The Meaning of Vanquishing Religions Policy of Controlling a State - Essay Example

The history of ideas and the meanings of vanquishing religion's policy of controlling a Ideas are what we believe in to be able to work our path through life with. The steps we take could be strides or little paces which ensure our ongoing understanding of the world and the history of our culture through the understanding and realizing of our ideas and notions of what the world should be about and for and by which we live and endure when time gets harsh on us assuring ourselves that by and with our own ideas of democracy,society,dictatorship or whatsoever idea we earn through experiences and weigh a great load on ourselves to work for and create and institute inside our societies and our living dimensions we find that we deserve as a nation what we ensure and ensue ourselves to be working for and with and through and by by which we destine and definitely define ourselves as who we work to be and what we promote our state of sharing on land to be from time to time depending on how the following generations proceed to understand what the ancestors have put from understandings for their own nation then to form and work by to maintain stability. What if religion confuses political power with the will of God which many preachers and men of church say we have to abide to to maintain the state of which God wants on earth,in England,to match the Elizabethan age's understanding of the ladder of being or the chain of being and how it occupies what the world in God's eyes should be like and be used to by people This idea is occupied in all cultures politically and has been an arguable discussion for people throughout the nations. Should the political powers be religious and under the church's supervision or should be secularthis rises with another fundamental question:should people accept the facts stated to them in a democratic country or should they accept the facts given them as forceful manner of living which they could and could not accept whether it is involving their union with the power's opinions of what is supposed to be in the state or should it be forced and the state of the country be 'the democracy of discussion and the dictatorship of opinion'in other words,should people when getting involved in elections and understanding the stated means of ideas by the intellect get involved or should their ideas be seen as a restricted form of understanding which does not elevate to those who are in power's understanding of the future of the country and state and what it carries from understandings for th people's welfare and what they see to be what everyone in the state wants for the nation (depending on who is stating what the 'nation' means and who 'everyone stating it 'is) A nation (nationa) is understood to be a group of disobedient or the least intellectual groups of people to govern in a state or country which are better known and notioned as those 'governed',since they least 'care','understand','have intellect' to be able to take a role in forming the understandings and the formulae of which the nation takes to progress forwards. Then who takes this form of understanding up and deduces and induces the laws In religions it is God and His propehst. In secular states it is the intellect of the mos intellectual. These people understand and under-0estimate what could be frivolous being in a better state of affairs and understanding and education being exposed to the highest and best types of education around the world which ensure a decent growing up of morals and understandings which inform the rest of the populated country's people how things should be working in a 'civilized' manner. This understanding forms the wake of the nation and the differences between the 'plates' of the 'grounds of understanding the ways and means of living' which the nation's youth and grown ups fight to obtain for various reasons. If this is true,the chain of being then has to be a way of controlling the world and understanding the frame of thinking that puts philosophers and political people on the top or middle of the chain which relates the humans together in their kingdom of earth which shows them how to behave towards one another,how to obtain their rules and how to formulate rules and how to form what they must rely on to get their rights properly together and acts as well which means that they could gain access and anticipate a better future and welfare of one self and one another relatively and consequently if everyone is underneath and no-one is up above the laws which are stated and made by the nation's most intellectual. Which means that the nationa is divided into two groups mostly each forms a chain which has only one link relating both to the chains that they form:the law understanding. To intiate a law of understanding there has to be a commonness of intellect and understanding of people around the nation's state,state of affairs and what it is to mean that the nation could be when in times of difference. Rules of the law for what is called the 'reinforcement' of understanding which form how such differences could be resolved and state of equilibrium could be done to reach the state of life achievable for everyone in the land. The literary meaning of 'chain of being' is what the law of living in Europe or in England puts to form the rules by which one has to live in-the borders they form around each other which they could,should,and must abide to to maintain peace and harmony of state. This states the differences between relativistic views and orientalistic views. Historians see worlds of natural disasters throughout history in a form that finds them forming their own visions and understandings of the world. History is in a sense an educational form of literature and literary review of what has happened in the regimes passed from other centuries and their consequences. This shows how people are either 'foxes' or 'lions' in the form and way they rule and state their functions as kings and relative or oriented in the state rules in the Niccolo Machiavelli way of understanding. This instructs on reader to understand the reference to the conclusions of the historical events through understanding of the theories stated through the historians. Another reader would reference the piece of historical event to the ideas it revolves around. The third reader could read it in its own words of understanding by which he could relate and understand what is the effect and understanding of the history given through the state of affairs stated in the most appropriate words given. This leads to a question:should the history be given relativist in theory or orientalist This issue revolves around two axes:one is the extent of understanding what Orientalist means and relativist is about and whether they could exist together or should they only exist separately Orients are the issues and summaries of world histories in the old world especially the Arab world which understands the regimes of states and ruling through what it has been presented with in Islamic issues. This means that such issues are thoughts and ideas which have been not abusive or deficient for someone to rule by which stands out in the state of ruling and Andalusia in the past centuries for around 800 years. Relativist is about ensuring state rule which is secular in a form that has been established by human wits and understandings of events through making an ensured system to follow throughout the days they live in. These two will be contrasted and verified. Orientalism emergence is contrasting the arising of relativism in theory origin as nationalism in the Arab world around the orientalistic sphere of history has reached its peak by understanding how to monitor and operate people. This came through religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are in fact a way of verifying actions through believing their importance and their impact on a nation and its ethics and behavioral attitude towards issues which consult the ruler and nation widely as in invasions of thoughts from outside or beliefs of occupying a country or the openings or crusades throughout the history of the middle ages. This means that orientalism is initiated on the facts that such thoughts and beliefs are those which are agreed upon widely by the nation unanimously which are rejected by a minority otherwise the nation would not have evolved periodically in the state it has reached. Writers of history verify their usage of understandings and how they perceive writings and what history and historical events means to them as viewers in as appropriate words which could express themselves and others' explanations and understandings of what they say and view from the points of views of the beholders(historians and actors in the history).the authors of history try to write history in a fashion that states reality from an individual's manner. Does this mean that their words could be misinterpretedmisinterpretation does not realistically mean multi-interpretation but in a sense it does. It means knowledge of the world of politics and human natures varying in this sens of activity which involves the future,present and past of nations in a sense that such works could be evaluated as necessary to the form of political activity which ensures the staying of the individuals who work and live to write the history of the political activities of the time and their relations to it as observers and writers in direct contact with those who are in political power. Not that all historians are liars but to an extent were can find most dishonest and just satisfying a glorification of ego to become well known in the realm of history. What the policy of a person could withhold and withstand is not necessarily what the policy of the people who work in the veins of the policy could bring as an outcome. This is to say that people who form definitions which are restricted to how they think could find difficulty in finding how they interpret of understand the ways of understandings of others in the history of the movement. This policy relies on a flexible understanding of the borders i work in but not those of those who work in it in different directions. This consists of the tragedies of historians who record the works of those in power -legitimately or illegitimately working- which finds itself standing at the fork of the road in a stand trying to form the way to interpret the mistakes of the time and how they were dealt with as proper or improper,whether or not the thinking was good or bad according to the consequences. Historians are recorders of reactions towards what goes on from thinkings. This defies the fact that a historian is incapable of putting words into order to face the picture drawn in reality by the doers of the acts. The picture is drawn and portrayed as best as possible from the points of views of writers of history who wrote as individuals from around the globe who interpreted the policies and their decension due to the facts that they are metropolitan citizens of the world and of humanity and as individuals of the same country from which sprout the civilization's progress towards a degradation or upgrade of the works of the nation they sprout from,due to patriotism or treachery due to personal or impersonal reasons. When Machiavelli speaks of the powers of the prince in his rule on his people and state,he never devises the words 'interest' and 'rights' in his subjects on the powers of the ruling person. Such words which do not exist have been interpreted by the historians who try to put a psychological understanding of the text to the history of events and how well they relate to what they want to say and what is true and false about what is written according to what they understood and found exact in living real life and applied as a sort of 'applied science'.this means that what is in between the lines could be misinterpreted and the focus of the true author on history could be relevant to what he believes to be in manners of right and wrong,proper and improper and what should and shouldn't have been done. This way of exposing the meaning of understanding to the text shows that even what the author tends to be known could be unknown to the readers who are historians who are interpreting the facts of other makers of realities in their times. The problem lies in whether one could understand what these times could interpret and what they could be involved in and how close are they to the facts and realities they work in and what they properly understand as 'involving the prospects and profits of a people at a certain time which could or could not match what the present time historian sees as appropriate to talk about in his time'.this is to say that some languages and some topics are restricted to some regimes of their times and could not be applied to people of any nation at any given time at present simply because the modern age thinks in a more evolved proper way of understanding events that those who understand politics at the older ages because the intelligences and the ministers and the philosophers of the time had a primitive view on things compared to the technological evolvement we have in our present day regimes which makes things more complicated. Yet the understanding that human nature is one in all times makes it easier to understand that such regimes and such manners of thoughts could be applied to everyone in any given time period although the primitive manner of living has evolved technologically;the evolvement of understanding the other and how to deal with what makes history is one throughout the years although the percentages of such things vary from time to time according to what one side of the battle could prove is more important than the other to win what seems to be a lost fight (such as the 1973 war between Israel and Egypt,the Vietnamese war against America,the cold war after the world war two end). Illocutionary acts involve understanding human nature. Some actions are voluntarily intended to reach a certain response and some actions are illocutionary in the sens that their interpretations reach the way of things ending in a certain way involuntarily,by chance/luck. This involves understanding what the reactions of people could be towards one act which is unmeant from someone. This is what determines the fate of one actor from another which involves the interpretation of the others to his act and how he means things and how he does them with a jesture,this shows that even the manners of actions and what the political powers say they have to be up to and since nothing could be left to chance in the area of politics then everything should be calculated. This is true. Does a historian require guts to interpret what a speaker of a certain time means when such speaker is fully understood in a different manner from the historian's understandingthis is true,especially that such interpretations could evolve and involve a manner of transformation of comprehending behaviors of people at a certain given time outside the context which is given in the speeches of the great people of the time,how the people reacted and what the people of greater knowledge in the community spoke about and what reactions did their peers have of their understandings of the nation's miseries and upsets:a historian must have an understanding of what lies beyond the text to interpret the full picture of the time properly and accurately. What if the historian never knew what was going on from difficulties in the history he has got in his handthis is failure in understanding what the requirement of a time could be in requirement of evolving into a better state and understanding of the national needs and inquries of what the time needs. Understanding history to a historian means understanding what is a matter of fact appropriately defined and figured and issued as a starting point to follow up from but not start from and return to,except to understanding what the text has given from informations which could emerge such readers from historians to a better time understanding present and past. A text of history exemplifies the meanings of events. These meanings suffer difficulties,such difficulties lie in the ability to express what is true without speaking openly and throwing one's own life into disaster,which's why most historians lie about their times except if those who are in times of peace and write find nothing but good to write about,but at times of war,the historian is mostly at stake with his life to comment faithfully on the events of his time and what goes on in it. When time is recorded time is given a personification of the writer's events and heart and mind joint to express what they see. As a historian,the person relies on his sense and sensibility to make sense of the chaos of history which he witnesses in his time. This is devastating when such historian could not apply the proper terminology to cope with what the era is actually about and contradicts other historians of the time reflecting an error of what the time is actually focused on from events and issues which are widely spread. A text carries meanings beyond the words it reflects. The words are but the mere reflections of a set of people who have carried a lamp resembling them as the historian of their own reflections and ideas of the time and what they mean to say and work to make things properly digestible to others from different points of views. His views must be compulsive and direct which could not allow multiple interpretations and understanding of the factual text because such thing would evade the knowledge of the outsiders of the time on the realities of the time and what they intend and what the goings on ended to really. But since understanding humans intentions is not a properly understood science the interpretations of the text exceed what the readers might find in advance because they have their own expectations of what the time has and as reflectors of time they have to understand it through the historian's time of writing and not through what the readers find understood according to the measures of their time. But historians and writers of the time are personal in their way of proposing things and acts and what incidents and reactions towards the events could be from the points of citizens. Even kings and queens who wrote their own diaries such as Desire of Sweden do not actually record history except through their understandings of the events. So however we have got from understandings of the events we could regard them as personal points of views since those who are directly involved will only speak for themselves and if for others they would speak as spokesmen who could reflect and could be wrong about what they reflect,since the writers are mostly interested in what the other reader or person on the other side of the pages they have written would think and understanding them as doing. Edward Said would defend Islam and attack religion's effect on realities of nations when speaking of the Orient to Orientalists and what they understand about humans who are Arabs is just the reflection of a mind which say countries throughout the past one thousand years flourishing in the name of Islam and what it means to be a Muslim and what it required and desired from its followers to be,how such followers have become and the extent of greatness and grandeur they have exhibited should keep any person who understood the orient properly and its beauty,quiet. The Orientalists would attack Islam as a means of having been spread by the sword. But here lies a question:if i was given a insurance on my life to die and spread a good tiding to another person who is blocked from me by a greater person of the same kind and being who will not accept any discussion but to force me out of my land and out of my understanding to his own understanding to be equal to him and know how to talk and chat and utter a word of justice towouldn't there be any reason to lift up the sword to spread it to the weaker people who never knew what it is to be a Muslim and if the sword would make the strong think improperly because of the history of religious wars around the world and their consequences are makes them reputable for the bloodiness they have been given,then what other manner of understanding and communicating peace to the weaker people of a far away nation could there be to deliver a message of peace when such people in power fear for their thrones and understanding and being immortal gods on their lands and have nothing to give to their people but promises of better lands of heaven if their followed them properly Orientalists understand Islam to be a way of cheating death to get the best out of life in so far as it has spread and the glamour it has created,like it was saying that had not it been for our conquests of others there wouldn't have been a way of seeing us in the pages of history which confirm our beauty and existence in the western civilization. Which is not the truth. Skinner believes that a historian cannot explain the text properly since there are missing parts of it in the content,the quotations of the writers could be vague or unartistic and not to the point,the writings could be allegorical in the sens that they record the history of the nation or movement through the eyes of a character from fiction which could have been given a vision of a nation which the historian and author of story wished to have existed. Reasons vary as to why such thing could happen. When saying that Prophet Mohammad is an imposter is just saying that the history spread among 1.6 billion Muslims in the histories of the world is fake and should not have existed in such manner of glorification. Such manner is how Christians see their Jesus in in manner of understanding that 'why should someone go through such pains for us when he never knew us for the sake of saving stranger's souls',this comprehension leads to understanding the fact that Christians accept their being Christians since -in case there's an end to the world,an Armageddon- then they could be saved by someone who has risked their lives from them,thus live secularly as they wish. In Islam, Mohammad is justified to Muslims as having won all his battles and set his manner of living as the manner most fit to reach heaven with which makes one Muslim understand that chastity in tongue and in life means understanding the life of the hereafter and how it will be lived. In a contradiction between the followers of religions and not their prophets,the followers conflict in sense of comprehending their meanings of their texts and what they carry allegorically and abstractly and concretely,they shatter themselves between wars and blasphemies to be able to prove each part as the one with the greater understanding of the world and how it is lived. Thus much misinterpretation of people who read the histories of both religions rises because of. Understanding a nation is the threat of the nation to its disbelievers. When the west understands the east to be nothing but lurers of beautiful women to their petroleum and to how they understand the life of the rich to be in western thought but dealt with in oriental behavior the threat is massive. Thus the Orientalists would prefer that such religion such as Islam would not have existed and that prophet Mohammad had not existed since he married nine wives or thirteen,had a great personality among his followers and believers and dealt with religions in a civilized manner. It is just a point which could be understood:that the western civilization has not reached anything that Islam has reached and that Islam has reached centuries before. Edward said says that such words of Orientalists,even thought he is not a supporter of Islam and religions,has proven those who work in the Orientalist sphere to be those who rely on the ignorance of the people to the Arabic legacies and especially the Islamic and what the Quran has from beliefs and what it says since mostly Arabic is a difficult religion and language to speak. This has proven a point when after the 11th September attack people flocked to learn Arabic more and understand Islam. Orientalists might take this as a chance to make Islam appear as unworthy of existing,which is Edward Said's point. Skinner is only a quasi relativist in the sense that what he reports on how history is read is true because history is inflicted by the sense of the historian's sensibility and understanding of the cultural dimensions of a nation. When applied to Edward Said's understanding and defense of Islam,he proves Orientalists to be for the most part wrong because their understandings of the Arabic legacy should have dated from the 100 years before Islam entered the Arabic peninsula. Skinner for the most part understood what it means to be a historian and what it reflects on the minds and hearts of the historians when they read texts of other nations:they are only humans reflecting their own minds on papers since they have got a chance to be heard and cannot,furthermore,be neutral in what they say and reflect on the ins and outs of the texts stated,since texts could not always be readily interpreted as reflections of the mirrors of reality,they are in fact, a kaleidoscopic reflection of different eye lenses - the historians'. Bibliography: Skinner,Q. (1979):The idea of a cultural lexicon. Essays in criticisms,29,205-224. Skinner,Q (1974b):the role of history,Cambridge review;March 1974,102-104. Skinner ,Q (1970):Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and theory 8,3-53. Said,Edward 'Orientalism,an afterword,' Raritan (1995),45-46. Said,Edward,Orientalism,New York:vintage,1979. Skinner,Q (1974c):Some problems in the analysis of political thought and action. Read More