The Industrial Revolution, the Standard-of-Living Debate, and the Abolition of Slavery

       "What in a nutshell was the Industrial
         Revolution?"


The Industrial Revolution was a revolution which started in Great Britain and then spread to other parts of the Western world. The fancy, new industrial kind of improvements were those that had to do with textiles, machinery in general, transportation, and the like. We see improvements in the cotton industry, roadways, canals, railroads, the metal industry, chemicals, etc. From the Industrial Revolution, we likewise see the ingenuity of the idea of steam power come into play with the invention of the stationary steam engine, which then began taking the place of water and wind power.

The Industrial Revolution was no doubt progress towards the advanced society we have today!




      "What was the standard-of-living debate?"


The standard-of-living debate had to do with whether or not life improved during the Industrial Revolution. Was it better for people to go off and work in hazardous conditions in factory jobs than what was offered before, in regards to occupation and life? This is what the standard-of-living debate was.

The answer? Yes. Facts and history show that people were better off for this simple reason: if they were worse off, then nobody would have taken the jobs. Many had two choices: starve or work in the factory. Poverty was to a point nearly beyond our comprehension. Obviously, if the people were going to be worse off, then they wouldn't have taken the jobs!

The standard-of-living debate now isn't really in question, in regard to the above statements. Now it has more to do with when the people started to have a better standard of living, so-to-speak.

The standard-of-living debate certainly has raised some eyebrows throughout the times since the Industrial Revolution, and I hope that this essay has helped to clear the air to some respect.




"What were the different arguments that combined Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies?"


One of the arguments combined with the others was this: that in order to abolish slavery we should first abolish the slave trade. In theory, this would result in fewer slaves coming in from the African continent. This would eventually run slavery into the ground due to the few numbers of slave shipments.

The first anti-slavery society was begun in 1787. In this society they had many plans and arguments that they would use to abolish slavery.

These arguments included the idea of a person's natural rights, the idea of humanitarianism which was used to fight against the brutality in slavery (not necessarily powerful enough to end slavery but rather to encourage rational thought), and economic principles.

It was thought that the slaves were beneficial to the economy, but rather it would be more beneficial for a plantation owner to simply hire help. The slaves would have to be cared for all year round, but hired help would be needed only part of the year. This would alleviate a great deal of cost for the slave owners.

Lastly, I will note that the general thought had been that slavery helped to protect national security. The research of Thomas Clarkson undermined this theory incredibly. Rather than slavery providing valuable training (which would lay the foundation for a navy life in times of war) for sailors who worked on the slave ships, the sailors would just die. That's how horrid the conditions on those ships were. Henceforth, if you were dead, then you obviously couldn't be used on British navy ships in times of war.

The Arguments that led to the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies were vast and
interesting indeed!   

Robinson Crusoe: Coins

Robinson Crusoe: "Why did he take the coins off the ship?"


In this work, Robinson Crusoe found himself stranded upon a deserted island where he learns how he shall be successful. If you compare chapter eight with one of the beginning chapters you'll see a drastic difference. In one of these chapters, Crusoe finds money on his wrecked ship, and he takes it. The reason that Crusoe took the money, in my opinion, is this: that Crusoe still wanted the money because it was still fresh in his mind and he was used to collecting it. And likewise, that he saw some possible use for it in the future.

Thanks for reading!

The Kulturkampf and Home Rule for Ireland

             "What was the Kulturkampf?"



The Kulturnkampf was a word in German that meant "culture struggle". It referred to a struggle having to do with German power in regards to control over the Catholic church. This included main figures such as Bismark and the Pope. Bismark placed laws of discrimination on the Catholics, and it was not uncommon for Catholics to be arrested, imprisoned or exiled, and for monks and nuns to flat out leave.

Eventually the old pope died, and a new pope who was more willing to negotiate with Bismark came to power. Bismark then sought to bring back the relationship that was once held with the Catholic church. The Kulterkampf was thus erased until not a remnant remained.




"What arguments does Gladstone make in favor of Home Rule for Ireland?"




William Gladstone made several arguments in favor of Home Rule for Ireland. A few of his arguments were that he believed Home Rule would make the Irish economy better, save money for England, and that it was morally right. He also did not approve of violent, revolutionary tactics.

He was ultimately unsuccessful in winning through his arguments

Thanks for reading!

Mandeville and Darwinism

"In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism?"


Particular views of Mandeville's lie in the idea of spontaneous order. Hayek defines this spontaneous order in this sentence.

"Society is the product of human action, not human design."

Darwin seems to have applied this aspect to biology. Him doing so resulted in the springing forth from 18th-century Scottish social philosophy (according to Hayek). This keeps on falling back to Mandeville.

 Mandeville wrote his Fable of the Bees, and him doing so resulted in it being read and it being used continually over the years to back up different economic (or in Darwins's case, biological) principles. ("...human action, not human design.")

Thanks for reading!

The French Revolution and Napoleon's status with the Church

"What happened (involving the Third Estate) during the meeting of the Estates General that set the French Revolution in motion?"


What happened during the meeting of the Estates General set France into complete and utter chaotic revolution. It started innocently enough. The Third Estate wished to have their votes counted per head instead of per Estate. They likewise wanted to be granted more Estate members so that their vote would be able to actually count. If not, then their votes would simply be outweighed by the other two Estates due to their having more members than the Third Estate. But when their request wasn't granted sufficiently they decided to turn it up a notch. They asked the First and Second Estate to join them in establishing a new constitution for France and they did. They (The Third Estate) declared themselves the people. They would be the people's voice. They would be the people's representative. The Third Estate had declared itself a separate assembly. They were the National Assembly for the nation.

Now, I think that I should make it clear that the Third Estate really had no legal power to do this. Henceforth, a revolution sprung itself into French life and existence. People's heads were spinning
and they wanted more. They wanted change, and they were going to get it in the form of the French Revolution.



"What was the situation of the Church in France after Napoleon came to power?"




The situation of the church in France was on a sort of balance beam after Napoleon came to power. Napoleon saw how alienated the church had become through the course of the French revolution and he knew that this was nonsense. He knew that he would have to reconcile with the Catholic church in one form or another. He reconciled by using the pope and in granting the church different freedoms. Napoleon attempted to regain the church in his favor, but he still wanted them under his thumb. He made it so that bishops would have to be nominated by him and then approved by the pope. Bishops would likewise have to appoint priests from a government approved list. Church lands were not returned, and some of the clergy were angered with these events. But, some viewed it differently. Some viewed it like this. At least the "churches" were being reopened, and at least there wasn't a schism as there had been before.

Like I said, the church in France was on a sort of balance beam. They were still under government control in many ways, but at the same time they were more free than they had previously been.

Thanks for reading my essay, and please let me know if you have any thoughts, corrections, etc. My hope for my blog is to create a place where students, historians, teachers, and anyone else can come and learn. I'm hoping that I can learn from you too, and that you'll help me to make my blog as informational and fun as possible.

     

Friedrich Gentz, Edmund Burke, and Mary Wollstonecraft

"How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and French Revolutions? Do you see the influence of Edmund Burke in his thinking?


Friedrich Gentz distinguishes very particular differences in the American and French Revolutions. He saw the American Revolution as a defensive measure to uphold the rights that they had for over a century. He sees the French Revolution as an offensive measure which tried to pull down French society's fabric and reupholster it.

To answer the question about whether or not I see Edmund Burke's influence in the thinking of Gentz, ultimately yes. I believe that I do see this influence, or at least, I see extreme similarities between these two people's thinking patterns. Burke and Gentz both thought that society is built over time and not simply ripped apart and put together again in a mismatching puzzle piece fashion. Burke had a very conservative thinking process. As stated before, he didn't believe it correct to put together a completely new society in a heartbeat, so to speak. He saw long-standing institutions as being there for a reason. If one existed, for let's say, a thousand years, it's probably a good assumption that there's a reason for this institution being around.

There you have it. Friedrich Gentz, Edmund Burke, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution–distinguished, explained, and pieced together in blog/essay like proportions.



"What points is Mary Wollstonecraft making in the excerpts you read from the beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? What would she like to see changed in European society?"




In the excerpts I read I found that Mary Wollstonecraft had a deep yearning to see girls educated and given deserving rights of the human species. She likewise thought that women ought to be treated as rational individuals and not simply like alluring objects for a man's short-term fancy.

Allow me to include this excerpt by Mary Wollstonecraft in which she is speaking to the female gender:

  "My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone."

Simply stated, she didn't particularly enjoy women acting like they had no real intelligence.

I conclude then that Mary Wollstonecraft wished to see women educated, respected even of themselves, and being able to stand on their own two feet in a male-dominated European society.

Thanks for reading!    

The Values of Modernism and the Launch of World War I

"What are the values of Modernism that we see reflected across different fields, and how do they represent a departure from neoclassicism and the Enlightenment?"


There is an abundance of values that are reflected in Modernism. They are likely a perfectly painted picture of the opposite of neoclassicism and the Enlightenment in many ways. The values of Modernism departed from neoclassicism in a way that took an approach that might seem more disorderly than those values which were cherished in neoclassicism. The values in this newer age of thinking followed along a path of mixed emotions, lack of truly noticeable centers, nonsense, and a kind of unique beauty.

Paintings in the age of Modernism had a real feel for the artist's depiction of something rather than perhaps its true nature. Those in science were debating that perhaps this universe may be in some ways, unpredictable. Not to mention the music of this time which was rather out of typical order and very unique in its style. These characteristics were very contradictory of those in neoclassicism and the Enlightenment.

I hope that I have adequately demonstrated the departure from neoclassicism and the Enlightenment to the classification we call Modernism!



"What factors contributed to the coming of World War I?"




The factors which contributed the coming of the horrid war of World War I had much to do with the coming of particular wars, alliances, and the like. So many entered into alliances, fought their wars and such that eventually we have a mishmash of fighting which pulled basically the whole world into its clutches. Henceforth, we have the despicable time period which encompassed World War I.

During the time period which led up to World War I, we had alliances between Germany, Austria, and Russia and between Germany, Austria, and Italy! The last straw was the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand who was the successor to the Austrian throne. After horror and contempt for the plotting of particular individuals in the Serbian government, the Austrians decided on an ultimatum. And congratulations which were received by the Serbs by the Russian Pan-Slavists on the front of Serbian nationalism didn't help matters particularly. This ultimatum would have indeed ended independence for the Serbs. Can you guess what happened next? Despite interference from some of the main powers, the two parties along with their allies helped to send the world into a pit of despair that would be dug into the earth from the summer of 1914-1918. World War I had begun.

The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian View of the Universe, Leonhard Euler, and The Enlightenment

"What was the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe, and how did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton undermine it and institute an alternative?"




The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe was that of a geocentric model. The Earth as the center of the universe. Orbits as circles and perfectly rounded planets, as well as stars, were also included in this peculiar idea. This, of course, was not an accurate viewpoint so it was eventually challenged, as so many theories are at one point in time or another.

Some that challenged this way of thinking were the great minds of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.

Copernicus argued that the sun was the center of the universe. Therefore we see a heliocentric model. He likewise perceived that the Earth rotates on its axis. Common knowledge today, but revolutionary in his time.

Kepler undermined the idea of a Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view by proposing the theory of elliptical orbits instead of the standard idea that the orbits went around in circles. Again, this was revolutionary.

Galileo likewise contributed to this revolutionary process through his observation of moons orbiting Jupiter. This was proof that not everything revolved around the Earth as was previously thought.

I will lastly mention the monumental discoveries of Newton. Newton's ideas of gravity were extraordinary! Newton believed that gravity was the force that kept things moving and kept the air from escaping. He also predicted a transit of Venus. He was, in fact, the first astronomer to successfully do this.

The ideas throughout the centuries have been vast, but far fewer have been true. Copernicus and the others mentioned today knew that they must prove and disprove the world's theories. How few have realized this? There is little to be said for ignorance, but in knowledge there is power.



"Explain the significance of the person you read about for Lesson 48 in 100 words."


In lesson 48 I read about a mathematician/physicist, Leonhard Euler. Euler was known for his discoveries in many areas of study such as fluid dynamics, graph theory, music theory, mathematical function, etc. All of these areas are influential and greatly important, but I took a particular interest in his idea of mathematical function. The idea of numbers and mathematical problems as real life things was greatly fascinating to me.

Leonhard Euler was a mathematician/physicist. He was born in 1707, and he died in 1783. His historical significance was that of stamping a perfectly mathematical footprint on the field of science.



"Describe the main ideas we associate with the Enlightenment."



When you hear the word enlightenment, what is it that you think of? Maybe you think of people coming to great conclusions, philosophical thought, and reason. The idea of reason is one of the key characteristics that is often associated with the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, though, it was, at times, disregarded. For example, during this time people tended to be skeptical of using reason to come to theological points. Then again, they were skeptical of most anything during the course of the Enlightenment.

They weren't particularly fond of accepting age-old inherited ideas either. People of this time had the thought that they should rather look to science for their founding principles of most anything. The people of the Enlightenment did have an agreement for the most part with the idea of religious toleration, though. Yet, they tended to favor the stripping of "ritual" practices from religion.

These ideas laid the foundation of the Enlightenment. And in the Enlightenment, learners of history have found even more to diligently study. I hope that you have enjoyed this personal study of this age. Thanks for reading!

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."

The Congress of Vienna, the Carlsbad Decrees, and the Purpose of Compulsory State Education

"What were the major principles guiding the diplomats at the Congress of Vienna?"

The Congress of Vienna was influenced by three major principles that revolved around keeping the peace after the Napoleonic wars.

The first principle is legitimacy focused on (of course) keeping or reinstating the power of the legitimate leader/king/royal family. This basically only works though, if you believe in the idea of the natural power of your leaders. And back then, that had been widely believed.

The second principle is the balance of power. This principle was kept to make sure that the powers were "balanced" as to avoid any one power becoming too great. If one power became too great, then there was too much of a chance for it (the one power) to create more war. And the whole point of the Congress of Vienna, after all, was providing and keeping the peace.

The third principle is compensation. The principle of compensation runs a great deal along the lines of the balance of power. Compensation dealt with the powers being compensated for their losses during the Napoleonic wars. If they lost land, then they would be compensated through the gain of more land. With this though comes the fact that in order to keep a balance of power, then you would have to likewise continue giving land to the other powers to balance things out.


These three guiding principles were used by the Congress of Vienna to keep the peace and reinstate stability for their world. War was undesirable, and where there is war, death quickly follows.


         "What were the Carlsbad Decrees?"

The Carlsbad Decrees were decrees which were put into effect by those whom were on the conservative side, in order to abolish the revolutionary uproar that was occurring at that time. The terribly unfortunate occurrence that truly brought this about was the killing of an individual who was more opposed to the revolutionary ideas by an unstable university fraternity member.

The Carlsbad Decrees put the universities on a leash, dissembled the fraternities, and the like. These decrees were used to demolish the revolutionary tendencies and protect the conservative way of thinking.


"According to Rothbard, did compulsory state education emerge because governments simply wanted their people to become more knowledgeable, or were there other motivations at work?"


Murray Rothbard's idea was not that governments simply wished for their people to be educated. It was that the governments wished for their people to be educated as to instill a nationalistic vigor in them. This technique would then lay the foundations for a people that would rely on their government and trust in its strength.

It's like a parent raising a child. If you raise a child to think a certain way and act a certain way, then that child is much more likely to stick to that way of thinking and choose a life path that runs along with it. Chances are that the child won't turn around, spit on the old principles, and run down the road in the opposite direction.

This technique was supported by both Martin Luther and John Calvin as a resourceful way to instill particular religious views in young people.

Murray Rothbard's view was that the government wished to instill certain ideals and principles in its people, so that the people would trust in the deeds and wishes of the government.


Thanks for reading!  

Robinson Crusoe (the Storms)

"How important for the narrative are the descriptions of the storms?" (book: Robinson Crusoe)



What is the importance of the descriptions of the storms in Robinson Crusoe? I believe that the stories in Robinson Crusoe don't as much focus on the descriptions of the storms but rather the consequences in Robinson Crusoe's life after the storms/through the storms. His ship sinking, being stranded on an island, etc. are instances and circumstances that I view as the meat of the story.

The storms although important, aren't necessarily the meat of it for me. They're rather the bone marrow, with his actions in response to his life's circumstances being the bones.

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!

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!       







    

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!

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!

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!

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.   

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.

Utopia: Why a Sensible Reformer?

"Why does More present the traveler as a sensible reformer early in book 1, but not later?"



I believe that More is attempting to ease into Utopia. In Utopia, there are a great deal of highly controversial topics, and it would be rather difficult for the reader to immediately dive into them.

Allow me to use horseback riding as an example. Generally, when you ride a horse you don't begin by immediately going into your canter (the main speed a horse can go between a walk and gallop). You ease into it. First with a walk, then with a trot. This is what I believe More is attempting to accomplish by representing the traveler in this manner.

Luther's Thoughts on Pope Leo X, and His Knowledge of the Indulgence Salesmen's Words

"Do you think that Luther really believed that Pope Leo X did not know what the indulgence salesmen were saying?"


As to this topic, I have two main hypotheses.  The first is that he honestly thought he was defending the pope by saying that the pope didn't know what the indulgence salesmen were saying.  The second is that he simply hoped that he was correct in assuming as much.

Truthfully, I am unsure as to what Luther thought at this time in my study.  I will need to dive further into this topic in the future, and I highly suggest that you do the same.

Thank you so much for reading, and please give me some feedback on this essay!