Tempest
Hey APLGers! Post your short response to the pre-reading for the Tempest here.
Mr. Decker
posted by erdecker @ 1:48 PM
54 comments
JM AP English Government
A resource for John Marshall's Advanced Placement English and Government class. Woo-hoo!
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Mr. Decker
About Me
- Name: erdecker
- Location: Lanesboro, Minnesota, United States
Enchanted April at Roc Rep Jan 2016 (Sound Design). Donnybrook's Dilemma Murder Mystery Jan 10 (Donnybrook actor). Valentine's Murder Mystery at Plummer House Feb 13 (actor). Ole and Lena in Love at Rochester Sons of Norway March 19 (Director).
54 Comments:
Montaigne talks about some pretty extreme ideas in this essay; nature is a beautiful ruling spirit, art is overrated, Plato was actually wrong and cannibalism isn't so bad. Although I find most of these to be too extreme, I agree with his opposition to Plato's statement. I would argue that many things are produced by misfortune; perseverance and success often derive from failure and the need to be better. I don't agree with eating people, but I do agree with Montaigne that Plato's statement was wrong.
Rebecca Rose
This reading challenged my predisposed understanding of "barbarous" as being primitive and uncivilized with the idea that "barbarian" is simply a term people use to describe "that...which is not common to them." With this understanding, Montaigne reverses the general opinion; rather than those cultures in close harmony with their natural state, deemed "primitive" in civilization's eyes, the real "barbarians" are those who have tried to impose order, inventions, and rules upon nature, growing further and further from that pure, unadulterated state of nature "common" to man.
Before reading the excerpt from "Of Cannibals" I thought that cannibalism was primitive, cruel, and inhumane under all circumstances, but Montaigne gave me a new perspective with each of the different cultures. They Scythians ate those who were already dead. Although this is a foreign thought to me, if they are already dead, what harm is done in eating them? The Stoics had a more extreme point of view in that they believed that if there was famine, eating fellow humans was alright; this one I do not agree with at all. Finally those in Alexia believed that men could be eaten if they were of no use to the military. I do not agree with this perspective either, but I can understand the point of view from which they are coming in a militaristic, barbarous time period.
Montaigne's viewpoint regarding the relative barbarity of the Brazilian cannibals to his own society is completely new to me. That he believes those who eat other people are less barbarous than those in his own society is hard to grasp. Even though he supports it with evidence of the Brazilians' good treatment of the prisoners before they are slaughtered and eaten while his own society cruelly tortures prisoners before death, it is difficult to share his opinion.
--Shannon Brown
When Montaigne wrote about the words jealousy, envy, lying and treason not even existing in the society of the so called "barbarians," I immediately thought of Brave New World. However, for the "barbarians", those words didn't exist because there was nothing in their society that gave them meaning, whereas in Brave New World it was because of an overly controlling government. I agree with his ideas on what makes a society "barbarous," the savages sounded much more civilized than the country Montaigne lived in. Also, it was pretty interesting to have a writer claim that cannibalism is not so bad. It made sense though, clearly torturing a living person is more inhumane than eating a dead person as a symbol of revenge.
- Noelle Bellows
I feel that Montaigne's discussion on cannibalism somewhat overshadows the rest of his essay, however this may be because in our modern society, cannibalism is usually considered horribly inhumane and unethical, not to mention archaic. After reading the different views represented I can better understand where each group was coming from, however I still can't agree that cannibalism is morally right. I'd be curious to see if anyone really thinks it would ever be effective or accepted again in such a technologically advanced world.
~Miriam Hanson
I think the ideas that Montaigne brings up about societies being quick to judge is a very valid point not only in this example but in any situation at all. It is so much easier for people to point out other people’s flaws than evaluate their own. Growing up we are given preconceived notions of what is right and what is wrong, but who are we to make that discernment? I think it is important that if we are going to make those assumptions, we must take the time to understand completely both our own ideas and the ones we are claiming superiority over.
When reading Montaigne's essay "Of Cannibals" it struck me how different cultures deal with cannibalism. Before, I thought of cannibalism as torture and inhumane, but than as Montaigne explains his point of view of cannibalism being ok it hit me. In the modern day, different cultures have different traditions that might seem ok to themselves, but not to other cultures. I saw a parallel from the different ways the natives treat cannibalism to how different cultures have different social norms than other cultures. Found that to be interesting.
Matt Broman
At the beginning of Montaigne’s essay, I was completely with him. Man’s inventions can sometimes limit nature’s beauty. For instance, I much prefer hand-picked wild blueberries than frozen packaged processed blueberries. I followed the passage about Plato, but I stumbled a little when reading about the culture and cannibalism. I don’t wholly disagree with him by any means; however, I question how making war with other tribes and keeping their severed heads as trophies can be seen as “a genuity so pure and simple.” Understandably, the tribal life is simple because there are only two motives, but how can conditioned animosity between tribes be seen as pure and positive? Furthermore, cannibalism was “an extreme and inexpiable revenge.” Revenge for what? What did the tribe’s enemies do that they didn’t do themselves?
I found it intriguing how they viewed the Brazilian culture as not sophisticated and humane. While in reality if they could see through their naiveté perhaps they would realize their societies own flaws. Although the Brazilian native’s cannibalism definitely sends a strong message to their enemies as wanted because of our cultures paradigms though we would literally choke on the subject.
Kelsey Hansen
I was really suprised when Montaigne talked about cannibalism. I have never heard it with so much detail as he showed in his writing. "kill him with swords;..roast and then eat... the upper part of the body to shoot arrows, and then, being almost dead, to hang them up.." I loath the whole idea of cannibalism. Despite what Montaigne claims, it is not right to eat your own species.
--Lekha Somashekar
In Montaigne's essay I wasn't quite sure what the title had to do with the essay until the 5th page. The admiration by Montaigne toward this culture seemed remarkable, until the section where he started discussing about cannibalism which was rather disturbing. I'm not quite convinced by Montaigne that eating people is justified. In my opinion, I think that his essay is rather barbarous to say the least. There is obviously something mentally wrong with this individual when he comments, "I think there is more barbarism in eating men alive than to feed on them being dead."
Montaigne brings up some very good points. I think that the predominant message that he was trying to get across is that every society has different customs and traditions that to others seems odd and barcaric. Something that is barbaric in one culture is perfectly acceptable in an other. He also said that nature is better and more pure than any human made thing.
Brennan Arendt
This essay dealth with the ideas of being primitive and barbarous. I do not agree with cannibalism and happen to find cannibals quite scary. Montaigne wrote as if cannibalism may be okay. Different circumstances were presented such as if there is famine,if they are of no use to the military, or they were already dead. Maybe this is just how the world was run back then and this is what led to survival.
Nicole Kraushaar wrote the comment above!
I think that this is a very interesting essay. From what I understand, Montaigne is saying that logic was something that once existed. People lived by it and that was the law. But then some form of chaos (like art) came into the picture and conformed people's thoughts into believing otherwise and soon the logic started to look not logical or irrelevant. I can see many examples of this in our world today with standards and ideas about life in general on this constant slope downhill. There seemed to be a set definition of everything at one point in life, but then things like Hollywood come into the picture and take a small detail or what if statement and enhance or enlarge that idea into something that people start to actually question. I mean our world feels the need to define everything or separate out into parties about everything when once there was a time when people knew what was right and what was wrong. I guess my question is what happened?
I agree with Montaigne that nature is much better than all of our artificial devices we have made. We have definitely lost a connection with nature. I agree that Plato's statement was wrong, and I think that the way that the society works on page four is fascinating. However, I think that eating people is disturbing and wrong!
Montaigne brings up some very valid points. I think one of his main messages he was trying to get across is every society has different customs and traditions where some places they are accepted and others they rejected. For instance, most people here think cannibalism is inhumane but with other cultures, it is accepted. Before making assumptions, I think we need to take a step back and understand both sides to an idea.
^Brianna Axtell wrote that comment^ *Montaigne brings up some very valid points*
Montaigne's experience of a new culture allowed him to expose the ethnocentricity held by Europeans. I liked that rather than automatically assuming any civilization outside of Europe is barbaric and unworhty, Montaigne actually made his judgments after he observed the Brazilian customs. Montaigne's daring opinions probably challenged many of the European's paradigms.
-Amy Chhunn
Montaigne seems to have fallen into the common trap of over-idealizing an exotic culture. I would agree with him that the simplicity of the natives' culture is admirable, but you have to be extremely naive to believe that any society has no "lying, falsehood, treason..." etc. However, I admire his courage to support a so-called "barbarous" people and denounce the conventions of his own society, especially with what he said about cannibalism. I have to admit that he has a good point: would you rather be eaten when you're dead and don't know it, or tortured when you're alive and can feel pain?
Some of the points Montaigne brings up in his essay I agree with, such as mother natures' creations being "bastardized" to fit our desired taste. When he transitions to talk about cannibalism is where I get lost. Despite his opinions, I still believe cannibalism is completely inhumane. Although, I did think it was interesting to read about the differnt paradigms of the cultures.
Katie Johnson
Montaigne wrote an interesting essay portraying different cultures viewpoints on cannibalism. Montaigne believes that it is not unethical and inhumane as other society's may think. Montaigne did a good job showing that other culture's have different customs and beliefes other than say our own. However I still do not think that cannibalism can be justified. I do not, and will not ever, see how slaughtering and consuming another human being could ever be ethical.
alyssa alward
The religious tenets of the Brazilian tribe surprised me. "Fight your enemies: Love your wives". This presents life as a choice between black or white, grilled or crispy, vampires or werewolves. This dichotomy is where simplicity comes from in the old world. In our modern world, complexity comes when we have to use the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy just to choose what kind of toilet paper we should buy. As Thoreau said: "simplify, simplify".
-Josh Frei
I found it every interesting of the collision of the societies and the reaction of the inhabitants of the New World and the Europeans. Especially how Montaigne defended the inhabitants of the New World of their barbarous actions, which is seen to us as Americans horrible but then again we as have acted poorly to humanity in our past, nuclear weapons? I would argue that cannibalism is extremely cruel and inhuman, but this essay made me reflect on how we as a country have been barbarous at times as well.
Kyle Andrews
Montaigne's essay overall was very interesting; the idea that the Brazilian tribe values just wives and war is particularly intriguing to me. As an outsider, it seems that there is more to life than a wife and war. To oversimplify things must have some sort of purpose behind it, perhaps to limit their tribe's freedom of thought?
Montaigne's views on Brazilian life seemed a bit too idealistic and one-sided for me. It was cool to see how he was challenging the general population's viewpoint on exactly what is "barbarous" but to call the overly-simplistic people-eating ways of the Brazilians natural was quite a shock. I understand that he is trying to point out the relativity of the word "barbarous," but he appears to have nothing bad to say about Brazilian society and not much good to say of his own society.
Jacob Brewer
So in summary nature rules, and eating people is a great way to connect with your ancestor's. I'd like to just say that there's a reason that cannibalism is frowned upon, i mean just because some cultures around the world do it and some famous figures of renowned did it doesn't mean it was acceptable. Also these figures weren't great because they were cannibals. But i digress, I feel that cannibalism should not be associated with a "civilized" simply because it all boils down to eating another person regardless of the circumstances.
The cannibalistic culture that Montaigne's essay describes is shocking. I was always taught the cannibalism was a horrible thing, and that the only people who did that were either insane or starving to death. Connecting my culture with the one Montaigne describes shows the harsh difference between cultures.
Katie Krull
I thought that Montaigne's overall message that what we consider to be barbaric isn't always was overshadowed by his diction. His message was lost in the long sentences and complicated phrasing. However, I thought it was interesting that the reading attempts to break down people's original beliefs and show a different viewpoint that may not have been considered prior. Many people get stuck in one belief and believe that those that don't agree are wrong, but Montaigne contradicts this.
--Trisha DeWeerdt
Montaigne's essay explains his ideas about the differences between being "barbarous" across several different situation. He gives several examples of how cannibalism can be justifiable. In theory, anything can be justified in an extreme enough case. Personally, if I were starving, I would have no issues with eating a person as long as they were seasoned to taste and roasted to perfection.
Before reading this, I had a pre determined view of cannibalism being that under no circumstances, is it okay. However, Montaigne brings up some good points while talking about the Scythians, Stoics, and the people of Alexia. While these explanations of why they specifically believe in cannibalism make sense for their society, it didn't really change my opinions of it; it more just opened another set of eyes for me.
-Kristi Taraba
Montaigne discusses an interesting topic in cannibalism. Before reading this I was predisposed to believe that any culture that engaged in cannibalism was a barbarous one that did not adhere to the usual convention of society. After reading this, I learned that some civilized cultures actually did engage in cannibalism for their own specific reasons. Even though I still oppose the idea as a whole, this essay opened my eyes that maybe in some situations cannibalism isn't nearly as bad as its reputation.
Spencer Johnson
Montaigne had a very interesting view. I wholeheartedly agree that wherever nature is seen, it overpowers the artificial. I could see where he was coming from with all of his statements, and I agreed with most of them. I'm not so sure I'd put art as one of the lesser products, but, as strange as it sounds, I think I can understand the cannibalism. It may be 'barbaric' to our society, but with the mindset (conditioning) of that tribe, it makes perfect sense. Though I don't support constantly being 'against' enemies and fighting wars as a basis for my existence, besides loving my wife, I can accept that culture. Basically, Montaigne said somethings I was indifferent too, not so sure about, or very supportive of. He gave me a lot of new ideas about 'barbarism' and, of course, cannibalism. I enjoyed the reading.
It is hard for me to wrap my mind around the view of cannibalism as less barbarous than other actions in Montaigne's culture. This is of course because of my personal conditioning, one which I share with the majority of the human race: cannibalism = bad. Montaigne also states that art is far overshadowed by nature. But if nature is this wonderous and beautiful thing, shouldn't we be able to find the art within nature?
-Laura Herbers
I am glad that I can agree with Montaigne, because of course the Brazilian people are the best! But of course I jest. I thought that Montaigne's ideas were thought provoking. By utilizing his own society as a foil for the Brazilian cannibals he shows the true hostility of his own people. Through torture the Europeans are the even greater cannibals, for as he said "there is more barbarism in eating men alive than to feed on them being dead". Also, his examples of cannibalism throughout history shows that it is a more common action than one actually thinks, for many of the great civilizations participated in the consumption of human flesh, even with reasons to do so.
Here's an interesting parallel between Montaigne's piece and Zimbardo's observations; imposing form and order upon nature and chaos. The latter observes Prospero's attempt to put order to everything, including the wild Caliban, while Montaigne's points out "civilization's" attempt to tame the "barbarians". One written before The Tempest and influenced Shakespeare, while the other was written after about the work. However, all three hit the main point that order cannot be imposed on the chaotic, and society will always revert to a state of nature.
The two dominant values of the savage society are following their duty by punishing enemies/loving their wives and embracing virtue by using plain resources. I agree with the latter in that art is a product of corruption and alteration while nature is more pure a beauty. I believe that Montaigne is making an extreme statement about the "civilized" man as corrupted and I would have to agree in that they are an alteration in the natural state of man. In the former, although radical, having extreme and open emotions of love and hate eliminate other corrupted feelings.
-Suad
In his essay, Montaigne mentions a few interesting points about nature vs. civilization, and cannibalism. In regards to the first, he proposed the idea that nature is much more beautiful than anything man-made. I would think that this would for sure raise some controversy what with their being so many artists across the ages with such moving work. On the second point, I would like to think that regardless of the situation, I would never eat someone. I don't think I could bring myself to do it, even if it meant dying of starvation.
After reading the tempest in context i feel like reading this part of "Of Cannibals" was a really good and helpful idea. Reading it gives us background and insight into Shakespeare's thought process. I also felt like his descriptions of the houses and traditions of the people are very thorough, and this i felt added to the ideas that he presented which made me think more about this potential positives of cannibalism, which still sounds weird and freaky, but i can't help but think that it isn't all bad because it is natural, and it is not being so wasteful like all our lives are now.
--Marissa Angus
Prior to Montaigne's essay, I believed cannibalism to be a disgusting and horrible thing; however, I know see how many other cultures perceive the act of eating another human being as normal or accepted. He believes that people who are "barbarians" are more civilized than that of his own society because they do not have emotions such jealousy, envy, and lying. This is only because they aren't civilized, which to me is almost like asking if the chicken or the egg came first. I definitely agree with him that men and their inventions can ruin nature.
I have to say that I mostly agree with Montaigne's thoughts. As people have previously mentioned, when one considers a barbarian, they consider a wild, uncivilized person. In this writing, the people known as the "barbarians" are very civilized when looking at their daily lives; they have routines and specific jobs. As Montaigne said, sometimes the civilized can be more barbarous than the barbarous themselves.
My apologies for the late post. After reading Montaigne and learning about the Scythians and Montaigne's society, I found it interesting to see the sharp juxtaposition between the beliefs of the two despite the fact that Montaigne's society admired the Scythians. Before reading his essay, I thought barbarism was a form of a nomadic situation in which those people would do anything to stay alive and would attack and plunder anything they saw with their brutish savagery(I was thinking of Conan the barbarian). What really struck me was that the Scythians would only consume the dead while Montaigne's society would consume them while they were alive. From that perspective, in my opinion,is barbarism for being wild and unruly in its true form but to be barbaric for survival by choice is a different story.
I like that Montaigne says,barbarous are more civilized and live better than what we consider modern people. And I didn't like the cannibalism part, because eating people is bad. But other people perceive eating people as part of their culture and i respect that.
Tim Ajal
Can I simply just say what a relief to find someone that actually understands what they
are talking about online. You definitely realize how to bring an issue to light and make it important.
More people must check this out and understand this side of
your story. It's surprising you are not more popular because you most certainly possess the gift.
My blog post - I need to sell my house PA
Undeniably imagine that which you stated. Your
favorite reason appeared to be on the net the easiest thing to have in mind
of. I say to you, I definitely get irked whilst other folks think about worries that they plainly don't recognize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and outlined out the entire thing with no need side effect , folks can take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thank you
Review my web page - onoranze funebri roma
Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and
i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam remarks?
If so how do you protect against it, any plugin or anything you can advise?
I get so much lately it's driving me insane so any support is very much appreciated.
Check out my web-site : vidacup review
Hi, always i used to check weblog posts here in the early hours in the break of day, since i love to gain knowledge
of more and more.
Also see my web page > instant gagnant
I was very happy to discover this web site. I want to to thank you
for your time for this fantastic read!! I definitely appreciated every
bit of it and i also have you book-marked to see new stuff in your site.
My website: The Tao of Badass
Hey very interesting blog!
Have a look at my webpage ... backup client server
Heya! I just wanted to ask if you ever have
any trouble with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing several
weeks of hard work due to no backup. Do you have any solutions to stop hackers?
Here is my website :: Villa Schoensinn Karlsruhe
hey there and thank you for your info – I've certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical points using this website, as I experienced to reload the site lots of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I'm adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for a lot more of your respective interesting content.
Ensure that you update this again very soon.
Feel free to visit my page; markkinointi sosiaalisessa mediassa
Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your web
site is fantastic, as well as the content!
Stop by my homepage - Louis Vuitton Bags
I like the valuabble information youu provide for your articles.
I will bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently.
I'm reasonably certain I'll be told lots oof new stuff right here!
Good luck for the next!
Here is myy homepage ... webpage ()
Post a Comment
<< Home