Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, September 6, 2019

Quiz Sep 9/10

Native & indigenous philosophies (LISTEN); Native Pragmatism... Native American wisdom (L)FL 5-6; Stephen, "In Praise of Walking" (JW). ALSO RECOMMENDED: Native American Wisdom (an Environmental Ethics post from 2011)... more old posts... Native American Wisdom (video)... Mitakuye Oyatsin, "we are all related" (video)
Post your alternate quiz questions, discussion questions, comments, & links... 

1. What cultural dichotomy exists in philosophy?

2. Rather than see God as transcendent ("outside the world") or immanent ("inside the world"), how do indigenous philosophies understand God?

3. What's one of Miguel van der Velden's reasons for why we should study indigenous philosophies?

4. Although they are very diverse, indigenous communities are commonly driven by what?

5. Scott Pratt thinks we should also recognize what about the origin of American philosophy?

6. According to Hegel, in what two places did human history/progress begin and end?

FL 5-6
7. What made Anne Hutchinson "so American"?

8. How was freedom of thought in early America different from that of Europe in the 17th century?

9. According to some Puritans, who were "Satan's soldiers" in America?

10. What "evidence" was the primary basis for judgments in the Salem witch trials?

11. Did most people in New England believe in witches, during the infamous Salem witch trials?

12. What's Protestantism's enduring influence?

Discussion Questions:
  • Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?
  • Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?
  • Do some otherwise-enlightened and progressive westerners who oppose the economic exploitation of the less-industrially-developed world still participate, perhaps unwittingly, in forms of "cultural colonialism" that exploit indigenous peoples intellectually? 
  • John Dewey philosophized about "natural piety," recognizing our shared inter-dependence on one another and on nature at large. How does a "naturally pious" person express that piety, in terms of lifestyle choices and policy preferences etc.?
  • What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?
  • Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?
  • Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?
  • Is it possible, as a Protestant, to renounce all supernaturalism?
  • Have you ever been on a "walking tour" of the sort Leslie Stephen praises?
  • What do you think Stephen means when he calls walking "the natural recreation for the [person] who wants to turn [his intellect] out to play"? 20
  • If walking saved JS Mill from becoming "a mere smoke-dried pedant," does that imply that all or most sedentary scholars are pedantic?  24
  • COMMENT: "I respect the cyclist, but he is enslaved by his machine." 31
  • COMMENT: "None of us can always be thinking over the riddle of the universe..." 37
  • Add your DQs

And what do you think of this? -
The water in your body is just visiting. It was a thunderstorm a week ago. It will be the ocean soon enough. Most of your cells come and go like morning dew. We are more weather pattern than stone monument. Sunlight on mist. Summer lightning. Your choices outweigh your substance.
==
Indigenous Philosophies
Miguel van der Velden invites us to consider the philosophical ideas of the world’s many Indigenous communities.

One of the main goals of philosophy is to ask why we have this life and how we’re meant to live it. As such, it has been the backbone of many cultures throughout the world and history, has influenced entire nations, and has shaped the present. One could argue that in everything we do there is a philosophy underlying the action. This raises a great concern: if this is true, and philosophy plays such a fundamental role in society, then what great flaw in the philosophy of the modern world is causing us to destroy the environment, turn a blind eye to oppression, and subject ourselves to a political-economic system that for many of us simply doesn’t fit?

Recent times have seen the rising popularity in the West of Eastern philosophies and texts such as the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dao De Ching, and other greats. A dichotomy has bubbled up between Western and Eastern philosophy, and many continue to argue about how these two relate to each other. But neither tradition has been able to stop wars or the rampant destruction of our ecosystem. So either philosophy doesn’t play as large a role in our society as it might or we are missing something fundamental, a philosophy that brings it all together, including the contradictions between the East and the West... (continues at Philosophy Now)



271 comments:

  1. responding to the DQ of "Why did the founders omit reference to God in the Constitution, do you think?"
    We all k ow many of the founders were devout Christians, Others were or became atheists though. The omittance of the word God was to keep consistent language and views with the first amendment's freedom of religion, or lack there of. So in short the lack of the word god was because of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did't use the word "god" to separate state and church because they saw all the problems the mixture was causing England.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5:51 PM CDT

      The united states has deeply struggled with separating church and state. I have learned from pervious history courses that the constitution doesn't mention God because the founder wanted the state to choose. A more recent struggle with the separation between church and state is same sex marriage. Many congressmen and governor retaliated with bible scripture's to go against same sex marriages. The same sex marriage it seemed as though it was about religious values not our country's.
      With the united states long history with religion it is hard just to ignore it. It's the bases of our society, and we built our country with religious values. I firmly believe that the united states doesn't not have a clear separation between church and state, but society allows it.

      Delete
    3. I just find it interesting that it wasn't used in the constitution because of the separation of church in state to avoid what happened in England, but it was used in our Pledge of Alegiance. We pledge to be "one nation under God" it just desn't use Gods name in the constitusion but you can see many of His values.

      Delete
  2. responding to the DQ "What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?
    Well traditionally to be American was to share the ideals of the constitution. The love of liberty, freedom, independence, and small government. I say that according to the principles of the Constitution and the DOI. The revolutionary war after all was fought against an oppressive government by simple people trying to survive on this new continent. The national character I believe has changed. changed by the welfare state of redistribution, sitcoms and the constant monitoring of each other by the big government, social networks, and other meaningless organizations to pretend to levy control over each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put. The roots of what it means to be american (or even broader, to be a human being) are beginning to slip away from us due to the excess monitoring that is plaguing the world.

      Delete
    2. I am not so sure about that. The way I see things, monitoring by the government has been going on since before the World Wars, that is just how it's been. However, I feel like the national culture has only seen a dramatic shift in the past decade or so. I beleive that this shift is due to the isolative effects of technology on the human psyche. The individual becomes more and more enamored with iteslf as it is generally isolated from others for the majority of the time, until our culture ends up where it is now.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:53 PM CDT

      Sometimes to be "American" we have to sacrifice our privacy and integrity to be free from our delusional fears

      Delete
    4. What makes this sacrifice necessary?

      Delete
  3. "Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?"

    Id say yes, but they are far less publicized. And by witch trials I am assuming trials where A) innocent people were prosecuted over sensationalism and nothing more or B) a group of people out fear almost fabricated crimes the were based on religious beliefs. So my example would be the McCarthy communist accusations of the 1950's. The connection would be the insane sensationalism of the accusations. Another one would the Monkey Scopes trial of 1928 in which a teacher or school in Tennessee was brought to court for teaching the students about evolution in a religious community, the community was not of scientific persuasion but of extreme bible followers of religion, nothing wrong with that until you use the rules or beliefs of your religion to criminally prosecute someone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could also apply to Asian Americans being sent to camps because they didn't want any of them to "betray" the US.
      H-02

      Delete
    2. H-02: I also agree with your thoughts with how that compares to the Salem Witch trials. But it was interesting to see your point of view Chance, I hadn't heard of that before.

      Delete
    3. Abby Pittman Section 6
      I definitely agree that there have been events similar to the Salem witch trials, and I had the same thought about the camps.

      Delete
  4. responding to DQ "Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?"
    Well this question is a deep one, and it really reflects on how you view the world and how religious you are. So Id answer as a believer in god but I also believe that the affairs of man are determined by just that, man. So I think god had created the universe and will not influence the running of it. However this idea of mine is one of scrutiny often and I understand that because it does not include the existence of miracles. I also believe life itself is a miracle so my way of thinking is still under developed, but I'm only 19 so what do I know? So to answer I guess id say god exist among us, but not making everything happen, but letting us run the show until it takes a miracle to save us, or to save the dying young kid, or to end the war or what ever it takes to keep a balance in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take a similar view towards the world. I do not like the idea that everything is predetermined either because I like to think I have control over my life. I feel like I do, and if I did not, what would be the point???

      Delete
  5. H01
    Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?

    I am not sure if it is possible to combine the Eastern way of thought with the western way of thought. Steve Jobs touched on this subject saying that in th east, people rely on their intuition which is cultivated through experience whereas in the west, people rely on rational thought which is the west's greatest accomplishment. These are two polar opposite ideas, so to mix them in one philosophy does not seem possible to me. In my experience, I have found that I decide which way to think based on the situation. Different ways of thinking are advantageous for different situations. Deciding which way to think is the big challenge.
    The second part of this question implies that someone's philosophy is constrained by their upbringing. I disagree with that. An upbringing is a starting line of life. It is only the beginning. A person can take their life in whatever direction they please. Albeit, the common route taken is one of comfort, and comfort is found in familiarity meaning that most people will stick with what they know (what they were taught during their upbringing. They key for me has been to have an open mind. Listen to everyone. Even if a person cannot tell or show me how to do something right, there is value in gaining their perspective and possibly learning how NOT to do something. Knowing what not to do is just as important as know what to do.
    The third question here reminded me that there is a continuous stream of human consciousness. This stream goes back to the first thought the first human ever had. Since then, we as a race have been collectively growing in our consciousness. With this in mind, I believe that every philosophy held by every person today has grown from the roots of an older philosophy from an earlier time in the stream of human consciousness. Philosophies today cannot possibly ignore the past because the past is the root of today's consciousness. To say a cosmopolitain philosphy transcends particular traditions with any truth would depend on whether the cosmopolitain philosophy is moving the human race in a positive direction. If yes, then it is accurate us the word "transcend." If not, it would be inaccurate to use that word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew Fiscu11:37 PM CST

      I believe that anyone can create their own philosophies that combine elements form very different traditions. I personally know people who are primarily Protestant Christian but take certain practices from very different eastern philosophies such as meditation and connecting with the spiritual world. Every individual has their own personal philosophy that makes them different from anyone else on the planet and I believe that any individual can take what they like from very different philosophies and mold them into something that fits them and connects the dots in their own lives.

      Delete
  6. H01
    Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?

    Yes. We just talked about this in history class, and the malicious, dishonest, tyrannical way that white people systematically pushed native americans further an further into a pinhole was atrocious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sky Strube H0110:31 PM CDT

      I completely agree. We are not those people who essentially demolished Native American societies. Not anymore. It may not have been us who did that, but it's on us to make it right as we can.

      Delete
    2. I agree as well. There is nothing that can be done to reverse it but as Americans we should try to make it as right as possible.

      Delete
    3. H-02 Yes I agree with you Nic. The way that the Native Americans were treated was awful. It should be made right in some way for everything their people were put through.

      Delete
    4. Abby Pittman Section 6
      I agree with you. Just because WE didn't directly participate in these acts doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize that our nation did some terrible things in the past. We can still apologize.

      Delete
  7. H01
    "I respect the cyclist, but he is enslaved by his machine." 31

    I am the cyclist, and I feel freed by the machine. I understand that the world is speeding up, and by bike helps me keep up. This does not mean I do not take the time to slow down. I like the go super fast then unwind slowly. My happiness is optimized when I strike the balance well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love to cycle as well. It feels like you are escaping and you can truly think.

      Delete
    2. Andrew Fiscu11:42 PM CST

      I personally see the machine as a happy middle ground. The world we live in is constantly changing and speeding up and cycling is a little slower and allows you to breath the air and walk with a little more speed. Walking is by far the best way to think deeply and escape the world for a bit, however cycling provides a happy middle ground to allow us to keep up with our fast paced and busy lives but still give us the time to escape.

      Delete
  8. H01
    "None of us can always be thinking over the riddle of the universe..."

    I went through a time in high school where The 'riddle of the universe' was at the center of my life. It plagued my mind, and it was a relief to get distraction from those thoughts through whatever means I could find. It is not a happy way to live, but it was a necessary amount of thought to have because finding answers to that riddle creates a foundation necessary to living well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've found pondering this too much is the fasted way to be thrown into an existential crisis.

      Delete
    2. Some would say that "existential crisis" is a given for human beings, whether we want to admit and struggle with it or not. Is this crisis something to be avoided, Madison?

      Delete
    3. I would say the contemplation is definitely necessary; however; when it turns to the point of crisis, in my own experience, hinders any productive, significant thoughts for the amount of confusion and fear it produces.

      Delete
    4. Andrew Fiscu11:46 PM CST

      I used to overthink the riddle of the universe until I realized that the answer is the fact that there is no answer. I finally realized that nothing matters or maybe it does and that feeling of hopelessness and helplessness soon turned into a feeling of freedom.

      Delete
  9. H01

    Proposed discussion question: is there a right or wrong answer to the riddle of the universe? Or is it a subjective matter...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:24 PM CDT

      I don't believe there is a right way to perceive the world. To some people even the world isn't a riddle they already found their understanding. Each in everyone person has a purpose and that makes everyone person's "riddle" or puzzle piece different from anyone else.

      Delete
  10. H01
    If walking saved JS Mill from becoming "a mere smoke-dried pedant," does that imply that all or most sedentary scholars are pedantic?

    Yes. Scholarly knowledge is only valuable if put to action. One who does not get out, walk around the world, and DO is wasting their knowledge. Knowledge is static potential.

    ReplyDelete
  11. H01

    Proposed "COMMENT:" Cheating on base runs hurts a student more in the long run than it helps in the short run.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Cheating on bases gets you what you need to get a good grade in class, but it dismisses the entire reason of coming to college. You have come to college to learn.

      Delete
    2. George Sekeres(H-03)9:27 AM CDT

      I'd have to agree as well. In a class that so focused on participation and discussion, you're only going to get out of it what you put in. Cheating defeats the entire purpose.

      Delete
    3. Cheating is also a waste of your money.

      Delete
    4. Chike Brown11:26 AM CDT

      Shhhhh Chill bro

      Delete
    5. Andrew Fiscu7:55 PM CST

      I agree 100 percent. I believe that Philosophy is a class that is neccessary to life as a human being. It is important in life for all of us to have our own philosophies connecting the dots in our crazy lives and walk and think about our existence and purpose on this earth. I think philosophy is so incredibly important in many aspects of our lives, and to cheat and mark bases for an A is only cheating yourself. You may have an A in the class but in the end you will walk away with nothing from this very important class and cheat yourself out of important knowledge.

      Delete
    6. Cheaters never win.... Unless you're the Patriots

      Delete
  12. Madison Berry H-02
    Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?
    It is entirely possible to create a philosophy that is comprised of different traditions around the globe. Many newer philosophies are exactly that. There is no guideline for how a person should constrict their own thoughts. For example, nihilism is based off the philosophy that humans have morals to follow to begin with. A person should never limit themselves in their contemplation. Aspects of Buddhism can be applied to the peripatetic philosophy; both emphasize the importance of meditation whether it be through walking or emptying the mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. It is almost impossible to line yourself with just one kind of philosophy. We are connected to people all over the world with different styles of thinking, and it makes sense that we learn things from them that we haven't even considered. It hurts to limit your self to one kind of thinking.

      Delete
    2. Madison and Nibraas, you're both thinking "out of the box"--a good thing!--but what about logical incompatibilities? In our quest to bring all of our philosophical ideas, beliefs, etc. together into a coherent system, shouldn't we pay attention to where there are fundamental differences? Sure, there are some limits, like cultural ones, that can and should be pushed, but are logical limits to be ignored? Is there a danger of "no guidance" becoming "anything goes?"

      Delete
    3. Impossible to only align yourself with only one philosophy! I try to always keep an open mind.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?

    An apology is definitely owed to the Native American people. However, we cannot apologize for actions on behalf of others. What we as a country can apologize for is the lack of change produced in our generation, for the intent of our ancestors. Indigenous people across the globe are still currently suffering from colonialism. For the indigenous people of Africa who were ripped from their roots and brought to America, they face police brutality and racism based on nothing but skin pigmentation. They deserve an apology for continuing to expect them to adhere to “American” customs and be “American” while also treating them unequally to what people consider a “real American”. Another prominent issue is the complete lack of effort to respect other cultures of those forced to assimilate. Personally I have seen several occurrences of white Americans telling Native Americans to”get out of our country” or to “go back to where you came from”. These people are cruelly stereotyping based on their complexion, and they cannot even acknowledge the destruction brought upon these people by our nation. Reparations should definitely be made to the indigenous people of the world; however, America still treats them as less. In several occurrences, football teams are still named the “Redskins” which is deplorable. People around the globe, especially in the United States owe enormous changes and reparations of those still facing prejudice based on their ancestry. The biggest repayment that can be made to these people is acknowledging the wrong doings, and taking measures to prevent prejudice in our society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George Sekeres(H-03)9:31 AM CDT

      We may not have the power to apologize or re-compensate the native peoples for all the horrid history we brought upon them, but we can definitely take steps in our current society. Well said.

      Delete
    2. H-03
      Would you say that we have attempted to make up for our actions by fighting for freedom and democracy in other nations?

      Delete
    3. Section 12
      I agree with your statement because how can some Americans not treat them as equals and still expect them to act as equals? Figures of our country will pick at the smallest of things in order to create this illusion that if you're not like the majority of us, then you can't be part of us.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous8:17 PM CDT

    Jacob Hamm H03

    1. [Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?]

    I personally think that you should be able to come with your own beliefs, whether they be cosmopolitan or not, as long as you fully understand and credit the "roots" of your beliefs. If you do not understand or ignore these original philosopies, you may forget what caused them to become that way, and essentially waste the experience of countless people who believed in them.

    2. [Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?]

    Personally, it makes more sense to me to not invoke any divine concept for any explanation of my philosphy, but that may very well be just because of my more secular upbringing. If anyone else was to have a
    God that fit into their belief structure,I think they would have as much of a right to their thoughts as mine.

    3. [Do some otherwise-enlightened and progressive westerners who oppose the economic exploitation of the less-industrially-developed world still participate, perhaps unwittingly, in forms of "cultural colonialism" that exploit indigenous peoples intellectually?]

    One could argue that simple ignorance of this issue as brought up in the text is "unwittingly helping" the exploitation of the less industrially-developed. I think it is very possible that some of those who are unwilling to participate in more of the "physical" aspects of manipulation may not know that this aspect of disregarding of native beliefs exists.


    4. John Dewey philosophized about "natural piety," recognizing our shared inter-dependence on one another and on nature at large. How does a "naturally pious" person express that piety, in terms of lifestyle choices and policy preferences etc.?]

    As I have said in previous comments, I think that the act of simply undertanding the "roots" of the certain aspects of philosopies derived from other belief structures or philosopies (and crediting these aspects and their believers) is a way for more "naturally-pious" people to express their piety.

    5. [What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?]

    I do not think that it is correct to generalize what makes anyone of a certain nationality "more like" a person of that nationality. Everyone is different, and though a person of a certain nationality may be striving toward the specific roles or values of that nationality or group, I think the variablity of human thoughts and nature makes strict generalization of character unfair and immpossible.

    ReplyDelete
  16. H3
    Do you think it is possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born?

    Contrary to most, I am going to go ahead and say yes, it is possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of both western Socratic rationalism and eastern Confucianism or Buddhism. Though these two are very polarizing and are usually against each other, one can develop both and work them together to use in certain situations. I would say I struggle with my personal philosophy for this reason since I believe I kind of have both. I grew up with eastern views that depend on intuition and beliefs, but I spent most of my life influenced by the western reasoning and logical thinking. At this point, the way I decide to think about something or view something stems back to the situation I am put in and based on that I choose to think in an eastern way, a western way or both.
    Speaking of growing up in a certain philosophy, I do not think a person has to conform strictly to the philosophy they have been brought up in. It is like saying a person has to become what their parents are and act like they do. Absolutely not, each person is their own individual with their own mind that can be influenced by several aspects but does not have to conform to any. Each person has their own free will to live their lives in certain ways that pleases their mind and their philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Answering the DQ "Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?"

    No, that would be pointless. Like many modern Americans I am part native American myself so what am I apologizing too? Also people fail to mention that Native American tribes most often had a fierce warrior culture that very constantly battled and contested other tribes. The only difference is that the European colonists were able to unite better and had the technology on their side. If the example was set of one group apologizing to another group that they had oppressed generations ago the Jewish people would have more European support, the Christians would need reparations from the nations of Islam for the crusades and vis virsa for some of the other crusades, the Japanese would still be repaying the citizens of China for murderous actions during WW2 and the list goes on and on. so the point is we have no control of the time and place we are born, so make the best of it and be a good person, good to others and nature alike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Chance. Apologizing now would solve nothing. If the nation truly wanted to show that they were sorry for the opression, then it could take steps to ensure that nothing similar ever happened again and started targeting modern opression instead of apologizing to ghosts.

      Delete
    2. H01
      I sympathize with the pain that Native Americans had to go through, but reparations are so far fetched that it is not possible. First, we would have to find an accurate way of finding people who have Native American ancestry. After that, how are we going to repaid other groups who have been harmed?

      Delete
  18. responding to DQ "Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?"

    It is absolutely possible to construct a personal philosophy combining many. isn't that the point? For example, I am a die hard capitalist, I don't believe in involuntary redistribution to any extent, however I do not want personal excess, the desire for big house and a fleet of cars does not appeal to me either. I value Greek Logic and reason, and the ability of emotionless decisions based on facts(for example western medicines). On the other side of that coin I also think nature holds many answers to our problems by living closer to the earth, a wholistic style. For example Americans have the highest standard of living ever recorded, we also have the highest rate of back problems and plantar fasciitis. A book I read about the evolution and science of Homo Sapiens. According to modern science, the frequent occurrence of plantar fasciitis is due to shoes and the lack of extension in the foot while walking, and weak lower backs are often caused by sleeping on mattresses. If an American kid went to school with no shoes and told the teacher he slept on the ground because his parents wanted him to have a strong back the kid would be taken away for sure. So yes combining philosophies from all over the world is possible and I would categorize myself as doing as such>

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sky Strube H0110:12 PM CDT

    What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?

    I think it would be extremely challenging to try to find something that connects all Americans, but not necessarily impossible to find a characteristic intertwined between a majority of the population. What comes to mind when I think of an American is someone who’s proud of where they’re from, someone who wants to exercise their rights, and someone who can do, say, or believe whatever they’d like. This is the classic image that we like to claim. However, an international viewpoint of an American is not as positive as our own notion. They see overweight, gun obsessed, prejudiced, rude, and generally unpleasant people. Within my own social circle, I know people who would sooner leave the country than support the President and others who attended Trump rallies and wear his merchandise proudly. I think the only truly American characteristic is that we do not share any. American culture is the love and appreciation (and unfortunately, the hate and distain towards) our expansive beliefs, personalities, practices, and interactions. Being an American includes the privilege and responsibility of exercising our fundamental rights as frequently and openly as we chose. Some people choose not to exercise their rights, as is their right to do so! Our nation has so many backgrounds and experiences that shape us in a way that cannot be forced into a mold. To sum up, there is no great American characteristic that defines us all, and that lack of a characteristic is the characteristic that extends national character.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sky Strube H0110:24 PM CDT

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    I like to view the world as coextensive with God. I connect God with everything around me, like sunsets, plants, animals, and humans. I think about why God created things and what purpose other things have and so on. In my high school A&P class I learned so many things about the human body and how it works and I think it's so absolutely incredible how precise things are and how nearly impossible it would have been for these systems to morph into existence without God's help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rachel Winfrey H017:52 AM CDT

      I completely agree with you Sky! I believe this world and our bodies are examples of God's presence.

      Delete
    2. I love how you explained this. People always get so technical about how God could be involved with something like evolution, but it simply comes down to the fact that it couldn't have happened without his help.

      Delete
    3. H01
      Sky, you really made a great example of comparing the complexity of the human body to the very existence of the world in which we live in.

      Delete
    4. This is exactly what I said. How could those things have happened by random and if they did why are humans so much smarter and able than other animals are they still developing to thier full form?

      Delete
  21. Answering the question: Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    God can be interpreted in a plethora of manners. For some religions such as Buddhism, and cultures such as the Indigenous tribes of the world, every aspect of the world--from the soil under our feet, to the life giving oxygen we intake--is comprised of God. For others, such as Christianity, God is an existential being that resides beyond our world, watching down on us as if we were part of a massive game of Sims. To Atheists, there is no divine creator of the world around us; for everything that exists around us, including ourselves, is due to the laws of Mother Nature: some being, evolution or natural selection; and basic relationships amongst the atoms that make up the oxygen we breathe, the chlorophyll that plants utilize to make food, and the structure of our circulatory system that , to name a few.

    Answering all of our questions about why things are they way they appear, with the notion that a divine power is either apart of it, or miraculously fine tuned everything so perfectly in such a short span of time, is a simple answer to these complicated questions. Personally, I believe everything eventually could be answered utilizing the scientific method, however, some things are out of our realm of understanding due to limitations in technology, formulas, and ability for experimentation. Currently, we are not equipped with telescopes that are able to peer far enough into the universe in hopes of collecting more data that may support the Big Bang Theory, or debunk it. We have formulas stating how fast the speed of light is projected to be, but do not yet have an apparatus that has successfully accomplished the goal of reaching that speed.

    The point is, there are so many inquiries in which we don’t have answers to due to the limitations we experience in the scientific realm. I think the more fun option is to keep hunting for the answers, and allow our curiosity inspire new inventions and discoveries that may bring us closer to figuring out how and why we are here, and give skeptics, like me, satisfactory closure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Julia! I think your scientific humility (recognizing when science provides compelling explanations and when it can't, while also remaining open to new, theory-changing evidence) is very nice!

      Delete
  22. 1. What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?

    I think that there are no specific traits that define being American. America is a blend of people from all parts of the world with drastically different traits. There is no traits that makes someone American other than maybe the desire to be free.


    2. Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    To mix divine concept to explain and interpret the world does not make much sense. If people rely on divine concept, most of their explanations could be boiled down to "god made it that way." To be able to understand the world, you need to look at it from a clear lens with little bias. But, then again, the world can never be truly understood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. H-03

      "If people rely on divine concept, most of their explanations could be boiled down to "god made it that way.""


      Maybe that's true historically, but I think we have a better understanding of the universe today than the people centuries or even decades ago. Believing that "god made it this way" doesn't mean we should stop thinking and not attempt to understand why something happens. Believing in a divine power shouldn't stop us from expanding our knowledge.

      Delete
    2. Erica Combs10:28 PM CDT

      H1- I definitely think a sense of entitlement is an American characteristic that needs to be evaluated.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you that America is blended and there isn't a defining trait because we are a melting pot and have all kinds of culture. But if you were to ask other countires I beleive they would say Americans are loud and obnoxious and we would have things to say about other countries to. So there is a stereotype but those aren't always true

      Delete
    4. If "God made it that way" then He also made to the ability for things to change.
      I also agree with Olivia about the stereotypes being a untrue judgment of individual character.

      Delete
  23. Rachel Winfrey H017:55 AM CDT

    • Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    To me, it makes more sense that God would be coextensive with the world. The world works to well and things work out too often for me to believe that God doesn’t exist or that He made the world and then left it. For me personally in life, things just always tend to work out and it is not because of me. I think others could admit to this as well. My faith has been bolstered
    being in college and learning more about the world around me as well as learning more about the human body.

    • What do you think Stephen means when he calls walking "the natural recreation for the [person] who wants to turn [his intellect] out to play"? 20

    Whenever I have some thinking to do or I’m tired of sitting around doing homework or something, I like to go outside and walk up and down my driveway. It is really pretty out there. It’s right next to our creek and if you go at the right time, its shaded by trees. Whenever I am walking out there, I can really start thinking. It is one of favorite places to pray and think about things and walking really gets and keeps my mind going. I think that is what Stephen means. Walking gets the mind moving and gets your thoughts going in interesting directions that it never would have gone down if you had just been sitting around.

    ReplyDelete
  24. H-03

    1. What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?

    - I don't think it's safe to generalize, but I do think that one way to describe the American character is that we all feel some sort of entitlement to our 'natural rights'. That feeling of entitlement is greater than what people of less fortunate nations may feel. You don't have to be born here to feel it, it comes inherently by just living here. That's not to say that the feeling is bad, it's just something that I see as part of our character and principles that no American would object to.


    2. Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    - I come from a religious background, so I've always seen it from the coextensive point of view. I think the topic of divinity is always being approached with arrogance and not enough humility. I think that something that is truly divine cannot be described by human characteristics, that we have to be a little less arrogant and accept the idea that perhaps we don't know everything and that our comprehension of the concept of a divine power is a bit above what we are capable of.


    3. Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?

    - One that comes right off the top of my head are the 5 teenagers who were wrongfully convicted of raping a woman in Central Park, NYC. There is a documentary called "The Central Park Five" that tells the story of these teenagers and how they were wrongfully convicted. The way the media spun the story at the time did just as more damage to the 5 teenagers than our own failed legal system had damaged them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cami Farr H-0310:37 AM CDT

      I believe that stories such as the one you are describing about the five still continue to happen and if anything are occurring more frequently because of the influence that social media has on our culture.

      Delete
    2. H-03

      Definitely! I think social media has broadened and encouraged the practice of 'witch hunting' whether it was intended or not.

      Delete
    3. I didn't think about media and how many rumors and negativity towards others is going around today. I think that is interesting and very true that we do go on mini which hunts to attackt the opposing side of our belifs to make us feel more secure in our own.

      Delete
  25. Cami Farr H-0310:22 AM CDT

    Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?

    I think that part of the beauty of philosophy is that as we grow and change in our beliefs we have the choice to change our personal philosophy to reflect that since it is a "personal" philosophy. In the same way that as we age we develope new habits based on pur experiences pur philosophies also change to reflet how pur experiences have shaped our change of view.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cami Farr H-0310:33 AM CDT

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    In my religion there isn't really a singular god. There is a belief that all living things in this world are connected in a way and so while I can see the "logical" or scientific aspects of the world I also know my spiritual reasoning and I kind of overlap the 2. I don't know if this makes sense or not but if you have specific questions I can try to clarify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As someone that follows Reform Judaism that also believes in evolution, I've gotten a lot of questions about how I can believe in both, and you're right. It's really hard to explain and it doesn't make sense to anyone except yourself.

      Delete
    2. Cami, what's your religion?

      Delete
    3. Following, interested in knowing what religion you follow.

      Delete
  27. Cami Farr H-0310:47 AM CDT

    What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"

    I dont think it's possible to assign a "safe generalization" to Americans because a huge factor in our culture is in fact the diversity of our people. At one time perhaps you could have found some general common traits but even in pre colonization there were vast amounts of diversity among Native Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Joey Singer H-0312:03 PM CDT

    H-03

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    In my own personal philosophy on life, I view it that God isn't either separate from our world or coexistent with it, rather that the idea of God is one that implies a divine concept to explain the existence of the world and our universe. While I'm not very well versed in the concepts of science, the ideas made of our universe's creation seem more logical in a sense to that of an "almighty God" which is produced by the Bible, which to my own perception comes off as fantastical and unbelievable to have ever occurred when noting the limitations of our objective reality. As I see it, humans have a natural desire to be driven by leadership to ensure an efficient path for their own lives. From kings, queens, prime ministers and presidents, it's always been a backbone of our society to rely on a greater being, and this is most prevalent in Christianity. That's not to say that Christianity should be shoved aside in any case, through my own earlier experiences of attending church it seems that whether you are religious or not, the stories the Bible tells always provide lessons that are worthwhile and encourage attendees to be the best person that they can be, along with other life lessons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erica Combs10:31 PM CDT

      H1-
      I totally agree with this. God to me is a divine driving force of existence.

      Delete
    2. This is very interesting and I do agree that the Bible provides a lot to learn from.

      Delete
  29. Marie Hussels H0112:16 PM CDT

    "Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?"
    To me the world is what it is. In the past I've tried to decipher if I believe in divine concept in our world but more often than not I come to the conclusion that there is no divine concept controlling our world. I do wonder about certain phenomenon and try to understand how a world as complicated as ours can exist. Then I remember the unknown complexity of how our universe works and I am left even more confused. Truthfully, I tend to lean towards there being no deity involved in our world but at the end of the day I really have no idea.

    "Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?"
    I believe that today the Trump administration is conducting its own witch hunt. With all the leaders of the Trump campaign suddenly resigning, being fired, or being accused of treason, the government itself seems to be involved in its own chaotic witch hunt.

    "I respect the cyclist but he is enslaved by his machine"
    To me this quote analyzes the relationship between man and technology. Our society has become incredibly advanced in terms of technology but we have also given up part of our freedom to it. Now it is very difficult to get around without some form of transportation. In the past, towns and cities were designed to accommodate horses and people walking. Now it is a must to own a car or bicycle or something to get you from place to place.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jonathan Wagner H0-312:20 PM CDT

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    It seems to me that God must be separate from the world he created. Who would want to watch his creation become so deeply flawed? American Protestantism has taught me for years that God lives in the clouds to react to people’s decisions, watching everything. It’s difficult for me to imagine a God figure that can’t look down to be disappointed in me.

    What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?

    America is a hugely diverse country of over 300 million people, but it is relatively separate from others. This separation, I think, makes the country susceptible to blend into one distinct culture. For example, it would be “so American” to not understand the metric system.

    Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?

    The only way to repair the damage is to look forward. Apologies don’t help the suicide rate or turn back current legislation that would steal historical land. Reparations should be made in monetary support of the current problems, not the remembrance of past generations’ wrongdoings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to your first question, do you think that that's all that God does? Just sits and watches without doing anything? If you do, that's your opinion and I'm not going to dispute it, but you also have to remember that God, as an almighty being, intervenes when he feels he's needed. Maybe he doesn't think the world's that bad yet?
      When it comes to being flawed, that's what makes us human. We have flaws, we make mistakes, but God still loves us anyway. God made us into what we are, and he was probably ready for all of the problems that we could've caused.
      I'm sorry if you think God might be disappointed in you, but God also gives forgiveness. The rest of the world might be flawed, but you can always try to be the best that you can be.

      Delete
  31. Caleb McBride H3
    Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions.

    I think it is very possible. As someone who was raised as a protestant, but also learned more about the scientific world and then came into contact with eastern shaolin martial arts and the principles of buddisim, I have been forced to reconcil many different philosphies and world views in my life. After a couple years of sorting through this, I believe that I have sucessfully done so. It's definelty possible, but it is most certainly not easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you have a background in areas that are completely separate so you learn many different perspectives.

      Delete
  32. Marie Hussels H0112:32 PM CDT

    Weekly 250+ word essay:
    To me American philosophy is a strange term. America has always been a melting pot of different people and ideas. To label all the philosophies of America as “American” seems too broad for me. I’ve lived in the south for almost all my life but originally I am from Germany. My family’s views and personal philosophies tend to differ from most of those of the people I’ve known in the south.
    When I think of American philosophy a lot of different types of ideas come to mind. The philosophies of those in the north probably differ greatly from those in the south. Even in our own state the philosophies of people from area to area can be drastically different.
    Maybe this difference in philosophies is the very definition of American philosophy. Just as we are a melting pot of people we are also a melting pot of philosophies. The philosophies of people are always evolving as time goes on and this also holds true for American philosophy. As time passes and the landscape around us changes American philosophy is definitely not the same as the philosophers of times before.
    I’ve learned that American philosophy is the philosophy of many different people. The individual components of American philosophy are also very different. Yet, they combine to unite all of our ideas under one label. We all have very different thoughts on subjects but at the end of the day this diversity in thinking is what defines us. We are many people with many ideas and this is what defines American philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. H01
      Wow, I didn't know you were from Germany! Anyways, I love how you said that America is not only a melting pot of different types of people but also a melting pot of different philosophies.

      Delete
  33. H03

    In regards to the "shameful way" Americans have treated Native Americans and their culture; white Europeans, quite frankly and simply, were personally accountable for the destruction of Native American people and their culture. Native Americans in North America and especially the United States, have almost all died off. And with it their music, dance, gods, and traditions. Kurt Anderson talked about this exactly in his book. The early white Europeans regarded the Natives as "Satan's Soldiers." So to answer the question should we reconcile at the least anything for Native American culture, the answer is yes. I'm not claiming to know how to reconcile or what Americans should do to "save" Native American culture, but considering early Europeans saw Native Americans as soldiers of the Devil we should at least evoke sympathy for their people by recognizing that they do in fact have a unique and wonderful traditions. Instead, the norm in the U.S. has been to push them far away and out of sight. And you know what they say, "out of sight, out of mind." Americans could learn a thing or two from the past destruction by simply studying the false that started this war against the Natives. Europeans took their land, which to Native Americans is the most important part of their life. Mother Earth to them represents all human life and she is only so kind to give us humans (her daughters) the gift of life and sustainability. Seemingly, early Europeans took the opposite approach and the consequence was the deaths of millions of Native Americans. If humans, Americans, truly learn from their mistakes, then we must revive the Native culture. For if we do, then maybe we can start to move forward with all of humanity in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  34. H01
    (Is it possible, as a Protestant, to renounce all supernaturalism?)

    Technically, I'm not a Protestant as I'm not a Christian, but I don't think it's possible to renounce all supernaturalism. It definitely encompasses some groups that hopefully everyone knows are not real, but when it comes to religious areas like God, I don't think it's possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erica Combs10:33 PM CDT

      H1- I agree. The whole idea of God is a belief in a supernatural existence.

      Delete
  35. H01
    (What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?)

    I want to show my American pride and say that qualities like hard-working represent everyone in America, but I know that that simply isn't true, not anymore at least. I honestly don't know if there's even one word that can be used to describe the American character, because everyone's different and has different morals and characteristics.

    ReplyDelete
  36. H01
    (Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?)

    I like to view God as coextensive with the world. It can get confusing at times with people that simply don't believe in God saying that they don't understand how I can believe in both, but it comes down to the fact that yes, there are scientific reasons for things that happened, but it's impossible to say that God didn't play a role in it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. H01
    (Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?)

    For me personally, my personal philosophy is based on my traditions and my experiences during my life. However, I have family from a completely different continent that I would love to learn more about to help me evolve my personal philosophy. They live in a completely different world so I think it would be amazing to see how our traditions and philosophies differ, but also how they're the same.

    ReplyDelete
  38. H01
    ("Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?")

    This a difficult question. This issue is something that many people still have problems with, and they believe they should be given retribution, but I also ask: what will an apology do at this point? Does it come down to pride, does it come down to compassion? I believe that if I'm in the wrong that I should apologize, but I also believe in there being a point in time where I feel that an apology wouldn't make much of a difference. Of course I wish that we could change history and be more respectful, but we just can't. We can try and change our attitudes now, but there will always be someone with their pride that doesn't feel that they did anything wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  39. H01
    "Does it make more sense to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    My parents have raised me to believe in God, and I have found it to be beneficial. It has become a strong belief of mine although others may not say the same, which is understandable. We have all been given the gift to think freely. It makes more sense for me to think of God as a separate being from the world. He sets himself apart. Certain things of the world are not of God but of man. This is where my previous statement comes into play that we are given the gift to think freely. I will not get deep into my spiritual beliefs, but there are thing that man creates and things that God creates. It is best to keep them separate.

    ReplyDelete
  40. H01
    "Have there been other sorts of 'witch trials' in American history than just those in Salem?"
    Yes, there have been other with trails in American history. As ridiculous as it may seem there will always be some form of them. We as people always seem to look for someone or something to ridicule or put on trial. We have recently sought out to find the root of evil in America, and have pinpointed several targets. We continuously ridicule various races and lifestyles, cops, those with power, and any group that we feel are doing damage to society or threatening our "way of life." The witch trials will take on several forms, yet the outcome is always the same. Disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  41. H01
    "What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what anyone 'so American'?"

    I feel as if there is the stereotypical characteristics of the average American, but there is no set description or traits. Trying to generalize a nation that is so broad is impossible. When one attempts, it does nothing more than cause arguments and debates that separate us even more than what we already are. The traits that we give each nation are not beneficial to us. We try so very often to set ourselves apart from one another, not realizing the repercussions of the actions. As time passes we continue to see the crudely built walls of segregation and judgement climb higher and higher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your idea of the American stereotype, I feel like that comes with any culture. It's easier to judged people as a whole than by the individual person. Although, I do think it's possible to have different point of views than other people without arguing.

      Delete
  42. H01
    Do you feel as if it is vital for individuals to set themselves apart? If not why? If so then to what extent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. H01
      I do feel the need for individuals to set themselves apart because with individuality we can learn more from each other. If we all think and react to the same thing, we can't accomplish we what have so far in science, philosophy, and religion.

      Delete
  43. H01

    What would do believe the world would be if English settlers had not robbed the Native Americans of what they so rightfully had?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. H01
      Maybe America would not stretch from the coast of California all the way to the east coast. Native Americans and Americans might be able coexist and benefit from one another.

      Delete
  44. H01
    Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?

    I believe that a personal philosophy could be anyway a person wants it to be. It could be strictly western Socratic rationalism or eastern Confucianism or Buddhism. One can also put a little of both into their personal philosophies in which they seem fit. Maybe they prefer the western rationalism but also believes in the eastern Buddhism. Since it is a philosophy whithin oneself, only the person within would know what kind of philosophy they want to lead, dominant, or combine.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Erica Combs10:26 PM CDT

    H1: Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?

    Yes. The play "The Crucible", although being set during the Salem Witch Trials, is actually meant to portray the United States at the time of the Red Scare. The paranoia during the Salem Witch Trials matches that of the Red Scare: In both instances, whether it be a takeover of Satan or of Communism, many innocent people were persecuted (and sometimes executed).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. H-02: I did remember this event when thinking of events similar to the Salem Witch Trails. Many people were false accussed in both situations.

      Delete
  46. H01
    Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?

    There was one "witch trial" in the Connecticut in 1642 where a young girl was thought to be possessed by the spirit of a neighbor after spending time with them. The 8 year old girl came home screaming, “Father! Father! Help me, help me! Goodwife Ayres is upon me. She chokes me. She kneels on my belly. She will break my bowels. She pinches me. She will make me black and blue.” Back then, witch craft was punishable by death, Alse (Alice) Young of Windsor was sent to the gallows and hung on May 26, 1647. It didn't end there as 5 more Connecticut residents were also hung after being accused of witch craft. This happened 30 years before the Salem Witch Trials.

    ReplyDelete
  47. H01
    What do you think Stephen means when he calls walking "the natural recreation for the [person] who wants to turn [his intellect] out to play"? 20

    Stephen understood walking as a way to jump start the brain into thinking mode so that people can be able use their brain at its highest potential.

    ReplyDelete
  48. H01
    I don't think a Protestant could renounce all Super naturalism. A basic tenant of Christian Protestantism is the foundation that the Godhead contains Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. Being that the Holy Ghost is so paramount in the Christian faith, I do not think a Protestant could disassociate that from their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  49. H01
    Alternative quiz question-
    How many days was Anne Hutchinson in America?
    Answer- 1,000 days.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Samual Shapiro H0212:06 AM CDT

    (Combining traditions)
    I 100 percent believe that constructing a philosophy that combines elements of various traditions is possible, if not necessary. Every person has a philosophy of his or her own, and assuming that the philosophies of the billions of people in the world conforms to the few hundred mainstream philosophies to the letter is absurd. Knowledge of these mainstream philosophies can influence the individual’s philosophy by introducing new ideas, so the most common philosophies are relevant to everyone, but by having an individual philosophy composed of pieces of beliefs from around the world, one can get the best out of every philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as we recognize when the "best out of every philsophy" creates some logical incompatibilities then I'd say that could work. Philosophy, in my opinion, isn't an "all you can eat" activity.

      Delete
  51. Samual Shapiro H0212:07 AM CDT

    (Do I find God separate, coextensive, or unrelated from/with/to the world?)
    I find it very easy to simply accept that there is nothing divine in the world, and that it can be scientifically explained (currently by String Theory). Then, if the most popular scientific explanation is proven wrong, I can learn about the new explanation of the universe, rather than cling to an inaccurate belief. There are still many unknown things in the universe, and it is very easy to think something along the lines of “God is within a black hole,” or “God is the cause of the Big Bang,” but, when looking back in history, people have always credited the phenomena we do not yet understand to a god. People were wrong when assuming that the Black Plague was an act of God, and I believe that people would be wrong to assume that our great universe was spawned by a god simply because we currently lack many other alternative explanations, much less ones that could be easily understood. I would never judge anyone critically for crediting our existence to a god, for I cannot myself explain (as of now) why the atoms in our body, and the particles composing said atoms, behave in such a way that they have given themselves names and can cause quadrillions of other atoms to arrange themselves in a similar manner (known as “reproduction”). Although an explanation for this exists, my educated belief is that all of this amazing stuff that we call life has nothing to do with a divine entity, but instead is only defined by us, the weird pile of atoms that more or less found out how to understand themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Samual Shapiro H0212:07 AM CDT

    (Do the indigenous peoples deserve an apology?)
    I believe that the average American should not need to apologize to any indigenous peoples, at least not today. Nothing we can do now can make amends to those we harmed, who have now passed, and few people today partook in these horrid acts. I think that pinning the mistakes of my ancestors on myself accomplishes nothing. I do not inherit the sins of my parents, nor they inherit those of their parents. I can only be responsible for what I do in this lifetime. While what happened to the indigenous peoples of America was immoral and should have never occured, I have never done anything to harm them, meaning that any apology I offered could only be of sympathy, not remorse, which would mean next to nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Samual Shapiro H0212:08 AM CDT

    (Modern day witch trials)
    Politics today is almost like a witch trial, it seems. The politician who has better dirt on his or her opponent effectively executes the other’s career for personal gain, much like the witch trials of Salem. This can also be seen in the larger scheme of politics, where one large party points at an incredibly undesirable subgroup within the opposing party (such as people who abuse welfare programs or radical domestic terrorist groups such as the KKK) and attempts to discredit the entire party.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Samual Shapiro H0210:21 AM CDT

    Alternate discussion question:
    How freely should we be allowed to speak? Should we be able to try to brainwash people into joining religious cults or persuading people to believe that a person has magical powers? Should we be allowed to persuade people at all? Is there a line that should not be crossed when it comes to the freedom of speech?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Answering the DQ "Do some otherwise-enlightened and progressive westerners who oppose the economic exploitation of the less-industrially-developed world still participate, perhaps unwittingly, in forms of "cultural colonialism" that exploit indigenous peoples intellectually?"

    Id have to say yes with this one. for example I believe our modern day San Diego CA was created originally as a Spanish mission in effort to convert the "heathen" native Americans to convert them to Christianity. this is a form of intellectual colonialism because the goal was to invade the natives first by faith and in the mind. It had never occurred to anyone that the natives had a rich vibrant culture with their own social structure and their own moral structure. Same with trying to teach the natives English and make them go to the traditional "school house" for that time period, even though the first settlers to America would not have survived winter without the help of Native Americans hence the first Thanksgiving.

    ReplyDelete
  56. responding to the DQ "If walking saved JS Mill from becoming "a mere smoke-dried pedant," does that imply that all or most sedentary scholars are pedantic?"

    Well that all depends on his view of other philosophers. So Id say if he had a respectful view he would be only referring to himself and maybe suggesting some of his fellow philosophers should try it. If he had an unfavorable view he would be suggesting that if his Cophilosophers should start walking to be a better philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  57. responding to the DQ "What do you think Stephen means when he calls walking "the natural recreation for the [person] who wants to turn [his intellect] out to play"?

    I think it means exactly what it says. so think about it. if you are working all day at a job or school, you need some leisure and to me that means enjoyable physical&mental stimuli separate from work or school. so maybe a kayak ride or some jiu jitsu or in this particular case, walking. so the author means to give yourself a mental break from anything mentally straining ex calculus. so if your doing some calculus and really having trouble focusing and progressing, your mind needs play time persay so you should go for a walk in this case according to the author

    ReplyDelete
  58. Why Not All Around?
    There once was a woman who, when posed with the question “What holds our world up? In other words, what does Earth sit upon?”, answered “What a silly question. A turtle of course.” In hopes of gaining some sense of enlightenment, the man then asks, “What do you suppose supports this turtle?” to which the woman replies “Don’t you know? It’s turtles all the way down.” The woman is completely satisfied with the answer she has given. The man is more or less content with this new philosophy he has received. They both get on with their lives.
    Now, being that we are all philosophers, it is not enough for us to simply ‘get on with our lives’. A philosophy has been produced. There must be another to experience a collision or an integration of some sort. In that case, let us cultivate this tract of thought and bask in what our labor begets.
    If there are turtles ‘all the way down’, why not ‘all around’? To expand upon this point, we must first fully comprehend this tower of turtles. At the top of this tower you have the upper-most turtle. The Earth, in this sense, is flat and sits upon the shell of this top turtle. Below this turtle is a bigger turtle with a shell big enough to support this top turtle. Below that turtle is one bigger still. The tower continues thus forever downward. Above this tower of turtles is a source of light from witch the Earth gets its solar energy- a sun. With that being said, one begins to wonder how the top turtle came to be the top turtle. For that matter, why is the fifty-third turtle the fifty-third and not the fifty-fifth? It gets a little hard to explain, this tower theory. There must be a better way for these turtles to be. There is.
    (Better Way to Be coming soon)H2

    ReplyDelete
  59. Discussion questions:
    1. What do you think of when you read "turtles all the way down"?
    2. After reading 'Why Not All Around?', what do you think the "all around" refers to?

    3. Why do you think someone would be willing to believe such an absurd theory as their absolute truth?
    4. What is the significance of the turtle? Why not a tower of frogs?

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is a response to the characteristics of an American. I believe the biggest would be overconfidence. Take our approach towards education. We insists we are the best though we are no where close to being the best and when given options to become better, we turn our pride-filled noses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ethan Young12:49 PM CDT

      (H02) Agreed. I would also say the Americans (and others in general) are not very adaptable to new situations or issues. Many of the issues we are facing nowadays have been problems for a century or more and rather than fix or address the issue, it has been avoided and pushed down the road for the next generation to deal with.

      Delete
    2. H-02: I also agree with you on the trait of overconfidence. We might have use to be the best in many things but as you have stated we are not anymore. Yet rather than trying to change this we just turn our attention to other things.

      Delete
  61. Topher Kashif12:25 PM CDT

    H01

    • I absolutely believe that it is possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions. Why should someone be required to conform to a stricter tradition that he/she was born into? They should go through life and develop their own philosophy and ways about which they live. Also, there could be.
    • It makes more sense to me to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world. Instead I look more so towards science, however I am not completely closed to other ideologies or beliefs.
    • I do not that they exploit indigenous people intellectually, however, I do believe that some westerners still unwittingly participate in forms of “cultural colonialism.”
    • Their lifestyle choices and policy preferences would be more skewed towards the healthiness of the Earth as a whole. They would acknowledge and agree that global warming is occurring. They would not eat food if it wasn’t natural or organic. Their religion would be more connected with nature as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Chike Brown12:25 PM CDT

    H02

    (Comment:"I respect the cyclist, but he is enslaved by his machine." 31)

    Okay...(deep exhale). Jesus man (all due respect given to those who believe and those who don't), what is your deal with wheels? I can certainly see how driving around all the time instead of walking may prevent us from "seeing" life or not giving us time to truly think, but "enslavement"? Really? Are wheels truly the ultimate man made tool of our demise? I mean come on. I'm aware that older generations have always been somewhat apprehensive to major societal changes. And some of those changes I can understand the caution towards. The internet has radically shifted the way our society functions, as has entertainment, music and many other technological advancements. Even medicine has taken some new steps that don't often sit right with the older folks (abortion, plastic surgery). All those I can understand. And like I said, I can even get why some people (although I certainly don't agree with those folks) don't like how driving has become the primary form of transportation. But never in my lifetime did I think I would hear anybody put forward the notion that bikes have enslaved us. Bikes. Think about it. "Ding ding", bell bikes. "Look how all these goddamn kids riding their bikes around the neighborhood has ruined our fine walking society. RUINED I SAY!!!" Let me ask an important question here, have you ever seen a completely obese cyclist? Like I'm talking someone who bikes all the time here, cycling is just a part of life for them (not some of these "once a week, if even" kids you see around campus). No? Even referring to the DQ put up last time, do you know how hard it is to ride a skateboard? I've tried it and quit it twice, because the control it takes to stay on that thing wasn't worth developing the bruises I did. Is it really and truly a detriment to our society, to shave five minutes off a walk to class? Also, on a similar note, in what situation have you ever met a kid who decided to wait 45 minutes for a bus instead of just walking if it was within a five mile radius? Do you know how impatient millennials are? I've seen the fattest people turn into Usain Bolt if they have to be somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chike Brown12:26 PM CDT

      Rant continued (word limit sucks)

      Anyway, now that I'm done ranting, let me rant from a more cooled down rational approach instead. Quite frankly, I view modern transportation as a technological godsend. I realize that walking has it's physical, mental, and even spiritual perks. But in today's world, it just doesn't benefit the average person in their struggle to meet society's overbearing demands. Almost every aspect of modern society works to utilize as much of your time as possible, and being a capitalist society, doesn't care much for how you make it work, or avoid stress, just that you arrive. For example, I have 3-4 classes a day, many of them 15 minutes apart, with buildings across campus. Afterwards I have work starting around an hour after my last class, and homework when I get home. All of which I do so I can get my degree, pay my rent, and ultimately make a place for myself in society. Thing is, none of those mentioned things really relate to each other or give a damn how I make time to accomplish this. Only that I show up. Late to work because of school? Too bad man, that's a write up. Late on homework because of work. That's an D dude. And so on and so forth. Now I'm not condemning walking in saying all of this. In fact, I wake up two hours before school every day so I have time to walk to the gym and exercise. But to look at the increasing demands and expanding schedules of society, and then call modern transportation the problem, the "enslavement", of the average citizen, is ridiculous. Am I really that bad or "caught up in myself" or "going to fast in life" to want to shave off a few minutes of my uber busy day? Basically what I'm trying to get at here is that I don't see cars (and certainly not bikes/skateboards) as a problem, but rather a solution to the problem of increasing demands in capitalist countries (Not condemning capitalism either Chance and all you other "die hard" capitalists. Just saying that it ain't perfect). It isn't perfect or necessarily healthy, but it works for the time being.

      Delete
    2. Chike Brown12:27 PM CDT

      Rant continued continued

      On a final note, have you taken a cross-country road trip before? It's amazing. Transportation has allowed for this generation to do what most others never had the chance to. We can now see the world without having to spend a lifetime or save a fortune (still costly, but not enough to make you homeless) to do it. Ever heard of Native Americans? I'm reading about them in history, and how they would literally pass dead bodies on the trails they walked of people who died trying to get from one camp to another...just to see a relative. Who knew that trip to grandma's house would be your last huh? Anyway, I'm done now. This is probably going to be the longest post I ever write, and I have no idea why. Just felt suddenly inspired to shame those who attack my car religion. Hopefully now my engine soul will ascend to the Grand Prix in the sky, where I can run 500 laps everyday without ever getting tired, and where transmission never experiences difficulty

      Delete
    3. Chike Brown12:30 PM CDT

      P.S. This was in no way meant to be an attack on our fine citizen of a teacher James Oliver. It was directed only at the individual who wrote the quote I responded to. And if that individual happens to be James Oliver, or of any relation to him, uhhhh, don't fail me please?

      Delete
    4. 006
      I completely agree with you! I think it's all in how you use your wheels. Going on a cross country trip or just a late night drive can be just as thought provoking/eye opening as taking a late night stroll through the neighborhood. And being an athlete that uses wheels in whatever sport they play takes tons of control and dedication. My boyfriend skates and even he says it helps him clear his head, and come up with new ideas on how to solve problems. Wheels don't have to be "our demise" at all!

      Delete
  63. Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?

    Absolutely. Being a descendant of the Cherokee tribe myself (which were forced to assimilate or be killed), I can only speculate on the true travesties that occurred to these people and experience few of the repercussions that full blooded members face. Most of the living situations within reservations are equivalent to third world countries and face many social and health problems on a daily basis. Even recently, the Dakota Access Pipeline issue that gained national attention for its violation of the indigenous peoples' rights and treaties leaked and contaminated their water supplies just as they predicted. Overall, Americans have continually neglected and abused the native peoples of this continent and reparations to their living and survival needs to be addressed now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ethan Young12:43 PM CDT

      Ethan Young (H02) comment^^

      Delete
  64. Ethan Young12:42 PM CDT

    (H02) COMMENT: "I respect the cyclist, but he is enslaved by his machine." 31

    This is true. As has been stated previously, people are walking less and less more than ever. It is mainly seen as a less moderate form of exercise than as a meaningful activity to ponder and philosophize.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with the idea that the cyclist is enslaved by the machine because the machine enhances other abilities of a human and it takes skills to become a cyclist.

      Delete
  65. Ethan Young12:45 PM CDT

    (H02) COMMENT: "None of us can always be thinking over the riddle of the universe..." 37

    No one thinks about the mysteries of the universe and big questions constantly. After all, we are all human and have other things and issues to address other than questions asked at the dawn of time

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anastasia Hanes H-0312:47 AM CDT

    In our conversation last class about free will and if the world can or should be changed by the actions of individuals I remembered a short story I read about a man who comes face to face with the idea that there were infinitely many possible versions of himself and that every decision he made spurned him towards a future that was inevitable to him in that moment. I am sharing the link to a pdf of the story here in case any of you would be interested in reading it and coming up with your own thoughts on it. I enjoyed it and it made me think about my ideas of “fate” so I hope it may be of at equal interest to someone else. It is 8 pages long and was written by Jorge Luis Borges, who was also a poet, in 1941 and the language kinda reflects that in how flowery it can be in places.

    http://mycours.es/gamedesign2012/files/2012/08/The-Garden-of-Forking-Paths-Jorge-Luis-Borges-1941.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1030-10

      I love this! I started thinking as I read this about a movie called A Shoe Addicts Christmas. It is about a woman who loses her hope in Christmas and really in herself. So, her guardian angel takes the main character back in time by putting on a pair of shoes to show her decisions she made and let the main character choose another path and then later she takes her to the future to see how this would've effected her. Then the Angel takes the main character back to her real life without the changes and keeps doing this until the main character learns that she has to change the way she is and its not all fate its up to her.

      Here is the link to the trailer:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LP_J6_EGxk

      Delete
  67. 1030-10

    1) "Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?"

    It is easier for me to picture me standing on the ground. Below the ground is hell and above the sky is Heaven and God. What an elementary idea. I think that must be why Its easier for me to think of God as separate from the world. Even though I believe and know He is all around (which I tell myself when I think of Him separately) I still think of Him separate.

    2) "What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?"

    I think other countries and sometimes even myself think things about American character. When you are in other countries its almost as if you know what people are Americans. But I don't think it is safe to generalize someone as so American. Because even the people you can spot when touring another country and know they are American they are still individuals. Not all Americans are like them. Everyone Is different that is what is so great about America is we are the country of the melting pot we are all different and we make up America. So, I don't think there is such a thing as national character. America is just a weird place filled with tons of different people.

    Heres a little throwback and just a fun video about how great it is to be an American. I watch this video and feel all warm inside, not emotional but connected to everyone else, and happy for where I live.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQl6XBo64M

    ReplyDelete
  68. Section 9

    Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?

    I can't think of any that resulted in hangings, but some scares that I remember were the Satanic panic of the 90's and the Pokemon Satanic scare among evangelicals. They were so overblown and frenzied, even as a kid I couldn't wrap my head around why my parents were so consumed by it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Section 9 discussion question:

    Discuss a way in which magical thinking or the American habit of "believe what you want" is currently affecting our culture or politics.

    ReplyDelete
  70. PHIL 1030-009

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    -To me I like to think of God as separate from the world. Whether he is or is not some divine being that created the world, I feel like as if he is separated from the world.

    Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?

    -Yes, someone should apologize on the nation's behalf. What happened with the Native Americans was simply cruel and the nation will not own up to it. There are still people who try to defend the actions of the European settlers and it is kind of ridiculous, because there is so much evidence to show how badly the Native Americans were treated. Almost all of the Native American population is gone today and it is because of what the Europeans did. So, yes we should definitely be talking about reparations.

    Alternative Discussion Questions:

    1. Other than God, what other divine beings/concepts are there theories about that relate to the world?

    2. What do you think would have happened if the Europeans made friends with the Native Americans rather than robbing them and villifying them?

    Quiz Questions:

    1. What is an American pragmatist?

    2. What is a dichotomy?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Owen Martin9:45 AM CST

    Response to DQ: Is it possible, as a Protestant, to renounce all supernaturalism?

    (As a preface to this response, any single Protestant can believe what he or she wants to believe, but a renunciation of the supernatural would make that person's beliefs not align very well with Protestantism as a whole.)

    Christianity, and therefore Protestantism, is based about a belief in a God. According to this belief system this God was not only the instigator and creator of the earth, but active throughout its history. From walking in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, through the trials of the Israelites, and with his final work of interacting with the world said to be the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. There is a heavy emphasis on God returning as Christ to finish his work on this earth in a form of apocalypse discussed in the book of Revelation.
    Alongside the scriptural references to the supernatural, one needs not step inside a protestant church for long to see the belief in the active work of God today. There is a devout belief in prayer: that it is heard and that prayer can have an effect in the world. The belief in the Bible as a holy book is also an active belief in the supernatural, not because of what it says, but because of the belief that many Protestants have that the Bible is the direct and true word of God delivered to humanity. Therefore, inherent in this view of the Bible is a belief in the supernatural.
    Throughout its history, the protestant church – and Christianity itself – has had a deep conviction of the supernatural. Supernatural belief is a founding principle in Protestantism and Christianity in general; and the church cannot be divorced from its supernatural views and remain the same.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Owen Martin9:49 AM CST

    Response to DQ: Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    The belief in God is incredibly comforting to me, and while it is hard to find reason to believe, I want to find a divine explanation for the world. If God does exist, God has to be intertwined with this world and with everything, whether because it is God's creation or because God is in fact the universe itself.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Owen Martin9:56 AM CST

    Response to DQ: Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignoring them?

    Personal philosophies are constructed by all of a person's influences and can most definitely be constructed by mixing together two or more belief systems or religions, even if the new constructions would be decidedly not any of the things it combined.

    A person should not definitively conform to a tradition they were brought up in. In fact it seems better for a person to expose oneself to many viewpoints that are different than one's own personal tradition to figure out which makes the most sense and come to an educated decision instead of taking what has been given and being content with it,

    ReplyDelete
  74. Alternative FL Questions:
    1. What did Anne Hutchinson believe was her ultimate destiny?
    2. What did Anne Hutchinson "enlighten and embolden" people to do?
    3. What was Anne Hutchinson ultimately charged with, for which she had to go to court?
    4. What did Anne Hutchinson threaten to do on the second day of her trial?
    5. What does historian Perry Miller describe Anne Hutchinson's beliefs as?
    6. What colony did Roger Williams start?
    7. What essay did Cotton Mather write, which supported the witch hunt?
    8. What tract ultimately restore reason to America?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Nick Price: 009

    In response to DQ1:

    think that it’s possible to combine eastern and western philosophies, and even indigenous philosophies. However, I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary. I think that the discovering of various philosophies will help expand a persons mind, but not everything has to be excepted. The idea of a cosmopolitan philosophy Is an interesting one. The believe that we are all one, can bring a sense of unity that can be very healing. Our philosophy of life come from the society and circumstances that we grew up in, but it would be very unhealthy and unhelpful if we did not expand upon our belief system, and eventually refine it. I think it’s very important to explore as many new ideas as possible, but I think it’s important to be able to filter through these ideas and find a truth. If nothing else, it gives us The mental capacity to relate to people with varying philosophies of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Lillian Crawford: 006
    There have definitely been more "witch trials" throughout American history other than the ones that occurred in Salem. Another famous sort of witch trial is the Lavender Scare in the late 1950's. Many people were outed as homosexual and people who were outed that also worked for the U.S. government were fired immediately. Many believed that gay and lesbian people were communist sympathizers, and at this point in American history, the threat of communism was a big, overwhelming threat in everyone's lives. This is just one of many instances in American history where fear instilled in many by a single, small group caused a widespread witch hunt upon a group of people.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Owen Martin5:24 PM CST

    Response to DQ: John Dewey philosophized about "natural piety," recognizing our shared interdependence on one another and on nature at large. How does a "naturally pious" person express that piety, in terms of lifestyle choices and policy preferences etc.?

    A "naturally pious" person would express their belief in interdependence by attempting to minimize all harm that they cause to others or to the world or environment around them. They would attempt to help those in need to the best of their ability while taking care of the natural world around them as well.


    Alternate quiz question: What was the tract by Increase Mather that Andersen calls "the great turning point in the restoration of reason in colonial America?"
    A: "Cases of Conscience" (or "Cases of Conscience concerning evil SPIRITS Personating Men, Witchcrafts, infallible Proofs of Guilt in such as are accused with that Crime")


    Alternate Quiz Question: What 1953 play by Arthur Miller depicted the Salem witch trials and has informed many people's opinions of those trials?
    A: "The Crucible"



    ReplyDelete
  78. 006
    What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?
    I feel as though there is not a national character for America just as there would not be for any other country. I do feel that there are quite the generalizations. For example, Asians are typically small or Americans typically are tall. Generalizations are risky as you are toeing the line between generalizing and being outright offensive or uninformative.

    Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?
    I believe that we should apologize and attempt to start reparations. At the moment, we simply have just put them in tiny communities and left them in the back burner. In a sense, we have not changed from when we first occupying America. We need to give not only an apology but also a way for Native Americans to come back and to be able to practice their culture outside of the reservations we put them in.

    Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?
    I believe that there are "witch trials" especially now. We often find ourselves having a "witch trial" if we do not like what someone said years ago. We don't give them a chance to show that they have grown and end up running them to the ground. We look towards social media which pushes us in a way to go with the masses and not have a different opinion regardless of what it may be.

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?
    I believe that God is separate as well as coextensive with the world in the sense that God is separate. He is whole and holy by Himself, but He also is coextensive in that He deals with our sin. It is by His righteousness that my sin is forgiven and taken to the grave.

    ReplyDelete
  79. 006
    Some other DQ:
    1. Do you think science and religion can go hand in hand? In other words, can someone believe in a certain religion (such as Christianity) but also practice science (evolutionary theories)?
    2. Do you see Anne Hutchinson's brutal murder along with her six children as a sort of karma for leading others to false beliefs?
    3. From FL, we have seen multiple instances of how the "holier-than-thou" reactions can lead to terrible situations. Does history repeat itself?

    A Quiz Question: Who was the "golden-boy" for witch trials?
    Answer: Cotton Mather

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to reply to your first question. I asked this question to my astronomy teacher last semester. He told me to read an article about Augustus's take on genesis and science. One of his points is to not stick dogmatically to what you think you know. I think that science can go hand and hand with religion but people refuse to see that because they either go in with the idea of either a) proving science wrong or b) proving religion wrong.

      Delete
  80. Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?
    To me I think that God is separable from the world. I believe that he is the reason that everything happens but I feel that the world forgets that or doesn’t believe in God so that’s why it is not coextensive with the world. I feel that the world takes separation of church and state pretty seriously so that’s why I feel that, that applies to the world.

    What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?
    I think the American character is mirrored as a selfish or privileged person. I also think to be an American is to be free. It means that you have all of your rights such as free speech and religion. I don’t think that there is necessarily a national character. I do feel that it is safe to generalize about what makes anyone “American” because we as Americans generalize what we think about other countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13
      About the separation of church and state. How can you feel that people keep it separate? There are countless examples of laws and political platforms that directly come from people's religious beliefs instead of from reason i.e. abortion in some southern states. I feel that religion is one thing that cannot possibly stay separate from religious members decision making processes.

      Delete
  81. 01/28/19 Myia Wright. Section 1030-006
    Disscussion Question: “Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?”
    I do believe that God or our own spirits are coextensive with the world. I have always thought of the human body as a vessel for our souls and once we die, our spirit becomes another part of the world around us, just in a different dimension. I guess some people would call it the afterlife. If God created all of us, and we are made up of the things God created, then in a way God and we are all one on earth and in other dimensions. I find this question slightly difficult to answer, mainly for the fact I am not a religious person, but I am more of a spiritual person. I also believe in the ideas of evolution, but at the same time I feel like evolution could not have happened without a greater and divine power such as God. I guess the point I am trying to make is that I personally think that God must be cohesive with the earth and our understanding of the world around us and beyond what we can physically see and understand. I think there is a part of me that is excited to see where my soul goes beyond this life once I pass on but for now, I am trying to enjoy the physical aspect of myself while I still have it.

    ReplyDelete
  82. 1/28/19 Myia Wright. Section 1030-006
    Discussion Question: “Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?”
    Technically, in American history, other sorts of “witch trials” were not documented but there is a connection between the way colonist treated “witches” as well as Native Americans if you really think about it. When colonist first came to America, they deemed Native Americans way of life as demonic. Native American traditions focused a lot on the earth and chants, which was a lot different from the ways the colonists practiced their religions. The colonists acted out of ignorance because they did not understand the Native Americans way of life. So, I personally believe that “The Indian Wars” could also be considered another sort of witch trials. Colonist killed many Native Americans without proof of any “witchcraft” or “demonic” practices, much like the Salem Witch Trials.

    Discussion Question: “Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?”
    I wish it was that easy for someone to stand up and apologize on behalf of an entire nation as well as the whole Caucasian/European race. I feel like the Native Americans as well as Alaska Natives definitely deserve an apology and reparations for the cruel and indecent treatment they endured then and now. Realistically, it won't happen and honestly there isn't enough words or money to even begin to give the indigenous people all the things they deserve. A lot of people don’t want to admit fault because “it happened a long time ago” but, the mistreatment of Native Americans is still happening today such as the Dakota Pipeline incident that ended in protest and violence.

    COMMENT: "None of us can always be thinking over the riddle of the universe..." 37
    Personally, for me, trying to ponder the riddle of the universe or the meaning of life too ofter can be extremely overwhelming. I think that it’s good to wonder about from time to time, so you give yourself the ability to realize there is more to life outside of yourself and your experiences. But the universe is full of unanswered questions and that can create a very unpleasant life trying to figure out the riddles to the universe instead of just living in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your answer about apologizing to the Natives; if it was that simple, I'm sure many people would have come forward already in apology, but in today's world where the white race still maintains their superiority over other races it's unlikely to ever happen. So many people today don't see anything wrong with invading another race's (people's) land and essentially stealing it from them, but when someone tries to come into the precious United States, they're persecuted, ridiculed, and kicked out. Double standards are the foundation of American society.

      Delete
  83. 1030-10
    1) Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?
    a)Yes, I feel that one can contrsuct their philosophies that combine the various aspects of different philosophies. It is not necessary that one should follow the philosphies that they were introduced to from the time they were born. For instance, I personally believe that God exists, but I don’t think that God has any influence on my behavior and neither do the star signs. This a philosophy that combines various aspects that are in Eastern and Western Philosophy.

    2)Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?
    a)I think that God is coextensive with the world. Each person sees God in different things. One might see God in an idol, the nature, people or as a being who cannot be defined. I see God as a powerful extensive of a positive force and when something good happens I thank God, but when something bad happens I do not blame God for the situations because it was not God’s doing.

    3)Thoughts about CRYPTONAURALIST’S comment: That comment makes me think that we are all a part of this transient world where the only constant is change. We can only leave an impact with our thinking and behavior and not our appearance.

    4)What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?
    a)I don’t think it is safe to generalize or even stereotype a whole nation as having a like minded philosophy. If you consider a family of three, each of those three individuals have different thoughts about one single topic. When a family of three cannot be considered to have a similar ideology, I don’t think nation as a whole can be generalized under one category.

    Extra Quiz Questions:
    1) What is one of the main goals of philosophy?
    2) Who was one of the first American Philosophers to describe history of American philosophy?
    3) In 1972, what did Morgan White take up?
    4) What is philosophical investigation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to the first extra quiz question-"what is one of the main goals of philosophy." I think the main goal of philosophy is to gaining knowledge. I think to understand life and the things around us, we must have the ability to gain knowledge.

      Delete
    2. Phil 1030-009
      I believe the main goal of philosophy is to gain wisdom; to think of things in a wise approach.

      Delete
    3. Ruj Haan9:22 PM CDT

      Section 13
      What is one of the main goals of philosophy?

      I believe one of the main goals of philosophy is to understand the people and environment around us better, which helps us to be more open minded and wiser.

      Delete
  84. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Here are a couple of DQ suggestions

    Should we take the time to read and understand various philosophies?

    How do you define yourself as American?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phil- 10
      I think it is our best interest to explore various philosophies to find a stronger connection to wisdom and life style.
      I define myself as American as trying to find the best possible interest for this society, so the next generation can grow and make solutions to problems that were unthinkable. But that's my 12 in the night thought, I hope you like it. How about you?

      Delete
    2. Section 06
      My definition is similar to yours but with a few things added like being open to others opinions, being kind to others despite our differences, and to never forget our history both good and bad.

      Delete
  86. Phil- 10
    Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?

    I believe it is possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines from very different traditions. There are parts of philosophies around the world that could have similar meaning. Just like interests of anything there would be a cosmopolitan philosophy that teaches the history and develop a new form of wisdom. I personally think that a person could conform to one philosophy in their tradition, but to explore if one wants to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that people can combine personal philosophy's with different traditions. I think the point of philosophy is your own understanding of the world around you, and because of this, people can also interpret certain traditions in different ways.

      Delete
    2. I think it is also important to see other peoples views and expand your own by looking into other views. If you just stay in your own box your mind can't be expanded.

      Delete
  87. 006
    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world

    To me, I think depending on who you're asking it can be both. For instance, someone who believes in God, or even just some form of higher power probably sees that God in various things in their day to day life. Maybe they just see him in the sky or clouds because they view God as watching over them. Maybe they see God in other people or themselves. Or maybe, if they don't believe in God, they don't see him or feel him in anything. I think it's very much up to a specific person. For me, a person who is undecided about God, I feel something in the world that is powerful, and I feel it in myself as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Section 13

      Hi Jillian! I love your line "I feel something in the world that is powerful, and I feel it in myself as well." As a non-religious person, this is a beautiful and simple way to capture this idea. I have similar feelings and have never really been able to put it into words. Well done and thank you!

      Delete
  88. H6
    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    As a Christian it makes more sense for me to think go God as coexisting with the world. The Bible teaches that God has interactions with the world and is omnipresent all the time. Also When I think about our world and how it was formed it is hard for me to grasp the concept that everything happened randomly. Our Earth is the perfect distance from the sun for there to be the right amount of heat, so water isn't frozen or boiling, if we were a few degrees closer or a few degrees farther life would not be sustainable. And all of that just happened randomly? A rock randomly landed in the right place then randomly acquired an atmosphere that gives us the ability to breathe and that one bacteria split into the 8.7 million species that we have on this Earth. It makes more sense to me to think of a all powerful loving creator who created this planet for us and formed these things for us to rule over and worship him through. There is also the feelings we experience like love that science can't explain. Scientists teach that everything is just atoms and our brain is just firing neurons but they can't explain or describe why they have feelings of right and wrong and love towards others. God is what our right and wrong is based off of, he created all that is god and all that is bad branched off of that because we aren't perfect. Otherwise why does it matter if anything is right or wrong, what's the scale? Why does it matter we are here we are just dots floating through space, but in my mind there has to be more and luckily there is more.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?

    Yes althoug peole weren't hunted down and burned at the steak in the 1950's and 60s there was the red scare. Americans were terrified that communists had not only invaded out government but also our nation. The girl scouts were even accused so some accusations were a little crazy like the salem witch trials.

    ReplyDelete
  90. • Do you think it's possible to construct a personal philosophy that combines elements of very different traditions, such as western Socratic rationalism with eastern Confucianism or Buddhism? Or should a person philosophize in a way that conforms more strictly to the particular tradition in which he/she was born? Can there be a cosmopolitan philosophy that transcends particular traditions without ignorning them?
    Yes I believe it is possible to combine beliefs from various philosophies and make it as your own personal philosophy. Because you may not agree with all of it but with certain parts of it. No philosophy should be ignored so there can be a cosmopolitan philosophy. At the end of the day we are all human.


    • Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?
    I think someone should apologize for the way Native Americans were treated. They deserve a long overdue apology and should be treated better. Indigenous people on any continent should receive reparations in any shape, form, or fashion, as a way to mend the past and heal the wrongdoings no matter how long it takes.

    • Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?
    There was one in Connecticut called the Hartford Witch Trials. Alse Young was the first woman to be executed in the colonies.

    Here is a link about that trial
    http://time.com/4543405/connecticut-witch-trials/
    I found a website that talks about Alse Young and her trial
    https://connecticuthistory.org/alse-young-executed-for-witchcraft-today-in-history-may-26/

    ReplyDelete
  91. PHIL1030-010
    "Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?"

    As of right now, my current divine outlook is - to put it simply - pretty all over the place. If we are talking strictly about the Christian incarnation of God, I can safely say that I don't necessarily subscribe to that specific entity, and since that is pretty much the only version of a divine power that I know and the one that I just so happen to know the most about, you could technically say that I'm an Atheist.

    However...
    I don't know for sure, and frankly? I think it's okay to be on the fence about God or gods or about religion in general because it's sometimes overwhelming, to be honest. I personally believe that it's all about comfort and a sense of belonging, especially when it comes down to trying to explain or interpret the world as you perceive it, and for some people, placing their belief and their heart into Christianity or Buddhism or Islam can help them feel more at-peace with themselves and with the world around them. I think that's neat! But I, unfortunately, can't seem to get my head around it, and as a result, it's not as easy for me to place my heart and soul into a religious circle.

    There are some divine prospects, however, that I like and that give me comfort - I believe in an after-life of sorts, though I don't believe that it's an eternal Heaven or Hell, but instead, an open and endless field of grass and sky, containing all of your best memories and the moments you cherished most throughout your life; I like to believe that there is something out there that, while it might not ever deeply interact with each and every one of us at every given moment, occasionally stops in to give direction to those who are lost or searching, but doesn't ever require them to follow it or set parameters for their beliefs.

    I believe that whatever is out there doesn't define our existences with specifics and the rules that it sets, but instead, by the morality and compassion that we carried throughout our lives, as people and as individuals, regardless of what we do with our limited time here on Earth. I suppose, as of right now, until a system of beliefs similar to that rolls into my lap - or until I have a Great Awakening about God or other gods - you can call me an Atheist.

    So yeah - I'm an Atheist, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  92. PHIL1030-010

    Here are some alternate quiz questions:

    1) Lewis Mumford described which philosopher as "...the first American philosopher with a fresh doctrine..."?
    2) What is the proposed "...stark truth of modern society"?
    3) Primarily, which American pragmatists provided reasoning for reconsidering American philosophy's history?

    ReplyDelete
  93. PHIL1030-010
    "What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone '"so American"'?

    Growing up, I was led to believe that America didn't have a specific character, but was instead a collection of beliefs and free-ideals that represent what America really was. I thought of America as a place where people were able to believe whatever they wanted and maintain a sense of individuality without hindrance, so for me to say what specifically defines us as Americans is, at the least, far too general for it to perfectly encapsulate what it means to be an American.

    At least, that's what I thought...

    ReplyDelete
  94. Phil 1030-009
    What "evidence" was the primary basis for judgments in the Salem witch trials?
    http://news.lib.uchicago.edu/blog/2012/10/29/the-salem-witch-trials-a-legal-bibliography-for-halloween/

    Alternative quiz question:
    Which philosopher do you enjoy reading his/her writings?

    ReplyDelete
  95. 010

    "Does it make more sense to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?”

    While I don’t personally believe in God, when I try to imagine a would created by him, I keep coming back to the image of God as a watchmaker: he creates the world, sets it running, and then steps away. So while I don’t necessarily believe that it makes sense to invoke God to interpret the world, if you did, it makes sense to view him as separate.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    It makes more sense to think of it as separate. The way I view it, I see the world as mundane and a place for mortals and beings of lesser importance. Where as with God, I see him as an omnipotent being separate from the world, and seeing as anything else seems weird. To me God is a distant father figure, and relating him on a mortal level makes him inequality to the world, he is not what I preside on, god is someone I tell my problems and worries.

    ReplyDelete
  97. 010
    Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?
    The internment of Japanese Americans in World War 2.

    ReplyDelete
  98. 010
    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    If there is a God, I would like to think that he is coextensive. I find it hard to rationalize the idea of something greater than me, but I try to think of spirituality as a sense of greater good rather than the believe in a greater person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely understand your answer. It is rather easy to believe that there is a God, but often difficult to have faith in something that could potentially be so powerful.

      Delete
  99. Dean Cheevers Section 10

    Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?

    Personally, I don’t believe someone should apologize for someone’s elses actions. What previous generations did is not the responsibility of the descendants. Unless people personally affected indigenous peoples, then there should be no need for an apology, even though the history is terribly unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Dean Cheevers Section 10

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    In my eyes, God is coextensive with the World. Rather than being a single being, I see God as a representation as the collective consciousness of Humanity and Nature throughout the cosmos.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Dean Cheevers Section 10

    What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone "so American"?

    I think its very hard to have a symbolized character for representing Americans. This js because, it’s so diverse. But, what I think most American’s share, is that we tend to believe what we want and don’t have much fear of outside influeneces on our mindsets.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Phil-1030-9

    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine

    concept to explain or interpret the world?
    I do not know if there is a higher power, coextensive with our world or not. In fact, nobody does. There are only people who think they know whether there is a higher power, and people who don’t. It is important to remember that you don't know what you don’t know. There could be 1,000 different gods, Christians could be right, there could be no higher power at all or an infinite amount of other possibilities.
    What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about

    what makes anyone "so American"?
    In my opinion, someone who is a mirror of American character is someone who believes they can accomplish anything and are very passionate about defeating anyone or anything that stand in the way of that. I believe these characteristics are what created America, and built it into what it is today. I think these generalizations are safe to make because anyone can possess them.

    Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, vilified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?
    The cruel genocide of Native Americans is a part of American history that many like to keep swept under the rug. Perhaps this is why nobody has already publicly apologized. One could argue, however, that nobody today is responsible for the actions of people that died hundreds of years before they were born. While we all know how terrible indigenous people were treated during the initial settlement of America, I'm not sure how much I would be willing to pay for the crimes of my ancestors. It isn’t fair for the children of serial killers to pay for their parents' crimes. So I'm not sure how appropriate it is for people to pay retributions for crimes of ancestors they have never met. There is one party responsible for the cruelty committed against indigenous people that is still alive today. That is the United States. The U.S. does pay retributions through tax breaks, land grants, and laws that benefit indigenous people. This is necessary and should continue in my opinion.


    Some of the retribution to Native Americans in 2016:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/27/495627997/u-s-government-to-pay-492-million-to-17-american-indian-tribes

    What do you think Tom Paine meant by “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?

    I think that in a way, the #METOO movement has sparked a modern day witch trial of sorts. I found an interesting article that talks about how it has turned men into "predatory creators" and various stories are now coming out about people being victims of assault. Now, I'm not saying that this is to discredit those who have personally been sexually assaulted in the past, but it seems to be a bandwagon movement where more and more people are willing to join in, taking away from those who were ACTUALLY assaulted and should get the justice they deserve. There have been several instances where people are being wrongly accused of sexual assault and have been punished for crimes they did not commit. Like I said, with this movement, where women are willing to give untruthful testaments of their own "sexual assault" it takes the light away from those who really are suffering and deserve justice for what was done to them. For a lot of women, the assault goes unreported and nothing can ever be done. When it becomes a "fad" of sorts to join the #METOO movement, it can lead women who were sexually assaulted to second guess reporting their assault in fear that they will not be taken seriously due to all the false reports everyone else has given. Another stance in regards to the same idea, is how the women are "crucified" for their "role" in the assault. Women get so much blame put on them for "why" they were sexually assaulted, rather than actually punishing the person who committed the assault. I think both of these ideas are a form of modern day witch trials for how they are handled, the bandwagon mentality, and the repercussions that come from ignorant actions.

    I posted the link if anyone else is interested in reading more.
    https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/opinion/2017/10/27/metoo-modern-day-witch-trial/806534001/

    ReplyDelete
  104. Phil 1030-010
    I do not believe protestants can completly renounce all spiritualism, due to a large portion of their religion is based on spiritualism (ex. God, the devil, angels etc).

    ReplyDelete
  105. Section 13

    DQ: Have there been other sorts of "witch trials" in American history than just those in Salem?

    Yes, absolutely. The US government even had something called the “House Un-American Activities Committee” who put people on trial and in prison for having “un-American” political beliefs, such as Socialism or Communism, or having any ties with a member of either group. People’s lives were ruined because they believed differently or could not prove their innocence. How do you prove you are not a communist and why should you have to?! Short answer: you shouldn't. Basically, the government became the “thought police.”

    ReplyDelete
  106. madona kozman1:36 PM CDT

    section 13
    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine

    I think that God exists everywhere. As I believe that God is unlimited.

    ReplyDelete
  107. madona kozman1:44 PM CDT

    Section 13
    "What traits of personal character, if any, do you think mirror the American character? Or is there even such a thing as a national character? Is it safe to generalize about what makes anyone '"so American"'?
    Since I'm new to the USA. I believe that I can symbolize Americans as people who live in absolute freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  108. madona kozman1:51 PM CDT

    Here is another video link about Native American Wisdom
    https://youtu.be/tWrGb_f7eTw

    ReplyDelete
  109. Should someone apologize on the nation's behalf to native Americans for the shameful way in which European settlers robbed them of their land, infected them with fatal disease, villified them as Satanic, etc. etc.? Should we be talking about reparations for indigenous peoples everywhere?


    I guess the way I feel about it is that it is too late to apologize. I feel the best way recognize the horrendous wrongdoing of some of our ancestors is to continue to teach people the facts. Obviously, everyone knows that we mistreated the Native Americans, but i feel like it should be taught to students how it actually was, genocide. Saying "sorry about that" 300 years later does nothing, but if we properly educate people hopefully it will never happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  110. 13
    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    Personally I do not believe in a god or any divine concept. I was raised a Christian and at some point along the line I lost my belief. I do not see it as a bad thing to look for factual answers to explain the world around me, instead of relying on a man's interpretation of what some other man wrote about what some other man wrote about a conversation he claims to have had with a benevolent being.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Ruj Haan10:04 PM CDT

    Section 13

    "Does it make more sense to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?”

    I’m personally not religious and from a young age I was always really confused about the whole God concept. I just have a hard time believing in something that is not properly proven. I know some people who believe in God, believe in him (or maybe her) because of their holy books. I personally cannot believe something that is written ages ago by some people that I don’t know. There is no prove that all the stories in the books are true. Maybe there is a God or maybe not, who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Cameron Ghalami
    1030-012
    Do you think our society could benefit from taking on a more "indigenous" approach to spirituality like in the article?

    https://youtu.be/MQIJGiTLhC0

    https://youtu.be/t--0w3P-5D0

    ReplyDelete
  113. Section 12
    Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?
    I believe that the presence of God is bigger than this world, since he is the creator of it, but he also coextensive in the fact that God is always spiritually reachable to us. I often also find it difficult to have faith in that, because the world has so many unanswered questions that seem near impossible to formulate an explanation to. However, that is also another reason I believe that God is the creator.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Does it make more sense to you to think of God as separate from the world, or coextensive with it? Or does it make more sense to you to not invoke any divine concept to explain or interpret the world?

    I had to read this question several times before I could somewhat understand it. I personally do not believe any gods, but if I had to say I think God would be apart from the universe, as in a pantheism manner. So, I think God would be the "supreme" of everything, including the universe as well. He holds the highest title. I do not think you should associate God with the universe though. I do not think you can explain how the world works or how things work within themselves. It just happened.

    https://time.com/4543405/connecticut-witch-trials/ I thought this was an interesting article on other witch trials besides the Salem ones. I did not even know other trials happened.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/supernaturalism_1.shtml I thought this article was also interesting because it went more in depth to supernaturalism and the different ethics and beliefs.





    ReplyDelete