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.

Philo

Philo's description of God, or at least how the human perception should be of God, to me is spot on. In Part 2, he says that, "All perfection is entirely relative, so we ought never to imagine that we understand the attributes of this divine being, or to suppose that his perfections are in any way analogous or similar to the perfections of a human creature." In all actuality, we as humans are not even close to perfect (Isaiah 55:8-9). We have such a limited ability of understanding and there is no possible way that humans could ever understand the ways of God. After all, as Philo so perfectly put it, " Our ideas reach no further than our experience."

I commented on Fransesca

The Mysteries of God

Hume's examination on the nature of God is rather intriguing. I find that his examination on how the true nature of God must be, using his logic, and how we as humans perceive him to be to be very logical and interesting to read about. I particularly like in Part 2, how he believes that it is wrong for us to try and pierce the veil of obscurity around the mysteries of how the universe works, saying that it is insulting to God. I have never really thought about how God might perceive human's insatiable desire to know everything about everything.  It seems like such a vital part of the human being, our innate curiosity, that I have never truly thought that there are things humans truly shouldn't know about how the universe.

I commented on Francesca M. Garcia's post.

Have You?

Philo is very snarky in the end of Part 2 as he asks, " Have worlds ever been formed under your eye; and have you had leisure to observe the whole progress of world-making from the first appearance of order to its final consummation?" , calling out Cleanthes for his own theory of the nature of God. Cleanthes believes that God resembles human mind and intelligence, which I believe is false.   Philo's statement that "Our ideas reach no further than our experience. We have no experience of divine attributes and operations." is plausible. God is a supernatural divine being. As humans we can not even come close to His majesty and awesome power! He created everything out of nothing, and blesses us with inconceivable miracles everyday.(Genesis 1) Philo's ending question should quiet Cleanthes and his low image of God.


I commented on Abbie George's post.

Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

"He that is, or in other words Being without restriction, All being, the being infinite and universal."
I never really thought about it until I read this, but how can humans comprehend something as magnificent as God? The answer is, we can not because we are dumb. Our definition of perfect is not perfect enough to describe God.

Though I thoroughly enjoyed it, I was a little bit lost in all the dialogue.  I can not quite determine who believes what and who supports who.  It sounds as if they are arguing, but all their points are helping each others argument.

I commented on Delaney Dodson's post

Too Far, Philo.

I love Hume. I honor his exploration of thought and the way in which he presented his wanderings and skepticisms in the dialogue. I will say, though, there were points that caused me to scratch my head.

One these points is found in part V. Philo is arguing on whether or not one can truly know God, His characteristics, and His perfection. He begins to go off on a tangent on whether or not there could be multiple gods and how we can't know whether that is the case.

"But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain whether all the excellences of the work can justly be ascribed to the workman."

Philo goes on to elaborate on an analogy of a ship, and how the carpenter who framed it could have been a stupid man simply copying other carpenter's art.

"In such subjects, who can determine where the truth, nay, who can conjecture where the probability lies, amidst the great number of hypothesis which may be proposed, and a still greater which may be imagined?"

I understand and appreciate what Philo (who represents Hume himself) is saying here. However, when we continue in this line of thought, then truly no conclusions can be made! I think it's important to explore these ideas and possibilities but at some point you must decide what you believe to be true. Is it many gods? Is it One God? Is it no gods? Whatever the case, no progress can be made if we just remain in this state. There are too many possibilities and the line of thought begins to lead us away from reason and we have no solid ground from which to work.

So does Hume venture too far? I still don't really know. But here are my thoughts on the brilliant skeptic.

P.S. I commented on Francesca's.

Miracles

Hume explains how a miracle is a "violation of the laws of nature" which I believe is true. Miracles are like the impossible things becoming possible. Hume questions why it is not a miracle if a man dies suddenly when he is in good health but it is considered a miracle if this man comes back to life. This intrigues me for I understand why it is considered a miracle if the man comes back to life but why isn't it considered one if he dies unexpectedly. I mean the man is in good health what is the reason for his death other than a miracle. Overall Hume's questioning is interesting and raises a lot of questions.

P.S. I commented on Henry Tolbert's post.

Hume's Fine Line

When I first began reading this passage, I was fairly well convinced that Hume was trying to point out that miracles are simply impossible (which, by definition, they are) the way that a scientist like Richard Dawkins or Bill Nye would go about such a project. But Hume is taking on a much more difficult argument by working from the presupposition that the miracles that Jesus and Moses and other people in the Bible performed actually happened, but the more, shall we say, contemporary miracles did not. Hume walks a very fine line, as demonstrated by paragraph 6's "The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind" (italics are mine). The exclusion of that one italicized word would completely change the meaning of his writing.

I commented on Caleb's.

Hume

HUUUME. Ok. One. I REALLY hope I didn't miss any heresies. If I did. I may cry legitimate tears of despair. For me, I'm seeing metaphysics unfold before my eyes. Kant's vision is coming true for me. I see each of these philosophers coming after each other and building upon what the last wrote. Hume filled in so many holes left by past readings. His conclusion that Christianity is built on faith, which is a miracle. I've never quite thought of faith as miracle. But it is. The fact that we live life based on faith...amazing.

The Chimney Sweeper (#1)

I absolutely loved this poem! At first it was kind of depressing but as the poem progressed, Tom was saved and happy because he had Jesus. I relate to this on so many levels and I'm sure that it speaks for others as well. Being saved is a very secure and safe feeling. Though being a Christian can lead to some persecutions (such as the shooting this past week), we know that God will protect us and will guide us. This poem is just a reminder that we "need not fear harm" because God is with us!

I commented on Eva Lockhart's blog. 

The Divine Image vs. A Divine Image

Who or what is the divine image? The one who perfectly embodies mercy, pity, peace, and love; our Lord, Jesus Christ. But the divine image of God is depicted on Earth as well, in some cases, through the love a father has for his daughter. However, we cannot depict mercy, pity, peace, and love perfectly, so we cannot be The divine image, but we can be reflections of it. Reflections with some distortions or blemishes, but reflections nonetheless.
We are made in the image of God, so we can be called a divine image; striving to be like the divine image. We want to be more like God; but our hearts are cruel and jealous. We do not love unconditionally like the Lord does, although we may try. These two poems parallel each other, showing one side that is the Lord and how we are effected when we try to be more like him, and on the other hand, how we are effected by our own human nature.

I commented on Sierra Dillenschneider's.

The Lamb

I was most familiar with Blake's "The Lamb" because I had sung it before as a child. We sung this song around Christmas, depicting the speaker being God talking to a lamb in the stable. I love Blake's poetic metaphorical language. He took his inspiration from Scripture and told the poem as a narrative. The speaker talks to the small lamb and tells it of the Lamb who made and created it for great things. I think Blake also relates us to the small lamb and the plans and all of our many blessings the Lamb has blessed us with and the plans He has in store for us.

The Sick Rose

This poem, though short, was one that stuck out to me in particular. It made me think of how we all have our vices or the things that we enjoy doing that have the ability to cause addiction and destroy us. We, as people, are the beautiful rose and temptation is the "invisible worm" coming to find us in the howling storm of life. Once we latch onto the temptation or vice, it begins to break us down and destroy us with its "dark secret love." We must be careful of what we allow into our lives and what we become infatuated with.

I commented on Daniel Stephens post.

The Chimney Sweeper

In the last line of “The Chimney Sweeper” under the Songs of Innocence, Blake says “So if all do their duty, they need not fear harm.” This line really jumped off the page at me. It reminds me of 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, which says, “And to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” It also goes along with that old saying, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.” If you keep to your work, you will not end up in places you shouldn’t be in and in situations that might land you somewhere you don’t want to be. Also, a Christian’s duty is to show the love and grace of God, which is not always received well and may place him/her in harm. If we cling to God, though, there is nothing to fear. He is our refuge.

I commented on Francesca Garcia's post.

The Little Black Boy

This specific poem left my heart weeping definitely at the end when Blake says, "And be like him and he will then love me." I understand that racism was part of society in Blake's time, but Blake takes racism to a completely new level in "And I am black, but O! my soul is white.." From what I've understood in history, this is a  time period where society believed God was white and that whites were a superior race. In this culture, this little black boy believes himself to be below a white (English) boy. He continues this kind of thought in, "But I am black as if bereav'd of light." Bereaved means deprived of a loved one through profound absence. Light was also used as a reference to God's presence in this time. So I take this line to mean he believes he is black because he lacks God's presence in his life because he is not loved as much by God. Now, I am not sure if this line of thought or translation is correct in anyway, so please correct me if I'm wrong! But this line of thought truly breaks my heart. God created all humankind, so all races, and He loves them equally. So as I read this poem, compassion overwhelmed me at the thought of a young child's confidence in God being destroyed.


P.S. I commented on Hannah Seteney!

Blake's Faith

I found the contrast between the songs of innocence and experience very interesting. A reoccurring theme throughout the songs of innocence was a belief and trust in God. However, the songs of experience frequently depict images of death and despair. The titles of each group of songs led me to question if Blake was a practicing Christian. It is almost as if he is saying that as one goes through life it becomes harder and harder to maintain faith in God.

I commented on Wendy Bagwel's post.

The Chimney Sweeper 1

In reading this poem, a sad picture was painted for me. When Tom Dacre's hair is compared to being "curled like a lamb's back", the innocence of the children is shown. It makes me wonder how old these children are, and how someone could treat them so poorly. The nightmare in particular startled me because this innocent boy is dreaming of other children in black coffins. That is a disturbing picture for me. I assumed the black coffins were in relation to the soot. This poem was particularly interesting to me, so I researched more on chimney sweepers and their working conditions. I read that they would often times sleep with blankets covered in soot, and the children couldn't bathe but once a week. No wonder a child would dream of coffins of black; he feels like he can't escape. This poem was heartbreaking to me, and opened my eyes to some of the child labor problems that used to be.

I commented on Gaston's post.

Divine Images

Blake's two poems "The Divine Image" and "A Divine Image" I believe are meant to be held in comparison to one another. The first praises the image of man for being made in the image of God. He says that we "must love the human form" because if we do, God will dwell in us. The second poem, "A Divine Image," is harsher and shows the fallen side of humanity. He says that cruelty, jealous, terror, and secrecy are all within the human. He used points that were almost complete opposites from his praise in "The Divine Image." It struck me as strange, but also relatable, for him to have such extreme, different, feelings about such similar topics.

I commented on Daniel Stephens post.

The Chimney Sweeper

          What really stood out to me in this particular poem was how relevant it is to today's society. We as Christians are terrible at doing "nice things" and being "good people" but then not following up those actions or words. We say to love your neighbor as yourself but we're quick to condemn the gay to Hell. We jump at the chance to do mission trips but how many of us are willing to adopt a homeless child rather than have our own and participate in overpopulation. Christians are really bad about saying one thing and acting like another. Even if we don't realize we are doing it we can still hurt people and bot realize that we are actively participating in making those said people feel worthless. Blake so perfectly said in this poem, ". . . they have done me no injury, and are gone to praise God and his Priest and King, Who make up a heaven of our misery."

I commented on Fransesca

The Little Black Boy

The speaker's mother teaches him to look beyond what he simply sees in nature and the world around him. For example, she encourages him to look at "the rising sun" and see God amidst it. Through the beauty of the flowers and trees, we can find comfort. In the morning, we can embrace joy. I love this view of life - to see the beauty beyond the simplicity.
I am also encouraged by the fifth stanza. Interpreted, it discusses when we experience the hardest of situations, we can still find God amongst it all.
Overall I found it to be an uplifting poem.

I commented on Daniel Stephens

All The Same To God

The thing that stood out to me about these short poems is how they seem to have a message within them. This message, at least in my opinion, is that, to God, we are all his children. It doesn't matter id you are black or white, a chimney sweep or a king, all of us are his children. I think that is a beautiful message, and is rather humbling. When it comes down to it, we are all the same, no matter how much people try and label others as different or bad, we are all His children, and made in his image.

I commented on Jeremy Bearman's post.

Blake

Who made thee?  The characters in Innocence are innocent because they do not know about certain things.  It goes further, I think, than being blameless.  The Innocent "Divine Image" highlights only positive virtues: mercy, pity, peace and love.  These virtues are portrayed as both divine and human.  The characteristics in the Experience's "Divine Image" are solely human, have no divine relation, and never desired.



Hannah

The Sick Rose

A short illustrative poem but a very profound one at that. The rose can mean multiple things such as nature, society, or ourselves as individual. The worm can be anything that is corruptive . This poem is universal and speaks on many levels. It brings the question of what or who is the rose in the readers life and what is the worm.The last stanza speaks loudly to me as it gives insight to the worm and the rose. The rose is enjoying life joyously while the worm only seeks to kill. Personally I believe the worm is cultural christianity as for my faith it is so easy to be swept up in what seems "good" or "right" in being a Christ Follower. Yet my one question is what is the worms "dark secret love"? Is it that it truly loves the rose so much that it must kill it so that no one else can have it? Blake does speak to the Rose directly as to let know of its unfortunate death, yet why would the worm kill the rose if it had a love for it? Maybe it's true love is to destroy things? It could be both or it could neither, but I as previously stated the poem can be interpreted multiple ways to the human eye.

The Tyger

The Tyger is an intriguing poem. Blake is questioning creation. He questions about where he was created, how he was made, and what the creator thought of his creation. He also wants to know who the creator is. He asks the question "What immortal hand or eye, Dare frame they fearful symmetry?" He wants to know who dares to create him. Doubt is something everyone struggles with at some point in their life. Though luckily we know there is one true God and that he has a plan for us.

P.S I commented on Henry Tolbert's post.

Remember Milton?

I can't help but notice some of the spirit of Milton's Paradise Lost in the Blake readings. Before the fall (Age of innocence) we see mercy, pity (towards Satan), peace, and love all exemplified by Adam and Eve. They, as humanity, reflect these attributes of God. However, one they are "enlightened," we see then fall into this pattern of cruelty, jealousy, terror, and secrecy. As Blake states in "The Voice of the Ancient Bard," we as their descendants must now ourselves be led to view an awakening dawn. We must be led by the one who is "new-born" so that we might leave these things behind us.

Commented on Madison Harry's post

The Divine Image

In Blake's The Divine Image, he says "For Mercy, Peace, Pity, and Love/ Is God, our father dear/ And Mercy, Peace, Pity, and Love/ Is Man, his child and care". These are the four "virtues of delight". People pray to these virtues in hard times. These virtues represent "God, our father dear". Blake also says these are the virtues of Man. This poem says that our prayers are not just directed to God, but to "the human form divine". I do not necessarily agree with this poem. We pray to God, not man. It is possible I could be misinterpreting this poem. From my understanding, it is saying we must love and respect "the human form divine" no matter your religion. God is who answers prayers. God is Mercy, Peace, Pity, and Love. We should always strive to be like Him.





I commented on Henry Torbert's.

The Power of Music in The Introduction

In the Introduction to the Songs of Innocence, there is great stress placed on the author's ability to play music. It is, of course, a way for the author to insert himself into his work the way Homer and Virgil did, but there is something about the line "Piper pipe that song again— / So I piped, he wept to hear." that speaks greatly to myself as a musician. The ability to make people show any type of emotion, whether it be joyous or sad, is something that provides people like me with great satisfaction, as I would imagine it also does for Blake.

I commented on Caleb's.

Bible

after reading excerpts from both the Songs of Innocence and the Songs of Experience, I can't help but compare them to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. There is such ethereal beauty in Innocence. But this is set in direct contrast to Experience with its weight and darkness. Rather like Solomon's writings, I think they're supposed to be read together. That's probably why they're in the same work. (Ha. Ha.) You can't have too much of one or the other or you miss out on part of life.