1. What’s McNeill’s argument?
McNeil's argument is that Greek and Indian civilizations were founded on different ways of organizing and administrating their societies.
2. How does McNeill define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s definition?
A caste system is a group of people who eat with each other, intermarry, and exclude one another. It is similar to the book's definition. The book's definition is, "A a social class of hereditary and usually unchangeable status" (96).
3. What three feelings and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste:
1. Ceremonial purity
2. The fact that the poor and humble could look down in someone
3. The doctrine and reincarnation of "varna"
4. Are these convincing?
Yes they do seem reasonable.
5. Why did caste itself not cause strong political organization to form?
The caste system lead to disengaging infron the state and politics.
6. What causes Indian religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself?
Some Brahmins began to argue that by performing rituals correctly they could compel the gods to grant what was asked of them.
7. How did the Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals of Indian society?
The Upanishads believed that the goal of life is to escape the cycle of reincarnation and that people did not any gods to worship.
8. How does McNeill define “Territorial Sovereignty?”
It is self-governing city states.
9. Why did Greeks turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society?
They wanted to explain the world and people not in a mystical way but by the laws of nature.
10. What was the consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?
The polis ideas and the ideas of the citizens "personal holiness" did not mesh well together.
11. Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?
I do agree with his argument because the Indian society was influenced by religion if the upper class while the Greek society was more of human and natural law.
No comments:
Post a Comment