Kant states that to be an enlightenment thinker you have to think on your own and have your own ideas and thoughts. He states “The public use of one’s reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among human beings; the private use of one’s reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted without this particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment”(Kant, 1798), he means that to encourage enlightenment in society freedom is enough and you have to go pubic with it so the ideas can spread instead of just keeping it to oneself because it can’t be spread and you can’t bring about change through the education which can’t or isn’t spread to others. This is contradicted by Douglass when he states that, “She was an apt woman; and a little experience soon demonstrated, to her satisfaction, that education and slavery were incompatible with each other” (Frederick, Chapter 7), so basically the woman says that a slave couldn’t be educated because those two things don’t compliment each other. These things both contradict each other because Kant says that to encourage enlightenment you only need freedom, but that isn’t true because you do need education to think whether its education from school, people, or experiences, but the woman said that education and slavery don’t go together meaning if you don’t have freedom your education is useless because as slaves they couldn’t even do anything with the education they got from their experiences. Even though slaves did get education, but there was no impact because they didn’t have freedom to spread it.
Category Archives: Close Reading Post
“good finger, a neck, a stomach” (Close Reading Post)
For Mary Shelley, the monstrous would be defined as something that is out of the ordinary, or out of place. Frankenstein, was a man that was made of dead flesh and rotting bones. Compared to a normal human being, the monster in Frankenstein was a beast of nature stronger in size and bigger than the average man. Here a monster is considered that which is different from the rest. This monster did not fit into this society which had a heavy reliance on physique rather than intellect (which could indirectly represent Mary Shelley in a society where a woman with her ideas would be consider out of place).
In “The American Scholar,” the speaker would consider a monster, he who cannot do more than one task. For the speaker, a MAN is he who can do every occupation : “Man is not a farmer, or a professor, or an engineer, but he is all. Man is priest, and scholar, and statesman, and producer, and soldier.” I believe the speaker is trying to say that anyone who believes that he can only do one task, or one role in society is a monster because in his eyes we essentially become objects or as he explains it:
” The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters, — a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.Man is thus metamorphosed into a thing,…”
What these both scholars have in common is that they believe in the idea that man is the ideal form, For example, in Frankenstein, the monster is seen as monstrous because if he were compared physically to a human he would be seen as different. Similarly, the speaker in “The American Scholar” believes a monster is when man is metamorphosed into a thing, an object. In both of these examples, the scholars are choosing to portray a human being with a different physical form.
From these different descriptions, we can conclude that in the early 19th century philosophers believed the ideal Man was he who could think for himself and see beyond and be “Man Thinking.” I take this as meaning that he cannot be limited to as what his thoughts may be. And yet, from Mary Shelley’s writings, we can infer that the idea of someone or something being monstrous was met if you did not fit into society. For example, Mary Shelley was a well educated women who spoke freely about what she believed; because of this it is possible that she may have been seen as abnormal or maybe even monstrous just because she was in a different category from which women were intended to be in at the time.
Reading ≠ Learning
Books are the learning from the past to prevent mistakes. On the other hand, books can prevent you from thinking individually and exploring new thought. According to “The American Scholar”, Emerson thinks that “books are the best type of the influence of the past, and perhaps we shall get at the truth, — learn the amount of this influence more conveniently, — by considering their value alone” (Emerson 10). Emerson means that books are great instrument to study to past; however, when artists create literature, they inevitably put in their opinion or personal thought biased by the social standard of the time. That is, if ten writers write about a same subject, there will be ten different version of the same topic. Emerson later emphasizes that “neither can any artist entirely exclude the conventional, the local, the perishable from his book, or write a book of pure thought” (Emerson 12). He points out that no writer can completely be objective to the topic when he is writing because it is too difficult to set aside his opinion or judgement entirely. However, when you read too much of what other people think in the past, you restrict yourself from thinking outside of the box because there is a standard or an assumption of what is wrong or right based on the learning of the past. However, if reading is done correctly; that is, to consume only its value, can be beneficial and indispensable. For example, in the text, Emerson states that “history and exact science he must learn by laborious reading” (Emerson 20). He points out that certain kind of certain kind of knowledge must be attain from reading. Emerson also claims that school is essential only if it give us opportunities to create our own thought, and not to foster memorization of the plain text. An independent mind can read critically to pick up the learning message without unconscious biases, thus to create individual understandings.
Emerson’s idea of how people shouldn’t overly rely on what people have to say in the books (books as the reflection of the society at the time) is a reflection of Descartes’s philosophy. Descartes believes books and school creates “doubts and errors” because he realizes books and school cannot take him any further in his education career. Emerson, like Descartes, also thinks that education is not a blind belief of tradition, texts, and authorities. Emerson claims that “[Colleges] can only highly serve us, when they aim not to drill, but to create” (Emerson 20). In Emerson’s point of view, school is a place to create new thinking. On the same hand, Emerson’s philosophy remarks Rousseau’s idea in a similar way. Rousseau believes books are less of a factor when raising his pupil. He points out in his book that “they [books] only teach us to talk about thing we know nothing about”(Rousseau, 20). Rousseau believes nature is more essential to the development of man than the education on paper. In addition, both Emerson and Locke believe that school and books can be a tool for education but they aren’t the only way. Education is based on experience from reflection and sensation. People learn from their experience, what they see and what they do. Likewise, Emerson has similar thought that “thinking is the function. Living is the functionary”(Emerson 28). For him, thinking is education, education is life.
Frankenstein and Emile
In Rousseau’s Emile, or Education, a clear emphasis is placed upon a person’s ability to do certain things at a particular age. In addition to this, Rousseau indicates that humans are educated through three significant faculties which include from nature, men, and things (Rousseau 6). As such, Rousseau’s incorporation of Emile in the treatise enhances these ideals by emphasizing how each faculty affects us from birth to adulthood as well as our reactions to these experiences overtime. Accordingly, Rousseau states that, “Leave [Emile] to himself and watch his actions without speaking, consider what he is doing and how he sets about it. He does not require to convince himself that he is free, so he never acts thoughtlessly and merely to show that he can do what he likes…” (Rousseau 14). As a result of this, our reliance on others at birth is essentially fundamental to our development, but overtime as we get older, that reliance diminishes to the extent that we are able to reason and do things on our own accord, rather than simply accepting everything that is taught to us by others.
Similarly, in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus, the monster illustrates aspects of Emile through his interactions with humans and the environment. During the monster’s conversation with Frankenstein in the hut, he recalls the immediate sensations he experienced when he left Frankenstein’s apartment which included cold, darkness, hunger, and thirst (Shelley 11). These sensations resonate with Rousseau’s concept of learning through nature, being that the monster had to learn how to adapt to his surroundings. Additionally, the monster’s story continues when he finds a fire which had been abandoned by some wandering beggars. He was delighted with the warmth it produced and he thrusted his hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out with a cry of pain (Shelley 11). This interaction is an evidence of education through things being that though the monster discovered that though the fire can be used as a source of warmth, he has to be careful not to get too close to the flames as illustrated by the fact that he burned himself. Finally, during the monster’s endeavors in a hovel, he realizes that the cottagers are able to communicate with each other. As such, he desired to learn their language by stating, “I perceived that the words they spoke sometimes produced pleasure or pain, smiles or sadness, in the minds and countenances of the hearers…” (Shelley 12). This is an example of education through man, though in an indirect sense, being that the monster learns the art of communication by observing his neighbors. As such, the monster overlaps Emile in the sense that both characters had to learn and distinguish things by themselves.
Emerson’s Views
“The American Scholar” by Ralph Waldo Emerson depicts the ideology of nature being the essence of life. I agree with many of Emerson’s points about the value of nature and how it is essential to a man. Emerson’s views about education, books, and school are quite intriguing. One line that I found quite interesting was when Emerson said “Hence, instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm.” (Emerson, 3) Basically, Emerson implies that people are too much into books and not much into the outside world. According to Emerson, people believe that the only way to learn and grow is to read books. However, Emerson does find books to be very useful. Books are the “best type of the influence of the past.” (Emerson, 2). According to Emerson, books help people learn about the past and is a great source of knowledge.
Emerson and Rousseau have several similarities on their approach on education. Rousseau believes that there is a proper path to take for a person to successfully develop, mature, and learn. Rousseau also says that people get influenced by society if they don’t develop the right way. Rousseau wants children to experience their childhood with nature and slowly develop into a thinker in the adolescence age to refrain from being corrupt. Emerson’s points also relate to being a thinker while experiencing nature.
Locke and Emerson share the idea that books and knowledge are essential in learning however aren’t the only way to learn. Locke’s emphasis on “sensations” and “reflections” are a major reason why he feels that experience is necessary in gaining knowledge. Emerson says “Success treads on every right step.” He also argues that success is not just attained from books, however, also can be gained from nature and experience. He believes that people can become free thinkers by developing through nature and not just books.
Week 6: “The American Scholar”
Emerson places an emphasis on nature and how it alters our thoughts. The quote “The first in time and the first in importance of the influences upon the mind is that of nature” (Emerson, 2) showcases that nature plays a major role in one’s life. His ideology is that people try to understand the world through theories, history, studies, and what people say instead of experience it themselves. People are so focused at what books say, that they don’t try to understand it by themselves. Emerson accentuates that books are important and are “nothing but to inspire” (Emerson, 4). His solution is that direct contact with nature is the best option to gain better insight for understanding the world.
I agree on Emerson’s philosophy. People rely too much on what people have to say. Our reliance on facts, theories, historians, is restricting them on observing nature. Instead of reading other people’s ideas and thoughts, people should gain inspiration from nature. “The hour is too precious to be wasted in other men’s transcripts of their readings” (Emerson, 5). One must be inspired in order to create something themselves.
A quote that connects to Rousseau’s idea of children being born without innate ideas but are influenced by other people around them are “In the right state….when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker or still worse, the parrot of other men’s thinking” (Emerson). They both have connecting ideology of how someone always influences one’s thinking. People are so influenced by society that they don’t care to think on their own.
Emerson and even Locke see the true value of school and books has on humans. School and books are main foundations for one’s knowledge. However, books and schools aren’t the only way to get education. When one merely relies on books and school it takes away from the individual from learning on their own. A person is more than a book, they have active soul and thoughts. “Instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm (Emerson, 5). School and books prevent one from having an active soul. Schooling is only good when it comes to learning the fundamentals however it is detrimental when it forces students to learn. “..But they can only highly serve us, when they aim not to drill” (Emerson, 6). School and books lessens creativity and hurts one’s experience of learning. Both Emerson and Locke believe that school and books can be a tool for success but isn’t the only aspect of success. “Books are the best of things, we used; abused, among the worse” (Emerson,4) It can cause more harm than good when is it misused.
“Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst” (Emerson 4).
Read Properly
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).
Bookworms: What We Truly Are
In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s commencement speech at Harvard University, he regarded books as “noble” and an important resource for any scholar. Books reveal the truth of the past, according to Emerson, which he claims is greatly influential to the mind of the scholar. However, when abused and relied upon to open up the misconception of the sole pathway to success, books become “noxious” and the people reading them only become bookworms (Emerson). Books should be used to inspire and influence but not dictate our unobstructed souls. In traditional education settings, books act as a restriction to the aspiration and dreams of scholars. It undoubtedly “pin[s]… [them] down” (Emerson). To Emerson, schools shouldn’t be this way. Instead, Emerson believes that nature best influences the mind as “they are the law of spirit” and that “nature is the opposite of the soul, answering to it part for part.”
Descartes in “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences” also perceived books, or other forms of literature, a similar way to Emerson. Seeking for instruction, Descartes turned to letters as his way of acquiring “a clear and certain knowledge of all that is useful in life” (Descartes 2). Soon after he realized that his study focused on books wasn’t getting him any further in his educational career, he came to value personal experience (Descartes 1). He began traveling and visiting wherever “fortune threw [him]” to “collect… varied experience” and bring improvement upon himself (Descartes 1).
Conversely, Rousseau didn’t find books to be an influence for the mind and soul but instead a nuisance that can cause the pupil to “lose his head” instead of seeing what is truly before his eyes (Rousseau 5). Therefore, Rousseau emphasized his pupil’s education with nature particularly more than the education with men and the education with things. Because nature and things are the two modes of education beyond our control, it is important to go along with nature, as opposed to against, and use it as a guide (Rousseau 1).
Locke believed that knowledge isn’t innate and therefore one’s education is ultimately their experience. To acquire experience, one’s interaction with nature is essential and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, Locke states in “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” that it is through experience that “all our knowledge is founded, and from there it ultimately derives itself” (Locke 4).
Importance of Nature
In “The American Scholar” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, this particular quote stood out to me: “The first in time and the first in importance of the influences upon the mind is that of nature” (Emerson 2). In this quote, Emerson places a strong emphasis on nature, and how it shapes our thoughts. He states that the problem is that people only try to understand the world through theories, history, and studies. Emerson further states, “Hence, instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm. Hence, the book-learned class, who value books, as such; not as related to nature and the human constitution, but as making a sort of Third Estate with the world and the soul” (4). Emerson is not devaluing the importance of books, rather, books are “nothing but to inspire” (Emerson 4). Emerson offers a solution to this problem by suggesting direct contact with nature as the best option to gain better insight for the present day world.
Personally, I agree with Emerson’s thoughts on nature and how our energy is subdued because of our reliance on facts, theories, and histories, rather than observing nature. Consequently, Emerson states, “The hour is too precious to be wasted in other men’s transcripts of their readings” (5). Rather than reading other people’s ideas and thoughts, people should gain inspiration from nature and then, they can eventually write their own book as well.
The benefits and dangers of knowledge
Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein” illustrates aspects of the excerpts from “Emile” by Rousseau. Being that he was very good at science back when he was in school, Victor Frankenstein decided to experiment and bring a creature to life, which later turned out to be a monster. After realizing what he had done, he decides to abandon his creation and leave on his own. As a result, the monster is left with no choice but to try and teach himself, in order for him to be able to survive. This is the education “by nature” (Rousseau 1) which Rousseau believes to be one of the best ways someone can learn through. Not having anyone else to teach and guide him, the monster observed people, learned how to speak, read, write and love through them.
The monster’s existence demonstrates that monstrosity is not innate, but learned. With no knowledge of his own, the monster is a “blank slate”, a term Locke used on his writings. The way he acquires knowledge reveals the benefit of knowledge and its dangers. The latter being that after he finds out about Frankenstein and his family, he decides to go on and kill William just so he could get revenge against his creator, something Victor realizes after seeing the monster try to hide from him, and he states, “Nothing in human shape could have destroyed the fair child. HE was the murderer! I could not doubt it.” (Shelley 7) Although he tried to learn things step by step, he could was unable to know what to do with the emotions he had within him, which led him to making those decisions.
Just like in Rousseau’s writing, Shelley often talks about nature as he states words like “…never did the fields bestow a more plentiful harvest or the vines yield a more luxuriant vintage, but my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature“. (Shelley 4) This serves as a way to describe how nature revives the characters, feeds the souls, and inspires them. Victor and the monster are similar in that they both learn through books and reading, but more importantly they gain more knowledge through experience, a theory Rousseau would support as well.