Unfortunately the internet has given me a distorted idea of poetry. Instead of imagining long verses about nature and hard work I imagine cheap internet graphics and pink bolded letters saying the same thing as the poem did before it just in a different order. I have always enjoyed poetry, what I would call real poetry the type of poems that walk of the page and burn inside your mind. That is what impressed me the most with the georgic poem. The part about all of the animals, crops, and people dying made me cringe. This might not be the lasting effect of this poem.
While I was thinking of how this poem influenced me personally, I thought about how this poem has touched hundreds of people. Not only was it read during it’s time, but it is still read today. I found it interesting when Kim Johnson said that we still read it because we are intrigued by the conflict of idea in it. I wondered if this is so. Seeing as I have never actually read full poem I do not feel like I have a valid opinion in this debate, but from what I was able to gather during the lecture this does seem to be a dominating attraction to the poem.
The main idea was that we are all run by fate, and that we are walking down a road of life already laid out for us. One the other hand Virgil avidly states that the work be done “himself”, and that you might have to work to fulfill fate. This section reminded me of Voltaire’s Candide and the ending were Cadide goes and cultivates his garden. Was it fate driving him through all of his experiences, and did he contradict fate when he stopped and “cultivated his garden” instead of I don’t know “going with the flow.” Personally I am not a believer in fate, but in work. Yet, I think that exploring the ideal of fate controlling my life is just as Virgilian explains it, contradictory in every way. How could we be controlled by fate if we still have the choice to do something, but are the choices we make already anticipated. If our choices are already anticipated then why in the world do we worry about making choices so much?
I am encouraged to read this poem because I want to see for myself what Virgil’s contradictory opinion is.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
spanish story
Antes de que el mundo tiene color todos los animales hacían de los árboles. El mundo cubría en árboles gigantescos. Estos árboles se crecían altos. El árbol alcanzó la cumbre del cielo, y el árbol murió. Cuando el árbol murió todas las ramas fuertes largas y hojas grandes habían se formado un montículo suciedad de el el árbol murió. De suciedad un animal avanzarían.
Todos los animales trabajaron para plantar más árboles. Ellos excavarían un agujero gigantesco en la tierra y pusieron una rama de un árbol, hojas del otro árbol, y corteza de otro árbol en el agujero. Después de que ellos cubrieron el agujero ellos dejan a la lluvia y luz ayudaban el árbol se crecía. En tiempo un árbol pequeño comenzaría a crecer del agujero. Finalmente el árbol crecería tanto que esto tocó las cumbres del cielo y un animal único surgiría del montículo de el árbol murió.
Ninguno de los animales eran mismo. Algunos animales tenían cuatro piernas. Otros animales tenían ocho ojos. Animales tenían piel, colas, patas, cascos, y unos animales con alas. Aunque todos los animales eran diferentes. Un día una animal sin piernas, sin patas, o sin alas surgió de un árbol. Porque ella no tenía piernas, no tenía patas, o no tenía alas ella no ayudaba plantar los árboles. Otros animales llama ban el animal la serpiente, porque esto no podría.
La serpiente era muy triste porque ella no tenía piernas, no tenía patas, y no tenía alas. Mientras ella se deslizaba ella miró un el arbor. Ella sacó el árbol con toda su fuerza. Ella apretó el tronco de árbol con todas fuerza. El árbol abrió, y una fuente de verde preposició el árbol abrió. La serpiente cubría en verde de la fuente preposició el árbol abrió. Ella fue rápidamente. Todos los lugares la serpiente fue ella dejó un rastro de verde.
Todos los animales trabajaron para plantar más árboles. Ellos excavarían un agujero gigantesco en la tierra y pusieron una rama de un árbol, hojas del otro árbol, y corteza de otro árbol en el agujero. Después de que ellos cubrieron el agujero ellos dejan a la lluvia y luz ayudaban el árbol se crecía. En tiempo un árbol pequeño comenzaría a crecer del agujero. Finalmente el árbol crecería tanto que esto tocó las cumbres del cielo y un animal único surgiría del montículo de el árbol murió.
Ninguno de los animales eran mismo. Algunos animales tenían cuatro piernas. Otros animales tenían ocho ojos. Animales tenían piel, colas, patas, cascos, y unos animales con alas. Aunque todos los animales eran diferentes. Un día una animal sin piernas, sin patas, o sin alas surgió de un árbol. Porque ella no tenía piernas, no tenía patas, o no tenía alas ella no ayudaba plantar los árboles. Otros animales llama ban el animal la serpiente, porque esto no podría.
La serpiente era muy triste porque ella no tenía piernas, no tenía patas, y no tenía alas. Mientras ella se deslizaba ella miró un el arbor. Ella sacó el árbol con toda su fuerza. Ella apretó el tronco de árbol con todas fuerza. El árbol abrió, y una fuente de verde preposició el árbol abrió. La serpiente cubría en verde de la fuente preposició el árbol abrió. Ella fue rápidamente. Todos los lugares la serpiente fue ella dejó un rastro de verde.
soc
Joy Marie Prior; February 11, 2010; Sociology 112H; Section 04; Question number 1
When I first started thinking about what has changed social inequality throughout the ages I was thinking that skill level is one of the determining factors of social inequality. For example a hunter gather society values hunters, farming societies value farmers, industrial societies value industrial worker, and the postindustrial generation values (I think) professionals. Would providing everyone with a the right marketable skill or talent close the social gap. What really got my brain thinking in this chapter was on page 73 when the author mentions Hobbes and how “he believed that civilization was “nasty, brutish, and short.” This has often described our carton image of the “caveman,” who himself is nasty, brutish and short, and lives just such a life.” I like to think a more highly of the “caveman” age, and I imagine them working together, hunting together, and cooking together.
There were skills specific to that society that created social status, such as being a talented hunter would give you more voice. I was thinking about talents and inequality while I read chapter 3, because I am not sure if our talents can really make us all equal. There is obviously inequality around the world just in the few examples the author mentions: his own German ancestors, racial differences, language, and so on. I was mainly thinking about inequality in talents though. Particularly how different talents and skills have determined the upper class throughout the ages.
One of the passages that stuck out to me in the book Worlds Apart Social Inequalities in a Global Economy on page 62 “You may also know people who “have it made” and wonder how they got to where they are. If you ask them, most will decline to claim special talents or brilliance; instead, they’re likely to say something about diligence and hard work.” Could it be possible that some people naturally have the talents diligence and hard worker? The idea that such things can be talents lead me back to the nature versus nurture debate, and if we are born hard workers or learn to be hard workers. If we could learn to be hardworking and hard work is the only talent that gets people to the top of society then wouldn’t everyone who is hardworking be successful
I was really concentrating on Hobbes while I read about how in our postindustrial economy talents like hard work and diligence really come in handy. I guess when is there a time in history when those talents not come in handy? So if hard work and diligence are appear throughout history why is it that I someone is hardworking, and diligent they don’t always make it. I think that simply giving people needed skills and talents for that society are not enough to cause equality. In my last class we discussed how in historical Japan the farmers were just under the highest class. It went Samurai, farmers, and then the artisans and merchants. This was because the people recognized that without the farmer there would be no food, and so they were put into an honored part of society. All the same the farmers lived under a crushing taxation and did not have much political influence. Although farmers were considered a level of honor in society there was a prevalent amount of social inequality.
Would providing everyone with the right marketable skill or talent close the create inequality. I don’t think so, because just as the skills and talents like hunting are not the needed skills today, and the needed skills for today are continually changing. I believe that one of the determining of inequality is that people who possess the needed skills for that society advance only as long as that is the modern skill needed. I don’t think that this is a new idea, but I believe it more and more.
When I first started thinking about what has changed social inequality throughout the ages I was thinking that skill level is one of the determining factors of social inequality. For example a hunter gather society values hunters, farming societies value farmers, industrial societies value industrial worker, and the postindustrial generation values (I think) professionals. Would providing everyone with a the right marketable skill or talent close the social gap. What really got my brain thinking in this chapter was on page 73 when the author mentions Hobbes and how “he believed that civilization was “nasty, brutish, and short.” This has often described our carton image of the “caveman,” who himself is nasty, brutish and short, and lives just such a life.” I like to think a more highly of the “caveman” age, and I imagine them working together, hunting together, and cooking together.
There were skills specific to that society that created social status, such as being a talented hunter would give you more voice. I was thinking about talents and inequality while I read chapter 3, because I am not sure if our talents can really make us all equal. There is obviously inequality around the world just in the few examples the author mentions: his own German ancestors, racial differences, language, and so on. I was mainly thinking about inequality in talents though. Particularly how different talents and skills have determined the upper class throughout the ages.
One of the passages that stuck out to me in the book Worlds Apart Social Inequalities in a Global Economy on page 62 “You may also know people who “have it made” and wonder how they got to where they are. If you ask them, most will decline to claim special talents or brilliance; instead, they’re likely to say something about diligence and hard work.” Could it be possible that some people naturally have the talents diligence and hard worker? The idea that such things can be talents lead me back to the nature versus nurture debate, and if we are born hard workers or learn to be hard workers. If we could learn to be hardworking and hard work is the only talent that gets people to the top of society then wouldn’t everyone who is hardworking be successful
I was really concentrating on Hobbes while I read about how in our postindustrial economy talents like hard work and diligence really come in handy. I guess when is there a time in history when those talents not come in handy? So if hard work and diligence are appear throughout history why is it that I someone is hardworking, and diligent they don’t always make it. I think that simply giving people needed skills and talents for that society are not enough to cause equality. In my last class we discussed how in historical Japan the farmers were just under the highest class. It went Samurai, farmers, and then the artisans and merchants. This was because the people recognized that without the farmer there would be no food, and so they were put into an honored part of society. All the same the farmers lived under a crushing taxation and did not have much political influence. Although farmers were considered a level of honor in society there was a prevalent amount of social inequality.
Would providing everyone with the right marketable skill or talent close the create inequality. I don’t think so, because just as the skills and talents like hunting are not the needed skills today, and the needed skills for today are continually changing. I believe that one of the determining of inequality is that people who possess the needed skills for that society advance only as long as that is the modern skill needed. I don’t think that this is a new idea, but I believe it more and more.
for real Book of Mormon
Religion 122H- Book of Mormon
Winter 2010
Clyde J. Williams
Joy Prior
Supplementary Reading
I read the first 201 pages of An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley.
1- Nephi learned to hunt in Jerusalem. There is more to Nephi hunting in the wilderness then him breaking his bow. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley I learned how much hunting was involved while Lehi’s family wondered through the desert. The book mentioned that Nephi is the only member of his family and Ishmales family mentioned having a metal bow. Hugh Nibley emphasizes how his brothers had wooden bows, and their wooden bows had lost their spring. His point was to show how the entire family knew how to use a bow. I realized that Nephi is the only one who has a more expensive and longer lasting metal bow. Lamen, Lamuel, Sam, and all of Ishmales children could have forgotten their more expensive metal bows when they fled out into the wilderness, possibly they lost their metal bows on their excursion, or maybe Nephi was the only one who had a metal bow in the family because back in Jerusalem he enjoyed hunting so much that buying a metal bow was worth it for him.
2- Hugh Nibley mentions how unique a hunter was to the Jewish culture, but that Nephi seems know not only how to hunt, but how to hunt well enough to provide for his entire extended family. I knew nothing about the Jewish culture, but according to An Approach to the Book of Mormon hunters were not very common in the city class. I had this immature imege of everyone living in a hunter gather lifestyle, but apparently that is not so. This realization helped to identify with how difficult it must have been to live in the desert, because they had lived in a city and enjoyed that lifestyle years of camping in the desert would be not only be long, but I am sure that there were lots of things that they all had to learn that their life in the city had never required them to know.
3- An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley emphasized that Lehi was an ambitious and hard working man before he began his journey into the wilderness. When I used to think of Lehi I imagined a wrinkled and hunched over man wrapped in stripped robes wondering through the desert with a knobby staff. Now, I don’t think that this description grasps the true character of Lehi. If I have ever wondered (which I doubt I have) about the life Lehi lived before “I Nephi…” I must not have wondered enough because in my mind he was locked into one age, the old and weathered age. Hugh Nibley points out that Lehi there is more to Lehi than just him being a father, and purposes that he was an educated traveling merchant.
4- Hugh Nibley supports this idea with support that it appears as if Lehi was familiar with the rout that his family was traveling on. Nibley mentions how nether Lamen or Lamuel complain of their father’s lack of direction. They complained rather about why they were leaving, and what they were leaving, but not once did they complain that their father was going to get them lost in the wilderness. If Lamen and Lamuel had faith in their fathers sense of direction that is saying something. Had Lehi traveled across the desert before? Did he have a map? Did they even have maps of the desert in those days? Or were there special markings throughout the desert that helped travels cross? How would Lehi know about the special desert markings? Well I guess I would have to know if there were special marking in the desert before I can ask how Lehi knew about them. So many questions about Lehi, and every time that I formed another question there seemed to be five hundred that branch of from it.
Winter 2010
Clyde J. Williams
Joy Prior
Supplementary Reading
I read the first 201 pages of An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley.
1- Nephi learned to hunt in Jerusalem. There is more to Nephi hunting in the wilderness then him breaking his bow. As I read An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley I learned how much hunting was involved while Lehi’s family wondered through the desert. The book mentioned that Nephi is the only member of his family and Ishmales family mentioned having a metal bow. Hugh Nibley emphasizes how his brothers had wooden bows, and their wooden bows had lost their spring. His point was to show how the entire family knew how to use a bow. I realized that Nephi is the only one who has a more expensive and longer lasting metal bow. Lamen, Lamuel, Sam, and all of Ishmales children could have forgotten their more expensive metal bows when they fled out into the wilderness, possibly they lost their metal bows on their excursion, or maybe Nephi was the only one who had a metal bow in the family because back in Jerusalem he enjoyed hunting so much that buying a metal bow was worth it for him.
2- Hugh Nibley mentions how unique a hunter was to the Jewish culture, but that Nephi seems know not only how to hunt, but how to hunt well enough to provide for his entire extended family. I knew nothing about the Jewish culture, but according to An Approach to the Book of Mormon hunters were not very common in the city class. I had this immature imege of everyone living in a hunter gather lifestyle, but apparently that is not so. This realization helped to identify with how difficult it must have been to live in the desert, because they had lived in a city and enjoyed that lifestyle years of camping in the desert would be not only be long, but I am sure that there were lots of things that they all had to learn that their life in the city had never required them to know.
3- An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley emphasized that Lehi was an ambitious and hard working man before he began his journey into the wilderness. When I used to think of Lehi I imagined a wrinkled and hunched over man wrapped in stripped robes wondering through the desert with a knobby staff. Now, I don’t think that this description grasps the true character of Lehi. If I have ever wondered (which I doubt I have) about the life Lehi lived before “I Nephi…” I must not have wondered enough because in my mind he was locked into one age, the old and weathered age. Hugh Nibley points out that Lehi there is more to Lehi than just him being a father, and purposes that he was an educated traveling merchant.
4- Hugh Nibley supports this idea with support that it appears as if Lehi was familiar with the rout that his family was traveling on. Nibley mentions how nether Lamen or Lamuel complain of their father’s lack of direction. They complained rather about why they were leaving, and what they were leaving, but not once did they complain that their father was going to get them lost in the wilderness. If Lamen and Lamuel had faith in their fathers sense of direction that is saying something. Had Lehi traveled across the desert before? Did he have a map? Did they even have maps of the desert in those days? Or were there special markings throughout the desert that helped travels cross? How would Lehi know about the special desert markings? Well I guess I would have to know if there were special marking in the desert before I can ask how Lehi knew about them. So many questions about Lehi, and every time that I formed another question there seemed to be five hundred that branch of from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)