Here are the pre-reading questions for An Outpost of Progress by Joseph Conrad. Answer one THEN read the story.
1. Is it reasonable to expect someone to maintain his or her ideals in a corrupt environment - for instance, in a place where no one respected or obeyed the law, or treated others with dignity?
2. What are some ways that a person can be or feel - enslaved?
3. What is your definition of "civilization"? What are some advantages and disadvantages of living in a civilized society?
4. What might make a rational, sane person go mad?
Here are interpretive Note Sources for the second reading.
Mark places where Kayerts and Carlier show how unfit they are for life at the trading station.
Mark places where Kayerts and Carlier show that they are "insignificant and incapable" men.
Here are the Interpretive Questions for Discussion:
1. Why does Kayerts commit suicide when he hears the steamer's whistle?
2. Why, after so many months alone, does Kayerts feel that he hardly knows Carlier? Why does their friendship cease to strengthen with time, but instead disintegrate?
3. Why are Kayerts and Carlier more troubled than Makola about selling the station men for ivory?
4. Why does Makola despise the two white men?
5. Is Makola evil? Why is he portrayed as such a good family man? Why does he have two names - one African and one European?
6. Why, according to Conrad, does contact "with primitive nature and primitive man" bring "sudden and profound trouble into the heart"? (193)
7. Why is Kayerts' and Carlier's sense of morality unable to sustain them in the wilderness?
8. Why does trading the ivory for the men make Kayerts and Carlier feel like "something from within them was gone, something that worked for their safety"? (210)
9. Why is the quarrel between Kayerts and Carlier triggered when Carlier asks for sugar in his coffee? Why is Kayerts afraid of becoming a slave if he gives in?
10. Why do Kayerts and Carlier change their minds about accepting the ivory tusks that Makola secures by selling the ten company station men?
11. Why is Kayerts so upset when Carlier refers to him as a "stingy old slave-dealer"? (212)
12. Why does killing Carlier cause Kayerts to think that all his thoughts and convictions were "contemptible and childish, false and ridiculous"? (216)
13. What is the "highest wisdom" with which Kayerts becomes familiar on the night after he shoots Carlier? Why does he feel at peace in the conviction that his life has no more secrets from him? (217)
14. Why is the fate of the two white men made to depend on Gobila?
15. Why does Conrad say that "belief in ...safety" is the essence of character? (193) Why does he say that fear is the one indestructible emotion? (209)
Passages for Textual Analysis
Page 193: beginning, "The two men watched the steamer," and ending, "and tries the civilized nerves of the foolish and the wise alike."
pages 208 - 209: beginning, "I can see it!" and ending, "Of course; let him decide,' approved Carlier."
pages 209-210: beginning, "At midday they made a hearty meal," and ending, "to envelop them with a solicitude irrestistible, familiar, and disgusting."
Pages 216-217: beginning, "Night came," and ending, "Help!...My God!"
Post-Discussion Writing
1. Are people evil because human nature is flawed or because our society is flawed?
2. Does our complex society make it more difficult to know and accept one's true nature?
3. Is there "progress" in human nature?
4. You are a talk show host and Makola (Mr. Price) comes on as your guest. What questions would you ask him? How would he answer your questions?
5. Do you think anyone in the position of Kayerts and Carlier would eventually go mad, as they did?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
homework for 5-15-09
Just a reminder (and information for Juliana), we should do the post discussion question (whatever length you so desire), and then post the answer to the blog.
In addition to that, we also need to to the exercise at the end of "an essay in aesthetics" which is entitled "writing interpretive questions".
-bob
In addition to that, we also need to to the exercise at the end of "an essay in aesthetics" which is entitled "writing interpretive questions".
-bob
Interpretive Question Essay
How does artistic vision difer from ordinary perception?
An ordinary bystander merely sees in the world the necessary objects in her life; in other words, she is unable to see beyond the immediate things in life, immersed as she is in the events and occurrences than can affect only her. Contrastingly, the artist, in her line of work, is many times forced to open her eyes up to a broader view of her surroundings and is then aware of so many other things that the ordinary bystander was simply unable to see. In short, artistic vision gives one the opportunity to experience a greater degree of conscious awareness in her life. This advantage is much harder to achieve and experience when viewing the world through ordinary perception.
In the modern world, speed and efficiency are the prevailing and overall preferred modes of living. Commercials advertise products designed for people on the go. Meals, houshold appliances, and so many other products that we use in our day-to-day lives boast of having the ability to free up our time. But many argue, myself included, that the western world seems to be speed racing through life and is no longer able to appreciate it.
As we rush through our day, our perception of our immediate atmosphere becomes a blur, and we are only able to see what we need to see. Necessity takes precedence. We are unable to witness some of the very true and important aspects in our lives. Roger Fry claims that these aspects often wear a "cap of invisibility". Ordinary perception is extremely limited in what it can see and experience. It is as if we are like horses with our blinders on. We are simply unable to see objects outside of our direct lin of vision. Now some may argue that without these blinders, we would become hopelessly distracted, and never have a direct path in life to follow. But I disagree, because we are more focused only because we have less to focus on. We are living in ignorance by using only our ordinary perception.
I feel that artistic vision and conscious awareness go hand in hand. The artist, when examining a landscape or event must be fully aware of what's going on in the given place and time. I'm not saying that an artist's goal in doing so is to simply replicate the situation in her art. In fact, many artists try to distort reality in their works. But whether the artist wishes to portray or distort reality, she still must have an understanding of it. She has to know the situation, object, or person she's studying in order to manipulate it in her work. So in all venues of art, a full appreciation and unerstanding of whatever it is the artist wishes to portray or distort is essential. This appreciation and understanding is accomplished by using artistic vision, or what I believe is conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness is what comes about when one if fully immersed in the present moment. One tries to be consciously aware of everything that is going on around her. She focuses on the sights, sounds, and sensations her body is going through, but at the same time tries to quiet her mind. Many cultures and belief systems refer to this a meditation. Conscious awareness comes in spurts; it is very hard to maintain for long periods of time. But these flashes of true awareness gives one a great apppreciation for life, or at least it does so for me. For the artist, a degree of this awareness is vital in her line of work. So the difference between ordinary perception and artistic vision is the presence of conscious awareness. In ordinary perception, there is a lack of conscious awarenesss. But in artistic vision, conscious awareness is essential.
An ordinary bystander merely sees in the world the necessary objects in her life; in other words, she is unable to see beyond the immediate things in life, immersed as she is in the events and occurrences than can affect only her. Contrastingly, the artist, in her line of work, is many times forced to open her eyes up to a broader view of her surroundings and is then aware of so many other things that the ordinary bystander was simply unable to see. In short, artistic vision gives one the opportunity to experience a greater degree of conscious awareness in her life. This advantage is much harder to achieve and experience when viewing the world through ordinary perception.
In the modern world, speed and efficiency are the prevailing and overall preferred modes of living. Commercials advertise products designed for people on the go. Meals, houshold appliances, and so many other products that we use in our day-to-day lives boast of having the ability to free up our time. But many argue, myself included, that the western world seems to be speed racing through life and is no longer able to appreciate it.
As we rush through our day, our perception of our immediate atmosphere becomes a blur, and we are only able to see what we need to see. Necessity takes precedence. We are unable to witness some of the very true and important aspects in our lives. Roger Fry claims that these aspects often wear a "cap of invisibility". Ordinary perception is extremely limited in what it can see and experience. It is as if we are like horses with our blinders on. We are simply unable to see objects outside of our direct lin of vision. Now some may argue that without these blinders, we would become hopelessly distracted, and never have a direct path in life to follow. But I disagree, because we are more focused only because we have less to focus on. We are living in ignorance by using only our ordinary perception.
I feel that artistic vision and conscious awareness go hand in hand. The artist, when examining a landscape or event must be fully aware of what's going on in the given place and time. I'm not saying that an artist's goal in doing so is to simply replicate the situation in her art. In fact, many artists try to distort reality in their works. But whether the artist wishes to portray or distort reality, she still must have an understanding of it. She has to know the situation, object, or person she's studying in order to manipulate it in her work. So in all venues of art, a full appreciation and unerstanding of whatever it is the artist wishes to portray or distort is essential. This appreciation and understanding is accomplished by using artistic vision, or what I believe is conscious awareness.
Conscious awareness is what comes about when one if fully immersed in the present moment. One tries to be consciously aware of everything that is going on around her. She focuses on the sights, sounds, and sensations her body is going through, but at the same time tries to quiet her mind. Many cultures and belief systems refer to this a meditation. Conscious awareness comes in spurts; it is very hard to maintain for long periods of time. But these flashes of true awareness gives one a great apppreciation for life, or at least it does so for me. For the artist, a degree of this awareness is vital in her line of work. So the difference between ordinary perception and artistic vision is the presence of conscious awareness. In ordinary perception, there is a lack of conscious awarenesss. But in artistic vision, conscious awareness is essential.
fry interpretive essay
I'm pretty sure that this was what I was supposed to write...
(and please forgive my spelling and grammar, I'm too tired to proof read right now)
(and please forgive my spelling and grammar, I'm too tired to proof read right now)
Does art distort reality, or portray it more exactly?
Galen Schmidt
In our actual lives, we can never experience our emotions purely. Because almost all actions demand a reaction, we cannot stop and think about what it is that we have just witnessed, or what it was we just felt. With art, whether it be a picture, a book or a movie, we are free from that requirement placed upon us in our ordinary lives that we respond to what we have just seen. Because of this, we can stop and contemplate the actions that we have just seen, the words we have just read, or the picture that we have just looked at. It is in this way that art can portray reality more exactly by distorting it.
Take film for example. Most movies portray events that are never likely to happen, or are flat out fictitious. But when watching a movie, we may realize that they are portraying our own lives, our own problems, and helping us to see them clearer (more clearly?). When viewing but not actually engaged in an activity, there is, as fry points out an “emotional purity” within oneself. You do not have to react to what is happening, and therefor having no lasting emotional stake in the outcome of the event, you are free to feel what is truly happening, instead of simply reacting to it.
If you were in a car accident, you would naturally have to “stuff you emotions away”, as it were. You would be spending time helping people, filing a police report, and just trying to clean up. So later, when you had time to think about the emotional impact of what had happened, the memories would be fuzzier, the emotions more blurred. However, if you were watching a car accident in a movie, you would, in a sense, be “free” of your obligation to help, and so you could simply feel the emotional impact of what has just happened.
It is said that “time heals all wounds”, and it is especially true with emotional wounds. Our brains tend to try and block out the bad ones, and highlight the good ones. But with art, we can preserve an instant in time, and all of it's emotional power over us. A piece of art can completely distort reality, but if it truly captures an emotion, then it has succeeded in portraying it more exactly than any true rendition ever could.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Art etc...
this was the question i chose for this week's discussion. i hope it makes sense. i think i kinda went off topic at some point, i don't know.
Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
When an artist creates a painting, drawing, sculpture, or anything that is aesthetically appealing, they are giving the viewer the opportunity to look into their mind for one moment, to poosibly understand what it was that they were feeling or thinking when they created their piece.
Take, for instance, some of the great works of art from Picasso, DaVinci, VanGogh, Bernini, Dali, and Velazquez. They all put out so many wonderful examples of how they saw the world in their time, and shared their ideas with the public. Without these viewpoints there would be a great decline in the amount of art in this world. Not only because the artists wouldn't be displaying their art or even creating them, but also because differnt artists were inspired by each other and sometimes worked off of one another's ideas and techniques.
So in a way, depending on how you look at it, if you took away art, you would really be taking away a part of the "active imagination". Slowly, the creativity found in humans would decline and could most likely be non-existant after a short period of time. Therefore, art is one of the many links in the chain of the "active imagination" and taking it away would make the imagination weaker.
-Juliana
Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
When an artist creates a painting, drawing, sculpture, or anything that is aesthetically appealing, they are giving the viewer the opportunity to look into their mind for one moment, to poosibly understand what it was that they were feeling or thinking when they created their piece.
Take, for instance, some of the great works of art from Picasso, DaVinci, VanGogh, Bernini, Dali, and Velazquez. They all put out so many wonderful examples of how they saw the world in their time, and shared their ideas with the public. Without these viewpoints there would be a great decline in the amount of art in this world. Not only because the artists wouldn't be displaying their art or even creating them, but also because differnt artists were inspired by each other and sometimes worked off of one another's ideas and techniques.
So in a way, depending on how you look at it, if you took away art, you would really be taking away a part of the "active imagination". Slowly, the creativity found in humans would decline and could most likely be non-existant after a short period of time. Therefore, art is one of the many links in the chain of the "active imagination" and taking it away would make the imagination weaker.
-Juliana
Thursday, April 30, 2009
An Essay in Aesthetics by Roger Fry
Prereading Questions
1. What makes something a work of art?
2. Why do human beings, even cave men, create art?
3. Can something that is very ugly be a great work of art?
4. Is art important?
5. How is watching a movie of a dangerous situation different from being in a dangerous situation?
6. Present to the class a few pictures from various periods of art - e.g., realistic, impressionistic, abstract - or paintings by very different artists, such as Michelangelo and Andy Warhol. Have students discuss whether or why these are all works of art.
7. Look closely for several minutes at some object (or person) that is very familiar to you, making a list of aspects or details you had not really noticed, before.
Interpretive Note Sources (first reading)
Mark places where Fry says something about how art affects our emotions.
Mark places where Fry describes our "imaginative life."
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does Fry think there is every reason for some works of art to be ugly?
2. Does Fry think art can affect our actions?
3. How would Fry explain why some works of art gain immediate recognition and others gain recognition only after a long period of time?
4. Can an object created for use, such as a china pot, become a work of art?
5. Does the artist have a moral responsibility?
6. Can art evoke undesirable emotions, such as hate and fear?
7. Why does Fry call the imaginative life "secondary"? (179)
8. Why does Fry consider art the chief organ of the imaginative life?
9. Why do we need art if we already have active imaginations?
10. Why is recognition of the artist's purpose an essential part of the aesthetic judgment?
11. How does artistic vision differ from ordinary perception?
12. Why are the emotions of the imaginative life weaker but more pure? (178)
13. Why does Fry think it is important for people occasionally both to "feel" and to "watch" their emotions? (180)
14. Why do the things that are useful to us wear a "cap of invisibility"? (179)
15. Does art distort reality, or portray it more exactly?
Passages for Textual Analysis
Pages 176-177; beginning, "I must begin with some elementary psychology, " and ending, "and a different kind of perception."
Pages 179-180: beginning, "Art, then, is, if I am right, the chief organ," and ending, "our own time that there is no need to prove it."
Pages 181-182: beginning, "If, then, an object of any kind is created, and ending, "supremely and magnificently ugly."
Post-Discussion Writing
1. What is the difference between "good" and "bad" art?
2. Can we be "actors" and "spectators" at the same time?
3. Are there other ways besides art that we can "get in touch" with our imaginative lives?
4. Is everyone an artist in something?
5. Is an experience of "pure emotion" a worthwhile end in itself?
6. Is censorship ever justified?
7. Can a painting by a donkey with a brush tied to his tail be great art?
8. What accounts for the feeling of beauty a work of art gives you?
9. How has a work of art - a painting or a piece of music - enabled you to experience the world differently?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O'Connor
OK - Guys. Answer one of the pre-reading questions (which are really great, by the way). Then go ahead and do your first reading. This is for the next class.
Prereading Questions
1. Is it better to confront unpleasant circumstances squarely, or to minimize problems by putting on a happy face?
2. In what ways might children be wiser than their parents?
3. Have you ever wanted to teach another persona a good "lesson" about himself or herself?
4. What is self-deception?
5. Why do people sometimes find it easier to live in the past than in the present?
6. Should we accept those we love as they are, or should we try to change their faults?
Interpretive Note Source (Second Reading)
Mark places where Julian is being himself and places where he is being dominated by his mother.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does Julian's mother become so upset that she suffers a stroke?
2. Why is the black woman enraged at her son's behavior with Julian's mother?
3. Why does O'Connor have Julian's mother and the black woman wear the same hats?
4. Why do both Julian and his mother revert to childhood at the end of the story?
5. Why does Julian have fantasies about black people?
6. why is the black child attracted to Julian's mother?
7. Why does Julian's mother play with the black child and try to give him a coin?
8. Why does Julian speak of his grandfather's mansion with contempt but think of it with longing?
9. Why is Julian annoyed by the fact that his mother can put a bright face on her suffering?
10. Why are Julian's efforts to communicate with black people unsuccessful?
11. Why does Julian insist that he sees his mother with "absolute clarity"? (155)
12. Who deals better with change, Julian or his mother?
13. Why does Julian feel free only when he withdraws?
14. Why can't Julian break away from his mother? Why can he oppose her, but not break with her?
15. Why is Julian depressed by everything that gives his mother pleasure?
16. Why does Julian want to break his mother's spirit? (153)
17. Why is Julian unwilling to let his mother live in the "fantasy world" of the past? (155)
18. Why does Julian never do any of the things he dreams about? Why is he unable to put his noble ideas into action?
Passages for Textual Analysis
Page 152: beginning, "Well let's talk about something pleasant," and ending, "She called her insensitivity 'being adjustable."
Pages 155 - 156 beginning, "Behind the newspaper Julian was withdrawing into the inner compartment," and ending, "He was not dominated by his mother."
Pages 164-167: beginning, "He picked up her pocketbook," to the end of the story.
Post-Discussion Writing
1. If you were writing an advice column, what would you say to Julian and his mother to help them get along better?
2. How much respect should children show their parents when they think their parents are wrong?
3. When is a person really "grown up"?
4. Have you ever had Julian's experience of thinking you could see clearly, when in fact you were blind?
5. Is Julian or his mother more responsible for their unhappy relationship?
Prereading Questions
1. Is it better to confront unpleasant circumstances squarely, or to minimize problems by putting on a happy face?
2. In what ways might children be wiser than their parents?
3. Have you ever wanted to teach another persona a good "lesson" about himself or herself?
4. What is self-deception?
5. Why do people sometimes find it easier to live in the past than in the present?
6. Should we accept those we love as they are, or should we try to change their faults?
Interpretive Note Source (Second Reading)
Mark places where Julian is being himself and places where he is being dominated by his mother.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does Julian's mother become so upset that she suffers a stroke?
2. Why is the black woman enraged at her son's behavior with Julian's mother?
3. Why does O'Connor have Julian's mother and the black woman wear the same hats?
4. Why do both Julian and his mother revert to childhood at the end of the story?
5. Why does Julian have fantasies about black people?
6. why is the black child attracted to Julian's mother?
7. Why does Julian's mother play with the black child and try to give him a coin?
8. Why does Julian speak of his grandfather's mansion with contempt but think of it with longing?
9. Why is Julian annoyed by the fact that his mother can put a bright face on her suffering?
10. Why are Julian's efforts to communicate with black people unsuccessful?
11. Why does Julian insist that he sees his mother with "absolute clarity"? (155)
12. Who deals better with change, Julian or his mother?
13. Why does Julian feel free only when he withdraws?
14. Why can't Julian break away from his mother? Why can he oppose her, but not break with her?
15. Why is Julian depressed by everything that gives his mother pleasure?
16. Why does Julian want to break his mother's spirit? (153)
17. Why is Julian unwilling to let his mother live in the "fantasy world" of the past? (155)
18. Why does Julian never do any of the things he dreams about? Why is he unable to put his noble ideas into action?
Passages for Textual Analysis
Page 152: beginning, "Well let's talk about something pleasant," and ending, "She called her insensitivity 'being adjustable."
Pages 155 - 156 beginning, "Behind the newspaper Julian was withdrawing into the inner compartment," and ending, "He was not dominated by his mother."
Pages 164-167: beginning, "He picked up her pocketbook," to the end of the story.
Post-Discussion Writing
1. If you were writing an advice column, what would you say to Julian and his mother to help them get along better?
2. How much respect should children show their parents when they think their parents are wrong?
3. When is a person really "grown up"?
4. Have you ever had Julian's experience of thinking you could see clearly, when in fact you were blind?
5. Is Julian or his mother more responsible for their unhappy relationship?
Friday, March 13, 2009
here is my question and answer to our discussion questions.
Can nature ever answer questions that are not asked?
Usually when someone asks a question there is some reason behind it. For example, when the Greeks asked how far the sun was from Earth, they had a reason to find an answer to their question. This is also the case whenever a scientist come up with a hypothesis and needs to prove it. They go to great lengths conducting numerous experiments to prove this theory. Sometimes they are successful, a lot of times they aren’t.
But what is the case when a question is never asked? Can it still be answered? I think that in some instances this could be true, but it would probably be very hard to find such an example. Even the context surrounding this question that I’m trying to answer had to be asked by somebody, and I’m the one that is trying to answer it.
This reminds me of the brain teaser question that asks if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise? The same basic concept applies here; how is it that we would be able to know if nature has answered a question that hasn’t been asked? Even though we’re not there to hear the question doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been asked or answered.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible for nature to answer a question that hasn’t been asked, simply that we may not be aware of it happening around us.
Can nature ever answer questions that are not asked?
Usually when someone asks a question there is some reason behind it. For example, when the Greeks asked how far the sun was from Earth, they had a reason to find an answer to their question. This is also the case whenever a scientist come up with a hypothesis and needs to prove it. They go to great lengths conducting numerous experiments to prove this theory. Sometimes they are successful, a lot of times they aren’t.
But what is the case when a question is never asked? Can it still be answered? I think that in some instances this could be true, but it would probably be very hard to find such an example. Even the context surrounding this question that I’m trying to answer had to be asked by somebody, and I’m the one that is trying to answer it.
This reminds me of the brain teaser question that asks if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise? The same basic concept applies here; how is it that we would be able to know if nature has answered a question that hasn’t been asked? Even though we’re not there to hear the question doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been asked or answered.
I’m not saying that it’s impossible for nature to answer a question that hasn’t been asked, simply that we may not be aware of it happening around us.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tocqueville Essay
Is a new "aristocracy", based on talent and ambition, necessarily a bad thing?
I think that the new "aristocracy" based on talent and ambition that Tocqueville describes is definitely a step up from the more conventional aristocracy. In the old aristocracy, individuals were for the most part, immobile, and could not improve their fixed position in society. The good thing about this new aristocracy is that a person can create a better life for him or herself, based on their talent and ambition. This, I feel, is surely a more natural way of living. It's comparable to both Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and Smith's Division of Labor, in that the people most suited to their particular environment or task will rise - in this particular case, to the top of the new aristocracy. The ideal outcome of this image would be a society where each and every individual is able to excell at his or her particular skill. But this Utopian view point does not consider the factor of competition.
Competition is what creates the different tiers of an industrial aristocracy. Out of this competition rise a few individuals who are very talented at what they do, and also very ambitious. I believe these individuals who use their talent to rise to the top deserve to be there. But what about the others whose talent is not great enough? The untalented and unambitious are now the ones in fixed positions in this new society. This argument is a very tough one, and I guess I'm still struggling with it. On one hand, I believe that people with talents and skills should be able to make their way in the world. But on the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the ordinary mass is unable to advance because of the exceptional few. But while competition creates differences within a society, it also fuels individuals' advancement by creating ambition. Without the wish to excell among each other, we would all remain immobile. So, just as a new aristocracy based on talent and ambition is a two sided argument, so is competition.
In her book, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand delves more deeply into this new contradictory aristocracy. She takes the side of the talented and few, by arguing that talent and ambition are absolutely essential in order for a society to function. She tells a story of how a group of very talented, ambitious, and powerful people are condemned by the rest of society for being too talented and too ambitious. They are expected to withhold their talents, and are unable to perform to the best of their ability, for fear of hurting the rest of society's opportunites. Eventually, the government completely restricts them and helps the ordinary citizens rise to power. But because of this, the talented ones aren't able to do their job, and the rest of society fails at attempting to do so. So by trying to provide everyone a fair chance in this aristocratic competition - by letting the less talented individuals get a head start - society malfunctions. Rand is convinced that the talented and ambitious few are the glue that holds society together.
Before I started reading Atlas Shrugged, I hadn't considered Rand's view point. And at first, I was bound and determined not to agree with her. I held fast to the conviction that everyone should have a fair chance in society - and still do. But I eventually had to admit that she has a point. It just doesn't make sense to allow people who don't know what they're doing to do the work at the expense of the few who actually can.
So the answer to this question can be either a yes or a no. It just depends on whose side you're on. Or if you're like me, stuck in the middle examining both sides of the argument, the answer can be both. Yes, I do believe that an aristocracy based on talent and ambition can be a bad thing, but I also believe that it can be a good thing.
I think that the new "aristocracy" based on talent and ambition that Tocqueville describes is definitely a step up from the more conventional aristocracy. In the old aristocracy, individuals were for the most part, immobile, and could not improve their fixed position in society. The good thing about this new aristocracy is that a person can create a better life for him or herself, based on their talent and ambition. This, I feel, is surely a more natural way of living. It's comparable to both Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and Smith's Division of Labor, in that the people most suited to their particular environment or task will rise - in this particular case, to the top of the new aristocracy. The ideal outcome of this image would be a society where each and every individual is able to excell at his or her particular skill. But this Utopian view point does not consider the factor of competition.
Competition is what creates the different tiers of an industrial aristocracy. Out of this competition rise a few individuals who are very talented at what they do, and also very ambitious. I believe these individuals who use their talent to rise to the top deserve to be there. But what about the others whose talent is not great enough? The untalented and unambitious are now the ones in fixed positions in this new society. This argument is a very tough one, and I guess I'm still struggling with it. On one hand, I believe that people with talents and skills should be able to make their way in the world. But on the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the ordinary mass is unable to advance because of the exceptional few. But while competition creates differences within a society, it also fuels individuals' advancement by creating ambition. Without the wish to excell among each other, we would all remain immobile. So, just as a new aristocracy based on talent and ambition is a two sided argument, so is competition.
In her book, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand delves more deeply into this new contradictory aristocracy. She takes the side of the talented and few, by arguing that talent and ambition are absolutely essential in order for a society to function. She tells a story of how a group of very talented, ambitious, and powerful people are condemned by the rest of society for being too talented and too ambitious. They are expected to withhold their talents, and are unable to perform to the best of their ability, for fear of hurting the rest of society's opportunites. Eventually, the government completely restricts them and helps the ordinary citizens rise to power. But because of this, the talented ones aren't able to do their job, and the rest of society fails at attempting to do so. So by trying to provide everyone a fair chance in this aristocratic competition - by letting the less talented individuals get a head start - society malfunctions. Rand is convinced that the talented and ambitious few are the glue that holds society together.
Before I started reading Atlas Shrugged, I hadn't considered Rand's view point. And at first, I was bound and determined not to agree with her. I held fast to the conviction that everyone should have a fair chance in society - and still do. But I eventually had to admit that she has a point. It just doesn't make sense to allow people who don't know what they're doing to do the work at the expense of the few who actually can.
So the answer to this question can be either a yes or a no. It just depends on whose side you're on. Or if you're like me, stuck in the middle examining both sides of the argument, the answer can be both. Yes, I do believe that an aristocracy based on talent and ambition can be a bad thing, but I also believe that it can be a good thing.
Questions for Observation and Experiment
HERE ARE THE PRE-READING QUESTIONS. PICK ONE. ANSWER IT. THEN READ THE SELECTION WITH THE INTERPRETIVE NOTE SOURCE IN MIND (IS IS BELOW THE PRE-READING QUESTIONS).
Pre-Reading Questions
1. Is reason or imagination the more important tool for learning about the world?
2. Are there limits to what science can discover?
3. Can a person know a lot of facts and still be ignorant?
4. Why do two people observing the same thing frequently disagree about what they have seen?
5. How would you go about setting up an experiment to determine whether people are more or less friendly to you when you are wearing the color red?
6. Why is it often so hard for people to admit that an idea of theirs is wrong?
Interpretive Note Source (first reading)
Mark places where Bernard points out something good, or bad, about a scientist having preconceived ideas.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does formulating ideas in science require both reasoning and imagination?
2. According to Bernard, why can't we learn from nature just by observing?
3. Can facts be discovered without ideas?
4. Why does Bernard insist that experiment and observation are distinct but not separate? (137 - 138)
5. Is it desirable for the experimenter and the observer to be different people?
6. Can nature ever answer questions that are not asked?
7. For Bernard,does scientific investigation begin with an idea or a fact?
8. What does Bernard mean when he says "we never conceive a question without an idea which invites an answer"? (139)
9. Why does Bernard call facts discovered from hypotheses that turn out to be false, "indestructible materials for science"? (141)
10. Why does Bernard reject "utterly" specialization in the theory of science? (142)
11. According to Bernard, is the knowledge won by experimental science primarily factual or theoretical? (142-143)
12. Why are failed experiments valuable to scientists?
13. Why does Bernard think that observation does not involve any preconceived ideas?
14. Does Bernard think a scientist's pursuit of truth is ever completed?
Post Discussion Writing
1. Why do some people view science with hostility or suspicion?
2. Are you an observer or an experimenter?
3. Is science unable to solve the really difficult questions of life?
4. Through science, will human beings eventually know everything, or is the pursuit of knowledge endless?
5. Are you more likely to base your actions on ideas or observations?
6. Are there widely-accepted theories in society for which there are few, if any, supporting observations?
7. Do all "facts" have an element of personal interpretation in them?
Pre-Reading Questions
1. Is reason or imagination the more important tool for learning about the world?
2. Are there limits to what science can discover?
3. Can a person know a lot of facts and still be ignorant?
4. Why do two people observing the same thing frequently disagree about what they have seen?
5. How would you go about setting up an experiment to determine whether people are more or less friendly to you when you are wearing the color red?
6. Why is it often so hard for people to admit that an idea of theirs is wrong?
Interpretive Note Source (first reading)
Mark places where Bernard points out something good, or bad, about a scientist having preconceived ideas.
Interpretive Questions for Discussion
1. Why does formulating ideas in science require both reasoning and imagination?
2. According to Bernard, why can't we learn from nature just by observing?
3. Can facts be discovered without ideas?
4. Why does Bernard insist that experiment and observation are distinct but not separate? (137 - 138)
5. Is it desirable for the experimenter and the observer to be different people?
6. Can nature ever answer questions that are not asked?
7. For Bernard,does scientific investigation begin with an idea or a fact?
8. What does Bernard mean when he says "we never conceive a question without an idea which invites an answer"? (139)
9. Why does Bernard call facts discovered from hypotheses that turn out to be false, "indestructible materials for science"? (141)
10. Why does Bernard reject "utterly" specialization in the theory of science? (142)
11. According to Bernard, is the knowledge won by experimental science primarily factual or theoretical? (142-143)
12. Why are failed experiments valuable to scientists?
13. Why does Bernard think that observation does not involve any preconceived ideas?
14. Does Bernard think a scientist's pursuit of truth is ever completed?
Post Discussion Writing
1. Why do some people view science with hostility or suspicion?
2. Are you an observer or an experimenter?
3. Is science unable to solve the really difficult questions of life?
4. Through science, will human beings eventually know everything, or is the pursuit of knowledge endless?
5. Are you more likely to base your actions on ideas or observations?
6. Are there widely-accepted theories in society for which there are few, if any, supporting observations?
7. Do all "facts" have an element of personal interpretation in them?
Essay
When Tocqueville got to have his say, the situation for workers was dire. They would put a person to work on the same task day in and day out, until that was all that person could do. And with no chance for promotion, and no hope for ever getting out. However, this is no longer the case. Nowadays there is still an aristocracy, but it is a reformed one. Now workers can spend many years doing the same task, but there is hope for promotion, and because of the further division of labor, even when they are still stuck doing their job, they can do things after work that will keep their mind active and prevent stagnation.
In the days of old, you were assigned a particular job, and unless you had some great wealth or influence, you would likely be assigned the position that no one else wanted. The people who manufactured the very base essentials of society. A society which considered itself so “reformed”, yet could not exist without the continual effort and destruction of the factory worker. Destruction of their mind, destruction of their spirit, and destruction of any hope they had of being in the society that could not exist without them. But there were those, like Tocquville, who realized this and attempted to at the very least let it be known by future generations what had really happened. And he reported what he saw.
Because of people like Tocqueville, those who saw the darker, more sinister side of society, we now have made not steps, but leaps of progress. In the post-modern world, for the most part has moved beyond such tyranny. And whenever injustice towards workers begins, reporters will let it be known, people will protest, and something that Tocqueville never lived to see, the workers will organize themselves and go on strike. In effect, it is all but impossible for a true aristocracy to develop, for the inequalities shall never grow large enough to allow such an aristocracy to develop.
This is not to say that it is all rosy. There is still a huge number of people whom are forced to work long hours, at repetitive tasks, for the majority of their lives, and without any hope of promotion. And as was the case in the past, they make up the very most base of our society. These people are the most important part of our society, yet the most ignored, and the least thought about. Many of them live in conditions that we would consider uninhabitable, and lead lives that we would think were unlivable. And the worst part? Their misery is completely our fault. It is our fault that they live hoping that tomorrow will be better. Our fault that they must work with little to no hope of something as simple as retirement. And how is it our fault? Because of our insatiable desire for cheapness in money, no matter what the cost is ethically. Because we continue to buy from the companies that own them, they stay in business. We claim to hate these people's plight, yet we complain whenever prices rise. We claim to be compassionate, yet do nothing as more and more companies buy into the scheme. We care for the people, but we care for ourselves more.
When Alexis De Tocqueville wrote his piece, the aristocracy he saw was terrible. Now, the entire world has succumbed to aristocracy, and is simply made up of democracies. Perhaps this is the ultimate end, for every happiness, there is an equal unhappiness somewhere else. Perhaps all that democracy is simply a Sand-castle. You can build it as big and as complex and as stable as you want to, but it will still be destroyed the next time the tide of aristocracy comes rushing in. if this is not so, then how is it that china, the worlds largest aristocracy has an economy matched by none, and the US, now that it has turned it's economy into a democracy, is now floundering? And just think, when you think about it, the entire world is simply one huge aristocracy, with the first world countries on top, being supported by the third world countries beneath.
I still have hope, however. If the human race can evolve past greed, past all prejudice, then all of this is reversible, and a stable democracy can finally be realized.
In the days of old, you were assigned a particular job, and unless you had some great wealth or influence, you would likely be assigned the position that no one else wanted. The people who manufactured the very base essentials of society. A society which considered itself so “reformed”, yet could not exist without the continual effort and destruction of the factory worker. Destruction of their mind, destruction of their spirit, and destruction of any hope they had of being in the society that could not exist without them. But there were those, like Tocquville, who realized this and attempted to at the very least let it be known by future generations what had really happened. And he reported what he saw.
Because of people like Tocqueville, those who saw the darker, more sinister side of society, we now have made not steps, but leaps of progress. In the post-modern world, for the most part has moved beyond such tyranny. And whenever injustice towards workers begins, reporters will let it be known, people will protest, and something that Tocqueville never lived to see, the workers will organize themselves and go on strike. In effect, it is all but impossible for a true aristocracy to develop, for the inequalities shall never grow large enough to allow such an aristocracy to develop.
This is not to say that it is all rosy. There is still a huge number of people whom are forced to work long hours, at repetitive tasks, for the majority of their lives, and without any hope of promotion. And as was the case in the past, they make up the very most base of our society. These people are the most important part of our society, yet the most ignored, and the least thought about. Many of them live in conditions that we would consider uninhabitable, and lead lives that we would think were unlivable. And the worst part? Their misery is completely our fault. It is our fault that they live hoping that tomorrow will be better. Our fault that they must work with little to no hope of something as simple as retirement. And how is it our fault? Because of our insatiable desire for cheapness in money, no matter what the cost is ethically. Because we continue to buy from the companies that own them, they stay in business. We claim to hate these people's plight, yet we complain whenever prices rise. We claim to be compassionate, yet do nothing as more and more companies buy into the scheme. We care for the people, but we care for ourselves more.
When Alexis De Tocqueville wrote his piece, the aristocracy he saw was terrible. Now, the entire world has succumbed to aristocracy, and is simply made up of democracies. Perhaps this is the ultimate end, for every happiness, there is an equal unhappiness somewhere else. Perhaps all that democracy is simply a Sand-castle. You can build it as big and as complex and as stable as you want to, but it will still be destroyed the next time the tide of aristocracy comes rushing in. if this is not so, then how is it that china, the worlds largest aristocracy has an economy matched by none, and the US, now that it has turned it's economy into a democracy, is now floundering? And just think, when you think about it, the entire world is simply one huge aristocracy, with the first world countries on top, being supported by the third world countries beneath.
I still have hope, however. If the human race can evolve past greed, past all prejudice, then all of this is reversible, and a stable democracy can finally be realized.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
General Confusion
I just posted the pre-reading questions. Then I read further back and saw that I had already posted the pre-reading questions. Did we go over them? I can't remember. If we did, then you're supposed to be reading the assignment with an interpretive note source (I posted that with the pre-reading questions).
Here it is...you've got 2 days!
Here are your pre-reading questions for How an Aristocracy May Be Created by Industry by Alexis de Toqueville. Remember you can make this as short or long as you want. The idea is to make your point - so if you can do that in a few words - fine. If you want to explore your thoughts more fully and go into free-form, that is fine, too. Don't do it just to "do" it. These are some really awesome questions, especially now that our world is on the cusp of change.
Following the pre-reading questions, I am posting all of the additional assignments for this reading. Don't do them until they're assigned.
Pre-reading Questions
1. How would you define "aristocracy?"
"Noblesse oblige"?
2. What obligation do rich people have to help those with less money?
3. In American, can we become whatever we want, or are we limited by circumstances?
4. How might it be a threat to our democracy for some people to be better off than others?
5. Have you ever had to stay with a job you didn't like?
6. Are the president of a large corporation and his or her employees like a monarch and his or her subjects?
Interpretive Note Sources
Mark places where Tocqueville points out a danger to democracy.
Mark places where Tocqueville describes how the development of industry affects the workers who make the products.
Discussion Questions
1. Why does Tocqueville think that democracy constantly tends toward inequality?
2. Why does Tocqueville say that the worker has been assigned to a certain "position in society" instead of to a certain job? (125)
3. Why does Tocqueville think that "industrial theory" exerts a stronger influence on the factory worker than "morality or law"? (125)
4. Does Tocqueville blame the industrial aristocracy for the brutish existence of the factory workers?
5. Why don't the "impoverished and brutalized" workers revolt against their harsh industrial masters? (128)
6. Why doesn't the industrial aristocracy feel any obligation to help its workers in hard and difficult times? (128)
7. Why does the division of labor make the worker "weaker, more limited, and more dependent"? (125)
8. Why does Tocqueville call the new aristocracy a "monstrosity""? (127)
9. Why does Tocqueville stress that the new aristocracy will be made up not only of the rich, but of the "well-educated"? (125)
10. Why does Tocqueville assume that a worker cannot improve his position in society, no matter how hard he tries?
11. Why does Tocqueville see danger to democracy not in the degraded mass of workers, but in the new aristocracy?
12. Why doesn't he industrial aristocracy "know its own mind," and why can't it act? (128)
13. Why does the workman continually engage in making one object become "more adroit" but "less industrious"? (125)
14. Is there anything the worker can do to prevent the creation of the new aristocracy?
Post-Discussion Writing
1. What would Tocqueville say to Adam Smith about his faith in the division of labor?
2. Can a person be as happy working on an assembly line as owning one?
3. Do you agree with Tocqueville that a person who does a repetitive job loses the power to think?
4. Is a new "aristocracy," based on talent and ambition necessarily a bad thing?
5. Do you think Tocqueville would be in favor of labor unions?
6. Should we use robots rather than workers on assembly lines? Would this help or aggravate the plight of the worker?
Following the pre-reading questions, I am posting all of the additional assignments for this reading. Don't do them until they're assigned.
Pre-reading Questions
1. How would you define "aristocracy?"
"Noblesse oblige"?
2. What obligation do rich people have to help those with less money?
3. In American, can we become whatever we want, or are we limited by circumstances?
4. How might it be a threat to our democracy for some people to be better off than others?
5. Have you ever had to stay with a job you didn't like?
6. Are the president of a large corporation and his or her employees like a monarch and his or her subjects?
Interpretive Note Sources
Mark places where Tocqueville points out a danger to democracy.
Mark places where Tocqueville describes how the development of industry affects the workers who make the products.
Discussion Questions
1. Why does Tocqueville think that democracy constantly tends toward inequality?
2. Why does Tocqueville say that the worker has been assigned to a certain "position in society" instead of to a certain job? (125)
3. Why does Tocqueville think that "industrial theory" exerts a stronger influence on the factory worker than "morality or law"? (125)
4. Does Tocqueville blame the industrial aristocracy for the brutish existence of the factory workers?
5. Why don't the "impoverished and brutalized" workers revolt against their harsh industrial masters? (128)
6. Why doesn't the industrial aristocracy feel any obligation to help its workers in hard and difficult times? (128)
7. Why does the division of labor make the worker "weaker, more limited, and more dependent"? (125)
8. Why does Tocqueville call the new aristocracy a "monstrosity""? (127)
9. Why does Tocqueville stress that the new aristocracy will be made up not only of the rich, but of the "well-educated"? (125)
10. Why does Tocqueville assume that a worker cannot improve his position in society, no matter how hard he tries?
11. Why does Tocqueville see danger to democracy not in the degraded mass of workers, but in the new aristocracy?
12. Why doesn't he industrial aristocracy "know its own mind," and why can't it act? (128)
13. Why does the workman continually engage in making one object become "more adroit" but "less industrious"? (125)
14. Is there anything the worker can do to prevent the creation of the new aristocracy?
Post-Discussion Writing
1. What would Tocqueville say to Adam Smith about his faith in the division of labor?
2. Can a person be as happy working on an assembly line as owning one?
3. Do you agree with Tocqueville that a person who does a repetitive job loses the power to think?
4. Is a new "aristocracy," based on talent and ambition necessarily a bad thing?
5. Do you think Tocqueville would be in favor of labor unions?
6. Should we use robots rather than workers on assembly lines? Would this help or aggravate the plight of the worker?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)