ngugi? big fan.

just kinda wanted to rant about the book a little bit. when i was reading it i ended up liking it way more than i thought i would. even though some parts are really dry and political and "humanity is fickle" and blah blah blah, i really was surprised, in a good way, at how poetic the language is and (maybe its because i'm a girl, haha) i really liked the love story. the book reminded me a lot of a cross between a shakespearian tragedy and lord of the flies. actually a LOT like lord of the flies. the question for the next paper i actually kind of like too, by the way, because the whole time i was reading it i kept on wondering why the heck he's pushing for so much education and at the same time wondering what the "white man"'s education really is. obviously it's partial religious teachings because of a few side-references, like Waiyaki knowing about Noah's flood, and i think a part about Peter. it kind of started bugging me a little bit, actually. especially in the middle when he's going nutso over building new schools and such and not really mentioning to anyone why education is so important, except for in one of the last sentences in the book where he kind of feebly says that the whole education ordeal is so that they can better defend themselves against the white man. but this being said, what exactly is it that is so different about the two sides anyway. especially after the tribes are educated. and they even make it a point to say that the tribal parents are proud of their kids for learning from these new schools. doesn't that make it a contradiction? all these people are so staunchly against something that they almost essentially have in common. the only thing they seem to differ on (the two groups, that is) is their religion. but even that being said, the book doesn't really offer much insight to what either group truly believes anyway. well...maybe more so the tribes than the Christians, because Ngugi goes into a little bit of background in the beginning with the whole african religion thing.

the symbolism in it is really stirring too. there seem to be a lot of parallels between the tribal life and the bible. waiyaki is almost sort of a Christ-like figure, while kithumia (sp?) is his personified disciples, kathau is like judas, and (this may be stretching it a little bit, unless you're a big fan of the davinci code...) nyumbara like mary magdelene. alright...nix on that last one, that's going a bit far. at the same time there's also a bunch of other parallels to other things. probably just the whol human nature thing. i mean, i guess, in essence, that's really what the book is about: how the world can never be as it should be because human nature always gets in the way. which is why nothing can or ever has been be peacefully united, much like the two villages.

wow, that was long. go me.

locke's religion and all that fun stuff

I'm really skeptical of Locke's added "religious" ideas. From what I know of writing arguments, or papers trying to prove a point in general, it helps if you add something relate-able to your audience and strong evidence which can make your argument stronger. Since Locke's argument is hinged more on his little made up definition of what Nature is than any solid definition of God (even though it's probably safe to assume that he's talking about the Christian God), I think he uses God as a relate-able after-thought to get people to warm up to his ideas better and to trust his word more readily. I know a lot of fervent Christians that tend to think more highly of complete strangers when told that they are also Christian, not necessarily because of an extreme piety but also because it's a common ground that they share. Adding in the odd God phrase now and then also makes it harder to contest his argument since no one was too willing to defy something that their God deems is true.
On a semi-different note, I also find it interesting that most of his phrases where God's principles and such are brought up are really vague. His only actual citing of the Bible and the direct ideas of God is when he mentions Cain.

of the cards...

descartes...hmmm...i think his theories are really interesting but i'm having trouble organizing his theories and opinions into something kind of logical.

I want to know what people think of his theory that everyone has good sense but just needs to employ it.

I also want to know if people think its necessarily a bad thing when things are taught to one by a group of people as opposed to just one singular person.

anti-semitism...right?

so, i kind of have to say that i'm getting a lot of ambiguity out of shakespeare in the good ole Merchant of Venice. at some points he seems to just look at anti-semitism as something regular in society; completely normal, acceptable, whatever. but in some spots it seems like he's making a case for people to stop discriminating against different religions. like in the speech portion that we covered today, the whole "do we not bleed" thing: it sounds to me like shakespeare is trying to prompt some empathy or sympathy from the reader by reminding them all that Jews are still people too, just like Christians and that religions don't change any of that. in fact, i feel like he puts that there specifically for that purpose. after you hear shylock's side of the story you feel more compelled to hate antonio along with shylock than to spurn shylock for hating him in the first place. i also wanted to point out at some point in class today (but probly forgot...) that they show a nice side to him before his daughter leaves home. his servant boy (forget his name...) doesn't really seem to have a legitimate reason for hating him besides the fact that he's Jewish, and Shylock isn't even particularly mean to him or anything; all he really seems to do is chide him for being a late-sleeper and doesn't really even give him any crap when he says he wants to leave. shylock only really seems to snap after he finds out about his daughter, taking the whole pound-of-flesh thing more seriously than before and maybe just going nuts at the thought of his daughter converting and marrying one of the pigs that kept them so low for so long.

whats the diff?

so, referring back to the question from wednesday: what is the difference between science and religion? i still kind of hold with what i said in class: that science demands fact and that religion demands some sort of faith. this is probably the closest to a concrete answer that you can get. some science, after all, can't be proven exept in theory, which i guess could be defined as faith. however, religion kinda holds absolute for the whole proving thing. you can't really prove that there is a God, or miracles, or angels, or heaven or hell. that kind of makes you wonder why people to have such a stronghold in religion. it's probably just held up from history, that there wasn't a lot of scientific fact to back up how life works so they just relied on their faith to explain things. thats probably why there were so many witch hunts and hangings and why the reformation was so bloody: because people didn't like to challenge what they couldn't explain so they tried to destroy it instead. today, though, since science is such a large part of everyone's life and how everything is explained people don't really find such a big need for religion and have a tendency to disregard it or just make it an afterthought.

not blog-worthy

this is probably irrelevent and totally not blog-worthy, but i just wanted to put out there that i understand Galileo a LOT better when i read it out loud; even though i sound like a creeper who talks to herself. i'm actually taking all the material in though, as opposed to it going in one ear and out the other when i just read to myself. yeah thats all, just puttin that out there!

redo!

so as a redo on that last blog post (like anyone cares...) i re-read Of Cannibals and noticed that he does mention religion but that their religion only really "worships" honor and respect for other humans and the necessity of loyalty to their wives. i think one of the most obvious themes in this work is the attention paid to respecting fellow human beings. like when one's at war and wants to seriously shame their enemy, they taken them prisoner, treat them nice for a little bit, then roast them on a spit and eat them. but other than that (and their punishments for false prophets...) they weren't really a harmful culture. montaigne describes european ways of torture as much more terrifying and surely much more barbaric, like dragging someone across town strapped to a cart which is then set on fire and you are eaten alive by dogs and pigs. even though everyone is definitely revulsed by what he describes in the brazilian culture, the european one is clearly more terrifying, and makes the reader (or perhaps just the readers of the times) feel awful for recognizing the latter first.