Greece Day 5 Blog Entry

1) I agree with Socrates' words: "Wisdom begins in wonder." The reason I agree with this is because it is impossible to obtain knowledge without seeking it. For example, one can be forced into memorizing facts regarding a topic, yet in my opinion and in Socrates', they will not have become any wiser. To become wise one must remember the information they have learned. If one is forced into learning something, they will not remember it for the rest of their lives. I believe the best way to obtain knowledge is to seek it.

2) In Plato's book "The Republic" justice is defined as being whatever the almighty and smart ruler decides.

3) One positive element of Plato's republic is that only the "smart" are rulers. I believe an important element to a functioning republic is having good intelligent leaders who can pronounce nuclear correctly:-). This is the case in Plato's republic because no other people are given the chance to become rulers unless they are deemed smart. This leads me to my next point which is a negative aspect to Plato's republic. I believe it is a bad decision to deem people intelligent or stupid and then assign them to an according job. I think more factors should be taken into account when determining a job for someone. For example, I believe the person's background should be taken into account. If they grew up not going to school due to finances but they were very smart, yet they seemed stupid to the person deciding what they should do, then the state would be missing out on a bright mind.

4) My idea for an ideal state or republic would involve many city-states. Each city-state would rule under whatever governing system they wanted to, whether it be a capitalistic, a socialistic society, a social-democracy or other. The reason this would be ideal is because I realize each person has their own individual idea of what kind if society they want to be apart of. Since each city-state would be governed in different ways, people could choose to live in which ever one they wanted to be apart of.

5) What the Allegory of the Cave means when it says the only thing standing in the way of knowledge is our insistence that the visual universe is reality is that our perception of reality is what reality is. Plato argued that every has their own individual reality and that things may be perceived differently by two different such as colors. He says that there is no reality and that our insistence of saying there really is a reality is standing in the way of obtaining true knowledge.

Sparta vs. Athens or Greece vs. the U.S.

1) If I was a young teenage girl of the citizen class I would have preferred to live in Sparta. Not only would I have been educated from the age of seven in reading, writing, gymnastics, athletics and survival skills, I would have been treated more like an equal than in Athens. I would be able to participate in sports. I could own and control my own property as well as being expected to oversee and protect it while my husband was at war.

2) If I was a slave I would rather have lived in Athens. Although I was a slave and had no rights I would have been treated less harshly than in many other places in Greece. I would have had opportunities to be something of importance such as a policeman.

3) If I was a boy of the citizen class I would rather have lived in Athens. In Athens I would have received a good education from the age of five until I was fourteen or eighteen (depending on my family's wealth). In Sparta however I would have been taken from my parents at the age of seven and trained in the art of warfare. I would be expected to stay in good physical shape until I was sixty. Although I would be educated in reading and writing as well, my life would mainly revolve around the military.

4) If I were a soldier I would rather have lived in Sparta. Spartan warriors were trained from the age of seven and were expected to serve in the army until the age of sixty and I would have received extensive militaristic training. The Spartan military was the best and most feared on land.

5) I f I was an aristocrat I would rather have lived in Athens. Although Athens was one of the first city-states to establish a democracy, the aristocrats were the ones who ruled from behind the scenes and controlled what went on in the democracy. Elected officials were usually aristocrats.

6) Athens was the better place to live. Although controlled by somewhat of a corrupt democracy Athens encouraged exotic culture such as athletics, art and music as opposed to Sparta, where everyone's lives revolved around the military. From the age of seven boys were taken from their parents and trained to become warriors. When the men went off to fight, women would take care of the land and protect it from invaders. Women's roles were to produce strong warriors. In Athens boys were given a good education in reading, writing, math, music, poetry, sports and gymnastics from the age of five to fourteen or eighteen depending on family wealth. Sometimes boys even went to academies in their twenties where they studied philosophy, ethics and rhetoric. Only after their education were boys expected to serve in the military. In conclusion Athens encourage culture where Sparta encouraged a militaristic lifestyle.

Blog Entry #4

New ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social, political, and/or economic stress? How can this be explained?

The reason that new ideas in politics and philosophy tend to emerge in times of social political and/or economic stress is because people believe that with new policies or ideas, their society will be better. The reason people think this is because they are being logical. They are saying that since the present political leader and his/her philosophy, are not working, they need change. This can be seen today in the presidential campaigns. Since President Bush’s leadership policies have not been working to America’s benefits (i.e. the economy crisis, relief work for Hurricane Katrina etc.), the two candidates are calling for change. They each have their own ideas and philosophies about how they will change America for the better. Another example of when a time of stress led to political change and new philosophies emerging was during the Qin dynasty. The Qin ruled under a Legalistic way, which sent the population into an uproar. Their dynasty was so short because their policies made the population upset and wanting a changed political government with better philosophies of how to rule. The Han became such a successful dynasty after the Qin because they answered the people’s call of a changed government and more humane philosophy of ruling. In conclusion the reason one can see in history and the modern day how political, social and/or economic stress leads to a change in political governing and way of ruling is because the population realizes that the original way does not work and that they need a new one.

After learning more about the Classical Period and listening to lectures about the many developments made in its time, I believe that population growth was the most important development of the Classical Period. The Classical Period has been given this name because it is looked back in history as an all-around good and successful period in time. Why was it such an abundant time though? It was defiantly not due to the technological advancements, considering there were barley any made. I believe the secret to the Classical Period’s time of prosperity was due to the growth in population. Neil Diamond said that a big reason for the unfairness in terms of development around the world is due to the fact that some regions have bigger populations than others. This leaves opportunities for other people in that region to have time to work on technological advancements. This theory also applies to the Classical Period situation. With a bigger population there was enough people to become acquainted in different professions, such as merchants. With a larger population, the world began to experience trade. New ideas were brought from the Far East to the far West on roads such as the Silk Road or Roman roads. Larger Populations meant larger armies, the military is what lead to major roads being built and these roads are what merchants used to travel on. In conclusion without the surge of population growth, the Classical Period would not have been worthy of such a name.

Blog #2-Biggest change of Classical Period

I believe that the biggest changed that occurred during the classical period was the start of successful conquests for large empires. Preceding the Classical Period there had been empires but no empire before the Classical Period had been as large and dominant as those of this time. These establishments of large and successful empires are what lead to all the other changes occurring in the Classical Period. For example large regions began successful networks of trade between each other, such as the trading of silk between Asia and the Mediterranean. Another change the unification of large regions brought on was Syncretism. For example Alexander the Great’s conquest brought India and the Mediterranean together in trade. A statue sculpted by an Indian sculptor of Buddha was found sculpted clothed in Greek style clothes. Although there was not a large technological breakthrough in this period, the unification of large regions brought with it a large social breakthrough between people.

1. Reflection on Yali's Question

Diamond provides sufficient evidence as to why the average New Guinean is smarter, both genetically and non-genetically, than the average European and American. For example, he states that New Guineans have a greater need for genes promoting intelligence than the average European or American, due to the need for survival-of-the-fittest in the jungle. He also states that European and American children spend hours in front of televisions, whereas New Guinean children do not have access to such items. This leads me to my point. Europeans and Americans (pre modern era) used their intelligence, which was probably equal to the New Guineans current intelligence, to build revolutionary inventions such as the TV and radio. By doing this they lowered their own intelligence because they changed daily life from using their intelligence to survive to activities that did not require their intelligence. I believe one of the reasons they are the ones who have the "cargo" and not the New Guineans is because they introduced a new, exotic and appealing life to many nations and people. But this leads to another question. If New Guineans and Europeans/Americans were more or less equal in terms of intelligence, pre-modern era, why was it the Europeans and Americans who decided to use their intelligence to revolutionize life? It all goes back, I believe, to where they are located globally as well as population size. New Guinea, as Diamond said, is a place where people are geniuses at surviving. Making homes, following trails, etc. However, in my opinion, it sounds like a harder life style to survive in than a typical European/American life style, even before the modern era. Terrain wise, compared to Europe or America, where there are no jungles, it is harder to survive with the basics, let alone creating revolutionary inventions. In Europe/America it is (and was even before the modern era) easier to survive, which meant creating hypothesis and revolutionary ideas was easier. I understand that pre-modern era there were undoubtedly more wars and political conflicts going on in Europe/America than New Guinea (considering New Guinea is so secluded). However while the army of a European country was off fighting or defending, there was still time for scientists and scholars to work without harm. Even if they were captured, such as during the era of Ghengis Khan, they still were able to work and develop ideas. Diamond also states that a possibility for the European/Americans revolutionary creations, was because they were in need for complicated and working irrigation systems, or ways to stay warm, in the hot/cold climates in Europe. However didn’t New Guineans need to survive and provide for themselves in similar ways as well? Yes, but they have, according to Diamond, a much smaller population than Europe/America. With a smaller population it is harder to have enough people making food and providing for basic needs, plus a whole other set of people who can develop revolutionary ideas. In nations such as Europe and America with larger populations, it is easier to have a certain group of people providing basic needs, as well as another group of people creating revolutionary ideas. I am not stating that Europeans/Americans are smarter than New Guineans; on the contrary I am saying that Europeans/Americans live in a place where it is easier to use their (possibly lesser) intelligence to a more revolutionary extent. “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves.” –Diamond pg. 25. On the second to last page Diamond poses the question, “the open question concerns how much effect, and whether geography can account for history’s broad pattern.” In answer to his question, I believe, yes. Geography can account for histories “broad pattern.” All nations start off in different geographical places. Some places are easier and some places are harsher. This is similar to how today people are born into different social classes. The truth is that some people are born into better situations than others. We as global citizens must confront these inequalities that people have been born into and provide ways (such as affirmative action) to make everyone, no matter what background, as equal as possible.