Siddhartha

I want to start by saying that I didn't really like this reading, but I did actually read the book anyway. I think part of the reason I didn't like it is because I had no clue what it was about and how true to life the story was until we discussed it in class. I fell I probably would have learned more from the book if I had known some background before I started reading. I thought when I started the book that the story was a written version of the story of The Buddha, and for a while I thought I was right. When in the story Siddhartha meets The Buddha, I thought that it was actually the story of how Hinduism started. (As you can tell I don't actually know that much about either religion.) Other than being confused on how realistic the story was, I actually liked the story itself pretty well.
The story started with Siddhartha leaving his home and parents to learn how to fast, think, wait, and find inner peace. After he tried this for a few years and realizing that this was not for him, Siddhartha went to hear The Buddha speak. He listened intently and watched how The Buddha acted, walked, talked, and went about his business. He also saw that this since of inner peace could not fully be taught or preached to him, so he moved on. He went to a town, Samsara, which I realized later that is a form of Hell, or more, the town he lived in before he was reborn. Here Siddhartha learned how to gamble, earn and lose money, eat and drink fine foods, and make love to a woman. He made himself sick of life, of this form of living, so he left. In spending time in Samsara, Siddhartha forgot how to fast, think, and wait; and he still did not find inner peace. He walked a short way to a river, and asked the Ferryman if he could be an apprentice. This is where Siddhartha found his inner peace, through the Ferryman and the river; though he never really could explain it to another person, it’s something that one must find on their own. This confused me slightly because even if only one person finds enlightenment, they still try to preach ways to find enlightenment to everyone else who might listen. That is true in most every religion.
Last, I would like to state that I wish more of the people I talked to had actually read the book. I know a lot of people just read spark notes, or something similar. I guess it is their choice, but I'm wondering if more people actually read the book then just skimmed or read spark notes. I believe spark notes is a great thing, along with the book, but not instead.

Moral Philosophy

The other day Jessica had us read a piece she had written on moral philosophy, in which she called a "crash course." In this reading there are some questions posed and some thoughts discussed. I would like to elaborate on the things that I noticed.
First, she poses the question, "what is truth?" I think to the best of one’s knowledge, truth is how people perceive things to be. I wondered how my definition of truth matched up to that of others, and according to answers.com, truth is a statement proven or accepted to be as true. Not an exact match, but similar. Truth is also one of three things. Something believed by the self, something that one chooses to believe that is already set by an authority or religion, or something pushed upon a person by an authority or religion.
This might leave one asking; well what is an authority then. I believe authority to be given to people because they have some knowledge of the topic in question. Someone who has studied or been educated in the topic. Often, that would mean someone who also questions what really could have or did happen, like a philosopher (connection?). Again, according to answers.com, authority is an accepted source of expert information or advice, or power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience. Similar to my personal definition, but I did not include influencing and persuading people, or giving advice. I did not include these because one does not need to be an authority to give advice, influence, or persuade people. They just have to act like they know what they are talking about.
Next, in the moral philosophy reading Jessica tells of four theories of origin, and asks of our thoughts. These origins are as follows; Divine Command, Natural Law, Culture Realism, and Subjectivism. First, I want to say that in Subjectivism, it is like a five year old mentality. "I like it so it is good." That doesn't solve anything, and it doesn't prove anything. It is just a very immature way of thinking. Second, most Christians and a majority of our culture, including me, believe in Divine Command. I find this interesting because who is to say that Divine Command is more or less corrected than any of the others, and why do they have that authority? I have considered other possibilities recently though, because at this point in my life, I am trying to learn the meaning of life and why I am here.
I feel that this is an interesting topic and may need further exploring by myself in the future, but for now I would like some comments. Thoughts, options, questions, suggestions? Everything is accepted and appreciated. Thank you!
~Elizabeth

Pre-posting

This is a test post, I will later post reflections and reactions to class assigned reading.

~Elizabeth