Month: February 2020

stannjf21 English Major Showcase, Learning Outcome 4

This paper is an ethical paper that I wrote for ERH 207 and is a good paper for the Evaluate and use sources to produce effective and ethical arguments learning outcome for English majors. For this paper I had to pick an ethical topic and debate it using two sources that we had previously discussed throughout the semester. I chose Nietzsche and Thomas Aquinas and I wrote about what the virtue of goodness was and where does it comes from.

John Stann
ERH 207
Help Received: Works Cited
Words: 1,030

The virtue of goodness

What is the virtue of goodness and where does it come from? This question has plagued the great philosophers throughout the centuries and it has been discussed countless times. Two philosophers who take up this question in various forms are Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche. These two philosophers could not be more polar opposite. Aquinas, was a practicing and devote catholic priest and monk takes one side of the argument, while Nietzsche, who was an atheist and said, “God is dead, and we have killed him.” It is these differences in believes that make the study of Aquinas and Nietzsche so interesting. While Aquinas cares more about where good comes from, Nietzsche wonders about what the importance of good and evil are. Aquinas and Nietzsche differ in their believes in the articles “Geneology of Morals” and “Aquinas on Natural Law”. While Aquinas believes that natural law comes from God, Neitzsche believes that believes that natural law comes from within us.
Nietzsche believes that we find natural law, and good and evil within our world without looking for God or a greater power. “Fortunately, I learnt, in time, to separate theological from moral prejudice and I no longer searched for the origin of evil beyond the world.” (Nietzsche, 3). Instead, he believes that good and evil come from within individual persons. “together with my innate fastidiousness with regard to all psychological problems soon transformed my problem into another: under what conditions did man invent the value judgments good and evil? And what value do they themselves have?” (ibid, 3). Nietzsche goes on to question and try to discover what is the worth of good and evil. “Have they up to now obstructed or promoted human flourishing? Are they a sign of distress, poverty and the degeneration of life? Or, on the contrary, do they reveal the fullness, strength and will of life, its courage, its confidence, its future?” (Ibid,3). While Aquinas does believe that man knows what is good and what is evil, he believes that the source of truth comes from God alone, which is contrary to what Nietzsche believes. According to Aquinas man knows what is good because it is in his nature. “For every agent acts for the sake of an end, which has the character of a good. And so the first principle in practical reasoning is what is founded on the notion good, which is the notion: The good is what all things desire. Therefore, the first precept of law is that good ought to be done and pursued and that evil ought to be avoided.” (Aquinas, 645). This however, is where the similarities between Aquinas and Nietzsche end.
Nietzsche does not believe in God and believes that instead, mankind thinks that good has come from men who believe themselves to be good. “good does not emanate from those to whom goodness is shown! Instead it has been the good themselves, meaning the noble, the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded, who saw and judged themselves and their actions as good.” (Nietzsche, 11) In other words, Nietzsche believes that the idea of good was created by the people who call themselves good, and thus good didn’t do humankind any good at all. “It was from this pathos of distance that they first claimed the right to create values and give these values names: usefulness was none of their concern!” (Ibid, 11). He continues by saying that he was founded in saying that good was a created virtue because of the wording and meaning of good in different languages. “the terms for good, as used in different languages, mean from the etymological point of view: then I found that they all led me back to the same conceptual transformation- that everywhere, noble, aristocratic in social terms is the basic concept from which, necessarily, good in the sense of spiritually noble, aristocratic of spiritually highminded, spiritually privileged developed.” (Ibid,13). Thus, Nietzsche feels justified in declaring that good is just a creation of the powerful and those in charge.
To Aquinas, this argument is stupid and incorrect, he believes that the source of good in humans comes from God. “Third, man has an inclination toward the good with respect to the rational nature that is proper to him; for instance, man has a natural inclination toward knowing the truth about God and toward living in society. Accordingly, those things that are related to this sort of inclination belong to the natural law, e.g that a man avoid ignorance, that he not offend the others with whom he has to live in community, and other such things related to this inclination.” (Aquinas, 645.) This is completely different from Nietzsche’s viewpoint because Aquinas believes that good comes from natural law which comes from God. “By virtue of the fact that law is a rule and measure, it has to do with the principle of human acts. Now just as reason is the principle with respect to everything else. Hence, this must be what law is chiefly and especially concerned with. Now in actions, which practical reason is concerned with, the first principle is the ultimate end. But, as was established above, the ultimate end of human life is happiness or beatitude. Hence, law must have to do mainly with an ordering that leads to beatitude.” (Aquinas, 620-621). Now since God is happiness, and we are supposed to be happy with God in Heaven, God created law, both natural and eternal laws to help guide us. This is a completely different approach to goodness then Nietzsche.
What is the importance of good and where does it come from are two questions that the philosophers Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche debate and argue about in their separate works. The two philosophers come to very different conclusions. Thomas Aquinas believes that good is a part of the natural law of man and so since all law comes from God goodness must come from God. Nietzsche believes that goodness was a fictional virtue created by those in power to make themselves feel good about the actions they were taking. It is interesting to study these two vastly different views because of how different they are.

Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Geneology of Morals.
Aquinas, Thomas, Natural law.

ERH 202WX Paper 1

stannjf21 Learning Outcome 1

This assignment that I have chosen was written for ERH 202 and a good example of identifying and using rhetorical strategies in academic, civic and professional situations. for this paper I had to pick a speech, picture or some other form of rhetoric, analyze it and explain why it was important and how the rhetorical strategies and situation is still important today. This was a very challenging but enjoyable paper.

ERH 202
John Stann
Help Received: None
2/11/13

The Oscar nominations come at a tense time in American politics, Trump had just been acquitted by the Senate, which, previously had voted to not call on more witnesses in the impeachment trial. This upset many democrats who had wanted more witnesses to further the evidence against President Trump, and in turn, hoped to remove him from office. There is a time and a place for political discussion and debate, as the old saying goes, “there are three things that you do not talk about, Money, Religion and Politics.” The Oscars should have been a time to forget the political issues that are plaguing America and a time for Americans to unite in a social and enjoyable moment. The Oscars did not have to be about politics, they could have ignored them and focus instead on entertainment and fellowship and ignore politics. Due to the political rhetoric of Pitt’s speech this didn’t happen. Brad Pitt wasn’t the only celebrity to use their social standing to attempt to push their political views onto the audience, Joaquin Phoenix and Steve Martin also took shots at various political issues. (vanityfair) The root cause of the political divide that has torn our country apart is the unwillingness to debate and see each other’s point of views, despite not agreeing with them. Celebrities need to realize the respected position that they hold in our society and to not abuse it by casually throwing political rhetoric at their audience without explaining why and without the attacks that come with the rhetoric that they use.

It is no secret that our nation is facing a political crisis. Both the left and the right are pretentious and refuse to listen to each other or hear what the other side’s argument actually is. Instead, people make assumptions, use poorly worded rhetoric and attack the other side both with their words and through physical violence. This type of political conflict is what is destroying our nation and does not foster discussion and debate that should be happening. Brad Pitt’s Oscar nomination speech is an example of how it is important to consider the choice and timing of words and the impact that they have on people in an audience.
“Thank you to the Academy for this honor of honors. They told me I only have 45 seconds up here which is 45 more seconds than the Senate gave John Bolton this week.” (rev.com). This line from Pitt’s Oscar nomination speech is filled with Pathos and an example of how a celebrity’s choice of words can make a situation worse instead of helping to improve a situation. Brad Pitt’s speech is an unfortunate example of how people who do good things that help society can still make mistakes. Pathos evokes emotion from people, Brad Pitt’s speech does this because many people were upset by the results of the senate impeachment trial and he used his speech to fuel their anger thus evoking pathos from them. Instead of speaking about the impeachment trial, he could have talked more about the people who helped him get the Oscar, or about what acting means to him. This is a sad moment in Brad Pitt’s career because he has had so done so many positive things to help the unfortunate in the world. Over the years he has supported 42 different charities and especially people affected by disasters. (looktothestars.com) This lapse in Brad Pitt’s judgement at the Oscar nominations shows that celebrities are people who make mistakes as well.
Brad Pitt’s speech is important because it signifies the political issue that has split America, the Left versus the Right. If people were more civil and open to hearing the other side’s reasoning, then many of the conflicts that are abundant in society would be resolved. Instead of mocking or throwing jabs at individuals, like Brad Pitt has done, people should try to listen to other believes and not force their own on ideals on those who don’t want to listen. Celebrities need to remember that they are respected and admired and that they should use the respect that they are given for the betterment of society and promote civil discourse through their speeches and screen time. They should not use their popularity to attack different people or to cause discord

Sources
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/02/oscars-2020-political-moments
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/brad-pitt-oscar-acceptance-speech-transcript-pitt-wins-first-oscar
https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/brad-pitt

English major showcase assignment 2

stannjf21 Learning Outcome 2

For this assignment, I decided to choose one of the papers that I wrote for ERH 321 Shakespeare: Power and Politics. For this assignment, I had to write a paper on monarchy, democracy and rebellion and how the views on those subjects influenced Shakespeare’s plays at the time. I believe that this is a good assignment for the second learning outcome for English majors because I had to write this paper on how the cultural believes on Rebellion, Democracy and Monarchy influenced Shakespeare. This assignment also fits well under the use appropriate disciplinary terminology and method of criticism to analyze texts learning outcome.

ERH 321WX

Short Assignment 1

John Stann

Help Received: Works cited, Grammar check, Spell Check.

Part 1:

The short treatise of political power by John Ponet shows what some educated people in England believed should happen if a king or monarch was being unjust to their people and their perspective on rebellion and civic order. Ponet believes that that God has the most absolute power and should even hold the monarch accountable and that a government should be established for the people. (Hodgdon,180). He also argues for checks on the government so that it does not turn into a tyranny. (Hodgdon, 180). He believes that a person does not owe the duty to their obedience to the monarch themselves but instead, they owe it to the state. (Hodgdon,180). Ponet also declares that citizens should obey their monarch if it is beneficial to the kingdom and to God. (Hodgdon,181). Despite this believe of a monarch for the people, Ponet believes that if a monarch is unjust, the individual person should rebel and if his cause was just God would then intervene on his side and help him. (Hodgdon,181-182).

Part 2 (34-39)

Act 1 scene 3 of Henry IV, Part 1 is a good example of demonstrating what the people believed of rebellion. The Percy’s are discussing rebellion because King Henry IV was not recognizing them as much as they had hoped since they helped him win the crown. The Percy’s believe that King Henry is a usurper and a tyrant and are angry at having to give up their prisoners. “By God, he shall not have a Scot of them, No, if a Scot would save his soul, he shall not! I’ll keep them, by his hand (I.III.213-216).” Discussion turns from the prisoners to the legitimacy of Henry IV and how Mortimer should actually be king. This scene backs Ponet’s belief of rebellion because Henry Percy says in one of his speeches in this long scene that

“Wherein you range under this subtle king! Shall it for shame be spoken in these days, or fill up chronicles in time to come, that men of your nobility and power did gage them both in unjust behalf. (as both of you- God pardon it!- have done) To put down Richard To put down Richard, that sweet lovely rose, and plant this thorn, this canker, Bullingbrook?” (I.III.169-177)

This excerpt shows that they believed originally that they originally thought that Richard II was a poor king and they tried to replace him with a better king, who also turned into a tyrannical king. Henry Percy later on tries to encourage the other Percy’s to “restore yourselves into the good thoughts of the world again” by rebelling against King Henry whom they believe to be a tyrant. Ponet argues that rebellion against a monarch is just if that monarch is not helping their citizens. King Henry is not directly being a tyrant to the people of England but the Percy’s believe that he is being unjust to them for not giving them more power after putting him on the throne.

Bibliography

Hodgdon, Barbara. The First Part of King Henry IV, Texts and Contexts, William Shakespeare Hodgdon, Bedford/st. Martin’s, 1997.

Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry IV, Texts and Contexts. Edited by Barbara Hodgdon, Bedford/st. Martin’s, 1997.

ERH 321WX-Final Paper. Julius Caesar paper

stannjf21 Uncategorized

Reflective Tag

When I researched this paper I focused on the use of the heavens and stars, the symbolism of the play and honor and sacrifice. The Code of Honor in Christian Europe was changing during the Early Modern Period to focus more on the self and decisions that need to be made individually instead of as a collective whole. The heavens were used as symbols of guidance and the supernatural occurrences where warnings to the conspirators.

ERH 321WX
John Stann
Help Received: works cited
Words: 2,112
Julius Caesar: Honor, patriotism and Early Modern English values

“Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” (III.II 23-34). With these words, Decimus Junius Brutus, the infamous Roman politician and orator clears himself of any wrongdoing after he and his fellow conspirators murdered Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s now immortalized play. The play, Julius Caesar, is one of Shakespeare’s most politicized and has been shown countless times since it was first produced in 1599. Unlike many of his other plays, Julius Caesar, was a dramatic political tale about honor, rebellion, death, patriotism and sacrifice. In Elizabethan England this play would have been relevant because of the conflict between absolute monarchy and Republicanism and how political turmoil brings with it uncertainty and destroys stability. Many English would have recognized themselves in similar situations as the characters in the play were. Not only was England going through a religious crisis, but there was also a threat of war and rebellion. The 9 years war was occurring and another rebellion in Ireland was brewing. (totallytimes.com). All of these political crises would have caused a great deal of uncertainty to England and the English people. The Roman virtues of sacrifice and patriotism and the heavens and stars being important symbols would have been recognizable to the Early Modern Englishman. This essay will discuss sacrifice and patriotism and how those Romans virtues were important to the English and how symbolism such as the stars and the heavens were also important in both Roman and Early Modern English culture and how they were important in the play Julius Caesar.
One of the key focuses of Julius Caesar is the idea of sacrifice. The Conspirators were not concerned with committing murder because they believed that it was in the best interest of the Republic Caesar be killed. It is not just Ceaasr that they want to kill, however. Cassius argues for the death of Mark Antony as well for he would carry on Caesar’s dream.
“I think it is not meet Mark Antony, so well beloved of Caesar; Should outlive Caesar: We shall find of him a shrewd contriver; and you know his means, if he improve them, may well stretch so far as to annoy us all;” (II.I 169-173)
Brutus, however, does not want the murder to turn into a bloodbath. More death would make the murders seem personal and not about the greater glory of Rome. This would enrage the plebeians and turn the city against them, which is the opposite of what the conspirators wanted. Instead, Brutus tries to spin the murder of Caesar into a sacrifice. If the murder was a sacrifice, the people would understand that Caesar was killed for them to remain free. Just like the Romans sacrificed an animal before a battle or an election to gain the favor of the gods, Julius Caesar would be sacrificed so that the Republic could remain free.
“Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, to cut the head off and then hack the limbs, like wrath in death and envy afterwards; For Antony is but a limb of Caesar. Let’s be sacrificers, not butchers, Caius.” (II.I 175-179 ).
Later on, when he is talking to the crowd after the death of Caesar Brutus declares that he would be willing to kill himself if Rome needed it. “I have the same dagger for myself when it shall please my country to need my death.” (III.II 48-49). Just as Brutus believed that he killed Caesar for the Republic, Brutus was willing to lay his own life down for Rome if needed. The virtue of sacrifice was important to Romans. From the earliest days of the Republic the idea of country above self was bred into them. Cincinnatus was a hero of Rome who left his fields to become a dictator and save Rome from barbarian invaders. After defeating his enemies, he relinquished his dictatorial powers and returned to being a farmer. (ancientorigins.net) While Cincinnatus was not killed in action, he still sacrificed his life for Rome. It was men like Cincinnatus that Brutus and others looked to for inspiration in their own actions.
Stars and the heavens are an important aspect to Shakespearean plays. They are used as symbols of stability, strength and as guides to characters, their morals and the choices that they make. “Such a use of heavenly and mundane portents as symbols of personal and social order is common enough in Shakespeare’s plays. Their use has been considered in Romeo and Juliet. In other works as well, the heavens symbolize the kind of order that is to be desired in civil life.” (Moynihan, 26). In other situations, however, the stars and supernatural phenomenon are used as warnings and signs of danger. Before he is assassinated, Julius Caesar gives a speech in which he declares himself to be “As constant as the Northern Star”. (III.I 66)
“I could be well mov’d, if I were as you;
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me;
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix’d and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumb’red sparks.” (III.I 64-69)
Caesar thinks he is as unwavering as the stars and believes himself to be an Emperor, or even a god. These lines are a perfect example of the stars being used as a source of unwavering confidence. Just like in Henry V, in the speech before the battle of Agincourt where Henry walks under the heavens, the stars are a sign of confidence and unwavering spirit.
Another use of heaven’s and the supernatural in Julius Caesar, is as when stars are used as warnings and signs of danger or turmoil. The conspirators believe that the unnatural and supernatural events leading up to the assassination attempt foretell dangerous times and troubles ahead.
“But if you would consider the true cause why all these fires, why all these gliding ghosts, why birds and beasts from quality and kind, why old men, fools and children calculate, why all these things change from their ordinance, their natures, and preformed faculties, to monstrous quality, why you shall find, that heaven hath infused them with these spirits to make them instruments of fear and warning unto some monstrous state. Now could I, Casca, name to thee a man most like this dreadful night, That thunders, lightens, opens graves and roars As doth the lion in the Capitol.” (I.III 62-75)
These lines show the dangers and serve as warnings to the conspirators. Earlier in act I, Casca says,
“When these prodigies do so conjointly meet, let not men say, These are their reasons- they are natural. For I believe they are portentous things unto the climate that they point upon.” (I.III 28-32.)
The conspirators recognize their very fragile position and the stars clarify and emphasize the position to the audience. The stars, heavens and the supernatural all play an important role in Shakespeare’s plays. This roll has two purposes almost opposite in meaning. On one hand, the stars provide comfort, security and show decisiveness and unyielding strength. On the other hand, however, they show a dark future for the protagonists, a future filled with danger and are used to foretell trouble.
The main protagonist of the play is Marcus Brutus, a man ruled by honor and his sense of righteousness. Everything he does, he does for his honor or for the honor of Rome and for the Republic. “What villain touched his body that did stab and not for justice?” (IV.III 21-23). Brutus tries to persuade himself that, despite murder being wrong, the act of killing Caesar is just and a sacrifice for the people of Rome.
“Though now we must appear bloody and cruel, you see do, yet see you but our hands and this the bleeding business they have done. And pity to the general wrong of Rome Hath done this deed on Caesar.”
(III.I 180-188).
The conspirators believed that they were doing the right thing for Rome and Rome’s people. Honor and patriotism were important parts of Roman culture and the character of Brutus easily captures these virtues.
Setting aside the glaring conflict between Republicanism and Imperialism, Brutus killing Caesar was an act of patriotism and nationalism. To save ones’ country from a tyrant was seen an act of patriotism. This sense of honor and patriotism would have been another characteristic that would have been easily recognizable to the British people. The British were a fiercely independent and proud people and patriotism was an incredibly important virtue to have in the middle ages and the early modern period. Chivalry was the equivalent sense of honor to the early modern English. During the renaissance when the play was written there was a period of revival of earlier traditions and virtues. Chivalry and the Code of Honor was the equivalent to Roman honor of the time. “Honor was becoming, by the seventeenth century, a matter of conscience; honorable men needed to seek, in every situation, to behave in such a way as to please both their state and their God.” (Terry, 1071). Just as Brutus wrestled with joining the conspirators, an Englishman during this time period would have had to struggle with what his own code of honor was.
Another interesting aspect of Julius Caesar is the use of parallels in the play which is filled with symbolism. The biblical quote “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is extremely obvious throughout the play. One parallel, for example, is that while The Conspirators killed Caesar they themselves were killed at the end of the play. “As Caesar had paid with his blood for shedding Pompey’s, so the conspirators pay with their blood for shedding Caesar’s.” (Foakes, An approach to Caeasar). Another parallel in Julius Caesar is a parallel to England at the time that the play was being written. The Earl of Essex, at the time, was seen suspiciously by Queen Elizabeth and her court and there were fears that he would turn on the court and usurp the throne “Julius Caesar was written and preformed while Essex was In Ireland. As his campaigns there fell apart, the earl himself fell under suspicion and disrepute at court with the queen. Rumors spread that the defensive measures taken to resist what would turn out to be a phantom Spanish Armada were in fact intended by the Council as a show of strength to an increasingly erratic and desperate Essex, who, it was feared, might be tempted to turn his forces in Ireland back on his enemies in England.” (Lake, How Shakespeare put politics on the stage: Power and Succession in the History Plays.).
The material shown in Julius Caesar, would certainly have struck home to many of its viewers in Early Modern England. The political situation at the time was similar to that of Brutus’ and the conspirators during the Republic. The sacrificial spirit and the virtues of patriotism would have been easily recognizable to the Englishmen and the message of the play would not have been lost. Serve your country and put England above yourself, the message seems to say. Beneath this patriotic tone lies a darker meaning that says that traitors will be punished. Julius Caesar stays with us today and can be seen not only as a play about republicanism and monarchism, but it is also about heroism, sacrifice and patriotism. The final warning of Mark Antony still carry with us today as it did when Shakespeare first showed the play.
“This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caesar. He only in a general honest thought and common good to man made one of them. His life was gentle and the elements so mixed in him that nature might stand up and say to all the world, this was a man.” (V.V 74-81).

Works Cited
Moynihan, Robert D. “Stars, Portents, and Order in ‘Julius Caesar.’” Modern Language Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 1977, pp. 26–31. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3194362.

Foakes, R. A. “An Approach to Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 3, 1954, pp. 259–270. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2866331.

Welcome to Totally Timelines


Shakespeare, William, Julius Caesar, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2011.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/model-civic-virtue-dictator-lucius-quinctius-cincinnatus-005326

“The State We’Re In.” How Shakespeare Put Politics on the Stage: Power and Succession in the History Plays, by PETER LAKE, Yale University Press, NEW HAVEN; LONDON, 2016, pp. 437–441. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gxxpsd.22.

Terry, Reta A. “‘Vows to the Blackest Devil’: Hamlet and the Evolving Code of Honor in Early Modern England.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 4, 1999, pp. 1070–1086. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2901836.