Blog

Throughout the Bible, Moses has been portrayed as the deliverer, leader, lawgiver, and prophet of Israel.

Moses

Throughout the Bible, Moses has been portrayed as the deliverer, leader, lawgiver, and prophet of Israel. He is the Hebrew prophet who delivered the Israelites from Egyptian slavery and was their leader and lawgiver during their years of wandering in the wilderness. The name in Hebrew is Mosheh, meaning drawn out, but the original meaning is derived from the Egyptian language meaning child or son. The Egyptian translation reflects that Pharaoh’s daughter simply named him “child” when Moses was found. Moses belonged to the tribe of Levi, and was the son of Amram by his wife Jochebed. The other members of the family were Aaron and Miriam, his elder brother and sister.

The life of Moses is divided into three equal portions of forty years each, consisting of his life in Egypt, exile in Arabia, and government of Israel. Moses was a leader so inspired by God that he was able to build a nation from a race of oppressed and weary slaves. In the covenant ceremony at Mount Sinai, where the Ten Commandments were given, he founded the religious community known as Israel. As the interpreter of these covenant laws, he was the organizer of the community’s religious and civil traditions. His story is told in the Old Testament, in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. He was a child of the captive Hebrews, but one whom the Lord would use to deliver Israel from her oppressors.

Moses was born about 1520 B.C. In Egypt took place his birth, adoption, and the avenging of his countrymen. At the time of Moses’ birth the order commanding the slaying of all male children was in force, (Exodus 1:10,16), but his mother was by some means able to conceal him and hid him away for three months. When disguise was no longer possible she placed him in a small basket of papyrus, possibly from an Egyptian belief that the plant is a protection from crocodiles. She placed him among the reeds of the Nile and left his sister to watch the result. The daughter of Pharaoh came to the river to bathe, saw the basket, and had it brought to her. It was opened, and the cry of the child moved the princess to compassion. She insisted to raise it as her own (Exodus 2:1-9). At the same time the Lord determined that Moses should be taught in his earliest years by his own mother. This meant that he was founded in the faith of the Lord even though he was to be raised as an Egyptian. The king¡¯s daughter adopted the child, and for many years Moses was considered as an Egyptian (Exodus 2:10).

In the Pentateuch this period is a blank, but in the New Testament he is represented as “educated in all the learning of the Egyptians” and as “a man of power in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). The discovery of the tablets of el-Amarna shows how extensive were the knowledge and use of writing throughout the East in the time of Moses and that the young prince could write, most likely hieroglyphics, Akkad. Cuneiform, and in alphabetic cuneiform such as Ugaritic.

Seeing an Israelite being beaten by an Egyptian, and thinking that they were alone, Moses killed the Egyptian and buried the corpse in the sand. The next day he tried to act as peacemaker between two quarrelling Hebrews, but his services were refused and he became aware that his act of the past day was known. It became clear to him that safety was to be found only in departure from Egypt (Exodus 2:11-15).

Moses¡¯ exile took place in the middle years of his life, bringing him close to his return to Egypt as a prophet of God. Moses fled, about 1480 B.C into Midian, near the peninsula of Sinai, and rested himself by a well, where he helped some young women with their sheep. Because of this, they returned to their home, and when they told their father, Jethro, he had Moses called in, and Moses approved to live with him, later taking his daughter Zipporah as his wife (Exodus 2:16-21; 3:1).

During his years as a shepherd, Moses became familiar with the wilderness of the Sinai Peninsula, learning much about survival in the desert. He also learned patience and much about leading sheep. All of these skills prepared him to be the shepherd of the Israelites in later years when he led them out of Egypt and through the Wilderness of Sinai.

In the isolation of this shepherd¡¯s life, Moses received his call as a prophet. The scene of this event is in the valley of Shoeib. Upon a mountain was the thorn tree of the desert, spreading out its tangled branches, solid with white thorns, over the rocky ground. The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire in the midst of the bush, the dry branches of which would naturally have burned in a moment, but that remained still in tact. The revelation was made to Moses of the eternal self-existence of the one God and of his mission to deliver his own people. The Lord assured Moses that he would be with him, and that by God’s presence, he would be able to lead the people out.

Two signs proved to him that he should go on this divine mission, the staff that turned into a serpent, and the hand of Moses made leprous cleansed. If the people should not believe him a third was promised. The third was that the waters of the Nile would be turned into blood. He then returned to the home of his father-in-law and received permission to visit his brethren. God appeared to him and assured him of the death of all those in Egypt who sought his life. Moses then set out upon his journey with his wife and sons. On the way Moses, threatened with death by Jehovah, was spared upon the circumcision of his son. Then after he received a token of divine favor in the arrival of Aaron, who met him at the mountain of God. Aaron went with him to Egypt, and communicated to the people of Israel the words of Jehovah.

Moses’ difficulties were now all removed by the assurances of God but since he was still unwilling to undertake the mission, Aaron was allowed to be his spokesman (Exodus 3:2-4:17). Soon after his return, Moses, with Aaron¡¯s help, stirred the Hebrews to revolt and demanded of Pharaoh, “Let My people go, that they may hold a feast to me in the wilderness” (Exodus 5:1). Pharaoh rejected the demand of this unknown God of whom Moses and Aaron spoke. In Exodus Pharaoh states, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, nor will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:2). He showed his contempt of this God of the Hebrews by increasing the oppression of the slaves, and as a result, the people grumbled against Moses. Just because of that Moses did not end his mission. He warned Pharaoh of the consequences that would fall on his kingdom if he should refuse to let the people of Israel go. Ten terrible plagues were visited upon the land of Egypt (Exodus 7:14-12:30), the tenth plague being the worst and most horrifying.

The ultimate test of God’s power to set the people free was the slaying of the firstborn of all Egypt, on the night of the Passover feast of Israel (Exodus 11:1-12:30). That night Moses began to lead the slaves to freedom, was when God killed the firstborn of Egypt and spared the firstborn of Israel through the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb. Under divine direction he did not lead the people by the nearest way to the Promised Land. After the Hebrews left, Pharaoh’s forces chased them to the Red Sea, threatening to destroy them before they could cross. A pillar of cloud and fire stood between the Israelites and the Egyptians, protecting the Israelites until they could escape. When Moses stretched his hand over the sea, the waters were divided and the Israelites passed to the other side. When the Egyptians attempted to follow, Moses again stretched his hand over the sea, and the waters closed over the Egyptian army (Exodus 14:19-31).

From the Red Sea Moses led Israel through Marah, where the bitter waters were sweetened (Exodus 15: 23), to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees (15:27), to the wilderness of Sin, where the people desired bread and were supplied with quail and manna (Exodus 16). Moses also led them to Rephidim, where the rock of Horeb gave forth water (Exodus 17:1-7), where the hands of Moses, upheld by Aaron and Hur, inspired the Israelites with courage, so that they defeated the Amalekites (Exodus 17:8-16).

Arriving at Sinai, Moses responded to the call of Jehovah and, going up into the mountain of God, received the message to the people to prepare for divine communications from God (Exodus 19:1-13). He led the people to the foot of the mountain on the third day, where he received the Ten Commandments (Exodus 19:14-20:17). He then conducted the ceremony of ratifying the covenant (Exodus 24:1-8), reading all the “words of the Lord” (Exodus 24:3). In Exodus 32, the Bible gives us a dramatic description of the righteous fury of Moses at the sin of Israel in the worship of the golden calf, which led him to destroy the tablets of stone. The glory of Jehovah was revealed to him, and the tablets of the law were renewed (Exodus 34:1-4). A covenant was made with Israel (Exodus 34:10-27), and after a second stay of forty days upon the mountain Moses returned to the people. Moses then controlled the creation of the Tabernacle and its preparation for worship.

For forty years the care and burden of the Israelites had been upon the mind and heart of Moses. The people were camped in Moab, awaiting the command to pass over the Jordan into the land of promise. Moses had sinned at Meribah in not sanctifying Jehovah in the eyes of the people (Numbers 20:12) and had so given up the privilege of entering Canaan. At the command of God he blessed the people and then ascended Mt. Nebo, a peak of Pisgah, which gave a view of the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. After this favor had been granted him Moses died and was buried by Jehovah. The place of his burial is stated by Deuteronomy saying “in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor,” in an unknown grave (34:1-6) around 1400 B.C.

Moses found it peculiar to himself to be the founder and representative of his people. The Hebrew people had been in slavery in Egypt for some 400 years. This was in as what God’s words were to Abraham that his descendants would be in a foreign land in affliction for 400 years (Genesis 15:13). At the end of this time, God began to set his people free from their bondage by bringing Moses to birth.

So little is known of the private life of Moses that his personal character can scarcely be separated from the part that he bore in public affairs. It is the work he wrought for Israel and for mankind, which fixes his place among the great ones of earth. The life I have just sketched as the life of the leader of Israel is also the life of the author, the lawgiver, and the prophet.

Bibliography:

So many similarities flow through man’s interpretation of the unknown and the spiritual and it seems that all cultures and ti

Monothesim

So many similarities flow through man’s interpretation of the unknown and the spiritual and it seems that all cultures and times have had the need to have something in their lives other then the material world that we can see, smell, taste and touch. Many today follow the belief in the One God. This seems to be driven by the notion that a supreme god is needed for religion which is driven by the hope for some form of salvation. The God of religion is the unspeakably great Lord on whom man depends, in whom he recognizes the source of his happiness and perfection; He is the righteous Judge, rewarding good and punishing evil; the loving and merciful Father, whose ear is ever open to the prayers of his needy and penitent children. Such a conception of God can be readily grasped by simple, non philosophic minds, by children, by the uneducated peasant, by the converted savage. Even with all their religious crudities and superstitions, such low-grade savages as the Pygmies of the Northern Congo, the Australians, and the natives of the Andaman Islands entertain very noble conceptions of the Supreme Deity. Primitive man was capable of monotheistic belief, even without the aid of Divine revelation, contrary to some religious beliefs. Among the more educated there was support for the belief that many deities were in existence at some level lower than the one supreme deity. Some were even capable of worshiping one god while recognizing the existence of other deities.

Along with polytheism, monothiesm is one of the best known theistic systems. Monotheism is founded upon the idea that there is only one God, typically regarded as the creator of all reality. This god is believed to be totally self-sufficient and without any dependency upon any other being. Other alleged gods might be claimed to be merely aspects of the supreme god – this argument is more commonly found when the transition to monotheism is recent and the older gods need to be explained away. More often, other alleged gods are simply denied any reality at all, or perhaps claimed to be demons tempting people away from the True Faith. This exclusivity has resulted in less religious tolerance and freedom in traditionally monotheistic cultures. The origin of monotheism is unclear.

The first recorded monotheistic system arose in Egypt during the rule of Akhenaton, but it did not long survive his death. Some suggest that Moses, if he existed, brought monotheism to the ancient Hebrews, but it is possible that he was still henotheistic or monolatrous. The earliest Egyptian civilization believed in a single supreme god, who had no name but was described as the source of light the creator of all. He brought fourth rules or natural laws and in their diagrammatic literature these were personified in what we see as the gods and goddesses. Briefly around 1350 BC flourished the worship at Armana in Egypt of Aten/Aton as the one and only manifestation of god, in the near east Zoroaster saw the revelation of one supreme being in the eternal flame around 600 BC and some hundred year later in the Middle East appeared the historical writings from the descendants of Abraham, and out of whose customs grew Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The form of monotheism which is traditionally most common in the West and which is too often confused with theism in general is the belief in a personal god which emphasizes that this god is a conscious mind that is immanent in nature, humanity and the values which it has created. This god is both independent of and distinct from the created universe and also presently active in the created universe. Because this form of monotheism dominates so strongly in the West, it is not uncommon to find people who simply give it the label “theism,” ignoring all the other forms as being types of theism.

When Abraham was held back from sacrificing Isaac by God around 2000 BC, his God which became the God of the Israelites was seen as but one of many. From the days of Abraham to the days of Moses and beyond, a lot of local gods still existed. When we talk about Akhenaton having but one god, to many He too was but one of many. Even Allah was originally one of many a local god. The God of Abraham and Israel was their God, their chief god, who proved himself over and over to be greater than the gods of other lands and peoples. Even the first of the Ten commandments recognizes ‘other gods’. However the other gods were but the local interpretation of god under a local name.

But what is this “god” thing that is the object of theism? A god is being, usually thought of as a person or having personal qualities, who plays a role in mythology and religion. This object of belief typically possesses supernatural or extraordinary powers far in excess of those that can be attributed to normal, mortal humans. The development of the idea of a “god” can be clearly observed in the development of religion in the Indian subcontinent. Originally, the Indian “gods” were exemplary , strong, and victorious rulers who managed to accomplish a great deal more than their contemporaries. Later they were elevated to godhood and worshiped as supernatural deities. Similar processes can be seen even in the later periods of the Roman Empire, when emperors were declared gods after their death as a matter of routine (although it was not routine that coherent religions were maintained around them for very long). Indeed, the elevation of powerful warriors or kings to the status of godhood may have been one of the earliest ways belief in gods was developed. Another aspect in the development of theism would have been the observation of powerful forces of nature. They all appear to be beyond the influence of humans, but they would also have appeared to be animate, just like humans and animals. Thus would have developed the belief that unseen, powerful spirits are behind the events in life: animism. Parallel with the belief in unseen spirits is the desire to influence those spirits – much the way powerful humans are influenced. Early religion therefore developed means by which humans make offerings to the spirits the same as offerings were made to tribal leaders. They followed whatever rules and orders the spirits might be thought to issue the same as orders from tribal leaders were followed From this sprung the tendency towards organized religion. Monotheism was a gradual process and it was not until around 500 BC that the idea that the God of Israel was the one and only God and always was. Christianity, at first a Jewish sect, confused the issue by developing the idea of a Trinity which took 400 years to define, and even then as a mystery. This Trinity seems to have roots in the three names of the Egyptian God and their fondness for triads. Allah was but the chief amongst a group of Arab gods until they recognized that he was the same God as the God of the Israelites and of the Christians. Just as the Jews had eventually got rid of all other gods so did the Moslems. Perhaps it was a lack of understanding as still exists. One region’s understanding may not be different to another’s but they all struggled to understand the indefinable unknown and eternal with greater or lesser success. As philosophy is always subject to the frailties of man it can often go astray. Some claim divine revelation but it just may be that it is logical. The truth of creation or the law of nature must eventually reveal itself simply because it is the truth. The great question posed by Pontius Pilot ‘What is truth’ is one of the eternal quandaries and at the beginning of all in our earliest civilization lies the guidance of truth from which all else flows.

Bibliography:

Bibliography

1.Sheed, Frank .J. Theology and Sanity ,Oxford/New York; Oxford University Press. 2000

2.Miller. Charles .d. The origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts, Oxford/New York. Oxford University Press. 2001

Machiavellis Advice to America

Machiavelli’s Advice to America

Leaders of the world are not just a regular breed of individuals. In present days, the United States citizens elect representatives through a very precautious procedure; people know if the wrong person were to get into office they could cause a downfall of a nation. Not all of Machiavelli’s principles of a leader are strongly practiced in today’s world, yet when revised many compare incredibly to the way the American government is governed.

In The Qualities of the Prince, Machiavelli discusses a number of traits that he believes a prince or ruler of his time must have to be safe, successful, and loved by his people. Machiavelli believed in exploring both sides of an issue, “the art of war and the art of life, liberality and stinginess, cruelty and clemency, the fox and the lion” (36). Most of his instances have something to do with war, he is very repetitive in many of his believed traits and he stands firm with them by giving many examples. By reading The Qualities of a Prince it is very easy to assume that Machiavelli was brilliant in his thoughts during his time, this leaves one to ponder the thought of how successful these traits would be in modern American politics.

Americans elect leaders with certain distinct qualities, Machiavelli’s beliefs on leaders characteristics don’t totally relate to our expectations. He does mention that he doesn’t recommend tyranny, meaning one ruler have all the power or use it too his advantage. In American government there are no tyrants, all the power is distributed into branches where decisions are made on agreement on that of which will help the American people the most. The majority of Machivelli’s characteristics of a good leader would not get a man elected in the United States, in his time that wasn’t applicable because you were born a leader. Machiavelli wrote of it to be good to be generous but said that a reputation of it will harm you, stating that nothing will use itself up quicker than generosity (41). The candidates of today present themselves on generosity, explaining what they have done in the past and what they plan to do in the future. Machiavelli also suggests that a morally good person wouldn’t last long in a high office. Presently you can’t be elected unless you have morals, the President of the United States of America and his family our examples for the whole nation to look at, if they appeared to have no morals what could someone expect from our nation as a whole?

Machiavelli was right on task when talking of things a leader must do to maintain office, he believed in a lot of principles of which leaders today use. He states that a leader must desire to be merciful, not cruel. This relates to your people looking up to you, not running away from you, Machiavelli also says “a prince must not worry about reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal” (43). In America today this can be related to the death penalty, some Americans see it as cruel but in reality it is necessary to maintain a fear in those that wish to do others harm.

Reading The Qualities of a Prince you will find that most of Machiavelli’s distinct qualities that mentioned concern war. Machiavelli writes that a leader must never be idle in peaceful times, meaning the leader should make their power known to all, also stating “in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways; one by action, the other by the mind” (38). This quality is very unique and true, used by not only the United States but also by any structured government. American leaders show this by having a strong militia, with bases spread throughout the United States, appointing experienced commanders with the mentality and experience to lead and train new soldiers.

Preparation for all obstacles is the center point for most of Machiavelli’s qualities, he stresses intensely on the fact of keeping your peoples faith while doing so, “for a prince must have two fears: one, internal, concerning his subjects; the other external, concerning foreign powers” (48). But this faith is not just given to a leader, it is earned through experience “a prince who does not understand military matters cannot be esteemed by his own soldiers, nor can he trust them” (Machiavelli, 38). America is known to be the elite government power on earth at this time because our past leaders have been well educated and ready for any circumstance. Our government has had its share of dramatic blows from other nations or ethnic groups but it has successfully bounced back up not showing weakness, giving truth to Machiavelli, “have a mind ready to turn itself according to the way the winds of fortune” (47).

Although most of the traits that Machivelli holds to be true involving warfare and preparation our still true today, one is outdated but easily revised. Machiavelli believed that in his time it was much safer to be feared than loved. This is still true in today’s world except Machiavelli was referring to the people of the prince’s kingdom; American leaders relate this to countries. Fear in a society accomplishes nothing and will cause an unsuccessful economy in present times, in the past it was essential to maintain a small sum of fear to not be overran.

American politicians have somewhat mirrored a number of the qualities mentioned in Machiavelli’s essay. A unique trait that is possessed by many of Americans great leaders of the present and especially the past is war experience. Leaders take pride in our military and as Machiavelli explained, they know people would much rather follow a person that would fight next to them than one that wouldn’t. Although American leaders have not and would not recently stand toe to toe with other soldiers while they were in office, most volunteered and when needed fought courageously, gaining a tremendous amount of knowledge for future occurrences. Exemplifying courage and wit tremendously is a leader of the past, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Fighting in World War Two, Kennedy was a lieutenant on a PT 109. One night aboard his ship at sea, it was rammed by a Japanese destroyer causing enough damage to sink the ship. Kennedy dragged a wounded sailor for four hours to land, earning him the Navy and Marine Corps medal for Gallantry in Action. Anyone willing to fight for America would respect and be willing to follow and listen to a man with a background of Kennedy for these reasons, exemplifying one of Machiavelli’s qualities.

Leadership is a tremendous responsibility; although this is obtained by few in America the outcome and decisions made effect millions. There are many guidelines that a leader must follow to be successful, the studies one might go thru to do so would be tremendously improved in reading Machiavelli’s The Qualities of a Prince.

Bibliography:

Machiavelli and More are each often described as humanists

Machiavelli

Machiavelli and More are each often described as “humanists.” Does it seem reasonable to you to group them together as part of the same “movement” or intellectual trend? Explain why or why not.

A most complete definition of humanism describes it as, “an intellectual movement that stressed enjoyment of all aspects of life, and especially of the ideas and values of pre-Christian civilizations, such as those of Greece and Rome; the interest in individualism, including stress on man as an end in himself, rather than as merely one cog in the vast machine of the Church.” Thus far in this course we have studied two Renaissance figures that are typically described as humanists: Niccolo Machiavelli via The Prince, and Sir Thomas More in Utopia. In The Prince, Machiavelli uses the major corpus of the work to convey his observations concerning principalities. In addition to analyzing the types of difficulties that a prince might encounter, he describes how a prince comes to power and retains his position. In More’s Utopia, we find a treatise on ethics and human nature along with, above all else, a condemnation of pride, disguised in the painting of the portrait of a perfect world. Most important to the ideals of humanism, we see through both works that Renaissance man has evolved greatly from how his Medieval counterpart was viewed as a miniscule, analogous piece of the all powerful church. It is the individualism of this new character on the world’s stage, the Renaissance man, which creates the perfect setting for a return to Roman-Athenian ideals such as self-interest, worldly possessions, and a much greater concern for life than the afterlife. By staunchly defending these ideals, Niccolo Machiavelli emerges as a true humanist, while in abhorring them Sir Thomas More appears only a social critic.

In Book I of Utopia, More struggles with the question of how he, a good man by the moral standards of the day, can serve a wicked king. The dialogue, which takes place between More and Raphael Hythloday, could easily be mistaken for a dialogue between More and his own conscience. According to More, this world traveler would be of immeasurable assistance in any prince’s court due to the vast knowledge that he has gained, just as More believed he himself would be of importance to the court of the King of England. Unfortunately for More, it is soon shown that the opposite is true. For,

in a court made up of those who envy all

others and admire only themselves, if a

man should propose something that he had

… observed in his travels, the other

councillors would fear that their whole

reputation for wisdom was in danger, and

that they would be regarded as plain

More attempts to defend his actions by claiming that it is better to try to work for change within a corrupt government than do nothing at all. This is what he has done by accepting a position from King Henry. Hythloday clearly refutes this attempt at rationalization in his argument with the English counselor-at-law regarding the death penalty for thievery. “While [they] strive to terrify thieves with excessive cruelty, [they] really incite them to kill innocent men.” If a system does not work on face, it is not probable that internal adjustment would solve its deficiencies. Instead, it is most likely necessary that an entirely new system be put into place. Unfortunately, as More discovers, there is a stumbling block that prevents mans progress in physical ventures, and even in mental propositions: pride, especially manifested via the need for individual success. “Pride is the infernal serpent that steals into the hearts of men, thwarting and holding them back from choosing the better way of life.”

In Book II, through the narration of a journey to the land of Utopia by Hythloday, More depicts what he believes to be the perfect society created through constructs that completely eliminate pride. The society that he creates is in every way the antithesis of Renaissance Europe. The communism of the Utopians is placed in stark contrast to the individualism that we see developing in the Renaissance man. The end result being that the material possessions that had just become the rage among the Renaissance jet set became Utopian trash. The gold and silver wealth of Europeans was used by Utopians in their “chamber pots and stools … metals for the chains and fetters of their bondmen … Thus they [held] gold and silver up to scorn in every way.” The religion of the Utopians is not evangelical in nature. Citizens are allowed to believe whatever they want, so long as they do not try to force others to believe the same. Compare this to Sir Thomas’ England where he was beheaded for his failure to recite an oath that recognized his King as head of the church. More than anything, the Utopian government contrasts with those supported by Machiavelli in The Prince.

In portraying Machiavelli as humanist it is obvious to see how he fits the definition best. In fact, he best fits the definition because he demonstrates that which More detested, pride. Nothing represents that pride more than the prince’s quest for fame and glory, and “nothing brings a prince into greater respect than the undertaking of great enterprises and setting a glorious example.” The monarchy, which Machiavelli supports, is the converse of Utopia’s representative democracy. Also as our definition demands, the prince is the end in himself and he must obviously respect the empires of Rome and Greece that came before him or he would not be attempting to emulate them. The prince embodies individualism as compared to his subjects, the masses, in addition to the fact that he is to be feared. “It would be desirable to be both [feared and loved] but, since that is difficult, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved.” A prince must become an individual, meaning that he can stand on his own in battle, “able, through abundance of men or money, to build up an adequate army and take the field against anyone likely to attack them.” Thus, we see that Machiavelli’s Prince is the embodiment of all humanist dogma.

The feelings of More and Machiavelli towards the rebirth of the classical ideologies during the Renaissance were such obvious polar opposites that it allows us to easily determine which exemplifies the ideals of a humanist. Due to the fact that More was quite opposed to the rebirth of the ancient ideals that the Renaissance encompassed we cannot call him a humanist. And, despite the fact that Machiavelli was much more concerned with the creation of a strengthened unified Italy, and his own return from exile, than the mores of humanism, he did celebrate the resurgence of ancient culture, especially individualism. There is an important fact to realize, which could explain the inherent contrast between these two thinkers. The Renaissance that was experienced in Northern Europe, where More wrote, was quite different from that which affected Italy in that the Northern Renaissance was far more religious in its products. This was due in the most part to the fact that the area is removed from Rome and thus was not as disenchanted with the state of the papacy at the time. The conclusion drawn is that the extremely different views of these two thinkers were the results of two quite different Renaissance.

Bibliography:

Lost City Of Atlantis

Lost City Of Atlantis

The Ocean is filled with untold stories that are waiting to be discov-ered. Who knows what may lie under the deep blue Ocean. Atlantis is one of those untold stories that are awaiting an explanation. Atlantis today has no solid explanation of how old it is, where it is located, or if it really existed at all. There are numerous theories on how Atlantis was destroyed or if it was a physical place. Some people believe they have found the lost city of Atlantis.

Atlantis is believed to have existed over 2500 years ago and had such things as running hot and cold water, streets of gold, and all the nicest things on Earth (EarthQuest, pg. 1). Having such things as these Atlantis must have been a splendid place to live. What more would anyone want if with a wonderful place as Atlantis. Atlantis has a brief history because most of it has not yet been discovered. The Greek Word Atlantis means the Island of Atlas, just as the word Atlantic means the Ocean of Atlas (Laketech, pg.1).

Atlantis was the domain of the Greek Poseidon, god of the sea. He is the one that was said to have made and destroyed Atlantis. When Poseidon fell in love with a mortal woman, Cleito, he created a dwelling at the top of a hill near the middle of the Island. Surrounding the dwelling with rings of water and land to protect her (The Active Mind, pg.1). Soon After Poseidon, god of the sea, sired five pairs of male twins with the mortal woman “Cleito”. When the children grew up Poseidon appointed the eldest of these sons, At-las the titan, ruler of his beautiful Island domain (Laketech, pg 1).

The Island of Atlantis was the center for trade and commerce. Atlan-tis was governed in peace, was rich in commerce, was advanced in knowledge, and held domain over the surrounding islands and contents. Portions of the city were devoted to commerce and industry. This was be-cause the Atlanteans used the discoveries of their scientists and technologists as the basis of a flourishing trade with other nations (True Origins, pg. 2). Great universities, observatories, libraries, and laboratories for people of all ages showed that Atlantis was wellspring of human arts and sciences.

The government of Atlantis was one of a kind that would of work per-fectly in this day in age. At the top of the central hill, a temple was built in honor of Poseidon, which housed a giant gold statue of Poseidon riding a chariot pulled by winged horses (The Active Mind, pg.1). It was here that the rulers of Atlantis would come to discuss laws, pass judgments, and pay tribute to Poseidon. Any one could imagine how big of a building this tem-ple must have been. No one really knows if this temple is a true fact or just a really good myth. If true fact, the temple is lying under the deep blue Ocean submerge for eternity.

To facilitate travel and trade, a water canal was cut through the is-lands, which led to south about 5.5 miles to the sea. The city of Atlantis sat just outside the outer ring of water and spread across the plain covering a circle of 11 miles (The Active Mind, pg. 1). This was a densely populated area where the majority of the population lived. The unique beauty of the city, on it’s circles of land linked by great bridges across the circles of water, was further enhanced by brilliant gardens, groves of flowering trees, and sparkling fountains (True Origins, pg. 2). To some extent it sort of relates to the Virgin Islands, but Atlantis was connected to each island.

Beyond the city lay a fertile plain 330 miles long and 110 miles wide surrounded by another canal used to collect water from the rivers and streams of the mountains. The climate was of an odd one that made two harvests possible each year. One harvest would be in the winter that was fed by the rains and the one in the summer was fed by irrigation from the canal (The Active Mind, pg. 1). Besides the harvests, the Island provided all kinds of herbs, fruits, and nuts. As well as an abundance of animals, in-cluding elephants, tigers, birds, and many more roamed the Island. For generations the Atlanteans lived simple, virtuous lives (The Active Mind, pg. 2).

The people who lived on Atlantis were like that of our society back in the old days. There were servants, slaves, and other common people who worked the fields and animals of the city. Important people who served roy-alty lived on the inner circle of the island. The outer Island is where most of the citizens lived (Atlantis, pg. 1). The first King of Atlantis built his Temple on a smaller island; he put walls around it and called it Atlantis. The island had mountains, plains, and beaches. Like that of any Island that is still around today. There is no doubt that Atlantis was the most beautiful place on earth at that time.

The geography of Atlantis was like any other Island. The Island of At-lantis was an under water volcano. The Volcanic Island city was about 11 miles in diameter, and was known as the Great city of Atlantis. Since it was a volcano, it had a round doughnut shaped Island with water all around it, and in it’s center (Atlantis, pg. 1). In the center of the doughnut was a smaller island and this is where Cleito lived. To have lived there would be a wonderful experience. Just to see the beauty of the island would just over whelm the human senses.

For a number of years it was the most perfect place to live. Soon that all began to change, and the island was a mess. Greed and power began to corrupt them. When Zeus saw the immorality of the Atlanteans he gathered the other gods together to determine a suitable punishment (The Active Mind, pg. 2). “By Plato’s legend, the people of Atlantis became complacent and their leaders arrogant; in punishment the Gods destroyed Atlantis by flooding it and submerging the Island in one day and night. The city of At-lantis sank and the continent remained intact (Atlantis, pg. 1).

Soon, in one violent surge it was gone. The Island of Atlantis, it’s people, and their memories were swallowed by the sea. There are some that think that the lost city of Atlantis is Actually in the Bermuda Triangle, Sunken at the bottom of the Ocean (Earthquest, pg. 1). No one knows for sure because this is a legend of the Greek gods.

The Destruction of Atlantis has many theories. Some people believe that this beautiful city was “Swallowed into the Ocean” by an earthquake. The Atlantean continent had been spilt into five massive Islands by im-mense earthquakes (ProHosting, pg. 3). One theory of destruction is Earth-crust displacement. There is Another Atlantis-like story that was closer to Plato’s world, in terms of time and geography. The Minoan civilization was a great and peaceful culture based on the Island of Crete, which reigned in 2200 B.C. (Parascope, pg. 2). The Minoan Island of Santorini, later known as Thera, was home to a huge volcano. In 1470 B.C. it erupted with a force estimated to be greater than Krakato, covering everything on Santorini’s surface. When the Volcano exploded, the city and kingdom were destroyed. Many people on the continent were killed by floods and pieces of ash from the volcano (Atlantis, pg. 2). The Minoan civilization, whose remnants were easily conquered by Greek forces. Santorini could have been the real Atlan-tis.

Plato specified that Atlantis sank 10,000 years ago, but the Minoan disaster had taken place only 1,000 years earlier. It could have been the translation errors over the centuries altered what Plato really wrote, or maybe he was intentionally blurring the historical facts to suit his purposes. There exists yet another strong possibility that Plato entirely made Atlantis up himself. Other Greek thinkers, such as Aristotle and Pliny, disputed the existence of Atlantis, while Plutarch and Herodotus wrote of it as historical fact. Atlantis became entrenched in folklore all around the world, charted on Ocean maps and sought by explorers (Parascope, pg. 2)

Bibliography:

Works cited

1. Atlantis. True Origins. 23 January 1999

2. Atlantis: The Great Lost Civilization. Prohosting. 25 May 1999

3. Atlantis- Lost City. Atlantis. 30 July 2000

4. Atlantis Subplots: A Brief History of the Lost Continent. parascope. 5 June 2000

5. Lost City of Atlantis. EarthQuest. 22 February 2000

6. The Lost Continent of Atlantis. Laketech. 11 March 1998

7. The Story of Atlantis. The Active Mind. 15 April 1996

Logic Of George Boole And Its Application To The Design Of Modern Computers

Logic Of George Boole And Its Application To The Design Of Modern Computers

Modern computers are now considered as one of the most important digital machines in our modern time. People use computers in many ways. In business, computers track inventories with bar codes and scanners, check the credit status of customers, and transfer funds electronically. Computers in automobiles regulate the flow of fuel, thereby increasing gas mileage. Computers also entertain, creating digitized sound on stereo systems or computer-animated features from a digitally encoded laser disc. Computer programs, or applications, exist to aid every level of education, from programs that teach simple addition or sentence construction to programs that teach advanced calculus. But did you know that that the design of modern computers originally came from the logician George Boole who developed the Boolean algebra?

Boolean algebra is a two-valued system of algebra that represented logical relationships and operations. Later, scientists and physicists like John von Neumann and Alan Turing used his system of algebra for the development of modern computers.

In the latter part of the study you will see the different people who used the Boolean algebra as their channel for the progress of digital computers.

Boole, George (1815-1864), British mathematician and logician, who developed Boolean algebra. He was born on November 2, 1815 in Lincolnshire, England. Largely self-educated, in 1849 Boole was appointed professor of mathematics at Queen’s College (now University College) in Cork, Ireland. In 1854, in An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, Boole described an algebraic system that later became known as Boolean algebra. In Boolean algebra, logical propositions are denoted by symbols and can be acted on by abstract mathematical operators that correspond to the laws of logic. Boolean algebra is of prime importance to the study of pure mathematics and to the design of modern computers. He died on December 8, 1864 in Ballintemple, Country Cork, Ireland.

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation.

Boolean Algebra is branch of mathematics having laws and properties similar to, but different from, those of ordinary high school algebra. Formally a Boolean algebra is a mathematical system consisting of a set of elements, which may be called B, together with two binary operations, which may be denoted by the symbols ⊕ and ⊗. These operations are defined on the set B and satisfy the following axioms:

1. ⊕ and ⊗ are both commutative operations. That is, for any elements x, y of the set B, it is true that x⊕Y = y⊕x and x⊗y = y⊗x.

2. Each of the operations ⊕ and ⊗ distributes over the other. That is, for any elements x, y, and z of the set B, it is true that x⊕ (y⊗z) = (x⊕y) ⊗ (x⊕z), and x⊗ (y⊕z) = (x⊗y) ⊕ (x⊗z).

3. There exists in the set B a distinct identity element for each of the operations ⊕ and ⊗. These elements are usually denoted by the symbols 0 and 1 such that 0 ≠ 1, and have the property that 0 ⊕x = x and 1 ⊗x = x for any element x in the set B.

4. For each element x in the set B there exists a distinct corresponding element called the complement of x, usually denoted by the symbol x’. With respect to the operations ⊕ and ⊗, the element x’ has the property that x⊕x’ = 1 and x ⊗x’ = 0.

A Boolean algebra may have other sets of axioms, all of which may be shown to be equivalent to those just given. The axioms given here are essentially those first published by the American mathematician Edward Huntington in Postulates for the Algebra of Logic (1904).

The English mathematician George Boole gave the first treatment of the subject in 1854. It is possible to denote the operations ⊕ and ⊗ by any two symbols; +, ∨, and ◡ are sometimes used instead of Å, and ×, ^, ∩, ·, and O instead of ⊗.

As an example of a Boolean algebra, consider any set X and let P (X) stand for the collection of all possible subsets of the set X. P (X) is sometimes called the power set of the set X. P (X), together with ordinary set union (◡) and set intersection (∩), forms a Boolean algebra. In fact, every Boolean algebra may be represented as algebra of sets.

From the symmetry of the axioms with respect to the two operations and their respective identities, one is able to prove the so-called principle of duality. This principle asserts that any algebraic statement deducible from the axioms of Boolean algebra remains true if the operations ⊕ and ⊗and the identities 1 and 0 are interchanged throughout the statement. Of the many theorems that can be deduced from the axioms of a Boolean algebra, De Morgan’s laws, that (x⊕y)’ = x’⊗y’ and that (x⊗y)’ = x’⊕y’, are particularly noteworthy.

The elements that are contained in the set B of a Boolean algebra may be abstract objects, or concrete things such as numbers, propositions, sets, or electrical networks. In Boole’s original development, the elements of a Boolean algebra were a collection of propositions, or simple declarative sentences having the property that they were either

true or false but not both. The operations were essentially conjunction and disjunction, denoted by the symbols ^ and ∨ respectively. If x and y represent two propositions, then the expression x∨y (read x or y) would be true if and only if either x or y or both were true. The statement x ^ y (read x and y) would be true if and only if both x and y were true. In this type of Boolean algebra, the complement of an element or proposition is simply the negation of the statement.

A Boolean algebra of propositions and a Boolean algebra of sets are closely connected. For example, let p be the statement, “The ball is blue,” and let P be the set of all elements for which the statement p is true, that is, the set of all blue balls. P is called the truth set for the proposition p. Indeed, if P and Q are the truth sets for statements p and q, then the truth set for the statement p∨q is clearly P ◡ Q and for p ^ q the truth set is P ∩Q.

Boolean algebra has many practical applications in the physical sciences, in electric-circuit theory and particularly in the field of computers.

As an example of an application of Boolean algebra in electrical-circuit theory, let p and q denote two propositions, that is, declarative sentences that are either true or false but not both. If each of the propositions p and q is associated with a switch that will be closed if the proposition is true, and open if the proposition is false, then the statement

p ^ q may be represented by connecting the switches in series. The current will flow in this circuit if and only if both switches are closed, that is, if both p and q are true. Similarly, a circuit with switches connected in parallel can be used to represent the statement p∨q. In this case the current will flow if either p or q or both are true and the respective switches are closed. More complicated statements give rise to more complex switching circuits.

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation.

The objectives of the study aims to know the life of the logician George Boole. To recognize and appreciate the people who used the system of Boolean algebra and the help given by Boole’s logic to the design of modern computers.

The importance of the study is to know whether the logic of George Boole has a great aid to the design of modern computers. To be thankful and grateful to the people that aided and contributed to the design of today’s computers.

This chapter includes the review of Related Literature about the study entitled The Logic of George Boole and its Application to the Design of Modern Computers.

“How do computers do what they do?” and “How does a computer engineer design a computer?” A computer and similar complex machines is at the heart a system of circuits that perform logical and arithmetic operations. It was determined that the cheapest way to make such a machine was to start with the binary number system which could be effectively handled with Boolean algebra. The computer in front of you does its math and logical thinking using Boolean algebra. The Boolean algebra was used to design the switching circuits of the computer. The materials used to build the switching circuits are not important in this lecture. The logical design used to make the switching circuits work correctly is important in this lecture. By using Boolean algebra, the computer can do logical thinking very fast and very inexpensively thanks to the underlying semiconductor electronic circuitry.

In the future computers chips may be made of some material other than semiconductors, perhaps a biological material that is alive and has been genetically designed to do Boolean algebra. And so computers would be grown in laboratories. This

may lead to truly new life forms. I hope that thought doesn’t scare you, but motivates you to learn computer logic. But for now the computers we have today are still the marvels of technology. And even though you find computers of different flavors and capabilities, they all have a few things in common. One very important common thing among computers is that they process information using the rules of Boolean algebra.

http://museum.doorsofperception.com/doors/doors1/transcripts/heim/heim3.html

This chapter includes the Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data about the study.

NAMEYEARCONTRIBUTION TO THE DESIGN OF MODERN COMPUTERS

George BooleBritish logician and mathematician1847Boolean algebra

Konrad ZuseGerman Engineer1930’sZ1 calculating machine

John AtanasoffAmerican PhysicistLate 1930’sDesign of the first digital computer

Clifford BerryAmerican PhysicistLate 1930’sDesign of the first digital computer

Alan TuringBritish mathematician1930’sRecognized binary logic for the development in digital computers

Claude ShannonAmerican Mathematician1940’sRecognized binary logic for the development in the digital computers

John von NeumannHungarian-born Mathematician1944 to 1945Usage of the binary arithmetic system for storing programs in computer

B. Analysis and Interpretation of Data

19th-century British logician and mathematician George Boole, who in 1847 invented a two-valued system of algebra that represented logical relationships and operations first proposed binary logic. German engineer Konrad Zuse used this system of algebra, called Boolean algebra, in the 1930s for his Z1 calculating machine. American physicist John Atanasoff and his graduate student Clifford Berry also used it in the design of the first digital computer in the late 1930s. During 1944 and 1945 Hungarian-born American mathematician John von Neumann suggested using the binary arithmetic system for storing programs in computers. In the 1930s and 1940s British mathematician Alan Turing and American mathematician Claude Shannon also recognized how binary logic was well suited to the development of digital computers.

This chapter includes the summary, conclusion and the recommendation of the study entitled the logic of George Boole and its application to the design of modern computers.

Today in our modern world, people use computers in making their researches and in storing important facts and information. It was made possible by the logic of George Boole, Boolean algebra and the mathematicians like John von Neumann and Claude Shannon. In the year 1847, British logician and mathematician George Boole invented a two-valued system of algebra called Boolean algebra. Then Konrad Zuse who independently developed “electromechanical” computers, in which a series of electrically controlled devices known as relay represented numbers, Z1 calculating machine used Boole’s concept. In late 1930’s, John Atanasoff, Clifford Berry and Alan Turing designed the first digital computer and introduced the concept of a theoretical computing device now known as Turing device, which was important in the development of the digital computer respectively. Claude Shannon who developed information theory, which is a theoretical study, however, it has had a profound impact on the design of practical data communication and storage systems, such as telephones and computers. During 1944 to 1945, Hungarian-born American mathematician, John von Neumann: who was also known for the design of high-speed electronic computers.

These people became a part and have a great part in the advancement in the design of digital computers. This only means that Boole affects all of our lives in this contemporary world together with the people who contributed in the design of modern computers

Therefore I conclude that the concept of Boolean algebra by George Boole really helped in the development and progress in the design of digital computers. Through the people like Alan Turing and Konrad Zuse who aided and used Geroge Booles’ two-valued system of algebra in the advancement of computers that without them digital computers would be impossible. This connection of Boole with the design of computers means only that he affects all of our lives in the modern world because we are using the product of his logic in our every day lives.

I would like to recommend that further studies should be conducted about Boolean algebra and how it works and used as a mathematical system primarily used in the design of computers. The life of George Boole and the people who used his logic should also be deeply studied.

Bibliography:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/b/booleanal.asp

http://www.brightplanet.com/deepcontent/tutorials/search/part4.asp

http://museum.doorsofperception.com/doors/doors1/transcripts/heim/heim3.html

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation.

Living Life Well (Martin Luther King Jr)

Living Life Well

What it means to live life well means, in essence, a variety of things to a vast array of individuals. One could say that Martin Luther King Jr. lived life well, while others may argue that fact in point. It could be said that Malcolm X lived a well life, but did he? Who can say, for sure, that one individual lived a well life, while another did not. Living life well, to me, means that an individual has prospered and triumphed through their own trials and tribulations; that they have made their opinions known, and stuck by them, never faltering, not even for an instance. To live life well does not mean that the individual has not failed, they may well have, but they have stood tall upon their own feet and fought for what they believed in. To live life well is to live by your own standards and rules, not by that of others; to live the examined or unexamined life, to live the only way you know how in an attempt to live life to the fullest.

Martin Luther King Jr. lived a life in which he stood up for what he believed in. He lived as though he were living for the world, that his every action and move was for the freedom that only he could help achieve. King had a great deal of followers, but, as well, as many foes. He spoke of freedom and the many things we take advantage of. He fought for his fellow black community, but did so in such a manner that was not demeaning or derogatory. He spoke of methods to reunite the American people, black and white alike, and fought, whole-heartedly, for desegregation. He had a dream, a dream which he was never able to see come to fruition, but a dream which his determination helped achieve. He lived a well life because he fought for what he believed in, stood up for his values, and died for his freedom, as have many American soldiers through the years. He was, by his own right and merit, an American soldier fighting for his people. The life he lived was well because he never faltered, even in the toughest of times, but continued to speak out and hope for a better, brighter tomorrow.

There is a great deal of controversy that surrounds Malcolm X and the manner in which he lived and fought. Although he stood up for what he believed in, it was in such a manner that was demeaning and derogatory toward the white community on the whole. He was not fighting for the freedom of his fellow people, but fighting for segregation, in a manner of speaking. He did not wish to reunite the black and white communities together, but, rather, to keep the communities separated, blacks on one side, and whites on the other. Malcolm X was not fighting for the freedom of the “little person” who was too weak to fight for them self, black or white, but rather fighting for his black community. He had a great many ideas that were ingenious, but the manner in which he presented them pointed the finger, as well as the blame, at the white man. X was fighting for the full separation of the black and white communities. He was fighting for separate church, state, laws, and methods of governing. Is it possible to fight for freedom, and, simultaneously, be fighting for segregation? Although his ides may have been somewhat “over the top” he stood up and fought for what he believed in, and died doing so. He may not have been as charismatic as Martin Luther King Jr., but he was, by his own earned right and merit, a figure of freedom to his community. As an individual I may not agree with a great deal of what he said, but it can not be taken away from him that he fought, as an American, and helped pave the way to freedom for his black community. It cannot be taken away from him that he lived a well life and that he died, as did King, like a soldier, for his people.

The question of what it means to live life well brings me back to saying that I have continuously heard throughout my life, “Carpe Diem,” or seize the day. In looking back on this phrase I cannot help but recall the movie “Dead Poets Society,” a movie in which this phrase was based upon. The main characters in the movie were living up to the expectations of their parent’s, they were not choosing their own path to live by, but, rather, their path had already been paved. The characters then met with a professor that encouraged them to be who they wanted to be, to live how they wanted to live, to break away from societal expectations and take charge of their own lives, for they only had one to make “extraordinary.” This then puts me deep in thought. I begin to wonder how one could live a well life if their life had already been mapped for them. Then I come to the conclusion that a life can still be lived well although lived through expectations for the fact that they knew no other way of life, to them that is “how life goes” that is what they do because it is expected. The characters in the movie did, however, take advantage of “Carpe Diem” and they did, in a manner of speaking, seize the day because they went against the standards of society, broke the rules, and formed their own group, the “Dead Poets Society.” They struggled to fight for what they believed in and struggled to stray from the expected. They saw a moment to seize and did so. Although the main character wanted nothing more than to be an actor, his father completely disapproved, but in meeting with the professor, John Keating, he realized that he needed to do what was in his heart, so, he stood against his father and disobeyed by participating in a play. When his father found out he became enraged, arguing that he was going to send him to military school because he was going to become a doctor. Although his father felt that he was giving him advantages that he, himself, had not had, he was living, vicariously through his son, which, ultimately ended in a teenage suicide and Keating being fired from his position. The other charters, however, still stood up for what they believed in and showed their support to Keating by standing upon the desks and shouting “Oh Captain, My Captain.” The lives of these boys were forever changed because someone had entered into their lives and had encouraged them to live in an extraordinary way and to live for themselves. Although many of these boys still continued on the path it which their fathers had mapped for them, they now knew what it was to live a well life and, at very least, had the option to make the lives of their own children different and to allow them to make their own decisions and plans, to live for who they are.

In my own life I have been given an option. I have been allowed to make my own decisions and to choose my own destiny, my own path. I may not be fighting for freedom, and struggling to stray from expectations which have been placed on me, but I am, in essence, involved in my own struggle, a struggle to life my life my way. I will not say that I have not failed along the way, because I have, in every sense of the word, but I have gotten back up on my feet and continued, knowing that there is always a better tomorrow. I have fallen and had a difficult time getting back up again, but I have managed. I have failed, and will continue to do so, but many of the great men, as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X also failed, but lived well lives because of the fact that they fought for what they believed was right, and in time their dreams became a reality, for the fact that they stood steadfast, as do I. I have not looked for a definition on how to live my life from a dictionary. I have not cross-referenced and quoted, but have made my own rules and have life my life well, thus far. To live life well means a great many things to a great many people. To me it means to live by your own standards and to never falter on what you believe in and believe to be true.

Bibliography:

Life Journey Of The Odyssey

Life Journey Of The Odyssey

The Odyssey is an epic story of one man’s journey as well as the trials and tribulations that he encounters while trying to make it back to his home. Along the way, this story not only follows the guidelines of many other hero stories, but also applies to our everyday struggles both internally and externally. It seems like everyone can look at a story from the odyssey and somehow relate it to a difficulty or a problem that they had to overcome to reach their goal of being happy. These heroic stories have been told throughout the years to help us learn lessons about ourselves and to learn how other people have been able to shine through the hard times to reach happiness. In the book Life Journey: Literature and the Search for Meaning in the Stages of Life by Milt Ford, the ways these books teach us these lessons are analyzed and explained using his theory. Mr. Ford explains that there are three experiences that make up a persons life, they are identity, relationships, and accomplishments. He goes even further as to apply each one of these experiences into stages of our life such as, childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, middle adulthood, and late adult. It in interesting to see how this theory not only applies to The Odyssey but to our lives as well.

In The Odyssey there is a young man by the name of Telemachus who is the prince of Ithaca, and the son of the books hero, Odysseus. Though he does not get very old in the book, he does go through some very important times in his life journey, discovering for himself whom he is and what he is made of. In the early stages of the book we see the birth of Telemachus and then hear of things going on at his home. As in Ford’s theory we know that during the identity experience of Telemachus’ childhood, he is experiencing himself. He begins to find out who he is as a child and that is when he begins to develop all of the traits that are going to follow him throughout the rest of his life. The relationship experience theory is an important one during his childhood. The relationships that he makes as a child stay strong throughout the book. We see that he connects and forms a bond with his mother, but the relationship between him and his father is the interesting one. Odysseus had to leave when Telemachus was very young and he did not get to know his son before he left. There is a strain on the relationship at first because Telemachus is angry that his father left his mother and him to go off to the fight in the Trojan War. As he grows up though he begins to understand and the anger inside him begins to diminish. The third experience is accomplishment. We do not learn much of Telemachus’ accomplishments during his childhood, but it is in this experience that Milt Ford says that a person is experiencing successes and failures to find out what they are going to do in life. We do not hear about them but I am sure that the normal accomplishments of a child, such as learning to crawl and walk are accomplishments during this period of time. The experiences develop more in Telemachus’ life journey as he moves from childhood into the adolescent part of his life.

Next in the book, Telemachus reaches adolescence. He does a lot of growing up in a short amount of time during these years. He is forced to because of the absence of his father and the ever-growing threat of the suitors in his home. This is the stage where I feel Telemachus journeys through the most important experience in his life so far. The identity experience of this time period of his life is vital. As I said before, this is when Ford believes you start to ask yourself, who am I? This is where you start to see Telemachus begin to form into a man and take on the traits exhibited by his father who is a well-respected man and feared warrior. He is approached by the God Athena and offered the challenge to go out on his own without telling anyone, to try and find word of his father, because up till this point no one was sure whether or not Odysseus was alive. So Telemachus had to look deep inside himself and see if her had the courage and desire to go on the possibly dangerous journey. He showed no fear and took the journey around to different kingdoms to ask about his father and along his way finds many stories of his fathers attempted return to Ithaca. During his adolescent years he also shows his growth in relationship with his mother and father. He has a great desire to find his father because he wants to see him but also to save his mother from having to deal with the suitors who have taken over his fathers’ palace. This shows tremendous growth in his relationships and also his identity. He is ready to step forward and be a man. In his adolescence, Telemachus accomplishes several things. He goes out on his own to several different far away kingdoms to find his father, which is an accomplishment on its own. He also defends his mother along with his father by battling all of the suitors and killing them to keep them from causing any more harm. On the accomplishment aspect of his life journey during adolescence, he does a lot of things. He practically becomes a man at an early age. He finds his father and then teams with him to destroy all of the threats to his thrown.

It is very exciting when you break down the character of Telemachus in this epic poem. It is interesting to look at just one person and analyze all of the things that they go through and how they handle them. Like Telemachus, we have all made journeys through our lives that have helped us to discover who we are and just what we are capable of. For some of us, our journey away from the comfort and security of our homes and our families to venture out and figure out who we are and who we want to become is a major part of our life journey. It is interesting how a piece of literature written so long ago can have themes and ideals that still apply to our lives today. I know that pretty much everyone could sit down and read this book, and then apply some theme or idea from the book to his or her own life. I know for a fact that I can make a comparison to my own life.

I see similarities between Telemachus and myself. We both have had similar obstacles to overcome and we were both forced to learn our identities and our paths at an early age. Whereas Telemachus’ father left him at an early age to go to war, my father passed away when I was seventeen from a massive heart attack. The obvious difference is that Odysseus returned from war but my father will not return. I, like Telemachus, was forced to grow up very quickly. I had to become the man and begin to accept responsibilities that were previously not put on my shoulders. There was a period where I was lost and needed to find my way. My journey came way of my departure for college. I had to start to develop the attitude and work ethic that would mold me into the man I am to become. I also began to take on traits of my father, which made me very happy because it was a way for him to live on and stay fresh on everyone’s minds. This is similar to the way that Telemachus took the traits of his father and reminded people of Odysseus.

Fortunately, like Telemachus, I have emerged from my journey very happy with the way I have turned out. The only bad part is my father is gone for good. But it did force me to grow up and change. I have come full circle with the ideals and the path of my life that I am ready to take. This is like Ford’s theory. My identity has been found. I have looked inside of myself and realized who I am and who I want to be. My important relationships have shined greatly through this time of my life. My relationship with my mother has greatly increased and become closer on a deep level. She is more than my mother; she is a great friend and an advisor when I need her to be. My friends around me have been great. They have been moral support and never looked down on me when I have my times of weakness. Lastly but not least of all, my girlfriend has remained strong for me which made things a lot better for me. These relationships have been majorly important throughout my life journey so far. As far as my accomplishments, I cannot say much without sounding conceded. I have gotten through my trials and tribulations so far and am in college looking towards a future in Criminal Justice. I think that is an accomplishment.

There are many ways that The Odyssey can be molded and interpreted to apply to our lives today. I highlighted instances in my own life where you can show a pretty good correlation between ideas and struggles from the book into my own life. Every book has things in it that can be compared to everyday life. I know that from now on when I read a book I will read deeper than face value and examine more closely how it coincides to my own life. It definitely makes the book more interesting and I also feel like I get more out of it. We learn from these great stories that everyone goes through bad situations and terrible struggles, it is how we deal with them and what we learn about ourselves that are the foundations for the life that we make for ourselves. With lots of time and soul searching, we too can be as happy as Telemachus.

Bibliography:

Loyalty and Suffering The Question of the Loyalty of Friends and the Suffering of the Loyal.

Job – The Whiner

Loyalty and Suffering: The Question of the Loyalty of Friends and the Suffering of the Loyal. The idea of justice and good people suffering is a point first brought up in the Old Testament in the Book of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah is the first author in the Bible to question God’s allowance of good people to suffer and bad people to prosper. Jeremiah was punished for speaking the word of Yahweh. The people of Judah hated him and punished him as a traitor to his country. He questions why Yahweh would let this punishment, not only of himself, but of his people, to occur. The Book of Job re-asks this question, for Job is a loyal man of Yahweh, who is put “on trial” because of a bet between God and Satan, who sits on his council. Job has everything taken away from him, is persecuted by his friends, takes his case to a “trail-like” atmosphere and is rewarded for his loyalty to Yahweh in the end. This book brings to light a few questions that need to be answered:

1. Are the arguments presented for Job’s suffering satisfactory?

2. Where does Job’s friends’ loyalty lie, with him, Yahweh or elsewhere?

3. Was Job’s “reward” for being loyal just, or was it just compensation for being accused for something he did not do?

In chapter three the following chapters, Job’s friends interpret his suffering but do so falsely. These false accusations lead the friends to become more and more estranged from Job on the ash heap. Eliphaz, the oldest and thus the wisest friend, speaks first. He says he speaks from experience. He says suffering results from human activity and it is divine punishment for wicked living (4:8-9). He says he has had a dream (4:12) in which a voice questioned if anyone could be sinless before God. It is Eliphaz’ way to get Job to admit his sinfulness. Evidently Eliphaz was troubled that Job had not repented.

It could also be a divine discipline for which Job should be grateful, but the audience knows he is wrong. With Eliphaz we seem to have returned to an understanding of life somewhat similar to Proverbs. Since Job is innocent, he believes that God must be the source of his suffering, “The arrows of Shaddai stick fast in me…my spirit absorbs their poison” (6:4), and he has every reason to complain. Once again Job laments, this time he asks to die. Job is disappointed in his friend, for his counselling was no comfort to him. His understanding of life is sharply different to theirs.

He suffers because of betrayal by his friends, “my brothers have proved deceptive” (6:15). Job believes God is treating him as if he were a monster. He is sure God loves him because after he dies God would be looking for him, but it would be too late, he would be no more. Neither Job nor the author of Job had a belief in life after death. So God must intervene now. In the prologue and epilogue of this book, Job is said to be a man that performs sacrifices and prays to Yahweh on behalf of everyone around him: friends, family, etc. In Gabel and Wheeler’s book, they state that: “…Job performs sacrifices and prays to Yahweh on behalf of his children and friends; but in the large poetic bulk of the book, where Job and his friends investigate in minutest detail the ways a man may sin and thus deserve suffering, cultic matters are never once mentioned (115.” This would have been the greatest defence for Job, one that should not have been overlooked, nor should it have been brought up, since Yahweh’s name is sometimes defined as “a God who remembers” (Notes, 9/3).

If Yahweh remembers Job following the covenant, how can his suffering be just? Bildad responds next, arguing from the idea of theology. God is just and therefore God cannot be the cause of human suffering. Therefore, if God is not the cause of suffering, humans are. According to Bildad, Job’s children died prematurely because they sinned. Since God’s justice is beyond question, Job’s children must have been sinners. In other words, Bildad believes in the same doctrine of retribution as Eliphaz does. Bildad suggests that Job is responsible for his own future. He must seek God and if he does, God will reward him. Then, Bildad practically accuses Job of not staying close to God. Bildad says evil people flourish only for a short time (8:14-19), and escape is possible for Job but depends on Job himself (8:20-22). He believes he was consoling and wise, but the audience knows that he has been cruel and also portrayed God as cruel. Job believes we are powerless against God.

He asks how anyone can claim to be just before God. He talks about the might and power which God, as the Creator, must have; he can shake the mountains and tell the sun not to rise (9:5-9). However, Job feels that he is in a hopeless situation because he has a just complaint against God. But what chance has he against God? He doesn’t believe there is any point in summoning God. Even if Job did make contact with him, he doubts that God would listen. Job has no way to charge God because there is no arbitrator between them. Gabel and Wheeler state that “although the wisdom writers assumed the existence of a deity who created and sustained the world, they had no sense of a personal relationship between believer and God. (116)”

This leads to Job’s imaginary address to Yahweh, in which he feels he should have never been born. In class, we have been taught that Yahweh had a close relationship with His people. Where is that relationship now? If this is the same Yahweh that is talked about throughout the Bible, in Psalms, for example, why would He not speak with Job? This idea, again, brings injustice to claims of Job’s sins and the need for his suffering. In chapter 10, Job seems to be introducing a kind of imaginary address to be delivered before a hypothetical court where God is also present. Job gives voice to his loneliness, his uncertainty and his suffering not being heard by God.

Job believes that God created him in love and is the cause of his suffering. Job can find no answer and asks why he was born. Because there was not yet a developed belief in the afterlife, rewards and punishments must be meted out in this life. This chapter could be considered Job’s preparation for his “court-date” with God. Job is “practicing” an argument to the court in his defence. One could also see this as a subpoena for God to appear in court. Gabel and Wheeler state: “…Job pleads that God appear (in court, as it were) and state plainly what wrong Job has committed that warrants such ill fortune. (119).” This address, that God can hear (for He hears all), is a message (or a subpoena, as stated before) for God’s court to hear him out and allow him to defend himself. Aren’t all men allowed to defend themselves or is God above that? Zophar, Job’s third friend mocks him and attacks him directly. According to him, Job’s complaints are babbling nonsense and Job’s suffering is less than he deserved. Zophar claims that God’s ways are incomprehensible; therefore, in questioning God, Job is blaspheming.

Although Job cannot know the mind of God, ironically Zophar does, e.g. that certain people are deceptive (11:11). He also believes that if Job would repudiate sin, his life would return to brighter than noon. Zophar falls into the same trap as Eliphaz and Bildad in defending the doctrine of retribution, inevitably picturing God as unloving and humans as deserving nothing but suffering. Once again Job complains that his friends have left him down. Their explanations of his suffering do not satisfy, “I have a brain as well as you, I am in no way inferior to you” (12:3). In Job’s estimation, his friends are worthless doctors (13:4). He believes the only wisdom they could have is to be silent. On the other hand, Job will continue to speak out. He has only one thing to do, to demand a hearing from his torturer despite the misunderstanding between them. God is implicated in Job’s suffering and only God can give meaning to his torment. Job grows angrier and finds the courage to confront God his persecutor, “I have no other hope than to justify my conduct in his eyes” (13:15,18).

In chapters 29-31 Job will ‘take God to court’. Job demands that God stops torturing him and reveals his crimes to him. A tree cut down may sprout again, but Job will never rise again. It is heartening to read that Job believes God still loves, that someday God will long for the work of his hands. Who is Zophar to speak? Is he God or a messenger from God? How does he know that Job will be returned to his status? It seems that Zophar is playing God and knows what God is thinking. If Job does not know what God is thinking, how can Zophar know. This temptation to repent, if Job would have followed, may have ended his life right there. Remember, Job is being tested for his faith. If he gives up and repents for sins he has not done, would that be a sin in itself? In the end, Job was made twice as prosperous as before. His wealth doubled, he had ten more children, and lived 140 more years of his life. God lets Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar know that he is very angry for having spoken falsely of Him. He is upset that they had filled Job’s mind with false thoughts, making him resent God.

The fact that they were all speaking as if they knew exactly what God was doing might have also upset him. Therefore, to rectify having spoken of God in this manner, they each must take a certain amount of sacrifices to Job, and Job would offer their sacrifices to God and pray for them. Finally, Job gets an answer, but is it really an answer? Yahweh answers Job in a form of questions, belittling him, but why? More testing? Why would Yahweh tear him down like this? Babel and Wheeler state: “…we must not that the hero’s (Job) harsh judgment of the justice of God was muted by the author himself by having Job admit, after God has responded to him so crushingly, that he has been in over his head and has spoken of matters too great for him to handle. (123)”

What has Job spoken of that is over his head? The truth? Nothing? All Job did was ask for an answer as to why he is suffering. He knows that he has done what he was supposed to do. He prayed and made sacrifices, but to what avail? To have his family taken away, his life ruined and a cheap buyout at the end. This is almost like the movie “The Fugitive,” where a man is falsely accused of a crime (sin), is sentenced (suffering) and is given a cheap watch and a buyout to say…”I’m sorry.” Thanks, but no thanks. He got everything back, but he got nothing back. He got a do-over with a new family, friends possessions, etc., but not the original. He got a new life, but the life was not the one he knew, but one set up for him to live as an apology. As for Job’s friends, with friends like these who needs enemies? Whose side are they on? Where does their loyalty stand? In the end, Yahweh punishes them, but it is too little, too late.

The question asked is: Where does their loyalty lie? I think it is answered, to a certain extent. Their loyalty is definitely not with Job, for they have judged him when they are in no position to judge. Their loyalty is not with Yahweh, for they have tried to take his role as the judge. The book does not answer, though, if their loyalty is with Satan. He is the one that wants to test Job. Are they in a secret agreement with Satan, sent on a mission to belittle Job so he can win his “bet?” This leaves something to question. Not one argument against Job, throughout his trial, seems to be satisfactory. Job always has an answer for what his friends accuse him of. His words prove that he is a man of his word and his faith. I feel that there was never an argument that proved him guilty, and in the end, Yahweh saw the same. Job’s “reward” for his loyalty, also, has no validity or satisfaction. In the end, Job’s loyalty was to Yahweh and his friends (for he prayed for them). He did not get back what he lost, but got replacements that did not have the same value as the original. Is this justice? I think not.

Bibliography:

Standard Bible Old Testament

This is a comparison and contrast of differences between living at home and living in a college dormitory.

Dorm Life

This is a comparison and contrast of differences between living at home and living in a college dormitory. The differences will be compared and contrasted in the following paragraphs to show the likes and dislikes of each environment. There are three key differences from living at home and living in a college dormitory: availability, meal choices, and the most important factor is your privacy. These are the things that are bad about the dorm that makes me appreciate home more.

The first difference that will be discussed when comparing and contrasting living at home and living in the dorm is your availability. What is mint by availability is your access your friends have to bother or disturb you from studying. When living at home your friends have less access to your such as the phone or computer. When living in the dorm they can knock on your door at anytime they like. Some other problem with the availability of the dorm is if your trying to avoid someone they can easily find you without even trying very hard. When living at home it makes it easier to avoid those people.

The second difference that will be compared and contrasted between living at home and living in the dorm is eating habits. When living at home you tend to snack less because you are more active and you have more time to eat nutritious. However when living in the dorm you tend to eat a lot of snacks because you are too busy to eat healthy or do not have the means to prepare a healthy meal. What is mint by not being able to prepare a healthy meal is that you do not have the storage ability to keep nutritious food by not having a large refrigerator or a stovetop to cook on.

The third and biggest difference between living at home and living in the dorm is your privacy. The first issue with privacy is you cannot have a personal phone call without someone interfering where as at home you can lock your own room door or go in the bathroom to talk. Which lead us to the second issue with the privacy in the dorm which is not being able to use the bathroom peacefully without people walking in and out asking how much longer are you going to be in the shower. Dorm life is unlike home where you can use the bathroom at your own will and as long as you like.

There were three difference compared and contrasted between living in a college dormitory and living at home .The first thing discussed was the availability of living at home or in the dorm, the second thing discussed was home and dorm eating habits, and the last thing was the difference in privacy at home and the dorm life. These were the most important things to compare when comparing and contrasting dorm life with home life.

Bibliography: