I'm going to write here what I didn't have room for in my review. In all honesty, I felt that this book was a bit ridiculous. I was hoping that there would be a few counterarguments or even some scientific backing, but all is contained was sentimental anecdotes and exaggerated religious undertones. I suppose I should have realized that this was going to be the case when I saw that it was written by a minister, but I wanted to give it a chance. I have to admit that the story of Koko and her kitten was heartbreaking, but seriously, people can twist things to mean what they want them to. Maybe Koko wasn't crying for her kitten; maybe she had an eye infection (just kidding...sort of). I guess being a cynical reader really didn't give this book a chance in my hands. Oh sure, I'd like to believe that my pets feel something akin to love for me, but what I consider to be love could just be my pet's knowledge that I am the almighty food-giver. Half of me would like to believe that animals have souls or something like that, but the other half of me needs more proof. The fact that this book was written by a religious man also sours it for me because of my experiences with religious men and women forcing their beliefs down my throat. But I digress.
I do consider myself an animal lover, don't get me wrong, it's just that I don't know if I can accept that animals have an "animal religion" as talked about in the book. Sure, I can believe that animal mothers feel an affection for their offspring, but creating a "barnyard nativity" with flowers? Come on, now that's just plain silly!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
"The Souls of Animals"
The Souls of Animals by Reverend Gary Kowalski is an exploration into what Kowalski believes to be the spiritual side of animals. Originally published by Stillpoint Publishing in 1991, this testament to the intelligence and compassion of our animal brethren is very nicely written, but remains a bit simplistic and unbelievable at times. The author uses his experiences both as a Unitarian minister and animal lover to compile this book which argues the case that if there is such a thing as a soul, humans are not the only ones to have them. Kowalski uses examples such as a female gorilla named Koko who learns American Sign Language and a family of elephants who attempted to revive an injured family member to emphasize his point that animals have feelings, morals, personalities, and even “animal faith.”
Kowalski’s book begins with an exploration into what a “soul” actually is and how it affects both humans and animals alike. The book continues on with the story of Koko the gorilla who used ASL to ask for a kitten, which she loved and cared for until its death. According to Kowalski, Koko “cried” for a week after the kitten died, thus proving his point that animals are aware of and can even grieve death. Continuing on with death in mind, Kowalski brings up the possibility that animals feel the presence of supernatural beings and reveals a few anecdotes about a Border Collie who supposedly had several encounters with “ghosts.” Kowalski wraps up the book by exploring animal music and art, arguing that animals must have souls if they are capable of creating beauty for the sake of beauty.
While The Souls of Animals is very beautifully written and contains some heartwarming stories, it is hard to believe that a pig putting flowers around its litter is thoughtfully creating a “barnyard nativity.” Also, there are many counterarguments regarding the “miraculous” things that these animals do, and none of them are addressed. It appears that Kowalski takes many of his opinions from his religion and disregards the possibility of coincidence. Overall this book is a pleasant afternoon read, but nothing more. Sappy stories and obvious religious undertones cannot take the place of solid research and an open-mindedness to all possibilities.
Kowalski’s book begins with an exploration into what a “soul” actually is and how it affects both humans and animals alike. The book continues on with the story of Koko the gorilla who used ASL to ask for a kitten, which she loved and cared for until its death. According to Kowalski, Koko “cried” for a week after the kitten died, thus proving his point that animals are aware of and can even grieve death. Continuing on with death in mind, Kowalski brings up the possibility that animals feel the presence of supernatural beings and reveals a few anecdotes about a Border Collie who supposedly had several encounters with “ghosts.” Kowalski wraps up the book by exploring animal music and art, arguing that animals must have souls if they are capable of creating beauty for the sake of beauty.
While The Souls of Animals is very beautifully written and contains some heartwarming stories, it is hard to believe that a pig putting flowers around its litter is thoughtfully creating a “barnyard nativity.” Also, there are many counterarguments regarding the “miraculous” things that these animals do, and none of them are addressed. It appears that Kowalski takes many of his opinions from his religion and disregards the possibility of coincidence. Overall this book is a pleasant afternoon read, but nothing more. Sappy stories and obvious religious undertones cannot take the place of solid research and an open-mindedness to all possibilities.
Human Construction?
Group 1: Entirely Human Construction
1. God à There is no solid evidence to suggest that god is not a human construction.
2. War à War as we know it would be nonexistent without humans, therefore it is a human construction.
3. Science à Science is a form of study which humans created. As far as we know, animals do not employ science to study things.
4. Musicà I was on the fence about this one, but the music that we most often think of would not be possible if not for humans.
5. Morality à A concept that was created by man to keep order.
6. Market Capitalism àQuite obviously created by humans.
7. Patriotism à Again, obviously man-made.
Group 2: Partly Human Construction
1. The Color Red àThe title is manmade, but the actual color would exist with or without humans.
2. The Number 3 à Again, the title is man-made, but the actual number is not.
3. Timeà This one is debatable as well. The concept of keeping time is man-made, but the effects of the passage of time are not.
Group 3: Not Human Construction
1. Electronà Electrons would exist even if humans had not discovered their existence.
2. Appleà Grows in nature even without mankind’s help, therefore is not man-made.
1. God à There is no solid evidence to suggest that god is not a human construction.
2. War à War as we know it would be nonexistent without humans, therefore it is a human construction.
3. Science à Science is a form of study which humans created. As far as we know, animals do not employ science to study things.
4. Musicà I was on the fence about this one, but the music that we most often think of would not be possible if not for humans.
5. Morality à A concept that was created by man to keep order.
6. Market Capitalism àQuite obviously created by humans.
7. Patriotism à Again, obviously man-made.
Group 2: Partly Human Construction
1. The Color Red àThe title is manmade, but the actual color would exist with or without humans.
2. The Number 3 à Again, the title is man-made, but the actual number is not.
3. Timeà This one is debatable as well. The concept of keeping time is man-made, but the effects of the passage of time are not.
Group 3: Not Human Construction
1. Electronà Electrons would exist even if humans had not discovered their existence.
2. Appleà Grows in nature even without mankind’s help, therefore is not man-made.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Musical Taste and Lifestyle
According to Meriam-Webster, the definition of music is :
"1 a: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a: an agreeable sound"
While I agree that music is all of this, I think that music is something else, too; music is something that speaks to people, that makes people feel something. Music is in the "ear" of the beholder-- a genre that is beautiful to one person might be torture to another. I personally know people who say that rap is not music because they do not like that particular genre, but doesn't rap fulfill M-W's requirements? Just because a person does not like a certain type of music does not mean that it is not music. Music is a collection of unified sounds that is either pleasing or displeasing to the ear depending on the person. I know that I am not a fan of country music in general, but I cannot condemn every country song because each song gives the listener a new experience; one country song might have a pleasing element that another one does not. I've always found it intriguing how one person might love a song that another person absolutely hates. What makes people love or hate certain types of music? Personality? Or does it depend on where the person was brought up? Perhaps it depends on the person's lifestyle, although (especially in younger people) the type of music you like determines who you are friends with, wht you wear, etc, so I suppose in a way, music helps to decide a person's lifestyle. Thinking back on middle and high school, music really did play a huge role in determining social status, wardrobe, etc. Those who wore mostly black and had "crazy" hair and makeup usually listened to heavy metal or punk, people who wore tie-dye, head bands and the like listened to "hippie music", kids who wore preppier clothes generally listened to pop or mild rap. Alot could be said about a person by their musical taste. Although the influence of musical taste on lifestyle tends to wane as people get older, it is still quite prevalent. It's really quite amazing how much music affects people and their lives, and the variety of music to choose from.
"1 a: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a: an agreeable sound"
While I agree that music is all of this, I think that music is something else, too; music is something that speaks to people, that makes people feel something. Music is in the "ear" of the beholder-- a genre that is beautiful to one person might be torture to another. I personally know people who say that rap is not music because they do not like that particular genre, but doesn't rap fulfill M-W's requirements? Just because a person does not like a certain type of music does not mean that it is not music. Music is a collection of unified sounds that is either pleasing or displeasing to the ear depending on the person. I know that I am not a fan of country music in general, but I cannot condemn every country song because each song gives the listener a new experience; one country song might have a pleasing element that another one does not. I've always found it intriguing how one person might love a song that another person absolutely hates. What makes people love or hate certain types of music? Personality? Or does it depend on where the person was brought up? Perhaps it depends on the person's lifestyle, although (especially in younger people) the type of music you like determines who you are friends with, wht you wear, etc, so I suppose in a way, music helps to decide a person's lifestyle. Thinking back on middle and high school, music really did play a huge role in determining social status, wardrobe, etc. Those who wore mostly black and had "crazy" hair and makeup usually listened to heavy metal or punk, people who wore tie-dye, head bands and the like listened to "hippie music", kids who wore preppier clothes generally listened to pop or mild rap. Alot could be said about a person by their musical taste. Although the influence of musical taste on lifestyle tends to wane as people get older, it is still quite prevalent. It's really quite amazing how much music affects people and their lives, and the variety of music to choose from.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Music
I have yet to meet anybody who says they do not like music, and it is doubtful that I ever will. Music is something that speaks to everyone through different genres and sounds, and yet it is extremely difficult to define what music actually is. To me, music is something that is essential; I cannot picture a life without it. Music inspires, comforts, and excites, as well as creating a mood for all situations and allowing listeners to escape for a little while.
The Wikipedia article has a section describing the theory that music is a sort of language, and I agree with this wholeheartedly. Music not only speaks to people, but creates emotions such as sadness, joy, desire, anger, frustration, elation, etc. In my eyes, such a sound that evokes so much in the listeners can only be described as the language of the soul. Every culture across the world has some sort of music, thus why music is sometimes called the “universal language.” Music is constantly changing as cultures grow and change, just as language grows and changes. A hundred years ago people would have been shocked by the grinding guitars and growling vocals of some of the current rock bands, and yet today people (especially young people) all over appreciate this kind of music. Some music has passed the test of time, such as the works of Mozart or tribal music from all over the world.
Music is a powerful force that most people cannot live without. Music brings people together and can “soothe a savage beast.” Music affects people in so many different ways, and yet it is extremely difficult to pin down an exact definition of what music truly is.
The Wikipedia article has a section describing the theory that music is a sort of language, and I agree with this wholeheartedly. Music not only speaks to people, but creates emotions such as sadness, joy, desire, anger, frustration, elation, etc. In my eyes, such a sound that evokes so much in the listeners can only be described as the language of the soul. Every culture across the world has some sort of music, thus why music is sometimes called the “universal language.” Music is constantly changing as cultures grow and change, just as language grows and changes. A hundred years ago people would have been shocked by the grinding guitars and growling vocals of some of the current rock bands, and yet today people (especially young people) all over appreciate this kind of music. Some music has passed the test of time, such as the works of Mozart or tribal music from all over the world.
Music is a powerful force that most people cannot live without. Music brings people together and can “soothe a savage beast.” Music affects people in so many different ways, and yet it is extremely difficult to pin down an exact definition of what music truly is.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Q&A# 8
There are several definitions of patriotism that must be considered before deciding whether or not to agree or disagree with Jensen’s position that American patriotism needs to die out. The first definition of patriotism that Jensen gives is that patriotism relies on loyalty to the war effort. If this is so, then American patriotism is long gone, as most Americans do not agree with the current war in Iraq and disagree with the government’s decisions, actions, and beliefs. The second definition given is that patriotism is a critique of the war effort as opposed to support of it. I believe that critique is closer to real patriotism than blind loyalty, as by critiquing the war people are using their right to express their opinions and safely disagree with government policies. Citizens of every country need to think about what is being decided for them and what their government is doing in the name of the people. Blind loyalty creates a country of sheep that do what they are told, when they are told to do it without thinking about why or what the consequences could be.
Jensen claims that people should concentrate on being globally patriotic as opposed to nationally patriotic, and I agree with this. As the world gets smaller and people can reach each other more easily, it becomes more and more important for people to feel pride in their planet and everything living on it. Pride in one’s country was a good thing, but it is better for people to concentrate on what can be done for the benefit of the entire world. This doesn’t mean sticking our noses in other country’s wars, but becoming more aware of what is happening outside of our borders and appreciating all cultures. As most people know, the environment is suffering due to human behavior. In order for this problem to be fixed, people need to become globally patriotic as Jensen suggested, and start becoming conscious of what is going on outside of our borders.
Jensen claims that people should concentrate on being globally patriotic as opposed to nationally patriotic, and I agree with this. As the world gets smaller and people can reach each other more easily, it becomes more and more important for people to feel pride in their planet and everything living on it. Pride in one’s country was a good thing, but it is better for people to concentrate on what can be done for the benefit of the entire world. This doesn’t mean sticking our noses in other country’s wars, but becoming more aware of what is happening outside of our borders and appreciating all cultures. As most people know, the environment is suffering due to human behavior. In order for this problem to be fixed, people need to become globally patriotic as Jensen suggested, and start becoming conscious of what is going on outside of our borders.
My own thoughts on patriotism.
The way I see it right now, patriotism is failing miserably in America because of the failure of the government to listen to the people. Before the Bush administration, I felt proud to live in America and to be considered American. Of course this could be attributed to the fact that I was much younger and more impressionable, but even now I see younger children who are being effected by the lack of patriotism. My own siblings are not proud to be in America, and they are both still under the age of 14, which is a very sad thing. When I was in elementary school I remember learning about what a great and free country America is. As I got older, I became more cynical about America and its policies. When I went to Europe two years ago I was told to tell anybody who asked where I was from that I was Canadian. It's a sad state of affairs when a person is afraid to be truthful about their own home.
I do not consider myself a patriotic person, but I can recognize that America has its good points. Yes, most of the world disagrees with our goverenment's actions, and even most of it's own citizens disagree with the war, but at the same time America is still fairly free. The freedoms are being taken away, mind you, but as of right now we still have it alright. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT in any way a supporter of the war, American government, or some of its policies, but it's good to think positively. But the fact that I feel that I have to explain that I am not patriotic means something, as well. I feel that if I were to admit to being patriotic or to having the smallest positive thought about American government, I would come under attack from those who disagree. This has happened in the past, before I decided that I completely disagreed with the war a few years ago. Friends got angry at me for expressing the tiniest bit of support for anything to do with America, and if I had any positive comments about Bush (which I have few) I came under even fiercer attack. A country whose own people come under attack for expressing patriotism is in a bad state indeed.
Then again, I do not believe that support of wars is the definition of patriotism. Patriotism is the love and pride of a country as a whole, not just how it handles its foreign affaris. A person may diagree with it's government's policies, but still be proud of the history and culture of their country. Although I don't find American history to be the most interesting, I can appreciate the struggle that early Americans went through to make this country. In that respect I suppose I am patriotic, as I believe that appreciation for a country's history and struggle is an important part of patriotism.
More on this later.
I do not consider myself a patriotic person, but I can recognize that America has its good points. Yes, most of the world disagrees with our goverenment's actions, and even most of it's own citizens disagree with the war, but at the same time America is still fairly free. The freedoms are being taken away, mind you, but as of right now we still have it alright. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT in any way a supporter of the war, American government, or some of its policies, but it's good to think positively. But the fact that I feel that I have to explain that I am not patriotic means something, as well. I feel that if I were to admit to being patriotic or to having the smallest positive thought about American government, I would come under attack from those who disagree. This has happened in the past, before I decided that I completely disagreed with the war a few years ago. Friends got angry at me for expressing the tiniest bit of support for anything to do with America, and if I had any positive comments about Bush (which I have few) I came under even fiercer attack. A country whose own people come under attack for expressing patriotism is in a bad state indeed.
Then again, I do not believe that support of wars is the definition of patriotism. Patriotism is the love and pride of a country as a whole, not just how it handles its foreign affaris. A person may diagree with it's government's policies, but still be proud of the history and culture of their country. Although I don't find American history to be the most interesting, I can appreciate the struggle that early Americans went through to make this country. In that respect I suppose I am patriotic, as I believe that appreciation for a country's history and struggle is an important part of patriotism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)