During the lecture I picked up on some parts that I had missed or taken a different view maybe.
The most interesting part I feel that I hadn't concentrated on was the idea about self-esteem. It is something that the more I think about, the more it makes sense! Rousseau had said that self- esteem is the cause of inequality in men. The concept in its raw state can not be responsible as it is simply a feeling or state of mind, yet it can differentiate a group of people from another very obviously. If a group has low self-esteem they become subservient to the more confident, therefore giving them more power for no reason other than their own self-doubts. In addition if a group have more self belief they will be more willing to take on responsibilities which give them power in any case.
But, where it was said the progress of civilisation makes for miseries, I think it has also made for many advances which bring happiness to many! The formation of organisation such as charities or even things taken for grantadge sometimes, the NHS for example, are very civilised concepts which help and can bring happiness and relief to many.
I find the idea of General Will intriguing. If there is an idea or thought shared by all, it becomes the law. This should mean that as it is agreed wrong or foul practice by the population it should not happen, and if ti should then nobody should be disagreeing in the punishment of it!
The comparisons to Hobbes and Locke I also found useful to look at. Hobbes' thought that passions will equal a mess of a society. he though that a leader must be elected but he did not discus God in the choosing of the leader. The people must elect their own leader. Locke believed the only reason we would need a leader would be to protect people. Problems will happen and the leader will be responsible for making sure that public will be defended. He had an idea that we are rational, our brain is from God and we will discover natural rights and ways of behaving.
Rousseau's ideas that we are born free then society distorted us. although the society which was responsible for this was a necessary evil, and it was in search of a return to passion.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Russell on Romantism and Rouseau..before the lecture
These are some of what I think the main points to take from the chapters of reading for this week, but before the lecture. I thought this may be interesting to make as ti could show how different things can seem significant to different people.
The main points I felt were that from the later 18th century until now, art, literature, philosophy and politics are all influenced by the Romantic movement. Even those people who did not enjoy the way of thinking found themselves taking note of the ideas and being more affected by it than they first wished to be or though they were. Politics, through Rousseau, was connected to the movement from the beginning. In it's essential form, it is a revolt against ethical and aesetic standards.
The Romantic movement is the cultural background of most philosophical thoughts in this era, yet the beginnings of the movement were not philosophical in the slightest. Romanticism can be characterized mainly by its artistic and intellectual trends. The morals of Romanticism have aesthetic motives. The preference for Gothic architecture is an example of this. Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination, and feeling. Romantics seemed to lean against a Catholic views, yet seemed Protestant in their individualisation outlook.
Romantics did not aim for peace and quiet, but a passionate life. By the time of Rousseau people were tired of safety and wanted excitement. A revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to philosophy , politics and sentiments in the Romantic movement. Love became conceived as a battle, with each attempting to destroy the other by breaking through protecting walls of ego. This was seen in the writings of Strindberg and D.H. Lawrence who wrote in this time.
The main figure to look at in the movement is Rousseau. He has been described as the father to the Romantic movement. Although, he is now not called a philosopher, he had great influence over literature, taste, philosophy, manners and politics. Since his time those who see themselves as reformers found either following himself or Locke. Sometimes the ideas would co-operate, other times have no connection at all. When writing about himself he liked the idea of being a great sinner and exaggerated this. Evidence shows he was destitute of all ordinary virtues.
He was born in Geneva and educated as an orthodox Calvinist. he had a poor father who worked as a watch maker and a dancing master. his mother died when he was young so was brought up by his aunt. He then left school at 12 years old to become an apprentice at various trades. When 16 he moved from Geneva to Savoy and visited a catholic priest asking to convert to his religion.
Most of his early years were spent as a vagabond and travelling on foot. But, in 1743 he became secretary to French ambassador to Venice who left all of the work to Rousseau but would not pay him. Rousseau preferred simple people, he married a simple woman who he then taught to read and write. He also sold his watch saying ' I no longer need it, I do not need to know the time.'
Cultured people of the 18th century still looked to him for his ideas though. In France he was greatly admired . La sensiblite, meaning proneness to emotion and emotion of sympathy, bu emotion must be direct and violent and quite uninformed by thought. Rousseau was democratic in his theories and tastes. He appealed to the already existing cult of sensibility and gave depth and scope it may not otherwise have.
Rousseau was known for having the tastes of a tramp. he disliked Parisian society. Romantics learnt contempt for trammels of conversation- first in dress and manners, then in art, love etc. Intellect was valued as the most effective weapon against subversive fanatics- manners are a barrier against barbarism.
So, what i am taking form these chapters is the idea that the value we place on the arts, literature and feelings has come from this era. It tried to go against the emphasis placed on the scientific thoughts placed on nature. The fact that we are all so social now is thanks to this this movement and the ideas of Rousseau. The movement in essence is aimed at liberating human personality from fetters of social convention and morality. Man is not a solitary animal.
The main points I felt were that from the later 18th century until now, art, literature, philosophy and politics are all influenced by the Romantic movement. Even those people who did not enjoy the way of thinking found themselves taking note of the ideas and being more affected by it than they first wished to be or though they were. Politics, through Rousseau, was connected to the movement from the beginning. In it's essential form, it is a revolt against ethical and aesetic standards.
The Romantic movement is the cultural background of most philosophical thoughts in this era, yet the beginnings of the movement were not philosophical in the slightest. Romanticism can be characterized mainly by its artistic and intellectual trends. The morals of Romanticism have aesthetic motives. The preference for Gothic architecture is an example of this. Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination, and feeling. Romantics seemed to lean against a Catholic views, yet seemed Protestant in their individualisation outlook.
Romantics did not aim for peace and quiet, but a passionate life. By the time of Rousseau people were tired of safety and wanted excitement. A revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to philosophy , politics and sentiments in the Romantic movement. Love became conceived as a battle, with each attempting to destroy the other by breaking through protecting walls of ego. This was seen in the writings of Strindberg and D.H. Lawrence who wrote in this time.
The main figure to look at in the movement is Rousseau. He has been described as the father to the Romantic movement. Although, he is now not called a philosopher, he had great influence over literature, taste, philosophy, manners and politics. Since his time those who see themselves as reformers found either following himself or Locke. Sometimes the ideas would co-operate, other times have no connection at all. When writing about himself he liked the idea of being a great sinner and exaggerated this. Evidence shows he was destitute of all ordinary virtues.
He was born in Geneva and educated as an orthodox Calvinist. he had a poor father who worked as a watch maker and a dancing master. his mother died when he was young so was brought up by his aunt. He then left school at 12 years old to become an apprentice at various trades. When 16 he moved from Geneva to Savoy and visited a catholic priest asking to convert to his religion.
Most of his early years were spent as a vagabond and travelling on foot. But, in 1743 he became secretary to French ambassador to Venice who left all of the work to Rousseau but would not pay him. Rousseau preferred simple people, he married a simple woman who he then taught to read and write. He also sold his watch saying ' I no longer need it, I do not need to know the time.'
Cultured people of the 18th century still looked to him for his ideas though. In France he was greatly admired . La sensiblite, meaning proneness to emotion and emotion of sympathy, bu emotion must be direct and violent and quite uninformed by thought. Rousseau was democratic in his theories and tastes. He appealed to the already existing cult of sensibility and gave depth and scope it may not otherwise have.
Rousseau was known for having the tastes of a tramp. he disliked Parisian society. Romantics learnt contempt for trammels of conversation- first in dress and manners, then in art, love etc. Intellect was valued as the most effective weapon against subversive fanatics- manners are a barrier against barbarism.
So, what i am taking form these chapters is the idea that the value we place on the arts, literature and feelings has come from this era. It tried to go against the emphasis placed on the scientific thoughts placed on nature. The fact that we are all so social now is thanks to this this movement and the ideas of Rousseau. The movement in essence is aimed at liberating human personality from fetters of social convention and morality. Man is not a solitary animal.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Addisison...quite a funny chap
The seminar reading this week were a few of Addison's short, and rather humorous essays. The first I read was The Spectator. The main points I picked from this were that ordered, and structured writing is of benefit to writer and reader. Addison believed that the printing press was a major development in the Field of writing and getting messages around educated people.
Locke's thoughts in this essay developed a discussion in the (very small) class of how we ourselves structure our writing and the different ways in which a piece may be best written. It was interesting to hear opposing points of view and how others write. I feel that Addison can become very bias, almost ignorant, of other people in his writing. He does not shy from making comments on different ways of doing things which are not the same as his, and being critical of them.
My favourite of the essays was The Shilling. I found it fun to read and clever in how he had described the trade scene well and managed to put in lots of description. Yet, it did not sound laboured or boring to the reader. This is another example of how I think he may slyly makes comments on other races, cultures and belief systems but tries to make them less offensive by with the use of humour.
I think we may have been asked to read these essays as they show a way of writing where you can show some bias, which as a journalist you may have to do sometimes, in a clever way which is less likely to cause upset in a community. Addison could sometimes also be called the first modern journalist. His works in Tattler and The Spectator would be among the early texts to be publically available to a wide audience.
Locke's thoughts in this essay developed a discussion in the (very small) class of how we ourselves structure our writing and the different ways in which a piece may be best written. It was interesting to hear opposing points of view and how others write. I feel that Addison can become very bias, almost ignorant, of other people in his writing. He does not shy from making comments on different ways of doing things which are not the same as his, and being critical of them.
My favourite of the essays was The Shilling. I found it fun to read and clever in how he had described the trade scene well and managed to put in lots of description. Yet, it did not sound laboured or boring to the reader. This is another example of how I think he may slyly makes comments on other races, cultures and belief systems but tries to make them less offensive by with the use of humour.
I think we may have been asked to read these essays as they show a way of writing where you can show some bias, which as a journalist you may have to do sometimes, in a clever way which is less likely to cause upset in a community. Addison could sometimes also be called the first modern journalist. His works in Tattler and The Spectator would be among the early texts to be publically available to a wide audience.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)