World Religions

I found some of the situations that came out of Utilitarianism were very interesting. For example, how for the majority to be wrong, the class had to go back and accept absolute morals they had already rejected. It was also interesting to see how consequence based morals worked. They worked differently than I thought they would. Even though I knew they had a gigantic flaw, it did not seem like a bad moral system. If the world actually had a set path, like destiny, I think this would be the perfect way to assess moral situations. However, seeing how there is no destiny (as far as we know). I still think Deontological ethics are the way to go.

The thing I found most fascinating about this week was the Zoroastrianist beliefs about Good and Evil. I had never actually thought of Good and Evil as equals, eternally battling each other for superiority. Rather, I thought universal balance meant Good would always trounce Evil. But when I actually thought about it on Thursday, the Zoroastrian belief actually made more sense. Life is made up of little victories of Good over Evil, and visa versa. Also, what we would consider Evil is never actually defeated, there is always a small vestige left in some corner of the universe, and the same is true in movies where Evil has seemingly wiped out Good. Its a never ending war, where the lines are slowly fading out of existence.

I found the activity we had on Fridya to be one of the most interesting things to happen all week. I had no idea how many people in the class shared the same ideas or beliefs. I thought it was odd that for such a diverse community we shared the same philisophical beliefs. However, for a group with the same beliefs, we all held the same weaknesses. I noted that when Mr. Smart posed the question of “if Aquinas was wrong about the purpose of humanity, what was the purpose?”, the debating group deftly sidestepped the questionand went right on attacking Aquina’s beliefs. I also found myself disagreeing with them. I thought the fact that our instincts drove us to learn and reproduce proved that Aquinas was correct. It has been psychologically proven that all animals are capable of some form of religion. Even in anarchy, humanity has striven to create order.

Poseidon was best known as the God of the Sea, but also was the god of floods, droughts, rivers and horses. Poseidon is often portrayed as a mature man witha beard, holding a trydant. Poseidon is known for having a quick and foul temper. He is a vengeful god, and seamen prayed to him for safe passage, out of fear that other wise he would destroy their ship. Occasionally, they would drown a horse as a sacrifice. Poseidon was worshipped as the main god in Corinth and many other cities of Magna Graeca.   Poseidon is famous mostly for three myths. The battle of the titans, in which he joined his sibling gods of Zues, Hades, Demeter, and Hera to vanquish the Titans. He also is famous for his competition with Athena over the city of Athens. For Athens he created a spring. Athena provided an olive tree. They first chose Poseidon, but soon realized his spring was salty and impotable. The athenians chose Athena over him eventually because her olive tree provided wood, food, and a symbol for peace. Finally, Poseidon is most famous for his role in the Oddysey. Poseidon becomes infuriated with Oddyseus when Oddyseus kill Kyklops, one of Poseidons sons. Poseidon raises a storm to punish Oddyseus. I chose to research Poseidon because he is one of the more interesting and human gods. He has a flaw, unlike his brother Zues, Poseidon has a bad temper. He also has many tales of destruction he causes when he is infuriated. His rash actions make him interesting to read about

This may not be the most interesting thing, but something about it caught my eye. The Reuters article mentioned a Love story was written about Mohammed and his wife, and was banned due to the reaction it might cause with the Islam religion. It made me laugh to realize that this is ironic, since something so small and innoffensive as a love story could be banned for one religion, but something so offensive as Preacher (not to me) could be published unhindered. It amazes me to see just how different some religions are treated from others, and how devoted certain religions are. Preacher was published with uproar from the Christian community, but they couldn’t do anything about it due to free speech. A series of Danish cartoons is published, and 50 people are killed to prove their outrage. In my opinion, although Christianity is less touchy than Islam, th Preacher series was much more offensive and metaphorically beat Christianity to death with its satire.The cartoons were derogatory, I acknowledge that, but I’d hate to see what would happen if the publishe the Muslim equivalent of Preacher. I left a link to both Preacher and the cartoons below. You decide for yourself which is more offensive. P.S. the ending to preacher isn’t posted, so if you want to know that, read it yourself.

P.S.S. The Preacher link does not work, because it is missing a parenthese on the end, just either search Preacher (comics) on wikipedia, or click one of those links offered

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/106096282_8276d346e8_o.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preacher_(comics)

The thing that impressed me the most this week was just how deep philosophy really was. The questions from class we covered, for example, if morality was universal, followed me the whole weekend. And as Mr. Smart put it, we’re only skimming the surface. If this is philosophy skin deep, i can’t imagine just how far down this stuff really goes. Its mind boggling. Also, it was really neat to learn about the Siberian Shamans and their rituals. The level of commitment those guys must have is unthinkable

I found Plato’s belief that humanity sees only a shadow of the truth very interesting. Since I carry Existentialist beliefs, I found reading about the opposing ideas very enthralling. I think Plato had a point. We, as human beings, only see so much. As he put it, “legs and necks being fastened so that they can only look straight ahead of them and cannot turn their heads.” We can, as humans, see only the obvious, shallow suface of existence, and nothing else. However, I think Plato was wrong when it comes to the nature of truth, good, and justice. Nothing is ever absolute. Some actions that could be considered wrong in certain situations are right in other. Murder in self defense as opposed to murder for fun, for example. Sometimes it is okay to sin, and what is right for one person can be wrong for another 

Welcome to Blogs @ Learning Smart. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!