| | Zoroastrianism | Confucianism | Daoism | Buddhism | Hinduism | Socrates |
| Similarities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Differences |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Why can't everybody just get along?: A comparison of Jesus's teachings with those of other philosphers.
Jesus's moral teachings v.:
Monday, October 17, 2011
Let's Build an Empire!... No, it's not an iPhone app...
There seem to be a few common themes between the arise of major empires during the classical era, which include the Persian, Chinese, Mauryan, and Roman Empires.
The first is that they all follow a period of complete and utter chaos. Cyrus the Great conquered the Persian Empire after the fall of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires. China was united when the first emperor Qin ended the Period of Warring States in 221 BCE. The Mauryan Empire formed after periods of war where Darius and Alexander the Great conquered and were forced to leave India. The Roman Empire was formed after the assassination of Julius Caeser, where civil war broke out, leading to a period of chaos that was ultimately ended when Octavian, Caeser's nephew, took power and declared himself emperor. Every single empire formed after a period of war or of chaos.
The second trend seen in the formation of empires is the standardization of different systems (roads, currency, weights and measures, etc.). Ancient Persia set up the "Royal Road", which allowed them to trade with as far away as India and China, as well as the standardization of Persian coins throughout the empire. China standardized writing, weights and measures, currency, language and set up one of the biggest trading routes of the time, the silk road. The Mauryans had set up both land and sea trade routes extending from the Mediterranean to the East China Sea. The Romans set up roads and outposts all over their empire, which led to the saying "All roads lead to Rome", as well as spreading Roman culture to many parts of the empire.
These two along with many more factors led to the formation of empires during the classical era.
The first is that they all follow a period of complete and utter chaos. Cyrus the Great conquered the Persian Empire after the fall of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires. China was united when the first emperor Qin ended the Period of Warring States in 221 BCE. The Mauryan Empire formed after periods of war where Darius and Alexander the Great conquered and were forced to leave India. The Roman Empire was formed after the assassination of Julius Caeser, where civil war broke out, leading to a period of chaos that was ultimately ended when Octavian, Caeser's nephew, took power and declared himself emperor. Every single empire formed after a period of war or of chaos.
The second trend seen in the formation of empires is the standardization of different systems (roads, currency, weights and measures, etc.). Ancient Persia set up the "Royal Road", which allowed them to trade with as far away as India and China, as well as the standardization of Persian coins throughout the empire. China standardized writing, weights and measures, currency, language and set up one of the biggest trading routes of the time, the silk road. The Mauryans had set up both land and sea trade routes extending from the Mediterranean to the East China Sea. The Romans set up roads and outposts all over their empire, which led to the saying "All roads lead to Rome", as well as spreading Roman culture to many parts of the empire.
These two along with many more factors led to the formation of empires during the classical era.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Internet Never Lies: A Comparison of the AP World History Textbook and Wikipidia
On Friday in class, I worked with Futaba to find out more about Jainism. For help we used both Wikipedia and the textbook. Between the two I honestly found Wikipedia to be more helpful, and here's why: The textbook has to deal with all human history ever and as a result and get into really specific specifics. It does an incredibly good job of giving us all the overview that we'll need for the AP exam. But when we want to get into specifics, it doesn't really help much because it might give only 1-2 paragraphs of the subject you need to study specifically. When it comes to in class assignments like these, Wikipidia trumps the textbook any day of the week. The good thing about Wikipedia, which many teachers see as a bad thing, is that anybody can edit it. The only time I've ever heard of that power going ary is when Sarah Palin's followers changed the Paul Revere page to match what she said had happened when he warned American's the British were coming. Besides that, there might not be experts editing the pages, but there won't be devout Catholics editing the Jainism page. It would be edited by Jainists or other people who study Jainism, making it nearly as reliable as it could get. I wouldn't want to use Wikipedia for everything school related, but I do think teachers sometimes misinterpret how good of a teaching tool it really is, and it could definitely be used for more school-related projects and activities.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Ha! He said duties!: A comparison of the Caste System, Zoroastrianism and Confucianism
Bhagavad Gita stresses a few points when talking about the Caste System.
The first is not to fear death, but to welcome it. He said that all things die and are reborn many times over (reincarnation). You do reach heaven if you die a righteous death in battle. In this aspect, there are some similarities to Zoroastrianism and no Confucianism. Zoroastrianism talks about a final judgement determining weather you go to paradise or hell, and Confucianism doesn't have any after life or reincarnation, and can barely be counted as a religion in that way (more of an idealism I'd say.)
Going along with point one of not to fear death, point two suggests that when charging into battle there should be no fear, because if you live you get to enjoy earth longer, and if you die you get to go to heaven. Like the heaven of the Caste System, there is a heaven in Zoroastrianism, but it is only reached on the final day of judgement, not from succeeding in battle. There is a similarity to Confucianism in that fulfilling your duty is important.
The final point made is that people should do stuff, not for the reward of doing stuff, but because it's the right stuff do. This goes hand in hand with Confucianism, because the big picture behind Confucius's teachings was to be a good person for the sake of making the world a better place, not just for your own personal benefit. The comparison to Zoroastrianism is being good people. However, Zoroastrians have a final goal they're trying to accomplish, whereas the Caste System just says to be good for the sake of being good.
The first is not to fear death, but to welcome it. He said that all things die and are reborn many times over (reincarnation). You do reach heaven if you die a righteous death in battle. In this aspect, there are some similarities to Zoroastrianism and no Confucianism. Zoroastrianism talks about a final judgement determining weather you go to paradise or hell, and Confucianism doesn't have any after life or reincarnation, and can barely be counted as a religion in that way (more of an idealism I'd say.)
Going along with point one of not to fear death, point two suggests that when charging into battle there should be no fear, because if you live you get to enjoy earth longer, and if you die you get to go to heaven. Like the heaven of the Caste System, there is a heaven in Zoroastrianism, but it is only reached on the final day of judgement, not from succeeding in battle. There is a similarity to Confucianism in that fulfilling your duty is important.
The final point made is that people should do stuff, not for the reward of doing stuff, but because it's the right stuff do. This goes hand in hand with Confucianism, because the big picture behind Confucius's teachings was to be a good person for the sake of making the world a better place, not just for your own personal benefit. The comparison to Zoroastrianism is being good people. However, Zoroastrians have a final goal they're trying to accomplish, whereas the Caste System just says to be good for the sake of being good.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
How shall the blogs be graded?
After thoroughly looking over a few of the AP World blogs, there are a few different ways I think the blog should be graded. First off, I believe it's everybody's own personal blog, so the posts should be casual, and not like a person is writing their college essay for each one. That being said, I also don't think that the blogs should be written in text talk, or like it only took a person 20 seconds to write down all their thoughts. So although I don't believe that grammar should be a huge judgement of the blogs, I believe if necessary bad grammar should be penalized.
Second, I never believe length should be the judgement of anything. For instance, in english class, asking a kid to write a five paragraph essay with at least 10 sentences to each paragraph is pointless. Much of that essay will be filled with gratuitous information or sentences, and it's just harder to write and grade. I believe that whatever assignment it is, the person should only write the information that will help them answer the question they are being asked, regardless of length.
When it comes to the grading system, I believe that a 3 is a well-written blog that is "comfortable" to read and answers all parts of the question or assignment being asked, with clean examples or proofs added into the blog; a two is a well constructed post that answers only a few parts of the question being asked in detail and does not do a very good job using examples or proofs; a 1 is for people who half-a** every part of their blog, barely answering the question and not using anything to help prove themselves; and finally zero's go to those individuals who don't post, or when they do post, they don't answer the question in any way whatsoever.
I personally think that assessing each other, though it may have benefits, is a bad idea. I would hate it if people read my history blog every day and then judged it heavily, and I believe that others find that to be a painful experience as well. If people just check in to see what others think about the question being asked, that would be ok, but if they're going to comment on every post, that can get intimidating. It's one thing when you're teacher checks in, because you're doing an assignment specifically for them, but peer judgement is inexplicably scary to confront.
Second, I never believe length should be the judgement of anything. For instance, in english class, asking a kid to write a five paragraph essay with at least 10 sentences to each paragraph is pointless. Much of that essay will be filled with gratuitous information or sentences, and it's just harder to write and grade. I believe that whatever assignment it is, the person should only write the information that will help them answer the question they are being asked, regardless of length.
When it comes to the grading system, I believe that a 3 is a well-written blog that is "comfortable" to read and answers all parts of the question or assignment being asked, with clean examples or proofs added into the blog; a two is a well constructed post that answers only a few parts of the question being asked in detail and does not do a very good job using examples or proofs; a 1 is for people who half-a** every part of their blog, barely answering the question and not using anything to help prove themselves; and finally zero's go to those individuals who don't post, or when they do post, they don't answer the question in any way whatsoever.
I personally think that assessing each other, though it may have benefits, is a bad idea. I would hate it if people read my history blog every day and then judged it heavily, and I believe that others find that to be a painful experience as well. If people just check in to see what others think about the question being asked, that would be ok, but if they're going to comment on every post, that can get intimidating. It's one thing when you're teacher checks in, because you're doing an assignment specifically for them, but peer judgement is inexplicably scary to confront.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Analects blog post
Tzu-kung asked about government. The Master said, “Give them enough food, give them enough arms, and the common people will trust in you.
Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of these three, which should one give up first?”
“Give up arms.”
Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of the remaining two, which should one give up first?”
“Give up food. Death has always been with us since the beginning of time, but when there is no trust, the common people will have nothing to stand on.”
Of all the selections from The Analects, I found this one to be most relatable to modern American politics, especially after the debt crisis over the summer. Relating back to the dept crisis, I think it's fair to say that not only American citizens, but much of the world, has lost faith in congress. It proved to everybody that at this point in the game, America is having a really difficult time running itself, thereby losing the faith and trust of the average American citizen. According to Confucius, that's the absolute last thing that a government should want to lose. The first thing we should give up is our guns (and, being incredible liberal, I think that the right to bear arms by the average citizen should be taken away during times of peace. But that's a conversation for another day.) yet guns are still allowed throughout America. And after arms are taken away, the next thing to go should be food, but America has a surplus of food. So why oh why then, if we still have arms and food, did our leaders let the trust of the American people slip through their fingers. In order to get us out of this huge cluster that the government has gotten us into, they need to restore the faith of America by cooperating with one another and moving forward, instead of combating with one another over differing view points and getting us nowhere. Quoting another wise man, not Confucius: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" -Abraham Lincoln
Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of these three, which should one give up first?”
“Give up arms.”
Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of the remaining two, which should one give up first?”
“Give up food. Death has always been with us since the beginning of time, but when there is no trust, the common people will have nothing to stand on.”
Of all the selections from The Analects, I found this one to be most relatable to modern American politics, especially after the debt crisis over the summer. Relating back to the dept crisis, I think it's fair to say that not only American citizens, but much of the world, has lost faith in congress. It proved to everybody that at this point in the game, America is having a really difficult time running itself, thereby losing the faith and trust of the average American citizen. According to Confucius, that's the absolute last thing that a government should want to lose. The first thing we should give up is our guns (and, being incredible liberal, I think that the right to bear arms by the average citizen should be taken away during times of peace. But that's a conversation for another day.) yet guns are still allowed throughout America. And after arms are taken away, the next thing to go should be food, but America has a surplus of food. So why oh why then, if we still have arms and food, did our leaders let the trust of the American people slip through their fingers. In order to get us out of this huge cluster that the government has gotten us into, they need to restore the faith of America by cooperating with one another and moving forward, instead of combating with one another over differing view points and getting us nowhere. Quoting another wise man, not Confucius: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" -Abraham Lincoln
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)