, despite her prevalence in the play, Portia has a many-faceted character. At first, the reader is persuaded to sympathize with Portia and her situation. She is a victim of her father’s will, in which she has no voice in the choosing of her husband, but rather subject to fate and the wit of her suitors. Yet as the play progresses, Portia is revealed to be very self-centered and arrogant towards her prospective husbands. She has very little concern about the oaths they must take – a vow of celibacy if they do not choose the correct casement – and she has no sympathy once they are forced to retire. Now Portia, once betrothed to Bassiano, is very loyal. She does not hesitate in offering to pay twenty times to debt Antonio owes. In fact, due to his close relation to Bassiano, Portia feels obligated as if Antonio were her own husband. As a result, Shakespeare creates the portrait of a woman victim to circumstance, but who does not necessarily merit the sympathy of the reader. She also is very egotistical, but then again when very loyal when dedicated to a particular person.

Reasoning

Bassanio is a man who is not easily deceived. When he is looking at the three caskets he reads the inscriptions carefully before he makes the correct choice. He is able to look beyond outward appearances of grandeur to the real meaning. When talking about the lead casket he says “Thy paleness moves me more than eloquence; and here choose I.” (74). This quote shows that Bassanio is a clever, insightful man. Of course he is correct in choosing the lead casket, because he is a character who does not make rash decisions. He is also a man who does everything with all the energy and passion he has. When he chooses a casket he says “Joy be the consequence!” (74), which shows that he is not afraid of the consequences. This extends to his friendships as well. When he gets the letter from Antonio about the ships and how they crashed, he goes right away to see Antonio. Bassanio knows that this s a disaster and Antonio needs him, so he leaves Portia right away to go to Antonio, once again doing everything he can for his friend. Shakespeare is portraying Bassanio as a man who thinks things through, and who gives life his all. He wants to be there for his friends, and does everything that’s possible for them. His emotions are strong, as demonstrated by his love for Portia and how he will do anything to have her, including borrow money so he can appear rich. Bassanio is a true friend, and a man that makes wise decisions through careful reasoning.

True Strength

The last quality you’d expect a Shakespearian scarlet to have is strength, but that quality is Portia’s most prevalent. She has the strength to know that she doesn’t want to marry for wealth or status but for love, and she won’t let anyone stand in her way of satisfying that dream. She is a compassionate, caring woman who goes above and beyond her required actions and duties, especially being a woman. Her trait that I admire most is her intelligence to make smart, deeply thought out decisions. For with that intelligence is linked respect, and she has such an admirable respect for herself and women in general that I feel she is a great role model, and my favorite scarlet.
Portia’s strength, not only for herself but for others who need her, is so admirable and unique for that time period that I find her absolutely astonishing. Her prevalence and true leadership in that time period astound me. She has a vision of women becoming equal to men and she seems to want to start the movement towards this dream. She is smart enough to know that it is possible and she’s ambitious enough to make it happen.
While her qualities are dazzling and every woman should strive to be like her, Portia keeps herself distanced and quiet from those she doesn’t trust and tells very few of her plans or other such things. Her maid was one of few who knew of her desire and goal to marry for love, for Portia knew that she would encounter resentment and she didn’t want to deal with those who were to close-minded to accept her brilliance.

Just as Anya said, Portia is an extremely complicated character. She comes off as complicated because of her high level of intelligence. Along with being intelligent, Portia is independent which the reader is able to tell by her conversations with her servant assistant Nerissa.
Portia is introduced in the play as a woman who has to be married, but how her husband is being picked is unjust. When Portia is first portrayed, Shakespeare shows the reader her intelligence why making you feel bad for her. This is shown especially in Act I Scene ii, “The brain may devise laws for the blood, but a hot temper leaps o’er a cold decree. Such a hare is madness the youth-to skip o’er the meshes of good counsel the cripple. But this reasoning is not in the fashion to choose me a husband.” This passage shows exactly how intelligent Portia is. She understands that whatever she thinks, it is not going to help her find the man she wants, but instead she is locked in to her father’s wishes.
Shakespeare then makes the reader feel bad for her by stating, “O me, the word “choose!” I may neither choose whom I would nor refuse whom I dislike-so is the will of a living daughter curbed by the will of a dead father.” Shakespeare makes the reader feel like Portia has no choice over who she spends the rest of her life with. Shakespeare makes you feel like she is an extremely independent woman who is not going to be able to have her independence for much longer because of her forced marriage.

I think that Shakespeare wants us to think of Antonio as miserable tragic, who acts naively. Even though Antonio is referred to in the title of the play “the Merchant of Venice”, he comes across as a very disappointing character. It seems that Shakespeare want us to think of him as a hopeless depressive in the beginning of the play. The first lines of the play are him saying “In sooth, I know not why I am so sad.” All he does is mope and he doesn’t even know why. Shakespeare also wants us to think that he is unreasonable in his speculative business endeavors. When talking to Bassanio he states “Thou know’st that all my fortunes are at sea; neither have I money nor commodity.” He puts all of his worth in transaction that is taking place overseas, which proves to be his downfall. He also has too high of hopes in this risky business. It leads him take out a loan from Shylock, the price of which is a pound of his own flesh. One would think that with this as a price, and the unreliable nature of his funds, Antonia would not take out the loan. Yet, this hopeless character does it, all in the name of his intimately close friend Bassanio.

Miss Independent

Portia is a complicated character. Shakespeare initially has her come in the play as a fair princess who is being wooed by many suitors. This implies a girly nature, for she has not picked on yet. But further reading expands this limited view on who Portia is. She is a strong woman who makes wise, careful thought out decisions. She confides in her maid how she does not want to get married, unless this man is absolutely perfect – a dream I am almost sure every girl has. But this wealthy woman shows a tricky side in the scene with the Prince of Morocco. She portrays herself to him as a fragile woman, but the test for who will be her husband is enamored with gold. Literally. By showing this side or Portia, Shakespeare wants the reader to gain understand for how rebellious and sturdy this woman is. She will not go down without a fight. She has strong feelings of justice, as shown by her not rapidly picking a husband; she has sincere mercy for those less fortunate than she (shown later in the play); and she is as smart and witty as any man. It is these traits Shakespeare uses as tools to show the reader women can be independent, smart, and are typically far more complex than men give them credit for. I always feel empowered by most of the Shakespearean women, because they demonstrate such fortitude, it jumps off the page, and into my being. If Portia could say one thing to women, I think she would say, “You go, girl!”

Antonio the Tragic

Shakespeare presents a very perplexing character in that of Antonio who seems to be a shrewd business man that is dissatisfied with the success in the material world that he is found. From Shakespeare's discriptions of his moods and actions it almost seems that he is in love with someone that does not realize it or has turned him down. Shakespeare tries to make us hate Antonio, in my view, as he constantly has him moping about and being upset for no reason. He also constantly antagonizes Shylock and victimizes him just because he is Jewish. I am not sure how Shakespeare intended the anti Semiticism to be viewed at the time however. Either way he makes it overwhelmingly clear that Antonio is not really that much fun to be around. However, when digging deeper on Antonio as the story goes on it becomes apparent that he is depressed and a tragic genius. He is extremely arrogant in the ways of business as he has had so much success with his gambles at sea to the point that he is ready to bet his life on them, which he does to Shylock. But to put one's life on the line for a friend as he does in the name of a loan is not a normal thing to do, which leads me to say that he is indeed depressed. Though he claims not to be distraught over anything, I believe he is head over heels for Bassanio, which is why he would grant such an extravegant loan. He also wants Bassanio to go after Porscha, which shows that he really does love him based on his desire for his friend to be happy. I have read this play many times and it is only now coming to me that this is the case. The first time I read it I thought Shakespeare wanted to drive home the fact that Antonio is just an annoying bigot, but in reality he is a tortured soul who doesn;t care about material things in life. Only messing with Shylock provides him any joy.

Blog Assn #18: Antonio, Bassanio, Portia

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Tuesday, Oct. 28, 8 PM: What does Shakespeare want us to think about [pick just one:] Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia? Support your answer with arguments and evidence from the text.

Hate

I agree with the decision made by Ursinus in terms of the actions taken towards which hate speech to leave or erase. Hate, by definition, is to intensely or passionately feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward someone or detest. I believe Ursinus made the right decision because one slogan was completely inappropriate and the other slogan was a form of free speech, the same exercise the Gay/Straight Alliance used by writing their opinions on the ground in front of Wismer. The slogan quoted by Leviticus, was just an opposition or rebuttal against the Gay/Straight Alliances views. Although, the second slogan posted in Reimart in response was completely inappropriate and uncalled for in my view. I believe it is a natural reaction to some people (not mine), but it is completely immature and unjust to post your views in a nasty words, using hate and other derogatory names. I believe what makes this slogan a hate crime, and not the first slogan, is that this slogan put people in danger. If I was in the Gay/Straight Alliance, I would feel endangered and I would fear for my own personal safety. The person who wrote the quote, “God hates fags” is obviously an author who is trying to put a group of people down and make them feel lower than him or herself. To me, this is a cowardly act, which makes the author of this a coward. I believe any kind of cowardly act like this is a hate crime because it takes people who are trying to unify one people together and the coward tries to rip this apart. To me, that is the definition of hate.

Chalkings

Ursinus can’t allow anything to be written on the sidewalks of our campus, there has to be a set of guidelines that we must all follow. Something that Ursinus should not allow is hate speech. There should be no writings that attack or single out someone or their views. There should be no threatening messages allowed, or messages that are offensive to groups or individuals. There should be no chalkings like the one that we talked about in class that stated that “God hates fags.” That statements is one that could clearly been seen as offensive and hateful. However, people should be allowed to voice their feelings and opinions. As long as their opinions are not hateful in any way than it should be allowed to be written. The chalking that quoted the bible verse from Leviticus would then be acceptable. It is from a text and in no way does it have any hate message in it, and the writer was still able to voice his or her opinion without saying anything that could be seen as offensive. Even if it is an opinion that is controversial, people are still entitled to their right to free speech. There are many things that the majority of people won’t agree with that others can still see as truth. Like when people write it is ok to be gay. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with this, but it should still be allowed to be written despite the controversy behind it because it is still not hateful nor offensive.

I strongly believe in the rights of gays and lesbians in America, therefore I tend to support their cause. Even though I am not homosexual, I believe that they have just as many rights as the next person to wed and live happy lives together. However, heterosexuals and homosexuals both have the same rights to free speech and this can lead to problems at times. When the chalking was done by the GSA and then countered by other organizations, there were some that were in line with free-speech and others that crossed the line and were outright inappropriate. Starting with the anti-homosexual comments, the most inappropriate quotes were those from Leviticus. Despite these being the most relaxed of the comments, they deserve to be erased because they misquote the bible. Leviticus is not about men lying with men, but rather men and boys. Leviticus states that the relationship between a man and a boy cannot be the same as that between a man and a woman. It says nothing about men laying with men. Because it is not a statement of truth, I would have this erased. This also goes for the rather lewd, “God Hates Fags” comment made. Yet the GSA was not without fault either. Many of the comments they made on the sidewalk were substantial food for thought. I thought one of the best was the Dr. Seuss quote near BWC. Yet some of the comments were just as annoyingly untrue as those done against homosexuals. The worst I bothered to read was the rather large chalking done near Olin that says, “We’re not the problem, YOU are.” To me, neither party is a problem. Since the chalking assumes my position on the issue and tells me I’m wrong, I have a problem with it being displayed.

Phillies are the best!!!!!!!!!

I do not think that there is anything wrong with the chalking that were written on the paths for national coming out day. However, I do feel that there were some instances where the writing were taken over the line. I feel that the college should erase everything that is intended to scare or intimidate those who are gay. I also think that the chalk writing should not have been left up for so long, even though it didn't bother me at all, but I think that it might have sent an unwanted message. It could have come off to people that were against gays, as too excessive and that they were taking it overboard. Personally I do not think that there is anything wrong with writing encorageing messages to gays to come out on Coming out day and that it is within their rights to express themselves. However, I feel that the college should not let any messages that seems to be intended to intimidate or scare the gay population remain. Go Phillies!!!

Editing Free Speech

Theoretically, free speech should include all types of speech, not discriminating against fighting words. I believe that to be totally free in what you say you must be permitted to say whatever you want to, whenever you want to, however you want to. That is free speech, but that is not what is being granted.

I do not condone the hateful responses to the GSA chalking. The phrase “God hates fags” is insulting and totally inappropriate according to our societal standards. It encourages hate, violence, and insecurity – nothing good is coming from that phrase. However the Bible passage is more subtle and less offensive, while still getting the point across. It was written to make people think, not place a direct attack on homosexuals.

That said, I think that GSA could be considered out of line too. One of the largest chalkings was the phrase “Equality over ignorance,” and I think that this could be construed as a hateful message as well. People who do not believe in homosexuality are being labeled as ignorant, and this too is offensive. I, personally, do not find anything wrong with that saying, but I would understand if some people did and were simply responding to it.

In regards to “free speech” in general: I believe that the right is limited (which doesn’t make it really “free,” but that is another issue). Free speech is wonderful, until it infringes on other people’s right to security. Accusatory words and offensive phrases have violent implications, and are therefore shredding away from a safe, civilized society. Rights sometime have to be limited in order to preserve societal order. Opinions can always be stated in a non-violent way, so limiting freedom of speech shouldn’t be considered “limiting,” but rather just “editing.”

People who speak their mind are always walking the fine line of 'Freedom of Speech'. I remember learning in government class that your rights end when you start infringing upon the rights of someone else. In the case of the Leviticus verse and the 'God hates Fags' writing, I believe Ursinus College did the right thing. They had 'God hates fags' removed but let the Leviticus verse.

The chalkings that were for Coming out day were within the boundaries of free speech. Nothing was hateful. They were only offering words of encouragement. But if they were to right something like 'Straight people go to hell' that should be erased. Once words start attacking someone or a group, they should be erased. That is why the Leviticus verse was ok but the other remark was not. The Leviticus verse states: 'you shall not lie with a male as with a female'. I believe this was alright because it was not hatefully attacking, it was stating someone’s point of view. Just like the GSA wrote things like 'its ok to be gay'. Not everyone agrees with it, but they are just stating what they think. However 'God hates fags' was obscene and hateful, attacking the people that thought otherwise.

Chalking and Free Speech

The incident here brings up some issues that have yet to be resolved. What chalking should be erased and which should be allowed to stay? The GSA chalked first, expressing their pride and encouraging others to be prideful as well. Their chalking was meant to be uplifting and inspirational to others, and while some were offended because of their beliefs, the chalking was not meant to be taken that way. The chalking by the anonymous group, however, was meant to be offensive. The passage from the bible is fine because it is not meant to be offensive; it is simply a quote expressing another belief. The more vulgar rebuttals were meant to offend and therefore were rightly erased. The people who did that chalking obviously knew they were doing something wrong or they would not have remained anonymous. If even the people who do the action realize that it is wrong and hateful, then there is obviously a responsibility by the school to erase those chalking.

The college should erase chalking that has the intention to offend and express hate. Disrespectful terms should not be allowed, and if it is determined that the chalker intended to offend than that chalking should be erased. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but it should be done in a respectful way. It is likely that anything written will offend someone, simply because everyone has different opinions and beliefs. A chalking that offends one person should not be removed if it is not meant in an offensive way. A chalking that offends an entire group that is not meant to be offensive should also be removed, because unintentional hate speech is still hate speech. In general, if a chalking is meant to be offensive and has hateful overtones it should be erased, while those that are expressing an opinion in a respectful manner should be allowed to stay, which leads me to the belief that Ursinus did the right thing when they decided which chalkings to allow to stay.

Free Speech?

The chalkings on campus create an interesting situation: on the one hand GSA has taken the opportunity to voice gay pride, as is their right. On the other hand, we have anonymous chalkings written in retaliation to GSA, which may be considered as ‘hate’ speech. Yet, do the anonymous artists have that right as well? The first amendment under the Constitutional Bill of Rights states all citizens have the right to free speech. But herein lies the problem of political correctness that is so prominent in our country at the moment. Yes, all are entitled to free speech, until it beings to harm another person or group. So, in effect, are the ‘fighting words’ of anonymous artist wrong?

There will always be speech that may be found offensive by an individual, and the same can be said for a group, and therefore such speech cannot be removed from every situation. However, speech intended to express hate is where we begin to cross the line into inappropriate ‘hate speech.’ Speech to be found offensive is most often time accidental, but speech made with intention to express hate is not acceptable. Now, how to determine whether a statement is made with hateful intention, I do not know. But such speech, along with speech with hateful propositional content and speech associated with harm towards groups are criteria for hate speech in which action must be taken against. In my personal belief, if the college removed the more vulgar retaliation to GSA (which was the correct response), then the Bible verse too should have been removed, the though Bible verse is a much more appropriate response to the GSA chalkings.

Hate or Free Speech

Of all the chalking on the sidewalks I have seen, none have been offensive or hateful enough for me to believe they need to be removed. Some religious groups may feel that being gay is not right, and so for them they may feel slight anger about the writings but they should not feel offended because there is nothing written about God or even religion in general. Also, those who are against gay marriages cannot even be offended because there is nothing even implying a formal union of homosexual couples, simply sayings asking them to be able to love each other.
All of the sayings I have seen on our sidewalk are simply sayings of what are country is all about, being free and able to live your life how you want to. Not only that, but most of the sayings are simply encouraging fellow gays and lesbians not to be afraid to tell people, not to be afraid to use your voice and be diverse, another aspect of our countries pride. All of these opinions are based on only the chalking I have seen, and do hope that nothing offensive has been written.
While the college may get some complaints or questions about why they are there or why they are allowed, there is nothing wrong with a group expressing how they feel or making themselves known. The gay and lesbian community has as much of a right to express their opinion as any other group or club on campus. None of the sayings they have written are in any way offensive and they are simply writing what they feel, and how they feel should not be erased.

This is an extremely tricky situation and has huge implications either way it is decided. I believe that the school acted appropriately when dealing with the situation that arose. I want to say that any writings discriminatory to another group is not okay to have written on campus, and feel that is how it should be judged, but that it is okay to promote ones own views. I guess that is why it was acceptable to have a biblical view or if someone wrote "I love being straight!" rather than "God hates fags". But on the same note I feel that this could promote discrimination in the way that some people could argue for writing "I love being white!" or "White power!". The same could be said if a black power writing came up, though both invoke very different feelings. I suppose raceis a far more volatile issue than that of sexual orientation but who are we to qualify it as such? These issues have a tremendous grey area and I feel very uncomfortable dancing around offending people in this blog to the point that it is actually humorous. As those situations arise I'm tempted to argue against myself, as when promoting ones own group they are actually downplaying the groups of others. By this logic the GSA should not have been allowed to write their graffitti about being gay and those against it should not have been allowed to write their graffitti everywhere. This abridges the freedom of expression we all hold so dear, however, so I cannot see myself suggesting such actions. So, despite the obvious tension that it will bring about, I believe the school should allow the promotion of lifestyles, gay or straight, but not slandering of the other. I realize the implications if it comes to race but I can honestly not see a more reasonable compromise.

There is a very fine line between what is considered hate speech and what is considered freedom of speech. That is exemplified by the recent GSA chalkings. Freedom of Speech allows you to express your viewpoint on a certain situation, and that is exactly what the GSA did. They wanted people to become aware of their beliefs on homosexuality. The GSA stated their opinion in a way that is not hurtful or harmful to anyone.

However, when chalkings showed up stating “God Hates Fags” and a verse from Leviticus 18:22, “you shall not lie with a male as with a female,” a sense of hostility was sensed towards the gay community.

I believe the “God Hates Fags” chalking can be classified as hate speech. This messages was written in response to the GSA chalkings, it was not chalked to voice their opinions on gayness or homosexuality on their own time. I believe that chalking was made to feel homosexuals inferior; they were purposely made to harm people. That is what classifies that chalking as hate speech.

The college deemed the Leviticus verse as someone expressing their own religious views, so the chalkings are still present today. I agree with the college that this is just another person’s viewpoint, but I believe the person expressing their viewpoint in response to “Coming Out Day” is offensive and hateful. Even though that person was just expressing their freedom of speech, the message was still written to make homosexuals feel inferior.

One can say that these writings were just written out of freedom of speech, and they wanted to express their own viewpoint. This can be true, but the person should let the GSA know their opinions, not chalk their opinions anonymously. Your freedom of speech is taken away when you don’t put your name to your thoughts or opinions. This is exactly why these writings were hate speech, and not freedom of speech.

The Meaning of Freedom

Freedom of speech is a commodity mostly taken for granted in the Western World. Yet there are abuses of this free speech, causing pain to others. Ursinus College recently had one such experience.

When it comes to chalking, there are certain standards one must adhere to. Opinions may be shared via speech or chalking, but not to cause harm to others. When the GSA chalked pro-gay rights sayings in Olin courtyard, they did not mean to offend or take issue with anyone’s views or beliefs. They were merely encouraging gays to stand up for their beliefs. When “God loves gays!” was chalked up, some other people took issue with this saying and replied “God hates Fags!” What the original message meant, I think, was that religion should not make a difference in this homosexual or heterosexual decision. It is up to the individual. The reply, however, seems to attack a view point directly; there is not love or understanding in a phrase like that; there is no tolerance or acceptance. That is where the line lays.

The line for what should be erased and what should not lays in the intentions behind the words. Encouraging people to “come out” are words of help, kindness and tolerance, not meant to offend or anger anyone; a view many people share. The second chalking is angry and are fighting words. However, there is a happy medium. If the GSA and people of accepting beliefs are allowed to express their opinion, then to quote from the Bible is another person’s opinion. To express one’s views parallel to the views out there now is OK. I do not believe the Leviticus quote was meant to inspire anger, it was meant to express another perspective.

Yet the bottom line requires both sides to talk, and share their feelings and beliefs. Hate speech should be subdued because of the message it portrays, but if a belief is merely being shared, then it should be allowed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but displaying them is not always necessary.