Prezi Presentation Link

http://prezi.com/szf8c6o6o3g7/edit/#8

Web Citations:
1. "Apollo." Encyclopedia Mythica: mythology, folklore, and religion. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. . http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/apollo.html
 Images:
1. http://www.linsdomain.com/gods&goddesses/pictures/apollo.jpg
2. http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0511-0809-0912-5319_Bow_and_Arrow_Clip_Art_clipart_image.jpg
3 .http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:2tfPTJN3rdkqNM:http://wordinfo.info/words/images/planet-apollo.gif
4. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:WgPKbLt2Kc8D1M:http://api.ning.com/files/alElwdHb5vVRZRIIZebLPYufvO8D2uf11AVsz4XcuC1AU1kd5w6pgEY5A48k81YUUtGTS3ChgRt-RpIQsvNb2bvoGC0Mk5G*/apollo.jpeg 
5. http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:_ZUAQ2azMNmqvM:http://www.jeux-strategie.com/upload/aom/ui%2520god%2520select%2520apollo.jpg
6. http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:9sGnUFOhoe-i3M:http://www.residenz-wuerzburg.de/bilder/rundgang/treppe/treppe_decke7.jpg
7. http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:9sGnUFOhoe-i3M:http://www.residenz-wuerzburg.de/bilder/rundgang/treppe/treppe_decke7.jpg
8. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:bhBKdTcsO-8ppM:http://www.edupics.com/laurel-leaf-crown-t11437.jpg 

What Were Alexander the Great's Reasons for Conquering Persia?

      I believe that Alexander was avenging Persian wrongs, but he was more likely trying to mark his goal of conquest. he had watched his father transform Macedonia into a great military power, and he saw an opportunity to make use of it. Watching his father as a good leader most likely spurred his interest in becoming a great leader; he wanted to be specifically powerful. He may have had something against the Persians, many people did. However, he more likely was just power hungry, a person who wanted to be a supreme ruler. 

Web Citations: 

1. "Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography." History of Macedonia and the Macedonian Nation. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. . http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html 

Image: http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/A-Robert.R.Lauer-1/alexanderthegreat.jpe

Did Alexander the Great Listen Carefully To Aristotle?

    I think that Alexander did listen very carefully to Aristotle. Aristotle was focused on teaching about the universal, and Alexander the Great was also focused on conquering the Persians, which would, in turn turn him into a very powerful world leader. The Persians had conquered most of the known world, and most of the world resented them. Alexander was very focused on plotting revenge on the Persians. He went from place to place, telling of his plans to conquer Persia, and becoming a more and more powerful leader. When he finally conquered Persia in battle, Alexander had become a universal leader. He had to have paid a lot of attention to Aristotle, who was focused mainly on universal things, in order for him to become a universal leader. if he had not, he may have been unsuccessful in his conquers. maybe he didn't pay rapt attention to Aristotle, because he was mainly focused on Persia, but he must have paid some attention, and retained it, in order for him to become such a universal leader. 

Web Citations:

1. "Aristotle (384-322 BCE): Overview [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." UTM.edu - The University of Tennessee at Martin. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. . http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm

Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Aristotle_tutoring_Alexander_by_J_L_G_Ferris_1895.jpg/417px-Aristotle_tutoring_Alexander_by_J_L_G_Ferris_1895.jpg 

Does Power Corrupt?

Does power eventually corrupt? Are all things that are powerful eventually doomed to fail? This is a good question. By looking at many instances of history, we can see that, yes power has failed many times. But does this mean that power- from the past, present, and future has, is, or will crumble?
The answer depends on the actions of the individuals in power. For instance, if an individual was king, and acted in a way that the people did not like, the people would most likely rebel, causing the king’s power to be corrupted. This can also happen to governments, and entire empires.
However, the answer also depends on other people’s actions. If the king that I mentioned previously had not done anything wrong, but the people were just tired of having a king, than they could rebel, corrupting the king’s power. People are fickle and always changing things. They could be completely satisfied with having one single ruler one minute, and the next minute they might want a democracy.
A good example of power corrupting is the Persian Empire. They were the mightiest empire in the known world at one time, but Alexander the Great quickly swooped in and took that power from them. The Persians had lost all their power in the world, and they hadn’t even had time to blink. This is an instance of other people and their actions corrupting power. The Persians had not done anything to offend the people; they had simply been surprised by Alexander the Great’s mighty battle plans and actions, and had lost their power as quickly as they had gained it.
Another good example of power corrupting is what happened to Egypt’s pharaoh when Alexander the Great swooped in. The Egyptians had been living in a chain of city-states along the Nile River, and all of these city-states were ruled by a single leader, called a pharaoh. However, when Alexander the Great came to Egypt, the Egyptians were thrilled by his ideas to get revenge on the Persians. They pampered him while he stayed with them in their country, and were even willing to fight with him against the Persians. After Alexander became a very powerful king of the known world, Egypt adopted his way of life. All the previous Egyptian cultures, such as mummification, hieroglyphics, and pyramid-building were lost. The pharaoh lost his power, and Alexander the Great gained it. The pharaoh’s power was therefore corrupted because of another person’s actions, just like the Persians had been corrupted.
The fall of the Roman Empire is another good example of power corrupting. The Roman Empire, in its best time, was the most powerful empire on the known planet. It ruled all the people, but, eventually, like all other powerful forces, it fell. There was not any single reason it fell, not as specifically as other two examples. Too many stupid mistakes could have been one reason, such as building Hadrian’s Wall. This cost, it said, a million day’s labor. This may have caused the people to rebel, corrupting Rome’s power in the process.
However, this cannot be the main reason responsible for the fall of the mightiest empire on the earth at that time. The barbarian attacks, the bonds being weakened as a result of Christianity, the fact that it may have, in fact, gotten too big, all of these are factors of why the empire failed when it did. The fact is, Rome had been very powerful, and it may have been this power that was its demise.
This empire was failed not only because of one person, but because of other people too. The people that were highly respected in Rome made some decisions that were bound to upset the people. Doing things that upset the people is never a good idea, because in more times than one, the common people outnumber the people in charge, which is never good for the people in charge. They tend to be the ones that are satisfied, and the commoners are the ones who are unhappy. Since they outnumber the powerful people, the commoners are able to rebel and be successful. The fact is, Rome had gotten to powerful for its own good, and was doomed to fall.
Julius Caesar is a good example of someone who makes a bad decision, which ends his power streak. Julius Caesar was elected into office, and slowly made his way into power. He very cleverly made his way up to power, but he had only one problem. He was power-hungry. Caesar wanted very badly to be king. He knew that if he were king, he would have an incredible amount of power, and Caesar craved having this type of power.
However, the people of Rome did not want another king, not after they had just gotten rid of one. Caesar put on an act like he did not want the crown; that he was not going to be a king. This thrilled the people (the commoners), and made them love him even more.
However, danger was brewing. Cassius and Brutus, two powerful men, and Brutus, Caesar’s close friend, were hatching a plan to assassinate Caesar. On March 15 of 44 B.C., Caesar was stabbed twenty-three times by Brutus, his close friend, and five other men. Caesar’s reign had ended.
This story is an example of power corrupting because of mainly one person: Caesar. Caesar had dug his own grave by trying to be king, and it was this mistake that cost him his power, and his life.
To answer the original question, yes, I believe that eventually, all power will corrupt. Power is a dangerous thing, and very hard to hold onto. People are not willing to let one person or people get too much power, or have power for too long of a time. We as humans are not perfect, and this means that we will never be able to have a situation in which the power will be perfectly spread around. We will just have to keep trying to find the right fit, corrupting and unearthing power in many different places.
Works Cited:
1. "BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Ancient Egypt and the Modern World." BBC - Homepage. Web. 25 Feb. 2010. . "BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Ancient Egypt and the Modern World." BBC - Homepage. Web. 25 Feb. 2010. . 
2. "The Fall of Rome." Tamos (portal). Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .
http://www.tamos.net/~rhay/romefall.html
 3.  "Julius Caesar: Historical Background." VROMA :: Home. Web. 25 Feb. 2010. . http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/caesar.html
Image: http://www.unesco-ihe.org/var/ihe/storage/images/media/images/power_logo/11538-1-eng-GB/power_logo_reference.jpg

Short Biographies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle

    Socrates was a philosopher who was born in 469 B.C., and died in 399 B.C. He wrote nothing down, even though he had brilliant ideas. He thought that knowledge was a living, interactive thing, and it was this reason that kept him from recording any information. He would question people on positions that they thought very strongly about, and in the end he would be able to convince them that their original idea was wrong. He was bitterly resented by the Athenians; they thought of him as a Sophist.
    Plato was born in 429 B.C., and died in 347 B.C. He was an Athenian citizen of high status, and was an incredible writer. He studied under Socrates, and wrote down many of the things that Socrates did not. he was also referred to as a philosopher.
   Aristotle was born in 384 B.C., in the Greek colony of Stagirius. His father died when he was very young, and he stayed with his guardian, Proxenus. Proxenus sent him to Athens, where Aristotle studied under Plato. After studying under Plato for twenty years, Aristotle started to lecture on his own, mostly questions on the subject of rhetoric. When he was invited to live with a friend in Hermeas, he accepted, meeting two women, one of which would give birth to Aristotle's son. When Hermeas was overtaken by the Persians, he fled to Mylentine, where he would stay for a while, tutoring Alexander, the son of Philip of Macedonia. When his work was finished, he returned to Athens. Aristotle finally died in 322 B.C.
Works Cited:
1. "Greek Philosophy: Socrates." Washington State University - Pullman, Washington. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .
2. "Plato ()." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. .
3. "Aristotle (384-322 BCE): Overview [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." UTM.edu - The University of Tennessee at Martin. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. . 
Image: http://yavin4.anshul.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/philosophers.jpg

Is History Created By "The People" or by "Individuals"?

I think that history is created by both the people and the individuals. History is a mixture of many events, both created by single people and groups of people. Certain people such as Hitler and Abraham Lincoln, created events in history, but then you are faced with the question of whether the history was created by Hitler, or the Nazis, Abraham Lincoln or the slaves.

            There are instances in history hinting that it was created by the people. For example, how would Abraham Lincoln have freed the slaves if the people had not had slaves, or the slaves had not existed? How would Hitler have done so much damage to Europe had there been no one to follow him; no Nazis? Also, how would the problems of World War II have been solved had the people not stepped in? The answer is simple: these events would cease to exist.

 Abraham Lincoln, without the slaves, perhaps would not have been faced with a civil war on his hands. He may have been just another president, not one talked about today in schools everywhere. He would not have been recognized as such an amazing leader, and would not have passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Without the slaves, Abraham Lincoln, as well as history, would be very different.

Adolf Hitler, also would have been very affected had people decided not to follow him. Without his faithful group of followers, Hitler would have been just another European with many ideas but no power to put them into action. Face it, Hitler would have been completely weak and powerless without his Nazis.

Another point: what would have happened if the colonists had not ventured out of the safe haven of Europe? Would other people have ventured later on? Or would history have just continued on in Europe? In this event, one individual did not create this, al the colonists, the people, created this history. Not only were the colonists the people in this situation, but the rest of the Europeans, the royalty, and the commoners, created this history. If the Europeans had not let the colonists leave, what would have happened? Would Native Americans have lived in peace in the New World all along? The point is, all people played a part in this history, meaning that it was not just the individuals that created this history. This history would eventually lead to more history, meaning that the people created history that was the basis for much more history to come.

However, individuals are also a very important part of history. What would have happened to the slaves, had Abraham Lincoln not freed them? Would they have gone on to a lifetime of misery and servitude? Or would they have been freed soon after, by a different person? Would there have been such problems between the North and the South? Would there have even been a Civil War? An Emancipation Proclamation? How would the people have been affected? Would slaves still be legal today?

Also, without Hitler, would there have even been a Holocaust? Would World War II have ended differently? If that hadn’t happened, would the people have known better than to let it happen later? Would the German people have followed another leader, perhaps ending in a similar disaster?

All of these questions are posed on what would happen had these individuals had either not existed or acted differently. What would have happened in history, as we can well see from these questions depends very heavily on certain individuals. Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, both of these individuals created situations in history that people will never forget.

What about John Wilkes Booth? If he had not assassinated Abraham Lincoln, what would have happened then? Would Abraham Lincoln have gone on to accomplish more great things? Or would he have retired from office, and lived the rest of his life in a relaxed and laid-back way? How different would history have been if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated? This, if you think about it, is true about all assassinations. Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy, each a great man making great strides in history, each killed by an individual who changed history. What could these great men have accomplished, had their lives not been tragically cut short? We have learned so much about these assassinations, it is tough to think about what history would be like, had they not happened. Each of these men is an individual who changed history, killed by another individual who changed history. Individuals can make a huge impact on history, whether in a positive way, like Abraham Lincoln and the slaves, Martin Luther King and segregation, or John F. Kennedy and all of his accomplishments, or in a negative way, such as John Wilkes Booth, James Earl Ray, or Lee Harvey Oswald.

As a whole, history is created by many different factors. The people, i.e. groups of people such as cultures, countries, or any other types of group,  or the people in general, individuals, such as Abraham Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth, Martin Luther King Jr., James Earl Ray, John F. Kennedy, or Lee Harvey Oswald, or even weather,  animals, or many other factors can change history. History is easily changed. You, me, the neighbor down the street, or even a newborn baby could be destined to change history. History is always changing, by all the people of the world, and also by individuals themselves. We, as imperfect, unstable humans, learn from our mistakes, and history can be referred to as a record of past mistakes. Can you imagine something like the Holocaust happening today? Absolutely not! We would not let that happen again, and if somehow it did, it would absolutely not happen in the same place. The Holocaust was a very important historic event, and it is in remembering it that we may ensure that it does not happen again. The same thing is true about slaves. In the United States, we will never be able to own slaves again, it is illegal. The point is, the people and individuals created history, and will be responsible for the future.  

Web Citations:

1. "Abraham Lincoln -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 19 Feb. 2010. .

2. Image:http://www.wku.edu/Library/dlps/gdoc_pix/We_The_People.jpe

The Persian Wars: Told by a Persian

It is the around 546 B.C.. The Persians have just gained control of the Lydians, and are deciding what to do to rule them. 
Persian #1: I think that we should set up a democracy. The best way to rule these people is fairly and justly. if we do so, they will listen to us and respect us.
Persian #2: That's preposterous! The only way to deal with these people is to force their respect upon us. If we simply set up a democracy, they will never listen. We must give a leader to govern them, and the leader will have total power upon them. Then, they will be forced to listen.
Persian #1: If we follow that, the people are sure to rebel! Why would we set ourselves up for disaster like that?
Persian #3: I disagree. The Lydians will be forced to listen if we exert force against them.
Persian #1: That is ridiculous! Doing so will only make the Lydians angry! Eventually, they will rebel, and with enough power could defeat us!
Persian #3: The only way to settle this is a vote. All in favor of a Persian democracy, say Aye.
Silence 
Persian #2: And all in favor of my idea of single rulers to govern the people, say AYE!
Many Persians: AYE!!!
Persian #3: It is settled then. we will appoint rulers to fully govern the Lydians.
The Persians cheer, while Persian #2 scowls in response to the vote. 
Persian #4: What shall we do about the army? Should we make the Lydians serve in our army?
Persian #5: yes!
Persian #6 No!
Persian #7: Of Course!
All voices begin at once, arguing about what to do with the Lydians. Finally, it is decided that Lydians will be forced to serve in the army and pay high taxes to the Persians. 
                                                                     ~~~~~~~~
It is about 456 B.C. The Persians have narrowly avoided losing control to the Athenians, had the Athenians not lost interest in gaining control. The Persians are angry at Athens, and believe they sould be punished. 
Persian #8: Those Athenians! What nerve, attacking but then abandoning us Persians!
Persian #9: I Agree! They deserve punishment for their actions!
Persian #10: What should we do to punish them then? It is obvious that they are very skilled fighters.
Persian #8: We will launch a great expedition against the Athenians! They will finally get what they deserve!
Persian #9: Great! Let us go tell the others.
                                                                    ~~~~~~~~
The Persians launch an expedition against the Athenians, and the two meet at Marathon for what the Athenians will later call their greatest achievement. Had the Athenians lost, the Persians would have gained control, changing history. 

Web Citations:
1. Ancient Greece: The Persian Wars." Washington State University - Pullman, Washington. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .
2. Image: http://theanimationacademy.com/an/leonidas07a.jpg

How Are the Origins of Theatre in Athens Tied to Religion and Politics?

Athenian theatre most likely evolved from festivals celebrating the cult of Dionysus, who was the Greek god of fertility and wine.This means that theatre in Athens evolved from religion, because celebrating the gods was an important part of Athenian worship and religion. Many activities in Athens, such as the Olympics and, of course, theatre, evolved from worshiping the gods. Religion was a big part of Athenian culture, and the Greek gods such as Aphrodite, Hera, and Poseidon were worshiped often for their power and, well, godliness. It is because theatre in Athens evolved from a festival celebrating the gods that it ties in with religion.

Theatre in Athens also has to do with politics because only the literate, i.e., higher authority and more wealthy people could read and understand the plays. this is a statement that questions the democracy of Athens. if the rich were getting better education than the poor, than was the country really a democracy?

Web Citations:
1. "Greek Theater - Crystalinks." Crystalinks Metaphysical and Science Website. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .
2. "List of Greek mythological figures -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .
3. "Greek Theater Performance." Welcome to Reem Creations. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. . 
4. Image: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3788937/2/istockphoto_3788937-theatre-masks.jpg

Was Athens Really a Democracy?

Athens claims that it was a democracy, but it when one looks at the facts, it appears that this "democracy" was not as fair as it claimed to be. True, anyone could speak at the Assembly (where ideas were directly expressed in Athens), but people with more authority and respect were more often listened to. However, though this may present problems to its democratic nature, Athens had a better working democracy with less problems than those of today. The quality of the people is what caused this. People of Athens took very seriously what they called the "golden mean" which meant that they avoided extremes in politics. It is perhaps these extremes in politics today that cause such flaws in what are called "democracies". Maybe women as a whole, or races that were not previously respected now have rights, but the situations in the democracies happening today are more troublesome and problem causing than the democracy of Athens. So, to answer the question, yes, Athens was a democracy, perhaps a better one than some of the democracies of today, because it had what today's democracies lacked, stable, simpler government, and people willing to keep it that way.
Web Citations:
1. "How Democratic Was Athens?" WNEC FACULTY/STAFF HOME PAGES. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .
 2. Image: http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ancient_Philosophers/SchoolofAthens.jpg

Olympic Games: Ancient Vs. Today

The Olympic games of ancient times were much different from modern times. In ancient times, the games were solely for praising the gods with the people’s best abilities. However, nowadays the games do not even really serve this purpose any longer. The games today are more for different countries to come together and to “encourage international community and cooperation.” (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_purpose_of_having_the_Olympics) The Olympics of ancient times also had much different competitions than the Olympics of today; looking at the completely different cultures of the two times, it is not hard to see why. Games such as stadion racing, boxing, and chariot racing were of the most common then, while figure skating, bobsledding, and louge are of the common competitions seen in the Olympics happening now. Also, the Olympics today are broken up into two seasons, the winter Olympics, which are happening now, and the summer Olympics. This was a very recent change, and therefore was not used in ancient times. The Special Olympics and the Paralympics are also new additions. In the ancient Olympics, only the best of the best athletes could compete; anyone with a disability would be unable to compete. Now, different types of Olympics are held for people with the dream to compete, but disabilities holding them back. The Olympics of yesterday and the Olympics of today are very different, and who knows what the Olympics of tomorrow may be like!
Web Citations:
1. "WikiAnswers - What is the purpose of having the Olympics." WikiAnswers - The Q&A wiki. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .
 2. "BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: The Olympics: Ancient versus Modern." Ow.ly - Shorten urls, share files and track visits - Owly. Web. 18 Feb. 2010. .
3. Image: http://vancouverolympics.wikispaces.com/file/view/800px-Olympic_Rings_svg.png/107706017/800px-Olympic_Rings_svg.png

What is 'Important'?

The definition of ‘important’ according to the University of Princeton is “of great significance or value”. (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). This definition is acceptable, but the word important can be described in so many other different ways. Water, for example, is important. Why? It is vital to our survival and daily life. Water does not have a great value, unless it is unable to be obtained close by. Yet, water is still called ‘important’. Perhaps a better definition of ‘important’ would be ‘something that is vital and/or significant not only for a wanting purpose, but also for a needing purpose’.
Still, this definition seems wrong. Could something that a person really wants be classified as ‘important’? Maybe to some people. But to others, ‘important’ means the bare essentials. Does this mean that favorite foods, or cell phones, or laptops, or pets are not ‘important’? are the only things a person really need, food, water, shelter, clothing, and love all that are ‘important’? This cannot be fully true either.
The key to finding out what ‘important’ really is to look deeper. Finding a middle point is the best way to find out the true meaning of the word ‘important’.
So where does one start to find out the true meaning of this word? Well, the best place to start is most likely at the bare essentials. Food, water, clothing, shelter, and love, these are all ‘important’. Does this classify ‘important’ as “anything that must be obtained in order for survival”? So far, yes.
Now, technology should be added to this list of ‘important’ things. No, technology is not one of the bare essentials, and yes it has caused many problems, but technology is very ‘important’. Without it, people might still be nomadic hunter-gatherers, following their food anywhere and everywhere. Society would cease to exist, and organization would no longer be available. Of course, this is the extreme consequence of absent technology. Things such as televisions, radio; entertainment things would be exterminated. These are things that people are able to live without, which classify them as ‘unimportant’. So technology, in its advances, is ‘important’ as a whole, but some things produced by technology are ‘unimportant’.
So, the new definition for ‘important’ may go something like this: “the bare essentials that must be obtained and things that improve these bare essentials for better survival”. This definition already seems better than the one previously stated. Of course, technology can be broken up into many different categories, some ‘important’, and some ‘unimportant’.
Domestication of animals and plants is a factor of technology that is clearly placed under ‘important’. When animals were domesticated, man was able to settle down into small societies, and spend more time on improving their lifestyles and survival for the better. People were able to live in a more healthy way, and live longer.
Entertainment, as I previously stated, is another factor of technology, however, it is clearly placed under the ‘unimportant’ side of the matter. Things such as games, radio, television, etc. are not something needed for survival, and can be disregarded without any harm. People might revolt if entertainment was taken from them, but it is not something that can be classified as ‘important’.
Factors such as education make it difficult to figure out where to place them. On one hand, education can be very helpful to survival of man, and in the beginning, education such as teaching a child how to catch food or farm was clearly ‘important’. But now, education is not as vital to the survival of people. People can live better lives, but education is no longer going to kill a child if he or she does not attend it in the way such known as school. However, Education is probably leaning towards being an ‘important’ factor. In order to live a happier and healthier lifestyle, having an education about whether to make better choices, etc. is always helpful. This may help some lives, but in others, their lives will not be changed. It can sometimes “go in one ear and out the other”. Education, as you can see, can be very helpful, or not helpful at all, which makes it hard to classify it under ‘important’ or ‘unimportant’.
‘Important, so far is best defined as “the bare essentials that must be obtained and things that improve these bare essentials for better survival”. However, things such as religion and beliefs are ‘important’. Religion may not be one of the bare essentials, but it is definitely important. It helps one keep a healthy mind and soul, and having a health mind and soul is also ‘important’. One’s mind and soul are not something that can be fed with normal food, or any of the bare essentials (with the exception of love). Some people may be confused about something, causing them to be upset, and upsetting their mind and soul, which are both important to maintain. Beliefs can help fix this. Beliefs can give a person a feeling of completion, or fulfillment. Even the people of the ancient times praised Gods for food, water, etc. nomadic peoples probably thanked some sort of religious figure for their food they were either hunting or gathering. As time went on, these simple worshipping habits developed into religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. The religions were very different, some praising a single all-powerful god, and other praising many individual gods. This shows that people had different ideas, and acted on them in different ways. However, though the ideas of these religions and beliefs were not always the same, the feeling of fulfillment and completion was always a result. Believing in something gave people hope, something to talk to and help them with their troubles. Essentially, even though all people are very very different, inside, we all have the same needs, whether for the bare essentials, or for other ‘important’ things. And it is here that we are able to find the true definition of ‘important’. Important is: “the bare essentials that must be obtained and things that improve these bare essentials for better survival, things needed to keep one sane and healthy all-around, and things that all humans essentially need at some point in their lives.”
Citation:
1. (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). "Define:important - Search." Google. Web. 07 Feb. 2010. .
2. (image) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Nuvola_apps_important.svg/600px-Nuvola_apps_important.svg.png

Is War a Form of Technology?

I agree with this statement. I think that war is a form of technology. The definition of war is: the waging of armed conflict against an enemy. (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)Think about it, as the years go on, war is constantly changing from the types of weapons used, to the reason for fighting. The idea behind war, however, will always be the same. People will always be greedy, and a lot of the time will look toward fighting as an answer to problems. Technology has made it easier for countries to win a war, and more brutal. The nuclear bombs, machine guns, all of those things require new technology, new ideas, new discoveries. As we find out more about our world, and find out new ways to exert force, we will always be willing to exert that force on other people. As life goes on, war will evolve just as computers and other technology have.
Citation:
1. Http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define:war&aq=f&aqi=&oq=. "Define:war - Search." Google. Web. 07 Feb. 2010. .

3. Why do you think so many conspiracy theories surround the pyramids and the megaliths? Give examples of a few and explain where you think they come from.

So many conspiracy theories surround the pyramids because Egypt is the most romanticized ancient civilization. It also contains the ancient pyramid of Giza, and this pyramid contains many mysteries. one conspiracy theory that has originated from Egypt is the riddle of the Sphinx. It is generally accepted to have been built with the pyramid of Giza. However, there is no written record about when the sphinx was built, or whose face it presents. However, the head is much smaller than the body, meaning that it could have been carved out of a larger lion's head. This means that it would have been built even earlier than the pyramid of Giza, by an earlier civilization, and this idea presents many conspiracy theories. Geologist Dr. Robert Schoch and his author made a case that erosion marks are made from water, not sand or wind. If this is true, than the Sphinx could have been built back to at least 5000 B.C., when there was rainfall, and the area was not just a desert. Dr. Zahi Hawass provides variuos points that this is flawed. Writers Graham Hancock and Robert Buvaul provide evidence that the real date of the sphinx could go back to even 10,500 B.C. I think that Dr. Robert Schoch is correct, because if the erosion was from water, than rain would have had to fall, meaning the area would have to have a steady rainfall, and could not be just a desert.  (http://www.nekhebet.com/m_conspiracies.html)
So many conspiracy theories surround the megaliths because megaliths are so vague, and we know so little about them. One example are the megaliths in Sardinia. They were created most likely during the Nuragic Era. Nuraghes are essentially stone towers. There are two basic types, a classic tholos tower type, and the corridor type. No written records have survived, so it impossible to be sure of what the Nuraghes were used for. we have to assume that they were used to signal each other about danger, as they were close together, about 500 meters.(http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412817)
Citations:
1. "Nekhebet.com - Conspiracy Theories Revealed." Nekhebet.com - Wonders of Ancient Egypt. Web. 07 Feb. 2010. .
2.   "The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map: The Nuragic Conspiracy: Alex." The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map:. Web. 07 Feb. 2010. .
3. (image) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Egypt.Giza.Sphinx.01.jpg  

Link to Pixton Comic

http://pixton.com/comic/03d3sgaa

Exploring the Pyramids

The Egyptians were fascinated by death. They believed that, after death, their pharaohs died, they became Osiris, the king of the dead. Then, the next pharaoh became Horus, the god of the heavens, and the protector of the sun god. The circle of this was represented by the rising and the setting of the sun. Egyptians believed that a portion of their pharaoh's soul, the ka, remained in his body. It was imperative that the pharaoh's body be well preserved, or else he would not be able to carry out his new duties as the kings of the dead. If this happened, the cycle would break, and disaster would happen to Egypt and all of its people. Each pharaoh was mummified, in order to prevent disaster from happening, and all of the pharaoh's possessions were buried in the tomb with  him.(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html ) Egyptians built massive tombs for their pharaohs, and these pyramids were built by all members of the city of Egypt, forced into the building of the pyramids.  Egypt was a very civilized society, with bakers, medical clinics, etc. it was because they were so civilized that the pyramids were so complex and sturdy. The Egyptians had architects, and used them to build the pyramids. The Egyptians were very advanced, and  took many advanced steps toward life, and after life.
 Citations:
1. "National Geographic: Egypt Pyramids--Facts, Photos, Diagrams." National Geographic - Inspiring People to Care About the Planet Since 1888. Web. 07 Feb. 2010. .
2. (image) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/All_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg/800px-All_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg