Please add at least two questions. Respond to at least one (yours or mine or classmates'), before Tuesday if possible. We'll again split our focus three ways.
- What do you think of Rousseau's conjecture that humans are naturally self-interested and unsociable but not "dominated by the selfish passions"? 68 Was Hobbes closer to the mark when he said life in a state of nature would have been a "war of all against all" and "nasty, brutish, and short"? Is there any way to know who's right about this?
- Do you think the modern coffeehouse does, or could, play a large part in our enlightenment -- in creating civil public spaces in which sociability and "politeness" are encouraged, and in which esprit quickens the mind and sharpens our discourse? 86 Or is it just another commercial space in which people retreat behind their (literal and figurative) screens and keep to themselves? (Do you have a favorite coffeehouse in middle Tennessee that you can recommend for its civilizing value?)
- Was Descartes right that "the mind has no sex"? 91 Do most of our contemporaries agree? How do the new gender-fluid and gender-neutral attitudes enter into your thinking about that?
- "Literacy...enabled men and women to read the works of philosophers and novelists; it also inspired them to respond, to answer back." 98 Do fewer and fewer of us read philosophy and literature for both pleasure and enlightenment? If so, is that mainly due to the Internet and social media? Can it be effectively countered by parents reading to and with their children?
- Any comment? "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."
- Do philosophers and other intellectuals generally make an attempt nowadays to shape "public opinion as a political force"? 113 Should they? Or should academics stick to their knitting, as it were, in the ivory tower? Should more academics take on the role of public intellectual?
- Any comment? "There is something devastatingly hollow about the demonstration that thought without action is hollow, when we find the philosopher only thinking it." John Lachs
Would you go up to a stranger in a coffee shop and ask them for the latest news? Dr Matthew Green takes us back to the 17th and 18th century when London's original fleet of coffeehouses were very different from the current crop of branded cafes. Matthew calls for a coffeehouse revolution to bring us out of digital isolation and back into physical community.
Online, it is often hard to tell information from misinformation. Enter the public intellectual, an academic who engages with the media and translates scholarly work for the masses. In this informative talk, Erica Stone argues that our universities have a duty to engage with the public.
And here they are, pre-pandemic:A pair of public intellectuals. Cornel West zooms with Chris Phillips' class. It can be exhausting, listening to Professor West, but also at moments exhilarating. I love what he says about education at around the 38-minute mark: it's about getting us to shift our attention from superficial things to substantive things... and to think for ourselves (he mentions Kant).
Was Descartes right that "the mind has no sex"? 91 Do most of our contemporaries agree?
ReplyDeleteThis topic is difficult for me to understand in depth. I can understand that some people feel like they are trapped but I don't understand how and I can't explain it.
How do the new gender-fluid and gender-neutral attitudes enter into your thinking about that?
I understand that people are who they are and how am I to know what motivates someone at any particular time while they are alive? We are never the same person minute to minute. This movie brought some of those concepts closer to my understanding of the body being separate from the mind.
https://www.imdb.com/video/vi832438553?playlistId=tt0338290&ref_=tt_ov_vi
With that out of the way I think it is inescapable that gender has relevance to the way we perceive the world. I am not one to say that a person has a place but in many ways we play roles and do this by our own volition. We are however the same in the ability to see the world in theory, to explore and to dream of possibilities and to search for truth regardless of anything that differs between us.
"Gender dysphoria is the term for a deep sense of unease and distress that may occur when your biological sex does not match your gender identity. In the past, this was called gender identity disorder. For example, you may be assigned at birth as a female gender, but you feel a deep inner sense of being male. In some people, this mismatch can cause severe discomfort, anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions.
DeleteCauses
Gender identity is how you feel and identify, it can be as a female, male, or both. Gender is typically assigned at birth, based on a baby having the outward appearance (genital organs) of either a male or a female as per a social construct of a binary system of two genders (male or female).
If your gender identity matches the gender assigned to you at birth, this is called cisgender. For example, if you were born biologically as a male, and you identify as a man, you are a cisgender man.
Transgender refers to identifying as a gender that is different from the biological gender assigned when you were born. For example, if were born biologically female and were assigned a female gender, but you feel a deep inner sense of being a man, you are a transgender man.
Some people express their gender in ways that do not fit into traditional binary social norms of male or female gender. This is called non-binary, gender non-conforming, genderqueer, or gender-expansive. In general, most transgender people do not identify as non-binary.
It is important to mention that the anxiety transgender people may feel due to having the body of the wrong gender is deeply distressing. As a result, the transgender community have higher rate of mental health problems and risk of attempted suicide.
No one knows exactly what causes gender dysphoria. Some experts believe that hormones in the womb, genes, and cultural and environmental factors may be involved..." https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001527.htm
It's the "cultural and environmental factors" I find most intriguing, and perhaps that's what many of us also find most confusing about this phenomenon. Or perplexing, for those who prefer a black-and-white, male-or-female world. Those of us over a certain age may be especially challenged by this brave new world of gender complexity, but the enlightened view generally is to welcome complexity and celebrate it.
I agree, whatever gender differences may impact how we view the world, they must not be allowed to occlude the our common humanity in the search for truth.
The tendency for historians to identify Enlightenment with ‘modernity’ became even more marked in 1989. Three circumstances explain this. First the fall of the Berlin Wall …The second the revival of religion as a force in politics…And the third was postmodernism, [and] its impudent revitalization of the truth. (125)
ReplyDeleteFor me this is somewhat confusing. I look at the fall of the Berlin wall as an awakening. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MznHdJReoeo ) While at the same time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RzKKfNkTk ) Tiananmen Square was happening. I believe it is impossible to extricate the political powers at work in China from the machinations in this country as we are one and the same as an economic entity. Religion has always been a force in politics and always will be as long as the memory of the Holocaust and the state of Israel exist. Today it is even more difficult to extricate religion from politics much more so today than in 1989. With the news sources following the trending stories it is more and more difficult to find the source for information and to verify validity. Is this excerpt sarcasm?
I don't think Robertson is being sarcastic. He's thinking like a historian, looking for milestone dates upon which to peg important shifts in culture and politics. 1989 was comparatively a watershed year, particularly in light of the fall of the Berlin Wall, but you're right: Tiananmen Square pointed in the other direction. Always take historical generalizations with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteFor this batch of readings the questions that I came up with are
ReplyDelete1. Do you believe that language is an innate or a divine gift? (68)
2. How can the Free Masons be an essential part of the public sphere if they impose secrecy? (89)
1. Since I don't personally believe in divines, I can't see it as a divine gift. And I can't see it as a gift in the literal sense, since the only candidate for such largesse must be a god. But in the looser sense in which anything we consider a boon and an asset is a gift, I do think language is a gift... even though I also share the Jamesian ambivalence I've mentioned, noting the limits of language and the ways in which we distort life by trying to render ineffable experience in words.
DeleteThe question as to whether language is innate seems to me a related but somewhat different issue. Were we humans and our antecedents always born with a capacity for language, or at least an innate "grammar" or scaffolding for symbolic communication? Or if not always, then emergently? I guess that's the Noam Chomsky line in linguistics. My line is that I can well imagine the evolutionary path of our forebears NOT having turned to language... in which case I suspect we wouldn't be here. So again, my gratitude for the "gift"... I don't think much thinking or co-philosophizing would go on without it!
2. Interesting paradox. I think of my old dad, who was a freemason (of course he never really divulged any "secrets") in much the same way, it seemed to me, as he was a member of the school board and Rotary and Kiwanis (civic organizations designed to bring merchants and small business-people and professionals together for "sociability" and boosterism etc.). In other words, freemasonry for him seemed just one more club that brought him into regular contact with his peers. I sort of see that as a way of building the public sphere.
Ben Franklin said the masons' great secret was that they had no real secrets. Ritual and clubbiness, yes. But nothing for the rest of us to be suspicious of.
I think that the modern coffee house plays a prominent role in our enlightenment. While caffeinated beverages flow, so do the thoughts and conversations. Although the inside of cafes were not available for use throughout the pandemic, some have begun to open up their indoor cafes. I believe that the atmosphere of a coffee house is integral to encouraging sociability with others on a respectable level, and the caffeine helps to sharpen the wits utilized in discourse. However, there is also a subgroup of individuals who retreat behind their screens and keep to themselves. Whether for school, social purposes, or work. I have also noticed, and even myself, split the conversation between work. It is interesting the different groups of individuals in a coffee house and how they use their time. It also depends on an individual’s viewpoint of a coffeehouse. Also, an individual’s drive to expand their knowledge and belief in the importance of conversation also play a big role in if an individual is social or not. My preferred coffeehouse in middle Tennessee would be Just Love.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker in that TedX video seems to think that the "subgroup" is the vast majority of coffeehouse patrons these days. I've had good conversations at Starbucks, but usually only because I'm there for the very purpose of doing so: usually meeting up with a friend at an appointed time, to catch up on our respective lives. But the thought of approaching a stranger and saying "What's new?" is a little bizarre. It wouldn't have been, in a London coffeehouse of the 18th century. I kind of envy that, but at the same time I'm a product of our century and would probably resent the incursion on my personal space.
DeleteIs there something there to grasp or is enlightenment unobtainable?
ReplyDeleteWould it be wrong to fit enlightenment into a paradigm of understanding that has passed into history?
Should we continue to think of enlightenment as a society in search for moral virtue?
Could communism in its truest sense be the once or a future embodiment of enlightenment?
When we think of enlightenment do we have to think of a structure that includes politics or should it just be one's own understanding of the world?
I felt that the conclusion of this book left me to wonder where the influencers of the enlightenment end?
If by enlightenment we mean commitment to human betterment, progress, social justice, and in general the amelioration of the human condition, then that's not "there" in any sense that implies necessary existence. These are contingent states of affairs the attainment of which depends upon human agency and resolve. I can think of no reason to declare them unattainable, a priori. The point of pursuing enlightenment, like the pursuit of happiness (which on recent interpretations may simply be different aspects of the same pursuit), is to fulfill one of the crucial conditions of their attainment: our will to attain them.
DeleteYes, I think it would be wrong to consign enlightenment to the dustbin of history... or of mere historical scholarship. Our course (following Pinker) is called Enlightenment Now. History is still being made and written.
I prefer to think of enlightenment as individuals building a better society collaboratively, in search of every kind of virtue. Moral virtue is a subset of virtue in the wide old Greek sense of arete, meaning excellence across the board and in every facet of life involving human volition.
If true communism reconciles the public interest with private freedom, and if it is realistic, then perhaps something like it is the future of enlightenment. But it'll be very different from any nominal form of communism we've yet seen.
I think we should think of enlightenment as embracing both personal and public dimensions. No need to exclude either.
I hope the "influencers" don't end at all, since we're still quite far from achieving an enlightened society.
Q. 1: Does the Enlightenment “matter” today?
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts: I appreciate the author’s intent to “portray Enlightenment thinking and Enlightenment thinkers in terms appropriate to their time in the 18th century.” I think it is valuable to look at The Enlightenment for what it was in the context of that specific time, i.e., of what was happening then, the knowledge of the world, historical events, how societies and politics functioned THEN versus now.
I prefer to think of The Enlightenment based on those parameters because I find it very difficult to live in 2021 and feel that we are an “enlightened” people. I suppose I have a bit of a pessimistic viewpoint as it is easiest to focus on the injustices and negativity in the world we live in today, rather than concentrate on the good (I should probably work on that). I do agree with the author that it is beneficial to understand The Enlightenment from a historical standpoint and glean what we can from the study of it as a time in history.
Each generation (each individual, really) can claim their own version of an “enlightenment” as humankind continues to learn from the past and evolves into a more emotionally sophisticated species. It just feels like we might be going backwards sometimes.
Q. 2: Had the French Revolution not occurred, would the Enlightenment (as it is defined in this book) have continued past the 18th century?
It does indeed feel like we're regressing, de-lightening, devolving, marching backwards with the rise of uncritically-minded superstition, baseless and outlandish conspiracy-mongering, blatant dishonesty etc. And that's why I think the values of enlightenment, theirs and subsequently, matter now more than ever. Progress constructed on the dispassionate (but not unimpassioned) quest for truth, facts, and reality can be our salvation. Its continued neglect will likely be our reversion to a more primitive and less hopeful condition. And yes, if we're really thinking (really THINKING) for ourselves then each of us can fashion our own sense of what enlightenment means. Our text indicates that on one interpretation that's exactly what Kant was advising, not the more absolute and objective conception of enlightenment as a categorical construction of the universal mind. We should ask Prof. Hale about that.
DeleteI wonder if a less bloody French Revolution might have contributed to a more enduring and widely-embraced form of enlightenment. If France and other European powers had remained in the grip of autocracy and coercive monarchy, on the other hand, would that have hastened an eventual revolutionary explosion of democracy? Or would it have isolated the American experiment and expedited the decline of our democracy? These historical what-ifs are intriguing, if inconclusive. To me, this just signals the importance of owning the present as history-in-the-making, wondering less about what might have been and more about what might still be.
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."
ReplyDeleteMy brain wants to agree with this in general, but I can't get past the "good books" phrase.
Aren't "good books" like "good art" — relative? Who gets to decide what constitutes a good vs bad book? I feel like that's a very slippery slope.
And... What's the criteria for a good book? Who is the authority on this criteria and why are they the authority?
Even if you're reading "bad books," you still have the advantage over the other man because you have the ability to read.
Well that's right, as lots of educators say: better that the kids read Captain Underpants than nothing at all.
DeleteBut I do still think there's such a thing as a Good Book-- and there are many of them, not just one. It's true that we always have to ask about the ulterior agenda of those who propose to canonize any books. But I will always argue that Twain is better than Danielle Steele, for instance. Walker Percy and Shelby Foote wrote better books than just about any on the current bestseller list. We can and should differ, and debate, about what books are good, and why we think so. But if we throw in the towel and say its all just relative and subjective, then we might as well give up any hope for an enlightenment project of any sort. "Betterment" and "progress" require the exercise of critical judgment, not its abandonment. Sapere Aude! But then also have the courage to expose your own critical judgment to the critical scrutiny of your peers. (What's the Latin for "Have the courage to co-philosophize"?)
Questions on pages 88-110:
ReplyDelete1. Radical religious 'Dissent' provided a social context which was supportive of women's intellectual ambitions (pg. 92). It was not until after the 1790's that a space was created for women's intellectual ambitions. What other factors (print culture) contributed to the involvement of women?
2. In the previous section, I observed how religion plays a crucial role in the Enlightenment. In this section, government and education are observed of also influencing the Enlightenment. Out of the three, religion, education, and government, which has the most crucial/important role in forming the Enlightenment?
1. The suffrage movement, fueled by dissent of all kinds but mostly by exasperation with the oppressively heavy hand of what we've learned to call the patriarchy, surely was a central force bringing women into the public and activist spheres. (Again, see the award-winning documentary inspired and created by MTSU students & staffers, "Silent No More..." https://cophilosophy2.blogspot.com/2021/05/silent-no-more.html
Delete2. Education, broadly conceived (which of course includes religious and political education)
In the previous section, I observed how religion plays a crucial role in the Enlightenment. In this section, government and education are observed of also influencing the Enlightenment. Out of the three, religion, education, and government, which has the most crucial/important role in forming the Enlightenment?
DeleteI have always been one to believe that many things revolve around education. Education often brings a new type of power to people. Education can often help people create a better life for themselves. This not only helps them succeed, but helps develop the society and better the community. Often times, it seems that the higher the education level, the higher the opinions of the people. People begin to research and question what is being done.
Religion also seems to play a large part on Enlightenment, but I strongly believe education is the most crucial. Religion affects many people's opinions and therefore effect Enlightenment, but religion may be different among everyone. Education is taught and can help people form substantial arguments and opinions based on factual knowledge.
Lastly, based on what we have read, it would seem as if the government may play more negatively into Enlightenment. The control that they hope to maintain over the people would be hindered by education and the progress of the Enlightenment.
Do you think the modern coffeehouse does or could play a large part in our enlightenment- in creating civil public spaces in which sociability and politeness are encouraged and in which esprit quickens the mind and sharpens our discourse? Or is it just another commercial space in which people retreat behind their screens and keep to themselves?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the modern coffeehouse plays an integral role in our enlightenment. My favorite coffeehouse (which I go to everyday!!) is Just Love Coffee at the Fountains in Murfreesboro. For the past two months, I have gone here to read for my classes, do homework, and work on work stuff. The amount of work that I get completed amazes me. I believe much of it has to do with the coffee, food, and music they play. I believe that the coffee quickens the mind and sharpens our discourse.
Although some people hide behind their screens, there is room for people to socialize. Not only am I able to do research for classes and learn new concepts throughout the day, I am also able to enjoy coffee dates with friends here. Due to the location, most of the time, I am able to sit down and talk with people from my church. There is room to socialize especially with the comfort and set up of the coffeehouse.
Do you meet and talk with people you didn't already know there, or with people representing a spectrum of views not your own? I think that phenomenon was the great enlightener of its age. Where do we do that now, if not in such public spaces?
DeleteReflecting on this excerpt, "...the apparently limitless capacity of peoples to differentiate themselves by their manners", what others areas have you noticed this to ring true for (p. 70)? I always enjoy hearing and learning about the vast differences in cultures, specifically examining behavior, so I'm interested in what you all know or have experienced.
ReplyDeleteHow can our acknowledgement of these differences play a role in our own understanding and appreciation of enlightenment?
(p.71 in my text)
DeleteI'm not sure "the philosophers" indicated in this passage necessarily observed a lot of mutual acknowledgement and appreciation, but they were struck by multiform varieties of ways of being human. It is generally an enlightenment attitude to celebrate such diversity, and encourage it. That's philosophical pluralism as I understand it.
It's a reactionary attitude, on the other hand, to recoil in a xenophobic way from "the stranger," and it sure seems like that's been the dominant note of our historical moment. I hope we're in recovery from that, but we shouldn't get complacent about it. It feels like we're always just an election away from slipping back into the old reactionary/nationalistic mindset.
"Literacy...enabled men and women to read the works of philosophers and novelists; it also inspired them to respond, to answer back." 98 Do fewer and fewer of us read philosophy and literature for both pleasure and enlightenment? If so, is that mainly due to the Internet and social media? Can it be effectively countered by parents reading to and with their children?
ReplyDeleteI find the older I get the fewer people I know who read for enjoyment and self advancement. I do believe that technology and the excessive use of social media have both largely influenced this decrease in reading for enjoyment as well as for the simple desire to self-educate (sometimes being able to "just Google it" enables us).
Having worked in the education system for several years, I can also say that I as well as other teachers have seen a rise in speech problems with the advancement and usage of technology. I think this likely has to do with children being placed in front of a screen too often also paired with parents speaking to children with phone blocking the child's view of the parents' lips. Often, they are being talked 'at' not talked 'to'. Taking time to sit and read (child and parent) is an exercise that is often deemed a nuisance to parents or another 'to-do' homework assignment.
I would also suggest that we live in a very busy and rushed society. People pack their schedules full, often overwhelming themselves with 'to-do lists', and they do not have or make time to rest and read. Our hurried society is something that I have very consciously tried to avoid in my personal life. It is far too easy and widely accepted to live busy lives, but let's charge ourselves to live meaningful and intentional lives. I think that it much more my pace.
"Taking time to sit and read (child and parent) is an exercise that is often deemed a nuisance to parents..." That's so sad! The time my wife and I spent reading and talking with our girls, the time spent scouring the public library and bookstore shelves for cool picture books (and later Harry Potter etc.) are among our very most treasured parental memories. And I would say those times contributed to our "self-education" as much as to theirs.
DeleteI just heard a woman on the radio talking about how her daughter had pestered her for access to social media from an early age, saying that all her friends were doing it. The woman said she held out "a really long time, 'til she was 12." Parents are going to have to develop a little more spine, in my opinion--both for sitting and reading, and for saying No.
We are indeed too hurried. Making time for quality interactions with children at the end or the beginning of the day is one way of slowing it all down, and finding (as you say) meaning through intention.
Where there's a will...
Questions for Pages 88-110:
ReplyDelete1. During the 18th-century, salons were one of the main institutions of the public sphere. Salons were used to discuss intellectual topics, typically organized by women. If salons, or something similar, were to resurface in our society today, how would this effect the sharing of knowledge in our digital society? Would they be considered useful or has technology become the most useful way to share information?
https://www.fourseasons.com/magazine/rejuvenate/salons-around-the-world/
2. Censorship was discussed throughout the print culture in this section. What does modern day censorship look like? How does it effect us differently now that we are living in such a digital age? Would the reintroduction of salons, or something similar, avoid the problem of censorship?
https://cpj.org/attacks/
1. That's what Chris Phillips was modeling, with "Socrates Cafe"... Many who've participated have said those gatherings were life-changing. But we're talking about a fraction of a fraction of the people. Social media used judiciously could scale that phenomenon up significantly.
ReplyDelete2. Many countries do still ban books. Many localities in America do, either overtly through the actions of school boards and textbook selectors (etc.) and more insidiously by enacting a stifling culture of conformism. In that sense, a lot of censorship is self-censorship: people lacking the courage to think for themselves and step away from the majority. THen there's the whole cancel culture debate, which seems antithetical to free expression.
In general I think salons and the like would counteract some of that, especially in smaller communities, but someone's going to have to step forward and "dare to think"...