Starlight Night

Watching the stars is one of my most favorite things to do. I was drawn to this poem because of that. I love the way he ended up calling it "Heaven", because I feel that is what it really it. I think it is a piece of Heaven. God knows every star by name and I think that is what makes me interested in the stars so much.

I commented on Wendy's

'Thou art indeed just, Lord, if I contend'

Hopkins, we've all been through this discussion in our minds. We do everything right, and give nothing but our best; the bad guys always win. Hopkins raises the question, "why do sinners' ways prosper"? I have found myself wondering the same thing many times. I believe it is supposed to be tougher on us, because the closer we are to God and doing His work, the more Satan is going to try and tear you down to keep you from continuing. This just must have been a bad time for him, because Hopkins is desperately crying out to God. "O thou lord of life, send my roots rain". Me too, Hopkins.. Me too.

I commented on Sierra's.

The Starlight Night

Being a huge fan of nature and the night sky in particular, I found this poem very interesting. For as long as I can remember I have gone outside at night to just sit and gaze at the stars. I found the poem's structure particularly interesting. It was as if he was trying to sell Christianity. He praised the night sky for the first half of the poem then called it Heaven.

Delaney's

"The Starlight Night"

Although I had a difficult time reading through some of Hopkins' poems, "The Starlight Night" really resonated with me. This may be because I just saw a quote that said, "If people sat outside and looked at the stars each night, I'll bet they'd live a lot differently." Hopkins' poem goes right along with this statement as he declares that all of nature is "a prize." Looking at the stars, the woods, the lawns, and the birds, eventually brings him to remember Christ. Nature becomes just a glimpse of heaven for him. Viewing nature in this way can definitely make one live his or her life differently.

I commented on Sierra's!

Beauty in the Unappealing

What I loved about Hopkins' poems was the way they were structured. Not only did they each have a specific rhyming scheme, each poem was worded so well with the alliterations and imagery he used. Another thing I noticed about Hopkins was his incorporation of nature in each poem. His appreciation of God's creation was so evident. It seemed like he admired the things that others don't necessarily appreciate at first glance. In "That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire and of the comfort of the Resurrection," I thought a cool thing he did was relate not so appealing things, or the trash, to Jesus's death and the glory and beauty within that.

"In a flash, at a trumpet crash,
I am all at once what Christ is,
 since he was what I am, and
This Jack, joke, poor potsherd,
patch, matchwood, immortal diamond,
Is immortal diamond."
- "That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire..."

I commented on Francesca's post.

Weaving Style and Subject

I adored Binsey Poplars. Elsewhere his writing style becomes a little disorienting. It tumbles around itself. It weaves through itself. In a poem discussing the carnage of deforestation, it was totally fitting. I felt like I was reading the tree trunks and the dirt and mud heaving and twisting. It was an interesting experience. 

—Abbie George received my comment

Hopkin's "I wake and feel the fell of dark, not day"

He is saying that, even when he wakes and it is daytime, he is still overcome with darkness. He repeats that he is in constant grief and sorrow. He compares himself to "gall" and "heartburn" to illustrate that his heart is bitter and in immense suffering. He also explains how the "lost are like" his current state, furthering his argument that he is in utter sadness. What is he so distraught about? Is he speaking of how his heart is reacting to what he experiences in daily life in this world?

I commented on Francesca's!

Binsey Poplars

My personal favorite poem from Hopkins was "Binsey Poplars". I think he describes a non-significant event in a desperate way. He sounds devastated about the felling of the trees even though they probably weren't that big of a deal. Hopkins describes the felling of the trees so beautifully and I really like the way that even he admits that only ten or twelve trees were hewn down but after comers will never know the beauty of what once was.

I commented on Abie Georges.

God's Grandeur

God made a beautiful world. It had greatness that oozed like oil, but man ruined this. Man made its mark on the world, so that "the soil is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod." Through all the destruction of man, nature is never spent. God's grandeur lives on because of the Holy Ghost and the "World broods with warm breast and with ah! Bright wings."

P.S. I commented on Abbie George's post.

God and Nature Hand in Hand

I liked how closely He paired godliness and God's presence to nature. It is in nearly every poem we were given. He holds nature in such high regard and in a way reprimands mankind for tainting it or "smudging" it because nature should be regarded as "God's Grandeur."

I also loved the way in which Christ was depicted in these poems. Especially the way in which Hopkins constantly depicted mankind seen as Christ in God's eyes. He does this in the closing stanzas in "That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire and of the comfort of the Resurrection" and also in "As Kingfishers Catch Fire."

These were a few of my favorite things.

P.S. Commented on Claire's blog.

'I wake and feel the fell of dark, not day'

In this poem, Hopkins is using day and night to parallel the saved and unsaved people in this world. I think one point in this poem is that we live in a dark, sinful world and the argument could be made that he cries out to God, but that God dos not hear him. Hopkins is pointing to the Biblical truth that we live in a fallen world and that is weight heavily on him. I think he is showing his frustration that it seems this way because he is not experiencing the light and God's answers. However, I wanted to weigh in on a poem that I did not grasp fully, so feel free to add to my understandings.

I commented on Francesca's.

Glory be to God !

Hopkin's Pied Beauty is a descriptive poem about ugly things that the Master Creator has made. I throughly enjoyed this refreshing poem about how everything that has been made is beauty. Somedays the sunset is not the deep purple hues and golden flecks, it can be like a " brinded cow." Even the landscaped being plotted over by man and changed from its beginning form still has some form of beauty.
I believe that Hopkins has a love for nature but his love is more towads God and His ability to create. The poem begins and ends with praising God, comparing it to God being the Alpha and Omega. He is appreciative of all God has done for him and I think we should take his example. God could have not let us live to see the day but instead he lets us live and get to see another brackish sunset or empty field.

How to be Content?

Is it easier to be content if we are never given something more? Akakiy is perfectly content with his coat that needed patching, but when he was given something new, suddenly, anything less than that beautiful new coat is unacceptable and leads to unhappiness. This causes me to ask the question..God gives and takes away.. if we can be content with what we have, if God gives us more, we may not be greedy but we will now be content with the new things God has given us..BUT, if God takes those things away, can we still be as content as we were before we were ever given anything new? or is our threshold for contentment raised to a higher level now?

The Overcoat

One thing that stuck with me from this reading is from page 2 of "The Overcoat." Akakiy is said to have "shuttered at seeing how much inhumanity there is in man, how much savage coarseness is concealed beneath delicate, refined worldliness, and even, O God! In that man whom the world acknowledges as honorable and noble." Yet, even though he realizes all of these things he is so content with life! It is said about him that, "enjoyment was written on his face" and how I hope that someone could say that about me! He worked "like a horse in a mill" and still he is happy with his work! I hope to be like Akakiy one day, in this way.

I commented on Sierra's.

Candide It's Not

While I understand what people are saying when they compare this to Candide, but at least Voltaire can write a not snoozer for a story to pair with his satire. I hate you, The Overcoat.

I commented on Madison's.

The Overcoat

I agree with Briana about this story being a nice change of pace!! And I agree with Delaney that this story reminds me of Candide with the message relating to contentment.
As I read through the story, I kept going back and forth between feeling sorry for Akakiy and thinking he is wise. Maybe it is a mixture of both. He leads a pretty mundane life, but he is at peace. Not once does he look for something different than what he already has - what a hard task to overcome. I definitely struggle with being optimistic about what I have; and Akakiy has less! Maybe he has it right: keep to yourself, and be happy with what you already have. However, it leads for a a seemingly boring life. That raises the question: is it better to live a mundane, yet content, life, or to live a life where you are constantly striving for something simply to keep life exciting?

I commented on Delaney's post!

Poor Akakiy

This guy seriously must be the most humble person I have ever read about. At the beginning of the narrative he is simply content to be and do his work, even with the other officers laughing at him all the time. Then he changes so much when he finally gets his cloak. Akakiy goes from a quiet mouse of a man to someone who begins to actually see things. For example, when he is wearing his new cloak and walking to the party, he walks through a very rich district of St. Petersburg and looks in all of the shop windows at the beautiful goods there and marvels at them. Before the coat, Akakiy would never have even visited that district and would have continued to shuffle his way to work, only looking forward to his copying. However, it seems to me like Gogol is trying to imply that people can't rise from their class to a higher class. As soon as Akakiy gets his new cloak he loses it again, therefore losing the only thing that makes him look at least like someone from the "middle class" instead of the poor man he really is and then pretty soon after that he dies without ever having found his cloak. It just is a somber ending for a man who had seemed to finally gain some kind of life in him.

I commented on Briana's post.

Through reading other people's blogs, I see some people think this was a great read. I personally did not enjoy this at all. If is very difficult to read. I see where he was kind of trying to go with it. Nothing ever happens in this. Nothing in this sparked my interest. I look forward to discussing this in class so that hopefully some light can be shed on this story and someone can make this interesting.

I commented on Justin Fobel's

More than a Cloak

I loved the reading for this week. I loved that it was actually a narrative story in which I could picture myself. I loved Gogol's imagery throughout the story. An interesting thing to me was that this story also taught a valuable lesson to be content. I felt like I could see where Akakiy was coming from, desiring something of high value and being picked on for not being as privileged as others. What I liked most about this story was the relatable lesson and emotion you could feel through Gogol's words.

I commented on Briana B.'s post.

Gogol

This was such a hard read, due to lack of action.  This entire seemed completely pointless.  I don't understand any of it.

~Commented on Justin Fobel's post~

Bland

This was soooo hard to read. Where was all the action? Akakiy buying his coat was probably the most dramatic part of the story. Then Akakiy became a ghost. What? I was surprised to say the least but unfortunately it was not in a good way. Maybe I'm crazy, but to me the whole story was lifeless and completely random.

Hannah's

The Overcoat

I'm flustered. Poor Akakiy, he has nothing yet is so content at the same time. I envy that quality. The lengths he went to just to get a new coat sadden me because when was the last time we just skipped a meal to save money for something we desperately needed. For me, I have never had to go without and I certainly do not appreciate the finer things I do have like Akakiy did. This is probably my favorite reading so far because it applies to me the most. Gogol speaks of Akakiy saying, "it would be necessary to curtail his ordinary expenses, for the space of one year at least, to dispense with tea in the evening; to burn no candles, and, if there was anything which he must do, to go into his landlady's room, and work by her light". The lengths he had to go to for an overcoat that was a necessity astonishes me. I cannot imagine having to deprive myself of light to save money. In the end, his coat gets stolen and he dies. What??? I guess it makes the story a little better that he ends up with coat of the prominent personage.

I commented on Briana's post.

Be Content

The one thing I gained from reading this short story is, in a way, the same thing I gained from reading Candide. On page three of The Overcoat, the author frequently reiterates how Akakiy is content with his life. He recounts that Akakiy has “written to his heart’s content” and “understood how to be content with his lot.” The thing that stole his content personality from him was the new cloak. If he hadn’t have gotten the new cloak, he wouldn’t have gone to the party and probably wouldn’t have gotten his cloak stolen. So, I think one lesson to be learned from this story is to “Be content with your life,” or as written in Candide, “Go and work in the garden.”

I commented on Briana Batdorf's post.

Thank You Gogol

I was so in love with this week's reading. I was not at all expecting this story to go where it did. When the story actually did turn into a story and not another written lecture I was so excited I almost wept tears of joy that I was reading a short story with characters and a plot with a beginning, climax, and ending. (Also had major flashbacks to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina with the whole societal pyramid thing going on). Anyway, I think that the story can teach us about greed and not judging other people based on appearances.

Akakiy was so selfless and willing to live without even the necessities of life because he desperately needed that cloak. Was I the only one who had a sense of absolute dread build up inside me when he was at the dinner party? Not to mention how I just wanted to reach through the pages of the story and hug him when he discovers his precious new cloak on the floor!!!! I mean, I can practically see the look on this guys face as he discovers his prized possession laying in a heap. Then the way that Gogol takes the time to tell us that Akakiy "brushed it, picked off every speck upon it. . ." and proceeds to make his way home.  I am probably way too emotionally invested in this character. By the time he blessedly passed on I was happy for him and the fact that he didn't have to live in this dreadful world anymore.

I commented on Daniel Stephen's post.

A Ghost Story?

When I began reading this, I hadn't expected the turn it took. I wound the story of Akakiy to be touching and I felt sorry for him. I understood his desire to remain in his normal routine, and didn't want to branch out. Yet, when he did, his life began to get better. But then, as life does tend to do, his happiness was ripped away again, and thus his life ended in a sad and sorry state. Yet, that wasn't the end. Akakiy was then a ghost, searching for a cloak to replace the one that had been stolen from him, and he terrorized the city until he gained the cloak of the official that wouldn't help him find his cloak. This wasn't a terrible surprise. I, in fact, enjoyed this story and its ending. While the death of Akakiy is sad, we can feel assured that he is no longer cold in the Russian winter, and the official he gained the new cloak from experienced a change of character as well. That is, at least, a comforting thought.

I commented on Hannah Senteney's post.

EH

Overall this story was dull and monotoned. The only slight climax was Akakiy saving money for his coat and obtaining it. Which again says something about this short story. Good grief not even his death was climatic. He died of a common cold showing the authors inability to be creative. Personally, I gained nothing from this story as it lacked in many areas such as a good plot, and climax.

I commented on Hannah Sentencey's Post.

The Overcoat

What? That's it? Akakiy just dies? He got his cloak stolen and then all of a sudden dies of a fever. Then Akakiy comes back and starts taking people's cloaks but then as soon as he takes the prominent personage's cloak he disappears. That is a terrible ending and such a dramatic plot twist. Overall, I thought the story was good but I still very much dislike the ending.

Mill was a very interesting read. You can see his influence throughout much of the Western world. He wrote that everyone should be entitled to his own opinions even if they are wrong, which is reflected by our own bill of rights. He also (as near as I can tell) coined the term "utilitarianism," which he defines as gaining pleasure from the pleasure of others.

I commented on Madison's.

Mill on Liberty

This was very interesting to read, mostly because what Mill is saying is that everyone is entitled to their own opinions even if those opinions are wrong. He states that no one has the right to silence anyone's opinion because no one is 100% sure that their own opinion is correct. Mill goes on to say "If the opinion is right they are deprived the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error." People must learn through their own misconceptions and mistakes if they are to ever grasp the truth.

I commented of Justin Fobel's post.

Mill - Utilitarianism

Mill says "the happiness which forms from the utilitarian standard of what is considered right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others. Utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator." Shortly after this Mill says that the values taught in the Bible such as: treating others as you would want to be treated and loving your neighbor as yourself constitute the "ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." Although treating others as you wish to be treated and loving your neighbor as yourself are values taught the Bible, it does not mean this Utilitarian morality is right or is really based on Christianity. My biggest objection is when Mill says that Utilitarianism tells man that he must be impartial as if he was disinterested, when it comes to his happiness or that of others. However, this isn't what the Bible teaches us. Indifference is the furthest thing from what God's love looks like, so to be indifferent towards you or someone else happiness is NOT what the Bible teaches. Rather, the Bible tells us to passionately pursue the good of OTHERS, not ourselves. To consider others better than ourselves, and to humble ourselves before them. The Bible tells us that love requires that you put someone else best interest AHEAD of your own, intentionally. This is where I see a flaw in the "ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."

I commented on Wendy's!

Utilitarianism

Mill argues that it is better to be a wise human rather than an ignorant pig - to be aware rather than be a fool. I agree with Mill on this to an extent. In most circumstances I think it is important to be fully knowledgeable and aware of the situation/topic. However, approaching some situations with a mindset of innocent ignorance is necessary.
I am a little confused about the end of that paragraph (at the bottom of pg 572) where Mill says that if "the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question." I am not entirely sure at what he is getting at here to close the paragraph.

I commented on Brannen's!

Mill vs Aristotle

Can somebody get this guy an anthology? Here is where I go full Kant and wish I could just blot Mill's name off the face of the planet. Utilitarianism? In virtue? Give me a break man. Aristotle discussed this AGES ago, literally ages, in Niconachean Ethics. We don't seek virtues for this "mental good" we should seek virtue for the sake virtue. Virtue doesn't serve a purpose. It just is. It exists. Just as God exists. All of creation seeks to take us back to him. Is there a "use" in this? Possibly. I use my virtue to come to a fuller relationship with God. I can call this utilitarian. But I think that's a little superfluous. It needlessly stretches and bends terms. But come on Mill. Let's actually add something to the world of philosophy and metaphysics. Why must we beat up this long decayed horse?

Justin Fobel

Mill

The main points that I like that Mill makes are that he does not agree that ignorance is bliss, and that pain can sometimes not always be a bad thing.  I would argue that being knowledgeable is blissful, which agrees with Mill.  Pain isn't always that bad.  For example, I used to play baseball; pain could always come from practice, and "practice makes perfect".  That pain from practicing eventually would pay off with each season.

~Commented on Kristina Swearingen's post~

Giving Up on the Noble Things

On page 573, Mill explains, “It may be further objected, that many who begin with youthful enthusiasm for everything noble, as they advance in years sink into indolence and selfishness.” A little later on he says, “Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of substance…” So many times I will start to do something I think is “noble” and pleasurable to myself and others, but as time goes on, I get distracted and discouraged from doing it. I start to lose track of what I was doing and why I was doing it in the first place. I soon give in to the lesser pleasures of life. I tend to give up or start to follow a different path. After reading these quotes and thinking about my own failures, I was reminded of these two verses:

“Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” – 1 Timothy 6:12

“I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.” - Philippians 3:14

We should not give up every time we fail, but remind ourselves that there is grace for our failures and that we should get back up and press on.

I commented on Briana Batdorf's post.

Igorance is Bliss

I have a hard time agreeing the analogy of the dissatisfied human and the content pig. If someone is living happily because of their ignorance, does that reduce the validity of their happiness? As long as they remain ignorant of the negatives of their situation I do not think it does. On the other hand, is there any consolation in a person's misery just because they are aware of their situation? I would have to say there is not. In some situations ignorance is truly bliss.

Brittany's

Pleasure

"The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conception of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness, which does not include their gratification."  
On the list of God's creation. We are above the animals because of our ability to reason. Simple pleasures of delicious food, laughing, etc are not enough for us because we know, reason, there is more to life. But that also adds to the beauty of our praise, doesn't it? Creation calls out in praise to God by simply taking pleasure in their environment. As children we are a lot like the rest of creation. We praise God by simply existing, by enjoying His creation and loving wholeheartedly. Then as we grow, we start to reason more and realize we are not perfect and something is missing. We realize our pleasures are futile. But then the beautiful thing happens. We CHOOSE to worship God. We choos to praise Him and accept Him. Do we deserve that option? No. But does that make our praise increase in beauty? We have to choose to praise Him while creation just does. Or does that make us more flawed? Personally, I feel as if our praise is more beautiful because we leave the pleasurable sin and turn to the one thing that could destroy us and praise Him. It's just beautiful. 

P.S. I commented on Sammiera Long. 

The Higher Being

Mill states that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than to be a swine satisfied. This automatically made me think of Hume's ideas on despair and his categories. There is the higher conscience of despair and then the lower, which is better? Well, as the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. Is it really? Mill says no, and I agree. I would much rather be aware of that which falls short and be in despair, or unsatisfied, than a wishful thinker, unaware of the horrors I face.

I commented on Kristina Swearingen's post.  

Utilitarianism

Reading this brings me back to when we studied it in philosophy. What was said is that actions are right if they are useful for the benefit of the majority. I do not necessarily believe this. Just because they bring about pleasure to the majority, doesn't make them right. An act is to be judged right or wrong based on its ability to bring about pleasure or to avoid pain. Just because an act brings pleasure, doesn't mean it's right. Some good acts have to bring pain. When you tell the painful truth, that is not a wrong act. It doesn't bring about pleasure though. I really do not agree with Mill.

I commented on Kristina's.

Mill

I am going to go ahead and be that person, but I am going to quote The Fault In Our Stars. Many times in the book they use the phrase "pain demands to be felt".  Mill said "pain is heterogenous with pleasure". We have so many great things in life, but there will always be troubled times. Pain will always demand to be felt. A person can excel in their career, family life, relationships, and countless other areas, but life is not perfect. You have to fight for what you have. To excel in those areas, you have to fight and claw your way to the top, and not all, if any, of it will be easy.


I commented on Brittany's

Pain and Pleasure

Mill writes "Neither pains nor pleasures are Homogeneous, and pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure." Homogeneous is when elements are essentially alike. So Mill is saying that pain and pleasure are nothing alike. On the other hand, heterogeneous is when elements are not alike. Which Mill again clarifies that pain and pleasure are incongruous. He also questions the means of determining which is the acutest. He comes to the conclusion that you would have to experience both pain and pleasure to come to these means.

P.S. I commented on Brittany McDade's post.

Mill on Utilitarianism

"Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things...are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain."

Since when does pleasure come without pain?  After reading Mill on Utilitarianism, this was the one thought that kept going through my head. I cannot think of a time when I received pleasure without pain first. For example, dancing has always been a pleasure of mine, but it did not come easy. I had to deal with all the bruises and blisters as well as the pain that comes with stretching. I also stayed up late practicing specific steps until I got them correct. Another example would be the production of Crazy For You (which was performed by the CPA this past weekend). The cast worked so hard and we had rehearsals every night. Even when we did not have rehearsal, we were still in the mirror room practicing our dance routines. There were many different injuries, every single one of us were probably hurt at least one time in this two month rehearsal process. In the end, however, it was worth it because we got to do it for the Lord and have so much fun performing it!

I say all this to say...Is pleasure ever truly a prevention of pain? Because the way I see it, we have to endure the pain first to get to the pleasurable part.

I commented on Claire Richburg's post

Better to Be

I think Mill made a good point in his illustration of a pig and human's concept of satisfaction and awareness. Mill said, "It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." In this statement, Mill argues that knowledge is bliss over ignorance. He was right in saying that it is better to at least know that he has imperfections over being oblivious. The image I saw in my head at first is of two musicians each performing a song. The first musician misses a few notes on the bridge, yet sees his performance as perfection, leaving satisfied with his work. The second musician messes up the entire bridge, looks back on his performance, analyzes himself and the song, and works hours afterward to perfect the song. The second musician may have messed up more, but is aware. The second musician is capable of fixing his mistakes, while the first musician will never get any better because he is blinded by ignorance.

I commented on Francesca's post.

Ultilitatianism

Mill is a visionary. His writings put what utilitarians are all about into proper descriptions. Many think that utilitarianism is the same as communism, and while they do share come of the same beliefs like equal shares of everything for everyone, utilitarianism has more emphasis on doing what is pleasurable without hurting other people. Just like communism, though, it sounds great on paper, but actually acting it out would prove to be difficult, especially on a large scale.

I commented on Briana Batdof's post.

Man vs. Beast

Mill likes to point out the obvious fact that man is superior to beast. We can reason and reflect and have a conscience. I was particularly interested in Mill's dialogue on page 572 where he talks about how no sane man would willingly  go from a higher being to a lower being. "Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals. . ."

Honestly though, what is so good about this unique ability of ours? Nine times out of ten it only works in making us depressed. The stress of life is often caused because of over-reasoning. Why, if given the chance, wouldn't you want to give all this up? Then again, would I really be willing to degrade myself by becoming a lesser animal when I was previously human? I've been going back and forth with myself all day over this one fragment of a sentence. Do I value my ability to reason enough to keep it if I ever had the chance to get rid of it?

I commented on Jeremy Beaman's

One point that I found very important was when he states, "pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure." I find this to be very true in life, but I think we often forget this. What of our greatest pleasures did we receive pain free? We pleasure relationships, but what two people involved in a relationship have never had a disagreement or had their feelings hurt? Thus, we must treat others the way we would want to be treated.

Is Ignorance Truly Bliss?

We know Mill would say no. And I agree. I do like how honest he was when examining the happiness of one with higher intellectual capabilities. His comparison of man and pig did the job well in proving that ignorance is not the better way to live. He does qualify, however, in saying...

"It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied: and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted is imperfect."

This does not just apply to man and pig. This applies to the intellectual and the fool as well, which he later expounds upon. But this rang true to me. I'm still a novice, but the more that I uncover and the more I learn I find myself more prone to being melancholy. I hate this about myself lately but I've witnessed too that those who are very aware of the state of the world can be less satisfied individuals.

But maybe this is the cost of real happiness. To be aware of the wrong so as to fully enjoy being completely aware.

P.S. I commented on Fracesca's.

Nobleness

Mill has some great points in this essay, and the world would defiantly be in a better place if everyone tried to attain nobleness. On page 573 , Mill describes nobleness as a almost contagious disease in the best way. As if one is of “noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it.” How great does that sound? A chain reaction where one person tries to be a better person of noble character can help change the society. I feel as though society is so negative most days and Mill is giving a easy solution to a hard hitting problem. Just try to be the best you can be! For all who may oppose, I can understand where people would just be lazy and not want to. Its like going to the gym, you know its good for you but you don’t want to. Yet  this is not about individualization but about the bettering of the whole world. So as all organizations for recycling or endangered animals, “ One person can make the change. 

I commented on Abbey Griffins post. 

Mill

In Mill, just as in Locke, (and unlike Marx) we see the ideal.  Though Mill was writing decades after the United States had been formed, we see the same ideas of utilitarianism in our constitution.  We live and breathe these ideas in America.  Each person may seek his own pleasure as he pleases.  The only threat, I think, is if the pleasures, or that which the masses seek, is something unjust or ethically wrong, which we have seen.

I'm interested in the discussion of lower and higher, superior and inferior beings.  No person holds that the beasts are superior to us overall, for we reason, though they may be superior in certain ways.  An example, a silly one I suppose, is that cats can run faster than us, or birds can fly, but they are not altogether superior to us.  We are superior because we are capable of intellectual pleasures, and we are the only beings (so far as we know) with such a distinguished conscience.  It may be a useless question, but do the beasts have it better off since they aren't consciously unhappy in the way that we are? To use Kierkegaard's words, in despair.  

Abbie's

Ah Yes

I really enjoyed Mill this week. I have learned and benefitted so much from the other readings we have done this semester, but Mill on Utilitarianism is one of my favorites to read. I especially loved it when he talked about people who choose the lesser pleasures over the higher ones. His point about the possibility of it being a lack of the ability to appreciate the higher things was quite potent. If a capability is not used, it is lost. This seems seems true for society today. In a world full of mindless consumerism, it would make sense that we often loose the ability to even appreciate the higher things. This didn't exactly restore my faith in humanity, but did comfort me a bit by demonstrating some of the cause we are becoming so mindless.

Daily food

"His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food. In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows." I love this. To me, this line is a beautiful depiction of how we need God daily. Just as some people, usually the ones who haven't seen some of the world's incredible sights, aren't huge nature-lovers; some people don't love the Lord because they don't know what they're missing. But as you begin to be exposed to the beauty of nature, the more you want to see. I find this same concept to be true of God - the more you get to know about him, the more you desire to know. 

I commented on Eva's!

The Beauty of Nature

"But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars." This is such a beautiful line in Emerson's "Nature." When Emerson thinks of the stars he wonders whether they were actually created for the pleasure of man to sit and gaze at them, going so far to describe them as "sublime." I love this idea that when we are alone with Nature, we can truly see the beauty of it and how it was created with us in mind. I think that God created the world for us to not only live on and thrive on, but also to enjoy the beauty and peacefulness of the mountain ranges and valleys, the hills and the flat plains, the rivers and lakes and trees. They were all created for us to enjoy and explore and preserve.

I commented on Henry Torbert's post.

Self-Reliance

In Emerson's Self-Reliance, he talks about being independent. He talks about not being dependent on others, and relying on yourself. Being self-reliant has its ups, but why not just rely on God? I do not necessarily believe that it is the best to be self-reliant. Relying on God is the only way to live a complete life. But if you are self-reliant, then you do not think you need God, and you are wrong. Being self-reliant can be good if you are doing it for the good of yourself, but if God is not involved then it is useless.


I commented on Briana's!

Our Own Religion

At the very beginning of Nature, Emerson asks a question that I have given much thought to recently: "Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of [our forefathers]?" He's basically asking why we feel the need to follow exactly in our parents' footsteps when it comes to religion. I would say that it's simply a case of it's easier to do that than seek our own way, but I'm not sure I have an answer just yet.

I commented on Sierra's.

Nature

Emerson suggests that to truly experience nature, one must have the attitude of innocence. He believes that a true "lover of nature" is one who has matured, but still "[retains] the spirit of infancy." I disagree with this statement. From personal experience, I have learned to appreciate and respect nature more as I grow older and experience more in life. Infants cannot truly grasp the beauty of nature - but then again, are we ever able to fully grasp its awe-someness? I have mixed opinions on his thoughts about how can one fully enjoy and connect with nature.

I commented on Claire's!

Self-Reliance?

Emerson seems to live in a very poetic state of mind. While I appreciate his type of idealistic view of the world, I don’t see how his theory of self-reliance would exactly work well in society. Emerson says, “No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” All universal ideas of right and wrong are thrown out of the window. Everyone decides for himself what is right and what is wrong. I’m not sure how far Emerson would take this concept to justify his actions, but I would question how we can keep people from harming others if we can’t constitute a right and wrong. How then are we to punish those who do harm or "wrong" if we have no general sense of what wrong is?

I commented on Abbey Griffin's post.

Nature Never Wears a Mean Face

I legitimately enjoyed reading Emerson.  Having read this in junior year of high school, I had to jog my memory a bit as to what we discussed, but I didn't quite get it that year.  However, now that I can understand it a bit more, what mostly caught my attention was when he said, "Nature never wears a mean face."  It's true; everything about nature has some sense of beauty, even through the tragic storms, because they bring out the good in everybody, and nature flourishes around afterwards.

~Commented on Brittany McDade's post~

Self-Reliance

To me, it seems like Emerson puts labels on people. He makes assumptions, yet doesn't necessarily back them up with facts. I agree that every person should be independent and his own self, but some things are not clarified to me. Some things he sees as imitation, I do not see a fine line in between what is and what is not. It sounded like if my opinion is the same as my friends that it may just merely be imitation, when it could actually be my opinion.

I commented on Abby's post.

Self- Reliance

I found this reading quite interesting to say the least. What really stood out to me was when he said, "but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil. No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature". I understand he does not want to be influenced by society.... but wow! I'm really confused here. Is he saying that it's perfectly okay to be purely evil, as long as it is truly who you are? There are certain things accepted in society, and certain things looked down upon; it is all for the benefit of the people as a whole though. 

I commented on Abbey's. 

So...?

Honestly I enjoyed several aspects of Emerson's "Self-Reliance", but then was extremely confused at other times. I understand his need for originality, and his hatred of imitation, but his lack of a need for consistency was a bit concerning to me. It's all good and well to theoretically be misunderstood, but what about practical matters? What if you feel like you husband is your husband one day, and just a random passer-by the next? Does Emerson believe in any kind of universal truth? Any sort of consistency? Or does he merely mean that is we trust our feelings, we are bound to average out to the right thing?

Also, the verse about the heart being deceptive above all things kept flitting through my head. How can we truly trust ourselves? If upon a random day we feel as though the Bible is true and ought to always be obeyed, then if we continue in it against our feelings, are we lacking self-reliance, or only relying on the solidarity of the self on a previous day?

And to end this very thoroughly scattered post, what are Emerson's views on religion? He seems to believe in a God, maybe, some of the time? I'm just very confused as to what he truly believes. Does he truly believe nothing? Would this somehow make him a cynic?

Comments on Briana's :)

Nature

Emerson is amazing. I truly enjoyed reading "Nature". It was beautiful and insightful. My favorite part is Beauty Part 2. "The presence of a higher, namely, of the spiritual element is essential to its perfection." Nature has always pointed back to God for me, and that has only grown as I've dug deeper into nature through my science classes. The planning, thought process, and creativity that is evident in His creation flabbergasts me. Have you ever looked at a plant cell? What about the various metabolic processes? Or how when our RNA attaches to ribosomes for translation, it's 60/40, but a virus is always different so antibiotics can attack it? Those are only a few examples, but every day in science my God is more evident and more amazing. This is one reason I love my major. I actually cannot wait to dig deeper into the human anatomy! 

I also really loved part one of Beauty, "The influence of the forms and actions in nature, is so needful to man..." Nature is such an essential part of our lives, and it's so easy to over look it, to take advantage of the beautiful masterpiece surrounding us. Emerson goes into detail of how the rain helps the seed and the wind carries the seed, and so on. It's a beautiful picture of God's planning. Everything has a purpose, and it just amazes me how He planned everything out to the microscopic level for thousands of years! I struggle to plan my schedule fore the next two years. It's crazy and unfathomable at times, but isn't that what makes our God so awesome? 
P.S. I commented on Claire's!

Nature

I absolutely loved Nature. Being a tree-hugger myself I completely agree that "nature never wears a mean face." Even a powerful storm possesses beauty that must be acknowledged. I also agree with his assertion that most people, especially adults, do not see the beauty in nature. As we grow older we often overlook or even ignore the elegance of nature. When is the last time that any of us stepped outside to just look at the stars?

Francesca's

Self-Reliance

Emerson writes "There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till." In writing this, Emerson is stating that every person reaches a point (if pursuing knowledge) where they figure out that their thoughts are just as important as everyone else's thoughts. In fact, others' thoughts are in a way toxic to the thought process, restraining the mind from reaching its true ability. No bit of intellectual benefit extracted from outside sources can compare to the benefit of searching one's own thoughts and knowledge, thus depending on others' philosophy can lead one to become intellectually handicapped, unable to discern their own thoughts. It is by working one's own "plot of ground" in the mind that allows them to truly form their personal grasp of understanding.

P.S. I commented on Francesca's post.

Self-Reliance

I particularly enjoyed Emerson's essay, Self Reliance. It speaks of how important it is for someone to be independent and to not have to rely on the help of others. This hits home for me especially as and introvert, I don't ask for people's help even when I desperately need it. Self-reliance is really key to survival in today's society and it's a skill that more people need to posses. Emerson definitely hit the nail on the head with this one.

Nature

I think this reading is interesting. Emerson reminded me of Socrates a little when he spoke of the separation of Nature and the Soul. I also enjoyed the Statement about how people such as Miller and Locke are not the owners of the fields of nature, but merely are tending to the fields. I also enjoyed how it described the human eye as the greatest artist of all, as we can see and perceive the world around us and enjoyed its majesty as we could an actual painting. Overall, I enjoyed reading this and found it to be very enlightening, and even a bit beautiful.

I commented on Francesca M. Garcia's post.

Similarities

Emerson believes that everybody has something to offer to the "joint-stock company"-like society.  And every man must believe this in order to think meaningfully about himself.  Self-Reliance has many introspective, existentialist tendencies; "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think," he says.  Each individual ought to be solely responsible for his own thinking, without allowing others to influence him too much.  Descartes' ideas permeate this piece, although it is not as philosophically heavy as Meditations.

His Nature, discusses similar Wordsworthian themes of nature, and yet where he seems to go as far as Wordsworth, he withholds such a view of nature in Self-Reliance.  It appears that Emerson finds a balance between Cartesian methods and those of Wordsworth.

I'll comment on Brannon's or Caleb's whenever they post

Transparent Eyeball

In Emerson's short book, Nature, the idea of being a "transparent eyeball" is first introduced. I agree, if we are made from dust and made from the earth, we are in fact part of nature. Emerson goes so far to say that we must not just see nature, but must be able to feel nature. That is when we are fully aware of God and ourselves. The only way we are different from nature is because the existence of our Spirit. Then on the other hand, in "Self-Reliance," Emerson seems to be saying that each person much think for himself. So it seems that he is stating the opposite of what Wordsworth and "Nature" are stating... That one can not understand everything through nature.

I believe there must be a balance between the two. We must think for ourselves and we must also learn through and from nature.

I commented on Jeremy's.

Mean Old Mother Nature

Emerson’s Nature was interesting. One statement that really stuck out to me was in Chapter 1 where he says ,” Nature never wears a mean appearance.” I disagree with this statement as Nature has shown time after time that it is horrible, destructive, and catastrophic. A example would be Hurricane Katrina that devastated New Orleans in in 2005. Waters flooded the whole city, lives where lost , and reconstruction seemed almost impossible at the time, thanks to Mother Nature. I believe Emerson must have never seen a hurricane, tornado, or tsunami and its effects in his life to make such a statement.  

The Sickness Unto Death

Most people that blogged this week focused on the topics of despair and self, but I can't get my mind off of what Kierkegaard said in the introduction.

"For in human terms death is the last thing of all, and in human terms hope exists only so long as there is life; but to Christian eyes death is by no means the last thing of all, just another minor event in that which is all, eternal life. And to Christian eyes there is in death infinitely more hope than in, simply in human terms, not merely life itself but life at its height of health and vigour." 

This section changed how I look upon death. I never thought of it as a minor event in the process of eternal life, but now that Kierkegaard has mentioned it, I have seen that death isn't that big of a thing. Yes, I knew it wasn't the end, but still.

I also love the example he used with the child and adult. He compared how they look upon something "horrifying" but only the child sees the horror. This is showing the way a non-Christian sees death verses the way a Christian might see it. 

I commented on Abbey Griffin's page. 

Despair

Two passages in particular stood out to me - on pages 47 and 48.
Kierkegaard states that "the torment of despair is precisely the inability to die" (48). I agree that living with the pain and constant mindset of despair is much more taxing and difficult than dying and not dealing with it anymore. Thankfully, that is not how he ends that thought process. He continues on to explain that even though "death is the end of the sickness, death is not the end (47). This statement justifies living until the despair is no longer clouding the heart of the person, instead of dying with the sickness.

I commented on Claire's!

Self

In this reading, the "self" was theost interesting to me. What is "self"? How do you find "self"? Keirkagaard says that it is through God that we find our "self". The way to gain "self" is through God and a relationship with God. Many people go their whole lives not knowing who they are. I have also struggled with that. A relationship with God changes everything. You do not have to question your "self", because in God, you are a Child Of God. That is who your "self" is. 

I commented on Delaney's. 

Despair

The idea Kierkegaard has concerning despair is very interesting. He says that despair is universal, sin, and that there is no outward despair; it all comes from the soul. I would agree the the first: despair is universal. However, the second and third are worth delving into. I disagree with Kierkegaard that despair is a sin, for Jesus experienced despair previous to His crucifixion, and He has no fault. The idea that despair comes from the internal being and cannot stem from physical attributes such as pain intrigues me, but I am also willing to accept it, because I see no reason not to. Despair is much deeper than that of surface level pain, and can only be experienced when dealing with Spirituality and the soul.

I commented on Justin Fobel's.

Be aware and combat

I think it's interesting how Kierkegaard says the only way to combat despair is to be constantly aware of it and intentionally fighting against it. I don't think I'm on the same page with him as far as his definition of despair for most of the reading, but here, I feel like I understood and kind of agreed. As Christians, the Devil is constantly working to tear us down and take away our hope and faith, and it is only by actively being hopeful and faithful to God that we are able to combat feelings of hopelessness. However, I tend to believe that our best weapon for combating hopelessness or despair (at least as I originally would've defined the word) is not by focusing on the problem, not by focusing on despair itself, but instead focusing on the solution, Jesus Christ. If we seek Christ, despair will have no place in our lives. Or if we're looking at despair as I think Kierkegaard is defining it - If we seek Christ, despair will have no rule over our lives.

I commented on Wendy's!

Despair

With this new definition of despair, how should we treat death? Most of humanity spends its life looking toward death in some form. But if we follow along with Kierkegaard, then death becomes nothing more than an insignificant hinge. Should we pay death no heed at all? I don't know. I don't see an answer.

Justin Fobel

Despair?

After reading part of The Sickness unto Death, I found the word "despair" starting to sound funny. It is a common theme that is repeated and even though it is talked about a lot, I still do not fully understand what point he is trying to get across. So for now, I will just bring up what I commented on, and that is that I found it interesting that he said we may not even know if we are in despair. At some point during my reading, I looked up the definition of despair. I found, "loss of hope; hopelessness, someone or something that causes hopelessness." I do not understand can not know when they feel these things. Maybe Kierkegaard's definition of despair is different from my idea of despair.

What is the "Self"?

Kierkegaard made me reflect on my own life as I current try to figure out my own “self.” From the text, I got the impression that the “self” can only be found in God or through a relationship with God and that this “self” is only “healthy and free of despair” when “it is grounded transparently in God.” Kierkegaard points out that a person can go his whole life living a perfectly “normal” life, yet “fail to notice that in a deeper sense he lacks self.” He also points out that this danger of “losing oneself” “can pass off in the world as quietly as if it were nothing,” whereas if someone loses something physical, like a limb or money, it is usually noticed. Now, excuse me while I go re-evaluate my "self." :)

I commented on Eva Lockhart's post.

 

Disagree but interested

I disagree with Kierkegaard's interpretation of despair entirely and I do not like how we continue to see philosophers try to redefine words. However, I do find his definition interesting. How can every individual live through despair without necessarily knowing it? By the generally accepted definition of the word it is impossible. Kierkegaard believes that despair is a sickness that every self endures until death.

twhitley59

The Sickness unto Death

"The possibility of this sickness is man's advantage over the beast; to be aware of this sickness is the Christian's advantage over natural man; to be cured of this sickness is the Christian's blessedness."
This book was super difficult for me read because of the language, so I'm really looking forward to discussion tomorrow to clear things up. I particularly liked this passage though. Being aware of our despair is the one-up man has over everything. In this sense, despair is a blessing.

I commented on Briana's post.

Intricate yet Broad

Wow. Kierkegaard really stunned me this week. I feel like my entire definition of despair has drastically broadened, though I still pretty much have no idea what it actually is. One thing that really fascinated me was his indication about how despair spans broadly from the ones who won't be themselves to the demoniac one who despairingly wishes to be themselves. I've though about these types of things being insecurity issues before, but never heard them placed as the byproduct of despair.

I completely related to his hurt over the ones who basically don't live to embrace their true personage within the Father, but I've never seen this pain and empathy explained and labeled to intricately. I can't even begin to explain the ways that despair manifests itself, but it seemed to me that Kierkegaard sees despair as almost the root of all mankind's problems. These are things that we don't discuss in life, in churches - anywhere. Why? Why do we assume that these inward and outward struggles can be simply explained. Or perhaps simply explained away? It will be interesting to see where Kierkegaard goes with this.

What Did I Just Read

There are so many thoughts packed into very few pages; therefore, I will try and focus on one to flesh out. When it is suggested that not being in despair is the great rarity,  I was quite shocked. There is so much truth to that simple statement though. I thought every man would know if he were in despair or not, but after reading I am unconvinced that one would know. He says despair is a "sickness of the spirit". When struggling with the eternal, and not the mere physical forms of say "sickness", it is possible to not really know if you're in despair or not. Kierkegaard loses me when he says that "not to be in despair may mean precisely to be in despair, and it may also mean having been saved from being in despair". Honestly, this makes no sense to me, but then he goes on to say that "there is no immediate state of spiritual health". I guess that makes sense if you apply that to you thinking that you are perfectly fine spiritually, but not really being fine spiritually at the same time.

I commented on Daniel's post.

Sickness Unto Death

I found this a really difficult read, due to seemingly redundant word choice.  I couldn't quite follow at all what he was saying, and couldn't see what he was trying to get at.  However, I did find it interesting at his focus on despair, and hope to have a clear understanding of that tomorrow.

~Commented on Daniel Stephens' post~

Despair: Good or Bad?

Since I don't have the actual book to read out of, I had to look up .pdf files on the internet and I found a pretty good condensed version of part one.
I found it interesting that Kierkegaard asks, " I despair good or bad?" because obviously you would want to answer that it is bad. However, he comes back to say that despair is an infinite good because through despair, people are led to search for God and ask for his help or for his salvation. It's an interesting point of view that I would not have thought to look into. Kierkegaard really surprises me sometimes.

I commented on Francesca's post.

"Caesar or nothing"

When a person has the motto "Caesar or nothing" they are striving to be Caesar. Though if they do not get to be Caesar than they are in deep despair; not because he is not Caesar but because he himself could not be Caesar. I believe Kierkegaard is saying that the person is disappointed in himself for not being able to achieve being great like Caesar; not that he wasn't Caesar in general. Kierkegaard gets very deep into different ideas and contradicts himself a lot. It is very hard to see what his main point is but I'm hoping class discussion will help narrow down ideas.

P.S. I commented on Daniel's Stephens post.

The Cure is Just to Die

So basically what I got from this is that Kierkegaard is saying that if you are a Christian your greatest fear is not death but the journey there. I would generally have to agree with this basic assumption as one of my primal fears in not of dying but of burning on the way there or drowning or some other medieval form of cruel torture. KG even brings this up on page 48 when he says, "When the danger is so great that death has become the hope, then despair is the hopelessness of not even being able to die." This text is really fascinating, although it is slow and dreary at times when KG keeps repeating himself for a full page. . .

I commented on Daniel Stephens.

Going Back and Forth

Honestly, I can't follow what Kierkegaard is talking about the majority of the time in this reading. He keeps going on and on about the same thing over and over again and doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. I know there is some meaning in what he is saying but I can't see it because I am still lost and confused from his writing style of saying the same things multiple times in a row. I NEED a class discussion about this if I hope to understand this in any way.

I commented on Abbie George's post.

Despair Within

In this read what really intrigued me was the depth of Kierkegaard’s remarks of worldly despair. He states that the “same instant the despair manifests itself, or despair manifests itself in its true character,” meaning we really create despair in ourselves.  As soon as a significant other has left us we begin to evaluate not of why they left but what we did wrong and long for to be theirs again to fix what has been broken. “ To despair over oneself, in despair to will to be rid of oneself, is the formula for all despair,” and destroys us from within. We create despair in who we are because of the longing to be someone else with a better life, better car, better financials. What a awful life that would be to hate who you are just because you are not content to what has been given to you. 

Commented on Daniel Stephen's post.

The Formula For Losing One's Mind

This reading is quite dense but quite good when you take your time. I particularly liked his take on miracles. In a sense it reminded me of a more hopeful version of David Hume's take on miracles.

On page 68 Kierkegaard states that "The decisive thing it: for God everything is possible. This is eternally true and therefore true every moment."

Thus he has established that miracles are possible at any moment (unlike Hume who establishes the opposite). But from here Kierkegaard expounds upon this truth examining the scenario in which one could hold to this belief. He claims that people always say that with God all things are possible but the true test is when man is "brought to utmost extremity, where in human terms there is no possibility."

He continues, "Then the question is whether he will believe that for God everything is possible, that is, whether he will have faith. But this is simply the formula for losing one's mind; to have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God."

This, in my opinion, cuts to the core of the mind of one suffering. The person feels as though they are losing their minds in hopes to gain healing, or to "win God." I thought it rather ironic that both Hume and Kierkegaard, though taking very different paths, ended up in the same place. That is, a place of faith. One doubted the existence of miracles completely based upon reason, the other proved their possibility based upon scripture, but both concluded that miracles rely completely on faith whether one sees miracles as completely impossible or completely possible.

Miracles surely prompt the formula for losing one's mind.

P.S. Commented on Jeremy's.

Theistic Existentialism

He really lays some groundwork with the idea of the self and its consciousness.  These ideas recur in Freud, and of course people like Camus, Nietzsche, Sartre and other modern humanist writers.  Yet Kierkegaard, as opposed to the others, holds our "existence before God."  This is seemingly unendurable, he writes, for many see their existence before God resulting in the impossibility for him to "come back to himself, become himself."  And Nietzsche and others develop this, declaring that God is Dead, and everything we need for fully developing ourselves is within ourselves.

Bourgeoisie

The Bourgeoisie is Marx's version of the new modernism in the world wide politics and economy. To him, politics and economy are one in itself (that is where the term marxism came from in literary theory). While the world seems to be moving forward, Marx makes comment that in ways, the system is just a simpler form of Feudalism. Though I wouldn't have compared the two myself, I see where he is coming from.

I commented on Henry's post. 

The Manifesto and History

The historical significance of the Communist Manifesto is difficult to underestimate. It has served as the inspiration for national government since its authorship, and has managed to be mostly responsible for most of the historical events of the 20th century. The manifesto has caused revolution after overthrow after war. But was that Marx's intent? Of course, I doubt he could have foreseen such far-reaching effects, but also nowhere in the writings does he seem to advocate violence? Of course, he doesn't condemn it either, but I think he meant for his ideas to be integrated slowly into society, not thrust to the center of governments in one fell swoop, as in Russia in 1917 or China in 1949.

I commented on Sierra's.

Marx

Marx states that the foundation of Communism is abolishing private property. Basically, the goal is to ensure equality among all individuals. Marx emphasizes the point of no individuality among the people; all remain equal no matter what. He goes so far as to say that there should be no "personal freedom, activity, [or] independence" among people. I do not agree with his stance on owning property and individualism. People work with different amounts of time and effort, and therefore should be rewarded accordingly. Individuals have different strengths that should be recognized and treated in different ways - not as one single unit.

I commented on Claire's!

Marx

So. Surprisingly. I'm very apathetic about Marx. The level on non-emotion I'm feeling about it is just overwhelming. I feel nothing. He didn't inspire any desire to go do something to bring up the prices. Maybe it's just me. I do agree with the classic saying that communism looks great on paper. On paper, we're all already equal. There's nobody having six kids while a single man is lone wolfing it. Everybody is equal and so we can reach financial equality. It's possible. However, I think that's where he loses my interest. I miss the deep metaphysical wandering. This feels so banal, so material. 

Claire Richburg

Marx

I do not agree with Marx. Some people would say communist sounds good on paper, but I would even debate this. Would you want to be paid the same amount as your co-worker who does a lot less work than you? Of course not. Though communist could get rid of some unfairness in the system, there are more cons than pros. One thing I would point out to Marx is that you can not get rid of classes. For the sake of the argument, say you give the same amount of money to two workers. The first person may not have any kids and can therefore save a lot of money and invest and eventually become a millionaire. However, the second person may have 6 kids and barely make ends meet. You did not get rid of any "class system." The "poor" and "rich" will still exist. There is no perfect answer!

Daniel's

Marx

From my understanding of this, Marx is trying to move towards a utopian society, and history has shown that this doesn't work.  Multiple countries tried to adopt Marx's system of Communism, and it didn't get them anywhere, except for decline (the former states of the USSR).

~Commented on Francesca's post~

Marx - Manifesto

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

Yes, I know that this is the first line in the chapter, but I think it best describes what I read. I think Marx is trying to say that our past can determine our lives and how we live them.

Though Marx's readings were interesting, I was getting a feel for "Utopia."  Utopia is impossible, and I do not agree with Marx's idea of solving the flaws in our system.  Like others, I was having a difficult time grasping onto the full concept.  I think that Marx was trying to say that history repeats itself because we begin to take advantage of other people that we are affiliated with.  

I commented on Justin Fobel's post.

Incentive and Over-Production

In “Proletarians and Communists,” Marx argues, “It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.  According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work.” I am not totally sure what the situation was at the time he wrote this, but I know that for today (in the United States, at least) many of the owners or heads of massive corporations have worked hard to get themselves to where they are. If you destroy the incentive of gaining more, what’s the point of learning more and working harder? On the contrary, I found Marx’s “epidemic of over-production” to be a very interesting concept because it seems to me that it might just be taking place right now.

I commented on Brannen Uhlman's post.

Paid Wage Laborers

I enjoyed Marx. He definitely pointed out numerous flaws in our system. "It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage labourers." This statement spoke to me the most. There were several points when I was reminded of Little House on the Prairie and how simple everyone lived. Doc was concerned with his patients. He took eggs as payment if that's all the family own. Today doctors will hand out strong narcotics just so he can charge the patient. Lawyers would take cases to help the innocent while today many just want to take the cases that will equal as much money as possible. The poet used to be focused on satirizing like Chaucer or revealing truth and beauty like Wordsworth. Is poetry still full of that beauty and truth? Or is just mere entertainment? And the priest reminded me of Medieval Lit. In Peirs Plowman, there is an allegory of clergy. Clergy is idealized and is quite a beautiful character; however, later it is mentioned how the Friars, pope, and clergy had turned their attention to money. So once again a group of people who used to truly care for the people around them became focused on money.
P.S. I commented on Abbie Griffin's!

History Repeats Itself

It is commonly seen throughout history that the great empires such as Greece and Rome and so on fall because of this struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat. Every empire thrived off of slaves, even America, and I think that this is what Karl Marx was referring to in these writings. That in order for history to stop repeating itself, it must adopt Communism and therefore stop the vicious cycle of struggles. Therefore, everyone gets what is granted to them and everything is fair so there won't be any power struggles. While the idea seems to work on paper, it could never actually work in real life. We have already seen other countries try to adapt these teachings and fail miserably.

I commented on Justin Fobel's post.

Proletarian

I thought it was interesting reading about proletarians in each piece. I had never heard of bourgeois or proletarians. I thought proletarians were just the working class; I was enlightened to what Marx considered as proletarians, and thought it was especially interesting. The proletarians did not arise until after machines were added, and quickly replaced the working class. Even after reading, I'm still confused on the whole subject honestly. It is interesting reading his beliefs though, especially how he differentiates the bourgeois from the proletarians. My understanding is that the bourgeois are the "middle" class, but still workers. They get rewards in the name of property? The proletarians just work really hard for basically nothing. The whole hubbub of these readings is property right??

 I commented on Francesca's post.

Everyone Equal?

I hate hate hate the idea that everyone should be equal. It is human nature to be lazy. Without a reward system based on effort, a vast majority of people would become negligent in their work and society would go into a state of decline. People would not being willing to go through the extensive training required for occupations such as doctors and lawyers knowing that their financial reward would be equal to someone who obtained a minimal education and a job that reflected it.


Daniel's

Proletariat versus Bourgeoisie

Manifesto's theme was centered on classes in society. One class over and against another. In particular, the proletariats and the bourgeoisies opposed each other. The bourgeoisies were working class revolutionaries that desired change. They begun in early history as serfs, servants, the common people. Marx went into depth of their history. They steadily climbed the ladder of social status, and the proletariats were not at all pleased of the weakening gap between statuses. The bourgeoisies relied heavily on advances in technology as their society rose. When machines began taking control of their jobs, they became more frantic to improve and stay above the lower class in society. Proletariats were the more privileged people in society. When they saw the rise of the bourgeoisies, they sought to keep their place as upper class in society. They wanted didn't want others messing up their status after generations of remaining at the top. Marx went on to discuss the differences between the two and his idea of the future of society, especially associating communism into the equation. I disagreed with Marx on some of his ideas in Manifesto, but this particular subject of classes intrigued me because it is prevalent to this day in our society.

I commented on Abbie George's post.

We are family

One thing I found particularly interesting were Marx's comments concerning family in "Proletarians and Communists". It's interesting how he classifies the family as a means for only private gain, and thus sweeps it under the umbrella of bourgeois. I understand that he means the family is acting as a means for a specific group to grow in prosperity, but he ignores the whole function of the family as a support of the youngest of society. In his society, how would young ones not starve since they cannot fend for themselves? Someone must watch over a baby until they can fend for themselves. Yes, one could assign a person to take care of infants, but then that person would still be utilizing the children as a means to an ends.

I see his comment concerning parents exploiting their children, but what about the sacrifices of the parent for the welfare of the child? If Marx says that these sacrifices were actually a means towards raising them to be utilized for capital, how could any other inter-personal reaction be seen as anything else? Even in his perfect society?

Chats on Jeremy's

Slave or Proletarian?

A Proletariat according to Marx, is a "class of society which lives exclusively by its labour and not on the profit from any kind of capital." Some would consider this the definition of a slave, for a slave works and gets no money just a way to survive. Yet, Marx explains how a Proletarian and a slave are different. "The slave is sold once and for all, the proletarian has to sell himself by the day and by the hour." He also goes on to explain how "the slave is the property of one master" and "the proletarian is, so to speak, the slave of the entire bourgeois class". The slave has a guaranteed job while the proletarian is not guaranteed anything.

P.S. I commented on Abbie George's post.

The Deathly Circle of Life and the Machine

Marx took great care in dissecting the  many problems of the bourgeoisie. And while this constant stream of criticism was tedious at times, I found myself actually appreciating it. He goes to great lengths to describe the history of the Bourgeoisie and the consequences for their rulings and unfairness. The part that I enjoyed is how he describes the growing success of the Bourgeois to be the death of them.

"The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons --the modern working class -- the proletarians. In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital."

I know it is a long quote, but I loved this concept. This upper class was gaining more and more success in their industries and all the while they are wielding the weapons of their demise.
Marx puts this deathly circle of life on display in a very thorough and eye opening way.

Also, I love the idea of the "Machine." The machine is the enemy here. This industry has been taking over their culture and is part of this self destructive circle within the bourgeoisie. But to look closely at the effects of industry, individual people had turned into a machine. The working man is no longer a man, but a machine -- and not even a  machine but an "appendage of the machine" loosing their craftsmanship, their professions, and their enjoyment in work.

Just thoughts.

P.S. Commented on Daniel's.

Slave labor?

No, but it is represented as such.  "These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity," it reads.  I do agree that they can be viewed as a commodity, which is unfortunate, but without such, their lives wouldn't improve, for they are the means by which they do improve.  I don't understand how working people, offering skills in return for wages in an advancing world, can be described as selling themselves.  When phrased this way, it appears that these people are being forced into working to survive, when people have been working since the genesis of humanity.  Only the nature of the work has changed.  This piece of writing seems to desire a return to an antiquated style of life, where the world was before it was industrialized.

Daniel's

Power To the People

Marx ideas for a country run by the people is rather intriguing, to say the least. His ideas for there to be no rich, that there is no private property and all is shared equally among all is a nice thought. I could go on about how, in practice, as it has been proven, the idea of Communism doesn't work like it does on paper. But right now, I want to simply appreciate the thought of this perfectly fair society, where you get what is fair and equal to everyone else because everyone else is receiving the same as you. While we here, in our capitalistic ways think that you should get what you are owed for how hard you've worked, it has bred its own issues in our society, and while, yes, Communism doesn't really work like it is supposed to, it is still a nice thought to have when you are thinking of what would the perfect society be like.

I commented on Francesca M. Garcia's post.

Predictions Come True

I must admit this was a hard read and without further researching I wouldn't be able to understand the full context of this text. When looking deeper in the text I saw something very interesting about the statements Marx makes about the organization of proletarians.
" Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations of (Traders, Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rates of wages; they found associations in order to make provisions before hand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots."
Marx infers the creation of labor unions in this statement, and goes on to discuss how labor union participation will decrease as conditions better. This can almost been seen as a prediction because less than 20 years later the first labor union is formed in 1866 and the first riot or challenge against the bourgeois was on May 4, 1866. Since then there has been a steady decline in workers participating in unions because of laws put in place like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. So my question is how could Marx know that this was going to happen? Yes there were such things in Europe at the start of the Industrial Revolution called guilds, yet they were selective and not as persuasive against the bourgeois as the modern labor union was. My hypothesis is that Marx studied capitalism in detail for this pamphlet and made his own hypothesis of what might proletarians do and made it seem as their own efforts would not be long lasting, and should instead rely on the new idea of Communism to take care of their struggles. It just so happen that he actually was right 20 years later and it wasn't in Europe but in America that labor unions were formed.

I commented on Abbie George's Post.

Hume

This class should be changed from Honors Literature to Honors Arguments. Everything is an argument. Hume has done it the best thus far in my opinion. He presents arguments from every character in different perspectives. With him doing that, the reader is able to see all sides. I took English 101 and 102 and everything we wrote about we had to have a counter argument, and to see things from the other side. Hume does this very well. Everything is an argument.

I commented on Delaney Dodson's.

Hume: Dialogues Concerning Human Understanding

Why, I ask, have all men in all ages complained incessantly of the miseries of life? Someone replies: ‘They have no good reason: they complain only because they are disposed to be discontented, regretful, anxious.’ I reply: what greater guarantee of misery could there be than to have such a wretched temperament? (pg.43)

This is Philo speaking about the nature of man to be miserable. I think these statements about aren't always true, but do pose an honest look at how man is disposed to be unhappy. Most people would agree that people complain too much. Whether is be about big or small things, we are much more likely to utter complaints than we are compliments or statements exhibiting our happiness. Especially if the speaker does not have a relationship with God. I think as people we are naturally predisposed to be more negative, it's just easier; but as a follower of Christ, we're called to take the often more difficult path, that is, looking for the good in life instead of the bad and instead of being discontent because things aren't the way we want, we should be joyful always because we know God is sovereign over all.

--I commented on Justin Fobel's post--

Hume

What I found to be the most interesting from Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was when he quoted Father Malebranche.  Following the quote, he also points out that debates regarding the existence of God are always about his nature, not his existence.  In a sense, I find this to hold absolute truth, even in today's age.

~Commented on Caleb's post~

Arguments

Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion contains so many great perspectives. I liked how he showed all sides of the argument through the different characters. In the English 102 class I took, we learned how to present a well-rounded argument and part of that was being able to not only make your own clear argument, but also being able to recognize and address any refutes to your argument. Hume did that in a uniquely creative way through his characters. Also, one of the many points he made that stood out to me was in Part 2 where he said, “The discoveries by microscopes, as they open a new universe in miniature, are arguments ·for theism· according to me, whereas to you they are objections to it.” I find it interesting how the whole religion versus science debate, which was apparently happening in Hume’s day and age, is still going strong today.

I commented on Eva Lockhart's post.

Our Understanding of the Universe

I disagree with Hume's attitude towards human curiosity. How can a desire to gain knowledge be wrong? Curiosity is simply a part of human nature. We were given a higher intellect for a reason and I refuse to believe that we are meant to sit idly by without so much as gazing through a telescope. The greatest scientific discoveries were achieved through human curiosity. Everything from modern medicine to even something as simple as being able to effectively use fire have been made possible, because of the human thirst for knowledge.

I commented on Daniel's.

Hume Readings

The last sentence of the first paragraph in Part 2 illustrates Hume's opinion that humans should not dare try and understand "God's nature and essence" - that we not dare have the audacity. However, it is not simply curiosity for curiosity's sake, but rather to learn more about the character of our God to love Him more & become more like Him.
In the dialogue of Cleanthes to Demea, Cleanthes states that we are alike to our creator; and it is proven by comparing the works of man to the works of God, explaining that we are related. I agree with this logic; however, I disagree with his later comment that God resembles our mind & intelligence, rather than we resemble God. Our minds and abilities resemble our Creator, not the other way around, Hume.

I commented on Wendy's post!

Cause and Effect

Hume's characters pointed out in part five of his Natural Religion that every effect has a cause. Philo was quick to jump at Cleanthes and clarify that the infinity of God and God's perfection are things that do not have a cap on them. Cleanthes denied all of Philo's suppositions after the rant, and fired back that Philo used design of the universe in his own argument against it. I think that both of them are not grasping the view of the other as though they think they are. The point I gathered from this is that effects do always have causes. The central cause that began it all, though, was God in creation. It is something that is just hard for our feeble minds to grasp, as mentioned in part two of Hume.

I commented on Briana's post.

Pixie Dust

At first much of what Hume said concerning reason and probability seemed much like common sense. However, I loved it when he talked about how decisions of belief are not merely choosing a position, but weighing two sides. It was so interesting to me to see how he viewed beliefs as probabilities, and constantly weighed individuals and their "evidence":

"We frequently hesitate concerning the reports of others. We balance the opposite circumstances, which cause any doubt or uncertainty; and when we discover a superiority on any side, we incline to it; but still with a diminution of assurance, in proportion to the force of its antagonist."

It's almost a sad way to live though, with this thought of reasoning leading to no security. That is why faith and trust (and maybe a bit of pixie dust) are so vital.

I commented on Claire's :)

Experiments

Hume.... In part 1, I agreed with Hume's view on how experience is fallible. Last semester I was in a Christian Ministries class that prepared us for the mission trips we were going that summer. We learned the different views of hot vs cold climates, and at the end of the semester we turned in a project that gave all the basics on the culture(s) we were visiting. There were several similarities in our cultures' common thought, but there were some differences as well. So I agree with Hume when he said, "Some events are found, in all countries and all ages, to have been constantly conjoined together: Others are found to have been more variable, and sometimes to disappoint our expectation..." Some of Moldova's cultural viewpoints disappointed my own. Not because Moldova was wrong, but they failed my expectations. Hume continues describing how the wise man tests his experiences before making them fact. I really enjoyed this; however, I saw it in a different light. Wise men and women do not take people's words for fact. Wise people test, experiment, what they are told or even experience. Just like in science. The first week of Chemistry Dr. Shelly said science discoveries do not come from one shouting "eureka" but rather one saying "that's funny". Once one has experienced something strange he or she experiments to see what caused that anomaly. That's what sets wise men and women apart. They go the extra step to see why or how. 

P.S. I commented on Eva Lockhart's. 

Instincts

It's an interesting idea that humans have an instinct to seek religion. In part 10 of Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion, Demea states, "that each man somehow feels in his heart the truth of religion, and that what leads him to seek protection from ·God·, the being on whom he and all nature depend, is not any reasoning but rather his consciousness of his own weakness and misery." We all know that we sin and we believe that God can wash away our sins so that one day we may enter into Heaven. We are scared of our own mortality and forget to enjoy life that God has provided us because we are always worried about the future and praying that God will protect us.

I commented on Daniel Stephen's post.

Milagros

Hume is onto something when he says that "no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability."  It is not about math or scientific proof.  This is the nature of a miracle: it is unnatural, and therefore cannot be proven by something like probability, or by any other scientific method.  He who is "moved by Faith" believes in miracles, not he who concludes their truth by scientific principles.  Hume's whole premise is just that.

I commented on Caleb's

Hume

Hume's opinion concerning belief of miracles is reasonable. He makes a good argument, and prompts deeper thinking into what I believe and why. I do not believe that all testimonies are untrustworthy. He gives good reasoning for how they can be exaggerated, but then again, he can not prove that they are not true. This reading was interesting to me, and I'm not exactly sure what to think about it honestly. The whole concept of questioning the Bible's accuracy baffles me. I simply read God's word, and I believe it.

I commented on Daniel's post.