The power of God over man

Hey, it's Jasmine.

I was doing my Spanish homework and the story I was reading reminded me of what we talked about in English class a while ago. The story is called "The Two Kings and the Two Labyrinths." It's about a Babylonian king who constructs an elaborate and complex labyrinth and an Arab king who uses the desert as his labyrinth. The story states that the Babylonian king's labyrnith causes an uproar because the ability to confuse can only be employed by God, not man. At the end, God triumphs over man when the Babylonian king dies in the desert (which is a labyrnith constructed by God, not humans).

This reminded me of our last unit on Puritans. In the poem, "Upon a Spider Catching a Fly," Edward Taylor writes, "Strive not above what strength hath got." This meant that humans didn't have the strength to fight what they were destined to be - human beings, not gods. Thus, the Babylonian king shouldn't have tried to act like God, controlling the fates of those who got lost in his labyrinth.

This concept also relates to the lightning rod, invented by Benjamin Franklin. Many people opposed the idea of the lightning rod because they believed that if lightning struck a house, it was an act of God. They believed that it was immoral to challenge God's will. Furthermore, in his speech, Patrick Henry stated, "There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." Do you think that some of the colonists were inspired to fight because they thought God was on their side? Did the colonists feel obliged to fight back because it was (supposedly) God's will? I'm not sure how much God factored into the mood of the war, but I think the reassurance that He was on the colonists' side made them more optimistic. As long as God supported them, not the British, they were sure to win, since God's power was always stronger than man's.

Patrick Henry

There seems to be a trend in our Neoclassicism packet from passages directed at enemy audiences towards passages directed at nationalist audiences. We just finished going over Franklin's witty satire of Britain's policy towards her American colonies, which was in fact intended for a British audience. The passage that we just finished reading, by Patrick Henry, appears to me to be directed at a neutral audience. Finally, if I recall correctly from history class last year, both Jefferson and Paine wrote their major works of the time with a nationalist audience in mind.

Going back to "Give me Liberty or give me Death!", I was struck by its differences with Benjamin Franklin's letter from only two years before. While Franklin leaves open the possibility of reconciliation, Henry insists that war is inevitable. While Franklin attempts to connect with a foreign audience, Henry speaks to colonists who still want to pursue diplomatic solutions. His argument is that history has shown that the British have no interest in reconciliation, and hoping that this will change is foolish. Of course, he does not say it quite like that, as he does not want to offend or scare away people neutral to the Revolutionary cause. In fact, his very first sentence assures his audience of his respect for those who do not support the war.

A central theme of Henry's speech is hope. His audience has hope that reconciliation is possible, and little or no hope that the colonists can win a war with Britain. The speech attempts to convince these people that just the opposite is true. Henry presents an emotional appeal to the people in each case, using words with strong affective connotations. Finally, he ends with a line derived from an Aristotelian two-valued orientation that also serves as the title of the speech. I thought that this was similar to President Bush's famous words "You're either for us or against us". Although the context of each respective statement is different, both politicians use the same device in an appeal to neutrals.

Rise Of Nationalism

Hey guys, this is Cristy.
Just thought i'd open some discussion on Neoclassicism. One of the influences of the neoclassic age was the rise of nationalism. In european history we read Voltaire's opinion on patriotism and how one should aspire to be a "citizen of the world" because "to wish for one's country's greatness is to wish harm to one's neighbors". I don't think we would find many people who would fit voltaire's description of "a citizen of the world" because we all have predjidice and biases that sway our allegiance towards our "fatherland" or another.
Nationalist influence can be found in about every piece of writing in the Neoclassic packet as I'm sure we'll discuss in class. It was confusing to learn last year, in more depth the reasons for america's revolution. Before, I had believed that the reasons to revolt were overwhelmingly just. I didn't imagine that the colonies had any choice but to revolt! Last year as I learned more, the subject suddenly became debatable. In reality, the taxes that are so abominably described to us when we are in elementary school were actually not very high. All other Brittish citizens were paying much much higher taxes. I'm not saying we shouldn't have revolted or that it was wrong, but I felt like my education has been slanted to make me believe the revolution was just and unpreventable. Does Nationalism really result in more hurt like Voltaire believes or does the good outweigh the bad? Does nationalism divide more than it unites? Maybe Voltaire is right, that Nationalism is based on something that doesn't exist. I think that Nationalism in a way is a necessary evil/good because without it we would not be able to see a "bigger picture" and we would just live as an individual on the Earth, and look after our own private interests. But if nationalism didnt exist maybe we wouldn't go to war over things we have in the past.
I think Nationalism is a part of human nature, that we want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. Still, I was suprised to read U.S. nationalism in the writings of Phillis Wheatley who was abducted from Africa and sold as a slave.

The Irrationality of Rationalistic Thought

Hey everyone, it's Stephanie.
This weekend, I read over our class notes on Deism. The people who believed in Deism thought that the universe was explainable; still a mystery, but able to be deciphered through rationalism. If the universe could be explained rationally, wouldn’t God have to be rational, since the sole existance of the world likewise proves the existence of God? This confuses me a little; if God (and for some, Christ) is supposed to be divine and omniscient, why does he need rationalism?
Also, did Deists take the Bible as the ‘word of God’? The Bible is comprised of spiritually derived manifestations from God; doesn’t that contradict rationalism and logic?
If Deists believed man was perfectable, and could so ‘make himself perfect’ through logical progression of thought and proving of hypotheses, did they require preists, or attendence at mass at all? If not, who or what kept Deism alive for the time being? What if you believed that you had, in fact, reasoned out the existance of God and the universe by means of rational thought. What then, was your faith, your religion, if your religion was explained by man?Does that mean man is on the same level as God? Then where is the Great Chain of Being?
Sorry about all of the questions, but I’m interested to hear everyone’s thoughts.

Puritan practice

Hey, it's Erin. This is from John Winthrop's "Modell of Christian Charity"

God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind as in all times some must be rich, some poor; some high and eminent in power and dignity, others mean and in subjection. First, to hold conformity with rest of His works, ... Secondly, that He might have the more occasion to manifest the work of His spirit, ... Thirdly, that every man might have need of other, ... All men thus (by divine providence) ranked into two sorts, rich and poor, under the first are comprehended all such as are able to live comfortably by their own means duly improved, and all others are poor, according to the former distribution. There are two rules whereby we are to walk, one toward another; justice and mercy. ... There is likewise a double law by which we are regulated in our conversation, one towards another; in both the former respects, the law of nature and the law of grace, or the moral law of the Gospel. (1) For the persons, we are a company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ; (2) the care of the public must oversway all private respects by which not only conscience but mere civil policy doth bind us; (3) the end is to improve our lives to do more service to the Lord, the comfort and increase of the body of Christ whereof we are members; (4) for the means whereby this must be effected, they are twofold: a conformity with the work and the end we aim at. ... Thus stands the cause between God and us: we are entered into covenant with Him for this work; we have taken out a commission, the Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles, ... if we shall neglect the observation of these articles ... the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us. ... Therefore, let us choose life, that we, and our seed may live; by obeying. His voice and cleaving to Him, for He is our life and our prosperity.

Car Commercials and Existance

Hello all, it's Paige.
I had a Merchant's of Cool flashback a few days ago while watching TV with my sister. My sister and I were zoning out as a car commercial came on, and my sister mentioned how it was interesting how usually car commericals have great music in the background. The Flaming Lip's alternative rock song "Do You Realize" was blasting during what appeared to be a SUV feature. We came to the conclusion that a lot of commercials these days use music to munipulate us, and that the car commercial was trying to make it appear as if automatically a person would be in touch with alternative music if they were to only buy the corporation's car. I don't know if any of you have heard the lyrics to this particular Flaming Lip's song:
"Do You Realize - that you have the most beautiful face
Do You Realize - we're floating in space -Do You Realize - that happiness makes you cry
Do You Realize - that everyone you know someday will die
And instead of saying all of your goodbyes
- let them knowYou realize that life goes fast
it's hard to make the good things last
You realize the sun doesn't go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round"

It just made me sad to think that these words that put a lot of perspective on life for me could be twisted around to promote a machine that hurts the environment, and deepens our dependence on oil. I guess it all goes back to what Hayakawa taught us about how words can be used in different ways, and they can unique in their usuage and existance because they can mean completely difference things depending on the audience.

This post is going to be a little different...

I've been thinking a lot about what Mr. Lazarow had to say the Wednesday before Thanksgiving break. I remember thinking to myself the entire time that it was the most depressing speech I had ever heard. I even shared my thoughts with Grace, and she responded by saying that it was truly inspiring. I guess we were both right.

I feel that grades are completely useless. In that sense, the speech was inspiring, for it completely backed the truth that grades are an empty honor. However, I felt that I fit completely into what Mr. Lazarow was describing- a student driven by grades and not learning. For me, it was a kind of reality check. Entering high school freshman year, I knew that I'd have to work hard to get the A's that I had earned in middle school. But the learning aspect never even occurred to me. As Sophomore year passed and I entered Junior year, this became even more of a reality, because everyone around me was saying how Junior year "makes or breaks" your ability to get into a top-notch college. But, as Mr. Lazarow said (and as I have heard and previously ignored countless times), all undergraduate education is more or less equal, from Harvard to BCC.

In addition, the grade aspect of high school is emphasized by the school, driving competitiveness among students and even a false atmosphere in learning. While most of my friends could be considered "intelligent" and fall in the 10% of our Junior class (as well as my competitors for college), I feel that the grading system causes me (and them as well) to even encourage forgoing friendship for the "elusive 'A.'" On another note, how can receiving a grade be indicative of what has been learned? If I simply have a photographic memory, then would that not allow me to memorize the myriad of major dates of European history and processes of biology? Not to seem like a sycophant, but I feel that our English class is one of the few classes that the grade does point to how much we have taken away from the experience. After all, it is technically a college-level course, and it is not expected that we get amazing grades on everything. Besides this class, however, only a few choice classes stand out in their ability to actually teach me anything at all (for me, biology).

The most unfortunate thing about it all is that it cannot be stopped anytime soon. We have all experienced or seen those hellish demons called "helicopter parents," who hover around their children and, for lack of a better word, force them to do well in school. For what? So they can get into an Ivy-League institution, make money, and be happy. All three of which do not follow by any twisted logic. My only hope is that we try to learn in all that we do: make LEARNING the priority and make the GRADE the product that follows from our learning.