Reading Log 5: First Response to "The Gospel of Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie started off with a modest job. Thanks to a few connections and the right investment decisions, he climbed the ladder of success and ended up becoming one of the richest men in his time. He, along with Herbert Spencer, believed that there were superior people who were the fittest of the economy. I agree with the sentiment; there are definitely people who are higher up when it comes to wealth and finance. As sad as it may be, these individuals have a big say when it comes to controlling the economy. Carnegie was one of those superior people, so he writes from experience.

Carnegie believes that the wealth of the world should be concentrated in the hands of a few people. He thinks that these people know how to use money better. I have to admit that Carnegie does have a point. The rich and educated are known for their smart investments. However, I find it unfair that only the few get a say in how the world's wealth is used. Everyone has a right to use money to satisfy their needs and wants. Everyone has the right to be happy. Unfortunately for us average Joe's, Carnegie's ideal is more-or-less true these days. A large portion of the world's money is in the hands of a lucky few, and they get to use it the way they want.

Carnegie also believed that charity is a sin, because most of the money given to the poor is misused by them. Carnegie would rather help the poor in other ways, instead of just giving them money. I understand Carnegie's point. Indeed, there are many beggars out there who use their obtained money on drugs and other unnecessary goods. There are some who do not use their money efficiently; they buy the more expensive food when they can save money on cheaper food that tastes the same. It would be a lot better if we bought a piece of bread for them instead of just giving them cash to spend on whatever they please. However, there are also the few responsible beggars who spend their money more wisely. I think that these beggars deserve the cash and we should give it to them. So, I believe that Carnegie's principles depend on the type of person involved, and cannot be used in a generalized way.

Reading Log 4: First Response to "The Aim of Man" by Aristotle

"The Aim of Man" borrows most of the issues from the Nichomachean Ethics, a document Aristotle wrote to tutor his son, Nichomachus. In "The Aim of Man," Aristotle defines the word good. He says that it is not something you are; it is something you do. Feeling good comes from the activities you do. I agree with Aristotle; I believe that action is the path to happiness.Getting accepted to Stevens Institute of Technology made me happy; but in order to get accepted, I had to do a lot of different things like get good grades, do good on my SATs, do extracurricular activities, etc.

Aristotle also says that statecraft is the highest good because it consists of all the arts and sciences. It sorts out the types of sciences and arts that are used in different areas. He states that good statecraft ensures the good of the nation, which is why it is the highest good. I agree with him on the point that it assures the good of a country, so it can be named the greatest good. However, from an individual's perspective, I think that statecraft does not provide a single person with the maximum goodness. So, the phrase, "highest good," can be debatable, as statecraft provides the whole population chunks of its goodness.

Aristotle talks about whether or not happiness is dependent on wealth. The wealth of people changes very often. However, true happiness is not something that should change as frequently as money does. So, happiness is not dependent on money.

Aristotle also talks about whether or not to judge a man's happiness only after he dies. After the man dies, his happiness cannot change. During his life, however, his happiness can change at times; hopefully not as many times as changes in wealth. So, a good measure of a man's happiness is when nothing can affect his happiness, which is after death.

Reading Log 3: First Response to Martin Luther King's Letter From Birmingham

The acclaimed, influential Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter to a group of clergymen while in prison. He was imprisoned because of his sit-in programs in cafeterias. There was massive segregation going on during time, and Martin Luther King Jr. was fiercely against it. King was ready to suffer for what he believed in, which helps explain the actions that caused his imprisonment.

At the time, Birmingham was the most segregated city in the United States. Many African-Americans there were treated brutally. The leaders of the African-American community tried negotiating with the city leaders so that their people could be treated more fairly. False promises were made by the city leaders and the merchants, which invoked King to take action.

King and his followers used the method of direct action. There were sit-ins, marches and other types of rallies. It took me a while to understand how marches would help in King's cause. What the marches and rallies did was cause tension in the city leaders. This tension helped direct the leaders' attention towards the problem. The direct action procedure also helped open up negotiations again. The city leaders have to confront King's followers about their direct action, and the only way to confront the issue is to negotiate with the ones would are causing the issue! King's brilliant plan to obtain Human Rights for the African-Americans was set in motion.

King even chose the perfect time for direct action - during Easter season, one of the main shopping periods of the year. This was a great time to put pressure on the merchants since they were already under a load of pressure because of business. King rescheduled his direct action plans, however, for after the Mayor Election day as he deemed it a better time.

King was passionate about his community. He wanted to see them be treated equal to the Caucasians. He believed that segregation was sinful and that no one should be treated like an outsider when they live in the United States. He also believed that it was a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, such as laws made solely to target African-Americans.

Another thing King believed was that freedom is not given freely. It has to be demanded by the people seeking freedom. I find the statement, "freedom is not given freely," ironic because freedom itself is not free. 

Reading Log 2: First Response to "Satyagraha: Non-Violent Resistance" by Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi wrote the Satyagraha while he was in South Africa. Satyagraha literally means "holding on to truth", which is why Gandhi uses the word "Truth-Force". The Satyagraha is a way to protest without any violence. Gandhi believes in non-violence and states that it is the best way to obtain results. Instead of using violence and brute fore, we should pity others.

Gandhi states that there are many different ways to handle a robbery at your house. You can be hostile and fight with the robber. This will lead to a never-ending chain of hatred between you and the robber. However, you can pity the robber and talk to him. You can try to make him feel guilty so that he never steals again. Thus, you change a man's life and obtain a new friend. This example also proves that the means to obtain an outcome does matter, which is another one of Gandhi's philosophies. Like I said before, there are many different "means" to tackle the robbery situation, and according to Gandhi, the ones with love and pity are the best means. The "means" are important!

Gandhi also writes about history. He states that history only records interruptions in the flow of nature, like disputes between leaders, fights between people, wars between countries and other sorts of destruction. Truth-Force is one with nature, so it is never noted down in history. This is why we cannot use history as a reference to how beneficial Truth-Force or Love-Force really is. Looking back in history might give us the wrong idea about Truth-Force, according to Gandhi.

Gandhi also states that, "Those that take the sword shall perish by the sword." He means that a person who starts a fight will definitely suffer from the fight. A country that starts a war will be blown away by war. This statement helps empower the Satyagraha. It can be derived that if you pity others, you will be pitied too. Thus, Gandhi effectively expresses his reasoning on how Truth-Force or Soul-Force is the perfect weapon against oppression.

Reading Log 1: First Response to Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of the Prince"

The writer of "Tao-te Ching" is unknown but many believe it to be the work of Lao-Tzu, which translates to "Old Master". Many say that Lao-Tzu lived in the sixth century B.C. Lao-Tzu's writing formed the basis of the religion Taoism.

The "Tao-te Ching" is basically a document about how to build a good nation with a proper government and good ethnic values. Some parts of the writing suggest that the Tao is the All-Knowing Ruler of the Universe. The text tells us to look beyond ourselves and be one with the Tao, even though we are not completely sure what the Tao is.

Lao-Tzu says that money and possessions are a burden to the soul and are valueless and meaningless. He states that one who is at liberty and enlightened will look down on the materialistic.

Lao-Tzu suggests that politicians take action only when necessary and remain inactive otherwise. He is against doing useless activities. His words are: "the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything." His ideology reduces the power of the government and gives more power to the people. Lao-Tzu states that a leader will provide for all the individuals without anything unnecessary. Lao-tzu thinks that if the people do not know that they are being govern, they will be able to achieve greater things by themselves. Lao-tzu does not believe in control or fixed plans. He believes that if you leave it be, the world will control itself.

"Tao-te Ching" was written to be used as a handbook for politicians. It describes the values that a ruler should have. To our modern time, the statements in this writing may seem strange and different. I can't imagine a country functioning properly without a stern hand from the government. Perhaps Lao-Tzu's words could have helped the system of another time.

Lao-Tzu's thoughts are idealistic. If the world could function the way the Tao-te Ching suggests, a lot of our problems would be fixed and we would be living on a peaceful planet. However, planet earth and its inhabitants are not so "simple" anymore. There is always one rotten egg in the dozen. If the world attempts to function in the ways of Taoism, the tyrants would rise and rule. Lao-Tzu tells us to remain complacent with the way we live. In modern times, people thrive to improve their way of living. So, people would not like Lao-Tzu's thought of being satisfied. Overall, Lao-Tzu's teachings would be ideal, but would not work in our modern society.

Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Qualities of the Prince" takes a different direction compared to Tao-te Ching. Machiavelli's writing takes a more strict approach when it comes to governing. Lao-Tzu "assumes" that people are all good whereas Machiavelli "assumes" that people are all bad. Machiavelli's method is more practical to our modern time. His statements are more personal whereas Lao-Tzu's thoughts are from a detached view.

Machiavelli's writing is more of a How-To book compared to Lao-Tzu's more poetic "spiritual" writings.