Archive for February, 2011

Jean-Jacques Rousseau  looked at humans natural impulses.  He believed that humans were born good and were only then made bad by societies rules.  He believed that if they were given the option of living freely then they would develop good and would be happy. Because of this he proposed a government that would give humans as much freedom as possible. He suggested the notion of general will.  This is that one must inhibit their personal will for the good of others and act in ways that are beneficial to the community.  I think he believed this because of his childhood.  He grew up acting on his personal impulses and it was not beneficial to the community.  I think that when he grew up he realized that this is not how a civilized society should act.

I find the notion that we are born good interesting.  I believe that in general humans are born good and we can choose to stay that way or become bad, but I also believe that we are born with some bad, such as selfishness.  I think that no matter the society we live in, we will still remain somewhat selfish at heart.  Although I think it is very possible to overcome selfishness if you strive for it.

It is also interesting that Rousseau wrote a book on how a child should be educated.  He discussed the best relationship for a child and tutor.  He believed that education should be particular to each individual child’s talents and interests.  Rousseau discusses that a tutor should let his student learn some on his own. I really like this idea of education because so many times students just learn things in different ways.  We all have different strengths and different talents and if you do fit into the standard way of learning then you are left behind.  I think that if more educational institutions would pick up on Rousseau’s theory of education many more people would have a better educational experience.

I believe that much of what Rousseau believed in his later life stemmed from his experiences in childhood.  He was abandoned by his father, suffered from poor health, moved all the time and changed jobs frequently, and was poor much of his life.  He did not have an easy childhood and I believe he took those experiences and used them to create theories of a better life than what he was given.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had some odd ideas about human nature along with society and its social structures. I found of quote of him saying “The first man who had fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes…” (Wiki). He clams that mans problems are rooted in the hierarchies that rule over us and that without them we would live in harmony. Basically Rousseau believes it is our assessment that something is our and ours alone that causes our eternal strife.

Rousseau ideas on society make me think of two somewhat opposing sociologist Weber and Marx. Weber because Rousseau talks about the supposed need for authority like Weber’s rational authority, which comes from governments in order to maintain order. Marx felt that conflict is created by those with the means imposing their will on those without means like when Rousseau used the example of the first man to build a fence. One thing that did bother me about Rousseau is that although he proposes the elimination of government he does not give historical or empirical evidence of his reasons. Rousseau suggests causality between means and death/suffering but not with government from what I could tell.

This may be a bit of a stretch but I would speculate the Rousseau early life involvement with the church could have help to create the idea of no government, the Garden of Eden and the request for a king over God’s people. Overall I feel that Rousseau writings give an interesting perspective on how giving/sharing we should be with one another.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

Exploration into the life and philosophy of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe really stuck a chord with me. Dipping into the fields of literature, science and philosophy, Goethe was a true intellect of the Romantic period. Famously quoted as saying “Nothing is worse than active ignorance”, Goethe’s personal philosophy centered on the importance of continuous aspiration for personal growth. I strongly agree with his belief that life should be lived with a passion for advancement and that that inspiration for advancement can be derived from most any aspect of life. Goethe saw humans as being at war with the conflicts and stresses of life as he believed that all life was consisted of opposing forces; love and hate, good and evil, life and death. The way he saw it, however, the goal of life should be to instead embrace these opposing forces, rather than try to overcome them. To accept the existence of both positive and negative aspects of life, I believe, allows life to become a more understandable and explainable experience. To accept the fact that life is made up of both highs and lows and to embrace the inspiration and opportunity for advancement that those times can bring instead of taking the existence of those forces for granted. Goethe’s ideas reminds me of a passage of the Bible that I take very close to heart and in many ways try to live by. Ephesians 5:15-16 reads “Be very careful how you live—not as unwise, but as wise making the most of every opportunity.” Even when the “opportunity” presented to you is not necessarily one you would even consider an opportunity, I have found it very helpful to see how I may manage to make the most of it; to search for the bright side, realize where I can learn a lesson, or discover how I can strengthen myself. I believe that this is the kind of continuous aspiration for personal growth Goethe was striving for.

I believe that the reason Rousseau had so much wisdom on education and child rearing is because he endured so much in his childhood and adolescent years. He by no means had an easy life, and became independent (literally and temperamentally) at a young age.

He endured many hardships, beginning with the death of his mother nine days after his birth. He was abandoned by his father at age ten, and was left with his uncle who took him away to learn from a Calvinist minister where he gained many hopes for his future. At age sixteen he was challenged and converted to Catholicism and eventually had to process what he himself believed. He was very influential later in life with his thoughts on politics, education and parenting.

I find it very interesting that when thinking of education, he focused solely on the emotional well being of the pupil rather than the actual fundamental skills. He thought that the most important part of teaching was not only being able to impart knowledge and concepts, but encouraging the students to develop moral character and common sense. After this he believed that the student would naturally accomplish self-mastery and be able to independently achieve many things.

This evidently stems from his beliefs about his own experiences in life. His ability to withstand the seemingly never ending crises and hardships made him a much stronger person and thinker, giving him wisdom to teach others.

I found that Nietzsche was a very intelligent man growing up and his relationships are what shaped him and his writing. After his father died he was left with a lot of women For example, when Lou rejected his proposal twice he finally went into a depression and he ended up writing Zarathustra which seemed to be like an autobiography. Nietzsche took a lot of his everyday life and belief systems and morphed them into his well known ideas today.  When he claimed the statement “God is Dead” he was referring to the philosophers who took a view that we are alone in this universe because we get our knowledge from the universe.

The way Nietzsche uses his experiences and beliefs to develop ideas that are still prominent today and still firmly believed in my many is a huge accomplishment even though I think that he is a bit radical but true in his ideals.

I found the life of Jean- Jacques Rousseau incredibly interesting considering the work he did on raising children. When Rousseau was only nine days old his mother died of fever and I believe that this contributed to his difficulty in raising his own children but it also gave him an interesting perspective on how to educate them properly. As a teenager his father and uncle, practically his only family, disowned him. This also attributed to his insight into parenting.

I find it so interesting that sometimes one only needs to be aware of what is wrong to understand what is right.

Kierkegaard, like many of us today, spent a great deal of his life wrestling with religion. His father was a prominent religious figure, and, growing up, Kierkegaard worshipped him as a god. When Kierkegaard’s father admitted sexual sins, it shattered the boy’s world, and he gave up Christianity altogether. Eventually, he would return to the faith, and, in fact, was schooled in theology at the University of Copenhagen, but rejected the institutionalized church. He was an outspoken critic of the established church for its worldliness and its insistence on the acceptance of prescribed dogma, the book says. He said that the most meaningful relationship with God was a purely personal one that was arrived at through an individual’s free choice, not one whose nature and content were dictated by the church. This viewpoint has become a dominant idea in the church of Christianity today. Kierkegaard was concerned that too many Christians were praying simply because it was what was expected of them rather than having a true relationship with God and, according to the book, would have argued that for most people a genuine, personal, emotional relationship with God does not exist. Religious people still worry about that today, but now it goes under the name hypocrisy. Sadly, many people today, when asked to describe Christianity, will think of the word hypocrite. People say that they are Christian, but then go out and fail to act as they should. Others see their hedonistic lifestyles, think of them as a hypocrite, and associate the word with the church. The question then becomes how we can turn this trend around. Kierkegaard would probably say that it cannot be done unless we each achieve a personal relationship with God.

I found Rousseau to have some interesting and influential ideas in society and psychology today. The most interesting thing for me was his idea on education. He felt that education should take advantage of natural impulses rather than distort them.  He felt that education should create a situation in which a child’s natural abilities and interests can be nurtured. I like this concept. I feel that today we concentrate to much on students weaknesses instead of their strengths. I can remember growing up and always hearing about the areas that I need to  improve in but not much feed back on what I was good at. Also, I like the ideas of the “General Will”. He states that we each have a private will and a general will. The private being the selfish side and the general will that acts in the best interest of the community. This comes from his work ” Social Contract”. It kind of reminds me of social psychology in regards to conformity. I do think that we are all selfish in many ways and we do conform to the greater good of others. I think that is part of what we call today, humility!

One of the philosophers that has always intrigued me most is David Hume. Although I don’t agree with all of his ideas, I do think he brought up some very interesting points, particularly concerning the “self”. All of us have some kind of conception of “self”; I would definitely say that I am defined by multiple constant traits that make me different from others. For example, my hate of mayonnaise, my love of Harry Potter, my interest in psychology, my Christianity–all of these are personal preferences or defining characteristics that I feel make up part of what I consider to be “me”. Hume throws us a bit of a curve ball with his idea that continuity of self is basically a joke, as he thinks that what we think of as ourselves at any given moment is really subject to that particular moment. He says that what we think of as a continuous identity is really just a collection of thoughts and perceptions specific to that time and place. He calls this bundle theory, because he says that each thing is just a bundle of properties, and without its properties it does not exist. One can see how this applies to the self–without its characteristics, which are subject to time and place, the self does not exist. This video breaks it down a little, in a slightly humorous and succinct way.
This idea blows my mind. I think I have unity of self–I still won’t like mayonnaise tomorrow, and I plan on hating it forever. But our likes and dislikes change all the time, so is that due to growth or change, or are we really just living moment to moment and stringing together those moments to force an idea of a unified self?
Hume was an atheist, but I am not. I think my reluctance to side with him rests with my Christian beliefs. I do think that God made us each unique individuals, and that there is more holding each of us together as those individuals than imagination stringing moments together. In the end, I think Hume’s position is rather hard to defend, but it is still kind of cool to think about, since we really are very subject to perceptions.

The Renaissance was a time of great intellectual growth and development, but it was also a time of great growth for religion and beliefs of the religious leaders. One of the most forward thinkers of the time was Martin Luther. In my studies over his work and beliefs, I found his thoughts on marriage and intimacy to be quite uncharacteristic for his time period. Luther was by no means prude about what he believed for marriage and physical intimacy between two people. In fact, he celebrated sexual enjoyment while many people in the church hushed that kind of talk about what went on in the bedroom. This is one reason that he was one of the most forward thinkers of his time. One thing I found really out of character for someone of that time was that Luther basically condoned affairs outside of marriage, stating that a man could sleep with a household maid if his wife would not please him as he wished. In the same sense, the wife could turn to her husband’s brother and if any children were fathered, they would be considered her husband’s. Luther’s views on marriage and sex weren’t always seen with great pleasure by the rest of the world during his time, but are completely applicable now. And while I don’t agree with him condoning affairs outside of marriage, I do agree that he was far beyond his time.