Renaissance v. Galileo

I find it very interesting that the term renaissance is defined as re-brith, when in the case of Galileo it seems to stepped backwards. By the end of the "dark ages" there was a great amount of free thinking going on, which lead to advances in, among other things, science. Yet dispite this thinking outside the box, along comes Galileo with his ideas on the make up of the universe and everyone puts the brakes on and condemns him. Do you fault the guy for denouncing it all? I don't know. We had already lost a couple of intelligent men who wouldn't denounce their way of thinking. Who knows what might have been gained if they had lived longer. There is a fine line between being a martyr and strategically waiting to fight another day. Who's to say how much we might have been set back if Galileo had refused to denounce this beliefs and was killed. And thank goodness the seeds of his thinking had already been firmly planted before he was forced to denounce his beliefs.

Lord Gaspard de Coligny

1. 1124 words not counting the family tree diagram or memory comments 2. I searched the term Coligny 3. The articled was titled Gaspard de Coligny 4. There was no disambiguation link 5. There have been approximately 500 changes 6. The first change was made September 7, 2003 7. The last, November 22, 2008 8. There were approximately 56 external links 9. There were 10 references to additional reading I went looking for more information about Lord Goligny after reading the St. Bartholomew Massacre. The assigned reading gave no background and I unclear why this person was sought out specifically and murdered. The article itself was helpful, but not interesting. It gave the very dry details of his "growing up", you know, who his parents were, where he lived, who he married, what he did for a living, but it gave no real insight to why he chose the religion he did, what he did that made him a leader of significance, and why the Queen may have encouraged his death, other than he was a protestant leader and she was staunch catholic. Maybe this lack of detail is just the way history was recorded, the bare minimum, or what was one person's inpretation of relevant information, but I'd like more humanistic details.

Forced control equals chaos

I've read this week's reading twice and still come off thinking, this was the same old same old. Power was constantly changing hands based on who could mustar the most strentgh at any one time. But the followers did not seem loyal. Take Cromwell. Although he "ruled" for quit a while, it would seem that he was supported out of fear, not by loyalty of commonality in belief. As soon as he died and his son took over, things immediately began to change again. The people of parlament who first thought him their savior jumped at the chance to regain power once he had passed on. I do not believe James I, Charles I, or even Cromwell acted on a desire strength their country through peace, but instead were simply seeking power or to get their way. Charles the II and Queen Elizabeth on the other hand recognized this and tried at least on the surface to compromise with the members of parlament and to show their subjects, whatever their religious preference, at least tolerance. I admired Queen Elizabeth's pep talk to her troups and the showing of her commitment to her country. If you talk the time to read a little about her life, she did much to put the well being of her country before herself. And her country thrived.

We choose who we are

"Christian faith has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is." I had to read Luther's writing a couple of times to put this statement, along with his comment on things effecting the physical body but having no bearing on the soul, and his statement about freedom and duty all together. But he is so right. There are examples throughout history of people who suffered much physically but would not alter they conviction. Aristole we read about early. Another example is Joan of Arc. I've become a great admire of who she was and what she did. And I think she fits Luther's ideas of Christianity not being easy, a Christian man being the most fee but also the most duty bound. Christianity not an easy thing. In our reading alone we should be able to recognize that following a conviction is not an easy thing. Many many people were persecuted for their religious beliefs. Such was so at the time of Christ. I've aready mentioned Joan of Arc. The Jews. The Mormons. The Quakers. These persecutions included being driven from the homes, torture in hopes of a recant of their beliefs, and often time death. Freedom: Many might ask, how is there freedom in such persecution. I believe, from personal experience, that when we follow our convictions there is freedom in not having to worry about what decisions we are going to make. By having a conviction many decisions were made before the need arises. Take for example, I decided many years ago that I would not drink alcohol. My basis doesn't matter. So when approached about it as a teenager, I found no difficulting in saying no. I didn't have to worry or stress about what the other person might think of me or "what should I do" sort of thing. It provided a great freedom and peace. And although a choice about alcohol may seem insignifant to some, it definitely wasn't life threating, although it does remove the chance of killing myself or someone else because I was drinking and driving, the same principle applies. When I am convicted to an idea or principle, freedom from distracting choices or alternative ideas is inherent. Duty to others: Someone who professes Christianity becomes duty bound to his fellow being. You know, the golden rule sort of things. If I believe you are my brothers and sisters under God, then I am duty bound to treat you a certain way and to protect to from others who would treat you otherwise. It makes me be a better and involved person in every aspect of my life. A better parent, a better neighbor, and thus a better citizen. So while from last week's reading I was disappointed that Luther's enthusiam for his beliefs lead him to do some things I don't believe were in line with the very beliefs he professed, we are all human and all have our failings, he did have it right.

Doomed To Repeat

"Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it." For being such a famous saying, people sure haven't paid much attention to it. With the exception of the new ideas being religiously based instead of politically, does this all sound a little too familiar. I don't quite like your way of thinking, so I'm going to tweak it a little, and in the end, if you don't like it and adhere to it, I'm going to persecute and likely kill you. This way of thinking is how we started the course, in early Rome, and more that 2000 years later, we're still reading the same thing. And the really sad thing, 500 years later, it's still going on. Not necessary the killing part, but even here in the good old USA we persecute each other through words and actions because of a difference in beliefs, religious or political. This whole election process has shown us that. Personally, I'm greatful for new ideas. What wonderful discoveries we would have missed without them. But why do some people carry them so far? I only knew of little of the Martin Luther reform and respected what he did. But after this weeks reading, I'd have to say I waiver a little. The same with John Calvin. While I agree with some of each of their thinking, both seemed to have carried it too far. Which I feel is a hypocracy of anyone who claims a belief in God. If we believe that faith and good works is what Christ taught, how can we in the name of religion persecute and kill each other? And yet they did, and we do. The number of people who died from the black plague was mind boggling, but the number of people killed in the name of religious is unfathumable. Hundreds here, thousands there, leaders, followers, and everyone in between. I don't deny the good that has come from it. We have a country founded on religous freedom, with many different religious that all have some foundation based on these reformations. But if we don't also see falicies we have learned nothing. Remember, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. We mustvbe more tolerant in allowing people to worship how, where, and what they may. We must quit getting offended so easily. We must lose the thinking that my way is the only way. And although church and state must stay seperate, they can work side by side in nurturing tolerance and protection.

The Blessed Past

I throughly enjoyed this weeks reading and would like to tie the readings about the black plague to that of the universities. As a college student I loved learning about the origin of such and the thoughts of those who created them and defended them. If people of this time were not so eager to learn about the world around them, we may have lost the lessons from the Black plague. Iaving lost so much, and with some people looking for someone or something to blame, i.e. God or the jews, or just being mentalling and emotionally spent by the thought it was the end of the world, if the wheels of learning had not been so far into rotation, the black plague may have been even a greater blow. Thank goodness great minds like Newton's had already been developed and dispite all, were still anxious to move on. And with all those who took the time to learn about medicine, and survived the plague, probably gave a base, no matter how small, for the cure we have now. I guess that's why I loved the quote by John of Salisbury, at the beginning of the 12th Century Renaissance article. HOW TRUE!!! I shared it with my husband and we both thought members of our government should be read it. All that we have, all that we are, and that we are currently becoming, is all because of those before us. We are not a generation of geniuses. We are decendents of innovative, courageous, open-minded people, who loved to learn and sought for a better live for themselves and their children. Us. And we have it. THANK YOU to all of you who have sacrificed much to make life better.

Edward the Confessor

This article gives a little more detail of Edward the Confessor. After this week’s reading I had concluded the Edward was a gentler person, not at all like William the Conqueror. However, upon reading the article, I realized that like most men, especially those who were or sought to be king, he was capable of murder and very involved in warfare. He was described as a tough warrior fighting in “fierce urban warfare.” He attempted and failed to kill his brother Harold Harefoot with the help of his brother Alfred. Edward fled, but Alfred was caught and blinded, and died shortly thereafter. In our reading it states that Edward named William the Conqueror as heir to his throne, this fact appears to be disputed. This article states William supplanted Edward’s successors. Despite the turmoil that surrounding his throne, Edward was said to be popular and his reign was filled with peace and prosperity. 1. 2,177 2. The term searched was “Edward the Confessor” and the article it came up with is entitled, “Edward the Confessor”. 3. There is no disambiguation link. 4. Arguments range from reason for his sainthood, to if he was an albino, to the proper citing of his title. There was no real discussion of changes made. 5. First change was April 25, 2004 and the last was September 15, 2008. 6. Five external links 7. One reference 8. Two further reading I thought the article was a well rounded article in providing relatively unbiased information about Edward the Confessor. It is very clear that some of the circumstances surrounding the successor to his throne and why he was childless are in dispute, and I felt the article made this very clear. Additionally, while the discussion page did have a little bantering, it did not appear that unsubstantiated or person preference changes were made to the article. It was nice to see it kept as factual as it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Confessor 10/20/08

William the Conqueror

It is amazing to me how quickly a person of such great impact can be forgotten so quickly. I enjoyed reading about William the Conqueror. He was definitely a very smart individual who did not let greed or vengence get in the way of making smart decisions. Although I do not think he was a fair or grateful to those who served him as was Augustus, he did not foolishly make enemies by denying them some reward. While Augustus earned the loyalty of those around him, it was more like William bought it or secured it through intimidation. Knowing this he was very shrewd in what he gave people, guarding well again any likely rebellion against him. You have to give him credit for his shrewdness in protecting his land and patience in obtaining the land. But then again I guess you'd have to in order to survive. Despite all his intelligence and grateness, I would sumise from his death that he never had respect. Again, a big difference between him and Augustus. I am dumb founded at the never-ending fighting we have read about. I've been reminded on occassion of how many wars American has been involved in the century alone. WWI, WWI, the Korean War, Vietam, Desert Storm, Afganistan, etc. But it was not better, if not worse for these people. They fought for centuries to gain land, to keep land, to avenge family, to claim inheritance, to change religious belief, and on and on and on. It a wonder sometimes that we have so much beautiful poetry, music, and architecture from a world so full of bloodshed and hatred. Thank goodness for the optimist. And may be all be realist in learning from the past.

Self v. Others

In reading about the rise of Catholicism and Muslim it reminds me of the early 1800's here in the United States. A time of religions uprising. A time when man good people were trying to improve themselves and the circumstances around them. A time of personal discovery and inlightenment. A time where many took the same ideas of humanity and interpreted them differently to fulfill their own understanding of what is good and right. In the reading of The Rise of Monasticim, Anthony, Pachomius, Basil and Martin, all esstentially started with the same foundation, but changed it to meet their own perspective of how things should be done. Anthony believing in total isolation to obtain personal revelation and understanding. Pachomius understanding the benefits of being self reliant while searching for the relevation and understanding. Basil saw beyond even those and recognized the benefits of working together for a common goal and learning from each other experienses, revelations, and understanding. All different, and yet each of these were based on self improvement and inlightenment. While these men were no doubt an inspiration to many around them, I do not believe their impact was as far reading as Martin's. Martin saw beyond himself to the needs those around him. By sharing both his temporal and spiritual resources, he improved not only his own world but the world of many others. Unfortuantely, like many others who fill their lives with serving others, he was thrust into a position of leadership and even fame. Likely taking him away from the simplicity of helping and teaching the individual, and thus limited even greater influence. For these reasons, I would have to say that if I were looking at joining a religious sect at this time I would probably have to go with Franciscan. I like its simplicity: - having only what you need so you do not develope pride. - speaking kindly when traveling (gentle, peaceful and unassuming) - taking no thought for money beyond your basic needs and those around you - working and not being idle - caring for the sick Last but not least, "be careful not to become angrey and upset. . ., for anger and perturbation in oneself or others impedes love."

The Amazing August

We have read about a lot of "leaders" in the Roman Republic/Empire over the last three weeks, but none have impressed me as Octavian/Augustus has. Especially if you think of the examples of the so called leaders arounds him. Many of them brilliant in their own right, but with few exception of all them greedy for either or wealth. Tiberius being an exception. But Octavian, despite what seems to be a Roman tradition of avenging your family for the wrongs against them, even at a young impressionable age, he was willing to go after what was rightfully his, but violence was not the first thing he turned to. I was amazed that despite all he knew about Antony he would set aside his personal feelings for an amicable resolution. Not always for the sake of peace, he knew the value of biding his time while he gained knowledge, experience, or support, whichever he lacked at that given moment. But he knew when it was time to step forward. How hard it must have been to watch his sister being treated the way she was by Antony, but he waited until the time was right to defend his sister and the Rome he loved. I was also impressed that despite the environment of greed and power and revenge he grew up in, he was able to conquer lands/people, and gain great wealth, without it going to his head. He remained humble. Giving to the people what he needed yet holding back what he needed to secure his position. He didn't squander, yet gave freely. He enhanced without pomp and parade. Brilliant. And yet the article several times referred to Augustus as not particularly brilliant, but instead surrounded himself with brilliant people. I would have to disagree. Just the fact that he understood the value of surrounding himself with brilliant people was in and of itself brilliant. He knew he didn't know it all, couldn't know it all, and couldn't do it all. He did know and understanding the need to preserve the appearance of the Republic to satisfy the people loyal to the old way of life (including himself), while recognizing the need to progress. He completely understood the tragedies of the past leadership and the unjust influence and coercion. He knew he needed to some how protect the leadership against such further tragedies. He just didn't know how. He understood how easily man could be corrupted. But now how ensure against it. His inability to come up with a timely solution eventually, and rather quickly, destroyed the Roman he tried so hard to create and protect.

The roman sense of duty is amazing to me. After reading the first section of reading "The Roman Kingdom" I did a little follow up reading into the Rape of Lucretia. Why? Well over the last couple of months I have been reading a historical fiction serious about the Roman oppession of the Jews shortly before and including the ministry of Christ. The author has gone to great detail about the history of both the Romans and the Jews. Drawing from the Roman side he talks about the "familia," the role of the father, the wife, and the children, and how strongly the felt about their duty. He relates the story of a husband that because of certain acts was required to commit suicide. The husband was struggling with this, so his wife, being the proper roman wife, showed him the way. Yep, she stabbed herself, and before dieing, told her husband basically "see, that wasn't so bad." I apologize for not having the story reference readily available, it is a three book series, and I have not recrossed the reference at this point. But you can see that same duty in the reading with the rape of Lucretia and how she killed herself after laying it out for the men what must be done to satisfy duty and honor and how each of those men immediately took up that challenge. I'm sure it was that same sense of duty that caused them to conquer neighboring lands for the sole purpose of maintaining security for their familes and their government. Unfortunately, the desire for power and greed gets to the best of us, and what started out as a somewhat understandable conquest turned into such lingering turmoil and blood shed.

Wikipedia Article - Spartacus

I knew very little of Spartacus, other than it was a movie about some guy. I have hear the phrase “I am Spartacus” but never knew what it meant. So when I came across the “war of Spartacus” in our reading I decided to follow up on it. I must say, I really know little more now than I did then. The article has conflicting information. No one is really quite sure where Spartacus came from. Was he Greek or was he Thracian? He was apparently once a Roman soldier, but from why? There is no doubt he was a slave. There is no doubt he kept the armies of Roman at bay for quite some time. There is controversy over whether it was his intention to fight and plunder as much as they did or if he acted upon the wishes of the hosts that followed him. One thing is for sure. He is viewed as a hero. As a survivor. An inspiration to many in whatever struggles they are experiencing. However, not everyone we make a hero truly desires the title, and it would be nice to find some information that I could be sure was accurate and complete. The article was 1193 words long. The terms I originally googled were War of Spartacus - the result, Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus#References The actual title of the article “Spartacus” The disambiguation link referenced the original of the name Spartacus, films, musicals, and novels based on the story of Spartacus. The discussion link spent a great deal of time on Spartacus’ origin. There is mention of a few insignificant items like grammar usage, video games, and the meaning of the phrase “I am Spartacus.” But then returns to the argument of his origin and the changing of the article without factual backup. The first change was made to the article in September 8, 2008, with the last change on December 19, 2002 The total number of edits 147 There are 13 references, 3 external links Although on the discussion there was mention of “further reading” admittedly I could not find no such information All in all, no I would not recommend this reading. I felt it was generally uninformative and confusing.

Tenacity

If I could use only word to describe the Greeks it would have to be tenancious. Starting with their politics, they just kept trying and trying. Most of the time building on what they had, sometimes stepping back and starting over, but always desiring to improve and conquer. The same could be true about their miliary efforts. Despite repeated defeats and set backs, they continued to try and try and try. Sometime moving forward, sometimes stepping back to start again. And in the end, they did not come out the winner, but they still kept going. Never bowing their heads and giving up, but instead continuing to look for new ideas. And thus dawned the age of philosophical thinking. Again, ever revamping. Sometimes moving forward and sometimes stepping back, but never giving up. Propelling their influence into modern day. But what have we done with their example? Forward thinking, I think we're giving up on it. We speaking of being opened minded and yet we are slowing drawing the walls in around us with all that is "politically correct." We claim freedom of speach, and yet stifle that right with "that's not politically correct." If a thought reaps an action, then are in fact stifling our thoughts when we limit what we say and how we say it. Don't get me wrong. I very much believe in respect others, their beliefs, their cultures, etc. But when I don't even know how to properly address another ethnic group for fear of using the wrong word or phrase and offending someone, how much freedom of speech, thought, and expression are we allowing. Will we soon be like those who condemned Socrates? On the flip side, if we were in Socrates shoes, would be confident enough in our thoughts to defend them to the death? What have we done with the lessons we have learned from the Greeks?

I think every "citizen" of a democratic nation should read "The Athenian Origins if Direct Democracy." As Aristotle said, "He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin . . . will obtain the clearest of view of them." Admittedly I am not as politically involved as I should be, too busy is my lame excuse, but I thoroughly enjoyed "The Athenian Origins if Direct Democracy." I can't imagine what it would be like if every citizen was “intimately and directly involved” in our political, judicial and military systems. Or, having a government representative from a geographical area small enough that everyone really knew him/her. Such an intimate society would create a balance between justice and mercy because each person would naturally emphasize with one another and yet completely understand the need of fulfilling one's duties in order to keep order. From a political stand point, what an opportunity it would create. We'd have greater representation "of the people, by the people" if we had one representative for every 5,000 citizens (women included of course). I would think we'd defini9tely trust our leadership more than we do presently. Let's make it personal. Guessing the size of Meridian to be about 36,000 they would have roughly seven representatives. If these representatives met in a "council" with representatives from other communities, and a representative from this group was chosen for every 50 initial representatives, was chosen to represent the first council in a "higher" council, how much better would the wishes of the people be heard. Like the citizens of Greece, how much better informed and involved would we as citizens be. I would have to say though that's all I admire about the Spartan city/state. The Athens city/state makes much more sense to me. It is important that our societies are ever learning, growing, and improving on what we have. Over all the Athenians understood that, each new leader attempting to improve on what they already had. Beginning with Solon. Although is methods were not perfect I believed he put Athens on the right path. Sometimes we have to start over in order to move forward. By forgiving the agricultural debt he did that. I found it interesting that his system excluded people who did not own productive land, i.e. merchants, when he himself was a merchant and considered himself poor. e-classics.com/solon.htm Although our reading portrays Pisistratus as a tyrant, it is said Pisistratus was a "popular ruler, reducing taxes, helping the poor and disabled, united Attics, and beautifying Athens with new buildings." in2greece.com/english/historymyth/history/ancient/pisistratus.htm His ability to increase imports financed waterpipes to the city, he is believed to have aided in the first written versions of Homer's work, and built the first library in Athens. in2greece.com/english/historymyth/history/ancient/pisistratus.htm He built on Solon's idea that a man could work his way up to achieve political leadership. (this is a contradiction in the reading. "He [Solon] ...passed constitutional reforms ...based on their annual agricultural production rather than birth." It is later stated that Solon based his ability to hold political office on birth.) Finally, even Pericles, while removing Pisistratus' son from power and moving Athens to a more aristocratic state, kept some of Solon's and Pisistratus' political base and continued to build Athens reputation for being the educational center. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles And although the Spartans eventually ended Athenian democracy, its influence is definitely seem today.