Human Interactions

Honestly, I am not sure in what I believe, or even if I do believe in anything. So in this blog post, I don't want to sound like an atheist and I don't want to bash other people's beliefs. But if I were to take the sort of non-believer way of thinking, I would have to say that religion is and was basically an invention of humans. Yes, many can debate this, but many can also support this. I think that to some point, it is true. Through out history, there have existed many religions, with various differentiating beliefs. Somebody must have created religion, right? Or discovered? But it must have come somehow. The way I see it, religion is admiration at a higher level. It is both devotion and praise. From what I have noticed, most religions revolve around human emotions and decisions. So religion itself must have been based upon the ideas created by someone or some people..? These ideals were then compacted together and given names, and a form. I don’t understand how religions came to be so influential in history. I mean, yes religions have many sublevels to it, etc, etc. but even so, if it was to be summed up, one could say it is the belief in a higher power. But this belief in gods and goddesses, or god, how can it be any different from the belief in something like oxygen. We can see it, but we still believe it, we know it exists. The oxygen atom was discovered somewhere around 1774, but its not like before that date oxygen did not exist.  You do not hear of people creating scriptures or historical sightings, or anything of that type on oxygen, its just there. So why are deities different? Why is it that it has survived so long? Yes, deities are more than just something that is there, but that is now, after we created religion to go along with it, after we gave that "thing" a title, and along with it/ them some level of power.

So in reality, how much of religion is shaped by human interaction? Well, I would say the majority of it is shaped by human interactions. Values are constantly changing, many things that are considered acceptable now, were not considered acceptable decades ago. How do these values change? These values most commonly change through interaction between different cultures. When ideas merge and cultural diffusion occurs. A great example of merging cultures, ideals, and values, is the United States. People immigrate to the United States, as do many to other countries, but the diverse quantity that exist here and in places like the United States allow for cultural diffusion to occur at a large scale. Values also change through discoveries, made by humans, whose knowledge is them spread via... human interactions!  And what are values? Values are similar to morals. According to an online dictionary, values are a person's principles or standards of behavior, or one's judgment of what is important in life. In other words, values are not something divine, they are what humans have and use, as guidance to what is right and what is wrong.

Maddie, Dora, I and death

The average person now days, sees religion no longer as a necessity, but rather as a gift, or a bonus. There are still some that do see it as necessity and as a way that all should live life but even those (the extremists, radicals, or orthodox) have boundaries with the topic of God and on what is the best method used to getting near God. In class yesterday, Maddie and I both got into a conservation debate that was brought on by Dora. We discussed the validity of after life and the concept of being conscious of oneself, even after death. We thought of all the possible ways our "lives" could continue after we died, could it be faintly loosing once self in the abyss, being rewarded for good done, or disappearing completely into nothingness. In the conversation, I learned things about both Maddie and Dora that I otherwise might not have come to meet, or know about.

I felt as if each one of us represented a level found in believe. For example Dora represents the vast majority of people. She is afraid of dying and fears the unknown. If she could, she would live on forever. Maddie represents the minority of people who do not feel fear, who are open to whatever comes, and would be fine if nothing ever came. My way of thinking is one found in the other majority of people, but expressed out load in only a few.  I fear death and the unknown but am willing to face it, I also claim to know more than I actually do know, so i am actually stuck in between Maddie and Dora. But that’s the thing about religion, you can’t classify it into levels and say that is all there is to it because its always changing. Even though we do classify people into such categories, there are also so many sub levels to those, and then more to those sub levels... In my mind, its just something that should not be done because it could go on for a long time. 
But religion it self is so easily split, as was mentioned in class, it isnt just a way of thinking, its a way of reasoning, its a way of analyzing things that are hard to understand, its the way humans have for centuries bonded, connected, and also disperced, split, and died. Maybe its the power religion has, something that many devote themselves to with both fear and love. Maybe that is why we nowadays have shifted away from that because while it has the potential to help mantain order, it also can create too much at a level where it is no longer okay. Death is a very important point in religion because I think that the way death is viewed in ones mind, connects strongly to the way life is lived. So in the end of the conversation, we had gotten nowhere that we could agree on completely.

War on Stars

The things one discovers when topics are explored, and ordinary things are turned around so as to show a hidden side you had never even thought of, is a very curious and interesting thing. Art has in itself encoded so many different points of views, and while sometimes there are undoubtedly some that appear to have no real importantly critical points, they always have some type. I think this because art is a form of expression and in it, one's morals, values, ideologies, analysis of topics, and dislikes, are all very well reflected.

Although I had never watched all the Star Wars movies, or in fact, have ever even watched on entire movie of it, I feel as if I should have noticed the connection of religion to it, or at least should have formed some kind of idea concerning its message. It worries me that such things can pass by unnoticed and yet be so present, so as to seem so obvious when it is realized. 


Out of all movies, Star Wars was definitely not a movie that I expected to watch in History class to explore and get our first glimpse into what this new theme on Religion and it's effects on us throughout history has to offer. I was extremely surprised at the realization of the message in the movie, relating religion and mixing different views we have now, both monotheism and polytheism views.

The realization that Star Wars caused me made me want to further explore everyday media and the way such topics as religion are represented in it, and presented to us. I suppose that most of these representations of religion, must be either minimal, or extremely well designed so as to be able to avoid hurt feelings, accusations concerning religious freedom, and etc. I wonder if such media also has on effect on the way we view religion, therefore also affecting the way in which we think and make decisions? 
Religion is mostly difficult for one to understand which is why it is hard to describe. Even for the religious, religion is a uneasy target to explore because no one has any concrete idea as to where or hoe the idea of it originated but the effects it has been very impacting to all, even now.

The Extremes in Beliefs

 How does religion shape the way people understand and respond to the worlds around them? Religion takes many shapes in daily life, from decision making to generating ideas, from stereotyping to creating first impressions to attaching emotion to memories. I think that most of us, even though we might not notice, are constantly influenced by religion, whichever religion that might be, and whether you identify yourself with the belief or not. Although I do not consider myself a catholic, or identify myself with any type of Christian faith, or any other, I cannot deny that the religious lessons I had come across in my young childhood, do affect my way of thinking now, not always, but every now and then.  I do not choose for it to be so, but one cannot help thinking a certain way when it has become a part of your reasoning, and as long as you have some knowledge of it, it will be used to analyze the world around you.

But every mind is different; people view religion in different ways. There are those who believe that their religion is one and only, so it must be followed word by word, these are typically radicals, or the orthodox. There are also the most common ones, these range in intensity, they believe that as a part of the religion, they must believe, embrace, accept, and practice, the main idea of what the religion is. Then there are those who believe that their religion serves as a guideline to life from which's values are vast in amount, but are not entirely necessary; therefore offer them with the opportunity to choose in what to have faith in.

Some people believe that those with strong religious ties have stronger values, a more defined sense of respect, morality, and a better developed judgement… I disagree. The mentality that an individual has when referring to their faith, or lack of faith, highly impacts not necessarily the values they have but more of the way in which those values are applied. An agnostic or atheist can have just as good values as an orthodox, I don’t think that the severity and strength of religion in an individual specifically affects their persona, but what if affected, is the way its interpreted and applied.

When I was young, my grandmother basically raised me until I was four. Her being a devote Catholic did not specifically affect me. Her teachings reflected her form of thinking, and were therefore transmitted to me. I did not question her teachings until I had turned seven, slightly forming my own opinion on religion, maybe it was the absence of her devotedness when being taught, or perhaps it was my own father’s lack of faith that drove me to declaring myself free of religion when I turned twelve. But me at twelve no longer is me, now. Although I do not consider myself a Catholic, when asked, I sometimes say I am. Is it that maybe I fear rejection due to my lack of belief or is it me just searching for a title to suit me? Could religion be possibly abolished completely, and have future generations never know about it? Or is the need to believe in something, just part of being human? It’s the baby steps in the development from child to adolescent to adult that best help see how religion affects and shapes the way people act in response to the world.

A small observation I have made in my life, concerning religion, is that most of those who seem the most devote are those who’ve suffered a great deal. Could it possibly be that it is because they seek safety or a better chance?  Does social class affect the level of devotedness/ faith?

The Gullible are Legit Believers.

In the articles titled Chinese Cultural Studies: The Mandate of Heaven, and King James I: On the Divine Right of Kings, that we read for Tuesday, we learned about what it meant to have legitimacy. No, it did not mean you never lied or your actions were somehow related to the definition to the word legitimate as it is used most commonly nowadays it meant the amount of belief others had on whatever it was you claimed to be the reason why you should be in charge. Through the reading, and through the explanation and discussion in class, we learned what it means for someone to be legitimate. In the context of what we are learning, in government- related terms, to have legitimacy means you have a reason upon which your claimed ''right'' to govern, or to have power, is based upon. The reason used does not have to be a good reason, but as long as people believe in what you say, you are considered to be a legit ruler.

I think that if this legitimacy were the only thing that dictated the ability and strength of a 'leader' to lead, then just about any good storyteller with imagination and even the smallest ability to persuade could potentially become leader. If this were true, would it not be more of the people's fault if their leader were a fake? The legitimacy, at least in the past, was mostly based on the gullibility of the people. But as always, people learn from their mistakes. That’s what our civilizations have been doing generation after generation, learning from previous mistakes and making new mistakes when deciding on who should be their leaders.

We went from looking for leaders who were based off the ideals like that of the Mandate of Heaven, to Foreign and Domestic Political Knowledge. I think the drastic change in what we look for in leaders is often changing and being modified because as time goes by, no one thing stays the exact same forever, meaning our needs are constantly changing, causing for us to realize/ discover new things and believe in others.

As is seems, most times when we have decided to change our type of leaders it is because their legitimacy is no longer to legit since our ever changing opinions come to judge and question that which had once been considered unquestionable just because it was. We seem to change what we look for because the governments set up no longer cover our needs and in most cases, have become selfish overtime, forgetting about those who it was made to protect. So legitimacy is very tightly connected with the gullibility of others. But the gullibility could also be just need to believe in something until the next best thing comes along.

Fear vs. Love

Is it better to be loved or to be feared?

According to Machiavelli, when in a position of power, it is better to be feared than loved. I wonder how true this really is. I think that in any true relationship, it is better to be loved than it is to be feared because there is a very faint line between hatred and fear. After long time of fear, people tend to always realize that they should not fear, and that if backed by others, can stand up to you. That is when fear changes to hatred. I think tat for most, fear starts as hatred and slowly becomes something more intense, and as intense as hate it self.

In a perfect world, people would never turn on you, love would exist forever, and those who loved you would always remain at your side. That is usually true, that is of course, if they actually loved you, and were not pretending to. If that is truly the case, than you are lucky. Actually being loved is being liked for exactly who you are. You can’t call genuine love something 'similar' to it because no such thing exists. I mean, actual love, is in my mind, almost impossible to achieve. Usually those who claim to genuine love you can easily turn on you if you do something that reaches their limit, or something related to you cause them to reach their limit. I think that in most relationships, say in positions of high power, for example, in a royal family, sure. Many of your family members love you, but say you are next in line to be prince, there always tends to be someone who thinks themselves better deserving of it, may it be the throne or any other important position in regular life. There is always jealousy, resentment, lack of belief, and all those sentiments/ emotions related to the relationship between someone in a slightly more successful position, than the other. So being loved is almost quite impossible since jealousy is a big factor. But if truly loved, the people with such emotions towards you would decide to not act upon their feelings. So is being feared really that much better than being loved?

I mean, hatred could just as easily be masked with fear. In most cases, fear is cause by the need to dislike, to be constantly scared, being intimidated, and all those emotions related to fearing someone tend to be somewhat linked to hate. There is no person, or if so, a very small amount, of people who enjoy feeling bad. Fear is not an emotion often enjoyed and when people don’t like things, they begin of ways to change it so that they like how things are.  I disagree with what was said in class, fear is not forever, fear is temporarily and dangerously close to hate. If power is to be maintained, hate is not something that helps keep it. Fear has the same problem as love, people can fear you and be jealous of, making up plans of ways to get rid of you, but never really thinking they ever could because they are scared of you. But in tough times, it leads people against you, even if they fear you, people do crazy things in brave moments, things that would in other circumstances not be done due to their fear of it.

So in conclusion, I think that neither is actually very good. But I think that if one had to be chosen, it would have to be love since a drastic change must be made by those claiming to love you, in order for them to turn on you, while with fear, its relatively close.

Liberality

Machiavelli's The Prince,

While not necessarily a difficult reading, what it contained where definitely touchy subjects to think about. I'm not saying the reading was easy but because when we re-read it in class, I understood a few things way better than I did when I first read it alone. As the text was explained in class, I realized a few things I hadn’t realized on my own. For example, the true meaning of liberality within the context of the reading, sure I though oh, liberal, a bit more open minded, more giving, more concerned, but not necessarily money wise.

I don’t necessarily agree with what Machiavelli is advising people to do if they want to keep and maintain the level of power.  I've always been taught generosity is a good thing and that it is important for people to always be generous towards others, not only with money but also with various things, in general, generosity was a thing to be shared with those around you. Of course though, the ability to be generous, or liberal, as Machiavelli says, slowly decreases as time goes by, especially if it involves money.

But this is not always the case because liberality has to do with the ability to be free and loose with the generosity you provide to others, but if you are constantly being generous with your money, you will most likely loose it. So I think that in any case, Machiavelli should have just said that instead of faking to be liberal and generous, one should just be generous and liberal, every once in a while. I think that this is more impacting because if you are constantly investing money and giving it away, people wont necessarily say that you are liberal and generous but I figure that they'd say something about a rich person flaunting their money to society and just saying, "oh, look how rich I am! I have enough to waste in even terrible, unworthy causes." and that isn't very great. Instead, if you gave money out every once in a while to various different groups, I think that would work better because the people would say sure, he has tons of money, but he doesn’t waste it, he is consciously generous and liberal when he is generous. Which is better, because if you seek attention and power, they will be like little bursts of energy, so everything you are liberal and generous, other will say, oh, that person is sooo generous! And they will admire you, while also recognizing your financial power. But if you followed what I understood to be Machiavelli's advise, of always being liberal until you become broke, or just pretend and always be liberal, but in reality turning into a fake greedy person in charge, with monetary power, sure you'll have money, but eventually people will stop paying attention to every time you 'act' generously and liberal with your 'money,' because it would just become an aspect of who you are. Something you always do, which is less impressive. You would have to 'give more' in order to maintain the attention, and the power provided by that attention.