"To what extent was I pulled into each movie as a participant rather than as an observer?"
In the Heat of the Night was by far much more engaging than To Kill a Mockingbird. It had an intense and fascinating appeal to it, with an intricate and complex storyline. One had the sense that they were an eye witness to the events taking place behind the screen. It was a controversial film, that dealt with social issues of racism and the Civil Rights Movement. The actors, Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger, each did a splendid and superb job of portraying their characters. The emotion and passion of their performances was undeniable. The movie weaves a fine web of a story, with diverse people and strange circumstances. It promoted the comradeship of the police badge between men, regardless of the color of their skin. Virgil Tibbs and Bill Gillespie disagreed on the methods for solving the murder of manufacturer, Phillip Colbert. Yet they were both determined to solve the mystery, and resolve the plot once and for all. Once they finally got over their initial pride, they were able to successfully decode the matter. Their joint efforts were used for good, in order to rid the town of lawlessness. Tibb's clever, able mind was keen on picking up details that police Chief Gillespie missed, in his carelessness. His strong,steady demeanor and reassuring presence were key
Friday, May 12, 2017
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Lesson 150 Week 30 Review
1. Who was John Wycliffe?
John Wycliff had many titles: philosopher, theologian, Bible translator, reformer, and Oxford seminary professor. He challenged the established role of the church, by rejection of indulgences. (Indulgences were a way to lessen the intensity of punishment due for sins). He also was a believer in predestination. Basically,this is the theory that God has decided ahead of time whether one will go to heaven or hell. It's not something that we can control, by making good or bad decisions in life. Regardless of what choices we make, ultimately the power is in the creator's hands. Iconoclasm was another hypothesis concocted by John Wycliff, and closely followed by his supporters. At the core, it's the concept that spiritual icons should be destroyed. Portraits or physical depictions of holy forms were unlawful, and fallacious. This was completely contrary to the Catholic's long-held system, of reverence and worship for such monuments. The Virgin Mary, for instance, has traditionally been portrayed as a goddess, to be esteemed among the highest. Statues and artistic renderings of her are classics and central to the Catholic faith. John, however shunned this notion, and was disliked as a result. Wycliff had many strange beliefs, that caused the Catholic church to be apprehensive and wary of the English priest.He regarded the clergy as stuck-up and conceited, and the parish ceremonies as extravagant. He paid no attention to the high position they held, but detested their cocky attitude and air. It was only natural then that they were wary of him. His viewpoints ran contrary to ancient tradition, and created conflict between himself and the church.
3.What was the Great Western Schism? and how it was resolved?
The Great Western Schism was a split or divorce occurring within the papality. Pope Gregory had died in 1378, and a new pope had to be chosen.There was a Roman mob that insisted on only having an Italian or Roman pope. They were adamant about their desires, and were appalled at the thought of a French pope overseeing matters. For the past ten years, there had been a pattern of French popes. The people were tired of this, and banged on the doors with axes to get their way. The college of cardinals noted the commotion the people were making, with great distress. The cardinals at last relented to the pressure and elected Bartolomeo Pregnano. It was the very least they could manage, to satisfy the demands of the riot. Bartolomeo may not have been Roman, but as an Italian would have to suffice. He adopted the name of Urban VI, and was recognized for his calm mentality. Alas, he would soon change and be subject to brutal, unexpected mood swings. Bartolomeo boycotted the church officials in his service, and even abused one by hitting him. The cardinals were curious and worried about what was taking place, behind closed doors. Once they discovered his incapabilities, they brought together a new conclave. They then elected a new pope, a Frenchmen dubbed Clement VIII. Urban only persisted in being a nuisance, when he wouldn't relinquish his hold. Clement had to dwell in Avignon as a make-shift home, while the situation was resolved. This turning point marked the start of the Great Western Schism. Soon countries in Europe began taking sides, some standing with Urban and others siding with Clement. The two popes tried to end the breach, by excommunicating each other. So great was the turmoil, that the bishops even added a new prayer to the mass. It asked that provision and grace be granted for "whoever was the pope"!
In 1409, the ecumenical council of Pisa was called. No conclusion was reached, because neither of the men would cede! The cardinals voted in yet a third pope, who Clement and Urban both reviled. The second council of Constance took place in 1414, when Pope Martin V was selected. At last, one of the popes left their position, while the other two ceased to appear.
The Great Western Schism highly impaired the integrity of the church, leaving it in shambles and disarray.
John Wycliff had many titles: philosopher, theologian, Bible translator, reformer, and Oxford seminary professor. He challenged the established role of the church, by rejection of indulgences. (Indulgences were a way to lessen the intensity of punishment due for sins). He also was a believer in predestination. Basically,this is the theory that God has decided ahead of time whether one will go to heaven or hell. It's not something that we can control, by making good or bad decisions in life. Regardless of what choices we make, ultimately the power is in the creator's hands. Iconoclasm was another hypothesis concocted by John Wycliff, and closely followed by his supporters. At the core, it's the concept that spiritual icons should be destroyed. Portraits or physical depictions of holy forms were unlawful, and fallacious. This was completely contrary to the Catholic's long-held system, of reverence and worship for such monuments. The Virgin Mary, for instance, has traditionally been portrayed as a goddess, to be esteemed among the highest. Statues and artistic renderings of her are classics and central to the Catholic faith. John, however shunned this notion, and was disliked as a result. Wycliff had many strange beliefs, that caused the Catholic church to be apprehensive and wary of the English priest.He regarded the clergy as stuck-up and conceited, and the parish ceremonies as extravagant. He paid no attention to the high position they held, but detested their cocky attitude and air. It was only natural then that they were wary of him. His viewpoints ran contrary to ancient tradition, and created conflict between himself and the church.
3.What was the Great Western Schism? and how it was resolved?
The Great Western Schism was a split or divorce occurring within the papality. Pope Gregory had died in 1378, and a new pope had to be chosen.There was a Roman mob that insisted on only having an Italian or Roman pope. They were adamant about their desires, and were appalled at the thought of a French pope overseeing matters. For the past ten years, there had been a pattern of French popes. The people were tired of this, and banged on the doors with axes to get their way. The college of cardinals noted the commotion the people were making, with great distress. The cardinals at last relented to the pressure and elected Bartolomeo Pregnano. It was the very least they could manage, to satisfy the demands of the riot. Bartolomeo may not have been Roman, but as an Italian would have to suffice. He adopted the name of Urban VI, and was recognized for his calm mentality. Alas, he would soon change and be subject to brutal, unexpected mood swings. Bartolomeo boycotted the church officials in his service, and even abused one by hitting him. The cardinals were curious and worried about what was taking place, behind closed doors. Once they discovered his incapabilities, they brought together a new conclave. They then elected a new pope, a Frenchmen dubbed Clement VIII. Urban only persisted in being a nuisance, when he wouldn't relinquish his hold. Clement had to dwell in Avignon as a make-shift home, while the situation was resolved. This turning point marked the start of the Great Western Schism. Soon countries in Europe began taking sides, some standing with Urban and others siding with Clement. The two popes tried to end the breach, by excommunicating each other. So great was the turmoil, that the bishops even added a new prayer to the mass. It asked that provision and grace be granted for "whoever was the pope"!
In 1409, the ecumenical council of Pisa was called. No conclusion was reached, because neither of the men would cede! The cardinals voted in yet a third pope, who Clement and Urban both reviled. The second council of Constance took place in 1414, when Pope Martin V was selected. At last, one of the popes left their position, while the other two ceased to appear.
The Great Western Schism highly impaired the integrity of the church, leaving it in shambles and disarray.
Monday, May 1, 2017
English, Week 145 Essay
"Compare and contrast the attitude of each movie regarding guns"
Shane portrays guns in a somewhat neutral light. The little boy, Joey finds them fascinating and is eager to master them. When a talented shooter begins work for his father, Joey is enthralled by him. His mother, Marian resents Shane's endeavors to teach the youngster his skills. She doesn't want her son to be influenced by what she considers evil. Joey's father, Jo Starrett, only uses his rifle for protection, if he absolutely has to. It's a matter of self-defense for him, not a necessity.Shane, however, always keeps his trusty pistol by his side. He understands Marian's concern, but also believes guns can be used for good. It depends on the character of the person using them.He demonstrates his talent by shooting a rock many feet away from him. The scene is a startling and mesmerizing part of the film, that sends chills up your spine. A combination of a deafening, ear-splitting sound, and the hazy smoke create a perfect effect. It ingrains a fear in viewers, reminding them how deadly and lethal guns are. They are certainly not a toy to be played with, or taken for granted by the inexperienced.Fatal injuries can occur if one isn't careful. Rikker, the notorious and hated cattle lord, Eventually Shane will protect Joey's father, by taking on Rikker himself. The threat to the settlers is ended, and they no longer have to worry about being driven from their land. Yet this couldn't have been accomplished without employing a gun. So, in this way, Shane uses his pistol not to harm, but to save lives.
High Noon shows a similar approach to the classic revolvers of the west. Marshall Will Kane's wife, Amy is strongly opposed to them. The energetic, promising couple has only just wed, and Will had sworn to quit the business. This is before an old criminal he'd convicted decided to return, and cause havoc.Amy is a committed Quaker and a peacemaker and believes killing isn't the answer to Will's problem. She is intent on convincing her husband guns aren't indispensable. She has witnessed first-hand the negative effects of guns, after It baffles her that he would stay to defend the cowardly people of their town, when he could easily flee. Cooper considers it to be his duty, to stay and face his old foe Frank Miller. If he must confront him alone, he will not cower into the shadows with fear. He will employ his gun if necessary to end the ordeal once and for all. The bravery of Kane is admirable, since he is not afraid of dying in the attempt. Even at the risk of losing his wife, he still prevails in pursuing the villain. Eventually Amy regrets her decision, and returns to her courageous husband. She decides to let go of her convictions, and remain by her partner's side. Amy is even bold enough to rescue him, by shooting the felon in the back! Her arrival is right in the nick of time, because Will is nearly killed. This is an astounding end and completely unexpected. High Noon concludes with a positive note, concerning guns as moral weapons.
Shane portrays guns in a somewhat neutral light. The little boy, Joey finds them fascinating and is eager to master them. When a talented shooter begins work for his father, Joey is enthralled by him. His mother, Marian resents Shane's endeavors to teach the youngster his skills. She doesn't want her son to be influenced by what she considers evil. Joey's father, Jo Starrett, only uses his rifle for protection, if he absolutely has to. It's a matter of self-defense for him, not a necessity.Shane, however, always keeps his trusty pistol by his side. He understands Marian's concern, but also believes guns can be used for good. It depends on the character of the person using them.He demonstrates his talent by shooting a rock many feet away from him. The scene is a startling and mesmerizing part of the film, that sends chills up your spine. A combination of a deafening, ear-splitting sound, and the hazy smoke create a perfect effect. It ingrains a fear in viewers, reminding them how deadly and lethal guns are. They are certainly not a toy to be played with, or taken for granted by the inexperienced.Fatal injuries can occur if one isn't careful. Rikker, the notorious and hated cattle lord, Eventually Shane will protect Joey's father, by taking on Rikker himself. The threat to the settlers is ended, and they no longer have to worry about being driven from their land. Yet this couldn't have been accomplished without employing a gun. So, in this way, Shane uses his pistol not to harm, but to save lives.
High Noon shows a similar approach to the classic revolvers of the west. Marshall Will Kane's wife, Amy is strongly opposed to them. The energetic, promising couple has only just wed, and Will had sworn to quit the business. This is before an old criminal he'd convicted decided to return, and cause havoc.Amy is a committed Quaker and a peacemaker and believes killing isn't the answer to Will's problem. She is intent on convincing her husband guns aren't indispensable. She has witnessed first-hand the negative effects of guns, after It baffles her that he would stay to defend the cowardly people of their town, when he could easily flee. Cooper considers it to be his duty, to stay and face his old foe Frank Miller. If he must confront him alone, he will not cower into the shadows with fear. He will employ his gun if necessary to end the ordeal once and for all. The bravery of Kane is admirable, since he is not afraid of dying in the attempt. Even at the risk of losing his wife, he still prevails in pursuing the villain. Eventually Amy regrets her decision, and returns to her courageous husband. She decides to let go of her convictions, and remain by her partner's side. Amy is even bold enough to rescue him, by shooting the felon in the back! Her arrival is right in the nick of time, because Will is nearly killed. This is an astounding end and completely unexpected. High Noon concludes with a positive note, concerning guns as moral weapons.
Friday, April 28, 2017
1. What was the significance of the conflict between Phillip IV and Boniface VIII?
The dissension between Phillip and Boniface was important, as it signified a large decrease in the apostolic influence. The controversy between the two began when Phillip unlawfully taxed the clergy, in order to reap credit for war with England. According to tradition, it wasn't permissible for the king to do so, without the compliance of the pope.Phillip completely ignored this conventional guideline,plunging ahead on his own accord.Boniface was quick to counter this outrageous act with Clericis Laicos, a document instating the consequences. It read that kings who followed such actions would be excommunicated, their kingdoms under interdict. Bishops who paid the tax were also to be punished, by demotion from office. Phillip dealt with this, by simply halting the French church's money supply to Rome. Pope Boniface was astounded and at a loss now, because he relied on these assets. In desperation, he pretended to have changed his mind regarding the clergy's taxation.
He told the bishops instead to proceed with disbursing the tax. This was clearly only because he was afraid of losing Phillip's monetary support. For a short while, the fiery strife between them cooled down. However it was only temporary, as the king went on to cause more drama.The French monarch confined the Bishop of Pamiers. He also cut him off from his entitlement to an ecclesiastical council. When the honorable pope discovered this, he was adamant for the bishop's release.
Regrettably, these kinds of disputes would only continue and grow progressively worse with time. Each man competed furiously for authority over the other. In spite of Boniface's attempts, the sovereign Phillip came out triumphant in every incident. At one point, he ordered troops to come and abuse the helpless pontiff. So bantered was Boniface by the event, that he succumbed thirty days later.
His dynasty was especially exclusive in the history of papistic rulers.In the past, the pope had far more control and could independently order a whole crusade. The intervention of the king was in no way required to perform such actions. If the emperor was expelled, the whole dominion would be in an uproar. Said emperor wouldn't have a choice but to ask remittal for his violations. Otherwise, he was disrupting everything orderly in the country. He was entirely at the mercy of the pope and had little say. All of this was reciprocated, due to the burgeoning endowment of the crown.
3. Based on the video and on your reading, what were the effects on Europe of the Black Death?
The Black Death was a devastating blow to the entire continent of Europe. It swept over each country like a gloomy cloud bringing despair and destruction in it's wake. It caused the demise of a third the population of Europe, affecting millions of men, women and children. The epidemic was a convergence of two plagues, the Bubonic and Pneuonmic. The Bubonic plague was passed from fleas infesting rats brought on Italian trade ships. The pneumonic plague was conveyed by coughing and sneezing. The deadliness of these sicknesses was incomparable, as up to 90% of people contracting it died within three to twelve days!
It's not hard to envision how incredibly horrible and disturbing this must have been for the residents. People tended to jump to either one extreme or the other, in order to cope with the profusion of suffering and sorrow. Some resorted to indulging in excessive bodily pleasures, knowing they would soon die anyhow. Others went to the opposite end of the spectrum, imposing more discomfort upon themselves. They undertook grave self-mortification, anticipating mercy from God. A perfect case of this is the "flagellants", who would thrash themselves in public.
Naturally, as a result of the copious deaths, the number of workers dropped sharply. The people who were fit and healthy enough requested higher pay. The employers looked to the government for reinforcement in instating wage controls.
The dissension between Phillip and Boniface was important, as it signified a large decrease in the apostolic influence. The controversy between the two began when Phillip unlawfully taxed the clergy, in order to reap credit for war with England. According to tradition, it wasn't permissible for the king to do so, without the compliance of the pope.Phillip completely ignored this conventional guideline,plunging ahead on his own accord.Boniface was quick to counter this outrageous act with Clericis Laicos, a document instating the consequences. It read that kings who followed such actions would be excommunicated, their kingdoms under interdict. Bishops who paid the tax were also to be punished, by demotion from office. Phillip dealt with this, by simply halting the French church's money supply to Rome. Pope Boniface was astounded and at a loss now, because he relied on these assets. In desperation, he pretended to have changed his mind regarding the clergy's taxation.
He told the bishops instead to proceed with disbursing the tax. This was clearly only because he was afraid of losing Phillip's monetary support. For a short while, the fiery strife between them cooled down. However it was only temporary, as the king went on to cause more drama.The French monarch confined the Bishop of Pamiers. He also cut him off from his entitlement to an ecclesiastical council. When the honorable pope discovered this, he was adamant for the bishop's release.
Regrettably, these kinds of disputes would only continue and grow progressively worse with time. Each man competed furiously for authority over the other. In spite of Boniface's attempts, the sovereign Phillip came out triumphant in every incident. At one point, he ordered troops to come and abuse the helpless pontiff. So bantered was Boniface by the event, that he succumbed thirty days later.
His dynasty was especially exclusive in the history of papistic rulers.In the past, the pope had far more control and could independently order a whole crusade. The intervention of the king was in no way required to perform such actions. If the emperor was expelled, the whole dominion would be in an uproar. Said emperor wouldn't have a choice but to ask remittal for his violations. Otherwise, he was disrupting everything orderly in the country. He was entirely at the mercy of the pope and had little say. All of this was reciprocated, due to the burgeoning endowment of the crown.
3. Based on the video and on your reading, what were the effects on Europe of the Black Death?
The Black Death was a devastating blow to the entire continent of Europe. It swept over each country like a gloomy cloud bringing despair and destruction in it's wake. It caused the demise of a third the population of Europe, affecting millions of men, women and children. The epidemic was a convergence of two plagues, the Bubonic and Pneuonmic. The Bubonic plague was passed from fleas infesting rats brought on Italian trade ships. The pneumonic plague was conveyed by coughing and sneezing. The deadliness of these sicknesses was incomparable, as up to 90% of people contracting it died within three to twelve days!
It's not hard to envision how incredibly horrible and disturbing this must have been for the residents. People tended to jump to either one extreme or the other, in order to cope with the profusion of suffering and sorrow. Some resorted to indulging in excessive bodily pleasures, knowing they would soon die anyhow. Others went to the opposite end of the spectrum, imposing more discomfort upon themselves. They undertook grave self-mortification, anticipating mercy from God. A perfect case of this is the "flagellants", who would thrash themselves in public.
Naturally, as a result of the copious deaths, the number of workers dropped sharply. The people who were fit and healthy enough requested higher pay. The employers looked to the government for reinforcement in instating wage controls.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Western Civ, Week 28
Based on the video lessons and your reading, what were the reasons behind the conflicts between the emperors and the popes during this period?
The emperors were desperate and thirsty for control, as evidenced by the numerous approaches they took to achieve it. Ultimately, domination was all they cared about, and they stopped at nothing for success. Whether they were annexing cash or increasing their empire, this was their constant obsession. They wanted to administer the Holy Roman Empire like monarchs did in primeval times. Naturally, this created problems with the papacy, who desired autonomy in their church. It was irritating to them, when the compulsive, power-hungry rulers interfered with papal affairs. A classic illustration of this can be found in the case of Frederick Barbarossa. His regime took place during the feudal( or primitive) era, a season of political fragmentation. Lords had equal or even more freedom for oversight than the king. Frederick didn't approve of such a system, and struggled to find a way to change it.
He endeavored to attain supremacy of the Italian cities of Lombardy. to compete with the wealthy lords. But this plan was ineffective, as Lombardy's citizens coveted sovereignty. They conspired with Pope Alexander III, to construct the Lombard League. Frederick Barbarossa was furious and went on a rampage, setting fire to the cities of Milan. He had the backing of those who were inclined to listen to him, the anti-popes. They hadn't been elected properly, that is by the Church of Cardinals. (So, therefore they weren't really legitimate pontiffs.) But they had pledged to fulfill Frederick's wishes.
He was very violent and threatening in his pursuits, when it came to the eminent removal of Alexander II. Terror was the potent technique he used. Any inhabitant who wouldn't reject Alexander's authority was instantly deported and their belongings impounded! Alas, it would be a trying, bitter fight, before the Lombard League prevailed. Only then did the stubborn, obstinate Frederick give up and admit to the pope's command.
The contending that occurred between the papacy and the monarchy was actually a good thing,however. They balanced each other out, by creating borderlines to stifle the others supremacy.
The emperors were desperate and thirsty for control, as evidenced by the numerous approaches they took to achieve it. Ultimately, domination was all they cared about, and they stopped at nothing for success. Whether they were annexing cash or increasing their empire, this was their constant obsession. They wanted to administer the Holy Roman Empire like monarchs did in primeval times. Naturally, this created problems with the papacy, who desired autonomy in their church. It was irritating to them, when the compulsive, power-hungry rulers interfered with papal affairs. A classic illustration of this can be found in the case of Frederick Barbarossa. His regime took place during the feudal( or primitive) era, a season of political fragmentation. Lords had equal or even more freedom for oversight than the king. Frederick didn't approve of such a system, and struggled to find a way to change it.
He endeavored to attain supremacy of the Italian cities of Lombardy. to compete with the wealthy lords. But this plan was ineffective, as Lombardy's citizens coveted sovereignty. They conspired with Pope Alexander III, to construct the Lombard League. Frederick Barbarossa was furious and went on a rampage, setting fire to the cities of Milan. He had the backing of those who were inclined to listen to him, the anti-popes. They hadn't been elected properly, that is by the Church of Cardinals. (So, therefore they weren't really legitimate pontiffs.) But they had pledged to fulfill Frederick's wishes.
He was very violent and threatening in his pursuits, when it came to the eminent removal of Alexander II. Terror was the potent technique he used. Any inhabitant who wouldn't reject Alexander's authority was instantly deported and their belongings impounded! Alas, it would be a trying, bitter fight, before the Lombard League prevailed. Only then did the stubborn, obstinate Frederick give up and admit to the pope's command.
The contending that occurred between the papacy and the monarchy was actually a good thing,however. They balanced each other out, by creating borderlines to stifle the others supremacy.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
English Lesson 140 Essay
Is it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers? Why or why not?"
My opinion is that movies are a more effective tool, in achieving the creator's purpose. Today in the modern world, they are a powerful means of communication. A large portion of the population attends the cinema, or watches television at home or on online. Consumers are constantly being influenced by film, in the form of movie trailers, ads, and billboards. These portals to entertainment have enormous potential to create change. Dramatic scenes that evoke emotion and feeling in spectators are one way to grab one's attention. Talented actors make it difficult to discern reality from fantasy, as they excel at playing their roles. They bring the characters within books to life, letting us gaze into a vast, diverse world of endless possibilities. There is no confines to imagination, or boundaries directors can't cross. Book-lovers wildest dreams come true, as they are transported to a land of proverbial bliss. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to them, their minds and hearts are being impacted by views expressed in the picture.
Directors drop subtle hints throughout the course of the 1-2 hours we spend watching a movie. They don't spread their opinions in an obvious or conspicuous manner. Instead, they employ clever tactics to express their hypothesis on a particular subject. An observant person will easily pick up on exactly what they are attempting to convey. For example, in Casablanca, an anti-German perspective is advocated. Elsa and her husband, Victor Lazlo, are trying desperately to escape to America, where he will be safe from the Nazis reach. Eventually, Elsa's ex-lover, Rick agrees to assist them in obtaining visas for travel.
He also is persuaded to join in Laslo's Czech defiance movement. Elsa's prospect is similar to most of the refugees who traveled to Morocco's grand city. They were all hoping to journey to the USA, where freedom and neutrality were abundant. Germany was seen as a ever-growing threat, whose occupation would soon span all of Europe. It's shocking the incredible difficulties the fugitives in Casablanca encountered, whilst striving to vacate. Unfortunately, many of them were forced to stay in Morocco for years, waiting for acceptance. If they were poor and penniless, this only decreased their chances of success. It took a great deal of cash to buy passports for passage and transportation to the grand United States of America.
Casablanca strongly pushes a negative view of the Germans, as a cruel and heartless race of human beings.
My opinion is that movies are a more effective tool, in achieving the creator's purpose. Today in the modern world, they are a powerful means of communication. A large portion of the population attends the cinema, or watches television at home or on online. Consumers are constantly being influenced by film, in the form of movie trailers, ads, and billboards. These portals to entertainment have enormous potential to create change. Dramatic scenes that evoke emotion and feeling in spectators are one way to grab one's attention. Talented actors make it difficult to discern reality from fantasy, as they excel at playing their roles. They bring the characters within books to life, letting us gaze into a vast, diverse world of endless possibilities. There is no confines to imagination, or boundaries directors can't cross. Book-lovers wildest dreams come true, as they are transported to a land of proverbial bliss. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to them, their minds and hearts are being impacted by views expressed in the picture.
Directors drop subtle hints throughout the course of the 1-2 hours we spend watching a movie. They don't spread their opinions in an obvious or conspicuous manner. Instead, they employ clever tactics to express their hypothesis on a particular subject. An observant person will easily pick up on exactly what they are attempting to convey. For example, in Casablanca, an anti-German perspective is advocated. Elsa and her husband, Victor Lazlo, are trying desperately to escape to America, where he will be safe from the Nazis reach. Eventually, Elsa's ex-lover, Rick agrees to assist them in obtaining visas for travel.
He also is persuaded to join in Laslo's Czech defiance movement. Elsa's prospect is similar to most of the refugees who traveled to Morocco's grand city. They were all hoping to journey to the USA, where freedom and neutrality were abundant. Germany was seen as a ever-growing threat, whose occupation would soon span all of Europe. It's shocking the incredible difficulties the fugitives in Casablanca encountered, whilst striving to vacate. Unfortunately, many of them were forced to stay in Morocco for years, waiting for acceptance. If they were poor and penniless, this only decreased their chances of success. It took a great deal of cash to buy passports for passage and transportation to the grand United States of America.
Casablanca strongly pushes a negative view of the Germans, as a cruel and heartless race of human beings.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
English 135 Essay
"Do you see any characteristic features of Stewart and Wayne in these films that rocketed them to permanent stardom? If not, why did this happen?"
John Wayne and James Stewart both had striking attributes to them, that I believe were conducive to their enormous success. Jimmy Stewart possessed a very warm-hearted, gentle persona and a good sense of humor. His served tirelessly in the U.S. army and the U.S. air force, eventually attaining the high position of brigadier general. He was a exceptionally talented and accomplished man, who had professional expertise in many different areas. Jimmy was a World War II and Vietnam War Veteran, and also earned an architecture degree from Princeton University. He excelled academically while attending, composing an excellent thesis on airport design.Due to his outstanding achievements, his professors presented him a scholarship for graduate studies.He also was proficient in his military pursuits, with 27 years of service. His commitment to his country did not go unnoticed, as he was awarded numerous metals throughout his career.
On top of all this, Stewart had incredible, astute acting abilities, with a knack for passionate, dramatic performances. He played the legendary George Bailey, in the timeless classic It's A Wonderful Life.
This film, although originally a failure, would one day be ranked as one of the 100 best movies of all time. It is now synonymous with Christmas, beloved by many families as a part of their holiday tradition. Stewart's fine portrayal of Bailey is one of his most prominent roles. This beautiful tale of redemption and family miracles was a milestone in Stewart's metier. Another of his fine performances was in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. This film made a tremendous impact and generated many positive reviews, winning an Academy Award for Original Story. I personally found this movie to be both moving and inspirational, one of the most extraordinary ones I ever viewed.
It was a fabulous and flawless defense of democracy, of one man's relentless determination to change the world. Mr. Smith was a character that only Jimmy Stewart could do best, and his acting skills were suburb. One can't help but be affected by the young senator's unfailing persistence to expose corruption and to see his bill passed. He pushes himself to the brink of exhaustion, refusing to abandon his objective. These features were just exhibitions of Jimmy's incredible filmography.
John Wayne made a legendary impression in Hollywood, starring in over 150 pictures over the course of 50 years! His iconic face has been interchangeable with westerns for decades, as he flaunted the archetypal cowboy hat and gun. Long before he reached the golden shores of Hollywood, Wayne was a promising student and football player at USC. He was pursing a degree in prelaw, when he was forced to leave the university. This was due unfortunately to a collar-bone injury, that caused him to forfeit his education. He had no money to continue his schooling, and had to seek out a new future. He first gained experience in the acting sphere, by working at local film studios.
This was only the inception of a lengthy and prosperous lifetime in the film industry for Mr. Wayne.It would only be a matter of time, before he developed into a rising star. John Wayne had an overpowering air to him, one evoking manfulness and courage. His tall, strong demeanor and calming voice were a few qualities that made him very attractive. The fact that he always prevailed for justice only bettered his appeal. Even as an older man, he still had a timeless charm about him, impossible for women to deny.
It was a fabulous and flawless defense of democracy, of one man's relentless determination to change the world. Mr. Smith was a character that only Jimmy Stewart could do best, and his acting skills were suburb. One can't help but be affected by the young senator's unfailing persistence to expose corruption and to see his bill passed. He pushes himself to the brink of exhaustion, refusing to abandon his objective. These features were just exhibitions of Jimmy's incredible filmography.
John Wayne made a legendary impression in Hollywood, starring in over 150 pictures over the course of 50 years! His iconic face has been interchangeable with westerns for decades, as he flaunted the archetypal cowboy hat and gun. Long before he reached the golden shores of Hollywood, Wayne was a promising student and football player at USC. He was pursing a degree in prelaw, when he was forced to leave the university. This was due unfortunately to a collar-bone injury, that caused him to forfeit his education. He had no money to continue his schooling, and had to seek out a new future. He first gained experience in the acting sphere, by working at local film studios.
This was only the inception of a lengthy and prosperous lifetime in the film industry for Mr. Wayne.It would only be a matter of time, before he developed into a rising star. John Wayne had an overpowering air to him, one evoking manfulness and courage. His tall, strong demeanor and calming voice were a few qualities that made him very attractive. The fact that he always prevailed for justice only bettered his appeal. Even as an older man, he still had a timeless charm about him, impossible for women to deny.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Week 27 Review-Western Civilization(2 Questions)
1.Why was the rise of the medieval towns significant?
The medieval towns arose from a variety of different starting points. Some began beyond fortifications during the Viking 9th and 10th century invasions. Others were the product of Cathedral schools and monasteries. These places generally engaged trade activity, and contributed to growth in this area. Towns were certainly notable, in that they put an definite end to the unification of government. Because of their broadening popularity, independence became a much more prevalent theme. Each town now had the privilege of self-government, free from the control of a lord. Although to be fair, there were some aids of feudal property ownership. People within the towns were afforded constant protection from their Lords. In turn, the Lords reaped the income of the taxes paid them by their serfs. But citizens were beginning to seek out more supervision of their affairs. They went about this by seeking charters, and making deals to retain their claims. If a lord was in need of military service, they would supply him with it. In exchange, they queried for more prerogative. Soon, the people of the medieval towns had predominant jurisdiction. Each town was soon in charge of it's own unique administration. On the occasion that an inhabitant was displeased with their government, they could simply move elsewhere.
These changes led to an increased level of harmony and safety. Previously, only one government had power over a region. This made it effortless for intruders to come in and take over. But with the new system in place, carrying out such plans was hard. There were hundreds of small regimes across the country. It was humanly unfeasible for someone to take them down at the same time.
The aura of amity benefited medieval life economically as well. Merchants could navigate to sell their commodities in security. Foreign commerce became more popular, and more diverse articles were now readily accessible.e
3) How can we account for western Europe's sustained economic success?
Western Europe thrived economically, chiefly as a result of private enterprise and business. Consumers were more and more beginning to shift towards this method of eThe state was not the main source of control, but rather separate businesses ruled the economy. A second factor in the beneficial development was political decentralization. This is merely the splitting up of political power into tiny components. Instead of three bigger countries, there were smaller places where politics was contained. This allowed for more rivalry, which is generally good for the economy. It reigned in the authority of the government and granted amplified liberation for inhabitants. When there was dissatisfaction, members of a unit had the freedom to leave it. This was a motivation for the diplomatic commanders to keep from being harsh. It was their unfortunate loss in tax dollars, when a citizen choose to depart.
The medieval towns arose from a variety of different starting points. Some began beyond fortifications during the Viking 9th and 10th century invasions. Others were the product of Cathedral schools and monasteries. These places generally engaged trade activity, and contributed to growth in this area. Towns were certainly notable, in that they put an definite end to the unification of government. Because of their broadening popularity, independence became a much more prevalent theme. Each town now had the privilege of self-government, free from the control of a lord. Although to be fair, there were some aids of feudal property ownership. People within the towns were afforded constant protection from their Lords. In turn, the Lords reaped the income of the taxes paid them by their serfs. But citizens were beginning to seek out more supervision of their affairs. They went about this by seeking charters, and making deals to retain their claims. If a lord was in need of military service, they would supply him with it. In exchange, they queried for more prerogative. Soon, the people of the medieval towns had predominant jurisdiction. Each town was soon in charge of it's own unique administration. On the occasion that an inhabitant was displeased with their government, they could simply move elsewhere.
These changes led to an increased level of harmony and safety. Previously, only one government had power over a region. This made it effortless for intruders to come in and take over. But with the new system in place, carrying out such plans was hard. There were hundreds of small regimes across the country. It was humanly unfeasible for someone to take them down at the same time.
The aura of amity benefited medieval life economically as well. Merchants could navigate to sell their commodities in security. Foreign commerce became more popular, and more diverse articles were now readily accessible.e
3) How can we account for western Europe's sustained economic success?
Western Europe thrived economically, chiefly as a result of private enterprise and business. Consumers were more and more beginning to shift towards this method of eThe state was not the main source of control, but rather separate businesses ruled the economy. A second factor in the beneficial development was political decentralization. This is merely the splitting up of political power into tiny components. Instead of three bigger countries, there were smaller places where politics was contained. This allowed for more rivalry, which is generally good for the economy. It reigned in the authority of the government and granted amplified liberation for inhabitants. When there was dissatisfaction, members of a unit had the freedom to leave it. This was a motivation for the diplomatic commanders to keep from being harsh. It was their unfortunate loss in tax dollars, when a citizen choose to depart.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
English, Lesson 130 Essay
Would You rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? Why?"
Personally, I would rather see a film in the theater than download it outline. I find that the experience of going out to the movies is usually more fun, than just watching from home. There's few things I find more appealing than a weekend night at the cinema. I love seeing the newest releases and popular Oscar-nominated productions. I'm also a stickler for any frugal deals I can locate, or money I can save. There is always coupons to prevent wasting cash, or discounts for weekdays or certain age groups. For example, my local theater sells movie tickets for only $5 a piece on Mondays! There is also dollar movie days in the summer, where kids can see cartoons/Disney features. In spite of all these positives, I still appreciate the other outlets available. It is certainly a convenient advantage of technology,that we can enjoy entertainment from the comfort of our homes. We don't even have to leave the couch! In the past, if you wanted to view a motion picture, you had to attend the theater. American consumers didn't have the privilege of cable tv, Netflix, or youtube, to employ whenever they wished. The modern-day world doesn't realize how lucky they are, to have these resources at their disposal. We have the opportunity and option to locate any tv show/film/documentary our heart desires, from any location. Our phones, tablets, and computers offer a variety of different ways to access these pleasures.
American society today is extremely privileged to avail themselves of the endless, diverse sources of amusement. After all, who doesn't relish a relaxing evening in front of the tv? After a long day of work/school, many families and teens spend their leisure time in this manner. Television is an effective method of recreation, that nowadays requires little money or effort. With only a few dollars, you can rent romances, dramas, sci-fi, or horror motion pictures. Filling out some simple credit-card info is now all that is required, to grant entry to a world of fantasy. Individuals can drown their sorrows in a fairytale land or a interesting story from They can forget for a short period of time about their issues, losing themselves in a quality narrative. Probably a million divergent movies have been created in the past century, and each one has it's own unique plot-line. It would be hard not to discover something to pique your interest, within such a wide assortment of choices.
Each separate director,actor and producer has added their own twist to what they create, or perform in. That is what makes the area of film and tv so enthralling and fascinating. As the years fly by, we have been fortunate enough to witness gradual improvements and adaptions. Our eyes and ears have been opened to observe increasingly better developments. Inventions such as 3d have allowed us to encounter and delve into movies like we never imagined before. Movie-goers and enthusiasts of long ago would be very shocked and excited by in the innovations.
Personally, I would rather see a film in the theater than download it outline. I find that the experience of going out to the movies is usually more fun, than just watching from home. There's few things I find more appealing than a weekend night at the cinema. I love seeing the newest releases and popular Oscar-nominated productions. I'm also a stickler for any frugal deals I can locate, or money I can save. There is always coupons to prevent wasting cash, or discounts for weekdays or certain age groups. For example, my local theater sells movie tickets for only $5 a piece on Mondays! There is also dollar movie days in the summer, where kids can see cartoons/Disney features. In spite of all these positives, I still appreciate the other outlets available. It is certainly a convenient advantage of technology,that we can enjoy entertainment from the comfort of our homes. We don't even have to leave the couch! In the past, if you wanted to view a motion picture, you had to attend the theater. American consumers didn't have the privilege of cable tv, Netflix, or youtube, to employ whenever they wished. The modern-day world doesn't realize how lucky they are, to have these resources at their disposal. We have the opportunity and option to locate any tv show/film/documentary our heart desires, from any location. Our phones, tablets, and computers offer a variety of different ways to access these pleasures.
American society today is extremely privileged to avail themselves of the endless, diverse sources of amusement. After all, who doesn't relish a relaxing evening in front of the tv? After a long day of work/school, many families and teens spend their leisure time in this manner. Television is an effective method of recreation, that nowadays requires little money or effort. With only a few dollars, you can rent romances, dramas, sci-fi, or horror motion pictures. Filling out some simple credit-card info is now all that is required, to grant entry to a world of fantasy. Individuals can drown their sorrows in a fairytale land or a interesting story from They can forget for a short period of time about their issues, losing themselves in a quality narrative. Probably a million divergent movies have been created in the past century, and each one has it's own unique plot-line. It would be hard not to discover something to pique your interest, within such a wide assortment of choices.
Each separate director,actor and producer has added their own twist to what they create, or perform in. That is what makes the area of film and tv so enthralling and fascinating. As the years fly by, we have been fortunate enough to witness gradual improvements and adaptions. Our eyes and ears have been opened to observe increasingly better developments. Inventions such as 3d have allowed us to encounter and delve into movies like we never imagined before. Movie-goers and enthusiasts of long ago would be very shocked and excited by in the innovations.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Week 26 Review(Western Civilization)
(3) Describe the main principles of just-war theory.
The just war theory was the art of trying to condone or explain war. It was an attempt made by many scholars to come up with reasons one could engage in fighting. The basic ideas were that war could only be validated if a number of different aspects were applied. There needed to be a legitimate authority and a just cause for starting the war. The participants should also have a rightful and noble intention, in beginning the conflict. In addition, it was only reasonable that they there be at least some probability of success. It would obviously be rash to rush into battle, if you hadn't the slightest inkling of hope to win it. Another factor was determining the proportionality (or scale) of the war. It was necessary that there be an even, fair amount of men and weaponry on each side. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a fair exchange, if one party was badly outnumbered by the other. There were also some other rules that had to be abided by, before one could actively enlist in the act of bloodshed.For one thing, noncombatants weren't allowed to be targeted. Noncombatants are those who are part of the civilian population and not willingly involved. Places like schools and homes were off limits, when it came to areas that could be attacked. Constraints were placed regarding the clergy and women and children as well. It was considered evil to murder or abuse them, or to bother undefended clergy.
There were set aside certain days on which it was thought immoral to conduct warfare. It was also prohibited on definite weekdays, feasts, and ritualistic seasons(ex:Lent,Advent). In any case, war was always to be thought of as only the absolute last utilization.
(2)Choose two of the divine attributes discussed in lesson 127 and explain how Aquinas derives them.
One of the five attributes of God is that of immateriality. Thomas Aquinas is masterful in proving how the creator can not be material, by logical arguments. He wrote that a material object must needs be inconstant. The almighty is anything but changeable, as he is a purely"actual being". Anything that exists within the boundaries of space and time is thereby capable of revision. But any being that is unalterable would have to subsist outside the realm of these physical bounds. It's obvious from these rationalizations that no mortal could fit this criteria. Only a holy, immortal individual who dwelled in a heavenly home could possess this ability.
The second quality of God was "perfect and all good". Thomas stated that he holds within his grasp every ideal(or perfection) one should have. Accordingly then, he is absolute and not capable of wrong-doing. It is also impossible for him to have any detrimental visages(or features). An imperfection, by Aquinas's definition, is merely a lack of something. For instance, blindness is simply the absence of light.God is inept of lacking any beneficial Only flawed, fallen humans can have areas in which they require improvement.
The just war theory was the art of trying to condone or explain war. It was an attempt made by many scholars to come up with reasons one could engage in fighting. The basic ideas were that war could only be validated if a number of different aspects were applied. There needed to be a legitimate authority and a just cause for starting the war. The participants should also have a rightful and noble intention, in beginning the conflict. In addition, it was only reasonable that they there be at least some probability of success. It would obviously be rash to rush into battle, if you hadn't the slightest inkling of hope to win it. Another factor was determining the proportionality (or scale) of the war. It was necessary that there be an even, fair amount of men and weaponry on each side. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a fair exchange, if one party was badly outnumbered by the other. There were also some other rules that had to be abided by, before one could actively enlist in the act of bloodshed.For one thing, noncombatants weren't allowed to be targeted. Noncombatants are those who are part of the civilian population and not willingly involved. Places like schools and homes were off limits, when it came to areas that could be attacked. Constraints were placed regarding the clergy and women and children as well. It was considered evil to murder or abuse them, or to bother undefended clergy.
There were set aside certain days on which it was thought immoral to conduct warfare. It was also prohibited on definite weekdays, feasts, and ritualistic seasons(ex:Lent,Advent). In any case, war was always to be thought of as only the absolute last utilization.
(2)Choose two of the divine attributes discussed in lesson 127 and explain how Aquinas derives them.
One of the five attributes of God is that of immateriality. Thomas Aquinas is masterful in proving how the creator can not be material, by logical arguments. He wrote that a material object must needs be inconstant. The almighty is anything but changeable, as he is a purely"actual being". Anything that exists within the boundaries of space and time is thereby capable of revision. But any being that is unalterable would have to subsist outside the realm of these physical bounds. It's obvious from these rationalizations that no mortal could fit this criteria. Only a holy, immortal individual who dwelled in a heavenly home could possess this ability.
The second quality of God was "perfect and all good". Thomas stated that he holds within his grasp every ideal(or perfection) one should have. Accordingly then, he is absolute and not capable of wrong-doing. It is also impossible for him to have any detrimental visages(or features). An imperfection, by Aquinas's definition, is merely a lack of something. For instance, blindness is simply the absence of light.God is inept of lacking any beneficial Only flawed, fallen humans can have areas in which they require improvement.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
English Lesson 125 Paper
"Why was this movie the first blockbuster?"
The Birth of A Nation was a predominantly controversial film, that attracted an enormous amount of attention from it's audience when it was released. Any casual observer of the movie will be apt to notice the racist aura it gives off. It's abundantly clear that it favors the violent Ku Klux Klan and the domination of the white population. Black men are seen as detestable, savage individuals, and particularly abusive towards white women. The 1915 film generated a positive response, although it was obviously a white entirety. The black population was completely outraged at the film, for what they believed was an unfair,false portrait of their race. The NAACP(National Association For the Advancement of Colored People) even made a futile attempt to have the film banned. This evidenced the extent of their anger, that they dared go to such drastic measures.
I found the movie rather shocking, even though I was watching it as a modern-day viewer. It certainly contains some very offensive elements to it,that many people would be rather horrified by. The bold outright promotion of the Klu Klux Klan is of course an aspect that is very repelling. This ruthless and merciless tribe ravaged the country, terrorizing those that hated and often murdering them. They were particularly known for their excessive hatred of colored people, who they were quick to torture and defile. Yet in the "Birth of a Nation" they are regarded as admirable heroes, figures who should be looked up to and respected. This, in my opinion, is contrary to the truth about this repulsive cult. They existed symbolic of fear and horror to those they
The Birth of A Nation was a predominantly controversial film, that attracted an enormous amount of attention from it's audience when it was released. Any casual observer of the movie will be apt to notice the racist aura it gives off. It's abundantly clear that it favors the violent Ku Klux Klan and the domination of the white population. Black men are seen as detestable, savage individuals, and particularly abusive towards white women. The 1915 film generated a positive response, although it was obviously a white entirety. The black population was completely outraged at the film, for what they believed was an unfair,false portrait of their race. The NAACP(National Association For the Advancement of Colored People) even made a futile attempt to have the film banned. This evidenced the extent of their anger, that they dared go to such drastic measures.
I found the movie rather shocking, even though I was watching it as a modern-day viewer. It certainly contains some very offensive elements to it,that many people would be rather horrified by. The bold outright promotion of the Klu Klux Klan is of course an aspect that is very repelling. This ruthless and merciless tribe ravaged the country, terrorizing those that hated and often murdering them. They were particularly known for their excessive hatred of colored people, who they were quick to torture and defile. Yet in the "Birth of a Nation" they are regarded as admirable heroes, figures who should be looked up to and respected. This, in my opinion, is contrary to the truth about this repulsive cult. They existed symbolic of fear and horror to those they
Monday, March 27, 2017
Week 25 Review
1) What kinds of developments occurred during the renaissance of the twelfth century?
The renaissance of the twelfth century saw a powerful rebirth in a number of different areas, and helped to enlighten people regarding Roman literature.There was a figurative "waterfall'' of poetry and writing that took place throughout this time period, all composed in Latin. This ancient language would become universal and be adopted by every writer in their endeavors. It was easily understandable by the populace, and therefore was resorted to as an easy method of communication. There were a considerable amount of expansion in Greek philosophy and science as well. People could at long last appreciate these impressive works, as they were translated. Roman Law was brought into the spotlight, witnessing increased popularity after years of recession. Of course, there were naturally some negatives to this portion of the renaissance. The monarchs or rulers were quick to utilize the renewed engrossment, to their advantage. Roman law favored the primary control of the king. So this gave them the opportunity to exert more authority over their subjects, and dismiss the local system of feudalism. Another detrimental consequence of the renaissance was that writers relied too heavily on famous classics. Instead of doing their own research, they just lazily sourced Aristotle's work(for ex.) as a reference. Using ancient writer's ideas as a basis, they failed to do any original or unique work of their own. They regarded men like Galen, for instance as the only specialist in medical matters. This method of thinking was a path of ignorance, that left many men sorely lacking in real knowledge.
2) Discuss the origins and features of the university system in the High Middle Ages.
The university system of the middle ages was quite different from our modern-day one. It's rather unclear where it originated from, although some stemmed from Cathedral schools. Others started out as simply a group of students gathering together to study and discuss scholastic matters. There was a fixed program for study and a vivid distinction between undergraduate and graduate study. Undergraduates were typically those who finished 4 years of tutelage, while graduates mastered up to eight years. In order for a degree to be properly acclaimed, it had to be chartered by the pope or another powerful person(like the king). The recipient then had permission to lecture anywhere he desired in Europe. It was also the church's obligation to protect the universities and their students. The popes also assisted in paying the professor's salary and championing the university's liberty.
Universities specialized in different areas of study, unlike the way in which they function today. The University of Paris was known for theology and Bologna was popular law.
Many people mistakenly think that the middle ages college system was excessively strict, not allowing students to express their personal beliefs. This was not the case however, as individuality was very much encouraged. Creative intellectual debates were a frequent event in university life. Students and faculty were regularly involved in scholastic discussions, where they could converse on many topics.
3)Write a brief overview of the life and work of Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas, commonly known as Saint Thomas Aquinas, was born in Siccily, in 1225. He has been a renown Catholic priest and writer for centuries, respected by people of all religions. He was the greatest theologian in the Catholic church and also an eminent scholastic philosopher. Having been educated by Albert the Great, he was equipped with valuable skills to teach in Naples, Rome, and other famous cities. During his long, prosperous career as an author, he wrote some 8 1/2 million words! This is an impressive, astounding accomplishment, to say the very least. Some of the books he fashioned included the Summa Theologica, Summa Contra Gentiles and On Being and Essence. Thomas certainly didn't lead a very easy life, at the beginning of his pursuits. He earnestly wanted to join the Dominican Order, as a budding 19 year old man. His family were extremely displeased with him, and ashamed that their son was endeavoring this. They were so strongly opposed to his choice, that they detained him to prevent it!
Their ill intentions were only used by Thomas for good. During the awful year he spent in jail, he mastered the entire Bible and the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
Finally his family gave up in trying to stop him from his dream and he was discharged from his home. This was the time period in which he was sent off to study with Albert the Great. It is hard to believe, but this learned, clever man was actually mocked in the school. His fellow peers christened him "The dumb ox" and found him very comical. His teacher(Albert the Great) was quick to sternly reprove them for their jesting. He warned them that one day everyone would eagerly listen to Aquinas's "bellowing".
Thomas is well-known for being an advocate of faith and reason. He was adamant in his belief that they were compatible, and not conflicting forces. His theory was that God was a God of faith and reason. He gave us the ability to use our brains for human reasoning, but also the heart to believe in him. Aquinas taught that there were three fundamental types of knowledge. First,there was the knowledge that was attained by reason, and second there was knowledge that could be earned by divine revelation.The third type of knowledge could be found by reason and divine revelation.
Thomas Aquinas has been revered and cherished fondly, as one of the world's most affluent authors. He had an equal amount of respect for both reason and faith. Because of this, he was able to impact both the heathen and the believer with his teachings.
The renaissance of the twelfth century saw a powerful rebirth in a number of different areas, and helped to enlighten people regarding Roman literature.There was a figurative "waterfall'' of poetry and writing that took place throughout this time period, all composed in Latin. This ancient language would become universal and be adopted by every writer in their endeavors. It was easily understandable by the populace, and therefore was resorted to as an easy method of communication. There were a considerable amount of expansion in Greek philosophy and science as well. People could at long last appreciate these impressive works, as they were translated. Roman Law was brought into the spotlight, witnessing increased popularity after years of recession. Of course, there were naturally some negatives to this portion of the renaissance. The monarchs or rulers were quick to utilize the renewed engrossment, to their advantage. Roman law favored the primary control of the king. So this gave them the opportunity to exert more authority over their subjects, and dismiss the local system of feudalism. Another detrimental consequence of the renaissance was that writers relied too heavily on famous classics. Instead of doing their own research, they just lazily sourced Aristotle's work(for ex.) as a reference. Using ancient writer's ideas as a basis, they failed to do any original or unique work of their own. They regarded men like Galen, for instance as the only specialist in medical matters. This method of thinking was a path of ignorance, that left many men sorely lacking in real knowledge.
2) Discuss the origins and features of the university system in the High Middle Ages.
The university system of the middle ages was quite different from our modern-day one. It's rather unclear where it originated from, although some stemmed from Cathedral schools. Others started out as simply a group of students gathering together to study and discuss scholastic matters. There was a fixed program for study and a vivid distinction between undergraduate and graduate study. Undergraduates were typically those who finished 4 years of tutelage, while graduates mastered up to eight years. In order for a degree to be properly acclaimed, it had to be chartered by the pope or another powerful person(like the king). The recipient then had permission to lecture anywhere he desired in Europe. It was also the church's obligation to protect the universities and their students. The popes also assisted in paying the professor's salary and championing the university's liberty.
Universities specialized in different areas of study, unlike the way in which they function today. The University of Paris was known for theology and Bologna was popular law.
Many people mistakenly think that the middle ages college system was excessively strict, not allowing students to express their personal beliefs. This was not the case however, as individuality was very much encouraged. Creative intellectual debates were a frequent event in university life. Students and faculty were regularly involved in scholastic discussions, where they could converse on many topics.
3)Write a brief overview of the life and work of Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas, commonly known as Saint Thomas Aquinas, was born in Siccily, in 1225. He has been a renown Catholic priest and writer for centuries, respected by people of all religions. He was the greatest theologian in the Catholic church and also an eminent scholastic philosopher. Having been educated by Albert the Great, he was equipped with valuable skills to teach in Naples, Rome, and other famous cities. During his long, prosperous career as an author, he wrote some 8 1/2 million words! This is an impressive, astounding accomplishment, to say the very least. Some of the books he fashioned included the Summa Theologica, Summa Contra Gentiles and On Being and Essence. Thomas certainly didn't lead a very easy life, at the beginning of his pursuits. He earnestly wanted to join the Dominican Order, as a budding 19 year old man. His family were extremely displeased with him, and ashamed that their son was endeavoring this. They were so strongly opposed to his choice, that they detained him to prevent it!
Their ill intentions were only used by Thomas for good. During the awful year he spent in jail, he mastered the entire Bible and the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
Finally his family gave up in trying to stop him from his dream and he was discharged from his home. This was the time period in which he was sent off to study with Albert the Great. It is hard to believe, but this learned, clever man was actually mocked in the school. His fellow peers christened him "The dumb ox" and found him very comical. His teacher(Albert the Great) was quick to sternly reprove them for their jesting. He warned them that one day everyone would eagerly listen to Aquinas's "bellowing".
Thomas is well-known for being an advocate of faith and reason. He was adamant in his belief that they were compatible, and not conflicting forces. His theory was that God was a God of faith and reason. He gave us the ability to use our brains for human reasoning, but also the heart to believe in him. Aquinas taught that there were three fundamental types of knowledge. First,there was the knowledge that was attained by reason, and second there was knowledge that could be earned by divine revelation.The third type of knowledge could be found by reason and divine revelation.
Thomas Aquinas has been revered and cherished fondly, as one of the world's most affluent authors. He had an equal amount of respect for both reason and faith. Because of this, he was able to impact both the heathen and the believer with his teachings.
Monday, March 20, 2017
English Lesson 120
"Is this novel a defense of liberty?"
In my opinion, Phillip Dru Administrator is not a defense of liberty at all. Throughout the book, I was very disgusted with the tyrannical, abominable behavior of Phillip.I think he was a manipulative, conniving man, who was only out to achieve selfish means. Ultimately, he craved all the control of the government, so he could maneuver it however he wished. The tactics he employed for this goal were clever and impressive, truth be told. But he didn't have the good of the people in mind, whatsoever, as he fervently claimed to. Instead, it was his own betterment that he was after. He wrenched the power from Selwyn, in the name of rescuing the United States. Phillip Dru was head of the committees, that based their accusations on a single dictograph recording!
An assistant had caught Senator Selwyn and Thor in a office discussion, wherein Selwyn revealed his part in the presidential election of James Rockland(Thor was the richest man in America) From this mild, harmless conversation, a reporter had gone crazy and caused public outrage at the senator. This, in turn had led to a good many Americans being thirsty for revenge, and the removal of the Senator. Phillip faked calmness, urging everyone to remain steady and reasonable, despite their apparent anger. Then he decides to become the head of a committee against Selwyn, and the commander of troops for a civil war. He leads a fiery rebellion, protesting the overpowering of the rich society.
Phillip was a passionate advocate for economic equality and an avid follower of Progressivism. With his friend, Gloria, he worked to "defend" his country against the schemes of the wealthy. In so doing this, his constant aim was the assistance of the poor. Yet he was too arrogant and condescending to even work and live among them first hand. He tried and I think failed miserably in sugarcoating the real reasons for this decision. He said that he was after the improvement of the majority, and not to impact individual people. My translation: he was superior over the poor, and didn't dare stoop to such impoverished living conditions.
This novel I personally believe is a perfect illustration of what usually happens, when someone tries to stop a dictator. In the midst of accomplishing what they presume right, they often transform into the very object of their hatred. I think this is exactly what takes place with Phillip. He doesn't think it's in the U.S.'s best interest to be ruled by Rockland, who was instated by Selwyn. But, of course, this meant that he would take the place of absolutist. Then he would be ruling and overtaking the government with his opinions and ideas for doing things. This was overall Phillip's plan, to personate his proposals and turn the country upside down for his benefit.
This is the desire of most men in politics, whether or not they are forthright about their intentions or pacify them. Phillip Dru rules with a corrupt nature, instating his policies with a iron will of determination and zeal. He institutes a system of total fascism, a pyramid where he sat atop oppressively.
In my opinion, Phillip Dru Administrator is not a defense of liberty at all. Throughout the book, I was very disgusted with the tyrannical, abominable behavior of Phillip.I think he was a manipulative, conniving man, who was only out to achieve selfish means. Ultimately, he craved all the control of the government, so he could maneuver it however he wished. The tactics he employed for this goal were clever and impressive, truth be told. But he didn't have the good of the people in mind, whatsoever, as he fervently claimed to. Instead, it was his own betterment that he was after. He wrenched the power from Selwyn, in the name of rescuing the United States. Phillip Dru was head of the committees, that based their accusations on a single dictograph recording!
An assistant had caught Senator Selwyn and Thor in a office discussion, wherein Selwyn revealed his part in the presidential election of James Rockland(Thor was the richest man in America) From this mild, harmless conversation, a reporter had gone crazy and caused public outrage at the senator. This, in turn had led to a good many Americans being thirsty for revenge, and the removal of the Senator. Phillip faked calmness, urging everyone to remain steady and reasonable, despite their apparent anger. Then he decides to become the head of a committee against Selwyn, and the commander of troops for a civil war. He leads a fiery rebellion, protesting the overpowering of the rich society.
Phillip was a passionate advocate for economic equality and an avid follower of Progressivism. With his friend, Gloria, he worked to "defend" his country against the schemes of the wealthy. In so doing this, his constant aim was the assistance of the poor. Yet he was too arrogant and condescending to even work and live among them first hand. He tried and I think failed miserably in sugarcoating the real reasons for this decision. He said that he was after the improvement of the majority, and not to impact individual people. My translation: he was superior over the poor, and didn't dare stoop to such impoverished living conditions.
This novel I personally believe is a perfect illustration of what usually happens, when someone tries to stop a dictator. In the midst of accomplishing what they presume right, they often transform into the very object of their hatred. I think this is exactly what takes place with Phillip. He doesn't think it's in the U.S.'s best interest to be ruled by Rockland, who was instated by Selwyn. But, of course, this meant that he would take the place of absolutist. Then he would be ruling and overtaking the government with his opinions and ideas for doing things. This was overall Phillip's plan, to personate his proposals and turn the country upside down for his benefit.
This is the desire of most men in politics, whether or not they are forthright about their intentions or pacify them. Phillip Dru rules with a corrupt nature, instating his policies with a iron will of determination and zeal. He institutes a system of total fascism, a pyramid where he sat atop oppressively.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Week 120 Review
1) What did the Albigensians believe?
The Albigensian doctrine originated with Manichaeism, which was an early forerunner for it. The basic core belief of the religion was that there were two gods, one of evil and one of good. It was commonly thought by followers of the teaching that spirit is good and matter is evil.The Albigensians harshly rejected anything made of matter, or corresponding to the physical,material world.They had the notion that the human body was only in essence a jail cell for the soul. They constantly strove to release the soul from the wicked cage it was enclosed in. Naturally, as a result of their odd ideology, they condemned the sacramental system. According to their conceptions, God would never impart his grace in the bodily form of baptism, for instance. The Albigensians also regarded animal and human reproduction as immoral and sinful. For example, a pregnant woman would be scorned by them, for she was bringing more matter into the world. The body was an impure thing, so anything that originated with it was also deemed so. Another concept that this strange cult detested was that of incarnation. Based on their theory, it was an impossibility for Christ to take on the detestable form of human flesh.
The Albigensians generally spurned many of the precious core views at the heart of Christianity.
2)What was the significance of King Philip IV of France?
King Phillip the fourth was the ruler of France from 1285-1314. He was an especially devout man, particularly in the aftermath of his wife's death,in 1305.He had a rather high and mighty opinion of himself, and the powers he believed to be attributed to his title. Phillip wanted to renew the Roman tradition of law, which would allow him more authority and influence. Therefore, he encompassed himself with lawyers who were knowledgable about Roman law and also the perquisites of the aristocracy. Phillip was insistent that every single French citizen should be entirely allegiant to him, disregarding whatever feudal loyalties they had. In this way, he was somewhat of a tyrant, in his excessive thirst for ultimate control. King Phillip was constantly organizing military campaigns, and coincidentally was always on the hunt for cash to fund them. He imposed high taxes on imports and exports in addition to a war tax, in order to have the money for his endeavors. His methods for obtaining his resources were rather unfair, such as robbing from Jews and bankers.Yet he somehow always managed to get what he wanted.
Phillip the Fair was largely note-worthy, because he overruled the jurisdiction of the papacy(the pope),exerting the dominating rule of the monarchy. His reign was a turning point in medieval times, as it would lead to a decrease in the pope's supremacy. Phillip achieved complete superiority over his kingdom, something many French rulers before him had failed to accomplish.
3)What was the significance of the Magna Carta?
The Magna Carta was important, because it established permanent limits and definite boundaries on the power of the king. It stated that everyone had to be accountable to the law, and had a responsibility to obey it no matter what. Thereby it restrained the British monarch from exercising cruelty and unfairness on his subjects. The Magna Carta also initiated that no free person could be put in jail, ostracized,or killed without a fair court trial. It was enacted on 1215, by King John after being petitioned by his nationals.This infamous document would eventually become a forerunner for the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Albigensian doctrine originated with Manichaeism, which was an early forerunner for it. The basic core belief of the religion was that there were two gods, one of evil and one of good. It was commonly thought by followers of the teaching that spirit is good and matter is evil.The Albigensians harshly rejected anything made of matter, or corresponding to the physical,material world.They had the notion that the human body was only in essence a jail cell for the soul. They constantly strove to release the soul from the wicked cage it was enclosed in. Naturally, as a result of their odd ideology, they condemned the sacramental system. According to their conceptions, God would never impart his grace in the bodily form of baptism, for instance. The Albigensians also regarded animal and human reproduction as immoral and sinful. For example, a pregnant woman would be scorned by them, for she was bringing more matter into the world. The body was an impure thing, so anything that originated with it was also deemed so. Another concept that this strange cult detested was that of incarnation. Based on their theory, it was an impossibility for Christ to take on the detestable form of human flesh.
The Albigensians generally spurned many of the precious core views at the heart of Christianity.
2)What was the significance of King Philip IV of France?
King Phillip the fourth was the ruler of France from 1285-1314. He was an especially devout man, particularly in the aftermath of his wife's death,in 1305.He had a rather high and mighty opinion of himself, and the powers he believed to be attributed to his title. Phillip wanted to renew the Roman tradition of law, which would allow him more authority and influence. Therefore, he encompassed himself with lawyers who were knowledgable about Roman law and also the perquisites of the aristocracy. Phillip was insistent that every single French citizen should be entirely allegiant to him, disregarding whatever feudal loyalties they had. In this way, he was somewhat of a tyrant, in his excessive thirst for ultimate control. King Phillip was constantly organizing military campaigns, and coincidentally was always on the hunt for cash to fund them. He imposed high taxes on imports and exports in addition to a war tax, in order to have the money for his endeavors. His methods for obtaining his resources were rather unfair, such as robbing from Jews and bankers.Yet he somehow always managed to get what he wanted.
Phillip the Fair was largely note-worthy, because he overruled the jurisdiction of the papacy(the pope),exerting the dominating rule of the monarchy. His reign was a turning point in medieval times, as it would lead to a decrease in the pope's supremacy. Phillip achieved complete superiority over his kingdom, something many French rulers before him had failed to accomplish.
3)What was the significance of the Magna Carta?
The Magna Carta was important, because it established permanent limits and definite boundaries on the power of the king. It stated that everyone had to be accountable to the law, and had a responsibility to obey it no matter what. Thereby it restrained the British monarch from exercising cruelty and unfairness on his subjects. The Magna Carta also initiated that no free person could be put in jail, ostracized,or killed without a fair court trial. It was enacted on 1215, by King John after being petitioned by his nationals.This infamous document would eventually become a forerunner for the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Week 23 Review
1.What are some common misconceptions about the Crusades, and why are they incorrect?
There are four different misinterpretations of the Crusades, often mistakenly believed by the average person. Many people have preconceived notions about these epic religious wars, that are usually completely unfounded. The first myth is that the Christians attacked the innocent Muslims, with no basis for their revenge. This is simply factually untrue, as the Muslims had been besieging the Christian world for centuries. They had taken more than 2/3 of the Christian world under their oppressive wing, including Asia Minor, the Middle East, and North Africa. So the Christians had every right to be furious at the terrors they'd been plagued with for so long. Their anger wasn't in the slightest unwarranted, toward their fierce adversaries. Another lie about the Crusades was that their primary incentive for their journeys was to gain wealth and money. In actuality, joining the Crusades cost an enormous amount of cash, and many of those who volunteered ended up deep in debt. Also, the majority of Crusaders were already substantially rich and had no need to acquire more. A third fallacy is that the Crusades caused the Muslims to be bitter, which led to the modern day 9/11 tragedy.
However, the realization is that the Crusades were an insignificant period of Muslim history, so much so that few even knew what they were! Clearly it's evident that 21st-century terrorism was not the result of building prejudice, that budded with ancient strife. One final delusion was the assumption that the Christians were determined to convert their Muslim enemies, by sheer pressure. The facts contradict this, because there was considerably more Muslims than Catholics in Jerusalem.
3.Based solely on the documents you read, describe the events of the Fourth Crusade.
The fourth crusade was a total disaster and definitely the most note-worthy, as far as the extent of it's damages. It took place from 1201- 1204 and was led by Pope Innocent III. The original purpose of the crusade was to vanquish the city of Jerusalem, which was controlled by the Muslims. Yet the crusaders became seriously distracted, causing the plan to go awry. They ended up sacking the capital of the Byzantine Empire,Constantinople. Their hindrance was a man named Alexis, who claimed he was the rightful heir to the throne of Constantinople. According to him, the current man in authority had wormed his way into his position illegitimately.He promised to help pay the campaigner's debts, if they would help put him back in power. Unfortunately, in spite of Pope Innocent's protests, the majority pitied Alexis and wanted to help him. They disregarded the wise cautions of the Pope and presented Alexis to the people of the city. Mistakenly, they assumed the inhabitants would be hospitable to the young prince. This was far from the case, as the mob shouted Alexis down.They refused to acknowledge the young prince as the true emperor.
Now the crusaders were in a bad rut, because they desperately needed the money Alexis had to offer. They foolishly decided to attack the city, which housed over half a million! The easterners within eventually grew tired of fighting off Alexis's passionate defenders, and gave in. Fearful for his life, Alexis ran away with what belongings he had. Finally, he was reluctantly crowned king in August 1203. As he'd vowed, he began to pay the crusaders bills, starting with installment portions.Yet the manner in which he obtained the rest of the cash was absolutely appalling. He hacked the holy burial places of the emperors, stealing jewelry out of them! Then in turn, he sold these valuable ornaments for a high price. He also committed the atrocity of snatching gold from the church and having it liquefied. Even after these god-awful crimes, Alexis was still unable to fully repay what he owed.
The masses were infuriated with him and on the verge of an uproar. In his agony, Alexis urged the crusaders to depart. Despondently, he supplicated them to allot him more time. One night, his lieutenant, Mouzoupious informs him there is a mob outside his palace. He manipulates Alexis into following him, pretending he is going to procure his escape. Instead he cleverly sweeps him into a jail cell.
Then the scheming Mouzoupious appoints himself as the emperor, and orders Alexis put to death.The leaders of the 4th crusade are under no obligation to this man, and find themselves in a even bigger mess, Their bishops and abbots come to a verdict: Mouzoupious is an murderer and inadequate for the job. They conclude to wage war on him, which results in the epic Sack of Constantinople. This was an abominable event, involving the marauding of the city and the massacre of many of its citizens.
The fourth crusade left a bitter stain in it's wake, even further bridging the gap between the East and West. Their relationship only grew worse, because of everything that went on. It would take many long, painful years, before any reconciliation could happen.
There are four different misinterpretations of the Crusades, often mistakenly believed by the average person. Many people have preconceived notions about these epic religious wars, that are usually completely unfounded. The first myth is that the Christians attacked the innocent Muslims, with no basis for their revenge. This is simply factually untrue, as the Muslims had been besieging the Christian world for centuries. They had taken more than 2/3 of the Christian world under their oppressive wing, including Asia Minor, the Middle East, and North Africa. So the Christians had every right to be furious at the terrors they'd been plagued with for so long. Their anger wasn't in the slightest unwarranted, toward their fierce adversaries. Another lie about the Crusades was that their primary incentive for their journeys was to gain wealth and money. In actuality, joining the Crusades cost an enormous amount of cash, and many of those who volunteered ended up deep in debt. Also, the majority of Crusaders were already substantially rich and had no need to acquire more. A third fallacy is that the Crusades caused the Muslims to be bitter, which led to the modern day 9/11 tragedy.
However, the realization is that the Crusades were an insignificant period of Muslim history, so much so that few even knew what they were! Clearly it's evident that 21st-century terrorism was not the result of building prejudice, that budded with ancient strife. One final delusion was the assumption that the Christians were determined to convert their Muslim enemies, by sheer pressure. The facts contradict this, because there was considerably more Muslims than Catholics in Jerusalem.
3.Based solely on the documents you read, describe the events of the Fourth Crusade.
The fourth crusade was a total disaster and definitely the most note-worthy, as far as the extent of it's damages. It took place from 1201- 1204 and was led by Pope Innocent III. The original purpose of the crusade was to vanquish the city of Jerusalem, which was controlled by the Muslims. Yet the crusaders became seriously distracted, causing the plan to go awry. They ended up sacking the capital of the Byzantine Empire,Constantinople. Their hindrance was a man named Alexis, who claimed he was the rightful heir to the throne of Constantinople. According to him, the current man in authority had wormed his way into his position illegitimately.He promised to help pay the campaigner's debts, if they would help put him back in power. Unfortunately, in spite of Pope Innocent's protests, the majority pitied Alexis and wanted to help him. They disregarded the wise cautions of the Pope and presented Alexis to the people of the city. Mistakenly, they assumed the inhabitants would be hospitable to the young prince. This was far from the case, as the mob shouted Alexis down.They refused to acknowledge the young prince as the true emperor.
Now the crusaders were in a bad rut, because they desperately needed the money Alexis had to offer. They foolishly decided to attack the city, which housed over half a million! The easterners within eventually grew tired of fighting off Alexis's passionate defenders, and gave in. Fearful for his life, Alexis ran away with what belongings he had. Finally, he was reluctantly crowned king in August 1203. As he'd vowed, he began to pay the crusaders bills, starting with installment portions.Yet the manner in which he obtained the rest of the cash was absolutely appalling. He hacked the holy burial places of the emperors, stealing jewelry out of them! Then in turn, he sold these valuable ornaments for a high price. He also committed the atrocity of snatching gold from the church and having it liquefied. Even after these god-awful crimes, Alexis was still unable to fully repay what he owed.
The masses were infuriated with him and on the verge of an uproar. In his agony, Alexis urged the crusaders to depart. Despondently, he supplicated them to allot him more time. One night, his lieutenant, Mouzoupious informs him there is a mob outside his palace. He manipulates Alexis into following him, pretending he is going to procure his escape. Instead he cleverly sweeps him into a jail cell.
Then the scheming Mouzoupious appoints himself as the emperor, and orders Alexis put to death.The leaders of the 4th crusade are under no obligation to this man, and find themselves in a even bigger mess, Their bishops and abbots come to a verdict: Mouzoupious is an murderer and inadequate for the job. They conclude to wage war on him, which results in the epic Sack of Constantinople. This was an abominable event, involving the marauding of the city and the massacre of many of its citizens.
The fourth crusade left a bitter stain in it's wake, even further bridging the gap between the East and West. Their relationship only grew worse, because of everything that went on. It would take many long, painful years, before any reconciliation could happen.
Monday, March 6, 2017
English Lesson 110 Essay
"Which of the three authors would you prefer to read on your own time? Why?
I would probably read more of O. Henry's(William Sydney Porter)'s works. They are fairly intriguing and unpredictable, as you never know how they will end. He is very skilled in his plot twists and turns, condensing a good amount of material into a short story. He never failed to deliver new and intricate storylines each week to a newsletter, which were eagerly devoured by his fan-base. People from all over the country enjoyed his tales, such as the Gift of the Magi. This was a ironic story, from my point of view,because of how it turned out. A young newly-wed couple, Jim and Della both had good intentions of buying each other nice gifts. They wanted to express their respect and love for each other, by the bestowal of such tokens. But they had little spare money with which to purchase something. They were barely scraping by to pay for their basic essentials of food and rent. Yet the wife diligently saved what cash she could, which ended up only adding up to a dollar and eighty-seven cents. Naturally she despaired of carrying out her plan, especially as Christmas was fast approaching.
So she decided to devise a plan, one that involved a great deal of self-sacrifice on her part. She would sell her long hair to a hairdresser, in order to obtain what she needed. Her hair was her most prized possession, the only thing she owned of real value. But she was willing to give it up, if it meant that her Jim could have a fob chain for his watch. She went ahead and had it cut, hoping her husband would be pleased. Upon his late arrival from work, her fears surface that he will no longer think her pretty. Without her glowing tresses, she feels useless to him. She admits to selling her hair for the good cause.Jim then surprises her with a fine comb she had been mooning over for a while. Her fob chain gift is rendered useless, when she finds out he sold his watch! Jim's watch had been his most precious belonging, an old, treasured one of his father's. In the end, the husband and wife are touched by each other's thoughtfulness and can only laugh off the misunderstanding. They resolve to enjoy their Christmas Eve together, with a delicious meal of pork chops prepared by Della. This was a tender, touching chronicle, although it was only a mere forty pages.
This is a classic example of O. Henry's knack for bombshell finales. Each one of his concoctions thoroughly displays an impressive cleverness and creativity. He was able to make a steady income from his constant productions, as well as entertaining numerous people. I find it astounding how easily he came up with such fine stories, that were so acutely composed with excellent themes. He was able to combine a versatile sense of humor and good morales for an electrifying outcome. There wasn't a single story of his that didn't have some effective point to it, or teach a practical lesson.
Another aspect that makes O. Henry appealing is how relatable his characters are. They are simple, ordinary human beings, with emotions and faults like anyone. Therefore his writings could be attractive to the common man and not just the middle class. For the most part, they all had optimistic and positive outlooks on the world.
I would probably read more of O. Henry's(William Sydney Porter)'s works. They are fairly intriguing and unpredictable, as you never know how they will end. He is very skilled in his plot twists and turns, condensing a good amount of material into a short story. He never failed to deliver new and intricate storylines each week to a newsletter, which were eagerly devoured by his fan-base. People from all over the country enjoyed his tales, such as the Gift of the Magi. This was a ironic story, from my point of view,because of how it turned out. A young newly-wed couple, Jim and Della both had good intentions of buying each other nice gifts. They wanted to express their respect and love for each other, by the bestowal of such tokens. But they had little spare money with which to purchase something. They were barely scraping by to pay for their basic essentials of food and rent. Yet the wife diligently saved what cash she could, which ended up only adding up to a dollar and eighty-seven cents. Naturally she despaired of carrying out her plan, especially as Christmas was fast approaching.
So she decided to devise a plan, one that involved a great deal of self-sacrifice on her part. She would sell her long hair to a hairdresser, in order to obtain what she needed. Her hair was her most prized possession, the only thing she owned of real value. But she was willing to give it up, if it meant that her Jim could have a fob chain for his watch. She went ahead and had it cut, hoping her husband would be pleased. Upon his late arrival from work, her fears surface that he will no longer think her pretty. Without her glowing tresses, she feels useless to him. She admits to selling her hair for the good cause.Jim then surprises her with a fine comb she had been mooning over for a while. Her fob chain gift is rendered useless, when she finds out he sold his watch! Jim's watch had been his most precious belonging, an old, treasured one of his father's. In the end, the husband and wife are touched by each other's thoughtfulness and can only laugh off the misunderstanding. They resolve to enjoy their Christmas Eve together, with a delicious meal of pork chops prepared by Della. This was a tender, touching chronicle, although it was only a mere forty pages.
This is a classic example of O. Henry's knack for bombshell finales. Each one of his concoctions thoroughly displays an impressive cleverness and creativity. He was able to make a steady income from his constant productions, as well as entertaining numerous people. I find it astounding how easily he came up with such fine stories, that were so acutely composed with excellent themes. He was able to combine a versatile sense of humor and good morales for an electrifying outcome. There wasn't a single story of his that didn't have some effective point to it, or teach a practical lesson.
Another aspect that makes O. Henry appealing is how relatable his characters are. They are simple, ordinary human beings, with emotions and faults like anyone. Therefore his writings could be attractive to the common man and not just the middle class. For the most part, they all had optimistic and positive outlooks on the world.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Week 22 Review Essay
1) What was the Great Schism? What factors brought it on?
The Great Schism was a separation that occurred in 1054, between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Western Catholic churches. There was a terrible rift with the two denominations over who should hold religious authority. The main source of division was the Orthodox people's dire need for increased reverence and position. They were adamant that their city, Constantinople, should take first place in the seat of church dominance. Especially they wanted to be the prevailing power over Rome, as second best or even as their equal. In the past, Rome had been realized because it was the Capital of Italy, and also where Saint Peter founded the church. But the eastern people were still persistent that their city was just as important. They wanted Constantinople to be the new Rome. Their persuasive thesis was that Constantinople had also been founded by a Saint, Saint Andrew. This was only one of a number of factors that contributed to the dissension within them. There was also issues because of differences in language. The Catholics used Latin in their documents and the Orthodox used Greek. Also the geographical placement of the churches caused problems, with the Western church in Rome and Eastern church in Constantinople.
Other distinctions were in the practices of each church. For instance, the Orthodox allowed clerical marriage and used leavened bread, during the Eucharist. (Note:The Eucharist is a ceremony in memory of the Last Supper). The Catholics advocated for clerical celibacy and would only use unleavened bread. In the East, they were very submissive to the Byzantine emperor. The Western Catholics were not required to be under the political control of the emperor.
The last straw, so to speak, that sparked a permanent end, was the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Michael I Cerularius was promptly dismissed, forbidden from performing sacraments by Pope Leo IX in 1059 B.C. This act signified a final divide between the two churches, that lasted for over three decades.
3) What are the sacraments?
The sacraments are signs of invisible grace, that can be perceived by one of the five senses. There are 7 in total, that are administered within the church, by the bishops. They include baptism,confirmation, the Eucharist, healing(which comprises Penance & Healing of the Sick), and the Sacraments of Service:Holy Order and Matrimony. According to traditional Catholic belief, these sacraments were put in place by Christ himself and are given by his servants the priests. The spirit of grace can be seen in baptism, with the physical appearance of water on a person's head. In penance, your sins after baptism are forgiven by a priest. The evidence of this can be heard, when the priests pronounces you clean. These are two examples of how the sacraments are implemented in literal terms. They are regarded as holy and sacred by the Catholic church and very symbolic and serious.
4)What is an indulgence?
An indulgence lifts the burden of temporal punishment for sins from a person. Temporal punishment is the earthly consequences a sinner would normally have for wrongdoing. Indulges would lesson the severity of the penalty that was imposed. There is, however, some common misconceptions about indulgences that should be clarified. Many people think indulgences are the purchase of forgiveness of sins. This is not the case at all, contrary to popular belief. You can't buy your way into restitution. In order for the indulgence to be valid, you have to already have your sins forgiven in confession.After repenting of them, you are granted absolution by a priest.
Indulgences can also be used for the deceased by eliminating a person's time in purgatory.
The Great Schism was a separation that occurred in 1054, between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Western Catholic churches. There was a terrible rift with the two denominations over who should hold religious authority. The main source of division was the Orthodox people's dire need for increased reverence and position. They were adamant that their city, Constantinople, should take first place in the seat of church dominance. Especially they wanted to be the prevailing power over Rome, as second best or even as their equal. In the past, Rome had been realized because it was the Capital of Italy, and also where Saint Peter founded the church. But the eastern people were still persistent that their city was just as important. They wanted Constantinople to be the new Rome. Their persuasive thesis was that Constantinople had also been founded by a Saint, Saint Andrew. This was only one of a number of factors that contributed to the dissension within them. There was also issues because of differences in language. The Catholics used Latin in their documents and the Orthodox used Greek. Also the geographical placement of the churches caused problems, with the Western church in Rome and Eastern church in Constantinople.
Other distinctions were in the practices of each church. For instance, the Orthodox allowed clerical marriage and used leavened bread, during the Eucharist. (Note:The Eucharist is a ceremony in memory of the Last Supper). The Catholics advocated for clerical celibacy and would only use unleavened bread. In the East, they were very submissive to the Byzantine emperor. The Western Catholics were not required to be under the political control of the emperor.
The last straw, so to speak, that sparked a permanent end, was the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Michael I Cerularius was promptly dismissed, forbidden from performing sacraments by Pope Leo IX in 1059 B.C. This act signified a final divide between the two churches, that lasted for over three decades.
3) What are the sacraments?
The sacraments are signs of invisible grace, that can be perceived by one of the five senses. There are 7 in total, that are administered within the church, by the bishops. They include baptism,confirmation, the Eucharist, healing(which comprises Penance & Healing of the Sick), and the Sacraments of Service:Holy Order and Matrimony. According to traditional Catholic belief, these sacraments were put in place by Christ himself and are given by his servants the priests. The spirit of grace can be seen in baptism, with the physical appearance of water on a person's head. In penance, your sins after baptism are forgiven by a priest. The evidence of this can be heard, when the priests pronounces you clean. These are two examples of how the sacraments are implemented in literal terms. They are regarded as holy and sacred by the Catholic church and very symbolic and serious.
4)What is an indulgence?
An indulgence lifts the burden of temporal punishment for sins from a person. Temporal punishment is the earthly consequences a sinner would normally have for wrongdoing. Indulges would lesson the severity of the penalty that was imposed. There is, however, some common misconceptions about indulgences that should be clarified. Many people think indulgences are the purchase of forgiveness of sins. This is not the case at all, contrary to popular belief. You can't buy your way into restitution. In order for the indulgence to be valid, you have to already have your sins forgiven in confession.After repenting of them, you are granted absolution by a priest.
Indulgences can also be used for the deceased by eliminating a person's time in purgatory.
Friday, February 24, 2017
English Essay- Lesson 105(Mark Twain)
Would you read more of Mark Twain's writings even if they were not assigned in a course? Why or why not?"
I would most definitely read more of Twain's writings, whether or not they were assigned to me in school. Personally, I find his works highly amusing and interesting, even though they are so old. With what I've glimpsed so far, I think they are exceptional and intriguing pieces of art. Mark Twain had the fine gift of expertly attracting his readers/fans with each and every story that he composed. It's nearly impossible, I think, to become bored whilst lost in one of his tales. They have a timeless air about them, one that doesn't become faded and outdated even in the modern day. This is why his books have been popular best-sellers throughout the course of three long centuries.
I specifically thought his monologue on the chambermaids was funny, as well as the dissertation on Franklin's aphorisms. He humorously discusses how Benjamin Franklin's lifestyle was modeled by many families, much to the distress of their sons. He uses himself as a reference, saying how much he detested the rigorous rules he was subjected to. Twain recalls that as a young boy, he thought his parents were too strict and overworked him. This, he claimed, was all due to what they had read in Poor Richard's Almanac. They followed Ben Franklin's guidelines to a T, believing his precepts to be the preeminent solution for their son. Like many others in their time, they found no fault with taking advice from this respectable, successful man.
It was their earnest desire that their son should turn out just as wonderfully as Franklin, once he was grown to adulthood. They thought there was only one definite way for him to flourish, as they wished him to. Wisely taking to heart every nugget of insight from the learned, knowledgable Franklin was the key.Mark Twain was quick to point out that he saw little outcome from these well-meant efforts. He didn't see any improvement or difference, as a result of the extra hours he spent in tireless study and endless toil. He makes it abundantly clear that nothing was accomplished, but does so in a classic and comical tradition.
The short sketch on bachelorhood was the other anecdote that I found hilarious. It is a brief look into the lives of working bachelors and their trials with chambermaids. Twain loudly expresses his detest for these hotel maids he encountered in his business travels. He tells how they consistently fumbled with his things while cleaning, rearranging them in the most aggravating manner. His complaints sounded a lot like those of a husband, annoyed with his meddlesome wife. It paints a perfect picture of how men and women have completely contrasting views on home organization.
Twain makes himself look like a helpless, agitated man, at the mercy of these cumbersome domestic goddesses. Always out to make his life miserable, he'd concluded that there was nothing but trouble when it came to them. He repeatedly recounts different instances, where he came home to find his boarding room in total disarray(from his perspective). I feel sure many a bachelor in Twain's time could relate to his tribulations.
Mark Twain was a witty and remarkably intelligent character, with a knack for invoking laughter in all his readers. People appreciated the comfort and distraction of merriment in the awful aftermath of the Civil War drama. It was a balm to their troubled, weary hearts to relax in the company of his novels.
So I would infer that Mark Twain's publications were hugely enjoyable to me and I would love to explore more of them in the future.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Lesson 105 Review Essay(not yet completed)
1. The tenth and eleventh centuries brought an onset of issues to the church, with debilitating conditions increasing within it's borders. The level of discipline was horrendous among the monks and only continued to go downhill, as time progressed. Bishops, abbots, and priests were chosen by laymen, who were not qualified to make this crucial decision(this was known as lay control.) This was evident by the fact that they appointed some notoriously awful popes. One such example was Pope John XII, who ruled from 955 to 964. He was a godless, cruel and depraved human being, certainly not deserving of his position at all. Pope John was known for indulging in many forms of immoral behavior, including the rape of two of his own sisters!
He also toasted to the devil himself, murdered a cardinal, and attempted sex with women visiting his domain. What was intended as a holy palace soon became a foul site and a brothel. Pope John even took a warped delight in conducting orgies, some of which took place at the holy grave-places of Saints Peter and Paul. If Pope John wasn't an indication of the the laymen's incompetence, then I don't know what is. Their conclusions were based solely on politics and never for religious reasons. They were incapable of making wise, appropriate selections, especially as they were never meant to do so. A general amount of hostilities went on between aristocratic families as well. They were all venturing, along with some emperors, for the papal office.
Pope Leo IX made some attempts to make amends for the terrible events going on in the church. He was a follower of moderate reform, where he tried desperately to put a stop to simony and clerical marriage(Simony was the illegal sale of church offices and clerical marriage was the marriage of the clergy.) He firmly believed in the legitimate appointment of popes and bishops, ones who were actually respectable applicants. Pope Leo himself rose to his status in the proper way, to show he wasn't a hypocrite in his conviction. However he still didn't deal with the root problem;which was limiting the laymen's ability to appoint church officials at all.
2.Pope Gregory VII and King Henry IV had a heated disagreement, over the roles of church and state during this time. It was an intense conflict, to say the very least, one that brought dire consequences to King Henry. Pope Gregory was passionate about reinstating the pope's power and also ending the practice of lay control. He thought it was scandalous that they had been allowed to decide on bishops, without holding a church office. So he set out to stop what he looked upon as a highly inappropriate custom.
He also wanted to put his foot down and end the act of lay investiture. This was where laymen would endow bishops with their symbols for spiritual authority. King Henry, on the contrary, was astounded when he found out Gregory's plans for change. It was his opinion to accept ritual as it was, and not generate radical reform. In rebellion to Gregory, King Henry went ahead and invested a new bishop in Milan, Italy. The Pope was in favor of keeping the old bishop, who was instated by a insurgent movement. He was apt to warn Henry of his impending punishment, but the king recklessly persisted. Naturally, afterwards, he was overthrown by Pope Gregory at the Council of Worms. Gregory even went as far as to liberate the King's subjects from loyalty.Realizing the gravity of his error, Henry's attitude became contrite and broken after some time.
Desperate for restitution, he traveled in the bitter snow of the Alps to reach Canossa. After three long nights, he was at last able to retain Gregory's forgiveness. Shocking as it was, he fell right back to his old ways after recanting and being granted pardon! The pope proceeded to excommunicate him once again, for such impudence. Eventually Gregory won the battle between them, returning the papacy to it's rightful spot of authority.
This bitter fight between Henry and Gregory was symbolic, because it paved a fine line between church and state. It showed that their roles were not to be confused with each other,where one would dominate completely over the other.
3. Christendom during the 1100s was a universal religion that overshadowed every part of the world. It was an understand pact between people everywhere, something that brought them all together in cohesive integration or "unity'. Evidence of this brotherhood abounded everywhere. Monasteries would frequently send their monks from one country to another, to minister to people. The gospel was spread quickly throughout the globe in this manner.
He also toasted to the devil himself, murdered a cardinal, and attempted sex with women visiting his domain. What was intended as a holy palace soon became a foul site and a brothel. Pope John even took a warped delight in conducting orgies, some of which took place at the holy grave-places of Saints Peter and Paul. If Pope John wasn't an indication of the the laymen's incompetence, then I don't know what is. Their conclusions were based solely on politics and never for religious reasons. They were incapable of making wise, appropriate selections, especially as they were never meant to do so. A general amount of hostilities went on between aristocratic families as well. They were all venturing, along with some emperors, for the papal office.
Pope Leo IX made some attempts to make amends for the terrible events going on in the church. He was a follower of moderate reform, where he tried desperately to put a stop to simony and clerical marriage(Simony was the illegal sale of church offices and clerical marriage was the marriage of the clergy.) He firmly believed in the legitimate appointment of popes and bishops, ones who were actually respectable applicants. Pope Leo himself rose to his status in the proper way, to show he wasn't a hypocrite in his conviction. However he still didn't deal with the root problem;which was limiting the laymen's ability to appoint church officials at all.
2.Pope Gregory VII and King Henry IV had a heated disagreement, over the roles of church and state during this time. It was an intense conflict, to say the very least, one that brought dire consequences to King Henry. Pope Gregory was passionate about reinstating the pope's power and also ending the practice of lay control. He thought it was scandalous that they had been allowed to decide on bishops, without holding a church office. So he set out to stop what he looked upon as a highly inappropriate custom.
He also wanted to put his foot down and end the act of lay investiture. This was where laymen would endow bishops with their symbols for spiritual authority. King Henry, on the contrary, was astounded when he found out Gregory's plans for change. It was his opinion to accept ritual as it was, and not generate radical reform. In rebellion to Gregory, King Henry went ahead and invested a new bishop in Milan, Italy. The Pope was in favor of keeping the old bishop, who was instated by a insurgent movement. He was apt to warn Henry of his impending punishment, but the king recklessly persisted. Naturally, afterwards, he was overthrown by Pope Gregory at the Council of Worms. Gregory even went as far as to liberate the King's subjects from loyalty.Realizing the gravity of his error, Henry's attitude became contrite and broken after some time.
Desperate for restitution, he traveled in the bitter snow of the Alps to reach Canossa. After three long nights, he was at last able to retain Gregory's forgiveness. Shocking as it was, he fell right back to his old ways after recanting and being granted pardon! The pope proceeded to excommunicate him once again, for such impudence. Eventually Gregory won the battle between them, returning the papacy to it's rightful spot of authority.
This bitter fight between Henry and Gregory was symbolic, because it paved a fine line between church and state. It showed that their roles were not to be confused with each other,where one would dominate completely over the other.
3. Christendom during the 1100s was a universal religion that overshadowed every part of the world. It was an understand pact between people everywhere, something that brought them all together in cohesive integration or "unity'. Evidence of this brotherhood abounded everywhere. Monasteries would frequently send their monks from one country to another, to minister to people. The gospel was spread quickly throughout the globe in this manner.
What were the problems besetting the Church in the tenth and eleventh centuries? What was "moderate reform"?
(2) Describe the events that took place during the conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV. What was at stake?
(3) What was Christendom?
Monday, February 6, 2017
Western Civ. Week 20
(1) Describe the ninth- and tenth-century invasions. Apart from the physical destruction involved, how did they affect life in the West?
(2) Describe feudalism and manorialism.
(1).The 9th and 10th centuries were a disastrous time for the Carolingian Empire, one of uncontrolled insanity and destruction. Pandemonium was dominant throughout western Europe, with frequent attacks from three primary groups, the Muslims, Magyars, and the Vikings. These assaults were particularly violent and brutal, when attempted by the warlike, vicious Vikings. This fierce, tireless tribe dealt out terror and villainy without fail, leaving a trail of bloodshed in their wake. They became such a prevalent part of the scene, that a new prayer was added to the Catholic church"From the fury of the Norseman, good Lord deliver us." The inhabitants of these fear stricken provinces were beside themselves to know what to do. The kings were powerless to protect the citizens of their dominion, completely undependable for aid or provision.They were weak and unstable, exerting no measure of their authority. Order was dissolved altogether, and it was soon the norm to live in constant alarm and distress. Everyone was searching vainly for direction and peace, in light of the chaos surrounding them from every quarter. The Muslims overwhelmed them in Spain, whilst the Vikings were raiding cities throughout France,and the Magyars were invading Germany and Northern Italy.
The Vikings or Norseman were a group of Scandinavians, known for being wild and uncivilized to say the least. They were notorious for their merciless attitude, burning down cities and ravaging the towns to take their gold and silver. These experienced warriors also forced their victims into slavery The Muslims, who came from Africa, were also well practiced in the art of looting. They were eager to kidnap people in the places they encountered, in addition to stealing spoils. The Magyars played their own role in the misery of these raids, by torching French monasteries and bringing home the plunder.
(2) Feudalism was one of two methods or systems that people resorted to, in their desperate search for security
during the invasions. It was an exchange between a local townsperson and a member of the nobility, commonly referred to as a Lord. The Lord would give a portion of his land to a designated person who would agree to work on it as a vassal, or a holder of land.The vassal was given a land grant that afforded him his income and expected to give guidance to his Lord. As a trade-off, he would be protected by the Lord from the ruthless tribes of Vikings, Muslims etc., as they swept throughout the countryside. Lords were specifically known for ensuring that widow, orphans and the poor were taken care of.
Manorialism was similar to feudalism, but instead was a relationship between a "serf" and a Lord. The serf would maintain the land of his Lord, in return receiving food and protection. Their basic needs were fulfilled in abundance, as long as they farmed and kept the Lord's land in fine condition.
The Vikings or Norseman were a group of Scandinavians, known for being wild and uncivilized to say the least. They were notorious for their merciless attitude, burning down cities and ravaging the towns to take their gold and silver. These experienced warriors also forced their victims into slavery The Muslims, who came from Africa, were also well practiced in the art of looting. They were eager to kidnap people in the places they encountered, in addition to stealing spoils. The Magyars played their own role in the misery of these raids, by torching French monasteries and bringing home the plunder.
(2) Feudalism was one of two methods or systems that people resorted to, in their desperate search for security
during the invasions. It was an exchange between a local townsperson and a member of the nobility, commonly referred to as a Lord. The Lord would give a portion of his land to a designated person who would agree to work on it as a vassal, or a holder of land.The vassal was given a land grant that afforded him his income and expected to give guidance to his Lord. As a trade-off, he would be protected by the Lord from the ruthless tribes of Vikings, Muslims etc., as they swept throughout the countryside. Lords were specifically known for ensuring that widow, orphans and the poor were taken care of.
Manorialism was similar to feudalism, but instead was a relationship between a "serf" and a Lord. The serf would maintain the land of his Lord, in return receiving food and protection. Their basic needs were fulfilled in abundance, as long as they farmed and kept the Lord's land in fine condition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)