After reading part two of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography I am a little bothered by his attitude. To start off the second half of your book with letters from your friends begging you to come back and write because their lives would not be complete unless they know what happened to you is a little much. For a man who is claiming to just be writing for his son about the anecdotes from his family Franklin is a little proud. The entire second half of the autobiography consists of Franklin's discussion of how perfect he is in his quest for perfection. He is undoubtedly a very good human being and many of us could learn great lessons from him. However, he wastes no time agreeing to the fact and giving you ten different reasons why that's right.
In addition, I found his discussion of religion interesting. I agree with Franklin when he discusses the fact that many religions share the same values. However, I believe that Franklin getting mad at the preacher's interpretation of a scripture and leaving the church forever a little much. Franklin is such a know- it- all that a difference of opinion was enough to send him home to study the "little Liturgy" that he had whipped together in his spare time. From this point Franklin goes into great detail about his quest for perfection. The very thought alone is preposterous if he is a Christian. Perfection on this earth was only in the form of Jesus Christ. Period. No matter how many dots he keeps track of he will never be perfect.
Finally, the fact that Franklin sees it suitable to place Jesus Christ in the same category as Socrates is almost laughable. On advising the world to practice humility Franklin states that we should, "imitate Jesus and Socrates". Sure, the salvation of man is really comparable to Socrates' ideas on life. I honestly believe that Franklin has such a warped view of himself that he believes that man has the ability to reach the level of The Lord. In my opinion Franklin needs a big reality check.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Just Don't Touch My Wife
In his article, "The History of the Dividing Line" Byrd discusses the miscegenation of the settlers and the Native American women. Byrd discusses how the troubles between the settlers and the Native Americans could have been avoided had the Native Americans just loaned out their daughters to them. He states that much bloodshed could have been avoided by this contract and the country as a whole would be more populous. What I found interesting was that he goes further and explains that even the color of the Native Americans skin would no longer be an issue because the whiteness of the settlers would wash them out in two generations.
This passage confused me the first time that I read it for many reasons. At first glance it looks as though Byrd is in favor of interracial relations and a living experience. This confused me mainly because throughout most of history this sort of situation has been strictly punished and very looked down upon. However, once I thought about it some more I realized what the main difference was. The women in the scenario are Native American. They are not "pure" white women. The cases in history that I remembered all involved white women who were "tainted" by men of color. Throughout history women have been seen as objects to be owned. A husband has rights over everything that he owns and can't have anyone lessening the value of that property. So when a man of color infringes on a white man's property, or in this case his wife or daughter, it is an act punishable by death. To Byrd, the relations between a white settler and a Native American woman were fine because she was already worth less due to her color.
In addition, the eventual mixing of the two races would not be an advancement in race relations, but a white out correction to a Native American "problem". In Byrd's mind the color of the Native Americans would eventually fade away. However, I'm sure that he would not feel the same about this mixing if it were the white females who would be giving birth to the lighter skinned children. Just so long as his white property was not involved Byrd saw no problem mixing things up in the New World.
This passage confused me the first time that I read it for many reasons. At first glance it looks as though Byrd is in favor of interracial relations and a living experience. This confused me mainly because throughout most of history this sort of situation has been strictly punished and very looked down upon. However, once I thought about it some more I realized what the main difference was. The women in the scenario are Native American. They are not "pure" white women. The cases in history that I remembered all involved white women who were "tainted" by men of color. Throughout history women have been seen as objects to be owned. A husband has rights over everything that he owns and can't have anyone lessening the value of that property. So when a man of color infringes on a white man's property, or in this case his wife or daughter, it is an act punishable by death. To Byrd, the relations between a white settler and a Native American woman were fine because she was already worth less due to her color.
In addition, the eventual mixing of the two races would not be an advancement in race relations, but a white out correction to a Native American "problem". In Byrd's mind the color of the Native Americans would eventually fade away. However, I'm sure that he would not feel the same about this mixing if it were the white females who would be giving birth to the lighter skinned children. Just so long as his white property was not involved Byrd saw no problem mixing things up in the New World.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Opinion or Sense
In the work, "A Divine and Supernatural Light", Jonathan Edwards chooses at many times to distinguish between having an opinion about something and having a sense of it. He distinguishes that one can have an opinion about something just by knowing that it exists. This knowledge could be completely by hearsay. However, he states that to have a sense of something you must be able to have experienced it and to truly appreciate what it is. An example would be that you could be in the opinion that someone was beautiful because that is what you have heard. However, to have a sense of that person's beauty you must have experienced it and appreciated it. Edwards goes on to say that you can be of the opinion that Christ is holy and gracious just from knowing the word of God. However, to have a true sense of the holiness and grace of Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit.
I found this distinction interesting, especially for the audience that Edwards was preaching to. The Puritans believed that you should constantly be searching your soul for signs of grace and meditating on being prepared. Edwards is preaching that not only do you need to know of the Lord and his holiness, you need to have a sense of Him. So no matter how free of sin you tried to live your life if you were not blessed with the religious insight to have a true sense of the Lord then you were just as bad off as the wretched. Edwards states that those whose minds are polluted by sin are blind to the light of the Lord and are unable to have a sense of him. Surely the elect, though they did not know who they were, would have a sense of the Lord.
Something that distinguishes Edwards from others like Mather and Newton is his abandonment of reason. Mather, though he gives all credit and glory to God, acknowledges the reasonable and speculative features of the light. He references scientists like Newton and discusses the scientific descriptions of light. Edwards, on the other hand, says that though you need reason to function and perceive things, it is the spirit and senses that truly understand things. Edwards goes on to say, "for it is not a thing that belongs to reason, to see the beauty and loveliness of spiritual things; it is not a speculative thing, but depends on the sense of the heart". Edwards ends in saying that though you may gain pleasure in studying these things rationally, it is nothing compared to the joy and pleasure of this divine light shining into your soul.
I found this distinction interesting, especially for the audience that Edwards was preaching to. The Puritans believed that you should constantly be searching your soul for signs of grace and meditating on being prepared. Edwards is preaching that not only do you need to know of the Lord and his holiness, you need to have a sense of Him. So no matter how free of sin you tried to live your life if you were not blessed with the religious insight to have a true sense of the Lord then you were just as bad off as the wretched. Edwards states that those whose minds are polluted by sin are blind to the light of the Lord and are unable to have a sense of him. Surely the elect, though they did not know who they were, would have a sense of the Lord.
Something that distinguishes Edwards from others like Mather and Newton is his abandonment of reason. Mather, though he gives all credit and glory to God, acknowledges the reasonable and speculative features of the light. He references scientists like Newton and discusses the scientific descriptions of light. Edwards, on the other hand, says that though you need reason to function and perceive things, it is the spirit and senses that truly understand things. Edwards goes on to say, "for it is not a thing that belongs to reason, to see the beauty and loveliness of spiritual things; it is not a speculative thing, but depends on the sense of the heart". Edwards ends in saying that though you may gain pleasure in studying these things rationally, it is nothing compared to the joy and pleasure of this divine light shining into your soul.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Introduction
My Name is Kate Cunningham and I am a Junior at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This is the first blog I have ever written and it is a requirement for my English 122 class. I am from Columbus, North Carolina and I am majoring in Sociology.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)