Truth-Confucianism

Our focus on Confucius in class has gone to a philosophical level--seeing as Confucius is one of the seminal thinkers of his time, this is not particularly surprising.  Most of the Confucian sayings we looked at from The Analects involve the nature of truth in man.  A particular quote that's been on my mind since discussing it in class is as follows: "The object of the superior man is truth, not food."  Confucius' discussion of the superior man vs. the mean man has a lot to do with seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake.  The superior man attempts to gain knowledge because it is necessary and righteous.  The mean man attempts to gain knowledge as to gain wealth.

The importance of truth to the superior man is a foggy sort of concept.  What is truth?  Ought the truth mean the same thing to everyone?  If not, how do we find our own truth?

The way I see it, most people these days choose the idea of "food" over truth.  They choose to gain wealth, to become well-known, to "sell out," if you will, because attaining wealth and fame is more immediately pleasurable in this world than finding truth.  The way that this piece of Confucian thinking works creates binary oppositions: the concept of truth cannot coexist with the concept of food.  The superior man cannot coexist with the mean man.  At what point, then, at what surrender to the temptation of food or gaining of knowledge, does one become mean or superior?

Reading about Confucius asks the reader what her truth is.  As for me?  I'm not sure yet.  The way that my life has panned out so far seems to aim for an altruism based on passing on knowledge and compassion to others; I'm an idealist who ultimately wants to teach and write with the purpose of sending the message that life is not as difficult as it seems.  Though things are ugly and difficult and I would love to open people's eyes to the calamity our world faces, we can come out of it stronger, better, more intelligent, more whole.  But, of course, that's me.  I can't speak for the next person who reads this blog; I can't speak for myself in the next twenty years.  Things change.  The idea of truth changes. Truth now is surely a concept very, very different from truth in Confucius' time.  And it will change again over the next 2500 years, should we make it that far.

So who am I to say that I am superior for seeking truth?

Culture and Religion in Eurasia/North Africa

Perhaps my favorite part of the chapter four examination of the culture and religion in Eurasia and North Africa is Strayer's discussion on traditionally "Eastern" religions.  It is unfortunate that the Western-centric world has instilled in the rest of the world such a bias in the means of praising Christian religions, but in studying world history we might be able to focus on Eastern religions.
Having been raised Catholic, I have learned a lot about Christianity and its roots in Judaism, but never until college did I learn, at an extensive level, more about Islam (which is far closer to Christianity and Judaism than other Eastern religions in terms of ideas), Buddhism, Confucianism, and Hinduism.
My favorite to have studied of all these religions is Hinduism.  However, the Strayer text emphasizes Hinduisms' commitment to duty and devotion, which, while that aspect is a large part of practicing the Hindu tradition, does not fully communicate Hindu values.  Hinduism respects an individual's praying rituals as a part of that individual's routine; Hindu services are not routinely held like Sunday church in Christianity.  One practices her religion at her own pace, practicing prayer, yoga, and other offerances to the Hindu gods (which are actually different representations of ONE god) in her own time.  Strayer's focus on duty and devotion to studying the Bhagavad Gita are accurate, but overblown--I think part of the reason for this is to emphasize the individualism practiced in Buddhism and Confucianism.  Of course, we understand that Strayer's representation cannot fully capture the reality of an age-old religion in two paragraphs or so, but I do wish that Strayer had covered a little more fully the extent at which Hinduism is individual, as well as unity through duty and devotion.

"A Paleolithic Woman in the Twentieth Century"-Answering Questions

“A Paleolithic Woman in the Twentieth Century”

Nisa's account is useful in learning about the culture of women in early Paleolithic people. Her account shows evidence of her family being the gatherer-hunter society that was prominent in Paleolithic times: “We lived in the bush and my father set traps and killed steenbok and duiker and gemsbok and we lived, eating the animals and foods of the bush. We collected food, ground it in a mortar, and ate it” (Strayer 48). She shows an awareness of a wider world in calling other people that she may interact with “stingy” but addresses that her whole life has been lived “in the bush.” In calling others stingy, this addresses that Nisa understands a family outside of her own in the bush, as well as her interactions with her other lovers.

Nisa's account indicates that San attitudes toward sex are liberal but somewhat structured. Since she is expected to have sex with her husband, there is some evidence of cultural expectations on a wife, but in taking a lover, the society shows its leniency towards sex as a pleasurable act, and not just one for married people: “But sitting with just one man? We don't do that. Does one man have enough thoughts of you?” (49). These attitudes are much less strict than those in contemporary society; there is an expected behavior one must assume with each lover, and in marriage one is expected never to take lovers whom are not the spouse. Even in relationships, we are expected to only have sex with our designated partner, not lingering outward or searching for others to appease our sexual desires.

Nisa sees God as an all-knowing, all-powerful being whose idea of humanity is unimportant compared to His greatness. When her husband passes away, she becomes upset with God, labeling him as stingy as the people her family does not interact with: “God is stingy! He just takes [people] from you. God's heart is truly far from people” (49). Her view on healing rituals seems to be somewhat to attempt to spite God or let God know that humans are capable of having their own will without His help. When she practices n/um, the San healing ritual, she says that it “is powerful, but it is also very tricky. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn't because God doesn't always want a sick person to get better” (50). I think the independence from religion Nisa demonstrates due to her own personal experiences is something less orthodox in San culture, but interesting nonetheless.

Nisa's overall assessment of San culture is likely slightly romanticized but on the whole, sounds realistic. Since she does not know any other life, it is impossible for her to compare her lifestyle with an industrialized lifestyle. The details of her life become gritty at times, such as the death of her husband, and in these passages, she admits the difficulty of her life and the problems with the life she has been given: “The death of your parents, husband, or children—they are equal in the amount of pain you feel when you lose them” (49). However, the more romanticized parts come from Nisa's love of simplicity, how life is set in a certain order and does not become complicated or complex and messy: “Here I am, long since an adult, yet even now, if a person doesn't give something to me, I won't give anything to that person” (48). It seems that Nisa is truly happy to live a San life, and would not trade it for anything else.

Strayer Chapter One-Paleolithic Era Part One

Probably the most fascinating part of this first bit of Strayer's first chapter is the dynamic of the Paleolithic human society.  Apart from spreading their kin so far over the globe--starting in Africa and moving to the farthest reaches of the Arctic, the Pacific Islands, Australia--the early groups of Paleolithic humans possessed a kind of tolerance that is hard to find today.  The female population whose focus was gathering (as opposed to the male population, which focused on hunting) brought to each "tribe," if we can call it such a biased term, the majority of the food source, so the women of the household, indeed, were "bringing home the bacon."
To be quite honest, most of this blog post will cover my appreciation for Strayer's attention toward the early female population.  Aside from the greater food roles that women played in the Paleolithic Era, polygamy was an acceptable concept in the societies, but gradually fell away because women chose not to "share" their husbands with other wives.  Things like rape, domestic violence, virginity were unheard of, which made the world a safer place for women than now, although our perception of such a far past is typically barbaric and violent.  We see the stereotypical "cavemen" as sex-hungry beasts who want only food and coitus from their claimed wives, but the wives had so much more freedom than we would expect.
The inclusion of the Venus of Willendorf indicates the importance of femininity in a spiritual sense.  We know from that statuette as well as other artistic expressions and indications that fertility and the cycles women go through (birth, menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, death) were viewed in greater terms than they are now--that is, they are important and women are to be praised for going through them.  The expectations for women then were not subject to the kind of bias that we are now.
I look forward to reading more about the early human history Strayer has to impart, and the terms under which he defines them, I am glad to be observing.

Prologue to Strayer

Our historical journey begins with the formation of the universe, which, according cosmic history, took place 13.7 billion years ago, with the Big Bang.  This event, the catalyst of all things existing, has been documented in such humorous terms as Douglas Adams, in his novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "The story so far:  In the beginning the Universe was created.  This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
This quote is rather funny to me, seeing as human beings, overall a self-centered and nearly insufferable race, have only been on the planet for 2.7 million years, give or take a few thousand.  As a whole, the human race is something of a weak species, our needs in the past two hundred years sucking up more than half of the planet, without remorse or any solid way to ensure a safe future; however, I digress.
What I like about Strayer's text is that he understands this fact, our insignificance, and makes a point of criticizing some of our views concerning our importance to the universe, at the same time noting that the human race is unique in its self-awareness.  No other species on Earth has gained the same self-awareness, to our knowledge, nor have they attempted to make gains on the rest of the universe, as we have.
 Studying world history, as the text asks, requires "three Cs": change, comparison, and connection.  That is, we document the changes in world eras, taking note of their importance.  We make comparisons, between individual and cultural experiences, asking how the rise and fall of empire after empire was similar.  Finally, we connect.  What relevance does the history of the world have on today?  In the negative sense, we've heard the saying: "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."  In the positive sense, we learn from the mistakes our ancestors made, and their ancestors, and are able to create a world that they'd never be able to dream of.
If that's not the most beautiful thing about world history, I don't know what is.

First Post

Blog?  Made.
Homework?  Done.
Good start to a first semester?  Here we go. :)