Siddhartha pargraph 2

The child people are basically anyone other than the samana's. The samana's live without worries about money problems, jobs, and their life, friends, and families. They live without property and material possessions. This is exactly what the child people strive for, and that makes the samana's look on in disgust. The child people value the things that the samana's avoid, and it makes them weak. Their weakness lies in their value of things that are worthless to samana's, which makes their lives harder to live, and living harder to enjoy. The child people whine and complain to Siddhartha about their problems and seeks his advice, even though he sees no value in their so called problems. Although they have weaknesses in their value of possessions and life in general, they have the strength of a will to happiness. Where samana's want no ego, and they do have values in meditation, they don't have need happiness, and they don't really want it. That does lead to less troubles in life, but it also doesn't give life as much value. 

Siddhartha part one, Awakening, question 6

Siddhartha realizes that, although his teachers have taught him mnay things, and have given him guidance, he hasn't been able to get rid of the one thing he most saught to get rid of, which is his ego. Siddhartha says that he could "not overcome it" (Pg. 36), and that he had been asking teachers for help to get rid of his ego. But the only way for him to truly get rid of his ego is by looking inside himself, and teaching himself to overcome it. He compared it to reading a book, and critisizing the letters and signs, rather than reading and absorbing what the book had to say. In other words, Siddhartha had been critisizing and trying to find meaning in what he was being taught, mean while ignoring what he himself had to say about it. This marks a new chaoter in Siddhartha's life as he tries to find his place in the world, and where he belongs, now that he has been enlightened, or rather, awakened.

Unit 3 comp civ essay

Unit 3 comp civ essay

Rome's history is riddled with honor, self-empowerment, republics and empires. Perhaps one of the most significant moments in Rome's history that encompasses all of these is the assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar, but with various opinions based on the time frame it is looked at from. Although the assassination of Caesar was honorable in Roman times, it isn't considered honorable now, and it certainly didn't save the republic of Rome, as some say it did.

At the time of Caesar's death, the assassination would have been considered honorable. The senate wanted to keep rome as a republic, and couldn't have predicted that it would return to being an empire anyway. The senate would have thought that to save rome and keep the civilization alive, they would need to keep a republic. Brutus was also the one who suggested the assassination to the senate, and he was considered an honorable man, so it was thought to be honorable to kill Caesar. Even Marc Antony, Caesar's biggest supporter, said in his oration of Caesar's death that Brutus was an honorable man. Killing Caesar also preserved the honor of the senate, as they had barely any power in the senate while Caesar was in charge. But this trait nowadays would not be considered honorable.

In modern times, the assassination of Caesar would be considered a extremely selfish thing to do by the senate. The senate killed Caesar in order to remain in a powerful position. The senate feared that Caesar would overthrow them after having been declared dictator perpetuo by the senate themselves. Murdering Caesar in order to remain in power is a very selfish reason, and not considered honorable. Another way in which it wasn't honorable, is that the entire senate (or at least the several senators who were conspiring against Caesar) didn't even give a chance for a fair fight. Gladiators at least it's one on one, or a group versus several people, but in Caesar's case, it was the whole senate against him. Giving Caesar no chance to fight isn't honorable, it's cold blooded murder, and if that is the way the republic does business, then it's no wonder that they didn't last long.
Although the assassination may have been an honorable attempt at saving the republic, it ended up being futile, as immediately after the death of Caesar, there was a power struggle between Marc Antony and Octavian, which lead to the second triumvirate consisting of Marc Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus. The triumvirate quickly faded though, as Marc Antony and Octavian went to war, and Marc Antony killed himself. This lead to the beginning of the Empire, lead by Octavian, and continued until the fall of rome. The senators murder of Caesar only delayed an Empire by twenty years, and robbed the roman empire of the potential of having a great ruler in the form of Julius Caesar. The republic never returned, and the empire stood until 410 AD. The senate's assassination of Caesar never saved the republic, it only delayed the inevitable.

With no way of knowing that Caesar's death would ultimately still lead to the destruction of the republic, the attempt at saving it is still considered honorable. While the true motivation to save the republic is still to ensure the power of the senate, there were some honorable intentions in the assassination of Caesar. Though it does not justify the actions, it does make it a little more bearable, especially for those who had conspired against Caesar in the first place. Honorable though it may have seemed at the time, it wasn't all done in the name of rome, and it certainly didn't help the situation. But at the time, the excuse of honor must have certainly helped the senators sleep at night.

Unit 2 comp civ essay

Unit 2 comp civ essay

The three images given represent two different aspects of Ancient Greece. One aspect being the cultured, artistic side of Greece, and the other being the aggressive, war prone side. It is an amazing civilization, with success in both art, and war. Art getting a chance to thrive in Greece, between periods of hard fought war.

From artifacts and research done about ancient Greece, we can tell that the greeks had a certain proficiency in their crafts. A major example of this would be the parthenon. With its doric columns, and several friezes, the parthenon is a true masterpiece, that is still standing a top the acropolis today. Having taken 15 years to build, it truly shows the effort greeks had put into the monument. Also during that era, Polykleitos had sculpted out of marble the statue of Diadoumenos, a statue of a young man, sculpted to perfection. Originally made of bronze, the statue represents the idealistic view of Greek artists. Another art form of the time were the plays, many of which were political. A well known play writer at the time was Aristophanes, who made many different plays, including one called "clouds" where he ridiculed the public for their view of socrates, which he found absurd. All of these are examples of one aspect of greek civilization at the time, which was very artistic.

The other main aspect of Greece, would have been the wars, and empires. From 499-449 BC, to 431-404 BC, to 336-323 BC Greece was at war. For 200 years, with around 50 years of interlude in between, there were wars that spanned for several decades. One war that was before 500 BC (around the time of 1200 BC) was the trojan war. Said to be during the period of the Mycenaeans, the trojan war was an attack on troy by the greeks, lead by the greek king Agamemnon. Many heroes such as Achilles and Odysseus were first introduced tales of the trojan war, first written by Homer, in two epic poems titled the iliad and the odyssey. The legend saying that the Greeks could not manage to defeat the Trojans, so they made it appear as if they were retreating and gave the Trojans a gigantic horse as a gift, which the Trojans took inside their walls, only to have the greeks jump out at night and slaughter the Trojans. Several centuries later, there was the Persian wars, where the first invasion was lead by king Darius, who was defeated by the Greeks. The second invasion, lead by Xerxes, was an attack on Thermopylae, where Xerxes managed to defeat king Leonidas and his fellow spartans. Xerxes proceeded to sack Athens, but was then lead astray by false information. The informant told him to send his navy into a channel at Salamis as a passage through, but the Greeks had planed on this and attacked and defeated the Persian navy, while Xerxes could only watch as his troops were destroyed. He was forced to retreat to Persia, and left Athens and Sparta to rule Greece.

Later on, the Peloponnesian wars started, and continued for 30 years. It was a war between Sparta and Athens. Even though Athens should have won they lost due to a plague that hit them, their lose at Sicily, the war was fought on land, and Persia supported Sparta. Sparta then occupies Athens and replaces the democracy with the rule of 30, who are pro-Sparta dictators. The next war was lead by Alexander the Great. He was the son of Philip the Great, and he replaced his father after his father was murdered. He destroys the rebellious Thebes, and the rest of Greece recognize his leadership due to being frightened of what Alexander could do. Alexander tells Greek troops that if they fight for him the can plunder and loot in order to become rich, while they are campaigning with him. Alexander then proceeds to conquer the near east of Asia, and makes it all the way to India before his troops commit mutiny, and he is forced to turn back.