Nobody's Perfect
The Samuel chapters read today prove that NOBODY’S PERFECT.
Not even the great leaders of the past, of long ago, it shows.
David was able to defend Israel, and untie it. He was concerned about every man on his “side”, and treated his enemies with respect, aware that they could be as powerful as he was, never underestimating them. He (this is linked to my other blog of Samuel) showed tons of courage for such a small boy, when he defeated Goliath, act that gained him fame among Israel.
It is definitely difficult to have sufficient courage to be able to approach a warrior 5 times bigger than you. But David trusted God, and tried it out, and succeeded, first hard step that led him to Glory.
He didn’t take advantage of his power; never treated anyone condescendingly and respected them all. It seemed David was good alright.
And this is where Love, one of the strongest of feelings interferes, prevents. During a battle, David positions one of his warriors in a dangerous spot, so he can get killed, intentionally. All this he did because he desired the woman that man was married to, so much.
Later on he realized what he had done, and he was for once upset with himself, realizing he had sinned.
We have to remember, though, David was human and therefore he was “allowed” to make mistakes. True, not as grave, but what else can be expected? After all, he was human, and humans aren’t perfect. No matter when or where we live or lived, we tend to sin—and not only once.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sources
I searched of each related topic on www.wikipedia.org, and then scrolled down to take a look at the secondary soucres, from where wikipedia had taken out the information.
In my persuasive speech, I'm talking about Racism and Discrimination, recalling much the events ocurring during WW2, the biggest scene of injustice and racism seen in history, the Holocaust.
Holocaust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#See_also
Provided us with other sources of similar information having to do with the Holocaust, probably used to provide the information for them in the 1st place.
Nazi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#References_and_notes
Some of the sources used by Wikipedia (in the web):
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055014/National-Socialism
Though, this source, too, can't be considered secondary, because as Wikipedia it is an Encyclopedia, that bases its information from other secondary sources. I wasn't able to find the sources that Britannica used.
http://www.holocaust.com.au/glossary.htm
Antisemitism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#References
Adolf Hitler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#References
Mostly all secondary sources used were biographies, either on paper, or online.
Ghetto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto#See_also
Similar topics, they might have provided each other with information.
*I noticed not all references come from the web, there are some which are based on books or magazines as well. Yet, most are secondary sources, cause not only is it hard to find original primary documents in the web, but secondary sources explain their contents much better.
In my persuasive speech, I'm talking about Racism and Discrimination, recalling much the events ocurring during WW2, the biggest scene of injustice and racism seen in history, the Holocaust.
Holocaust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#See_also
Provided us with other sources of similar information having to do with the Holocaust, probably used to provide the information for them in the 1st place.
Nazi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#References_and_notes
Some of the sources used by Wikipedia (in the web):
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055014/National-Socialism
Though, this source, too, can't be considered secondary, because as Wikipedia it is an Encyclopedia, that bases its information from other secondary sources. I wasn't able to find the sources that Britannica used.
http://www.holocaust.com.au/glossary.htm
Antisemitism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#References
Adolf Hitler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#References
Mostly all secondary sources used were biographies, either on paper, or online.
Ghetto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto#See_also
Similar topics, they might have provided each other with information.
*I noticed not all references come from the web, there are some which are based on books or magazines as well. Yet, most are secondary sources, cause not only is it hard to find original primary documents in the web, but secondary sources explain their contents much better.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Book I of Samuel Chp. 16-END
Courage of the Small
There are different ways in which one can be “small”. Small in size. It could be said someone has a small brain, for being naïve or foolish. Linked somehow to the one just mentioned, you can have a small morality.
The problem with society is how “small” values or no values at all, are connected to a small person, to a child. A child could be said innocent, but maybe the child is courageous beneath, more than some adults. Girls act girly, but maybe be as strong as boys sometimes.
Cause one tall person can turn to be careless, and mean, as one small person can have the strongest values—not like space would lack…
We can see this kind of irony in some of Samuel’s chapters, where David, the youngest son of Jesse, is the only one with enough courage to defeat Goliath, a giant warrior from the enemy side.
David is even capable of defeating the warrior. As small, he wasn’t very physically strong, nor was he muscular enough to be able to dominate Goliath. Instead, he uses his courage and so much strong morality and self-confidence, and—as much of us wouldn’t do—trusts on God completely.
Because of trusting, because of having all his strength within his soul, David is fully concentrated and is able to defeat Goliath.
The lesson we are able to learn is that no matter who you are, how old are you, sometimes you’re able to succeed in things that others wouldn’t dare think about. This is why it is good to be original, and find an area you are stable with. There will always be a value, or feeling, favoured by each one of us.
There are different ways in which one can be “small”. Small in size. It could be said someone has a small brain, for being naïve or foolish. Linked somehow to the one just mentioned, you can have a small morality.
The problem with society is how “small” values or no values at all, are connected to a small person, to a child. A child could be said innocent, but maybe the child is courageous beneath, more than some adults. Girls act girly, but maybe be as strong as boys sometimes.
Cause one tall person can turn to be careless, and mean, as one small person can have the strongest values—not like space would lack…
We can see this kind of irony in some of Samuel’s chapters, where David, the youngest son of Jesse, is the only one with enough courage to defeat Goliath, a giant warrior from the enemy side.
David is even capable of defeating the warrior. As small, he wasn’t very physically strong, nor was he muscular enough to be able to dominate Goliath. Instead, he uses his courage and so much strong morality and self-confidence, and—as much of us wouldn’t do—trusts on God completely.
Because of trusting, because of having all his strength within his soul, David is fully concentrated and is able to defeat Goliath.
The lesson we are able to learn is that no matter who you are, how old are you, sometimes you’re able to succeed in things that others wouldn’t dare think about. This is why it is good to be original, and find an area you are stable with. There will always be a value, or feeling, favoured by each one of us.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Exodus Chp. 13-End
We Shall Behave
What I can derive from History so far, is that as time goes by, so does Human’s respect for God. I am not saying that this is happening to everyone, in all religions, but generally, to the world.
And by this I mean that people tend to disobey God, in a way that they do without morality all the things that once God—transmitted by Moses—told us not to do, or the Ten Commandments; people steal, money, ideas and others’ property. Though Piracy is mostly over, they used to travel throughout the world and steal from whichever culture. Teenagers often fight with their parents, ignoring completely the fact that they were the ones who gave them life, everything they have until now. “I swear to God” is often heard, and people use it when trying to convince someone of something that is not really that important.
Worst of all is they don’t care. Stealing something as simple as a sheep, in the past, was something completely wrong, with so much lack of respect. God himself used to punish the sinners, as stealing was considered a sin.
What does our God do today, who does that steal money, rather than sheep? God might be trying to give us some personal responsibilities, to rule our own world, but we simply can’t. It seems we ourselves are never going to learn to stop stealing, unless God himself threatens to kill us. And chances for this to happen
Perhaps it is at the end, that all of us who never had a chance to talk to God are going to be divided between Heaven and Hell. Perhaps the robbers and sinners might go down to Hell, while others, who are the minority, for trying to be perfect, will rise towards the Heavens.
It is not only Men’s fault, because in the world’s earliest days Humans were able t otalk to God, and the direct communication within them helps them be more united, to be more understandable of each other. We might forget that we are going against him, because of our lacking of communication.
Plus, there are exceptions, though, and there have always been. Along with Moses and Noah and Abraham, may Mother Theresa, and Helen Keller, and all the people in modern times that have dedicated themselves to God and religion. The ones that truly try to behave their best, always, always being good.
As we may never know, though, for the good of it, we shall behave properly and try to follow God’s orders.
What I can derive from History so far, is that as time goes by, so does Human’s respect for God. I am not saying that this is happening to everyone, in all religions, but generally, to the world.
And by this I mean that people tend to disobey God, in a way that they do without morality all the things that once God—transmitted by Moses—told us not to do, or the Ten Commandments; people steal, money, ideas and others’ property. Though Piracy is mostly over, they used to travel throughout the world and steal from whichever culture. Teenagers often fight with their parents, ignoring completely the fact that they were the ones who gave them life, everything they have until now. “I swear to God” is often heard, and people use it when trying to convince someone of something that is not really that important.
Worst of all is they don’t care. Stealing something as simple as a sheep, in the past, was something completely wrong, with so much lack of respect. God himself used to punish the sinners, as stealing was considered a sin.
What does our God do today, who does that steal money, rather than sheep? God might be trying to give us some personal responsibilities, to rule our own world, but we simply can’t. It seems we ourselves are never going to learn to stop stealing, unless God himself threatens to kill us. And chances for this to happen
Perhaps it is at the end, that all of us who never had a chance to talk to God are going to be divided between Heaven and Hell. Perhaps the robbers and sinners might go down to Hell, while others, who are the minority, for trying to be perfect, will rise towards the Heavens.
It is not only Men’s fault, because in the world’s earliest days Humans were able t otalk to God, and the direct communication within them helps them be more united, to be more understandable of each other. We might forget that we are going against him, because of our lacking of communication.
Plus, there are exceptions, though, and there have always been. Along with Moses and Noah and Abraham, may Mother Theresa, and Helen Keller, and all the people in modern times that have dedicated themselves to God and religion. The ones that truly try to behave their best, always, always being good.
As we may never know, though, for the good of it, we shall behave properly and try to follow God’s orders.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Obama's Public Speaking
As I watched the video, I could conclude that Obama was generally good at public speaking. He used his hands for gestures, and made facial expressions as well, which depended on what he was talking about at the moment. He had the ability to control and attract the audience by enunciating key points and varying speed and volume, increasing it when reaching san importan point, so the reading wouldn't be monotonous.
Therefore, he does good usage of dynamism.
I was a little concerned about his content, though. He talks about his past ideas and beleifs. Perhaps public speaking is more to convince people of something, to propose something new and in the present.
Therefore, he does good usage of dynamism.
I was a little concerned about his content, though. He talks about his past ideas and beleifs. Perhaps public speaking is more to convince people of something, to propose something new and in the present.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Exodus Chp. 1-12
Why might God hardened the pharaoh’s heart instead of doing the opposite, so Moses could have gotten out of Egypt much faster, and easier?
We have to admit that if God was helping Moses leave Egypt along with the Children of Israel, it would have been much more helpful if he hadn’t hardened the Pharaoh’s heart each time more, each time he said no, no matter how much plagues had occurred and how much they’d damaged Egypt.
Why didn’t God facilitate things instead of making them more complex? Why didn’t he ever went and personally, to talk to the Pharaoh about letting the Israelites go? This contradicts the God-only-helping-Moses theory, can is indirectly shown in the books, everytime he tells Moses what plague to prepare next, everytime he is telling Moses to convince the Pharaoh of letting them go.
We could say, though, that God didn’t do this “hardening the Pharaoh’s heart” to0 contradict the Israelites, he might have meant for them—along with Moses—to challenge themselves. For Moses and Aaron to realize how hard was it convincing someone of Liberty, to understand how massive was this thing they were going to do, how hard was it to make it happen.
Or if he hated the Egyptians so much for establishing slavery, perhaps he wanted them to suffer more plagues and damages. So he made the Pharaoh stubborn, this way he could suffer the loss of more people and the devastation.
The plagues might have represented some kind of vision to the future, given by God, to the Egyptians; for them to realize how hard is was going to be to survive and work and build all they wanted—without slaves.
It might have been because of God’s hardening, but perhaps the Pharaoh himself was somewhat stubborn, and no matter how devastated might his kingdom have ended, he still said no, probably because he didn’t want to admit defeat—or be nice towards the people who were his slaves.
Lastly, it is easy to see that God has dominance over both Moses, and Pharaoh, he is controlling them both. As if it were some kind of two-on-two board game, where God himself was the only player. There is no one to compete with, so he decided what he shall do with each “side”. He is telling Moses to convince the Pharaoh, yet he is telling the Pharaoh to ignore Moses.
We have to admit that if God was helping Moses leave Egypt along with the Children of Israel, it would have been much more helpful if he hadn’t hardened the Pharaoh’s heart each time more, each time he said no, no matter how much plagues had occurred and how much they’d damaged Egypt.
Why didn’t God facilitate things instead of making them more complex? Why didn’t he ever went and personally, to talk to the Pharaoh about letting the Israelites go? This contradicts the God-only-helping-Moses theory, can is indirectly shown in the books, everytime he tells Moses what plague to prepare next, everytime he is telling Moses to convince the Pharaoh of letting them go.
We could say, though, that God didn’t do this “hardening the Pharaoh’s heart” to0 contradict the Israelites, he might have meant for them—along with Moses—to challenge themselves. For Moses and Aaron to realize how hard was it convincing someone of Liberty, to understand how massive was this thing they were going to do, how hard was it to make it happen.
Or if he hated the Egyptians so much for establishing slavery, perhaps he wanted them to suffer more plagues and damages. So he made the Pharaoh stubborn, this way he could suffer the loss of more people and the devastation.
The plagues might have represented some kind of vision to the future, given by God, to the Egyptians; for them to realize how hard is was going to be to survive and work and build all they wanted—without slaves.
It might have been because of God’s hardening, but perhaps the Pharaoh himself was somewhat stubborn, and no matter how devastated might his kingdom have ended, he still said no, probably because he didn’t want to admit defeat—or be nice towards the people who were his slaves.
Lastly, it is easy to see that God has dominance over both Moses, and Pharaoh, he is controlling them both. As if it were some kind of two-on-two board game, where God himself was the only player. There is no one to compete with, so he decided what he shall do with each “side”. He is telling Moses to convince the Pharaoh, yet he is telling the Pharaoh to ignore Moses.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
American Rhetoric
Clarence Darrow
A Plea for Mercy
delivered September 1924
Now, your Honor, I have spoken about the war. I believed in it. I don’t know whether I was crazy or not. Sometimes I think perhaps I was. I approved of it; I joined in the general cry of madness and despair. I urged men to fight. I was safe because I was too old to go. I was like the rest. What did they do? Right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiable -- which I need not discuss today -- it changed the world. For four long years the civilized world was engaged in killing men. Christian against Christian, barbarian uniting with Christians to kill Christians; anything to kill. It was taught in every school, aye in the Sunday schools. The little children played at war. The toddling children on the street. Do you suppose this world has ever been the same since? How long, your Honor, will it take for the world to get back the humane emotions that were slowly growing before the war? How long will it take the calloused hearts of men before the scars of hatred and cruelty shall be removed?
We read of killing one hundred thousand men in a day. We read about it and we rejoiced in it-if it was the other fellows who were killed. We were fed on flesh and drank blood. Even down to the prattling babe. I need not tell you how many upright, honorable young boys have come into this court charged with murder, some saved and some sent to their death, boys who fought in this war and learned to place a cheap value on human life. You know it and I know it. These boys were brought up in it. The tales of death were in their homes, their playgrounds, their schools; they were in the newspapers that they read; it was a part of the common frenzy-what was a life? It was nothing. It was the least sacred thing in existence and these boys were trained to this cruelty.
It will take fifty years to wipe it out of the human heart, if ever. I know this, that after the Civil War in 1865, crimes of this sort increased, marvelously. No one needs to tell me that crime has no cause. It has as definite a cause as any other disease, and I know that out of the hatred and bitterness of the Civil War crime increased as America had never seen before. I know that Europe is going through the same experience to-day; I know it has followed every war; and I know it has influenced these boys so that life was not the same to them as it would have been if the world had not made red with blood. I protest against the crimes and mistakes of society being visited upon them. All of us have a share in it. I have mine. I cannot tell and I shall never know how many words of mine might have given birth to cruelty in place of love and kindness and charity.
Your Honor knows that in this very court crimes of violence have increased growing out of the war. Not necessarily by those who fought but by those that learned that blood was cheap, and human life was cheap, and if the State could take it lightly why not the boy? There are causes for this terrible crime. There are causes as I have said for everything that happens in the world. War is a part of it; education is a part of it; birth is a part of it; money is a part of it-all these conspired to compass the destruction of these two poor boys.
Has the court any right to consider anything but these two boys? The State says that your Honor has a right to consider the welfare of the community, as you have. If the welfare of the community would be benefited by taking these lives, well and good. I think it would work evil that no one could measure. Has your Honor a right to consider the families of these defendants? I have been sorry, and I am sorry for the bereavement of Mr. And Mrs. Frank, for those broken ties that cannot be healed. All I can hope and wish is that some good may come from it all. But as compared with the families of Leopold and Loeb, the Franks are to be envied-and everyone knows it.
I do not know how much salvage there is in these two boys. I hate to say it in their presence, but what is there to look forward to? I do not know but what your Honor would be merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not merciful if you tied a rope around their necks and let them die; merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not merciful to those who would be left behind. To spend the balance of their days in prison is mighty little to look forward to, if anything. Is it anything? They may have the hope that as the years roll around they might be released. I do not know. I do not know. I will be honest with this court as I have tried to be from the beginning. I know that these boys are not fit to be at large. I believe they will not be until they pass through the next stage of life, at forty-five or fifty. Whether they will then, I cannot tell. I am sure of this; that I will not be here to help them. So far as I am concerned, it is over.
I would not tell this court that I do not hope that some time, when life and age have changed their bodies, as they do, and have changed their emotions, as they do-that they may once more return to life. I would be the last person on earth to close the door of hope to any human being that lives, and least of all to my clients. But what have they to look forward to? Nothing. And I think here of the stanza of Housman:
Now hollow fires burn out to black,
And lights are fluttering low:
Square your shoulders, lift your pack
And leave your friends and go.
O never fear, lads, naught’s to dread,
Look not left nor right:
In all the endless road you tread
There’s nothing but the night.
I care not, your Honor, whether the march begins at the gallows or when the gates of Joilet close upon them, there is nothing but the night, and that is little for any human being to expect.
But there are others to consider. Here are these two families, who have led honest lives, who will bear the name that they bear, and future generations must carry it on.
Here it Leopold’s father-and this boy was the pride of his life. He watched him, he cared for him, he worked for him; the boy was brilliant and accomplished, he educated him, and he thought that fame and position awaited him, as it should have awaited. It is a hard thing for a father to see his life’s hopes crumble into dust.
Should he be considered? Should his brothers be considered? Will it do society any good or make your life safer, or any human being’s life safer, if it should be handled down from generation to generation, that this boy, their kin, died upon the scaffold?
And Loeb’s the same. Here are the faithful uncle and brother, who have watched here day by day, while Dickie’s father and his mother are too ill to stand this terrific strain, and shall be waiting for a message which means more to them than it can mean to you or me. Shall these be taken into account in this general bereavement?
Have they any rights? Is there any reason, your Honor, why their proud names and all the future generations that bear them shall have this bar sinister written across them? How many boys and girls, how many unborn children will feel it? It is bad enough as it is, God knows. It is bad enough, however it is. But it’s not yet death on the scaffold. It’s not that. And I ask your Honor, in addition to all that I have said to save two honorable families from a disgrace that never ends, and which could be of no avail to help any human being that lives.
Now, I must say a word more and then I will leave this with you where I should have left it long ago. None of us are unmindful of the public; courts are not, and juries are not. We placed our fate in the hands of a trained court, thinking that he would be more mindful and considerate than a jury. I cannot say how people feel. I have stood here for three months as one might stand at the ocean trying to sweep back the tide. I hope the seas are subsiding and the wind is falling, and I believe they are, but I wish to make no false pretense to this court. The easy thing and the popular thing to do is to hang my clients. I know it. Men and women who do not think will applaud. The cruel and thoughtless will approve. It will be easy to-day; but in Chicago, and reaching out over the length and breadth of the land, more and more fathers and mothers, the humane, the kind and the hopeful, who are gaining an understanding and asking questions not only about these poor boys, but about their own—these will join in no acclaim at the death of my clients.
These would ask that the shedding of blood be stopped, and that the normal feelings of man resume their sway. And as the days and the months and the years go on, they will ask it more and more. But, your Honor, what they shall ask may not count. I know the easy way. I know the future is with me, and what I stand for here; not merely for the lives of these two unfortunate lads, but for all boys and all girls; for all of the young, and as far as possible, for all of the old. I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all. I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love. I know the future is on my side. Your Honor stands between the past and the future. You may hang these boys; you may hang them by the neck until they are dead. But in doing it you will turn your face toward the past. In doing it you are making it harder for every other boy who in ignorance and darkness must grope his way through the mazes which only childhood knows. In doing it you will make it harder for unborn children. You may save them and make it easier for every child that sometime may stand where these boys stand. You will make it easier for every human being with an aspiration and a vision and a hope and a fate. I am pleading for the future; I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men. When we can learn by reason and judgment and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man.
I feel that I should apologize for the length of time I have taken. This case may not be as important as I think it is, and I am sure I do not need to tell this court, or to tell my friends that I would fight just as hard for the poor as for the rich. If I should succeed, my greatest reward and my greatest hope will be that for the countless unfortunates who must tread the same road in blind childhood that these poor boys have trod—that I have done something to help human understanding, to temper justice with mercy, to overcome hate with love.
I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar Khayyam. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all.
So I be written in the Book of Love,
I do not care about that Book above.
Erase my name or write it as you will,
So I be written in the Book of Love.
Darrow opens the speech talking about himself; about his past beleifs and all awful things he once thought. About war, he says he encouraged it. So the introduction to this piece could be said "past", because Darrow is blaming himself for what he beleived once.
Most of the speech contains "ethos", since Darrow talks about the way of being of the U.S, as a country, his way of being, his character. There is much "pathos" too, because he is admitting what the case of these two boys makes him feel, what are all the feelings involved, and what does he think about the cruelty within the world.
Of fallacies, there is much Fallacy by Tradition, because he recalls various past cases, of boys attending Court for act of murdering, and what effects did this have.
I wasn't able to find any more fallacies. This might be because Darrow is not attacking "anothred side", as he starts to blame himself, and then give his opinion about a case, that is not involving himself.
A Plea for Mercy
delivered September 1924
Now, your Honor, I have spoken about the war. I believed in it. I don’t know whether I was crazy or not. Sometimes I think perhaps I was. I approved of it; I joined in the general cry of madness and despair. I urged men to fight. I was safe because I was too old to go. I was like the rest. What did they do? Right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiable -- which I need not discuss today -- it changed the world. For four long years the civilized world was engaged in killing men. Christian against Christian, barbarian uniting with Christians to kill Christians; anything to kill. It was taught in every school, aye in the Sunday schools. The little children played at war. The toddling children on the street. Do you suppose this world has ever been the same since? How long, your Honor, will it take for the world to get back the humane emotions that were slowly growing before the war? How long will it take the calloused hearts of men before the scars of hatred and cruelty shall be removed?
We read of killing one hundred thousand men in a day. We read about it and we rejoiced in it-if it was the other fellows who were killed. We were fed on flesh and drank blood. Even down to the prattling babe. I need not tell you how many upright, honorable young boys have come into this court charged with murder, some saved and some sent to their death, boys who fought in this war and learned to place a cheap value on human life. You know it and I know it. These boys were brought up in it. The tales of death were in their homes, their playgrounds, their schools; they were in the newspapers that they read; it was a part of the common frenzy-what was a life? It was nothing. It was the least sacred thing in existence and these boys were trained to this cruelty.
It will take fifty years to wipe it out of the human heart, if ever. I know this, that after the Civil War in 1865, crimes of this sort increased, marvelously. No one needs to tell me that crime has no cause. It has as definite a cause as any other disease, and I know that out of the hatred and bitterness of the Civil War crime increased as America had never seen before. I know that Europe is going through the same experience to-day; I know it has followed every war; and I know it has influenced these boys so that life was not the same to them as it would have been if the world had not made red with blood. I protest against the crimes and mistakes of society being visited upon them. All of us have a share in it. I have mine. I cannot tell and I shall never know how many words of mine might have given birth to cruelty in place of love and kindness and charity.
Your Honor knows that in this very court crimes of violence have increased growing out of the war. Not necessarily by those who fought but by those that learned that blood was cheap, and human life was cheap, and if the State could take it lightly why not the boy? There are causes for this terrible crime. There are causes as I have said for everything that happens in the world. War is a part of it; education is a part of it; birth is a part of it; money is a part of it-all these conspired to compass the destruction of these two poor boys.
Has the court any right to consider anything but these two boys? The State says that your Honor has a right to consider the welfare of the community, as you have. If the welfare of the community would be benefited by taking these lives, well and good. I think it would work evil that no one could measure. Has your Honor a right to consider the families of these defendants? I have been sorry, and I am sorry for the bereavement of Mr. And Mrs. Frank, for those broken ties that cannot be healed. All I can hope and wish is that some good may come from it all. But as compared with the families of Leopold and Loeb, the Franks are to be envied-and everyone knows it.
I do not know how much salvage there is in these two boys. I hate to say it in their presence, but what is there to look forward to? I do not know but what your Honor would be merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not merciful if you tied a rope around their necks and let them die; merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not merciful to those who would be left behind. To spend the balance of their days in prison is mighty little to look forward to, if anything. Is it anything? They may have the hope that as the years roll around they might be released. I do not know. I do not know. I will be honest with this court as I have tried to be from the beginning. I know that these boys are not fit to be at large. I believe they will not be until they pass through the next stage of life, at forty-five or fifty. Whether they will then, I cannot tell. I am sure of this; that I will not be here to help them. So far as I am concerned, it is over.
I would not tell this court that I do not hope that some time, when life and age have changed their bodies, as they do, and have changed their emotions, as they do-that they may once more return to life. I would be the last person on earth to close the door of hope to any human being that lives, and least of all to my clients. But what have they to look forward to? Nothing. And I think here of the stanza of Housman:
Now hollow fires burn out to black,
And lights are fluttering low:
Square your shoulders, lift your pack
And leave your friends and go.
O never fear, lads, naught’s to dread,
Look not left nor right:
In all the endless road you tread
There’s nothing but the night.
I care not, your Honor, whether the march begins at the gallows or when the gates of Joilet close upon them, there is nothing but the night, and that is little for any human being to expect.
But there are others to consider. Here are these two families, who have led honest lives, who will bear the name that they bear, and future generations must carry it on.
Here it Leopold’s father-and this boy was the pride of his life. He watched him, he cared for him, he worked for him; the boy was brilliant and accomplished, he educated him, and he thought that fame and position awaited him, as it should have awaited. It is a hard thing for a father to see his life’s hopes crumble into dust.
Should he be considered? Should his brothers be considered? Will it do society any good or make your life safer, or any human being’s life safer, if it should be handled down from generation to generation, that this boy, their kin, died upon the scaffold?
And Loeb’s the same. Here are the faithful uncle and brother, who have watched here day by day, while Dickie’s father and his mother are too ill to stand this terrific strain, and shall be waiting for a message which means more to them than it can mean to you or me. Shall these be taken into account in this general bereavement?
Have they any rights? Is there any reason, your Honor, why their proud names and all the future generations that bear them shall have this bar sinister written across them? How many boys and girls, how many unborn children will feel it? It is bad enough as it is, God knows. It is bad enough, however it is. But it’s not yet death on the scaffold. It’s not that. And I ask your Honor, in addition to all that I have said to save two honorable families from a disgrace that never ends, and which could be of no avail to help any human being that lives.
Now, I must say a word more and then I will leave this with you where I should have left it long ago. None of us are unmindful of the public; courts are not, and juries are not. We placed our fate in the hands of a trained court, thinking that he would be more mindful and considerate than a jury. I cannot say how people feel. I have stood here for three months as one might stand at the ocean trying to sweep back the tide. I hope the seas are subsiding and the wind is falling, and I believe they are, but I wish to make no false pretense to this court. The easy thing and the popular thing to do is to hang my clients. I know it. Men and women who do not think will applaud. The cruel and thoughtless will approve. It will be easy to-day; but in Chicago, and reaching out over the length and breadth of the land, more and more fathers and mothers, the humane, the kind and the hopeful, who are gaining an understanding and asking questions not only about these poor boys, but about their own—these will join in no acclaim at the death of my clients.
These would ask that the shedding of blood be stopped, and that the normal feelings of man resume their sway. And as the days and the months and the years go on, they will ask it more and more. But, your Honor, what they shall ask may not count. I know the easy way. I know the future is with me, and what I stand for here; not merely for the lives of these two unfortunate lads, but for all boys and all girls; for all of the young, and as far as possible, for all of the old. I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all. I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love. I know the future is on my side. Your Honor stands between the past and the future. You may hang these boys; you may hang them by the neck until they are dead. But in doing it you will turn your face toward the past. In doing it you are making it harder for every other boy who in ignorance and darkness must grope his way through the mazes which only childhood knows. In doing it you will make it harder for unborn children. You may save them and make it easier for every child that sometime may stand where these boys stand. You will make it easier for every human being with an aspiration and a vision and a hope and a fate. I am pleading for the future; I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men. When we can learn by reason and judgment and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man.
I feel that I should apologize for the length of time I have taken. This case may not be as important as I think it is, and I am sure I do not need to tell this court, or to tell my friends that I would fight just as hard for the poor as for the rich. If I should succeed, my greatest reward and my greatest hope will be that for the countless unfortunates who must tread the same road in blind childhood that these poor boys have trod—that I have done something to help human understanding, to temper justice with mercy, to overcome hate with love.
I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar Khayyam. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all.
So I be written in the Book of Love,
I do not care about that Book above.
Erase my name or write it as you will,
So I be written in the Book of Love.
Darrow opens the speech talking about himself; about his past beleifs and all awful things he once thought. About war, he says he encouraged it. So the introduction to this piece could be said "past", because Darrow is blaming himself for what he beleived once.
Most of the speech contains "ethos", since Darrow talks about the way of being of the U.S, as a country, his way of being, his character. There is much "pathos" too, because he is admitting what the case of these two boys makes him feel, what are all the feelings involved, and what does he think about the cruelty within the world.
Of fallacies, there is much Fallacy by Tradition, because he recalls various past cases, of boys attending Court for act of murdering, and what effects did this have.
I wasn't able to find any more fallacies. This might be because Darrow is not attacking "anothred side", as he starts to blame himself, and then give his opinion about a case, that is not involving himself.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Genesis Chp. 12-28
Separation
From this piece of the text, I chose two quotes that I was able to compare as both dealt with a same theme—separation.
1Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them and bless thee, and curse him that curseth he: and in thee shall all families of earth be blessed.
4So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him:
Abram is instructed by God (the Lord) to leave the city, and move on with his own small group of people. Abram does and instructed; he decides to separate himself from the community within the city, and travel on their own. We can say Abram chose to obey God because not only was he loyal, but because, It is similar too, to Noah, as God is letting Abram know that he and his people are different from the rest of the people living in the city, therefore separating them and giving them benefits.
In conclusion, it was because of loyalty and becase he was going to receive benefits, that Abram chose to leave the city behind.
1Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
This was after leaving the city; Abram and Lot separate and each continue different ways, because of a fight that had just occur between each of their herdsmen. They thought about this necessary, or else the fighting among their herdsmen could increase to a bigger level.
Though it is not as it ends in the bible, but the effects of separation or leaving something or someone behind can be not for the good. To explain what can happen, I’ll use different very well-known examples. In the Lion King, Simba is told by is uncles Scar to abandon, because it was supposedly beneficial. It was not, because the only thing that Simba did was ran away from is fears, and he had to dealt with them later whatsoever.
Then again, by leaving behind is home, he found Timon and Pumba, and from them he learned to take life easily and relax. In Abram’s case, when he followed God’s orders, he didn’t have any struggle to survive, as with the benefits the land was always in favour of them.
Then, later on, when he left Lot, the effects aren’t as massive either. Though it is not spoken off, we can guess that for Lot is wasn’t as good, as not only did he go into the lands of Sodom, but we could say God abandoned him, cause the Lord kept helping Abram and his wife.
We never know whether the effects of a separation are going to be beneficial, or not. So it’s better to think about it before doing it, like why would I leave or not leave this person, or place, how would I miss it, etc.
From this piece of the text, I chose two quotes that I was able to compare as both dealt with a same theme—separation.
1Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them and bless thee, and curse him that curseth he: and in thee shall all families of earth be blessed.
4So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him:
Abram is instructed by God (the Lord) to leave the city, and move on with his own small group of people. Abram does and instructed; he decides to separate himself from the community within the city, and travel on their own. We can say Abram chose to obey God because not only was he loyal, but because, It is similar too, to Noah, as God is letting Abram know that he and his people are different from the rest of the people living in the city, therefore separating them and giving them benefits.
In conclusion, it was because of loyalty and becase he was going to receive benefits, that Abram chose to leave the city behind.
1Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
This was after leaving the city; Abram and Lot separate and each continue different ways, because of a fight that had just occur between each of their herdsmen. They thought about this necessary, or else the fighting among their herdsmen could increase to a bigger level.
Though it is not as it ends in the bible, but the effects of separation or leaving something or someone behind can be not for the good. To explain what can happen, I’ll use different very well-known examples. In the Lion King, Simba is told by is uncles Scar to abandon, because it was supposedly beneficial. It was not, because the only thing that Simba did was ran away from is fears, and he had to dealt with them later whatsoever.
Then again, by leaving behind is home, he found Timon and Pumba, and from them he learned to take life easily and relax. In Abram’s case, when he followed God’s orders, he didn’t have any struggle to survive, as with the benefits the land was always in favour of them.
Then, later on, when he left Lot, the effects aren’t as massive either. Though it is not spoken off, we can guess that for Lot is wasn’t as good, as not only did he go into the lands of Sodom, but we could say God abandoned him, cause the Lord kept helping Abram and his wife.
We never know whether the effects of a separation are going to be beneficial, or not. So it’s better to think about it before doing it, like why would I leave or not leave this person, or place, how would I miss it, etc.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Genesis Chp. 6-11
Noah, and Example
Comparisons
The Books of the Genesis I read today, mostly talked about the great flood that destroyed it all, and how Noah and his family were the only ones who were able to survive, as God chose them.
God chose Noah because of his difference from other human beings. He thought of Noah as somewhat more of a ‘good’ human than others.
It is in many ways we can relate Noah—as the ‘chosen one’—to today’s media and either stories of books.
The Harry Potter Series might be a good comparison. Talking about this young wizard who is different among others, the series makes readers understand that him, Harry, is different, or special in a way, because when young, he was the only one able to survive to the Killing Curse—somewhat immortal.
The difference, though, between these situations, is that Noah was saved, was preferred by God as an effect of his own actions; Harry, instead, just happened to be born as the infant Lord Voldemort was supposed to kill—or else he’d die.
Noah was affected for good, he was given life. Harry’s ‘speciality’ gained him harsh teenage years filled with deaths and horrifying events.
Noah’s story is similar to the myth of Aristaeus, the Bee Keeper, because, for both doing what was good and what they were told, they were able to receive a much bigger present at the end; Aristaues was looking for info on where his bees had gone, and rather he got the bees themselves at the end. Noah—once again—different from anybody—was able to live.
Noah’s story could be said to be a representation of general life, for everyone that lives. It depends on how we behave, if a huge wave or flood of misfortune will fall upon us, or rather if we are going to be protected or shielded within an ark of goods, and values.
Comparisons
The Books of the Genesis I read today, mostly talked about the great flood that destroyed it all, and how Noah and his family were the only ones who were able to survive, as God chose them.
God chose Noah because of his difference from other human beings. He thought of Noah as somewhat more of a ‘good’ human than others.
It is in many ways we can relate Noah—as the ‘chosen one’—to today’s media and either stories of books.
The Harry Potter Series might be a good comparison. Talking about this young wizard who is different among others, the series makes readers understand that him, Harry, is different, or special in a way, because when young, he was the only one able to survive to the Killing Curse—somewhat immortal.
The difference, though, between these situations, is that Noah was saved, was preferred by God as an effect of his own actions; Harry, instead, just happened to be born as the infant Lord Voldemort was supposed to kill—or else he’d die.
Noah was affected for good, he was given life. Harry’s ‘speciality’ gained him harsh teenage years filled with deaths and horrifying events.
Noah’s story is similar to the myth of Aristaeus, the Bee Keeper, because, for both doing what was good and what they were told, they were able to receive a much bigger present at the end; Aristaues was looking for info on where his bees had gone, and rather he got the bees themselves at the end. Noah—once again—different from anybody—was able to live.
Noah’s story could be said to be a representation of general life, for everyone that lives. It depends on how we behave, if a huge wave or flood of misfortune will fall upon us, or rather if we are going to be protected or shielded within an ark of goods, and values.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Genesis Chp.1-5
When I finished reading, I went back and though about all that we’ve studied creation, in class. How much myths there are, trying to explain, all the same purpose. How Science is able to contradict, in a way, some myths, while it agrees with others, generally on the occurrence on some massive explosion who’s be the cause of all creation.
SEGUN the Bible, or the piece of it I read, creation was all thanks to a God. Him, the greatest of all, who was there and everything was hence him.
Maybe he still is in charge of everything. Cause he must be immortal. Maybe it’s the same one who was there to witness the Big Bang, and later get a glimpse of a dinosaurs (that he created) and study Humanity’s behaviour, and the rise to civilization.
He could be our father, or is. A father not completely responsible for his many, many kids. As many of us teens would like our parents to be, to let us have freedom, God gives freedom towards Humanity, all we want, and we shall do whatever we want to do.
But there wasn’t as much freedom as there is today, when Adam and Eve. They lived in a certain place, and were not allowed to eat from a tree.
We can eat whatever we want, and go wherever we want, God will let us do so. So, maybe our God today isn’t quite the same God that ruled over Adam and Eve. Or maybe overall this time that has passed he decided to change his mind, sit down on Heaven, and relax. His ideal: though I warned them Humans screwed up; they’ll keep screwing up, so why help them?
He’d think of us screwing up thins, this God. With all this deforestation, contamination, racism, and poverty, he’d think we aren’t good leaders, of this Earth.
Then again, time has passed, many, many years since we were created. Perhaps we were created for a reason, to realize how we ought to live, and how we ought to behave towards our Gods, how we must reflect and think when it is about creation that we’re speaking.
SEGUN the Bible, or the piece of it I read, creation was all thanks to a God. Him, the greatest of all, who was there and everything was hence him.
Maybe he still is in charge of everything. Cause he must be immortal. Maybe it’s the same one who was there to witness the Big Bang, and later get a glimpse of a dinosaurs (that he created) and study Humanity’s behaviour, and the rise to civilization.
He could be our father, or is. A father not completely responsible for his many, many kids. As many of us teens would like our parents to be, to let us have freedom, God gives freedom towards Humanity, all we want, and we shall do whatever we want to do.
But there wasn’t as much freedom as there is today, when Adam and Eve. They lived in a certain place, and were not allowed to eat from a tree.
We can eat whatever we want, and go wherever we want, God will let us do so. So, maybe our God today isn’t quite the same God that ruled over Adam and Eve. Or maybe overall this time that has passed he decided to change his mind, sit down on Heaven, and relax. His ideal: though I warned them Humans screwed up; they’ll keep screwing up, so why help them?
He’d think of us screwing up thins, this God. With all this deforestation, contamination, racism, and poverty, he’d think we aren’t good leaders, of this Earth.
Then again, time has passed, many, many years since we were created. Perhaps we were created for a reason, to realize how we ought to live, and how we ought to behave towards our Gods, how we must reflect and think when it is about creation that we’re speaking.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Fallacies New York Post
CAMPUS COWARDS' SICK DOUBLESPEAK
By THOMAS SOWELL
Brodhead: Joined lynch mob in Duke "rape" case.October 3, 2007 -- AT the very bottom of page 28 of last Sunday's New York Times, right opposite the obituaries, was a news item almost exactly the size of a 3-by-5 card.
It was a fraction of an Associated Press dispatch about Richard Brodhead, president of Duke University, apologizing for "not having better supported" the Duke lacrosse players last year when they were accused of rape.
When this story first broke last year, it was big news not only on the front page of the Times but on the editorial page as well.
The way things were discussed in both places, you could hardly help coming away with the conclusion that the students were guilty as sin. But now that the Duke president apologizes for the way he handled the case, that gets buried on page 28 at the bottom, opposite the obituaries.
Straw Man Arguement: The speaker assumes he knows about the readers and refers to them. As well, he uses descriptive words or figues in this paragraph, that should be better used in poems, or when it is necessary to embellish a piece of writing, such as "guilty as sin", and an article getting "burried" in the newspaper.
In the full Associated Press dispatch, including the part left out by the Times, Richard Brodhead said that he regretted the university's "failure to reach out" to the players under indictment, "causing the families to feel abandoned when they were most in need of support."
Brodhead got a standing ovation after this speech at the Duke law school - but to call what he said "spin" would be much too charitable.
Irrelevant Conclusion: The readers would like to know, instead of how much attention did Brodhead receive, what might the Duke students--or their families think about this? How does this affect the Duke School? The speaker reaches a conclusion that is irrelevant.
The issue was never his failure to "support" the students or their families. Universities aren't equipped to determine guilt or innocence. That's why trials are held in courts instead of on campus.
It was none of the university's business to "support" either the students or those who were accusing the students.
This last two short paragraphs show "Red Herring". The speaker is talking about Brodhead's desision, and suddenlt he talks about what universities have and lack.
What Brodhead did was join the campus lynch mob by firing the lacrosse coach, cancelling the rest of the team's season and suspending the students.
Now, after reaching an out-of-court settlement with both the students and the fired coach, Brodhead gets a standing ovation at his own law school for an apology that sidestepped the real issue and might well have been part of the out of court settlement.
Brodhead isn't the only university president who can walk through a sewer and come outsmelling like a rose, at least to those in academia and the media.
Again, Red Herring, because the speaker is about to talk about other cases, rather than focussing on this one, on Duke School.
At Columbia University, President Lee Bollinger got kudos for courage for having Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak on campus. It would "impoverish public debate" to exclude controversial speakers like Ahmadinejad, Bollinger said.
But apparently it didn't "impoverish public debate" to have a representative of the Minuteman organization disrupted and shouted down with impunity at this same Columbia University earlier this year. The "courageous" Bollinger did nothing to punish those students who used storm-trooper tactics to silence a point of view they didn't like.
Sadly, Columbia isn't unique in either its double standards or its double talk. A Harvard dean back in 1987 limited the number of "controversial" outside speakers allowed on campus, on the grounds that it was expensive to provide the extra security needed to prevent disruption or violence.
Since the only speakers who are likely to provoke campus disruption and violence are speakers that left-wing students don't like, this act of preemptive surrender gave campus storm troopers a de facto veto over who can speak on campus.
The real problem on these and other campuses is that no one has to take responsibility. With the power being in the faculty, administrators can evade responsibility, and trustees are not around enough to exercise the ultimate power that is legally theirs.
Moreover, so long as alumni and other donors keep sending money, there is no price to be paid for caving in to the threats of campus ideologues.
The article itself might be some sort of circular reasoning, because the speaker never reaches a stable conclusion, for changing the main topic so much. He talked a little about his personal opinion on Brodheads's choice, but he focused on Brodhead himself more tnan on what he said.
He never talked about the future for Duke's School, or what the community thought about Brodhead's speech.
By THOMAS SOWELL
Brodhead: Joined lynch mob in Duke "rape" case.October 3, 2007 -- AT the very bottom of page 28 of last Sunday's New York Times, right opposite the obituaries, was a news item almost exactly the size of a 3-by-5 card.
It was a fraction of an Associated Press dispatch about Richard Brodhead, president of Duke University, apologizing for "not having better supported" the Duke lacrosse players last year when they were accused of rape.
When this story first broke last year, it was big news not only on the front page of the Times but on the editorial page as well.
The way things were discussed in both places, you could hardly help coming away with the conclusion that the students were guilty as sin. But now that the Duke president apologizes for the way he handled the case, that gets buried on page 28 at the bottom, opposite the obituaries.
Straw Man Arguement: The speaker assumes he knows about the readers and refers to them. As well, he uses descriptive words or figues in this paragraph, that should be better used in poems, or when it is necessary to embellish a piece of writing, such as "guilty as sin", and an article getting "burried" in the newspaper.
In the full Associated Press dispatch, including the part left out by the Times, Richard Brodhead said that he regretted the university's "failure to reach out" to the players under indictment, "causing the families to feel abandoned when they were most in need of support."
Brodhead got a standing ovation after this speech at the Duke law school - but to call what he said "spin" would be much too charitable.
Irrelevant Conclusion: The readers would like to know, instead of how much attention did Brodhead receive, what might the Duke students--or their families think about this? How does this affect the Duke School? The speaker reaches a conclusion that is irrelevant.
The issue was never his failure to "support" the students or their families. Universities aren't equipped to determine guilt or innocence. That's why trials are held in courts instead of on campus.
It was none of the university's business to "support" either the students or those who were accusing the students.
This last two short paragraphs show "Red Herring". The speaker is talking about Brodhead's desision, and suddenlt he talks about what universities have and lack.
What Brodhead did was join the campus lynch mob by firing the lacrosse coach, cancelling the rest of the team's season and suspending the students.
Now, after reaching an out-of-court settlement with both the students and the fired coach, Brodhead gets a standing ovation at his own law school for an apology that sidestepped the real issue and might well have been part of the out of court settlement.
Brodhead isn't the only university president who can walk through a sewer and come outsmelling like a rose, at least to those in academia and the media.
Again, Red Herring, because the speaker is about to talk about other cases, rather than focussing on this one, on Duke School.
At Columbia University, President Lee Bollinger got kudos for courage for having Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak on campus. It would "impoverish public debate" to exclude controversial speakers like Ahmadinejad, Bollinger said.
But apparently it didn't "impoverish public debate" to have a representative of the Minuteman organization disrupted and shouted down with impunity at this same Columbia University earlier this year. The "courageous" Bollinger did nothing to punish those students who used storm-trooper tactics to silence a point of view they didn't like.
Sadly, Columbia isn't unique in either its double standards or its double talk. A Harvard dean back in 1987 limited the number of "controversial" outside speakers allowed on campus, on the grounds that it was expensive to provide the extra security needed to prevent disruption or violence.
Since the only speakers who are likely to provoke campus disruption and violence are speakers that left-wing students don't like, this act of preemptive surrender gave campus storm troopers a de facto veto over who can speak on campus.
The real problem on these and other campuses is that no one has to take responsibility. With the power being in the faculty, administrators can evade responsibility, and trustees are not around enough to exercise the ultimate power that is legally theirs.
Moreover, so long as alumni and other donors keep sending money, there is no price to be paid for caving in to the threats of campus ideologues.
The article itself might be some sort of circular reasoning, because the speaker never reaches a stable conclusion, for changing the main topic so much. He talked a little about his personal opinion on Brodheads's choice, but he focused on Brodhead himself more tnan on what he said.
He never talked about the future for Duke's School, or what the community thought about Brodhead's speech.
Roman Divinities, The Myrmidons, Hebe and Ganymede
Civilizations rise and fall, and some remain more time than others. Some focused on trading, others on war, others on knowledge and arts. So much different types of societies, so difficult to realize that though interested in different areas, for it to rise in the first place, something had to be there, to provide the civilization existence. What are the causes of a civilization? What is needed to start one?
I could derive a couple of factors from the myths I read today that might affect the development and state of a civilization. From Roman Divinites, that talked about the different types of gods that existed, we could say that it were these gods that created everything; the world in which we live in, and ourselves. So, we need gods to provide us with the setting, with the beings that are going to create a civilization.
When they were able to establish something finally, these beings, they used to honour the gods, as to give thanks for creating them and providing the place for a construction. This thanks-giving was crucial for civilizations, because it was lucky for the gods to have created men with the ability to construct and think ahead; it had to be for something that the gods created us this way.
Why did the gods create men? Wouldn’t a civilization be capable of developing itself alone? Wouldn’t any other species or any other living-things be able to do it as well? Certainly not. Not any other being would be able to create society. So it was necessary after all, to create humans, if the gods wanted civilization to flourish. The myth The Myrmidons show how a civilization without men to run it would completely suck. The population of one city is destroyed with a disease, leaving only the king, who wouldn’t be able to survive by himself. Humans need each other, and civilization needs the humans to exist and remain.
How is it that humans must behave for their civilization to run properly? In the myth Hebe and Ganymede, it is Hebe who for a second forgets about her work linked to the Gods, as she falls in love with Ganymede, and was distracted. The gods shall punish us if we forget about our civilization and jobs quickly, just as Jupiter sent Ganymede to a far away mountain and pushed Hebe away from her job.
It matters, whether there are gods or not, because without gods, there wouldn’t be humans, therefore no civilization. If there are gods and humans, let there be development of society. Now, though hard, for a civilization to maintain and run efficiently, humans shall not forget their duties and will always be responsible.
I could derive a couple of factors from the myths I read today that might affect the development and state of a civilization. From Roman Divinites, that talked about the different types of gods that existed, we could say that it were these gods that created everything; the world in which we live in, and ourselves. So, we need gods to provide us with the setting, with the beings that are going to create a civilization.
When they were able to establish something finally, these beings, they used to honour the gods, as to give thanks for creating them and providing the place for a construction. This thanks-giving was crucial for civilizations, because it was lucky for the gods to have created men with the ability to construct and think ahead; it had to be for something that the gods created us this way.
Why did the gods create men? Wouldn’t a civilization be capable of developing itself alone? Wouldn’t any other species or any other living-things be able to do it as well? Certainly not. Not any other being would be able to create society. So it was necessary after all, to create humans, if the gods wanted civilization to flourish. The myth The Myrmidons show how a civilization without men to run it would completely suck. The population of one city is destroyed with a disease, leaving only the king, who wouldn’t be able to survive by himself. Humans need each other, and civilization needs the humans to exist and remain.
How is it that humans must behave for their civilization to run properly? In the myth Hebe and Ganymede, it is Hebe who for a second forgets about her work linked to the Gods, as she falls in love with Ganymede, and was distracted. The gods shall punish us if we forget about our civilization and jobs quickly, just as Jupiter sent Ganymede to a far away mountain and pushed Hebe away from her job.
It matters, whether there are gods or not, because without gods, there wouldn’t be humans, therefore no civilization. If there are gods and humans, let there be development of society. Now, though hard, for a civilization to maintain and run efficiently, humans shall not forget their duties and will always be responsible.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
(Rural Deities, Water Deities, The Cameane, The Winds)
Division of Power and Comparison
These four myths show how each group of nymphs focused on only one ‘area’; this separation is similar to the idea of The Four Elements.
The first myth, Rural Deities, talks about the nymphs inhabiting trees and dancing around the forest, so this group would mostly appeal to the element of Earth. Then, in Water Deities, it is shown how Neptune and his family got property of the Ocean. The Camenae, a group of fountain-nymphs, would belong to the element of water as well.
Then, for the element of wind, obviously, the most appealing would be the myth of The Winds, that talks and names the winds of the North, East, South, and West.
Yet it is quite confusing, whether these “ideas” (myths and elements) should be compared or not. We must understand first that they are not entirely similar. Cause if they were, where would the nymph of fire be?
On the other hand, though, this fire nymph wouldn’t lack, cause fire is possibly represented mostly by Hades. But then again, which element might Zeus represent, if Hades represents one?
Lastly, while each group of nymphs is actually alive, and they mostly behave like humans, and they dance around, the elements are just elements; nor do they have life nor spirit, nowhere to live and no necessity to, but rather they seem to exist to represent other things (Horoscopes), and to differ cold from hot, and dry from wet.
These four myths show how each group of nymphs focused on only one ‘area’; this separation is similar to the idea of The Four Elements.
The first myth, Rural Deities, talks about the nymphs inhabiting trees and dancing around the forest, so this group would mostly appeal to the element of Earth. Then, in Water Deities, it is shown how Neptune and his family got property of the Ocean. The Camenae, a group of fountain-nymphs, would belong to the element of water as well.
Then, for the element of wind, obviously, the most appealing would be the myth of The Winds, that talks and names the winds of the North, East, South, and West.
Yet it is quite confusing, whether these “ideas” (myths and elements) should be compared or not. We must understand first that they are not entirely similar. Cause if they were, where would the nymph of fire be?
On the other hand, though, this fire nymph wouldn’t lack, cause fire is possibly represented mostly by Hades. But then again, which element might Zeus represent, if Hades represents one?
Lastly, while each group of nymphs is actually alive, and they mostly behave like humans, and they dance around, the elements are just elements; nor do they have life nor spirit, nowhere to live and no necessity to, but rather they seem to exist to represent other things (Horoscopes), and to differ cold from hot, and dry from wet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
