Temporary: Essay Questions - Test 3

*Under Construction*



To what extent could another civilizations (instead of Europe) have possibly conquered the world between 1200 and 1600 AD? What accounts for their failure to do so?

What factors have contributed to the rise of civilizations and their eventual collapse?

"Slavery is necessary for great achievements." - Amy

Siddhartha questions.

What kind of child and son is Siddhartha?

Siddhartha was essentially the perfect son. Born the child of a Brahmin, Siddhartha always pleased those around him, especially his parents with his vast knowledge and thirst for more. Even physically, Siddhartha, with his thin physique and tan skin, would make even his closest friends like Govinda jealous. Even at his young age, Siddhartha had already mastered the Om as well as many facets of the Brahmin lifestyle. However Siddhartha did not see himself in the same light. He became very pessimistic towards his future, and was suspicious of the joy that was felt around him. He did not appreciate the beauty and joy around him which ultimately lead him away from home to find true bliss.

Who are the Child People, and what are their values, concerns, weaknesses, and secret?

The child people, for the most part, are the general citizens such as the traders and the gamblers, or perhaps anyone who is not a Samana or Brahmin. Siddhartha sees himself as an adult, or someone who knows himself very well and understands as well as follows the key philosophies of life which hold him back from leading a wholesome life. The Child People on the other hand, are much more consumerist, living in the material world around them and only concerning themselves with tangible items such as money, property and goods. They indulged in love and were subject to emotional feelings where as Siddhartha felt he had a much better understanding and was essentially higher than the Child People.

What does Siddhartha teach Govinda?

In the final scene of the book, Siddhartha explains the knowledge he has gained over the years and all his travels. While the Buddha attempts to teach through what the Buddha has learnt, Siddhartha realizes that wisdom cannot be taught, and that words hold little meaning. He told Govinda that one must learn from themselves, and choose their own path with their own morals, and believed that the best teacher is the environment around you and yourself. Finally, Siddhartha shows that it is okay to love and be loved with those around you and feel emotion, and to believe that the world is perfect and to see grace in all sins. Ordered by Siddhartha, Govinda kisses Siddhartha on the forehead and instantly is overwhelmed with all the happiness he has ever felt.

Test Essay - 2

Plato’s philosophy and Athenian society

By Thomas

Plato’s allegory of the cave is one of the most famous and relevant philosophical ideas in human history. Hypothesizing that we are, in fact, living in a world full of lies and shadows, and that one must exit this false world or “the cave”, and see the true light before returning to retrieve the other members of society and enlighten them as well. Perhaps the reason why this philosophy is so well known and acclaimed is simply because it is so relevant to almost every civilization, and every society in one way or another. For example in today’s world, we are blinded by bias media, corrupt governments, and propaganda which drain us of any personal opinion, leaving us only with the false information that we take in that can be easily manipulated. This analogy, however, can relate back to the Athenian civilization as well, regarding possibly one of the Greeks most fatal mistakes and the conflict that the society had with Socrates. The ethical decision by Greece to execute Socrates may not have been entirely correct; however it is apparent how Socrates became the victim in what was the Athenian cave of shadows.

The trial of Socrates took place in 399BC, in Athens. After the long and gruesome wars with Persia, and the occupation of Persia in the Athens, Athens finally re-established their democratic ideals. Socrates however, continued to theorize of anti democratic governments, including the “clean slate” theory and share his wisdom openly in Athens, causing fear of revolution from the Athenian government. This would lead to the arrest, trial, and eventual death for Socrates. Ironically this can perhaps correlate directly to his pupil, Plato, and his philosophy of the cave, and although it can be argued whether the death of Socrates was a democratic decision or not, it is hard to ignore the fact that the Athenian society had directly eliminated, in Plato’s terms, a potential philosopher king who could have very well brought Athens to the absolute truth.

Plato believed that we are all born in a world where we see only a shadow of the reality, and that there would be someone who rise above and experience the world for what it truly was, but upon his return to enlighten the rest of the community, he would look foolish, and only when the society would understand what the philosopher knew, would the civilization emerge from the cave and know the absolute truth. In Athens, Socrates was a well known and well regarded philosopher, who, we can understand, was attempting to guide Athens out of the cave, making him the philosopher king. However the public did not agree. With the recent tyrannical period of Critias, and Socrates’ close relationship with him, the Athenian democracy shut down the idea of Socrates’ clean slate theory, and his abolition of democracy for one true philosopher king to rule over the entire state. As you can see the lines can be very accurately drawn between the allegory and the reality. The ethical argument of killing Socrates aside, I believe there is a major hole in the theory of the cave, and that is, how can one truly know that they have witnessed or have knowledge of the true world, if in fact we live in a cave of shadows? Athens may have understood that their current state was the absolute truth, and in fact they had already emerged from this cave, which makes the death of Socrates completely correct in their case, and his philosophy false. Then again, if Socrates’ philosophy was in fact the absolute truth, would the Athenians prefer it over their current state? While I believe the death of Socrates could have been one of Ancient Greece’s few mistakes, and that Plato’s philosophy can easily compare with the trial, it is very hard, given Greece’s state at the time, to justify one side more than the other, as neither believed they were in the wrong.

While Plato’s philosophy can be interpreted in many ways, its relation to the trial of Socrates can be interpreted and investigated in many ways. Socrates saw himself as a philosopher who’s ideas were correct, but at the same time contradicted many of Athens ideals such as democracy. Just as in the cave philosophy, the society ridiculed Socrates and saw him as a threat of influence and executed him. According to Plato this would have been a failure of the civilization, who were not ready understand the absolute truth, but in many ways, Socrates’ ideas may have destroyed what was a functional Greek society. While the Greeks may not have been in the right by killing Socrates, the conflict over who was the “philosopher king” is impossible to settle.

Human Condition - Analysis

By Thomas

Human Condition or La Condition Humaine is a series of surrealist paintings by 20^th century Belgian artist Rene Magritte. The works were painted throughout the mid 1930s and the early 1940s, and were painted with oil on a canvas sized 100cm by 81cm. Initially an impressionist, when Magritte transferred to surrealist art, his style also carried over. This is clearly exhibited in Human Condition, where Magritte paints with impressionistic qualities.

The 1945 Human Condition like most others in the collection were set in a house overlooking nature. In this case we are set in what looks to be a beach house that opens to a beach with a blue sky and mountains in the distance. The brush strokes are fluid yet determined giving a mixture of impressionistic and realistic qualities. The piece is focused on an easel with a canvas that hides a portion of the landscape from the viewer, but at the same time reimagining it on the canvas in the same style as the rest of the scene, making it seem perfectly natural if not for the outlines of the canvas and the easel.

The idea that Magritte was implying, in my opinion, is that we cannot always believe what we see and the idea or object that is most important is the one that is mostly likely to be hidden. It is human nature to try to uncover what is hidden from us, and this painting is a perfect example for when people view it, most will only wonder what is behind the easel rather than contemplate on what is shown to us. Another point is how the truth can be hidden from us, especially in the world we live in today with bias media and corrupt governments. The simplicity of the scene with its peaceful nature and general calmness may trick us when the reality may be the complete opposite. In Human Condition, Magritte combines great artistic skill while presenting a deeply philosophical, underlying message, creating surrealist art at its finest.

Test Essay #1

Survival of the Fittest

The Key to the Human Race

By Thomas

There are two ideologies that have been waged over since the beginning of society and the introduction of government, and almost any conflict concerning the civilization, community, or species as a whole can be factored down to these two contradictory ideals. These two concepts are egalitarianism and elitism. While neither can function successful if put to extremes, it is even more unrealistic to find a perfect balance, forcing societies to lean one way or another, and although in a world of complete balance and harmony creating complete equality on a community and global scale would be an obvious decision, the world we live in today is far from that. I believe for the modern human race to advance forward and to continue to innovate and create new technologies, the wealth must rest within the elite, small percentage of the population.

To be civilized, I believe, is to act accordingly in the best interest of the civilization, and in most, if not all cases, this is to entrust those who have naturally gained wealth to help move the civilization forward. Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy British man, was a strong advocator of giving power to the wealthiest, and believed that if there was a dominant upper class, the wealth would, in the long run, benefit the lower classes and “insure the survival of the fittest in every department”. This theory correlates greatly with Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the concept of natural selection which has proved to have been successful in human history. While those who cannot succeed fall out, those with wealth will put it to beneficial uses and ensure the human race moves forward in the future. This is the basic ideology of Charles Darwin, and whether the mutation occurs randomly or not, there is no doubt that the best equipped has and will excel above the rest and provide a better future for the species. In my opinion this represents a completely civilized community, where those who gain power use it in the best interest of society, rather than dilute the responsibility.

George Elliot Clarke on the other hand, believes in complete equality. This is based on the fact that since all humans were born and created equally, that we are obligated to treat each other with complete fairness and equality. While his idea that we are all the same, that we “[look] at the same stars, the same moon, and the same sun” may have proved effective in early primitive societies it simply is counterproductive in today’s world. A perfect example is the Bushmen who live in southern Africa today, completely isolated from technology and modern civilization around them. They live in complete egalitarianism, but this is only due to the fact that the resources they have availability to are so drastically low compared to us, making a social hierarchy virtually impossible. With all of the scientific and technological advances we have made today, it is only natural for some to take larger advantages over given resources, and completely unrealistic for everybody to enjoy the same privileges, when the distance between the upper and lower class is so vast. Complete egalitarianism in today’s world would be the slowest way to advance our society, and if early hominids supported the dying breed of primates, the advancement to the end result of homo sapien-sapiens would have become much slower.

It is a natural phenomenon that one way or another, one human will rise above another, and it simply does not make sense to bring the power back to the level of what would essentially become the “lowest common denominator”. This, like it or not, would lead to an uncivilized community, where our species would not advance and the less intelligent would be severely holding back those with higher intellects. This greatly correlates with the philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche who believed and expressed through many of his works, that humanity must realize that the idea of a "god" was a burden to the species that restrained humans from acknowledging their true power. The centre pole of civilization that sets the social hierarchy should rather be on an intellectual basis such as technology or science and for civilizations to truly progress forward we must understand as a whole, as Neitzsche would say, that "god is dead".

While it is pleasing to hear that we were all made the same, the sad truth is that we are not. Some will take more advantage of others, and the elimination of negative traits such as selfishness and jealousy is biologically impossible, making a world of total equality unrealistic. Although Clarkes ideology may be the most ethically right in theory, Nietzche's philosphy of eliminating ideals that restrain the capable and Carnegie’s idea of letting those with wealth take full advantage and making the end justify the means is a much more civilized way to live, and is and will be the only way humans as a species can move forward.