1) What was the expected role of women in Shakespeare’s time?
In the time and age of Shakespeare the role of women was much different from what is seen today. Just as you begin to read this piece of writing, you come upon the following quote, “Women are poorer then men because – this or that” (Woolf 764). I thought that this showed the general role of women as being under classed and unaccepted in society. “Wife beating…was a recognized right of man, and was practiced without shame by high as well low…” (Woolf 765). This I thought was very disturbing and disgusting because giving permission to someone to beat someone else is morally wrong. “It was still an exception for women of the upper middle class to choose their own husbands…” (Woolf 765). Not begin able to choose your own husband shows that women’s role is only seen as being objects to the society for pleasure. The fact that it states that this is a practice seems that it had became a culture of some sort in their time. Women were stripped of their personality and were basically ruled by men. Women were expected to be clean, meaning not only physically but mentally. The big difference now a day is that women have become more equal to men, both in education and in the work force. As time has passed, over time women have fought and gained many rights which have helped them achieve a proper respected role in today’s society. Although it does seem that both men and women are equal, the reality is that there still are many obstacles that women need to over come in order to have 100% equality.
Works Sited
Virginia Woolf. “Shakespeare’s Sister” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 761-777.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Mary Wollstonecraft – Pernicious effects arise from the unnatural distinctions established in society.
3) What happens to people who are born to wealth and have nothing to do?
This text by Mary Wollstonecraft was a fairly difficult read, I thought that Mary was trying to get to the point that when you’re wealthy you’re enjoying life to the max, and when your poor you just end up being tormented. In this case those women who were born in a wealthy family really have nothing to do. They have everything at their feet, but these types of people, as stated by Mary were major gamblers. They had no worries and didn’t really care much of what was going on around them. This is very similar to today’s society, where the rich people are living in their own world and the poor in their own. The rich are busy enhancing their lives and are looking for places and ways to burn money by shopping, casinos, cars, etc. On the other hand the poor are busy just trying to survive and are living their lives day by day. Most people do say that if “I was rich I would still be the same person”, but in reality overtime money takes over without you even knowing. Don’t get me wrong there are rich people in today’s world that do associate with their community but the majority doesn’t. Also I thought that according to Mary that if a women is born in to a wealthy home, she will be let off on her duties. Meaning there wouldn’t be much expected from the women “for when they neglect domestic duties, they have it not in their own power to take the field and march and counter-march like soldiers,” (Mary 753).
Works sited
Mary Wollstonecraft. “Pernicious effects arise from the unnatural distinctions established in society” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
This text by Mary Wollstonecraft was a fairly difficult read, I thought that Mary was trying to get to the point that when you’re wealthy you’re enjoying life to the max, and when your poor you just end up being tormented. In this case those women who were born in a wealthy family really have nothing to do. They have everything at their feet, but these types of people, as stated by Mary were major gamblers. They had no worries and didn’t really care much of what was going on around them. This is very similar to today’s society, where the rich people are living in their own world and the poor in their own. The rich are busy enhancing their lives and are looking for places and ways to burn money by shopping, casinos, cars, etc. On the other hand the poor are busy just trying to survive and are living their lives day by day. Most people do say that if “I was rich I would still be the same person”, but in reality overtime money takes over without you even knowing. Don’t get me wrong there are rich people in today’s world that do associate with their community but the majority doesn’t. Also I thought that according to Mary that if a women is born in to a wealthy home, she will be let off on her duties. Meaning there wouldn’t be much expected from the women “for when they neglect domestic duties, they have it not in their own power to take the field and march and counter-march like soldiers,” (Mary 753).
Works sited
Mary Wollstonecraft. “Pernicious effects arise from the unnatural distinctions established in society” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Robert B. Rich – Why the Richer Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer
2) What are “routine producers”? What will be their fate in the future?
The routine production workers in the United States are going for a down fall. As stated by Robert B. Reich, the improvements in production facilities which resulted in men being replaced my machines. Also modern factories often scramble to locate in places where production costs are lowest. These places are where people tend to the same job at a fraction, in most cases they just need enough money to survive. Another prime factor is that the relocations of factory are relatively cheap to establish, they can be easily moved. In today’s society this raises the issue of foreigners taking over the Americans jobs. For example: The big 3, Ford, GM, and Chrysler having there productions moved places such as Mexico where the companies can have mass production at dirt cheap costs. This leads people being laid off and unemployed in the U.S. B. Reich discusses an interesting example dealing with Maquiladora. “…Maquiladora factories cluttered along Mexican side of the U.S border in the sprawling shanty towns of juana, Mexicali, Nogales, Agua Preita and Ciudad Juarez—factories mostly owned by Americans, but increasingly by Japanese- which more than a half million routine producers assemble parts into finished goods to be shipped into the United States” (Reich 421). Reich also states that these jobs have been vanished in traditional unionized industries, where average wages have kept up with inflation. “…. This is because the jobs of older workers in such industries are protected by seniority; the youngest works are first laid off…” (Reich 424).
Work Sited
Robert B. Rich." Why the Richer Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
The routine production workers in the United States are going for a down fall. As stated by Robert B. Reich, the improvements in production facilities which resulted in men being replaced my machines. Also modern factories often scramble to locate in places where production costs are lowest. These places are where people tend to the same job at a fraction, in most cases they just need enough money to survive. Another prime factor is that the relocations of factory are relatively cheap to establish, they can be easily moved. In today’s society this raises the issue of foreigners taking over the Americans jobs. For example: The big 3, Ford, GM, and Chrysler having there productions moved places such as Mexico where the companies can have mass production at dirt cheap costs. This leads people being laid off and unemployed in the U.S. B. Reich discusses an interesting example dealing with Maquiladora. “…Maquiladora factories cluttered along Mexican side of the U.S border in the sprawling shanty towns of juana, Mexicali, Nogales, Agua Preita and Ciudad Juarez—factories mostly owned by Americans, but increasingly by Japanese- which more than a half million routine producers assemble parts into finished goods to be shipped into the United States” (Reich 421). Reich also states that these jobs have been vanished in traditional unionized industries, where average wages have kept up with inflation. “…. This is because the jobs of older workers in such industries are protected by seniority; the youngest works are first laid off…” (Reich 424).
Work Sited
Robert B. Rich." Why the Richer Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Friday, November 9, 2007
John Kenneth Galbraith – The Position of Poverty
1) What is case poverty?
If we look at the dictionary definition of case poverty it states the following; “Focuses on individuals who, for some reason, are unable to support themselves and to gain the basic necessities without assistance” (Britannica). Galbraith seems to have a similar idea to this and describes it as the following. “Case poverty is restricted to an individual and his or her family and often seems to be caused by alcoholism, ignorance, mental deficiency, discrimination, or specific handicaps it is an individual and not a group” (Galbraith 404). I think that the people with problems and issues such as alcoholism and ignorance are the ones that are at a advantage compared to those who are handicapped and have metal deficiency. Meaning that handicaps can only try so much to get them self’s out of poverty but the fact is they can only do so much without support. On the other hand people with alcoholism and ignorance, etc. can get help which can possibly get rid of their illness for good. “Case poverty is commonly and properly to some characteristic of the individuals so afflicted. Nearly everyone else has mattered his or her environment; this proves that it is not intractable. But some quality peculiar to the individual or family involved in metal deficiency, bad health, inability to adapt to the discipline industrial life…” (Galbraith 407). Overall I think that people don’t want to be classified in this category of “case poverty”; they have just been forced to do so because of their deficiencies.
Works Sited
John Kenneth Galbraith. “The Position of Poverty” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 403- 413.
If we look at the dictionary definition of case poverty it states the following; “Focuses on individuals who, for some reason, are unable to support themselves and to gain the basic necessities without assistance” (Britannica). Galbraith seems to have a similar idea to this and describes it as the following. “Case poverty is restricted to an individual and his or her family and often seems to be caused by alcoholism, ignorance, mental deficiency, discrimination, or specific handicaps it is an individual and not a group” (Galbraith 404). I think that the people with problems and issues such as alcoholism and ignorance are the ones that are at a advantage compared to those who are handicapped and have metal deficiency. Meaning that handicaps can only try so much to get them self’s out of poverty but the fact is they can only do so much without support. On the other hand people with alcoholism and ignorance, etc. can get help which can possibly get rid of their illness for good. “Case poverty is commonly and properly to some characteristic of the individuals so afflicted. Nearly everyone else has mattered his or her environment; this proves that it is not intractable. But some quality peculiar to the individual or family involved in metal deficiency, bad health, inability to adapt to the discipline industrial life…” (Galbraith 407). Overall I think that people don’t want to be classified in this category of “case poverty”; they have just been forced to do so because of their deficiencies.
Works Sited
John Kenneth Galbraith. “The Position of Poverty” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 403- 413.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Karl Marx – The Communist Manifesto
1) What is the economic condition of the bourgeoisie? What is the economic condition of the proletariat?
As stated by Karl Marx, there were two main classes, Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. “The modern bourgeois society that has grown from the remains of the feudal society, it has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx 357). America was the freshest place to open and raise bourgeoisie, there where many factors which played a great role in its economic success. “…The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development” (Marx 357). From here on the markets continue to grow and the modern industry begins to establish a world-market place. The modern working class developed, “…a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market” (Marx 362). They were then pretty much stripped, because they could not even become masters of the productive forces of society and they had nothing they truly owned that they could secure. Their mission then became the destruction of all previous securities. “The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx 367).
Works Sited
Karl Marx. “The Communist Manifesto” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 353- 377.
As stated by Karl Marx, there were two main classes, Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. “The modern bourgeois society that has grown from the remains of the feudal society, it has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx 357). America was the freshest place to open and raise bourgeoisie, there where many factors which played a great role in its economic success. “…The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development” (Marx 357). From here on the markets continue to grow and the modern industry begins to establish a world-market place. The modern working class developed, “…a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market” (Marx 362). They were then pretty much stripped, because they could not even become masters of the productive forces of society and they had nothing they truly owned that they could secure. Their mission then became the destruction of all previous securities. “The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx 367).
Works Sited
Karl Marx. “The Communist Manifesto” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 353- 377.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Martha C. Nussbaum – The central Human Functional Capabilities
What is the difference between capability and functioning?
In this piece of writing the difference between both capability and functioning is explain very plainly and simply to make the reader understand. Nussabaum states that, “The way in which they differ is in the fact that when an imperial power tells a culture gown it ought to function, it is imposing its values on that culture. However when anyone insists that the capabilities to function in one of several ways must exist for people to live a truly human life” (Nussbaum 212). I thought that this quote pretty much summed up her point when it came to difference. I as stated in the intro her views are very sim8ilar to those of John Rawls, this is clearly seen as you read in it. One point in particular was pretty much Rawls speaking “…individual in a society, not the collective, that be protected and preserved if true justice is to prevail” (Nussbaum 212. “third“, “combined capabilities of all the basic and internal capabilities with a potential and social functioning’s” (Nussbam). This description seemed to be a bit weird because Nussbam seems to be describing some sort of functions the will or will take in. Overall I thought there was a great job done describing the difference, but it seems that Nussbaum is more for the capability side rather then the functioning. “ I introduce this as a list of capabilities rather then of actual functioning’s, because I shall argue that capability, not actual functioning, should be the goal of the public policy” (Nussbaum 215).
Works Sited
Martha C. Nussbaum. “The central Human Functional Capabilities” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
In this piece of writing the difference between both capability and functioning is explain very plainly and simply to make the reader understand. Nussabaum states that, “The way in which they differ is in the fact that when an imperial power tells a culture gown it ought to function, it is imposing its values on that culture. However when anyone insists that the capabilities to function in one of several ways must exist for people to live a truly human life” (Nussbaum 212). I thought that this quote pretty much summed up her point when it came to difference. I as stated in the intro her views are very sim8ilar to those of John Rawls, this is clearly seen as you read in it. One point in particular was pretty much Rawls speaking “…individual in a society, not the collective, that be protected and preserved if true justice is to prevail” (Nussbaum 212. “third“, “combined capabilities of all the basic and internal capabilities with a potential and social functioning’s” (Nussbam). This description seemed to be a bit weird because Nussbam seems to be describing some sort of functions the will or will take in. Overall I thought there was a great job done describing the difference, but it seems that Nussbaum is more for the capability side rather then the functioning. “ I introduce this as a list of capabilities rather then of actual functioning’s, because I shall argue that capability, not actual functioning, should be the goal of the public policy” (Nussbaum 215).
Works Sited
Martha C. Nussbaum. “The central Human Functional Capabilities” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
John Rawls – A theory of Justice
1) How does Rawls articulate his idea of “justice as fairness” ?
Rawls beliefs are much different from others because Rawls believe that the justice should be fair and that the rights of the people should not be taken away or put back in order to get greater good in society. Justice as fairness was seen to him as two main theories, “original position”, and the “veil of ignorance” (Rawls 195). “Men are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation character of their society” (Rawls 199. After reading this quote it seem to me as if he wants the people to be pre-programmed like robots. Rawls saying that the foundation of there character should be set before they enter society. As stated by Rawls, Justice in Fairness begins with “one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely general of all choices of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (Rawls 201). I think Rawls way of describing the Justice as a “contact” was a bit misleading. The word “contact” suggests this plurality as well as the condition that the appropriate division of advantages must be in accordance with principles of justice is also connoted by the contract phraseology (Rawls 203). Overall I think that John Rawls took a very different approach to the way society should be shaped in terms of the role of men and women, and how their character should be processed in society.
Works Sited
John Rawls. “A theory of Justice” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Rawls beliefs are much different from others because Rawls believe that the justice should be fair and that the rights of the people should not be taken away or put back in order to get greater good in society. Justice as fairness was seen to him as two main theories, “original position”, and the “veil of ignorance” (Rawls 195). “Men are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation character of their society” (Rawls 199. After reading this quote it seem to me as if he wants the people to be pre-programmed like robots. Rawls saying that the foundation of there character should be set before they enter society. As stated by Rawls, Justice in Fairness begins with “one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely general of all choices of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (Rawls 201). I think Rawls way of describing the Justice as a “contact” was a bit misleading. The word “contact” suggests this plurality as well as the condition that the appropriate division of advantages must be in accordance with principles of justice is also connoted by the contract phraseology (Rawls 203). Overall I think that John Rawls took a very different approach to the way society should be shaped in terms of the role of men and women, and how their character should be processed in society.
Works Sited
John Rawls. “A theory of Justice” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Elizabeth Cady Stanton – Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
1) What power has man had over women, according to Stanton?
In this piece of writing, Elizabeth Cady Stanton gives great examples of how the male sex denominated the female sex over a great period of time in history. Many of the male dominant powers which were stated by Stanton were the following; “…her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise, in formation of which she had no voice, …all right in property even to the wages she earns” (Stanton 165). I thought that the way Stanton described women, was degrading them of even being human. There were many other rights which led women to feel as if they were in prison. For example: if a divorce was taking place then the man would inherit everything, from property to land and gets the right to the children in most cases. “After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of the property, he taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it” (Stanton 165). The fact that education was big in getting a job, women were too deprived of that so they were pretty much forced to stay at home. After finally standing up for themselves, slowly the change took place, and they began to gain more and more rights as time went on. Now a day women are getting educated and earning jobs which are equal, and in some cases more superior then those of men. This really changed the role women in our society and the way they’re viewed.
Works Sited
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
In this piece of writing, Elizabeth Cady Stanton gives great examples of how the male sex denominated the female sex over a great period of time in history. Many of the male dominant powers which were stated by Stanton were the following; “…her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise, in formation of which she had no voice, …all right in property even to the wages she earns” (Stanton 165). I thought that the way Stanton described women, was degrading them of even being human. There were many other rights which led women to feel as if they were in prison. For example: if a divorce was taking place then the man would inherit everything, from property to land and gets the right to the children in most cases. “After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of the property, he taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it” (Stanton 165). The fact that education was big in getting a job, women were too deprived of that so they were pretty much forced to stay at home. After finally standing up for themselves, slowly the change took place, and they began to gain more and more rights as time went on. Now a day women are getting educated and earning jobs which are equal, and in some cases more superior then those of men. This really changed the role women in our society and the way they’re viewed.
Works Sited
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Martin Luther King Jr. – The Letter from Birmingham Jail
1) What kind of injustice did Martin Luther King find in Birmingham?
Martin Luther King, one of the most dominant civil rights leaders of all time who never gave up till justice, was in his hands. He found Birmingham to be injustice because of the way people were being treated. “Influenced by the view which argues against out-siders coming in” (King 174). Martin Luther King was very determined to go through with the injustice in Birmingham, “…so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town” (King 174). He then became concerned of the “city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative” (King 175). This city at the time was beginning to be known as the most segregated place in the United States of America. The Segregation between Negros and whites lead to many issue such as; …”grossly unjust treatment in the courts, more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham then the entire nation” (King 175). “Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial, outside agitator idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds” (King 174). This quote really shows Kings determination towards fighting for the freedom of all Negros in the nation and not only in Birmingham. Despite the harsh conditions King showed no sign of weakness or repent, he was steadfast in his beliefs. Unfortunately, regardless of King’s efforts, segregation still exists in the United States of America, it may not be as intense as it used to be but it’s still known to exist.
Works Sited
Martin Luther King Jr. “The Letter from Birmingham Jail” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Martin Luther King, one of the most dominant civil rights leaders of all time who never gave up till justice, was in his hands. He found Birmingham to be injustice because of the way people were being treated. “Influenced by the view which argues against out-siders coming in” (King 174). Martin Luther King was very determined to go through with the injustice in Birmingham, “…so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town” (King 174). He then became concerned of the “city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative” (King 175). This city at the time was beginning to be known as the most segregated place in the United States of America. The Segregation between Negros and whites lead to many issue such as; …”grossly unjust treatment in the courts, more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham then the entire nation” (King 175). “Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial, outside agitator idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds” (King 174). This quote really shows Kings determination towards fighting for the freedom of all Negros in the nation and not only in Birmingham. Despite the harsh conditions King showed no sign of weakness or repent, he was steadfast in his beliefs. Unfortunately, regardless of King’s efforts, segregation still exists in the United States of America, it may not be as intense as it used to be but it’s still known to exist.
Works Sited
Martin Luther King Jr. “The Letter from Birmingham Jail” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Henry David Thoreau – Civil Disobedience
1) What kind of government does Thoreau feel would be most just?
Henry David Thoreau thinks that a government that is least governed is the one, which will be most successful, and if the government don’t governor at all then it’s even better. “That government is best which governs least” (Thoreau 137). I thought that the first quote made a lot of scene because for example if the government goes around making random rules and restrictions to which the people of the country or state decline then that shows signs of a poor government. But on the other hand if the government puts those rule making reasonability’s in the hands of everyday people then the government would be much better in terms of respecting the people. “That government is best which governs not at all” (Thoreau 137). This I disagree on because this is pretty much saying that there is no need of a government. Some sort of limited orders, demand, or restrictions must be placed on the people in order to maintain a stable environment in which the people are under control. A generalized view of what Thoreau thought was a just government consists of a government, which are completely moral and totally respectful of the individual. “Thoreau opposes is simply any government that is not totally just, totally moral, and totally respectful of the individual” (Thoreau 135). This I totally agree with because if they respect the values and options of the people then the government will get the same response. There is one line in this reading that really stood out to me, “ Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just person is also a prison” (Thoreau 146). The government that treats unfairly will be end up in the same place as someone treated fairly.
Works Sited
Henry David Thoreau. “Civil Disobedience” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Henry David Thoreau thinks that a government that is least governed is the one, which will be most successful, and if the government don’t governor at all then it’s even better. “That government is best which governs least” (Thoreau 137). I thought that the first quote made a lot of scene because for example if the government goes around making random rules and restrictions to which the people of the country or state decline then that shows signs of a poor government. But on the other hand if the government puts those rule making reasonability’s in the hands of everyday people then the government would be much better in terms of respecting the people. “That government is best which governs not at all” (Thoreau 137). This I disagree on because this is pretty much saying that there is no need of a government. Some sort of limited orders, demand, or restrictions must be placed on the people in order to maintain a stable environment in which the people are under control. A generalized view of what Thoreau thought was a just government consists of a government, which are completely moral and totally respectful of the individual. “Thoreau opposes is simply any government that is not totally just, totally moral, and totally respectful of the individual” (Thoreau 135). This I totally agree with because if they respect the values and options of the people then the government will get the same response. There is one line in this reading that really stood out to me, “ Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just person is also a prison” (Thoreau 146). The government that treats unfairly will be end up in the same place as someone treated fairly.
Works Sited
Henry David Thoreau. “Civil Disobedience” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Stephen L. Carter – The Separation of Church and State
1) What is the Establishment Clause?
I found that his read by Stephen L. Carter was a bit difficult for me because I don’t really pay any attention to politics. I found the “establishment clause” to be more based on religion, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” (Carter 103). This is backed up then by the “Free Exercise Clause”, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Carter 103). From my understanding this clause doesn’t try to prompt or put one religion before another by supporting it as being a state religion. It also makes a boundary line between the government and state. I think that this then allows the people to chose and practice a religion of their type. Meaning it puts the state away from interfering with them. “The Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government…celebrated the clause as the Magna Carta of religious freedom” (Carter 104). This means that the government can’t make any laws based on religion. This is important because it doesn’t limit our freedom in the United States. So far I think the interfering of the government hasn’t been a problem for the United States and if it continues to be, then the country is golden. But once interfering and or supporting the majority religion takes place many issues will raise. Overall I think that Stephen L. Carter was trying to get the point across about how the continuation of this separation must stay in order to have religious liberty, “the principal task of the separation of church and state is to secure religious liberty” (Carter 104).
Works Cited
Carter, Stepehen L. "The Separation of Church and State". A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
I found that his read by Stephen L. Carter was a bit difficult for me because I don’t really pay any attention to politics. I found the “establishment clause” to be more based on religion, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” (Carter 103). This is backed up then by the “Free Exercise Clause”, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Carter 103). From my understanding this clause doesn’t try to prompt or put one religion before another by supporting it as being a state religion. It also makes a boundary line between the government and state. I think that this then allows the people to chose and practice a religion of their type. Meaning it puts the state away from interfering with them. “The Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government…celebrated the clause as the Magna Carta of religious freedom” (Carter 104). This means that the government can’t make any laws based on religion. This is important because it doesn’t limit our freedom in the United States. So far I think the interfering of the government hasn’t been a problem for the United States and if it continues to be, then the country is golden. But once interfering and or supporting the majority religion takes place many issues will raise. Overall I think that Stephen L. Carter was trying to get the point across about how the continuation of this separation must stay in order to have religious liberty, “the principal task of the separation of church and state is to secure religious liberty” (Carter 104).
Works Cited
Carter, Stepehen L. "The Separation of Church and State". A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Hannah Arendt - Total Domination
3) What happens to human beings in concentration camps?
In this piece of writing, Hannah Arendt really pressures the idea of human concentration camps. The people who enter the concentration camps are then used for experimental purposes and there not just meant to eliminate people. “The camps are meant to not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating…” (Arendt 88). The types of conditions that are present in these camps somewhat stimulate the conditions in war and are scientifically controlled (Arendt 88). As stated in the reading these camps originated from totalitarianism governments. So these camps become a separator between the “real” world and “artificial” world, which is the concentration camps.
There was one statement in particular that really caught my attention. “The real horror of the concentration and extermination camps lies in the fact that the inmates, even if they happen to keep alive, are more effectively cut off from the world of the living than if they had died” (Arendt 94). I thought that this statement of Hannah Arendt really summed up what was going on in these camps. What she’s saying is that, the only way to describe the dreadfulness of these camps is to experience them yourself. She describes the environment as being so terrible and insolated that its worse then being dead, in another words you would be better off dead. Overall I thought that this piece of writing was well written in terms of it expressing Hannah Arendt’s views towards totalitarianism, and the views show that Hannah Arendt is against totalitarianism.
Works Sited
Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination” A world of ideas: Essential readings for collage writers Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York: Bedford St. Martins 2006 pp 85- 96
In this piece of writing, Hannah Arendt really pressures the idea of human concentration camps. The people who enter the concentration camps are then used for experimental purposes and there not just meant to eliminate people. “The camps are meant to not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but also serve the ghastly experiment of eliminating…” (Arendt 88). The types of conditions that are present in these camps somewhat stimulate the conditions in war and are scientifically controlled (Arendt 88). As stated in the reading these camps originated from totalitarianism governments. So these camps become a separator between the “real” world and “artificial” world, which is the concentration camps.
There was one statement in particular that really caught my attention. “The real horror of the concentration and extermination camps lies in the fact that the inmates, even if they happen to keep alive, are more effectively cut off from the world of the living than if they had died” (Arendt 94). I thought that this statement of Hannah Arendt really summed up what was going on in these camps. What she’s saying is that, the only way to describe the dreadfulness of these camps is to experience them yourself. She describes the environment as being so terrible and insolated that its worse then being dead, in another words you would be better off dead. Overall I thought that this piece of writing was well written in terms of it expressing Hannah Arendt’s views towards totalitarianism, and the views show that Hannah Arendt is against totalitarianism.
Works Sited
Arendt, Hannah. “Total Domination” A world of ideas: Essential readings for collage writers Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York: Bedford St. Martins 2006 pp 85- 96
Monday, September 17, 2007
Niccolo Machiavelli - The Qualities of the Prince
1) Why does Machiavelli praise skill in warfare in his opening pages? How does that skill aid a prince?
In this piece of writing The Qualities of the Prince the author Niccolo Machiavelli really stresses and admires the skill of warfare. Within the first few paragraphs he begins to talk about how being armed is the way to go because without any sort of fire power it may make you despised. “… being disarmed makes you despised…” (Machiavelli 38). I find this to be a bit disturbing because to me this seems to evoke violence. But I think this quote is used to describe the safety required for a prince and his superiority. “…this is one of those infamilies a prince should guard himself against….for between armed and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever” (Machiavelli 38). I think Niccolo Machiavelli is trying to get to the point that once you’re a prince, you put your self in great dangers and for these reasons warfare is a must. This skill of warfare then aids a prince because “…it is not reasonable for an armed man to obey unarmed man willingly, nor that an unarmed man should be sale among armed servants….” (Machiavelli 38). In general warfare will only aid a prince if he himself is equipped with the same. “… a prince who does not understand military matters, cannot be esteemed by his own soldiers nor can trust them” (Machiavelli 38). I think overall the way the warfare is described in this piece of writing is some what extreme because you can’t just say that you don’t trust someone who is armed without you, yourself being armed (ex: cops).
Works sited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince” A world of ideas: Essential readings for collage writers Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York: Bedford St. Martins 2006 pp 35 - 50
Friday, September 14, 2007
LAO-TZU - Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching
3.) According to Lao-tzu, why is moderation important in government?
Lao-tzu who is a very pronounced Chinese’s writer explains the meaning of moderation in this piece of writing Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching . The government in today’s world seems to be very different to the way that Lao-tzu explains it. He talks about the control of the government on the people of the society and if they were kept under less control then the natural way of life would be seen. The way of life will be accepted by the people as time goes on because their desires begin to disappear leading to peace, “when there is no desire all things are at peace” (Lao-tzu 25). Another thing is that if moderation is used then the “master” who governs or leads is hardly noticed by the people because he/she is just doing their job and not trying to takeover. As stated “…. Is a leader who is loved” (Lao-tzu 22), meaning running the government with moderation will help increase a better and more loveable relationship between the people and government. Lao-tzu does show an importance in moderation of the government but I personally think that the type of self-control which is used is a bit too unrealistic. “If you tamper with it, you’ll ruin it. If you treat it like an object, you’ll lose it” (Lau-tzu 24). I agree and also degree with this quote, it can go both ways. I degree because the world does need to be tampered with and altered in order to keep the present existences of humans and keep future developments going. On the other hand I agree because as seen in the past if nature is altered by humans from its natural state then problems and big issues can arise from these alterations. Overall I think that Lao-tzu did a fairly decent job in providing an explanation of why moderation is important in the government by showing simple ways of life leading to big achievements.
Works sited
Lao-tzu. “Thoughts from the Tao-te chin” A world of ideas: Essential readings for collage writers Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell, 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins 2006 pp 22 - 31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)