Upcoming Events

  • No events in this category
  • responses to “D6

      • Editted Version:
        Suzman first uses his story with Dog to point out that the Ju/’hoansi don’t seem to have sympathy towards animals, which makes him angry. Then he explains the possible reason behind it: His affection is from the neolithic revolution which tends to treat dogs as part of a family. However, the Ju/’hoansi are hunter-gatherers which doesn’t emphasize sympathy on non-human animals. It’s because the Ju/’hoansi are hunter-gatherers. The only thing they need to do is to find ways to predict and hunt their preys better. Consequently, they don’t have the obligation and the responsibility to take care of the dogs which doesn’t give them any advantage. They don’t need the help of dogs. However, unlike hunter-gatherers, people under the great impact of neolithic revolution do need the help of dogs, and dogs are thus exploited for their human-like traits. Gradually dogs are adopted by people and are treated as one part of the family. Sympathy for dogs starts from that. The difference of attitude towards animals is because the different environment of ancestors, and this difference gets inherited.

      • Gorgias argue that a justified decision can’t be made only by examining the action. Subjective factors should be viewed as well as objective factors. He proposes that, Helen is influenced by deceptive words and speeches, as well as affection. These are way beyond Helen’s own control. Since Helen’s motive is not unjust, it doesn’t make sense to blame Helen. She should be pitied rather than blamed because she is unfortunate to be affected by fatal factors.

        Gorgias also said that women are more likely to be emotionally affected, and stated that as genetic. The precedent is clear that one person should not be blamed If he or she doesn’t intend to do harmful deeds. If one is guided by God or irresistible fate, he or she can be pitied for being unfortunately guided by these factors. Namely, the standard for determining guilty is mainly subjective, not objective.

    1. Walter Ong discussed how primarily oral communities might have communicated without means of recording information. Obviously, without pen and paper the transmission of new ideas relied solely on that person’s ability to remember the information. There was no concept of “looking something up” or flipping through a dictionary to find the correct term. So how did people living in these communities efficiently and effectively communicate with one another? Ong states that “rhythmic oral patterns,” such as alliteration or assonance, were the main methods used to recall and relay information to others in a group. Phrases such as “‘divide and conquer’” or “‘to err is human, to forgive is divine’” were rhythmically balanced, and therefore much easier to remember for later. Anything more complicated would have gone right over the recipients head.

      This brings about the controversial topic of why writing was created. Some believe that writing was needed mostly for recording stories and new ideas. However, others are confident that writing originated from the need to record numbers and data. For example, in chapter 7 of his book, “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind,” Yuval Harari supports the idea that writing was developed through myths and ideas that homo sapiens began to spread after the Cognitive Revolution. According to him, writing was not invented solely because of things that physically exist such as plants or domesticated animals. In Matt Parker’s video however, he stated that writing was created specifically for numbers and data keeping instead of myths. He believed that after the Agricultural Revolution, people needed to write mainly to keep track of the new surplus of wheat and barley. Regardless of which idea is correct, we still use writing for both myths and record keeping today.