"Is it easier to read Shakespeare or the King James Bible?"
The KJV Bible and Shakespeare both can be difficult. Which is easier? I would say that the KJV Bible takes the cake. However, this might be due to the fact that I've been reading varying versions of the Bible throughout my life. This makes it easier to decipher the difficult phrases. If I had not, then it might be far harder.
Shakespeare was somewhat difficult for me, but I got used to it after a while.
I think that much of it depends upon personal preference. For me, that's probably the KJV Bible, but for another, it might be Shakespeare.
Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Francis Bacon's Essays
"Would any of Bacon's essays have been more persuasive if he had talked about his own experiences? Which ones? Why?"
Bacon had dealt with a great deal of troubles in his life. He was in debt, he took bribes, etc.. The essays that he wrote were lacking in details which could have potentially strengthened his writing throughout his essays. In essays such as,"Of Expense", "Of Riches", "Of Ambition", etc., I can see instances wherein it may have been helpful for him to have included his own experiences. The reason? The reason of course being that people are much more likely to put stock into what you're saying if you say it because you have endured it. Thank you for reading!
Bacon had dealt with a great deal of troubles in his life. He was in debt, he took bribes, etc.. The essays that he wrote were lacking in details which could have potentially strengthened his writing throughout his essays. In essays such as,"Of Expense", "Of Riches", "Of Ambition", etc., I can see instances wherein it may have been helpful for him to have included his own experiences. The reason? The reason of course being that people are much more likely to put stock into what you're saying if you say it because you have endured it. Thank you for reading!
Enlightened Absolutism as well as the American Revolution
"What was 'enlightened absolutism'?"
Enlightened absolutism is the idea of absolutist rulers incorporating enlightenment ideas and principles into practice. In enlightenment principles there is emphasis on the person to use rationality (or at least their idea of it). A few particular commonalities in enlightened absolutism are the desire for education, and freedom of speech and of the press. We can find examples of enlightened absolutist rulers in people such as Frederick the Great, Catherine II of Russia, and Charles III of Spain.
Enlightened absolutism was indeed an interesting development and has become a fascinating study material for students and historians alike.
"What was the constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that let to the American Revolution?..."
The constitutional dispute between the American colonists and the British government was one of two very different opinions. You see, the British didn't really have a particular written constitution. Their constitution was that of tradition. The British idea of tradition was whatever the British Parliament decided to pass or institute. The colonists' viewpoint, however, saw tradition as a tad more complex than that. The American colonists' opinion was that tradition was limited. That tradition held the government back in some ways. What I mean by this is that the British government, for a great deal of time, had more or less left the colonists alone to do as they pleased, as far as internal affairs was concerned. And now all of a sudden the British government was coming in and breaking the constitution's "laws" (tradition) by imposing revenue taxes and other seemingly unconstitutional practices on the colonists. We can see this being done through situations such as the Townshend Acts, which were acts carried out by the British government to raise wages for the governors and judges in the colonies, so that they would remain loyal to the British government. Similarly, there were the Coercive Acts which were used greatly for the purpose of getting after Massachusetts, after the Boston Tea Party. These acts were however viewed by the colonists as a violation of their rights. Ultimately, the Coercive Acts simply continued to fan the flames of angry colonists.
The contitutional dispute between the British government and the 13 colonies was definitely a fascinating beginning to the founding of America as an independent nation.
I hope that you have enjoyed my essay! Thanks for reading!
Enlightened absolutism is the idea of absolutist rulers incorporating enlightenment ideas and principles into practice. In enlightenment principles there is emphasis on the person to use rationality (or at least their idea of it). A few particular commonalities in enlightened absolutism are the desire for education, and freedom of speech and of the press. We can find examples of enlightened absolutist rulers in people such as Frederick the Great, Catherine II of Russia, and Charles III of Spain.
Enlightened absolutism was indeed an interesting development and has become a fascinating study material for students and historians alike.
"What was the constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that let to the American Revolution?..."
The constitutional dispute between the American colonists and the British government was one of two very different opinions. You see, the British didn't really have a particular written constitution. Their constitution was that of tradition. The British idea of tradition was whatever the British Parliament decided to pass or institute. The colonists' viewpoint, however, saw tradition as a tad more complex than that. The American colonists' opinion was that tradition was limited. That tradition held the government back in some ways. What I mean by this is that the British government, for a great deal of time, had more or less left the colonists alone to do as they pleased, as far as internal affairs was concerned. And now all of a sudden the British government was coming in and breaking the constitution's "laws" (tradition) by imposing revenue taxes and other seemingly unconstitutional practices on the colonists. We can see this being done through situations such as the Townshend Acts, which were acts carried out by the British government to raise wages for the governors and judges in the colonies, so that they would remain loyal to the British government. Similarly, there were the Coercive Acts which were used greatly for the purpose of getting after Massachusetts, after the Boston Tea Party. These acts were however viewed by the colonists as a violation of their rights. Ultimately, the Coercive Acts simply continued to fan the flames of angry colonists.
The contitutional dispute between the British government and the 13 colonies was definitely a fascinating beginning to the founding of America as an independent nation.
I hope that you have enjoyed my essay! Thanks for reading!
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Mercantilism, Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the War of Spanish Succession
"What were the key ideas of mercantilism?"
The key ideas of mercantilism were basically the simple ideas of most board games. One loses, and the other wins. This was perhaps the most revealing trait of mercantilism. It was the opposite of the free-market economy. In a free market economy you are free to buy and sell as you see fit. In mercantilism this is all regulated by the government.
Under mercantilism, governments would try to limit who you would buy from and who you would sell to. We saw governments regulating imports and exports and also telling people what they could and couldn't sell. These were the key ideas of mercantilism.
"How was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes justified in the document you read?"
In the document I read, they justified the revocation in some quite intriguing ways. One of these points in the document I read said something along the lines of that they should obliterate the confusion and evils that the progression of Protestant religion had caused to occur in the kingdom.
The document noted that many of the Protestants had converted to Catholicism, so they thought that they didn't really have any reason to keep the Edict of Nantes around. These are the main ways that the revocation was justified.
"What was at stake in the War of Spanish Succession?"
As you can probably guess the succession to the Spanish crown was at stake. Leopold I and Louis XIV were the two main contending parties in trying to get their "chosen" heir on the throne. The concern was that if a central power gained control of Spain, they would have far two much power in the hands of that monarch. In the end, the Spanish provinces were split up to make peace after the thirteen years of fighting.
Thanks for reading my essay! If you would like to leave me some feedback, then please do so! Also, If you notice any errors please let me know!
The key ideas of mercantilism were basically the simple ideas of most board games. One loses, and the other wins. This was perhaps the most revealing trait of mercantilism. It was the opposite of the free-market economy. In a free market economy you are free to buy and sell as you see fit. In mercantilism this is all regulated by the government.
Under mercantilism, governments would try to limit who you would buy from and who you would sell to. We saw governments regulating imports and exports and also telling people what they could and couldn't sell. These were the key ideas of mercantilism.
"How was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes justified in the document you read?"
In the document I read, they justified the revocation in some quite intriguing ways. One of these points in the document I read said something along the lines of that they should obliterate the confusion and evils that the progression of Protestant religion had caused to occur in the kingdom.
The document noted that many of the Protestants had converted to Catholicism, so they thought that they didn't really have any reason to keep the Edict of Nantes around. These are the main ways that the revocation was justified.
"What was at stake in the War of Spanish Succession?"
As you can probably guess the succession to the Spanish crown was at stake. Leopold I and Louis XIV were the two main contending parties in trying to get their "chosen" heir on the throne. The concern was that if a central power gained control of Spain, they would have far two much power in the hands of that monarch. In the end, the Spanish provinces were split up to make peace after the thirteen years of fighting.
Thanks for reading my essay! If you would like to leave me some feedback, then please do so! Also, If you notice any errors please let me know!
Shakespeare's Macbeth: Lady Macbeth
"Was Lady Macbeth correct? 'What's done is done.'"
In the Shakespearean play, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth says the phrase, "What's done is done.". Is this true? Honestly, I don't think that this is the slightest bit correct. Perhaps a deed is already done, but the outcome/sanctions will still remain. In effect, what's done is not done. You still have to deal with the guilt of a crime if you are a murderer, even after the murdered party is dead. Likewise, this can be done with positive sanctions. My point is that sanctions will always remain a vital point. They can be positive or negative, but they will always remain.
Thanks for reading my essay!
In the Shakespearean play, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth says the phrase, "What's done is done.". Is this true? Honestly, I don't think that this is the slightest bit correct. Perhaps a deed is already done, but the outcome/sanctions will still remain. In effect, what's done is not done. You still have to deal with the guilt of a crime if you are a murderer, even after the murdered party is dead. Likewise, this can be done with positive sanctions. My point is that sanctions will always remain a vital point. They can be positive or negative, but they will always remain.
Thanks for reading my essay!
Herbert Spencer, Utopian Socialists, and Romanticism
"Summarize the arguments either of Spencer or Molinari (whichever one you read this week)."
I read several of the arguments of Herbert Spencer this week. He was a rather radical (classical) liberal. He thought that the people had the right to ignore the state. He thought that even if one person didn't give his consent to what was happening, then that person could choose to not go along with the act (taxes or otherwise). He thought that this was the test of a real classical liberal. Were they really for a society without government control? This was how he saw things and how we are led to see things through the light of his arguments.
"What was the basic message of the utopian socialists?"
The basic message of the utopian socialists was fairly "utopian". They followed a fairly dead-set plan much like in the book, Utopia. The message was of course socialist, but it really did rely on a very thought out "blueprint". Their socialist ideas didn't just flow as the world went on. They thought that their world had to be built like you would a home, or other thing like that. They had a tendency to believe in commonly held property, and would plan out everything from where people would live to how the children would be raised. What a peculiar message that the "utopian" socialists held!
"What were the characteristics of Romanticism? Give one example of Romanticism and how it embodies at least one of these characteristics."
The characteristics of Romanticism were quite opposite of neoclassicism, but the characteristics of it were not as some believe, without reason. They rather were filled with feeling and passion and didn't simply believe that the world was only held together by reason (or at least what one might consider such a thing). They held a fascination in different places, times, etc.. They liked more emotional music, art, etc., and did tend to hold a connection with religion. Perhaps it was not always the religion of Christianity or Catholicism, but it was a very feeling connection with nature. Nor were their religious ideas based so much on reason, but more so on feeling your religion.
Now for my example. I find Romanticism held evidently in the work of literature Frankenstein, which was written by Mary Shelley. This book beautifully illustrates the tendencies of Romanticism. It has feeling, passion, and was a little different. Its art was filled with this tendency towards emotion! Everything from the creature in the book to the story behind him, was absolutely filled with travels (of time setting and place) and may be considered an art within itself. It embodied Romanticism and its characteristics by being emotional and unreasonably reasonable, through its emphasis on life in different forms.
Thanks for reading!
I read several of the arguments of Herbert Spencer this week. He was a rather radical (classical) liberal. He thought that the people had the right to ignore the state. He thought that even if one person didn't give his consent to what was happening, then that person could choose to not go along with the act (taxes or otherwise). He thought that this was the test of a real classical liberal. Were they really for a society without government control? This was how he saw things and how we are led to see things through the light of his arguments.
"What was the basic message of the utopian socialists?"
The basic message of the utopian socialists was fairly "utopian". They followed a fairly dead-set plan much like in the book, Utopia. The message was of course socialist, but it really did rely on a very thought out "blueprint". Their socialist ideas didn't just flow as the world went on. They thought that their world had to be built like you would a home, or other thing like that. They had a tendency to believe in commonly held property, and would plan out everything from where people would live to how the children would be raised. What a peculiar message that the "utopian" socialists held!
"What were the characteristics of Romanticism? Give one example of Romanticism and how it embodies at least one of these characteristics."
The characteristics of Romanticism were quite opposite of neoclassicism, but the characteristics of it were not as some believe, without reason. They rather were filled with feeling and passion and didn't simply believe that the world was only held together by reason (or at least what one might consider such a thing). They held a fascination in different places, times, etc.. They liked more emotional music, art, etc., and did tend to hold a connection with religion. Perhaps it was not always the religion of Christianity or Catholicism, but it was a very feeling connection with nature. Nor were their religious ideas based so much on reason, but more so on feeling your religion.
Now for my example. I find Romanticism held evidently in the work of literature Frankenstein, which was written by Mary Shelley. This book beautifully illustrates the tendencies of Romanticism. It has feeling, passion, and was a little different. Its art was filled with this tendency towards emotion! Everything from the creature in the book to the story behind him, was absolutely filled with travels (of time setting and place) and may be considered an art within itself. It embodied Romanticism and its characteristics by being emotional and unreasonably reasonable, through its emphasis on life in different forms.
Thanks for reading!
Some Weak Points In the Views of Karl Marx
"Discuss two weak points in the views of Karl Marx, and explain what's wrong them."
One weak point that I have found in the views of Karl Marx is how he believed that people only become worse and worse off under capitalism. This, of course, is not the case, as time has shown us. With the coming times we actually see the working classes having improvements in life under capitalism. Another weak point that I have seen in this man's views is namely this; Karl Marx thought that the amount of labor that went into a product would then proceed to translating how much it sold for. In other words, that the labor determined the price. Then how about pieces of art? One may not take more time than another to create a picture but it is sold for much more than the other. Why? Karl Marx couldn't answer these sorts of questions, and therefore his theory was proven false. Karl Marx had some truly interesting ideas, but that doesn't mean that they were all true. Thanks for reading!
One weak point that I have found in the views of Karl Marx is how he believed that people only become worse and worse off under capitalism. This, of course, is not the case, as time has shown us. With the coming times we actually see the working classes having improvements in life under capitalism. Another weak point that I have seen in this man's views is namely this; Karl Marx thought that the amount of labor that went into a product would then proceed to translating how much it sold for. In other words, that the labor determined the price. Then how about pieces of art? One may not take more time than another to create a picture but it is sold for much more than the other. Why? Karl Marx couldn't answer these sorts of questions, and therefore his theory was proven false. Karl Marx had some truly interesting ideas, but that doesn't mean that they were all true. Thanks for reading!
The Success or Failure of the Revolutions of 1848 and Karl Marx
"Were the Revolutions of 1848 successful or unsuccessful? Discuss two examples."
The Revolutions of 1848 were filled with continuous failed revolutions. One of these revolutions was in France, and in France when they set out this time to reform their government. They actually ended up with an emperor named Louis Napoleon III (Napoleon's nephew).
The next revolution in 1848, that I'll talk about, is that of the Non-Austrian Germany. Many of the German states sought to have a new and better united Germany. Many of the states did send delegates, and they did draft a constitution for their new Germany. But the conflict between the grossdeutsch and the kleindeutsch made this difficult. Those in favor of grossdeutsch wanted a large Germany and those in favor of kleindeutsch wanted a small Germany. This basically meant that one group wanted to include Austria and the other did not. The king of Prussia was ultimately offered the crown for this new Germany, but he refused as he did not want to be limited by a constitution of (classical) liberalism. This, of course, lead to the delay of the unification of Germany.
The Revolutions of 1848 seem to have been ultimately unsuccessful. I hope that you have learned some good information from this portion of my essay!
"Why did Karl Marx think socialism was superior to capitalism?"
Karl Marx was in the line of thinking that took socialism and set it up as far above the way of capitalism. He thought that socialism encouraged creativity and imagination by allowing the seller to sell as he wished whereas capitalism forced the seller to tailor what he was selling to the market instead of what he wished to sell. Marx thought that capitalism was an incorrect way of the market and that it encouraged dog-eat-dog mentality, and he did not like the idea of private factory owners and the like. He thought that in socialism the people would all be cooperating and working together unlike how he thought it was in capitalism. He had an elevated view of socialism in comparison with capitalism to say the least.
I hope that these examples have been sufficient for you! Thanks for reading!
The Revolutions of 1848 were filled with continuous failed revolutions. One of these revolutions was in France, and in France when they set out this time to reform their government. They actually ended up with an emperor named Louis Napoleon III (Napoleon's nephew).
The next revolution in 1848, that I'll talk about, is that of the Non-Austrian Germany. Many of the German states sought to have a new and better united Germany. Many of the states did send delegates, and they did draft a constitution for their new Germany. But the conflict between the grossdeutsch and the kleindeutsch made this difficult. Those in favor of grossdeutsch wanted a large Germany and those in favor of kleindeutsch wanted a small Germany. This basically meant that one group wanted to include Austria and the other did not. The king of Prussia was ultimately offered the crown for this new Germany, but he refused as he did not want to be limited by a constitution of (classical) liberalism. This, of course, lead to the delay of the unification of Germany.
The Revolutions of 1848 seem to have been ultimately unsuccessful. I hope that you have learned some good information from this portion of my essay!
"Why did Karl Marx think socialism was superior to capitalism?"
Karl Marx was in the line of thinking that took socialism and set it up as far above the way of capitalism. He thought that socialism encouraged creativity and imagination by allowing the seller to sell as he wished whereas capitalism forced the seller to tailor what he was selling to the market instead of what he wished to sell. Marx thought that capitalism was an incorrect way of the market and that it encouraged dog-eat-dog mentality, and he did not like the idea of private factory owners and the like. He thought that in socialism the people would all be cooperating and working together unlike how he thought it was in capitalism. He had an elevated view of socialism in comparison with capitalism to say the least.
I hope that these examples have been sufficient for you! Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
English Term Paper: Outline
1. Optimism in western history/literature.
A. Opening statements.
2. Point of optimism.
A. Why we need it.
B. Why books need it.
C. A story without it.
3. The role of optimism in western literature.
A. Main Stories.
1. Plots.
2. Characters.
4. Optimism in fictional works.
A. Lack or abundance?
B. The effect?
5. Optimism in non-fiction documents, speeches, etc.
A. Lack or abundance?
B. The effect?
6. The importance of the theme of optimism since 1493.
A. What did we find out?
1. How the optimism/lack of optimism effected us.
2. Did it seem coherent, crucial, or unnecessary to the stories?
B. Closing statements.
1. End.
A. Opening statements.
2. Point of optimism.
A. Why we need it.
B. Why books need it.
C. A story without it.
3. The role of optimism in western literature.
A. Main Stories.
1. Plots.
2. Characters.
4. Optimism in fictional works.
A. Lack or abundance?
B. The effect?
5. Optimism in non-fiction documents, speeches, etc.
A. Lack or abundance?
B. The effect?
6. The importance of the theme of optimism since 1493.
A. What did we find out?
1. How the optimism/lack of optimism effected us.
2. Did it seem coherent, crucial, or unnecessary to the stories?
B. Closing statements.
1. End.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Satan's Motivation for Betraying God
"After Satan's rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false?"
What led to Satan's rebellion was a desire for God's power. He sought/does seek to overthrow the Almighty, and he is thus led by what I might say is a possible combination of both jealousy and envy. Jealousy lies in hostility towards a rival/potential rival, and envy lies in wishing for what the other has. He certainly wished for what God had/has! Perhaps jealousy is what eventually would lead him to envy? Satan showed signs of both jealousy and envy, but overall I do think that it was mostly envy that led Satan to commit his rebellious atrocities against God.
What led to Satan's rebellion was a desire for God's power. He sought/does seek to overthrow the Almighty, and he is thus led by what I might say is a possible combination of both jealousy and envy. Jealousy lies in hostility towards a rival/potential rival, and envy lies in wishing for what the other has. He certainly wished for what God had/has! Perhaps jealousy is what eventually would lead him to envy? Satan showed signs of both jealousy and envy, but overall I do think that it was mostly envy that led Satan to commit his rebellious atrocities against God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)