What I learned this semester

This semester has been an exciting time for me, in ENGL 2111 and otherwise.  But as for this class, it has been enlightening, challenging, and fun.  I think that the most useful skill I honed in on over the course of this class was my ability to think critically.

Reading the literature throughout this class, a lot of which I was already familiar with, was about a lot more than just reading, listening to a lecture, and having a class discussion.  Professor Hamon challenged me to think deeper about not only the literature, but how it applied to my own life.

Even more importantly than the application of this literature to my own life though, was the challenging of my own beliefs about the world around me, politics, morals, and so much more.  The discussions in this class helped me realize how constant my state of change, learning, and evolution truly is, and that "mastery" of basically anything is almost a joke.  I always considered myself open minded before, but now I am trying a little harder to really challenge where I picked up on the things that I think and why I hold a lot of the beliefs I hold.  I don't necessarily think I am wrong about everything, but I now want to try a little harder to make sure my beliefs are truly my own and not just a product of the small amount of the world I have lived my life in.

Although the semesters tend to blur together, I think that a part of this class will be useful for me not only throughout the rest of my college career, but my life itself.

Hamlet: Other Opinions

In reading my classmates' responses to the prompt asking to describe a character similar to Hamlet, almost everyone chose Oedipus (including me) so I was looking for a classmate who chose something different.  Ashlyn Whetsel chose Achilles which I also agree with, because they are both seeking revenge.  She says "Hamlet is seeking revenge on his uncle, Cladius, for killing his father. In Homer's The Iliad, Achilles is seeking revenge Hector for killing Patroclus." I agree with her but I also think that the both have very different, complex situations and are very different men past that point.  Out of all of my classmates who, like me, compared Hamlet and Oedipus, I think my favorite statement was made by Arin Hagood when she blogged "Even though misfortune has happened throughout their life, at the end of the day they both just wanted the truth. And that led to the destruction of both of them." That was a very eloquent way of describing a similarity between those two characters.

Hamlet & Oedipus

Although they are not identical, Hamlet and Oedipus share many similarities.  Not all, because Hamlet was a unique character in some ways, but some, for sure.  They both possess a tragic flaw and are in a tragedy...and both in a royal family.  I think besides the vengeful nature of their stories though, the similarities in a lot of ways stop there. Oedipus didn't question the world around him as much as Hamlet did and was someone who acted with decisiveness because of that certainty, which is the key difference (among others) between these two characters.

Ethics: Another Perspective

As always, it is interesting to read the posts of my classmates, many of whom have very different worldviews and some with whom I seemingly have more in common with.  I found it interesting that Tionne Bryant said "Hillary Clinton has the most firm ethical standards and  most relativistic and situational ethics."  I very much respect her as a presidential candidate, as a woman, and as a politician, however, I think this statement is interesting because it definitely reflects a different opinion on "situational ethics" than I have.  This is because I think having firm ethical standards is extremely honorable and important because it shows your ability to maintain and uphold strong convictions and values (very important in a leader, and something that for the most part I think Mrs. Clinton maintains.)  However, as I mentioned in my last post, I think situational ethics is something that needs to be treaded carefully and lightly, and one should only sacrifice their ethical and moral convictions in a situation of absolute necessity, otherwise you will lose respect and your subjects will not believe you stand on firm ground.  Campaign season, as I also said, is a time when the line of situational ethics is often toed, because of an absolute effort to gain followers before the title of "leader" is even won, and in that sense you can see it to some extent from every candidate.  So while I do agree with Mr. Bryant on her firm sense of ethical standards, I do not agree that she has the most situational ethics, but only because I think she is a stronger woman than that.  I believe she is capable of discerning when you need to put your convictions aside for the good of a nation, though.
While on the subject of campaign season, and the fuzzy sense of "ethics" that is brings out in our nations presidential hopefuls, it brings me to another statement from a classmate that I wholeheartedly agree with, from Caitlin Smallwood.  She spoke of Trump's sense of situational ethics and said " For the overwhelming situational ethics matched with absolute power and cruelty I thought of Trump who matches situational ethics to a T. In one moment, a promise of respect for the troops the next calling the troops idiots all for the sake of gaining more power which follows the ways of Machiavelli ."  Although I believe campaign season causes a lot of fuzzy ethical ground, Donald Trump does, in my eyes, take it to a new level.  Cruelty, scapegoating, fear-mongering, sexism, and racism...are all par for the course in a Trump campaign rally or speech.  I call this situational ethics because I believe that he knows that the demographic he mainly caters to feeds off of this type of statement, and is frustrated and really connects with the fact that he not only gives them a place to lay blame on the state of our nation, but also offers solutions (whether they are feasible or logical is another story.)  I highly doubt even Mr. Trump himself believes a lot of what he says to be sensible or feasible, but I know that he knows that the population he is speaking to really connects with the message he is throwing out there and so even if it isn't ethical (and is downright cruel) he does what he has to do for the "ends to justify the means" (which in his case is a hopeful presidential win.)

eth·ics

noun

plural noun: ethics; noun: ethics

1. 1.

   moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

To me, someone with ethical standards has a firm set of principles that they believe in and will act on, regardless of the situation.  Someone with firm ethical standards will not shift or hide what they believe is right or wrong depending on who they are around or what kind of impression they are trying to make.  This is why, regardless of how I feel about his policy ideas or political affiliation, I believe that Senator Bernie Sanders has, hands down, the strongest set of ethical standards of anyone I have seen running for public office basically ever.  In 2002, he was publically vocal against invading Iraq.  In the 1960s, Senator Sanders marched for civil rights.  As a mayor in Burlington, Sanders supported the city's first pride parade in the '80s and as a senator voted against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the '90s, proving his very consistent attitude and stance on equal rights regardless of sexuality- Instead of flip-flopping on the issue when it was beneficial for the vote.  Regardless of how you feel about his policies regarding economics, military, etc...I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone with the kind of consistency in a track record that he has.

ethical relativism definition

In ethics, the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definition of right or wrong depends on the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or historical period.

-The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

1. situation ethics definition 
2. 
   
3. A system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles —called also situational ethics
4. -Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In a lot of ways, I think that those two types of ethical code are actually useful for anyone in power to have.  When the stake of your country is on the line, I believe that at times you need to look at the situation contextually and make a decision based on the wellbeing of your state, your nation, etc.  This is probably a useful outlook usually for a political leader.  However, I do not think that it is useful to be so swayed by situation that you do not have a strong enough moral compass to have true convictions about what is right and wrong.  Although I believe that sometimes, unfortunately, bad things need to happen to justify the means (including, unfortunately, sometimes people die at war) Ultimately, I believe that if you have a strong moral compass and idea of what is right and wrong and let that be your guide, you're going to be the most effective ruler.  There is no hard and fast rule about when you need to be situationally ethical, I just think that knowing when you need to bend is one thing that if you're cut out to rule, you'll be intuitive about...and this is also why many people are certainly not cut out to lead!

As far as ethical relativism, I think the times you see this strongly are actually times like now- in the middle of campaign season.  This is when politicians, rulers, etc, really seem to mold their beliefs to match the prevailing views of the public.  (A good example would be Hillary Clinton's support of the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the early 2000s and her complete and totally support of equal rights now, at a time when the public opinion has already shifted greatly on this issue.) Unlike situational ethics, which I believe has it's merits, ethical relativism I believe is a cop-out on thinking for yourself.  It is a cop-out on individualistic thinking and progression in our society and I see very little use as a leader in this type of thinking, except as a way to earn the trust and support of a society, as you see during campaigning. 

Hell: Other Perspectives

Reading my classmates views on Hell after writing my own post has been very interesting.
I think Ashlyn Whetsel's observation that "in Hell, compassion can mislead people into wrongly sympathizing with true villains who are deserving of their Hell. As the protagonist’s journey continues, he learns to harden his heart and to distinguish between different levels of sin."  I think this was interesting and can be applied to real life as well.  Sometimes, you may see someone suffering and instantaneously due to compassion you feel sympathetically towards them, but they could have very much caused their situation.  For example, you could see a sad, lonely woman and pity her, without realizing she murdered her family and caused her entire situation.
Misty Miner discussed the difference between positive & negative reinforcement, and said that "Many children today grow up in households and churches that adhere to what is known as "fire and brimstone" teaching. This religious technique is used to control followers with fear, hoping that if (for instance) children and adolescents believe in the concept of eternal damnation, like that displayed in Dante's Inferno, they will abide by the morals and lessons dictated in said religion and religious teachings." 
I agree that it can be a useful motivator, but I also feel that it can be harmful and cause a life of shame and confusion.  Not only shame and confusion, but you also may never fully live up to your real dreams and aspirations because you are tip toeing the line and living an extremely cautious life instead.

Hell

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."
This is what Dante reads as he enters hell.  Hell is eternal- the last stop.Regardless of what mistake got you there, whether you killed your sister or you just lied a lot...get comfortable because this is it.
It's a scary concept, really.  Something I've been thinking about a lot since this topic came to the surface in class is if you really truly believed in Hell with every fiber of your being...like, believed it as surely as you believed you had 10 fingers...a hell like Dante described...would anyone ever sin?  If you actually BELIEVED a place such as this existed and that sinning would send you there?  I find that extremely hard to believe.  Even if you for the most part believe in hell, I don't think you completely do. This is because, to me, if eternal punishment is real, that's one of the (if not the most) scary things I could imagine.  No hope. Just suffering. Forever.  Believing in something like that is completely unimaginable to me, but in my mind, it would lead to a much different life than the one I lead today.
Another thing I found interesting is that people could end up in hell just for being "uncommited"- being neither good or evil..just doing nothing of value.  Tying back to the first point I made in this post...it's crazy to imagine the initiative more people would take and amazing things that could have been accomplished in the world today and how much further we would be as a society if people feared eternal suffering just for being "uncommited!"  I feel like the world would just be DRASTICALLY different.
A lot of this for me is just very hypothetical- as I said, I find believing in such an unforgiving, cruel world extremely hard to imagine.

The Qur'an and The Bible

There are many similarities between the two.  I think the most basic would be they both preach the belief of ONE all-powerful god.  The Bible says in Mark "The Lord our God is one Lord" and the Quran says in 2:163 ‘And your God is One God. There is no God but He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.’  I think it is because of this similarity that both of these religions have caused many wars over the history of mankind.  With a true conviction and belief that the God you are worshipping is the one and only, you believe you are right and no one else can be worshipping the true God.

A difference between the two is that the Bible says that Jesus is the son of God where as the Quran teaches that he is a prophet.  Considering the first similarity I mentioned being that both religions believe there to be only one true god, this is a fairly big difference in belief and makes some sense out of all of the conflict between Islam & Christianity historically and currently.

Confucious & the presidential candidates

Unfortunately, I do not really think anyone running for president this year lives up to the teachings of Confucious.  He says rulers must be just & gain the trust of the people, and if you just let "the people" speak for themselves, I think the dissatisfaction most people have with their options this year speaks volumes for the trustworthiness of the current candidates.  Plus, I think the entire campaigning system in our country makes it hard to earn the trust of the American people in general because most people realize that so many big coorporations fund a lot of candidates which causes question to who they're actually speaking for and supporting.  Along with the way they speak with each other during debates, speeches, etc, goes along with his teachings yet again because I would call it anything but compassionate, which is another of his values.  Confucious also believed in peace and prosperity (along with doing unto others what you would wish upon yourself), and it seems that no matter where you turn, candidates are preaching selfishness and war as a core value.  Frankly, it makes me sick, and if confucious were alive today I believe he would feel the same way.

Opposites in Daodejing

I think that the main theme of opposites in Daodejing is that without opposites there would be no appreciation of good or beauty and also no concept of right or wrong.  He says 'when everyone in the world sees beauty, then ugly exists' and I think this is something that is true entirely in real life.  You can't appreciate beauty without anything to compare it to.  Just as you can never no how fortunate you truly are if you've never had to withstand any sort of trial in your life. 
Along the same message, it reads 'what is and what is not create each other,' which I believe basically to mean that most of us perceive things in terms of relativity to other situations and things.  When we say "bad" we are typically thinking of a lot of other things that would be "less bad" and when we say "great" we are aware of a lot of "not so great" things in comparison.  Without the knowledge of the opposites, we wouldn't have really any ground to make these claims.

Bhagavad Gita/Syria

Although personally, I have some back and forth feelings about our presence in Syria, I do believe that the Bhagavad-Gita in some ways actually does justify our actions taken.  Although many argue our government has sent men where we ought not interfere, I think that maybe Lord Krishna would have felt differently about the situation.  He said "Bhishma, Drona, Jayadratha, Karna, and many others are already slain. Kill those whom I have killed. Do not hesitate. Fight in this battle and you will conquer your enemies." and I believe he would advise that enemies of others are also enemies of our own.  That it is our duty to defend others who may not be as capable of defense.  In this case, you could replace "enemies" with ISIL and our duty to eliminate evil no matter what borders it is within.  Although this is not entirely my opinion, I think in this context, the Bhagavad Gita does perhaps back this up.  Especially in the context of living at peace with yourself, many would say that it is hard to live at peace with yourself knowing that there is evil at play while you idly sit by.

Change

I think change is something that happens to everyone as they grow older.  For most people, probably many times and very often.  Looking back on what you expect to be like or be doing at certain points in your life, change has a funny way of reminding you of how clueless you really are about the future until you get there.  Just a short few years ago, I was a college student at University of Cincinnati, sort of interested in a guy in the Air Force from my hometown who was stationed in Warner Robins, Georgia.  I was open to the idea of a long distance relationship but very content with my life in Ohio and not so willing to uproot my life.  Today, I have lived in Georgia and been married since 2013.  Why?  Because as time went by, I changed, along with my priorities.  I have a drastically different life than I did at that time and in a lot of ways I am a drastically different person.  However, I don't think it takes a major life event like marriage or moving away to ignite change in a person's life.  Sometimes it happens gradually, like gradually wanting to stay out late less and less as you get older or improving at a sport you practice at multiple times a week.  Change is inevitable in our lives, whether you work at it or not.  This is also because you can't control all of the external factors that play a part in the changes in your life, like the actions of other people.

Ex Machina/Pygmalion

For our blog this week, we are to discuss the connection between Ex Machina and Pygmalion.  As I had never heard of Ex Machina before, after I watched the trailer assigned to us for class, I did a little more research.  It sounds like a similar concept to an American movie that came out last year that my husband and I went to see, called "Her" starring Joaquin Phoenix.  I enjoyed this movie a lot, which was about a man who falls in love the the operating system on his phone (it was a much more advanced/interactive version of something similar to "Siri" on today's iPhones).  In Ex Machina, a man connects and is very controlled by an extremely human-like robot.  In Pygmalion, he falls in love with his statue.  However, I do believe that the differences mostly stop there because although they both fall in love with human-like non-humans, Pygmalion's statue does become human, and to my knowledge, Ava (the AI in Ex Machina), does not turn into a live human.  However, I could be wrong, as I have never actually seen that movie.

Another Perspective IV

After reading through all of the different examples of "Tragedy" from my other classmates, I think it's very obvious that tragedy means something very different to everyone.  For example, in my classmate Matt Johnson's blog, he references the death of his uncle from cancer as a tragedy in his life.  In one of the definitions of tragedy I referenced in my earlier blog post that many people usually use today, tragedy refers to an extremely horrible event in someone's life.  In this case, I believe a death in the family is most certainly a tragedy.  However, it is not a tragedy in the literary sense.  It was not caused by anyone's shortcoming.

I found it interesting that one of my classmate's blog posts very closely reflected my views on modern day tragedy.  Kaley Wilson spoke of a car accident that she witnessed as a child, where the baby of a married couple passed away and the grief caused the couple to divorce shortly after.  Although she acknowledged that the death of their child was a horrible, sad event, she acknowledged that the actual tragedy in the situation was the couple's shortcomings and inability to overcome their grief to pull their marriage together, when she says, "In my opinion, this is a tragedy. I think it is terrible that the child died. I think it's awful that the parents had to deal with such a loss. But the tragedy is in their divorce. The baby had no faults. He did not cause anything. The parent's own selfish grief and unwillingness to move on was the tragedy. Their own personal emotional faults caused the breaking up of a love. Sadness overcome love, and that is why this is a tragedy."  The sadness is not why she qualified this story as a tragedy, it was the shortcoming of the mother and father in light of the unfortunate event.

Tragedy

To me, one of the best examples in everyday life that I can think of that parallels the literary tragedies that we discuss and read in class, is divorce.  Unlike a lot of the horrific, sad, destructive, *insert any other dramatic, negative adjective here", events and people that we brought up in our last class discussion, divorce often does come as a result of a flaw or shortcoming of one or both involved spouses.  Getting hit by a falling airplane part, although awful (and probably gory) is not a tragedy in your life.  It is an awful event that you had absolutely no control over. Unfortunately, you probably have very little control over the success of your recovery either.  However, infidelity, addiction, dishonesty, or any number of other human flaws that can cause a marriage to split, in my eyes, is a tragedy.  Even more so because of the fact that after the awful event is said and done, you have to live with the fact that the event could have been avoided if one or both of your "flaws" didn't exist.  Even if the "flaw" (eg. infidelity) was the fault of your spouse and not you, comparing this to a piece of literature, I still count that as a tragedy.  This is because, personally, I am someone in a happy marriage, and the closest literary parallel I would consider as my husband would definitely be as the "protagonist" in my life.  And so if that tragic event came at his hands, I would consider it a tragedy even if it was not my own personal shortcoming.  In a literary tragedy, usually the unhappy ending is caused by a shortcoming of the main character (eg. a husband and/or wife), and that is why I think a good everyday life parallel would be a divorce(in this case as the unhappy ending.

I do believe that today we overuse the word tragedy.  So much so, that it has taken on an entirely different meaning than when we discuss the tragic heroes in history and mythology.  I do not think that this is altogether a bad thing, or due to ignorance on the part of whoever is using this word, I just think it is important to note the evolution of this word and the changes that it has made overtime so that you can clarify if need be when you say "tragic" if you are actually referencing a situation like a literary tragedy or if you are really just trying to express that something is "really awful".  

Metamorphoses

For our next assignment in ENGL2111, we have to improve upon a wikipedia assignment covering something that we'll be discussing or have discussed over the course of this class.  Finding an article to do was hard because most of the material we're covering is VERY thoroughly covered in their corresponding wikipedia articles.  After doing some digging, I found the article on Metamorphoses, the poem by Ovid.  Although the article looks very researched, there are some places I think I can improve or "beef up" a little bit.  For example, the wikipedia article states that "The different genres and divisions in the narrative allow the Metamorphoses to display a wide range of themes. Scholar Stephen M. Wheeler notes that "Metamorphosis, mutability, love, violence, artistry, and power are just some of the unifying themes that critics have proposed over the years.""  I think that in order to elaborate, the article could go into a little bit more detail about all or at least some of those themes.  Although there are a couple places I felt like the article was a little scarce, it is a very well written and well researched wikipedia article to begin with.

Wikipedia

Like most people my age, Wikipedia has been available (and tempting) for most of my academic career.  I honestly do not use Wikipedia much in my everyday life.  I know that a lot of people use it as an alternate search bar to something like google when they are looking for just a basic amount of background information on something, but I guess I've just never been very drawn to it.  I'm not sure if it's leftover or residual guilt from teachers and professors turning up their noses at it previously in my academic career.

However, although I still don't have much of a desire or interest in using wikipedia, this unit has opened my eyes and given me a newfound respect and admiration for wikipedia.  Particularly the video we watched for our previous workshop.  It showed a wide variety of people from all over the world discussing the contributions they have made to the site.  Not only did I think it was really neat that they all came from so many different places and had a wide array of interests, I also really appreciated what they had to say about their research and contributions to the entries being their way of contributing to generations to come.  I had never thought about that before!  In today's day and age, online content really is similar to print sources of the past, and a whole lot more accessible to a wider variety of people.

Also, although I do feel that wikipedia is a very massive source of a huge variety of information, I do agree with what Professor Hamon said in class.  Wikipedia does not play a part in an academic paper.  Essentially, Wikipedia is a good place to get background information and maybe serve as a launchpad for the rest of your research.  In that way, it can help you determine what you are interested in or want to study before you launch into a full fledged research project.

Another Perspective III

Reading my classmates examples of heroism was very interesting.  The first post I really enjoyed was by classmate Kaley Wilson.  She wrote about Malala Yousafzai, who fought for girls right to education in Pakistan.  I think she is extremely admirable for the same reason that I admire MLK Jr., because she stood up for her convictions even when the odds were against her and knew that what she was fighting for was a cause even more important than her life, because she certainly could have gotten killed for her activism in the Middle East even though she did not.  Meghan Harper also wrote about a group of men and women that she found heroic, Soldiers, firefighters, and police officers.  I definitely agree with their heroism.  There are certainly many career fields that don't require you to be in life threatening situations and these brave men and women chose this line of work anyway.  I find that extremely admirable, especially as I am married to an active duty Airman.  He is someone that I admire every single day of my life and am proud to be married to.

Heros

he·ro

ˈhirō/

noun

1. 1.

   a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

I thought for a while about who I would nominate as a modern day "hero" after class discussion today.  After the discussion (that got a little heated!) about what does and does not constitute a hero in today's day and age, it was hard to know who to write about.  Although we had some classmates who said, for example, that because he wasn't an exemplary citizen by today's standards, Gilgamesh wouldn't be considered a hero, I was even more stumped.  I decided to write about a man I've always admired, Martin Luther King, Jr.  Even more fitting, as it is Black History Month.  To me, he is a modern day hero by any standards I can think of.  Not only does using nonviolent protest to convey your cause take an extreme amount of restraint, it sent the message to everyone he was fighting for and everyone he was fighting against that they were against their violence and abuse.  Martin Luther King, Jr. sent a message of hope to thousands of african-americans throughout the American South and North that their cause was worth fighting for and their lives were worth fighting for.  He preached hope and then acted on it.  In the end, even more heroically, he was killed the for cause he was fighting for.  I do not necessarily think becoming a martyr for your cause is required to be a hero, but I certainly think that it eliminated any shadow of a doubt the integrity and conviction you held for your cause, and helps show others the value of the cause you were fighting for.  To me, this is the kind of man we should consider a hero.

Another Perspective II

 Considering the fact that I was a little more stumped on finding the connection between eroticism and creation stories (other than the fact that I believe them both to be inevitable parts of life for all humans), reading the responses from my classmates was something I was looking forward to.  The first quote that really stuck out to me was on Caitlin Smallwood's blog, where she describes the connection as a "cause and effect" relation by saying, "The stories of creation and the erotica ultimately are left in the hands of gods, who are the souls of creation stories. Their influence most often leads to sex and lust. The two walk hand and hand as a 'cause' and 'effect'".  I think this was a very interesting way to look at the relationship between the two.  Maybe I was overthinking the connection between creation and eroticism by ignoring the very connection that sex leads to a creation of a human life.  This is also similar to what another classmate, Blaze Hyder, explained in his blog on the topic when he said "We were made to be with a woman, to reproduce and expand the human race."  I did notice that the connection between sex and reproduction seemed to be where a lot of people went with this topic, which definitely makes sense to me and I am surprised I overlooked it or just interested in the fact that reproduction is not at the forefront of my mind when I think about sex or eroticism. 

Eroticism & Creation stories

Our first blogging assignment this week is to write about the connection between eroticism and creation stories. I've been trying to toss ideas around in my head over the last few days and have been struggling to come up with what I felt was the connection between the two.  I believe that telling creation stories and being naturally curious and feeling a need to explain and explore where we come from is part of our nature.  Sexuality and the interest in anything erotic, I believe is also part of human nature.  In this way, I can see the two subjects being linked.  We had reading assignments that I would describe as erotic in nature over the weekend, such as the poetry of Sappho and Catullus who date back to the 500s and 80s BC.  To me, this is proof that even before modern society existed...I would venture to say that as long as we have recorded proof of human existence...we have been fascinated with sexuality.  I also found it very interesting how different sexuality was portrayed in the commonly believed Christian creation story (from Genesis) to the way that it is portrayed in ancient Roman and Greek literature.  In Genesis, Adam & Eve eat the forbidden fruit and when they become aware of good and evil, they are ashamed of their nakedness.  Even throughout much of the Old Testament, sexuality is referred to much more conservatively (and with a lot more restrictions, such as ruling that it can only exist in the confines of marriage) than in the ancient poetry and texts we read over the weekend, where it seemed that sexuality was much more free-flowing and liberal in their society.  I believe they are linked due to the fact that they are both such key components to human nature (eroticism and creation stories) and have probably both existed as long as humans have walked the Earth.  Creation stories have stemmed from and created many religions over the ages (Greek gods, Christianity, Islam, etc) and with religion comes a wide array of views on sexuality within the confines of that religion.  However, no matter how a specific society or religion hides, restricts, or shames a human's nature to be sexual,  eroticism and sexuality will always exist.  This is because, just as it is to pass down creation stories, it is in our nature.

Another Perspective

Although I posted about what I believe (currently), I do have a great deal of respect for others who are either set in their belief on creation or, like most of us probably always will, those who are still questioning and constantly changing how they believe we came to be as they grow and learn over time.
As I am reading through my fellow classmate's blogs to get some other perspectives on creation, I recognize that I am in the minority in this peer group due to my views on creation, Genesis being the common theme I am reading among my classmates, which is not my personal belief.  I DO believe that humans evolved over time, just as species are still evolving to this day. I DO believe there was an explosion scientists refer to as the "big bang" yet I am always evolving as a person and questioning the world around me.  I do not know where my views will fall a decade from now and I do not know what new advancements in space, science, biology, etc will cause me to re-evaluate how I feel two decades from now.

I think that the creation account in the Old Testament in Genesis, that God created the world in six days, makes a lot of sense to believe as a creation story.  Not only is it a comforting thought to think that there is an all-powerful creator who created each and every part of you on purpose, but also quite comforting to know that there was such a methodical plan to the way that things are.  Personally, this isn't what I believe, but I like the thought that we are all on this earth together, and can do good in each other's lives and serve purpose in this world and for each other. Our classmate Misty Miner said "We are not alone. Not in our lives, not in the world, not in the solar system, not in the universe" on her most recent blog post, and I believe that no matter what you believe happened before the Earth came into being, this can ring true for all of us.  
As our classmate Adison Lane said in her "Creation" blog post, "Creation is not something that can be defined in a lesson from an educator, simply because everyone has their own idea of what exactly creation is and where we originated," and I believe that is one of the beauties of our society today.  Our doubts, our questions, our diversity, the different creation stories our various ancestors have passed down from every corner of the Earth...are beautiful.

Creation

Obviously, I wasn't there when the universe was formed.  In fact, the explanation for creation that I personally believe in does not place humans on this earth until much, much, after the earth's creation.  However, I do find it easier to believe in the scientific explanation for creation than the ones shared by Native American tribes or The Old Testament.  This is simply for the sheer fact that I am the type of person that finds it easier to wrap my head around scientific explanations for life that have been tested and studied (The Big Bang, theory of evolution, etc) than something that people believe based on faith.  Scientists have studied and seen species evolve and change over time and have used a lot of their findings to make medical advancements and learn a lot more about the world around us.  Personally, this is what makes sense to me.  However, I do respect those who have a faith based view of creation, and I do acknowledge that part of my view on creation is probably a reflection on where I come from.  The people I was raised around and raised by, for the most part, valued scientific explanations above faith based explanations, and that definitely shaped who I am today as an adult.