The virtues that Franklin laid out in his autobiography reflect the beliefs and ideas of deism. I think this because all of the virtues sound they have a religious undertone to them. Deists did not necessarily believe that there is no “God”, it is more like a belief that God is not tied down to a particular religion because they find it hard to believe in something that’s only basis is based on divine revelation (Quinn). Deists seem to be more of the rational people who look at religion in a logical way, instead of a faith based one. They believe that God simply made the world as we know it, and just stepped away and let people settle their own problems and survive on their own (Quinn). I think that this has to do more with the fact that since they are more analytical than most people, they would have a hard time believing in miracles, which are what some religions base their faiths on.
It is a well known fact that Benjamin Franklin was a very famous Deist. It is very evident in the passage we read from his autobiography. In one instance he quoted Addison's Cato, "'Here will I hold. If there's a power above us, (And that there is all nature cries aloud through all her works), He must delight in virtue; and that which He delights in must be happy'" (Franklin 154). The fact that he quoted this shows that he is definitely a deist because he, like Addison, believes that there is a God, and the way you can tell that there is one is by looking at the world around you. All of the things in nature are proof to His existence.
I think that Franklin ended up coming out of this whole experience a better person. This is because, for one, it is hard to follow a strict code for an extended period of time, and the fact that he could stick to it shows that he is a strong willed person, and he went on to talk about how he started improving on other virtues, he had a hard time on the virtue Order because he was very busy. He also claimed that he was smart, so he was able to keep track of his things in all of his clutter, and that it was difficult to work with other people while also working with his and their schedules (Franklin 159). After many years of following this strict moral code, Franklin says “But on the whole, though I never arrived at the perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell far short of it, yet I was, by the endeavour, a better and happier man than I otherwise should have been, if I had not attempted it; as those who aim at perfection writing by imitating the engraved copies, though they never reach the wished-for excellence of those copies, their hand is mended by the endeavour, and is tolerable while it continues fair and legible” (Franklin 159).
Franklin, Benjamin, and Leonard Woods Labaree. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. New Haven: Yale UP, 1964. Print.
Quinn, Edward. "deism." A Dictionary of Literary and Thematic Terms, Second Edition. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006.Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Daily Journal #12
Well, this is an odd question to ask. There are many different directions I could take this. Well, obviously I’m going to take the route that gives me the most words so that I can finish this blog as fast as I can. If I were to write my own rules for what was right and what was wrong, it would look fairly similar to what they are currently. I think that you should basically be able to do whatever you wanted, as long as it did not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. I think that would cover most things like murder, theft, and things like that. I think that eventually I would change my rules a little by little until they are basically the same as they are now just because of the fact that I believe that the rules that people make are ones that every person thinks are fair rules just because it is the way that most people think. Granted, there are a few crazy people out there that would not agree with some of the rules that are only there to protect them, but that will always happen. It is simply human nature to want to set up a set of rules and guidelines as to help us discern right from wrong. Most people would agree that there would be no murder, no stealing, nothing like that, which shows that rules for some things don’t have to be written down or explicitly stated for people to believe. There are some more intricate things that would need their own rules due to their complex nature. Thinks like how banks should act and how we should handle our economy and other complicated things that do not fall into whether or not it hurts someone else, directly, or indirectly.
I think that businesses should be required to pay all of the taxes that they are supposed to, especially big businesses that make billions every year but they somehow manage to slip through some loopholes *cough* G.E. *cough*cough*.
I think that businesses should be required to pay all of the taxes that they are supposed to, especially big businesses that make billions every year but they somehow manage to slip through some loopholes *cough* G.E. *cough*cough*.
Daily Journal #11
There are many different aphorisms that I could choose to analyze. There’s “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, “a fool and his money are soon parted”, “a job worth doing is worth doing well”, “a man is known by the company he keeps”, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, “actions speak louder than words”, “history repeats itself”, and many, many, many more. My favorites include “a fool and his money are soon parted” because I like money and I have some past experience where I have bought some things foolishly and then regretted it, “a man is known by the company he keeps” because I have found it very true when applied to some people at our school, and “actions speak louder than words”. I think that I will write about “actions speak louder than words” mostly just because it is really easy to write for a long time about and before I know it, I’ll be done with this blog and I’ll be on to the next three I have to do and then do my vocabulary for unit two and then AP chemistry and Spanish. It is going to be a fun night, and it’s already two in the morning.
I think that it is very true that actions do indeed speak louder than words because there are a lot of people that say they are going to do something, they get really ambitious and then they get everyone’s hopes up and then they never come through. This is very prevelant after the New Year because people make their “New Year’s resolutions”, basically a list of things that they know for a fact that they are never going to do. Another example of where people need to start doing things instead of just saying they will would be in the American Political system. All you hear nowadays is all of the things they are going to do, but nothing ever happens, ever.
I think that it is very true that actions do indeed speak louder than words because there are a lot of people that say they are going to do something, they get really ambitious and then they get everyone’s hopes up and then they never come through. This is very prevelant after the New Year because people make their “New Year’s resolutions”, basically a list of things that they know for a fact that they are never going to do. Another example of where people need to start doing things instead of just saying they will would be in the American Political system. All you hear nowadays is all of the things they are going to do, but nothing ever happens, ever.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Reflection: Benjamin Franklin
So basically, this whole story was about how Benjamin Franklin rode a boat to Philadelphia from Burlington Virginia having spent a couple of nights waiting for a boat, and then after finding one, gets to Philadelphia where he immediately buys a large amount of bread, gets a drink at the river, gives away his remaining bread, then promptly falls asleep at during a meeting at the local Quaker meeting house (Franklin 106- 108).
The story does not seem that interesting when told by an outside source such as myself, but when Franklin tells it himself, it seems to make the story suddenly become much more interesting and comical rather than boring and thought provoking. I could easily see myself reading the rest of Franklin’s autobiography just by listening to this short section of the beginning of it. There is just a way in that he tells his story that makes it actually entertaining to listen to him talk about riding on a boat, eating, and sleeping. If anyone else tried to do that, it would put me to sleep almost immediately. It is true that almost anything would put me to sleep right now, seeing as how it’s 1:30 in the morning and I still have several daily journals to finish and AP Chemistry lab write-up, and a Spanish letter some kid in Peru, but I had no time this weekend because it was my birthday today, well, yesterday now I guess, and my brothers birthday was on Friday so I had no time to do any homework with all of the stuff going on for our compound birthdays. Maybe I could have an extra day for journals for my birthday? Just a suggestion. Anyway, I also like the choice in reader that they chose to iterate this segment of Franklin’s autobiography. It seemed to me more of what Franklin’s actual voice would sound like, kind of a wise old grandpa that still had a good sense of humor and a good memory that could remember all of the things that had ever happened to him. I can easily see how he was very well liked in the colonies and how the French loved him. It is not hard to imagine Franklin going to France and telling them stories like these and having them love him immediately and thereafter Franklin convinces them to sympathize with the American cause and help us defeat the British.
His writing style to me does not seem to me like either rational or puritan. He does not talk of either God or of some kind of intellectual discourse. Instead, he seems more to just present the facts as how they happened, with a slight ironic backing, like when he said
This shows how he does not make the reader try to guess what he is trying to reference or trying to make the reader think about, he brings it up plainly so that the reader can easily discern what to really think about. I also like how he has a kind of light writing style and then randomly adds in “heavy” phrases like “Man is sometimes more generous when he has little money than when he has plenty; perhaps to prevent his being thought to have but little” (Franklin 108).
Franklin, Benjamin. "from The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 106-108. Print
The story does not seem that interesting when told by an outside source such as myself, but when Franklin tells it himself, it seems to make the story suddenly become much more interesting and comical rather than boring and thought provoking. I could easily see myself reading the rest of Franklin’s autobiography just by listening to this short section of the beginning of it. There is just a way in that he tells his story that makes it actually entertaining to listen to him talk about riding on a boat, eating, and sleeping. If anyone else tried to do that, it would put me to sleep almost immediately. It is true that almost anything would put me to sleep right now, seeing as how it’s 1:30 in the morning and I still have several daily journals to finish and AP Chemistry lab write-up, and a Spanish letter some kid in Peru, but I had no time this weekend because it was my birthday today, well, yesterday now I guess, and my brothers birthday was on Friday so I had no time to do any homework with all of the stuff going on for our compound birthdays. Maybe I could have an extra day for journals for my birthday? Just a suggestion. Anyway, I also like the choice in reader that they chose to iterate this segment of Franklin’s autobiography. It seemed to me more of what Franklin’s actual voice would sound like, kind of a wise old grandpa that still had a good sense of humor and a good memory that could remember all of the things that had ever happened to him. I can easily see how he was very well liked in the colonies and how the French loved him. It is not hard to imagine Franklin going to France and telling them stories like these and having them love him immediately and thereafter Franklin convinces them to sympathize with the American cause and help us defeat the British.
His writing style to me does not seem to me like either rational or puritan. He does not talk of either God or of some kind of intellectual discourse. Instead, he seems more to just present the facts as how they happened, with a slight ironic backing, like when he said
“I have been the more particular in this description of my journey, and shall be so of my first entry into that city, that you may in your mind compare such unlikely beginnings with the figure I have since made there.” (Franklin 108)
This shows how he does not make the reader try to guess what he is trying to reference or trying to make the reader think about, he brings it up plainly so that the reader can easily discern what to really think about. I also like how he has a kind of light writing style and then randomly adds in “heavy” phrases like “Man is sometimes more generous when he has little money than when he has plenty; perhaps to prevent his being thought to have but little” (Franklin 108).
Franklin, Benjamin. "from The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 106-108. Print
Reflection: The Crisis, No. 1
This excerpt was a very interesting read. I read it once to myself and it did not have that much of an effect on me as it should have, seeing how it was about trying to encourage the people of the colonies to rise up and help fight for their independence even though the battle was going badly thus far. But then I decided to have the book program read it to me so that maybe I would better grasp what Thomas Paine was trying to convey to the reader. Like most of the time, having someone else read something to you helps you understand what someone would have felt like if the author was actually saying this directly to them instead of just a person reading it at home to themselves. Admittedly I was a little bit disappointed that the voice was not the person from Jonathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Patrick Henry’s Speech to the Second Virginia Convention. Okay, I know that I do say that about basically every story or excerpt that we have to read but I really do mean it this time. The message would have been much more convincing when someone was yelling it at you. The guy that did it did have a couple of parts where he had some passion, but definitely not as much as that other guy does.
So, now on to the subject of how this work shows that it is indeed a work of the rationalism period; there were many instances where Paine used more of a rational approach to the problem rather than using a religious pretext, which would have made the work more of a puritan writing rather than a rational one.
When Paine started talking about how the hard fight that they were fighting currently was going to eventually pay off, and it would be even better just because of the fact that they had to work so hard at it, he said
This quote shows how he is trying to convey rationally how they need to keep fighting so they can attain their final goal: freedom. Another quote that shows rationalistic writing style is “It is surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations have been subject to them:” and then he goes on to list examples and how it pertains to the colonies (Paine 135). This shows how he is using the reasoning that history repeats itself to try and prove his point. He goes on to explain how sometimes panic can be good. It brings things to light that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. That it brings out the “secret traitors” that would have gone unknown (Paine 135).
Paine, Thomas. "from The Crisis, No. 1" Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 134-136. Print
So, now on to the subject of how this work shows that it is indeed a work of the rationalism period; there were many instances where Paine used more of a rational approach to the problem rather than using a religious pretext, which would have made the work more of a puritan writing rather than a rational one.
When Paine started talking about how the hard fight that they were fighting currently was going to eventually pay off, and it would be even better just because of the fact that they had to work so hard at it, he said
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. (Paine 134)
This quote shows how he is trying to convey rationally how they need to keep fighting so they can attain their final goal: freedom. Another quote that shows rationalistic writing style is “It is surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations have been subject to them:” and then he goes on to list examples and how it pertains to the colonies (Paine 135). This shows how he is using the reasoning that history repeats itself to try and prove his point. He goes on to explain how sometimes panic can be good. It brings things to light that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. That it brings out the “secret traitors” that would have gone unknown (Paine 135).
Friday, October 21, 2011
Reflection: Declaration of Independance
I have never really read the Declaration of Independence. I know, it’s pretty bad. I have lived in the United States my whole life, and I have not read the document that our whole country was founded on and the very reason why we, the United States, are the United States, and still not colonies to Great Britain. Now, I assume we would have eventually broken free at one point, but as far as we know, this is the only way it would have happened. I thought that it was going to be long and boring, but it was not too bad. Okay, maybe I did get a little bored toward the middle of the document, but towards the end I got interested again. The main reason very may well be that the voice that they used to read Patrick Henry’s Speech to the Second Virginia Convention and Jonathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Whoever reads those two easily keeps the reader interested.
Once I read the part of the Declaration where it starts listing off reasons that they need to separate from England, I started to see how Jefferson could easily overstep the lines of rational argument and start using faulty logic and propaganda techniques to get his point across. Most of the first reasons that Jefferson started to list off seemed pretty logical like
I can understand that people in the colonies would be a little mad if the King started to make me house his soldiers and that the soldiers could do anything they wanted and they could just get a rigged trial so they would not get in any trouble. I would also have a problem if I was accused of a fake crime and I had to be shipped all the way back to England to be tried on false charges.
After a while though, he started to get sloppier. He started to say things like
In the above quote, Jefferson starts to go into the field of faulty logic trying to support his argument. He has no proof for the claims that the King waged war on them and destroyed and plundered the colonies. The next pargraph contains even more false logic:
That quote is just full of claims without proof and more prominent is some very obvious name calling. Jefferson starts calling the British soldiers mercenaries and starts using words like “death”, “desolation”, “tyranny”, “cruelty”, “barbarous”, and “unworthy” to try to demonize the British as to make them seem way worse than they really were so that Jefferson could make it seem like the revolutionists were in the right.
Jefferson, Thomas. "The Declaration of Independence." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 120-124. Print.
"Recognizing Propaganda--Guide to Critical Thinking--Academic Support." 3 June 2011. Web. 27 Sept. 2011. <http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm>.
Once I read the part of the Declaration where it starts listing off reasons that they need to separate from England, I started to see how Jefferson could easily overstep the lines of rational argument and start using faulty logic and propaganda techniques to get his point across. Most of the first reasons that Jefferson started to list off seemed pretty logical like
Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; for transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses. (Jefferson 123)
I can understand that people in the colonies would be a little mad if the King started to make me house his soldiers and that the soldiers could do anything they wanted and they could just get a rigged trial so they would not get in any trouble. I would also have a problem if I was accused of a fake crime and I had to be shipped all the way back to England to be tried on false charges.
After a while though, he started to get sloppier. He started to say things like
He (the King) has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. (Jefferson 124)
In the above quote, Jefferson starts to go into the field of faulty logic trying to support his argument. He has no proof for the claims that the King waged war on them and destroyed and plundered the colonies. The next pargraph contains even more false logic:
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. (Jefferson 124)
That quote is just full of claims without proof and more prominent is some very obvious name calling. Jefferson starts calling the British soldiers mercenaries and starts using words like “death”, “desolation”, “tyranny”, “cruelty”, “barbarous”, and “unworthy” to try to demonize the British as to make them seem way worse than they really were so that Jefferson could make it seem like the revolutionists were in the right.
Jefferson, Thomas. "The Declaration of Independence." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 120-124. Print.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Daily Journal #10
I personally think that you should not make us, and by us I mean our A-1 English class, who cares about that other English class; make them do the vocab for all I care. I think that our vocab assignment should not be assigned today because I am quite behind on my other daily blogs and reflection journals. I also have quite a lot of homework in all of my other classes like AP Chemistry, Pre-Calculus, American History, Spanish Two, and Physics. So as you can see, I need more time to devote to my other classes. Most of the other people in my class have about the same schedule. So they too have the same problem as I am plagued by.
There is a side note though, as you already know, I am writing this quite a while after the due date. So I obviously already know that we ended up doing the vocab anyway. That was mostly due to the choice to read Mitch’s blog. If you remember correctly, he thought that we were supposed to make an argument that made no sense what so ever. He said something along the lines of how vocab causes global warming.
Anyway, I already know that we did the vocab. So I have really have no motivation to try really hard to try and convince you not to give us one. I also have not done the vocab in the first place because I have been so bogged down by the homework in the other classes I have mentioned in the first paragraph of this blog. Well, that’s enough words. Can’t say I didn’t try.
There is a side note though, as you already know, I am writing this quite a while after the due date. So I obviously already know that we ended up doing the vocab anyway. That was mostly due to the choice to read Mitch’s blog. If you remember correctly, he thought that we were supposed to make an argument that made no sense what so ever. He said something along the lines of how vocab causes global warming.
Anyway, I already know that we did the vocab. So I have really have no motivation to try really hard to try and convince you not to give us one. I also have not done the vocab in the first place because I have been so bogged down by the homework in the other classes I have mentioned in the first paragraph of this blog. Well, that’s enough words. Can’t say I didn’t try.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Reflection: Patrick Henry
Well, well, well, look what we have here; the crazy voice guy from Jonathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. The one that gets very worked up very easily and his voice gets almost violent, well, more so in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God than Speech to the Second Virginia Convention. I do not necessarily think that it is a bad thing that he was the voice though. I think that he is perfectly suited for reading these kind of passages. His emotion helps get the reader into the mindset of what the passage is even supposed to be about. I think that this man’s glorious voice represents what Patrick Henry sounded like when he gave his speech to the Second Virginia Convention. It gets the point across very well. It is very persuasive and moving, perfect for the kind of message that Henry was trying to convey to the members of the Convention. If anything would stir people up enough to even consider the idea of a revolution, it would be a speech like this. I know that for myself, I would have supported him; just listening to it got me stirred up and its over 250 years after he made the original speech!
Anyway, enough about the narrator’s magical, entrancing voice. What was the question again? Oh yes, I am tasked with analyzing the rationalism content in the story. This should not be that tough. I already have almost 250 words anyway. Half way there!
I will start off by quoting Henry in his opening statement: “There is no time for ceremony” (Henry 116). I think this helps set the tone for the rest of the speech. He brings up the importance in the matter of speed up later in the speech when he says:
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?” (Henry 118).
It shows that Patrick Henry was definitely in the time period when people were shifting more towards a rationalistic approach rather than a view dominated by religious biases and tendencies when he backs up the quote I showed above by saying:
“Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?” (Henry 118)
The reasoning helps get the message of action across to the audience. The definition of rationalism is that people “believed that all questions about life must be approached rationally and that truth must be discovered through reason” (Boucquey). That is exactly what Henry did. He is basically saying that right now, they are just lying around lying to themselves about peace while they are the strongest they are ever going to be. This is a very strong argument because it makes a lot of sense and it is actually true so it is good that he propelled people forth in the matter of action. He talked more of reason and realistic approaches rather than religious reasons and things such as that. He did mention God a couple of times, but let it be noted that he did use the words “us,” “our,” and “they” rather than “He” and “his” (by what I read).
Boucquey, Thierry, gen. ed. "rationalism." Encyclopedia of World Writers, 14th through 18th Centuries. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc.
Henry, Patrick. Speech to the Second Virginia Convention. Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 116-118. Print.
Reflection: The Crucible Act 4
The first sentence in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God was long and drawn out. It set the pace for the rest of the story:
Obviously Jonathan Edwards was not very good with grammar because he could have easily split that first sentence up into enough sentences to make up a good sized paragraph. If I have ever seen a run-on sentence, this would be one of the prime examples of what NOT to do. I guess it is not that bad considering he wrote this in the eighteenth century when most people were not able to read or write, and very rarely both.
Anyway, I guess I will stop ranting about his writing style. He is the one that was a nationally recognized author in his time after all. There are a few parallels that I can draw between Jonathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. On the surface, the easiest connection would be the fact that they both have to do with religion. Both are equally ridiculous. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is just trying to scare people into being “good” Christians by telling them things like:
The technique might have worked pretty well for a while, but I do not think that people would put up with someone like that in today’s society. In The Crucible, all of the people who were thought to be “witches” were only thought to be because two girls start sprouting random names as to make themselves seem like gifts from God (Miller 48). Another thing that seems very strange today would be the fact that if they plead guilty, they were jailed for life, but if they did not confess to their supposed crimes, they were hanged. Seemed like a lose-lose situation for those accused. All because some girls wanted to dance in the woods and were too afraied to admit it. That in and of itself would put the blame back onto the society for making things so boring that people had to resort to things like this; ergo, the blame goes back to people like Jonathan Edwards for making anything that didn’t have to do with church or God a deadly sin.
Edwards, Jonathan. "From Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 97-99. Print.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996. Print.
So that thus it is, that the natural men are held in the hand of God over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least, to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out; and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. (Edwards 97)
Obviously Jonathan Edwards was not very good with grammar because he could have easily split that first sentence up into enough sentences to make up a good sized paragraph. If I have ever seen a run-on sentence, this would be one of the prime examples of what NOT to do. I guess it is not that bad considering he wrote this in the eighteenth century when most people were not able to read or write, and very rarely both.
Anyway, I guess I will stop ranting about his writing style. He is the one that was a nationally recognized author in his time after all. There are a few parallels that I can draw between Jonathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. On the surface, the easiest connection would be the fact that they both have to do with religion. Both are equally ridiculous. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is just trying to scare people into being “good” Christians by telling them things like:
The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow mad ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. (Edwards 98)
The technique might have worked pretty well for a while, but I do not think that people would put up with someone like that in today’s society. In The Crucible, all of the people who were thought to be “witches” were only thought to be because two girls start sprouting random names as to make themselves seem like gifts from God (Miller 48). Another thing that seems very strange today would be the fact that if they plead guilty, they were jailed for life, but if they did not confess to their supposed crimes, they were hanged. Seemed like a lose-lose situation for those accused. All because some girls wanted to dance in the woods and were too afraied to admit it. That in and of itself would put the blame back onto the society for making things so boring that people had to resort to things like this; ergo, the blame goes back to people like Jonathan Edwards for making anything that didn’t have to do with church or God a deadly sin.
Edwards, Jonathan. "From Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 97-99. Print.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)