Was the war between Athens and Sparta Inevitable?

I think that the war between Athens and Sparta was inevitable.think that they were both dragged into the war with each by different states. Athens was dragged in reluctantly by Corcyra to help them defeat Corinth. Pericles sends some ships, but they were defeated with Corcyra by the Corinthians and their allies, so Athens punished their allies by blocking their trade. The allies (Megara) in turn ask the Spartans for help, and then the battle between Athens and Sparta starts, so I think it was not their own faults.

Book 3 Characters of the Iliad

       The characters of Hector, Paris, Menelaus, King Priam, and Helen are portrayed in many different ways in book three of the Iliad. Paris is portrayed as a coward, but very proud of himself. He is portrayed as having many wrongs to the people, and he is laughed at by his brother Hector. Hector is portrayed as very heroic, and rather fearless. Though he is very brave, he still likes to insult his brother. Menelaus is the man that Paris has to fight. He is a great warrior, and seems to have common sense, in that he doesn't want to shed any more blood, so he takes up the offer of the dual. King Priam is the father of Helen, and he is a very loving man. He sits with his daughter, and asks her if she knows one of the fighters. Finally, Helen herself is portrayed as being radiant and long robed. She seems to be also a loving character who is also portrayed as the daughter of Zeus.

Diomedes

       Diomedes shows very much hubris in book 5 of the Iliad. Hubris means overreaching pride which is exactly what Diomedes had in this book. He was given divine strength by Athena, but he used it poorly. He killed anyone in his path, and even attacked gods. This was a great act of pride, since he was specifically warned to only use his power on Aphrodite. However, he goes on a slaughtering rampage, and pays no attention to the guidance.

Philosophical Idealism

       Philosophical idealism is the idea that concepts and numbers are more real than physical things in the world around us. Some of the arguments for philosophical idealism are that humans have an immortal soul, which is more real than our physical body, and is the cause of our physical bodies. Also, the fact that physical things like trees, rocks, and hippos come into existence, and out of existence, but ideas and numbers last forever. Concepts cannot be destroyed.  Some arguments against this idea are that concepts are not tangible, so we cannot experience them. Physical things however, are tangible and we can sense them which makes the more real to us. Also, though these physical things may die, their matter is never destroyed, so they also exist forever, just in different form that we can still sense which makes them more real to us.

Minoan vs. Mycenaean Civilizations

       The Minoan and the Mycenaean Civilizations had many similarities and many differences.  The Minoan Civilization was based in Crete, but it did not have walls oddly enough. This could either be a sign that it was a peaceful nation, or they were just the most powerful navy force, so they were not threatened by other nations. The Mycenaean Civilization was based in mainland Greece, and contrary to the Minoans, they had walls that were like none other. They were so big that nations to come thought that they were built by giants; hence their name "cyclopean walls." The Mycenaean civilization seems to be a more war- like nation in general. than the Minoan civilization. These two civilizations are similar however, in that they are both Greek civilizations, and they both were taken over by different rising Greek civilizations.

The Iliad Book 1

      The Iliad Book 1 is the story of the rage of a demi-god named Achilles. It starts because Agamemnon takes the daughter of a priest of Apollo. The priest comes bringing a ransom to get his daughter back, but Agamemnon disregards it because it would hurt his "arete" which means honor. Letting go of his prize would hurt his honor because one of the things that the Ancient Greeks valued was possessions. The word they used for this was "Time" which was how much "stuff" you owned. Giving up this "Time" would hurt Agamemnon's "Arete". The priest then prays to Apollo, and Apollo, in a rage, comes down from the heavens ready to destroy, and fires a plague on the people of Agamemnon. There is then a debate between Agamemnon, Achilles, and other powerful figures as to what should happen. This turns into a very heated argument where Achilles and Agamemnon try to destroy each others image by insulting them. This is an attack on each other's "Kleos" which is a word meaning your story (how people will remember you when you are dead). They are trying to destroy each other's "Kleos" which will make people remember them as bad which is a very serious thing for the Ancient Greeks. There are many conflicting views, and Achilles ends up leaving Agamemnon because he does not want to give up his prize. Agamemnon, in return takes Achilles wife. Odysseus then brings the girl, and many sacrifices to make amends with Apollo, which he accepts. Zeus then is driven to war with Hera.

Myth vs. History

        The relationship between myth and history is that a myth is something that did not happen, but many times is something that we find fascinating, and about which we make stories. History, on the other hand, is something that actually happened, and in most cases, is something that is documented in various sources. Our understanding of myth and history has changed over the years because in many stories we thought were myths, we can find elements of history that actually happened. In the Epic of Gilgamesh for example, we were not sure if Gilgamesh was real until we found the King's List which stated Gilgamesh as one of the kings. This means that, while he probably did not fight a forest monster, and sink himself to the bottom of the ocean, he was a real figure in history.

Ramses II

       I don't think that it was right for Ramses II to be so concerned about his reputation in history. While he was a very successful ruler, and Egypt did not have many pharaohs like him, he lied about many of the achievements he claimed to have made. This results in him being thought of as just having an inflated ego, even though it might have been a tactic for controlling his people, and the surrounding nations. If you can publicize you achievements, it might instill fear in others which would be an effective ruling tactic. I think that historical reputation is important to leaders today as well. Leaders who have a good historical reputation tend to be remembered more, and when people remember you, they remember what you did. It is in a sense a way to live forever, and I think that leaders grasp that so that people can learn from them in the future, and probably so that people will praise them for a long time.

Ancient Phoenicians

       The Ancient Phoenicians were a group of people that descended from the Canaanites, and lived in the Levant in the Bronze Age. Their main contribution to history was the invention of the alphabet. This was a very big contribution as it produced the growth of literacy since it was easier to learn than any other ancient language, and eventually led up to the foundation of western civilization. The Phoenicians were also know for their trading. They traded many goods such as ivory, cedar and purple dye (which is what they were named after). This trading also lead to their alphabet being spread out into different cultures.

Torah vs. Code of Hammurabi

       The Torah is both very similar and very different to the Code of Hammurabi.  One similarity between them is the lex talionis principle that we see a lot. In the bible we see the saying, "an eye for an eye" which is also carried through in the Code of Hammurabi. They tried to match the punishment as closely to the crime as possible. They also are showing guidelines for how the people should live their lives. The Code has many guidelines for how others should treat each other, and what should happen in many given circumstances, and the Torah tells a lot about how the Jews should act, and how to sacrifice for instance, and what rules there are for how you should act. There are also many differences between these documents too. The Code of Hammurabi for instance is very focused on justice, and how punishments should be carried out, and many of those punishments are a death penalty for things that do not endanger the lives of others. The Torah does not focus nearly as much on the punishments, but focuses on showing you how you strive to live, and helping you to get there. The Code of Hammurabi is more of a judgement book, and the Torah is a law book. Also, the Code of Hammurabi is set in place by a king so it is obviously not perfect, however the Torah came straight from God so it is perfect, and you can follow it without wondering if it is really the right way to live.

Ancient Egypt and Sumer

1.       I think that the civilizations of ancient Egypt and ancient Sumer are both similar, however they did mot influence each other. Much of the reason for this is that Egypt was so far removed from civilization that it was hardly influenced, nor did it influence any other civilizations. This was because of so many land barriers that disconnected it form all other civilizations for a very long, so they remained one of least changed culture of the ancient times.

2.       There are many different advantages and disadvantages of having a monarchy or a government. One reason to have a monarchy over a government is that the decisions can be made much faster, so in times of need, the ruler can at with supreme authority and get whatever needs to be done done. Also, in a monarchy, there is less complications in the ruling system, as to who has what power, because in a monarchy it is one man with all the power. In a government the power is distributed to many branches, and keeping them all in check becomes a struggle. However, if there is a corrupt ruler in charge, and no one is able to stand up to him, then the civilization can crumble, and the people can be oppressed. This is one reason not to have a monarchy. Also, in a government, there are many people keeping each other accountable, so it is harder for it to be shaken by corruption.

Code of Hammurabi

These paragraphs of the Code of Hammurabi show us a lot about what the ancient Mesopotamians valued. They believed that justice was guided by an idea called "lex talionis", or "the way of the claw." This meant that anyone who committed a crime would be punished as closely to their crime as possible. However, I think that how they followed this rule shows that they did not value the human life as much as we do now. Many punishments for crimes would be the punishment for death- even for things like withholding compensation for a mercenary. It seems also that they valued property as much as their lives, as basically any type of robbery would be punished by death I think that they did not have very just laws for this reason; because punishing by death many crimes that do not endanger the lives of others does not follow the principles of lex talionis. We can also learn from  these passages that the people trusted the gods a lot. Many deciding factors in justice would be things that were out of human control (like seeing if the accuser would float or not in a river), so they could have the gods decide for them. So, I think that we can see that they view the gods as completely just, and left much deciding to them.

Gilgamesh Episodes

I would summarize the epic of Gilgamesh into seven episodes. The first episode I would call "the problem". This is when Gilgamesh was overbearing, and the people pleaded for his rival. There was a need for someone to match his power because his pride was out of control. The second episode I would call "Friendship." This is when Enkidu and Gilgamesh first of all wrestle in the streets. However, after that they end up joining forces, and plan to defeat Humababa. The next episode I would call, "The battle." The beginning part of this is Enkidu and Gilgamesh journeying to the Pine Forest where they will fight Humbaba. They end up defeating him, and head back home. The next episode would be, "The return." This is when Enkidu and Gilgamesh come back from fighting Humbaba, and they end up having to fight the bull of Heaven. This is because Gilgamesh's pride again gets out of control, and he won't take Ishtar the goddess for his wife, and moves on to insult her. She sends the bull of heaven on them after that. I would call the next episode "Lament". This is when Enkidu dies  because the gods decide that one of them shouldn't live, and Gilgamesh starts to mourn, and wander the country. The next episode would be "Immortality." This is when Gilgamesh resolves to go and try and find immortality as he is afraid of his own demise, so he visits Ut-Napishtim who gives him challenges to prove that he is worthy of immortality. He fails. The last episode is "Back from the dead." Enkidu makes it out of the underworld to be rejoined with Gilgamesh.

Lex Talionis

I think that the justice system should, as best as possible, try and distinguish between what is out of someone's control, like an addiction, and try to reform them, but if someone is intentionally trying to hurt someone, or break the law, then they should be punished as they have done to others. However, seeing as people are liars, they should be punished with what they deserve, unless it is clearly seen that someone needs help. Polygraphs help.

Ruling

Is it better to be governed by fixed written laws with little discretion on the part of the rulers, or to be governed by the best rulers we can find, using their discretion to try and achieve justice?

       I think that it is better to be governed by a fixed set of written laws because, for one, putting most of the power on one man leaves a lot of room for error since it is only one man doing whatever he wants, whereas if there is a collection of people writing laws by which that kingdom will be ruled, then everybody keeps each other accountable, and revises each others ideas, so there will be less room for corruption. Also, choosing the "best" ruler in the ancient times did not necessarily mean the most just ruler. They many times measured greatness by power and authority, and power and authority do not inherently include justice. We can see this through Gilgamesh: he was a very powerful and authoritative man, but he was also extremely corrupt, so the peoples' choice will not always be the best ruler

Historical and Literary Analysis

Historical Analysis:

        1. The various Mesopotamian versions can help us understand the history of the cultures which produced them because it shows what they valued, and shows where other cultures were based. We can see that these ancient cultures were very oral based because of the repetition that is given in all of these documents. They repeated many passages because they wanted these important things to stick in their minds because most of this was passed down orally. We can also see where other cultures were based because of how the story changes geographically. On page 43, we see many examples of conflicting stories of where things were based (for example, where the ark ends up after the flood).

Literary Analysis:

        3. These documents can show us a lot about the place of literature in the ancient world. In the ancient world Mesopotamian world,  literature was not as holy as in the middle ages. The books were written by schoolboys, and there were many conflicting details signifying lack of care. In the middle ages, books were copied down with a painstaking process and much of the literature was considered holy. So we can conclude that literature in ancient Sumeria was considered more of an entertainment than something serious.

Ancient Civilizations

1.      A person looking at our culture today might see many buildings, and have different opinions about which is the most important. For example, they might see the largest and most important buildings as grocery shops, and malls. This shows how we live in a very consumerist society whereas an ancient society would probably be centered around spiritual buildings like ziggurats, so those cultures were much more focused on divinities.

2.      The most valid criteria for a culture to be considered a civilization would be an ability to write, a complexity to the social group, and distinct functions that are established, and having some technological advancement, like working with metals.

Ice Cream Epithets

Tiamat- Tiamat would be a chocolate ice cream with cherries and strawberries jam to visualize the havoc that she brought to the gods. It can be topped with

Enlil- Enlil will be a caramel ice cream to represent royalty (like a crown) and will be topped with a cherry crown, 

Enki- Enki can be a brown, chocolate ice cream with pistachios on top to represent earthiness and wisdom.

Marduk- Marduk will be a vanilla ice cream with caramel sauce, and cherries to look like an ancient marble ziggurat.

Dumuzi- Dumuzi can either be a vanilla ice cream with chocolate pieces, and a sugar snow ball (if possible) to represent winter, or he will be a brown chocolate ice cream with cherries and caramel to represent fall.

Nanna- Nanna will be a chocolate ice cream with a whipped cream or some white moon on top.

Enuma Elish vs. The Theogany

There are many similarities that we can see between the Theogany and the Enuma Elish. One common thing between these two ancient creation documents is that in both of these, the gods are very human like in that they reproduce and, they fight with each other. In both of these, everything was created from the gods and their babies. Also, there are many cases of hatred and murder. In the Theogany, it is not uncommon for a parent to loath their child, and in Enuma Elish, the gods kill each other over petty things.... like not getting enough sleep. However, therein lies the main difference between these two documents. In the Theogany, the gods are immortal, but in Enuma Elish, the gods can be killed, and can be killed for very foolish reasons.

Aetiological Myth

I would define aetiological myth as a culture's explanation for something that has happened in the past, usually in nature. An aetiological myth is usually one that is very supernatural, especially when it comes to phenomenon in nature. One example of this is in Hesiod's Theogany. The Greeks have a story of how the earth and the heavens came into existence which is quite a simple story. The myth says that the "Chasm" came out of nowhere, and out of it came earth where man would live. Then out of earth came the night, and from the night came air and day. Then earth bore the sea, and the heavens. (Hesiod pg 6). The Greeks came up with this creation explanation to fit their ideas, and this would build into more of their aetiological myths.

Ancient Worldviews

1. What is the most significant contrast between ancient worldviews and modern Western worldviews?

I think that one of the most contrasting things about ideas in ancient times versus now is how science was viewed. Science was viewed more as a mystical study. The ancients viewed many more things as supernatural. However, now we can explain most things through physical science. People do not view many things ,if any, as supernatural in current times. Also, many people now believe that they are their own master. Our culture tells us that we can be whatever we want to be, and that we can make our own rules. However, people in ancient times were not as educated generally as we are now, so they were more reliant on authorities (i.e. priests, kings, lords) to tell them how to live their lives, and that created a much different atmosphere than now.

4. How can understanding a culture's basic worldview help us better understand or interpret its
history?

To truly understand the history of another culture, you need to step into their shoes, and see the world through their eyes. This is necessary because if something happened in a culture's history, we can view what happened and probably get most of the facts right, however if we are not thinking like they do, and understanding their worldview, then we can't understand how this occurrence will affect them. Seeing the world as another culture does can help immensely to understand how their history affects them.

How would you define mythology?

I would define mythology as the way a culture believes how something happened that usually entails supernatural elements. mythology can also be a story that is either accepted as a truth, or accepted as a great legend. Elements of these stories include a hero, and often times again supernatural phenomena. Humans have a longing and fascination with the supernatural, and that comes through in mythology

Creation

Reading Genesis 1-3 shows that God is a very generous and providing God. The first example of this is in Genesis 1:26, when God makes man out of his own image. The fact that God gave up his unique appearance so that we could share it with him was something very generous of him. Also, we see God providing for Adam and Eve in many ways. In chapter 1 verse 29, God gives man food from every plant on the planet so that they can survive. Also, even though it is a small detail, when God sends Adam and Eve out of the garden in chapter 3 verse 21, he makes them clothes for them as they go. This shows how even in discipline, God provides.

We can also investigate the nature of God through observing how he creates. In chapter 1, almost every paragraph about each different creation has the phrase, "And it was so." in it. This means that all creation obeys God, and all he has to do is speak, and he can create or destroy. For example, Chapter 1 verse 3 says, "And God said, 'let there be light,' and there was light." This shows that God has absolute power.

Chapter 2 verse 7 says, "Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." We can tell a lot about the Hebrew point of understanding from this verse. This shows a great level of segregation between God and man. Man was literally created out of dust, and God breathed his spirit into us so that we could live. We are not anywhere near God's power or authority. The Hebrews see God as the truly almighty being that he is, and they see humans as well beneath his power.

We can characterize much of the Hebrew worldview through four questions. The first is, "Who am I?" The Hebrews believe that we are the creation of God, made in his image and likeness. The second is, "Why am I here?" The Hebrews believe that Man was created as a steward of God's creation. We were made to keep the land, and have dominion over it (Genesis 2:15-20). The Third question is, "What is God like?" As we discussed before, God is a providing and merciful God. He provided man with food and cloth. Also, when he saw that man needed a companion, he didn't leave him to suffer, but made a companion for him- woman (Genesis 2:22). The final question is, "What is truth?" What we can see about what the Hebrews view as truth is shown in Genesis 1-3. They believe that God spoke the world into existence, and that God's holy word is truth.

The Three Levels of Questioning

Level One: Level one of questioning has to do with the background of the document you are reading, and the author who wrote it. The questions asked on this level are questions such as, "Who wrote this document?", "Who is the intended audience?", and "What is the story line?" The inquiries of this level are to find a solid; basic information about the document itself, and the author.

Level Two: Level two of questioning is centralized around just the document. The goal of these questions is to investigate more into the  information behind the document. some of the questions asked are, "Why was this document written?", "What type of document is this?", and "What are the basic assumptions made in this document?" This level helps you understand your document more deeply.

Level Three: The final level of questioning, level three, are questions made to help you apply the document to yourself, and your own life. It is a more theological level. The questions asked on this level are questions like, "Can I believe this document?", "What can i learn about the society that produced this document?", and "What does this document mean to me?" These questions are an application to your own experiences.