https://illusionary.world illusionary world Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:49:02 +0000 https://illusionary.world en https://illusionary.world/Recursive-Paradox Sun, 24 Nov 2019 03:02:04 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/Recursive-Paradox illusionaryworld <img width="250" height="250" width_o="250" height_o="250" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/12c07300c0a9274a7cfa4aa64c8a8a6823ba2eb26de75ab9f4fefc9d6534e29d/Comp-1_4.gif" data-mid="87336253" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/250/i/12c07300c0a9274a7cfa4aa64c8a8a6823ba2eb26de75ab9f4fefc9d6534e29d/Comp-1_4.gif" /> <img width="250" height="250" width_o="250" height_o="250" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/b54abe7b7f77378141ff0b38cf313dfa9989ad61195db382f0469cb4844e1513/Comp-1_5.gif" data-mid="87322359" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/250/i/b54abe7b7f77378141ff0b38cf313dfa9989ad61195db382f0469cb4844e1513/Comp-1_5.gif" /> <img width="250" height="250" width_o="250" height_o="250" data-src="https://freight.cargo.site/t/original/i/3140056b0a7e3de1369699fdc8371a79716a4e9ceab8419d662f6772bc1abcfd/Comp-1_6.gif" data-mid="87336258" border="0" src="https://freight.cargo.site/w/250/i/3140056b0a7e3de1369699fdc8371a79716a4e9ceab8419d662f6772bc1abcfd/Comp-1_6.gif" /> Photo Credit https://illusionary.world/HWH Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:44:54 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/HWH Heavy With Hoping madeon How can I explain?Can you imagine it?Trying my bestTrying to find happinessIf I belongIf I had a home anywhereIt's in your heartbeatLet me be there Heavy with hopingThat you knew itThat you feel the way I doShow me you're brokenCause I'm frozenCause I'm still in love with youShut me upShoot me down before I break and tell the truthHeavy with hopingHeavy with hoping you love me too If I let you goWe end in tragedyHow would you know?How to get back to meIf I had a clueIf I had a chance at your heartThis is my last oneI'm nothing without you now Even though I broke your heartAnd you're all those miles awayWon't you tell me you forgive me?Won't you bring me home to stay?Let me know we could be readyMaybe this is just a test of faithSave me Heavy with hopingThat you knew itThat you feel the way I doShow me you're brokenCause I'm frozenCause I'm still in love with youShut me upShoot me down before I break and tell the truthHeavy with hopingHeavy with hoping you love me too Photo Credit https://illusionary.world/Reading-Reflections Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:05:06 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/Reading-Reflections Reading Reflections Tao Te Ching Epic Of Gilgamesh Apology Ethics Trojan Women Jason And The Argonauts The Diagnosis And Cure Of The Soul’s Passions Sufi Women Diary Of Lady Murasaki Medival Letters From Women From Compendium Studii Philosophiae De Studiis et Litteris Flower Songs La Gitanilla: The Little Gypsie True Science Utopia The Worth Of Women Essay One: The Role Of Emotions As Part Of Human Condition Essay Two: Contaminated Social Interactions Essay Three: The Purpose of Life Essay Five: Freud and Eichmann Essay Six: Aristotle and Bostrom Photo Credit https://illusionary.world/Tao-Te-Ching Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:21:56 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/Tao-Te-Ching Tao Te Ching WOW Section: When I first started to understand the message behind the texts, I was blown away by the depths of its meaning and how it could be used for all audiences. For example, in the twelfth section, Tao Te Ching taught us that “colors blind the eye; sounds deafen the ear; flavors numb the taste” (Tao Te Ching, 12). For a regular person, this could be taken very literally and still make sense; the cause of blindness is light, the cause of deafness is sound, and that flavors could cause numbness. The interpretation could be simple: we have to understand the relationship between a source and a result for a problem to be able to solve one. However, this could also be understood through a lens of a powerful official and it becomes something completely different- colors could mean the colors of tributes or goods that people pay for the lords, which could blind a person through greediness; sounds could be the music sang by servants which could cause them to be too relaxed and refuse to listen to the people; flavor could symbol the luxurious lifestyle, which would eventually separate them from their people’s regular lifestyle. The interpretations were both true and could be backed up by evidence, however, this proves the complexity of the texts and how it could be understood so differently. I was really surprised by how the fact that Tao Te Ching recognizes knowledge or “smart” is really the culprit to the imbalance of the world, even in the status quo. In chapter fifty-three, it stated that “people prefer the side paths, be aware when things are out of balance. Stay centered within the Tao” (Tao Te Ching, 11). My understanding is that people are always trying to outsmart each other once we realize that “side paths” would give us the pleasure to shortcut to a destination. This is heavily reflected in the world right now and it is surprising how it was the same when this was written. HUH Section: One thing I was confused about was the centralized idea of Tao, or how to reach the state of Tao. At the very beginning, the text taught us that “Tao is infinite, eternal” (Tao Te Ching, 2) in chapter seven. My interpretation is that Tao is thus the source of everything; it cannot be seen, described, or be understood by an ordinary person. However, in chapter forty-seven, it stated that “without opening your door, you can open your heart to the world. Without looking out your window, you can see the essence of the Tao” (Tao Te Ching, 10). If we keep our door shut, wouldn’t we be able to see anything, not even the world? So how could we understand the source-Tao- without seeing the world first? Meanwhile, the latter quote also mentioned that you could see the essence of the Tao, but throughout the text, I’ve always seen the idea of Tao as a shapeless and dark concept that is indescribable. This confused me a lot. Tao Te Ching focused on the people, rulers, and a master. The text mentioned heavily that men should follow the master and stay behind to get ahead, don’t compare or compete, and leave when it is appropriate (Tao Te Ching, 2). Meanwhile, the text promised that these steps would separate rulers from just regular people. The power then became unclear as to what rulers could do to excercise the power and what a citizen could protest when power isn’t due. Critical Questions: What are the critical benchmarks of a person trying to become a leader? Is it possible to overthrow a leader, who has lost Tao? Should a person, a leader, or a master ever try to improve their physical body, their organs, or their looks? Should we live in an adjective- less world? Or are we supposed to be bodies without organs just so we could never be distracted by everything else in the world? https://illusionary.world/Apology Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:37:30 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/Apology Apology WOW Section: Socrates was another great example of “liberty after sacrifices”. He challenged the status of people through observation, examination and conversation. He followed politicians, artists and craftsmen and found that they “were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom” (Apology, 300). He then attempted to make them aware of their weaknesses by explaining to them that they thought they were wise, but not really wise; and the consequence was that they hated him (Apology, 299). I personally found this very similar to Revolutionary War when people had to sacrifice for liberty, which had a huge impact on protests and activism occurring today. Socrates sacrificed himself and his freedom to inform the people his idea of this philosophy liberty which sparked more critical philosophical thoughts. This speech used great rhetoric heavily relied on pathos and logos, which I think helped him in front of the jury. Socrates’ pathos was reflected when he addressed himself when he asked Athens “are you not ashamed of heaping up the largest amount of money and honor and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard nor heed at all” (Apology, 306). He tried to challenge the emotions of the people to make them feel ashamed for making mistakes. He also used a lot of logos throughout, especially when he challenged Meletus through a series of questioning that could help extract a logical answer. Unfortunately, I believe that the ethos was lacking, but that’s probably because he was accused, thus he didn’t have any credibility to start with. However, I believe he still tried by telling the people that he was not arguing for his own sake, as they may think, but for theirs as a gift of God (Apology, 307). HUH Section: I don’t really know what Socrates was trying to accomplish after he was found guilty, and how he viewed death. Sure, he glorified his death by telling the judges that he would die many times to continue his teaching (Apology, 306). But later, he also mentioned that he called death, in the form of penalty, was also a suffering (Apology, 311). He wasn’t scared of death nor regret his teachings, but he also viewed it as a suffering. I believe this might’ve been used to convince the judges that they made a mistake, but at the same time, he was prepared for it so he felt indifferent. Why did Socrates label himself as a God given gift when addressing himself to the people (Apology, 307) and make him sound like a superior saying that the people will injure themselves more if they vote Socrates guilty? I don’t know why he was so bold in front of the judges instead of trying to convince people that he brings no harm; I believe the aggressiveness might’ve made him less appealing. I believe that he said it to make him more credible so people would vote in favor of him, but not after he just insulted a group of people for their wise, so what was his goal? Critical Questions: For Socrates, what does punishment mean? Is the worst punishment death or silence? Athens was known for its democracy. Was this form of government good or bad in front of Socrates? https://illusionary.world/The-Epic-Of-Gilgamesh Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:30:53 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/The-Epic-Of-Gilgamesh The Epic Of Gilgamesh WOW Section: The transformation of Gilgamesh throughout the reading really surprised me from both the story perspective and the textual side. The Epic of Gilgamesh started by describing him as an evil figure in the first tablet: “Neither the father’s son nor the wife of the noble; neither the mother’s daughter nor the warrior’s bide was safe” (Ferry, 4). Not only that, the text later told us that the city of Uruk was chaotic, thus, the people asked the maker of Gilgamesh, Aruru, to create someone equal to him so that “peace may come to Uruk once again” (Ferry, 5). Eventually, Enkidu was created by Aruru as an equal to Gilgamesh. After they wrestled each other, they became each other’s companion and fought many battles together. One of the battles resulted in the slain of Huwawa, a disastrous monster whose “mouth is fire; his roar the floodwater; his breath is death” (Ferry, 16). Despite the frightening description, Gilgamesh and Enkidu prepared themselves to fight against Huwawa. The reaction from the city to the “evil” Gilgamesh was rather positive, because he is simply trying to eliminate something that threatened his people. Here, we saw a transformation within the story of Gilgamesh from being the “evil” ruler to a hero who brought peace to his people, with the help of Enkidu. Meanwhile, from a textual perspective, it is incredible how an ancient text could describe a protagonist’s change of character with the help of story and words. I found interesting that The Epic of Gilgamesh defined the relationship between death and fear so clearly. The text demonstrated that people feared death naturally no matter who they were. For example, when the hunter first saw Enkidu, he “stood expressionless, astonished; then with his silent dogs he went home to his father’s house, fear in belly” (Ferry, 6). This quote demonstrated the fear of ordinary people due to the possible harm they could bring to them. Meanwhile, during Enkidu and Gilgamesh’s journey to slay Huwawa, Gilgamesh would always dream about him being too miniscule in the world and get “crushed” by the monster, causing him to fear. This showed that he feared being erased. Then, before getting killed by Gilgamesh, Huwawa begged him to spare his death and promised Gilgamesh he would “cute down the trees for him and make him Gilgamesh’s servant” (Ferry, 27). The fact that even a monster would beg for mercy just so they stay alive told us enough about the connections the text made between fear and death. Lastly, after Enkidu passed away, Gilgamesh started to fear that the same fate would come to him sooner or later. He started to fear his death and thus began his quest to find eternal youth. The texts always defined fear and death together--- if there was death, there was fear. HUH Section: I am confused about the relationship between the gods and the world. Gilgamesh was created by Aruru, but Gilgamesh himself is “two- thirds a god, one- third a man, the king” (Ferry, 4). Despite being created by a goddess, Gilgamesh still had parents; this caused the relationship between Aruru and Gilgamesh unclear. At the same time, Aruru created Enkidu who was as “powerful as Ninurta the god of war, the hair of his head like the grain fields of the goddess, naked as Sumuqan the god of cattle” (Ferry, 5). The intention of a goddess who created godlike man became unclear- why would a goddess break the hierarchy and gave birth to a godlike man? In the end, Ishtar, a goddess, fell in love with Gilgamesh because of his bravery and power. This further complicated the relationship between Gods and people in my opinion. I personally believe that the intention is to inform others that Gods have the ultimate power the control the world, and if anyone was trying to become a God, it will be extremely difficult and you might be punished by the Gods; this serves as a message to people that they should not seek super powers.The idea that people should pray to Gods and ask for their blessings were used throughout the text. They were also mentioned heavily when Gilgamesh and Enkidu were trying to slay Huwawa, by “dig a well and offer to the God” (Ferry, 23) and “made his offering of flour” (Ferry, 23). At the end, after Gilgamesh and Enkidu embarrassed Ishtar and killed the Holy Bull- after it opened the city and killed people, the Gods were upset and decided to kill Enkidu. The offerings to the Gods proved useless then in terms of their decision making and who they chose to kill. For example, when the Holy Bull opened a hole in the world and killed people, it never mentioned if those men were the ones who never made offerings. The point of offerings and praying to the Gods became confusing in its purpose. I think the idea was that God would listen to you and answer to those offerings, so make them as much as possible. But in the end, the text failed to prove that offerings could make a life changing decision, even though the idea was heaily emphasized. Critical Questions: Does the text promote a servile attitude and tell people to obey the hierarchy or does it ask people to follow what they think is right and that Gods will help them? Does the text promote democracy due to the fact that the Gods would have a meeting when making a decision or does it promote a monarchy where Gilgamesh was the king? https://illusionary.world/Ethics Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:40:07 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/Ethics Ethics WOW Section: learned the mean point of virtue that everyone should pursue was the hardest to determine compared to vices. Aristotle defined vices as “excess and deficiency” (Aristotle, 3) and that both would destroy a person. This was very definite- whatever destroys a standard is considered as a vice. However, the virtues, which he calls “the mean state between two vices, one excess and one defect” (Aristotle, 8), but its character “has no name, and the dispositions of the persons are also unnamed” (Aristotle, 10). My take away based on the quotes was that it is very easy to notice flaws, be punished because of them, and be disliked due to the practices. Meanwhile, the more virtuous a person represents, the less it is noticeable to the public; the closer to the balance, the less it is cared because they could not be punished. I also discovered that the idea of pleasure could be portraited differently, and it could be good, not good, or bad. This was definitely caused by bias created by men; Aristotle said that “men are salve of their pleasures, so they have a bias towards it” (Aristotle, 17). Aristotle confirmed that, such bias must “be driven in the opposite direction in order to arrive at the due mean” (Aristotle, 17). However, he presented three different ideas, one being that “pleasure is good if it is attached to another good” (Aristotle, 18); meanwhile, he also mentioned that “pleasure was indefinite and good was not” (Aristotle, 18) as a refutation to pleasure and good being the same; lastly, he also proposed that “pleasure is not the good due to desire, and that not every pleasure is desirable” (Aristotle, 21). I think it is important to judge pleasure and desire based on situation, and differentiate them from modern interpretation of greedy, like most people do. HUH Section: Aristotle mentioned that virtue and vices were relative, and comparisons must be made “between three dispositions- two vices, one of excess and ne of defect, and one virtue which is the observance of the mean” (Aristotle,12). In some cases, a vice could be defect bur “in others the excess” (Aristotle, 12). If the scale is relative and different to people, when a defect could be an excess, or a vice could become a virtue, then how could a person practice their virtue if the judgement or feedbacks were given so differently? I think virtue is best learned when you interact with different groups of people of different class, but Aristotle failed to mention how we could practice virtue in such system. Is it still possible? Aristotle focused strongly on the idea of the affect of pleasure and that “we make progress in their favorite pursuit because they like it” (Aristotle, 24). He mentioned how we were always distracted and forced to choose between one or the other, then slowly,&nbsp;“we can hardly do anything else and if we could find a thing only mildly agreeable, we turn to some other occupation” (Aristotle, 24). As a person who was introduced to modern ideas of “growth mindset”, is there a way to not choose between focusing on one thing or the other? We can also cross- apply that can we be virtuous by mastering one particular mean and give up on everything else. I think it is hard to connect the idea of virtuous to pleasure in the lens of trading offs. Critical Questions: Should our goal in anything we do in life to display others our virtuousness? If we display happiness, does that create jealousy and chaos, and be viewed as a vice? If pleasure determines a person’s activities, while knowing that people are lazy and selfish, then why is something like love not mutually exclusive? https://illusionary.world/Trojan-Women Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:43:16 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/Trojan-Women Trojan Women WOW Section: As someone who was once curious about the world without me (thought experiments, nothing harmful), while reading through the text, I was surprised how much it reminded me of the greatness of a mother’s love, especially in a period of men dominance. The queen of Troy, Hecuba, lost her husband and all but one of her children. She compared herself to a bird of fallen chicks, and she will “cry the loudest” (Trojan Women, 36). Meanwhile, she suffered through witnessing her children’s death, “son by son, brought down by the Greek spear, and for every one of them she cut her hair in mourning at their tombs” (Trojan Women, 47). She cried because “she raised them only to be stolen from her” (Trojan Women, 48). And when she heard the death of her daughter Polyxena, her “pain cuts deeper” (Trojan Women, 53). Needless to say, we could conclude that Hecuba was mentally shattered from the losses of everything she had, especially her children. Most importantly, we could witness the greatness of a parent’s love: the importance of a child’s happiness, health, and wellbeing; we could also see how much they mean to her. This makes me regret some of the times I spent with my parents- I didn’t understand them or treat them well. I am glad that I still have time to hopefully make up to them. One of the interesting points I noticed was that everyone, both in the text or in real life, suffer from an event, but then compete to see who suffer the most. This is mostly reflected in contrast between Hecuba and Andromache. Based on the text, they both lost their beloved husband, their children, and home in a brutal battle. Despite losing people who were close to both of them, Andromache still believe that Hecuba’s suffering “doesn’t compare with what she has to suffer” (Trojan Women, 54). At the same time, Hecuba definitely lost more than Andromache, but still has hope because “life means hope, death is nothing at all” (Trojan Women, 53); Andromache lost less number of her family but could not accept the fact and wants to terminate her life “since death ends every suffering” (Trojan Women, 53). This is something I have been noticing around me for a long time, from a small scale like doing homework to a terrible disaster. Based on observation, people always wanted to compete for suffering for “emotional support and sympathy” to a degree, which I think could be explained through the example from the text above. HUH Section: Hecuba was portraited as someone who accepts the faith and chooses to live. She tells Andromache that “life means hope, death is nothing at all” (Trojan Women, 53). At the same time, despite losing everything she ever had, she never mentioned she would end it all, but instead looked to life and hoped for the best. Later in the text however, she concluded that it is “better to die here burning in my homeland as it burns” (Trojan Women, 75) in her monologue while she “staggers toward the walls, but is stopped by Odysseus’s men” (Trojan Women, 75). Why was she portraited differently at the beginning and end of the text? Was she supposed to be seen as strong or weak, accepting or denying, hopeful or defeated? Why is the main character slowly crumbing at the end? I am confused because in modern literature, most protagonists will learn a positive lesson and take a turn for the good, but here it is the opposite- Hecuba became weaker and weaker mentally. Which party was glorified in the story? The Greeks defeated Troy, but the story was specifically interested in the bravery of the soldiers of Troy, especially Hecuba’s children because they were “ royal sons, supreme among all the Phrygians, sons such as no Trojan or Greek or any other foreign Mother could ever brag of having” (Trojan Women, 47). Greek soldiers were never mentioned as strong the way Trojans were portraited. Does the author have a bias? Critical Questions: What was the purpose of Poseidon and Athena? Why did they slowly disappear from the story? Why couldn’t finish or reappear in the story? Is death honorable or fearful? https://illusionary.world/Jason-and-the-Argonauts Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:45:38 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/Jason-and-the-Argonauts Jason And The Argonauts WOW Section: It was interesting that the Argonauts fought against the Dolionan people. The Argonauts “guests from the opposite direction seized her and blew her back until she reaches once more the island of the kindly Doliones” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 39). They fought in “a horrible and unforgiving battle” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 40). I found this interesting because the Dolionan people and the Argonauts were friends and treated each other well. If it was fate for the Dolionan people to die and fate for the Argonauts to kill them; its interesting because both of them don’t deserve such fate. In this case, the gods did not inform any of the people nor did the seer from Argonauts mention that they will brutally kill their friend. The Argonauts helped Phineus by forcing the Harpies away. Iris “streaked out of the sky, and halted them with imperious terms” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 62) to protect the Harpies but spare Phineus from being bothered. The Harpies were placed by Zeus to punish Phineus, however, they were dismissed by another god. Meanwhile, the gods would give oath to the people like a simple contract between a person and landlord. This interaction was interesting because this shows that gods would follow the demands of people and vice- versa. Gods are not as powerful as we expect them to and none of them in this texted used power to bring devastation. In the previous class, we talked about Jason’s leadership vs Heracles’ leadership. We mentioned how in Tao Te Ching, Laozi mentioned that the best leader is not noticeable, then the next best leader is loved, and so on. Our class concluded that Jason’s leadership at the beginning of the journey was rather passive; he would observe and let things settle down by themselves. Especially when Idmon and Idas were arguing, Jason didn’t even attempt to calm them down. In contrast, we noticed Jason’s change in his leadership style. “The heroes, though, remained apart, concealed among the river rushes, strategizing. Jason was speaking, and the men were seated in order bench by bench, in silence, listening” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 106). Jason started to take the leadership role by proposing ideas, uniting thoughts and moral when the group is apart. Previously, we could only notice his passiveness and not voice too many opinions; we could recognize the dynamic contrast between Jason in his inner character development. Chalciope and Medea “to help a stranger by weaving schemes behind her father’s back” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 128). Chalciope and Medea were seen as rebellious toward their father, Aeёtes, because they insist on helping Jason to get through his journey. Their kindness was portraited as rebellious, but they were also seen as heroes to Jason. Such picture reminded me of the history of America and how men and women constantly protest against the government to end oppression. Chalciope and Medea were daughters of a king, but they are planning against their father and thus became heroes. I think this portraited the role of female characters as strong, peaceful, and independent. And they had the power to act against the rule, which give them strength. HUH Section: Throughout Jason and the Argonauts, fate always dictated a person’s life or journey. Idmon “had foreseen his death in bird signs, he enlisted all the same so that his town would not deny him glory” (Poochigian, 2014. P 6). Later in the journey, he “coughed up blood and shortly died in his inconsolable comrades’ arms” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 83). I don’t quite understand the relationship between fate, free will, and glory. Obviously, Idmon chose to go on the journey himself, but why would he care if his town denies him glory, if it was Jason’s business to start with? Also, does fate control free will, or does glory control fate? Idmon chose to go on the adventure despite knowing his death: this means that fate didn’t not control his free will; he went on the journey for glory instead. But if glory is what he deserves, then he’s fate leads to glory, would that be the reason of his choice? I personally think that the text wanted to show that death should not be feared as part of your fate and the journey is more important. Idmon would be a good example for this. But the fact that he had free will to choose, and it wasn’t a forced journey, he still chose death. This fact puzzles me. Phineus was blinded because “he never paid due reverence to the gods, not even Zeus himself, since he divulged their sacred will too thoroughly to mortals” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 59). Meanwhile, after the Argonauts chased away Phineus’ watchers, he “gave his prophecies and heartfelt blessings to all who came, even the poorest of them, and soothed the woes of many with his art. That’s why the people came and cared for him” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 69). Why would the gods cruelly punish people who brought happiness to their communities? Phineus used his gift to help people, which generates happiness to them. If we assume that some of them would pray to the gods based on the story, then why would the gods oppose happiness of people? This also raises question similar to the previous HUH point, does knowing one’s fate cause them to change their fate, or knowing the truth would count as part of their fate and then their fate would remain the same? Hera and Athena came up with the plan at the beginning of book three to ask Cyprian Aphrodite to ask her to “approach her son and pressure him to sink a shaft into Aeёtes’daughter, drug- adept Medea, so that the girl is struck with lust for Jason. I am quite certain that, with her assistance, Jason will bring the fleece back home to Greece” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 101). Hera and Athena introduced Medea and altered her fate through gods’ interference. Such interference then would determine the journey’s success. Once again, the idea of unchangeable fate is challenged here. The gods adjusted the fate of one person to accompany the fate of the main character; is then fate simply toys of gods? If this is true, and there are goddesses, then why does the fate of women always so unfair compared to men? Absyrtus was the son of Aeёtes, but his mother is not the wife of Aeёtes. “Absyrtus, his son, inhabited another of them. Asterodeia, a Caucasian nymph, bore him before Aeёte wed Eidyia, Tethys’ and Coean’s youngest daughter” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 109). Meanwhile, Absyrtus “took to calling Absyrtus ‘Phaёthon’ (the Shining One) since he outshone the other boys his age” (Poochigian, 2014, p. 109). The text was heavily influenced by glory- kings send their beloved sons to Jason’s journey for earn glory for their country. Absyrtus’ mother was Asterodeia, a Caucasian nymph; he was also highly regarded due to his achievements. If glory is so important, why did Aeёtes, the king, treated Absyrtus, a baby born by a nymph, so highly? Despite the fact that he outshone the others his age, can’t they bore another son and raise him more powerful and at the same time have a fully royal bloodline, which would bring more glory to the country? Critical Questions: Does emotions control fate? Does fate impact free will? Does foreseeing the future change the future or is it part of the future? Athena was a woman goddess. Why does the Argonauts not have a single female character? On page 111, the text mentioned “after the slaves had laid the banquet out”. Who are the slaves? Does the text give us enough information on who these slaves are? Heracles was alive and helped the Argonauts by providing water and slain the snakes, how would Jason’s character be difference if Heracles was with the Argonauts all along? https://illusionary.world/The-Diagnosis-And-Cure-Of-The-Soul-s-Passions Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:49:02 +0000 illusionary world https://illusionary.world/The-Diagnosis-And-Cure-Of-The-Soul-s-Passions The Diagnosis And Cure Of The Soul’s Passions WOW Section: This text reminded me of my dad. My dad used to be strict on everything I do, especially my words and behaviors around people older than me. I hated this growing up because I thought I did nothing wrong. Galen stated similarly that “it is impossible to know them, since we love ourselves to excess” (Harkins, 1963, p. 3). I believed that my dad was being too unforgiving. After reading the text, I realized that I “hate those who speak the truth” (Harkins, 1963, p. 4). I learned an important lesson here because my dad was “the man does not greet the powerful and wealthy by name, when he does not visit them, when he does not dine with them, when he lives a disciplined life, expect that man to speak the truth” (Harkins, 1963, p. 4) because of his love and responsibility of a parent. Not only that, over the past few years, I have been appreciating everything that he did to be that I thought was harsh, simply because now I see other people around me that made the same error as me, I “see it better than when he does something wrong (Harkins, 1963, p. 10). I got yelled at by a lady in a restaurant when I was little. I was behind my friends, so I kind of rushed them with my body, giving them hints that they should hurry. I was embarrassed, ashamed by the insult, but I was angry that the lady laughed at me for being uneducated and stupid. I held grudges until recently. Galen stated that “we must permit all men to accuse us; we must listen to them in a gentle spirit; (we must show) gratitude, not to those who flatter us, but to those who rebuke us” (Harkins, 1963, p. 10). The little me did not appreciate the words that came out of that lady’s mouth; it was more an insult than a lesson. Despite the painful experience, I improved myself in how to be patient, and how to behave properly while in line from a stranger lady that was upset. I knew that “cutting out any error is difficult for one who is unwilling to try. But if a man determines to do so, it is very easy to get rid of the major errors” (Harkins, 1963, p. 10). It was painful at first when I had to swallow the insult, but it also motivated me to fix my errors so I don’t make the same mistakes again. HUH Section: Galen mentioned that when he saw his friend releasing his anger on people, “I conceived such a hatred for anger that I was never thereafter seen behaving in an unseemly manner because of it” (Harkins, 1963, p. 7). He later mentioned that “most men look with scorn upon all the other diseases of the soul, and so they fail to observe them when they see other men who are affected by them. But no one fails to see clearly that grief is an evil of the soul, just as pain is an evil for the body” (Harkins, 1963, p. 15). He first stated that he observed some who was affected by the diseases of the soul, he learned not to be affected by it. In the second statement, he said that men fail to see other people who are affected by diseases of the soul because the look with scorn up all the other diseases of the soul. These statements, in my opinions, contradict with one another: people both learn from observation or they don’t even observe at all is my understanding of the message. I think the latter quote was toward younger audiences while the first was his personal experience after training. But it was interesting how people react so differently. Galen stated that if children’s “nature will accept the advantage of our care, they could become good men. If they should fail to accept this attention, the blame would not be ours” (Harkins, 1963, p. 16). He also proposed that “nature is in all cases a great factor, as is also imitation of those about us; later on, principles and practice are important influences (Harkins, 1963, p. 15). Do these quotes foreshadow that people’s failure do not depend on education but on how a person’s self-reflection and interpretation? Wouldn’t that just mean that people who don’t accept the attention, education wouldn’t work on them anyways, and that they are destined to fail? I agree that nature impacts us when we are little and later principles will build who we are, but if all that fails, it is no one’s fault (education) but mine? Critical Questions: How would religion fix passions and errors of the soul? Does Galen believe in utilitarianism?