Dan Flood
1) As it turns out my family knew very little of its previous history and had we been asked to go back another generation I might have been out of luck in terms of finding out my history. However, I learned last night that my grandmother’s grandfather was a regular in the British Armed Forces at the time. He had a very small family, a wife and daughter, and lived about two hours from London. He spent most of his time serving away from my family, as he was regularly stationed or off on platoon. Having very few skills and remaining nearly illiterate, the army life offered the best support for his family that he could hope to have achieved. He was also promised a pension for his family should something bad have happened to him. The family as I learned was always in survival mode. Never were they fortunate enough to have an excess or surplus of goods. Unlike today, meals were often extremely small and plain. Although he never was forced into armed combat, I found out that he did serve on the European continent at two different stages of his enlistment. Though the life promised to a man in the army was not grand by any means, it provided a significant consistent stipend, which kept my family going despite his wife working many long hours as a laundry woman. Although there is not much overlap with the Americas, I know the life of an army family at that time must have been much the same. Those enlisted on this side of the Atlantic were fighting a civil war as well as other armed conflicts with Mexico and the like. Many of those military families lived off of the promise of the government wage and spent many a night apart from one another. They too struggled to read and to be able to provide food for their families. Whether it was in Great Britain, or back over here in America, the struggle to care for one’s family led many a man into the dangerous and lonely life of the armed forces.
2) In Self-Reliance Emerson introduced me to a thought process that despises societal progression in so far as it is considered a means to a ‘truth-less’ end. Perhaps the things, which we take for granted and seek to improve upon and leave behind, are in fact the things from which the most knowledge of what is truly important can be gained. He makes this claim that “all men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves” (38, Stuhr). In support of this, he references the great thinkers of every time and posits that the self reliance of these men, their will of individuality I want to call it, is what has separated them from the lost consciousness of society. He claims that no one will become Shakespeare by reading and studying Shakespeare. I contend that his reasoning is poor. I assert that if it were not for the society that surrounded, and in turn, motivated those great thinkers, much that they realized and brought to light would have remained hidden in the darkness. I concede that much can be gained and learned from a life spent living each day, as opposed to one spent learning how others lived. And yet, many if not all of those indubitable truths discovered and brought to life and awareness by the men he mentioned where brought about through reflection or contemplation, or in atonement for the societies of their present day, or those that came before them.
Emerson goes on to claim that, “Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual changes: it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is Christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration” (38, Stuhr). He sets up polarized examples for how with the passing of time and the progress and innovation of the human spirit just as much knowledge is lost is as gained. I think he trying to say that we lose the greater meanings and greater truths that were available to us when we lived a simpler more survival based life akin to the ‘naked New Zealander.’ He seems to be insisting that we lose the qualities, which help to define us as survivors. It seems to be more likely the case that the knowledge and truths of those things, which became eradicated, were instead imbedded in the very heart of the advancements Emerson rails against. In defense of that position he claims “society acquires new arts, and loses old instincts” (Stuhr, 38). And yet, it seems counterintuitive to say that the farmer loses anything from the advent of the plow and the hitching of it to an ox. Emerson maintains that, “the civilized man has built a coach, but lost the use of his feet. He is supported on crutches, but lacks so much support of muscle. He has a fine Geneva watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun” (Stuhr, 38). He argues for the failure of the faculties of man in response to the advancements (or setbacks for Emerson) in technology, society, thought, education, and the arts. He claims “great genius returns to essential men” and I am left to consider whether his biological implication here is the presence of a ‘genius’ gene encoded in, for Emerson, these great solitary, self-reliant, self-motivated, exclusionary individuals (Stuhr, 39). Is it not possible that the advent of the watch provided for more time available to be spent in defiant isolation and contemplation of the greater truths? If the world finds itself slipping into another Dark Age, I do fear for the future of man who is lost without logic, reason, practicality, and the knowledge of how to read a sundial. I fear that there is more to be lost than gained by separating one’s self from society in favor of a more embolden sense of self, and commitment to thine own mind.
3) Peirce’s philosophy is the outcome of injecting a logically based, mathematically, driven scientist, into the poorly defined and hypothetical realm of greater understanding in everyday life. Philosophy had a long way to go in its evolution as a science for Peirce because of the murky waters in which it remained as long as people were seeking and refuting each other’s absolute truths. Peirce brought a new perspective to philosophical objectivity. From a Post-Kantian perspective objectivity would have to be defined in terms of our experience, as opposed to the previous Cartesian assumption centered on mere personal, individual experience. For Peirce, objectivity could “only mean what we, equipped with certain organic capacities and trained within certain intellectual disciplines, [could] experience” (Stuhr, 49). In contrast with previous thought, Peirce considered it imperative to make explicit the fact that any and all objective inquiry was going to be impacted by the everyday implicit norms that structured our societies. Without these groundbreaking reinterpretations, additions, and increased scrutiny to the study of philosophy, its unlikely that pragmatism, as it is currently understood would be recognizable. When we talk about phenomenology with regard to Peirce, we are talking specifically about the way he understood and construed the world using the same external phenomena available, but instead subjecting said phenomena to ‘ongoing self interrogation and critical dialogue.’ It seems as if Peirce was trying to structure philosophy from a scientific perspective. Peirce saw “the only form of responsible inquiry” as undertaking the “painstaking, ongoing work of formulating, testing, revising, and rejecting hypotheses” (Stuhr, 53). He was constantly quantifying and categorizing everything he encountered in both the physical and the metaphysical world around him. It felt a little bit more like doing philosophy for Peirce than perhaps with some other philosophers just based upon the nature with which he attacked the philosophical questions everyone was trying to answer. As Peirce intimates, “the phenomenological recovery of human experience” is a way of reinterpreting the world around us using the external phenomena making up everyday life and choices, but simply applying a different more categorical, more scientific lens. Such a lens would provide endless, “inexhaustible resources for philosophical reflection” and contemplation (Stuhr, 53).
Showing posts with label post 3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label post 3. Show all posts
Monday, February 4, 2008
post 3
Rob Hoffman
(1) By the year 1841, most of my ancestors had actually already made it to this country. There were some who wouldn’t immigrate until around the turn of the century, but on a whole they had made it over from
I know that I had some ancestors with the last name Hadaway living on the eastern shore of Maryland (if the term eastern shore is confusing, it is the part of Maryland located east of the Chesapeake Bay, next to Delaware). At a much later date they were still living roughly rural lives, so I think it would be fair to say that at this point they probably farmed. Along similar lines, I know that a group of my ancestors were also Pennsylvania Dutch.
The main thing that I took away from what little I could find out about what my relatives were probably up to at this point was that they were not the types to be interested in modern philosophy. Education was not a premium, and if confronted with the works of most modern European philosophers, my ancestors would likely have responded, “So what?” Their concerns were far more immediate and down-to-earth.
I suppose the fact that almost all Americans at this time came from such a background either in their own lifetime or from only a few generations ago might have been one of the guiding forces behind pragmatism. My ancestors would have been far more understanding and accepting of a philosophical system that argued for simplicity, utility, practicality, and the importance of common sense. Although it is unlikely that they were ever exposed directly to such thoughts, the indirect influence the thinkers had on them through the American culture probably helped to shape what made generations of my family boringly, quintessentially American.
(2) Perhaps the concept that stands out most in “Self-Reliance,” if not in the whole of Emerson’s philosophy, is the concept of conformity and nonconformity. Although Emerson is not exactly known for detail-oriented, technical work in philosophy, his statements in the area of conformity and nonconformity are especially direct and unequivocal. By his statement that “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members” (Emerson 28), it should be apparent that he sees no value in fitting into society. To this effect he says, “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist” (Emerson 28).
What Emerson is saying here has nothing to do with gender or biology. It has everything to do with realizing one’s full potential. Emerson clearly established that his only real criterion for whether or not a person was living fully was whether or not he or she was living in accordance with his or her nature. Trying to fit into society via a misplaced sense of conformity requires one to focus more on the opinions of others than on one’s own nature. Hence we arrive at the reasoning behind Emerson’s claim that nonconformity is essential for actualized individuals. This nonconformity was not rebellion for rebelliousness’ sake (although Emerson might not have been totally opposed to that), but rather a means of placing one outside of society’s ability to control and, as Emerson saw it, limit.
These ideas about nonconformity would be echoed throughout American philosophy for a century and a half. Thoreau repeated them in Civil Disobedience. They became the foundation for first-wave feminism, the Civil Rights movement, and the Gay Liberation movement. Emerson’s ideas supported every major social movement in American history, albeit mostly indirectly. Outside of the social sphere, however, the philosophical impact of these nonconformist ideas had only a minor impact. Nonconformity would not go on to become a major ethical system, and it clearly made no metaphysical, ontological, or epistemological ground.
A second concept that was important to Emerson’s philosophy which would also become an important issue over the course of time was the idea that although societies change, they do not improve. This idea might sound depressing, but it is not meant in that way. Although the change is not amelioration, it is not deterioration either. “It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other” (Emerson 38). According to Emerson’s view, human beings are virtually the same today as they were ten thousand years ago, and although there have been changes, they are all surface changes. On a whole and in the grand scheme of things, nothing ever gets better, and nothing ever gets worse.
This idea defies what has been a central Western belief since the Renaissance: namely, that we are capable of creating a better world. Since modern philosophy was in many ways a product of the Renaissance, it is also understandable why Emerson’s ideas defy most philosophers’ positions. Even the pragmatists, who generally disagreed with the European modernists, had a view of humanity and society that allowed for amelioration. In many ways, it was this view that justified the existence of pragmatism in the first place; one of the primary goals of the philosophical system was to improve conditions in the every day lives of human beings.
(3) One of the primary ways in which Peirce and the other pragmatists rejected rationalism and the methods of the rationalists was to disagree over the proper starting place for a philosophical system. For individuals such as Descartes and Spinoza, there was an inescapable need to find concepts that were unquestionably true and use them as the bases for all human knowledge. Given the way rationalism worked, without these foundations, no sure structure of knowledge could be built. Everything would fall apart if one assumption were found to be faulty.
There was no need for this type of foundation for the pragmatists. From the outset they had denied unquestionable truth, maintaining instead that all human knowledge was fallible. As such, there would be no sense in going back and trying to construct an edifice around the foundations they had established. Instead, they would simply begin wherever was convenient and attempt to work out a way to move forward from there. Their method of philosophy is said to resemble a map more than a blueprint (Stuhr 47). Implied in this analogy is pragmatism’s focus on progress and multiple possible routes. Despite the disavowal of any objectivity, pragmatism did not deny the ability to make clearer and better theories within what is subjectively, fallibly known. The map showed in which directions progress might be made, and if it turned out that one branch resulted in a dead end, there were always other paths that might be tried.
Semiotics, known commonly as the study of signs, is one of the more complicated and technical areas of philosophy. Peirce, with his pragmatist’s interest in psychology, saw semiotics as the only way in which human beings could interact with the world. Indeed, semiotics goes even further to be the only way in which humans can organize or utilize their consciousnesses. With his ideas about semiotics, Peirce was walking a fine line and narrowly avoided slipping down the slope toward relativism, nihilism, solipsism, and the various and sundry other philosophical concepts that are more designed to deny than affirm. This was not somewhere that Peirce wanted to be; it would be strangely hypocritical for a pragmatist to arrive at existentialist conclusions.
I already touched upon this briefly, but objectivity is viewed very differently by the pragmatists than it was by the modern philosophers of
This might seem to be destructive to studies of epistemology and philosophy of science, but Peirce and the pragmatists tried to find ways to make these areas of philosophy still matter in light of their views on objectivity. Although our knowledge is subjective and fallible, there is still room for us to make progress and achieve better insights and theories (one is tempted to call them truer, but that is a loaded word). As a trained scientist, he was inclined to point out that in science, we may never know a fact infallibly, but facts that are accurate predictors are still better facts than those that are not accurate predictors. The overarching theories we are working with might turn to be just as bogus as any particular fact, but until they do, we judge them from a functionalistic standpoint. This is reflected clearly in the very name of pragmatism; the greatest knowledge is the knowledge that works the best.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Post 3
1) After speaking to my parents back home, I was informed that my great-great-grandmother's name was Frances Gaynor, and she was born in the year 1835. Her parents were a part of the Ashanti tribe in western Africa. She was also one the first of my ancestors on my father's side that was born in St. James, Jamaica. Her parents were brought to Jamaica to work in the cotton fields as slaves, so she was born to slave parents. Shortly after she was born, slavery was abolished in 1838. Although she grew up post slavery, the country was still under the effects of colonialism as although the slaves were "free", they were not provided with the opportunity to be educated and free from their white masters. I was also told that she used to work in the cotton fields, and used to weave cotton for a living at minimum wage. She was described by my father as a very religious woman who was a Baptist. It was also interesting to note that she lived a very full life as she died at the age of 106!
2) Emerson says "The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs" (Stuhr 28). What I believe Emerson is trying to convey here is that people should not be conformists to society as society tends to smother people's true natures and does not allow them to flourish to the best of their abilities. In other words, society constrains the individual to fit into what their expectations should be. What Emerson is saying is that we should try to make our own judgments about the obstacles that we face in life. We should also resist conforming to societal expectations, as he believes only you can know what is best for you, and you should make your own decisions and take control of your life instead of letting society decide for you. This idea is echoed when he says "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members" (Stuhr 28). He doesn't believe society has its members best interests as heart, and that only you can decide which way you want to direct your life, and how you should handle difficult situations. He believes that in order to truly be a man you should be a nonconformist. He also speaks alot about human nature as well as values, when he says "Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong is what is against it" (Stuhr 28). Basically he is saying, that when it comes to one's moral responsibility you should be the sole judge of the difference between what is right and wrong. In Emerson's eyes you should be the one making moral judgments about issues, and if it feels right to you then it is, and you should be the only factor when makin a moral judgment. For Emerson, to conform to society is to lose your identity and ultimately lose yourself.
Emerson also says later on in the essay that "A foolish consistency is the hobglobin of little minds, adore by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" (Stuhr 30). This ties in with conforming to society, as being consistent is also keeping up with societal expectations. Emerson believes that being consistent is limiting yourself, as well as limiting your mental abilities. This also means that you are limiting your ability to flourish in the world as an intellectual, and expanding your mind and knowledge. He compares consistency to only concerning yourself with your shadow. Being consistent also has to do with being accepted and praised for your actions. Emerson doesn't believe that your actions should be consistent in order to "fit in", but it is better to be misunderstood and true to yourself than to be a false version of yourself in order to conform.
3) When considering Pierce's rejection of the Cartesian view of philosophy concerning "foundationalism", one must start with Descartes. Descartes sought out to eliminate all uncertainty throughout his meditations. He believed as all rationalists do that human knowledge can be attained through reason. Throughout the meditations he started off by denouncing everything he knew by stating that our senses are through which we receive information from the outside world, and our senses fail us. The unreliability of our senses as a valuable source of information, all that Descartes could account for is that he exists and he is a thinking thing. Throughout this method of doubt, he eventually came to the conclusion that something was true and right one you were absolutely certain about it. From a pragmatist's point of view, the method through which Descartes attained his information by doubting everything he knew was impractical. Pierce believed that our faculties would not lead us astray in discerning things in the outside world but that it was a reliable source from which humans could attain information. He believed that Descartes method of denouncing everything in the world was illogical, because there was nothing that existed that we could not be absolutely certain about. He also believed that it was not concrete to base knowledge on the mind. He believed that the mind was a "foundation" to build upon, but not the sole determining factor.
According to Pierce, phenomenology or "the phenomenological recovery of human experience" is really the study of humans and all the eccentricites that occur within the human mind. Pierce believes that simply observing human behaviour, as opposed to approaching things in a scientific method such as with biology, chemistry and physics, was in fact harder as humans were so versatile and unpredictable, whereas science tended to be somewhat more controlled. This means that observing human behaviour must be a continuous process in which people are constantly revising and consulting one another, as the human mind is never constant. Everything we deduce is a conscious act, and the only way to discern the truth about life is to be self-aware, active, technical and intricate in your observations and deductions.
2) Emerson says "The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs" (Stuhr 28). What I believe Emerson is trying to convey here is that people should not be conformists to society as society tends to smother people's true natures and does not allow them to flourish to the best of their abilities. In other words, society constrains the individual to fit into what their expectations should be. What Emerson is saying is that we should try to make our own judgments about the obstacles that we face in life. We should also resist conforming to societal expectations, as he believes only you can know what is best for you, and you should make your own decisions and take control of your life instead of letting society decide for you. This idea is echoed when he says "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members" (Stuhr 28). He doesn't believe society has its members best interests as heart, and that only you can decide which way you want to direct your life, and how you should handle difficult situations. He believes that in order to truly be a man you should be a nonconformist. He also speaks alot about human nature as well as values, when he says "Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong is what is against it" (Stuhr 28). Basically he is saying, that when it comes to one's moral responsibility you should be the sole judge of the difference between what is right and wrong. In Emerson's eyes you should be the one making moral judgments about issues, and if it feels right to you then it is, and you should be the only factor when makin a moral judgment. For Emerson, to conform to society is to lose your identity and ultimately lose yourself.
Emerson also says later on in the essay that "A foolish consistency is the hobglobin of little minds, adore by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" (Stuhr 30). This ties in with conforming to society, as being consistent is also keeping up with societal expectations. Emerson believes that being consistent is limiting yourself, as well as limiting your mental abilities. This also means that you are limiting your ability to flourish in the world as an intellectual, and expanding your mind and knowledge. He compares consistency to only concerning yourself with your shadow. Being consistent also has to do with being accepted and praised for your actions. Emerson doesn't believe that your actions should be consistent in order to "fit in", but it is better to be misunderstood and true to yourself than to be a false version of yourself in order to conform.
3) When considering Pierce's rejection of the Cartesian view of philosophy concerning "foundationalism", one must start with Descartes. Descartes sought out to eliminate all uncertainty throughout his meditations. He believed as all rationalists do that human knowledge can be attained through reason. Throughout the meditations he started off by denouncing everything he knew by stating that our senses are through which we receive information from the outside world, and our senses fail us. The unreliability of our senses as a valuable source of information, all that Descartes could account for is that he exists and he is a thinking thing. Throughout this method of doubt, he eventually came to the conclusion that something was true and right one you were absolutely certain about it. From a pragmatist's point of view, the method through which Descartes attained his information by doubting everything he knew was impractical. Pierce believed that our faculties would not lead us astray in discerning things in the outside world but that it was a reliable source from which humans could attain information. He believed that Descartes method of denouncing everything in the world was illogical, because there was nothing that existed that we could not be absolutely certain about. He also believed that it was not concrete to base knowledge on the mind. He believed that the mind was a "foundation" to build upon, but not the sole determining factor.
According to Pierce, phenomenology or "the phenomenological recovery of human experience" is really the study of humans and all the eccentricites that occur within the human mind. Pierce believes that simply observing human behaviour, as opposed to approaching things in a scientific method such as with biology, chemistry and physics, was in fact harder as humans were so versatile and unpredictable, whereas science tended to be somewhat more controlled. This means that observing human behaviour must be a continuous process in which people are constantly revising and consulting one another, as the human mind is never constant. Everything we deduce is a conscious act, and the only way to discern the truth about life is to be self-aware, active, technical and intricate in your observations and deductions.
Emerson's "Self Reliance"
Self Reliance
Key Ideas, arguments, theories in the reading
Emerson begins his essay, “Self Reliance”, by stressing the importance of thinking for oneself rather than blindly following society. He argues that an individual’s own experience will always outweigh knowledge gained through the education system, and that in order to lead a fulfilled life, one must rely only on his/her intuition and reason. Emerson states that “To believe what is true in your private heart is true for all men – that is genius”. An individual can only become self-realized, and thus creative, when he/she stops relying on other’s opinions and begins to think and experience for him/herself. When the individual shadows the group, the tragic result is the acceptance and maintenance of ancient ideas, and not the proliferation of new ones.
Emerson’s ideal human being is a “child-like” (un-cynical or un- tentative) man with self esteem and original ideas. His new man-child contains the characteristics of an idealized individual: he is not hypocritical, not cautious and blissfully unconcerned about his own reputation or other’s opinions. Emerson relates the term “maturing” to “conforming”. The childishness of a self realized individual is important because he must resist the cultural pressures and norms – he must only listen to his inner-voice and reject the mob mentality pressuring culture’s traditional values.
Conforming, Emerson argues, is a waste of a human life. Time spent molding and restricting your personality depletes personal energy, and cultural rules and regulations cloud and silence the unique inner voice needed in order to create anything new, creative or influential.
Conforming is often easier than disassociating oneself from society to become an ideal individual. When one becomes self realized, society often disapproves and (since mainstream society is based on consistency) the urge to remain consistent with past beliefs hinders the full expansion of an individual’s progress. People often refuse new positions simply because they want to be consistent and have taken older positions in the past. In order to progress, the individual must constantly throw out old ideas and admit their faults. Constant re-evaluation of ancient ideas and the creation of newer ones is the key to a more progressive civilization. Emerson points out that the people we currently try to emulate were the ones who were autonomous, self-realized (and often social lepers) of their time. The people who were outcasts then are the most celebrated now.
“Inconsistency” is often a misunderstanding – what appears to be contradictory is really just the initial thought process prior to a discovery. Emerson relates this thought process to the tacking ship; in order to make any kind of headway the ship must tack and move in zigzag lines across the sea before finally reaching an identifiable end (or new discovery). Similarly, individual life choices might seem inconsistent but when these short segments are combined, the individual’s existence is pointed and constant.
Emerson argues that people don’t seek out their inner voice is because they feel inferior in society. This inferiority, he states, is directly related to imposing material objects – gigantic buildings, expensive books, etc. – and that the people must realize that human beings dictate the worth of these items not the other way around. He also argues that inferiority stems from commonality; people enjoy reading about the famous and rich which devalues regular society and ordinary values of morality and virtue. Ordinary citizens can be just as scandalous or just as the rich, but society’s infatuation with fame fails to recognize this.
One way to fight this creeping insecurity is to rely on Instinct, Spontaneity, and Intuition. The wisdom, or “Genius”, of life comes directly from our own inner knowledge. This kind of knowledge is different from the second hand, re-created, information we obtain through society’s outlets because it is individual and direct. Instead of aligning onself with a pre-established school of thought, individuals create new and thought-provoking ideas – which in return proliferates new knowledge for humanity. The future is distinct from the past purely because individuals create new opinions and beliefs.
The individual isn’t obligated to society – society may remain stagnant, but the individual should strive to constantly change. Emerson argues that it is hard to infuse oneself with a constant stream of new knowledge because of the cultural “mob mentality”. The “mob” – the lazy, non self reliant, majority – is led by desires and feelings of social responsibility. We do not dictate our own lives, society furnishes them for us: “Our housekeeping is mendicant, our arts, our occupations, our marriages, our religions, we have not chosen, but society has chosen for us. We are parlor soldiers. We shun the rugged battle of fate, where strength is born”. The soul recognizes “Right” and “Truth” but we quiet this inner voice in favor of the louder, more aggressive social voice. Emerson urges us to listen to ourselves, and practice truth, integrity and honesty – live by your individual morality and not the mob’s. In this way individualism will be beneficial to the whole of society.
Emerson argues that self- reliant individuals are needed in four social groups: religion, culture, arts, and society.
1.) Religion fears creativity and the religious creeds and text have preset answers to all of life’s questions. This quells curiosity and new ideas; which stops self realization in its’ tracts. Religion is based on imitation, and recitation; Emerson argues that in order to relate to a religion, one must try to advance one’s soul and extend one’s relationship with God through reasoning and intuition instead of merely taking ancient scripture and repeating it word for word.
2.) Culture and travel are also just forms of imitation. Emerson argues that the education system has failed because he often finds that people travel in order to experience ancient cultures instead of concentrating on the present, evolving one. He says “He who travels to be amused or to get somewhat which he does not carry, travels away from himself, and grows old even in youth among things”. One must look inward to find true knowledge, and Emerson believes that traveling only inhibits this process – when a person travels he is looking outside himself for entertainment and growth when he should really be reflecting inwardly.
3.) Emerson argues that education has created a culture of imitators. They are swayed by cultural desires and norms and therefore cannot differentiate their individual desires with the desires they have been conditioned to pursue and want. He also argues that society does not progress from new technology – in fact, we lose wisdom. The only way to further society’s progress is to have students rely on themselves; “never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with cumulative force of a whole life’s cultivation; but the adopted talent of another, you have only an extemporaneous, half possession”.
4.) Society, Emerson argues, never advances either. For everything gained, something is taken away. He scoffs at the words “civilized” because although they have gained something via technology, they have lost mental and physical capabilities along the way. “The civilized man has built a coach but lost the use of his feet…he has a fine
Because my last post wasn't long enough...
Attributed often to Emerson is the boom that is transcendentalism; the movement of thought during the time period in which he wrote Self-Reliance (1841) that was a shift in ideas from the expected goals and success of society to the ideas of transcending material to acknowledge the individual and the innate knowledge within ones self (often of a religious nature and in respect to the Divine). Transcendentalism is the belief in the individual that grows with the ONE who resides within us an within everything in nature. Emerson couples his Self-Reliance and transcendentalism with the encouragement of the individual to move away from the past and historically accepted ideas of value and worth to what a person’s soul and divine qualities recognize as virtuous.
As pragmatism focuses on what is real and what truth really is, so seeks Emerson for the soul to recognize these ideas and refuse to allow outside forces to influence the individual.
As pragmatism focuses on what is real and what truth really is, so seeks Emerson for the soul to recognize these ideas and refuse to allow outside forces to influence the individual.
post 3
1) The 1840’s- 1870’s were tumultuous years for Americans. The period included the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, reconstruction, and the taming of the Wild West. The period saw the addition of eleven states and completion of Manifest Destiny with the conquest of the last of what is now the continental United States. Furthermore, the period was one that was filled with a number of massive improvements in transportation and communication. When the period began people traveled the Oregon Trail and when it came to a close regular transcontinental rail travel was common. It saw the widespread introduction of the telegraph as well as the completion of the first transatlantic communication line and even the first telephone usage. A person who lived through during this period would have been confronted with a wild variety of emotions because of the rapid change. A person who lived through the period might also have felt some parts of it to be dark and depressing.
2) One interesting aspect of Emerson’s piece that would later have deeper philosophical meaning is when he says, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Emerson is saying that intelligent people don’t have to hold the same viewpoint or idea from day today. In other words Emerson is telling us to not get overly set in our ways. This is an important philosophical idea because it reminds us to approach issues from multiple prospective and to not be stubborn about changing our mind. Another issue that has deeper philosophical meaning is when Emerson says “He has got a fine Geneva Watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun.” Emerson is saying that even though man has made progress it has come at the cost of being able to rely on his ability to interact with nature. Furthermore, Emerson is alluding to the fact that Man’s technological skill is not true progress. True progress is acquiring the ability to think critically and become a more mature race.
3) Charles Sanders Pierce, was one of the early visionaries of the pragmatic movement. As an early pragmatist, Pierce outlined a number of important aspects of the movement. First he noted that his number one concern was making sure people kept inquiring and making advances through the scientific method. This is important to pragmatism because it is very naturalistic. Another important aspect that Pierce outlined was the idea that Objectivity was limited by what a human can experience given the intellectual tools required to make an analysis. This is very pragmatic because it recognizes the realistic limitations placed upon humans
2) One interesting aspect of Emerson’s piece that would later have deeper philosophical meaning is when he says, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Emerson is saying that intelligent people don’t have to hold the same viewpoint or idea from day today. In other words Emerson is telling us to not get overly set in our ways. This is an important philosophical idea because it reminds us to approach issues from multiple prospective and to not be stubborn about changing our mind. Another issue that has deeper philosophical meaning is when Emerson says “He has got a fine Geneva Watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun.” Emerson is saying that even though man has made progress it has come at the cost of being able to rely on his ability to interact with nature. Furthermore, Emerson is alluding to the fact that Man’s technological skill is not true progress. True progress is acquiring the ability to think critically and become a more mature race.
3) Charles Sanders Pierce, was one of the early visionaries of the pragmatic movement. As an early pragmatist, Pierce outlined a number of important aspects of the movement. First he noted that his number one concern was making sure people kept inquiring and making advances through the scientific method. This is important to pragmatism because it is very naturalistic. Another important aspect that Pierce outlined was the idea that Objectivity was limited by what a human can experience given the intellectual tools required to make an analysis. This is very pragmatic because it recognizes the realistic limitations placed upon humans
Emerson and the Self
“To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -that is genius”. Emerson begins by making a point that past figures thought of as revolutionary or genius has been men who speak not the thoughts of other men but their own minds. Despite what exists in the world, pressures/opinions/thoughts, it is the person an individual is that must be considered. Men are made to be themselves, as an eye was put where an eye should be, because that is whom you should be.
“Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events”. Society and the masses that inhabit it are judgmental of the opinions and actions of others. “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” People give up their own ideas and liberty to join the culture that everyone else subscribes to. Self-reliance, the virtue Emerson is espousing, is at odds with the idea of conformity, “the virtue most requested”.
Your own mind is the most sacred thing a person can have, and you should trust your own mind to know what is right or wrong. Despite opposition, a person should stay true to what they believe in or think. People are very susceptible to society and positions and often give away their individual worth to gain respect in regard to the former. “My life is for itself and not for a spectacle…so it be genuine and equal, rather than it should be glittering and unsteady.” A person should be satisfied with their self and not the opinions or assurances of others and outside ideals. One should only be concerned with what they think, not others. People will always think their ways and views are more important than yours, but the only way to know yourself and your own opinions is to trust your own mind.
When people conform to outside ideals and practices they lose touch of their own self and “blurs the impression of your character.” Submitting to conformity is a “blind-man’s-bluff” because everyone is following not what they know or need but what they think they need; this is different from actuality because they are not following their own minds but the impressions others and society try to impose on the masses. When people, even preachers, conform to a community of opinion, they become “false in all particulars” because they have no firm grounding or starting basis for their own thought; instead they are living through the ideas and assumptions of an outside force.
What seems to scare people, Emerson says, is that even when we commit ourselves to our own ideas we are subject to a lack of consistency; that is to say we may think one thing one day and another thing the next. Since others judge us for our past actions, this lack in conformity holds the possibility of the disappointment of others (which we loathe). Emerson’s reply to this is to refuse its discouragement, for even if you contradict yourself it is YOU that you are contradicting. “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.” Emerson encourages you to believe what you believe in today and if it changes tomorrow, then believe in that tomorrow as well. “To be great is to be misunderstood”.
Men are surrounded by a society that tries to impose its views and ideals and Emerson states, “no man can violate his nature”. This is to suppose (I think) that man should only be attune to his “honesty thought without prospect or retrospect” and even if there are a varying of ideas there will still be a symmetry to these thoughts because they stem from the true ideas of the mind. It is the “genuine action [that explains] itself and will explain your genuine action.” Conformity explains nothing, as it is not derived of the self and its ideals but the past and historical ideas of society and the external. It is not appearances but the force of character that is virtuous.
Do not respect and pay homage to conformity and consistency because it is a nature of pleasing others and not the self. This is where Emerson appears selfish, as he states, “Let us never bow and apologize more A great man is coming to eat at my house. I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please me. I will stand here for humanity, and though I would make it kind, I would make it true.” And while I do find this rather selfish and rude, it aligns with what Emerson is saying about pleasing the self through the ideas of the self and not the ideas or prestige of others.
It is also around this time in the article in which Emerson begins to rely heavily on a religious aspect; “there is a great Thinker and Actor working wherever a man works” and a man does not live in any other time but in his own time as the center of things in himself. We praise the history and virtue of a “few stout and earnest persons” (i.e. Jesus, Caesar) but fail to look within ourselves to realize greatness. A person should know his or her own worth and make their own opinions of things, rather than accept the commonplace view. It is when “private men shall act with original views, the luster will be transferred from the actions of kings to those of gentlemen.”
To realize the ideas and mind of the self is to question from where this innateness comes….”on what universal reliance may be grounded?” The essence of genius, according to Emerson, is Spontaneity and Instinct and Intuition. When we realize truth and justice we are not personally creating these ideals or virtues but allowing the truth of them to become recognized within the self. A person’s perceptions are the perfect faith, and while you may come across error in perceptions man still knows that perceptions are real to him and “not to be disputed”.
Emerson relates the soul to the “divine spirit” and that God speaks not to one thing but to everything and when a mind is in accord with the divine wisdom the misconceptions and impressions of the past fade away and realize the present, the reality. Nowadays (as in when this was written) men align themselves to a school of thought or reason and claim it as their own; this Emerson sees as foolish because they are not thinking on their own but basing their ideas on “some saint or sage,” of the past. The past is merely the opinions and thoughts of others; postponing the future to reflect on the past “cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time.”
Similar to the sponge model of teaching Dr. Musgrave spoke about are Emerson’s thoughts that we are merely absorbing the teachings of the past, the lectures of masters, replicating the talents of those we admire. To live this way is to fail to lie truly; “when a man lives with God, his voice shall be as sweet as the murmur of the brook and the rustle of the corn.”
It is life in you that does not rely on the actions of others but only acknowledges the internal goodness of the self. Because your soul recognizes Truth and Right, knowing the soul knows yourself. People discourage this knowledge because it fails to discern between poor and rich, rouge and saintly. “Speak rather of that which relies, because it works and is”.
Emerson relies on the acknowledgement of the “ever-blessed ONE” and self-existence is the design of the Supreme Cause. Reality is in accordance with the virtue it contains, and what is right is that which helps itself. When man relies this divine fact he is at home with cause, for God is within.
However, “we are a mob”; that is society is a mass that praises jointly at the foot of one rather than going out alone. The solitude that the mob fails to seek and appreciate is the one that elevates a person. While there may appear to be a “conspiracy to importune you with emphatic trifles” only the self-realization will allow an escape. Do not be party to the folly of others just because everyone allows it to occur but escape it with self-actualization. Speak the truth, resist temptations. Do not live to meet the expectations of others but the truth of self.
“I cannot break myself any longer for you, or you. If you love me for what I am, we shall be happier.” This is another selfish sounding statement from Emerson, but he is saying that if a person should love one who realizes the self, who loves the self and the innate virtue, they will both be able to trust “that what is deep is holy”. Do not hurt those who do not agree with you but hope they may some day live in truth as well. In following the truth one will be safe at last. You should not sacrifice liberty and sensibility, because there is a time when everyone should realize reason and realize that others who value truth are on the right and good path.
Do not allow the desire to please others to undermine your self and internal truth. “And it truly demands something godlike in him who has cast off the common motives of humanity, and has ventured to trust himself for a taskmaster”. This attitude allows a person to accomplish a task easily that others face as a much more difficult endeavor. Society has become, Emerson says, afraid of truth and “timorous, desponding whimpers,” and people fail to satisfy their own wants with out of proportion ambition because they do not realize what they really need. People beg to gain what they think society values and shun the strength needed to attain what is right.
It is not the success of one field that gives a man a good life but the study and exploration of various things to which he can form his own opinion that make him worth more than “city dolls”. When one attains self-trust there comes with is a multitude of new understanding, a dawn of knowledge that has previously been denied and sheds light on the superficiality of society as a mass.
Emerson now gives a list of four things that all men in all offices, education, religion, association, etc. should pursue. (1) Prayer is not a tool to beg for things or to ask for exception or gain; prayer is “the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view”. It is the praising of the good works of God and the rejoicing of a jubilant soul. Regrets are a type of false prayer as well; Emerson states that you only regret things if you can fix them, otherwise it is not worth the waste of time to dwell on the past events. “The secret of fortune is joy in our own hands,” and the person who can self-help is a man who is welcomed by the gods.
People recite what they have been told by their religions instead of realizing that religion is in oneself and in one’s soul. While at first when learning religious doctrine or scientific advancement, a person is excited as their intelligence grows but (I think?) Emerson is saying this is bad insofar as they are merely taking the views and ideas of others and accepting it as their own.
(2) A soul does not need to travel to exotic places to learn, for “the soul is no traveler; the wise man stays at home,” and if he travels he does so while still at home, for his soul is aware and at peace. The problem of travels lies in those who commit such action to take in what society projects the importance of a location to be and look to traveling and locals to gain knowledge. If you travel to escape you will eventually awake to the fact that you have escaped nothing but brought your troubles with you.
(3) Emerson then begins on the troubles of “modern” education; “intellect is vagabond, and our system of education fosters restlessness.” Students are imitators, but will find they only imitating a traveling of the mind (imagination). People base their desires and wants and goals on the Past and Distant; the things we have been taught or shown to desire. Art, however, allows a flourishing of the original mind only insofar as it does not rely on past models of art to guide or dictate its course.
Do not imitate others to learn, for the only master one should desire knowledge from is the Maker. Each person is unique; the great man is one who actualizes this uniqueness. What makes great men great is that they are unique and do not accept or follow the ideas of others but look to their personal truth and ideas to create something new. Obey what the heart says and guides to find the noble regions of life.
(4) Society never advances because man focuses on the improvement of society and bases their success on this. While things change “For everything that is given, something is taken.” We recognize great men but fail to realize their class is not in those who follow their ideas but those who recognize their originality and strive to realize the originality within them. Being your own man and the founder of a sect is to be great (founder of a sect in reference to new ideas that are innate). You should not value others for what they have but what each is; a “cultivated man becomes ashamed of his property, of new respect for his nature.” Anything one owns, regardless of its mean of acquisition “does not belong to him, has not root in him, and merely lies there, because no revolution and no robber takes it away.”
“It is only as man puts off all foreign support, and stands alone, that I see him to be strong and to prevail.” This man recognize true self-reliance because he has come to realize what truth is and what is means; it is not property, it is not perception, it is not material nor history nor opinion “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.”
“Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events”. Society and the masses that inhabit it are judgmental of the opinions and actions of others. “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” People give up their own ideas and liberty to join the culture that everyone else subscribes to. Self-reliance, the virtue Emerson is espousing, is at odds with the idea of conformity, “the virtue most requested”.
Your own mind is the most sacred thing a person can have, and you should trust your own mind to know what is right or wrong. Despite opposition, a person should stay true to what they believe in or think. People are very susceptible to society and positions and often give away their individual worth to gain respect in regard to the former. “My life is for itself and not for a spectacle…so it be genuine and equal, rather than it should be glittering and unsteady.” A person should be satisfied with their self and not the opinions or assurances of others and outside ideals. One should only be concerned with what they think, not others. People will always think their ways and views are more important than yours, but the only way to know yourself and your own opinions is to trust your own mind.
When people conform to outside ideals and practices they lose touch of their own self and “blurs the impression of your character.” Submitting to conformity is a “blind-man’s-bluff” because everyone is following not what they know or need but what they think they need; this is different from actuality because they are not following their own minds but the impressions others and society try to impose on the masses. When people, even preachers, conform to a community of opinion, they become “false in all particulars” because they have no firm grounding or starting basis for their own thought; instead they are living through the ideas and assumptions of an outside force.
What seems to scare people, Emerson says, is that even when we commit ourselves to our own ideas we are subject to a lack of consistency; that is to say we may think one thing one day and another thing the next. Since others judge us for our past actions, this lack in conformity holds the possibility of the disappointment of others (which we loathe). Emerson’s reply to this is to refuse its discouragement, for even if you contradict yourself it is YOU that you are contradicting. “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.” Emerson encourages you to believe what you believe in today and if it changes tomorrow, then believe in that tomorrow as well. “To be great is to be misunderstood”.
Men are surrounded by a society that tries to impose its views and ideals and Emerson states, “no man can violate his nature”. This is to suppose (I think) that man should only be attune to his “honesty thought without prospect or retrospect” and even if there are a varying of ideas there will still be a symmetry to these thoughts because they stem from the true ideas of the mind. It is the “genuine action [that explains] itself and will explain your genuine action.” Conformity explains nothing, as it is not derived of the self and its ideals but the past and historical ideas of society and the external. It is not appearances but the force of character that is virtuous.
Do not respect and pay homage to conformity and consistency because it is a nature of pleasing others and not the self. This is where Emerson appears selfish, as he states, “Let us never bow and apologize more A great man is coming to eat at my house. I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please me. I will stand here for humanity, and though I would make it kind, I would make it true.” And while I do find this rather selfish and rude, it aligns with what Emerson is saying about pleasing the self through the ideas of the self and not the ideas or prestige of others.
It is also around this time in the article in which Emerson begins to rely heavily on a religious aspect; “there is a great Thinker and Actor working wherever a man works” and a man does not live in any other time but in his own time as the center of things in himself. We praise the history and virtue of a “few stout and earnest persons” (i.e. Jesus, Caesar) but fail to look within ourselves to realize greatness. A person should know his or her own worth and make their own opinions of things, rather than accept the commonplace view. It is when “private men shall act with original views, the luster will be transferred from the actions of kings to those of gentlemen.”
To realize the ideas and mind of the self is to question from where this innateness comes….”on what universal reliance may be grounded?” The essence of genius, according to Emerson, is Spontaneity and Instinct and Intuition. When we realize truth and justice we are not personally creating these ideals or virtues but allowing the truth of them to become recognized within the self. A person’s perceptions are the perfect faith, and while you may come across error in perceptions man still knows that perceptions are real to him and “not to be disputed”.
Emerson relates the soul to the “divine spirit” and that God speaks not to one thing but to everything and when a mind is in accord with the divine wisdom the misconceptions and impressions of the past fade away and realize the present, the reality. Nowadays (as in when this was written) men align themselves to a school of thought or reason and claim it as their own; this Emerson sees as foolish because they are not thinking on their own but basing their ideas on “some saint or sage,” of the past. The past is merely the opinions and thoughts of others; postponing the future to reflect on the past “cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time.”
Similar to the sponge model of teaching Dr. Musgrave spoke about are Emerson’s thoughts that we are merely absorbing the teachings of the past, the lectures of masters, replicating the talents of those we admire. To live this way is to fail to lie truly; “when a man lives with God, his voice shall be as sweet as the murmur of the brook and the rustle of the corn.”
It is life in you that does not rely on the actions of others but only acknowledges the internal goodness of the self. Because your soul recognizes Truth and Right, knowing the soul knows yourself. People discourage this knowledge because it fails to discern between poor and rich, rouge and saintly. “Speak rather of that which relies, because it works and is”.
Emerson relies on the acknowledgement of the “ever-blessed ONE” and self-existence is the design of the Supreme Cause. Reality is in accordance with the virtue it contains, and what is right is that which helps itself. When man relies this divine fact he is at home with cause, for God is within.
However, “we are a mob”; that is society is a mass that praises jointly at the foot of one rather than going out alone. The solitude that the mob fails to seek and appreciate is the one that elevates a person. While there may appear to be a “conspiracy to importune you with emphatic trifles” only the self-realization will allow an escape. Do not be party to the folly of others just because everyone allows it to occur but escape it with self-actualization. Speak the truth, resist temptations. Do not live to meet the expectations of others but the truth of self.
“I cannot break myself any longer for you, or you. If you love me for what I am, we shall be happier.” This is another selfish sounding statement from Emerson, but he is saying that if a person should love one who realizes the self, who loves the self and the innate virtue, they will both be able to trust “that what is deep is holy”. Do not hurt those who do not agree with you but hope they may some day live in truth as well. In following the truth one will be safe at last. You should not sacrifice liberty and sensibility, because there is a time when everyone should realize reason and realize that others who value truth are on the right and good path.
Do not allow the desire to please others to undermine your self and internal truth. “And it truly demands something godlike in him who has cast off the common motives of humanity, and has ventured to trust himself for a taskmaster”. This attitude allows a person to accomplish a task easily that others face as a much more difficult endeavor. Society has become, Emerson says, afraid of truth and “timorous, desponding whimpers,” and people fail to satisfy their own wants with out of proportion ambition because they do not realize what they really need. People beg to gain what they think society values and shun the strength needed to attain what is right.
It is not the success of one field that gives a man a good life but the study and exploration of various things to which he can form his own opinion that make him worth more than “city dolls”. When one attains self-trust there comes with is a multitude of new understanding, a dawn of knowledge that has previously been denied and sheds light on the superficiality of society as a mass.
Emerson now gives a list of four things that all men in all offices, education, religion, association, etc. should pursue. (1) Prayer is not a tool to beg for things or to ask for exception or gain; prayer is “the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view”. It is the praising of the good works of God and the rejoicing of a jubilant soul. Regrets are a type of false prayer as well; Emerson states that you only regret things if you can fix them, otherwise it is not worth the waste of time to dwell on the past events. “The secret of fortune is joy in our own hands,” and the person who can self-help is a man who is welcomed by the gods.
People recite what they have been told by their religions instead of realizing that religion is in oneself and in one’s soul. While at first when learning religious doctrine or scientific advancement, a person is excited as their intelligence grows but (I think?) Emerson is saying this is bad insofar as they are merely taking the views and ideas of others and accepting it as their own.
(2) A soul does not need to travel to exotic places to learn, for “the soul is no traveler; the wise man stays at home,” and if he travels he does so while still at home, for his soul is aware and at peace. The problem of travels lies in those who commit such action to take in what society projects the importance of a location to be and look to traveling and locals to gain knowledge. If you travel to escape you will eventually awake to the fact that you have escaped nothing but brought your troubles with you.
(3) Emerson then begins on the troubles of “modern” education; “intellect is vagabond, and our system of education fosters restlessness.” Students are imitators, but will find they only imitating a traveling of the mind (imagination). People base their desires and wants and goals on the Past and Distant; the things we have been taught or shown to desire. Art, however, allows a flourishing of the original mind only insofar as it does not rely on past models of art to guide or dictate its course.
Do not imitate others to learn, for the only master one should desire knowledge from is the Maker. Each person is unique; the great man is one who actualizes this uniqueness. What makes great men great is that they are unique and do not accept or follow the ideas of others but look to their personal truth and ideas to create something new. Obey what the heart says and guides to find the noble regions of life.
(4) Society never advances because man focuses on the improvement of society and bases their success on this. While things change “For everything that is given, something is taken.” We recognize great men but fail to realize their class is not in those who follow their ideas but those who recognize their originality and strive to realize the originality within them. Being your own man and the founder of a sect is to be great (founder of a sect in reference to new ideas that are innate). You should not value others for what they have but what each is; a “cultivated man becomes ashamed of his property, of new respect for his nature.” Anything one owns, regardless of its mean of acquisition “does not belong to him, has not root in him, and merely lies there, because no revolution and no robber takes it away.”
“It is only as man puts off all foreign support, and stands alone, that I see him to be strong and to prevail.” This man recognize true self-reliance because he has come to realize what truth is and what is means; it is not property, it is not perception, it is not material nor history nor opinion “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.”
Emerson and Peirce
Rachael Dziechciarz
(1)
After several phone calls to my Grandma Dorothy, and my great-Aunt Virgie I was able to find some information about my family back in the mid-1800s. I learned that my great-great-grandparents, from both sides, came to America when they were very young from Poland. My great-great-grandfather on my grandmother’s side was a manger of a scrap metal factory in Buffalo, and my great-great-grandparents on my grandfather’s side owned a working farm. One thing that I found very interesting was that all of my ancestors came from Poland and settled in either Buffalo, NY or the outskirts of the city. Also, they lived there their entire lives, which is very cool to me since I have already lived in 3 different states. Another interesting thing I learned was that on my great-great-grandparent’s farm they bred canaries, and even won prizes in New York City for their method of cross-breeding the birds to produce beautifully colored feathers. Although most of my great-great-grandparents were born around the end of the time period we were to look up, I am glad that I still called my relatives to learn a little more about my family history. One thing that I will note since this information doesn’t fully portray “life in America at the end of the 19th century” is that they all came over to America after the Civil War, and before the Industrial Revolution.
(2)
The first phrase from Emerson’s piece that I chose to evaluate was “this change is not amelioration,” which is located on page 38 in John Stuhr’s book. This phrase interested me because of what it means, and how different it is to what I was brought up believing. Basically, Emerson argues that “society never advances.” (Stuhr 38) This greatly contradicts what I have always “known” about mankind. Of course society has advanced, I thought, because we know how to live longer, we are more open-minded (at least I think that most people are), and we have produced works of art that are both beautiful and thought-provoking. On the other hand, Emerson argues that whenever we make improvements in society, mankind as a whole loses something of equal value. For example, the more reliant we are on technology, the less able we are to survive without technological conveniences. The more we use the car, the less places we walk.
This also ties in with another key phrase that Emerson mentions, the “fine Geneva watch,” which is also found on page 38 in the Stuhr book. Emerson describes this expensive watch that society deems as valuable as an example of how that same society can no longer tell time by the position of the sun. I find both of these phrases so interesting because they go against what I feel in is correct: If we have the fine Geneva watch, then does it matter if we can’t tell time by the sun? For Emerson, it does, because he is trying to show that change is not necessarily for the better. It’s hard to argue that society is able to learn new things, and also at the same time retain every piece of knowledge that was ever passed on from father to son, since the dawn of mankind. So, Emerson’s claim that “change is not amelioration” rests upon the assumption that society must lose some knowledge, in order to gain knowledge elsewhere. Therefore, for Emerson, it’s easy to see why the constant changes in society are not always improvements. If information is constantly being lost for the sake of advancement, then maybe we have lost priceless ideas/skills just to keep up with society. I really liked reading Emerson’s unconventional thought process, as well as his reiteration of the fact that you must trust your instincts, and never conform. But, even though I believed in a lot of the wise words that he said in this piece, I must disagree with his claim that society must lose information in order to advance. I have always thought that society takes what it knows, and builds upon that information to make it better. For example, even though I can’t tell time by the sun, I think a watch is more accurate. Man used what he knew about the position of the sun to make watches, and coordinate all of society to the same time.
I believe that both of these phrases can be related to the philosophical debate of the individual vs. society. Which one has the authority to say what is true? For Emerson, he would say the individual, and that to always trust yourself is the best way of knowing what is true, and what is right. I agree with this line of thinking, “to thine own self be true,” but I also think that the general consensus of society does not always hurt the truth. If everyone only looked inside their own heads for answers, then how would we determine the sane from the insane? We wouldn’t be able to, because everyone would be their own judge of what is right and wrong. I am not arguing that you must conform to society or else you are crazy, but I do think that a mixture of your own instincts and what society believes is necessary to determine the facts.
(3)
The first main point from Peirce’s work that I would like to discuss is Peirce’s “first and foremost concern,” which he states to be “advancing the cause of inquiry.” (Stuhr 44) Peirce wants to synthesize the questions of science with the questions of philosophy. He thinks that both scientific and philosophic inquiry can be related, and help each other to explain the human condition. The question, “what is our purpose?” can be just as important as “how do plants grow?” and both can receive answers through the same line of questioning. Peirce wanted to show that asking questions about everything was necessary in order to know anything. Furthermore, once you feel that you know something, more questions and tests are needed to make sure that what you know does not change. The quote, “Do not block the road of inquiry” (Stuhr 49) is a metaphor that truly sums up Peirce’s “first and foremost concern,” that inquiry is crucial to knowledge. The metaphor is that inquiry is on a road, which is ongoing, and doesn’t simply end at the corner when you think you understand something. It is precisely at that corner where you must ask more questions, and keep walking along the road, in order to make sure that your understanding can stand up to all of the questions that you ask. This can be easily related to pragmatism; because the only way people can learn things and have them be useful is by continuously asking questions. If you think you have learned something and then it changes, how will you be aware of this change if you do not inquire about it?
The second main point from Peirce’s work that I am going to discuss is what is phenomenology, and what Peirce calls “the phenomenological recovery of human experience.” In its most basic definition, phenomenology would be the study of phenomena, and more particularly (for Peirce) the study of the phenomena that goes on within the human mind. This includes ideas, predictions, self-awareness, and pretty much anything that we can recognize as a conscious thought. This is also where he gets the phrase “the phenomenological recovery of human experience.” Peirce regards the things that happen everyday as the most important things for philosophers to use to make hypothesis about people, in essence, to find the truth about humans and their thoughts. Peirce wants philosophy to be studied objectively, and in a careful manner, and in order to do this the only thing philosophers have to use is everyday experience. I think that this relates to pragmatism because it is helpful for people to be aware of, to understand, and to study our everyday experiences, since this is what is most important to humans every day. To not have a full understanding of how people act and think everyday is a completely useless way to live. Philosophers need to understand the “phenomenological recovery of human experience” because that is the most helpful and useful way of discovering what is true in this world.
(1)
After several phone calls to my Grandma Dorothy, and my great-Aunt Virgie I was able to find some information about my family back in the mid-1800s. I learned that my great-great-grandparents, from both sides, came to America when they were very young from Poland. My great-great-grandfather on my grandmother’s side was a manger of a scrap metal factory in Buffalo, and my great-great-grandparents on my grandfather’s side owned a working farm. One thing that I found very interesting was that all of my ancestors came from Poland and settled in either Buffalo, NY or the outskirts of the city. Also, they lived there their entire lives, which is very cool to me since I have already lived in 3 different states. Another interesting thing I learned was that on my great-great-grandparent’s farm they bred canaries, and even won prizes in New York City for their method of cross-breeding the birds to produce beautifully colored feathers. Although most of my great-great-grandparents were born around the end of the time period we were to look up, I am glad that I still called my relatives to learn a little more about my family history. One thing that I will note since this information doesn’t fully portray “life in America at the end of the 19th century” is that they all came over to America after the Civil War, and before the Industrial Revolution.
(2)
The first phrase from Emerson’s piece that I chose to evaluate was “this change is not amelioration,” which is located on page 38 in John Stuhr’s book. This phrase interested me because of what it means, and how different it is to what I was brought up believing. Basically, Emerson argues that “society never advances.” (Stuhr 38) This greatly contradicts what I have always “known” about mankind. Of course society has advanced, I thought, because we know how to live longer, we are more open-minded (at least I think that most people are), and we have produced works of art that are both beautiful and thought-provoking. On the other hand, Emerson argues that whenever we make improvements in society, mankind as a whole loses something of equal value. For example, the more reliant we are on technology, the less able we are to survive without technological conveniences. The more we use the car, the less places we walk.
This also ties in with another key phrase that Emerson mentions, the “fine Geneva watch,” which is also found on page 38 in the Stuhr book. Emerson describes this expensive watch that society deems as valuable as an example of how that same society can no longer tell time by the position of the sun. I find both of these phrases so interesting because they go against what I feel in is correct: If we have the fine Geneva watch, then does it matter if we can’t tell time by the sun? For Emerson, it does, because he is trying to show that change is not necessarily for the better. It’s hard to argue that society is able to learn new things, and also at the same time retain every piece of knowledge that was ever passed on from father to son, since the dawn of mankind. So, Emerson’s claim that “change is not amelioration” rests upon the assumption that society must lose some knowledge, in order to gain knowledge elsewhere. Therefore, for Emerson, it’s easy to see why the constant changes in society are not always improvements. If information is constantly being lost for the sake of advancement, then maybe we have lost priceless ideas/skills just to keep up with society. I really liked reading Emerson’s unconventional thought process, as well as his reiteration of the fact that you must trust your instincts, and never conform. But, even though I believed in a lot of the wise words that he said in this piece, I must disagree with his claim that society must lose information in order to advance. I have always thought that society takes what it knows, and builds upon that information to make it better. For example, even though I can’t tell time by the sun, I think a watch is more accurate. Man used what he knew about the position of the sun to make watches, and coordinate all of society to the same time.
I believe that both of these phrases can be related to the philosophical debate of the individual vs. society. Which one has the authority to say what is true? For Emerson, he would say the individual, and that to always trust yourself is the best way of knowing what is true, and what is right. I agree with this line of thinking, “to thine own self be true,” but I also think that the general consensus of society does not always hurt the truth. If everyone only looked inside their own heads for answers, then how would we determine the sane from the insane? We wouldn’t be able to, because everyone would be their own judge of what is right and wrong. I am not arguing that you must conform to society or else you are crazy, but I do think that a mixture of your own instincts and what society believes is necessary to determine the facts.
(3)
The first main point from Peirce’s work that I would like to discuss is Peirce’s “first and foremost concern,” which he states to be “advancing the cause of inquiry.” (Stuhr 44) Peirce wants to synthesize the questions of science with the questions of philosophy. He thinks that both scientific and philosophic inquiry can be related, and help each other to explain the human condition. The question, “what is our purpose?” can be just as important as “how do plants grow?” and both can receive answers through the same line of questioning. Peirce wanted to show that asking questions about everything was necessary in order to know anything. Furthermore, once you feel that you know something, more questions and tests are needed to make sure that what you know does not change. The quote, “Do not block the road of inquiry” (Stuhr 49) is a metaphor that truly sums up Peirce’s “first and foremost concern,” that inquiry is crucial to knowledge. The metaphor is that inquiry is on a road, which is ongoing, and doesn’t simply end at the corner when you think you understand something. It is precisely at that corner where you must ask more questions, and keep walking along the road, in order to make sure that your understanding can stand up to all of the questions that you ask. This can be easily related to pragmatism; because the only way people can learn things and have them be useful is by continuously asking questions. If you think you have learned something and then it changes, how will you be aware of this change if you do not inquire about it?
The second main point from Peirce’s work that I am going to discuss is what is phenomenology, and what Peirce calls “the phenomenological recovery of human experience.” In its most basic definition, phenomenology would be the study of phenomena, and more particularly (for Peirce) the study of the phenomena that goes on within the human mind. This includes ideas, predictions, self-awareness, and pretty much anything that we can recognize as a conscious thought. This is also where he gets the phrase “the phenomenological recovery of human experience.” Peirce regards the things that happen everyday as the most important things for philosophers to use to make hypothesis about people, in essence, to find the truth about humans and their thoughts. Peirce wants philosophy to be studied objectively, and in a careful manner, and in order to do this the only thing philosophers have to use is everyday experience. I think that this relates to pragmatism because it is helpful for people to be aware of, to understand, and to study our everyday experiences, since this is what is most important to humans every day. To not have a full understanding of how people act and think everyday is a completely useless way to live. Philosophers need to understand the “phenomenological recovery of human experience” because that is the most helpful and useful way of discovering what is true in this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
