Why has this Theme Remained Popular Since 1587?

The literary piece: Doctor Johannes Faustus tells the tale of the promiscuous character, Doctor Faustus, who sold his soul to the devil.The book is written in an autobiographical style, and covers the life story of Doctor Faustus, and how he became a fallen man, who was involved in sorcery and other forms of magic. It is debatable that this story is an accurate story, but regardless it still covers in a sense the important aspects of a person’s life. The concept of “selling the soul,” to the devil, is a key theme in the story and is discussed throughout the story. This theme has lived on throughout history and is encountered in other pieces of literature including in some modern films and music. The question is: why has this theme of “selling the soul,” remained popular since 1587?

Doctor Faustus’s life story is an interesting one, to say the least. At the beginning of his life, his Christian parents sent him away to live under the roof of a relative, to hopefully give him a better life. From the beginning it was clear that Faustus was deviant at heart, this led him to eventually deal with magic and the concept of sorcery. Sorcery and magic was the path that led Faustus to make a blood pact with Satan. This pact stated that Faustus would die when the pact ran out. The curious thing about Faustus was that he even attempted to return back to Christianity but instead, he renewed the pact. At the end of his miserable life, Faustus became further distraught and fearful, even to the point of wanting out; regardless he still died with the pact over his head.

The moral of this story is a simple one to understand. This story is a warning to people to not go down the wrong path as Faustus did. Interestingly enough this theme was not supported throughout the majority of the story, even to the point that some of Faustus’s wrong actions were not questioned. Faustus as a character goes through little character development and remains with the same ill character in the end. 

Selling the soul to the devil is an interesting concept that has remained somewhat popular since the 16th century. This concept can be encountered in various forms including movies, music, etc. Because this theme has lived on during the test of time, why has it remained popular since the 16th century? There are a variety of reasons why this theme has remained popular even today, but the main reason is that people most likely are curious about this theme. Selling your soul sounds frightening, dangerous, and even thrilling, and as humans, we are easily curious and are attracted to things that may or may not be necessarily healthy for ourselves. It has remained popular because of this curiosity and interest.

Is a Tax Supported School Different in Principle From a Tax-Supported Church?

The main education system today is in the form of public schools which are supported by taxes, and run by the state. This system has been in place in the west for many years and has become the standard in the majority of other non-western countries. Many people rely on the public school system to educate their children today, and many individuals have been educated in this method. Though the public school system has been used and adopted by the majority there are still individuals who question the system and are concerned about its flaws of the public school system, especially relating to it being run by the state. A debate or question to ask in regard to the flaws of the public system is to compare it to a tax-supported church. Is a tax-supported school any different in principle from a tax-supported church?

First and foremost many will disagree with the concept of tax-supported churches because it is clear that one does not want the state to manipulate or use the church to push their own political agenda. Any place of worship including a church is purely religious and should not be used for anything else other than being a place of worship. This explains why tax-supported churches are a rarity in today’s society.

The question is, is this any different from the tax-funded, government-run schools in today’s society? Tax-funded schools are very much at risk of having the state who runs them push out their own political agenda, to control the outcome of the student’s political beliefs or beliefs in general before they actually have a chance to discover their views themselves. Historically public education has been used as a method by various governments to bring the children of the country to not question the state regardless of if they were wrong. With the fundamentals of both the tax-supported church and school, it is clear that both are quite similar in nature, and both have similar risks.

In conclusion, there is little difference between tax-supported, public schools and tax-supported churches. Both are run by the state, and both are at risk of having the state push out their own personal agenda. 

Is the Language of Foxe Still Compelling Today?

John Foxe was a 16th-century English historian, who is best known for his work titled: Acts and Monuments, more commonly known as Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. This written work retold the sufferings that the Protestant Church experienced during the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary. It described the executions and severe punishments that influential protestants such as Lady Jane Grey experienced during this time. In regard to Foxe’s writing style, a question that steps forth is the question of: is the language of Foxe still compelling today?

Foxe’s writing clearly was compelling during his time because his written works continued to be published, and are still able to be read today, which means that his historic writing is accurate historically. Yes, his writing was written in an older style of English, which the majority of modern readers will have to take some time getting used to, and there are many instances of bias(especially towards the Catholic Church), which is unavoidable. The historical events Foxe covered in Acts and Monuments, were important in influencing England’s transition from a Catholic nation to an Anglican one. 

Examples of some of the historical events that Foxe covered in, Acts and Monuments, included. The execution of Thomas Cranmer, who annulled the marriage between Queen Mary’s mother and her father Henry the 8th, Lady Jane Grey who had become queen for a short period of time, and a number of other important individuals who did not lean towards the Catholic ideology, or went against Queen Mary in some way. These persecutions of Protestants continued on until the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which turned the tide to the persecution of Catholics in England, along with Protestant groups that did not conform with the Church of England. 

These historical events covered are compelling, and most probably pique interest in individuals who have an interest in history, but the larger question is of Foxe’s writing style or language. Is the language of Foxe still compelling today? Putting aside the interesting historical events that Foxe covered and focusing on the writing style itself, I would say that his writing language would not be compelling today. This answer is influenced by the factor of an older style of English. Foxe wrote in an older style of English which most modern readers are not accustomed to or used to. For a piece of literature to be compelling to a majority of readers, it has to be written in a style that is understood and grasped by those readers.

Acts and Monuments by John Foxe is a unique piece of historic literature, that was written in a time that many modern history works cover. Though this work has survived the test of time the writing style in this piece of literature would not be compelling to most modern readers, due to it being written in an older form of English. Foxe’s language is not compelling today. 

What is One Issue that Reflects the Individualist Versus the Collectivist Outlook in Your Own Times? How Does it do this?

The individualistic view and concept of individualism has been attempted to be suppressed throughout history. The Soviet Union attempted to suppress it, China suppresses it(less so now), and even in the West the concept of individualism is suppressed, and the collectivist outlook is further encouraged. An example of one issue that reflects the individualist versus the collectivist outlook in my own time is in the form of politics. How does it do this?

A theme that is becoming more and more prevalent in this period in history in the west in regards to politics is how people tend to believe whatever they either see, read, or have been told by a news network first, before actually doing their own research. People these days tend to believe things that a majority believes in just because the majority believes in it and the state promotes it. Though there are many views held by a majority that is not problematic there are definitely many instances where the views of the majority have been problematic and objectively wrong. Even when it is clearly apparent the majority continues to believe those wrong beliefs because a large number of people believe them, and the state tells them to do so. Regardless of the political side, this is prevalent. Obvious misinformation is widely believed and accepted.

An example of how many aspects of politics reflect the individualist versus the collectivist outlook today is how different sides of a political or news story are suppressed. Because most mainstream news networks are highly biased and people are biased, most of the news media that comes out is one-sided. There is a lack of different perspectives being represented in the media. The mainstream media today is very collectivist.

Many people completely ignore or forget to acknowledge that different views exist and that they may be correct on some matters. Aspects of their worldview may be incorrect. Just because a large mass of people believes in something does not mean it is necessarily right or correct. It is best to be open to new ideas and to do self-research. It is completely alright not to agree with the majority on a clearly incorrect belief.

The individual and the collective have been at odds throughout history, with many governments, groups, and even individuals themselves attempting to suppress the individual. Though there have been many times in history where the individual seemed to have been defeated it always arises again and continues to live on no matter how great it continues to be silenced.

In What Sense was the World a Dangerous Place in the 1960s and 1970s?

The 1960s and 1970s was a very unique time, with a very large cultural shift occurring. This shift was especially seen in the United States. It was a time of new ideas, and people were exploring new ways of life never like before. During this time was also the period of the Cold War which was a complex and tense situation with Russia, which left a heavy influence on this time period. In relation to the topic of this period, would I say that the world in general in the West was a dangerous place in the 60s and 70s? If so in what sense was it dangerous?

During the 1960s and 1970s the Cold War was in fledge. America and Russia had a pretty tense relationship. Though neither country was harmed in the physical military sense there still was a lot of issues with spies from either side, threats such as threats of attack from both sides, etc. The Cold War in many ways also influenced the Vietnam War which was a war against communists who were funded by the Soviets, and the non-communists who were eventually supported by the United States. The Vietnam War is one that many believe America should not have been involved in, and many Americans at the time were against the war. There were many mass anti-war protests during the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.

A very important key event was the assassination of president Kennedy in 1963, which caused a very large disruption in America. The vice president who became president, president Johnson, implemented what is called The Welfare State. Though the Welfare State seemed to be a sound thing that would help the poor it in the long run had many negative long-lasting effects, such as the loss of the work ethic. Though the Cold War, Kennedy’s assassination, the implemation of the welfare state, and the overall cultural change during this period of time caused much mental strain and stress to the people of the West, overall it was not a dangerous time. Compared to the 40s during World War II the 60s and 70s was not a dangerous time in history in the physical standpoint, though it could be said otherwise in the mental standpoint. 

In conclusion, though the 60s and 70s was a very tense and serious time in history it overall for the average American was not a dangerous time. It was a very unique time in history, where people began to lose their trust in the government, and other authority figures which had previously been fully trusted.

If the State Regulated Garage Sales, Would Poor People be Better off?

A garage sale is something that people do to get rid of old items or things that they no longer need. These Garage sales are almost always held in a person’s garage or in a driveway. Overall it is a very casual thing. The unique thing about a Garage sale is that it is almost completely independent of state regulation and has little to no state interference. In a scenario of the state deciding to begin regulating Garage sales, would the lower class or poorer individuals be better off in this case?

One must note what comes with state regulation especially when it has to do with businesses. Some of the things that come with state regulations that have to do with businesses include price controls, the government would have regulations on how much a person could sell their items at a garage sale. A tax on each item, which in turn would hike up the prices of the items. Because the state is already implementing the first two regulations, why not add that people have to have a license or have to do a special course on “Garage Sale Safety,” to hold a garage sale? All of this most definitely would not benefit anyone who wants to hold a garage sale, but how does this affect poor people or the lower class? The lower class most definitely would not be better off if the state-regulated garage sales. What if a person of lower income wanted to have a garage sale to declutter and get some cash money, and they couldn’t because they had to have some sort of license? In this case, a buyer who has a lower income would go to garage sales to buy inexpensive used items and all of a sudden all of those inexpensive used items were hiked up in price because of the state regulations, and the tax implemented by the state. 

Thus, in conclusion, if the state-regulated garage sales like they do with most businesses, people of lower income and class would most definitely not be better off. In all honesty, people of lower income would be worse off in this scenario than the average middle-class person.

In What Sense was the World a Dangerous Place in the 1960s and 1970s?

The 1960s and 1970s was a very unique time, with a very large cultural shift occurring especially in the United States or in the West in general during that period. It was a time of new ideas, and people were exploring new ways of life never like before. Also during this time was the period of the Cold War which was a complex and tense situation with Russia, which had a heavy influence on this time period. But would I say that the world in general in the West was a dangerous place in the 60s and 70s? If so in what sense was it dangerous?

During the 1960s and 1970s the Cold War was in full fledged, and America and Russia had a pretty tense relationship. Though neither country was harmed in the physical military sense there still was a lot of issues with spies from either side, threats such as threats of attack from both sides, etc. The Cold War in many ways also influenced the Vietnam War which was a war against communists who were funded by the Soviets, and the non-communists who were eventually supported by the United States. The Vietnam War is one that many believe America should not have been involved in, and many Americans at the time were against the war. There were many mass anti-war protests during the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.

A very important key event was the assassination of president Kennedy in 1963, which caused a very large disruption in America. The vice president who became president, president Johnson, implemented what is called The Welfare State. Though the Welfare State seemed to be a sound thing that would help the poor it in the long run had many negative long-lasting effects, such as the loss of the work ethic. Though the Cold War, Kennedy’s assassination, the implementation of the welfare state, and the overall cultural change during this period of time caused much mental strain and stress to the people of the West overall it was not a dangerous time. Compared to the 40s during World War II the 60s and 70s was not a dangerous time in history in the physical standpoint, though it could be said otherwise in the mental standpoint. 

In conclusion, though the 60s and 70s was a very tense and serious time in history it overall for the average American was not a dangerous time. It was a very unique time in history, where people began to lose their trust in the government, and other authority figures which had previously been fully trusted.

In What Ways did Revenge Figure into the Strategies of the Countries Fighting in World War II?

In a war, there are many motives on both sides, but revenge is a common motive in most wars. World War II in and of itself had many motives for both the Axis and Allied Powers, which influenced the course of the war. It would be naive to say that the two sides in World War II did not have any motives of revenge seeping into their war strategies. In what ways did revenge figure into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II?

In war there is much death on both sides, in World War II, for example, there were many bombings and many innocent civilians killed along with the millions of soldiers killed, this left a very large opening to revenge seeping in as a motive. An example of how revenge figured into strategies of the countries fighting in World War II was with destructive counterattacks, which were said to be in response to an enemy attack; though that was most likely not incorrect it still does not justify the destruction that was done. 

Some towns and cities experienced siege during the war and were cut off from essentials completely which was horrific for the innocent people inside of those cities and towns. Siege is an excellent example of how revenge was a motive during the war. The war was in a constant situation of each side or country getting back at the other side or another country. If one side committed an atrocity to the other side that side would most likely commit an atrocity to the other side at one point. Neither side was not innocent of committing atrocities. It was a constant vicious cycle. 

To conclude, these are some examples of how revenge figured into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II.

Is it Worth My Time to Get a Part-Time Job at the Minimum Wage?

High school is usually the period of time that a person gets their first taste of an actual job. Usually, a high schooler would start with a part-time job that would fit with their schedule, but eventually in the summer when the high-schooler is off from school he/she could work more full-time because it makes more sense to do so during the summer months. As a highschool aged student would it be worth my time to get a part-time job at the minimum wage?

The answer to the question above really depends on the circumstance. As a full-time student much of the year, who does extracurricular activities such as sports, it would be worth my time to get a part-time job at the minimum wage. My reasoning is that I would not have time to have a full-time job, or to work eight hours a day during most of the week, it simply would not make sense for me. Also, though the hours are shorter than a full-time job, a part-time job would still provide a steady income and some job experience for the future. The income from the job would most likely cover my small expenses, and also would be enough to save a percentage. I must note that where I live there are quite a few laws on minors working, so I technically would not be able to work full time during the school year as a minor anyways.

In the scenario that it was summer time it would be appropriate to get a more full-time job because I would not have school(unless I decided to get ahead and do summer school), and my extracurriculars. Most likely I would not want to get a full-time minimum wage job because I would want to do other things, like going to the beach or spending time with friends, for example.

In conclusion, a part-time job at the minimum wage would be worth my time at the moment because I would be gaining some job experience, an income, and something of value to use my time with.

Was Thomas More Risking Persecution by the Church Because of This Book?

Thomas More was a Catholic and a  statesman during his lifetime. He is best known for his satirical work: Utopia. Utopia is a book that is about a nation called Utopia that has some unique characteristics, which More deems as ideal. In regards to this book, would More have been risking persecution by the Catholic Church, because of this book?

A factor that is important to note in regards to Utopia, is that it is highly satirical. When a person reads this book it is pretty clear that the book was written satirically. Personally, I believe that people during the period, especially the church, which had many literate members, would be able to decipher that this piece of literature was written in satire, and could not be taken too seriously. Another point to consider is that in Utopia, More never undermined the Catholic Church, or stated anything that would upset the Church. More himself was Catholic.

Thomas More most definitely was not risking persecution by the Church because of his book Utopia. The book did not undermine the Church and was written in clear satire, meaning anyone reading the book would not take it too seriously. It was not a book about transparent reform.