So...what's the point???

So like any good book, I am forced to wonder after reading The River Between, "What is the point of what I just read?"  The point of this book is to question and evaluate religion, morals and values.  There is a constant struggle between the ways of Joshua and the ways of tradition African culture. Most importantly, Nyambura and Waiyaki fall victims to this struggle.  With their endless love for each other and their own love for their certain way of life, the couple encounters obstacle after obstacle.  Both come to a point in their young lives when they start to think, "Is the path I'm traveling on a good path?  Should I reconsider my religion, my morals, my values and my life?"  Even Muthoni is an example of this questioning.  She loves her father and his religion, but she feels a strong tie to her culture and wants to be seen as an African woman.

Throughout this book, I even catch myself wondering about my religion, my morals and my values.  The quote that hit me the most was in the later part of the book when Nyambura opening questions herself, "Day by day she became weary of Joshua's brand of religion.  Was she too becoming a rebel?  No.  She would not do as her sister had done.  She knew, however, that she had to have a God who would giver her a fullness of life..." (102).  Nyambura knows that she would not betray her father and her faith as her sister did, but she still finds flaws in her way of life.  In the end, the two halves of Africa (the traditional customs and the modern religion) cannot exist together.  Is this to mean that the two conflicting forms of religion and morals/values cannot live side by side in harmony?  One must prevail over the other?  No, I don't think that is what the author intended this book to say.  He intended this book to show that without understand and cooperation, this story can unfold everywhere.  With understand and cooperation, this story can be avoided and the two halves have a chance to live together.  The point of this book is to question and evaluate our personal ways of life, but understand and appreciate other ways as well.

The River Between

The book, The River Between, serves to point out some of the major flaws of religion. In this story there are two different religious view points; one is on one side of the river and the other view, on the other side. One side believes in the traditional tribal practices of the region, while the other side has begun adopting the “white man’s” Christian ways. Throughout the story we read about the different conflicts that these two sides have with each other. However, as we continue to read we learn that there aren’t so many differences between the two sides believes as first appears. This book really exploits the fact that these two organized religions are so quick to criticize the other. They are both so quick to say that the other one is wrong and evil without giving anyone a chance, there is no tolerance. Both sides believe that there is only one way to live your life and if you don’t live the same way that they do you are automatically labeled as wrong and evil, even if you are a good person. Both of these practices teach kindness yet neither of them seem to demonstrate that when looking at a different religion or different traditions. People also claim to practice these teachings yet, do they truly believe in these practices? Because as we can see in this book, that these people are not practicing all that they preach.

I think the main point of The river Between is how some cultural differences between people can create major rifts between civilizations. On the one side of the river the story is based on two people from each tribe falling in love and finding ways to make their love work even though neither are accepted by the other's tribe. A girl, Nyambura, is from the tribe of Makuyu and they believe in the religion of Christianity in addition to being against the practice of circumcision. The boy, Waiyaki, from the tribe of Kameno on the other side of the river that believes in Polytheism and believe in circumcision. This is a very sacred tradition for this tribe and they believe that you cannot become a man until you have been circumcised. This part of the story is the main part of the book and the two trying to find possible ways to make their relationship work even though they are not accepted by either tribe. When Waiyaki asks nyambura to marry him, she tells him how her father will never allow it and that it will never be able to work between the two. This book shows that differences in cultures can create awkward circumstances.

The River Between

The major point of the book “The River Between” is based on the conflict that arises between the two groups of people as a result of differences in culture, religion, and beliefs and values. On the one side of the river was the village of Kameno. These people had traditional tribal beliefs of polytheism and believed in circumcision as the initiation of a boy into manhood. They also strongly resisted the white men’s way of life. On the other side of the river was the village of Makuyu. The people in this village believed in Christianity and felt strongly against being circumcised. These people believed in adopting the white men’s way of life. A main part of the book is based on the love conflict between a boy named Waiyaki who is from Kameno and a girl named Nyambura who is from Makuyu. They both fall in love, but knowing the religious and cultural differences between them knew that they would not be accepted. When Waiyaki asks her to marry him and asks is she loves him Nyambura says, “I do, I do…But can’t you see we cannot marry…Father will not allow it. I cannot disobey him” (107). I think the point of this book is that different beliefs and religions can create harsh feelings between different groups of people, but we should be open to accepting everyone.

Religion and Humanity

I feel that The River Between was not so much an attack on the Christian religion or the religion followed by the tribes of Makuyu and Kameno ridges, but an attempt to show the similarities of these religions and the absurdity of their conflict. Parallels in the religions are shown through their rituals and traditions. For example, the highly important tribal ritual of circumcision occurs on the same day as a very important Christian holiday, Christmas. Not only are the dates the same, but they also celebrate leading up these religious events. Also, the second birth in the tribal tradition is similar to baptism in the Christian religion. Furthermore, Ngugi clearly establishes how each religion is similar in its follower’s hatred for those who are different. Joshua, being the leader of the Christian religion within the ridges, disowns both of his daughters because he considers their choice to associate with any tribal traditions to be the utmost sin. The tribe also shuns those who have not been circumcised, calling them “impure.” Both religions develop a rivalry and a hatred for each other, which can be seen through Joshua and Kabonyi. Yet, I feel that Ngugi uses the similarities of the religions to emphasis an even greater point: that we all share our humanity, which is shown through Waiyaki and Nyambura. Although, Waiyaki and Nyambura adhere to different religions, both feel the pain of isolation and loneliness, and the desire of love. Their human emotions and desires unite them. Also, Waiyaki’s dream to unite to ridges for education, including the Christians, reveals that people should be able to come together for the aspects of life that do not involve religious beliefs. Ngugi does not have to reveal the fate of Waiyaki and Nyambura in the end because it is not necessary to the point of the novel. The point is that our common humanity should be enough to bridge any religious gap, if people are willing to let go of their prejudices.

The Waiyaki Between

I think Ngugi made a few very significant points throughout The River Between. Waiyaki, one of the most prominent characters, was conflicted throughout the book by what he was taught/told to believe and what he is exposed to as he begins working among the ‘white men.’ As a child, Waiyaki looked forward to becoming a man of the tribe and his circumcision. The tribal customs and traditions were instilled in him at a very young age and taught to him as absolute truths. As he is introduced to the new ideas his comes across during his time being educated by the white men, Waiyaki begins to change. As he takes in these new ideas he begins to question what is right. As his circumcision drew closer, Waiyaki really experienced second thoughts about what circumcision stood for, the abandonment of some sort of control to the tribe. Waiyaki is caught between this internal and external struggle. It is also external because he is such a prominent leader and is being pulled in several directions by his tribe and the oath he made, what he believes to be right, Nyambura because of his love for her, the prophecy, his father/his father’s memory, etc… I think Ngugi is illustrating through Waiyaki a very important message. Throughout the novel, Ngugi doesn’t condemn either culture or their traditions, including circumcision. The one spot that stuck out to me in which Ngugi seemed to display some opinion regarding circumcision was near the end of the book. He wrote, “Circumcision of women was not important as a physical operation. It was what it did inside a person. It could not be stopped overnight. Patience and, above all, education, were needed.” I think, for Ngugi, there isn’t one right answer. I think he would say the important thing to do would be to be like Waiyaki and examine all areas, all ideas, all walks of life, and come to some sort of belief, some sort of compromise within one’s self, to fully believe in. Even though this is sometimes not enough, as we saw at the end of this book, it can only happen if individuals are willing to go against the grain, to stand up for what they believe in, unlike the people who had pledged allegiance to Waiyaki.

On "A River Between"

Ngugi's book seems to point out the main problem with any conflict: people who stand in between two opposing rivals in an attempt to bring them together become enemies of both sides rather than champions. We have on one side the Kiama, a council of men who wish to preserve the purity of the tribes by preserving their original traditions. On the other end, the tribe residing in Makuyu was lead by the traditions of Christianity. Both sides hated the other, for the tribe of old wished for the Christians to find their way back, while the Christians wanted to stop the heathens from practicing their sinful rituals like circumcision. But Waiyaki was one who wished to bring unity between the two. He believed in staying true to his tribes traditions, but at the same time believed the Christian side had access to the resources of the white man and could supply good education to all the people. But neither side shared his goal of unity. The Kiami, influenced by bias of those who hated Waiyaki, had little thought of compromising with the Christians, and saw Waiyaki as a threat to the purity of the tribe. For still believing in the ways of the tribe, the Christians didn’t trust Waiyaki either. And although Waiyaki had done much good for the common people by bringing them the gift of education, both sides only wished to stop him. We see in this book that all of these sides wish for a common good, but only those who stand in between two opposing sides believe an ultimate goal can be reached by uniting both sides. But, it seems the more accepting one is, the more he becomes hated. The problem lies with the quality of acceptance is viewed by extremist as giving in to the other side. Extremist see the only correct way to go about something is their way, and are willing to take down anyone who stands even the slightest away from that. Anyone who stands in the middle to bring all kinds of people together, then, is hated and is viewed as corruptors. Waiyaki only wished for a common good, but his acceptance of both sides only brought him enmity. Waiyaki symbolized the point that in conflict we have those who can stand between, but the two opposing sides hating Waiyaki see the in between person as much an enemy as the other side. This represents the idea that extremist from either side cannot accept anything less then full support of their own ideas.

I think the main point that Ngugi made in The River Between was the cultural struggle between the two groups. Customs and traditions are very important to all cultures, and when certain customs clash, all hell breaks loose. In the book, the two tribes were separated because of a religious disagreement. But I think the main problem was the fact that the people who followed Joshua did not approve of the rituals of Waiyaki’s people, specifically circumcision. The Kiama did not like Nyambura because she was not circumcised. Joshua disowned Muthoni because she was circumcised. The people of Makuyu entered adulthood only when they got circumcised. This is obviously a very important aspect of their culture and a big reason why the two tribes don’t like each other. They also take their “oath” very seriously; as soon as they found out that Waiyaki had broken the oath to “never contaminate the tribe with impurity”, he got into a lot of trouble. All that Waiyaki had done is that he tried to unite the people of Makuyu and Kameno; he also happened to fall in love on the way. That shouldn’t have really been a problem, since “the oath did not say that he should not love”. But apparently loving someone with a different background is a crime. What doesn’t make sense to me is the fact that Christianity is a religion that is based off of one thing, love. But Joshua’s people couldn’t have been true Christians then; Jesus was all about loving one’s enemies and reaching out to those who were different and weren’t necessarily liked very much, but Kameno didn’t really practice that. I think Ngugi represented cultural struggle very well within his book.

Existentialism and Religious Intolerance

Ngugi’s book does a lot more than it seems at first blush. The book seems to me, to be an existentialistic piece. The river, Honia is continually referenced in times of struggle and at the very end during Waiyaki’s condemnation: “the two ridges lay side by side, hidden in the darkness. And Honia River went flowing between them, down through the valley of life, its beat rising above the dark stillness, reaching into the heart of the people of Makuyu and Kameno.” This exemplifies existentialism in that life seems meaningless and absurd. It is absurd that the trial religions and the Christians have similar values and cannot get along or coexist. The river also symbolizes the circle of life in that when one dies such as Muthoni for example, the river continues to flow even during this great injustice. Life continues to go on.
Likewise, Ngugi also does a great job of encouraging the reader to take an open-minded approach when considering the values of other religions. He talks about the positive aspects of each religion and describes them as centered on love, but people have altered the meanings of these two religions. Their distortions have brought on negative stigmas which have hurt Christianity and the tribal religion. This is applicable today with the issue of terrorism. Many terrorists claim that they are abiding to their religious beliefs included in Islam. These Islamic fundamentalist commit violate acts in the name of jihad which they distort to mean “holy war.” This can also be seen when Christians went on the Crusades in the middle ages and presently when Christians bomb abortion clinics. All these situations are distortions in which a religious group alters the interpretation of their holy doctrine to their specific liking. Like these radical religious followers, the characters in the book shut out any person with a conflicting view than theirs.
In the end, the point of the book was to illustrate the foolishness of religious intolerance and also portray the ubiquitous aspect of existentialism.

Ngugi's Statement

I feel Ngugi’s purpose behind writing The River Between was to comment upon religious strife. If one sticks to only blinding believing in tradition then he will never succeed against foreign enemies. This statement is made by Chege, Waiyaki’s father when he placed Waiyaki in the Sirina school and also had him participate in tribal rituals. Compromises between religions or traditions must be made in order for progress to occur as the respected Chege noticed. Chege told Waiyaki he must learn how the white men are but never forget his tribe. Yet, Waiyaki realizes this stating “the need for unity… if not would cripple his efforts for education” (91). In order for something more to be achieved traditions must be compromised. Unfortunately, this does not occur in The River Between and the traditions continue. At some point, people from different backgrounds need to take a step back and ask themselves what is best for the community. Within this novel it is apparent the differences as well as the similarities of the Christian religion and the tribal customs. Unfortunately ,these two customs cannot find a way to reconcile with each other. Waiyaki and Muthoni experienced excommunication and horrid punishment for trying to bridge the gap between religions and traditions. Overall, Ngugi’s point was powerful in that it showed the brave youth attempt to compromise the typical traditions and even go against what they had always believed. It also makes one realize that believing blindly can create havic within society. As was recognized in the book that traditions based on love and honor are not incredibly honorable if they do not allow one another to love his tribe and religion and continually judge the other traditions. The last point that Ngugi adds into the mix of the book, is no matter how much tension is created between humans whether between Christianity versus tribe rituals, tribe versus tribe, white versus black, or youth versus old, nature continues. “And Honia river went on flowing between them, down through the valley of life, its beat rising above the dark stillness, reaching into the heart of the people of Makuyu and Kameno” (152). Overall I found this book to make a very bold statement.

blog assignment number 16

I have trouble finding evidence that suggests that Ngugi was attacking religion, Christian or tribal. I do find evidence that suggests that there is merit to both. There are several instances throughout the book where W says that “the oath did not say that he should not love” (151). All in all, I think this is best summed up in the words of the Beatles, “Love is all you need!” Love is the heart of what religion should be. Although Love is the basis of Christianity, and undoubtedly the tribal faith, it has not been carried out necessarily among the people who follow their creed. W thought that there was merit to the belief systems of both cultures, and the end does not refute this idea, but emphasizes the idea that people do not follow their own faith. The pity is that there are two groups of people, alike in all respects but religion, who would accomplish so much if they joined together. It is seemingly impossible that they would unify, however. This is a sad part of human nature, and it is universally present. No matter how many sermons Jesus would give on loving one another, his followers throughout history have abandoned this most crucial part of the Christian faith and substituted something trivial to quarrel about. People have not incorporated love into their vocabulary. W says that he regrets not teaching the tribe about reconciliation. Why? ---Because it is rooted in love for your neighbor. If the two hills were versed in love, none of the violence would take place. They would be able to coexist loving God as they pleased, and loving fellow man.
I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion that W is a Christ figure. Like Jesus, he was condemned by his own people. But, unlike some of the other posts on the blog, I adamantly refuse to blame religion for this. Religion does not fuel this behavior, it is human nature! People are hypocrites; they refuse to follow the teachings of love and forgiveness.

The first and probably last time I will be second post

This book definitely has many religious connotations throughout. The book shows the invasiveness of religion and how it can cause a divide between people. Waiyaki portrays a character with insight to both worlds. He knows what the traditional tribal life is like and he knows how the Christian world works. The main thing I want to focus on, however, is the view of Nietzsche and how it fits in with this book. Nietzsche says that good and bad swapped meanings and good and evil was created. This exact thing happens in the novel, when Christianity appears in the tribal setting, the Christians and the converts viewed the goods of the tribe as evils. A clear example of a good turned evil is circumcision; the tribe views circumcision as a very good thing and a passage into adulthood. The Christians, however, see circumcision as evil and savage. Another one of Nietzsche’s views is the strong are viewed as evil when good and bad swap meanings. Everyone hates Waiyaki, the strongest character in the book, when the book ends. Waiyaki was the one with ideas of co-habitation, or even better understanding and love between the tribe and the Christians. Waiyaki wants everyone to be educated and everyone to be able to live how they want. This book, in a way, proves Nietzsche correct. Ngugi wrote this book to show how invasive religion, particularly Christianity can be. He also shows how no matter how hard someone tries; there will always be struggle in the world. Even a prophetic character like Waiyaki could not end the struggle.

Religulous

I felt the point of The River Between was to serve as a religious critique as a whole. The entire novel was based around showing the ironic intolerance of Christianity and its similarities to tribal religions it looks down upon. It was also a commentary on tribal religions, however, as the Kiama also refused to negotiate with the Christians, leaving them at fault as well. Likewise, they completely ostracized anyone who did not follow their tradition (Nyambura in the area of circumcision), just like the Christians in ostracizing “sinners”. I also feel it paints a vivid picture of the rage and scorn of those who have fallen away from a certain religion (Kayboni in the area of Christianity, Joshua in the area of the tribal traditions). I feel Ngugi’s experiences explained in class may have explained how he could explain so accurately these clouded feelings of contempt. I feel as though I can really relate to Ngugi, as I was raised Catholic which ultimately turned me to a hybrid of agnosticism leading towards atheism. He does represent some of his thoughts about the redeeming factors of religion (Christianity at least) and how he feels that Christianity is a shining beacon under the dirt that has covered it. At one point, through Waiyaki, he states that if Christianity was cleaned it would be fine. I feel those observations by Waiyaki sum up the bulk of the book, that religion and tribal traditions can be beautiful and wonderful things which make life worthwhile and comfortable, but if taken to an extent, these ignorant reasonings on the meaning of life can make one evil and impure, causing many others great pain. Religion in small doses is fine, but when one bases his entire existence and meaning upon it, it can be warped into something twisted and ugly. Another interesting point I found in the book was the fact that the Christians hated Waiyaki even though his life mirrored Jesus almost completely. A savior of the people, from the people foretold in a prophecy, one who wished for peace and compromise between two factions, one who was willing to associate and help social outcasts of both factions, one who was handed over to his enemies by the very people he wished to save, even though he was innocent. It is undeniable that Waiyaki was a Christ like figure, and I took this at another shot at Christianity. Though it praises this Messiah and his actions, if faced with him again in reality acting as Waiyaki did, they would nail him to another tree.

Blog Assn #16: Ngugi

Please post to the blog by Sunday, March 29th, 8:00 PM, on the following topic.

What's the point of Ngugi's book? Offer textual evidence for your answer.

In the reading, Nietzsche discusses the basic concepts of good and evil. He realizes and understands that even though one person could think an act is good, another can think an act is evil. Nietzsche exemplifies this by lambs and birds of prey. A bird of prey hunting lambs would naturally be hated by the lambs because they are killing their species to survive. However, Nietzsche thinks about the situation a different way. Although the lambs think the birds are evil, the birds don’t view themselves as evil. The birds view themselves as doing whatever necessary to survive. If they do not kill the lambs, their species is not going to survive. Nietzsche would believe that the “evil” the birds are doing is okay, however if it is excessive it would not be. If the birds took advantage of their power and ability, the evil would not be okay.
Nietzsche also dives into strength and the deeds it could do. He states, “Morality also separates strength from expressions of strength” (45). I believe by this statement, Nietzsche believes if you have the strength to do a deed, but it hardly took any effort it would still be considered the same deed as someone who put a lot of effort into the deed. I think this is where Nietzsche gets into his main idea, it does not matter if you are good or evil, strong or weak, the deeds you do make you accountable for them.

blog

N’s greatest argument to support the idea that morals have been turned upside down for the sake of the lower classes is human nature. In the 14th section, he asks the reader, “will any one look into—right into—the mystery of how ideals are manufactured in the world?” And he answers with the reply, “they are miserable…they tell me that their misery is a favor and distinction given to them be God…that perhaps …[they will] be paid back with a tremendous interest in gold, nay in happiness. This they call blessedness.” Human beings need to find reason in their lives. If a person is doing something that he/she hates doing, it is a greater relief if there is some sort of reward in this grueling task. It is also human nature for people to compare themselves to other people. A person finds satisfaction in knowing, or thinking that he/she is better that someone else.
If a group of people are submitted under another, they need to find a reason for this submission, so they will say to themselves, “Oh, he may have his day now, but there will be a time when we will be better off than he…we will be in heaven, and he will burn in hell.” So, N’s former claim that the religious are the strongest haters is supported by this evidence of human nature. I find myself doing this same action. If a car passes me while I am riding a bicycle, and toots its horn in mockery, I don’t get angry. I just say to myself, “Oh, there will come a time when he will be riding a bike, and I will be in a Limo (future economic regression implied).”
Another argument that N uses is history. He cites a bunch of examples of how people engage in this sort of “get back at the aristocrats” mentality. He talks about how all the aristocratic societies were called “barbarians.”

In essays eleven through seventeen, Nietzsche mentions about how there is a differenct between "evil" and "bad" even though they are in fact both of them are the opposite of good. He explains this by saying there are two different concepts of good, that the nobel man's "good" is what the man of resentment calls "evil." Nietzsche also bring up birds of prey and lambs and that lambs may consider birds of prey to be evil, because they kill lambs and it may be considered that lambs consider anything unlike birds of prey to be good. The lambs determine what is good by resentment and that since the lambs resent the birds of prey they are not considered to be good. However, Nietzsche does not feel that it is wrong for birds of prey to kill, and that to expect them not to kill would basically expect them not to exist at all. Lastly Nietzsche states how there is a struggle between "good and bad" and "good and evil" and that "good and evil" has prevailed.

Twilight Spoiler Alert!

Nietzsche luckily does not leave well enough alone and begins to expand his definition of good and bad in the next sections. He introduces another term, "evil". and Uses it to describe the actions or intentions of an individual. His analogy of a bird of prey versus a lamb produces the necessary image. A bird that kills a lamb for food may be evil in the eyes of the other lambs, but from the bird’s eyes, it is doing what it needs to do to survive. Nietzsche would claim that the bird only becomes evil if it went on a killing rampage and killed the lambs for fun. The important message to glean from this becomes that the powerful are in control because that is the only way of life they know. There is no reason to hate the strong and powerful for being who themselves. Rather, the weak should strive to become part of the strong and powerful. To continue the vein of pop-culture references, the movie Twilight has a very Nietzschen main character. She realizes that the vampire Edward Cullen is nobody to be afraid of because while she may view him as “bad” for relying on blood to live, he is not evil like James who only eats humans. In fact, by the end, she is convinced that she wants to become part of the strong and powerful breed of vampires. Like Nietzsche, she decides that rather than be part of the weak who fear the strong, she wants to become one of the strong. However, that decision may be more based on the fact that she’s infatuated with him.

On Being Crazy

Nietzsche has two different points in these passages. First, he talks about the mentality of higher authority, the nobles, and how they the view good and evil. They mainly focus on the good of pleasure and happiness, since the don't see the evil all too often. then for the lesser man, the psuedoslave, he deals with the bad on a daily basis, with resentment towards having to deal with misfortunes and crappy situations. He then begins to view the good of the noble man as the very evil of the world. The luxuries the noble men love are viewed upon as tings of evil to men who deal with hardships. But Nietzsche doesn't think we need to change this, for he believes the slave mentality today has created our world into something boring and uneventful by keeping the strong from expressing their strength by making restrain a thing of good. Then later, Nietzsche moves to his lamb versus bird scenario. Here, Nietzsche argues how many make the misconception of action and somethings title to be seprate. Using his example, killing becomes just something a bird of prey does, or as a murderer does, or as a terrorist does. But in actuality the will of something to perform that action is what defines it. Our actions define us. Because the bird murdered the lamb, it becomes a bird of prey. It is not us simply performing deeds, but whatever deeds we wish to do define who we are.

Throughout sections eleven to seventeen, Nietzsche furthers his arguments of morality. He makes the claim that there is a difference between “evil” and “bad” even though they are both opposites of the concept of “good.” Nietzsche then goes to explain the idea of ressentiment and how the definition of “good” versus “evil” is influenced by the word ressentiment. He explains that ressentiment is what causes someone to see an “evil” idea when it is in fact a “good” one. Neitzsche makes another argument regarding the weak and the strong. He argues that “strong” individuals should not be looked down upon by the “weak”, but should rather be honored and praised for their strength. Nietzsche mentions the example about the lambs and the birds of prey and explains that birds of prey are seen as “evil” because they kill the lambs, while on the other hand the lambs are seen as “good” because they are the victims. Nietzsche’s only answer to this is for the lambs to become stronger and be able to defend themselves. He argues that it is only natural for the stronger individual to come out on top, and they should not be condemned for that.

The second part of the first essay still focuses on the ongoing struggle between good and bad/ good and evil. Nietzsche focuses on the difference between lambs and birds of prey. Naturally, lambs should think birds are “evil” because they kill and eat lambs. But Nietzsche looks at the relationship in a totally different view. Lambs should not resent birds because they are strong and have to kill them in order to survive. I guess I would compare this to vegetarians and meat-lovers. Some vegetarians resent all the meat-lovers for killing and eating the animals. But Nietzsche would tell them that it is not right to think meat-lovers are “evil” just because they are doing what they need to do in order to survive.
The lambs are like the weak people and Christians and the birds of prey are like the nobles and the powerful. The Christians have restrained the nobles and their power, but it is not the nobles’ fault that they are so powerful; it is just their way of life. They should not be called evil and bad when all they are doing is living the only life they have been given to lead. The people that were once viewed as bad are now good, and those who were good and powerful have now been suppressed to evil standard.
By putting the powerful into the evil category, it shows that humans are scared of their own species. Why else would we not let those with the power do their job without calling them evil?

Oh, Those Little Lambs

Nietzsche’s main argument in the second half of his first essay is that the concept of good and evil was created by the weak suppressing the inherent power of the strong. He first uses the example of the lambs and the birds of prey. The lamb believes that the bird of prey is evil simply because they kill the lambs. Because these birds use their strength to kill the weak lambs, the strength of the birds is then credited as “evil” and the weakness of the lambs is then credited as “good.” Nietzsche then points out that this conclusion, although reasonable, is not correct because the birds are condemned for the strength they need in order to survive. Also, Nietzsche reveals that these concepts create the idea that “the strong man is free to be weak” then those who are strong should be held accountable for their strength; “make the bird of prey be accountable for being a bird of prey” (45). Nietzsche finds this to be ridiculous because it is asking those who are strong to deny their true nature and condemning them for even existing. Nietzsche then continues to equate the lambs to the Judeo-Christian religion and the birds of prey to those nobles whose strength was suppressed by that religion. According to Nietzsche, Christianity is based on the weak’s resentment and hatred of the nobles. Because Christianity then lauds traits of weakness, it allows the weak to become the good; inverting what was once “good” in the noble’s world to what is “evil” in the Christian world. The weak are like the lambs, because they are not strong enough, they do not attack; however, this weakness has been made so that it is what God wants and glorifies. If they are patient, god will give the weak power in the kingdom of heaven. Nietzsche claims that they have made weakness a choice, a “meritorious act,” when in face this weakness is nothing special because it is inherent.

Lambs and Birds- Good and Evil

In the second half of essay, Nietzsche explains how the strong should be in power. Yet, Christianity and Judaism have led us to believe that the strong should suppress their strength and the characteristics that are weak shall be celebrated. The weak Christians and Jews have made the strong feel guilty therefore the weak win. Despite the fact that the stronger individuals cannot control their instincts they are forced to suppress them or else they will be look upon as bad by society. Nietzsche’s response to the stronger oppressing their natural instincts, and the weak winning is simply “this is absurd.” He claims that it is only natural for the stronger one to win; however the fact that humans have language has corrupted us. He uses the example of lambs and birds of prey. The lambs consider the birds of prey evil because they kill the lambs, and Nietzsche thinks that is normal. Since the lambs see everything about the birds of prey as evil, they find their traits to be good. Although the birds of prey do not see the traits of the lamb as good nor do they dislike them, in fact the birds of prey probably love the lambs because they taste good. Yet as Nietzsche says it would be irrational to stop this natural occurrence. “The strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb- for thus they gain the right to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey” (45). After this argument Nietzsche continues to bash the Judeo-Christian religion. He believes that in order to believe these religions you must believe in a pretend world. They have to wait to be rewarded instead of reap the rewards immediately (Nietzsche finds this concept of waiting to be ridiculous.) Finally Nietzsche quotes the example of Dante’s Hell saying that if everyone is made by god with love and Dante was evil, everyone was created with eternal hate as well. Nietzsche does not think we should go against nature; we should simply adhere to our natural instincts.

Good=Evil, Bad=Good

Nietzsche begins this section by revisiting the concept he brought up previously regarding the origin of good and bad. Both the concepts of good and bad came from the nobles, bad more as an afterthought, according to Nietzsche. Good was what the nobles did and bad seemed to be everything the nobles didn’t do or what the commoners were said to do. Nietzsche then proposes that there is a difference between bad and evil. Evil being the “good” that the nobles’ actions were considered and bad being what the nobles didn’t do. Therefore it is the nobles’ who are evil. Nietzsche furthers this argument by comparing the nobles to barbarians, or beasts of prey. He asserts that due to the social constraints placed upon nobles and the confinement and enclosure that seems to come from these constraints, these ‘beasts of prey’ often break out, “prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory.” Nietzsche presents another concept regarding repression and the meaning of all culture. He says that if the meaning of all culture is to tame the beast of prey (the nobles) into a domestic animal, those who aided in the overthrow of the nobles would be driven by some sort of resentment, born from the repression they felt under these said nobles. Nietzsche asserts that slave morality has made society insipid and mediocre. In section thirteen, Nietzsche comments on the repression of characteristics. He asserts that demanding one to not express one’s strengths or weaknesses is absurd. In his example, Nietzsche discusses that birds of prey are considered evil by lambs they attack; however, it would be ridiculous to ‘ask’ them not to kill lambs as it would be demanding that they not express their strength. The birds of prey are their expression of strength and the lambs ‘asking’ the birds not to kill would be equivalent to asking the birds not to exist. In section fourteen, Nietzsche discusses slave morality and the praise that those who are powerless and too weak to seek reprisal deserve. These are the people who leave judgment to God. Nietzsche discusses Christianity and argues that resentment and hatred are actually ‘Christian love.'

ehcszteiN hcirdeirF

Nietzsche fears what he sees in man. With the change of the definition of “good”, Nietzsche does not see people striving for greatness anymore: “We can see nothing today that wants to grow greater…” (44). This distresses Nietzsche because if people settle to “become thinner, more good-natured, more prudent, more comfortable, more mediocre, more indifferent” (44) nations will not grow and prosper like they used to. Nietzsche also points out how people are faulting others for naturally being strong and great. He uses the example of a bird of prey and lambs; he says that the lambs blame the bird for what it was born to do. He claims that the weak hold the strong accountable for being strong like the lambs hold the bird accountable for being a bird of prey because, “…the strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb…”(45). Nietzsche continues on to blaming Christians and Jews for causing this shift in “good”. He says that the religions promote ideas that are too passive and that a nation cannot function if it is weak. Nietzsche ends his argument by saying “good and bad” and “good and evil” have drastic differences. He says that the Jews and Christians use their religion to explain “good and evil” as opposed to using a “genuine battleground” to defend their views.

LIve like the Romans

Nietzsche further argues that the strong should not hide their strength, just as the weak should not pretend to be strong. Judaism and Christianity have created this idea that being inferior, weak and suppressive are “good”, where as being the person you truly are (without suppressing real inner qualities) is “bad” and/or “evil”. With the system the Jews and Christians have created, “in place of athletes we have our martyrs” (49). Instead of truly pure (and I mean pure in the sense of behaving in a natural way without suppressing anything), we have a twisted system the forces people to act in a silly manner that is not “natural” or “pure”.
This system and the actions that are produced by people of this system are somewhat cowardice. Nietzsche argues that the Jews and Christians shrink away from the strong and beautiful, instead of embracing their “good” qualities. They condemn the truly “good” and call them “bad” and/or “evil”. In fact, the Jews and Christians themselves are the “bad” and “evil” because of their weak, submissive and inferior qualities.
Because the Jews and Christians curb these “good”, “natural” and “pure” qualities, Nietzsche says that the Jews and Christians claim that they are not only better but better off in the end. They somehow and someway will receive some type of compensation for curbing their actions in the long run. But I think Nietzsche seems to argue that this is ridiculous. We shouldn’t look to the future as a pay off, but instead pay ourselves now. We should enjoy our “good” qualities right here and right now, not pity and help those that do not have equal or similarly “good” qualities. We should live like the Romans did at the height of their rule, engaging in behavior that promotes our strengths, recognizes our weaknesses and accepts both for what they really are.

We are Weary of Man...

“We are weary of man.” This is the most prominent argument featured in the selected reading for this weekend, in my opinion.  Nietzsche says that we as humans are “putting on a show,” for example.  Humanity is masking their true identity in hopes of acting proper, refined and being respected.  This is an extension of the arguments Nietzsche presents in the first chapter in which he defines good and evil.  The philosopher says that the Jews and Christians are the good and the strong and powerful are the evil, according to Nietzsche.   The Christians and Jews altered the views of what is considered good.   They felt that the meek, mild and submissive were good.  The evil were the strong and gifted.  Nietzsche feels that this is incorrect and the reverse order in which the submissive members of society were considered evil (this is because they are weak and not ambitious; they tended to be the priests and plebeians), while the good were the “super humans” (these were the people who were authority figures, the warrior class and the nobles who tended to have a lot of power in society).   Nietzsche continually alludes to the Romans and their perfect society and citizens; he says in one section as well that they are still to this day, considered the most similar to his idea of the super human. 

    With extreme confidence, Nietzsche says, “here is precisely what has become a fatality for Europe- together with a fear of man we have also lost our love of him, our reverence for him, our hopes for him, even the will to him.  The sight of him now makes us really weary,” (page 44).  This section, put in bold writing, may also be alluding to the idea that man is preventing himself from advancing in society.  If humanity continues to act in a submissive fashion, then innovation may cease or countries will become dissolved because we will have meek and mild leaders as opposed to the strong willed, powerful leader that we need (not hinting at totalitarianism or authoritarianism).  With that said, we need to reverse the definitions of good and evil: the good should be the ones who are powerful, strong and go-getters, while the evil should be the weak and undesirable.  If we live our lives by this principle, we will be more conscientious and ambitious. 

 

Strong but Wrong?

In this group of pages, Nietzsche continues to assault the Jews and Christians, but also shows them some respect for pulling off this moral hijacking, as well as the difference between “good and bad” and “good and evil”. He has already shown why these people feel this way that they simply hate the strong with unbridled passion but moves on to the technicalities of this system they have created. He tries to demonstrate the extent to which they’ve won and reveals the concept that these weak people with their slave morality have successfully made the strong and powerful feel guilty about being this way, even though they can’t help it. Nietzsche’s argument revolves around the absurdity of such a claim, as how can one feel any shame for being one’s self? He brings up the example of the lambs and the birds of prey, how the lamb hates the birds but the birds feel nothing towards the lambs; it is simply how it is. He also makes a grand argument of how pathetic these Judeo Christian beliefs truly are, that one must invent an imaginary world one will come to in the future that rewards someone for their own deficiencies and refusal to do anything about it (Nietzsche seems to imply that these weak people feel that they should not do anything at all since they are so weak, but that might not need to be the case). However, when reading I felt that I observed a bold undertone presented about the nature of God, which reveals many insights about Nietzsche’s own atheism. It seems suggested, but not blatantly argued, that these weaker people needed to create a being so strong, so much more powerful than their oppressors that he could victimize their oppressors to an extent infinitely beyond what they have been put through themselves on this earth. I feel the greatest implication was found when Nietzsche observed the inscription from Dante’s Hell, saying it should instead be this too was built on eternal hate. This made me think of rather than heaven and hell, what about god in general? Was god created simply out of hatred for one’s oppressors? Would this explain the shockingly strict and vengeful nature of god in the Old Testament and the submission requiring perfection of the New Testament god? Would it also explain the nature of the Greek and Roman gods, their fallibility to man which happens quite often? Since the Greeks and Roman held the true vision of good and bad, man could topple a god, while to the Jews and Christians that would be impossible. I know this kind of ran into a rant, but I had never thought of the origin and nature of god in this way.

Blog Assn #15: Nietzsche's Genealogy

Please post to the blog by Sunday, March 22nd, 8:00 PM, on the following topic.

What is Nietzsche's argument in pp. 39-56 of _On the Genealogy of Morals_?

UC Baseball Game at Home! 4:00 Season opener!!

By watching the movie "Eternal Enemies" it can be shown that there is always competition between humans. There is constant competition between businesses and they are always trying to eliminate any possible threat to their dominance. It is also shown in competition between countries for land. There have been wars because of one country invading another in hopes to take over and in turn have entitlement to that land. Likewise there has been death and violence involved in some of these events. There is also constant competition between students at a young age to make their way into colleges. Colleges are now increasingly selective in which student they accept and this causes competition between students to get better grades to have the possiblity to get into these school. However there is a difference between the animals in the movie and that is that human society comes with moral standards. There are different circumstances for different situations and with competition of school, no one will be killed by another student to get in. There are similarites and differences between the movie "Eternal Enemies" and real life.

Eternal Enemies

As we saw in “Eternal Enemies,” survival of the fittest can be violent, gory, and brutal. Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest is clearly visible and realistic as we saw throughout the movie. The question then is whether survival of the fittest applies to humans, and if yes, to what extent? Animals are instinctual creatures. Their actions are governed mainly by the instinct to survive, the instinct for food, the instinct to have offspring and get their genes into the next generation. As we saw in the movie, these instincts often drive them to physically fight, frequently to the death for these necessities. Do human’s do this? Human’s certainly compete, for jobs, for girlfriend’s/boyfriend’s, for the best house, for the best car, for the perfect family, the perfect relationship. Is this the same thing that was depicted in “Eternal Enemies?” I don’t think so. I think this is a form of survival of the fittest; however, it is a mild variation that has evolved from a much more brutal type that was prevalent years ago, back when we were a much more primitive species. The difference is today we don’t need to fight to the death over food in the grocery store. The availability of resources allows for an altruistic society in which not only do people not physically fight for resources, but often even give to those less fortunate.

Animals

One conclusion that we can make about make about human behavior by looking at the movie “Eternal Enemies,” is that we humans are bound to meet conflict in our daily lives amongst each other and that there is always going to be competition. Right now in our society we can see that there is a competition for jobs and this because jobs are what lead to us being able to provide for our families. It is as if we indirectly fighting for resources. We too look to take territory when we can, just as the Americans looked to expand their colonies and intrude on the Native American’s land, and then later on when we stole the western land of the Mexicans and we are willing to kill other humans in order to obtain that land. Humans also have split up themselves into, “clans,” known now as countries. However, unlike the animals in the movie that we viewed, we actually have morals and an intellect that should tell us when we have gone too far. Clearly we have ignored these impulses in history’s past. When looking at today’s society we can see that there is much violence that results in robberies and stealing in the poorer areas of that nation. One reason for this is that some people feel that this is the only way for them to succeed in obtaining some necessary resources. We as humans should know that we shouldn’t have to use such violent tactics in getting things. It seems that many impoverished people feel that they need to do this because of an unfair system, the animals in the movie though seem to be working under a system that is no different for anyone in that clan. We as humans have no stayed with a system a clear-cut as the animals in this movie have.

lions and hyenas and cobras, oh my!

I think it is safe to infer that humans are a lot like the lions and hyenas in “Eternal Enemies”. In terms of warfare, at one point in time humans were very much like the violent animals we witnessed from the movie. The barbaric actions of humans paralleled those of the lions and hyenas; humans would fight each other for territory, leader roles, and sometimes even necessities such as food. In the past, humans would do gruesome things to each other and were very much like animals. Nowadays, we represent the ongoing fight between lions and hyenas not necessarily physically, but in other ways. The aspects from our surrounding environments, such as money and other materialistic things, create greed, jealousy, and the drive to want more, which in turn causes humans to act like animals as well. Not everyone might be going around killing other people for their money, although this does tend to happen sometimes, but humans seem to have an innate feeling of greed that drives them to do unspeakable things for what they desire.
What we shouldn’t infer is that humans don’t fight within their own species to get a higher ranking, like the hyenas. And they certainly do not eat each other; at least, it isn’t a norm in most of the world. And I can’t say that humans live by Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” idea. Fitness, meaning ability to reproduce, doesn’t really apply to us. If someone doesn’t reproduce as many offspring as their neighbor does, that doesn’t mean their family is going to die off right away.
There are a few differences between humans’ lives and the lives of hyenas and lion; in many ways, though, the animal world is a lot like the human world, judging from what the film depicted. I guess we aren’t that much different after all.

Poor Baby Cubs ='(

The movie “Eternal Enemies” depicted the relationship between hyenas and lions as well as many other animals that are affected in the great “circle of life.” One inference about human behavior that one could draw from the movie is that in many ways humans and animals act very similarly. The movie portrayed one aspect of competitiveness between the hyenas and lions in which they had to be aggressive in order to hunt and catch their food. They were also competitive when it came to gaining and maintaining their territory. Humans, even though unconsciously at some times, portray these same actions, and when a person does not get what they want, they will go to extreme measures which may result in confrontations, arguments, and even war. Darwin explains the theory of survival of the fittest in which species that are more willing and able to adapt to changes are the ones that will ultimately survive and reproduce offspring in the next generation. The hyenas and lions who were one of the weaker ones in its pack would ultimately die because they are unable to get the resources they need for themselves. Another way in which humans and animals are similar is their competiveness to pick a “worthy” mate, so that their good genes can be passed down to the next generation. For humans, we pick companions that we feel we will work well with as well as feel protected and safe with. Humans and animals both portray this idea.

As network television Forest Gump would say, "It Happens."

The documentary “Eternal Enemies” gives us an insight to human nature by using the eternal feud between lions and hyenas. Like the battling animals, humans have hurt, killed, and destroyed civilizations of other humans simply because they do not like each other. This movie allows us to see that we are not different from the animals because we do become violent over our territory. Most people would do something to protect their home if it were broken into; people would do something if a family member was murdered. This is very similar to the lions and hyenas, the hyenas go into the lion territory and they are attacked, the lions go into the hyena territory and they are attacked. The hyenas killed a lion; the lions kill two hyenas. Discrimination is also a good example of us being like the animals in the documentary. White Americans discriminated against African Americans. Discrimination occurred because most whites simply hated African Americans. Violence broke out because of discrimination. The lions and hyenas simply hate each other, and violence occurs. Many similarities can be drawn from the lion and hyena feud to how humans interacted with each other over millions of years.

Eternal Enemies

In the film, “Eternal Enemies” it is hard not to draw inferences on how human behavior exists. The film depicted that animals do not live in nature as harmoniously as animals do in The Lion King or Bambi. Instead, it is a viscous fight for preservation. As seen in the film, the hyenas and lions have an ongoing battle for food and territory. Both parties are willing to do whatever it takes to keep themselves alive; even killing the other if necessary. Darwin’s theories certainly applied in the film, only the fittest were able to reproduce and survive.
As for humans, we are not far different from the hyenas and lions. Both the lions and hyenas fight for food and territory; with humans, it has been seen throughout history that battles are fought over territory. However, when it comes down to it, certain territory just gives one group more resources than another. Which, it is completely understandable why animals would fight over territory. As for humans, we are fully capable of obtaining all the resources we would ever need. Therefore, the animals fight for territory is more justified than humans. For the lions and hyenas, territory is crucial for their survival. As for people, territory is not crucial for survival.
The inference that we should all make from this film is that for animals such as the lions and hyenas, violence is needed for self preservation; it is crucial to their survival. As humans, we are doing the same things that the lions and hyenas do, except it does not need to be done. Human preservation does not rely on violence or taking out another group. It should be seen that the human species could live cooperatively and harmoniously together.

Eternal Enemies

The movie “Eternal Enemies “ compared the lives of lions and hyenas to human beings. Clearly nature is not tame, calm and beautiful. As Darwin explained nature is survival of the fittest, which unfortunately (for me who does not like blood) it is brutal, fierce, and sometimes saddening. In many ways, it is easy to compare humans to the relationship of lions and hyenas in terms of competitiveness. We, as the lions and hyenas, do fight over territory especially resources. We claim what is ours and if someone takes these things away we either look to the law, or we simply go to war. Although there is a clear difference between the lions in the movie and humans in terms of competition, that the movie does not acknowledge. Humans have reason and understand when they hurt another, animals do not understand to the full extent we do. Animals simply compete for survival, but it seems to me that humans no longer compete solely for survival.
Another interesting conclusion that the movie can to is that animals, therefore humans, destinies cannot be changed. Inevitably death awaits and cannot be escaped for the lions, hyenas, and the rest of the animal world. Although if destiny is predetermined for humans, I think certain situations within our culture cannot be explained. Upward mobility, which America prides itself in having, apparently is false because nature determines our destiny. If anything is clear humans are not hyenas in that social class is completely fixed, unless you live in a caste system. The second half of the claim that our destinies are predetermined attempts to justify humans hurting one another. The interpreter states that it is our instinct yet it seems to me that we are not just animals because we have reason. Just as in the competitiveness example, previously mentioned humans have reason therefore the ability to understand others pain. So this claim the interpreter makes seems to me to have some major flaws. I acknowledge that in some ways we are similar to the lions and hyenas but in others we are not. It is essential for the human race to understand that we are different (maybe not as different in the ways we commonly think) so that some cannot justify horrid acts by simply saying “I’m just an animal”. Obviously one is left with many questions after watching this movie such as: where is the justice in that or why doesn’t the other lion help that lion or even why does this have to happen?

blog assignment number 14

The most important notion that one cannot infer from the film is the notion that nature has this perfect, Godly, moral way of running. One cannot picture Saint Francis of Assisi (the patron saint of animals) with the birds joyously singing and all the other animals happily walking alongside the saint. NO. Nature does not observe this idea of morality. The film portrayed actions that would appear “sinful” and “evil” if they were done by human beings: the female hyena killed her own sister and appeared to be eating he carcass, the lions from one pride killed the lions from another pride, the young hyenas engaged in mock sex. The film depicted a constant war, whereas some religious persons make the assumption that war is a curse on human beings alone, and that the animals are a model for how humans should strive to live.
Another inference that I had to make dealt with how the film was made. The observers of the lions and hyenas filmed them, and they said that they were really upset when a lion or hyena that they come to know died. BUT, they did not do anything to save the lives of any of the animals shown in the film. The filmmakers just wanted nature to take its course; they did not want to disturb natural selection. If the filmmakers had a more religious (maybe Franciscan) view of the world, they would nurture the poor snake bitten lion back to health; they would save that one older female lion from being killed.
The last inference I have to make is that although the film stressed that we humans are similar to the animals in many respects, we do have many differences too. The animals in the film behaved out of instinct, out of the drive for survival. Human beings are noted to be able to override this tendency. Human beings do not find some of the behaviors of the animals acceptable to our species. We would not encourage killing our own siblings, or killing our own species with little reason. Human beings have this concept of a right and wrong. The animals did not have any conflict in choosing to do what they did, because it was instinctive.

I hate the cobra! :(

 

     I feel as though man still has some animalistic elements embedded in his nature that have endured over the years.  Although the film was very gruesome, violent and distasteful, I feel as though these situations translate into scenarios that we encounter daily but on a much smaller scale.   Humans obviously do not go killing each other in order to last until the next meal, but humans can do some pretty horrible things to one another. 

     When viewing this film, at first blush, one may quickly attest that the nature of humanity is in no way shape or form similar to that of the violent nature of the hyenas and lions in the film.  Over the years, we have witness the cruelty imposed by humans on one another.  The first instance which comes to mind is the Holocaust.  One man, with the help of others attempted to exterminate an “inferior” race.  He used violent methods to achieve his desired ends.  Genocides in general are clear examples of the brutality imposed by humans on one another.  These disgraces on humanity have shown that we may be just as horrific as the animals featured in the film. 

     We see, each day, people often ostracize one another for being different.  Princess the hyena was segregated from her herd from an illogical reason.  Humans continually segregate themselves from people that they view to be inferior.  During the nineties, homosexuals for ostracized for their sexual preferences; during the sixteen hundreds puritans burned “witches” at the stake.  It is evident that since the beginning of time, humanity has been ostracizing and attempting to eliminate the lesser race. 

    In conclusion it is seen throughout the evolutionary and recorded history of man that we do not different as much as we would like to think from the animals viewed in the film.  We still have elements of greed, inferiority and subjugation embedded in our human nature.  From this perspective we can see that we are not that different from the animals that we treat as inferior organisms.  

Our World: A Constant Hardship

Throughout our lives, mo matter how "secure" we are, something is always prone to lead us down a dark road. We see that in the natural world. For example, the hyena princess had a life of luxury and power ahead of her. But upon the death of her mother, she was stripped of all power and disowned from her pack. Same was for the lioness and her cubs. The cubs were living in protected seclusion until an unfortunate encounter with a cobra. In this world, events are bound to happen that take us from security and comfort and place us in chaos and uncertainty. We see it in today's world: people who work for companies over multiple decades loose their job due to economic pressure, the unfortunate events of September 11th, and that unfortunate day going back to my room from Wismer and I dropped my burger on the ground. No matter how high and mighty we may stand in this world, there comes a time where unforeseen forces will pull us down. It seems cruel and unfair, but to fight it is meaningless, for such foresight is impossible. We cannot account for every variable in the world. But as we see with the lions and the hyenas, you don't let things like that stop you from living. If they were to just give up after losing their place or their cubs, they would surely be food the next day. But they fight on, living as if it never happens. We do the same: losing that job doesn't mean to curl up and die, we don't simply run in fear of terrorism, and other meals do come around. We don't let hardships end our lives; like lions and hyenas we push through the tough times, for there is no other alternative.

It's Instinctual

The documentary, “Eternal Enemies,” depicts the vicious struggle for survival of both lions and hyenas and the rivalry between them. The creators of the documentary attributed the actions of the lions and hyenas to a survival instinct that coincides with Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest; those who were the strongest in each species survived, and those who were not died. At the end of the documentary, the voice over commented that lions and hyenas were “creatures of instinct” and because of this, cannot change their destinies. We can then infer from “Eternal Enemies” that, as humans are animals, they cannot be expected to act any differently from the lions and hyenas. If every other species of animal acts in certain ways because of their instincts and their drive to survive, humans cannot simply exempt themselves from having the most basic survival instincts. The conflicts that occurred within each single species in the documentary seemed to parallel occurrences in human life. First, there is clearly a distinct hierarchy within both the lion and hyena packs; each member follows that order so as not to be punished or exiled from the pack. Humans also create a hierarchy system, grant it a more complicated one, but within our societies, government or economics create the authority and those who follow. Most do not challenge this hierarchy so as to avoid the negative repercussions, such as being jailed. Also, with both the lions and the hyenas, there was a struggle over territory with those of the same species. At the end of the day, most of man’s struggles and wars come down to a fight over land or resources. This too can be seen as instinct, because without the land, a species would not have the food or resources they need to survive. Similar to the boundaries marked by the hyenas, all the land in the world has been divided up into extremely distinct territories, which, when honored, decrease conflict, and when challenged, create conflict. Humans have attempted to create a higher moral to control their actions and instincts, yet the film suggests that our morals cannot quell our basic instincts.

Where is He?

I feel the depictions of nature and the struggle for life in "Eternal Enemies" flagged the resounding question "Where is your God now?". Talking about Darwinism and the theory of survival of the fittest is all well and good inside the classroom, but without seeing it firsthand very few can truly understand its nature. The documentary served to un-romanticize the theory and show what it truly is: a bloody, vicious struggle for survival. There is no beautiful picture of the majestic lion as the king of the jungle in the garden of Eden, merely the delirious and drooling head lioness stumbling around on her deathbed. Gone is the picture of the cute little lion cub prancing around, replaced with the reality of its carcass being torn to shred by laughing hyena's. It tears to shreds the view of this perfect world crafted by this perfect creator full of perfect animals and reveals the true nature of existence on this planet. As far as he inference to human nature, I fail to see how we are so different. The hyenas and lions fought over food and territory; we fight over oil and territory. Hyenas gang up on one lioness and use sneak attacks; we bomb innocent people in Dresden. It would be nice to say that this inference is simply that man is the same as these animals, but I would suggest that a true inference is that perhaps we are worse for two main reasons. One, they fight for food, we fight for oil. We do not need oil to survive, we had not used it massively before 200 years ago. I know I mentioned that it was also about territory, but territory just boils down to resources. The second and perhaps most damning is the fact that we are aware that our opponent and victim is in great pain and suffering when we hurt them, yet we do anyway. Perhaps animals have some sense of their prey being wounded or in pain, but they cannot truly comprehend the suffering going through them and are too blinded by instinct to do anything about it. But when man sees a small girl whose hands have been blown off from trying to pick up a landmine in the Middle East, he is aware of the pain she must have gone through and the difficulties she will face for the rest of her life. Yet he still insist on fighting, even though he knows this fate will fall upon many more innocent children. This gift and curse of reason almost seems to make man worse than these animals, as they have no choice or understanding about the way they are living and how they survive. We do, yet we continue to butcher and kill each other anyway. There was the inference that we cannot control our fate and are damned to simply follow these instincts that make us harm one another, but I am not skeptical enough to believe that we can do nothing about it. However, neither am I naive enough to believe that we will do anything about it. If this is the fate some creator or god has given too us, I'm not sure he even cares. So the greatest inference I can see from this video and its parallels with human nature is simply the question: Where is your god now?

The Lion King Movie

This movie depicted the natural state of ...well...nature.  Fierce competition exists between the lion pride and a pack of hyenas; everyday the two groups battle each other while fighting for survival against other elements.  But I have to wonder what this movie teaches us?  First, I have to think about what this means to the lions and hyenas.  It seems as if they are caught in this cycle of fighting, killing and fending for their lives.  Darwin's theories most definitely apply here.  Only the fittest survive and the most fit reproduce.  Even their cubs have to struggle for survival.

Second, I have to consider what this means for the human species.  It seems as if somehow (even though I'm not quite sure how) humans are different than "animals".  But some general theories on survival still apply.  We don't kill our sisters or suffer from painful snake bites or hide in tree when we are threatened by an attack.  But we do verbally fight with siblings, suffer from AIDS/arthritis/colds and hide in our rooms when fear a parental attack.  So it seems as if some part of Darwin's theory does apply to humans in some way.

I can say (in the simplest way possible) that we can infer from this movie that the animal world might seem foreign and extreme, but it's not as different as we think.  As much as we hate to think it, there might be some "animal" in us after all.

Blog Assn #14: "Eternal Enemies"

Please post to the blog by Tuesday, March 17th, 8:00 PM, on the following topic.

What is an inference that we should, or should not, draw from "Eternal Enemies" about the human condition and human behavior?

Darwin

The best argument that Darwin gives for natural selection has to do with genetics. Since Mendel helped to discover genes, Darwin knew that genes were passed down from generation to generation. However, faulty genes are not going to be passed on to the next generation because if it impairs to ability to survive then it is clearly not going to be passed down because if an organism can’t reach sexually maturity then the gene is not going to be passed down. Another essential fact that helped to aid Darwin’s arguments was fossils, not necessarily dinosaurs but other organisms that people of Darwin’s generation had never even encountered. These organisms were not able to survive because for whatever reason their genes were not selected upon and the genes did not help to aid them in their survival, thus leading to their extinction. One example that Darwin gives of genes being selected on is his example of the wolves that are pressed for food. If wolves are pressed for food and the prey that they are hunting are very fast, then Darwin guarantees that the type of wolves that are going to survive are going to be the ones that can run the fastest, and therefore the rest of the wolves who are only strong and not fast will eventually die out.

May the best man win

Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, or the “principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved,” is not a foreign concept to many of us. Not only is it not foreign, it is also accepted by a great number of people today in modern society. When Darwin first published this piece, back in 1859, most did not believe anything Darwin was proposing about Natural Selection. Since most people today don’t need much persuading to find truth in Darwin’s theories, I think it would make more sense to address what the most plausible argument would be for those who are being presented with these concepts for the first time, like those in 1859 when Darwin first published his work. If I was living back in 1859 I think the best evidence would be Darwin’s idea of Sex Selection, mainly because it is something anyone who observes animals could believe. As Darwin says, Sex Selection is a “struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring.” As visible in most species, Sex Selection is a type of natural selection. Darwin’s examples that he gives includes male stags having horns, so as to better fight for females, male alligators and salmons, fight extensively to win over a female so they can reproduce and pass on their genes. Those animals that do not have these special characteristics will undoubtedly be less likely to survive and thus less likely to have their genes passed on to their offspring. Therefore, those genes that help males fight for females will be passed on through future generations. As stated by Darwin, “in many cases, victory will depend not on general vigor, but on having special weapons.” Again, these special weapons can be characteristics that are either helpful in battle or attractive to females. I believe that this is Darwin’s best argument because it is the most plausible and the most visible in daily life.

Pirates 5-1!!!

Darwin's best argument for natural selection is his theory that genes are passed down from generation to generation and the stronger traits remain while the weaker traits get weeded out overtime. Darwin specifically says "We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several cases, we know that his has not been their history. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him." Darwin feels that human beings did not all of a sudden appear and have the necessary traits to survive. It was a timely process that occurred where those who had better traits and chances of survival were able to pass those genes down to their children. As the weaker people with weaker traits died off and increased population of people with the stronger traits were still left standing. Darwin also specifies this claim of survival of the fittest when he states "In its infinitely complex relation to other organic and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving" Darwin's best argument for natural selection is his claim for the survival of the fittest where only the strongest are able to breed and survive.

stay out of my personal bubble.

Charles Darwin makes many solid arguments in his Origin of Species. The one argument that I think is the best for natural selection is the fact that there is not enough room on the earth for everything and everyone. Darwin and others have calculated that if species were allowed to breed constantly, that the earth would be covered in millions of plants, and by the end of the fifth century there would be fifteen million elephants alive on earth (87). That is a lot of elephants in the room; (awkward…). He claims that nature inherently disallows the survival of some organisms. If the birth rate continued to increase for all species, and the death rate would stay constant, in time there would “literally not be standing room” on the earth (86). Therefore, there must be competition and a struggle to survive so there is enough food, shelter, mates, etc for the selected species. This is one factor that leads to natural selection. Since there is not enough room on the earth for everybody, the strongest and those with the most valuable traits survive.
Earlier in the Origin of Species, Darwin also claimed that humans were involved in selecting what species continued to live and which did not. This variation under domestication is also a strong argument for natural selection. It makes sense that since humans are the ones pretty much ruling the earth, that they could pick and choose what animals are useful to them and which ones don’t help them out all that much. And eventually, these animals “form perfect in itself” and serve a great purpose to humans. So in the end, the space that is available on the earth directly effects nature and the origin of species.

Survival of the Fittest

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Charles Darwin argues that there are many reasons as to why this occurs. He explains that there is an intense struggle for life between species as more and more organisms are reproducing and the fact that there have been dramatic changes in the environment overtime. These changes are causing the species to compete for food and resources. It is a process that Darwin explains as survival of the fittest – those species that are more willing and able to adapt to these changes are the ones that will ultimately survive and reproduce offspring in the next generation. This idea of survival of the fittest explains why those species with the heritable traits – the ones being able to adapt and survive – are the ones making it into the next generation. Darwin writes, “Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex reaction to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of survival, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive” (85). Another argument for natural selection as Darwin explains is the idea of an unconscious selection in which results from every one trying to possess and breed from the best individual animals so that they have a better chance of reproducing and having offspring in the next generation.

Darwin and Natural Selection

Darwin offers two major arguments about why we should believe in natural selection. The first piece of evidence he offers is the noticeable change within domesticated animals when humans breed them. Darwin believes that we breed animals so to produce particular traits for a certain purposes. He even states “we cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produces as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several cases, we know that this has not been their history” (83). Darwin explains that we can see the adaptation overtime, although this change does not happen overnight. Later Darwin even alludes to the fact that when the climate and environment changes so do the traits that prevail within that environment. His example for this concept is about a wolf. If the wolf’s is used to capturing multiple different types of animals he has “craft trait, strength trait, and fleetness trait”, he can use all three. But if the environment changes making the deer population (fleeting animals) overabundant and the rest of the other animals scarce, the wolves with the best fleetness trait will prevail.
The next piece of evidence Darwin offers to explain natural selection is sexual selection. Not only does Darwin explain how females are more attracted to males that are the strongest and most advantageous. He even touches on social animals, including human beings. Darwin states “in social animals it will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the community; if each in consequence profits by the selected change” (89). Darwin recognizes that sexual selection is less rigorous than natural selection, but it still is evidence that natural selection exists. Only the males, who reproduce, traits will be passed down. And if the males are more advantageous, the traits they pass down to their offspring will be advantageous as well. The traits of the males who do not mate will not survive.

Darwin, I Choose You!

Darwin’s theory makes many good arguments for his process of natural selection. However, his most powerful observation comes early in his work. On page 82, Darwin mentions the ‘Vestiges of Creation,’ claiming that these documents would have people believe that a woodpecker was created by a bird giving birth to a random pattern of genes that gave it those qualities. Darwin starts his argument here saying that it makes no sense to assume that a fully developed new species would come forth in one generation from another species. Instead, Darwin proposes that organic beings must interact with each other and their physical surroundings in order to develop into new species. This is the most important part of his argument because it provides the basis for the rest of his future argument. In chapter 3, he speaks of the struggle for existence and how this could effect a species. The arguments proposed here fall back to the idea that a new species forms because the natural environment that it exists in slowly molds beings over generations, not because a mutant being of a new species is born from an existing species. While Darwin develops his argument using examples in later parts of the text, he reinforces the basis of his most important argument right away. He admits that in nature, strange things could happen. To strengthen his argument, he starts with cultivated plants and animals that have been bred. This way, any variations in the animals are specifically selected for according to his theory. Because Darwin refers back to the same basic argument throughout his piece, I believe that his most important argument is that new species must be molded by their entire environment and they cannot just appear in their full form from a pre-existing species.

Darwin niwraD

Darwin’s best argument for natural selection comes from what he says about sexual selection. Darwin says that the best males get to have the offspring and the weak ones do not: “A hornless stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving offspring” (90). Therefore, naturally, the male that is most adapted to the environment will be able to eat more, become bigger and healthier, and produce more offspring. With the stronger male producing more offspring the better genes and adaptations, further in the species. The lesser males produce less offspring and eventually their genetic string dies off. Darwin continues to give examples of many different kinds of animals and insects that fight for reproduction. The only way for non-dominant males to reproduce more offspring is if they adapt and grow. Using the example of stag beetles that Darwin does, the one with the smaller mandibles will not be successful in fighting against those with bigger mandibles: “…male stagbeetles often bear wounds from the huge mandibles of other males” (90). Darwin describes the battle for reproduction as war among humans. Naturally, the humans with the bigger, better army will win the war, and likewise the animals with the bigger and better adaptations will win the female.

Natural Selection

Throughout Darwin’s Origin of Species, he tries out a few different arguments on natural selection. However, I believe his best argument is accumulative selection- man’s power of adding different variations of species together to make them more useful for him. In today’s world, this process is seen a great amount. Whether it is seen with breeder of animals, or a single female finding the best sperm donor, people unconsciously try to breed the best being that they could. Darwin stated, “eminent breeders try by methodical selection, with a distinct object in view, to make a new strain or sub-breed, superior to anything existing in the country. But, for our purpose, a kind of Selection, which may be called Unconscious, and which results from every one trying to possess and breed from the best individual animals, is more important”(84).
When I started thinking about methodical selection, I realized that it is not only seen in animals, but humans as well in the past centuries. For instance, in royalty, royals always bred with other royals. It was frowned upon to marry and reproduce with a lesser “breed.” While searching for a spouse or someone to spend an entire life with, a person does not only look for someone they are compatible with, but someone they can see themselves reproducing with, and making a good offspring. As I mentioned before, when females search for a sperm donor, they are being methodically selective. They check to see who is the smartest, if any diseases run in the family, and how attractive they are- that person is trying to produce the best offspring possible.
Methodical selection is the most logical for out of any of Darwin’s theories. No person or animal wants to produce an offspring that is not going to be beneficial or have a chance of surviving in today’s world. Everyone wants to create the best person/animal possible to contribute.

On Natural Selection

Darwin takes a two step approach to proving natural selection. First, he observes domestic animals too see how they develop. In contrast to Paley, Darwin believes that all the farm animals we use are of similar origins, and that breeders are able to select them for certain traits that make them more useful. So rather than all creatures come to life on their own, domestic animal breeding shows that things that make one animal excel in its purpose are what make it selected for breeding and passing on its genetic information into the next generation. But does such a system exist in the wild? For Darwin, yes, and in two forms. One is his Struggle for Existence. Here, Darwin explains that in order to be selected for you must be a better competitor for whatever resources you desire in order to continue on into the next generation. This is due to physical traits like being faster, stronger, better hidden, and any other physical advantage. Another aspect of his Natural Selection in nature is Sexual Selection, where being sexually attractive for mating, even if your physically hindered, means you are selected for. Both of these add up to his theory of Natural Selection, and he believes that his observations of wildlife has come to show patterns that support this: Some wolves have access to certain prey, some cats are better hunters then others, and some birds are more sexually attractive than others. Whatever is best at what they do are inevitably going to be the ones who live on into future generations, for inevitably being better means your going to override those beneath.

Arguments for Natural Selection

Darwin talks extensively on his theory of Natural Selection, yet his best arguments for Natural Selection are his example of adaptation to the environment and extinction. First, he argues that a “physical change” in the environment has the effects the chances of survival of a species. Darwin uses the example of climate to demonstrate how a species must learn to adapt, because without doing so they may die off. Those species who would be “naturally selected” to survive had innate characteristics that made them stronger than those within their species or of other species. Also, Darwin adds to the argument that “change[s] in the conditions of life” may not simply allow a species to survive or die, but creates variability among the species. Both the adaptations to environment and the variability among species are easily understandable and convincing, as one can see the differences within species and which species have survived.
Although Darwin briefly mentions extinction itself, throughout his writing, he constantly implies that those who do not adapt will not survive. The fact that extinction even occurs is perhaps one of the better arguments for Natural selection. Natural selection is used synonymously with “Survival of the fittest,” therefore, those modifications that are beneficial to a species ensures their survival, while those that are not helpful or do not change can cause a species to die out. Extinction, then, is a direct result of Natural Selection. Extinction proves that there is some form of natural improvement within a species, or a natural adaptation to the world. If no changes ever occurred within living things, then there would be no natural reason for a species to die out, as no species would be able to surpass another species. Or, at this point, most species would be extinct because without natural selection, they could not adapt to their ever changing environment. Possibly, the topic of extinction as tangible proof of Natural Selection should have been elaborated on by Darwin.

Survival of the Fittest

The greatest support of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection seems to be his own observed qualities in animals. He was able to observe different qualities in animals, domestic and wild, that could help them to survive various situations in nature better than others. For example, he cites that some cats are more adept when it comes to catching birds, some to rats and some to mice. These differences will give these cats a distinct advantage naturally and sexually when in nature compared to those who have no distinguishable characteristics. Ultimately, the latter cats will die out if the talented cats continue to reproduce and spread their qualities to their offspring, which Darwin sees as inevitable. The advantageous cats will continue to thrive until there is a further evolution, say a cat is born with the ability to catch both mice and birds effectively, which will start to theoretically kill off the cats with a singular talent unless they further adapt. This displays his theory of survival of the fittest extremely effectively. He also gives the example of different ways one would breed dogs. When seeking to create the purest breed, Darwin states that one does not just breed any dog of that breed, but the strongest dog of the breed with its female counterpart. This further displays that he believes strong qualities are hereditary and that those unfortunate animals with the lack of beneficial qualities will simply not procreate, at least to any great extent like a prized show dog. So Darwin’s greatest proofs of natural selection come from his own observations of nature and his logical deduction of the struggle for survival, animal’s sexual preferences and what not.

Best Argument for Natural Selection

     I feel as though Darwin’s best argument for natural selection seems to be the fact that organisms need to constantly be adapting to their environments.  When Darwin studied the finches in the Galapagos Islands, he noticed that the finches, although they were members of the same species had different adaptations that enabled them to survive.  Some had longer beaks which allowed them to obtain fruit more easily, while others had thicker beaks which enabled them to carrying more food in one sitting.  This alludes to the theory of “survival of the fittest” and also the idea of adapting to the environment.  The finches studied adapted to their environment over many years; the adaptations that they acquired made it easier for them to live their daily lives.  This is where the theory of “survival of the fittest” comes into play.  The finches were basically goaded to adapt over time.  This is because the finches that were considered the strongest survived and mated with others, while the weakest finches died out.  The favorable qualities of the strongest of the species were passed on and therefore the finch species evolved and became stronger. 

     This brings the tailbone on the human to mind as well.  The earliest human beings had tailbones.  Today, our tailbones are unnecessary.  We have evolved over many years to best suit our environment.  Many people argue that one day the tonsils may “disappear” as well.  The “survival of the fittest” theory does not apply to humanity any more.  It seems as though humanity is not evolving anymore.  We do not discriminate against the weak as used to be the case.  We protect the weak in society (i.e. the mentally ill and terminally ill).  Is it possible for animals to stop evolving just as humans may have?