The Merchant of Venice

In The Merchant of Venice the book covered the themes about religion, gender and money.

In Venice the majority of the people were Christians (I’m guessing.) I am assuming that all of the characters beside Shylock and his daughter were Christians. In the story there wasn’t big distinction between Jews and Christians because they both read the same bible and they looked alike. The only difference was their name and they both interpret the stories in the bible differently. So my question is what the big deal was because a Jew had to convert to a Christian. Shylock could have convert to a Christian and still do the same thing spiritually as if he was a Jew.

Then the finance problem is what gets on my nerves. Bassanio needs money to court Portia. (ok fine whatever)

etc… etc…

It’s time for Shylock to his money back. Shylock doesn’t want double the money that he led to Bassanio. Shylock wants what’s in the contract which is Antonio flesh. I understand it’s a contract you have to go by the contract but he was given a chance for double that money but Shylock wants flesh. (are you kidding me) very funny!!!!!!!!!

Than the judge tells Shylock that he gets Antonio flesh but he can’t he can’t make Antonio bleed. What type of sense is that? Than Shylock changes his mind because he can’t make Antonio bleed, Shylock goes for the money (good thinking) the slick chick Portia tells Shylock he can’t because that’s not in the contract. (now she starting to get on my nerves cause she flip flopping) So now Shylock has to convert and give half of his property to his Antonio and Jessica. (now I’m too the point where I don’t like Portia nor Bassanio or Antonio) they all did wrong. (Shylock was the only good person) All he wanted was what was in the contract and he couldn't get it because he was a Jew. Than later on he converted to Christianity. I wonder if Shylock could of took him back to court after converted and still get treated the same.

The whole gender theme was about Bassanio and Antonio’s relationship. It was a little too strange too friendly to be a men friendship. Bassanio picks Antonio over his wife Portia. Portia gave a Bassanio a ring and told him no matter what don’t take the ring off. Later Bassanio takes the ring off to thank the person for saving his friend. That sounds very stupid. He gave up his word of bond to his wife for his friend. Sounds a little too funny. (NOW I KNOW WHY SHAKESPEARE CALLED IT A COMIC STORY)

It is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

science and religion can co-exist on certain circumstances

Science and Religion can co-exist if they are not put together in the same category. For example scientist want to use scientific methods to explain certain situations happened in the bible. Scientist doesn’t believe that God brought multiply miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt. Scientist doesn’t believe that Nile river turned into blood because God. They believe it could of happen for another natural reason. The streams, waterways, ponds and all of the lakes will turn into blood. There was blood everywhere in Egypt, even in the wooden buckets and stone jars.

Then God causes frogs to come up abundantly from the river and these frogs then enter the people’s houses, their bedchambers, on the people themselves, into their ovens, into their kneading bowls. Scientist believes that the frogs came out of nowhere. They believe that all of a sudden all the frogs decide to come at the same time.

And all the other stories etc…

Scientist just thinks they know everything with a scientific experiment, hypothesis, and conclusions.


This is where science and religion can’t co-exist. When science wants to prove something’s in the bible as a myth.

Science needs to stick to finding new diseases and how to treat it etc…

Science doesn’t need to discuss whats in the bible.

Science is not always Right. It took scientist a while to find out that the world was round But the bible already stated that the world was round not flat.

God created everything, solar system too

The bible in the book of Genesis say's "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

The bible say's that God created the angels, man, and the animals. Not life on other planets.

Earth was created before any other planet or star existed. Earth came into existence on the first day of Creation (Genesis 1:1). God withheld the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19).

God created the universe. I John 1:3 says, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". The Creation is the greatest miracle. God created all things - matter, life, and our own souls.

This means that the solar system was also created by God. Everything has a purpose. The solar system didn't evovle from anywhere, it was put there for a reason.

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.