1.
What’s McNeill’s
argument?
·
McNeill argues that
caste and territorial sovereignty and enormously different effects on the
subsequent development of Indian and European society.
2.
How does McNeill
define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s definition?
·
A modern caste is a
group of persons who will eat with one another and intermarry, while excluding,
others from these two intimacies. The textbook definition of caste is
fairly close to McNeill's definition.
3.
What three feelings
and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste:
·
The idea of ceremonial purity and
avoiding contaminating oneself
·
The thought of giving to
feel superiority over a lower cast system but the miserable could not
·
The doctrine of reincarnation of the
"varna"
4.
Are these
convincing?
·
I believe these are
convincing since they are backed up with historical evidence.
5.
Why did caste
itself not cause strong political organization to form?
·
The caste itself
did not cause strong political organization to form because of the idea
of reincarnation that gave a logical justification. The state of someone which
is directly linked with the deeds of their own past life. Also, caste decreased
the meaning of a political group since the person is identified with their cast
first.
6.
What causes Indian
religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself?
·
The Brahmans argued
that by actually performing ritual correctly, they could compel god to grant
what was asked of them, which reinforced the relation between natural and supernatural
reality.
7.
How did the
Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals of Indian
society?
·
Under the Upanishads, one would not
seek riches, health and long life, but would work to escape the endless round
of rebirth. To escape did not need the obedience to the holy men and priests,
but by the process of self-discipline.
8.
How does McNeill
define “Territorial Sovereignty?”
·
McNeill defined “Territorial
Sovereignty” as supremacy of territoriality over all other forms of human
association is neither natural nor inevitable, as the Indian caste principle.
9.
Why did Greeks turn
away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society?
·
The Greeks turned away from religion
because a few individuals had fretted over the logical inconsistencies of Greek
religion and traditional world view. They had found conflicting and unsupported
stories about the gods to be unsatisfactory; they had taken a drastic step of
omitting gods completely. They had substituted natural law instead as a ruling
force of the universe.
10.
What was the
consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?
·
The consequence of the Greeks’ rigid
adherence were no room for personal achievement, the incompatibility between
claims of the polis to the unqualified loyalty of every citizen and their pursuit
of personal holiness, and the fact that now
more than the total population was engaged in cultural and political
action.
11.
Do you buy his
argument? Why or why not?
·
I do buy his argument since he provided
historical evidence which in turn supported his assertions.
No comments:
Post a Comment