Monty Python and the Holy Summer Vacation

So this is my last blog and I'd like to say that I'm sad, but honestly I am ready for my days at the lake and sleeping in late. However, I am very thankful for everything I've learned this semester. I definitely got a new perspective on a lot of different things and learned about some pretty interesting people. One of my favorite things we studied in class, was one of the last thigns, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :)

I had heard from numerous people about this movie but I had always kind of brushed it off, but I really, really liked it. Some of the highlights of the movie was the fact that they didn't actually ride horses, but their servents made clacking noises. Hilarious! Another favorite part of the movie for me, was the knight that wouldn't let him pass in the forrest and so he cut off all his limbs but he still wanted to fight. My ABSOLUTE favorite part however was the rabbit in front of the cave, I loved it. Something about cute, white, fluffy bunnies going at people's throats incites humors. :P

With all silliness aside, I really think I got a strong cultural and academic experience this semester!!

Au Revoir!

God and his perfection

Candide was the final book of the semester! I can't believe I can actually finally say those words, but it's true. While there have been some books I have liked and some I have disliked, I have to say that it was mixed feelings about Candide. I found Voltaire's criticism of enlightenment and Liebniz, comical yet disturbing. The characters were gullable and foolish and the plot was as twisted as a Spanish soap opera, and this made for an interesting adventure around the world. Despite the comical storyline behind Candide, I couldn't help but disagree with what Voltaire is trying to say. I agree that many people may seem to take the "everything happens for a reason" to the extreme, but that is not to say they are wrong. On Wednesday, we discussed theoticy. We expressed the Christian belief that God is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, and all loving, which indeed makes God perfect. Then, Dr. Tucker posed a question if God is perfect, how can there be evil in the world? If there is evil in the world, God can not be perfect. However, this is not true. Evil is not created by God. Evil are acts that are conjured by the Devil and acted out by man. It is the free will that we gained in the fall of Adam and Eve that gives us the choice to do evil things or to good things. I believe that people misunderstand the term "original sin", sin does not connotate that a person is born bad, only that a person is born human. Our human nature makes us susceptible to evil, because we have free will. As far as to the question, why would God let evil things happen? The answer is the same as why a father lets his child fall on his bike while learning to ride without training wheels. It does not mean that God doesn't love us or that he is being cruel, he loves us so much that he wants to make us as strong as possible. He must put us through the fire to prepare us for battle. No, I'm not talking about crusades or some war against other religions,  but for a battle against the evil in the world, against tempatiton. For as the Word says, "No temptation has taken you except what is common to man. God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." 1 Cor 10:13. God allows temptation and evil only as far as he knows need be allowed. It is a complex and difficult thing to understand, but there's the truth, we aren't supposed to understand. God is beyond reason or science, he is purely faith. So I guess to either complicate or simplify the argument I have with philosophers like Voltaire, all I can say is, there is no way for me to prove the existence and the perfection of God. There is no piece of evidence, no scientific data, and certainly no first hand physical proof that he is present in my life, but what I do have is faith, and for me that is far more justifiable than any thing of this world.

Rocococococo.

For some reason the word "Rococo" reminds me of "Mojojojo" off of Power Puff girls. Don't ask me why! :P

This week's lecture were as always interesting, especially since I, being uneducated in art, thought rococo was great art. I now understand after going through the powerpoint, how really gaudy and extravagant they are. In a way, its the home owner saying, "Muhahaha! Look at my fancy house and look at yours, loser!" (Well neither Trump or Limbaugh would say that, but you get my drift). I feel like this kind of art was the symbol of arrogance not only back then but also today. My favorite rich people are those that are rich but do not find the need to strut it around everyone else. However, I do like the light nature and the pastels of the Rococo paintings just not the gaudy gold leaves and shells and such. On another note, I really enjoyed the satirical etchings of William Hogarth, especially that of the rake. I thought they were hilarious!! Especially the one where he had to marry the old maid because he squandered his money.

Whatever is, is right.

Today is an awesome day. One, it's beautiful outside, and two, Dr. Tucker just gave us 100% on our cultural critiques! Besides that though, I really enjoyed Pope's Essay on Man. While some who read this may not agree, I agree with Pope. I believe that there is a natural order to things and there are some things that we can not understand. However, this is not to say that we strive to understand, it just means there is only so much that is comprenhensible to the human. If you dig deep into the things of God and spirituality, you will find yourself confused and frustrated. Our concrete world can not truly justify the spiritual world. We must just have faith and hope that our time here on Earth is rewarded by God. As he says "...this hour a slave, the next a diety."

Another point I found really insightful and that I believe to be true is we are the way we should be. In my opinion there is no "imperfection" in people. It's hard to think that when our world is bombared with "perfect" people in the media, but it is true. We are unique and designed for a purpose, what that purpose is might be a mystery but that is not to say that there isn't a purpose. "Say rather, man's as perfect as he ought". That is not to say that our actions are perfect, because in that sense no one is, but our make up is perfect. We are who we ought to be.

The final section that really made me think was that which discussed our unsatisfactions. Why do humans think nature treats them unkind? I believe it is the very same thing that we so often seek, and that is reason. While God wants us to reason because it takes reason to make good or bad actions, we shouldn't rack ourselves over things that we will never be able to understand. Unlike the bear who is content with being a bear, and the rabbit that is content with being a rabbit, we are always looking at the world around us and the heavens and wanting more. Reason can sometimes lead us to foolishness, which is a dangerous path to get on.

The Demise of Hamlet

So you gotta love the drama of Shakespeare, the guy knows how to end a play!! I had heard from several people that all the main characters die but I didn't really belive that all of them die, but...yep they do! And in dramatic fashion I must say. In all seriousness, this movie really was enjoyable. As odd as it sounds, you feel bad for Hamlet. He's kind of lost in his mind with grief, rage, and lunacy. He's so human, it makes you wonder if you would be capable of letting yourself become like him.

The saddest of all the deaths however had to be Ophelia's. You can't help but wonder what was worse, knowing the man you love is crazy or knowing the many ou love killed your father? It would be a very difficult place to be, but I don't think I would lose my mind like she did. Poor Ophelia!

I really want to see the Kenneth Branagh version to compare it to Mel Gibson's. It shall be interesting!

Mel Gibson used to be cool.

So this week in Class, we watched and read "Hamlet" by Billy Shakespeare. I had heard the basic story behind Hamlet but actually seeing it for myself was something entirely different. Mel Gibson does crazy good, which ironically, he is kind of crazy now, but I digress. I think the madness of Hamlet is real, between grief and anger, his mind is lost. I almost find the movie to be scary. It has a myserious, thriller feel to it. I found myself asking, "What is this mad man going to do next?!" My heart goes out to Ophelia, who is lost between duty to her family and love for this lunatic, and the movie left off today where Ophelia is losing her mind. With all the madness going on in Denmark, you think that Hamlet could count on his mother and friends, but to be honest they're pretty crazy too (with the exception of Horatio).

Hamlet's mother is WEIRD. I don't know what Danish customs were back then, but there is way too much mother-son bonding going on. I feel like you can see the sexual chemistry radiating off them. Also, unless Gertrude was like ten when Hamlet was born, she seems very young to be his mother. From what I understand Glenn Close and Mel Gibson are very close in age. Awkard casting unless they meant to do it intentionally.

I can feel the tension building in the plot, and I can't wait for next Monday when they all kill eachother! (Or so I am told happens)

Montaigne

Michel de Montaigne is quite the optimistic guy! It sounds weird to say that an essay about death made me laugh, but I felt like I was watching an episode of "1000 Ways to Die". When he told the story of how his brother died from getting hit by a tennis ball, I caught myself midway in between a gasp and a giggle. Sounds terrible, I know. After reading this and watching the video in our short, short class period today about Montaigne, I think I can say with confidence that I would've been friends with Montaigne. He seemed like a guy that could carry on interesting conversation and have a great outlook on life. With all this being said though, I would have to say though that I do not agree with him on everything. Repentence is one. While I understand what he means by saying that everything that happens has purpose, it is still necessary, in my opinion, to repent for our actions- this being a religious thing. I, however, think that atonement is not necessary for repentence. I differentiate the two by atonement being between humans, i.e. I will make up for my actions against someone by doing good actions, whereas repentence is divine and occurs between human and God. It is not textbook fact, but it is how I see the two. I believe that everything happens for a reason; we all have a journey with bumps in the road along the way. These bumps aren't something we should regret, but something we should learn from. God wants us to live in the here and now, we can not become consumed by the past because it can not be changed, and we can dwell on the future because it is not something we can predict. We must make the best of what we have now, and try to live as justly as possible.
This quote by Fulton Ousler sums it up, "Many of us crucify ourselves between two thieves - regret for the past and fear of the future.”

Break Wasn't Long Enough

So making decisions on hopeful thinking is never really wise, I hopefully thought that I didn't need to blog over our Mid-term break, and therefore decided that I didn't need to...I was wrong. So here, in belated fashion, is my blog.

I read the first section of Montaigne's "An Apology for Raymond Sebond" last night and was really intrigued and in agreement with his philosophies. I was just starting to get into the reading when I went to class only to find we wouldn't be reading the rest of it for class, I think I'll finish it anyway though. Montaigne's writing, from my perspective, is greatly Christian. He writes of the true meaning of Christianity and points out the hypocrsy of many so-called followers of Christ. In humanist fashion, he incorporated the philosophies of Plato and other ancient thinkers. What most struck me of the whole section though, is it's raw truth. He does not tip-toe around the feelings of clergy or church-goers, when he says with outrage that Christians fashion religion to meet their passions. What I believe he means by this is that we take the Word and the doctrine and we pick at it and follow only that which meets our personal vendettas. Instead of revolving our lives around God, we make him revolve around our lives. Furthermore, these personal vendettas cause us to drown in hatred. He points out boldly that, "Christians are very good at hating their enemies". This is the greatest hypocrasy of all; is "Love thy neighbor as thyself" not a golden rule of Christianity?

I think that Montaigne hit the nail on the head. I can't wait to read more.

I bet in Utopia theres no such thing as mid term exams.

So this week was a fun week! Okay not so much, but Dr. Tucker was back and we actually got to do stuff so that was cool. This week's focus was on good ol' Saint (Sir) Thomas More and his book Utopia. Basically what happened is that Thomas and Peter Giles ran into this guy who traveled with Amerigo Vespucci, and he found this island called Utopia. Basically to cut the story short, Utopia was Russia, just without Stalin, the frigid cold winters, and labor camps. All the people had jobs, helped out with farming, wore the same clothes, and had no private property, and it seems all good and dandy until you realize while you're reading that this wouldn't be a fun place to live. Here's why:

1) Everyone wears the same clothes, and as a girl I just don't like this. There would be no individualism!
2) No private property means that everyone would have free reign over everything. I would need my space!
3) Only essential jobs would mean that there wouldn't be any cultural or political advancement. We'd be stuck in a rut, doing the same exact thing, day after day.
4) Everyone helps out with farming- sorry some people aren't cut out for farming.
5) Everyone's one big happy family, and that's just not human nature.


I know I probably sound like a Debbie Downer, but there is a reason that communism and Utopian societies, don't really last, it's because it's against our nature. We are competetive beings; we are ambitious; and we don't really like sharing. Somewhere in the middle of all the feel good stuff, greed and jealousy creep in. I am not saying that we are born evil, I am not going Machiavelli on you, but we are very susceptible to evil thoughts. Corruption will arise in these type of societies sooner or later.

Utopia?

This week was a rather odd week because we only had class on Monday, so I will discuss the reading of "Utopia" by Saint Thomas More. I'm going to have to be completely honest and say that I really couldn't understand most of what he was saying, but I will comment on my thoughts about this idea of Utopia. We have been discussing Utopian movements in Western Civilization II as well, so I feel I am getting this ideology drilled into my mind, thankfully it's a very nice and optimistic theology. In a perfect world, the society that More describes would be ideal. A communal society, where there's no distinctions of class or violence, or disparity, is something all of us would want. It is this philosophy that Utopian thinkers used to create New Harmony, the "city on a hill", and all other metaphorical or real places created by these ideas. However, the sad reality to communal living, to Utopias, is that they rarely last long enough to be deemed successful. Taking out competition is like taking away a piece of humanity, while it would be great if all people could live up to the standards of these thinkers, most people succumb to the greed and jealousy of it all. This is why, in my opinion, communism can never truly work, because there will always be corruption. There will corruption in any form of government, because sadly the truth of it all is that there will always be some bad people.

Thoughts.

Religion is often a hot topic for debate, and for a very good reason. For those of us who have strong religious beliefs, faith is not just a part of our lives, it is the whole meaning of our lives. With that being said, in everything I am going to say I say with due respect to people of all different creeds. If you've read my earlier posts, you know that I am a Christian. To go even further I will point out that my religion is Roman Catholic and my faith is in Jesus Christ. You may wonder why I am differentiating between religion and faith, and my answer to you is that they do not always go hand in hand. In "The Praise of Folly" and other works of Erasmus, he points out the need for reformation within the Church, and he stresses huge grievences he has with the organization and practices of the people who run the church. I was really moved by his sincerity to cultivate faith, along with religion. He didn't believe in the people just blindly following the priest or pope, he calls on princes, clergy, and ordinary people to read the bible, trust in God, and most of all seek to know God. I believe that the larger picture of what Erasmus was getting at was that faith, the true meannig of Christianity, is what we should be striving for. He changes Jerome's theories on penance and brings about the revolutionary word "repent" that most of us believe in today. We know from the bible that God is a forgiving God as well as a just God. Erasmus also spells out what it is to be a Christian leader; it's not all about appearances and armies and who's in cahoots with who. Erasmus tells them to be virtuous and a leader to their people by example. This brings me to another point, leading by example. Machiavelli discusses that the ends justify the means, but this only works if you do not believe  in divine judgement. In "The Prince" he discusses being deceitful and doing whatever it took to gain wordly possessions and power. Erasmus on the other hand based his beliefs off the bible and as 2 Corinthians 5:10 says:

 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. "

This is to say that it's not just the people of the church that need to be pious, but the clergy, the princes, and the pope as well. Going to church on Sunday and owning a lot of land does not secure you a spot in heaven. He wants us to be meak, to be noble, to be like Christ.

In a final note, because I could ramble on and on, take this for food for thought:

Just because you park a bike in the garage, that doesn't make it a car.

Keepin' Up With the Jones'!

This week was the conclusion of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and he definitely did not fail to deliver in his final chapters. Once again you could see major correlations between his philosophies and modern day politics. As he says in his book you might not actually have all the great virtures but you must appear that you do. I draw this back to our politicians. The man we see on t.v. is clean shaven, happy, devoutly Christian, and a family man but in reality, he is practicing cut throat politics and rarely sees his family or attends church because he is too busy with his agenda to do so. This is a strict stereotype but I feel that for many of our politicians it is correct. However, many of our people do not press to see beyond the false visage because we (the general public) want our politicians to fit into the mold. Isn't it true that when politicians show their true colors we are much more likely to criticize them? According to a recent poll, nearly 1/4 of the nation believe President Obama is a Muslim. Why? Because he has failed to keep up the "Christian" appearance, now mind you he has claimed to be a Christian on several occasions, and I myself believe him, but too many people see his lack of attending church and his heritage, as a threat to the Christian nation. I am a Christian, and I find this appalling. God calls us not to judge, if President Obama says he is a Christian then we ought to believe him. We shouldn't harrass people because they are not "keeping up appearances".

So does Machiavelli have a point, is it necessary for a leader to keep up appearances, to seem virtuous in all aspects of his life? Take a look at our country's politics, and the evidence will show itself.

Cut throat politics.

This week in class was pretty intense. We had this guy wanting to kill that guy, and this guy going after that guys money, and it was really confusing because their names were Italian...and my head hurts just thinking about all of this. The one thing that I really got from this week though, is the rise of political thought and secular art. Let me start first with art.

The Medici's willingness to help out young artists was really inspiring, but part of me wonders if it was driven by the power of having such a rare talent in their hands or if they really cared about the art. Which ever it is, the Medici's were marvelous patrons of art and their financial investments made way for some pretty impressive artists (Michelangelo!). On the other hand though the Medici's were kind of drama magnets. Someone was always trying to kill them, or they were always trying to kill someone. If they were around today they would've been part of the mafia, for sure!

My favorite lesson of the semester happened today when we discussed Machiavelli's "The Prince". So far I get the feel that this book is the doctrine to modern day politics. We talked about some really important issues that I'd like to shed my own opinion on, that's what blogs are for, right? While in theory it seems that Machiavelli's ideas about ends justifying the means seem rutheless, in reality, it is necessary at times. I might be sticking my neck out here a bit, but without coercion and sometimes violence, things would not get done. I agreed with Dr. Tucker saying that we are hypocritical in saying that we stand for God given rights whilst torturing internation criminals, I must say that without those practices there would be alot of important intel that would not be acquired. I do feel it is barbaric to torture a human being, but we must keep in mind these are not innocent civilians that we plucked off the streets of Baghdad; they have committed some sort of grevious offense to be in the difficult position they are in. Freedom isn't free and while it turns my stomache a bit, I have to admit that Machiavelli was right about that.

On the issue of guns, here is my opinion. Guns are an important tool for protection and should be encouraged in the average American house hold, but I have to say that not everyone should be able to own a firearm. My brother is a convicted felon, and although it is really painful for him to never be able to hunt again or even just have one for protection, there is a balance in our judicial system that must be kept. He is well aware of why he no longer has the right to own one. The right to protect oneself is a right, the right to own a gun is a privelage. It seems confusing, but they are not always the same thing. However, I agree with Switzerland's approach that if a person is worthy of owning a gun (meaning no former felons) then they should be trained to know how to do so properly. This would allow them to protect their home and their life. Bearing arms is a very powerful part of the American constitution, and it is one that should be upheld.

Artsy fartsy

Previously to this week, I had an elementary school opinion on art, I learned one point perspective, and how to use a straight edge, and yada yada yada, but I had never really been exposed to very much art. Now after seeing the art of the Renaissance era, I definitely have a greater opinion for the profession. People might say art is an easy job but there's no way you can tell me Michelangelo had an easy time painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? That was just insane! The paintings were absolutely beautiful and he did while laying on his back! Talk about arm cramps! Some other works that I thought were absolutely amazing were Da Vinci's "Last Supper" and Michelangelo's "David". Da Vinci's depiction of the Last Supper is one of the most famous paintings of all time and as a Christian it is important for multiple reasons to me. As Dr. Tucker pointed out, it isn't realistically arranged to as they would've been seated but the thought and theme of the pointing is very powerful; there is a traitor amongst them. All of us, of course know that it is Judas from reading the bible, but Jesus' disciples do not know. Da Vinci really hit this one out of the ball park, its a shame that the painting is always flaking and losing quality. The sculpture of David, I have to say is much better than the other one we saw on Wednesday that had depicted him as a girly Florentine boy. I'm sure King David would've appreciated Michelangelo's masculine, classical version much better!

Who knew painting was so complex?

My love for art began in Kindergarten when I won a coloring contest and it ended once I realized that coloring inside some black lines isn't really that great a feat. Alberti's "On Painting" definitely had me rethinking my perspectives on art and painting specifically. I remember doing one point perspectives in art class and I never understand the deeper meaning behind it. I thought of it just as a way for Mrs. Burke to bother me with another mundane art project. However now after reading Alberti's view on humans and nature, it is a really beautiful concept. Also the triangle theory we talked about in class, that our eyes naturally shift to view things in triangles, seemed absured at first, but then kind of made sense once we viewed some art in the power point. I would like to learn more about Alberti's views, maybe see some of his paintings.

Sorry for the rush today, busy, busy, busy day!!

So a chair isn't a chair?

After today's lecture, I find myself looking around the room, pointing at objects, and finding less value in them. We learned about Plato's thoughts on the being and the becoming and all I have to say to Mr. Plato is you need to find a hobby, dude! Okay I probably wouldn't say that, I'd probably say something along the lines of, "So what is the true, ideal brownie earthquake blizzard in that perfect alternate universe?". I'd love to get to chow on that!

While Plato's ideas were riveting, I was excited to whip out Petrarch's writings and start reading away. I was sadly disappointed, however. While his mountain story, was inspiring, I couldn't help but be annoyed with how much he loved himself. He reminds me of my older brother, and that's how I envisioned this story, from the point of view of the younger brother. I can just see myself trying to tell my brother to follow me because I know the better way to get to the top, and him arrogantly not listening. So typical. Regardless, the self searching at the top of the mountain got me thinking, maybe a trek up to "C Hill" would do me some good.

As for the second Petrarch piece, I couldn't follow it. Anyone else have thoughts on that one??

The Rules of my Rad Blog

It's always good to say what you think and I greatly value your opinon, but on my blog please be nice :) I'll cry if you yell at me! Lol

Thanks for reading my blog, let me know what you think

:-)

Steph Burger <3

Tumors the Size of Apples..Yum?

I just read Boccaccio's Introduction to "The Decameron" and I have to say that I was disgusted and intrigued at the same time. As a fan of history, I found the author's depiction of the epidemic in Florence, Italy riveting. At first it seemed to me to just be a short historical commentary on the disease and it's affects on the city, but as I read further I felt the author was screaming at questions of morality. Multiple times it almost seems like Boccaccio is saying that the people of Florence deserved the Plague. As the naive person I am, I would like to say that God would not inflict this sort of pain on people, but Boccaccio has a point, as Ephesians 5:1-7 put it in the Bible:

"Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them"

It's a little harsh but scripturally it's accurate. So say you are a non-religious person, which is 100% okay (freedom of religion, go America!) Boccaccio also has you covered. In the third paragraph of the reading he makes a jab at the physicians and medical practices in general, saying they were either unqualified or there was no cure out there. From every angle it seems Florence was just S.O.L!! I personally, as a Christian and a believer in the natural order of things, think that every epidemic, natural disaster, etc are a mixture of divinity and science, and while we can piece together the who's, what's, when's, and where's of almost any catastrophe, we can't answer the the biggest question, why.