The Communist Manifesto

This was not my first time reading the Communist Manifesto. However, after reading it for CIE rather then a history class I was able to take a much different perspective of the text. It is amazing to see how revolutionary this piece of text really is. Not only does Marx claim the needs to be a proletariat revolution to save society, he says a violent revolution is the only way. Reading this from a modern perspective and with all of the previous conceived notions we have developed about communism, it is almost difficult to take this text seriously. Communism has such a horrible connotation since its institution in Russia. Everyone knows that ideologically Communism may seem to work, but as a society it is not only impractical, but impossible as well. We do not have the capacity to treat everyone as equals and not embrace advantages or improvements as they present themselves. Marx had good intentions with his creation of the Communist Manifesto but his goals were too lofty and his perception of humans was too positive.

Reflections on Today's Class

After our class today I really began to think about the purpose of poetry and the way authors intended their writing to be read.

After reading the poem 4 times, I have come to the conclusion that many of the statements made in class today were products of superficial interpretations of the text. Wordsworth wanted his audience to read the text literally, but this does not detract from the necessity to read into the deeper meanings embedding within the text. I believe Wordsworth was discussing physical nature throughout his entire poem, I don't see any text that points to nature being a metaphor for a larger idea.

It also seems to me that we tended to jump to the conclusion that Wordsworth was angry at his corruption through his loss of his childhood outlook on nature. Again, I don't really see any evidence in the text to support this claim. Rather it seems that he is content with his new perspective on nature. He is now able to see the deeper purpose and benefits of nature. Instead of losing a connection with nature, Wordsworth has actually just developed a different, more mature relationship.

It's important that we remember not in interject our own assumptions into the text. We can only base our conclusions on the evidence we have in front of us. It is true that there are historical clues that can help us speculate some of the author's motives, but it can never be more than speculation. Conclusion need to have textual support to hold any validity.

I didn't mean to rant but I'm worried we may lose some of the integrity of our discussion if we continue to fail to properly support our assumptions and conclusions.

First Blog Post of the Second Semester

So this is our first blog of the second semester. Nathan is currently teaching the rest of the class how to make the blogs, but since we already have our blogs established our assignment is to write our first blog post.

Descrate's Assumptions

Descarte argues that the only thing we can be sure are real are our thoughts. This led our class to begin a discussion on the legitimacy of our own senses to observe our reality correctly. According to Descarte these observations are the only thing we can be sure are true. However, there are many instances where people experience sensory experiences or even incorrect thoughts. How would Descarte explain such happenings?

Through out recorded history many people have developed incorrect assumptions about the world based on false thoughts and interpretations of their sensory observations. Yet, according to Descarte these things were the only things such people could be 100% sure were real.

This leads me to question what reality is. Could reality simply be each person's own interpretation of the world around us? Can reality be different for every person? This seems to contradict the general connotation of reality. Reality is supposed to be free from personal interpretations and the same for everyone. If this is the case, then is our hold on reality as secure as we think it is? Do we even really know what reality is?

While in class I also wondered if people have the ability to realize when their sensory observations are false? Can reason and/or logic allow people to recognize this flaw?

I think Descarte's assumption that the only thing we can be 100% sure exists is too bold. Yet, when I really sit down and contemplate it, I can't think of any more logical assumptions. It is very scary to think that we may be living in an illusion. Maybe this is why it seems so implausible that everything around us may not exist. But it seems impossible to prove that anything exists but your own personal thoughts.

In Descartes’ fourth section (I believe) he claims that because he thinks he exists. This assumption is completely plausible. There is no way to challenge your own existence. It is the one thing that, to each individual, is permanent, no matter what else around him changes. This, however, is the only part of Descartes’ reasoning that I find completely plausible. As he continues on he discusses the existence of God and how there must be a perfect being above him to allow him to think. This, though slightly less plausible, still convinces me enough to support his argument. However, his next claim, that we all must abandon every assumption we hold about the world around us to allow us to discover the world for ourselves, is not only implausible but downright impossible.

First I will discussion how it is implausible, then I will explain how even Descartes himself demonstrated the impossibility of such a task. If it was possible for a person sitting in a stove-heated room to abandon everything he knew about the world, then when he began to observe and create his own assumptions about the world he would be limited to the space he can observe, i.e. the stove heated room. Since his mind is a blank slate the only things he could be sure existed are the components of this room. His entire world view would be based upon this room. This would become the starting point for all of this thought processes. Not only would this make his world view very obscure, it would also severely limit the purpose Descartes had for abandoning his knowledge in the beginning. No matter what method a person uses to understand the world, they must have a starting point. Now rather than the education he received as a child being his basis for understanding the world, his own personal assumptions and observations about this room would be his initial influence. To me this seems completely absurd.

In addition to this method being implausible, Descartes also, unknowingly it seems, demonstrates how impossible it is to employ. During his time in the stove-heated room, Descartes contemplates some proofs on triangles. In his attempt to prove to himself the correctness of one such proof, he fails to abandon all of his previous knowledge about triangles. In his contemplation he holds onto the fact that the three angles of a triangle must sum 180 degrees. Never does he record figuring this information out for himself. Rather he failed to abandon this knowledge he learned in his youth. In his attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of his own method he actually points out its flaws.

It is a shame that Descartes did not recognize such a flaw in his work for he had such an influence on the way people thought about the world during his time period. His empirical method did revolutionize the way scientists conduct their experiments and research, but his intention to bring this thought process to the masses failed because of errors like the one I have just discussed.

The Enlightened Worldview

I find it very interesting that all of the Enlightened minds we have read in the second half of this semester have taken a similar attitude towards people. Starting with Montague we have seen these men display a general faith in mankind. Montague placed his faith in other cultures, he believed they were more "civilized" and Europeans had much to learn from them. Shakespeare demonstrated his faith in humanity through his writings. He encoded many social and political messages within his plays and he expected his audiences to be able to decipher his work. By publishing his work and thinking the public would accept it, Galileo displayed his faith in mankind. He thought they would see the truth in his discoveries and embrace his revolutionary ideas. Finally, DesCartes believes all humans have an equal ability to reason. How each person uses this ability may differ, but each person possesses the same potential. Few people during DesCartes' time were willing to make such a generalization, placing all of humanity on the same level.
Many people argue that to this day this trend has continued. I have not seen enough of the world yet to make such a generalization. But from my experience so far, it seems that the "educated" sector is socially more liberal, which seems to be the modern day equivalent of the Enlightened thinkers. Does this mean that education opens your eyes to humanity's abilities? Does a greater education allow people to view people with more compassion? Or are there just as many people in the "uneducated" sector who share these beliefs but just do not have the means to vocalize them?

We haven't talked about this much in class, but being the history nerd that I am, I keep getting stuck on this point. The Church was under so much attack and looked so bad at this point in history (due to the Great Schism, the Reformation, the religious wars, etc) those in power were willing to take drastic measures to preserve what little power they still maintained. The Medieval mindset was one of repetition. No one expected change; life was very cyclical for almost 1000 years. The Church controlled everything, even how people thought, and no one ever considered challenging this way of life. However, as the Petrarch led the revolution in Italy towards Humanism, certain people in society began to embrace change. Reading the rediscovering, and translating for themselves, ancient texts by Greek and Roman philosophers, these forward thinkers began to realize it was "ok" to challenge authority. The process began in the 14th century and by the 17th century (when Galileo lived) it was still in its infancy. People were, however, now making some attempts to explore their worlds, make their own observations, draw their own conclusions, and challenge the current doctrine and truths.

This "thinking revolution" posed a great threat to the Church. They had controlled everything for so many years, they did not know how to handle such change. It has been a pattern through out history, who ever is in power wants to do whatever it takes to ensure they remain in power. This is not an outrageous claim, but in doing so, the Church prevented itself from incorporating scientific discoveries and other revelations into its doctrine. The actual discoveries made by someone like Galileo or Newton did not threaten the power of the Church, they could have been easily assimilated into the belief system. But, because the Church was so afraid of losing power, this was not an option. Thus, the Scientific Revolution, and later the Enlightenment, bloomed as oppositions to the Church, rather than as physical and philosophical support for the Church.

I'm not really sure where I was going with this post, or why I ended up where I did. But these were some thought that have been going on in my mind during our classes recently and I just felt like writing them down. Sorry for the "stream of consciousness" writing.