How does ”wrestling with the stranger” function as an ethical theme in the story of Gilgamesh, so as to illustrate the positive side of “doubling”?
         
           Fasching and deChant claim that doubling most likely first occurred during humanity’s move from tribal communities to urban civilizations because of the extreme changes in social environment that went on during that time.  The Epic of Gilgamesh provides an example of a person who no longer identifies with the tribal collective, but is finding himself as an individual among other individuals and
coming to grips with mortality.        
          Gilgamesh embarks on an ethical journey when instead of understanding his identity from his perspective as a prince, he views himself with the eyes of his double, Enkidu.  Enkido becomes the ‘mirror for Gilgamesh’s soul’ and his reflection through Enkido allows him to “see and understand himself and his relationships to others”.  Through this relationship, Gilgamesh attains what Fasching and deChant call ‘reflexive self-awareness’ which allows him to obtain much needed humility and wisdom.     
          Gilgamesh’s doubling is thought to be positive because it permits him to reflect upon himself honestly through the eyes of another.  Fasching and deChant state, “doubling becomes demonic only when this capacity for self-reflection is avoided through self-deception, so that responsibility for the actions of the self in particular circumstances are denied”.  Gilgamesh’s doubling led to the transformation of an individual from egocentric to compassionate.  In losing his arrogance, he was motivated to pursue justice not only for himself, but for his kingdom as well.      

In what ways does the story of Socrates express an ethic of the holy?

          Socrates resided within the ‘holy community,’ though, he passed back and forth from the sacred to the holy because he also identified as a citizen of Athens.  He resided within the holy community because of his belief that recognizing ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, this being a characteristic of the ‘holy’.  Socrates’ teaching his students to question everything created a feeling of discomfort within the citizens of Athens because they felt he was threatening their sacred order.  
          The Athenians’ focus on the ‘cosmos writ small’ had them caged within the ‘little picture’.  They desired to maintain order as they knew it because they valued what was familiar and of ‘this world’.  They had all the answers they needed and were comfortable with the way things were because they believed it
was the way things should be.  Their understanding was sacred because the knowledge was passed on through customs and traditions and anyone who questioned it received a hostile reaction and became the ‘enemy’.  This is what eventually happened to Socrates.  He was accused of being an atheist because
Athenians were blinded by their sacred-centric views in such a way that they could not fathom the idea of an internal god because it was too different and other worldly.  As Fasching and deChant claim, “[Socrates] invented ethics as we now understand it, namely, ethics not as observance of the ‘’sacred customs” but rather as the questioning of sacred customs and sacred order”.

In what ways does Gandhi’s ethic violate the modernist paradigm of the privatization of religion?  
          
           With the emergence of secularization brought about by the Enlightenment, western civilization put God on the back burner to make way for scientific explanation.  Religion’s answers were no longer satisfactory in comparison to the scientific method’s appeal to reason and logic.  This event downgraded religion for westerners—their beliefs were removed from the holy sphere and placed within a sacred sphere.  Those who chose to maintain their beliefs had to do so within a private realm.            
          When Western society was promoting the marginalization of religion, Gandhi instead promoted his belief that religion and politics are intertwined:  “I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means”.  Religion and politics were one and the same for Gandhi.
          The merging of politics and religion Fasching and deChant state as follows, “For Gandhi, religion and politics became one through the practice of brahmacharya.  For only selfless compassion for the well-being of others can inspire the trust that makes political leadership possible”.  Gandhi’s aim was to
be selfless and live life for others.  He was not satisfied with the ‘cynicism of politics-as-usual;’ he desires to turn politics into a ’spiritual and ethical enterprise’.  Gandhi found his ethics through his religion and believed if politics was to truly be honest and ethical as well, it would have to do it with the involvement of religion.  

Does the concept of human dignity play a role in Gandhi’s thought?  If so, how?
         
          The concept of human dignity does play a role in Gandhi’s thought because his drive for justice was sparked by experiences of humiliation that compromised his human dignity.  “Any conduct that is contrary to truth and ahimsa is to be eschewed and any book that violates these principles is not a shastra [sacred scripture]“.  
          The two experiences that changed Gandhi’s direction in life occurred when he was fresh out of law school.  They both involve him being physically thrown out of a place because of prejudice.  In the first situation, he tried to use his weight as a British-trained attorney with a British political agent, but it failed him, and in the second, he attempted to ride first-class in a train and was ordered to the baggage compartment, but when he refused he was thrown off the train.  
          These experiences coupled with his interpretation of the Gita allowed for Gandhi to move forward with his teachings of non-violence through soul force.  It was those brushes with humiliation that led him to understand the plight of the ‘untouchable’ or the ‘other’.  Because of this knowledge, he came to a new
understanding of what his life objective would be—to seek justice for all people through non-violent means.  His promotion of self-suffering over inflicting suffering on others was the way he believed justice could be reached.