Al and Plato

Al-Ghazzali and Plato both agree that senses need to be forgotten in order to attain the truth. They diverge at the point where sufis use their senses to think about life and what it must really mean. However, sufis apparently have firm beliefs where they can distinguish between substantial and unsubstantial truth. From Plato's Allegory, a person gets truth by rejecting his senses and being enlightened. 

Questions on McNeill's Article

1. What’s McNeill’s argument?
McNeill's argument is that the Indian caste system and the political ideologies of Greece structured two different societies from similar types of nomadic people. 

2. How does McNeill define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s definition?

McNeill defines caste as how people associate with each other.  It is mainly based on how people separate each other and look down upon people of lower classes.  His definition refers to people eating with each other and intermarrying rather than the occupational reasons that the textbook brings up.  

3. What three feelings and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste:

1. The higher caste's rejection of association with those of the lower castes allowed for the caste system to stay.

2. The feelings and thoughts of superiority and inferiority maintained the idea of the caste.

3. The hopeful thought of being born into a higher caste through reincarnation also allowed for the caste system to remain intact.

4. Are these convincing?

 I would say that those three feelings and thoughts are pretty convincing.  People definitely did not want their reputation to be soiled if they were to have anything to do with someone in a lower caste.  The higher class people definitely wanted to keep their social standing and had a superior air to them while the lower class people believed they were inferior and had little hope to change it.  The final thought is probably the most convincing as a person would be content with their current status if they hoped to have a more favorable conditions in their next life.  Hope is pretty strong and that probably maintained the caste system as no one would argue or defy it if they could look forward to something better. 

5. Why did caste itself not cause strong political organization to form?

People of higher caste did not want to associate with people of lower caste, creating a communication and unification boundary among the groups. 

6. What causes Indian religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself?

The shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself is caused by the Upanishads.

7. How did the Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals of Indian society?

 The Upanishads basically got rid of the priests and allowed people to strive for a release form the cycle or rebirth through asceticism, meditation, and withdrawal from worldly pleasures. 

8. How does McNeill define “Territorial Sovereignty?”

McNeill defines "territorial sovereignty" as political organization through territorial sovereign or states. In order words, a political structure where states serve as the primary unit.

9. Why did Greeks turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society?

The Greeks turned away from religion because they wanted to created a political structure using the laws of nature, not "mystical illumination."  There were no agreements on the reason why he world was the way that it was, so they got rid of gods in order to find answer through natural law. 

10. What was the consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?

The consequence of the Greeks' rigid adherence to the polis was that they could agree on certain things.  The Greeks were unable to remain loyal to the state as they tried obtaining holiness. 

11. Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?
I do not buy his argument because he is discussing two different cultures base don two different things. He is discussing the strange unification of India through the caste system, a social hierarchy, and the political stratification of Greek city-states through the belief of natural law. His argument for India is based on religion and social structures. His argument for Greece is their political arrangement based on their pursuit of natural law.

Greece's Map and Alexander's Conquest Map

Was he great?

Alexander the Great always seemed like a great person to me, mostly because his title has the word "great" in it.  But after watching clips of the documentary, I would have to disagree and exaggeratedly state that it was all a lie!  I am convinced that he was a drunk who had multiple issues ranging from his father to anger.  One clip that held my attention proves that point.  It was when many people became drunk and Alexander started to complain about his father.  That part shows that he had some issues with his father.  The other part that caught my attention was that he became furious when Cleitus defended Philip and basically insulted Alexander.  Clearly, Alexander was not acting responsibly because he was drunk, but I am convinced he was drunk most of the time any way.  He managed to kill Cleitus which proves he has anger issues.  He also proves to be pretty full of himself and the word "arrogant" sums him up. Alexander definitely seemed like the kind of man who wants everyone to know him and know that was great.  But I am also convinced that he didn't just decide to leave home one day thinking "I'm going to make myself seem like a hero today and go on a journey to make people believe that!"  I think he was just genuinely trying to be the best that he could be.  Some people say that he was great, but I do not agree with them after watching those clips.