All posts by j.abdullah

5081190220081053
Peer Response Post

Peer Response Post: “PERFECTION DOESN’T CORRELATE WITH HAPPINESS”

I agree with Tasnima Ahmed’s statements about the correlation between Benjamin Franklin and Tom Sawyer from The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain. She said that Benjamin Franklin and Tom Sawyer are both imperfect beings, but that does not stop them from being happy. This proves the notion that perfection does not necessarily attribute to happiness.

She refers back to the text Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin where Benjamin Franklin stated 13 qualities that make up a perfect person. Even though Benjamin Franklin did not have these 13 qualities, he stated that a man should allow himself to have a few flaws, so that his friends will support him. He stated that if someone were to be perfect, others might get jealous of him and envy him, therefore he would not have any friends. “…a perfect character might be attended with the inconvenience of being envied and hated” (Franklin9).

Tom Sawyer was not a perfect person either; he had his flaws. One of his flaws was that he refused to bathe for Sunday school. Uncleanliness is obviously a quality that would make a person far from perfect. This quality is also looked down upon by society as a whole. However, this quality did not cause Tom Sawyer to live a sad life.

Perfectionism will not always lead to happiness. One accepting who and how they are and being content with it, will lead to happiness.

Close Reading Post, Uncategorized, Weekly Post-Check-In #3

Frederick Douglass’ Experiences vs. Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy

Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” essay conveys the idea that in order for society to progress and reach enlightenment, a number of things must fall in place. One thing is that all members of society have to reach “maturity.” He defines “maturity” as someone who can think for themselves and make their own decisions, even if it goes against the norm. Hence, his definition for “immaturity” is the opposite.

One of his major points was that it is difficult for a man to reach enlightenment on his own, and it has to be reached with the collaborative effort of a group of people. Thus, he claims that if a society is given freedom to think, enlightenment would reach everyone, slowly and gently. He claims that public freedom, not individual freedom, would bring about change and help society reach enlightenment. “But that a public should enlighten itself is more possible; indeed this is almost inevitable, if only it is left its freedom” (Kant Paragraph 4).

Frederick Douglass’ narratives may challenge these points because in his contemporary society, public freedom was what brought the opposite of enlightenment. Public freedom allowed slave owners to think what they were doing was not morally wrong, so they kept doing it. He described the new overseer’s cruel character traits as a “perfect fit” for the job. “Mr. Gore was proud, ambitious, and persevering. He was artful, cruel, and obdurate. He was just the man for such a place, and it was just the place for such a man. It afforded scope for the full exercise of all his powers, and he seemed to be perfectly at home in it” (Douglass 4). There were obvious differences in sentiment towards slavery in the North from the South. Freedom of thinking allowed the Southerners to go against how the Northerners perceived slavery, and commit the wrongful acts that they did.

Thus, society did not in any way reach enlightenment during that time period due to public freedom. This public freedom brought about racism, inequality, violence, cruelty, inferiority complexes, and injustice.

Uncategorized
1 Comment

By understanding Locke’s theory that education is better received through experience rather than institution, we can better understand the characters in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Locke’s theory makes it easier for us to understand how the different types of education Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster received contributed to their overall knowledge of the world and their downfall.

Free post

Life is Our Dictionary

One particular point that I thought was interesting in An American Scholar by Ralph Waldo Emerson was where he made the metaphor that “Life is our dictionary.” He then continued to state many more metaphors about basically how in life, we define everything we know through our experiences. The then concluded by saying, “ Colleges and books only copy the language which the field and the work-yard made.”

What he means here is that learning from books and colleges are sort of a secondary, or back-up, source. All they do is merely copy the things you can experience by yourself in life.

I feel that Emerson also believes that the best way to learn in life is to learn through experiences instead of institution. He states that your experiences are what allow you to know how to live day-to-day. “Life lies behind us as the quarry from whence we get tiles and copestones for the masonry of to-day.” What he is saying here is that life’s experiences give us tools or guidelines on how to live.

I for the most part agree with Emerson because books are written by people who have put their experiences in writing. However, there may be a limit to how much of your experiences you are able to put into writing. Basically, books are reflections of other people’s experiences, but not to their full extent. Only the writer of the book understands the book the best.

So in order to really understand life and nature, you can’t read about other people’s limited experiences, but experience things on your own.

Uncategorized

Brainstorming Exercise – Cubing

1 Comment

Frankenstein and Locke

 

The creature in Frankenstein is a good embodiment of the perspectives that Locke holds.

 

Describe it The creature grew up by itself in the wilderness, learning only from his environment without any guidance. He learned language by eavesdropping on people’s conversations.
Compare it His creator, Frankenstein, had a very different upbringing. Frankenstein went through traditional schooling and went to a prestigious university. Frankenstein was also highly intelligent, but did not learn from his mistakes in school but rather his own experiences.
Associate it The experiences of the creature in Frankenstein resembles Bear Grylls from Man Vs. Wild. Bear had to also use his experiences and teach himself how to survive in the wild.
Analyze it The creature in Frankenstein is an embodiment of Locke’s perspectives on education. Locke believes that education is best received through experiences and reflection, and the creature became a smart being because of his experience in the outside world.
Apply it The author of Frankenstein uses Locke’s perspectives through the characterization of the creature, who became relatively intelligent just by observing his environment.
Argue for and against it Locke’s viewpoints make sense because we can always be told stuff in school and we can memorize things, but by seeing and experiencing things on our own, we can have a deeper understanding of such things.
Locke’s viewpoints may not make sense because in the case of the creature, he was never able to properly understand that killing people is bad, which is something that is learned through societal norms.

 

Close Reading Post

Natural Learning

1 Comment

In the novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein and his creation, the “monster”, have had a comparable upbringing in terms of the way they became educated.

Victor went through the usual schooling everyone in society goes through.Due to his academic achievements, he was able to attend a prestigious university where he studied science. “I attended the lectures and cultivated the acquaintance of the men of science of the university, and I found even in M. Krempe a great deal of sound sense and real information, combined, it is true, with a repulsive physiognomy and manners, but not on that account the less valuable.” His motivation to learn as much as possible caused him to become unsocial and caused a rift between him and his family. He was very interested on how humans were created and how they die. After years of research and experimentation, he was able to create a creature. After realizing how ugly his creation was, he abandoned it and all his studies. 

Through Victor’s socially normal education, he was able to become a very smart person. However, his knowledge caused him to create a being he could not look after. Therefore, he created a living and breathing being that has to spend the rest of his life miserably. 

The monster, on the other hand, learned what he learned through observing nature. He had neither any formal school nor guidance. Through his experiences living outside by himself, he learned what he needed to about the world; such as what hot and cold feel like. He learned the basics of knowledge by eavesdropping on his neighbors’ conversations. 

He then tried to interact with his neighbor and show off his knowledge. However, the neighbor did not react very well and attacked the monster. This fueled the monsters hatred towards humans and that is when he started to kill people.

The novel supports the expression that “knowledge is power”, however, having too much knowledge or too much power can be very dangerous and cause serious complications. 

Free post, Weekly Post Check-In

Rousseau’s Perspective on Learning

1 Comment

Rousseau has a very interesting perspective on education and learning. In Rousseuau’s Emile: or A Treatise on Education, it is evident that he believes the best way for children to become educated is for them to grow up in a state of nature. He believes that instead of raising children with strict discipline and giving them formal education, they should be allowed to go explore the world and learn things on their own. He states that formal education is the wrong way to teach a child because of always-changing circumstances.

Rousseau states that a true scholar is one who can learn to adapt to many different circumstances. “We must therefore look at the general rather than the particular, and consider our scholar as man in the abstract, man exposed to all the changes and chances of mortal life. ” (Rousseau 2).  He also says that formal education is only suitable in cases where everything is perfect. “…if every man’s fortune were so firmly grasped that he could never lose it, then the established method of education would have certain advantages; the child brought up to his own calling would never leave it, he could never have to face the difficulties of any other condition.” (Rousseau 2). He is saying that a formally educated child can have a good life, only if no other problems ever arise.

I feel that Rousseau is basically trying to say that there is a difference between learning about the world from someone else inside closed walls and experiencing the real world and learning about it by yourself. Rousseau states that the best way for children to learn something is to show it to them rather than just telling them about it. “As a general rule–never substitute the symbol for the thing signified, unless it is impossible to show the thing itself, for the child’s attention is so taken up with the symbol that he will forget what it signifies” (Rousseau 16). It is evident that Rousseau believes that experience is the best teacher.

Close Reading Post

Universal Truths vs. Personal Truths

In Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences by Rene Descartes, and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke, Descartes and Locke both speak on the subject of truth. Both authors emphasize their need to reach life’s truths but go about it in different ways.

 

Descartes believes that in order to find life’s truths, he must first abandon everything they have been educated in and start fresh. After doing so, he set off to travel and learn from “the great book of the world” (1) with an unclouded mind. Locke, on the other hand, believed that the only truths that need to be discovered are things that are true to each unique individual. He states that everyone starts off life with a blank, white paper and over time our experiences furnish the paper. In the end, this book is filled with all our own unique truths, truths that may not be true to someone else.

 

If Descartes and Locke were to speak to each other they would conflict over the degree of certainty of their truths. Descartes was very strict with making sure his truths were in fact true. He created his own set of guidelines when searching for truths. His first rule was to only believe things that he can prove himself. His second rule was to reduce every problem to its simplest parts, and to proceed through his thoughts in an orderly fashion from simplest part to most complex. His last rule was to create a long chain of reasoning and leave nothing out when solving a problem. (2) That being said, it is clear that Descartes is really focused on finding truths that are true universally.

 

Locke was less focused on the certainty of his truths. He believes that through the use of reason we can come to a certain degree of knowledge. He didn’t have any strict guidelines like Descartes did. Also, since he thought that peoples’ experiences define their own truths, his definition of truth may not be a “universal fact” since each individual has different experiences.

Close Reading Post

Perspectives on Institutionalized Education

1 Comment

James Marcus Bach’s, “Secrets of a Buccaneer Scholar” challenges the idea that one needs to go to school to be successful. He uses his own life experiences and accomplishments as examples of why school does not necessarily play a large role in the contributions of one’s success. He claims that if someone wants to truly be successful, all they need is to be motivated enough to reach their goals. “I left high school because it wasn’t helping me. I felt that I was wasting my time. So I developed my own approach to learning.” (2).  He states that all school does is waste time and blocks you from learning what you really need to learn to reach your goals. Bach explained to the class about how he dropped out of high school and studied hard on his own to get himself in the position he held, working as a software test manager at Apple.

Kanye West, in contrast, advocates that higher education is much needed to become successful. Although he is a successful college dropout, he explained that he had to work extremely hard to be lucky enough to make the fortune he made. He encourages people to take advantage of every opportunity they can, and states that a college education is a strong advantage a person can have in the real world.

Although Bach and West have differences in their opinions on schooling, they do share one similar perspective; the current school system is flawed. Bach argues that the school system is flawed because the students are forced to think that the only things that matter are what they learn in school. Kanye West says that the school system is flawed because the current curriculums are not relevant to the majority of the students’ interests. “‘So why not start a curriculum that teaches music production? Come on, get with the times. People are so behind. There’s poetry classes, but why aren’t there rap curriculums? It takes people like myself to stand up and say this is part of our culture, why not use it to educate.'” Both Bach and West encourage people to work hard to pursue their interests.