The Road

The Road for me represented a time in one's life that everyone experiences, a depressing, hopeless time in which it appears that you will never get out of the rut that you are in. The whole depressive air of The Road was plagued by the father and son couple wondering if they would find enough food and water, escape being murdered by foes, and even live. All the while on their journey to the coast they questioned if there was a God. Their lives are makred by constant, unending violence and fear, and a sense of being lost forever.

The father and son encounter many people, and none of these encounters bring happiness. The father often remakrs to the son that he prays that they will make it to the coast, or survive another frigid night. In the end, the father dies and the son is invited to travel with the first family that has showed kindness to others in this barren apocalyptic land. In this last desperate attempt to find God and believe again, the son is given another opportunity at life.

Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

One specific part of Portrait comes to mind when thinking of religion. When Stephen is listening to a lecture about hell, including many images similar to Dante's Inferno, his fear is heightened due to the graphic images of hell that the preacher conveys. Stephen then proceeds to have his own dream about hell, a much more vivid and personal experience. Stephen realizes that he is doomed to hell, a physical and spiritual torture. I think this is one of the most important ideas, even today; people should not be afraid of their religion, they should do things, such as living a moral life, because they want to, not because they are afraid of being doomed to some idealistic, torturous place.

Stephen also endures many struggles between choosing religion and choosing women. He gets with a prostitue and then later feels guilty and dedicates his life to the church. He realizes that he cannot be a priest and has an epiphany when he sees a girl in the ocean. Stephen understands that he should not ignore his sensuality, it is a natural part of human life.

While we may not all grow into artists like Stephen does, the important message in this book pertaining to my big question is to find a happy medium where you are doing what you like because you want to do it. Whether its womanizing or being a priest, you must do what makes you happy and not fear consequences.

Pop Culture

Strauss often remarked that although politics can address finite problems it can never resolve the fundamental contradictions of life. Those contradictions have their source in the human need to answer the existential question "How should I live?," a supra-political question giving rise to stark alternatives. In the West, those alternatives were seen in philosophy and divine revelation, the lives of Socrates and Moses. The tension between them was, in Strauss's view, the hidden wellspring of our civilization's vitality. But the thinkers of the modern Enlightenment, horrified by religious war and frustrated by the other-worldliness of classical philosophy, tried to reduce that tension. They mocked religion, advocated toleration, and tried to redirect philosophy toward more practical pursuits, whether political, technological, or moral. They imagined a world of satisfied citizens and shopkeepers, and nearly succeeded in creating it. But as the nineteenth century progressed it became abundantly clear that one problem, the "Jewish question," could not be dissolved. Not because of Christian prejudice, which was real enough, or Jewish stubbornness, but because the existence of the Jews as a people constituted by di-vine revelation was a challenge to the Enlightenment's hope that politics could be isolated from supra-political claims. The principle leading to emancipation—that, to quote from the debate in the French National Assembly of 1789, "the Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals"—proved untenable; the call of revelation could not be extinguished from thought or politics. And that, for Strauss, meant that philosophy needed to reconsider the original "theological-political problem" afresh.

I found this in an article Does Society Need God?

Crime and Punishment

Throughout Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, religious morality governs the actions of many characters such as Sonia, Dounia and Raskolnikov's mother. Raskolnikov confronts the idea of being an "extraordinary man" and being able to overcome God's will to commit a sin that he justifies by persisting that it's for the better of society. On the contrary, Dounia and his mother live self-less lives in their pursuit of morality through religion. Even Sonia, the prostitue, is able to overcome the sin her immoral career and read to Raskolnikov from the bible. The Christian religion manages to keep some citizens moral, while posing a challenge for other citizens to overcome its lingering grasp of morality.

Dounia and her mother rely on God to confirm their beliefs, "People will write anything. We were talked about and written about, too. Have you forgotten? I am sure that she is a good girl, an dthat it is all nonsense. God grant it may be!" (pg 210)

Sonia defines Raskolnikov's belief in God and at the end, it is his brief sighting of her that motivates him to confess, "She looked wildly at him. He stood still before her. There was a look of poignant agony, of despair, in her face. She clasped her hands. His lips worked in an ugly, meaningless smile. He stood still a minute, grinned and went back to the police office." (457)

Post 3: Henry IV

The Christian religion is the prime religion apparent in Henry IV by William Shakespeare and while everyone, even the rowdy Falstaff, takes part in this religion, their levels of devotion vary. For instance, the King at the beginning of the play was about to embark on a pilgrimage and was considered to be a very moral, honourable man during the play. Falstaff recognized Christianity and even made references to the bible, and occassionally attempted to reconcile his sins but soon gave up that notion and went back to his stealing ways. While Hal was ambivalent between these two extremes, he seems to take religion in a more casual way, using it to find his morals because in a way, he will one day be the God of the society: people have great respect for him and his actions show that he knows what the right thing to do is.

Falstaff at times tries to pursue religion and become "good" but is religion the only thing that could make him good? Does this mean that an entire society is motivated to be good only by means of religion?

On pg. 21 (lines 145): Falstaff: Hawl, wilth thout make on? Prince: Who, I Rob? I a thief? Not I, by my faith. Falstaff: There's neither honesty, manhood, nor good fellowship in thee, nor thou cam'st not of the blood royal, if thou darest not stand for ten shillings.

Hal insists that his religion is what prohibits him from stealing, so is he refraining ONLY from religion?

On pg. 19 (lines 96-105): Falstaff: O, thou hast damnable iteration, and art indeed able to corrupt a saint. Thou hast done much harm upon me, Hal, God forgive tehe for it. Before I knew thee, Hal, I knew nothing and now am I, if a mand should speak truly, little better than one of the wicked. I must give over this life, and I will give it over. By the Lord, an I do not, I am a villain. I'll be damned for never a kign's son in Christendom. Prince: Where shall we take a purse tomorrow, Jack?

Just when Falstaff tries to leave his villainous ways behind, he easily crosses back over. There appears to be the religious: the king, the unreligious: Falstaff, and the beneficial equillibrium inbetween: the Prince.

Post 2: Oedipus Rex

After reading Oedipus, Mrs. Makovsky posed a question to the class about whether the gods in Oedipus were benign or vicious. While I came to the conclusion that they were a compromise between the two, a more fateful influence. Some character's actions appeared to be dictated by the gods, for instance the blind seer, while Oedipus spent his time running from the actions of the gods, or so it seemed. I am interested in how the presence of God and religion play into society today. Did anything within Oedipus' religious beliefs motivate his actions or was it all cause by fate?

The people in Oedipus' society were horrified that he would marry his mother and murder his father, as anyone would be, but was this caused by their strong religious basis? Did religion influence society's views of individuals and their actions? Does religion make people moral and good? Do we do this by nature?

Do we count on religion to teach young people morals? Is this because we cannot count on our own actions to show youth the right way to go? While Oedipus was unaware that he murdered his father and married his mother, is it religion that makes this wrong? Or rather a standard social contract?

Post 1: Big Question

What roles do God and religion play in society?

It seems that even through our studies in history, entire societes and eras have revolved around their numerous Gods and religions. Religion has also provoked conflict between groups with differing perspectives, which seems contradictory in that religion is supposed to be a unifying force between people. What makes people believe in a God or a religion? Is it a something that causes mostly unification or mostly conflict? Why do some people believe in God but others not?

Another thing that motivates me to ask this question is why do people need a religion to make their lives worthwhile? And also how do people believe in a religion or a God that does offer any proof? Is religion merely a tool to help people be more moralistic?