The Gods of the Copybook Headings

"What is one of Kipling's copybook headings that applies to recent public opinion?"


This work of Kipling's speaks of how people wish to stick with their childish fancies. This childishness then leads to death, as experience and truth finds them. The copybook heading in this, which I see very much applying to recent public opinion is, "The Wages of Sin is Death." People wish to do as their foolish religion, whether it be one created by another or a religion of their own mind, says is fine, despite history showing what happens when you live in a fantasy of your own creation, as to the definitions of right and wrong. Whether it be coming to the defense of gays, adultery, divorcing your husband/wife because "you will be happier", though it ends in total annihilation of trust and stability that their children and families have in them, etc., it all leads to this conclusion that brings unwanted consequences.


                             "The Wages of Sin is Death."

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!

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.   

Conflict Between the Sadducees and Apostles

"Why were the Sadducees and the Apostles unable to find a way to reconcile their rival opinions?"



The apostles and Sadducees were coming from completely different perspectives.  The Sadducees were still following the Mosaic law, while the apostles were following the laws that Jesus, the son of God had put down.  In both of these religions there is only one God and his laws are sovereign, which is why the Sadducees where unwilling to follow Jesus' teachings.  What they didn't understand (more like unwilling to undrestand) is that Jesus was God in the flesh.  The Sadducees did not want to change their views and opinions, so they simply denied that the teachings of the apostles were correct.

Horace's Ethical View

"What was Horace's concept of personal ethical cause and effect?" 


     Horace's concept of ethical cause and effect was not half bad.  Using his Stoic view of the world he said to be much like the ant.  The ant stores food for the winter and eats it during the colder months in order to stay alive.  The little creature does not hoard the crumbs until she dies having not even touched them.  He said that people should also not hoard money or food.  When you die, an heir of yours may come into possession of it and use it anyways.

     Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!

Comparison of Works and Days with The Eumenides

"How does the view of ethical cause and effect in history in Works and Days compare with the furies' view in The Eumenides?"

     In both Works and days and The Eumenides, we see a clear view of ethical sanctions.  Works and days gives instructions on how to live a good life and it also talks about the repercussions of living a morally wrong life.  The same goes for The Eumenides, although it is more so showing the negative sanctions instead of telling you about the good ones.

     One of the first similarities that I notice between these two pieces of literature is that they both have very distinct characteristics as far as revenge is concerned.  In Works and Days it talks about how it's alright to seek out revenge if the person has wronged you. The same goes for The Eumenides.  In The Eumenides, Orestes is being tried to see if he was in the right when he sought out revenge on his mother who killed Orestes' father.  This is one of the distinct characteristics that I talked about a second ago.  In this play we see that it was completely acceptable to commit murder in the name of revenge.

     Another similarity that I see is how in Works and Days it talks about finding a good wife.  It says that if you don't, then you will reap the consequences.  We can see this played out in The Eumenides.  In The Eumenides, Agamemnon's wife was Clytemnestra.  She committed adultery and then killed her husband.  In the view of Hesiod, the writer of Works and days, Clytemnestra would have been considered a bad wife.


     The furies did not see Clytemnestra as a "bad" wife.  They saw her as taking completely just revenge.  This is one of the places where the course of ethical cause and effect in Works and Days varies with the view of the furies in The Eumenides.

     We also see that both the furies' view and the view of ethical cause and effect in Works and Days agree with one another on the topic of "Honesty is the best policy".  In Works and Days, Hesiod says to be honest.  When asked to testify, the furies are honest about what Orestes did to his mother and Orestes is honest about why he killed her.  The furies in this situation agree with Works and Days because of the presence of honesty.

     Now I would like to compare the furies' view with the view of ethical cause and effect in Works and days on the subject of hard work.  In Works and Days, Hesiod says that hard work pays off.  We can see the furies' hard work paying off in The Eumenides when they became respected gods.  No, Orestes wasn't found guilty, but they did receive fame and honor from the city of Athens.

     As you can see, there are many similarities between these two works of art.  I encourage you to take a look at them yourself and see if you are able to find any more similarities/non-similarities between them.

Thank you for reading, and please let me know what you think!

Theogony and Genesis 1

"What are the main differences between Genesis 1 and Theogony?"

     The main differences between these two pieces of literature are very drastic indeed!

     In Genesis we see that God creates things and they are good.  In the Theogony we see a lot of chaos. Unlike the Bible, in the Theogony many things were created out of trickery or wrong doing.

     Here is another main difference between the two.  God is said to be all powerful but the Greek gods in the Theogony are not.  The Greek gods rely on one another to do certain things, whereas God does not need anyone's help or permission in order to preform tasks.

     Another one is that the gods are all born but God just always was.  He had no beginning and no end but the Greek gods, although undying, did not always exist.  

     It is also worth stating the similarities between the Theogony and Genesis.
   
     Both in the Bible and the Theogony, men were created before women.

     Another similarity is that they both have a head honcho (God and Zeus).

     We also see that they both have that which is supernatural (God in the Bible and the Greek gods in the Theogony).

     We can see many similarities and differences between these two amazing pieces of written art!  Thanks for reading!

 
   
   

Proverbs 1-7: Sanctions and Ethics

"Discuss the relationship between ethics and sanctions in Proverbs 1-7." 

       Today we will be focusing on the ethics and  sanctions in Proverbs 1-7.  
     One of the first ethical sanctions  in Proverbs is in chapter 1 verses 8-9 

  "My sonne, heare the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother.

 For they shall be an ornament of grace vnto thy head, and chaines about thy necke."

      Here is a positive sanction.  He will have an "ornament" of grace and "chaines" around his neck.  (This doesn't mean chains in a bad sense.  In those times, people of wealth would sometimes wear chains around their necks.)  It is saying that listening to the parents is an ethical thing to do.  It will bring about good sanctions.  

     Here are some more verses that use ethical sanctions. Chapter 6: verses 9-11. 

     "How long wilt thou sleepe, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleepe?

 Yet a little sleepe, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleepe.

 So shall thy pouertie come as one that trauaileth, and thy want as an armed man."

     These sanctions are negative.  These verses say that if we are lazy and do not work, we will descend into poverty. Poverty is obviously a negative sanction.  

     Ethics and sanctions go hand in hand.  We have no need for sanctions if the sanction is not ethical.  

     Thank you so much for reading, and please let me know what you think!

Ethics in the Story of Noah and the Flood

    In the story of Noah and the Flood we see that man had become wicked.  God was sad that he had created man, and made an ethical decision based on man's wickedness, to destroy mankind.  There was one man who was good in the eyes of the Lord.  His name was Noah.  God spared him and his family, as well as some animals.
   
    We see that God sent the flood because of man's wickedness.  This was an ethical decision.  Without ethics, there would be no point in sending the flood.  If he had no basis for destroying the earth, it would make no sense to do so.
   
    After the flood, God sent a rainbow as a sign that he would never again destroy the earth in a flood.  This was also an ethical decision.  He had a reason for making this covenant and thus, makes this an ethical decision.
   
    Later we come to Noah and Ham.  Noah had become drunk and lay in his tent.  Ham goes into the tent and sees that his father is naked.  He goes and tells his brothers and they go in and cover their father.  When Noah awakens from being drunk, he punishes Ham.  This was a case of family ethics.  Ham had disrespected his father and so, Noah made an ethical decision to punish his son.
   
    Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!