Before writing, think about either the story of Ehud and Eglon or the story of Deborah, Jael, and Sisera: in what ways does the Hebrew writer slant the story in favor of the Hebrews? How might the story have been told differently if the writer had been a Canaanite? After thinking about these questions, write your own version of the story from the Canaanite point of view (one page, double-spaced).
After reading through Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, I must admit that I am neither convinced by his ideas nor satisfied by his explanations. That is not to say I did not find his arguments interesting-far from it in fact-they were merely insufficient to persuade me. I assume that were we to read Descartes' responses to the questions he mentions in introduc-tion, I imagine some of my own questions might be answered, but until that time I will remain unconvinced. To begin with, as we see in the First Meditation, Descartes eradicates the foundations of common beliefs and earthly perceptions in attempt to lay down new foundations for a very struc-tured, purposeful argument. This idea, in conjunction with the cogito ergo sum are among the few things that I do not disagree with. The issues I have arise when he attempts to build his argument from this point, as he seems to be starting from the middle. As I understand it, Des-cartes begins his argument with Descartes, the only thing he knows to exist, and from there proceeds to establish the rest of the universe. Not only does this seem a bit egocentric to me, but he later establishes facts that seem to contradict his method. Take, for example, his proof that God exists. To summarize briefly, all things that exist must come from something larger, and as we define God as an infinite, perfect being of infinite, perfect goodness, then all things must therefore stem from Him. Also, because we have within us this idea of God, which itself is big-ger than us and therefore must have come from God, then we humans, as we humans are in es-sence our thoughts, must have come from God. This is what I take issue with: if all things begin with God, then how can Descartes, without contradicting himself, begin his argument with Des-cartes? The next argument of Descartes' that I find objectionable is, assuming God is infinite, perfect, and therefore not a deceiver, that Descartes' ideas, which he believes come from God, are true because God would not deceive him. This seems to me to be somewhat of a cheap fail-safe established to back up his arguments in case of a disagreement. I may be wrong, but it seems to me like Descartes is saying, albeit more verbosely and with more sophisticated language, "I thought of it, therefore it's true." This idea leaves room for much extrapolation. Take the follow-ing for example: Personally, I perceive the universe to be infinite, and not with my senses, as the universe is far beyond their range. This idea of the universe therefore does not come from with-out. Following Descartes' argument, this idea, as it is larger than me, cannot come from within. It must therefore come from God, and once again following Descartes argument, it must be true because God would not deceive me. Yet here is the issue-if Descartes arguments are to be tak-en for truth, then both God and the universe are infinite, and as such neither could have created the other. Following this, several options present themselves: 1) God is finite, meaning Descartes is wrong; 2) the universe is finite, meaning God has deceived me and therefore Des-cartes is wrong; 3) God and the universe are separate >GET ANSWER