Cellular Entitlement

I remember when my best friend first got a cell phone. We were in junior high, and the new Razor was “all the rage.” As more people were given phones and IPods by their parents, I occasionally felt left out. I understood why my parents didn’t get me one: they were expensive, took up time, and my friends always let me borrow their phones when I asked them. Still, I wished I could have one so I didn’t have to be, I imagined, the only one without one. 

My parents had promised that they would get me a phone when I went away to college. They kept that promise, and as part of my graduation they gave me my very own hot pink Razor.

Motorola's Pink Razor

You might think that I would have been thrilled to finally own a Razor, but truth be told I was severely disappointed and, I hate to admit, a little bitter that my parents hadn’t gotten me something else. By the time I graduated high school, Razors had been outdated for a few years and touchscreens had begun to take the world by storm. I felt self-conscious whenever I had to pull my phone out in front of people to make a call. What made things worse was that the tiny glass screen on the front cracked within my first two weeks of school and my remedy was to try to glue all the pieces in using clear nail polish. What I would have loved to own as a teen was now a bruising embarrassment.

Is Having Technology Really a Benefit?Antione Nicolas de Condorcet wondered whether or not man would continually advance as new discoveries and inventions were made. I’m sorry, Condorcet, but I believe the answer is ‘no’ as well as ‘yes.’ With the technology man has access to today, answers to questions can be found in a matter of seconds and people across the world can talk together instantly. Unfortunately, even with advancements are prices to be paid. With the help of our technology comes a new level of entitlement, lasciviousness, laziness, greed, fear, and anger. These qualities have always been a part of mankind, but seem to have become endlessly amplified through the gift of ‘advancement.’

I had never before been unthankful for something that my parents gave me, but to be given a piece of outdated technology was too much, I guess. Perhaps we should try to think back on the days when NOBODY had technology and just learn to be grateful?

Image Credit: https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-V3-Unlocked-Player-International-Pink/dp/B000CQVMYK

Divine Providence

Everyone has felt at some point in their life, the pain and sorrows of this world. There are natural disasters, sickness, heartache, tyrants, and an infinite group of maladies that can befall us as humans. However, following every winter comes spring, and like the warm spring breeze, the joys of the world can breath new energy into our lives. Friends, family, and faith can all restore this happiness. For every pain there is a joy that can be felt, and this is all according to a divine plan.

In London it was the tradition to study for 7 years, followed by an apprenticeship in a noted academy before beginning to even sell your first watch. This incredible study was necessary for the minute adjustments to keep all pieces balanced and ticking according to plan. The thinkers that followed the enlightenment in the age of reason believed in a divine watchmaker: a God who has set the universe on its course, and is watching it all play out. 

 The great English poet Pope called this force providence: the plan of the divine, the course of the universe and said, 

Go Wiser thou! and in thy scale of sense, weigh thy opinion against Providence... And who but wishes to invert the laws of order, sins against th' Eternal Cause...

In my life I have often wondered why Heavenly Father has given me the trials I have. This pales in comparison to my younger sister who has been nothing but good, and has some of the greatest trials I have ever seen. But I will accept that there are higher thoughts than mine, and a plan that I cannot see. Men are that they might have joy, and that is exactly what the watchmaker wants.

Photo- "A watchmaker working on a Railroad watch" -Les Linder, Public Domain

The New Enlightenment

"The School of Athens" by Raphael

The 17th and 18th centuries were characterized by a period that we call the Enlightenment.  It was an age of logic and reason, full of philosophers and great scientists.  Many of these man are revered in our day as some of the greatest minds to walk the earth.  Men like Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei, John Locke, Voltaire, and Adam Smith shaped the world with their ideas.  The Enlightenment was definitely an era of new and revolutionary ideas. 

However, in his "Argument Against Abolishing Christianity", Jonathan Swift brings up a very interesting point.  He gives many different reasons for why abolishing Christianity would be harmful, but an underlying theme is that although certain old practices may seem harmful and antiquated, they have some inherent value that we are sometimes too quick to throw away.

In today's world, we are in an era very similar to the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.  Many new discoveries are taking place and changing the world we live in.  Sometimes we fall into this same trap that Swift is warning about- we tend to be quick to throw out the old in place of the new.  How many of us buy into the mentality that we must have the newest and best smartphones, even if our current one is still functional?  How many of us tend to throw away old philosophies and ideas without so much as a second thought?  We should be careful to not disregard old ideas just because new ones come along.  We need to be celebratory of the old ideas, like Raphael in the painting shown above.  Because without the old, we would never have the new.  As Isaac Newton is quoted as saying: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Enlightenment Restrictions on Female Scientists

Currently, I am working on a bachelors degree in Microbiology, planning to continue on to achieve a master's degree in a Physician's Assistant program. Because of this, I was interested in societal trends regarding women in science during the Enlightenment Era.

In the Renaissance, learned women went against the social grain. Educating women was really only seen in the upper class. Some fathers taught their daughters their trade, but even then it wasn't really very academic. Educated women were seen as neglecting their homemaking roles.

In the Enlightenment, however, these societal trends actually became enforced through restrictions. Women were not allowed to access certain instruments like microscopes. A microbiologist cannot get very far without her microscope. Even midwives had restrictions on the tools they could use.

As the study of science became more structured, there began to be right and wrong ways to do it. Somewhere along the line, being male became part of the "right" way.

As a woman pursuing a career in science in a world very concerned with social equality between men and women, it would be really easy to point to these restrictions as the birth of an oppression women continue to be hurt by. That, however, is not the point I would like to make.

I would like to be thrilled at how far we have come. I have access to a microscope. In fact, I have a favorite microscope that I race others in my class for. And I win. I draw pictures with bacteria on differential media plates:

My professor is a fantastic woman with a PhD. My teaching assistants in both of my science classes this semester are highly capable and confident female peers. I don't think women should at all be ashamed of their position or opportunities in science. In fact, with the men having such a head start, we should be very proud of how far we have come. The only restrictions we have now are the ones we put on ourselves.

Image Credit: Courtney Hilton

Empiricism and Modern Entertainment

“Our observation employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds perceived and reflected upon by ourselves, is that which supplies our understanding with all the materials for thinking. These two are the fountains of our knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.”

 -John Locke, "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" 

Fully subscribing to empiricism, we are only what we experience. Although we may be able to create new experiences, they have to be based on some reflection or foundation of something that we’ve already come to know. For us to understand how it feels to walk on the moon, we have to understand how gravity affects us here on Earth. 

I would submit that the majority of our problems as a human society come from a simple lack of knowledge to a blind misunderstanding of how the world around us works. But, although identifying the root of our problems might be simple, the remedy is not. We just don’t live long enough or learn fast enough to absorb everything we would need to fairly treat those around us. We can only have so many conversations, go so many places, and see so many sights. If Locke is completely right, then we’ll never be able to fully solve our problems.

However, our modern entertainment can help us get a little closer to this unreachable goal. Good entertainment pulls us out of our day to day lives and allows us to experience other points of view. Through a movie, you can fill your blank slate of a mind with complex moral and ethical decisions without having to leave the couch. When used right, our entertainment can help us practice how to be human before being human has real consequences.

Image credit to Diraen

Can "Mean Girls" be the Solution to Avoiding War?

When I was in high school, I was asked to write an analytical essay on a book by Victor Davis Hansen entitled "The Father of Us All." The author claimed that war was the resting state of society, as it were, in the same way that it takes effort to constantly smile instead of just having a default resting face. In other ways, war is the natural way for mankind to resolve any sort of disagreement.

Reading Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes reminded me of that principle. Hobbes writes, "It is certain, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war." (Hobbes, 35)

 This fascinates me because it sounds like both men agree that people would always be fighting unless the organization of society is almost literally restraining them through authority. 

As I was trying to decide whether I concur, I remembered once hearing someone compare the NFL to the Roman Coliseum. Are we naturally bloodthirsty, but capable of using proxies to satisfy that bloodlust? Then I read this line by Hobbes, and suddenly things made a bit more sense: "In the nature of man, we find three principal causes for [war: competition, distrust, and glory]. The first makes men invade for gain, the second, for safety, and the third for reputation." (Hobbes, 35)

If the warlike mindset is our natural state, maybe it follows that in the absence of a real conflict, society substitutes other institutions to satisfy those natural instincts. 

In modern America especially, capitalism allows people to acquire the property of others simply by outmaneuvering them in business. Society and especially technology have advanced to the point where DNA testing, cameras, and a dedicated police force take personal safety to a whole different level. Even just the advent of the streetlight radically changed the way nighttime itself functions. And in first-world countries, with the poverty line drastically different from many others, personal problems can much more be resolved through social revenge rather than physical revenge (think Mean Girls). 

Perhaps these are just the musings of my brain to try to understand the philosophy of the question, but perhaps there is a valid point here. What do you think?

Image Credits: "Pollice Verso" by Jean-Leon Gerome 1872, "2006 Pro Bowl tackle". Both licensed through the CC for non-commercial reuse. 

It's Time to Vote

We live in a politically charged time where many feel they are not represented by our leaders. They feel that there is a disconnect between our values and the values of those in charge. John Locke said, "Men being... by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this condition and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent." We, as humans, have natural rights such as freedom, equality, and independence. In a society we often give up some of these rights so that we can live with safety, stability, and order. We give up part of our rights in a hope that our society will benefit us and reflect our beliefs. By living in a society we choose to be governed by it. While we live here we choose to be governed by our leaders. Now this becomes a problem when our leaders do not represent us and our beliefs. We may feel that too many of our rights are being taken.

John Locke goes on to say, "When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby incorporated and make on body politic wherein the majority have a right to act and govern the rest." If we as a people are disenfranchised with our leadership we have a right and obligation to act. In our case this means to vote. The majority governs the society, and if a majority want a change, they can achieve it. John Locke believed that there was power in people, and I believe that too. We may be terrified by the state of our country, but unless we do something, we just allow it to govern us. By taking a stand and voting one can make a difference and begins to take more of his rights back into his own hands and make a change in the way society is governed. People choose to be governed, and can also choose how they are governed. Let's all choose how we are governed and vote for something better.

A Lockean Love

"Well, let's be honest. Don't we all have a bit of a crush on Locke?"

These words come straight from my former American Heritage professor, Dr. Pope. He was aiming to express how we as Americans relate to and lean heavily upon the political philosophies of John Locke, an intellectual revolutionary in 17th century England. And he has a point-- American political thought is grounded in Locke's writings. For example, these key points of Locke's philosophy are engrained in our political system:

• The government obtains its power by the consent of the governed. 
• Lawlessness is exchanged for true liberty and safety by a social contract-- an exchange of personal freedom for the stability and greater good of society.
• The obligation of government to protect "natural" human rights: life, liberty, and property.
• Permission to the people, as it were, to overthrow any government which fails to do so. 

The familiarity of these ideas to any American demonstrates the power of Locke's works! But all of Locke's political thought was the byproduct of a basic philosophy regarding human nature: Tabula Rasa ("blank slate"). Essentially, Locke believed man is born without any mental content and that all knowledge is gained via personal experience and learning. This belief endows humans with a greater sense of freedom and fosters the idea of self-determination. Contrast this with the centuries preceding Locke characterized by homogeneity, intolerance, and political sluggishness of the average man. What a notion is Tabula Rasa!

Sibyl with Tabula Rasa by Diego Velázquez, c. 1648

But what does Tabula Rasa mean in terms of the American's pursuit of life, liberty, and property-- or as Jefferson said, the pursuit of happiness? The following quote from Oscar Handlin explains:

"Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants of America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American History."

That's one thing we share in common as Americans: somewhere in our decadency, an ancestor has come to this land in a Tabula Rasa state seeking those liberties which Locke valiantly proposed. On my mother's side, it was pilgrims in the 17th century. On my father's side, it was my Grandpa Kohler, seeking refuge from harrowing post-WWI Germany. In both cases, my ancestors' possessions were meager, but their hope of a new life was burning brightly. 

So perhaps that's why we all have "a crush" on Locke. No matter our background, we all stem from immigrants embodying the principles of Lockean philosophy. Or in other words, his philosophy is in our DNA. 

Image credit:
Sibyl with Tabula Rasa by Diego Velázquez, c. 1648
Photo courtesy of the Ellis Island National Museum of Immigration. https://www.cgu.edu/news/2017/03/pbs-performance-boyers-ellis-island-celebration-immigration/.

There is something in the water...

I wanted to focus on the actual meaning and origin of the word “Leviathan” (mostly because I think ancient, mysterious, biblical sea monsters are fascinating –and Disney mentioned it briefly in the second Atlantis movie and that is enough reason for me to spend time discussing it.) Using the imagery of a ferocious and powerful sea monster was an interesting choice for Hobbes, especially since the Leviathan has several different roles in the Bible (and in Disney films).

In the Hebrew Bible of the Book of Job, God describes the Leviathan to Job as a mighty beast who cannot be controlled, caged, or destroyed by the strength of men; only God can control this sea monster (refer to picture) and therefore Job is to have more faith in God’s power of creation and His control over the earth. Most likely, this is the form of the Leviathan that Hobbes was referring to.

However, if we jump to the book of Isaiah, God describes the Leviathan as a symbol of wickedness and specifically, wicked kings, and that if the people of God have faith in Him, this type of wickedness (A.K.A the strength of the Leviathan) cannot succeed.

And then in the second installment of Disney’s Atlantis (this is one of my favorite movie series so of course I’m going to talk about it) the Leviathan acts as a type of “hive mind” where it takes complete control of the population of a nearby village and makes them do whatever it wants, even if they commit evil.

So with these three forms of the Leviathan in mind and what they represent in a commonwealth, I definitely doubt more the social contract theory of Hobbes. Thanks to the Bible and Disney, I more strongly support the theory that man is good and therefore can govern him/herself with the need for a controlling sovereign. 

Image Credit: "Destruction of the Leviathan by Gustave Doré" (Public Domain Image via WikiCommons)

What's in a Name?

In light of President Nelson´s remarks during the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think Swift’s ‘Argument Against Abolishing Christianity’ holds particular contemporary relevance. In it, part of his argument includes the value in the very name of Christians. He points out that to get rid of a name will in no wise change the actions of the people (thus making the term ‘cheating’ illegal will not mean that every man will become honest) and that therefore people would still live their Christian religion even if the name was outlawed. 

In the same way, the way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints runs will not suffer from the intent to rid ourselves of the term ‘Mormon’. However, in our case it will change the way we think of the organization, which will prove to be a meaningful step forward for members globally. It will emphasize that ownership of the church belongs solely to the Savior, which will continually be refreshed in our minds. Of course, as we’ve all experienced so far, it’ll be difficult. Swift also wrote, “Here first I observe how difficult it is to get rid of a phrase which the world has once grown fond of, though the occasion that first produced it be entirely taken away.’ 

By switching our well-used name from the colloquial ‘Mormon’ to ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ we acknowledge there will be a period of getting used to it. However, I’m sure the benefits will far outweigh the costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Swift

Galleons by the Gallon: An Innovation in Naval Technology

The new sleek design that's cool with the kids these days

Many of us remember the stories of Christopher Columbus and the three ships he sailed in to reach the Americas, namely, the Nińa, the Pinta and the Santa Maria. These three iconic ships have defined the human imagination for centuries, and with their captain they have sailed into the lands of legend...

...It's quite terrible, then, that they were so bad at their jobs.

Enter the 16th century galleon, the newest model in a legacy of ocean traversers. Unlike previous models offered at the local dealer, this achievement in naval technology was able to maintain a stability previously unheard for ships at it's time. By simply elongating the hull (and lowering that large compartment in the front called the "Forecastle") the ship was able to reduce air resistance by a large margin, improving not just maneuverability, but pure speed as well. The best part of this deal was, that the Galleons were far more cheap to produce compared to the leading brand of the time, the "Carrack", which was reduced to being the 16th century equivalent of a minivan compared to the Galleon's horsepower. After all, when you've got a boat that's faster, easier to use and costs less to make, it's hard not to follow the trend.

While I might not be old enough to remember the major innovations in the automobile industry, and not even a twinkle in my Great-Great-Grandmother's eye for the improvements in naval technology, I was old enough to witness the increasing innovations in the internet, watching as internet speeds climbed higher and higher and more and more websites were being created. This combined with new programs being created each day has lead me to compare the progress of the internet to the genesis of the Galleon, and how much it changed the world of transportation. No longer would there need to be month-long journeys from one European country to the next simply due to a bad current, now the ships (and the captains who commanded them) could go where they wanted to go, and with Colombus' discoveries in the 15th century, there was all the more incentive to go out and explore. And now in this modern age, where we have hundreds of libraries at our fingertips, I think it's high time we go out and explore some more ourselves.

Image Credit: "French Galleon" via Wikimedia Commons

Other Planets, Other Suns

     Alexander Pope's writing in his philosophical poem, An Essay on Man, displays an awareness that particularly interested me. Pope mentions the idea of different planets revolving around different suns, and muses on what kind of beings might inhabit those "other planets". While the discovery of a heliocentric (sun-centered) galaxy was modeled by Copernicus around 200 years prior to Alexander Pope's famous essay, I think that Pope philosophically expands upon a scientific finding in such a way that is still very pertinent to our day. 

     In the first epistle of his essay, Pope writes two lines that makes one really think about the unknown, "What vary'd Being peoples ev'ry star, May tell why Heav'n made us as we are." (Pope, Essay on Man). It seems as though Alexander Pope is suggesting to his audience that by learning more about the universe and astronomy, mankind can learn more about both God and mankind, itself. This is truly insightful. Words such as these helped mankind reach beyond whatever knowledge was within close grasps of its fingertips. Even today, there are scientists and writers who seek to explain the stars and push the boundaries of human knowledge to better mankind. This kind of thinking was both rational and inspirational at the same time, helping humankind to push past barriers, to revolutionize science, politics, and law. I think that often we do not value pen as much as we do the microscope in such instances of innovation and change. Would revolution and science be even allowed in our society today to the degree it is without having great writers and speakers to convince others to action and defiance of complacency? The body of humankind moves forward via many muscles, and I submit to you that great literature such as The Declaration of Independence, the Bible, Martin Luther's Theses, Dr. King's great speeches, and essays just like the one written by Pope I have mentioned, would be the heart. 

Image Source: <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Copernican_heliocentrism_diagram-2.jpg/300px-Copernican_heliocentrism_diagram-2.jpg>

Ladies & Locke

As I looked over the talks given this weekend at General Conference, the broadcast given by the leaders of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for their members, I was perturbed. Out of twenty-six talks given that weekend, one was from a woman. I think we need to hear from women more often in the church; diverse perspectives will only strengthen it. We have come far from the days when women were expected to live to cook, clean, raise children, and look nice, but we still have a way to go before they are valued equally to men.

Locke believed women were fully rational, and had
particularly high praises for Damaris Cudworth Masham.

John Locke was actually an early supporter of semi-feminist ideas. He even used religion and scriptures to support his claims in his Two Treatises on Government. In his efforts to establish that monarchies did not have a divine right to rule, he ended up claiming that this extended to the "right" of dominion God supposedly gave to Adam over Eve. 

Locke claims that God punished Eve for disobeying him, but that he did not give the authority of a monarch to Adam as the Enlightenment monarchs often claimed. This meant that women did not owe their husbands obedience, and that their children owed equal subordination to both parents, not just the father. Locke believed that men only had power over women in their physical superiority—which was actually pretty progressive for his time.

The Nature of Man

The “nature of man” is described perfectly by Thomas Hobbes as he lists “three principal causes for quarrel: first, competition; secondly, distrust; thirdly, glory.” His insights concerning the causes of war are spot on. He says that the first principal makes men invade for gain, the second one for safety, and the third for reputation.

Hobbes’s insights parallel a modern-day scripture from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It comes from the Doctrine and Covenants and reads, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

https://flic.kr/p/9fgYLg

Hobbes, himself, makes several references to the Bible, especially the familiar “law of the Gospel” that reminds us “to do unto others….” He also teaches that “men are continually in competition for honor and dignity…and consequently…there arises envy and hatred and finally war.”

We see this kind of behavior in men (meaning men and women alike) in all areas of life. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe there is any place in our lives that escapes the negative consequences of the natural man. There is one place, in particular, where I have been saddened to see this focus on competition, distrust, envy, hatred, gain, and glory; it is on the fields and in the courts of all sports. While raising my family, I got tired of hearing about how good competitive sports would be for my kids. Many proudly taught that participation in any sport would teach sportsmanship; however, I never witnessed any positive act of sportsmanship. I am sure that it was there, but no doubt it was overshadowed by a much higher percentage of negative behavior, all in the name of gain and glory for self.

I believe the reason so many great minds have been enlightened with this idea of the true nature of man is because our nature is evident throughout history. If we can accept this natural trait in ourselves, we can overcome the natural man. As we rule over each other in appropriate ways and even compete when necessary, we can do so in the manner of “doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.”

What is Progress?

Who decides which is right?

In Antoine Nicolas de Condercet's "Progress of the Human Mind," Condercet puts forth a brief summary of his view on the development of humankind as well as a prediction about their future development. His whole idea focused on the eventual perfection of humankind. He thought that as society progressed, there would be clear steps forward that would lead humanity to become better and eventually perfected. The only problem with this idea is saying who gets to decide what is better or worse for humanity.

As humanity has grown and changed throughout time, obvious developments have occurred that most agree were for the best: development of tools and farming, achievement of freedoms like religion and speech, ending of slavery. And it seems that Condercet thought that all changes in society could be clearly marked as GOOD or BAD. However, in each time period what is considered good or bad changes. During the time of the Enlightenment, there were many revolutions in which people were fighting for what they considered basic human rights, and we support that. But there will always come a time when we can't agree on what a basic human right really is.

After the American Revolution, the founding fathers put together the Constitution, which outlined what they thought were basic human rights, and at the time most everyone thought they were right. In today's society, there are things such as "the right to bear arms" that we can't agree about being a basic human right. So while the thinkers of the Enlightenment were so influential in helping bring about political and scientific changes of thought, there will never be a time on the earth as it currently is when humans can fully agree on what makes a government good and what makes it bad therefore making it impossible to reach our "perfection" like Condercet predicted.

image credit: public domain images via Wikimedia Commons

Of Cattle & Commonwealth

A More Contended Life

Caleb after roping a wild bull

In his outline of causes for commonwealth, Thomas Hobbes points out that man has a desire for a “more contended life.”  They want their rights of life and liberty and their properties secured and protected.  Thus, they need a social contract to sacrifice some comfort and liberty for a greater liberty.

In my little brother’s seminary class, upon being asked if he wanted grow up as a calf in the safety, comfort, and warmth of the stall responded, “Nah, the cattle hate being corralled and cornered; I’d rather be free to roam and find my own food.”

While as humans we really do desire the “contended life” with not just its luxuries but assurance that our rights and properties will be protected, having grown up on a cattle ranch, Caleb understood that cattle prefer the range over the corral and peace over protection.

Like Bees & Ants

Some of the reasons Hobbes says creatures live harmoniously are:

• Men seek their “own superiority” whereas with creatures, so long as one is happy, doesn’t care what the other has
• Creatures can communicate but can’t express what’s good and evil
• Harmony is natural among creatures but only comes by agreement and a common power for men.

The “only solution” to prevent injury and insure protection is to form not just an agreement, for man can back out on his word, but to form a common power to which everyone submits his will and judgments—a commonwealth.

Commonwealth

This commonwealth is procured by one of two ways: by natural force or by voluntary agreement.  The governing power is the “sovereign” that exists solely to protect and preserve the rights of the people.  If this power is split up, the sovereign is deserting the purpose.  Therefore, it’s his responsibility to maintain those rights and inform the people of his purpose in establishing rights.

What goes into writing a general conference address?

With the passing of general conference this last weekend, I feel it is appropriate to discuss in depth how speakers prepare for such experiences like these semi-annual gatherings. Each address is so eloquently written and is filled with great literary techniques.  I feel there is no better way to sharpen our writing and rhetoric skills than to learn from the qualified individuals who spoke to us this last weekend. 

Social Contract of the New World

The writings of Locke were highly influential in the creation of the current government that exists in the United States today. The social contract is a concept that had been breached by degrees in the past, however, it was usually only under extreme pressure that power or liberty is ceded to another.

One of the earliest examples that I find is the Magna Carta. in 1215 King John was forced to sign a document giving certain rights to some of his rebellious nobles. In the past, kings were all-powerful within their realm. Because of abuses, the rich barons rose up and overpowered the king, forcing him to sign over certain rights to religion, freedom, and power that had not existed in the past.

A more modern example is the social contract that exists within most governments today. The declaration of Independence used by the United States to formally secede from the British Commonwealth was written by Thomas Jefferson. This document was strongly influenced by writers such as John Locke.

At the time the Declaration was written, the "United Colonies" were in no position to bargain with the British. However, the Declaration and later the Constitution combined would eventually make up a document that is not too different in content from the Magna Carta. It would define specific liberties that the government or "king" could never take away. In exchange for these rights, the common people promise to follow the law, pay taxes, etc. otherwise these liberties would be revoked. This was the contract between the government and the governed that would directly affect how we interact with governmental institutions today.

Image credit: by WikiImages: Declaration of Independence, Pixaby licensed under CC by 2.0

Searching for order

Change was abundant during the enlightenment era. People find out that the universe doesn't revolve around them, there are discussions of how religion may not have all the answers,while there is also a reexamination of the past and of truths that had not been questioned before. All this challenging of the created for some a sense of confusion, which led many to seek for some concrete order in the world. This need manifested itself in many different parts of society.

One way that this search manifested itself was in language. In 1755 Samuel Johnson published the first modern dictionary in English. Due to the explosion of printing and rising rates of literacy books, pamphlets, and even newspapers were becoming more available to the public. With this came the need to have some kind of order in grammar, definition, and spelling. Others had published dictionaries in the past but there had been several issues with them. The main problems that came from these dictionaries was, in fact, a lack of order. They were often poorly organized and had little research put into them, usually providing a reference to some of the more "difficult" words, that weren't used very often. At the same time, people were often unsure how to use the words given in early attempts. Johnson's dictionary showed the meaning of words by using them in sentences, described how they were used, and painstakingly ensured that words as thoroughly defined as possible. 

How fit with the rest of the Enlightenment? To begin, Johnson provided the most comprehensive reference for the English language, and was the dictionary used for the next 150 years. It is also indicative of the growing need for accuracy, order, and the need to know definitions and how to properly use words. It also became a model that some other European countries used. 

Nothing Modest About It

If there is anyone in this world that you don't want to piss off, it's an Irishman. I'm not entirely sure how they came by it, but the Irish are full of a fire and glib that no one has yet succeeded in silencing. I wouldn't advise trying.

I used to live in the U.K., and my first encounter with an Irishwoman is seared into my memory forever. She couldn't have been more than five feet tall, but she was terrifying. It wasn't me, but someone had done something wrong and Ciara was full of an eloquent, hilarious anger the likes of which I had never before seen. I didn't know if I was allowed to laugh, but I definitely wanted to. Thankfully, I never ended up on the receiving end of that vitriol, and she and I ended up becoming really good friends. My relationship with Ciara helped me gain more understanding of these people and how they came to be the way they are.

Poster for a short film based on Swift's essay

The Irish have pride as deep as the land and a memory as long as their heritage. Right and wrong are certainties in that culture, and offences are remembered to their dying breaths. Through centuries of being deprived of identity, they developed their wit- the only defense that can't be stripped from them. They're brash, they're brave, and they're not afraid to be heard.

It's no surprise then, that arguable the world's greatest satirist, Johnathan Swift, sprang from Ireland. Swift is brutal in his analysis of government and society at large. His most famous piece A Modest Proposal, suggests that the solution to the famine in Ireland could be as simple as eating their children. It's a genius piece of writing and a scathing critique of Parliament's negligence.

Before the Enlightenment era and the advent of the public forum, the Irish and their unique perspective was confined to their island. But with the popularization of the press and a second swell of individualism, voices bubbled up from all kinds of forgotten places. Voices that become essential in shaping the future.
Photo Credit