# data[].attributes.body
1. Christopher Columbus, Journal. Bartolomé de Las Casas, A Brief Account of the Destruction of The Indies, and St. Augustine's Confessions.

2. I will be comparing their views on colonization, and how each one of them had a different opinion on slavery, also their views on religion and politics.
3.I would like to figure out the role religion was used for to justify the use of violence and slavery etc. I also want to see each one of the authors' views on the relation between religion and politics.

| ReplyForward

# data[].attributes.headline
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) and Aristotle (The Politics and Nicomachean Ethics).

# data[].attributes.subject
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) and Aristotle (The Politics and Nicomachean Ethics).

# data[].attributes.body
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) and Aristotle (The Politics and Nicomachean Ethics).

I will compare and contrast these two authors with regard to concepts of human good and human happiness. I would like to compare these texts, because both Aristotle and Hobbes discuss human good and human happiness, however, they have different views regarding them. Hobbes seems to define human happiness in a way that Aristotle believes is the false form of happiness. Also, Hobbes does not agree with Aristotle’s view of the objective, theological good of human beings. The question I want to answer is: To what extent does the law of nature and the concept of virtue play a role in Aristole and Hobbe’s views regarding human good and human happiness?

# data[].attributes.headline
the texts that i chose are: Spinoza and Plato's Republic book "The Allegory of the Cave".

# data[].attributes.subject
the texts that i chose are: Spinoza and Plato's Republic book "The Allegory of the Cave".

# data[].attributes.body
i would like to compare those two texts because they both discuss important themes such as beliefs, citizens, freedom, and judgment. However, the difference between them is how the themes are approached. I will mainly focus on how the lack of enlightenment and knowledge can cause people to be restricted to not only their state but also their minds.

# data[].attributes.body
The two texts I want to compare are: 1)Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy. 2)Hayy Ibn Yaqzan a Philosophical Tale  of Ibn Tufayl.
The topics I will discuss are: 1) the mind and the body, and how both philosophers define and state the purpose of both of them. 2) Necessarily existence and God. 3) reason and where it comes from.
Why I want to compare these two texts: It is very interesting to see how both philosophers tackle different concepts, especially if both were from different timelines. (one was from the middle ages and the other was from the early modern period). I want to know if people from the middle ages could actually produce better philosophy than modern philosophers in terms of producing meaningful life lessons. Which God was more convincing? Hayy's or Descartes? What was meant by necessarily existence in the modern and middle ages?

# data[].attributes.body
The ideas I think I will include in my research:
1) The vision over the role of individuals/citizens in the state
2) The concept of freedom under certain political regimes (Freedom of choice, freedom of speech..) etc.
3)I think I will give a focus on the role of the state in restricting/empowering the citizens' free-will and whether or not Spinoza's political philosophy support the monarchy regime, consequently, the roles of the laws on the citizens. While doing so, I will be discussing how that differs with the vision of enlightenment that Kant had, the duties of the citizens, the role of education in reframing the relationship of the being a free individual and a 'good' citizen.
4) Aligned with freedom, political justice, Sovereign power, religions & faith (The argument of the scripture's interpretations in Spinoza, liberty of God in Hobbes), Fear and Obedience are all interesting themes and concepts I will try to dig in their implementations in each text, and compare them altogether.
-Questions my research asks and tries to give logical responses to: *which political regime seems to give justice, Liberty to the citizens and, at the same time, Sovereign power to the state? Is there such a system? If so, how could the previous philosophers answer to that?

# data[].attributes.headline
The texts I have chosen to compare, René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy and The Quran. I will discuss how both texts discussed the existence of God, creation of human kind, and free will. I will compare these two texts because I already wrote about Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy and know that this reading mentions what I want discuss, also The Quran as I remember from FYSEM, discusses the existence of God, creation of human kind, and free will. I believe that these two texts are a good combination to compare with each other.  

# data[].attributes.subject
The texts I have chosen to compare, René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy and The Quran. I will discuss how both texts discussed the existence of God, creation of human kind, and free will. I will compare these two texts because I already wrote about Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy and know that this reading mentions what I want discuss, also The Quran as I remember from FYSEM, discusses the existence of God, creation of human kind, and free will. I believe that these two texts are a good combination to compare with each other.  

# data[].attributes.body
First option
1- the texts I want  to write about are Rene Descartes ( meditation on first philosophy) and The Qur'an
2- I want to compare about how these texts brought the themes of god existence, believing strength, free will and body and mind dualism
3- I chose these texts because I really believe that these would be a great comparison by answering the question of how these two different texts talks about believing whether in thoughts, different religion, , that indicates to the main goal.

Second option
1- Christine de pizan the book of the city ladies and Mary Wollstonecraft a vindication of the rights of woman
2 - the themes I want to discuss in these texts ( women rights , thoughts about women in each era of them

3- the thing that encourages me to write about these texts that both of them talk about women and something different from what we used to write.

# data[].attributes.body
The texts I have chosen to compare are Kant's "What is Enlightenment?" and Plato's "Crito".
Here are some of my ideas:
1) In his text, Kant briefly discusses civic duties of citizens and their obligations in terms of obeying laws of the state. In "Crito", Socrates has a dialogue with Crito in which Socrates explains why he will not be running away from the death sentence. He mostly relies on the idea of civic duties and the fact that if he lives in a particular city/state, he should abide by the laws of this city/state. While I am still developing my ideas on the exact way I'm going to make a comparison here, I see that both texts carry the theme of civic duties of citizens and why citizens within a particular city/state must obey laws in place, even if they do not necessarily agree with them. Even if the city is not doing the citizen justice,

2)Drawing from the idea of citizens and their civic duties, I will examine Socrates' firm stance on obeying the law despite the fact that he does not necessarily agree with his sentencing to the death penalty. I will argue that had the city of Athens been enlightened, Socrates would not have been sentenced to the death penalty in the first place. If I were to consider the real motive behind sentencing Socrates to the death penalty, I will see that it was because he was an enlightened individual (according to Kant's definition of enlightenment) who did not want to surrender to self-incurred laziness. He wanted to share this with others in order for them to give up this self-incurred laziness and to start taking steps towards enlightenment by thinking for themselves. Had the city of Athens been run by an enlightened ruler with enlightened jury, the entire trial of Socrates would have been avoided. Therefore, in the context of Socrates, the application of Kant's ideas to the city of Athens would have been perfect.

I have decided to write about this because I am generally interested in the idea of civic duties and what citizens ought to obey and not to obey, even in the context of oppressive/corrupt regimes with unreasonable laws. What I would like to find out through this paper is whether citizens should obey laws of the city/state they live in, even if they do not necessarily agree with them. Does such a form of obedience reflect a type of surrender to the reality of injustice, or is it necessary for the function of the state? Should citizens who disagree with particular laws of the state simply not obey them as part of their expression of rejection of these laws?

# data[].attributes.headline
Michel de Montaigne "Essays" (On Cannibals) and "Journal of Christopher Columbus".

# data[].attributes.subject
Michel de Montaigne "Essays" (On Cannibals) and "Journal of Christopher Columbus".

# data[].attributes.body
2. 1)Differences in the tone and descriptions used when talking about "cannibals".
2)Why and what are the reasons for such a big difference in the way that the two authors describe these native people.
3)Why we should not judge different cultures and beliefs without the proper context and that we do not have the right to control other people and snatch them away from their culture and force them into what we think is right, just as Columbus did.

3. I wanted to compare these two texts because I was fascinated by the differences in the point of views and actions of the two authors. How Montaigne had witnesses farther more gruesome rituals being done in front of him, yet, still defended the "cannibals". Meanwhile, Columbus murdered and kidnapped native people in the excuse of religion. I would like to find out what could have possibly been the reason for this and how each others views effect the other. Questions in text: Does religion play a role? and some others that I still have yet to come up with.

# data[].attributes.body
1) A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (Mary Wollstonecraft) and The Book of the City of Ladies (Christine de Pizan).
2)How women's liberation movement begins from the mind. How does the condition of a women differ from men's in society. How Pizan and Wollstonecraft's text apply to women today.
3) Considering the fact that these seem like the two most powerful texts about women that we have read throughout the semester I think it would be interesting comparing them and finding out how they might relate or differ from our world today. I want to know how far women have progressed since previous years, I think the answer to this question might disappoint. It would be.

# data[].attributes.body
My topic of the final draft is about " the Women & Society".
The Texts that I will discuss together:
The first one is from Fysam 2: (The Book of the City of Ladies ,Christine de Pizan)
The second one is from Sysam 1 :
"Mary Wollstonecraft) And her book (A Vindication of the Rights of Women".
I will discuss  these Questions through my analysis of these two books,
the Questions are :
"What is the importance of giving women their rights in society?
How does the role of women affect  society?How would the society be if women took  all of their rights and if they not take any right ?"

# data[].attributes.headline
 1. Hobbes, Nicomachean Ethics, Spinoza.  Qestion2: I’m comparing the concept of freedom for the three authors and their general ideas on the commonwealth and the citizen's rights and freedom. Question3: The question might be how would the concept of freedom and role of the citizen differ from one author to another and I will try to find the similarities and differences of the author's politics and what are the fundamental bases and principles for making a strong st, and the duties state, and to what extend the ruler can limit his citizen's freedom.

# data[].attributes.subject
 1. Hobbes, Nicomachean Ethics, Spinoza.  Qestion2: I’m comparing the concept of freedom for the three authors and their general ideas on the commonwealth and the citizen's rights and freedom. Question3: The question might be how would the concept of freedom and role of the citizen differ from one author to another and I will try to find the similarities and differences of the author's politics and what are the fundamental bases and principles for making a strong st, and the duties state, and to what extend the ruler can limit his citizen's freedom.

# data[].attributes.body
Also, i will discuss the rights of the citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
Please post here your ideas about the two (or three) texts that you want to compare in your final research paper.
1. Name those two (or three) texts
2. Outline two (better three)topics in those texts that you would like to compare.
3. State why would you like to compare those texts? What is that you want to find out? What question do you want to ask your texts and answer in your paper?

P.S. You will all receive an individual feedback to your posts.

# data[].attributes.body
Final paper
1) I want to write about: Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, and The Quran ( The women)
2) each of texts discusses about women, what are women's right to religion and to social life.
1) I will discussing how the Islamic religion lifts women

2)and puts their rights as a basis in life, treating husbands to their wives with kindness and affection in return
3) I would like to read it in the rights of women that are stipulated in the book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.