philosophy test essay

Topic: Michangelo’s sculptures could be said to personify ideas found in Philosophy. To what extent do the statues of the captives develop themes of the Renaissance, the artist, as well as reflect upon dualist ideas about the human body?

When looking back into the renaissance era people tend to think of many great works of art. Some look at the Sistine chapel and say that the picture of god giving Adam life is the keystone of the renaissance however there seems to lack a certain philosophy behind the art, as it is a more religious piece. Take the sculptures of the captives intended for the tomb of Julius. These sculptures, even if unfinished, should represent our views on the renaissance. The sculptures show deeper thought into themes of the renaissance, themes on the artist, as well as reflection on dualist thoughts of Plato. Without these sculptures one may not be able to comprehend the amount of thought put into art in the age of the renaissance

            Michangelo is a renaissance man. His works such as David inspire others as they take roman style art and again renew its glory. Renaissance means rebirth and the ideas of Rome and Greece would again triumph religion of the dark ages. The depictions of the captives show that there are people in a struggle. They may be trying to escape themselves, or trying to escape a higher power. Nonetheless the sculptures develop the idea of being trapped and trying to escape, just as the renaissance was about trying to get out of the veil that was the middle ages. In this sense michangelo does use sculpture to portray the ideas of the renaissance.

            Sometimes the artist of a piece of work really can show their personality through their works of art. Jan Van Eyck did this in his painting of Arnolfini and his wife. By displaying himself in the mirror in the center of the painting Van Eyck really brings a sense of self-presence to the painting. He shows that he as an artist wants credit and by being in the center of the painting he really is the focal point in the work of art. Michangelo took a different approach to putting himself into the sculpture of the captives because he may have tried to depict himself trying to escape society and religion around him. Many speculate the Michangelo was homosexual and that the captives are really his way of displaying this. According to the rumor he tries to depict himself as a man being held captive by religious belief around him and that really the captive wants to be free to do what he wants. Strange however not farfetched. Maybe these rumors aren’t true and maybe michangelo was not homosexual. Another interpretation suggests that it shows himself trying to show how he wants his art to be seen. Some of the best pieces of art show the artist in it. Van Eyck’s literally does and Michangelo’s subconsciously does

            Dualist views in the renaissance are depicted in many ways of art and religion. Look at the way that in Raphael’s painting of “the school of Athens” has dualism. It features famous philosophers with heads of others. An interesting prospect however when you connect the head to the philosopher you can see how the person directly relates to the corresponding philosopher. This shows how there can be two parts to a human; inside and one out. Raphael’s representation isn’t the only one we have. The captives actually provide a better example of dualistic views. Michangelo shows how the soul is trying to escape the body. Just how in Plato’s thoughts there is a spirit trapped inside of flesh. Or that the soul is made of three parts. Reason, Spirit, and desire. The body in the sculpture represents the desire and cravings to escape but the mind, which is more powerful, represents the reason keeping the body at bay. Or it could be that the mind is trying to break free from the body. Only one man knows and that man is Michangelo.

The renaissance was the time to live! The age of scholars, art,  and architecture. During this time Michangelo sculpted the captives. These sculptures as they were depicted the dualistic philosophies, the artist, and the overall theme of the renaissance era to a very great extent. Even though these sculptures were intended to be a symbol to remember pope Julius II we really need to look at the captives in a more optimistic light. They are very great pieces of art and without them one may not be able to comprehend the great amount of information brought from the renaissance era.

moral issue

Moral issue

Ryan Hicks

Moral issue: Cheating

When tasked with a worksheet our subject (not to be named) felt that the best way to get through the worksheet would be to do it with a friend. This may be an action that would benefit both the subject and his friend however when caught; the teacher decides to half the mark of said students.  This puts both students in a perdiciment as the subject is left with what would still be considered by many as a high A for a class grade, but his friends grade slipped below to a mid B in the class. There are many ways the student could deal with the reception of such a poor grade. However the way the said student chooses to deal with the situation could impact the final mark of the student.. One looks to philosophy for answers in time of need. The existentialistic way of dealing with the situation would be to accept the low mark as it will not impact my grade that much. The friend however would have his grade lowered but in this philosophical view you have “no morals” and you are supposed to do what is best for yourself. This is one outlet to look at taking however the subjects morals are too strong to accept letting a close friend suffer for his mistake. Utilitarianism means you are to do what is best for the most people for that is in your best interest. The best way to apply this is to ask the teacher to give the subject a zero and give the friend full marks. In this way the teacher gets to exact punishment for what is considered as cheating, the student with the high A gets to lower his grade a miniscule amount and the friend of the student who got a very low mark on the worksheet will get a better mark on the worksheet and as a result won’t pull down his class grade as much. This may not benefit the subject but it does benefit more people in the end which is the concept behind utilitarianism. This is the view that could be taken so that more people benefit from an awkward situation and could help our subject out of his situation

Siddhartha

Siddhartha question

Ryan Hicks

January 2015

Comparative Civilizations 12

Inquiry: Richness

            Richness is defined by Merriam-Webster (An Encyclopedia Britannica company) as “having a lot of money and possessions”. This statement can be true in certain contexts however for some richness comes in many other forms. In philosophy richness is known as knowledge. Can knowledge prove that richness is more than just a material object? Looking at Siddhartha’s journey, richness can be measured in more than just ways of material values.  Looking at Plato’s readings one sees that the true meaning of richness is knowledge. And looking at western society richness is defined just as literally as the dictionary states it. To what extent can the definition of richness be changed based on the stories of Plato and Siddhartha?

            Western society is known as a very materialistic society. Rich is a term to describe the people who have many possessions, mainly physical. One of the most read articles of the year is Forbes magazine’s richest people of the year. The online live page has over forty thousand posts across various social media sites. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who see the posts. This list published to these people shows the people ranked by descending order of net worth in cash. How is it fair to rank people in order of cash? One answer might potentially be the definition of the word richness. If defined as stated by Merriam-Webster this definition is one that not just promotes a western society view on a topic but also however demotes a more traditional or religious view on the topic. A definition of a word used by two distinct societies but only promotes one is a definition that needs to be changed.

            Plato is a philosopher who is well known for his views on western society. Why is a western society philosopher so focused on knowledge? Plato’s cave is the perfect analogy of richness in western society. While the money and material is what the light projects on the wall the sun or fire that projects the shadows is the truth. These truths lay outside the cave waiting to be found. Sure money and possessions provide richness to those inside the cave but what defines richness outside of it? The definition needs to see change for those who live outside of the cave.

            Siddhartha is a prime example of where the definition of richness needs to be changed. Siddhartha decides to leave his teacher to pursue his own search for knowledge. Along his journey he finds knowledge from Kamala the courtesan he meets in the big city. He falls in love with her and she tells him that he needs to gain money, and nice clothes to love her. In his acquisition of all the money and material objects he gains knowledge, which points him back to his simpler life at the river. Where he helps those who need to cross the river. This knowledge helps him become what could be described as a man at peace with his inner self. How is a man who has money and no happiness richer than that of a man who is happy with no money?

            The dictionary is a place where people look for answers; a place where people gather knowledge. However they can’t gather richness. This is because the book itself says richness is not knowledge but material possessions and money. This may remain true for those trapped in the cave of western society however for those from around the world the definition remains only in their hearts. And thoughts. The definition of richness needs to be greatly changed and altered to a definition that appeases the beliefs of more than just western society. The new definition should show what richness is for all people no matter who they are and what they believe it

             

Siddhartha question part 3

Section 3 question 17
Throughout the story of Siddhartha the river has taught him many valuable lessons. The very first lesson comes early on in the novel when he learns from Vasudeva that the river told him "every thing comes again" (p46). When Siddhartha returned to the river he was ready to kill himself however the river spoke to him. The river guided him along on a story. It taught him that the time doesn't matter. Siddhartha learned the river speaks to him and through this he was taught to listen. The river did more than just teach Siddharta it gave him a simpler life. He became the new ferry man and stayed with the river. For he felt love for the river. A feeling he wasn't allowed to express before. This river was the best thing that happened to Siddhartha throughout his story and will forever be a part of him. Siddhartha is the river

Siddhartha question part 2

Section 2 question 9
Siddhartha's interaction with sexuality really changes him to a very large extent. When he incounters Kamala for the very first time she smiled and nodded at him from her sedan. He was tempted to pursue her instantly however he knew entering her grove as a samana would not be acceptable. "He had a goal" (p. 49) is the main thing that changes him. His instant attraction to her "freshly broken fig lips"(p.48) and her beauty showed that sexuality already changed him. His ambitions were different and intention was made. His sexual attraction to the courtesan even made him change his hair just to appear in front of her. He changed his beliefs on money and fine clothes to get to learn the art of love from her. He wrote her a poem (p53) to which she kisses him for it. He goes to acquire all that he needs to make Kamala teach him how to make love and then sexuality changes him. He is no longer Sidhartha the samana. Sexuality changes his clothes, money, and beliefs as before he had to look down when talking to women. Sexuality changes Sidhartha to a great extent

Siddhartha question part one

Section one question number 3
Siddhartha questions the value of meditation and loss of ego and compares it to the process of getting drunk or having sex. This will always be the case to a great extent in any situation. Siddhartha questions his values just as humans will always question everything. The natural reaction for humans is to want what they don't have and he is doing just that. A cliche that many use is "the grass is always greener on the other side." In this aspect Siddhartha is comparing what he has to what the life of a person of a drinker, or a person who has sex, contains. To this extent I agree with what Sidhartha is doing. However he is questioning what he is doing to a polar opposite. Why would he compare the life of a Buddhist to that of someone who doesn't value Buddhist tradition? Therefore I can agree to the fact Sidhartha criticizes spiritual escape however the extent is too great and his moderation is not very good

Rome essay

The assassination of Julius Caesar was one of the many major points in Roman history. Caesar can be described as one of Romes greatest emperors. He was made dictator for life for his actions. He was married to Cleopatra, ruler of Egypt, and was well on his way to becoming one of the greatest leaders of all time. He defeated the senate once after crossing the Rubicon, however would not be defeat the senate again. On the 15th of march in 44 B.C.E. Julius Caesar was assassinated by the senate, being stabbed to death by many so the blame could not be put on one person. As morally incorrect as an assassination is; Julius' assassination was the correct thing to do to save the republic of Rome from the grasp of a dictator as his existence threatens the safety of democracy.

Julius Caesar was more than just any leader. After his death Marc Antony quotes him as "An ambitious man." One of the main reasons one would aspire to kill an ambitious man doing many great things for your nation is if the great things go against your beliefs. The senate was the true enemy of Caesar. Their relationship forever tainted by the one time war waged by Caesar when crossing the Rubicon. This act of a man trying to assume full power of Rome would not be taken lightheartedly by the senate who lost the battle, but survived the war. The survival of the senate would insure that survival of democracy would happen. "How" was the real question at hand.

During the first triumvarant held by Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar; Julia the sister of Julius was married to Pompey. This solidified the relationship between Pompey and Caesar went smoothly. Julia and Pompey were expecting a child however Julia died in childbirth. Cato the enemy of Caesar provided Pompey with a new wife, which made Pompey and Cato have a stronger relationship than Caesar and Pompey. This allowed for tension to build up in the triumvarant and for Pompey to side with Cato. Cato knew Caesar was too much of an enemy to the senate to deal with alone. The involvement of another leader to help bring down Caesar would in turn make him a more powerful man after the defeat of Pompey. This did however bring Caesar to a more dictator status and painted a larger target on his back to be assassinated. This would show that he is the man destroying the republic.

The most significant point the Caesar made that insured his assassination would be appointing himself as dictator for life. This made Caesar the supreme ruler of Rome and granted him rights to do whatever he wanted. He had plans to make his child the next emperor of Europe. With Cleopatra being depicted as an Egyptian goddess many thought he would try to make himself a god. Caesar broke two of the 6 laws of history that would ultimately lead to s demise. "Never assume a position that is not rightfully yours" and he broke the law of moderation. This meant that to save democracy from a dictator for life his assassination would have to occur

Caesar will forever be depicted as a great leader. His face carved into lifelike roman sculpture. However his conflict with the senate, and breaking of the laws of history would ensure that he would need to be killed to save democracy. This killing was very important to the survival of the republic in Rome. Without it a dictator would be free to do whatever his liking should be, and that is against democracy. It is never morally right to kill a man, however in this instance the correct choice was made, and democracies such as the American democracy exist today thanks to the death of Julius Caesar.