Just kidding, kind of. We really read about two cities, but not the same as the book itself. We read about the Earthly City and the Heavenly City. One city glorifies itself, while the other city glorifies God. They each have their own nature, and cannot agree upon laws or religion.
The first city, the Earthly City, focuses on itself, and it's assets. It loves to rule itself and seeks profit for it's own glory and praise. They are possessed by pride and think that they are wise. They have corrupted the thought of God and made it into man. This city will not be everlasting, but the people here rejoice in the things they have. They believe in power, money, and fame. They want it all for themselves, and thank nobody but themselves when they get it. This city is divided by wars and hatred for each other, because everyone is self-serving. They are in a sense bonded to their earthly goods. When they are victorious, the victory is prideful and life-destroying. Unfortunately, since they are so focused on earthly goods, they constantly wory about any coming disasters that may befall them. The Earthly City believes in multiple gods. They even assigned every aspet of human nature to a god. There is one for the body, one for the soul, one for parts of the body, onr for each feeling or emotion, and one for every action. They are very full of gods.
As for the Heavenly City, it is a city that glorifies God. They do not care for worldly assets, they care for the eternal and the everlasting. They seek to worship and praise God in everything they do. There is no human wisdom in this city. There is only godliness, which seeks to worship God and gain reward in the society of the saints, holy angels, and men. This city lives by faith, and makes use of earthly peace only because it must, until the mortal condition will pass away. They believe in the worship of one God, and one God alone. To God alone can a service the Greeks called latreia be done.
These cities never agreed on laws or religion, and therefore the Heavenly City had to dissent and become obnoxious to those who thought differently than them. They needed to force it. There was much insight in this reading, and I think it's crazy how to the beginning of time, there was always a heavenly and an earthly something or other.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Senecen Tragedy
Senecen (Greek) Tragedy is very different from Roman Tragedy. These types of tragedies are not meant to be performed. The Greeks, really didn't have drama or plays. They preferred Colosseum-type entertainment (such as gladiators). In Greek dramas, there is no humanity. Readers cannot identify to any character, and they do not learn anything by the end of the play. It is pretty much pointless.
Thyestes is the last tragedy that we have to read this semester. It is actually the most violent and most gruesome drama every created by an ancient playwright. It is a critic of Nero's reign. Nero is supposed to be Atreus, and Seneca is Nero's advisor in the play. (Seneca put himself into the play.)
In the House of Atreus, there is a history of repeat canabalism and insest. A really gross part was when Pelops was cut up by Tantalus, his father, and fed to the gods. All of the gods knew what was going on, except Thetis, Achilles' mother, who actually ate his shoulder. (Sick!) The gods then pieced him back together. Every part is accounted for, except for his shoulder, so they made him a new shoulder out of ivory. (This shoulder is the equivalent to Achilles' heel.)
This was a crazy story to read. It was greusome, pointless, and violent. Who cuts up theirr own child just because they want to trick the gods? The only one who is fooled is Thetis.... but luckily she only ate the shoulder. I am very glad we didn't have to read very many of these types of tragedies. It is good literature, but bad at the same time.
Thyestes is the last tragedy that we have to read this semester. It is actually the most violent and most gruesome drama every created by an ancient playwright. It is a critic of Nero's reign. Nero is supposed to be Atreus, and Seneca is Nero's advisor in the play. (Seneca put himself into the play.)
In the House of Atreus, there is a history of repeat canabalism and insest. A really gross part was when Pelops was cut up by Tantalus, his father, and fed to the gods. All of the gods knew what was going on, except Thetis, Achilles' mother, who actually ate his shoulder. (Sick!) The gods then pieced him back together. Every part is accounted for, except for his shoulder, so they made him a new shoulder out of ivory. (This shoulder is the equivalent to Achilles' heel.)
This was a crazy story to read. It was greusome, pointless, and violent. Who cuts up theirr own child just because they want to trick the gods? The only one who is fooled is Thetis.... but luckily she only ate the shoulder. I am very glad we didn't have to read very many of these types of tragedies. It is good literature, but bad at the same time.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Song of Roland
This is a poem telling the story of the betrayal by Ganelon towards Roland by selling him out to the pagans. The man's only request: he gets to kill Roland. This guy comes up with a plan to split Charlemagne's army up, half would go through the mountain pass towards home, and the other half would stay. In reality, only Roland and 11 other barons stay with 20,000 men fighting under them.
When they realize they are against an army with over 200,000 men, they really only need to kill the other 12 leaders from the opposing army. Once a leader is killed, there is no need for his followers to stay and fight. (There is 20,000 followers per leader) So after killing off 10 out of 12 leaders, Roland's group of 20,000 is now only facing 40,000 people. Not as bad of odds.
The way these people fought in these days was by jousting to the death. (What a weird way to battle!) The leaders joust it out with others just standing around watching!
Now the story itself is cut into three main pieces. The first part is Ganelon's treason. He betrays Charlemagne by setting up the plan to split up the army. He sells out Roland to the opposing army only for the pormised price that he alone gets to kill Roland.
The second piece is the battle itself. This is where Roland's army kicks the opposing army's ass. Each leader from the opposing army was killed off, one by one, by Roland's leaders. They fought by jousting. The most gruesome death is in section 109. This is where Roland kills Chernubles.
The last part of the poem's story is Roland's death. We haven't read that section yet, but it is supposed to be the most climatic part of the poem. In section 110, Roland's death is actually fortold. (One thing that was crazy was the unexplained solar eclipse and a storm with an earthquake at high noon.)
This poem is actually Christian allegory. Charlemagne is supposed to be Christ. Ganelon is Judas. Roland is Peter. Charlemagne is like Jesus by leaving the fighting group and coming back later with vengance. Ganelon is like Judas because he betrays Charlemagne by selling him out to the pagans. (Just like Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.) Roland is like Peter because he denies calling Charlemagne back to fight three times. (The only difference, is Peter denied Jesus because of shame and fear, Roland denies Charlemagne out of honor.)
When they realize they are against an army with over 200,000 men, they really only need to kill the other 12 leaders from the opposing army. Once a leader is killed, there is no need for his followers to stay and fight. (There is 20,000 followers per leader) So after killing off 10 out of 12 leaders, Roland's group of 20,000 is now only facing 40,000 people. Not as bad of odds.
The way these people fought in these days was by jousting to the death. (What a weird way to battle!) The leaders joust it out with others just standing around watching!
Now the story itself is cut into three main pieces. The first part is Ganelon's treason. He betrays Charlemagne by setting up the plan to split up the army. He sells out Roland to the opposing army only for the pormised price that he alone gets to kill Roland.
The second piece is the battle itself. This is where Roland's army kicks the opposing army's ass. Each leader from the opposing army was killed off, one by one, by Roland's leaders. They fought by jousting. The most gruesome death is in section 109. This is where Roland kills Chernubles.
The last part of the poem's story is Roland's death. We haven't read that section yet, but it is supposed to be the most climatic part of the poem. In section 110, Roland's death is actually fortold. (One thing that was crazy was the unexplained solar eclipse and a storm with an earthquake at high noon.)
This poem is actually Christian allegory. Charlemagne is supposed to be Christ. Ganelon is Judas. Roland is Peter. Charlemagne is like Jesus by leaving the fighting group and coming back later with vengance. Ganelon is like Judas because he betrays Charlemagne by selling him out to the pagans. (Just like Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.) Roland is like Peter because he denies calling Charlemagne back to fight three times. (The only difference, is Peter denied Jesus because of shame and fear, Roland denies Charlemagne out of honor.)
Saturday, February 20, 2010
What a funny play...
So this past week we were reading "Clouds," by Aristophanes. This was one messed up play. I thought it was funny, but I didn't like the nastiness in the content. There were a lot of crude remarks made by Stepsiades, aka Stupid, throughout the whole play.
So the purpose of this play is Stupid asks his son to go to the Pondertorium to learn how to argue the "Lesser Argument," aka the "Wrong Argument," so Stupid can get out of his own debts. He blames his son for his money problems, saying that it was his son who wanted to ride horses, bet on horses, and have everything horse around him. His son refuses to go, so Stupid decides to go instead. He doesn't want to learn knowledge, just how to get out of paying all this money.
He goes to the Pondertorium and meets wise old Socrates. He sees things that look weird, such as students studying what was beneath the earth with their noses to the dirt, while at the same time studying the stars with their asses. He doesn't like the fact that he has to be wrapped up in a flea-infested blanket in order to learn knowledge. He is so dense, in fact, that he takes everything Socrates says either litterally, or he doesn't understand it all.
He actually thought that Zeus makes rain by pissing. He makes all sorts of fart jokes in relation to thunder. Later, when asked if he had a grasp of anything yet, he replys with "My right hand has a good grasp on my prick at the moment." What a rude man. I think this guy should be kicked in the face.
I definitely did not get too much into this book simply because it was a little too vulgar for my liking. If it was a newer play, I don't think it would have bothered me as much. But classical works, I just expect better writing. Or, I guess, I like nicer writing.
Overall, it wasn't a bad book, I just don't like classical works to be vulgar I guess. I expect them to hold some kind of stature I guess.
So the purpose of this play is Stupid asks his son to go to the Pondertorium to learn how to argue the "Lesser Argument," aka the "Wrong Argument," so Stupid can get out of his own debts. He blames his son for his money problems, saying that it was his son who wanted to ride horses, bet on horses, and have everything horse around him. His son refuses to go, so Stupid decides to go instead. He doesn't want to learn knowledge, just how to get out of paying all this money.
He goes to the Pondertorium and meets wise old Socrates. He sees things that look weird, such as students studying what was beneath the earth with their noses to the dirt, while at the same time studying the stars with their asses. He doesn't like the fact that he has to be wrapped up in a flea-infested blanket in order to learn knowledge. He is so dense, in fact, that he takes everything Socrates says either litterally, or he doesn't understand it all.
He actually thought that Zeus makes rain by pissing. He makes all sorts of fart jokes in relation to thunder. Later, when asked if he had a grasp of anything yet, he replys with "My right hand has a good grasp on my prick at the moment." What a rude man. I think this guy should be kicked in the face.
I definitely did not get too much into this book simply because it was a little too vulgar for my liking. If it was a newer play, I don't think it would have bothered me as much. But classical works, I just expect better writing. Or, I guess, I like nicer writing.
Overall, it wasn't a bad book, I just don't like classical works to be vulgar I guess. I expect them to hold some kind of stature I guess.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
This week was not so good
So this week I have been very under the weather, so I was not able to get all of the readings done. I read monday's reading, "Crito" by Plato. I liked these two chapters that we read, for the most part. I can understand both sides of Crito and Socrates' argument.
Crito wants Socrates out of jail. He lists several reasons to back up his side of the argument. He is scared about his own reputation, and thinks that if he doesn't bail Socrates out of jail, he will be considered a bad person. He also says that he can make sure Socrates is comfortable in exile, no matter what his needs are. He tries to argue that if Socrates stays in jail, he is actually harming himself and aiding the state in injustice. His very last plead to Socrates used his family abandonment to try and persuade Socrates to escape.
Of course Socrates does what he always did in the marketplace. He proved to Crito why he could not escape using logic. Even if the state is being unjust, if he escaped, he would be unjust as well. He also would be considered a hypocrite, becase he could not be a philosoper if he did not stick to his word.
I feel bad for Socrates, because he knows he is right. He knows he has done nothing wrong. And he also knows that if he "did the right thing" and escaped, he would actually be technically doing "the wrong thing." I don't think I could be friends with somebody like this, mainly because I sometimes get upset when I am wrong, and to have somebody sit there and explain, and make me see exactly why I am wrong, and why the other thing is right would drive me crazy. I would never condemn a person for that, but I would probably tell them to shut up and then walk far away from them.
I am hoping that I can get caught back up this week, and get all of my readings done as well.
Crito wants Socrates out of jail. He lists several reasons to back up his side of the argument. He is scared about his own reputation, and thinks that if he doesn't bail Socrates out of jail, he will be considered a bad person. He also says that he can make sure Socrates is comfortable in exile, no matter what his needs are. He tries to argue that if Socrates stays in jail, he is actually harming himself and aiding the state in injustice. His very last plead to Socrates used his family abandonment to try and persuade Socrates to escape.
Of course Socrates does what he always did in the marketplace. He proved to Crito why he could not escape using logic. Even if the state is being unjust, if he escaped, he would be unjust as well. He also would be considered a hypocrite, becase he could not be a philosoper if he did not stick to his word.
I feel bad for Socrates, because he knows he is right. He knows he has done nothing wrong. And he also knows that if he "did the right thing" and escaped, he would actually be technically doing "the wrong thing." I don't think I could be friends with somebody like this, mainly because I sometimes get upset when I am wrong, and to have somebody sit there and explain, and make me see exactly why I am wrong, and why the other thing is right would drive me crazy. I would never condemn a person for that, but I would probably tell them to shut up and then walk far away from them.
I am hoping that I can get caught back up this week, and get all of my readings done as well.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Just Another Day
This week was nice with only having one day of class and all. Wednesday's reading was very hard for me to follow. It was the Pericles' "Funeral Oration." Apparently it was his famous speech for soldiers who died in war. At first, I really didn't think this speech was very appropriate for a funeral, it just didn't seem like it was meant for that purpose. Closer to the end of the speech, I was able to see some relations to funerals. There were several confusing words and phrases throughout the entire reading, this was definitely not my favorite reading. Friday's reading was from "The Trial and Death of Socrates" by Plato. We read the chapter titled "Apology." It was not actually an apology, but more of Socrates' explanation to the jury about his false charges that were brought against him by Meletus. He was charged for being a Sophist, which is just a fancy word for somebody who makes people pay them in order to hear "wise words." They were pretty much just like lawyers, because they taught people how to argue and win, not teaching them real truth. He was also charged with corrupting the youth, and not believing in the gods, but in other new spiritual things. This part is funny. Meletus is charging Socrates with not believing in the gods, making him an atheist. But then he is also charging him with believing in other new spiritual things, making him not an atheist. So these two charges pretty much cancel each other out.
I really liked the Greek definition of wisdom. It is "knowing the limits of your knowledge; comes from knowing that you don't know, rather than assuming specialized knowledge makes you wise." These are some profound words. I like how the Oracle says that Socrates is the wisest man alive, simply because he knows that he doesn't know anything. He goes around trying to find someone wiser than himself, but finds no one. And why is that? Because everybody else thinks they know everything. They can't admit that they really don't know shit. That makes me laugh. Another way of defining wisdom is "the lifelong pursuit of knowledge." Because it is pretty much impossible for any human being on earth to know everything, nobody is truly wise. But if they are constantly out there searching for the truth, that makes them wise.
I think that this chapter was kind of neat. I am almost (not quite, but almost) anxious to read the next chapter for next week.
I really liked the Greek definition of wisdom. It is "knowing the limits of your knowledge; comes from knowing that you don't know, rather than assuming specialized knowledge makes you wise." These are some profound words. I like how the Oracle says that Socrates is the wisest man alive, simply because he knows that he doesn't know anything. He goes around trying to find someone wiser than himself, but finds no one. And why is that? Because everybody else thinks they know everything. They can't admit that they really don't know shit. That makes me laugh. Another way of defining wisdom is "the lifelong pursuit of knowledge." Because it is pretty much impossible for any human being on earth to know everything, nobody is truly wise. But if they are constantly out there searching for the truth, that makes them wise.
I think that this chapter was kind of neat. I am almost (not quite, but almost) anxious to read the next chapter for next week.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sunday is the End of My Week
I don't know when the end of the week is supposed to be, but for me, my week is Monday-Sunday lol.
So this week was books 16, 18, 22, 24, and teh last 17 lines of 23. Book 16 is about how Achilles' friend Patroclus dies. I can feel Achilles' pain in this bok. Patroclus wears Achilles' armor to pretend to be him, so that Achilles' could kill man-killing Hector. The only thing Patroclus could not wield was Achilles' spear. Only Achilles could handle such a heavy weapon. I can understand Achilles' rage after his friend was killed. He was out to get Hector, that's for sure.
Book 18 is about the Shield of Achilles. I did not know how much detail went into the making of armor in those days. Hephaestus was the crippled craftsman to make his shield. I love the thorough description of the 9 different sections of Achilles' shield. The earth, sky and sea, the sun, the moon, and the celestial constellations are in the center of the shield. This is like the center of his worldview (like the sun). The two cities, the City at Peace and the City at War, scene was very interesting. In the City at Peace there was a scene of two men quarreling over a murdered family member. Instead of killing each other over it (like the City at War would have done), they decided to have a judge make the final decision. There was also a field being tilled, a king's estate with the harvest being reaped, and a vineyard with people picking the grapes. There was a pasture where some cattle were being violently killed by some lions. And next to that bloody scene was a sheep farm with sheep. My favorite scene was the dance floow, where men and women were dancing. I really enjoy going out and dancing with my friends. I thought the river of ocean was neat, how it surrounded the entire shield, like a protective barrier for his protective armor. I do think it is funny how there is not mention of the gods, since not only is he half-god, but the gods are a big part of this time period.
Book 22 and 24 describe the death of Hector, as wella s how Achilles' shamed him. After killing Hector, Achilles was so filled with rage that he dragged Hector's body from his chariot for 12 days around Troy. He woke up every morning, tied Hector's body to his chariot, dragged him around the walls of Trow, and then went back to his tent to eat breakfast. I cannot believe this continued for 12 days straight. All I can say is wow. What an asshole. I can understand his hurt for his friend, but seriously, that is just low. He should be ashamed of himself. I am glad that he gave Hector's body back to Priam so Hector could have the burial that he deserved. It made me sad to learn that Hector had to die. I knew this before I even got to read that part, but I really liked Hector. He was fighting for his country, his friends, and his family, while Achilles was just in the fight for revenge. He is stupid. I definitely do not like Achilles.
I do hope the other books we read at least have a little bit happier story line, and maybe even a happy ending. I did enjoy thi sbook very much though because it was quite descriptive, like many stories from this time. I have read several different excerpts from The Illiad many different times in high school, and even once freshman year of college. I am glad to have been able to divulge deeper into the meanings behind the words this time.
So this week was books 16, 18, 22, 24, and teh last 17 lines of 23. Book 16 is about how Achilles' friend Patroclus dies. I can feel Achilles' pain in this bok. Patroclus wears Achilles' armor to pretend to be him, so that Achilles' could kill man-killing Hector. The only thing Patroclus could not wield was Achilles' spear. Only Achilles could handle such a heavy weapon. I can understand Achilles' rage after his friend was killed. He was out to get Hector, that's for sure.
Book 18 is about the Shield of Achilles. I did not know how much detail went into the making of armor in those days. Hephaestus was the crippled craftsman to make his shield. I love the thorough description of the 9 different sections of Achilles' shield. The earth, sky and sea, the sun, the moon, and the celestial constellations are in the center of the shield. This is like the center of his worldview (like the sun). The two cities, the City at Peace and the City at War, scene was very interesting. In the City at Peace there was a scene of two men quarreling over a murdered family member. Instead of killing each other over it (like the City at War would have done), they decided to have a judge make the final decision. There was also a field being tilled, a king's estate with the harvest being reaped, and a vineyard with people picking the grapes. There was a pasture where some cattle were being violently killed by some lions. And next to that bloody scene was a sheep farm with sheep. My favorite scene was the dance floow, where men and women were dancing. I really enjoy going out and dancing with my friends. I thought the river of ocean was neat, how it surrounded the entire shield, like a protective barrier for his protective armor. I do think it is funny how there is not mention of the gods, since not only is he half-god, but the gods are a big part of this time period.
Book 22 and 24 describe the death of Hector, as wella s how Achilles' shamed him. After killing Hector, Achilles was so filled with rage that he dragged Hector's body from his chariot for 12 days around Troy. He woke up every morning, tied Hector's body to his chariot, dragged him around the walls of Trow, and then went back to his tent to eat breakfast. I cannot believe this continued for 12 days straight. All I can say is wow. What an asshole. I can understand his hurt for his friend, but seriously, that is just low. He should be ashamed of himself. I am glad that he gave Hector's body back to Priam so Hector could have the burial that he deserved. It made me sad to learn that Hector had to die. I knew this before I even got to read that part, but I really liked Hector. He was fighting for his country, his friends, and his family, while Achilles was just in the fight for revenge. He is stupid. I definitely do not like Achilles.
I do hope the other books we read at least have a little bit happier story line, and maybe even a happy ending. I did enjoy thi sbook very much though because it was quite descriptive, like many stories from this time. I have read several different excerpts from The Illiad many different times in high school, and even once freshman year of college. I am glad to have been able to divulge deeper into the meanings behind the words this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
