(I could not resist the cheesy title, so attempt to overlook that if possible.)
Mary Wollstonecraft was astounded by Burke's Perspectives, thus, she wrote her response to him in the form of a letter. She was a strong advocate for improved treatment of the oppressed, whether it be related to anti-poaching laws or womens' rights.
She presents the principles that Burke addressed and how her views differ from his standpoints. In the first segment, regarding sensibility, she states: "...an honest man with a confined understanding is frequently the slave of his habits and the dupe of his feelings, whilst the man with a clearer head and colder heart makes the passion of others bend to his interest; but truly sublime is the character that acts from principle." (57) This passage reminded me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. The people chained to the wall, forced to watch the shadows as their only grasp of reality, were misled because of their ignorance. The controllers of the shadows could be defined as the cold, clear hearts that were bending and shaping the people to their own version of reality. In the end of the allegory, the one that has ventured out into the light and has had his eyes opened, is faced with the question of whether to return for his friends. Cliche' has it may be, ignorance can be bliss to a certain extent, because knowledge can bring much pain. For example, if the rebels that launched the French Revolution never were exposed to the truth about the flaws of their nobility and their laws, reform never would have occurred. But on the other hand, if we recall back to Helena's letters, life became chaotic and insecure when the leadership of the country was shaken. Basically, the subjects could continue blindly accepting what their leaders did without question or they could step out into the excruciating light and act upon their own principles. Mary said that someone that acted based upon principle was rare and I still believe that to be true today. In many cases, people tend to be passive to stay out of conflict and thus, bind themselves to the walls of ignorance.
As a firm believer in democracy, she makes an excellent metaphor for democracy: "These are Gothic notions of beauty--the ivy is beautiful, but, when it insidiously destroys the trunk from which it receives support, who would not grub it up?" (58) The trunk is what makes up the kingdom of the monarch, the commoners. The ivy symbolizes royalty. Ivy is pleasing to the eye and but it is not necessary to the life of the tree and has the potential to choke the life out of the tree. Basically, the tree, democracy, can stand on it's own without the outer wear of ivy. Burke sees royalty as god-like, while Mary sees them as unnecessary and a sham. She also mentions the importance of motives in charity, which calls into question the motives of Burke.
Burke believed that the monarchs and their rules were timeless and natural. Mary makes an excellent argument against him when she brings up the slave trade. Despite his support for taxation, he was in cahoots with Wilberforce to help abolish slavery. She says that if society is expected to adhere to all previous rules placed by ancestry, the slave trade should never be abolished. The ignorant previous generations saw no moral issue with this dehumanization. This point exposes one of the many incidents of inconsistency within Burke.
Unyielding obedience to the monarchy, as a father figure, was encouraged by Burke. Mary finds a hole in this viewpoint as well. At the time, if parents were financially strained, they might encourage their children towards violent actions or prostitution to attain wealth. Should those children endanger themselves and others for the sake of obedience? By no means! My view is in agreement with Wollstonecraft. When parents do not have their child's best interest at heart, I believe the child is entitled to be disobedient out of self preservation. Mary felt this way in regards to the monarchy. The king did not necessarily have the best interest of his subordinates in mind, and thus, they earn the right to reject his authority.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Basis of Burke
Edmund Burke is an interesting fellow to say the least. The informational section before his reflections provides some details that are vital to our understanding of Burke. He was a well-to-do political writer and parliament member. He was strangely contradictory about many of his political views. He pushed for the abolition of slave trade and reforms for the working class, but yet he was supportive of Britain's excessive taxation and adamently against the French Revolution. My assessment is that he cares for the lower class based upon convenience and personal benefit. Misplaced motives are a common problem for humanity in general so one cannot be too critical of Burke.
Burke is known for his eloquence; thus, at the time, his appeal was limited to the intellectuals, and not the common people. The intro summed up the main idea of his entire reflection quite well: "...a principled conservatism that revered an idealized past and historical continuity, and on this basis defended the moral authority of nation's institutions: the monarchy, the aristocracy, the church, and the constitution that guaranteed their power." (47)
The monarch has two bodies: his physical body and his body politic. This concept allows for the royalty to have immortality in a sense. Once we understand this, we can come to grips with why people, such as Burke, believed in the right to royalty based upon familial ties. Whenever a monarch's physical body died, his legacy would be carried on through his body politic, which was usually upheld by the king's heir.
The main issue that my modern day spirit has with Burke is the conformity that he advocates. Burke believes we are born into our social position and there is no way of improving. Basically, we should accept our fate and be subordinate. He expects all the king's subjects to adhere to a uniform standard and idea. The commoners should never question the intentions of their monarch. "A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper, and confined views." (49) Burke disguises his agenda with his flowery words. This statement is a blatent contradiction. Innovation implies lack of confinement of ones' mind or principles. Not three lines down Burke states "without at all excluding a principle of improvement." (49). My obvious question is how can improvement be made without innovative new ideas?
After Burke's support for the abolition of the slave trade and working class improvements, one would expect that he would support a democratic approach to politics. Burke wants the lower class to be treated with more dignity and humanity, but he still believes that there is a societal hierarchy that is God ordained and natural. He referred to advocates of democracy as "Levellers"--because they tried to level the social order. Burke's response to them is that they "...only change and pervert the natural order of things." (50) His aversion to democracy highlights one of the inconsistencies within him. I believe that he has pity for lower classes, but will by no means support their attainment of equality. The only hint of democracy in Burke's beliefs is that he thinks that people should have rights based upon their financial state. He has no problem with the poor man holding the rights that five shillings will buy, but the more financially endowed should receive more rights based upon their greater contribution. I suppose it should not surprise me when society is defined by position and wealth, because our current society is still defined by these things to a certain extent. Call me a romantic, but how I wish our human nature would not cause us to be so prone to shallowness.
Random Quote: "But the age of chivalry is gone." (52) I do not really want to believe that statement. There are still some hints of chivalry left, whenever they are not crushed by feminism or the growing state of passivity within men.
Burke sees the royalty as being more than simply human. He thinks that the subjects should see them as touched by divinity and thus, obey them without any questions and see killing them as even more disgusting than the average homicide. Burke blames rising equality that allows commoner to be "friends" with their nobility that forces the royalty to earn the affections of their people. Personally, I believe leaders should be looking out for the best of their subjects and thus, desiring their opinions and approval.
Ironic quote: "...learning will be cast into the mire, and trodden down under the hoofs of a swinish multitude." (54) He sees the purpose of education to indoctrinate the beliefs of the monarch and make them "better" subjects. I suppose Burke would consider education to have digressed throughout the years because it encourages innovation and individualized pursuit of independence, as opposed to blind adherence to a over-arching concept like zombies or drones. My definition of education differs so greatly from Burke. I feel like education has progressed any many positive ways, through the innovative ideas of the common people. A good education is no longer limited to the elite of society, but available to the "average Joe".
Interesting Quote: "Indeed the theatre is a better school of moral sentiments than churches, where the feelings of humanity are thus outraged." (55) This statement makes an interesting point. Unfortunately, corrupt and judgmental church leaders were and are still an issue that can drive people away from considering any ties with a religion. The theatre can be a very effective tool to administer a moral lesson. Entertaining a crowd with a performance before the moral is presented can disarm defenses against morality. Also the crowd gets to see a relevant portrayal involving the moral, as opposed to simply listening to a sermon. At least in the early stages of theatre, the audience is an active part of the performance. Often in churches, the crowd is being spoken to and not engaged individually. I can see how some modern churches have attempted to be more culturally relevant and engaging, by using mediums like drama to express important truths. In my opinion, church should be an engaging place so I am greatly encouraged by this movement.
In the end, Burke basically says it is better not to look for corruption or inconsistencies in their monarchy. He does not want anything to change in the realm of societal order or nobility. The king should be seen as a father figure that the child would refuse to see any faults within him.
In my opinion, blind acceptance of anything is extremely dangerous. I may not agree with every aspect of the revolution, but I do believe in the underlying concept that fueled the rebellion: the need for innovation, independence, and equality.
Burke is known for his eloquence; thus, at the time, his appeal was limited to the intellectuals, and not the common people. The intro summed up the main idea of his entire reflection quite well: "...a principled conservatism that revered an idealized past and historical continuity, and on this basis defended the moral authority of nation's institutions: the monarchy, the aristocracy, the church, and the constitution that guaranteed their power." (47)
The monarch has two bodies: his physical body and his body politic. This concept allows for the royalty to have immortality in a sense. Once we understand this, we can come to grips with why people, such as Burke, believed in the right to royalty based upon familial ties. Whenever a monarch's physical body died, his legacy would be carried on through his body politic, which was usually upheld by the king's heir.
The main issue that my modern day spirit has with Burke is the conformity that he advocates. Burke believes we are born into our social position and there is no way of improving. Basically, we should accept our fate and be subordinate. He expects all the king's subjects to adhere to a uniform standard and idea. The commoners should never question the intentions of their monarch. "A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper, and confined views." (49) Burke disguises his agenda with his flowery words. This statement is a blatent contradiction. Innovation implies lack of confinement of ones' mind or principles. Not three lines down Burke states "without at all excluding a principle of improvement." (49). My obvious question is how can improvement be made without innovative new ideas?
After Burke's support for the abolition of the slave trade and working class improvements, one would expect that he would support a democratic approach to politics. Burke wants the lower class to be treated with more dignity and humanity, but he still believes that there is a societal hierarchy that is God ordained and natural. He referred to advocates of democracy as "Levellers"--because they tried to level the social order. Burke's response to them is that they "...only change and pervert the natural order of things." (50) His aversion to democracy highlights one of the inconsistencies within him. I believe that he has pity for lower classes, but will by no means support their attainment of equality. The only hint of democracy in Burke's beliefs is that he thinks that people should have rights based upon their financial state. He has no problem with the poor man holding the rights that five shillings will buy, but the more financially endowed should receive more rights based upon their greater contribution. I suppose it should not surprise me when society is defined by position and wealth, because our current society is still defined by these things to a certain extent. Call me a romantic, but how I wish our human nature would not cause us to be so prone to shallowness.
Random Quote: "But the age of chivalry is gone." (52) I do not really want to believe that statement. There are still some hints of chivalry left, whenever they are not crushed by feminism or the growing state of passivity within men.
Burke sees the royalty as being more than simply human. He thinks that the subjects should see them as touched by divinity and thus, obey them without any questions and see killing them as even more disgusting than the average homicide. Burke blames rising equality that allows commoner to be "friends" with their nobility that forces the royalty to earn the affections of their people. Personally, I believe leaders should be looking out for the best of their subjects and thus, desiring their opinions and approval.
Ironic quote: "...learning will be cast into the mire, and trodden down under the hoofs of a swinish multitude." (54) He sees the purpose of education to indoctrinate the beliefs of the monarch and make them "better" subjects. I suppose Burke would consider education to have digressed throughout the years because it encourages innovation and individualized pursuit of independence, as opposed to blind adherence to a over-arching concept like zombies or drones. My definition of education differs so greatly from Burke. I feel like education has progressed any many positive ways, through the innovative ideas of the common people. A good education is no longer limited to the elite of society, but available to the "average Joe".
Interesting Quote: "Indeed the theatre is a better school of moral sentiments than churches, where the feelings of humanity are thus outraged." (55) This statement makes an interesting point. Unfortunately, corrupt and judgmental church leaders were and are still an issue that can drive people away from considering any ties with a religion. The theatre can be a very effective tool to administer a moral lesson. Entertaining a crowd with a performance before the moral is presented can disarm defenses against morality. Also the crowd gets to see a relevant portrayal involving the moral, as opposed to simply listening to a sermon. At least in the early stages of theatre, the audience is an active part of the performance. Often in churches, the crowd is being spoken to and not engaged individually. I can see how some modern churches have attempted to be more culturally relevant and engaging, by using mediums like drama to express important truths. In my opinion, church should be an engaging place so I am greatly encouraged by this movement.
In the end, Burke basically says it is better not to look for corruption or inconsistencies in their monarchy. He does not want anything to change in the realm of societal order or nobility. The king should be seen as a father figure that the child would refuse to see any faults within him.
In my opinion, blind acceptance of anything is extremely dangerous. I may not agree with every aspect of the revolution, but I do believe in the underlying concept that fueled the rebellion: the need for innovation, independence, and equality.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Helena's Letters
Her letters provide a solid beginning to the course. She shares her first-hand experience, providing the eye-witness account that can and did unlock the understanding of readers for future generations. When reading history, often times we can remain disconnected and never fully grasp the humanity and relevance of all those living during this revolution.
One would find a sense of insecurity or fear in such trying times completely reasonable. Williams is surprisingly upbeat, finding the silver lining in the midst of turmoil. In the opening of her letter, Helena seems to feel thankful that she gets to witness history in the making, as she calls it, "the most sublime spectacle". (37)
Her attitude is surprising, but also admirable. Honestly, I do not believe that most of us would respond to our society crumbling with such a positive spirit. The only comparison that I can make is to the terrible twin towers and pentagon attack. I will be the first to admit that I did not think on September 11th, "Well this stinks, but at least I'm witnessing history." Williams was thinking in a realm beyond herself and momentary troubles. I suppose her focus on the future could be attributed as romanticism.
Most saddening quote (44)--"...fanatical and discontented clergy which swarmed about his palace; by non-juring bishops and archbishops; men who, having lost their wealth and their influence by the revolution, prompted the king to run all risks in order to gratify their own resentment." Position and money > human life
Despite her upbeat attitude, she is honest about that gravity of the situation. "One must have been present, to form any judgment of a scene, the sublimity of which depended much less on its external magnificence than on the effect it produced on the minds of the spectators." (37) Her descriptions of the federation are beautifully scripted, leaving the reader with a mental picture and hanging upon her every word. She talks a good bit about unity and the concept of democracy. Unity developed by adherence to a common cause is her focus.
My favorite passage (39)--"Sterne says, that a man is incapable of loving one woman as he ought, who has not a sort of an affection for the whole sex; and as little should I look for particular sympathy from those who have no feelings of general philanthropy. If the splendour of a despotic throne can only shine like the radiance of lightning, while all around is involved in gloom and horror, in the name of heaven let its baleful lustre be extinguished for ever. May no such strong contrast of light and shade again exist in the political system of France! but may the beams of liberty, like the beams of day, shed their benign influence on the cottage of the peasant, as well as on the palace of the monarch."
Williams clearly is idealistic and desires a unification that goes beyond societal rankings. Welcome, Helena, to the Romanticism club.
One would find a sense of insecurity or fear in such trying times completely reasonable. Williams is surprisingly upbeat, finding the silver lining in the midst of turmoil. In the opening of her letter, Helena seems to feel thankful that she gets to witness history in the making, as she calls it, "the most sublime spectacle". (37)
Her attitude is surprising, but also admirable. Honestly, I do not believe that most of us would respond to our society crumbling with such a positive spirit. The only comparison that I can make is to the terrible twin towers and pentagon attack. I will be the first to admit that I did not think on September 11th, "Well this stinks, but at least I'm witnessing history." Williams was thinking in a realm beyond herself and momentary troubles. I suppose her focus on the future could be attributed as romanticism.
Most saddening quote (44)--"...fanatical and discontented clergy which swarmed about his palace; by non-juring bishops and archbishops; men who, having lost their wealth and their influence by the revolution, prompted the king to run all risks in order to gratify their own resentment." Position and money > human life
Despite her upbeat attitude, she is honest about that gravity of the situation. "One must have been present, to form any judgment of a scene, the sublimity of which depended much less on its external magnificence than on the effect it produced on the minds of the spectators." (37) Her descriptions of the federation are beautifully scripted, leaving the reader with a mental picture and hanging upon her every word. She talks a good bit about unity and the concept of democracy. Unity developed by adherence to a common cause is her focus.
My favorite passage (39)--"Sterne says, that a man is incapable of loving one woman as he ought, who has not a sort of an affection for the whole sex; and as little should I look for particular sympathy from those who have no feelings of general philanthropy. If the splendour of a despotic throne can only shine like the radiance of lightning, while all around is involved in gloom and horror, in the name of heaven let its baleful lustre be extinguished for ever. May no such strong contrast of light and shade again exist in the political system of France! but may the beams of liberty, like the beams of day, shed their benign influence on the cottage of the peasant, as well as on the palace of the monarch."
Williams clearly is idealistic and desires a unification that goes beyond societal rankings. Welcome, Helena, to the Romanticism club.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Just a brief introduction....
Hi, I'm Meredith. As hard as it is for me to believe, I am a senior. My major is English, Creative writing track, going for Secondary Education certification. I changed my major two years into college and ever since, time has been of the essence. Taking this course was a way to keep me on top of my classwork and not as stressed for my senior year. My only concern with this class is that I will forget an assignment or chat session. However, I've done online classes before and the freedom of them can be quite nice.
When I am not doing work for this class, I will be working in a middle school in Macon, working for the Bear Force, and hopefully practicing guitar some :)
Talk to all of you later!
Meredith :o)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
