"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!
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Friday, September 19, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
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!
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!
Friday, March 21, 2014
The Main Issue Dividing Jesus From the Leaders of Isreal
"According to Mark's gospel, what was main issue dividing Jesus from the leaders of Israel?"
I strongly believe that it was how he was taking charge of what they held in their possession. What they held was the law. Jesus was taking the law, changing it, and in their minds he was hindering their power. He of course was doing this, and it extremely bothered the leaders of Israel. Out of their jealousy of Jesus' new found power, they killed him. In doing so, they violated one of the Ten Commandments.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)
The leaders coveted a possession of their neighbor (Jesus' power), and they broke a law which they had vowed to uphold.
Thanks for reading!
I strongly believe that it was how he was taking charge of what they held in their possession. What they held was the law. Jesus was taking the law, changing it, and in their minds he was hindering their power. He of course was doing this, and it extremely bothered the leaders of Israel. Out of their jealousy of Jesus' new found power, they killed him. In doing so, they violated one of the Ten Commandments.
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)
The leaders coveted a possession of their neighbor (Jesus' power), and they broke a law which they had vowed to uphold.
Thanks for reading!
Tha
T
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Merovingians, Carolingians, and Charlemagne
"What picture of Charlemagne emerges from Einhard's biography?"
The picture that I see of Charlemagne in this biography is one of elegance and respect. I see a man who worked to bring up his children in a secure environment, and I see a man who worked to beautify the place in which he lived.
For many, I believe that they will probably pay closest attention to the wars in which he fought, or perhaps they will particularly notice the power which he held. I personally have little interest in the wars or politics. I have interest in the description of the man, and aren't I supposed to be describing the picture of the man?
For me, the picture of Charlemagne that emerges from Einhard's biography is one which demands attention and wonder. I see a man who was quite admirable. That is the picture which I believe emerges from Einhard's biography.
"Discuss the shift in power from the Merovingians to the Carolingians. Why did it occur, and how?"
First of all, the Merovingians were not exactly what I'd call skilled administrators. For instance, they fought among each other in bloody slaughters between brothers and cousins. They also would take place in human sacrifice. Needles to say, these weren't the kind of people that you would like as your neighbors.
As time went on, a man named Pepin the Short came to power thanks to the Pope. Pepin asked the Pope if it was right that a ruler whom did nothing had power, but the one who did something had no power. The Pope said that was not right, and this is where the shift between power changed.
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think! I would love to hear from you!
The picture that I see of Charlemagne in this biography is one of elegance and respect. I see a man who worked to bring up his children in a secure environment, and I see a man who worked to beautify the place in which he lived.
For many, I believe that they will probably pay closest attention to the wars in which he fought, or perhaps they will particularly notice the power which he held. I personally have little interest in the wars or politics. I have interest in the description of the man, and aren't I supposed to be describing the picture of the man?
For me, the picture of Charlemagne that emerges from Einhard's biography is one which demands attention and wonder. I see a man who was quite admirable. That is the picture which I believe emerges from Einhard's biography.
"Discuss the shift in power from the Merovingians to the Carolingians. Why did it occur, and how?"
First of all, the Merovingians were not exactly what I'd call skilled administrators. For instance, they fought among each other in bloody slaughters between brothers and cousins. They also would take place in human sacrifice. Needles to say, these weren't the kind of people that you would like as your neighbors.
As time went on, a man named Pepin the Short came to power thanks to the Pope. Pepin asked the Pope if it was right that a ruler whom did nothing had power, but the one who did something had no power. The Pope said that was not right, and this is where the shift between power changed.
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think! I would love to hear from you!
Friday, February 21, 2014
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!
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!
Friday, January 31, 2014
Optimism in Livy and Ovid
"Was there any basis for an optimistic view of Rome in Livy and Ovid?"
Can we find any basis for an optimistic view of Rome? I think that we absolutely can! For instance, In Livy, when the Sabine women are kidnapped, they end up giving in after a while and their children became Rome's first offspring. I suppose that there is reason for optimism there.
In Ovid we see that two people did survive the flood of Jupiter. They were even allowed to continue the human race. So, was there any basis for an optimistic view? Yes, I believe that there was.
Thank you for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Can we find any basis for an optimistic view of Rome? I think that we absolutely can! For instance, In Livy, when the Sabine women are kidnapped, they end up giving in after a while and their children became Rome's first offspring. I suppose that there is reason for optimism there.
In Ovid we see that two people did survive the flood of Jupiter. They were even allowed to continue the human race. So, was there any basis for an optimistic view? Yes, I believe that there was.
Thank you for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
"If you had been Catiline, what would you have said to undermine Cicero's case?"
If I had been Catiline, I would have confronted Cicero on many of his accusations. Cicero seems to have accused Catiline of many devious/evil things, and yet he presents no real proof to him or to the senate. I would have asked Cicero to provide the proof that he wasn't sharing. If there was real proof of the deeds then of course I would be condemned, but if there was no real proof I would have a tremendous advantage. I would therefore be able to represent myself to not only the senate, but also to Cicero, as an innocent individual.
Friday, December 20, 2013
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Aeschylus
"What was Aeschylus's view of the Trojan war?"
The way that Aeschylus describes the remains of Troy, and the Greek's victory was very interesting indeed!
First of all, we see that the war is said to have been started because a woman named Helen was captured. The war would last ten long years.
Once the men returned to their families, we are told that the women are angry because they know that their husbands have most-likely had affairs with the captured women of Troy.
I think that this shows that Aeschylus's view of the Trojan war was not a "blind view" so to speak. He noticed the negative qualities that resulted from them and made sure to note of them. I think that although I'm sure that he saw some good things as a result of the Trojan war, he also noticed the bad.
Thank you so much for reading, and please let me know what you think!
The way that Aeschylus describes the remains of Troy, and the Greek's victory was very interesting indeed!
First of all, we see that the war is said to have been started because a woman named Helen was captured. The war would last ten long years.
Once the men returned to their families, we are told that the women are angry because they know that their husbands have most-likely had affairs with the captured women of Troy.
I think that this shows that Aeschylus's view of the Trojan war was not a "blind view" so to speak. He noticed the negative qualities that resulted from them and made sure to note of them. I think that although I'm sure that he saw some good things as a result of the Trojan war, he also noticed the bad.
Thank you so much for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
"What Was Hesiod's View of the Mankind's Past and Future?" (Works and Days)
Well, Hesiod worshiped the gods of Olympus, so his view of the past and future revolves mainly around them.
When he talks about the past of mankind, it consists of five races of men.
1. gold: the first race
2. silver: the second race
3. bronze: the third race
4. the demi-gods: the fourth race
5. iron: the fifth race (our race)
The past races of men were all destroyed by Zeus, and according to Hesiod, our race will be destroyed in the future as well.
Another thing to keep in mind is that each one of these races are supposed to be worse than the one before them. Taking this into consideration, I believe that his view of Mankind's past was both good and bad, because although he notes the negative qualities in "Works and Days", he also states the good. And as far as the future goes, it can only be negative if each race gets worse than the other.
Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!
When he talks about the past of mankind, it consists of five races of men.
1. gold: the first race
2. silver: the second race
3. bronze: the third race
4. the demi-gods: the fourth race
5. iron: the fifth race (our race)
The past races of men were all destroyed by Zeus, and according to Hesiod, our race will be destroyed in the future as well.
Another thing to keep in mind is that each one of these races are supposed to be worse than the one before them. Taking this into consideration, I believe that his view of Mankind's past was both good and bad, because although he notes the negative qualities in "Works and Days", he also states the good. And as far as the future goes, it can only be negative if each race gets worse than the other.
Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
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!
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!
Friday, November 1, 2013
The Peloponnesian War and Pericles' Funeral Oration
"What points is Pericles trying to make about Athens in his Funeral Oration?"
Pericles was trying to get across how wonderful Athens was, praise the people, and honor the dead at the same time.
He talked about all the advantages that Athenian citizens had, he tried to motivate the living during a time of war, and as stated earlier, honor the dead.
He wanted to help the people to keep going by telling them about what they had to live up to (The dead soldiers). He also tried to give them a reason(s)to keep fighting by telling them about all that they had to lose. He told them about all of the amazing advantages that Athens had to offer like its freedom in government and ordinary life.
These were the points that Pericles was trying to make in his Funeral Oration.
"Why was the Peloponnesian War fought? What was its long-term significance?"
The Peloponnesian War was fought for these reasons.
1. Athens appeared to be using the Delian League's ship-building funds to help beautify itself instead of to build ships for the protection of those in the Delian League.
2. Sparta was afraid that Athens was becoming too powerful.
Here is the war's long-term significance.
1. Athens would lose its dominance of the other members of the Delian League.
2. Sparta would take control of things.
3. In the end, this war between the Greeks would ultimately weaken them and spell out some serious consequences.
Well, That's all for this week. I hope that you have enjoyed this essay on "The Peloponnesian War and Pericles' Funeral Oration". See you next Friday, and please let me know what you think!
Pericles was trying to get across how wonderful Athens was, praise the people, and honor the dead at the same time.
He talked about all the advantages that Athenian citizens had, he tried to motivate the living during a time of war, and as stated earlier, honor the dead.
He wanted to help the people to keep going by telling them about what they had to live up to (The dead soldiers). He also tried to give them a reason(s)to keep fighting by telling them about all that they had to lose. He told them about all of the amazing advantages that Athens had to offer like its freedom in government and ordinary life.
These were the points that Pericles was trying to make in his Funeral Oration.
"Why was the Peloponnesian War fought? What was its long-term significance?"
The Peloponnesian War was fought for these reasons.
1. Athens appeared to be using the Delian League's ship-building funds to help beautify itself instead of to build ships for the protection of those in the Delian League.
2. Sparta was afraid that Athens was becoming too powerful.
Here is the war's long-term significance.
1. Athens would lose its dominance of the other members of the Delian League.
2. Sparta would take control of things.
3. In the end, this war between the Greeks would ultimately weaken them and spell out some serious consequences.
Well, That's all for this week. I hope that you have enjoyed this essay on "The Peloponnesian War and Pericles' Funeral Oration". See you next Friday, and please let me know what you think!
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Aristotle and Sparta
"Why was Aristotle a significant figure?"
Well...This is a tricky subject. I mean, what makes anyone a significant person in history? The person was born, raised, the person had a brain, a heart, and I'm sure that they had a favorite food, but obviously these facts aren't what makes a person significant. Considering all of the people in the world it's a strange wonder how anyone makes it to the top.
Alright,so let's just try and figure out what the significant figures all have in common. They all have that strange, magical, mystifying, and very rare ability to pull people in to what they are saying. There could be the person who is the key to every question that the human race have ever asked living on this planet right now and we wouldn't even know who that person was if he had no means of telling us. If he didn't have the talent or resources to tell us, then how would he? Well, he wouldn't because he couldn't. That's it then, we have found the reason that Aristotle was significant! No no no, remove that ridiculous idea from your mind! We still have quite a ways to go in figuring out why this man was significant. What is another thing that all significant people have in common? That's right, all significant people have a message that they think is important to the world that they would like to share. Do we have the answer yet? No, I'm afraid not. We know that he had some way of drawing attention to himself and that he had a message to give, but what was that message and why was it important? Then and only then, will we know what was so significant about Aristotle.
(Caution! You are now entering into a different time in history! You may experience the feeling that only comes from the sheer perfection of learning about the past.)
"Excuse me, but you seem to be a little lost. Is there anything that I can help you with?" The stranger looks at you calmly and sincerely. "Yes, indeed you can. I am looking for Aristotle the philosopher. Do you know where I can find him?" "Surely, I believe that he is with young Alexander right about now." You give the stranger a nod of gratitude and hurry down the road till you find the place where the future Alexander the Great and the philosopher Aristotle were studying. "Excuse me sirs, but I am in need of both your assistance. You see, I need to know what makes Aristotle here a significant figure! I have searched high and low but I cannot seem to find the answer. I thought that if I spoke to you directly, then I might understand it more clearly." Aristotle and young Alexander look at you in amazement. "I do not know what makes you think that you can just barge into the lesson I am teaching, but because you seem so genuinely confused, you are welcome to sit in and listen to what I have to say for the time being. You thank the man for allowing you this great honor and sit quietly while him and Alexander go through that day's lesson.
Through sitting here, you learn many things about this person that you have only read and heard about through your life. You learn that he thought that we should not simply ignore the world in which we live, but rather, we should study it. You hear him talk about his findings in science as well as his moral beliefs. You come to see that he is a very logical person and it is no wonder to you now why he was so significant in history.
When the lesson is finished, you thank the two and go back to your world. When you arrive you quickly write down your findings on why this man was so significant. Here is what you wrote. "Aristotle was a man with a mind of his own. He did not just accept the findings of others to be true. He wanted to know for himself. This was what made him a philosopher. He was not simply a philosopher though, he was a philosopher who wanted to know many things. He thought about science, politics, logic, etc. He made us use our minds. His ideas intrigued us, He made us think logically through questions that we have asked ourselves, and he tried his very best to leave us with some idea of our world. He was "the philosopher." This is why he was and still is, a significant figure.
"What was Spartan society like?"
Spartan society was a very strange place to say the least. Once Sparta had conquered Messenia, they enslaved the conquered people. It turned out that the slaves or helots as they called them, ended up greatly outnumbering Sparta. Because they were afraid of a helot revolt, they decided to turn Sparta into a military state.
They took the Spartan boys at age 7 and forced them to commit horrible acts, eat only a small amount of food, took away their shoes, and they only gave them one cloak. The boys would be in the military training for 13 years. Once they reached the age of twenty, the boys would join into the citizen army and be allowed to marry.
The girls were not taken from home but did have to participate in sports such as running. This was so that they would be fit bearers of children.
Finally, after all of that time away from home, at age 30, the Spartan men could go back to their families! Even though they were allowed to live at home, they still had to eat at a public mess hall.
Now I will tell you about the government of Sparta. Sparta had two kings, a council of elders, an executive board of five ephors, and an assembly of citizens which consisted of every Spartan male who was over the age of 30.
Well, now you know a little bit about Sparta. Shout it from the roof tops, tell it to all of your friends, send out Sparta information packets in the mail! (Please don't actually do that.)
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
(Caution! You are now entering into a different time in history! You may experience the feeling that only comes from the sheer perfection of learning about the past.)
"Excuse me, but you seem to be a little lost. Is there anything that I can help you with?" The stranger looks at you calmly and sincerely. "Yes, indeed you can. I am looking for Aristotle the philosopher. Do you know where I can find him?" "Surely, I believe that he is with young Alexander right about now." You give the stranger a nod of gratitude and hurry down the road till you find the place where the future Alexander the Great and the philosopher Aristotle were studying. "Excuse me sirs, but I am in need of both your assistance. You see, I need to know what makes Aristotle here a significant figure! I have searched high and low but I cannot seem to find the answer. I thought that if I spoke to you directly, then I might understand it more clearly." Aristotle and young Alexander look at you in amazement. "I do not know what makes you think that you can just barge into the lesson I am teaching, but because you seem so genuinely confused, you are welcome to sit in and listen to what I have to say for the time being. You thank the man for allowing you this great honor and sit quietly while him and Alexander go through that day's lesson.
Through sitting here, you learn many things about this person that you have only read and heard about through your life. You learn that he thought that we should not simply ignore the world in which we live, but rather, we should study it. You hear him talk about his findings in science as well as his moral beliefs. You come to see that he is a very logical person and it is no wonder to you now why he was so significant in history.
When the lesson is finished, you thank the two and go back to your world. When you arrive you quickly write down your findings on why this man was so significant. Here is what you wrote. "Aristotle was a man with a mind of his own. He did not just accept the findings of others to be true. He wanted to know for himself. This was what made him a philosopher. He was not simply a philosopher though, he was a philosopher who wanted to know many things. He thought about science, politics, logic, etc. He made us use our minds. His ideas intrigued us, He made us think logically through questions that we have asked ourselves, and he tried his very best to leave us with some idea of our world. He was "the philosopher." This is why he was and still is, a significant figure.
"What was Spartan society like?"
Spartan society was a very strange place to say the least. Once Sparta had conquered Messenia, they enslaved the conquered people. It turned out that the slaves or helots as they called them, ended up greatly outnumbering Sparta. Because they were afraid of a helot revolt, they decided to turn Sparta into a military state.
They took the Spartan boys at age 7 and forced them to commit horrible acts, eat only a small amount of food, took away their shoes, and they only gave them one cloak. The boys would be in the military training for 13 years. Once they reached the age of twenty, the boys would join into the citizen army and be allowed to marry.
The girls were not taken from home but did have to participate in sports such as running. This was so that they would be fit bearers of children.
Finally, after all of that time away from home, at age 30, the Spartan men could go back to their families! Even though they were allowed to live at home, they still had to eat at a public mess hall.
Now I will tell you about the government of Sparta. Sparta had two kings, a council of elders, an executive board of five ephors, and an assembly of citizens which consisted of every Spartan male who was over the age of 30.
Well, now you know a little bit about Sparta. Shout it from the roof tops, tell it to all of your friends, send out Sparta information packets in the mail! (Please don't actually do that.)
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
The History of Minoan Crete and the Mycenaeans
We did not really learn about the existence of Minoan Crete until about 1899 when the city of Knossos was excavated. Other cities were found around the island of Crete as well.
They were a civilization with lovely pottery, palaces, and frescoes. Their art seems to focus on daily life. As for the palaces, they are thought to have originally been religious centers and later used for royalty.
The Minoans are thought to have been a peaceful people focusing in trade instead of war. But it does appear that they took part in human sacrifice.
They had a "palace economy" where the people would manufacture the goods and the government would decide where everything went.
We are not familiar with their literature because their language is written in a text called "Linear A" which we cannot decipher.
They are thought to eventually be invaded by the Mycenaeans of mainland Greece.
We will now talk about Mycenaean Greece. It was thought that Greek history began in 800 BC but that theory was proved wrong by a man named, Heinrich Schliemann who lived from 1822-1890. He loved the Homeric epics and decided to go to Turkey to find the city of Troy. He does find Troy and excavates it. He found evidence of destruction and he wondered if that could possibly be evidence of a Trojan war. It was not enough however, and we still are not sure if their ever was a Trojan war.
The Mycenaeans appear to have had independent cities and each one was probably ruled by one king. The Mycenaeans seem to have been a warlike people quite unlike the Minoans of Crete. The Mycenaeans did however absorb some of the Minoan culture which can be seen in their craftsmanship.
The Mycenaeans used a form of writing called "Linear B" which we have deciphered and have learned that it is an early form of Greek.
We think that a lot of Greek religion originated in Mycenaean times.
We will now come to the demise of Mycenaean Greece. Here are some theories on what happened to Mycenaean Greece. Some believe that there was internal conflict. Others think that environmental factors were involved. There are also other theories but I will not mention all of them.
Now we will move on to the Mycenaean Dark Age, (1100-800 BC) where we find next to nothing concerning outside trade, literacy, or anything else. There is however, some controversy on if their ever was a "Dark Age". This minority is convinced that we have the dating systems wrong and that we are adding time that was never there.
Thank you so much for reading "The History of Minoan Crete and the Mycenaeans" and please let me know what you think!
They were a civilization with lovely pottery, palaces, and frescoes. Their art seems to focus on daily life. As for the palaces, they are thought to have originally been religious centers and later used for royalty.
The Minoans are thought to have been a peaceful people focusing in trade instead of war. But it does appear that they took part in human sacrifice.
They had a "palace economy" where the people would manufacture the goods and the government would decide where everything went.
We are not familiar with their literature because their language is written in a text called "Linear A" which we cannot decipher.
They are thought to eventually be invaded by the Mycenaeans of mainland Greece.
We will now talk about Mycenaean Greece. It was thought that Greek history began in 800 BC but that theory was proved wrong by a man named, Heinrich Schliemann who lived from 1822-1890. He loved the Homeric epics and decided to go to Turkey to find the city of Troy. He does find Troy and excavates it. He found evidence of destruction and he wondered if that could possibly be evidence of a Trojan war. It was not enough however, and we still are not sure if their ever was a Trojan war.
The Mycenaeans appear to have had independent cities and each one was probably ruled by one king. The Mycenaeans seem to have been a warlike people quite unlike the Minoans of Crete. The Mycenaeans did however absorb some of the Minoan culture which can be seen in their craftsmanship.
The Mycenaeans used a form of writing called "Linear B" which we have deciphered and have learned that it is an early form of Greek.
We think that a lot of Greek religion originated in Mycenaean times.
We will now come to the demise of Mycenaean Greece. Here are some theories on what happened to Mycenaean Greece. Some believe that there was internal conflict. Others think that environmental factors were involved. There are also other theories but I will not mention all of them.
Now we will move on to the Mycenaean Dark Age, (1100-800 BC) where we find next to nothing concerning outside trade, literacy, or anything else. There is however, some controversy on if their ever was a "Dark Age". This minority is convinced that we have the dating systems wrong and that we are adding time that was never there.
Thank you so much for reading "The History of Minoan Crete and the Mycenaeans" and please let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)