21/11/2008
19:52 - 20:47 = 55 minutes – mainly research for “Meat is Murder” slogan, also think about approach to answer. Etymology = Pali / Sanskrit. Hmm? Maybe. (Kill is Old English, from 1205, and relatively easy, but the question is about a text originally in Pali, not English.)
20:48 - 21:23 = 35 minutes. Cum.Total = 90 minutes – decided to research the Pali etymology of Pāṇātipātā Google search best = Pāṇātipātā pali dictionary. Looks like useful info to use. Looked at others first, not so useful. 35 minutes not bad to get this information. Reference citation is a bit messy, but I’ve noted the page URL.
This is the time I've spent sitting in front of my computer actively working on an answer. I spent some time thinking about it before then, and scribbled a few ideas. I think I've got a clear idea about what my thesis statement will be and how I might be able to support it, although it will probably change as I do more research and get more ideas. But that's normal: essays do change as they are being written, so I'll probably have to revise my provisional thesis statement. I think I've spend perhaps 2.5 hours working on my answer so far.
And I'm keeping careful note of sources that might be useful. At the moment, there are 13 tabs open in my browser from the searches I've made this evening. I think three of them are useful.
I'll add updates as comments as I continue to work on my answer.
When I decided to write this Blog post to record my essay's progress, I also put the questions online so that they can be easily referred to. They are at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc39t2qs_421hhnbx3ch
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about the title, but I thought it was catchy. The reason for it will be clear from the essay, unless I decide to change it.
ReplyDeleteYou already know from class that I disagree with Stephen Law, that I think it's morally OK to eat meat.
Can you guess what my answer to question 5 might be?
I didn't do any research yesterday, but while I was doing other things, I gave some more thought to exactly what I could and could not support in an essay.
ReplyDeleteI think I've got a main idea now that answers the question and that will be able to support. It's a bit different to my first idea, which I decided didn't really answer the question. The question is not "should Buddhists (or other people) eat meat?", it is "Does eating meat violate the first precept of Buddhism?", which is not the same. The question I have to answer is not the same question that Law discusses in his dialogue.
I haven't written my provisional thesis statement yet, but I think my main idea for the essay is clear enough now that I can write a thesis statement. I'll do it later this afternoon, after a snack and some Simpsons.
I've just written my provisional theses statement. It took about fifteen minutes, and involved a few revisions to make it clearer and stronger, and to make sure it was a clear answer to the question.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit worried that the grammar is complex, but it is an accurate statement of the opinion I think I can support in an essay.
I'll spend a bit more time to see if I can make it clearer. What I want is one sentence that tells the reader which of the two different ways of understanding the meaning of the first precept is correct. That's what the question asks. And of course, whether eating meat is moral or not, the question Law discusses, is probably irrelevant to my answer.
Just as question 2. is not about whether abortion should be allowed or not, question 5 is not about whether eating meat is moral or not. Those are completely different questions.
A Google search on "buddhism vegetarianism" led to some useful background reading, including a Wikipedia entry. I'm not sure if I want to use any of it in my essay, but it was useful to read.
ReplyDeleteI generally do not like to use Wikipedia, and many universities ban it as a source, but it might be acceptable here. Or perhaps it would be better to use a more reliable source I found through Wikipedia?
About 30 minutes.
Unlike the Wikipedia entry for "Buddhist vegetarianism", the entry for "Vegetarianism" is very well supported with reliable citations.
ReplyDelete8:06 PM - 9:02 PM = 56 minutes
ReplyDeleteI've just written the first draft of my introduction, which is one paragraph.
It took almost an hour because I wanted to check some facts and find sources to cite to support what I wrote.
When I came to write my thesis statement, I also revised it a bit: I decided I probably could not support the first version. In fact, I now think my first thesis statement was wrong.
So far, about 4.5 hours work on my essay. Not counting thinking I do when I'm doing other things.
ReplyDeleteAnother 30 minutes here.
ReplyDeleteI've revised my thesis statement again. It now reads:
Although common explanations of the first precept of Buddhism, which explanations allow Buddhists to eat meat, do sometimes take account of intention, not just the act of killing, they do not properly understand the idea of intention; thus, they do not properly explain the meaning of the precept, which is normally violated by eating meat.
Is this one clearer than my last version? The last one was fairly complex because I was trying to make it short as well as state the main idea I want to support in my essay. At 55 words, this one is longer than the 38 words in the last version.
Not to worry, it's provisional until the essay is finished, so I will probably make more revisions as I'm writing the body paragraphs that have to support the thesis statement.
And another version:
Although Buddhists are allowed to eat meat by some common explanations of their first precept, some of which explanations do take account of intention, not just the act of killing, they do not properly understand the idea of intention; thus, they do not properly explain the meaning of the precept, which is normally violated by eating meat. (57 words)
I still prefer the version you saw this morning, but agree that the grammar is complex.
As I've just commented on Ma's recent post about the progress of her essay, one thing that helped me was to split the question into two parts: the first, and most important, part is the definition of the term; the second is applying the definition to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteIt probably helped to get my ideas and main idea about the meaning of the term I need to define, killing or abstain from killing, without worrying too much about Buddhism. I could worry about Buddhism after I had a good idea about what the important terms meant.
When I did have some ideas about the meaning of the terms, I thought about why I disagreed with other people's definition, and that's where I started to think about what Buddhists actually say about the meaning of abstain from killing in their first precept.
My provisional introduction
ReplyDeleteWhen I was at university in the 1980s, it was common to see colourful posters slaughtered animals in the kitchens of living rooms of politically active students bearing the slogan “Meat is Murder”. A quick Google image search suggests that these are no longer so popular, although the radical animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA], are still using the slogan (Schinke, 2008). As Woranarin Imthap suggests in “Carving the Roast Beast : Am”, religion has often been used to support the idea that humans should not eat meat (2008), although as can be seen in Stephen Law’s dialogue “Carving the Roast Beast”, religion has also been used to argue the opposite case, that it is morally acceptable to eat meat (2007, Appeals to the Bible section, p. 136-7). We can perhaps understand why religion becomes involved in this question because, as Law notes, many people are brought up to believe that their religion is a reliable source of moral guidance, so it is used to justify actions that are seen as acceptable; since most people eat meat, and want to continue eating meat, they also want to convince themselves that their religion allows them to do that. For Jews, Christians and Moslems, it is fairly easy: the Bible and Koran both clearly state that God made animals for the use and benefit of humans, and contain numerous passages showing animals being killed and eaten by holy people, including Jesus. In the case of Buddhism, it is not so clear; amongst the many different versions of Buddhism there are those who believe that the first precept means they should not eat meat, whilst many others argue the exact opposite, that they may eat meat. Although some common explanations of their first precept both allow Buddhists to eat meat and also take account of intention, not just the act of killing, they do not properly understand the idea of intention; thus, they do not properly explain the meaning of the precept, which is normally violated by eating meat.
Refernces
Atipāta .(1921-5) Davids, T. & Stede, W., (eds). (1921-5). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary. London: Pali Text Society. Digital Dictionaries of South Asia (2007). University of Chicago. Retrieved on November 21, 2008 from http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/showrest_?kwic.6.1.18237.0.0.pali
Imthap, W. [Am] (2008, November 9). Carving the Roast Beast : Am. Class Blog: AEP at AUA. Retrieved November 16, 2008 from http://aepaua.blogspot.com/2008/11/carving-roast-beast-am.html
Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files (pp.124 - 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson
Schinke, A. (2008, September, 29). Meet your meat, world beef expo [Blog post]. The Peta Files. Retrieved on November 23, 2008 from http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/09/meet_your_meat.php
As I've been writing it today, I've made more revisions to my ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe current version is online at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc39t2qs_423djrxtg25
This is not the final version, and it isn't complete. The definition part is done, but not the application to the first precept, which I've hardly mentioned so far in my essay.