Assignment#4 My Political Views

My political views can pretty much be summed up into one statement. Those who have the ability to do something for the greater good of someone else, have the RESPONSIBILITY to do so. This is not a complicated concept. This simply is Morally right. In my opinion we were not put on this earth to be selfish and inwardly thinking. This isn't about charity or handouts, it about doing something good for your fellow man and feeling good about it. If you add that with the idea of understanding or consideration for opposing views, you get a pretty compassionate considering society that will take positives from both sides and reach a happy medium. The understanding allows us to get a basic feel for opposing views. I wouldn't give my politics a name but I am considered a libertarian. I based my views on my view of my religion. I am considered a Christian, but to Christian I probably am a bad Christian. But name me one perfect Christian. Name me one perfect any religious person. The only perfect person I know is Jesus and they laughed at him. So basing my ideas on the fact that my God is forgiving, I am forgiving. My god is considerate and compassionate, so I strive to be like that as well. I realize and accept that I will fall short of His example, but I am willing to work on what is wrong. This is simply an idea. One that if kept in mind when making decisions, there would probably be a positive outcome. This isn't what I feel everyone should be like as far as the religious reasoning behind it, but the concept of it is what is important here. Take where I got it from away and apply it to all regions of the world and see the outcome. Positivity and progress is what should be driving, motivating factors.  

Assignment#3 Age of Enlightment

The age of enlightenment holds some of my favorite philosophers, one being Voltaire. He became one of the greatest thinkers and writers of satire comedy of his time. Wikipedia’s age of enlightenment pretty much sums up what that period was about. It provides time periods and enlightened thinkers for all countries. Its shows how enlightenment helped form North America. The enlightenment focused on humanitarianism and human rights. According to Wikipedia, the goals on the age of enlightenment can’t be describes in one page. Enlightenment also placed an emphasis on science. Schools and colleges focused on science and astronomy. The Academy of Science was founded in 1666 in Paris. With this new enlightenment came debate, healthy debate. Society began to question and debate one another leading to new understanding. Now new studies show that there may be a history of Freemasonic presence in the enlightenment which may have played an important role in the movement itself. Montesquieu and Voltaire were both enlighten thinkers and they have ties to the Freemason. But there are arguments saying that the Mason did not act as a group, meaning they did not coordinate with one another. This is true of Voltaire and Montesquieu as they engaged in public debate often. They also disagreed with each other’s philosophy at time. Lodges of the Freemason originated in English and Scottish stone masonic guilds and they expanded in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. They had a communal understanding of liberty and equality. According to Wikipedia these understanding or ideas spread around the world and there are hints of conspiracy that lead to the French Revolution. In my opinion this Wikipedia page sums up everything important that one may need to know about the age of enlightenment. The fact that almost anyone can post on Wikipedia hurts its credibility but I do have some former knowledge of the subject from previous classes.  

Assignment#2- They Say

The first thing i noticed about the writing is that once again assumptions are made. The writer just tends to believe that we, the reader, agree with what he is saying. When Rushkoff says "we understand that we will be subjected to certain forms of influence" he is making an assumption that we will all agree that in some way we will be influenced. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, he is still using it as a tool to persuade people. The argument pertaining to shopping for shoes is completely invalid for me. This could be because of a disciplined budget or because of lack of funds but still it’s not true. The next couple of paragraphs all i could say was no. No i haven’t. No i don’t. The salesman didn't get me to pay more than what i had planned. Once reading it all the way through i can understand that this was meant to be persuasive, however because i couldn't relate to the character it was lost on me. The techniques he described and use do work. Writing and media can all be persuasive. It gives proof to the idea that we (humans) don't think enough on our own. I can agree, but also disagree. When he spoke of responsive reading in churches, i actually believe it depends on your mind state. I participate in responsive reading, but i don't necessarily feel i am participating in the service. It’s more so the structure. I guess you can say it’s going with the flow. I can choose not to participate and i don't believe i am doomed for it. I am very spiritual in my own way, and who is to say that my way is incorrect? I choose to focus on how i can positively impact my society, and better myself as an individual. I may watch TV and see a commercial for longhorn steak house and thin hmmm, I’m hungry. Was i just brainwashed or persuaded? To me it depends on how you look at it. I may not have money for longhorns, but i may have a rib eye in the freezer. I'm sure i brought that steak long before i saw this commercial, so i cooked the steak, satisfy my hungry and go on about my business. If the idea of the commercial was to get me to go get 50 dollar loan to go to longhorns, it didn't worked. If the idea was to remind me that i had steak in the freezer that if i don’t eat soon it my get freezer burnt then hey that works for me. 

Assignment #1 For Beginners

Taking into consideration that the author of this reading may be a firm believer in the evolutionary theory of creation as opposed the the religious theory, i keep an open mind about the reading. However convincing his science may be to him, it seems there is a lot of assumption in this work. To me science shares a lot with the idea of faith,the substance of things hopeful, and evidence of things unseen. Air, something we know is there, but until magnified we can't see it. And even then we can't be completly sure of what we are looking at. In the case of words, his arguement was correct in saying the they invoke responses automatically. However i feel that he was playing on a much simpler mind. The world is filled with stuff to purposely distract us from what is going on or whats really true. When i think of terrorism, i dont think of islamic or muslim people. I think of the act of imposing terror on anyone. Maybe thats because of the military training i recieved in the navy, or maybe it's because i am an African American. I've seen and am well aware of the injustices suffer by my ansestoers at the hands of america. Why couldn't that happen anywhere at any time. If you believe that everything can be explained of has an answer, then your not very bright in my opinion. However if you believe that all things dont have an answer, then you share something in common with religious people. I agree with his brainwashed theory. Whether we want to believe it or not we are all brain washed. The challenge lies in undo what we are lead to believe is true from a young age. Challenge ideas and formulate your own opinion. This reading seemed as if it were trying to persuade me. Didn’t work.