Thoreau seems to place emphasis on the individual and his or her ability to sort life out without the "limiting" advice of elders. Each person is different and, therefore, the life of each person will be different with unique failures and successes. Life, to Thoreau, is an experiment and to live in fear of this uncertainty and change is to not quite live at all. He mourns that the individual is entrapped in his work, becoming little more than a machine. " The finest qualities of our nature, like the blooms on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another thus tenderly" (p.846).
Why does this occur? It seems that Thoreau makes a connection between the nearly feverish life of trying to accumulate material goods in life and the degrading of human life itself. People seek out material riches when the real wealth is to be found in contemplation and a simple lifestyle. People desperately try to keep up with the latest fashions, although everyone realizes fashions fade quickly and has certainly laughed at something that was once highly stylish (Think yearbooks from the 1980s and early 90s). In reference to this desire for the latest style, Thoreau refers to people as a "herd", diligently following the "luxiourious and dissipated" (p. 863). This life of chasing material wealth makes humans no better than cows, an idea very similar to Aristotle who considered a life of pleasure-seeking to be the lowest form of life: the life of cattle. This plays out in housing as well. Houses are no longer for shelter, but for fashion and are continually being made bigger and more stylish, chaining their residents to years of debt and slavery to their own work; the house owns the person instead of the other way around.
To Thoreau, this cuts humans off from true humanity; human spirit is stifled and enslaved. Freedom is found in a simple life connected with nature. He seems to be calling people back to a more natural, almost organic way of living and hints that this is the life of the philosopher. Clothing should be simple, durable, and practical, fulfilling its actual purpose of keeping the body warm or protected. It should also be limited so that, if one had to flee with only the clothes on his or her back, one would not need be concerned about the excess of things left behind. Housing should do the same; it does not need to be extravagant. As far as food goes, the best can be plucked off trees or dug up from the ground. Through this, Thoreau suggests, man will be free.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Good Morning, America!
I thoroughly enjoyed "Rip Van Winkle". I remember watching the Wishbone episode when I was a kid, but the only bit that really stuck with me seems to be the giants playing nine-pins and Wishbone with a long, grey beard. Goofy. Wishbone seems to have watered down the story a bit. "Rip Van Winkle" partially reads like a grandpa should be telling it, with the speaker insisting of the accuracy and legitimacy of the tale yet knowing it's not quite believable. It's full of sarcasm, wit and clever insults; I chuckled at almost anything to do with Rip's wife and especially at her cause of death. The Romantic influence is obvious in the nearly magical descriptions of the landscape. Between Hendrick Hudson and his men and Rip himself, the story is kind of a folk tale within a folk tale. It was a great fiction break from the heavy reading we've been doing in this class and in other classes.
On the other hand, Rip has a deeper side to it that Wishbone didn't even touch. Irving is wrestling through the changes in America and the nature of American identity and commenting on roles and relationships between men and women Rip wakes up after 20 years not as a colonist, but as an American. Who needs morning coffee with that kind of shock? (I would, actually, but that's irrelevant). Instead of sleepy, easy-going colonists dissecting three-month-old news, Rip finds his fellow-villagers to be bustling, busy, anti-Tory, politically minded Americans. Interestingly enough, although identity as a whole had changed and had made changes in every day life, Rip is still largely unchanged. Individual vs society as a whole mentality perhaps?
On the other hand, Rip has a deeper side to it that Wishbone didn't even touch. Irving is wrestling through the changes in America and the nature of American identity and commenting on roles and relationships between men and women Rip wakes up after 20 years not as a colonist, but as an American. Who needs morning coffee with that kind of shock? (I would, actually, but that's irrelevant). Instead of sleepy, easy-going colonists dissecting three-month-old news, Rip finds his fellow-villagers to be bustling, busy, anti-Tory, politically minded Americans. Interestingly enough, although identity as a whole had changed and had made changes in every day life, Rip is still largely unchanged. Individual vs society as a whole mentality perhaps?
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Resistance and Removal
For the lit circles, I read a section on the resistance and removal of Native American tribes from their historical homelands to land designated for them by the American government during the 1800s. Expanding America desired more territory and, through some potentially questionable treaties with the Native Americans, the government acquired Native lands. Some (very unpopular) Native leaders such as Elias Boudinot signed off on said treaties; others, like Black Hawk, insisted that the Native peoples were unaware of the implications of such agreements. The selections were more politically focused and persuasive in nature than I expected. I had assumed there would be at least one personal account of forced relocation or something similar, but, alas, there were none. At any rate, the selections were still interesting.
The method of persuasion varied by writer. The language and phrasing used by Black Hawk showed a good grasp on the English language but the writing was also a little awkward and less "flowery" than other texts from the section where the speaker or writer was more integrated into the white American culture. Black Hawk lists the injustices done to the Native Americans and explains how the government used trickery to obtain signatures for the land treaty. He speaks of his struggle to keep peace and point to a generally quiet response on the part of the Native Americans and demands justice be done.
The Pawnee Chief sought to hang on to his culture and ancestral land; this came through strongly in his method of persuasion. He establishes a kind of equality between the Natives and the white people by claiming that the Great Spirit made both peoples and intended their differences (Winthrop anyone?). He then says that the white people have only made the Natives discontent and done more harm than good; the Pawnee chief basically tells the white people to mind their own business and leave the Natives to their intended life. I was particularly interested in the speech given by the Pawnee Loup Chief. He speaks of his concern for the unprotected solitary white people among the Natives, claiming deep love for the white people, and suggests that he won't be able to restrain his bold and blood-lusting young men. While the speech is set up as a warning out of loving concern, it reads like a very clever threat.
Elias Boundinot was educated in the white community, which comes through in his method of appeal and his fluent writing. He points to the United States as benevolent benefactors of the Native peoples, playing on flattery. He suggests that the Native community is becoming "civilized" and "Christianized" under the influence of the United States and suggests that the Native Americans could continue their improvement best in their own lands. The Cherokee Council's memorial uses notes of the Declaration of Independence as part of their persuasion technique along with an appeal to the United States as benefactor and teacher of the Native peoples that is similar to Boundinot's.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was not of the Native American peoples, spoke up on behalf of the Native Americans and against the injustices done against them. Emerson points to the disconnect between the freedom and justice ideals of the American people and the oppression and injustice occurring against the Native peoples. Emerson suggests that the United States is acting as the true savage in this situation. He uses a lot of powerful language: "hitherto, the sweet omen of religion and liberty, will stink to the world" (pg. 587) "the millions of virtuous citizens, whose agents the Government are, have no place to interpose, and must shut their eyes until the last howl and wailing of these poor tormented villages and tribes shall afflict the ear of the world."
The method of persuasion varied by writer. The language and phrasing used by Black Hawk showed a good grasp on the English language but the writing was also a little awkward and less "flowery" than other texts from the section where the speaker or writer was more integrated into the white American culture. Black Hawk lists the injustices done to the Native Americans and explains how the government used trickery to obtain signatures for the land treaty. He speaks of his struggle to keep peace and point to a generally quiet response on the part of the Native Americans and demands justice be done.
The Pawnee Chief sought to hang on to his culture and ancestral land; this came through strongly in his method of persuasion. He establishes a kind of equality between the Natives and the white people by claiming that the Great Spirit made both peoples and intended their differences (Winthrop anyone?). He then says that the white people have only made the Natives discontent and done more harm than good; the Pawnee chief basically tells the white people to mind their own business and leave the Natives to their intended life. I was particularly interested in the speech given by the Pawnee Loup Chief. He speaks of his concern for the unprotected solitary white people among the Natives, claiming deep love for the white people, and suggests that he won't be able to restrain his bold and blood-lusting young men. While the speech is set up as a warning out of loving concern, it reads like a very clever threat.
Elias Boundinot was educated in the white community, which comes through in his method of appeal and his fluent writing. He points to the United States as benevolent benefactors of the Native peoples, playing on flattery. He suggests that the Native community is becoming "civilized" and "Christianized" under the influence of the United States and suggests that the Native Americans could continue their improvement best in their own lands. The Cherokee Council's memorial uses notes of the Declaration of Independence as part of their persuasion technique along with an appeal to the United States as benefactor and teacher of the Native peoples that is similar to Boundinot's.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was not of the Native American peoples, spoke up on behalf of the Native Americans and against the injustices done against them. Emerson points to the disconnect between the freedom and justice ideals of the American people and the oppression and injustice occurring against the Native peoples. Emerson suggests that the United States is acting as the true savage in this situation. He uses a lot of powerful language: "hitherto, the sweet omen of religion and liberty, will stink to the world" (pg. 587) "the millions of virtuous citizens, whose agents the Government are, have no place to interpose, and must shut their eyes until the last howl and wailing of these poor tormented villages and tribes shall afflict the ear of the world."
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Adams and Adams
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the letters between John and Abigail Adams. The letters present a marriage that seems very strong, especially in the face of a lot of distance and time apart. John speaks to Abigail as a friend, confidant, and, as far as I can tell, an equal. She seems to be a brilliant and strong woman as she supports John and makes sacrifices for the country by taking care of all matters at home alone. I enjoyed the other glimpses into their family such as Abigail referring to herself as John's Portia and to John as her "dearest Friend" and both of them calling their children their "little flock" and "the little folks". It was interesting to see such a personal side to someone I only think of in terms of the history of the American Revolution.
The letters also worked as sort of a time-machine (or time-traveling car, if you will) and allowed me to glimpse life in the time period surrounding the American Revolution. Abigail and John's writing present the hopes and fears of the people of a baby country, struggling to make their next move. Life in the political realm was consumed with a failed attempt to take Canada and getting the major figures of the country on board with independence. Private life was equally concerned with this and fighting disease that apparently was running rampant through the colonies. There are hints of Enlightenment ideals and of prejudice in favor of New England and pure English blood. I think it's easy to turn historical figures into vocab words out of a text book when, really, they were thinking, feeling, and flawed human beings.
Random final thought: John's statements about the Declaration of Independence on page 305 amused me. He laid out a good ol' American 4th of July pretty accurately.
The letters also worked as sort of a time-machine (or time-traveling car, if you will) and allowed me to glimpse life in the time period surrounding the American Revolution. Abigail and John's writing present the hopes and fears of the people of a baby country, struggling to make their next move. Life in the political realm was consumed with a failed attempt to take Canada and getting the major figures of the country on board with independence. Private life was equally concerned with this and fighting disease that apparently was running rampant through the colonies. There are hints of Enlightenment ideals and of prejudice in favor of New England and pure English blood. I think it's easy to turn historical figures into vocab words out of a text book when, really, they were thinking, feeling, and flawed human beings.
Random final thought: John's statements about the Declaration of Independence on page 305 amused me. He laid out a good ol' American 4th of July pretty accurately.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Portraits of America
While reading Crevecoeur, I was struck by the way much of the picture of America as a country and many of the stereotypes presented in his writing continue to be present in America today. Aspects of his Letters reminded me of John Smith a bit, especially the focus on America as the land of opportunity and the ability to be a self-made person. Crevecoeur seemed to be a little less idealistic than Smith though; he presented some of the problems of America, such as the lack of civility in areas most recently settled and the evils of building an economy on the inhumane institution of slavery.
Crevecoeur's Letters presents America as a country of individualism and blended culture. In America, a person can be whoever he or she wishes to be; all are welcome into the "broad lap of our great Dear Mother" (which I thought was a great word-picture). America is written to be the most welcoming country, partially because of it's blend of many peoples; a visitor will find his language and customs along with great opportunity, a new class of people to be part of, and a pure, beautiful land. "This is every person's country." The blending of culture along with Crevecoeur's sense of religious plurality are present in America today. Immigrants carry their religion into America with them and, through lack of like-minded believers and living near those of other religions, their grip on their traditions lessen, their children marry those of other denominations, and religion becomes more general. He doesn't seem to hold lack of religion entirely as a good thing though; this is a reason he offers for the uncivilized nature of the people of the lesser settled areas of America. Personally, this section reminded me of the stereotype of the "Wild West", where people handle problems with guns and bar-fights and "backwoods hicks" who eat road-kill or whatever.
I was impressed that Crevecoeur spoke out against slavery and pointed out the evils of using the torture of other human beings as a base of economy. He seems to be disgusted that the church won't speak out against slavery and asks where Nature (not God?) is to intervene for his fellow-children. It was interesting to have him consider the slaves as fellow-humans; many of this time didn't see them as equally human. The story he told of encountering a slave left strung up in a cage to die was horrifying. I wonder if his writing effectively stirred people up against slavery and how his opinions were received.
Crevecoeur's Letters presents America as a country of individualism and blended culture. In America, a person can be whoever he or she wishes to be; all are welcome into the "broad lap of our great Dear Mother" (which I thought was a great word-picture). America is written to be the most welcoming country, partially because of it's blend of many peoples; a visitor will find his language and customs along with great opportunity, a new class of people to be part of, and a pure, beautiful land. "This is every person's country." The blending of culture along with Crevecoeur's sense of religious plurality are present in America today. Immigrants carry their religion into America with them and, through lack of like-minded believers and living near those of other religions, their grip on their traditions lessen, their children marry those of other denominations, and religion becomes more general. He doesn't seem to hold lack of religion entirely as a good thing though; this is a reason he offers for the uncivilized nature of the people of the lesser settled areas of America. Personally, this section reminded me of the stereotype of the "Wild West", where people handle problems with guns and bar-fights and "backwoods hicks" who eat road-kill or whatever.
I was impressed that Crevecoeur spoke out against slavery and pointed out the evils of using the torture of other human beings as a base of economy. He seems to be disgusted that the church won't speak out against slavery and asks where Nature (not God?) is to intervene for his fellow-children. It was interesting to have him consider the slaves as fellow-humans; many of this time didn't see them as equally human. The story he told of encountering a slave left strung up in a cage to die was horrifying. I wonder if his writing effectively stirred people up against slavery and how his opinions were received.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Benjamin Franklin: a man of the Enlightenment
For some reason (probably some cartoon), Benjamin Franklin has always been a cute old man with a kite in my imagination. In actuality, he was a thinker/arguer, clever businessman, individualist, loosely 'religious', somewhat vain man, and rescuer of drunken Dutchmen. Furthermore, he was a vegetarian before it was trendy. I find it fascinating that his approach to business and religion/morality still show up in American culture today. I was not, however, amused by the random capitalization. Yes, I understand that the grammar rules were different and not as developed; it was just super distracting.
His childhood seemed kind of stinky, but maybe this was typical for people of this time. His father wanted to "tithe" Ben to the church. Between this, the proud, headstrong nature he seems to possess and the philosophy of the day, it doesn't really surprise me that Franklin avoids religion later in life. Franklin as tithe doesn't work out and he ends up apprenticing for his abusive brother and then takes off on his own at 17 (with a pretty great tale of explanation).
Within the context of his apprenticeship, Franklin begins to display his insight into people. He accurately evaluates the situation (he didn't have enough respect from his brother and company for the publication of his essays under his name) and finds a way around it to get what he wants. This reproduces throughout his business and philosophical life. In order to gain respect as a businessman, he realizes he needs to be hardworking in the public eye and avoid broadcasting his intelligence. To succeed in argument, he adapts the Socratic method of approaching debate as a questioning student, instead of beating people over the head with opinion. To gain support for his ideas, he realizes it is in his interest to set vanity aside and present the idea as a communal effort. Franklin seems to have an impressive grasp of how people "tick", which probably assisted him in his climb from poverty into self-made success.
Bits of my Intro to Philosophy class kept showing up in Franklin's writing. He is certainly a man of the Enlightenment in his focus on human improvement through reason and morality based on human empathy. His entire "self-help program" is reasoned out and is centered on being a controlled, thinking person. His concern with living a life of morals and thought is certainly within the tradition of early philosophers as well. One of his problems with "organized religion" is that religion seems to want to make people into [insert denomination here] as opposed to good citizens in general (pg 283). Unfortunately, there is truth in this statement, even today. I don't think morality can be based on human empathy ( "That it was, therefore, every one's interest to be irtuous, who wish'd to be happy even in this world." pg. 291, 2nd paragraph). What happens when doing the "right" thing isn't actually best for you? However, I think Franklin's concern is valid; true faith in Christ results in a changed lifestyle benefiting our fellow mankind.
His childhood seemed kind of stinky, but maybe this was typical for people of this time. His father wanted to "tithe" Ben to the church. Between this, the proud, headstrong nature he seems to possess and the philosophy of the day, it doesn't really surprise me that Franklin avoids religion later in life. Franklin as tithe doesn't work out and he ends up apprenticing for his abusive brother and then takes off on his own at 17 (with a pretty great tale of explanation).
Within the context of his apprenticeship, Franklin begins to display his insight into people. He accurately evaluates the situation (he didn't have enough respect from his brother and company for the publication of his essays under his name) and finds a way around it to get what he wants. This reproduces throughout his business and philosophical life. In order to gain respect as a businessman, he realizes he needs to be hardworking in the public eye and avoid broadcasting his intelligence. To succeed in argument, he adapts the Socratic method of approaching debate as a questioning student, instead of beating people over the head with opinion. To gain support for his ideas, he realizes it is in his interest to set vanity aside and present the idea as a communal effort. Franklin seems to have an impressive grasp of how people "tick", which probably assisted him in his climb from poverty into self-made success.
Bits of my Intro to Philosophy class kept showing up in Franklin's writing. He is certainly a man of the Enlightenment in his focus on human improvement through reason and morality based on human empathy. His entire "self-help program" is reasoned out and is centered on being a controlled, thinking person. His concern with living a life of morals and thought is certainly within the tradition of early philosophers as well. One of his problems with "organized religion" is that religion seems to want to make people into [insert denomination here] as opposed to good citizens in general (pg 283). Unfortunately, there is truth in this statement, even today. I don't think morality can be based on human empathy ( "That it was, therefore, every one's interest to be irtuous, who wish'd to be happy even in this world." pg. 291, 2nd paragraph). What happens when doing the "right" thing isn't actually best for you? However, I think Franklin's concern is valid; true faith in Christ results in a changed lifestyle benefiting our fellow mankind.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
"I am this Crumb of Dust..."
Edward Taylor used poetry as worship and preparation for corporate worship, and I think this is incredibly beautiful, especially in a time where we do rush into worship and seek to consume for ourselves. This kind of preparation is convicting (especially when "on time" to church really means "less than 10 minutes late" for me, leaving no room for any kind of heart-prep). His heart and obvious adoration of the Lord comes through in his writing. His poetry is very passionate, honest, and tender.
For the most part, I loved the use of extended metaphor in Edward Taylor's writing. I'll admit that "Meditation 150" ended up being pretty weird, but I'll blame some differing Song of Solomon interpretation for that. Some of the fullness of his writing and meaning behind the writing was probably lost due to the language of the time period and my lack of weaving knowledge. My favorite poem was "Prologue", which lays out the core of the rest of Taylor's writing: desire to displaying the glory of God to the best of his ability ("To Prove Thou art, and that Thou art the best).
Taylor refers to himself as a crumb of dust throughout, acknowledging that, without God, he is nothing, showing humility and dependence. I don't know of many people who would refer to themselves as dust so willingly and adamantly. He dedicates his writing to the Lord ("I am this Crumb of Dust which is designed To make my Pen unto Thy Praise alone") and asks that the Lord would bring life to this crumb of dust in the fourth stanza by allowing him to bring glory to God, perhaps somewhat in the fashion of Adam: "then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."- Gen. 2:7 Stanza five starts out with this same language of "breathing dust". The extended metaphor brings some mental imagery that is almost goofy (dirt that can breathe and write), but as goofy as it is, I found the language really touching and relatable.
For the most part, I loved the use of extended metaphor in Edward Taylor's writing. I'll admit that "Meditation 150" ended up being pretty weird, but I'll blame some differing Song of Solomon interpretation for that. Some of the fullness of his writing and meaning behind the writing was probably lost due to the language of the time period and my lack of weaving knowledge. My favorite poem was "Prologue", which lays out the core of the rest of Taylor's writing: desire to displaying the glory of God to the best of his ability ("To Prove Thou art, and that Thou art the best).
Taylor refers to himself as a crumb of dust throughout, acknowledging that, without God, he is nothing, showing humility and dependence. I don't know of many people who would refer to themselves as dust so willingly and adamantly. He dedicates his writing to the Lord ("I am this Crumb of Dust which is designed To make my Pen unto Thy Praise alone") and asks that the Lord would bring life to this crumb of dust in the fourth stanza by allowing him to bring glory to God, perhaps somewhat in the fashion of Adam: "then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."- Gen. 2:7 Stanza five starts out with this same language of "breathing dust". The extended metaphor brings some mental imagery that is almost goofy (dirt that can breathe and write), but as goofy as it is, I found the language really touching and relatable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)