Verbal communication and written communication are each in their own class. Each of these classes can be equally effective or equally ineffective. The impression you wish to make is largely dependant on your audience size and particular role (That is, are they opposition, neutral parties, or in agreement already?).
Also to be considered is the interest of the audience. If your audience is disinterested then communication is at a disadvantage to begin with and you might enterprise on delivering your communication orally so you can add emphasis and intonation to spice it up. If the audience is already interested and the communication is informative, written words can be used effectively.
Even with this in mind you must consider the ‘type’ of information your communicating. What is the gravity of the situation?
Which method of communication a person opts to use is largely dependant on these factors and then some. There may not be universal answer to the question regarding the efficacy of the methods in terms of which is ‘better’ than the other.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Speak, write, communicate!
There is a variety of ways to effectively communicate a message. There is written, oral, performed, artistic, and even body language. More often than not, the size of the impact a message will have depend on the audience the message is for. Both oral communication and text can be extremely successful, but in different ways.
Written text is accessible to anyone. It can be translated and mass produced to reach masses and it can be preserved for generations. Religious references are a perfect example of this. The Bible is one of the most widely dispersed books to this day and the Qur’an has been preserved in its original form for thousands of years.
On the other hand, there are downsides to written communication as well. For example, text is often written with a bias that may get lost when read. There are also tones that may be missed, such as sarcasm. Many times the reader may interpret someone’s writing from their own perspective based on their mood.
Oral presentation has been practiced for as far back as communication forms can be traced. From folklore to politics, public speaking has been an art form. The right tone of voice and word choice can be the difference of complete persuasion or retaliation. Seeing someone speak can also be effective because body language can have an immense influence. Another advantage of oral communication is that it can be delivered immediately. With today’s technology, verbal communication is just a click away.
Unfortunately oral presentation can be misconstrued. If a speech is not recorded, the reliability is jeopardized. It is up to the audience to communicate with accuracy which is rarely consistent.
Overall the efficiency of both oral and written communication depends upon the communicator, their desired message, and how they need the message conveyed.
Appeal of Spoken Language
The appeal of the spoken word is much greater than that of the written word. The spoken word allows for a connection to a variety of audiences, lessens confusion of sentence meaning, and therefore allows complete understanding. The use of spoken language is also easier to learn and one must be knowledgeable in the spoken language before the written is acquired. Thus communication using the spoken word is the basis for written language. One does not need to have reading or writing skills in order to communicate with speech.
In written word there can be some confusion as to who is “speaking” as well as to how something is meant. With any written sentence, one can convey different meanings by use of voice. Wikipedia says that “written English has no standard method for directly emulating the effects of tone of voice, volume, and other such subtleties,” in turn a piece of expression is lost in written word (2007). In The Difference Between the Spoken Vs The Written Word, writing is downgraded below verbal speech by stating “Verbatim transcripts of ordinary conversation reveals ... The stops, starts, ellipses, bizarre syntax, vague references, unmotivated digressions, and sudden changes of direction are nothing like the sanitized ‘linear’ version which usually emerges in print”(1994). The atmosphere of a speech is lost when it is converted to written form.
Spoken words can also allow the speaker to improve public speaking and memory skills, In the book Life of Life: An Introduction to the Astrology of India, the authors quote the spoken word of Thamus, the god king of Egypt, “the invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who forget to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage use of their own memory within them"(2003). One must conquer the spoken language first, then use written in order to preserve the spoken.
References
De Fouw, H., & Svoboda, R., (2003) Light on Life: An Introduction to the Astrology of India. Retrieved November 19, 2007 from http://books.google.com/books?id=jBzSLNNbTWwC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=spoken+word+vs+written&source=web&ots=zjiWAjgQsp&sig=q9WR5mjboAFUPK0OJN0eXVpTQ0w#PPA1,M1
Standard Written English. (2007, September 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Written_English&oldid=160148343
The Difference Between The Spoken Vs The Written Word. (1994, February) PEDIATRICS. 93 (2) pp. 204. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/2/204
In written word there can be some confusion as to who is “speaking” as well as to how something is meant. With any written sentence, one can convey different meanings by use of voice. Wikipedia says that “written English has no standard method for directly emulating the effects of tone of voice, volume, and other such subtleties,” in turn a piece of expression is lost in written word (2007). In The Difference Between the Spoken Vs The Written Word, writing is downgraded below verbal speech by stating “Verbatim transcripts of ordinary conversation reveals ... The stops, starts, ellipses, bizarre syntax, vague references, unmotivated digressions, and sudden changes of direction are nothing like the sanitized ‘linear’ version which usually emerges in print”(1994). The atmosphere of a speech is lost when it is converted to written form.
Spoken words can also allow the speaker to improve public speaking and memory skills, In the book Life of Life: An Introduction to the Astrology of India, the authors quote the spoken word of Thamus, the god king of Egypt, “the invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who forget to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage use of their own memory within them"(2003). One must conquer the spoken language first, then use written in order to preserve the spoken.
References
De Fouw, H., & Svoboda, R., (2003) Light on Life: An Introduction to the Astrology of India. Retrieved November 19, 2007 from http://books.google.com/books?id=jBzSLNNbTWwC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=spoken+word+vs+written&source=web&ots=zjiWAjgQsp&sig=q9WR5mjboAFUPK0OJN0eXVpTQ0w#PPA1,M1
Standard Written English. (2007, September 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Written_English&oldid=160148343
The Difference Between The Spoken Vs The Written Word. (1994, February) PEDIATRICS. 93 (2) pp. 204. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/2/204
Interdependence
The ability of the spoken word to communicate better or worse than the spoken word depends upon the talents of both the speaker and the writer. Speeches are little more than the verbal manifestation of the written word and the power of each is effectiveness of one is dependent upon the other. Speeches when given with the appropriate rhythm, intensity, and tone are capable of eliciting a greater emotional response than prose. A speech written by a powerful and talented writer in the hands of a speaker who does not adhere properly to the writer’s voice or punctuation becomes little more than an announcement.
Kennedy may well have been a great President, and might have given more impassioned speeches than the one in which he announced the Cuban Missile Crisis but in this case his delivery did not do this text justice. It may be an effect of his charming back east accent, but often throughout this speech he does not adhere to the punctuation ascribed rhythm. The transcript which he likely had before him read this way, “But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup” a reader might well have assumed his copy looked like this, “But this secret swift and extraordinary buildup.” Such a rhythmic device when used correctly gives the words a greater degree of emotional strength.
When Kennedy announced the Cuban Missile Crisis he was given a text which in its written form was likely to elicit a great degree of emotion, specifically fear. Perhaps when he practiced this speech his listener felt too a great a degree emotion. In this case the written version of this speech held a greater degree of power than its verbal companion.
Kennedy may well have been a great President, and might have given more impassioned speeches than the one in which he announced the Cuban Missile Crisis but in this case his delivery did not do this text justice. It may be an effect of his charming back east accent, but often throughout this speech he does not adhere to the punctuation ascribed rhythm. The transcript which he likely had before him read this way, “But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup” a reader might well have assumed his copy looked like this, “But this secret swift and extraordinary buildup.” Such a rhythmic device when used correctly gives the words a greater degree of emotional strength.
When Kennedy announced the Cuban Missile Crisis he was given a text which in its written form was likely to elicit a great degree of emotion, specifically fear. Perhaps when he practiced this speech his listener felt too a great a degree emotion. In this case the written version of this speech held a greater degree of power than its verbal companion.
Written vs Oral
I do believe that written text can communicate just as well as an oral presentation. There are some definite benefits to an oral presentation that do not come with the written word, such as emotion and persuasion. But there are also benefits of the written word that are not found in oral presentations. Therefore, I believe that they can both communicate effectively.
With an oral presentation the speakers tone can portray great emotion behind the words to give a better context to what the writer is trying to communicate. Even with proper punctuation the written word can be misinterpreted in tone and emotion. Just look at how confused people become with email language and emotional tone. That’s why emotocons were invented.
On the other hand, the written word can be more thought out and detailed as you have all the time in the world to complete it. With an oral presentation, the speaker can forget or skip parts that may have added to the content, or in listening, the audience could miss a part. With the written word, it is simple to go back over and reread parts that you misunderstood, unlike an oral presentation. (Unless you record it or videotape it)
I am still a firm believer in the ideal that "the pen is mightier than the sword," but I also think that a good speech can rally people together and form change just as well as the written word. The written word and spoken word can both communicate effectively in different ways. Overall, I just think it depends on the author/speaker as to which they prefer and what form of communication works best for each person.
With an oral presentation the speakers tone can portray great emotion behind the words to give a better context to what the writer is trying to communicate. Even with proper punctuation the written word can be misinterpreted in tone and emotion. Just look at how confused people become with email language and emotional tone. That’s why emotocons were invented.
On the other hand, the written word can be more thought out and detailed as you have all the time in the world to complete it. With an oral presentation, the speaker can forget or skip parts that may have added to the content, or in listening, the audience could miss a part. With the written word, it is simple to go back over and reread parts that you misunderstood, unlike an oral presentation. (Unless you record it or videotape it)
I am still a firm believer in the ideal that "the pen is mightier than the sword," but I also think that a good speech can rally people together and form change just as well as the written word. The written word and spoken word can both communicate effectively in different ways. Overall, I just think it depends on the author/speaker as to which they prefer and what form of communication works best for each person.
Written or Spoken Communication?
Perhaps some would say that the spoken word is the most effective form of communication. For the purpose of general information exchange and everyday communication, I would agree. However, when dealing with the transfer of knowledge, learning, and the preservation of information written text is more effective.
Mass amounts of knowledge can be transferred through the spoken word. Take a traditional college classroom as an example. But accompanying in-class oral lectures and discussions are text books and notes. Without these written forms of knowledge, the learning and retention of the material would be much more difficult.
The vast majority of public speakers write out their speeches before hand. Occasionally notes are referred to during oral presentations. For example, there is an entire team of people who write speeches for the president. Actors and actresses also must learn their lines by first reading screen plays. Plays and movies begin as written words before they are transformed into a visual and oral medium.
After the inception of writing, important information has been (and continues to be) recorded in written form. Text allows for information and knowledge to be accurately preserved and transmitted through the years. Prior to written language the accurate recordation of events, rules, and other knowledge was all but impossible. Writing also allows for communications to be preserved. Email, letters, and legal documents are preserved forms of written communication.
In addition to afore mentioned reasons, the spoken word is based upon the construct of the written word. The rules followed for writing are applied to speech and provide uniformity between the two mediums.
Mass amounts of knowledge can be transferred through the spoken word. Take a traditional college classroom as an example. But accompanying in-class oral lectures and discussions are text books and notes. Without these written forms of knowledge, the learning and retention of the material would be much more difficult.
The vast majority of public speakers write out their speeches before hand. Occasionally notes are referred to during oral presentations. For example, there is an entire team of people who write speeches for the president. Actors and actresses also must learn their lines by first reading screen plays. Plays and movies begin as written words before they are transformed into a visual and oral medium.
After the inception of writing, important information has been (and continues to be) recorded in written form. Text allows for information and knowledge to be accurately preserved and transmitted through the years. Prior to written language the accurate recordation of events, rules, and other knowledge was all but impossible. Writing also allows for communications to be preserved. Email, letters, and legal documents are preserved forms of written communication.
In addition to afore mentioned reasons, the spoken word is based upon the construct of the written word. The rules followed for writing are applied to speech and provide uniformity between the two mediums.
To Speak or to Write?
The spoken word is much more effective than the written word when the speaker’s intention is to arouse emotion in his or her audience. While the written word is certainly capable of sparking an emotional response, hearing the author say the words adds the extra boost needed to more effectively reinforce the intended message. There is less room for misinterpretation in a spoken speech, particularly if the listener is present with the speaker and sees as well as hears the emotions of the speaker. A speaker can present emotions such as pride, sadness, or happiness. Written words do not contain any tears, laughter, anger or disappointment in their delivery. These emotions are only added if the reader incites them. One disadvantage that literature has compared to oral presentation is that words can mean different things to different people. For example, when the goal of a speech is to persuade the audience to agree with the speaker’s opinion on a topic that is controversial in nature, the speaker might obtain a more successful outcome if they understand the emotional attachment that he or she feels.
Additionally, the spoken word has the opportunity to impact a larger audience. An illiterate person is able to receive a spoken message but not a written one. If an illiterate person has someone read to them, the message is subject to the reader’s interpretation and not the interpretation of the writer. A speech that was meant to be read in a certain way can have its meaning twisted according to the feelings and intentions of the person who is reading it. Something delivered with a tone of sympathy and understanding can lose its effect if it is delivered with sarcasm and bitterness. Although both forms of communication can be very useful when trying to get a message to the masses, the spoken word is more useful when trying to elicit an emotional response.
Additionally, the spoken word has the opportunity to impact a larger audience. An illiterate person is able to receive a spoken message but not a written one. If an illiterate person has someone read to them, the message is subject to the reader’s interpretation and not the interpretation of the writer. A speech that was meant to be read in a certain way can have its meaning twisted according to the feelings and intentions of the person who is reading it. Something delivered with a tone of sympathy and understanding can lose its effect if it is delivered with sarcasm and bitterness. Although both forms of communication can be very useful when trying to get a message to the masses, the spoken word is more useful when trying to elicit an emotional response.
Ode to the Spoken Word
This is a hard subject for me. I have a lot of experience with public speaking and feel very passionately about teaching kids the art of it. But at the same time I enjoy online classes where I have to prove myself through the written word. When I looked at the assignment this week it made me appreciate that I had training in the public speaking realm of the world. In listening to them I felt inspired to do something that changed something for the better. I wanted to step out and conquer those that were doing wrong. And after my revelations I thought about if I would have felt the same way if I had read those same life changing words. The answer was no. There was something missing. When I read the words "I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed--and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination." (JFK, 1962) Hearing those words struck a cord in my heart, it made me believe and feel for those people. When I read them I still felt bad but it wasn't to the extent that I felt when I heard it. When you hear someone speak you feel their emotions in their voice, you can feel the compassion or anger. That is the difference between the written and spoken word. The ability to feel the emotion.
Plow Men Take My Herb?
It is difficult to determine whether oral presentation or written text is a more effective means of communication because humans are made up of rational and emotional components of understanding. For the most part, music and speech, forms of oral communication, can relay an emotional message much more effectively than a piece of written text. Listening to Bob Dylan is going to evoke more meaning and be more effective with an emotional message than simply reading his lyrics. Though what we must understand is that writing is a part of musical and speech processes. By utilizing writing (rational) and sound (emotional) they have a theoretical advantage, so what really might be the deciding factor is who is writing the text and performing the speech/music. Another thing to wonder is that sometimes we cannot understand what is said in some music. Obviously it is ineffective communication if we cannot understand what is being said. Or is it? It depends on what is trying to be conveyed. Now, this is when written lyrics (text) could be more effective in communicating, because we could read what is being said. However, understanding the words in music is not essential to experiencing the emotional message of it because we are able to bypass words and focus on tone and emotionality. When I listen to Dylan, I cannot understand what he is saying half the time anyway. On the other side of things, poetry along with great novels have the ability to evoke some serious emotion, so I find myself still torn at the end of this discussion. The consensus might be that written communication can be more effective to rational understanding and oral communication to emotional understanding. However, they both display each quality, so this is a much more complex question to answer in absolute terms.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Oral Versus Written
In written communication a certain element of distraction is removed; all the “ums” and “ahs” as well as other verbal distractions are absent. Fill words can interfere with the message transfer. Written words are also more formal because the intended audience is less defined and the written word may be read by a much larger audience over longer spans of time(Gold. Yet, by sanitizing a communication, a receiver may lose valuable non-verbal communication. Oral presentation is, therefore, a more effective means of communication because the receiver not only hears the words, but has verbal cues from the speaker.
A listener becomes more emotionally involved in the communication process. Words literally come alive and have a shape and tone. The human ear can pick up passion and dedication in a speaker’s voice which intensifies the impact on communication. Verbal cues like pauses and rate of speech are also used to further analyze what is being said.
Cooperation occurs between speaker and listener as meaning is built with feedback from the listener. Speakers strive for a more emotional and participatory responses from their audience(Feldman.
Oral communication is also powerful because it affects people on a subconscious level, as well as, a cognitive level. Feelings of trust or deceit can arise from oral communication. In written communication the subtle cues, that could warn a receiver, are absent. A speaker who acts nervous and stutters extensively can hide this deception in written communication. Likewise, a professional oral presentation can add credibility to what is being said. Where if a receiver only had words, he or she may not be as compelled by the communication.
Written communication has some positives, but oral communication gives the receiver more cues. More cues, given to the receiver, make oral communication a more effective presentation.
Works Cited
Feldman, C. (1991). Oral metalanguage. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and orality. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gold, E. (1988). Ronald Reagan and the oral tradition. Central State Speech Journal, 39.
A listener becomes more emotionally involved in the communication process. Words literally come alive and have a shape and tone. The human ear can pick up passion and dedication in a speaker’s voice which intensifies the impact on communication. Verbal cues like pauses and rate of speech are also used to further analyze what is being said.
Cooperation occurs between speaker and listener as meaning is built with feedback from the listener. Speakers strive for a more emotional and participatory responses from their audience(Feldman.
Oral communication is also powerful because it affects people on a subconscious level, as well as, a cognitive level. Feelings of trust or deceit can arise from oral communication. In written communication the subtle cues, that could warn a receiver, are absent. A speaker who acts nervous and stutters extensively can hide this deception in written communication. Likewise, a professional oral presentation can add credibility to what is being said. Where if a receiver only had words, he or she may not be as compelled by the communication.
Written communication has some positives, but oral communication gives the receiver more cues. More cues, given to the receiver, make oral communication a more effective presentation.
Works Cited
Feldman, C. (1991). Oral metalanguage. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and orality. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gold, E. (1988). Ronald Reagan and the oral tradition. Central State Speech Journal, 39.
Oral Communication Wins....
Written text cannot communicate as effectively as oral presentation. Written text is a good medium for communication but more effective communication is done orally. The upside of writing is that it can be edited many times to make it as perfect as possible. When written text in submitted it most likely has been dissected and revised to make sure the original intention is communicated. Another risky part of writing is once it is made public it is available for critique from almost anyone. Writing is an average form of communication but lacks important necessary communication elements. These necessary communication elements are the backbone of oral presentation.
Oral communication is as effective as written communication. Oral communication adds more emotion and personalization aspects. This emotion gives it the edge over written communication. Being able to add personal aspects in communication help make it more effective and efficient. Oral communication also allows the addition of physical motions that help solidify points while communicating. These motions include the use of hands, facial expressions, body movements, and voice fluctuation. Oral communication is written communication with the addition of acting. Because of this oral communication is more effective than written text.
With all communication techniques it is very important that the author is aware of what they are saying at all times. Communication is much like toothpaste. Once toothpaste is out of the tube it cannot be sucked back in. As soon as a word is out of a person’s mouth it cannot be taken back. Being aware of what you are going to say and how you say it is critical to all forms of communication.
Oral communication is as effective as written communication. Oral communication adds more emotion and personalization aspects. This emotion gives it the edge over written communication. Being able to add personal aspects in communication help make it more effective and efficient. Oral communication also allows the addition of physical motions that help solidify points while communicating. These motions include the use of hands, facial expressions, body movements, and voice fluctuation. Oral communication is written communication with the addition of acting. Because of this oral communication is more effective than written text.
With all communication techniques it is very important that the author is aware of what they are saying at all times. Communication is much like toothpaste. Once toothpaste is out of the tube it cannot be sucked back in. As soon as a word is out of a person’s mouth it cannot be taken back. Being aware of what you are going to say and how you say it is critical to all forms of communication.
Written Text Vs. Oral Presentation
Written text and oral presentation are both important. It is hard to differentiate which is most effective; each can each be equally effective in different circumstances.
Differences between the processes of speaking and writing are apparent. Writing is not simply speech written down on paper. Learning to write is not a natural extension of learning to speak. (http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/eic/learning-skills/literacy/sp_vs_writ_dif.shtml). Likewise, speaking, or giving oral presentations, is not simply the art of reading what has been written down.
Much work goes into oral presentations and writings. However, I would argue that the written word is longer lasting because it is referenced more frequently. For example, we are still studying and reading the historic writing The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Up until the invention of audio recording we were not able to reference speeches. The only way to reference them was to research their written format. When speeches are written down they lose effectiveness. Inflection and emotion are often lost. Speakers have audiences that give them feedback; writers have to consider their audience is not currently present.
Before listening to the speech John F. Kennedy gave regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, I read the written text. While reading the text I found the information informative. However, when I listened to the former President speak, I was moved by the urgency, care, and concern in his voice. When he said, The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are--but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world” I could feel his American pride.
Written text and oral presentation are both equally effective, but have different uses.
Sources:
SPEAKING VERSUS WRITING
http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/eic/learning-skills/literacy/sp_vs_writ_dif.shtml
Kennedy, John F. (1962, October 22) On the Cuban Missile Crisis
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=11%2F12%2F2006+7%3A31%3A51+PM&UnitNumber=12&COID=64&UDPK=24111336&UPK=4490961&bhcp=1
Differences between the processes of speaking and writing are apparent. Writing is not simply speech written down on paper. Learning to write is not a natural extension of learning to speak. (http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/eic/learning-skills/literacy/sp_vs_writ_dif.shtml). Likewise, speaking, or giving oral presentations, is not simply the art of reading what has been written down.
Much work goes into oral presentations and writings. However, I would argue that the written word is longer lasting because it is referenced more frequently. For example, we are still studying and reading the historic writing The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Up until the invention of audio recording we were not able to reference speeches. The only way to reference them was to research their written format. When speeches are written down they lose effectiveness. Inflection and emotion are often lost. Speakers have audiences that give them feedback; writers have to consider their audience is not currently present.
Before listening to the speech John F. Kennedy gave regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, I read the written text. While reading the text I found the information informative. However, when I listened to the former President speak, I was moved by the urgency, care, and concern in his voice. When he said, The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are--but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world” I could feel his American pride.
Written text and oral presentation are both equally effective, but have different uses.
Sources:
SPEAKING VERSUS WRITING
http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/eic/learning-skills/literacy/sp_vs_writ_dif.shtml
Kennedy, John F. (1962, October 22) On the Cuban Missile Crisis
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=11%2F12%2F2006+7%3A31%3A51+PM&UnitNumber=12&COID=64&UDPK=24111336&UPK=4490961&bhcp=1
Friday, November 16, 2007
I didn't get that... could you put that in writing?
Do written text or an oral presentation rely heavily on the intended audience for it to be effective? I believe it does and I think that text is the most effective overall. Let me demonstrate why this is the most effective form of communication. First, written text holds accountability whereas oral presentations can be denied or ignored even if it has been recorded. Secondly, written text relies on the reader’s understanding whereas an oral presentation tends to rely on images such as props or PowerPoint.
Since we have been discussing events from the past that has both used written text and oral presentation, it is only appropriate to address one of the most heartfelt written texts that found its end during the beginning of the Cold War. This effective form of communication was the written text of Anne Frank’s Dairy. I believe that if she had orally presented what had happened to her from her dairy it would have lost something. It would have dulled the pure emotions that a stranger could relate to when they read about her sorrows (Frank, 1945).
Oral presentations are flashy and do not have the endurance as written text. Long after any recordings of oral presentations are gone there will be writing and as much as I love technology we can not be certain it will remain reliable as writing. An example of written text endurance that was written approximately 2,000 years ago and was found a couple of years after WWII were the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Scholarship). This I believe is the optimal proof of endurance.
To conclude, I have to say that oral presentations were intended for fast information, where written text takes awhile to absorb and can be reread if one forgets its meaning.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Today/today.html
http://www.annefrank.com/ (Last Entry was 1945, Published in 1947)
Since we have been discussing events from the past that has both used written text and oral presentation, it is only appropriate to address one of the most heartfelt written texts that found its end during the beginning of the Cold War. This effective form of communication was the written text of Anne Frank’s Dairy. I believe that if she had orally presented what had happened to her from her dairy it would have lost something. It would have dulled the pure emotions that a stranger could relate to when they read about her sorrows (Frank, 1945).
Oral presentations are flashy and do not have the endurance as written text. Long after any recordings of oral presentations are gone there will be writing and as much as I love technology we can not be certain it will remain reliable as writing. An example of written text endurance that was written approximately 2,000 years ago and was found a couple of years after WWII were the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Scholarship). This I believe is the optimal proof of endurance.
To conclude, I have to say that oral presentations were intended for fast information, where written text takes awhile to absorb and can be reread if one forgets its meaning.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Today/today.html
http://www.annefrank.com/ (Last Entry was 1945, Published in 1947)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Values of Audio-Text and Written-Text as Abstract Entities
It is easy to say that written words are secondary to spoken words. But, it needs to be recognized that both oral and written words are simply different systems of symbols which are used for communication, and are therefore equal. For either system, the goal is communication, and the specific system is the means or transmitter for that (communication) goal; following Shannon and Weaver’s Information Theory of Communication as described by John R Baldwin et al, everything that is communicated begins as an idea, which is then translated linearly, then presented with either speech or the written word, which is then received and decoded into the original idea (p.66-68) (at least, this is what happens during a successful transition). Because both systems are (used as) tools, it is not adequate to say that one is able to communicate better than the other. The fundamental difference between the two, in terms of their effectiveness, is not their abilities, but is why they are as effective as they are or are not. This can be found in our learning system, in which we learn to speak and hear before we learn to read and write. We communicate through audio language more because it is what we were taught first. After speech communication is learned, (usually) children begin learning to communicate through text. It should be noted that writing systems (at least those that I am aware of) are based on spoken text. To write, one must translate an idea into spoken text, and then use the spoken text as a basis in order to translate to written text. But, this process of learning has been enforced upon the two communication systems. If written text was learned first, then written text would probably be used more, and verbal text would be based on written text. Therefore, the two systems are equal, but utilized differently.
Baldwin, John R., Stephen D. Perry, and Mary Anne Moffitt. (2004). Communication theories for everyday life. Pearson Education Inc.
Baldwin, John R., Stephen D. Perry, and Mary Anne Moffitt. (2004). Communication theories for everyday life. Pearson Education Inc.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Everyone is a good writer in Cyberspace
On the internet, good writing is certainly in the eye of the searcher. The filtration system for quality is no where near that of
There have been several times when I’ve written for my internet classes and I have felt a little lost. Without the inspiration of close classmates or the assessment of a professor, I often have trouble knowing where to start. There is a dual sense of isolation because without the professor and classmates, the feeling of immediate expectation is diminished. I tend to feel less inclined to focus on the details.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Waving Through Words
Corresponding with all of you in the online classroom and more specifically through this Blog, I imagine I feel somehow like Adam Smith and David Hume must have felt when they wrote to each other through their respective writings. Sometimes someone in the class would respond to something I wrote, or I to them in reference to an idea, argument, opinion, and the mentioning of that person will not be explicit. Yet somehow there was a dialogue through the seemingly independent texts. I did not realize this until I started reading the entire blog more in depth over the last couple of weeks. I realized that there were others writers who were telling me things and challenging me, as well as praising me, or so I thought so in my mind. The real conversation was of course between what thoughts I preconceived and the ones that had been recently presented to me. We were not really conversing, not on any plane that could be seen anyway and I came to the conclusion, that whether or not these communicational writings were intentional or coincidence is irrelevant. It seems that all writers of all times communicate through their writing to readers throughout time and space, and they are waving to us all.
Online Courses Create Writers
The online classroom has often been characterized as a perfect environment for slackers. I cannot imagine why this view might be perpetuated since in an online classroom all students, even those who would not consider themselves to be literary are asked to become capable writers. In an on-site class views are expressed verbally and those who do not choose to comment can sit silently through several class periods. Opinions are often off the cuff and verbal foibles become roadblocks to communication. Students are only asked to express themselves through the written word two to four times a semester on average. Whereas, in an online class one is expected to have intelligent opinions, and well thought out input every week. We are given parameters and pressed to meet them regularly. Those pupils and even professors who do not feel themselves to be adequate writers are forced to stretch that skill and become more adept at transferring thoughts into organized paragraphs, and intelligible writings. Written opinions are available for scrutiny by peers and instructors for long periods of time. When one expresses themselves through the written word they become more cautious and thoughtful about content and voice. In an environment where our written voice is the sole mode with which we convey our scholarly musings literary skills flourish and we all become writers.
Writing for Academic Success
In the online classroom, we are all writers. Writing is the main tool we use to express our thoughts and the medium through which we accomplish learning. We write and post our discussion threads, which give us insight into the academic interpretations of our classmates. We gain new insights by reading the writing of others, so in the online classroom it is imperative that we communicate well enough to accurately express our thoughts. Since we do not have a visual or audio image of our classmates, our impressions of them are based on their writing. Poor writing, such as misspelled words, improper grammar, and run-on sentences give the impression that the writer is careless and ill prepared. Contrarily, good writing that is well organized and free of grammatical errors projects an image of great intelligence and competence.
Our classmates are not the only ones that use our writing to gage our academic ability. Instructors use our writing to judge how well we comprehend assigned texts. They also use our writing to measure our level of commitment to academic achievement. For example, writing that meets the minimum requirements will be graded accordingly and writing that exceeds the minimum requirements will receive higher marks. In the online classroom, good writing skills are the most important tool a student can use to succeed in the realm of higher education.
Our classmates are not the only ones that use our writing to gage our academic ability. Instructors use our writing to judge how well we comprehend assigned texts. They also use our writing to measure our level of commitment to academic achievement. For example, writing that meets the minimum requirements will be graded accordingly and writing that exceeds the minimum requirements will receive higher marks. In the online classroom, good writing skills are the most important tool a student can use to succeed in the realm of higher education.
In the Online Classroom, We Are All Writers
In our everyday lives, we become things which we do not realize. Take for example, that one may not consider her/him self to be a “writer”. Yet, in the online classroom, that is exactly what we are all. Simply by the fact that all communication must occur through the medium of the written word, all who are students and teachers in an online class must become writers. Typically, the word “writer” refers to authors and those who write for a living. However, the word is much more encompassing than that. Secretaries, CEO’s, and even scientists are all writers. “Writer” can refer to anyone who uses the written word to communicate with others. Therefore we, the students in this class, are all writers. The formal assignments require us to produce written works. Class discussions are also conducted through writing.
These writing assignments are practice; helping us to become better writers. Through practice and by learning the rules of writing, the class is shaping us into proficient, quality writers. Even with the advent of technology, the skill of good writing is still important. The only major difference now is that instead of having paper documents, electronic documents have become more prevalent. The online class is a perfect example of this. Though most of us would not consider ourselves to be writers, we are simply because we are part of an online class.
These writing assignments are practice; helping us to become better writers. Through practice and by learning the rules of writing, the class is shaping us into proficient, quality writers. Even with the advent of technology, the skill of good writing is still important. The only major difference now is that instead of having paper documents, electronic documents have become more prevalent. The online class is a perfect example of this. Though most of us would not consider ourselves to be writers, we are simply because we are part of an online class.
Formality in an Online Classroom
There are several different types of writing in an online classroom. Writings can vary from blogs, discussions, and final papers. Along with the various types of writing comes the level of formality. Should every piece of writing be upheld to the same standards? The level of preparation and revision should not be the same for a discussion as with a final paper. If writing in an online classroom is comparable to speech in a classroom setting there would be different standards. There are different forms of speech in classroom settings such as class participation, questions, presentations and formal speeches. An individual is not expected to put in as much effort in class participation or in questions, as they would in a presentation or in a speech.
Since writing is not as spontaneous as speech it has conformed to certain standards. The basics should be followed grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. Writing also allows the author to put more thought into the writing such as facts, statistics and other sorts of research. In which the author must be aware of plagiarism at all times and take precautions to prevent it from occurring. The previously explained basics should suffice for a discussion. A blog would require further review and revision. The final paper would involve a thesis, research, citations, references, several drafts, and several revisions. Each piece of writing has its own standards, although it is acceptable to exceed the standards but it is never acceptable to fail to meet them.
Since writing is not as spontaneous as speech it has conformed to certain standards. The basics should be followed grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. Writing also allows the author to put more thought into the writing such as facts, statistics and other sorts of research. In which the author must be aware of plagiarism at all times and take precautions to prevent it from occurring. The previously explained basics should suffice for a discussion. A blog would require further review and revision. The final paper would involve a thesis, research, citations, references, several drafts, and several revisions. Each piece of writing has its own standards, although it is acceptable to exceed the standards but it is never acceptable to fail to meet them.
Write To Show Who You are
When it comes to online classrooms I feel they are often more difficult than a traditional class. You have to be able to write well enough to show people a part of you. They aren't able to judge you by your looks or how you act in class. The only way to judge someone in the online classroom is by their writing ability. You are judged on how you write, what you write, and if you can get your point across in an appropriate manner. Many people are able to speak well. It is easier to sometimes say the point you are trying to make. You also have to be careful how you write things. When you say something others might find offensive a smile will often make the situation lighter, when online you don't have the option of facial expression to help show others what you are feeling. It is also interesting to see what you write and realize that it's not what you were thinking. In doing an online class I feel that you are able to grow in ways you wouldn't be able to in a regular class. We are all faceless names, with other students deciding what we are like by what we write.
Written Communication
When thinking more on the statement that we are all writers, a few things come to mind. Our words represent our ideals and understanding of issues and concepts. In a classroom like this one, our written word take's the place of our speech which can lack intonation, and physical expressions that we rely on to emphasize our words. This can be difficult to express in a written environment such as an online classroom. So far in this class I have learned that your choice of words and organization are but a couple of keys in getting one's points across. Without carefully crafting your posts, your ideas can become confusing and this makes your writing either irrelevant or painfully difficult to follow.
Reflecting on my previous posts, I see where there is much room for improvement in all of these areas and I must begin to pay careful attention to what I am saying through my written word in order to relate better to my classmates and instructors. I seem to have an affinity for the use of ellipses. I rely on them to express a pause in my speech, but in the written world, it can take a statement or idea and disjoint it thereby making the flow of writing difficult to follow.
In summery, learning the technique of writing effectively is vitally important in a class of this nature where your only form of communication is through your written word. I can better appreciate now why the authors we have been studying went to great pains to be as detailed as possible in their writing.
Reflecting on my previous posts, I see where there is much room for improvement in all of these areas and I must begin to pay careful attention to what I am saying through my written word in order to relate better to my classmates and instructors. I seem to have an affinity for the use of ellipses. I rely on them to express a pause in my speech, but in the written world, it can take a statement or idea and disjoint it thereby making the flow of writing difficult to follow.
In summery, learning the technique of writing effectively is vitally important in a class of this nature where your only form of communication is through your written word. I can better appreciate now why the authors we have been studying went to great pains to be as detailed as possible in their writing.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The online classroom is more than just learning
For the any classroom to be successful it is a necessary element to communicate to each other and to the teachers. In traditional classrooms for the most part a dialogue needs to take place for learning and success. In the online classroom this dialogue takes place through writing. Because we as students selected an online class we all put ourselves at the mercy of the keyboard and now need to use the keyboard to do our writings. This writing promotes success and learning within then class. The online classroom has many obvious good aspects which we all know such as freedom to do work when we have time and freedom to be anywhere in the world that has access to a computer and still be involved in the class. Another not so obvious aspect is that the online classroom really makes us write a lot more than we otherwise would normally write. All of our assignments are done through writing, from this blog and class discussion to papers. Because of this writing aspect we are going to learn more from the class than just the subject but we are continually refining our writing skills which will in turn help us in our future.
Online Writers versus Classroom Traditions
The first topic concerning online classroom writing is observing the pros and cons. I feel that there are a lot of negative as well as positive views with online classes. One of the pros to an online classroom is to have the opportunity to show how responsible you are by demonstrating self-motivation. The other pro is that you can write out your opinion or thought without interruptions that you would normally get in a real classroom.
For the cons, I think that most people feel that virtual learning is too easy and takes away the human factor of education. I disagree because we rely on human facial features too much for an answer and sometimes we need to have less human contact to reveal our most human side which is the writer in all of us. We tend to write out our personal views or observations by means of a journal or poetry giving us an honest view of that individual.
Keeping that in mind I believe that online writing gives a student communicative freedom they normally would not have in a real classroom. Being able to complete a thought as mentioned previously is the most important freedom that is beneficial to everyone. In a regular classroom, have you ever needed to say something and someone always interrupts you? It could be the most revealing idea and someone just trashed it with their rudeness. Online classes give everyone equal opportunity to have an individual input which I believe allows us to become better writers.
For the cons, I think that most people feel that virtual learning is too easy and takes away the human factor of education. I disagree because we rely on human facial features too much for an answer and sometimes we need to have less human contact to reveal our most human side which is the writer in all of us. We tend to write out our personal views or observations by means of a journal or poetry giving us an honest view of that individual.
Keeping that in mind I believe that online writing gives a student communicative freedom they normally would not have in a real classroom. Being able to complete a thought as mentioned previously is the most important freedom that is beneficial to everyone. In a regular classroom, have you ever needed to say something and someone always interrupts you? It could be the most revealing idea and someone just trashed it with their rudeness. Online classes give everyone equal opportunity to have an individual input which I believe allows us to become better writers.
In the online classroom, we are all writers
What it Means to be a Writer in Relation to the Differences Between a Traditional Classroom and an Online Classroom:
Whether we are speaking, writing, conversing, or gesturing, we are communicating. More to the point, we write and speak with the purpose of communicating. Whenever we speak, we may be called “orators” due to definition; by the same token, we may be called “authors” or “writers” whenever we write. But, these labels (orator and writer) are ambiguous with several meanings which range from “one who speaks/writes” to “a professional and exceptional executioner of speaking/writing.” In a traditional classroom, a student is often required to act as both an author (through writing papers) and an orator (by speaking in class and sharing an opinion, presentation, question, or relating experience). The student is an orator only by the first definition mentioned above – s/he is not professional or exceptionally eloquent, but is required to speak to the classroom in an understandable manner. Similarly, when the student writes, s/he writes in accordance to certain standards but does not write in a professional setting, nor does s/he usually publish his/her work. But in an online-classroom, the (traditional) rules are altered and everything is accomplished through writing. In place of verbal discussions are written discussion threads, and (at least in this class) more substantial writings – sometimes better described as opinion-paragraphs or small papers – are published on the internet. Therefore, the online class forces the students to concentrate more than usual on their writing skills, and requires them to be writers as both “a person that writes” and “a writer that publishes his/her work.”
Whether we are speaking, writing, conversing, or gesturing, we are communicating. More to the point, we write and speak with the purpose of communicating. Whenever we speak, we may be called “orators” due to definition; by the same token, we may be called “authors” or “writers” whenever we write. But, these labels (orator and writer) are ambiguous with several meanings which range from “one who speaks/writes” to “a professional and exceptional executioner of speaking/writing.” In a traditional classroom, a student is often required to act as both an author (through writing papers) and an orator (by speaking in class and sharing an opinion, presentation, question, or relating experience). The student is an orator only by the first definition mentioned above – s/he is not professional or exceptionally eloquent, but is required to speak to the classroom in an understandable manner. Similarly, when the student writes, s/he writes in accordance to certain standards but does not write in a professional setting, nor does s/he usually publish his/her work. But in an online-classroom, the (traditional) rules are altered and everything is accomplished through writing. In place of verbal discussions are written discussion threads, and (at least in this class) more substantial writings – sometimes better described as opinion-paragraphs or small papers – are published on the internet. Therefore, the online class forces the students to concentrate more than usual on their writing skills, and requires them to be writers as both “a person that writes” and “a writer that publishes his/her work.”
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Do We All Deserve To Be Writers?
The Internet and blogs make it possible for almost anyone to publish their own work. The work of Hume, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bede, or even Thomas Jefferson would be lost to the masses if someone did not see the merit and have their respective works published. That filter, good or bad, is gone now; anyone can publish and have an audience only a Google search away.
That which gives us a voice can also drown out the truly important writing. I find myself looking at Google searches of condensed commentaries to gain a more complete perspective on topics that interest me. The Internet, unlike the reading assignments for this class, seems like a wide pool of information, but if I try and dive into the water, I find a shallow bottom.
We live in a complex and fast moving world. If great ideas take long detailed explanations, will people take the time to digest the information? I constantly stop myself from scanning and force my mind to read for comprehension. I do not read an entire blog entry, but read the title and the first couple sentences, and if it seems interesting, I read the entire entry. I just don’t have time for anything else. Is it true, have I become another victim to the information overload?
Maybe the Internet is an imperfect place to gather information and absorb intellectual ideas; there is a pop up ad screaming for my attention or an embedded link that carries my mind and computer screen so far away from my starting point, I never return to the document I originally intended to read.
Before I started this blog, I did not realize how my reading and writing habits have changed so much in just a few short years. Damn you, Internet. Hey, maybe I can Google it and find the answer to my problem.
That which gives us a voice can also drown out the truly important writing. I find myself looking at Google searches of condensed commentaries to gain a more complete perspective on topics that interest me. The Internet, unlike the reading assignments for this class, seems like a wide pool of information, but if I try and dive into the water, I find a shallow bottom.
We live in a complex and fast moving world. If great ideas take long detailed explanations, will people take the time to digest the information? I constantly stop myself from scanning and force my mind to read for comprehension. I do not read an entire blog entry, but read the title and the first couple sentences, and if it seems interesting, I read the entire entry. I just don’t have time for anything else. Is it true, have I become another victim to the information overload?
Maybe the Internet is an imperfect place to gather information and absorb intellectual ideas; there is a pop up ad screaming for my attention or an embedded link that carries my mind and computer screen so far away from my starting point, I never return to the document I originally intended to read.
Before I started this blog, I did not realize how my reading and writing habits have changed so much in just a few short years. Damn you, Internet. Hey, maybe I can Google it and find the answer to my problem.
In the Online Classroom We Are All Writers
As online students we are all writers. The online classroom makes way for a unique form of communication. This communication is more in the form of correspondence or letter writing than the more common oral form. With this form of communication one must become a writer in order to communicate thoughts feelings and ideas to fellow students and professors.
The website Thefreedictionary.com gives one definition of a writer as a "communicator - a person who communicates with others." As students in an online class we must communicate with each other through written words. In order to understand one another we need to use the appropriate language and rules that we learned throughout our youth. Without these tools we would not be able to understand on another and our thoughts would never get past our keyboards.
As writers we must learn to overcome the obstacles that are presented with the written language and online communication. These obstacles include the lack personal communication that comes from no physical contact and the misunderstanding that comes with unclear statements. By making intentions clear and taking time to chat online, as students, we can become more clear and understand how to not only be writers, but how to become good ones in the process. The most important part being that feedback from another person can give you a greater understanding of your own work. This is why in the online classroom we are all writers, but we can also all be editors.
The website Thefreedictionary.com gives one definition of a writer as a "communicator - a person who communicates with others." As students in an online class we must communicate with each other through written words. In order to understand one another we need to use the appropriate language and rules that we learned throughout our youth. Without these tools we would not be able to understand on another and our thoughts would never get past our keyboards.
As writers we must learn to overcome the obstacles that are presented with the written language and online communication. These obstacles include the lack personal communication that comes from no physical contact and the misunderstanding that comes with unclear statements. By making intentions clear and taking time to chat online, as students, we can become more clear and understand how to not only be writers, but how to become good ones in the process. The most important part being that feedback from another person can give you a greater understanding of your own work. This is why in the online classroom we are all writers, but we can also all be editors.
Age of Enlightenment and Rules of Academic Writing
During the age of enlightenment people began to receive more education. Their new found education allowed for independent thinking and lead to the re-evaluation of the world around them. As people began to think for themselves the belief arose that one should know things for certain instead of believing what others tell them. The age of enlightenment became, “an age of reason based on faith, not an age of faith based on reason” (Rempel, 2007).
People soon began questioning things. They used their knowledge to make better political, religious, and moral decision. Today we study the authors of that time to gain insight to how the thoughts and beliefs of people changed during that time.
The authors encouraged independent thought, but they did so inside the rules of academic writing. Their decision to follow the rules has made it easier for us to study their work today.
It is just as important to follow the rules of academic writing today as it was during the age of enlightenment. Following rules ensures that writings will be understood and therefore interpreted as the author intended. It guarantees an author is not plagiarized, helps to establish credibility, and lets an audience use resources and fact to make educated decisions on their own. As the authors of the age of enlightenment would agree, people should make their own decision instead of just believing what others tell them; they are better able to do this when the rules of academic writing are followed.
Sources:
Rempel, Gerhard (2007). Western New England College. Retrieved November 2, 2007 from: Collegehttp://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/enlightenment.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets.shtml
People soon began questioning things. They used their knowledge to make better political, religious, and moral decision. Today we study the authors of that time to gain insight to how the thoughts and beliefs of people changed during that time.
The authors encouraged independent thought, but they did so inside the rules of academic writing. Their decision to follow the rules has made it easier for us to study their work today.
It is just as important to follow the rules of academic writing today as it was during the age of enlightenment. Following rules ensures that writings will be understood and therefore interpreted as the author intended. It guarantees an author is not plagiarized, helps to establish credibility, and lets an audience use resources and fact to make educated decisions on their own. As the authors of the age of enlightenment would agree, people should make their own decision instead of just believing what others tell them; they are better able to do this when the rules of academic writing are followed.
Sources:
Rempel, Gerhard (2007). Western New England College. Retrieved November 2, 2007 from: Collegehttp://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/enlightenment.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets.shtml
Monday, October 29, 2007
Hume and Smith
David Hume and Adam Smith were known for the incredible correspondence they exchanged until the death of David Hume in 1776.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Locke, Jefferson, and Everyman
John Locke’s writing was designed to engage rulers of governments such as magistrates, princes, and others adjudicators who act outside and within accordance to the state of nature. In similar fashion, Thomas Jefferson demanded the audience of a ruler, the King of Britain, and its governing Parliaments. Another similarity in both of the writer’s texts refers to individuals outside of the ruling class, to the common man. Jefferson’s label of “all men” is comparable if not inseparable in relation to Locke’s “mankind;” however these labels are not the audience, but whom the audience, those in charge of judgment and government of all men (and women), are to be concerned with. Also, both texts are not intended solely for those who are named explicitly, we can also include peers, scholars, rivals, and even enemies of Locke and Jefferson.
As mentioned earlier, an important difference in the two texts is that Jefferson refers to a specific ruler, the King of Great Britain. Locke’s audience of would-be and current governors is a more broad and generalized audience. Jefferson’s enclosed focus is not limited only to governors, but of states as well, as the thirteen colonies are the primary subject. Locke cites many nations including England, France, and Holland, as well as Americans, Indians and the Swiss in his text, which in theory, leaves much more potential for an extensive consideration of the masses.
As mentioned earlier, an important difference in the two texts is that Jefferson refers to a specific ruler, the King of Great Britain. Locke’s audience of would-be and current governors is a more broad and generalized audience. Jefferson’s enclosed focus is not limited only to governors, but of states as well, as the thirteen colonies are the primary subject. Locke cites many nations including England, France, and Holland, as well as Americans, Indians and the Swiss in his text, which in theory, leaves much more potential for an extensive consideration of the masses.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Declaration of Independence and The Second Treatise of Government
The Declaration of Independence is just as its title states; a paper which states the intentions of the United States of America to become independent from Britain in governing its people. The Declaration of Independence states the British government has committed “abuses and usurpations” to the people and states that when a government does so it should be overruled. This is followed by a long list of injustices the current British government has performed on the people. It is then signed by several representatives of the United States of America.
The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke is a theory of government. John Locke explains that humans are born with rights, as does the Declaration of Independence when it states “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Locke believes that god is the ultimate ruler, he states this several times in his attempt to detail each and every freedom and law humans live by. Locke also explains that humans come together to make a social contract known as government since they are unhappy with the current state of existence and in doing so give up a few rights born with.
References
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 27, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 27, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke is a theory of government. John Locke explains that humans are born with rights, as does the Declaration of Independence when it states “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Locke believes that god is the ultimate ruler, he states this several times in his attempt to detail each and every freedom and law humans live by. Locke also explains that humans come together to make a social contract known as government since they are unhappy with the current state of existence and in doing so give up a few rights born with.
References
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 27, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 27, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Locke and Jefferson
While reading the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence I noticed many similarties between the two writings. Even though one was written before the other they both focused on the injustices that they were seeing by the British. The two writters were drawing attention to these and showing how to make a difference. While the Declaration of Independence focused a lot on what the government was going to do to make the US a better place to live for it's people. Locke discussed there were many aspects of the new world that were unequal. He talked about the state of nature and that without this there is no state at all. The Declaration also talks about the state of nature and how that effects the government. Both have a clear view of how the nature of things effects the government.
References:
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved on October 26, 2007, from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html.
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
References:
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved on October 26, 2007, from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html.
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
Locke and Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government are two writings that set the tone of modern American government. Both documents had the intention of explaining the characteristics of a fair and just republic. Both of these documents expressed a desire for the masses to become familiar with their rights as a governed body. Locke referred to the rights of “life, liberty, health, and property.” (Locke, 1690) Similarly, Jefferson wrote about citizens having the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in The Declaration of Independence (Jefferson, 1776).
One point of contrast between The Declaration of Independence and Second Treatise on Government is the audience each was intended to inspire. The Second Treatise on Government was meant for a general audience. Locke’s purpose was to educate people about the methods of civil government. He spoke about the historical aspects of government, specifically by talking about the affects of the introduction of money. Locke writes about a time “Before the desire of having more than one needed had altered the intrinsic value of things.” (Locke, 1690) Jefferson’s intention when executing his writing was much more specific. He was writing with the educated men of the American colonies in mind. His aim was to incite them to declare war on England and fight for freedom from colonization. He provides specific examples of how colonists had been wronged by the king. One of his arguments is, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”(Jefferson, 1776)
Although these two documents were created as an end to different means, they have both served as models for our present government.
References:
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from <http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html>
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from
One point of contrast between The Declaration of Independence and Second Treatise on Government is the audience each was intended to inspire. The Second Treatise on Government was meant for a general audience. Locke’s purpose was to educate people about the methods of civil government. He spoke about the historical aspects of government, specifically by talking about the affects of the introduction of money. Locke writes about a time “Before the desire of having more than one needed had altered the intrinsic value of things.” (Locke, 1690) Jefferson’s intention when executing his writing was much more specific. He was writing with the educated men of the American colonies in mind. His aim was to incite them to declare war on England and fight for freedom from colonization. He provides specific examples of how colonists had been wronged by the king. One of his arguments is, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”(Jefferson, 1776)
Although these two documents were created as an end to different means, they have both served as models for our present government.
References:
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from <http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html>
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from
John Locke and Thomas Jefferson
The two writings discussed this week, the Second Treatise on Government, written by John Locke, and The Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, were both written with the intentions of justifying revolutionary acts against their current government.
Both authors wrote with different audiences in mind; however they were both writing for Britain. Locke wrote to British people, encouraging them to stand up and demand their rights. Jefferson wrote to Britain to inform them that the colonies would stand up for their rights. The major difference between the two writings is that Locke originally wrote to Britain the reasons why it is important to stand up for rights and sometimes necessary to overthrow the current government. Jefferson used Locke’s reasoning to justify the need to stand up for the rights of the people in colonies, and also the need to overthrow (separate from) the British government.
John Locke’s work was intended for the people of Britain. It was written as a political stance against the autocratic rule of Charles II, during what is now referred to as the Exclusion crisis. Locke strongly disagreed with monarchy and believed that there are natural rights that all individuals are entitled to which monarchy takes away. Locke thought that government was created by the people and that when the government no longer acted for the good of the people, it was the their right to overthrow that government and reestablish one that would act in their best interest. Locke also believed that government’s actions should be justified through reason and scripture, and that the actions of Britain’s current government could not be justified.
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence to let the world know how badly the colonies had been treated by Britain, also to inform the world that they were separating themselves from the crown. The Declaration of Independence parallels the works of John Locke, in that it cites that individuals have natural rights and when government does not work to protect those rights the people must make a stand. Discussed within the Declaration of Independence are the ways in which the people’s natural rights had been revoked. Thomas Jefferson did not believe that the actions of the king could be justified by reason, or scripture and that something had to be done to ensure people’s natural rights.
References:
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&
Both authors wrote with different audiences in mind; however they were both writing for Britain. Locke wrote to British people, encouraging them to stand up and demand their rights. Jefferson wrote to Britain to inform them that the colonies would stand up for their rights. The major difference between the two writings is that Locke originally wrote to Britain the reasons why it is important to stand up for rights and sometimes necessary to overthrow the current government. Jefferson used Locke’s reasoning to justify the need to stand up for the rights of the people in colonies, and also the need to overthrow (separate from) the British government.
John Locke’s work was intended for the people of Britain. It was written as a political stance against the autocratic rule of Charles II, during what is now referred to as the Exclusion crisis. Locke strongly disagreed with monarchy and believed that there are natural rights that all individuals are entitled to which monarchy takes away. Locke thought that government was created by the people and that when the government no longer acted for the good of the people, it was the their right to overthrow that government and reestablish one that would act in their best interest. Locke also believed that government’s actions should be justified through reason and scripture, and that the actions of Britain’s current government could not be justified.
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence to let the world know how badly the colonies had been treated by Britain, also to inform the world that they were separating themselves from the crown. The Declaration of Independence parallels the works of John Locke, in that it cites that individuals have natural rights and when government does not work to protect those rights the people must make a stand. Discussed within the Declaration of Independence are the ways in which the people’s natural rights had been revoked. Thomas Jefferson did not believe that the actions of the king could be justified by reason, or scripture and that something had to be done to ensure people’s natural rights.
References:
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&
Treatise Versus Speech
Both John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government and The Declaration of Independence agree upon man unalienable rights, such as liberty and equality. Both documents agree that the British government is in violation of those rights held by the citizens of the American colonies.
Locke approaches his treatise in the manner of a philosopher. He speaks to other learned men and so, seeks to fully explain and defend his positions. To that end his writing is in-depth and wordy. It was meant to be read in a slow deliberate fashion by a man capable of great contemplation. Given the similarity of views established in both Locke’s treatise may be viewed as a manual for the writers of The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was meant to be read by all men, and to elicit an emotional response. It was not only a statement of the Congresses views but a call to arms for the American public and a declaration of war to the British monarchy. Therefore it is written in an emotional language and with shorter more definite statements. This document was read aloud often to crowds and this precise, and inspiring style lent itself to moving public speeches.
References:
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1Jefferson, T. (1776).
Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Locke approaches his treatise in the manner of a philosopher. He speaks to other learned men and so, seeks to fully explain and defend his positions. To that end his writing is in-depth and wordy. It was meant to be read in a slow deliberate fashion by a man capable of great contemplation. Given the similarity of views established in both Locke’s treatise may be viewed as a manual for the writers of The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence was meant to be read by all men, and to elicit an emotional response. It was not only a statement of the Congresses views but a call to arms for the American public and a declaration of war to the British monarchy. Therefore it is written in an emotional language and with shorter more definite statements. This document was read aloud often to crowds and this precise, and inspiring style lent itself to moving public speeches.
References:
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1Jefferson, T. (1776).
Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
A Study and Comparison of The Delcaration and Second Treatise
From a brief overview Second Treatise on the Government written by John Locke and the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson seem similar because they both describe the civil liberties of man in the new world; however, you quickly learn the differences in perception these authors had when discerning these rights.
It is obvious that the desire to state the given rights of man is what bonds the two documents the most. In the declaration it clearly states that all “men are given certain in amiable rights” (Jefferson), while in more detail, the Second Treatise lists these rights individually. Both documents also have an air of male dominance and tend to focus on the privileges the free men in America should have. Second Treatise explains certain rights, such as the power of authority. Locke continues to explain that in the order of authority and power, “men are God’s property” (Locke chapter 3).
Even within these similarities there are differences. The Second Treatise is very detailed in the rights of man, and even describes situations in which these rights apply best. A great example is Locke’s chapter on slavery when he states circumstances which slavery best works and what is expected of both parties in which he calls “ legitimate slavery” (Locke ch.4, section 22). One other important difference between the two is that Second Treatise focuses on what should be done to make sure that these rights are kept, and the Declaration largely discusses how England’s monarchy stripped the colonies of these rights.
References:
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&
It is obvious that the desire to state the given rights of man is what bonds the two documents the most. In the declaration it clearly states that all “men are given certain in amiable rights” (Jefferson), while in more detail, the Second Treatise lists these rights individually. Both documents also have an air of male dominance and tend to focus on the privileges the free men in America should have. Second Treatise explains certain rights, such as the power of authority. Locke continues to explain that in the order of authority and power, “men are God’s property” (Locke chapter 3).
Even within these similarities there are differences. The Second Treatise is very detailed in the rights of man, and even describes situations in which these rights apply best. A great example is Locke’s chapter on slavery when he states circumstances which slavery best works and what is expected of both parties in which he calls “ legitimate slavery” (Locke ch.4, section 22). One other important difference between the two is that Second Treatise focuses on what should be done to make sure that these rights are kept, and the Declaration largely discusses how England’s monarchy stripped the colonies of these rights.
References:
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&
Friday, October 26, 2007
Critical Analysis of Two Historical Texts
The Declaration of Independence (Declaration) was written for the American people. The document clarified—to the American colonists—why the colonies were breaking-free of England’s rule. The Declaration also provided justification for self-governance. The Declaration states: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having, in direct object, the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States” (Landy appendix I). This clarified why the United States broke free from the Crown. The justification was this: “…all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” (Landy appendix I).
John Locke’s The Second Treatise on Government (Treatise) was written for all humanity, regarding the issue of human rights, as governed under Natural law. Locke states in chapter II paragraph 7: “…law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors” (Locke).
The strongest similarities between the two documents are the references to rights, under natural law, endowed by a Creator. The first sentence of the Declaration states: “…the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…causes which impel them to separate” (Landy Appendix I). The last paragraph also has a reference to the Supreme Judge of the world—God—as the final authority for Americans seeking a free and independent state.
In the Treatise, chapter VII paragraph 77 Locke states: “GOD, having made man such a creature that, in His own judgment…(Locke) This statement ties into both the Creator theme and God as the ultimate Judge.
Another similarity is the famous phrase “all men are created equal”. This phrase appears almost verbatim in both texts.
In the Declaration, second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal “(Landy appendix I).
In the Treatise Locke states: "That all men by nature are equal…"(Locke)
A big difference in the two texts involves the issue of slavery. Locke writes in chapter IV paragraph 22: “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to…a man's preservation. For a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot by compact or his own consent enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases”( Locke). Locke made the compelling argument that a violation of Natural law on one man affects all of society in a negative way.
The Declaration talks about unalienable rights and freedom from oppression but falls short of actually using the word “slavery”. Jefferson, when drafting the Declaration, was conflicted by the slavery issue. In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote a long paragraph called "the vehement philippic against Negro slavery" where he called the trade "a cruel war against human nature and a violation of the most sacred rights". Many states benefited from the slave trade and South Carolina and Georgia weren't going to sign the Declaration with that paragraph included, so Congress took out all discussion of the slave trade in the final draft (Landy 43).
Both documents bare many similarities. If the Declaration was not written with a copy of Locke’s work nearby, than America’s Founding Fathers had Treatise fresh in their memories as they drew inspiration for their own text.
Landy, Marc, and Sidney Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. Boston: McGraw Hill 2004.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from:
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1
John Locke’s The Second Treatise on Government (Treatise) was written for all humanity, regarding the issue of human rights, as governed under Natural law. Locke states in chapter II paragraph 7: “…law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors” (Locke).
The strongest similarities between the two documents are the references to rights, under natural law, endowed by a Creator. The first sentence of the Declaration states: “…the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…causes which impel them to separate” (Landy Appendix I). The last paragraph also has a reference to the Supreme Judge of the world—God—as the final authority for Americans seeking a free and independent state.
In the Treatise, chapter VII paragraph 77 Locke states: “GOD, having made man such a creature that, in His own judgment…(Locke) This statement ties into both the Creator theme and God as the ultimate Judge.
Another similarity is the famous phrase “all men are created equal”. This phrase appears almost verbatim in both texts.
In the Declaration, second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal “(Landy appendix I).
In the Treatise Locke states: "That all men by nature are equal…"(Locke)
A big difference in the two texts involves the issue of slavery. Locke writes in chapter IV paragraph 22: “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to…a man's preservation. For a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot by compact or his own consent enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases”( Locke). Locke made the compelling argument that a violation of Natural law on one man affects all of society in a negative way.
The Declaration talks about unalienable rights and freedom from oppression but falls short of actually using the word “slavery”. Jefferson, when drafting the Declaration, was conflicted by the slavery issue. In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote a long paragraph called "the vehement philippic against Negro slavery" where he called the trade "a cruel war against human nature and a violation of the most sacred rights". Many states benefited from the slave trade and South Carolina and Georgia weren't going to sign the Declaration with that paragraph included, so Congress took out all discussion of the slave trade in the final draft (Landy 43).
Both documents bare many similarities. If the Declaration was not written with a copy of Locke’s work nearby, than America’s Founding Fathers had Treatise fresh in their memories as they drew inspiration for their own text.
Landy, Marc, and Sidney Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. Boston: McGraw Hill 2004.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from:
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1
Similar with Different Intentions
The audiences that both The Declaration and Second Treatises are intended to reach are different. The Declaration is intended for the people of the representatives that signed it and the current population at that time in America. Second Treatises intended audience is more for any people of any land that struggle with power and how we should use power. In short The Declaration is aimed at a very specific audience and the Second Treaties is more general.
The titles of the two writings also play a pivotal role in understanding what their respective intentions are. The Declration is just what it says it is, a declaration of many people that intend to start and become a new government. It does lay down a set of rules to an extent but it also proves the desires and intentions of the undersigned. In Locke’s Second Treaties he follows a more strict form of writing and desires to set out rules for any future set of people or government to follow.
References:
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from:
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
The titles of the two writings also play a pivotal role in understanding what their respective intentions are. The Declration is just what it says it is, a declaration of many people that intend to start and become a new government. It does lay down a set of rules to an extent but it also proves the desires and intentions of the undersigned. In Locke’s Second Treaties he follows a more strict form of writing and desires to set out rules for any future set of people or government to follow.
References:
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from:
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&47=1126592&dt=10%2F22%2F2006+8%3A32%3A12+PM&UnitNumber=9&COID=57&UDPK=23683081&UPK=4490939&bhcp=1
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 26, 2007 from: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Similar Yet Different
The writings of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson are extremely similar yet different. This stems from the fact that Jefferson and the others who wrote the Declaration of Independence, based much of their ideas from Locke’s work. His work, the Second Treatise on Government, was also used in the writing of the American Constitution. The fundamental ideas of the Second Treatise, and the Declaration of Independence, are the same. Fundamental ideas include natural rights, and property. Differences between the Second Treatise and the Declaration include audience and purpose.
Similarities between both documents center around fundamental ideas. The concept of natural rights was what Locke built all his arguments upon. This idea states that in nature, there is no organized governing body, but everyone is equal, and are free to do as they please as long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights (Locke 1690). Property is also an integral concept in Locke’s treatise. Locke defines property in the following manor, "labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" (Section 27). Though the Declaration does not define or expound on these ideas; however they are present none the less in the wording and in the underlying premise of the piece.
Differences between the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence exist despite the similarities between them. Both pieces were directed towards large audiences of the general population. However, in writing the Second Treatise, Locke specifically directed his writing towards the populace of England in hopes of moving them to overthrow the current king. The Declaration was written specifically to the King of England. Locke intended his piece, according to SparkNotes, to "justify the opposition to Charles II" (2006). The Declaration was intended to inform England of the Colonies’ intent "to dissolve the political bands which [had] connected them with another" (Declaration of Independence).
Though written for different purposes and audiences, both the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence have much in common. This is because the authors of the Declaration used Locke’s ideas as their justifications.
References
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved on October 26, 2007, from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html.
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 23, 2007 from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
SparkNotes. (2006). Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. Retrieved on October 24, 2007, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/index.html.
Similarities between both documents center around fundamental ideas. The concept of natural rights was what Locke built all his arguments upon. This idea states that in nature, there is no organized governing body, but everyone is equal, and are free to do as they please as long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights (Locke 1690). Property is also an integral concept in Locke’s treatise. Locke defines property in the following manor, "labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" (Section 27). Though the Declaration does not define or expound on these ideas; however they are present none the less in the wording and in the underlying premise of the piece.
Differences between the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence exist despite the similarities between them. Both pieces were directed towards large audiences of the general population. However, in writing the Second Treatise, Locke specifically directed his writing towards the populace of England in hopes of moving them to overthrow the current king. The Declaration was written specifically to the King of England. Locke intended his piece, according to SparkNotes, to "justify the opposition to Charles II" (2006). The Declaration was intended to inform England of the Colonies’ intent "to dissolve the political bands which [had] connected them with another" (Declaration of Independence).
Though written for different purposes and audiences, both the Second Treatise on Government and the Declaration of Independence have much in common. This is because the authors of the Declaration used Locke’s ideas as their justifications.
References
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise on Government. Retrieved on October 26, 2007, from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html.
Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence. Retrieved on October 23, 2007 from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
SparkNotes. (2006). Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. Retrieved on October 24, 2007, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/index.html.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Declaration of Denegation or was that Dependence?
There are only a couple of significant differences that stood out for me between these two similar documents. In the Declaration of Independence after the second paragraph is where a list of accusations that was directed at King George III, but was addressed as the current King of Britain. In contrast, Locke’s Second Treatise do not have any real persons mentioned for directed dissatisfactions.
The second difference is slavery. This is where Locke believed that it was a circumstantial occurence between a conqueror and their captive such as through the practice of war. However, this does not make much sense nor does it make it right for any man to force indigenous people into slavery regardless of any idea concerning causes and effects. (Locke, John. 1690).
Jefferson was against slavery and further claimed that he was not able to free them because of some of the state representatives would not sign the Declaration unless Jefferson agreed to change one part of the document concerning the British support that could affect a slave’s freedom. (Jefferson, Thomas). In addition he also knew that he as well as other slave owners had grown dependent on the financial gain resulting from slavery. The only resolution I have for these two different ideas is that both Locke and Jefferson being pillars in their society could have been more proactive about the situation by not owning any slaves or supporting the act of trade in the first place. It is a simple enough act that could have caused a trend of humanity much sooner than waiting for the Civil War to end a needless and cruel bondage, but instead pride and greed kept slavery stagnant.
References
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Chapter IV
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=3700851&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1
Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence. 1776. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence: Right to Institute New Government. 1776 http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffdec.html
The second difference is slavery. This is where Locke believed that it was a circumstantial occurence between a conqueror and their captive such as through the practice of war. However, this does not make much sense nor does it make it right for any man to force indigenous people into slavery regardless of any idea concerning causes and effects. (Locke, John. 1690).
Jefferson was against slavery and further claimed that he was not able to free them because of some of the state representatives would not sign the Declaration unless Jefferson agreed to change one part of the document concerning the British support that could affect a slave’s freedom. (Jefferson, Thomas). In addition he also knew that he as well as other slave owners had grown dependent on the financial gain resulting from slavery. The only resolution I have for these two different ideas is that both Locke and Jefferson being pillars in their society could have been more proactive about the situation by not owning any slaves or supporting the act of trade in the first place. It is a simple enough act that could have caused a trend of humanity much sooner than waiting for the Civil War to end a needless and cruel bondage, but instead pride and greed kept slavery stagnant.
References
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1690. Chapter IV
http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=3700851&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1
Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence. 1776. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence: Right to Institute New Government. 1776 http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffdec.html
Who is responsible for upholding the people-government relationship?
Although both the Declaration of Independence (referred to as "the Declaration") and John Locke’s Second Treatises on Government are extremely similar in terms of ideas that compose the two writings, they differ in one fundamental way: which audience they view is more important to understand their writings. Both writings recognize “the people” (those who are governed) and the government; they agree on concepts of equality, social contract theory, usurping authority justifiably, that the government is for, or in service of, the people, and that the people want government (which is implied in the social contract). But, these concepts are used differently; while Locke seeks to explain his theory, the Declaration seeks to employ the theory. Locke explains the reason for government and how and why the people submit to it – he spends more time on how the people should or do behave than he does on government. Furthermore, he asserts what reasons or actions justify usurping a government. The Declaration, on the other hand, does not explain the reason for their government or why the people should submit to it, but instead names “inalienable rights” and jumps to why their current government (the king of England) is not a justifiable government. These differences are mainly due to the intended audience, or who the writings respectively view as those who need to understand and uphold the embedded concepts the most. For Locke, it is most important that the people are aware of their relationship with the government – and with the other people – and be critical of it; the people are keepers/monitors of the (ultimate) authority (the ultimate authority itself would be what is right and what is wrong). For the Declaration, the “keeper” of authority is government, which should monitor itself and uphold the authority. But, even the Declaration writers felt that the people should pay (at least) some attention to how the people-government relationship was being handled. Otherwise, they would not have taken it upon themselves to criticize the king and break away from England at all. Ultimately, both sides need to be critical of the relationship, though both writings seem to suggest that the people are the most important, since it is them who consent for government, and allow it to exist.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Between Beauty and Pride
Mary: "So typical a man of 'greatness' as you would speak such words."
David: "Such words? It's all based on pride, Mary. 'Pride must have a cause as well as an object.' If it is beauty in women that men desire, than this must be because it enhances his pride."
Mary: "But of course, God forbid (it MUST be a male deity for creating this monster) a woman's intelligence out weigh her beauty, after all 'if then women do not resign the arbitrary power of beauty—they will prove that they have less mind than man.'
David: "It must b the same for women. If man does hold beauty so valuably than a woman with out this beauty (being that a woman's whole being should revolve around the happiness of man) shall also be without pride. 'then our own beauty becomes an object of pride, and deformity of humility.' "
Mary: "It is a mistake to assume woman base their pride merely on face-value such as man for beauty was always a given for us and never a source of merit.’her first wish should be to make herself respectable.' "
Hume, D. (1898). A treatise of Human Nature: Of The Passions (book 2, section IV). Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hume/treatise2.html
Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Retrieved
Monday, October 22, 2007
Can You Hume a few Bars?
H: It may be impossible through inductive reasoning to discover which gender of humankind is ultimately superior to another. We could observe or compare all males and females that have ever and will ever exist with each other. Furthermore, if we could know whether a woman is more than equal to a single man, or a group of women more than equal to a group of men, this is not a reason to conclude that one is better than the other ultimately, because the result, no matter how many times consistently achieved, is subject to change.
W: More importantly, how are we to know that the judge of the contest is unbiased, for all tests reflect their society’s rules. If all societies are based on inequalities, as most societies are with a hierarchy of classes, then the test is unequal to begin with, and thus invalid. Furthermore, every man and woman has stock in winning the contest, and how are we to decide what the test shall be based on? It is to be sure that women are treated unequal, though we are not.
H: Even if that is so now and forever has been true, it too is subject to change.
W: Hopefully it will.
W: More importantly, how are we to know that the judge of the contest is unbiased, for all tests reflect their society’s rules. If all societies are based on inequalities, as most societies are with a hierarchy of classes, then the test is unequal to begin with, and thus invalid. Furthermore, every man and woman has stock in winning the contest, and how are we to decide what the test shall be based on? It is to be sure that women are treated unequal, though we are not.
H: Even if that is so now and forever has been true, it too is subject to change.
W: Hopefully it will.
Wollstonecraft and Hume.
I believe Mary Wollstonecraft and David Hume would have spoken about various topics. Both Wollstonecraft and Hume had a few things in common, they could reason and both of them were from Great Britain and lived in about the same time period. I believe the conversation could include the topic of humans as a species in terms of equality, not only man and woman but also to include different races. Also I believe the two would talk about free-will and moral responsibility. Including the cultural and societal expectation of their time. Hume would argue the psychological approach while Wollstonecraft would argue the rational. I believe the discussion between the two would become intense. The topic of Christianity would also be discussed since Hume was believed to be atheist and since Wollstonecraft speaks of Adam and Eve in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.
MW: Mr. Hume do you believe women are made inferior to men, since they are stated to be created from a mere rib of a man?
MW: Mr. Hume do you believe women are made inferior to men, since they are stated to be created from a mere rib of a man?
DH: Ms. Wollstonecraft I do not believe this could have possibly occurred.
MW: Do you mean the idea of women being inferior?
DH: No, Adam and Eve.
Bibliography
Wikipedia. David Hume. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
Wikipedia. Mary Wollstonecraft. Retrieved October22, 2007 from Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft
Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.1792. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from http://www.bartleby.com/144/
Plagiarism anyone?
When Jefferson drew up the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, he must have had access to, or at the very least knowledge of John Locke's work regarding government, formally known as the Second Treatise of Government (1690), in particular his work in Chapter Eight, 'Of the Beginning of Political Societies', and Chapter 17, 'Of Tyranny'. The ideas and in some parts the very language is 'borrowed' from John Locke.
The Declaration of Independence is, in essence, a letter of grievances that justify denouncing all affiliation with the British as a governing body. Along with the actual list of charges against the British Crown, the main body of this article is taken from John Locke (1632-1704) according to authors David Stewart and Gene Blocker in their work Fundamentals of Philosophy (1992). According to these authors, we can best see the paraphrasing of Locke's work if we compare the paragraphs beginning, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..." (Declaration of Independence, 1776) with Locke's work in Chapter Eight, Of the Beginning of Political Societies which states, "Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it..." (Stewart, Blocker, 1992, pp. 445, 450). The parallels between ideas in these statements is striking. Locke went into great detail regarding the justifications for and responsibilities of a governing body, as well as justifications for throwing over said government if it is demonstrated to be working against the best interests of it's people (Locke, 1690). Such was the case and the argument in the Declaration of Independence (1776).
Let us look at another example, relative to the two documents in question, in particular Locke's definitions of Tyranny in Chapter 17 and Jefferson's carefully crafted grievances based on claims of tyranny. The first impression one gets is that Jefferson's arguments seem based on Locke's definition of tyranny. In other words, the accusations in Jefferson's work against the monarchy fit neatly into Locke's definitions of tyranny. (Locke, 1690; The Declaration of Independence, 1776)
Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence is sometimes heralded as a 'unique' and groundbreaking document in political thought... How can this be? As Stewart and Blocker present the material (p. 445), and in reading the two separate bodies of writing for myself, Jefferson's draft and the resulting Declaration of Independence could be argued as plagiarism. These ideas regarding government had already been established in much greater detail by John Locke nearly one century before The Declaration of Independence was written.
REFERENCES
The Declaration of Independence. (1776). Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html
Locke, J. (1690). Second treatise on government. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-frame.html
Stewart, D., Blocker, G. H. (1992). Fundamentals of Philosophy, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillon Publishing Company.
The Declaration of Independence is, in essence, a letter of grievances that justify denouncing all affiliation with the British as a governing body. Along with the actual list of charges against the British Crown, the main body of this article is taken from John Locke (1632-1704) according to authors David Stewart and Gene Blocker in their work Fundamentals of Philosophy (1992). According to these authors, we can best see the paraphrasing of Locke's work if we compare the paragraphs beginning, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..." (Declaration of Independence, 1776) with Locke's work in Chapter Eight, Of the Beginning of Political Societies which states, "Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it..." (Stewart, Blocker, 1992, pp. 445, 450). The parallels between ideas in these statements is striking. Locke went into great detail regarding the justifications for and responsibilities of a governing body, as well as justifications for throwing over said government if it is demonstrated to be working against the best interests of it's people (Locke, 1690). Such was the case and the argument in the Declaration of Independence (1776).
Let us look at another example, relative to the two documents in question, in particular Locke's definitions of Tyranny in Chapter 17 and Jefferson's carefully crafted grievances based on claims of tyranny. The first impression one gets is that Jefferson's arguments seem based on Locke's definition of tyranny. In other words, the accusations in Jefferson's work against the monarchy fit neatly into Locke's definitions of tyranny. (Locke, 1690; The Declaration of Independence, 1776)
Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence is sometimes heralded as a 'unique' and groundbreaking document in political thought... How can this be? As Stewart and Blocker present the material (p. 445), and in reading the two separate bodies of writing for myself, Jefferson's draft and the resulting Declaration of Independence could be argued as plagiarism. These ideas regarding government had already been established in much greater detail by John Locke nearly one century before The Declaration of Independence was written.
REFERENCES
The Declaration of Independence. (1776). Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html
Locke, J. (1690). Second treatise on government. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-frame.html
Stewart, D., Blocker, G. H. (1992). Fundamentals of Philosophy, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillon Publishing Company.
Contemporary Conversations
Wollstonecraft:
“Do you believe that women are silly and centrally incapable of understanding the world?”
Hume:
“No, I was raised by a “widowed mother” who was “devoted to the education” of my siblings and my self, exhibiting a strong character and will.”
Wollstonecraft:
“I have observed before in my book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman that society believes, ‘that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace’ remaining ignorant throughout life” why in your opinion has this continued?”
Hume:
“As I have said before in my essay An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ‘the easy and obvious philosophy will always, with the generality of mankind, have the preference above the accurate and abstruse; and by many will be recommended, not only as more agreeable, but more useful than the other.’”
Wollstonecraft:
“Too true I have often observed that it is natural for man to assume that the first plausible explanation or lesson they are given is all the truth regardless of new information. Your mother must have been a most sensible and organized woman.”
Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.Wollstonecraft,
M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
Peter Landry
Landry, Peter. (2007). David Hume. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/humed/about.htm
“Do you believe that women are silly and centrally incapable of understanding the world?”
Hume:
“No, I was raised by a “widowed mother” who was “devoted to the education” of my siblings and my self, exhibiting a strong character and will.”
Wollstonecraft:
“I have observed before in my book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman that society believes, ‘that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace’ remaining ignorant throughout life” why in your opinion has this continued?”
Hume:
“As I have said before in my essay An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ‘the easy and obvious philosophy will always, with the generality of mankind, have the preference above the accurate and abstruse; and by many will be recommended, not only as more agreeable, but more useful than the other.’”
Wollstonecraft:
“Too true I have often observed that it is natural for man to assume that the first plausible explanation or lesson they are given is all the truth regardless of new information. Your mother must have been a most sensible and organized woman.”
Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.Wollstonecraft,
M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
Peter Landry
Landry, Peter. (2007). David Hume. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/humed/about.htm
A Point on Which Might be Agreeable (Or not...)
Both David Hume and Mary Wollstonecraft refer to experience and observance as a way in which knowledge is gained. Hume (1748) basis An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding on this principle, while Wollstonecraft only touches on the matter. In a conversation between the two, they discuss the subject.
“So Mary,” Hume says, “You are in agreement with me that human understanding is based on experience?”
“In some instances, I suppose I am,” Mary responds. “Why would you ask that particular question of me, David?”
“I was just thinking about a passage from your work.”
“What passage is that?”
“In Chapter Eight, paragraph nine, you state that ‘unless virtue, of any kind, is built on knowledge, it will only produce a kind of insipid decency,’ (1792)” Hume replied. “Following the logic in this statement, I would come to the conclusion that the knowledge you speak of comes from experience.”
“I would suppose that most knowledge comes from experience, if one looks at it that way.”
“However,” Mary sighs before continuing, “the way in which knowledge is gained was not the main focus of my writings. You have completely missed the points which I made in my work.”
Under her breath, Mary grumbles, “men…”
References Cited:
Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
“So Mary,” Hume says, “You are in agreement with me that human understanding is based on experience?”
“In some instances, I suppose I am,” Mary responds. “Why would you ask that particular question of me, David?”
“I was just thinking about a passage from your work.”
“What passage is that?”
“In Chapter Eight, paragraph nine, you state that ‘unless virtue, of any kind, is built on knowledge, it will only produce a kind of insipid decency,’ (1792)” Hume replied. “Following the logic in this statement, I would come to the conclusion that the knowledge you speak of comes from experience.”
“I would suppose that most knowledge comes from experience, if one looks at it that way.”
“However,” Mary sighs before continuing, “the way in which knowledge is gained was not the main focus of my writings. You have completely missed the points which I made in my work.”
Under her breath, Mary grumbles, “men…”
References Cited:
Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
The Risk of Progressive Thought
Mary Wollstonecraft(MW) and David Hume(DH) converse over the risks of progressive thought.
MW: David Hume—man of reason—you must, by nature, despise the durability of antiquated notions by church and state.
DH: No: “Tis impossible for the mind to fix itself steadily upon one idea for any considerable time; nor can it by its utmost efforts ever arrive at such a constancy. But however changeable our thoughts may be, they are not entirely without rule and method in their changes” (Mossner 402).
MW: Change, no, independence will come someday to all free thinkers. But, must we hide the power of our thoughts or risk becoming a refugee like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Edmonds and Eidinow 3)? Do our words so threaten, they alone arouse such intense opposition?
DH: “We must, therefore, proceed like those, who being in search of anything which lies conceal’d from them… beat about all the neighboring fields, without any certain view or design, in hopes their good fortune will at last guide them to what they search for (Mossner 125).
MW: I long for a New Age where my work can and will overshadow my personal life. The paths I walked are less important than the inspiration they endowed my works to transcend (Brody 136).
Works Cited
Mossner, Earnest C., ed. A Treatise of Human Nature: David Hume. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969.
Edmonds, David, and John Eidinow. Rousseau’s Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: HarperCollins, 2006.
Brody, Miriam, ed. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: Mary Wollstonecraft. Ney York: Penguin Books, 1992.
MW: David Hume—man of reason—you must, by nature, despise the durability of antiquated notions by church and state.
DH: No: “Tis impossible for the mind to fix itself steadily upon one idea for any considerable time; nor can it by its utmost efforts ever arrive at such a constancy. But however changeable our thoughts may be, they are not entirely without rule and method in their changes” (Mossner 402).
MW: Change, no, independence will come someday to all free thinkers. But, must we hide the power of our thoughts or risk becoming a refugee like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Edmonds and Eidinow 3)? Do our words so threaten, they alone arouse such intense opposition?
DH: “We must, therefore, proceed like those, who being in search of anything which lies conceal’d from them… beat about all the neighboring fields, without any certain view or design, in hopes their good fortune will at last guide them to what they search for (Mossner 125).
MW: I long for a New Age where my work can and will overshadow my personal life. The paths I walked are less important than the inspiration they endowed my works to transcend (Brody 136).
Works Cited
Mossner, Earnest C., ed. A Treatise of Human Nature: David Hume. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969.
Edmonds, David, and John Eidinow. Rousseau’s Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: HarperCollins, 2006.
Brody, Miriam, ed. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: Mary Wollstonecraft. Ney York: Penguin Books, 1992.
Addition to last blog (regarding Home Improvement)...
MW: Notice that Jill is female, and a mother, and is still rational.
Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A vindication of the rights of women. Retrieved October 22, 2007. http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Retrieved October 22, 2007. http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). A vindication of the rights of women. Retrieved October 22, 2007. http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Retrieved October 22, 2007. http://ecampus.uwyo.edu/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2609764&CPURL=ecampus.uwyo.edu&Survey=1&47=2371277&ClientNodeID=8216&coursenav=0&bhcp=1.
David Hume and Mary Wollstonecraft discussing the t.v. program Home Improvement
DH: You'd think Tim would learn not to do such stupid things - he does them so often!
MW: How else can he expect things to work? What a moron! He understands his hot rod, but nothing else. He just needs to figure out cause and effect and not be hypocritical.
DH: Even without that, he should still learn from the things he does. He doesn't reason, forgets past mistakes, and he messes up simple things from Wilson that no on can figure out. It would be better for him if he didn't mention Wilson's teachings at all, but he has yet to learn this!
MW: Well that's men for you - at least the writers got the basis of the show right!
MW: How else can he expect things to work? What a moron! He understands his hot rod, but nothing else. He just needs to figure out cause and effect and not be hypocritical.
DH: Even without that, he should still learn from the things he does. He doesn't reason, forgets past mistakes, and he messes up simple things from Wilson that no on can figure out. It would be better for him if he didn't mention Wilson's teachings at all, but he has yet to learn this!
MW: Well that's men for you - at least the writers got the basis of the show right!
The Human Ability ot Reason
One day, Mary Wollstonecraft and David Hume were having an important discussion about the human ability to reason. Here is a little of their exchange:
David: “All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain.” (Hume, 1794)
Mary: Let’s not let us forget about things that are not empirically provable. “Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out.”(Wollstonecraft, 1792)
David: “The discovery of defects in the common philosophy, if any such there be, will not, I presume, be a discouragement, but rather an incitement, as is usual, to attempt something more full and satisfactory than has yet been proposed to the public.” (Hume, 1794)
Mary: That is why I call upon women to incite change, to prove that women are indeed rational beings capable of reason.
David: “All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain.” (Hume, 1794)
Mary: Let’s not let us forget about things that are not empirically provable. “Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out.”(Wollstonecraft, 1792)
David: “The discovery of defects in the common philosophy, if any such there be, will not, I presume, be a discouragement, but rather an incitement, as is usual, to attempt something more full and satisfactory than has yet been proposed to the public.” (Hume, 1794)
Mary: That is why I call upon women to incite change, to prove that women are indeed rational beings capable of reason.
Deciding to ask the hard questions while I had these two people, of different views, together. The question I decided to find the answer to was one of why it is ok for men to do the same sinful act as a women, yet the man doesn't lose his reputation. In all truthfulness he is rewarded for such acts. Mary stated that " If an innocent girl become a prey to love, she is degraded forever, though her mind was not polluted by the arts which married women, under the convenient cloud of marriage, practise; nor has she violated and duty--but the duty of respecting herself." (Wollstonecraft, 1972) David then has the rebuttal of "But with regard to the present subject, there are some considerations which seem to remove all this accusation of arrogance or suspicion of mistake." (Hume, 1748). At this point they start to bicker over the rights of women or should I say the lack there of where Hume is concerned. Hume feels that the man is right and is the best creature on earth, where Mary feels that it is the opposite as women are the ones that take care of the house. So as I leave they are still there but now it has gotten to be words of anger directed below the belt. Hume's position will never change and Mary is still fighting for the rights of women.
References:
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (1748)
Reviewed material http://infidels.org/library/hitorical/david_hume/human_understanding.html
Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. (1792)http://www.barteby.com/144/
References:
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (1748)
Reviewed material http://infidels.org/library/hitorical/david_hume/human_understanding.html
Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. (1792)http://www.barteby.com/144/
Mary and Hume
"You speak of reasoning as falling into two distinct types, "Relations of Ideas," and "Matters of Fact.", of which matters of fact can be seen as cause and effect."... Mary said.
"Yes, and on matter of cause and effect, we cannot know the true origin of the cause of an effect." Stated Hume.
"So then, we cannot know the cause of women's inferior intelligence in comparison to her fellow man... Nor her modest, sensibilities?" Inquired Mary.
"Well... " Hume started...
".. And without knowing the cause we cannot know absolutely that women are, without question, inferior beings?" Mary continued blithely.
"Yes but the terms of logic and reasoning do not apply to the fairer sex, of such frail and weak disposition, who's service is unto God and unto men..." Hume chose his next words rather carefully.
"So then do you classify us creatures as nature, matter in your universe under God of cause and effect, a puzzle to be sorted out and reconstructed until your satisfied that you've conquered it simply through understanding it's operations?"... " and by the way, you didn't refute my first argument."
"Who are you to question me thus?!" Hume flared... "What vile sort of woman are you that you dare to question the logic of men!"...
Mary shot back, "The sort who can reason for herself". And sauntered off.
Johnson-Lewis, J. (n.d.) A vindication of the rights of woman: overview of the life and work of England's early feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blwollstonecraft.htm
Stewart, D., Blocker, G. H., (1992). Fundamentals of philosophy 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
"Yes, and on matter of cause and effect, we cannot know the true origin of the cause of an effect." Stated Hume.
"So then, we cannot know the cause of women's inferior intelligence in comparison to her fellow man... Nor her modest, sensibilities?" Inquired Mary.
"Well... " Hume started...
".. And without knowing the cause we cannot know absolutely that women are, without question, inferior beings?" Mary continued blithely.
"Yes but the terms of logic and reasoning do not apply to the fairer sex, of such frail and weak disposition, who's service is unto God and unto men..." Hume chose his next words rather carefully.
"So then do you classify us creatures as nature, matter in your universe under God of cause and effect, a puzzle to be sorted out and reconstructed until your satisfied that you've conquered it simply through understanding it's operations?"... " and by the way, you didn't refute my first argument."
"Who are you to question me thus?!" Hume flared... "What vile sort of woman are you that you dare to question the logic of men!"...
Mary shot back, "The sort who can reason for herself". And sauntered off.
Johnson-Lewis, J. (n.d.) A vindication of the rights of woman: overview of the life and work of England's early feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blwollstonecraft.htm
Stewart, D., Blocker, G. H., (1992). Fundamentals of philosophy 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
A Conversation Concerning the Construction of Ideas
David: Recalling a memory of what something smelled, tasted or even sounded like is based on the senses. Once these experiences are impressed into an idea the anticipation of those sensations become a part of someone’s imagination.
“These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment (Hume, 1748).
Mary: “Like the lightning’s flash are many recollections; one idea assimilating and explaining another, with astonishing rapidity” (Wollstonecraft 1792). I also believe that intuition is what gives us our instantaneous recollections of somewhat truths that have may be clouded by other perceptions.
David: Belief that the mind has two classes in which perception are divided. “The less forcible and lively are commonly denominated thought or ideas” (Hume, 1748). But the other class is concerned with the names of objects leaving me to believe it is natural.
Mary: I think we do group our thoughts in a retrospective manner that eventually reforms as new information or situations that intermingles with old information for new perceptions. “forcing them to a view with interest the objects reflected from the impassioned imagination, which they passed over in nature (Wollstonecraft, 1792).
References
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (1748) A & S 3105 Reviewed material
http://infidels.org/library/hitorical/david_hume/human_understanding.html
Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. (1792)
http://www.barteby.com/144/
“These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment (Hume, 1748).
Mary: “Like the lightning’s flash are many recollections; one idea assimilating and explaining another, with astonishing rapidity” (Wollstonecraft 1792). I also believe that intuition is what gives us our instantaneous recollections of somewhat truths that have may be clouded by other perceptions.
David: Belief that the mind has two classes in which perception are divided. “The less forcible and lively are commonly denominated thought or ideas” (Hume, 1748). But the other class is concerned with the names of objects leaving me to believe it is natural.
Mary: I think we do group our thoughts in a retrospective manner that eventually reforms as new information or situations that intermingles with old information for new perceptions. “forcing them to a view with interest the objects reflected from the impassioned imagination, which they passed over in nature (Wollstonecraft, 1792).
References
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (1748) A & S 3105 Reviewed material
http://infidels.org/library/hitorical/david_hume/human_understanding.html
Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. (1792)
http://www.barteby.com/144/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)