Death and Karma

The idea of karma and death has always perplexed me. How in this life our actions, and thoughts can follow us into the next. The Hindu texts we've been assigned reflect this idea the most I believe, and directly explains what happens to those who live an immoral life. You can be punished for years, decades, even centuries, stuck in the wheels of karma. I believe the idea of karma was probably some type of scare tactic, encouraging the common man to do good or else...

Now this idea of being punished in the after life isn't an original one, we see it in many of the texts we've been assingned. But karma to me, is something we hear spoken about more today, then hell itself. To me, being able to apply such an age old idea to our modern lives speaks volumes about its popularity, and how applicable it still is today.

Karma can either make an individual absolutely fear death, or it can have quite the opposite effect on a person. If you know in your heart you've lived a just, and moral life, than you can rest assured that when you die, karma will do right by your soul. The same idea is reflected in Christian texts aswell, Dante's inferno, upAnishads, and many more. Also the idea of purgatory comes to mind, the idea of being stuck in between heaven, and hell. How does one go about fixing their wrong doings, if their already stuck in a limbo game of heaven, and hell? What do you Gus think?

Response to Clinton's blog

I couldn't agree with Clinton more on the idea of those before Christ going to hell, simply because they weren't Saved. If god is so just, merciful, and all knowing, why should these people be condemned for shear ignorance? Clinton's absolutely right, where is the justice, mercy, and reason behind that? Dante's inferno talks about how these individuals were neither good, nor evil throughout their lives, they were pretty much neutral parties. They didn't pick a side if you will. Now if these people aren't infringing upon others natural born rights, what crime did they really commit, other then just not picking a side?

Why should these individuals be condemned to hell, even if it is just the first stages? I understand that supposedly it's bad in gods eyes not to be saved, but they technically didn't sin other wise. This is an interesting idea to say the least, and one I feel, which I assume Clinton does as well, is completely overlooked by most readers.

Often times questions arise that one must either analyze, or interpret, however in this instance with this simple yet profound idea, I can do neither. I'm left to guess just like everyone else, and I don't like assuming things I know very little about. I'm very curious what others think about this...

Small group discussion

I suppose I prepared for this group discussion very differently then for normal class discussions. I knew Beowulf inside, and out or so I thought. At first I just analyzed the questions that were to be discussed in class, and try to answer them to the best of my abilities without having to open my book. I then identified rather easily where my weaknesses were, and how best to address them. I went through the questions where I had the most difficulties, and I addressed them directly. I went throughout Beowulf, found the areas I lacked knowledge, or informed opinions, and I studied them vigorously. It was my goal to be able to give an almost perfect response to any question on our assignment sheet, without having to open my book even once, which I believe I was very successful at doing.

Note taking was key, I had over 4 pages front and back of notes, just for that one class period, and they were vital to my over all participation. I believe that the notes provided a base of discussion ideas for me, so when I was proposed with a question, I could answer it with ease, based on my own prior research on the particular subject. Having legible, coherent thoughts on paper allows me to freely express my own opinions, and ideas, with a factual reference at my side, whenever needed.

The three most dominant things I did differently to prepare for our group discussion was annotations throughout Beowulf, research on specific characters in Beowulf, and comprehensive research to find scholarly opinions on the subject matter of our book. I didn't feel my word was simply enough, so I read through hundreds of pages of other students pinions on Beowulf online, to help mold, and shape my own opinions into something all could understand, and appreciate. This discussion was far more useful than to my learning than my regular classes, because this style of discussion forces the students to become Experts on whatever subject is at hand. I loved this assignment.

Comitatas

When pondering the idea of Comitatas I find myself asking, " what would I have done, I presented with the same curcumstances, and decision?". At first I was utterly perplexed as to what the right decision may or may not have been, but upon further review of the exact definition of what exactly Comitatas is, and was in that time period, I feel beowulfs men had an epic failure.

Now I say this boldy because I believe that Beowulf could not have made it to his final climactic battle without his men's aid, and help throughout the story. If they started this epic journey, and battle together, they should Finnish it together as one single unit of courage and nobility. The simple fact and point I'm trying to make here is that no matter what your bold, and perhaps big headed leader may tell you, it is your job as a soldier, and a friend to help your leader out when he is facing almost certain death. Screw what he tells you, his decision making skills are probably flawed, and skewed already because of the horrors he is about to face. You are his loyal soldiers, and under Comitatas you owe your leader your loyalty, and life for that matter.

If it was me, I would have come to my homies aid immediately, without question. So what if he's big, tough, and slays monsters in his spare time, he's obviously still mortal despite what he's previous deeds may suggest about immortality. The point is, their leader Beowulf was in danger, they knew it, he knew it, and they chose to dip out on him. That's messed up. Even wiglaf agrees with me on that one, there was a clear breach of Comitatas, or the warrior leader contract if you will.

Screw politics, screw emotions, and screw curcumstances, Comitatas is till death do us part, and their leader died because of there lack of respect for the law of Comitatas. Beowulf could have ended on a way better note, but I also think Christian influence had a hell of a lot to do with the ending but ats a whole other subject, and blog post in itself.


Peace out see y'all in class

Beowulf: pre-blog

I neglected to Finnish reading Beowulf entirely until just now, I will Finnish a proper blog on the subject when I return home from class. However, after reading pages 1184 to 1233 I find myself asking many questions. The biggest topic weighing on my mind, is the symbolism in this story. We know by reading the information in the first part of the story that this was a tale, to inspire, and motivate good deeds, and nobility in men of that time period. I am very intrigued by what Army, people, or invaders the monster Grendal truly represented. It was obviously a thing that terrorized, and tormented the danish people for years, and I wonder what exactly this could have been. I am also curious about the giants, sea monsters, and dragons that are referenced as beowulfs prior noble deeds, and quests. Will post more after class discussion.

Proposal

I've been debating on whether or not I should attack the themes of Antigone & The Odyssey, or I should delve into the language aspect of these two Greek tragedies. I've come to the conclusion that perhaps I'd have more subject matter, and more room to compare & contrast if I just chose to give a comprehensive analogy of the style of writing in each of these tales. I feel a solid comparison of the two styles of writing, the language in each story, and the reasons why the authors in that period chose this particular style of writing would help illuminate certain thoughts to my readers that they probably didn't think of. It is my understand that we are to look at the text itself more in this class, rather than the story itself. What I have learned so far in Scott's class this semester is how to analyze the writing itself has a whole, and then try and establish meaning, and value out of it. Interpretation is simply that, a mere interpretation. However, I feel that I can give my readers a rock solid understanding of each of these comprehensive, and vastly detailed stories. Focusing on the writing itself, the text, the literature, rather then trying to interpret it as a whole, will be my ultimate goal. I am completely open to suggestions, or guidance to focus my efforts even further. Thank you for your time, and consideration on the matter. See you all friday.

Analyze or Interpret?

As we vigorously debated this claim in class, "Homer can be analyzed...but not interpreted", I kept asking myself what the hell the difference is between these two things. I've come to a number of conclusions on this sticky subject, none of which I feel hold any more validity than the other, however I do believe there is a point to be made here.
When one reads further into both of these stories, with Auerback's claim in mind, it is rather hard not to at least give the man some credit for his claim. As I see it, Homer finds himself having to explain every single action, and detail in the story, so there really is no room for interpretation, it just is what it is, nothing more, and nothing less. However in the Bible, and particularly the story of Issac, and Abraham, we see an entirely different style of expression. With Homer's style, we are presented with evidence, to support any claim, or action that might be happening in the Odyssey, and sometimes when all seems lost, a God comes down from "heaven"(Olympus I assume), and Homer narrowly escapes his almost certain doom.
However in the Bible, the style in which God is portrayed, and the characters being manipulated, or commanded by God are shown in an entirely different light. We really are not presented with any reason why God is doing what he's doing to Abraham, Issac, nor do we have any inclination as to how he feels about the actions he is taking against them. What I believe this suggests is perhaps we the people(the audience) are left to interpret what the Bible is trying to tell us. In the Odyssey we see the exact opposite, and we know exactly why the Gods take certain actions, and we are given a detailed explanation as to why certain events take place. Oddly enough when there seems to be even a hint of discrepancy in the Odyssey, we have a sudden Divine Intervention, and the Gods come to save the day. We see no such thing in the bible.