The Crows

While reading about the Crows, I was struck by the fact that the U.S. government somewhat unintentionally, destroyed the Crow way of life. Obviously, the U.S. wanted to claim as much land as possible, and generally speaking, they were willing to go to just about any length to do so. This was propagated by Manifest Destiny, and seen as something that was God's will. Because of this, the U.S. government couldn't let the Native Americans maintain control of the land that they  once did, and so, by necessity, the Native Americans needed to go. For the Crows, who were nomadic, the borders for their tribe were the ones that they set up, and defended with their lives if need be, through the use of a coup stick. This was a defining feature of the Crows, literally what made them Crow Native Americans. By setting up parameters for the Native Americans, ones that other tribes could not pass (aside from peacefully or travelling), for fear of federal interventions, the U.S. nullified the use of the coup-sticks. The coup-sticks were useless because the U.S. decided whether or not something was a violation of their rights, and they could never move about in a nomadic fashion again. At least not really. So, in creating the boundaries for the Crow, the U.S. took away a part of their identity, lessened them as they saw themselves, which made the job of violating their human rights that much easier. At least that's the way I see it. What do you guys think?

Cognitive Dissonance and Confucius

This is a post that backtracks a little bit, going back to The Secular as Sacred. In the Analects, Confucius states that an individual should take every aspect of their life and attempt to make it sacred. That is to say, one should act out of duty, but take a sincere interest in what they are doing, and appreciate every facet of that act. It occurred to me in class today that this type of thought process is not dissimilar from cognitive recalibration, at least in regards to any possible cognitive dissonance one may have towards a duty they have.
Cognitive dissonance is the phenomenon which describes the disconnect between one's thoughts or sentiments about something, and their actual actions. So, if an individual really doesn't want to do something, say go to the gym, but ends up going, there is a disconnect with how they feel about the gym, and what they're doing. Another example of this would be if someone considers themselves a moral individual, but performs an immoral act, they will feel a disconnect, more easily described as guilt in this situation.

According to Confucius, performing dutifully and wholeheartedly will lead to happiness and a fulfilling life.  Without getting too much into it here, one way of reducing cognitive dissonance is to change one's opinion of whatever is causing it, namely adopting a more sincere and invested view of a particular act that one is engaged in. Essentially, Confucius had stumbled upon this idea of cognitive dissonance and recalibration millennia ago. Pretty interesting, if you ask me.

The Massacre of the Qurayzah

I enjoyed today's conversation about the different takes on the extermination of the Qurayzah. Not, of course, about the actual exterimation, which was an atrocious act, but rather the dialogue we had between what the author of The First Muslim, Hazleton, and Armstrong had to say about the subject. The former argued that it was an extreme measure, incredibly rare; it was a clear show of strength and a desperate move to quell any further resistance. Armstrong, on the other hand, argues a little more charitably, stating that, while it was still an atrocious act by today's standards, that type of act was not unheard of, and Muhammad did it more out of necessity. Moreover, Muhammad himself did not make the sentence himself (a technicality because his consent was still needed, but true nonetheless), but rather S'ad did. As professor Silliman stated today, this type of act was not a common practice, and the slaughter of close to 1000 people is not an easy act to carry out. What I wonder, though, is if this type of act may have been carried out on smaller scales; because there were so many Bedouin tribes at that point in time, I would assume that there were several smaller tribes, ones that could be wiped out without much resistance. If this could be the case, then the massacre of the men and selling of women and children into slavery might have been more acceptable, as Armstrong argues.

I only bring this up as a possibility, with the thought that the Qurayzah were simply a large and better known tribe, and as such, that type of sentence would not have been as acceptable. I'm just thinking of possibilities that would make Hazleton's and Armstrong's arguments reconciliable. What do you guys think?

Chapter 2

In chapter 2, Armstrong discusses the idea that Islam sees the Qu'ran as a message directly from God, and as such, experienced a something akin to transcendence each time they listened or read the Qu'ran. Unlike Christianity, Judaism also does this, with Hebrew being the sacred language of God. What I'm curious about, then, is why Islam decided revere in such a way. What I mean by this is that Islam came several hundred years after both Christianity and Judaism, and as far as we know, was influenced by both. It is quite clear, though, that Christianity reveres Jesus differently than Judaism does Moses or Islam does Muhammad. Jesus, to Christian, is literally god incarnate. At the same time, his sayings are not nearly as well documented, and the bible clearly follows a different path than either of the other holy books.With Judaism on one side and Christianity on the other, along with the significant impact of ancestral worship, why did Islam choose to emphasize the holy tongue like that of Hebrew, rather than the person or acts like Christianity?

Muhammad

First off, I would like to give credit to Karen Armstrong, whose writing is incredibly informative, but at the same time light and engaging. A Prophet for our Time reads more like a novel, but has the educational depth of a textbook.
The introduction and first chapter discuss Muhammad as an individual before he becomes the prophet, detailing what was his childhood and moving along until his experience on the mountain. Though he lost his parents, it seems as though Muhammad lived a relatively charmed life for the time, having individuals watch over him for a great portion of it, starting with his grandfather. I've yet to formulate an opinion on the information of the book, or find any glaring questions that it leaves me with, so I'll reiterate what we talked about in class, in the hopes that we can discuss it a little further here.
I was under the impression that Christianity and Judaism, though recognized as at least followings of god, were simply tolerated by the Muslims, and that Muslims thought them inferior or misguided in several ways. According to Armstrong, however, Muslims considered Christianity and Judaism as part of Islam, and that they were all essentially one and the same. In class we discussed how loyalty to one's tribe came above everything else, and that Muslims and, in this case, Arabs would do anything for their tribe. This meant giving one's life for it and ensuring that one never fights with his tribesmen. This is part of why Islam was so influential; it outlawed any fighting within the tribe if Islam. This supposedly worked while Muhammad was still alive, but when he died, this ideal began to die as well. After his death, the tribes began to expand the empire into Christian-held territories. My argument, or query, then, is centered around the idea that the Muslims that began to raid and kill Christians. It is no secret that there were several wars in which both Christians and Muslims were aggressors. Wouldn't this go against the beliefs of the Muslims to not kill any of their tribesmen, if Christianity was seen as a part of that?
Professor Silliman suggested that this all occurred after Muhammad's death, and he had no say over it. Silliman also proposed the idea that Muhammad was far too busy ensuring that his people weren't slaughtering themselves and creating a religion to really worry about Christianity and Judaism. As well, there were inherent necessities that Muslims had, and the only way they could obtain and fulfill those was to pillage. I understand these points completely, but I'm skeptical about the willingness of his followers to do so. Were they so far removed from Muhammad so soon after his death that they didn't realize they were going directly against his (and thus God's) word? Did they simply not care? This is a culture that has scholarly skepticism built into its very foundation, and yet the people subscribing to the religion didn't understand this violation of holy law?
I asked a lot of questions here, and I don't expect answers from all of them. I think, also, that professor Silliman did a very good job of defending their actions as necessary, and at this point we can only speculate on what really went on, but I am left with lingering doubt about the inconsistency of the religion and the actions of its people.

A Last Word on Confucius

Confucius argues for all individuals to practice Li, which he believes is the one true and just way to live life.  In that way, he agrees with the Taoists; there does seem to be some sort of correct way to live life. As Fingarette points out, the way for Confucius was to see secular and real situations as something that should be revered, be sacred (hence the title, The Secular as Sacred).  On a smaller scale, I think that this type of idea is great, and that we would all benefit from adopting that idea. At the same time, I don't know if I believe that the idea is so profound that it can literally rewrite the social contracts of the societies in which we live. I think that when it comes down to it, people are often faced with decisions that they can't possibly be okay with, and to approach it with a sense of recognition or actualization of it will not make it better. This relates largely to my last post, which postulated that individuals, when faced with two bad decisions, cannot possibly make a just or Li choice.  What do you guys think?

Confucius and Choice

Chapter two, discussing the Way, or Tao, states that Confucius does not see some sort of alternate path other than the Way of Li. According to what Fingarette states, Confucius didn't see choice as a factor of life; the idea that there is one path, and anything but that path is wrong, or at least a mistake from which we can learn. This seems all fine and dandy at first, what would be the best decision is simply the one that we should make, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Where this doesn't seem to make sense to me is in the case of a military coordinator. That is to say, if there is an individual, faced with no single good, just, or Jen decision but in which she or he must decide, what would be the Li thing to do? To simply say that which is the best out of the two would appeal to the western "psychological" aspect of choice; given this alternative or that alternative, what would be the best thing to do. This doesn't however, align with the Confucius ideology. If there are no good decisions, what is one to do? The Li method seems to fail in such situations.
Somewhat tangentially, it reminds me of Pascal's Wager; you are already part of the game, which do you choose-The existence of God? Or lack thereof? It's a little more loaded than this when one gets into it, but the idea is there. Again, this is a "choice," but it does seem to reflect the recognition of the Way, or non-Way of Confucianism. What do you guys think?

The Analects of Confucius

I found the opening two chapters of Confucius: the Secular as Sacred to be quite interesting. The first chapter, for example, emphasizes the interpretations of Confucius that suggest he subscribed to genuine supernatural powers and entities. After this, Fingarette systematically discusses and then discounts each of those propositions. I greatly admire this approach, and think that Fingarette does an exceptional job of it. Having said that, I found his summation of the arguments for Confucius being a believer of mythical entities rather disappointing. To borrow from Logic, I thought that Fingarette is guilty of the straw man fallacy. Not to a large degree by any means, but I think that he skims over some of those arguments in such a way that I didn't feel that Confucius could legitimately be interpreted as a sage purporting to understand supernatural laws of the universe. What do you guys think?

The "Gospel" of MLK

Let me preface this by stating that I will keep this posting brief. I thought that the exercise professor Silliman had us do, in creating a "gospel" about MLK was greatly enlightening. In theory, we discuss the inaccuracies of the gospels, and how they have impacted our views of Jesus. The fact that miraculous events became supernatural is greatly because of peoples' interpretation of what happened. Having to come up with our own "gospel," though, and comparing between us the stories we came up with, lends a great amount of credence to the argument that the Gospels, while likely rooted in truth, have strayed a good deal from it, and have thus been interpreted erroneously. What were your thoughts on it?

The Obliteration of an Individual

In chapter 6, and in the class discussion on Thursday, the act of crucifying an individual was one that was meant to obliterate everything about them, including their memory. I find it interesting that the Romans would go to such lengths to oppress a culture like that. If I'm not mistaken, a common practice at that point in time, at least for empirical powers, was to conquer an area or civilization, force subjectivity onto them, and then pretty much allow them to continue as they were but with a tributary fine. If this is the case, it seems to go against their own logic to so aggressively stamp out any type of organized gatherings by the Jews. To go to the lengths that they did to destroy everything a Jewish individual stood for, deconstruct their very existence, and then deny them even a burial is rather extreme, to say the least. What were the grounds for this treatment? Why this treatment was necessary is rather confounding to me. What do you guys think?

Crossan, Disease, and Illness

In chapter four of his book, Crossan describes the difference between a disease and an illness. A disease, according to him and several other leading experts, is something that is physiologically wrong with someone, a mechanical deficit in the body that prevents it from functioning at or to its full capacity. An illness, on the other hand, is more of a psycho-social phenomenon that prevents an individual from utilizing their mental faculties as they might normally, and that prevents them from interpersonal relations and interactions. An illness, as it is described, is socially constructed and maintained. A person, when healed of an illness, will think more highly of themselves, not rely on a "condition" as a crutch or an excuse, and will be able to live their lives ass fully as possible. A disease, on the other hand, is something that may physically cripple someone, but can be cured through medicinal or medical intervention. 

This is all fine, and I would not like to contradict any of these viewpoints of illnesses or diseases as they have been outlined. Where I find issue, though, and we touched on this briefly in class, is in the mental sickness department. We discussed depression in class, and how it is considered more of a disease than an illness, and the treatment for it is not such that you can simply "heal" it. Where, then, do mental "illnesses" fall in these categorizations of diagnoses and treatments? 

I mentioned the dichotomy of the two in class, and, given the short discussion with professor Silliman, it seems that, though the text appears to classify them differently, it is in fact a false dichotomy. Separating the two to understand them historically and from an anthropological standpoint makes a lot of sense, especially when one comes to the exegesis of the bible and the attempt to define the actual and historical Jesus. How, though, are the two wed back together in current times and regarding the very real "illnesses" that people fight against today? Depression, I think, is a relatively easy subject to justify between the two of them, not because it is a simple disorder, but rather it has had the fortune of being widely studied. What of other psychological illnesses like Schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, dissociative identity disorder? All of these are firmly grounded in the psyche, and yet needs must be approached from the "disease" standpoint.

On Crossan

The text that we are currently reading, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, is a very interesting text, and I greatly appreciate the insight that Crossan is supplying us with. Having said that, I am a little disappointed with his exegesis of the text; he relies much more heavily on quotes from the bible than he does his own words. That is to say, the majority of the text is taken up not by his own work, but by quotes of the bible that he chooses to analyze. Granted, he analyzes if very well and, to quote a cliche, brevity is the soul of wit, but I would like him to go into a little more depth than this book does. Of course, he mentions that this is more of a crash course in the subject than his other 900 page book, but even so, I find that, were we to have a little more exposure to his own ideas and writing, the discussion could go that much further.
I realize that statement may seem somewhat obtuse, especially considering the subject matter, but if we were to just analyze the bible, we would likely be reading the King James right now instead of Crossan.

Having said that, I think that Crossan does a very good job of pointing out the inconsistencies in the bible, especially in regards to John the Baptist and Jesus. The comparison he makes between the two, the intentional exoneration of Jesus over John, even though John was clearly born first, and had tremendous historical importance. Though he was at one point a priest, much of the information that he proffers forth seems to be quite condemning to the Christian faith. Even the premise of looking Jesus as an historical figure, looking back into records, and not taking the bible at face value seems quite akin to sacrilege.

What do you guys think?

An overview of the Ghita

After having read the Ghita, what I found to be most interesting was that it is from a culture whose language greatly influences its ideas. This, at first, sounds like a rather obvious statement and there is nothing profound about it. I suppose that is true in a sense, but, being a psychology major as well as a philosophy major, I find this type of thing particularly interesting. The idea of Dharma, for example, is something that we must elaborate on greatly; it isn't simply one's purpose of life, it's so much more. It's who you are, what you do, where you came from, and where you will go. It is an idea that is firmly grounded within the roots and traditions of the culture that gave birth to it. This isn't the only example of this; several different ideas within the Ghita are ones that, without understanding the culture, are and will be lost on the scholars attempting to learn about what the Ghita has to say.

The lessons in the Ghita are ones that set out to include and help. This seems pretty unique in that most other religions require one to relinquish parts of their lives in order to join them. Hinduism almost doesn't seem like a religion in that sense because it is all-inclusive. Whatever you want to do, that's fine by the Ghita, so long as you are fulfilling your Dharma. One aspect that I found particularly interesting in this sense was the idea that Krishna wanted Arjuna to fulfill his Dharma as a Kshatrya, and defeat his enemies. Because it was his Dharma, he would not be punished for it, and he could expect to "move up" in his next life.

I understand that there is a great likelihood that Arjuna was not actually intended to kill his enemies, and that it is a metaphor for defeating the personal demons within us (or something along those lines) that will allow us to reach Moksha, yet at the same time it offers strange grounds for potentially atrocious acts simply because the individuals acting them out can claim that it is their Dharma to do so, and they aren't in fact "killing" anyone, because the self cannot be killed.

Thoughts?

The Significance of Krishna revealing himself to Arjuna

In chapter 11, Sri Krishna reveals to Arjuna his "true form," a scene which brings Arjuna to his knees. This scene, as we discussed in class, was one that is itself still simply an image, an illusion to Arjuna, no more real than the "mortal" body of Krishna that Arjuna has grown up with. Wherefore this presentation, then? If Arjuna is genuinely listening to what Krishna has to say, he should realize that the presentation of the cosmic figure was an illusion. The achievement of Moksha is something that will literally lead to a "nonexistence," a situation in which there is no cosmic being. As such, it seems illogical for Arjuna to believe that that was the "true form" of Krishna (or Brahman, as it were). What, then, was Krishna hoping to achieve by this display?

Pre-critical Thoughts on the Bhagavad Gita

I am currently taking an Hellenistic (Greek) Philosophy course, in which we are discussing Pyrrho and some other members of the Skeptic school of thought. The skeptic school of thought, it seems, attempts to argue that there is no objective truth involved in our perceptions, and we cannot in fact know any truth. Well, that is a painfully short summary of their thoughts, but it will serve for the purpose of this post. The Skeptics believed that concerning ourselves with the world we live in was essentially pointless, because there is no way to prove it, and it is more likely than not that what we observe is not real. Needless to say, their arguments frustrated many, fro many years. Still the contributions of the Skeptics led to such distinguished philosophies as those proposed by Des Cartes and Hume. But that is not why I mention them here.

 

I mention the Skeptics here because many parts of the Gita reflect this ideology, not as explicitly, and to the extent that the Skeptics argued, but there are some glaring similarities between them. The Gita, for example, argues that the trivial ideas and objects that we encounter in this world are meaningless, and interfere with our understanding of Atman, and thus inhibit progress towards Moksha. The idea that what we concern ourselves with distractions of this world is not limited to this religion, or even to a few; it is fairly widespread. The difference, and what leads me to make the connection between the two, is that they seem to believe in a "nothingness" after death, a release from any and all distractions, unlike more Judeo-Christian religions and beliefs, which promise riches in the next world. 

Of course, as the title suggests, this is a pre-critical thought on the connection between the two, but I find it interesting that this idea permeates throughout several different cultures, and it is so well articulated and explicitly outlined within the Gita. I think this would make for an interesting research article, though it may have, and probably has, been done. Now that I think about it, I recall a peer of mine making parallels between the gymosophists, "relatives" of the Skeptics, and Hinduism.

An Introductory Blurb

As you can probably tell by my profile, my name is Thomas Chiang, though I prefer Tom over that, as Thomas is just so unnecessarily formal. I am a senior at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, formerly North Adams State College, and I am dual majoring in Psychology and Philosophy. I chose those fields because they both deal heavily in thought and thought processes, how we come to conclusions, and why we should believe those conclusions. I think they are incredibly useful when it comes to interlocution, and I find that the two fields, though set by certain parameters, delve deeply into almost every field of academia, and I find that to be quite intriguing. The purpose of this blog, aside from exploring thoughts more comprehensively simply for their own benefit, is for the World Religions class that I am currently enrolled in. As such, most of the posts you will find in this blog will be about that class, and the material we will cover in it.

Having summarily covered the academic portion of this introduction, I think that knowing a little more about the other aspects of my life may lend insight to my thought processes and "worldview" on the upcoming matters. I am an avid rugby player and fan, and have been playing for the entirety of my college career. I have partaken in a myriad of extracurricular activities including, but not limited to, archery, wrestling, kung fu, music (I have intermittently played 4 different instruments, none of which am I, in any sense of the phrase, skilled at), hiking, biking, horticulture, tai chi, and socializing.
Not mentioned in that list are the things I have a particular proclivity towards, which are culinary cuisine/cooking, carpentry, and the active pursuit of education. These are things that I have a particular passion for, hope to continue learning about for the rest of my life.
Anyways, I hope this has given a little insight into my character, and that you can extrapolate more about me given this information. Until we see each other in class, or bump into each other around campus, I bid you adieu.