All posts by a.caloobanan

5081190220081079
Close Reading Post, Free post

The Virtuous Man

René Descartes’ method approaches a change in man in quite the drastic way compared to Franklin’s views. To make sure that the man knows only what is absolutely certain, he must denounce all formerly held beliefs and knowledge acquired through formal education or personal experiences. The man must start completely fresh, and in order to gain that absolutely certain knowledge, a mathematical-like method must be followed. First, one must accept things only known to be true, second, one must then divide any questions or experimentations into as many parts as possible, so that the most “adequate solution” may be obtained (Descartes, Part II). Third, these questions must be tackled from the simplest ones to the most complex, and finally, complete the answers fully and review them frequently to ensure full understanding. Additionally, Descartes acknowledges the fact that this may not work for everyone who tries it, but that it has certainly worked for him.

Benjamin Franklin’s plan is very different from Descartes’ proposed ideas. Franklin’s plan focuses on moral perfection instead of Descartes’ goal in obtaining ultimate truth and certainty. Because of this, Franklin’s plan is approached very differently compared to Descartes’ mathematical method; Franklin focuses instead on ethical qualities, determined in acquiring “the habitude of all these virtues” (Franklin, IX, 3rd Paragraph). Another difference in approach is Franklin’s belief that the change in self should be gradual, “that the contrary habits must be broken, and good ones acquired and established, before we can have any dependence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct” (Franklin, IX, 1st Paragraph). Instead of getting rid of all his past habits, beliefs, and knowledge like Descartes’ plan mandates, Franklin embraces his past ways of life and his plan includes integrating each virtue into his daily life gradually. This is so that they may be fully assimilated into him and so that he may feel proud after seeing the progress he has recorded in his memorandum book.

Also differing from Descartes, Franklin soon learns to accept any flaws in his own moral perfection, writing, “a benevolent man should allow a few faults in himself” (IX, 7th Paragraph). As opposed to Descartes’ views that one should not accepted faulty ideas, Franklin embraces the flaws he discovers in himself from following his plan. From this, Franklin becomes an overall happier man, who learns how to rid himself of his pride and through this, becomes someone who is easy to get along with for he no longer is aggressive in giving his opinions. Another difference in Franklin and Descartes’ approaches is that Franklin implies his belief in everyone who attempts a similar plan. Contrary to Descartes, who provides a disclaimer that he has only tried his method on himself and therefore it may not work on everyone else, Franklin suggests his firm belief that as long as one has “tolerable abilities” and has a “good plan,” he will “work great changes” and “accomplish great affairs among mankind” (IX, 19th Paragraph).

Introduction Exercise #1

“If you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell.”

1 Comment

Why is it that Douglass focuses so much on a master’s insistence that a slave be illiterate? Why not focus on something better known, like a slave’s struggle to work for said master? Instead, Douglass brings to light something that may not be obvious to the reader/audience. He desires to explain how this education that the slave master tries so hard to prevent is how he obtained the very freedom that has allowed him to write this autobiography. This text argues that education is the resource that frees slaves from their master, so depriving them of this resource illustrates the white man’s ultimate power to enslave. This essential power does not only take control of a slave’s body to produce hard labor, but also controls a slave’s mind and brainwashes him to think that he is not capable of anything else, nevertheless question being a slave. In order to demonstrate our claim, we will follow through on how Frederick Douglass got a hint of education from his mistress, but was stopped abruptly. Next, we will discuss Douglass’ consistent pursuement for further knowledge despite the method. Finally, we will look at how Douglass’ determination to be educated despite constant backlash from his master is what finally gives him the freedom he only used to read about.

Peer Response Post

Enlightenment and Slavery

This is in response to Farzana’s post that can be found here.

I agree with her for the most part, but I would also like to expand on her ideas.

She says that it isn’t true that “to encourage enlightenment you only need freedom” because you need education to think and education and slavery do not go hand in hand. But I think there is some truth to Kant’s words – when one believes that he is free, he has the ability to become enlightened, for there have been no restrictions placed on his mind. Sure, the thoughts formed without proper education will probably not be too well-thought out, but that does not mean that there would not be some kind of inner truth to these thoughts. Douglass writes in chapter 1 of his My Bondage and My Freedom: “It was a long time before I knew myself to be a slave. I knew many other things before I knew that.” This quote shows how much enlightenment Douglass was given while he believed he was free. Despite only being a child, the freedom to think for and educate himself, to learn new things that may not necessarily have been academic accomplishments, was still unrestricted before he came to know of his status. Children find it so easy to find the creativity in inner truth, because they have not yet been exposed to the darkness of it. While he was blissfully ignorant, he was free to believe and learn what he wanted, free to be enlightened.

But after he learned of his slavery, he still continued to grow educated, reading a book he found or turning the little white boys he met on the street into teachers. However, his enlightenment and education had to be kept within himself, for he lacked the freedom to spread it and discuss what he had learned with the public. Douglass suffered while holding this in, writing that he had “envied his fellow-slaves for their stupidity…often wished [him]self a beast….Any thing, no matter what, to get rid of thinking!” (The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Chapter 7). This agrees to what Farzana is saying – that Douglass’ narrative expresses the idea that education is essentially futile if you are not free to use it.

In all, I believe that education, enlightenment, and freedom are all necessities for the truly thinking individual. However, I still think it is possible for one to be enlightened by using whatever resources he has been given – even if that does not include education – to find some degree of inner truth within himself. Being retained from freedom does not necessarily stop the other two from being achieved, but the ability to spread them is what is truly captured.

Uncategorized

Skewed Goodness

1 Comment

Mary Shelley uses Rousseau’s three influences on education – nature, man, and things – to also support Rousseau’s theory of one’s natural potential for goodness by showcasing the different degrees of impact that each has on the individual, experience (things) being the most, through the monster in her novel, Frankenstein. Abandoned by his creator, the monster’s potential for goodness becomes questionable as his education becomes skewed due to what he learns from his experiences.

Through the lens post, Weekly Post-Check-In #3

Experience is Power

1 Comment

In Emile, Rousseau spends a lot of time stressing on the importance of direct-experience learning as foundation for an individual’s education as opposed to learning from books. A child should be able to learn the ways of the world without having to read about it from some text in a physical manifestation of the past. As Rousseau says, “Our first feelings are centred on self” – and the individual will only grow from knowing that (9). Many of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s sentiments from his speech, “The American Scholar,” express Rousseau’s belief in direct-experience learning.

Although he does not totally condemn the usefulness of books in man’s education, Emerson does firmly state over and over again not to rely so much on the text that it become the source of “over influence” and instead focus on the self and the truth one can gain through it (4). This coincides with Rousseau’s principle that one put the book down and decide to experience life on his own terms. True genius does not spend time reflecting on the accomplishments of men in the past – he makes his own goals and soars above them. Emerson says, “Genius looks forward: the eyes of man are set in his forehead, not in his hindhead: man hopes: genius creates” (4). What inner truth would one find in someone else’s words, in someone else’s opinions? However, Emerson does admit if read properly, there are still things to gain from books; similarly, Rousseau believes that books are needed eventually in one’s education. But what the two are trying to say is that books shouldn’t be the basis of man’s education: it should be experience.

Experience is what teaches man to live. Man needs to live if he ever wants to learn: “Thinking is the function. Living is the functionary” (Emerson 7). It is with experience that man learns how to use his body to gain wisdom, to use his fingers to experiment with science or his eyes to perceive a sight in a way yet unknown to mankind. A true genius takes every experience, whether it be thought, emotion, or both, to educate himself. Like Rousseau, Emerson mentions feelings being a teacher to man: “Drudgery, calamity, exasperation, want, are instructors in eloquence and wisdom. The true scholar grudges every opportunity of action past by, as a loss of power” (6). Experience is the most reliable resource. Even if a man’s physical tools are taken away, his most powerful one is intangible and supreme: it is experience.

Through the lens post, Weekly Post Check-In

The Monster’s “White Paper”

2 Comments

Mary Shelley’s character, Frankenstein’s monster, is built around allusions made to John Locke’s theory of “white paper” or “tabula rasa” found in Book II, Chapter I of his “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (Locke 5). According to Locke, the mind is a blank sheet waiting to be decorated with ideas formed from either sensations or reflections. This is exactly how Shelley portrays Frankenstein’s monster, who narrates to Victor his first memories after his creation: “’I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew, and could distinguish, nothing…No distinct ideas occupied my mind; all was confused’” (122). The monster bears a resemblance to a newborn infant: innocent, lost, and without thoughts or ideas. Like Locke hypothesizes, sensations play a part to ideas entering the mind – the monster only has his senses to help educate him, having been abandoned by his creator. Shelley implies sensations’ big role in the monster’s education through his narration: “’My sensations had by this time become distinct, and my mind received every day additional ideas. My eyes became accustomed to the light and to perceive objects in their right forms’” (123).

These sensations work together with what Locke calls “the operations of our minds” or the “reflections” (6). Through the monster’s continuous experiences in life, from seeing the moon, to touching fire and feeling pain, his understanding grows, even learning how to cook using fire. Another example of the monster’s sensations and reflections working together is seen through his observations of the family in the hut. As he watches Felix, Agatha, Safie, and the old man interact, he also hears them. Through this hearing, his mind works to perceive and understand the concept of communication, eventually learning the verbal language, and therefore granting him access to literacy skills as well. Using these newfound communication skills, he becomes a very well-informed being, learning about “’the strange system of human society…the division of property, of immense wealth and squalid poverty, of rank, descent, and noble blood’” (Shelley 144). Through these lessons and those provided to him from the novels he reads, his formerly blank room of a mind becomes a fully furnished place of existence.

Locke says that this notion of sensations and reflections furnishing the white paper that is the human mind is observable in children, that the senses will “force an entrance [of tangible qualities] to the mind…[and] will be granted easily” (7). This is very evident in Frankenstein’s monster, who, even though he knows nothing immediately after his creation, learns the ways of existing as a human being very quickly with the help of his sensations and reflections.

Close Reading Post

The Need for Proper Guidance

1 Comment

A very important strength in Frankenstein’s education is his passion and thirst for knowledge. Frankenstein narrates, “The world was to me a secret which I desired to divine. Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature…are among the earliest sensations I can remember” (Shelley 31). These “sensations” can be linked to Locke’s belief that sensations and reflections are how we acquire ideas and therefore build up our education. Frankenstein’s passion for learning also alludes to Rousseau’s advice for an ideal education: let the child learn what he wants and his education will be successful. If a student feels passionate about the subject, he will not think of giving it up, and that is exactly what happens to Frankenstein, who feels that “in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder” (Shelley 48).

A downfall in Frankenstein’s education is the constant limits that others try to impose on him, including his father and Professor Krempe. Frankenstein narrates, “In my education my father had taken the greatest precautions that my mind should be impressed with no supernatural horrors” (Shelley 49). This is just an example of Frankenstein’s father attempting to steer Frankenstein’s mind in a certain direction. Another instance would be the former’s immediate distaste at seeing the authors of the novels that Frankenstein finds pleasure in, even calling their philosophies: “sad trash,” and Professor Krempe had similar things to say about these authors (Shelley 34). By these authority figures consistently putting down Frankenstein’s interests, Frankenstein feels the need to prove them wrong and show them that there is relevance to all of this, that these authors have come up with important principles though they may not necessarily be accurate. This causes him to continuously try to break down the boundaries of present knowledge and discover new ways of thinking, new kinds of everything for what he thinks will benefit mankind.

The monster, left to fend for himself by Frankenstein, is able to start off his education on a blank slate, or under more specific Locke terms, a “tabula rasa.” Through this lack of inferior treatment brought upon by others onto his education, he learns how to be well-mannered and eloquently spoken and that is a strength of his education. Although he becomes successful academically as he learns to read, write, and speak on his own, the monster lacks proper guidance. This is the biggest downfall of his education. When he attempts to become socially active by talking to the family that he has watched, he is chased out, influencing him negatively. This can be related to Rousseau’s writings that all humans are born with the potential to be good – it is the actions of a corrupted society that steer them towards evil. Due to no one being able to guide him into understanding that Paradise Lost by John Milton is mere fiction, he relates himself to the text, learning how to justify his wicked deeds as results of Frankenstein leaving him alone and confused.

Shelley makes a claim on education through the development of the different characters by combining theories from the writings of Locke and Rousseau. Shelley believes that while sensations, reflections, and experiences do influence a person’s education, a living external guidance is also needed. However, this guidance must be a high-quality and proper kind – no good will come out of a deadbeat counselor, or in the monster’s case: a deadbeat creator. She illustrates this idea through the education of the monster, who has been left without proper guidance due to Frankenstein’s abandonment of him, and therefore has a distorted, malicious kind of education.

Peer Response Post, Rousseau

Balance

This is written in response to Barry Sitt’s post that can be found here.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and would like to expand on your post. Some may call the concept Rousseau implies in your first quote to be a kind of tough love, but it’s actually quite cruel. I understand Rousseau’s beliefs that a child should learn for himself, but there should be guidance provided to the child along the way. Rousseau says to never make a child say “Forgive me” for “he does not know how to do you wrong…he can do nothing morally wrong, and he deserves neither punishment nor reproof” (8). A child may not be aware of right or wrong for he has no grounds to base that on, but that is especially why he should be taught. “The first impulses of nature” may not always be right – what if it is in the child’s nature to murder (8)? It may start out relatively small; he may “seize a bird as he seizes a stone,” killing it without knowing that in a few years, he will be able to look back on that memory and see his past action as morally wrong and that it happened because at the time, no one had taught him otherwise(4).

Rousseau makes a good point – no one knows how long a child may live or if a child may ever have the opportunity to become a man at all. He says that because of that, children should be allowed to live life to the fullest, and he believes that it is only through life’s most natural, lawless state that a child’s true joy can be achieved. Rousseau asks: “How do you know that all this fine teaching…will not do him more harm than good in the future?” (5) But to that, I ask: how does Rousseau know that not teaching the child at all would do him more good than harm in the future? If a child has never experienced having to sit still, he will most likely not fare well when it becomes time to start studying as an adolescent. The transition from child to adolescent will be very short and therefore too blunt. Rousseau writes: “To train a child to be really attentive so that he may be really impressed by any truth of experience, he must spend anxious days before he discovers that truth” (16).  But what if, due to a child’s freely roaming upbringing, those anxious days result in anxious years? By the time the child is expected to be a man, he would not have learned what a man is expected to know. In reference to the original post – it would be a waste not to educate a child; “Life is about being proactive.”

Instead, there should be a good balance between playtime and education, and between tough love and affection. A child will grow up well when given the appropriate amount of time to truly enjoy his innocent fun, but lessons on proper manners and morals won’t necessarily “increase suffering in childhood” (5). When formulated correctly, playtime and education in a child can turn him into a man far quicker than one alone would. The same applies with tough love and affection – if the former is the only one witnessed in a child’s upbringing, he will be hardened, and if the latter is given out too generously, a child will be too weak-hearted. A man does not rely only on himself or material objects, but on a balance between those things and other humans. Rousseau asks: “What then is human wisdom? Where is the path of true happiness?” (5) I believe the answer stems from balance.

Close Reading Post

“The Greatest Minds”

Both Descartes and Locke believe that ideas have to be in our minds to be understood, that ideas must be thought of to exist. Additionally, a lot of Locke’s text seems to expand on Descartes’ ideas. They both touch on the concept of gaining knowledge and understanding with a clear mind. Descartes started his journey by first abandoning all opinions gathered from his formal education in order to learn more about “the great book of the world” with no obstructing views (6.) Likewise, Locke introduces the idea of the mind as “white paper [tabula rasa], void of all characters without any ideas” (5). He sees experience as the way to “furnish” and “paint” the mind (5).
However, if they were to speak to each other, it would be evident that Locke desires to challenge Descartes on many of the latter’s ideas, one being the topic of innateness. Descartes suggests that some ideas are innate, such as the existence of one’s self. Locke, however, believes that no ideas are innate. For a principle to be innate, it must be universally assented to, but Locke argues that there is no principle “to which all mankind give an universal assent” to, and therefore no idea or principle is innate (2). Additionally, he contends that the existence of the self is not known to “children and idiots,” and therefore cannot possibly be innate (2).
Descartes also believes in certainty. At first, one of his maxims was when making a decision even in the face of uncertainty – pick the most probable choice. Later on, he changed his mind, deciding to reject a decision altogether if he is not fully certain over it: “I ought to reject as absolutely false all opinions in regard to which I could suppose the least ground for doubt” (19). Despite the change in maxim, the idea of absolute certainty’s existence remains consistent throughout his beliefs. Locke, on the other hand, is not too concerned with the absolute certainty of knowledge, but focuses more on the means of obtaining a certain degree of it. He believes that through the senses and “the use of reason we are capable to come to a certain knowledge” (4).
This is another realm in which Descartes and Locke differ. Descartes’ whole method comes from his belief that knowledge obtained through deduction is the only certain kind. Since “our senses sometimes deceive us…and…some men err in reasoning,” he believes the best route to knowledge is one that forgoes observation (19). On the other hand, Locke believes that knowledge and understanding stem from experience, which is made up of sensation and reflection. He states, “Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects or…the internal operations of our minds…is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking” (6). Since Locke does not mind knowledge that is not absolutely certain, he is open-minded to sources that have potential errors in their midst.
Descartes and Locke touch upon similar topics, but their opinions and approaches on knowledge and reasoning differ greatly.