All posts by e.chan

5081190220079040
Theory Check-In

The Perfect Balance

1 Comment

Theory check in

Learning is a very complicated matter. Authorities implement new learning standards and requirements based on what they think is the best way to teach children. In New York City, they have the common core which is an established curriculum where children learn in a certain way. While school officials believe that this common core is the most efficient way in educating children, my group says otherwise. Our theory of learning is first exposing an individual to text, readings, or lectures on the subject. After that, give the individual an opportunity to explore and have interactions with the subject. By doing this, the individual can get the best of both worlds further enhancing their learning. First, we are going to talk about the benefits of books in the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and The American Scholar. Then, we will discuss the advantage of learning from experience.

Books and lectures are great beginnings to what an individual knows. They can spark curiosity in a subject which motivates an individual to want to know more about a particular field of interest. However there is a point where books can no longer be sufficient in educating. At times, books contradict each other, and some may wonder what is correct. Which scholarly author is right? It is then that books become detrimental to individuals’ knowledge. That is when hands-on activity comes into play. These activities are more comprehensive and concrete, something that books can’t provide.  

The value of books is demonstrated in the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Accordingly, “The Columbian Orator” shows Douglass the importance of education to a slave. After reading the book, Douglass tries to learn how to read and write in every way possible. He imitates the ship carpenters to mark letters on timbers; he trades food for new vocabularies with the boys on the streets; he copies the Webster’s Spelling Book. As such, Douglass’ way of learning illustrates how books can serve as an influential tool for a person’s education. In The American Scholar, Emerson says “Each age, it is found, must write its own books” (par.12). He suggests that each book is only partially true and traditions are only acceptable for an era because they are based by time. Emerson stresses that the bookworm make dangerous uses of books. Those people admire past philosophers excessively; this discourages new ideas and original thoughts. In other words, if using books correctly, they are the best influences. If not they hold people back from further advances, which could be problematic to a person’s development.

 

In Emile, Rousseau shows the example of “The stick immersed half way in the water is fixed in an upright position. To know if it is broken, how many things must be done before we take it out of the water or even touch it” (book 3, par. 63). The significance of this is that deciphering how things are related and the particular effect that they have should be the ideal thought process for everyone. Just like Robinson Crusoe as Rousseau mentions, Robinson learns all survival skills on the island by himself. Rousseau exemplifies this by stating, “Let him learn in detail, not from books but from things, all that is necessary in such a case” (book 3, par. 54). Only through the experience of acquiring knowledge, Emile is able to confirm it.

Additionally, Locke believes that the source of our knowledge is from experiences: “From experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself” ( Locke par.12). The two categories of experiences are sensations and reflections. Sensation is what we get from our senses; the feelings that we get for completing certain actions. While you can imagine and picture what happens in a book, you can only feel certain things by doing them yourself. Reflection on the other hand supports the value of books. Reflection is what we can get from our minds, “is the perception of the operations of our own minds within us” (Locke par.15). Books create these scenarios and conflicts in our minds as we read. In creating these thoughts we learn. From John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” we can see that learning does not come from just books or only experiments, but a balance of both.  

 

Barry Sitt

Terrianio Clarke

Ronghui Lin

Michael Cooper

Eric Chan

Peer Response Post

Perfection Isn’t Always Great

This post is in response to Mohammed’s post. Here

I agree with your idea, and that perfection does not mean happiness. While it is often perceived that these two are related, the focus on perfection blinds usually the individual from seeing happiness. Additionally perfection also promotes a problem, “that a perfect character might be attended with the inconvenience of being envied and hated” (Franklin 9). By being a perfect person, people are jealous of you. They will hate the fact that you are better than them in every aspect. It could possibly cut you off from your peers. They don’t want to be associated with you, because they look bad. In the long-run, are you really perfect? People don’t like something about you, wouldn’t you technically be flawed? That then brings me to one of your lines, “Improving oneself and striving to better oneself is a courageous act but being perfect doesn’t directly guide one to happiness and fulfillment. One can have many flaws, accept it and find happiness within it.” I agree with your statement, and I like it a lot. Our flaws are what drive us to be better people, being perfect we would never need to grow in our life. Being perfect, we would all be the same and boring. Sometimes we have to accept who we are and move on with life.

Through the lens post

Self-Experiment

From John Locke’s “Human Understanding,” the only and most efficient way to understand and learn is from personal experiences and sensations.  Sensations and feelings are the foundation of our knowledge. While books can spark curiosity, action is what engraves into our minds. John Locke’s idea of learning has many relations to Benjamin Franklin and his study.

Benjamin Franklin created a theory for moral perfection. Virtues that are ideal characteristics of someone morally perfect. But to conduct these studies, he used himself as a test subject to explain his reasoning. In using himself as a subject and studying himself, he was able to learn and understand the ideas of being morally perfect. Using himself as a test is a prime example of learning for experiences and sensations. Franklin spent one week testing out each of the thirteen virtues, “My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judg’d it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time; and, when I should be master of that, then to proceed to another, and so on, till I should have gone thro’ the thirteen…” (Franklin 66). In doing so, it supported his selection of the thirteen virtues that were from his readings and studies. However, by conducting the study on himself, he converted the words from the book to knowledge, “[Franklin can] gain knowledge at the same time that I improv’d in virtue”(Franklin 66). From practicing the virtues he better understand each virtue. Franklin particularly found order difficult. It was difficult to be on a schedule but even worse, it was difficult to keep everything in the right place and neat. From that here learned the significance of order.

After testing out the all the virtues Franklin states, “I was surpris’d to find myself so much fuller of faults than I had imagined” (Franklin 67). He was able to judge himself based on his research. I believe that Locke would have agreed with Franklin’s method and approach to explain/prove his virtues for moral perfection. While books are not bad, they are not always right; but by exploring the virtue themselves, Franklin is able to better understand the virtues and moral perfection. It is the experience that he got that has given him the knowledge for moral perfection.

Introduction Exercise #1

Enlightenment and Walking

1 Comment

From a historical standpoint, philosophical thinking has always been the fundamental prospect that has shaped society’s sense of ethics and morality. Accordingly, philosophical thinking has resulted in the acknowledgment of a series of new ideologies that has hinted upon the concepts of the ideal man and having a general understanding of things. As such, Immanuel Kant’s, “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment” emphasizes on the importance of utilizing one’s own understanding and communicating it to the world at large. Nonetheless, enlightenment is often hindered because of the fears and horrors that often arise from a person’s ability to think and reason on their own. However, similar to the process of walking, enlightenment is the first and fundamental step to independence, perceptiveness, and self-reliance. The text compares enlightenment to walking, to explain the importance of being independent. Both walking and reasoning are necessary for independence. This analogy helps us understand how difficult it would be to survive in the society without being able to think independently. A man that can’t walk is disabled; a man that can’t think on his own is just a follower.

Through the lens post

Freedom to Enlightenment

1 Comment

Immanuel Kant believes that one cannot reach enlightenment until one is free, in a sense freedom allows learning. Kant defines freedom as, “[the ability] make public use of one’s reason in all matters” (Kant 2).  Freedom gives one the opportunity to explore, be curious of what surrounds them, and practice their own judgement. Freedom in a way is a pathway to learning. However, being bound to land, law, or society, it prevents one from achieving enlightenment.

With Kant’s idea in mind, Frederick Douglass has achieved enlightenment or became enlightened in his journey to freedom. In his journey from the plantation, to Baltimore, and lastly to freedom, Douglass has made small strides to enlightenment.  At the plantation, Douglass was wiped and mistreated if he were to misbehave: “I was seldom whipped—and never severely—by my old master. I suffered little from the treatment I received, except from hunger and cold” (Douglass 45).  He is bounded to the authority of his master, and is given no freedom. This is Douglass’ lowest level of intelligence. He knows nothing but cruelty, a little bit of kindness, and that he doesn’t want to live. But when Douglass moves to Baltimore, he is given a taste of freedom and could say that, “A city slave is almost a free citizen, in Baltimore, compared with a slave on Col. Lloyd’s plantation” (Douglass 53). In his stay in Baltimore, he was far more curious and intelligent. He has the desire to learn to read and write, and he knows the truth of slavery. In Baltimore, “[Douglass] awakened within me a slumbering train of vital thought” (Douglass 53). His little bit of freedom started the train of thought accelerating him towards enlightenment. Years later, Kant would agree that Frederick Douglass became free and enlightened. Kant defines freedom as the ability to act on your own basis and we can see that when Douglass responds to attackers: “[workers] ventured to strike me, whereupon I picked him up, and threw him into the dock” (Douglass 112). No longer does Douglass accept the oppression from society, Douglass reacts to it. Douglass now capable of thought, and living life not bound by the chains society or a master.

While Frederick Douglass’ narrative was his story from slavery to freedom. Looking at the text in Kant’s perspective, it can also be seen as a story of Frederick Douglass achieving enlightenment.

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

Read Properly

3 Comments

Emerson believes that school and books are essential to education. Books are a great way to help learn about the past; they are, “best type of the influence of the past, and perhaps we shall get at the truth, — learn the amount of this influence more conveniently” (Emerson 3). Books can also provide another man’s insight for the reader: “It came into him, life; it went out from him, truth. It came to him, short-lived actions; it went out from him, immortal thoughts” (Emerson 4). Similarly, school can create and gather brilliant minds together: “but to create; when they gather from far every ray of various genius to their hospitable halls, and, by the concentrated fires, set the hearts of their youth on flame” (Emerson 6). While Emerson values the benefits and contributions of books and school he can see the negative which is very similar and can relate to John Locke.

Locke like Emerson can see the value of school and books. Both can be a great foundation for your knowledge; however, books and school cannot be your only form of education. Resorting only to books and school take away from an individual. Emerson finds that there are many valuable aspects of a person such as an active soul and thought. However, through books there is no thought only an avid reader: “instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm” (Emerson 5). Additionally, every individual has an active soul and the “soul active sees absolute truth; and utters truth, or creates” (Emerson 5). An active soul is what makes a genius, but with school and books it prevents one from having an active soul. In relations to school, schooling is great to the extent of teaching the necessary and fundamentals. However, it is detrimental when it starts to force one to learn: “Colleges, in like manner, have their indispensable office, — to teach elements. But they can only highly serve us, when they aim not to drill” (Emerson 6). With extensive use school and books it abolishes creativity and diversity ultimately hurting one’s learning experience. Both Emerson and Locke have the same opinion on schools and books. Both can be tools for success; however, they can cause more harm than good when misused. “Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst” (Emerson 4).

 

Brainstorming Exercise #1

Paper Brainstorm Exercise #1

Describe it.

My subject would be the Frankenstein and more specifically his misery. Frankenstein was created innocent and wanted to fully take part in society. He learned the language and much more hoping that it would better assist him in fitting in. But after many attempts and years of trying to become one with society, he realized that he would never be accepted. He would be alone forever.

Trace it

Frankenstein was first created by Victor because of Victor’s obsession with science. Victor’s desire to animate the dead and led to the successful creation of Frankenstein. However, the success was short lived, as the birth of Frankenstein led to Victor’s descend back to reality and resulted in Victor abandoning Frankenstein. From that point, Frankenstein was on his own. He lived a lonely and miserable life. He had no parents to guide him, and needed to learn everything by himself. First he taught himself how to survive. Then he learned the language. He was a very polite person and many times helped people. But every time his good deed would come back hurting him. Finally he learned that society will not accept him not even his creator. Frankenstein lived a life with no one, and his only desire was a companion. Knowing that he could never be happy, he plans to inflict the same pain upon his creator as an act of revenge.

Map it

Frankenstein’s experience is very similar to Locke’s idea of an education. Things can only be learned from experiences. Victor lived a very good life, in a well off family. He would have never understood the pain and misery that Frankenstein endured his whole life. Ultimately when Victor refused to make a companion for Frankenstein, Victor had no understanding of what Frankenstein been through. As an act of revenge, Frankenstein made Victor’s life lonely and miserable, taking away his wife and family. In a way it educated Victor on how it feels to be alone.

 

Peer Response Post

Painful Knowledge

1 Comment

My post is in response to here.

I agree with both your points on knowledge and how it led to the downfall for the characters. Victor would never have successfully created the “monster” if he never learned about life, death, and decay from his studies at college. Frankenstein would never have had the ability to communicate with humans if he never learned the language from the family.  I especially agree and like your closing statement that “knowledge can be dangerous.” Sometimes knowing a secret; something that you should not know can really hurt an individual. Like knowing that the girl/guy you have a crush on has no feelings for you can demoralize the individual. That would be no different for Frankenstein and I would like to add on to your argument.

Knowledge doesn’t always come from school, and I would argue that secrets are a form of knowledge, and secrets can be painful keeping or finding out. Elizabeth and Victor would never have had the guilt and burden if Justine never told them that she was innocent. Victor was so confident and sure that she was innocent: “”She is innocent, my Elizabeth,” said I, “and that shall be proved; fear nothing, but let your spirits be cheered by the assurance of her acquittal” (Shelley 40). However, Justine confessed and her reason of pleading guilty was so that her soul could be saved:  “I commit my cause to the justice of my judges, yet I see no room for hope. I beg permission to have a few witnesses examined concerning my character, and if their testimony shall not overweigh my supposed guilt, I must be condemned, although I would pledge my salvation on my innocence” (Shelley 42).  Knowing that she was innocent and yet she was still executed played a toll on Victor and led to his journey into the mountain to clear his mind. Elizabeth also could not handle the situation and burden of an innocent person dying. Elizabeth could no longer see the world as it used to be, “on the miserable death of Justine Moritz, I no longer see the world and its works as they before appeared to me” (Shelley 47). Knowing that Justine died wrongly and innocent, Victor and Elizabeth are both shaken by the incident. Knowledge can really be dangerous and maybe sometimes it’s better not to know.

Rousseau, Through the lens post

Ideology of Rousseau and Descartes

Rene Descartes spent many years after receiving his formal education traveling
the world. He gathered experiences and fed his curiosity. Through his journeys, Descartes states his travels as ”an undertaking which was accompanied with greater success than it would have been had I never quitted my country or my books” (Descartes 6). Descartes obtained knowledge through first-hand experiences, such as listening to speakers and witnessing several different situations. That concept of gathering experience goes hand in hand with an idea from Jean Jacques Rousseau’s text “Emile.”

From the excerpt of “Emile” that we have read, Rousseau and Descartes have a similar idea. Rousseau states: “The child who reads cease to think, he only reads, he is acquiring words no knowledge” (Rousseau 14). In a sense, reading does not necessarily educate a reader. In fact, education and learning come in a different manner. If one  “wish[es] to teach this child geography and you provide him with globes, spheres and maps… why not begin by showing him the real thing so that he may at least know what you are talking about” (Rousseau 15). This differentiates knowledge obtained from books and what one can potentially learned from experience. It is one thing to know what a mountain is and define it, but it is another to see what a mountain is in person. The experiences are different, and it enhances your understanding of what a real mountain is. Only so much of the true experience can be conveyed by words.

In able to fully grasp an understanding, one must experience it personally, and I believe both philosophers agree on this statement. From the quotes of both Descartes and Rousseau, their points complement one another. Rousseau presents the idea of self-learning. We should learn from experience to truly understand a subject. Descartes is the proof of success of the theory. Descartes actually went traveled and learned. From Descartes’ studies, he found that: “For it occurred to me that I should find much more truth in the reasonings of each individual” (Descartes 6). With more validity and accuracy in personal accounts it leads to Rousseau’s argument:  “[we] will be a mere plaything of other people’s thoughts” (15). If we were to accept all the ideas of others, we would not be ourselves nor would we be learning.