Growing of the Roots (Part III)

So let just say that once again I am confused on the last of the reading that are suppose to do. Weil discusses the idea of slavery and how Romans viewed people that were slaves as degrading to all humans. I definitely agree with the fact that it is degrading to all humans and they should have not been treated that way, but at the time it was an action that was acceptable. From what was being said Romans like to have that type of control over people; the ability to make them tell lies or do evil things even though they didn’t really want to do.

 On page 265 Weil states, “The ‘slaves’ are men who have wanted with all their heart to give themselves to God as slaves. And although that means a gift made on the instant and once and for all, subsequently these slaves never cease for one second begging God to allow them to remain in slavery…If we were God’s property, how should we be able to give ourselves to him as slaves?”  This whole statement views people as being God’s slave but I don’t think that that is a good way to put it; instead it should be you are God’s child and you are willing to do any thing for him and to do right by him. The scenario that I give would be when children listen to their parents they are expected to do what they are told and they are not called a slave so why should anyone else be considered a slave of God? They are a child of God!

Roots (Part II)

So where do I begin in the discussion of this part of the reading. I find myself having a difficult time trying to decipher on what Weil is explaining but it I guess it is worth me trying to figure it out.

Weil makes a statement that reads “…all those who, being in a position to voice their thoughts in speech or writing, contributed towards the intellectual and spiritual atmosphere in which the youthful Hitler grew up-all those who people are perhaps more guilty of Hitler’s crime that he is himself.”  Is she saying that all those people that provoked or brought on negativity made Hitler the way he is. If this is this the case then why couldn’t have been a learning experience to him not to act in the way that he did which was cruel and unusual punishment?  Could it be that there was no one there to teach him the right from wrong? I think he luck out of being able to fill what we have been talking about for the last few weeks which is affiliation. I personally believe if he would have experience that that maybe he would not have been so evil and dislike by many. Like Weil stated before that I guess he just wanted to be a part of history for his wrong doings and that is what is what made him a popular person in history.

She was right we were once in a place that all there was humanity but we are definitely coming to a time where there is a great deal of inhumanity and could that be a sign of the world deteriorating? I guess that is a question that no one will be able to figure out but that is definitely what it seems like.

The Growing of Roots

Lets just say this reading was very hard to read and difficult for me to follow. I was thinking that maybe if I was to continue reading it, it would make some sense to me but I feel like it didn’t. One thing that I was wondering was how will this reading related to a persons life as a Christian.  The only thing that I could see on how it kind of relates to religion is when Weil states, “Education concerns itself with the motives for effective action. For no action is ever carried out in the absence of motives capable of supplying the indispensable amount of energy for its execution. To want to direct human creatures-others or oneself- towards the good by simply pointing out the direction, without making sure the necessary motives have been provided, is as if one tried, by pressing down the accelerator, to set off in a motor-car with an empty petrol tank. Or again, it is as if one were to try to light an oil lamp without having put in any oil.” I think this statement relates because last week Russell was discussing on why he is not a Christian but I feel as though if he was to be educated more about Christian values then maybe he would be able to understand and become comfortable with it.  Another thing that I was unclear about was the issue dealing with France and how it relates to her “Growing of Roots.” I am assuming when we discussed affliction in class last week France was going through affliction because they were so use to being under absolutism that when Charles VI died they were confused on how to be “people worthy of the name of citizens” but they learned to deal with it and grow from it.

I am probably not on the right track for this particular reflection but I guess I am not really clear on what Weil is trying to explain so if someone will help me understand I could use the clarity.  

Christian vs Non Christian

After reading this article I had mixed emotions on this subject on what Bertrand Russell concerns on why he is not a Christian. My reasons for feeling this way was because I have grown up in a church every since I was little girl and the fact that it was instilled in me ever since.  I  know that there are things that I have done in my life that are not Christian like but I try as a person to live by what I know is the right way to live if when God comes on judgment day I can be one of his children to go. I think it’s all about faith and what you believe and feel to be true because I know not everyone believes in what I believe in and that’s okay with me.  I won’t look down on them if they feel differently because they have different beliefs than I do.

In the article under the sub-title, Defects in Christ’s teaching Russell states, “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.” I definitely disagree with this statement that he made just because I feel the Bible is the Gospel and as I feel is the truth and the light and this how we know about the past. To me it’s like saying “I don’t believe that mummies exist” but it can be proven to me and with that being said I think it can be proven that Christ existed at one point in time.  Another statement that he made was “I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching–…” I feel if you believe in what appears to be true you are going to believe in what happens to you if you don’t follow the Gospel.   Christians believe that if they follow the word of God they will have everlasting life but if you don’t follow the word you will be punished.  I have to say that this article kind of made me reevaluate my beliefs as a person that believes in Christ.

 

Creation vs Technoloy

As I continue reading Brave New World the first thing that pops in my head is what would other religions think about this theory that there is no God? Regardless of what religions that exist today almost everyone believes that God created the heavens and the earth unless you are atheist. I wonder what other religions would say because I think most people believe in something and as we mention in class before we all believe in the truth and when it comes to religion most people see it as faith and that the Bible is the truth and that we should all embrace it since many of us see guide to living in the world. Even though for myself I do believe in the Bible and what I feel is the truth what it beholds I can also understand why they don’t believe that God cannot be giving credit for the theory of creation. For goodness sakes, the people during this time know that they we are created from an egg that continues on and assembly line rather than by conception I am assuming. Imagine if a person comes to you and they say you didn’t come from your mother and father, they picked you out, therefore, you came from the world of chemistry. That is enough for any person that gets told that to want haul off and hit a person for saying a ridiculous comment like that. I am still stuck on the fact that we take these types of pills that make us have and show some type of feeling and emotion instead of having these feelings and emotions naturally but I guess that is what happens when things change from now until then. Just kind a curious on how everyone else thought about the distinction between God and technology because I thought this could be very controversial issue that probably will never be understood by people that don’t believe in the whole technology aspect of it.

Brave New World Part 1

What I can say after reading this is “WOW.” Its like could our world be like what the author explains in the book.  First and for most I have to mention the technology of fertilization. This alone makes me wonder a little bit because it’s like what will happen to what we call the old fashion baby making just for the simple fact that people will not be able to reproduce.  The only thing that I see good in have technology of fertilization is for children since they are out there having sex without thinking of not only sexually transmitted disease but they won’t have to worry about getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant.  Another thing that I was wondering about is the Bokanovsky’s Process. To my understanding its kind of like cloning but what I don’t understand is why did there need to be so many identical eggs because I think that it would take away from the diversity that is created in the world. We are considered the biggest melting pot!  While reading this first part I was a little confused because I just was not understanding if this was Huxley’s fantasy or was this a really community that he was once trying to built. I definitely feel like this book is a little interesting to read just for the simple fact that it is discussing the future and how it could possibly be different then what we think it will be.  To think of how our future can evolve I wonder what will happen to the human race because it definitely seem like that we are going to be like extinct humans like dinosaurs. The only thing is continue reading so I could follow a little better so that I can make sure that I have and understanding of this book and the outlook of the future.

Androids vs. Humans

When I first started to read this article the author was using terms that I was not sure I would be able to follow but as I read further things started to make a little bit of sense. Phillip Dick was trying to make a value point to his readers,

 “As science, technology, and capitalism continue to coevolve into an ever denser global network, the ultimate question is whether the human species can reshape the driving forces of change to harmonize social with natural evolution, such that diversity and complexity grow in both spheres.” (Dick 13)

This is to say that we as humans rely so much on technology to the point where we forget that sometimes we need technology to remotely do anything. I do have to say that Dick did make a valuable point that maybe creating androids are a good thing specially in the time of war because in a way he could stop human beings from getting killed while they try to fight for there country. Instead it would be the androids that are being destructed so would don’t continue to kill life on earth. I think that the only downfall of the postmodern is the fact that race, gender, and culture will change. The reason I am saying this is because how are we going to be able to interact with the opposite sex and how are we going to learn from each others culture since we all don’t have the same beliefs and morals? It’s like can we really learn from an android that is programmed? To that extent no we can so technically!  So combining science fiction with technology will definitely have some pros and cons that need to weigh out before it is taken to another level. It would be fascinating to see the world in near future if they decided to take this route!

Consumer Society

After first reading this article Consumer Society it made be do a lot of thinking about the society we live in today and how we intertwine with consumption. We live in a world where we purchases items on a regular basis.

In the beginning of this article it discusses how the people of society are bombarded with conspicuousness of consumption and affluence. We are either purchasing items or trying to find a way to make money through making sales. The author of this article also goes on to say that it has transformation into the study human beings and how we interact with society. One of the important statements made in this article states,

“We have reached the point where ‘consumption’ has grasped the whole of life; where all activities are sequenced in the same combinatorial mode; where the schedule of gratification is outlined in advance, one hour at a time; and where the ‘environment’ is complete, completely climatized, furnished, and culturalized.”

With that being said I feel as though the author of this article will trying to say that we are at a time where everything we do deals with what we consume of material goods. This brought us to a perfect way we can make our economy growth into something more than what could and should be. “The system of consumption is based on a code of signs (object/signs) and differences, and not on need and pleasure.” From my understanding of this statement it seems as though we as consumers purchase material goods based on what we see rather than what we see as a necessity.  We also get these material goods if they appear to be something that is said to be good by other consumers.

            This article is was a little hard to follow but please bare with me as I try to explain what I have pulled out this reading.

NBA vs. Walt Disney

The article that I read was Disneyization, Debord, and Integrated NBA Spectacle by Davis L. Andrews. In the beginning of reading this article I was a little confused on what direction the article was going because it was mentioning how sports mostly basketball relate to the economy.  After continuing further in the reading it all started to make a little more sense than it did when I was just reading the first couple of paragraphs. The similarity of sports and Disney World and the way it is advertised through society has definitely made a big impact since there ways of advertising are very much alike.As I continued in the reading Andrews stated that we are in a “post- industrial age” since we are living in a time that technology plays a major part in the world we live in today. We in society use so much technology because it seems to be the fastest way to get our ideas and thoughts as well as advertisements across to other people rather than sending mail across the world while keeping in mind that some people may not be able to receive the information that was sent, due to the fact that it may have gotten lost in the mail or something of that nature. In my perspective I feel as though that we have definitely considered the best way to advertise sports mostly speaking for basketball just like we do when we advertise for Disney World.  It’s amazing how mass media can be used in the same perspective when dealing with two different types of what we call extra curricular activities.  One of the most memorable things that I noticed after reading this article is when Stern mentions the similarities of the NBA and Disney World.  It reads, “They have theme parks . . . and we have theme parks. Only we call them arenas. They have characters: Mickey Mouse, Goofy. Our characters are named Magic and Michael [Jordan]. Disney sells apparel; we sell apparel. They make home videos;

we make home videos. (David Stern, quoted in Swift 1991, 84).

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!