Daily 2 - Week 2

Which do you think is a better roadmap of history artifacts of the humanities (art, music, dance, theatre, literature, philosophy, architecture, etc) or political/military conflicts? Why?

I believe that artifacts of the humanities are a better roadmap of history for many reasons. To begin, the artifacts of the humanities can actually show and tell you stories, to this day. We still have these artifacts and we can still use most of them in everyday life. We don't necessarily know everything about these artifacts or why they came about, but at least they show all the aspects of history, not just war or conflict. They show how people interacted besides fighting, they show daily life of people, and they show how people spent their time and the bonding they had together. Also, by having artifacts it shows how much we're grown and developed with technology, building, family, friends, politics, countries, and everyday life. I believe that war just shows the problems we had, and yes, we can learn from those mistakes, but I think we also need to know EVERYTHING we've gone through to get to those problems. So, when we look back into history, we can remember not only the bad things but also the good, and how we can improve. Art teaches people how to express themselves, music teaches people how to relax and entertain, dancing allows people to bond together, theater allows the imagination to grow, literature enhances thoughts and words, philosophy is used in almost every single school known to man, and architecture gives us a variety of buildings and monuments, but also shows us the different stages of life. That is why I believe artifacts of the humanities are a better roadmap of history.

Daily 1 - Week 2

 You accidentally discover an invention that can immediately help millions of people; but only if you act immediately. On the other hand, if you just wait three months, you can secure a patent and get rich. Which do you choose and why?

I would choose to act immediately, in order to help millions of people. I believe that if you help one person or a million people, it's still better than becoming rich. I would feel guilty that I didn't help those certain people that needed help in those 3 months. Knowing that I had an invention, and I kept it to myself in order to become rich seems selfish and wrong. Also, I believe that once I started using my invention to help people, the government/ other people would pay to use my invention or pay me to help the people they knew that needed help. But, I feel as if the ultimate goal for me would be to help people and to make sure I made a difference in these peoples lives. Money can come and go, but knowing that you impacted peoples lives in a way that you truly helped them with something they needed. I'm sure more than half of the other people in the world would chose to wait those 3 months to get the patent and become rich, because the many people live in poverty. I'm not saying that it is wrong to choose that option either. But, I feel that since I would have helped millions of people, i don't need to happiness of money and material items that you can get from money. That is why I would choose to take my invention and use it immediately, instead of waiting 3 months to get a patent and become rich. 

Weekly 1

Weekly Assignment (100 points): Make an xtranormal dialogue explaining your personal theory of history. How is history best explained? Can you give an example story/anecodote to demonstrate how your theory of history works? Do you agree with one of the four theories of history we discussed in class? Or is yours unique?


http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11097689/

Daily: Will a "hypertext" world make us more accepting of cyclic history?

I think a hyper text world would make us less accepting of cyclic history because it shows that everything doesn't happen in a cycle and theres more details and branches involved than known. If hypertext were involved then many people would see that there are so many details and other subjects involved in one problem that it doesn't occur in a cycle. They would realize that one problem makes another happen, but it doesn't make a problem reoccur. I believe that a hypertext world would make people less accepting of cyclic history.

Daily: Don't our traditional forms of information communication, notably "the book" and especially "the textbook" contribute to our belief in linear history?

I believe that our belief in information communication such as books and text books contribute to our belief in linear history. Text books and books aren't updated on a regular basis and some might carry false information as the future continues. This causes people to believe that one major event causes another major event, without looking into the new found details and things that we find out every day about past problems. If we were to get rid of certain books and text books and switch to computer many people would stop believing in linear history so much and actually put little details together to look why another major problem happened, including the little problems in between.

Daily: Is modern life "always" better than it was in the past?

Modern life is better in the past, in some ways. Technology has been a big part of modern life. It helps find cures for diseases, keep in touch with people around the world, and makes our world a faster and more organized place. But, it also causes many problems for people. Many people spend their entire lives on technology and not on other important things in life. Also, technology is being shared amongst children, and they are being showed/treated too mature for their ages. In the past, people had simple lives and didn't have to worry about checking their email or blackberry's all the time. I believe that modern day technology tears many families apart and over-rules peoples lives. But, modern life has also helped us. Many countries are more organized and people around the world can bond using technology, in the right ways. Also, our governments and officials have easier ways to communicate and they can solve world wide problems 10x faster than they used to be able to. Modern life has helped people and changed people for the worse and the better.

Daily: Does history progress? Is an elephant really "better" than a mammoth?

In my opinion, history does progress in some ways. Between elephants and mammoths, history progressed in unique ways. Some people believe that elephants are better than a mammoth, and that is true, but only in some parts. There are certain parts of the mammoth that improved when they evolved into elephants. Elephants have longer trunks. Also, elephants don't have the hair that mammoths had. Elephants are also still alive, when mammoths are extinct. In many cases, the tusks of an elephant are also bigger than a mammoth's. An elephant's blood is cooler than a mammoth's, too. As you can see history can progress in many ways for different reasons, but just because history progresses doesn't mean that it changes everything. In Linear history, it shows all of history's event, practically like cause and effect. With Cyclic history, they believe that everything happens in a cycle, but history can progress in a cycle. In Hegelian history, it shows how two events cause another event to happen, which makes history progress. Finally, in Vortex history it shows that the littlest event can cause the biggest event in all of history, which is progression. History is able to progress, and in some ways an elephant is better than a mammoth.