relationship b/w thought, will, & intention

In todays class the conversion was confusing. It was something about Neuros moving and God controlling something. It was about the relationship between thought, will, and intention. It was something about human will and human consciousness and nonspiritual people believeing in science. I didn;t understand what was going on and whatever it was it didn't get answered. No matter what people said it kept leading us back to the question about life I guess. In guess it can't be answered so we have to move on to another topic.

I hate reading complex books

Socrates and The Bhagavad-Gita are both complicated to read. I think The Bhagavad-Gita is a little more complex. Certain parts and teachings in the book were easy. After reading the answers to Arjuna question, it seemed like Lord Krishna didn’t answer the question or maybe I just didn’t understand the answer to the question. I didn’t like how The Bhagavad-Gita ended because I got confused at the end. I was actually confused through the whole thing. Did Arjuna end up fight the battle or what? I can’t believe Arjuna and Lord Krishna had this whole conversion in the middle of the battlefield. I know it went by faster than how long it took me to read it but it seemed like the conversation took longer in the middle of the battlefield. This book is also similar to Socrates. They both ended with leaving people clueless. I liked how Arjuna asked questions rather than Socrates because Socrates was too (thinking), too (thinking), too (thinking) I don’t know, but it’s too something. I don’t think I like Socrates but anyway I prefer to read Socrates rather than The Bhagavad-Gita. At first I thought The Bhagavad-Gita was easier to read but it’s not. What was different about the characters that asked questions was that Socrates did more of the talking and Lord Krishna did more of the talking. Socrates asked a lot of questions as if he knew the answer already and he wanted to confuse Euthyphro the teacher. Arjuna asked questions and didn’t ask questions to every little thing Lord Krishna said. Both of the characters asked questions in different ways. I think that if Socrates asked questions how Arjuna did than Socrates wouldn’t have been trialed.

By the way the prompt for the second essay is confusing a little. I don’t understand how the positive things from the books dialogues can make the class run better. What if I think the class is running just fine?

Gita teachings 1-2

In class I heard people say that the text was religious but I don't think the book is religious. The book isn't that boring but it does get a little confusing about who is talking at times and who certain people are. The Indian names are confusing. It seems like it's a story I’m reading rather than a dialogue in teachings 1. In the first teaching Arjuna said that he did not want to kill them even if he is killed. (pg. 28) Arjuna did not want to fight the men because he can know happiness if he kills his kinsmen because they are men of peoples family. I like page 29 because he talks about corrupting one thing that can lead to many other things be corrupted. It eventually becomes a circle. If the family is ruined then chaos overwhelms the family. If chaos overwhelms the family then women of family is corrupted. If women are corrupted then disorder is born in society. Then the family is dragged is to hell.

In teachings two Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that there is no point in grieving because death is inevitable. So what’s the point in grieving? On page 36 I was confused about line 28. Creatures are unmanifest in the beginning and the end but are manifest in life. How are creatures unmanifest in origin? I guess creatures unmanifest in the end means dead because at the end creatures are not alive. On page 36 line 33. I think its funny (really not funny) how Arjuna will gain evil if he does not kill people but Lord Krishna wants him to commit an evil act. Why is the fruit mentioned? (Page 38-39) Lord Krishna says that “be intent on action not on the fruits of action” What are the fruits of action? “Men are drawn by fruits of action”

UC Gilgamesh play

I thought the play was good. It was broken up into two parts because of the intermission. I liked the first part. The second part after the intermission was very boring. I felt like I wanted to leave but I couldn’t because I was sitting next to my professor. LOL .He wouldn’t have cared but I could tell that he didn’t like it either because of his facial expressions. The play was funny even though the funny parts weren’t meant intentionally.

It was funny how I missed out a few parts in the book because certain stuff happened in the play that I didn’t know was in the book. For example, when Gilgamesh went to the bottom of the sea to get a prickly plant, the next day the snake took the plant. It was acted out in the play but I can’t remember reading about. I didn’t like reading the book but I liked parts of the play. I found it funny how the people came out with cardboards shaped as animals running across the stage. Funny. The actors could have least been graceful it looked kind of cheesy. One thing i really liked was the forest. They made it looked HOT. For a minute i thought it was a real forest. To sum it all up it was a 6 out of 10.

My opinions on Socrate pg 48-54

What I noticed is when Socrates asks Euthyphro a question in that question there are two statements and Euthyphro has to say which one correct but he answers with a yes. Euthyphro answers the question with a yes but questions are for him to pick one of the statements that he agrees with.

For example “But is this the correction that we are now making in the argument: that whatever all the gods hate in impious and whatever they love is pious, but whatever some love and others hate neither both? Is this how you now wish it to be defined by us concerning the pious and the impious?”

There is more than one question but Socrates answers “Yes, for what prevents it”

It seems as though Socrates question is different but when Euthyphro defines pious and impious to Socrates it’s the same. It’s kind of repetitive because Euthyphro keep telling Socrates that whatever the gods love are pious and whatever they gods hate are impious. Pg 52

On page 53 I am confused 10c paragraph because Socrates talks about the thing carried something carried because it is carried or because of something else. Then he goes on more about “Nor because it is something carries is it carried; rather, because it is carried, it is something carried.” Socrates questions get even more complicated I’m surprised that Socrates didn’t trick himself up in his own question or Euthyphro. Sometimes you can ask so many questions you forget what the first question was and how you even to the last question. As the questioning continues and starts to get more complex Euthyphro answer’s gets smaller. For example Socrates conversation will be a paragraph and Socrates will answer with a “yes”, “certainly”, “quite so” or “I do”

I think Socrates ask question to the point where he is being aggressive. He questions Euthyphro as Euthyphro is the student. Socrates asks to be Euthyphro student because Euthyphro is wise but Socrates is not acting like a student. All he wants to do is ask questions rather than take anything in account of what Euthyphro says. If I had a wise teacher I would listen not ask so much damn questions that are uncalled for. It’s ok to ask questions but after awhile you need to do research so you learn. Socrates doesn’t deserve to go to jail but he needs to learn to stop questioning people on purpose so he can trick them up into what they believe.

My opinions on Socrate pg 41-47

Young ones are corrupted by corrupter’s page 42

I agree because it all starts with what you are told as a young child. It may not seem wrong to ask questions but I know that I would not want anyone questioning my child beliefs or my child period. Socrates makes up new God’s and that is wrong for young ones but that is Socrates opinion. Socrates should keep that to himself.

It is good to take care of the young first but not how Socrates take care of them because he wants to keep questioning them until they are confused and they will not have an answer.

Socrates thinks that Euthyphro should prosecute his father only if his father killed someone outside of the family. Euthyphro’s father didn’t literally kill the servant but if Euthyphro’s father didn’t bind and throw the servant in the ditch he wouldn’t have died. I don’t think it was impious for a son to take his father to court.

pi·ous
having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations. Euthyphro defines Pious as proceeding against whoever does injustice regarding murders etc… I think this is fulfilling a religious obligation. It will be obligating to do the right thing by their God’s.

I don’t think this relates back to Euthyphro taking his father to court. If anything it would be a pious act.

I think if someone in my family commits murder, I don’t know if I could prosecute them especially if I’m close to them.

Then Socrates asks to become Euthyphro student after their first conversation about Euthyphro sending his father to court and because he thinks Euthyphro is wise.

Gensis Ch. 9

1.) Why did Noah curse his family and his son offspring’s?

~ Noah did not curse his family or his son offspring’s. He cursed Canaan.

2.) What authority does Noah have to curse Family?

~ Noah did not curse his family but he does have authority to curse his son offspring. Every man has authority in their house and in their family.

3.) If Noah is a righteous man than why did he get drunk and curse his son offspring?

~ Just because God picked Noah because he was a righteous man that doesn’t mean Noah doesn’t have sins. Noah is a man that sins just like other men that has flaws and sin. Noah is still a prophet man. Noah put a curse on Canaan because Canaan ridiculed Noah because he saw Noah nakedness and that was disrespect. Canaan was the first person to walk through the tent but he went back out and told Shem and Japheth.

Remember God had already blessed Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:1

~ Even though Canaan was cursed he was still blessed
~ Canaan is the blessed land in Israel

White supremacists use this to justify slavery or racial prejudice. Some people use this story for the justification of slavery but Africans are the descendents Cush. Cush is the father of Africans.

Arabic’s were the FISRT to enslave black people.