Bacon and Darwin

1.) In his writing, Sir Francis Bacon sees idols as misconceptions, a fault, or something to be misleading. He views it at a negative point of view and refers to some idols as troublesome. It sounds to me like we could relate this in our society as negative influences from culture and media. Today, we idolize certain people and things that are not the best examples. This leads to body shaming, eating disorders, substance abuse, and doing things that we think are "cool". I think using the word idol in this sense is fine because we idolize certain things and people whether they are good or bad.

2.) In total there are four classes of idols according to Bacon. The idols of the Tribe I believe show basic human error. We do not see the world for how it truly is and we go off of what others tell us, what we want to believe, what we wish to see, instead of facing reality. The idols of the Cave explain how we ignore the big picture and instead focus on details that are not always relevant. We tend to ignore the things we should be paying attention to. The idols of the Marketplace can be interpreted as gossip. People spread lies, rumors, and untruths that lead to another and another and end up hurting themselves and others. The idols of the Theater explains how we tend to make comments or statements without having proper knowledge or evidence. So many people do this and when they cannot stand to be wrong, they do everything as far as compulsive lying to make it seem like they're right. I think the most severe are the idols of the Marketplace or the Theater. Both can be deceptive and similar in that the truth is hidden and things are being said without the proper knowledge. I think this can hide the real truth because everything being told is a lie.

3.) The idols resulting from social intercourse are the idols of the Marketplace and the Tribe while the idols resulting from individual reflection are those of the Theater and the Cave. If someone were restricted to society, I do not think they could escape the tyranny of the idols. Society plays such heavy role in the idols. That is where many of the misconceptions and misunderstandings come from. I believe that if a hermit were to withdraw from society, we would not be completely free. They would be missing out in the world around them. They would not gain knowledge or receive the fulfillment of human connection.

1.) Survival of the fittest is when only the strong are able to survive. Those who are weak and cannot adapt to a new environment or circumstance won't make it because they provide no use. An example is how deer mice who migrate to Nebraska change their fur and color from dark to light or vice versa to blend in and avoid being hunted by predators.

2.) Natural selection is a more natural process that allows the offspring to have a better chance at survival when it is grown. Selective breeding occurs when you pick the traits and characteristics you want to be passed down to the offspring. Selective breeding is more directed since you directly choose the traits while natural selection is a more spontaneous process and dominated by chance. I think natural selection is more important and beneficial because the offspring have a far better chance at survival.

3.) I think cloning can be beneficial if Darwin found an offspring that inherited the best suitable traits for its environment and then it could be cloned. However, it undoes the natural part of the selection which Darwin might not agree to.

4.) Darwin believed the human social policy was cruel and unjust because it led to imperialism. Certain people benefit and some don't, and those who don't have to adapt to a poor environment but this takes away from survival of the fittest. I would not say the current day medicine and social welfare agencies are causing humans to be less fit because ultimately, taking those medicines is human choice. While I do not think we take the time to see the effects of medicine and what is contained in them, I believe some medicine is beneficial however I prefer more natural remedies not including artificial tablets.

Discoveries and the Mind

1.) Personally, I rely on sensory knowledge quite often. I rely on my "gut feeling" when making big decisions and if it feels right then I act upon it. I think it depends on everybody but I think Plato diminishes sensory knowledge and its importance. I feel like in certain situations, everyone can get certain feelings or vibes but the difference is whether or not they act upon them and some people have more keen senses. Ultimately, I believe sensory knowledge is important and significant if you decide to act upon what your senses are telling you.

2.) I do not see sensory knowledge as materialistic. It is very much a bodily and intuitive process rather than other alternatives. These can include more logical and analytical thinking, physical research and planning, scientific research, etc.

3.) If we did not use our senses at all to recognize and live in the world, I think it would be plain, bland, or not adaptable. If we could not see we could not recognize people, sights, or anything it would just be dark like a black hole. If we could not taste or smell we might eat or drink something harmful. If we could not touch we would not know what we are holding or grabbing. If we could not hear we would not know if people were talking to us. Ultimately, we would not know what is going on and it would not be adaptable.

4.)  Like mentioned before, my sixth sense is sort of like my gut feeling or intuition. It is like when a mother can sense if something bad is going to happen, particularly involving their child. When I make decisions I rely on how my gut feels and if it is a good gut feeling or a bad one. The same thing goes if I am going somewhere or might be in a bad situation, I can feel if something bad is going to happen.



1.) I think dreams are useful because many of them show events that have yet to come. That deja vu moment is so fascinating because we are dreaming about something that has not even happened yet. I also think they are important to interpret because they often have hidden meanings and underlying fears you are dealing with.

2.) The dreams that mystify me the most are the ones that have hidden meanings in them. For example, if you are worried about your appearance then you might have a dream about all of your teeth falling out. Another type of dream that mystifies me is a reoccurring dream that you might progress through each time you have it.

3.) For me, terrifying dreams are when it deals with something that scares you or makes you uncomfortable and you may wake up sweating or out of breath. The last terrifying dream I had was when I was surviving a zombie apocalypse and it was reoccurring. People died in front of me, I had many close calls, and I think it was just the adrenaline and heat of the moment feeling that got to me. I later looked up that the meaning behind this dream is due to feelings of hopelessness or loss of control.

4.) I believe people forget their dreams if they were not significant or maybe they were too scary or harmful to remember that their brain "erases" them.

5.) I do not think dreaming is a mental activity but more so a mental process.

Woolf vs. Mead

1.) In her tale of Shakespeare's Sister, Virginia Woolf mentions women's roles in Shakespeare's time which allows me to infer that she knew who her audience would be. The main reason for this is that she talks about how women were under minded and were intellectually inferior to men and not encouraged to participate in the arts. I think she mentions things like this to entice a female audience and show how far we've come in the way of women's rights.

2.) Historians do not really mention or give credit to women and only mention the cruelty they faced and beatings they suffered. Women did not really have control of their lives or choices back then and I think historians do not want to pay attention to women in that time period. 

3.) Back then, regardless of talent or ability, women were not given the opportunity or encouraged to act on their talents. They weren't encouraged to perform in the arts, they were often discredited and talked down to, and their intelligence was put down. Men were also taught to act superior towards women in arts and politics as well. Ultimately, Woolf agreed that we need to change men's and people's attitudes towards women in general and against their abilities. This would allow more confidence and give women more chances to embrace their talents.

1.) Mead has explained that there are not temperamental traits of men and women. Traits like dominance, bravery, aggressiveness, or objectivity are not seen as masculine or feminine and instead are considered to be variations of human behavior. This is something society struggles to understand because we try to generalize and stereotype certain behaviors to certain genders when we need to understand how fluidity works.

2.) In today's society we still place certain feelings and behavior to basic male and female genders. However, because people identify as other genders or sexualities, we restrict and disregard how those people feel and are not being inclusive. This makes society and community struggle as a whole because of close minded people who do not agree with the world changing in this sense.

3.) If there were a man with more "feminine" qualities or a woman with "masculine" qualities, and someone were to point out their flaws and how they should be acting, that person would feel rejected and unloved. This would cause them to not truly embrace who they are and cause insecurities in their life. Ultimately, the opposite gender could feel outcasted or that they don't fit a certain role which can become a major issue.

4.) Like mentioned before, our society remains to be very close minded and disagreeable to change. We should be more respectful and inclusive to people's gender and sexuality and accept people for who they really are. This also applies to minorities who are discriminated for their color, race, age, disabilities, religion, or ethnicity. We need to be more accepting so we can avoid stereotyping and generalizing primitive traits. 

Wollstonecraft, Kozol, and Woodson

1.) Mary Wollstonecraft talks about the pernicious, or gradual and harmful, effects that arise from certain distinctions in society. She believes that those who become wealthy and comfortable, no longer want to work or complete their obligations. She ultimately believes that society is disorganized because it does not promote equality for both men and women. Men are expected to gain respect through wealth, work, and property, while women are expected to earn respect through charm and motherhood thus they are not able to think and act for themselves.

2.) I believe women have been perceived as property in many different time periods. Back then, women grew up to be claimed by a man and raise a family. They were not allowed to think or act for themselves, only to serve and continue having children and taking care of the house. Even later, they were sold and mistreated like land was, therefore I do think women can be compared with property.

3.) Wollstonecraft quotes, "The most respectable women are the most oppressed and usually become contemptible only because they are treated like contemptible beings in their bondage of ignorance." I believe that women who are more oppressed and under minded are willing to fight for better standards and actions. This makes them more respectable for what they believe in. Wollstonecraft also believes that reasonable men should fight for equality for both men and women and not follow the slavish tradition that goes towards women. This helps women respect themselves as a whole and be truly affectionate and loving towards men, so yes I believe it is a cause-and-effect scenario. 

4.) Kozol believes that schools spend too much time teaching about diversity and discrimination of the 50's and 60's and not current day diversity. Children should be taught about contemporary civil rights and empower them to speak up about it. I agree with Kozol because we do not focus enough on modern day diversity. There are so many diverse groups that are organized by religion, sex, sexual orientation, color, ethnicity, interests, and more.

5.) Woodson explains that African Americans have been educated to believe many wrong things. They have been taught to hate their culture and admire other cultures, only successful African Americans were self-educated, and many other biases. This affects Africans in such a negative way because through their education, they are not going to be as acknowledged for their achievements. Often, the white culture dominates them and they are not noticed as much as they should be. Ultimately, I believe African Americans are taught wrong ideals and put down through education and I think they should be more acknowledged for their hardships and accomplishments. 

Effects on Education

1.) Maria Montessori has many ideas on the basis of scientific pedagogy. She believes that the teacher or instructor should prepare by closely observing the children. She also quotes, "He should conduct his observations with the self-sacrificing spirit of a scientist and the reverent love of a disciple." This is explaining that the teacher should be focusing on giving all of themselves to the children and not being self-centered. They should ultimately care for all the children's needs and observe what helps and harms the children and their learning capabilities. 

2.) Montessori is very against the continued requirement of "restrictive benches and desks based on misguided scientific principles." She believes that these desks and benches are physically harmful to the students and that if they are hurting the students physically, then they are also being affected spiritually and mentally. In the future, people will most likely find it unbelievable that we forced children to learn using harmful desks and other furniture which is why Montessori demands we change this problem now. 

3.) Lastly, Montessori explains the affect of freedom. She explains that while society tries to end slavery, the school system does not. Children work almost everyday for many hours just to earn little promotions or prizes but this doesn't help them learn that they have a bigger purpose. They need to learn to work for intrinsic rewards rather than extrinsic for greater satisfaction and know that they have freedom and autonomy to make this happen on their own.



4.) Dewey's expression of "thinking in education" explains that in order for effective learning to occur, students must be given an experimental activity to think and learn based on experience. Many teachers give students a heavy academic activity without the students having much knowledge on how to complete it. The ultimate goal is to improve students ability to think and that is done by giving them something to do, not learn.

5.) Dewey believes that an effective learning tactic is utilizing the student's previous experience and also providing some difficulty. He also believes certain conditions such as direct observation, reading, and listening are all useful to some extent. He also believes that thinking is inventive and creative because it puts everyday things into new uses. Therefore, he believes students should deal with problems directly, first-hand, and make sure that it requires thinking.

6.) Once again the best process of education includes hands on experience that requires the students to think and "do", however, Dewey also believes that students must apply the circumstances before they have full meaning. This also means students should work or learn in facilities that allow them to experience real life scenarios. Doing this will separate ideas from experience and help achieve the ultimate goal which is to develop the student's thinking capabilities.

Natural Progress of Opulence

1.) When it comes to Smith's views on, "wealth is used first for agriculture, second for manufacturing, and third for foreign commerce" I can see his point of view but I do not think it stays true today. He believes in this system where the country provides raw materials for the towns to provide advanced materials and give the country produce in return. However, in today's age, I do not think the countryside nor farmers have an advantage. They're jobs are often replaced with machines, many towns do not need them anymore, and when they do trade resources they do not profit as much as they used to. He satisfy's my curiosity because of how passionate he is about maintaining an agricultural based system and makes me wonder how the world would thrive if we focused on that. 

2.) Today, rather than investing in land, I believe the wealthy invest in businesses, restaurants, and the stock market to gain profit. With that, I believe they could consider something a secure investment if it seems like a safe purchase and one that gains a considerable amount of profit without causing detrimental costs. Doing this will ensure that the wealthy individual thrives off of their investment which increases their wealth similar to how farmers thrived back then when they gained more land. 

3.) As I have stated before, I believe that a thriving society should keep agriculture first however that is not the case today. Now, you can buy products and "crops" at stores which were made through factories. Everything is industrialized, farmers lose jobs due to technology, food is processed and tainted with chemicals, and animals ingest hormones which affect their health and pass onto our food. While I think technology can be beneficial and used in moderation, I believe we should revert more to agriculture and gain our resources more naturally.

Poverty vs. Affluence

1.) America is most definitely an affluent society, especially compared to other countries that are far from thriving. America now has so much so offer to other countries and in return receives a huge surplus of imports. While America receives a lot from other countries, we do not always spend that wisely. I believe we struggle to spend the money we have in the most useful ways. We spend it on things that may not be valuable or as reasonable as it could be. Another problem is that we spend money on those we favor when it could be used to help people or countries who could really benefit from it. Yes, America without a doubt has come a long way and has a lot to offer when it comes to money, fortune, influence, a powerful army, weapons, resources, and more but we are not always smart when it comes to giving. 

2.) As mentioned above, I believe America earns a lot of financial resources but does not effectively spend them or give them away. I also mentioned that the people who do receive that money or those resources often do not need it as much as others do. The amount of poverty and unemployment in America is horrible especially because it could be helped and avoided if people were aware and willing to help. I think the government should be more able in helping those get jobs regardless of their status, color, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. I believe people have many abilities that are being put to waste because they cannot find employment anywhere. Ultimately, I think the government has a responsibility in helping its people and that includes finding employment so those people and the government can make money. 

Marx vs. Carnegie

1.) "The history of society is a history of class struggles." I think this perfectly sums up Karl Marx's beliefs of the economic condition of society. Marx explained that the bourgeoisie was built upon merchants and has now become the present day middle class. The bourgeoisie has profited so much through traveling, marketing, achievement, and a lot of production. However, while this class profits wildly through all of these methods, it often results in deception and exploitation. The bourgeoisie has "swamped all other classes" by ridding of old traditions and methods and expects every other class to meet its standards. Ultimately, Marx believes that through exploitation, the bourgeoisie will lead to its own failure. On the other hand, the proletariat is the class that serves the bourgeoisie. They live to serve and work constantly to provide for themselves and their families. One big advantage of the proletariat is their broad geographic union. Ultimately, a revolution will occur which will lead to the inevitable overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. 

2.) In the bourgeoisie's eyes, mass production and improvement is a huge key to success. They will thrive off anything and anyone in order to achieve max profit and they expect everyone else to match them. I believe that the type of production and profit you made was how you achieved your identity or reputation. Obviously, you will be more well known for how much money you make and how you are able to earn that much.

3.) As Marx summarized at the end of his Manifesto, he believes communism will give the proletariat the chance to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The proletariat has a better chance of survival and working as a majority since they are a class of laborers and know what should be done. Due to the bourgeoisie's self interest and dependence on others, their ruin was inevitable. 

4.) I believe wealthy people, such as Bill Gates, should keep following in Carnegie's footsteps. I think people can get so caught up in their riches and wealth that they forget about those who are not as fortunate and struggling to get by. I think athletes especially get overpaid and those who protect us such as police, firefighters, teachers, and more should get better pay and opportunities. Ultimately, I think how you share your wealth is what defines you and Gates is doing a phenomenal job in doing so. 

Aristotle and Tocqueville

1.) If Aristotle saw this picture, I believe he would be quite fond of it because it demonstrates many of his ideals. Aristotle believed that effective governments were led by a leader, or leaders, who govern with a view to the common interest. In this painting, George Washington is clearly leading this meeting however he is looking out towards the room in an effort to understand where everyone is coming from. He also believed that voting is the people's right to express their rule, or opinion, and i believe that is why he would be on board with the constitution because that was their way of expressing their complaints and opinions. 

2.) When it comes to positions in society pictured in this painting, there is a leader or president (Washington), the public or the average in front, the cabinets behind the president, and the senators and congressmen sit directly in front of Washington. However, along with these positions and political aspects, there are also some social elements involved. Mutuality and skepticism are two that I found. I believe there is mutuality because all of these different people and classes are coming together to sign a petition for one common goal which was very important back then. I also think there is skepticism because while you can see people agreeing with the leader, there are some people in the back and in the crowd who don't look completely confident or supportive. 

3.) From looking at this painting, I think Aristotle would have assumed that the government being formed was a Democracy. His idea of a democracy was a society that believed in equality over anything else, and rid the city of a power that dominates through wealth or influence. Aristotle's idea of an oligarchy was a society that was the most interested in the wealthy. Clearly, the signing of the constitution was all about equality and being free from British power; and it did not matter what class you belonged in or how much money you earned, your opinion mattered most. 

4.) Many of the men who signed the constitution were of normal or middle class and did not have much power at the time. All of them ultimately wanted to be free of British rule and it took few people to take a stand and collaborate with all of these men to bring together a petition. After the events unfolded after the signing of the constitution, many of the men who led the way (Washington, Madison, Hamilton, etc.) were noticed and recognized and that is when they started making a difference.

5.) Tocqueville and Aristotle had many similar beliefs when it came to the government. Tocqueville agreed that all Americans can vote and that power can be distributed evenly and sometimes unevenly. While both men had similar opinions towards democracies, Aristotle was more broad with his research on governments. He mentioned oligarchy, tyranny, polity, and many other forms of governing styles. While Tocqueville agreed with Aristotle's views on democracy, he only focused on one style.  

MLK and Thoreau

Similar to Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr. was a firm believer in nonviolence. While protesting against the treatment of the black population, MLK was arrested and sent to the Birmingham Jail. After he was released he wrote a famous letter in regards to those who did not agree with his nonviolent protests. He is even passive in his letter by acknowledging the people's "genuine goodwill" and understanding their side and concern. Ultimately, the letter discusses the injustice and immorality occurring in Birmingham and in the world itself. He agrees that civil disobedience is a patriotic response to these situations and like many early Christians, MLK believes he must take the call to action.

I believe MLK Jr. read "Civil Disobedience" and most likely other works of Thoreau. MLK was very educated and knowledgeable about what he was speaking and protesting against. Therefore, it is very likely that he read "Civil Disobedience" and that gave him inspiration to rebel against the white man but keep things civil and nonviolent. Thoreau had a lot of similar ideas in that he believed to oppose and stand up against immorality and especially the corruption of the government. He did so by refusing to pay taxes, and MLK rebelled with peaceful protests. Ultimately, I believe MLK followed in Thoreau's footsteps by standing against the oppression brought by the government and the white population and following through with nonviolence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRIrqiwkdYs

Civil Disobedience

     
In today's society, there can be much corruption and disorder in the government. There are constant disagreements, feuds, and wars that occur between people and countries. Thoreau made note of this and explained that when the government rules by majority and not what is right, the other side is not being seen or heard and this leads to disaster. The other problem with this situation is that anyone who disagrees with how the government rules, is treated as an enemy. Instead, Thoreau believes that people should oppose the immoral wrongdoings and stand up for what they believe in, regardless of the consequences. Thoreau also made it clear that his idea of an effective government is one that governs the least. This means, not intervening in people's affairs and acting as a facilitator or mediator in those situations. This is a huge problem in today's government because, our president decides to intervene in foreign affairs even though past presidents have warned us not to. Ultimately, Thoreau's biggest value of a government, is to treat individuals equally and with respect and this is something that we still struggle with today.



The Mexican War occurred from 1846-1848 in a fight between the United States and Mexico. The war started after Polk was elected and there were many things that led up to the fight. The first cause was the western expansion of the United States and the idea of annexing Texas. While Texas was independent, the U.S. would not annex the state and Mexico also warned the states that if they tried to annex Texas at all that they would engage in war starting with border raids. The second cause was Polk ignoring Mexico's wishes and going ahead with the annexation of Texas. Polk occupied Texas and not only that, he tried to arrange a deal with Mexico where he would also occupy many states, (Oregan, New Mexico, California, etc.) that were already under Mexico's control. When Mexico rejected his proposition, Polk moved troops to a disputed zone that was technically a part of Mexico. He did not actually make any call to attack, but a Mexican cavalry attacked the U.S. anyway which finally began the war. The aftermath resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which granted the annexation of Texas and Mexico agreed to sell California and the rest of of its northern territory.

               

When it comes to Thoreau's view of the government, Polk and his presidential body disregarded what Thoreau said to do. When Polk brought up his idea to occupy Texas and other Mexican territory, the house was split and resulted in a majority rule, which Thoreau disagreed with. One party did not think Polk had reasonable cause to take territory from Mexico and did not think that Polk was thinking about how the relations between the two sides would be effected. The other party supported Polk's conquest and believed that he was wise to continue expansion. Ultimately, the U.S. went to war divided and even though we were victorious, there were still tensions between Mexico and the U.S.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHO680fUhAQ

A blast From Past Governments

Rousseau said, "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." He believed in liberty and that men should not have to give up their freedom or will. If he were here today, I believe he would approve of a democratic government. In this type of government, everyone would have the freedom to speak their minds, make decisions and laws together, and there would be no authoritative figure holding power over anyone. Everyone would be equal and free to make their own choices which was a big thing Rousseau believed in. In today's society, very few countries still believe in a direct democracy and many of those countries are in Scandinavia. I think this type of government should be implemented in many other places but, a lot of countries prefer to stick to republics and monarchies.

            

Machiavelli was a firm believer in doing whatever it took to reach the best end goal. He said that the means always matter but the ends do not necessarily justify them. However, he thought that even if they were not justifiable, it was still worth it to accept their consequences in order to achieve the end goal. A similar situation occurred when Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. This was created so that people could voice their arguments towards the British Crown and form a "justified revolution" as Thomas Jefferson explained it. I believe this is very similar to what Machiavelli said about means and ends. Jefferson led people to defy the British Crown and fight for what they believe in. People were killed, imprisoned, and punish for doing so but even then, it was worth it for the end goal---independence, just like Machiavelli said. I personally believe that it is important to fight for what you believe in, even if it leads to very serious consequences. Therefore i think independence is one of the most important things to fight for because that is your freedom, your rights, and everything you stand for. Ultimately, I believe Jefferson knew what he was doing in that the end goal was had more importance than the consequences and he would have definitely followed in Machiavelli's footsteps and achieved the ends no matter what the means were.

Lao-tzu vs. Machavelli

Lao Tzu was a Chinese philosopher who was also known as the "Father of Taoism." He had many ideals and views but his main focus was that the greatest good is peace. He believed in flowing and effortless action, also known as Wu Wei. He did not feel the need to take control of things nor gain power but instead to let life play out. He also was a strong advocate on nonviolence and not forcing people to do things against their will. Overall, he had a very positive outlook on life and even in the evil, and trying times, he always found the goodness in them.

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian advisor and theorist who believed that politicians who lie and are considered bad are actually good politicians. He argued that the most important way to be a good leader was to defend and bring honor to the state, even if that meant being unfair or showing cruelty. He very strongly agreed with realism and that effectiveness was key. Wishing for a future outcome was not ideal and taking action was an important way to ensure success in the state. While Machiavelli was not against cruel and violent actions, he made sure to not take away his people's property or families because that would only causes hatred. Ultimately, Machiavelli would believe in more cruel and forceful ideals that war was a major concern.

When It came to the purpose of the government and work of the state, Lao Tzu's beliefs minimized the state's power. He did not want the state to have the power of oppressing the people. He promoted freedom of the individual and thought the people should have free will. Machiavelli on the other hand said the opposite and thought that authority and power are equal. Therefore there was more individuality because whoever was deemed more powerful was determined to lead the people. When it came to the leader's standpoint, Lao Tzu thought that they should not take control of the people and while providing them with what they need, keeping them unaware would promise a successful government. Machiavelli is quite opposite of Lao Tzu in that he believed in more pragmatic and brief ideas. He believed that the leader, or the prince, should be concerned about war and discipline rather than showing generosity and mercy. He thought that if a leader were to display the characteristics of Lao Tzu's type of leader, there would be chaos and disorder. Ultimately, Lao Tzu and Tao-te Ching focused on a universal ruler and what would result from inaction on the leader's part. Machiavelli was more by-the-book and had a strict set of rules and objectives that he thought his leader should follow.