At the end of Chapter 17 in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator comments that ego goals are a kind of motivation that is "ultimately destructive" because "any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster" (p. 189 pink). Even more, he later says that "when an ego-climber has an image of himself to protect he naturally lies to protect this image" (p. 197 pink).
For the first 1/2 of your response, answer the following: Do you agree or not, and why? Briefly explain why you think the narrator believes this. Is his strong opinion related to Phaedrus in any way?
For the second 1/2 of your response, answer the following: What about you and your ego goal of going to college and making a future for yourself? How would you personally respond to the narrator.
Developed responses to both sets of questions are required for full points!
RESPONSES DUE BY THE START OF CLASS ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8TH.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
POSTING FOR QUESTION #7 HAS ENDED / RESPONSE TO THE GROUP BELOW
SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 7 (QUESTIONS ON ROMANTIC/CLASSICAL UNDERSTANDING) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 6 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
SINCE MANY RESPONSES WERE SIMILAR, I'VE POSTED MY RESPONSE TO THE CLASS BELOW. PLEASE READ IT (AND POST A COMMENT IF YOU LIKE)!
THANKS,
Mr. B
My response to the group:
I enjoyed reading everyone’s responses. What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:
1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. You were equally split over whether the classical and romantic approaches to understanding were reconcilable.
Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding and you say both approaches to understanding go together well. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:
Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?
a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?
Another thing I’d like for you to consider:
Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?
Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a wim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?
In the 60s, we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture—two worlds growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.
Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…
Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.
But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"
Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.
The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.
But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.
To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).
To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
SINCE MANY RESPONSES WERE SIMILAR, I'VE POSTED MY RESPONSE TO THE CLASS BELOW. PLEASE READ IT (AND POST A COMMENT IF YOU LIKE)!
THANKS,
Mr. B
My response to the group:
I enjoyed reading everyone’s responses. What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:
1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. You were equally split over whether the classical and romantic approaches to understanding were reconcilable.
Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding and you say both approaches to understanding go together well. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:
Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?
a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?
Another thing I’d like for you to consider:
Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?
Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a wim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?
In the 60s, we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture—two worlds growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.
Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…
Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.
But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"
Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.
The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.
But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.
To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).
To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Post 7
The author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance separates human understanding into two categories: classical and romantic. Being classical means being logical and rational. Being romantic is considering the feelings and emotions of something. Looking at something classically means looking at it's purpose and meaning. Looking at it romantically means looking at the associations involved with its presence.
In my opinion, the two forms of human understanding are different and irreconcilable, but they both are valid ways of looking at the world. I do not think someone can be classical and romantic at the same time, but they can be classical at some points in their lives while romantic at other times. AS people change over time, their understanding and mode of viewing the world is bound to change, but I do not think one can be both romantic and classical.
I, personally, am definitely a romantic thinker. In most situations, I am more affected by feelings and inspirations than anything else. I tend to look at things in a way that isn't so logical, but is more attached. I have had the same pair of shoes for years, and I love them even though they are falling apart at the soles and are covered in dirt. I love them because of their personality and because they are basically a part of my personality as well. Even though they are falling apart, I refuse to buy and wear a new pair because they wont have the same significance to me. Clearly, the decisions I make are more wrapped up in emotions than in the logical sense of things.
Classical vs. Romantic Perpectives
According to Robert M. Pirsig in the novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence, there are two perspectives in this world, one that is romantic and the other classical. As described in the book, a classical point of view is one that is more scientific and straighforward with an emphasis on problem solving. The narrator is described as seeing the world in this perspective due to his exceptional skills in repairing his motorcycle and by following the right way to fix his bike; the logical and careful way. On the other hand, a romantic perspective is one that is quite the opposite, leaning more towards a creative and inspirational mindset.
I have to say that I dont think I fall into any of those catagories. There are times where classical thinking is more appropriate than romantic and vice versa. For example when something stops working and needs to be fixed, it makes more sense to me to just fix it the most logical and scietific way, that way theres almost no room for mistakes. I would use a more romantic approach when probably doing a project for school. Rather than just write a boring paper on something I've learned, I would much rather choose to do something more artistic, showing my creative side.
I don't think it's necessary to fall into just one of those labels, creative or romantic. A person is much more dynamic if they carry different qualities, you got to change it up.
I have to say that I dont think I fall into any of those catagories. There are times where classical thinking is more appropriate than romantic and vice versa. For example when something stops working and needs to be fixed, it makes more sense to me to just fix it the most logical and scietific way, that way theres almost no room for mistakes. I would use a more romantic approach when probably doing a project for school. Rather than just write a boring paper on something I've learned, I would much rather choose to do something more artistic, showing my creative side.
I don't think it's necessary to fall into just one of those labels, creative or romantic. A person is much more dynamic if they carry different qualities, you got to change it up.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Post 7
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the classical perspective is defined by the use of logic and rationality, and the examination of the underlying forms of things. In other words, the classical mode of thinking is a focus on what a thing means. The romantic point of view, on the other hand, is a focus on what a thing is. It uses feelings and inspiration based off of whatever is immediately apparent, without much regard to underlying structure.
I tend to use primarily the classical mode of thinking. I am persuaded more by facts than feelings in an argument, and am more interesting in studying science over art (though I do like both). While I can appreciate artistic beauty, I need to see a greater underlying point to really enjoy something. For example, I did not really enjoy the novel Girl with a Pearl Earring, because the writer used a very descriptive, metaphor-laden style for the sole purpose of making the writing seem beautiful (to mimic the style of a painting). This didn’t seem to have much point beyond creating beauty, and as a result I did not like the book very much.
I do agree that the two modes of thought have value and are irreconcilable with one another, but think it’s necessary to add that an individual can switch between one mode and the other. Very few people will approach everything from purely the classical mode or purely the romantic mode all of the time. For example, though I use primarily the classical point of view, I am able to look at a painting and be awed by its beauty (using the romantic point of view). I can then examine it more carefully and see the different techniques the artist used to create the painting’s overall effect (using the classical point of view), and the awe at seeing what the painting is will be replaced with appreciation of what the painting means. Both modes of thought will therefore provoke meaningful reactions, but cannot be used simultaneously.
I tend to use primarily the classical mode of thinking. I am persuaded more by facts than feelings in an argument, and am more interesting in studying science over art (though I do like both). While I can appreciate artistic beauty, I need to see a greater underlying point to really enjoy something. For example, I did not really enjoy the novel Girl with a Pearl Earring, because the writer used a very descriptive, metaphor-laden style for the sole purpose of making the writing seem beautiful (to mimic the style of a painting). This didn’t seem to have much point beyond creating beauty, and as a result I did not like the book very much.
I do agree that the two modes of thought have value and are irreconcilable with one another, but think it’s necessary to add that an individual can switch between one mode and the other. Very few people will approach everything from purely the classical mode or purely the romantic mode all of the time. For example, though I use primarily the classical point of view, I am able to look at a painting and be awed by its beauty (using the romantic point of view). I can then examine it more carefully and see the different techniques the artist used to create the painting’s overall effect (using the classical point of view), and the awe at seeing what the painting is will be replaced with appreciation of what the painting means. Both modes of thought will therefore provoke meaningful reactions, but cannot be used simultaneously.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Great Debate
Robert Pirsig, the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talks about classical and romantic points of view in his book. He states that a person with a classical point of view would see things as many parts coming together to form a single thing. They focus much more on the structure and construction of an item as opposed to its appearance. A romantic person cares less about the inner workings of the item and more about its appearance. They care more about whether it works properly and less about the pieces its made of.
I can't say that I belong to either view point. Some of the time I see things in a romantic way; if it works and looks nice, I'll use it. If I see a car or jacket that is appealing and functions well, then I respect it. However, I feel like I am also a classical person especially when I'm forced to compare two similar objects. If I am given the choice between two of the same objects, like two jackets, two chairs or two shims, I will always pick the choice that is better constructed, even if they the both do a good job. Because of my background in sewing (where you build garments out of smaller individual pieces) I always tend to focus more on the item that is made better. For example, if I am given the choice between a designer leather jacket and a leather jacket from Wal-Mart, I would always choose the designer jacket. Although the designer jacket is much more expensive, I know for a fact that it's construction is superior to that of the Wal-Mart jacket. Some might say that if they do the same job to the same degree, it doesn't matter which one is chosen, but I disagree. If its made better, than I lean towards that one. For me, my view point flip flops between classical and romantic based on the situation and the object being observed.
I think each view is valid, but people should not be restricted to these two categories. I believe people should be able to decide on a view point based on their own identity. People should be allowed to choose one of these viewpoints or blend the two or pick a completely different view on the world.
I can't say that I belong to either view point. Some of the time I see things in a romantic way; if it works and looks nice, I'll use it. If I see a car or jacket that is appealing and functions well, then I respect it. However, I feel like I am also a classical person especially when I'm forced to compare two similar objects. If I am given the choice between two of the same objects, like two jackets, two chairs or two shims, I will always pick the choice that is better constructed, even if they the both do a good job. Because of my background in sewing (where you build garments out of smaller individual pieces) I always tend to focus more on the item that is made better. For example, if I am given the choice between a designer leather jacket and a leather jacket from Wal-Mart, I would always choose the designer jacket. Although the designer jacket is much more expensive, I know for a fact that it's construction is superior to that of the Wal-Mart jacket. Some might say that if they do the same job to the same degree, it doesn't matter which one is chosen, but I disagree. If its made better, than I lean towards that one. For me, my view point flip flops between classical and romantic based on the situation and the object being observed.
I think each view is valid, but people should not be restricted to these two categories. I believe people should be able to decide on a view point based on their own identity. People should be allowed to choose one of these viewpoints or blend the two or pick a completely different view on the world.
Zen
According to Robert M. Pirsig the world can be divided into two distinct categories: romantic and classical. Those who view the world in a romantic way see it for the beauty of its whole. They don't care too much about the internal structure of things and how they operate, they care more about the external appearance and overall function. Those who look at the world classically see it for what's going on underneath the surface and what can't be perceived by the eye, only the mind. Pirsig uses the example of a motorcycle where a romantic would see the machine as a whole and would judge it on it's outward appearance and how well it serves its purpose. Someone looking at it classically would see the complexities of its internal structure and find beauty not in the appearance but in the way that so many tiny parts have come together to create an overall structure that operates and functions properly. As for me, both views are incredibly intriguing. I really enjoy thinking about how and why things work, but I also have huge admiration for those things as a whole. If I saw a motorcycle I would definitely immediately judge it by how nice it looks (especially since I don't know very much about motorcycles), but hearing about how that motorcycle came to be and function as it does would be extremely interesting for me too. Persig's idea that motorcycles are a system of structures that are "normally interrelated in patterns and paths so complex and so enormous no one person can understand more than a small part of them in his lifetime" is such an intriguing idea that I completely agree with. I love thinking about these incredibly complex structures not just with motorcycles but with all aspects of life. I think the classic view of the world is a very interesting one, however I don't think it's the better one. I don't think the romantic view is better either. Sometimes it's more interesting to look at the world in an irrational way. It doesn't have to be all about structures and systems. It's nice to be able to grab a pile of sand and be able to admire it without trying to figure out how to immediately sort it and interrelate it. I think its ok to look at the world in many different ways or even in just one way if that's what you prefer. The world is beautiful and as long as you see that it doesn't matter how you're looking at it.
The Great Modern Schism
Classical: Understanding of the world achieved through reason and logic. The focus of this way of thinking is understanding what things mean or, in other words, understanding their underlying form. This way of thinking requires the analytical knife.
Romantic: The understanding of what a thing is. It is often associated with the creative and imaginative qualities of the human being, but it can also come across as rather shallow. This way of thinking rejects the analytical knife.
There have been several mornings when I would put on this striped sweater and decided to take it off. The sweater is perfectly functional. It was perfect for those cold weekday mornings. It has long sleeves. It's warm. I just decided not to wear it. It just didn't fit the look I was looking for.
Last week, I went to Safeway and I really wanted peanut butter. I had a choice between the brand name peanut butter and the Safeway brand peanut butter. I went with the Safeway brand. What? It's the same thing, except it's cheaper. That's the logical choice.
I think these two anecdotes capture the walking contradiction that I am. In the first example, my decision was eventually decided by what the shirt was and not what it meant. I did not make the logical choice. I did not choose function over form. In the second example, I chose the peanut butter solely for logical purposes. I chose the Safeway brand for its function and paid no attention to it's form. I don't care if someone catches me buying Safeway brand peanut butter. Romantic and classical. Isn't that weird? It just seems like there are certain situations that lend themselves better to the classical perspective and others that lend themselves better to the romantic perspective.
But there is the problem? When is the one better and when is the other better? To be honest, on those days when I was debating whether or not to wear the shirt, it took me a long time to finally decide. In reflection, I guess it wasn't really a decision between whether or not to wear the shirt, but whether to use classical or romantic understanding to make the decision. Not only can competition between the two ways of understanding split people into factions but it can also split individuals in two (figuratively speaking of course).
I guess that's why I agree with the narrator's view. The split between classical and romantic has split me in two. They simply cannot work together on all issues. Sure, if the brand name peanut butter was cheaper, they would be working together. Or, if the sweater was not so 90s, they would work together. But, there are many circumstances when choices have both good form and good function. The two understandings just have two different priorities.
Romantic: The understanding of what a thing is. It is often associated with the creative and imaginative qualities of the human being, but it can also come across as rather shallow. This way of thinking rejects the analytical knife.
There have been several mornings when I would put on this striped sweater and decided to take it off. The sweater is perfectly functional. It was perfect for those cold weekday mornings. It has long sleeves. It's warm. I just decided not to wear it. It just didn't fit the look I was looking for.
Last week, I went to Safeway and I really wanted peanut butter. I had a choice between the brand name peanut butter and the Safeway brand peanut butter. I went with the Safeway brand. What? It's the same thing, except it's cheaper. That's the logical choice.
I think these two anecdotes capture the walking contradiction that I am. In the first example, my decision was eventually decided by what the shirt was and not what it meant. I did not make the logical choice. I did not choose function over form. In the second example, I chose the peanut butter solely for logical purposes. I chose the Safeway brand for its function and paid no attention to it's form. I don't care if someone catches me buying Safeway brand peanut butter. Romantic and classical. Isn't that weird? It just seems like there are certain situations that lend themselves better to the classical perspective and others that lend themselves better to the romantic perspective.
But there is the problem? When is the one better and when is the other better? To be honest, on those days when I was debating whether or not to wear the shirt, it took me a long time to finally decide. In reflection, I guess it wasn't really a decision between whether or not to wear the shirt, but whether to use classical or romantic understanding to make the decision. Not only can competition between the two ways of understanding split people into factions but it can also split individuals in two (figuratively speaking of course).
I guess that's why I agree with the narrator's view. The split between classical and romantic has split me in two. They simply cannot work together on all issues. Sure, if the brand name peanut butter was cheaper, they would be working together. Or, if the sweater was not so 90s, they would work together. But, there are many circumstances when choices have both good form and good function. The two understandings just have two different priorities.
Romantic? Classical?
Romantic and Classical viewpoints are both valid ways of looking at the world, although they seem to be polar opposites. "The discrimination is the division of the concious universe into parts." This is how Robert M. Pirsig defines the classical viewpoint. It is distinguishing and categorizing all things in the world. The classical viewpoint has rules, regulations, problems and solutions. It is built on logic. The romantic viewpoint on the other hand, is artistic and intuitive. It takes things at face value and doesn't try to break them up into smaller pieces as classical does. I think that the two viewpoints can be distinguished as scientifical and artistic. The question of which viewpoint I hold is tricky, because I believe I hold a bit of both. I like to get right to the point and understand objectively what is going on. I like math and science and I more easily believe and understand theories and situations based off of facts. I tend to think of all the possible outcomes in a situation and I'm a big fan of pro-con lists. But, on the other hand, I also love enjoying a beautiful landscape as a whole thing without breaking it up. I enjoy the countryside for its vastness, and I do not and would not try to distinguish the grass from the roots from where it meets the soil from the rocks from the pebbles. It all melds together into something very beautiful. I also enjoy thinking about emotions and subjective feelings, and analyzing how people act and think. But this can be considered classical as well as romantic because it can all be traced back to how and why the brain receptors react with different chemicals. I consider myself to have a classical viewpoint. I am always interested in the root of things and am fascinated by science. I tend to want to trace situations back to the roots and distinguish the parts, to come up with a solution. This is a very valid way of coming up with a solution, though. I disagree with this quote, as I, as well as everyone else, lives as a bit of both a Romantic and a Classical. It's impossible to live a life based only on science, because emotions affect many decisions. Even if one looks at the world very scientifically and factually, he or she is still perceptible to appreciate small beauties for their face value. In the same way, it would be difficult to live as only a Romantic. People have a natural tendency to want to know how and why and how something can be solved. It's natural to want to know the cause and root of things, in order to find a sensible answer. Therefore, I don't believe these two values are irreconsilable. They can and do coexist in many, or all, people.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Romantic VS Classical
The author of the novel is correct in saying that there are two types of people, those who see things in the classical way, and those who see the romantic way. The classical way of seeing things is completely objective, its about science, meausrements and splitting things up to analyze them. The Romantic way is to see something from it face value, the appearance. They dont care about what each part does or why it does it, they care about how it sounds right, geels right, and looks right. I like to say I am both of these different personalities because i do believe in technology and understanding how things work. I also agree with the author that it is necassary to know motorcycle matainance to go on motorcycle trips. But i would definately not be satisfied if someone tried to fix my BMW with a aluminum beer can. Even though it may work perfectly, and that it may be identical to what a mechanic would put in, i couldnt do it. It would just be wrong to use such a cheap thing like a beer can on my bike, i wouldnt be able to do it.
It is possible to have both views coexist with each other. I think you may have to have a bit of a understanding of both to successful though. You must be able to think classicly to advance society and think classicly to enjoy life's bounties and be passionate.
It is possible to have both views coexist with each other. I think you may have to have a bit of a understanding of both to successful though. You must be able to think classicly to advance society and think classicly to enjoy life's bounties and be passionate.
According to Robert M. Persig and Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance, there are two types of human understanding the romantic mode which is described as "primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, and intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate.” In contrast, classical “proceeds by reason and by laws which are themselves underlying forms of thoughts and behavior.”
I would describe myself as more of a classical person mostly because im not the romantic mode. I wouldn't describe myself as that creative or intuitive. When I do things, I like to know what the next step is or exactly how to do something, which is similar to what the classical perspective is.
I do not agree that these are irreconcilable or that either of these ways of living are valid. No one can live their life purely by facts and reasoning or by just imagination and creativity. there needs to be a mix which would make them not irreconcilable.
I would describe myself as more of a classical person mostly because im not the romantic mode. I wouldn't describe myself as that creative or intuitive. When I do things, I like to know what the next step is or exactly how to do something, which is similar to what the classical perspective is.
I do not agree that these are irreconcilable or that either of these ways of living are valid. No one can live their life purely by facts and reasoning or by just imagination and creativity. there needs to be a mix which would make them not irreconcilable.
How Romantic...
From my basic understanding of what the story Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the difference between a romantic and classical perspective is that a romantic perspective approaches matters from a more artistic standpoint and classical perspective from a more scientific one. In other words, a romantic thinks more creatively and imaginatively and a classical thinker thinks more factually. A good analogy that the author uses is how a romantic looks at a handful of sand for the whole handful that it is, while a classical thinker analyzes and groups each individual grain of sand.
It's hard to say which I would consider myself though. I feel like it easy for a person to want the universe to be all factual (at least from personal experience). If everything was either right or wrong, people would know what religion to follow, or if religion even mattered. People would know why they existed and why would die eventually. It's pretty to think of a purely factual universe where everyone knows their purpose, their reason. Or is it?
I think I have come to accept what uncertainty and an inspirational imagination actually have to offer. In reality, we can't keep breaking things down to try and figure out their components, because the deeper we get into the anatomy of any matter, the more we have to continue to break up. If we spend our whole lives trying to figure out why we exist and what everything in the universe is made out of, we don't have anytime to actually live. I should only speak for myself when I say this, because other people may get a kick out of trying to classify and analyze everything in their surroundings. For me though, if you put me on a mountain top in Hawaii so I could look out across the entire landscape and seascape, I wouldn't start by categorizing and playing with the rocks beneath my feet; I would enjoy the wonder of the entire view in front of me. The wonder, the uncertainty of how all the natural beauty before me was formed, would satisfy me more than spending my whole life trying to find a concrete explanation.
I'm sure being a classical thinker has its upsides too though. Some people may say there is a rush in finding answers to "unknowns" and getting closer to solving the mysteries of the universe. Honestly, I think finding conclusions like this are impossible (humans have been trying for some time now), and I think a human's time would be better spent being dazzled than trying to find out who's the man behind the curtain.
Romantic v Classical
There are two ways at which people can look at the world according to Robert M. Pirsig, you can ether use the analytical knife or you don't. To be more exact, those who use the analytical knife are known as the classical type of person, who puts mind over matter. These people break down subjects into components and than make decisions based upon what they find. The type of person who does not use the analytical knife, but instead chooses to see the world as a whole, choosing to appreciate the surface rather than its components are known as the romantics, whom I have always identified with more than the classical type of person. I never truly understood the point of breaking every little detail down and classifying everything, and even I find it sometimes frivolous to do so. Even past teachers of mine have said I was always better at understanding the bigger picture rather than the fine details, and i have had to become accustomed, like all romantics, to living in a world which places very high values on the details and the classical view of things. Whenever somebody attempts to break down the beautiful things I see everyday, i cannot help but mourn the loss of beauty and feel that some things were never meant to be dissected and numerated in such a unsavory manner, which is to say that people do it without thought of what is beautiful about that which they are categorizing. I feel that people loose themselves when to heavily immersed in the classical way of thinking and that far to many people are pressured into classical views by modern day society and loose imagination. I believe that people become lost in their own lists and because they must place everything in a category, resentment emerges towards people and things that are not of "the norm". My father is a brilliant example of a classical thinker, and he and I never see eye to eye, for we have different values based upon our views of the world. He loves details, i love the big picture and the grander scheme of things. This all is not to say that i do not use the classical point of view in my daily life. On the contrary, I always think actions through before i carry them out, creating categories and possible outcomes in my head. and I also can appreciate the technology which the classical point of view has given us, and i would not risk hypocrisy in saying otherwise because i very much rely on technology in my everyday life. However i do not see flowers for their scientific definition, and never classify them into parts, but instead, enjoy the very sight of them because of their natural beauty. I see people who immerse themselves into the classical way of mind and lose themselves in false senses of supremacy of being. I do not deny that there are bad things that come out of the Romantic view. When people take it to far, the surface becomes all that matters, and that is just another path to false supremacy, However i consider myself a Romantic none the less and will continue to see the beauty in the world for the rest of my life. i very much agree that the two ways of viewing the world are valid ways of seeing the world, but I also believe that everybody uses both ways of thinking, however tend to use one more than the other. I also firmly believe that the world cannot truly advance without a healthy balance of both points of view. On one side if there were only romantics there would be little to no technological advances, and if there were only classical people than the world would become nothing but a component and people would go about following the lists others set out for them and all the worlds beauty would diminish.
Romantic or classical ?
Robert M. Pirsig divides human understanding into two categories, Romantic and classical mode. According to the Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance “the romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, and intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. Art when it is opposed to science.” On the other hand classic mode “proceeds by reason and by laws which are themselves underlying forms of thoughts and behavior.”
What category I fall under? Well that’s a tricky question. When it comes to work I tend to lean towards reason rather then my own feelings. Although I may want to socialize after school I choose to do my homework or go to work instead. I know if I don’t do my homework my grades will decline and if I take off work that means less money in my bank account. I choose facts over feelings. But some part of me thinks I fall under the romantic category too. The description of Romantic mode is “inspirational”, “imaginative”, “creative”, and “insightful” and these are all descriptions of me as a person as well. I like to be inspired and I like to inspire others, I like being imaginative and original, and I am a very understanding person; I like viewing other people’s perspectives rather just my own. When it comes to classes and occupations I prefer working with my emotional side then working with data. In math or science class everyone comes has to come up with the same conclusion but in English class everyone’s statement is different yet not technically wrong at the same time. And when it comes to writing I have a preference as well. I prefer writing short stories and poems instead of research papers. I guess I fall under both categories but a majority of me falls under romantic mode.
Robert M. Pirsige stated Romantic mode and classical mode are both “valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” I agree that these are both irreconcilable ways but disagree that either way is valid. I don’t think it’s valid to live your life based on only emotion nor do I believe you can live a life base on pure facts. You are either missing out on happiness or loosing site of responsibilities. In psychology I learned that you can’t live life fixed in one perspective; you have to have a balance.
What category I fall under? Well that’s a tricky question. When it comes to work I tend to lean towards reason rather then my own feelings. Although I may want to socialize after school I choose to do my homework or go to work instead. I know if I don’t do my homework my grades will decline and if I take off work that means less money in my bank account. I choose facts over feelings. But some part of me thinks I fall under the romantic category too. The description of Romantic mode is “inspirational”, “imaginative”, “creative”, and “insightful” and these are all descriptions of me as a person as well. I like to be inspired and I like to inspire others, I like being imaginative and original, and I am a very understanding person; I like viewing other people’s perspectives rather just my own. When it comes to classes and occupations I prefer working with my emotional side then working with data. In math or science class everyone comes has to come up with the same conclusion but in English class everyone’s statement is different yet not technically wrong at the same time. And when it comes to writing I have a preference as well. I prefer writing short stories and poems instead of research papers. I guess I fall under both categories but a majority of me falls under romantic mode.
Robert M. Pirsige stated Romantic mode and classical mode are both “valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” I agree that these are both irreconcilable ways but disagree that either way is valid. I don’t think it’s valid to live your life based on only emotion nor do I believe you can live a life base on pure facts. You are either missing out on happiness or loosing site of responsibilities. In psychology I learned that you can’t live life fixed in one perspective; you have to have a balance.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Blog Post #7: Ways of Looking at the World
The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. Briefly articulate the distinction between the two. Then, explore how you fit into either of these dichotomies. Give examples that illustrate the tendencies that make you, personally, either classical and/or romantic. Conclude by discussing if you agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” (Chap. 7—a few pages in)
POST DUE: Thursday, May 13th by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Tuesday, May 18th by the start of class.
Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.
POST DUE: Thursday, May 13th by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Tuesday, May 18th by the start of class.
Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
POSTING FOR QUESTION #6 HAS ENDED
SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 6 (QUESTIONS ON COURTLY LOVE) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 6 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
THANKS,
Mr. B
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
THANKS,
Mr. B
Thursday, March 25, 2010
//6C//
Growing up in a contemporary, privileged area, the notion that courtly love is something noble and far more meaningful than lust has been pushed onto me from all sides of society. Hollywood often portrays love as a conqueror above all, pulling on the heartstrings of viewers. Pop music often reflects on unrequited love of another. Last but not least, Shakespeare’s works are shoved down our throats in school, one of his most famous works of course being “Rome and Juliet”.
So what merit is there to “courtly love” when compared to plain and natural lust? First of all, there is a code for chivalry, giving it a sort of organized nature in contrast to lust’s primal and chaotic characteristics. Another bit worthy to note is that courtly love is not to change based on the fulfillment/consummation of the lover’s desire, when lust ultimately has one clear goal. Yet, aside from the stated differences, courtly love still wears quite the heavy albatross around its neck: the fact that acts of courtly love often pertain to acts of adultery.
I suppose that it is significant to note that courtly love began really only among the aristocracy during medieval times, as the aristocracy can be said to have far too much idle time to be up to any good. Naturally, adultery had long been rather commonplace in history; however it is with courtly love that something becomes amiss. The fact that the highly-educated aristocracy was the group to enact the code of chivalry combined with the notion that the aristocracy was likely also the group to record the events and history of the time seems to be an awfully suspicious two-some to me. Though it has survived in its ideals, I do not believe that courtly love can be held as any more morally acceptable—effectively only making lust more socially acceptable, as the plebes will follow the patricians.
B
Love, or thinking something is love is not an easy thing experience, or write about. Love is a lot of things and comes with a lot of complications. It is nearly impossibly for a relationship to be perfect one hundred percent of the time. No matter how good of a person the two people are in the relationship, there will always be something, or someone in the way that makes things more difficult than they need to be.
Pain wouldn't be pain if it didn't come from something significant. For example, if a relationship never mattered or reached that intense level, then a break up usually shouldn't be too much to handle. But if it were the opposite, and the relationship was considered "true love" then it no doubt would have a negative, painful impact on the two partners.
But through my experiences, you don't quite have to be in love to experience this pain. As long as the other person was an important part of your life for quite some time, almost the same amount of pain can come through. Specifically for me, it was thinking that you're in love and having both sides in the relationship say it and pretend it, while probably just hoping the constant thought and words would turn it into actual love at some point. This was painful and confusing due to how significant the relationship was to me. But the argument could also go both ways in the sense that the relationship was a significant part of my life because it was painful. So in reality both make sense, but I think "pain because of a significant experience" comes first.
Pain wouldn't be pain if it didn't come from something significant. For example, if a relationship never mattered or reached that intense level, then a break up usually shouldn't be too much to handle. But if it were the opposite, and the relationship was considered "true love" then it no doubt would have a negative, painful impact on the two partners.
But through my experiences, you don't quite have to be in love to experience this pain. As long as the other person was an important part of your life for quite some time, almost the same amount of pain can come through. Specifically for me, it was thinking that you're in love and having both sides in the relationship say it and pretend it, while probably just hoping the constant thought and words would turn it into actual love at some point. This was painful and confusing due to how significant the relationship was to me. But the argument could also go both ways in the sense that the relationship was a significant part of my life because it was painful. So in reality both make sense, but I think "pain because of a significant experience" comes first.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
B
Love is a really confusing subject because it is such a complicated emotion. This is perhaps because love is not a single emotion but a combination of many different emotions. Love is what causes the greatest happiness, joy, and, best of all, the feeling that someone wants you more than anyone else in the world. However, it also causes the worst emotions. The person who you love is the person who can hurt you the most, make you the most sad or angry, and cause you the most pain. Because love is such a strong emotion, the person who you love is the person who holds the most power over you. So to say that your experience with a certain person is more significant because of the pain doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems that the only reason your lover is able to cause you so much pain is because they are so significant to you that they have complete control over your emotions. Therefore, I believe that the cause of the pain of love (which is different than other kinds of pain because emotions that are caused by love are stronger than other emotions) must be the experience not the other way around.
Question 6B
Even though loving a person in the end can hurt, it is not the paine that a person feels that measures if what that person actually felt was love or how significant that love was. The amount of emotional pain that people feel is a result of love and not the other way around. People feel emotional pain after a realationship ends because they put themselfs out there on the line for the sake of love and for the person that they really cared for. They create this fantasy of what love is or could be even if they are a gernerally realistic person. Then when the loving realationship ends, unlike in all of those romantic comedy's they have seen so many times before, they feel the emotional pain. It is not the act of loving a person that ends up hurting them but, the emotions and time that you put into the realationship that ended up just being a waste of time and effort. Overall love can cause much pain but, its the love and feelings that cause this not the paine measuring the amount of love.
6B
Is pain from the significance of love? Or is the significance of love because of pain? Both are true in different ways. Let's start with the first question. Pain can some from love in many different things. Love is a strong commitment and it puts out feelings, thoughts, and desires in the open for two people to share. By doing that it instills a lot of trust in the other person, who can easily betray the other's trust by using that against them in a painful argument or betraying those feelings by lying or cheating on the spouse. So basically, pain can stem by what your spouse can do to betray the other's trust and feelings that have been instilled in the relationship. However, pain from love doesn't always come from spouses cheating, lying, and betraying each other. It can also come from the opposite, like significantly caring for him or her and constantly worrying about him or her. It also comes from caring more about the spouse than he or she cares about you and even unrequited love. There are many different ways like that where pain stems from the signifiacnce of love. However, the significance of love can come from pain too. If a couple goes through a really hard time with lots of loss and lies and get through it together while remaining strong, that makes love really significant and it's stemming from pain. Also, losing a spouse is another reason why the significance of love comes from pain. Grief can overwhelm someone, but also help them realize how important the spouse was to their lives. And as I mentioned before, if a spouse betrays the other by cheating, lying, or fighting him or her, that not only agrees with how pain can come from the significance of love, but how the significance of love is from pain. So both sayings go either way because love is pain. You put in a lot of trust, hard work, and commitment to keep the love going. Even if the spouse does nothing wrong to betray the other, it is still pain because the spouse is always worrying and caring for the other, and in fear of the pain that would occur if something bad were to happen to the other. Despite that both sides of the argument are true, I think I agree more with that pain comes from the significance of love because it seems that with so much effort put into a committing relationship, there is bound to have a lot more pain that comes with the effort.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
B - "Caught in a Bad Romance"
Pain and love always go hand-in-hand, but the bigger question is whether our love is significant because of the pain we feel, or do we feel pain because the love was significant? That sentence, however, sounds very awkward and confusing, so here is an example. Lets say your married and your wife leaves for 6 months for a trip to Florida and you're left alone in your house. You will probably miss her a lot. You could feel that your pain of missing her is because your love for each other is so strong and significant OR you could feel that your love is sufficiently great because of the pain you feel when she leaves.
Love requires you to open your soul to another person, which in turn gives them the ability to hurt you, by say, leaving you or cheating on you. And if you do experience this let down, you will obviously feel pain. Some people may say that the reason you are feeling this pain is because your love was significant. In a serious relationship or marriage, each person puts a lot of effort into the relationship. The relationship also brings you happiness and you experience great things with your loved one. Other people may say that your love was so significant because you are feeling pain now that it is gone. Once the person has hurt you, you feel pain because the love and experiences you shared with each other have disappeared. This suffering that you go through is supposed to illustrate the significance of your relationship.
It is hard for me to decide which side I agree with because of the complexity of love itself, but I would say that I think we feel pain because the love was significant. Love is an extremely powerful emotion, with the ability to consume your thoughts and actions. It can even change your entire mind-set and way of thinking. When you are in love, you also share many special and significant experiences with your partner. Once that feeling and those experiences are ripped from you, you will most definitely feel extreme pain. And if your love had no significance in your life, wouldn't you not feel any pain once it ended? I also feel that if pain makes your love significant, that means pain is always a part of love, and that is untrue for those couples that "live happily ever after."
Love requires you to open your soul to another person, which in turn gives them the ability to hurt you, by say, leaving you or cheating on you. And if you do experience this let down, you will obviously feel pain. Some people may say that the reason you are feeling this pain is because your love was significant. In a serious relationship or marriage, each person puts a lot of effort into the relationship. The relationship also brings you happiness and you experience great things with your loved one. Other people may say that your love was so significant because you are feeling pain now that it is gone. Once the person has hurt you, you feel pain because the love and experiences you shared with each other have disappeared. This suffering that you go through is supposed to illustrate the significance of your relationship.
It is hard for me to decide which side I agree with because of the complexity of love itself, but I would say that I think we feel pain because the love was significant. Love is an extremely powerful emotion, with the ability to consume your thoughts and actions. It can even change your entire mind-set and way of thinking. When you are in love, you also share many special and significant experiences with your partner. Once that feeling and those experiences are ripped from you, you will most definitely feel extreme pain. And if your love had no significance in your life, wouldn't you not feel any pain once it ended? I also feel that if pain makes your love significant, that means pain is always a part of love, and that is untrue for those couples that "live happily ever after."
Question B
Emotional pain and suffering is and will always be a part of love. It truthfully makes no difference whether that love be a lifetime, head-over-heels commitment or a seventh grade crush; emotional pain will always be part of the package. The interesting part is that it makes perfect sense; when you care about someone and put forth energy and emotions into your love for them, pain is inevitable because so much risk is involved. There will always be the chance that your lover does not feel as strongly for you as you do for them. There will always be the chance that they will fall in love with another person instead. They might not be attracted to you or they might not share the same goals in terms of relationships as you. It is possible that they may have ulterior motives for the relationship or they may take advantage of you in some way. The risks involved are countless, however we all seem to take them when falling in love. This is a universal statement that most of us can agree on, what we can't seem to figure out is whether this pain exists due to the significance of love or if the love is significant because of this pain.
If love is significant because of the pain it induces, that means all events that are painful are significant. I can't seem to fully accept this theory. Being stung by a bee is hardly a significant event during the summer, however it can certainly induce pain. Failing a spanish quiz is painful, but not significant. This list could continue on for some time. These casual, small events that caused pain were not miraculously made significant because they happened to cause pain, so why should love work the same way? Love is painful and love is significant, but this significance is not caused by the pain, I feel quite the opposite actually.
I believe that the pain we feel exists because of the significance of love. When someone has found love, it is an incredible emotion for them that can hardly be expressed. These overwhelming feelings of affection and passion are very significant in a person's life. Their behavior changes as well as their attitude and general outlook on life. There is a lot that changes once love is found because it is such a significant emotion. This incredible emotion has such a large size and significance that pain is inevitable. As discussed, before this pain is caused by the risks one takes when loving. In The Art of Courtly Love by Andreas Capellanus, it is suggested that pain often occurs because of the fear that those in love have that their love is not returned. This fear is painful and more so is the actual feeling of unrequited love. The pain resulted from these situations would not exist if these situations weren't of high significance.
Although the two sides to this question are separated by a very fine line, I am confident that the significance of love causes pain, not the other way around. If love was not significant, pain would not be an issue, however we all know that love is significant therefore pain is felt.
6B
Do we find love important and therefore feel its intrinsic pain, or does that very same pain cause us to value love so highly?
Firstly, this whole question is based off of the belief that pain is in fact a part of love, inseparable and constant. That's not to say that love is only pain; few people would say that when they kiss the one they love they do not experience some happiness. There may be, though, those who say that their love only causes them happiness. However, do they not experience some fear that they may lose their loved one? Even if they don't, by virtue of being utterly secure in their relationship, fear their beloved leaving them, they must fear some external force separating them: Death, for example. Therefore, at the very least love leads to fear, which is a type of pain.
However, does love only lead to pain? Does pain itself not lead to love? If a person feels love, they want the object of their affection. In fact, they act towards their loved one very much like another may act towards a cherished or sought after material good. Perhaps, then, people feel pain when wanting another person, and seek requited love as a relief for that pain.
But, why do people feel pain, why do they want that person? In the tale of the Lady of Astolat, the lady dies from the pain she feels, from the love she feels for Lancelot. Where did this pain come from? It could not have appeared for no reason, from no cause, with the only relief coming from Lancelot's affection. No, the Lady of Astolat's pain must have come from her regard for and love of Lancelot.
Still, that doesn't answer the question of if pain causes love to be valued, or if the high value of love causes pain. If we take the Lady of Astolat's tale to hold truth in its core, then we must conclude that the intensity of her love, the importance it held for her, caused her to feel pain when it was unrequited. Somehow, though, that answer feels incomplete. Why did the Lady of Astolat need so badly for Lancelot to requite her love?
Perhaps it is because the answer is that the value and pain of love both cause each other; neither one is the first of the cycle as they are, in fact, the same. Loving someone doesn't just cause pain. Loving someone *is* pain; love is the need to have them by you, and that need is a need because you fear losing that person or being deemed not good enough by a person whom you hold in the highest esteem. And yet, you so fear because you need. Pain comes from the importance we place on love, but that very importance comes from the pain and intensity that is inseparable from loving another person.
6b
b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?
I believe that we feel pain because the experience is significant, not that the experience is significant because we feel pain. In every relationship, youre going to feel some kind of pain. Whether it's when it ends or something that happens during the relationship, youre going to feel pain at some point. I could see how people would think this though because in some relationships, you feel more pain then others. This is probably an indication that the relationship was special or something but I think that the other way is more indicative of a special experience.
The better experience you have in a relationship, the more painful it will be. If you love someone, youre emotions involving that person become a lot greater. When something happens that can cause pain and its more painful then normal, then thats when you know that the relationship that youre in is significant.
I believe that we feel pain because the experience is significant, not that the experience is significant because we feel pain. In every relationship, youre going to feel some kind of pain. Whether it's when it ends or something that happens during the relationship, youre going to feel pain at some point. I could see how people would think this though because in some relationships, you feel more pain then others. This is probably an indication that the relationship was special or something but I think that the other way is more indicative of a special experience.
The better experience you have in a relationship, the more painful it will be. If you love someone, youre emotions involving that person become a lot greater. When something happens that can cause pain and its more painful then normal, then thats when you know that the relationship that youre in is significant.
Ouch... That Was Significant
Is a relationship significant because it hurts us, or are we hurt because our relationship was so significant?
It depends on who you're asking. A man who recently got dumped by his girlfriend for his best friend (whom she had been cheating with) will probably say that the relationship played a significant role in his life because he got hurt so bad by it. In other words, he would claim that the relationship would not be significant at all because it was hardly a "relationship". However, if you ask a man who had a wife that loved him as much as he loved her after she tragically dies in a car accident what he thinks, he would probably say that he is hurt because their relationship meant the world to him.
According to Andreas Capellanus' The Art of Courtly Love, suffering can result from love in another situation. This situation is when a man devotes his time going after a woman who doesn't love him back. He says that this is the most painful situation (similar to the first example i proposed) because "his efforts are accomplishing nothing". If nothing is accomplished, then obviously no real relationship is ever established. Because the experience ends in "nothing", how can the experience be significant. By this it seems evident that Andreas Capellanus feels that an experience with love is significant because it hurts us because, ultimately, he thinks that love will always bring somebody pain at some point.
I, however, do not have much experience with love. The only real relationship I ever had though left me very hurt, and I ended up with a similar mindset that that portion of my life was significant only because it hurt me so much, and i could learn from it. From that experience, I convinced myself that investing too much emotional attachment to once person just sets you up for greater suffering when that person goes away. So, I decided to put off love for a while. Maybe in the future though, I will meet somebody that can change my ideas of this.
6C
Courtly love seems to be much more socially acceptable than eros, or lust. It seems much more polite, refined, and meaningful. But are the two really all that different?
There do seem to be many elements of courtly love that make it different than eros. Most obviously, courtly love is not necessarily consummated, as the man’s devotion is to an unattainable lady, so there may not even be a sexual side to the relationship. It also emphasizes restraint in conduct so the man does “nothing disagreeable that might annoy” the lady (according to Andreas Capellanus’s “The Art of Courtly Love”). This means that the man must be obedient and humble towards his love, constantly attempt to do what will please her, and avoid spending too much time with her (especially in public)--not exactly conducive to advancing a sexual relationship. Most significantly, courtly love claims that “character alone…is worthy of the crown of love,” not physical beauty (as with lust), and that love is held for one woman alone (whereas men can lust after many different women).
But let’s look a little more closely at these differences. Lust does not need to be acted upon to exist--so the first two differences don’t really prevent courtly love from being eros. And it turns out that all Capellanus means by “character” is social class (and acting in a manner befitting one’s social class)—all that really needs to be there is good breeding. So courtly love may focus on a little more than just good looks, but not by much. And besides this, courtly love does deal in a large part with physical beauty--it is supposed to spring from “the sight of and excessive meditation on the beauty of the opposite sex” and the desire for physical contact (sounds an awful lot like lust). So much for a sparkling personality and great sense of humor. How much more meaningful can that kind of focus be than lust’s?
These “differences” seem less like real deviations from lust and more like limitations imposed upon lust. For example: Take eros’s fundamental character, a love based on sexual attraction between two people. Now say the relationship might not be consummated, tell the man he has to act a certain way towards the woman, and say it only applies to one woman of a high enough class. These rules limit eros, to be sure, but they do not change its fundamental nature--and if followed, they turn it into courtly love. Courtly love is therefore not a completely new, legitimate form of love, but a way of imposing limitations upon eros to make it socially acceptable.
C
There are so many ways to interpret the rules of courtly love. There is evidence to support both ideas; that these are the rules of legitimate love or that it is simply there to make the lustful feel better about there actions.
On one side, one could say that this was a true guide book of how people truly act when they are in love. It would be an ideal love for all people involved if people were to love for the measure of one’s character and not be overly devoted to the care of one’s body, even though attentiveness to personal health and hygiene are of importance and do not go unaddressed in this book. It is also a base for true love that if you truly love someone, that you can’t lust after other people at the same time. It is true that people who through there love around are no better than a shameless dog. Toying with other people’s emotions is never something to be handled lightly and is rightfully looked down upon in this text, further proving its legitimacy on the subject of love. It also provides a truthful insight that people generally act more kindly and of better character when they are in love, and that is an important part of true love because you can’t be in love with someone and be a jerk to them at the same time. It just wouldn’t be true love.
On the other hand, this book contradicts the ideas of true love in that the man must constantly bending over backwards to ever get the love of the one whom he is devoted to. In the first place, he contradicts himself when he says that love is attained by the meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex, when later he says that it is the measure of someone’s character which should constitute love. Also it is ridiculous to think that the man should always be on his knees because he is afraid that he might lose the one he loves, because if it were true love, the woman would never consider lusting after another. He also goes on about how a man can never marry a woman “lower” in social status than himself, which angers me to no end because true love transcends all differences (or so I am led to believe) and money and social status should be much less important than love. It is also added that the man must go strutting around like a peacock because he does not want to seem unfit to fight to others when, once again, he had said before that it is but a measure of one’s character which should count.
Had he not made so many contradictions to the idea of true love which I hold, I would have said that it were a very good book in depiction of love. However I cannot accept the importance on which he places outward appearance and how hard the man must work to keep a fickle girls love.
On one side, one could say that this was a true guide book of how people truly act when they are in love. It would be an ideal love for all people involved if people were to love for the measure of one’s character and not be overly devoted to the care of one’s body, even though attentiveness to personal health and hygiene are of importance and do not go unaddressed in this book. It is also a base for true love that if you truly love someone, that you can’t lust after other people at the same time. It is true that people who through there love around are no better than a shameless dog. Toying with other people’s emotions is never something to be handled lightly and is rightfully looked down upon in this text, further proving its legitimacy on the subject of love. It also provides a truthful insight that people generally act more kindly and of better character when they are in love, and that is an important part of true love because you can’t be in love with someone and be a jerk to them at the same time. It just wouldn’t be true love.
On the other hand, this book contradicts the ideas of true love in that the man must constantly bending over backwards to ever get the love of the one whom he is devoted to. In the first place, he contradicts himself when he says that love is attained by the meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex, when later he says that it is the measure of someone’s character which should constitute love. Also it is ridiculous to think that the man should always be on his knees because he is afraid that he might lose the one he loves, because if it were true love, the woman would never consider lusting after another. He also goes on about how a man can never marry a woman “lower” in social status than himself, which angers me to no end because true love transcends all differences (or so I am led to believe) and money and social status should be much less important than love. It is also added that the man must go strutting around like a peacock because he does not want to seem unfit to fight to others when, once again, he had said before that it is but a measure of one’s character which should count.
Had he not made so many contradictions to the idea of true love which I hold, I would have said that it were a very good book in depiction of love. However I cannot accept the importance on which he places outward appearance and how hard the man must work to keep a fickle girls love.
B: The Painful Significance of Love
Is love significant because it's painful or is it painful because it's significant? Saying love is only significant because of pain gives love a negative connotation while saying love and pain come toegther, which is significant, gives love a more romantic and idealized connotation. If love were only significant because of pain, wouldn't love be a total tragedy? Pain as a result of love can come in many forms, such as missing someone or simply feeling overwhelmed with love love love. It seems that pain is always present where love is present. But, in these cases pain comes from a love that is very abundant and seems to be just a side effect. It seems that the pain involved in unrequited love is different, since its accompanied by feelings of rejection. Unrequited love seems to be the most painful, since the pleasure of returned love is not pleasant. The pain in the other cases seems much more bearable, since while there is pain, there is also a feeling of comfort and excitement, and sometimes hope. These different types of pain come from different types of love. In both cases love is significant because of the radical emotions it evokes. One of these emotions is pain, so does that mean love is defined by the emotions it evokes? And since it evokes pain does that mean love is defined by pain?
Maybe the memory of love is significant because it has had an impact on who a person is, and remembering is painful. In this case, it would seem that the love itself was already significant and pain comes with thinking about it. The process of loving could have shaped one's life because of the lessons it taught or the maturity it brought, in which case it would be significant but not because of pain. In this case, love would be significant because of how it effected a person in terms of who he or she truly is, not because of pain. Many great things are associated with love, and why would we be so in love with love if all it was was pain? Love isn't significant because it's painful, but the pain of love can be significant in one's life, and this pain can certainly cause significant changes. Even so, though, pain isn't what shapes love.
Maybe the memory of love is significant because it has had an impact on who a person is, and remembering is painful. In this case, it would seem that the love itself was already significant and pain comes with thinking about it. The process of loving could have shaped one's life because of the lessons it taught or the maturity it brought, in which case it would be significant but not because of pain. In this case, love would be significant because of how it effected a person in terms of who he or she truly is, not because of pain. Many great things are associated with love, and why would we be so in love with love if all it was was pain? Love isn't significant because it's painful, but the pain of love can be significant in one's life, and this pain can certainly cause significant changes. Even so, though, pain isn't what shapes love.
B
b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?
Eotional pain is alost always attached to love in soeway or another. Although many relationships occur and end without having that end result of emotional pain I believe that we know a relationship to be emotionaly painful because the relationship is important to us. The other side of the argument is that a relationship is significant because of the pain. Although pain does relate to significance I dont think they go in that order. This idea is saying that a relationship is only valid because we feel eotional pain, but when thinking about roamantic relationships I believe that they shouldnt be viewed that way.
Relationships are significant when the desire to be with another is so strong that they miss them at times etc, but this feeling is because of they strong bond and connection between the two people, the eotional pain itself doesnt make the relationship. Love makes the relationship and that is the concept that should be emphasized, the pain is due to the love. If pain makes you realize you love the other person then the love is still the thing making the relationship significant, not the pain. Pain and love go hand in hand yet pain comes from a significant relationship not the other way around.
Eotional pain is alost always attached to love in soeway or another. Although many relationships occur and end without having that end result of emotional pain I believe that we know a relationship to be emotionaly painful because the relationship is important to us. The other side of the argument is that a relationship is significant because of the pain. Although pain does relate to significance I dont think they go in that order. This idea is saying that a relationship is only valid because we feel eotional pain, but when thinking about roamantic relationships I believe that they shouldnt be viewed that way.
Relationships are significant when the desire to be with another is so strong that they miss them at times etc, but this feeling is because of they strong bond and connection between the two people, the eotional pain itself doesnt make the relationship. Love makes the relationship and that is the concept that should be emphasized, the pain is due to the love. If pain makes you realize you love the other person then the love is still the thing making the relationship significant, not the pain. Pain and love go hand in hand yet pain comes from a significant relationship not the other way around.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Pain from significance or significance from pain: #6B
What a peculiar question.
Do we feel pain because of the significance of love or is love significant because we feel pain.
Well, maybe if we define the pain associated with love, we'll arrive to some conclusions. Lovers are often very worried about each other. That hurts. Also, as Andreas Capellanus argues in The Art of Courtly Love, love is suffering because lovers fear that their love will not be returned. This fear causes woe to the mind and to the soul. This is a kind of paranoia that makes lovers do crazy things for each other.
So, lovers do crazy things for each other because they are paranoid of losing the other's love. And they are paranoid of losing the other's love because... love is significant.
That seems to make sense. Let me cover my bases here.
We feel pain from the worrying and the paranoia. But we feel the worrying and paranoia because we don't want to lose love; we feel that it is worth maintaining. It is worth maintaining it because it is significant.
But, what makes it significant? I have just gone through the steps to prove that we feel pain due to the significance of love, but maybe the inverse is simultaneously true.
Love is significant because... it is rare? I don't honestly believe that. I feel like love is a relationship achieved with commitment and hard work. So, it's a goal that can be achieved. Also, it seems like almost everybody accomplishes that kind of a relationship. So, I don't think that's why it's significant.
Maybe love provides something that nothing else can. Maybe it's the warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it's the fact that it provides something constant to hold onto.
Then again, other things can fulfill those desires: Drugs and a steady job.
So, is love significant because it is painful? A lot of the other important moments in life seem significant because they are painful. High school is painful. Losing a limb in a war is painful. Both of those things seem to significantly affect your life, whether in the immediate future or the long run. So, maybe love is significant because it is painful.
I think both statements are true, as illogical as it sounds. Love is significant because it's painful and it's painful because it's significant. What a dilemma...
Sunday, March 21, 2010
(#6. A) According to The Art of Courtly Love, love is “a certain inborn suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex.” But when asked what is love? Men and woman stumble to find the words to this question. I think it is because we tend to look for words that everyone can relate to. But maybe, love can’t be descried in a straightforward definition. Maybe, love isn’t as simple as black or white or as day and night. Maybe, to every person love is different. Just maybe, Love shouldn’t be regulated by rules. I think one’s love for another is unique. The way one feels, who they feel it for and how they express it is different and I like that about love. But if we follow rules on how to love someone from a book would we all love the same? Would love still be unique? …I doubt it.
But, even if I did believe love can be simply defined and regulated by rules I still wouldn’t think courtly love is a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone. I believe some of the rules are a little extreme and outdated if we were to follow them in the twenty-first century.
For instance, in chapter 3: the writer states, “For when he thinks deeply of his beloved the sight of any woman seems to his mind rough and rude.” The idea of finding only one person in the world attractive is almost impossible. And the fact that if you find someone else attractive means you no longer love your love one is overdramatic. I think it is possible to love someone and find someone else attractive. In chapter 5: what persons are fit for love he opens with, “We must now see what persons are fit to bear the arms of love.” Anyone can experience love. Who is he to determine who can experience love or can not? He also tells readers a woman must change her last name to his. Now a days woman rarely change their last names and this action doesn’t necessarily mean you love your partner anymore then you do. But what also makes me object to this piece is his words in book two. He says a man should keep his relationship hidden; kept secret. But by keeping your relationship secret it may seem like you are ashamed of it.
Reading this I felt the author wasn’t thinking about how one should love another but more of how one should treat their partner in the society he lived in at the time.He sets rules rather then advice and love is one thing that shouldn't be based on rules, boarders, and regulations. Therefore, if one wanted to know what to do when they love someone courtly love wouldn’t be the ideal text to read.
But, even if I did believe love can be simply defined and regulated by rules I still wouldn’t think courtly love is a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone. I believe some of the rules are a little extreme and outdated if we were to follow them in the twenty-first century.
For instance, in chapter 3: the writer states, “For when he thinks deeply of his beloved the sight of any woman seems to his mind rough and rude.” The idea of finding only one person in the world attractive is almost impossible. And the fact that if you find someone else attractive means you no longer love your love one is overdramatic. I think it is possible to love someone and find someone else attractive. In chapter 5: what persons are fit for love he opens with, “We must now see what persons are fit to bear the arms of love.” Anyone can experience love. Who is he to determine who can experience love or can not? He also tells readers a woman must change her last name to his. Now a days woman rarely change their last names and this action doesn’t necessarily mean you love your partner anymore then you do. But what also makes me object to this piece is his words in book two. He says a man should keep his relationship hidden; kept secret. But by keeping your relationship secret it may seem like you are ashamed of it.
Reading this I felt the author wasn’t thinking about how one should love another but more of how one should treat their partner in the society he lived in at the time.He sets rules rather then advice and love is one thing that shouldn't be based on rules, boarders, and regulations. Therefore, if one wanted to know what to do when they love someone courtly love wouldn’t be the ideal text to read.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Blog Post #6: Courtly Love
In light of our readings and discussions on courtly love (Capellanus’s De Arte Honesti Amandi and Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur), answer one of the following:
a. Reflect on the rules and customs of the courtly love tradition began in the Medieval period. Is courtly love a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone? You should make reference to at least one of the texts we’ve looked concerning courtly love.
b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?
c. Explain if you believe that courtly love is a legitimate kind of love or just a way of making eros or lust more socially acceptable. To do this, explore the aspects of courtly love that seem to separate it from eros.
POST DUE: Wednesday, March 24 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, March 26 by the start of class.
a. Reflect on the rules and customs of the courtly love tradition began in the Medieval period. Is courtly love a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone? You should make reference to at least one of the texts we’ve looked concerning courtly love.
b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?
c. Explain if you believe that courtly love is a legitimate kind of love or just a way of making eros or lust more socially acceptable. To do this, explore the aspects of courtly love that seem to separate it from eros.
POST DUE: Wednesday, March 24 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, March 26 by the start of class.
Monday, February 15, 2010
POSTING FOR QUESTION #5 HAS ENDED
SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 5 (ROMAN VIEWS OF HAPPINESS) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 5 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
THANKS,
Mr. B
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
THANKS,
Mr. B
5
I believe that the Stoic point of view makes more sense in this situation because from personal experience i can vouch that overcomingadversity and accomplishing a dificult task does bring happiness. I believe to go through life tryin avoid pain is hardly living at all. Pain is just another aspect of life that everyone has to experience. Avoiding pain is avoiding many situations that help you learn adapt and in the end succeed. I dont know one successful person that has gone without avoiding pain. Avoiding things that are difficult will not help you grow and gain knowlege of things where as one who fights and overcomes adversity will in the long run, be happier.
From what i've learned both philosophys invlove life-avoidance.Epicureans believe their purpose in life should be based souly on peace of mind, happiness, and pleasure. Epicureans favored living in a way as to obtain the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one’s lifetime, yet doing it reasonably in order to avoid suffering.For them it is best to maximize pleasure so one does not feel fear or pain. They believe nothing lasts forever so why not make the most of it. But how can one say their lived life if they never felt pain. fear,pain,suffering; those are the things that causes us to grow and learn from our mistakes. And learning and growing is indeed apart of life. Honestly, how would one truly know happiness if they never experienced pain. I beleive if we do not open ourselves to even the idea of pain the possiblity of reaching our higher self diminishes.I would like the idea of not feeling pain i mean who wouldn't but realistically life is not life without suffering. Stoics on the other hand emphasizes self- control and believe all things happen for a reason. For them it is not what a person said but how they behaved. To Stoics certain emotions were the result of bad judgement and errors. They too are avoiding life. Stoics cherish the happiness afterlife more then anything. by concentrating so much on the after life, they are unable to see the true joy of their present life. Why wait for happiness when you could have it now? I think by following these ways one is cheating themsleves and life and those are two things that shouldn't be cheated.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Blog Post #5
Despite being similar in seeking avoidance of life, Stoics and Epicureans differ in their approaches to reach happiness. Epicureans live a very active lifestyle in always doing things for pleasure and making the most out of pleasurable opportunities because they believe nothing lasts forever. Their goal is to seek maximum pleasure and completely avoid pain in order to reach happiness. Although this seems like an ideal lifestyle, it is not a viable philosophy because it's impossible to avoid pain. Avoiding pain is like avoiding life because pain is a part of life. A Stoic would probably criticize an Epicurean for always living in the moment.. On the other hand, Stoics use happiness as a strategy for survival, which means that they are not likely to live in the moment, but wait until they're life is over to find happiness. They are willing to sit back and accept pain, unlike the Epicureans. Yet Stoics are still avoiding life because they believe whatever they do now doesn't really matter because they'll end up achieving happiness when they get to the afterlife. So essentially, it seems that both philosophies end up backfiring on the individuals themselves because making the most out of life's pleasures and avoiding pain isn't going to help one achieve happiness, nor is passively allowing whatever happen happen because in the end happiness will come in the afterlife. Neither philosophy is realistic. Epicureanism would only be fun for a short time but since you're avoiding pain, nothing will benefit from or learned. Stoicism is wasting your life being stolid and never experiencing the excitements of life. So basically, avoiding life isn't going bring you happiness.
Epicurianis vs. Stoicism
Although both Epicureanism and Stoicism both have important ideas to offer and some good practices which should be brought into our everyday lives, I see Stoicism as a philosophy of life avoidance. I do not believe that there is one person ever that has not felt emotions which the Stoic philosophy seems to condemn. There was never a person who did not at least feel a small twinge of regret at having lost something or remorse for having done something because the people that seems to be true stoics merely exists in Hollywood films and ancient myths. I believe that even if you are looking at something in the best of lights, there is no way to block out the feelings which human nature provides. How can everything always happen for the best when so many things are wrong? How can genocide be for the best? How can a plane crash be for the best? How can a war be for the best? It makes no sense to me, because you can rationalize it any way you want but the fact is that bad things happen and they are not always for a good reason. Passion and emotion are important traits that make humans what we are. If we were to erase emotion then we couldn’t say that we are even alive. you might as well be shut up in a cardboard box alone because there would be no point to life if you felt one monotonous emotion all the time, you would just be a sack of flesh, aimlessly wandering wherever you are told duty calls. Epicureanism on the other hand does not suppress emotions but instead promotes happiness and peace of mind. Epicureans do not face every day with the same somber outlook because they only want to be happy. If all people only wanted to be happy, than there would be less anger, less war and less suffering in the world. I believe that people as epicureans would find happiness in other peoples joy and society would become stronger as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)