In this piece we start of contemplating the balance, and importance, of embracing the old or the new. The Author has us questioning what it means to be human. He brings in the opinion of several philosophers such as Descartes and Hume to provide contrasting opinions. I was content to see that the author used several different points of view to reflect upon this question. From my point of view as a reader it built trust in what he was writing. It wasn’t like he asked a question and immediately answered it with his own opinion, instead he gives the reader some time to formulate their own thoughts.

I think with the question of what it means to be human the author also brought up the debate of ones autonomy. The question of being human is followed by different ideologies such as: Descartes statement, ‘I think therefore I am’ (Norton 4) v. Hume point of view that,’the idea of individual identity [being] a fiction constructed by our minds,’ (Norton 4). Then the Question of authority – to is discussed to great lengths in the reading – brings up the debate of whether or not we can rely on our own judgment to guide us through life v. having to live by the voice of authority, such as a religious figure.

By the time the reading ends it seems, if we tie back to the initial debate of traditionalist v. modernist, that enlightened thinkers (the modernists) would emphasize the continuous truths of human nature from good to bad in all people. I would assume that this created a fracture in the among writers and most likely a bias. The author discussed the impact that universal truths to human characteristics would have had on writers during that time. “It provided a test of excellence: if an authors imagining of character failed to conform to what eighteen-century readers understood as human nature, a work might be securely judged inadequately. Conversely, the idea of a constant human nature held out the hope of longevity for writers who successfully evoked it” (Norton 9). because of the possibility of literary mortality, there would be a pressure on writers to be innovative in the field yet conform the to 18th century way of thinking. Something too revolutionary would surely be chastised and forgotten.