Para vos

I.

 

Me pediste que te olvidara como si fuera posible…

Yo propongo algo: olvidarte cuando sea posible ver un arcoíris en blanco y negro.

Cuando sea posible ser infiel sin dañar a terceros.

Cuando la luna deje de reflejar la luz del sol…o cuando los vampiros tomen baños de rayos solares.

Aun más, te propongo olvidarte cuando los ratoncitos se den cuenta que la luna es de queso.

Que irónico, para poder ser fiel a uno mismo, desafortunadamente, hay que ser infiel primero.

II.

En cada espiral, un enredo, un suspiro y un te quiero.

Así te veo en esa batalla eterna de enredos perfectos…un ricito sobre otro y vos con tu sueño eterno de tener cabello liso sedoso.

III.

Tan cerca y tan lejos

A un teclado de distancia y a mil años luz

Tan posible y ni siquiera posible
Fantasía real!

Un te quiero que se diluye en la distancia

 

Estimado señor Bartolomé de las casas, a través de los siglos, permítame agradecerle su heroico esfuerzo de denunciar el maltrato de mis antepasados. A través de sus relatos yo he descubierto que la maldad de algunos hombres sobre pasa la imaginación de lo macabro. Con todo el respeto que Ud. Se merece y, liberándome de dogmas religiosos, espero que Ud. Se encuentre gozando de la eternidad lejos de los cristianos de su tiempo. Sus Brevísimos relatos de la destrucción de los pueblos americanos, están llenos de ironías… imagínese Ud. los hombres que presumían ser hombres de Dios y civilizados se comportaron como se comportan las bestias y aún peor por que ni las bestias más salvajes matan sólo porque pueden sin razón. Espero que Ud. Éste en el paraíso y que no se haya sorprendido por estar entre todas estas almas de las que Ud. mismo habla en su libro. Las almas que Ud. creía condenadas a las entrañas del infierno por que estaban siendo asesinadas sin que antes fueran convertidas a la fe que las mataba. Han pasado ya más de quinientos años desde ese día trágico que comenzó la destrucción de estas tierras, etnocidios a escala nunca antes vista; y, como Ud. ya sabe, la destrucción fue casi total. Cuando se leen libros como el que Ud. escribió, aun se siente la agonía de la gente y se escucha a través de los siglos los gritos de dolor. Injusticia perfeccionada a filo de espada en nombre de cristo; maldito sacrilegio; Emisarios de la muerte y destrucción.

Explosión de emociones Viviendo de besos y suspiros, Con tu sonrisa se abre el cielo. Entre un beso y un suspiro me quedo. Mi gurú, mi musa, mi mujer, mi todo y más. Justamente así te quiero…perfecta y delicada. Y si para coincidir contigo fuera necesario morir, Yo estoy dispuesto a morir infinitas veces para vivir contigo compartiendo el mismo espacio.

Para mis hijos

La verdad de la mentira es que…
Aunque el cielo estuviera hecho de seda
Aunque las nubes fueran de algodón
Aunque existieran lagos de miel
Aunque las piedras del cielo fueran de pan
Yo prefiero quedarme entre ustedes por todo lo que me dan
Un estado perfecto de felicidad, mi paraíso, son ustedes.

Que viva el amor

Se esta perdiendo el verdadero amor…

Agoniza en plena vida, lo estamos matando.

Curémoslo con amor por amor.

Si muere el amor, morimos todos.

Que muera la agonía que mata el amor.

Que viva el amor que nos mantiene vivos.

 

Real love is fading away…

It's agonizing in the midst of its life, we are killing it.

Let's take care of love for love.

If we let love died, we all died with it.

Let's let the agony that is killing our love died instead.

Long live our love that keeps us alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Felipe Navas
European History 4460
Professor Ping
(optional) exam 2

 

Why was Charles Darwin's Origen of Species so controversial and shocking to the Victorian Age? Is the theory of evolution a direct attack on the Christian Religion?

 

In 1859, the foundation of an old system was shaken by what many thought was a blasphemy against God himself. The Origen of Species by Charles Darwin was and remains to be a controversial little book. Who would have thought that the work of a shy man like Charles Darwin would have had such an impact in past generations and generations to come?

Darwin suffered emotionally and intellectually with every discovery that he made because the more he learned about The Origen of Species, the more he understood that the traditional idea of creation, could not be so; or as far as we understand time. As Darwin worked on his theory, the same ideas that fed his logic, during the day, would cause him to have night mares. In other words, it is fair, to say that for many years during his research, a struggle took place in Darwin's mind: empirical science vs. the orthodoxy of religion.

Darwin, the man, found himself divided between the traditional man and the man of science. As a traditional man, he was supposed to do what society did, don't ask why but, believed. At this time, even now, young men were taught to have faith in religion and that preachers were authorities who one should not question. Sometimes, religion becomes just methods to control the lives, behavior, and even ideas of members of society who are willing to comply with such norms.

"The real challenge of Darwinism for Victorians was that it turned life into an amoral chaos displaying no evidence of a divine authority or any sense of purpose or design. (Browne, 2006, p. 86)

However; Darwin, remained a church goer even after he had published his now famous or infamous Origen of Species. It is not clear if Darwin was able to find the equilibrium of his two worlds. He was without a doubt a man of science; he found great pleasure in evidence.

As his love for science increased, his interest in blind faith decreased; he seems to have faith in reason. Scientific research became his passion, evidence his joy, common sense and logic his moral compass.

"…I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old testament from its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to God the feeling of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appears to me utterly incredible. By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,-- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,-- that men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,-- that the Gospel cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,-- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses;-- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieved in Christianity as a divine revelation…" (Green, 2011)

    

To many, Charles Darwin's Origen of Species is a direct attack on Christianity. Because some Christians believe that if a scientist denies the bible theory of creation, it is denying God himself. There seem to be a fallacy here because The Origen of Species is a work full of evidence of evolution among animals, including humans, throughout time not evidence of the non-existence of God. What Charles Darwin denied was the literal interpretation of the bible. If he denied God later in life; he might have had different reasons for that. But with his work Origen of Species, he was presenting evidences and saying, seven days for the creation of Species, can't be taken literal, because it takes many years for species to evolve in to what they are now.

However, for many Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, The Origen of Species seems as a direct attack on their faith and their dogma. Darwin's theory was not a direct attack on Christianity. However, the authorities of various religious institutions saw it as a direct threat to their reign of absolute control over the people. Origen of Species, offered peoples a different approach to life other than the literal interpretation of the bible by religious authorities; whom, sometimes would use their absolute authority to intimidated and oppress their followers with threats of eternal condemnation.

After an in-depth study of Origen of Species, one can see that it is not an attack on Christianity; however, it is an awakening call to not allow faith to become the end of reason. And if Darwin, denied God, it is not clear to me; if he did so, I strongly disagree. Because, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Dr. Carl Sagan)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Browne, J. (2006). Darwin's Origen of Species A Biography. In C. Darwin, Darwin's Origen of Species A Biography (p. 153). New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Green, J. C. (2011, April Monday). Darwin and Religion. Retrieved April 4/18/11, 2011, from http://www.jstor.org: http://www.jstor.org/stable/985427

 

 

 

Felipe Navas
European History 4460
Professor: Ping
Exam 1

 

The Essential Ideas of Marxism and the meaning of "Historical of Materialism"

 

According to Carl Marx, the history of humanity has been a struggle between the classes. "The fundamental basis of history is material production, and social life in general depends finally on the class dynamics of the production process. The practical purpose of historical materialism is to analyze the proletariat's social/political situation and thus guide it in its struggle against the Bourgeoisie." (Marx 1988, 25) Marxism as a theory is the most appealing of all system. Is it practical? Have Marxists been able to establish a real Marxist society?

"Marx's historical materialism method involves (1) understanding society in terms of its mode of production, especially its class structure; (2) identifying the influence of class conflicts on the prevailing political institutions and ideologies (including law, religion, and philosophy); and (3) using this "scientific" understanding of society to assess the prospects of historical change, especially for proletarian revolution. (Marx 1988, 29)

    The aim of Marxism is the elimination of the bourgeoisie class, which, according to Marx is the class that lives off the labor of the masses. In other words, the bourgeoisie is the class that has throughout history exploited the working class. As Marx analyzed the phenomenon of class struggle, he saw the need of forming a new social order that created equality among classes. Communism was his new social order; a political system where the means of production are owned by the state. Marx thought that if the means of production were owned by the state and not by the bourgeoisie, the exploitation of men by men would come to an end.

    Marx's socialist/communist ideas have put him in direct confrontation with capitalists that deemed Marx a utopian dreamer. Marx understood that the ruling class was not going to be willing to yield the advantageous position, which it had held on to in the already established system. Marx warned the masses that they were going to have to take the power away by means of revolutions; revolutions that were the direct result of the oppressive ways of government by the bourgeoisie.

    The Marxists and capitalists are at war and mankind has been caught in the crossfire. Communism, with the promise of equality among classes, and capitalism, with the promise of equal opportunity, are in a struggle for power on a world scale. It is clear that it is not in the best interest of either system to allow the other to succeed. So they have sabotaged each other since their struggle began. As a result, the systems have delivered more destruction and misery to most people than the good that they both offer. For example, instead of delivering the equal opportunity which it promises, capitalism has been used as a tool of exploitation by a few against the masses and it has enlarged the gap between rich and poor and between powerful and powerless.

In similarity, communism has failed to create the equality among the classes that it promises; instead, communism has created dictators that have oppressed the people. Nevertheless, communism is determined to create a new man; a man who sees the accumulation of wealth as something unnecessary; a man that desires only the bare necessities of life.

"Life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself… [I]n any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its significance." (Marx 1988, 26) Capitalism, capitalizes on the nature of men, exploiting the natural greed of men for the common good. Even though the means of production are owned by a few, in a capitalist society, the rest of the society is kept with a hope that if they work hard, some day they too could be part of the elite and be in control of the means of production.

    "Liberal theorists depicted bourgeois society as morally legitimate; for them, alienation and dehumanization could not be acknowledged. For the bourgeoisie, it is a matter of life and death to understand its own system of production in terms of eternally valid categories: it must think of capitalism as being predestined to eternal survival by the eternal laws of nature and reason. Conversely, contradictions that cannot be ignored must be shown to be purely surface phenomena, unrelated to this mode of production." (Marx 1988, 25)

    In essence, Marxism promises that through socialism, which is the first step toward communism, the new form of government that will deliver the masses from exploitation by the bourgeoisie can be achieved. However, capitalists argue that communism is an unachievable goal because it fails to recognize human nature and the creativity of men.

    The promises of a brighter future have been made to the masses by Marxists and capitalists; the fallacy in these promises is that it implies that those in charge will be trustworthy men; and that they will work only for the common good of the people. Unfortunately, now we know that the greed of capitalists can destroy the lives of those that have the misfortune of getting caught in their web of lies and business schemes. We also know the atrocities committed by communist dictators. Marxists would argue that a bad communist dictator does not represent those ideals of Marx. Just like a bad capitalist is not evidence of a bad system.

Both systems have created the illusion of freedom; and yet, when the people come to represent some kind of threat to the system, neither system hesitates to use their military machine to oppress the people. So, what is freedom anyway? Freedom is nothing but an illusion and submission to the ideas of the ruling class.

An economist and capitalist named Joan Robinson once claimed, "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all." (The Economist Newspaper Limited 2010) This creates a "this or that" fallacy. It implies that there were only two options, when in fact there are always other options, for example, creating jobs for people so they can live with dignity, paying them decent wages so the workers can afford education and medicine for their children.

The struggles between the classes will continue until, or as long as, either system fails to recognize and respect the free will of the people; because so far, people have become nothing but, a means to an end for both systems.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1988.

The Economist Newspaper Limited. The rising power of the Chinese worker. July 29, 2010.