In Eugenie Grandet, I thought there were interesting connections and conflicts drawn between three qualities--- greed, love, and naivety. Monsieur Grandet was driven by pure greed throughout his entire life. His love of gold replaced his love of his family, and the only time he expressed inklings of this emotion with his family was when his daughter had the power to depreciate his wealth.
Eugenie, however, was entirely unconcerned with wealth, and although she sometimes surmised about her father’s wealth, she was not preoccupied by it in any way. She was able to genuinely love her relatives because she did not have any thoughts of gold or power. This is likely because she was too naïve and young to contemplate the world outside of her home, and so she only loved what she knew. Charles, as an outsider, gave Eugenie a glimpse of another lifestyle, and prompted her to examine her own life and her father’s. This opened her mind, and gave her an individualized set of thoughts and ideals on which she acted. When Charles was staying at her home, she wanted to provide every possible nicety for him, and became upset at her father’s unwillingness to be an accommodating host. Grandet retorted, “Do you think because you have just come of age that you are free to set yourself against me?” This is the moment when it was first recognized that Eugenie had her own mind, free from her father’s ideals and free from her own naivety. She pursued her love of Charles, naïve of the fact that he was also inherently prone to her father’s greed.
Charles’s greed had no outlet during his time in Monsieur Grandet’s home because he was in such an unfortunate position. He could do nothing but except any help that was given to him. He had many fine possessions, but was nonetheless the lowliest person in the household after the tragedies that befell him. This made him a perfect object of Eugenie’s compassion. For a while, Charles lost sight of his past and his future when he sold his belongings without a thought, except for the sentimental items that he entrusted to Eugenie’s care. Charles, living only in the moment, was able to truly love Eugenie, but as soon as he left Samur, his wealthy lifestyle returned, and his naivety to his predisposition for greed returned as well. Now, he was naïve to love, and financial practicality became its replacement.
Eugenie could have become a miser when she realized her wealth, but she instead held on to her attachment to everything she loved. She is the most genuine character in this story, and constantly pushes the limits of what is reasonably expected of her with regard to her love of family. The book ends without Eugenie or Charles being satisfied, and with the conflicts between love, greed, and naivety left unresolved.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
A couple interesting things I noticed while reading Adolphe...
In the introduction of this book, the author notes a few qualities that he says are typical of French Modernity writing. Among these are 'clear self knowledge,' and an ending of death because 'the stark facts of human nature cannot be logically worked out.'
These qualities were also main themes in Goeth's 'The Sorrows of Young Werther." 'Adolphe' began the same as 'Werther,' with a lover who was hopelessly infatuated with a woman, the object of his desire. Both narrators were incredibly self-aware. An example of the 'clear self knowledge' in Adolphe is page 50, where he says, "My long drawn out battle against my own character, the irritation I felt at not having been able to overcome it, and my doubts about my chances of success all combined to tinge my letter with an emotional colour scarcely distinguishable from love."
Knowing that Adolphe would end with death (the intro was the spoiler), I expected the Adolphe to parallel Werther and take his own life in the end. As the story progressed, I was very suprised to see the way his mindset shifted. The story was extremely effective because the narrator was very clear about his own feelings throughout the entire work. The ending sentiment on page 121, "I was free, truly, for I was no longer loved," was not at all what I expected, but it did maintain my interest because of the extreme shift.
Another thing I found interesting in Adolphe was the frequent use of the word 'pity' as the force driving the narrator's actions. This Rousseau 'buzz word' made me view Adolphe as if he was in an intermediary stage between the state of nature and civilized man. Viewing him in this way helped me to contextualize his character, and strangely made me sympathize with him as a pawn of forces that were beyond his control.
In the introduction of this book, the author notes a few qualities that he says are typical of French Modernity writing. Among these are 'clear self knowledge,' and an ending of death because 'the stark facts of human nature cannot be logically worked out.'
These qualities were also main themes in Goeth's 'The Sorrows of Young Werther." 'Adolphe' began the same as 'Werther,' with a lover who was hopelessly infatuated with a woman, the object of his desire. Both narrators were incredibly self-aware. An example of the 'clear self knowledge' in Adolphe is page 50, where he says, "My long drawn out battle against my own character, the irritation I felt at not having been able to overcome it, and my doubts about my chances of success all combined to tinge my letter with an emotional colour scarcely distinguishable from love."
Knowing that Adolphe would end with death (the intro was the spoiler), I expected the Adolphe to parallel Werther and take his own life in the end. As the story progressed, I was very suprised to see the way his mindset shifted. The story was extremely effective because the narrator was very clear about his own feelings throughout the entire work. The ending sentiment on page 121, "I was free, truly, for I was no longer loved," was not at all what I expected, but it did maintain my interest because of the extreme shift.
Another thing I found interesting in Adolphe was the frequent use of the word 'pity' as the force driving the narrator's actions. This Rousseau 'buzz word' made me view Adolphe as if he was in an intermediary stage between the state of nature and civilized man. Viewing him in this way helped me to contextualize his character, and strangely made me sympathize with him as a pawn of forces that were beyond his control.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Kant's 'freedom'
In Kant's writing, freedom is the main component in the progression toward enlightenment. It is interesting to view Kant's idea of freedom in light of our discussion of Rousseau. Kant speaks of freedom as free thinking, a scholarly form of freedom. Freedom of thinking is independant of freedom from society's constraints. In fact, Kant says that freedom of thinking is enabled by adherence to the laws of government.
This is a completely different concept of freedom from that of Rousseau. Rousseau idealizes freedom from all of the constriants and customs of civilized life. He speaks of the state of nature as if it was a euphoric time classified by freedom that can never again be achieved. He says, "savage man will not bend his neck to the yoke which civilized man wears without a murmur." Kant's idea of freedom could not even exist without this societal 'yoke' that is such a burden and an obstacle to Rousseau's 'freedom.' The word and the idea of freedom is classified by completely different terms and ideas in these two texts, and both concepts cannot even exist on the same plane.
This is a completely different concept of freedom from that of Rousseau. Rousseau idealizes freedom from all of the constriants and customs of civilized life. He speaks of the state of nature as if it was a euphoric time classified by freedom that can never again be achieved. He says, "savage man will not bend his neck to the yoke which civilized man wears without a murmur." Kant's idea of freedom could not even exist without this societal 'yoke' that is such a burden and an obstacle to Rousseau's 'freedom.' The word and the idea of freedom is classified by completely different terms and ideas in these two texts, and both concepts cannot even exist on the same plane.
Shelley---Declaration of Rights
Most of Shelley's Declaration sounded very familiar, probably because of its constitutional language, and because most of these rights have been discussed, argued, ignored, and celebrated throughout history. However, there were a couple of rights that made me consider the present state of the world, and the events that are currently happening. I am talking about rights 17 and 19.
I guess Shelley would be an anti-Bush critic.--Right 17..'No man has a right to do an evil thing that good may come.' When I read this, I immediately thought of the war in Iraq. Wasn't the opposite of this 'right' the exact justification for the war? And Right 19, "Man has no right to kill his brother, it is no excuse that he does so in uniform. He only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder." Obviously, same thing. It is impressive how writing from two centuries ago can still be so applicable. I bet Shelley would make a good president.
I guess Shelley would be an anti-Bush critic.--Right 17..'No man has a right to do an evil thing that good may come.' When I read this, I immediately thought of the war in Iraq. Wasn't the opposite of this 'right' the exact justification for the war? And Right 19, "Man has no right to kill his brother, it is no excuse that he does so in uniform. He only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder." Obviously, same thing. It is impressive how writing from two centuries ago can still be so applicable. I bet Shelley would make a good president.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
More on Rousseau....
As it is, I have a hard time agreeing with a lot of what Rousseau says, but I found this specific example to be especially difficult to reconcile. On page 128 he says, "...since the right to property is only conventional and of human institution, everyone may dispose at will of what he possesses; but this is not the case with the essential gifts of nature, such as life and liberty, which everyone is allowed to enjoy and of which it is at least doubtful whether anyone has the right to divest himself."
What I extracted from this passage is that man can give up property because it is a human construct, but liberty, a gift of nature is not for us to give.
And..............
On page 125, Rousseau says, "savage man will not bend his neck to the yoke which civilized man wears without subjection. We must not, therefore, look to the degradation of enslaved people as a basis for judging man's natural disposition for or against servitude, but look rather to the prodigious achievements of all free peoples who have striven to protect themselves from oppression......I feel that it is not for slaves to argue about liberty."
This passage bothers me because first of all, he is making the savage man sound valiant in relation to the current man. He is ignoring all factors that lead people to being enslaved, and is then removing credibility from those who are enslaved. If people were not enslaved, then there would be no bar by which to decipher liberty. Since one man being at the 'mercy' of another man is a central step in moving toward inequality in his logic, it is odd to me that he would give credibility to those who are free, when in reality people would not have liberty unless judged against those who are lacking it. Any thoughts on this??
What I extracted from this passage is that man can give up property because it is a human construct, but liberty, a gift of nature is not for us to give.
And..............
On page 125, Rousseau says, "savage man will not bend his neck to the yoke which civilized man wears without subjection. We must not, therefore, look to the degradation of enslaved people as a basis for judging man's natural disposition for or against servitude, but look rather to the prodigious achievements of all free peoples who have striven to protect themselves from oppression......I feel that it is not for slaves to argue about liberty."
This passage bothers me because first of all, he is making the savage man sound valiant in relation to the current man. He is ignoring all factors that lead people to being enslaved, and is then removing credibility from those who are enslaved. If people were not enslaved, then there would be no bar by which to decipher liberty. Since one man being at the 'mercy' of another man is a central step in moving toward inequality in his logic, it is odd to me that he would give credibility to those who are free, when in reality people would not have liberty unless judged against those who are lacking it. Any thoughts on this??
Rousseau Part 2
Rousseau's descriptions of the savage man are a little hard for me to stomach. He idealizes the state of nature, and makes it sound pure, and naive. He makes the state of nature, a state of survival where man is a very basic being, sound like something we should regret not being a part of. The state of nature was a cyclic time where people lived day to day, rather than looking to the future. Progress was not a goal, it was an accident. Is this really something to strive for? This is strange to me in the context of Modernity because progress is such a poignant theme, and it is something that is nonexistent in this ideal state of nature.
Rousseau takes away humanity in his description of the savage man. His hypothetical man does not care about his offspring, the other sex, or anything. He picks and chooses the basic instincts that his savage man adheres to. The instinct to survive is clearly something that Rousseau's savage man possesses, but what about parental instincts, or group instincts. To Rousseau, these are negative accidental products that followed the state of nature, but who is to say if that is really what they are? I guess I just have a hard time buying into everything Rousseau is saying even if it is a hypothetical situation of our past.
Rousseau takes away humanity in his description of the savage man. His hypothetical man does not care about his offspring, the other sex, or anything. He picks and chooses the basic instincts that his savage man adheres to. The instinct to survive is clearly something that Rousseau's savage man possesses, but what about parental instincts, or group instincts. To Rousseau, these are negative accidental products that followed the state of nature, but who is to say if that is really what they are? I guess I just have a hard time buying into everything Rousseau is saying even if it is a hypothetical situation of our past.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Rousseau Reading
Last week, in our discussion of Modernity, the word 'progress' was mentioned quite a bit. We talked about Modernity as an era of progress in that industrialization began to replace agriculture, and the future became an opportunity rather than a repitition of the past. We also discussed Modernity as a period when there was a strong inclination to compare the present to the past.
The idea of Modernity as a period of looking at the past with an inclination toward future progress was fresh in my mind as I read Rousseau, and these ideas were strongly embodied in his work as I read Part 1. Part 1 was simply the background for the main points of this book, which I am sure come later. Rousseau, as a product of his time, took ample effort to look way into the past at savage man in the state of nature in order to explain the way the present state of man came into existance. It was interesting to see the general theme that we discussed in class applied by a specific writer, who is one of the main voices of Modernity.
The idea of Modernity as a period of looking at the past with an inclination toward future progress was fresh in my mind as I read Rousseau, and these ideas were strongly embodied in his work as I read Part 1. Part 1 was simply the background for the main points of this book, which I am sure come later. Rousseau, as a product of his time, took ample effort to look way into the past at savage man in the state of nature in order to explain the way the present state of man came into existance. It was interesting to see the general theme that we discussed in class applied by a specific writer, who is one of the main voices of Modernity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)