Thomas Paine's Age of Reason

I had anticipated that I would not enjoy this book just from the mentions of it in class and based off the description on the back, and I was not wrong.  I found this book pretty offensive in a way that was really unnecessary… I think Paine could have gotten his beliefs across and made strong points without completely trashing the church page after page.  I would probably have appreciated this text much more if he had portrayed his thinking in more respectful nature, but I was interested in what he had to say about his own religion.

Paine believed in one and only God just as Christians, Jews, and Muslims do, but was strongly against organized religion.  He found the institution of the church corrupt, and much of his book is him explaining why the Bible should not be trusted and how organized religion fails.  He thought that instead of a Holy book of questionable origins and content (mainly hearsay and unproved “miracles”), one should simply look to creation and nature as God’s Word.  He also believed in the equality of all people; he supported kindness and rights for all humans.  Being a girl, I have no problem with this idea and even agree.  Paine also did not believe in Jesus because he had never witnessed any of the miracles said to be done by Jesus in the Bible (which he also distrusts) and therefore it is merely hearsay; he repeats this belief many times.  He puts a strong trust in science and the laws of the universe, which were created by God, and miracles that go against these principles obviously go against his faith in science.

This is all fine, and even though I did not always agree with some of his beliefs, I was interested while reading it.  My only issue was his harsh criticism of supposedly all organized religion, which pretty much turned into a bash Christianity session.  I think it is fine to voice your opinions on religion and assert your beliefs, as long as it is done with respect.  Religion is a huge part of many people’s lives and can be very important to them, so it is appropriate to address issues with it in a polite manner, which Thomas Paine did not seem to do.  For example, on page 56 he is discussing the story of Creation offered in Genesis and saying why it is not to be regarded as fact, and he says that he does not believe Moses could have been the author of Genesis as is commonly believed because Moses “was too good a judge of such subjects to put his name to that account.”  He goes on to support this by saying how Moses was educated, but that seems to imply that those who believe this are uneducated and not a good judge of such subjects.  Woah. 

My other issue is that if you are going to criticize something and share openly why it is wrong, at least get your facts straight.  There are multiple occasions where Paine attempts to prove why organized religion is wrong with incorrect statements.  These mistakes are often even noted in the footnotes as false; an example of this is on page 61 when he repeatedly mixes up his facts on the life of Jesus while attempting to criticize the New Testament.  He says how Jesus’ parents must have been poor if they were unable to afford a bed for him when he was born, which the footnote refers to as “another slip of the memory on Paine’s part” since Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room at the inn, not because they were poor…  Then he starts talking about the inconsistencies of the New Testament because each gospel has a slightly different account of the same story, but later he states how the language could cause translation issues (in an attempt to prove why the Bible should not be trusted), so couldn’t these translation errors account for the little differences between the gospels?

Although I did not particularly enjoy this text, I think Temple wants us to read it because it gives a completely different perspective from the other two readings in the Ways of Knowing unit.  It opposes directly Genesis and indirectly the Daodejing (because it connects to an organized religion) and having these three completely different viewpoints gives you something to think about.  I think it is important to know about all the other religions no matter which or if you believe in any yourself because of the huge role that it plays in so many people’s lives and shapes their personalities and choices in a big way.  Understanding others’ beliefs helps one to understand that person more overall and that understanding could lead to a greater tolerance for different views.  I think what this world needs is a lot more tolerance.

Genesis

My mom is an ordained minister at our church so I grew up hearing Bible stories at home and in Sunday School each week.  A lot of those stories are from Genesis, like the story of creation or Noah’s ark.  However, even though I was familiar with Genesis and had read parts of it, until it was assigned for this class I had never read the whole thing.  It was interesting to hear the stories that were always sort of left out in Sunday school, like how Dinah is raped or how Jacob had two wives. 

It’s interesting that Genesis is the first book of the Bible, because many of the things that occur in this book that are apparently okay with God (or at least they aren’t punished for doing them) are not so accepted by Christians today.  For example, polygamy is totally believed to be a sin by almost all Christians, but it happened all the time in Genesis.  Also, lying about your wife just being your sister so that she is basically raped but you live is definitely not advocated in the church!  Why then was it okay for those Christians in the ancient days?

For some reason, another fact that always escaped me is that Genesis actually comes from the Torah, which is the Jewish equivalent of the Bible.  I don’t know why I never knew this, since it makes perfect sense now that I know.  Jesus was Hebrew and the Jews are considered to be God’s “chosen people”; Christianity and Judaism pretty much agree up to the point of Jesus being the Son of God and dying to take away our sins, so it is perfectly logical that the two religions have the same texts to begin with before diverging based on each religions different beliefs.  I think this is really interesting either way.

What this text says about knowledge is another interesting but confusing thing I never really thought about before.  The other books we read in class were fairly straight-forward in their perspectives on knowledge, but Genesis is not really as clear for me.  It seemed to me that it was not really being portrayed very positively, but it was never really anti-knowledge either.  It does tell us that the tree from which Eve took the forbidden fruit was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and once she ate that apple, sin came into play and she and her husband were banned from the Garden of Eden.  It sort of seemed like people are better off being less knowledgeable and simply trusting God and following His ways.

Just as I am a little confused as to what Genesis’ stance on the issue of knowledge vs. ignorance is, I am also not all that positive as to why Temple requires everyone to read this in Mosaics I.  My thoughts, though, are that it goes along with the theme “Ways of Knowing” and is important to at least understand because it is a part of a religion that millions of people follow and base their lives around.  Religion is a very important part of people’s lives and often shapes their decisions and how they live, so it makes sense that Temple wants us to delve into some different religions at least a little bit.  Since Genesis relates to both Judaism and Christianity and maybe even Islam, it is a good text to pick since it covers several bases at once.  I was talking to my roommate, Lizzie about this and she had similar thoughts on this.  She said she thinks it’s important for everyone, Christian or non-Christian, to understand because it is such a huge part of our culture today.  She noted how tons of people use the Bible as an argument for or against many popular debates today such as gay marriage and abortion, and in order to understand the arguments being made and assess if they are even accurate, a basic knowledge of the Bible is needed.  Therefore Temple is helping us become better-rounded and preparing us to be engaged citizens of our country.

The Daodejing of Laozi

When I picked up the Daodejing of Laozi to read for class last week, I really had no idea what to expect.  I had never heard of Daoism before and know next to nothing about Chinese history or culture.  The intro was therefore pretty helpful in preparing me a little more for what was coming.  This book is not one that can be easily digested and read and really launches straight into the complexity from the first page.  The language and contradictions made me have to stop and reread the same sentence over and over until I finally got a grasp of what was maybe being suggested, and I was constantly flipping back and forth from the footnotes.  Overall though, I think this might be my favorite reading so far if not in the whole class, then definitely in this unit!

It’s really hard to put into words what I was feeling about the Dao and my opinions on it, because I feel like it is so subjective.  After sitting through class today I realized that what I was getting from it was not exactly what others were interpreting it to mean.  The main vibes I was getting from it though were relaxing, peaceful feelings (even though the reading was not necessarily easy to do).  That being said, I was reading this outside in the courtyard on a beautiful 80 degree spring day that felt closer to summer, so that could definitely have influenced my perceptions as well!

Not all my peaceful, stress-free feelings were coming from the weather though, because the Daodejing does promote non-action, non-violence, and just basically getting along with each other.  Following its principles will lead individuals to an enlightened existence in which they are completely at peace with the world and not trying to overthink anything.  It says they are good to everyone, even those who are not good, and are content with mere contentedness. 

One of the more interesting teachings of this text I think is its stance on government.  The Dao teaches a very hands-off almost Republican-type governmental style, with the basis being the belief that creating more laws creates more criminals.  It argues that people are happier and more peaceful if they aren’t being confined by tons of laws and regulations.  This concept confused me at first, but after thinking about I realized I totally agree.  I taught preschool for a couple of months in high school and as soon as you told the kids NOT to do something, they were all curious and trying to do it.  No one wants to be told what to do, so it makes sense that if you are trying to promote peace, you would believe in fewer rules so there is less temptation to break them and therefore disrupt the peace.

Although I like a lot of what the Daodejing is promoting and striving for, I can’t see myself ever becoming a Daoist and following the Way.  However, I do think some of these points are able to be carried out into every human’s life, no matter what religion they believe in, and be beneficial to human race as a whole.  For example, being kind to all people, even those who are not kind to you first, is something that everyone can benefit from.  This one little change could have a huge impact if every person made an effort to try it.  This is why I think Temple chose this as a required reading for all their students: we are the new generation, and change can start with us.  Personally, I am glad I read this because it made me aware of an entire religion I had not known existed, and if I had gained nothing else from this text, that alone would have made it worth it.

The Souls of Black Folk

My first impressions of The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B. Du Bois was that this book had potential to be my favorite of the class readings yet.  I think I still would say I enjoyed this more than some of our other books, but for me a big drawback was the language.  I really struggled to get through each chapter mostly because it took me so long to read each word and really understand what was going on, causing me to get distracted easier and not get as into the stories as I wanted to be.  The sentences are very long and have multiple forms of punctuation in them, and coupled with the outdated wording, I was completely lost a good majority of the time.  This is understandable, however, because of the time period at which this was written.  Du Bois, being a well-educated man, was writing in a style that was common for erudite men at the time.  It does come off as very scholarly, in my opinion, which helps add a sense of credibility to the already spot-on assessments addressed in each essay.

The content of this book is what made it closer to the top of my favorite books for this course.  Racism is a topic that is still, unfortunately, a problem in today’s society, making the discussion more interesting because I can relate to it more closely.  The sad truth is that it is more than a hundred years from the time when Du Bois wrote this book, and many of the things he points out as problems are still issues today.  For example, Du Bois talks a lot about the “Color Line”: the imaginary “line” that separates whites and blacks.  Although he is writing just after the Emancipation of slaves and the end of the Civil War, this color line still exists today, although perhaps a little less severely.  African Americans, along with all other citizens regardless of race, have the right to vote and are protected by law to be treated equally.  However, whites and blacks are not totally integrated and a lot of prejudice and stereotypes keep the two groups separate from each other. 

This point is illustrated really well in the recent controversial article, “Being White in Philly” by Robert Huber.  Huber interviews multiple Philadelphia citizens on topics about slavery and ultimately exemplifies how there is a distinct, almost physical color line present today in North Philadelphia.  Certain streets and neighborhoods are notorious for being almost entirely black and have a bad reputation as being somewhere that whites especially should not go wandering.  Whether or not it is actually dangerous to go there is irrelevant compared to the fact that what Du Bois was talking about all those years ago has survived and been carried all through the generations.  We still don’t trust each other.

This is probably exactly why Temple wants us to read The Souls of Black Folks.  As an intercity school in the midst of one of those notoriously black and “dangerous” neighborhoods, this affects us all.  For me, it has really opened up my eyes to how the color line still persists today.  I like to think that racism and segregation are decreasing and we are becoming a single community of American citizens, but now I realize that maybe this isn’t entirely the truth.  And in that case, we need to take a look around us and figure out a way to start to diminish the color line.  Our generation has the power to make a change.

The Trials of Socrates

The first time I really learned about Socrates and the Socratic Method was in my psychology lecture just a couple months ago.  He was only very briefly mentioned, however, to explain how psychoanalysts today still use the Socratic Method of continual questioning to help their patients find a truth out on their own.  This was the background knowledge I had going into reading this.  First off, Socrates was not my favorite book.  I found it a little hard to read at times, especially in the beginning, in the first section of Plato.  I thought Socrates came off as a little bit arrogant, although when we discussed this in class, Dr. Lowe pointed out that Plato probably did not intend it to come off this way, since they were friends.  I can see the benefit in reading this book though, and why Temple would choose for us to study it.

One reason why Temple probably picked this book is that the Socratic Method is still used today, as previously mentioned.  Socrates is pretty widely known, and is a historical figure who is probably worth knowing at least a little bit about in order to be a well-rounded, functioning member of society.  It also raises an interesting controversy about education: does knowledge corrupt, or is a life without knowledge not worth living?  Being college students, this question is extremely relevant to us in particular.

The account given by Plato seems to suggest that education and learning is totally worth it and important.  Being Socrates’ friend, Plato’s version of the story reflects Socrates’ view on the subject, which can be summed up by the well-known mantra, “the unexamined life is not worth living”.  Socrates was a big supporter of learning and believed that knowledge equals happiness.  His whole method of continuous questioning and entire work of teaching was based upon the principle that we should never be satisfied with what we know and just go through our day without examining our own thinking and decision making.  He was greatly frustrated with the people who were commonly thought of as geniuses, but who in fact (to his finding at least) assumed that they had more knowledge than in actuality.  This is the basis of his popular saying about the unexamined life; his argument is that just because they were skilled at one thing, doesn’t mean that they were wise in general.  Basically, according to Socrates, and therefore Plato, the continual pursuit of knowledge is what characterizes the good life.

Aristophanes, on the other hand, was NOT friends with Socrates and gives a completely different stand on the issue of the benefits/problems with education and learning.  Aristophanes sort of attacks Socrates in his comic play Clouds, which is basically a satire of commonly held beliefs about Socrates.  The message about education here is that it can corrupt!  Strepsiades sends his son to Socrates’ school to learn “the Inferior Argument” and save him from his endless mounds of debts by arguing his way out of paying them back.  This ultimately backfires, when, upon returning from Socrates’ school, the son is no longer willing to listen to his father and argues all sorts of atrocities, such as hitting his mother.  This is in direct contrast with the first account by Plato, in which Socrates was arguing that knowledge does not corrupt and is instead the way to happiness.

These completely opposite viewpoints of the usefulness of education bring the issue to the reader’s attention and beg to be further considered.  This, I think, is why Temple wants us college students to read The Trial and Death of Socrates.

The Rosenbach and Dickens

The Rosenbach Museum and Library is the culmination of the collections of Abraham and Phillip Rosenbach.  These men were Philly-born brothers who had an interest in antiques; Phillip collected antique furniture while Abraham was more interested in books and writing.  Although neither brother ever met Charles Dickens, there is a fairly large collection of his original writings there.  This is a little odd because although Dickens did spend some time in America, he was not very fond of it here.  He openly criticized our culture and materialism in his writing entitled American Notes for General Circulation, which was published after his return to England following his tour in the United States.  For this reason, it is interesting that some very valuable pieces of his work should be kept here in America instead of his beloved homeland of England.  Although this may not have been exactly what Dickens himself would have wanted, I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing.  Abraham Rosenbach was a big believer in having his collections open to the public, so that everyone could enjoy them without having to travel to somewhere like England.  This, in my opinion, is definitely a good thought, because otherwise someone like me would never be able to enjoy them.  With this in mind, I think how they are displayed and interpreted should be the main focus of the argument, since if the display is really great, more people are going to be able to view and appreciate the work.

I found the Rosenbach to have a nice feel to it; it doesn’t have the traditional museum feeling with large empty rooms with small exhibitions scattered throughout.  Instead, the collections were kept as the brothers had it, in a normal little townhouse on Delancy Place.  The rooms are set up with the priceless artifacts, but they are arranged in such a way that it just looks like your average house.  This allows closer interaction and appreciation for the objects.  The only thing that really frustrated me was that in spite of the fact that they are in possession of some very valuable pieces of Dickens’ work, not much is done to advertise or display it.  The museum offers these “Hands-On Tours”, where visitors can come and handle the manuscripts and get a close up view of the objects on hand.  However, there is only one offered for Dickens, whereas for others such as Marianne Moore or Maurie Sendak, there are several.  This proved to be an especially large problem, because I made the mistake of requesting a spot on the Dickens tour too late and it was cancelled due to low attendance.  Therefore I will be unable to go on a specialized tour of the Charles Dickens collection, which is a shame.

That being said, the operators of the Rosenbach are very kind and extremely helpful.  They apologized for missing the Dickens tour, even though that was really my mistake, and offered me the business card of the librarian, who is willing to make a private appointment with me and essentially tell me everything there is to know about the collection, since she is the expert of all the written works at the museum.  I am especially appreciative of this willingness to help after hearing the stories of my classmates, who are struggling with people at their site being unwilling to discuss their collections with young students such as ourselves. 

All-in-all, I was very impressed with the Rosenbach, although I do wonder why they do not place more of an emphasis on their Charles Dickens collection.  As I have still not yet seen it, I am unable to really comment on the interpretation offered at this museum, but after meeting with the librarian I should be able to shed some more light on this issue.  From what I have seen, though, I am not particularly enthusiastic about the display, since it seems to be much harder than necessary to get a look at these items which the founder of the museum hoped to be accessible to the public.

Borderlands/La Frontera

When I first started to read Borderlands/La Frontera by Gloria Anzaldúa I was taken aback by the sudden and random switches between English and Spanish.  I am in basic introductory Spanish class here at Temple, but I cannot speak it very well at all, so I found this very annoying.  It was frustrating to try to read the story when right in the middle of a sentence she would switch to Spanish and I was no longer able to understand it.  This was not what I was expecting at all, and I had to completely change my viewpoint.  When I did stop, take a breath and consider why Anzaldúa would have chosen to do this though, I realized that the sudden language shifts were supposed to be annoying.  She is making it uncomfortable for Anglo people like me to read, and that discomfort is representative of the life of the Chicanos living in America.  White citizens chastise them for speaking their native tongue, much as I had been doing by being frustrated at her including Spanish in her writing.  Furthermore, this mix of language is what is natural for Anzaldúa!  She was raised by the border of Mexico in Texas, and as such grew up speaking both English (as in school) and Spanish.  These two languages blend themselves together into a new sort of language that she calls the “new language” of the Mestiza.  It is probably what is in her head, so therefore it makes sense that she uses it to write out her thoughts.  This blended language also parallels life on the border, and how her race is a mix of several different cultures.

So although I do still find it slightly aggravating when I am right in the middle of a good story and am suddenly unable to hear the end because the language shift, I can appreciate the reason behind it and point she is making through it.  Overall, I think it is very affective, and as long as readers can get past the initial annoyance to think about why it is done, it is successful and justified.

I also found it very interesting how the book ties in with our current society.  With the re-election of President Obama, we are hearing a lot about potential immigration reforms and the issue of illegal immigration in general.  Anzaldúa’s side of things gives that argument an interesting spin.  Americans often like to assert that we should keep illegal immigrants off our land and stop the Mexicans from hopping the border and stealing our jobs.  Anzaldúa, on the other hand, emphasizes the fact that the American South West is the location of Atzlán, the historic homeland of the Aztecs.  The Aztecs, in turn, spawned the Mexican race and as such, the South West is their cultural homeland.  It wasn’t until much later that we came in and took the lands from them by force, and now we are preventing them from returning home.  To make matters worse, the Aztecs were a migratory people, but they have a real sense of connection between where they are and the homeland.  I think it is important to consider this point of view where the topic of immigration is concerned.  Remember, how would you feel if our beloved country was taken by force and you were unable to return home….