Tempest Pre-reading Blog
Erin starts us off with:
I found the beginning, the contrast of nature versus art to be quite relevant to today. Montaigne says the things that have been "altered by our artificial devices and diverted from their common order we should rather term savage". This applies to the diminishing supply of oil that our country relies on so heavily, as people have brought up in the previous post. While I don't think everything we've done to alter nature has been harmful, it would certainly be a challenge to find an area of the world remaining that hasn't been tampered by humans, civilized or not.
posted by erdecker @ 7:05 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
While reading through the Tempest Pre-reading Blog, I found out that Erin and I thought of the same things. While using the same quote, our country does rely on the supply of oil. Using the oil doesn't change the environment too much but it does change. What part of the world hasn't been tampered by humans or animals? I don't think that there is a place.
That last blog was from Sarah Amundson
In response to Nick, I also agree that if we notice only others faults we fail to see our own problems. I like the quote "I am not sorry we note the barbarous horror of such an action, but grieved that prying so narrowly into their faults we are blinded by ours." I think that this is the case in our campaign in the United States to "spread Democracy all around the world" when we are still working on, and revising Democracy for ourselves. Is it right of us to force other countries to become Democratic when maybe Democracy isn't the right form of government for us??
-Kirsten K
When I read the quote Montaigne embedded by Propertius ("Ivies spring better of their own accord/ Unhaunted plots much fairer trees afford/Birds by no art much sweeter notes record."), I couldn't help but think of Honeycrisp apples (they do not grow naturally, as you all probably know) and cloning. Humans are always trying to interfere with, manipulate and copy nature, and it most certainly comes with a cost (pollution, extinction of animals, etc.). Later in the same paragraph, Montaigne says that society as we know it wouldn't be the same if men did not interefere, but we cannot have that society without being corrupt. It seems to me that he is saying we need to pick the lesser of two negatives here. Hmm...
--Katrina
It was interesting how in the article "Of Cannibals" it seemed like the groups could justify their actions by saying that their group's actions were not quite as bad as what "the other groups" are doing. How many times in life do we use this reasoning? It is like the tourture centers that the government had in other countries. If it had been any other country doing that to American citizens I don't think the outcome would have been quite the same.
I very much agree with Nick and Kirsten K's comments about how people only see the faults in others. Going off that a little, this article made me think about how people tend to fear the unknown and what they don't understand. The Europeans didn't understand why the Brazilian natives practiced cannibalism, so they called them barbaraic. I think a modern day example of this is how people may think that being gay is wrong. One of the reasons people may call gay people names is that they don't understand it, and they feel they can't relate to people who are gay.
~ Meghan O'Keefe
It is interesting to see that as we spring of our own accord, we tend to live in a secluded and set pattern. Another point that I can see in Montaigne's essay is how we stray away from change that may lead us closer to customs of other cultures. We are completely set in our ways from the “nature at first uprise”. One example of this, albeit not as heavy as others, is our reluctance to switch to the metric system. Yes, I know that the metric system is not seen as barbaric, and I am aware of the cost to switch now, but it is a prime example of our nature to be set in our ways and dismiss other systems when we know it may be easier than our own.
Siri
First of all, I agree with all of you who mentioned the ways we are not able to see our own faults.
(I guess I'll just blog my reaction, since I don't have much to add to what you guys said - it was all well-stated.) As I read this, I was very surprised at how advanced Montaigne's views of these natives were. For an essay written in 1562, it is very ahead of its time. I find it quite fascinating that Montaigne recognized the skewed view most Europeans had of native people, and yet now, in 2006, we still educate people on the way our natives have been misunderstood throughout history. It certainly says a lot about the author that he was able to see these traits all those years ago.
While I agree that people often do only see the faults in others, I wonder if maybe this writer is just trying to hold a different opinion than the others around him. When I read this article, it felt like the author was still feeling superior towards the natives, especially when he describes their reaction to the horse, and how they killed it and its rider with their bows and arrows. In some ways he may be missing his own faults.
Also, I noticed that the author mentions that the people he is writing about spend the whole day dancing, then goes on to say that the young men go hunting with bows and arrows, the old men preach, and so on. (Bottom of the first column, on the second page of the essay) What do you think he means by this?
Andrew
I agree with that Amber. We cannot see the paradigms that we have put up around us like walls in a cave. I was watching the Discovery Channel special on Cannibalism several months ago and I remember how grossed out I was. I couldn't imagine eating a human being, but then they made an interesting comment. The host of the show said something to the extent that the average American would probably throw up if they knew what went into the average fast-food hamburger. He explained that the meat, innards, outerds and bones are ground up into a meaty paste. While reading "Of Cannibals" I realized that we really do not understand what is unknown to us. We are no better than they are; if not worse. At least they have reasoning to do bad things. Like Montaigne said, "(they) undertook not this manner of revenge without cause."
I have to agree with Amber also. We can't say that cannibalism is wrong because to them it is right. It does truly depend on how we are raised and we can't judge others who are raised differently.
I would have to say that my favorite point in this article was the fact hat he says we are moving away from nature. He deems natural things to be more beautiful, and that is a big issue for our society. We move towards materialism, and away from nature, until we hit the point where people won't go camping because they can't leave the cell phones. It's a step backwards.
I thought that it was very interesting how Montaigne brings up the point that as a society we view natives as barbaric because we are technologically more advanced and some of their actions (such as cannabalism) are considered a taboo in many cultures. In the last sentence he clearly states that though the natives may be barbaric, we are more barbaric than they are. It got me thinking of how barbaric our society is. We (society) leave people to fend for themselves on the street, care only for oursleves and what profits us, etc. Why is it that we never call ourselves barbarians, even though we do so many things that are cruel?
Luke T
"They live in a country so exceedingly pleasant and temperate situation that...they never saw a man shaking with palsy, toothless, eyes drooping, or crooked and stooping through age," states Motaigne about the natives.
This struck me as eerily similar to the "Brave New World" John faces and how Lelina reacted to the look of aging and pain on the reservation.
A difference though--Such ISOLATION has caused the "savages" to know not treason, envy, nor lying. This was because of the close honest living, while in BNW it is because they have been programmed and lied TO.
Jenny
The last line that we are to translate was the line that made the biggest impact on me. "We may then well call them barbarous in regard to reason's rules..." This statement applies to many different situations today. In today's society there is an ongoing debate it seems about whether the action or the intention is more important. I believe that is what this quote touches on. When we discussed the definition of a hero in symposium the main debate fell on whether a man was a hero because of his actions and success or his heart. We all know the phrase "It's the thought that counts." Cannibalism is accepted in some cultures conditionaly, depending on whether or not is was for neccessary purposes or sport. The intention is what counts. War in many cases is considered acceptable, depending on the intentions and the reasoning. Today many issues in our government, politics and everyday life have found justification and/or resolution using this reasoning. Can it always be the thought that counts?
Apologies...previous blog from Becky Jones
This essay reminds me of ismael, especially the last line. The author does a great job of putting into words the main idea of the entire book of Ismael. People are too caught up with what they think is civilized society that they are destroying mother nature and not paying attention to other societies and cultures that are far more moral to us, even though we find them to be "barbaric." "We may then well call them barbarous in regard of reason's rules, but not in respect of us that exceed them in all kind of barbarism."
-David Samb
I thought this whole article by Montaigne was very interesting and I agree with some you saying that we can't see our own faults sometimes and that the other people always look more "Savage" because we don't understand them. I thought it was especially interesting near the end when montaigne was talking about how the during the seige that people eat the bodies of others who were unfit to fight. I never knew this and it really convinced me even more that people may appear different, but really most of us are more a like than we know, and every culture may appear "savage" in their own way.
-Mandy
Wow, Montaigne has to be congratulated for his ability to see beyond the ideas of his society and offer an objective view of the Brazilian natives. I find it interesting how he then goes on to even further criticize his own French society by arguing against the very artistic aspect which they believe makes them so superior to the "savages" of the new world. He looks back to the classical philosophers, the very philosophers which the Renaissance was based on, in order to humble his own society. Indeed, Montaigne is incredibly effective and has powerful control of rhetoric. He knows exactly how to really cut down French society.
-Javier
I agree with what Amber blogged about. Reading Montaigne's essay immediately made me realize how much he had to go out on a limb to tell his society that they were blind. After looking at the reading that refers to the artist in residence for tomorrow (the readings defining democracy), I also believe that Montaigne would agree with the author of "The Open Space of Democracy". In that article, the author warns that "If we cannot engage in respectful listening there can be no civil dialogue and without civil dialogue we the people will simply become bullies and brutes, deaf to the truth..." Montaigne was simply advocating open democracy. He was trying to make his people open there eyes so that they would learn to become active listeners rather than "bullies and brutes".
-courtney
Post a Comment
<< Home