1. Faith no longer was the main face in peoples lives as science drifted in and slowly took over what people thought was true and what was told of them. As exploration became more popular, people had more choices regarding what they wanted to do and it gave them more opportunities to explore.Contact with the 'outside world' in small towns was helped greatly by exploration and commercialism.
2. I think that the use of water routes had the most impact during the Renaissance. For a long time, people have wanted to travel to different places, but their only problem was the biggest issue of all: getting there. In Europe, much of the countryside is hilly and mountainous so the explorers were forced to stop. When the Portuguese first set out to find trading routes, they set an example for other countries and were quickly followed. As more countries sailed and made relations with other places, trade became a major factor for countries. Goods were transported back to the country and the people could then try them and even become dependent on them. As food was bought, the country received more money and could then afford to build and expand. The people had more opportunities and were influenced by many other cultures instead of just their own. Differences in art, music, culture and religion were then founded and people began to practice them instead of their old ways. Pretty soon the whole culture and way of living changed as change came sweeping into Europe. The influence of other cultures still has impact on European countries today...and it's all thanks to water routes!
3. As change and individualism was introduced in Europe, people began to look and think in different ways about life. Philosophy became a very popular subject and many great philosophers (like Locke, Smith and Rousseau) influenced people and with their beliefs. Science was brought in and people began to look at the world in a whole new way (instead of what they heard from the Bible). Some people began to question God and Christianity because they couldn't imagine some of the things happening, and so new religions formed. Deism was a religious philosophy based on reason and natural law. Philosophers then began to form new ideas about government, religion and economics. Many philosopher's ideas still influence life today: instead of Christianity being the one major religion, there are now many different religions that are practiced all over the world. Also, there are different types of government thanks to old philosophers-such as Montesquieu- who formed the idea of types of governments for specific places. The thoughts of philosophers still play into life today because they were well thought out and they showed the right of freedom.
4. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau formed a very practical and true believe on how we follow our governments. He proposed the Social Contract where we as citizens go along with the government's decisions because that is what we are expected to do and if we don't then we will be punished. I think that now days in our society, there is much more fairness to the way we are governed, but the Social Contract still applies to us:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B84B520101210?type=smallBusinessNews
In this article, it talks about how the House is most likely going to pass the new tax cut bill. The tax cut is supposedly going to lower estate tax 10%, which would be good for homeowners. But as homeowners we can't have any say in this bill--to be passed or not to be passed. We have to learn and listen to our government because they make the rules, and so even if we don't like their way, we still have to have faith in them because nothing we can do can change it. Just like the Social Contract, we listen to our government and put our affairs in their hands because it is them who makes the rules and them who can solve our problems.
5. I think my trip to Europe this past summer has changed me a lot. I think the experience of actually going to places I'd really only ever seen on TV really made me experience and realize how cool the world actually is. I had to put myself out there a lot on the trip (like staying with a German host family I'd never met before) and so I got used to taking risks. I now find myself thinking and trying new things I never thought I'd do because I was just too shy. I learned that I really love to travel and visit different places in the world because there is just so much that people don't hear about. I got to visit a 300+ year old flour mill in the Austrian Alps, this is something no one can experience when just going on a vacation. I got to be a part of 'rebuilding' a castle, a medieval dinner, go inside the European Parliament and explore the city of Rome with a few other people. I would say that I learned so much on this trip about history and the world outside little Vermont. Vermont is great and all with all it's hills and 'mountains', but now, I can't think of mountains any other way then the Swiss Alps. They were just so beautiful and amazing and so big compared to the Green Mountains. From my European experience, I realized that I want to learn about the world, I want to go places and meet people and learn about them. There is just so much to explore and I want to see it all and my trip really opened me to that. It's weird to think that what if I hadn't gone on the trip. What if I took one look at that cost and wait "Nope, this is not happening."? I would have never be able to experience and learn all that I have and so I think that my European trip was probably the most influential experience that has ever happened to me.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Successful Leaders in Macbeth
I think that King Duncan was a very successful leader in Macbeth.As Machiavelli said, "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.", and I think this represents what his followers thought of King Duncan. It is possible for men to become king, but it doesn't matter if they're king if no one likes them or follows them. People like Macbeth, Banquo and Macduff all liked King Duncan.When Macbeth had just had a big defeat at war, King Duncan called to him and asked him to meet him at his castle. When Macbeth arrived, King Duncan expressed great gratitude towards Macbeth for his defeat. This shows that King Duncan respects his followers and doesn't sit himself higher than everyone. Macbeth replies, "The service and loyalty I owe, in doing it, pays itself. Your highness' part is to recieve our duties and out duties are to your throne aand state children and servants which do but what they should by doing everything safe toward your love an honor." (1.4. 22-27) Macbeth completely honors King Duncan, he thinks Duncan is a great king and is honored to serve him. King Duncan was also a good leader because he was trusting. Back then, many Kings didn't trust their thanes in fear that they would cross them (which Macbeth later does, but only because of his evil wife's convincing). When the Thane of Cawdor crosses Duncan and helps the Norwegian army, Duncan expresses;
"There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face. He was a gentleman on whom I built an absolute trust." (1.4. 11-14). Although it was a sad event that the Thane crossed him, Duncan expresses sadness and somewhat frustration that one of his Thanes crossed him. Macbeth is overjoyed when he is promoted to Thane of Cawdor because King Duncan trusted him (even though he probably shouldn't have). Even though things didn't work out for him in the end, I think, and characters in Macbeth think that King Duncan was a good leader.
Machiavelli would approve of Macbeth's leadership because of his actions. As written in The Prince, Machiavelli wrote that "A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise." and Macbeth shows this when he decides to kill King Duncan. Although at first he respected and honored Duncan, when he learned that his fate would dub him king, he followed his wife's evil plan to kill Duncan so he could be king. He promised King Duncan when he was promoted to Thane of Cawdor that he would execute the position better than the former Thane did. Obviously he broke that promise because he later kills him (which is a lot worse then crossing a king and going to another army) and so, as defined by Machiavelli, Macbeth was a good leader for breaking his promise and killing his king. Also another quote from The Prince is "The ends justify the means." relates to Macbeth. In the play, Macbeth kills King Duncan (to be king), Banquo (to keep his position as king) and Macduff's family (for revenge). The weird sisters told him that his fate was to be king and so he took his fate into his hands and decides to kill the king. He didn't have to do this-unless it was his fate to hear his fate and think that the only way he was to be king was to murder the king- but he did. But the later executions were not needed, but Macbeth thought they were. Killing Banquo gave hims security that no one would know that he really killed the king, but killing Macduff's family for revenge wasn't needed. In the end, the ends justified the means for Macbeth: Macduff comes back and kills Macbeth. Macduff's revenge to Macbeth was a perfect example of "The ends justify the means." Machiavellian themes can be found a lot in Macbeth.
"There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face. He was a gentleman on whom I built an absolute trust." (1.4. 11-14). Although it was a sad event that the Thane crossed him, Duncan expresses sadness and somewhat frustration that one of his Thanes crossed him. Macbeth is overjoyed when he is promoted to Thane of Cawdor because King Duncan trusted him (even though he probably shouldn't have). Even though things didn't work out for him in the end, I think, and characters in Macbeth think that King Duncan was a good leader.
Machiavelli would approve of Macbeth's leadership because of his actions. As written in The Prince, Machiavelli wrote that "A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise." and Macbeth shows this when he decides to kill King Duncan. Although at first he respected and honored Duncan, when he learned that his fate would dub him king, he followed his wife's evil plan to kill Duncan so he could be king. He promised King Duncan when he was promoted to Thane of Cawdor that he would execute the position better than the former Thane did. Obviously he broke that promise because he later kills him (which is a lot worse then crossing a king and going to another army) and so, as defined by Machiavelli, Macbeth was a good leader for breaking his promise and killing his king. Also another quote from The Prince is "The ends justify the means." relates to Macbeth. In the play, Macbeth kills King Duncan (to be king), Banquo (to keep his position as king) and Macduff's family (for revenge). The weird sisters told him that his fate was to be king and so he took his fate into his hands and decides to kill the king. He didn't have to do this-unless it was his fate to hear his fate and think that the only way he was to be king was to murder the king- but he did. But the later executions were not needed, but Macbeth thought they were. Killing Banquo gave hims security that no one would know that he really killed the king, but killing Macduff's family for revenge wasn't needed. In the end, the ends justified the means for Macbeth: Macduff comes back and kills Macbeth. Macduff's revenge to Macbeth was a perfect example of "The ends justify the means." Machiavellian themes can be found a lot in Macbeth.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Act I of Macbeth
Appearance vs. RealityMachiavelli would have thought that appearance was more important than reality. We can tie this into times today; a football player would appear tough and strong on the outside and that scares people, but really inside, he's insecure and very weak. In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth demonstrates this theme during scene five. She rants about how she believes Macbeth would be a great ruler, but she fears that he is too kind to be a good ruler. She says, "Though wouldst be great, art not without ambition, but without ambition, but without the illness (wickedness) should attend it." (1.5. 16-18) Macbeth appears as a fearless warrior and had just returned from a successful battle. To everyone else, he looks strong and ambitious, but Lady Macbeth knows him for how he really is: a kind hearted man. I think this will be a very important theme in Macbeth because of all the examples of killing and how Macbeth-for instance- appears to be loyal of the king, but then turns around and murders him. I think this theme will be demonstrated very often.
Gender Roles
Gender roles in history have been very different from what we have now. Years ago, women weren't taken as seriously as they should have been. They were almost never educated-the man was supposed to be the smart one- and were expected to be sweet, and innocent. Lady Macbeth demonstrated how she should act and how she shouldn't act in scene five. When she is alone in her room, she speaks on how she want to turn into a man so she can 'be evil' and act in the way a man should act. As a women, she was not supposed to be having these murderous thoughts that were running through her head and so she wished she could be a man. Men were allowed to kill, and that is exactly what she wanted to do. She came up with a plan to kill King Duncan so that Macbeth could be king, but because she's a women she herself can't commit the deed. So she instructs Macbeth to do it. When Macbeth enters, her crazy ranting ends and she instantly becomes innocent sounding and sweet as shes exclaims, "Great Glamis, worthy Cawdor, Greater than both by the all-hail hereafter..." (1.5. 53-54). She does this to hid what she was just a minute ago, and appears before Macbeth as a proper lady. Women in that period of time almost had to have a double identity if they wanted to have any identity of themselves at all. Shakespeare showed this double identity of Lady Macbeth in the length of forty-three lines, and had several examples. After reading Macbeth's letter, she changes to the evil improper side of her, and when the servant enters the room, she stops and becomes chivalrous and lady like once again. This double identity of herself must remain a secret.
Loylaty and Honor
Loyalty to the king was one of the most important things a person had to do back when kings existed. Macbeth, Thane of Glamis was very loyal to King Duncan and proved to be a very good follower. Loyalty was very important in the Middle Ages because it was how things worked. If a man promised his word or his work to the King, he must follow his word because he promised the King. Promises were more respected and followed back then then how they are valued now. To have promised the King something, it was something one must do because it is an honor to even talk to the king. Many of the kings followers were expected to be loyal and yet they weren't even able to meet the king. If a follower didn't for fill his word, he could run the risk of being put to death! Loyalty can be a good thing, but also it can be very dangerous. As we know, later in the story Macbeth murders Duncan...so much for loyalty! Duncan trusted Macbeth, and before the murder, Macbeth was completely loyal to Duncan. As Machiavelli said "The ends justify the means." Machiavelli thinks that honor and loyalty didn't matter: as long as you got what you want, it didn't matter what you did. Shakespeare on the other hand treasured loyalty and honor because it was a major theme in his time. Although these two famous people wrote about the same things, they had two different opinions because they were in different times. Now days, we don't honor promises as much as humans used to: we throw out the words "I promise" all the time whether or not you will actually keep your promise. Honor and loyalty were a major part during Shakespeare's time and so he showed the themes in Macbeth.
Gender Roles
Gender roles in history have been very different from what we have now. Years ago, women weren't taken as seriously as they should have been. They were almost never educated-the man was supposed to be the smart one- and were expected to be sweet, and innocent. Lady Macbeth demonstrated how she should act and how she shouldn't act in scene five. When she is alone in her room, she speaks on how she want to turn into a man so she can 'be evil' and act in the way a man should act. As a women, she was not supposed to be having these murderous thoughts that were running through her head and so she wished she could be a man. Men were allowed to kill, and that is exactly what she wanted to do. She came up with a plan to kill King Duncan so that Macbeth could be king, but because she's a women she herself can't commit the deed. So she instructs Macbeth to do it. When Macbeth enters, her crazy ranting ends and she instantly becomes innocent sounding and sweet as shes exclaims, "Great Glamis, worthy Cawdor, Greater than both by the all-hail hereafter..." (1.5. 53-54). She does this to hid what she was just a minute ago, and appears before Macbeth as a proper lady. Women in that period of time almost had to have a double identity if they wanted to have any identity of themselves at all. Shakespeare showed this double identity of Lady Macbeth in the length of forty-three lines, and had several examples. After reading Macbeth's letter, she changes to the evil improper side of her, and when the servant enters the room, she stops and becomes chivalrous and lady like once again. This double identity of herself must remain a secret.
Loylaty and Honor
Loyalty to the king was one of the most important things a person had to do back when kings existed. Macbeth, Thane of Glamis was very loyal to King Duncan and proved to be a very good follower. Loyalty was very important in the Middle Ages because it was how things worked. If a man promised his word or his work to the King, he must follow his word because he promised the King. Promises were more respected and followed back then then how they are valued now. To have promised the King something, it was something one must do because it is an honor to even talk to the king. Many of the kings followers were expected to be loyal and yet they weren't even able to meet the king. If a follower didn't for fill his word, he could run the risk of being put to death! Loyalty can be a good thing, but also it can be very dangerous. As we know, later in the story Macbeth murders Duncan...so much for loyalty! Duncan trusted Macbeth, and before the murder, Macbeth was completely loyal to Duncan. As Machiavelli said "The ends justify the means." Machiavelli thinks that honor and loyalty didn't matter: as long as you got what you want, it didn't matter what you did. Shakespeare on the other hand treasured loyalty and honor because it was a major theme in his time. Although these two famous people wrote about the same things, they had two different opinions because they were in different times. Now days, we don't honor promises as much as humans used to: we throw out the words "I promise" all the time whether or not you will actually keep your promise. Honor and loyalty were a major part during Shakespeare's time and so he showed the themes in Macbeth.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Niccolo Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy on May 3, 1469. In 1532, Machiavelli published a book called The Prince which was about how leaders should act to stay in power. It gave several guidelines for leaders (such as royal or military) to follow and about how they should act, govern and lead.
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/machiavelli.html
Niccolo Machiavelli
In his book The Prince, Machiavelli had many famous quotes about leadership. I think that the most important one is; "Politics have no relation to morals." because it relates to all issues rulers have to cover. The quote can relate to to actual politics when politicians act unfairly to get their way. I believe (and hope) that politicians know right from wrong, but in some cases their morals must be forgotten in order to get their way.Like the race for Governor for Vermont. One candidate is slamming the other to make his opponent look bad for him to win. Humans want to get their way, and even if getting what they want means breaking their morals...then they'll do it. But the quote can relate to other topics as well: leadership and reign over their followers. If a prince's followers do not obey him or follow his laws or even pose as a threat, being human, the prince will want to get his way and get rid of the issues...which might mean breaking their morals. Most every other quote from The Prince can relate to this because it is the most important quote.
Candidates Brian Dubie vs. Peter Schumlin
Back when Machiavelli wrote this, these rules applied to the leaders and were appropriate. But like everything, times change and though these rules were relevant back then, I think some of them wouldn't be appropriate now. For instance, "Before all else, be armed." would not be the best reasoning to follow today. As we are in a time of war, I don't think that if President Obama should follow this advice and walk around with a gun on him because it would give bad intentions to other leaders. People that walk around with guns on them (such as police men) have guns because they have to be ready for conflict, or to intimidate people. With issues we have today around the world, I think it would be better to not 'show off our guns' and just act with peace because always being armed might give the wrong intention of what we are trying to do and lead to further conflicts.
To connect one of Machiavelli's quotes from The Prince to times before he even wrote his book, we should look at Pizarro and his conquest on the Incas. "The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the only one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not." This quote is pretty accurate on how the conquest went down. The Incas were a high and mighty force in the new world and the ruler Atahualpa had recently won a battle against his brother that bore him more land to rule over. Atahualpa thought they could defeat anyone, and 168 men on giant beasts against 80,000 Incas? He thought they could surely win. But he was wrong. Because the Spanish had advantages such as swords and guns, they won! Atahualpa entered the Spaniard's courtyard looking for an easy defeat, but because his war tactics weren't as effective as the Spanish. Because Atahualpa believed that we would have an easy defeat, he didn't change his plans to the times whereas the Spanish changed their battle plans to modify what their needs were. Because of this they won, just like Machiavelli's quote stated.
For more helpful information on Niccolo Machiavelli go here:
http://kirjasto.sci.fi/macchiav.htm
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/machiavelli.html
In his book The Prince, Machiavelli had many famous quotes about leadership. I think that the most important one is; "Politics have no relation to morals." because it relates to all issues rulers have to cover. The quote can relate to to actual politics when politicians act unfairly to get their way. I believe (and hope) that politicians know right from wrong, but in some cases their morals must be forgotten in order to get their way.Like the race for Governor for Vermont. One candidate is slamming the other to make his opponent look bad for him to win. Humans want to get their way, and even if getting what they want means breaking their morals...then they'll do it. But the quote can relate to other topics as well: leadership and reign over their followers. If a prince's followers do not obey him or follow his laws or even pose as a threat, being human, the prince will want to get his way and get rid of the issues...which might mean breaking their morals. Most every other quote from The Prince can relate to this because it is the most important quote.
Back when Machiavelli wrote this, these rules applied to the leaders and were appropriate. But like everything, times change and though these rules were relevant back then, I think some of them wouldn't be appropriate now. For instance, "Before all else, be armed." would not be the best reasoning to follow today. As we are in a time of war, I don't think that if President Obama should follow this advice and walk around with a gun on him because it would give bad intentions to other leaders. People that walk around with guns on them (such as police men) have guns because they have to be ready for conflict, or to intimidate people. With issues we have today around the world, I think it would be better to not 'show off our guns' and just act with peace because always being armed might give the wrong intention of what we are trying to do and lead to further conflicts.
To connect one of Machiavelli's quotes from The Prince to times before he even wrote his book, we should look at Pizarro and his conquest on the Incas. "The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the only one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not." This quote is pretty accurate on how the conquest went down. The Incas were a high and mighty force in the new world and the ruler Atahualpa had recently won a battle against his brother that bore him more land to rule over. Atahualpa thought they could defeat anyone, and 168 men on giant beasts against 80,000 Incas? He thought they could surely win. But he was wrong. Because the Spanish had advantages such as swords and guns, they won! Atahualpa entered the Spaniard's courtyard looking for an easy defeat, but because his war tactics weren't as effective as the Spanish. Because Atahualpa believed that we would have an easy defeat, he didn't change his plans to the times whereas the Spanish changed their battle plans to modify what their needs were. Because of this they won, just like Machiavelli's quote stated.
For more helpful information on Niccolo Machiavelli go here:
http://kirjasto.sci.fi/macchiav.htm
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Harriet Tubman
Harriet Tubman was an obvious leader to slaves who she helped cross from the south to the north during the American Civil War, but she also posed at a leader to others who then followed her example. I think a leader has to have a 'good head on their shoulders' when big controversial topic is brought up. Obviously Harriet knew slavery was bad, and so she tried to do her part in such a big issue (which is a lot more than what most people did). I mean, there was a whole war going on mainly focused on this issue! Most northerners were too afraid of the consequences if they broke the laws, and I could see why most of them would have a problem with it. If I was put in a position like that, I honestly don't know what I would do. I would obviously want to help the slaves be free, but if I were to be caught, I would have to then pay a big fine, which obviously I don't want to pay... So she knew the consequences, and she still chose to help free the slaves. This shows extreme bravery, especially for an African American women! Even white women weren't taken seriously at the time, so for an African American women to take leadership, that take some guts! Thanks to her leadership, more and more northerners began to help slaves and it all panned out in the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)