Bacon without the pig and the famous Darwin

Bacon:

    1)      Bacon believed that when you used the word Idol, it was a fault or error. Normally when you use the word idol, it’s to describe someone you look up too or a hero.

    2)      There shouldn’t be a importance of one idol with that of another. The idol that one believes in should be the main person or thing they should incorporate within their lives.

    3)      The tribe and marketplace are the results of social intercourse. Cave and theater are of those that are the results of an individual. A person would feel more nearly towards their idol or idols if he/she were restricted in society. If a hermit was completely out of society and grew up as such then they would be freer. However, if they were to find out about society then it’s personal preference.

Darwin:

    1)      Survival of the fittest is the curl way of everyone is on their own and must and will do everything they can in order to survive. Today you only see this among animals. For example, sharks will eat anything if it is hungry enough and needs food. It’s only instinct is to survive so it does so without bonds.

    2)      Animals that have been breed are more likely to be direct and efficient because they have qualities that have already been selective and will be more likely to grow up stronger and healthier. Natural selection is more dominated and important because it has the chance of evolution. It can evolve into “another” species that is stronger than the last and can adapt to the climate that it’s around.

    3)      In theory cloning can eliminate natural selection. In a way it’s a more efficient to create a species. Because you can pick and choose what gets produce and what doesn’t.

    4)      Humans have a hard time depending on others when things go wrong. Thus, agencies like the red cross come in when disaster strikes and in some situations, this is good. However, this can make us weak as individuals by the lack of knowledge it takes to survive.  

       
       

Woolf & Mead

Woolf & Mead

V. Woolf:

    1.      Her audience suggest that she wanted to encourage them and let them feel empowered to stand up and keep fighting.

    2.      She wanted to have gender equality between husband and wife. Women shouldn’t be just stuck at home doing all the work while their husbands went out to receive a good education and a good job.

    3.      Women should be able to receive the same education as men. Both men and women should also play equal parts in the house, cleaning, cooking, etc.

       

       M. Mead:

    1.      Both men and women can have temperamental traits that can relate for one another. One might suggest that they both have strong aggressive traits. These traits can sometimes be so strong that they can interfere one their relationship and sometimes be unforgivable.

    2.      Society loses majorly when they restrict the opportunities of one sex or the other. Doing this will not only put a certain view-point on a task but it’ll also put women on a lower level than men.

    3.      The price that is being paid is society is given labels for each gender’s. For example, women can cry but men can’t, or you’ll be considered as not strong enough. Another example would be that only men are strong enough to do this job.

    4.      Modern industrialized society should be concerned about the ways of “primitive” cultures, because if not then the past will repeat itself. Men will be labeled with only going to work drinking beer and watching sport channels. Where women will be labeled with going to work then coming straight home to cook, do laundry, and maybe drink a glass of wine. 

    

Blog 10

Wollstonecraft, Kozol, & Woodson

    1.       It seems that pernicious effects is a way to evilly undermine women to the point of them feeling small and insignificant. Almost like they’re not good enough to do a certain job or a task at hand. In other words, they would spoil society and everything it stands for. Pretty harsh in my opinion.

    2.       Women are not property. However, in the late 50’s it was almost certain that women were view that way. Things such as not being able to divorce their husband or if they wanted to leave they basically had to leave everything behind, even their own children. Marital rape was even legal and “a new law in 1782 stated that a husband should not beat his wife with a stick wider than his thumb.”     

    3.       It had to have a big impact on women from the way they were being treated. Almost the same as dogs you could say in some occasions. The inequality it brought to them made them stand up for one another and make them not as weak but strong and united.

    4.       Kozol stated that there was really no such thing as diversity. However, segregation among schools was more of the problem.

    5.       Woodson meant that if you wanted to get a higher education or a better job you must use the tools that have be given to you to get somewhere in life. No one deserves special treatment type of out look.

     

                               

BLOG 9

1. Have children learn at their own pace but guide them towards the right direction. This will give them the freedom to choose what they learn and how they learn it.

2. The texture, color, and size of the furniture make it interesting for the children. As well as make it easier for the kids to complete various activities.

3. When a child has freedom, they can choose what they want to learn at their own pace and continue on with repetition to further their learning. Only able to move on with the approval of the adult in charge.

4. Thinking in education is a way in learning but more on the brainstorming side. Not only should you take in the information but also ask yourself how it came to be this way. The apple fell from the tree from you shaking it, but why did it fall straight down?

5. One condition that must exist is to have a hands on learning approach. It’s been proven that hands on works better in most cases, which will be easier to grasp certain problems.

6. Learn for becoming a better citizen and improving society. Students while learning must have the free will to learn on their own but be carefully monitored. Better to guide the students then to push the students towards something.                                                               

   1.       Bourgeois can also be referred to as a white collar employee. Typically the white collar workers have office jobs. They work for a set salary wage, which is based off of a yearly rate. White collar workers also try to get benefits, vacation time, and bonus throughout the year. Proletarians in today’s time would be considered as a blue collar employee. They will work for an hourly rate so they’re only guarantee money for the time they have worked. Unless one is full time, around 40 hours a week, they will not receive any of the benefits or vacation time. Depending on their employer will determine if they get any bonus or not. A pro for being a Proletarian is that there is room to work overtime which can help you make more than salary. But a con to that would be working more hours than a salary employee.

    2.       Expanding the world market is good in some sense. It can bring new techniques on making certain products or bring new technology or ideas into a business. On the other hand it can also bring in competition between USA and other foreign countries. As long as people can collaborate with each other and be reasonable then I believe that expanding the world market is a good choice.

    3.       A big benefit that Marx expect communism to provide for the proletariat is that they see them as a class of people that are struggling to make end means. So because of this they are trying to “abolition of private property”. Doing this will in theory make everything as a whole and will put everyone on the same scale, working together instead of classes.

   4.       Unless something dramatically happens with the economy, then nothing will solve the problem of the Rich and Poor. Banks or governments will bail each other out until the economy as whole crashes. It’s not easy to solve the problem with the rich and poor. It’ll always be as such because of how society has evolved. Someone will always have more than you.  

                                         

   1) I believe that Aristotle would have been satisfied by the painting of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. It shows how a group of people can come together with organized thought and really look at the government they have been dealing with and try to form a better one by looking at a bigger picture “for the people”

   2) One element in the painting relating to the representing society, would be the simple feature of the many people in this one room brainstorming to come up with a more correct form of government. Not just having a signal person come up with laws and adjusting them to fit his or her means. 

   3) Aristotle would have assumed that based off the painting the government being formed would be a Democracy. Based on the painting you can see that they’re almost taking a vote in the room which you could relate to Democracy because it’s over “Majority Rule”.

   4) For the time period they represent it well. It was really up to everyone else to follow it or not. kkkk

        

             

       

     

      

Jake Wrye

Ron Hopper

Eng 105-17

September 17, 2017

 Blog 2

King and Cicero 

Does a just individual need to adhere to the laws? Perhaps they should just observe the laws and abide by the ones they see fit. Technically speaking, anyone and everyone has the freedom and ability to do whatever they desire. Certain actions however can obviously have a consequence that will follow.  A great example of this would be actions that Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) took to abolish segregation in the United States. One of the many actions that MLK did was that of peaceful protesting, and in the spring of 1963 MLK and his organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, went out to peacefully protest about ending segregation. Instead of getting a positive response from the community, they were attacked and many were thrown in jail including MLK.

MLK saw that segregation was bad, and it was. He also saw that police were very heavily abusing their power to control certain situations. It’s with this that he took action and chooses to fight back with the government.  How is this though? We’re lead to believe that the laws are definite and supposed to be followed without any question. In Cicero Reading, Philus goes about saying   “But which laws is he to obey? All the different laws that exist? There are difficulties here. Inconsistency, between laws, ought to be impermissible, since it is contrary to what nature demands. But the point is that laws are not imposed on us by nature—or by our innate sense of justice. They are imposed by the fear of being penalized. In other words, human beings are not just, by nature, at all.”  

I believe that what Cicero is saying is that laws are put into place to keep control of people and keep the sanity with everyone. Back then it was keep the whites over here and the blacks over there. In fact it should have been keep the morally good over here and the criminals over there.  People are not simply just or unjust; it’s too broad of a category to label someone in. Instead people just follow what others have put in place to suit their needs in the past. It’s up to the newer generation to adjust any faulty laws in order to keep the “sanity” with everyone.