Animal Intelligence

"What does it mean to say a creature is 'intelligent'?"


First of all, what is intelligence?  Well, intelligence is what determines how well (if at all) we will be able to decipher a problem.  It helps us to learn about the world in which we live, and it assists us in making this world better for all of us.  Without intelligence, the world would be completely chaotic.

Now that we have defined intelligence, we must tackle the question that asks, "What does it mean to say a creature is intelligent?".  I suppose it means that the creature can think about a problem, and find a solution that isn't simply based on instinct.

I will use two examples of animal intelligence today.  First of all, I will use the chimpanzee.  The chimpanzee has been known to "problem-solve" in peculiar ways.  Sometimes it will actually make tools for finding food! It will take a piece of grassy twig, remove the leaves, and then stick the grassy twig into a termite mound.  When it pulls out the grassy twig, there are generally several termites stuck to the grass.  In this way, the chimpanzee has used the grassy twig to "fish" for a termite snack.

The next example that I will use is the elephant.  They have been known to paint pictures, they form lasting bonds with family members, and they seem to exhibit self-recognition in mirrors!

Even though animals can't create spacecrafts, or create a car engine like us, they certainly seem to have intelligence to some degree.

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

The 9th-and 10th-century invasions, and how they affected life in the West.

"Describe the ninth-and tenth-century invasions.  Apart from the physical destruction involved, how did they affect life in the West?"


The 9th-and 10th-century invasions were brought about by the Norsemen/Vikings, Magyars, and the Muslims.  These forces caused much fear and loss to the people of the 9th-and 10th-century.

The Vikings (mixture of Scandinavians/raided the coastal river cities of France) would burn down countless villages, destroyed many churches and monasteries, took innocent people into slavery, and of course looted.  I think it goes without saying that the Vikings were a treacherous people.

The Magyars (attacked Germany, northern Italy, and parts of France) would burn down French monasteries and suburbs, and they also took part in despicable looting and pillaging.

The Muslims ( based in Africa and Spain) took part in looting and plundering the places in which they were attempting to conquer, and they would even go about the horrible deed of kidnapping.

As far as how the invasions affecting life in the West goes, it is safe to say that they caused much distress.  Beside this though, they also brought upon two very important things called feudalism and manorialism.  If you would like to learn more about these two aspects of life in history, please proceed to the section of this essay dedicated to them below.


"Describe feudalism and manorialism."


Feaudalism and manorialism came about as a creative response to the outside invasions of the 9th-and 10th-century.  The victims of the Vikings would try to find protection through people called lords by becoming the lord's vassal.  The vassal would be given land and protection from the Vikings in exchange for service to the lord.  These are the basic ideas of feudalism and manorialism.


I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
     

The Procopius Portrayal of Justinian

"What kind of person emerges from the Procopius portrayal of Justinian?"


From the Procopius portrayal I see a man that did not have a good nature.  I see someone who was oppressive, deceitful, a thief, cruel, and to put it simply, an immoral human-being.  It is clear that the writer didn't like Justinian all that much.  Procopius seems to have thought of Justinian as purely wicked, with absolutely no morality whatsoever.  Justinian is portrayed as a man whom you could never trust to keep his word, nor could you believe anything that he said.

To give you an idea of how gruesome Justinian is portrayed, I will include a portion from Procopius: Secret History.

    "A faithless friend, he was a treacherous enemy, insane for murder and plunder, quarrelsome and revolutionary, easily led to anything, but never willing to listen to good counsel, quick to plan mischief and carry it out, but finding even the hearing of anything good distasteful to his ears."

As you can see, this portrayal of Justinian was not one that gave him much praise.  Well, more like no praise.

I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, 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!