12/6/2013 Week 16 (Week 14, Karina and I did the presentation. Week 15, we had Thanksgiving Break)
One of the reasons that I like this class is that it does not limit on literature. We talk about art works and music as well. More importantly, we compare these different art forms (art, music and literature) under a social and historical context. I always believe that art works cannot be separated from the era or the social situations it was created. Music is my major, so it is really interesting to meet this old friend in our class. We actually did many things that I did in my music theory and history classes --- listen to and analyze the music, talk about specific composer and piece, talk about the classical era. It is fun to hear from some of my classmates who are not majoring in music. Sometimes I think that I limited myself by looking at music from a more analytical way because the professional training I received--- It is very helpful and it makes me play the music more professionally;but sometimes it is just very fresh to hear non-music major students’ perspectives that usually directly connect to feelings, colors and emotions.
I love the idea of comparing sonata form with the Wizard of Orz. I have heard some ways of explaining sonata form, but none of them interests me as much as the Wizard of Orz does. It is just fantastic to compare a music form with a wonderful story, so music is not just notes, math and structure any more. It is a very vivid story and an image. Thank you, Dr. Hartman!I understand that there are absolute music pieces that do not tell a specific story; but I always try to connect the piece I am learning with some personal experience, emotions, stories and movies. It just helps me more to understand the music and be connected to the music. After all, one does not PLAY music, one INTERPRETS music. To be original and convincing, one has to be touched and wholeheartedly connect to the music.
11/16/2013 Week 13 Sat. (An update or rethinking of what I wrote on Friday)
I am not satisfied with my essay proposal written on Friday. I reconsidered my choice today and finally decided to give up the idea of writing about Kant’s "What Is Enlightenment?" and Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” Both of the two writings are related to Enlightenment. However, Kant and Rousseau seem to be examining quite different aspects of the idea or era of Enlightenment. In "What Is Enlightenment", Kant emphasizes the essence, meaning and importance of Enlightenment ideas. On the other hand, Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” focuses more on the destruction brought by artificial Arts and Sciences. Since they are so different, I feel that to find the differences and similarities between these two works are beyond my capacity at this point. And to be honest, for me, Rousseau’s work is very hard to read. It is definitely not a good idea to write about some thing that I don’t even have a clear idea with.
All things considered, I plan to compare Voltaire’s “Candide” with Pope’s “An Essay on Man”. More specifically, I want to explore more on Pope’s idea of “Whatever is, is RIGHT” and that sacrifices on a micro level serve the benefits for the whole. It seems to be the exact idea that Voltaire satirized in “Candide”. Again, I like to brainstorm a bit：
1. One question here: Do I have to talk about similarities too? Or I can just talk about the differences?
2. I think there are more to say than that Voltaire and Pope’s ideas are different. I mean, it is true that it is ridiculous to say everything is there for a reason like Pangloss’s theory about syphilis also brings chocolate. It surly shows that Pope’s idea has its limitation since it can be superficial and unmerciful and thus is artificial and non-practical. But is Voltaire’s idea any more practical? I mean, to people who are in miserable situation, isn’t more merciful to think positively? If philosophies cannot help people or at least sooth people, what is the point of it? If it is not right to think that all is well, should one think all is misery then?
3. Again, I feel what I am thinking in Point 2 is like some things against Voltaire. I am actually thinking of structuring my essay in this way: Illustrates Pope’s “all is well” theory ---- Compare it with Voltaire’s satire and criticism --- Question Voltaire as what I did in Point 2. My question here is: Would this structure be wrong for a comparison essay? If I start to defend Pope in some way, would that be a comparison between Pope and Voltaire any more? Would it be off topic?
4. Well, I suddenly feel the impulse to think about the point of philosophy: should it be an illustration of reason? Or should it be something goes beyond theory and brings benefits (psychological or intellectual) to people? Would it be off topic if I explore this in my comparison essay?
Siyuan, I think you are on a good track with your thinking here, because you are going beyond just listing similarities and differences and thinking about deeper issues--like, what is the point of all this? To answer your questions: 1) You can just talk differences. 2) No question here, but these are good things to be thinking about. 3) This structure would be fine. You begin with comparison but end up questioning and evaluating the authors. It's OK if you end up defending Pope against Voltaire. 4) These questions are not off topic, because they are exactly the kinds of questions that Voltaire wants you to ask. You might keep in mind the conclusion of Candide and the idea of cultivating your garden--this is what Voltaire ultimately proposes as a replacement for optimism. Do you think this idea is at all helpful, or is it too accepting of the pessimistic view? -- MH
11/15/2013 Week 13
To be honest, I am having a big trouble with this comparison paper. I thought about comparing Kant’s "What IsEnlightenment?" with Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” I reread these two materials and finally felt distressed by the fact that even the second time through I did not quite understand them. Kant promoted freedom in the sense of intellectual independence and awareness. Rousseau challenged science and arts by stating that they were artificial things that against innocence and originality. However, to my understanding, arts and sciences are ways for people to express and promote intellectual and emotional thoughts. Thus, I thought Rousseau’s thoughts would be some things against Kant’s statements. Then I did some background researches and realized that Rousseau was actually a big figure in speaking of the Enlightenment idea. Rousseau and Kant also seemed to influences over one another. This further confused me. Maybe there are some similarities between the two? I just felt that my understand of the texts do not support me to write an essay about it.
Then I went over to “The Good Letters” and “The Princess”. Unfortunately, since I started this process two hours ago, after I reread the readings I mentioned above. I did not have any time to sufficiently come up with some concrete ideas.
11/8/2013 Week 12
Voltaire’s Candide is so dramatic that sometimes the depicted events and people seem unbelievably random and exaggerated. For example, some died people suddenly turn alive. And a princess (The old woman), with all her advantages, falls to nothing. Moreover, Candide’s hope, the beautiful and gentle Cunégonade changes to an old-looking and ill-tempered shrew. Under all of these wild happenings, however, is Voltaire’s ingenious depiction of different philosophies. Most of the roles in the tale represent specific philosophies. For example, Pangloss holds a similar view with the philosopher, Leibniz, that everything in the world is perfect since it is there for a specific purpose. There are also characters such as the old woman who claims the authority over her past experience. It is funny that some of Volatire’s contemporary rivals are being harshly criticized in the tale.
As the protagonist, the innocent Candide encounters the sorrow of personal fates as well as religious, military and political hypocrisies. He also gets exposed to different people such as the "all is well” Pangoloss and the pessimist, Martin. After all of the conflicts, contradictions and doubt, Martin sets down with the most simple but practical realism. Instead of sitting there thinking and arguing about different philosophies, Candide comes up with the most simple but effective phrase in the end of the tale: That (Pangloss’s philophy) is well said. But we must cultivate our garden.” I think sometimes I think too much, analyze too much and plan too much. But all needed is just a simple start and a practical action. Actions cause issues but they also give further opportunities to resolve the issue and improve.
There are many witty sayings in this tale. I particularly like one of the old woman’s sayings: “My lovely Lady, I have attached myself to your destiny, and I have been more concerned with your fortune than my own. I propose that you amuse yourselves by asking each passenger to tell you his story, and if you find a single one who has not frequently cursed his own life, who has not often told himself that he was the unhappiest of men, then throw me into the sea headfirst.”
Many times, I tend to exaggerate the problems in my life as if they are over my control, so I can have a reason to complain or escape from them. As a matter of fact, they are only temporary stopping points over the course of my life. I need to remind myself that one or two temporary obstacles shouldn’t become the everlasting barriers of one’s life.
There are people like Martin who claim themselves the ones who “know the world.” And sometimes, they place them to be the superior sides and look down upon others. But the world is so large and has so many layers and possibilities. One cannot evaluate it according to the tiny part over his or her own head. It always helps to consider that what one saw and experienced might not be seen or experienced by others from a different social or family background.
11/1/2013 Week 11
Who is the greater villain - Orgon or Tartuffe? This is an interesting question. I am thinking of two perspectives for answering this question: Motive and consequence.
If one looks at the initial motive, Tartuffe surly is THE evil character. He deliberately manipulates Orgon, interferes the household’s affairs and tries to take over the family’s wealth. To make it worse, Tartuffe justifies his doings under the name of God. On the other hand, Orgon is just the foolish and impulsive character who gets manipulated easily. He does not have the motive to hurt anyone. As a matter of fact, he considers his doing is for the benefit of others. For example, he thinks Tartuffe is the upright and perfect one who will bring happiness to Marianne. On the surface, Orgon is forcing Marianne to do what against her will. On a deeper level, Orgon is trying to find the best for his daughter. Thus, it is reasonable to see that Orgon is less a villain in comparison to Tartuffe.
However, if one judges from the consequences of both Orgon and Tartuffe’s actions, what Orgon has done is no any better than Tartuffe. Actually, I would consider Orgon the worse since none of Tartuffe’s plan can work unless it gets Orgon’s permission. It is true that Orgon is being manipulated and he is not sharp. Being cheated once can be called stupid, however, being cheated several times by the same person goes far beyond being brainless. Orgon goes too far. In addition to the matter of forcing marriage, he also takes no care to his wife and son. He cares more about Tartuffe when Elmire is the one who is actually being sick. He also denies his son because of Tartuffe. On this matter, Orgon is cold-hearted and stubborn. The shift to the happy ending only arrives in the last scene of the entire play. If the prince were like Orgon, the whole story won’t be a comedy anymore.
Then, should one answer the issue according to the motive or consequence? I think there is no fixed answer on this topic. The wonderful part of human thinking is that people think in various ways and that is why the world is not boring or simply black and white. The most important thing is that one justifies his choice with reason and doing so without harming others.
10/25/2013 Week 10 (Essay no.1 due for Week 9)
I think the differences lie in Corté's description and the natives’ are very interesting. The natives’ records are more on the side of people who experienced the tragedy of losing their homes, peace and countrymen. Cortés’s view is more a superior tone who considers himself doing the just and take no shame on home arresting the native king and robbing his treasures. If I understand right, Cortés justifies his action of home arresting the king by saying that he might be responsible for the death of previous Spaniards. If his purpose is so simple --- why does he and his men rob the kings’ treasure? I just don’t like the idea of disguising one’s greedy motive with some good things and not being honest. It is almost like a wolf wearing a sheep’s skin; greedy inside but pretend to be gentle on the outside.
The King’s reaction to the Spaniards is somewhat coward. I have a complicated feeling for him, almost pity, because he blindly follows the control of the Spaniards; no matter it is related to Spiritual indication or the fact that the Spaniards are too powerful. When he faces the tragedy of his own country and men, he chooses to overlook it. Thus, before his men denies him, himself has already gives up his dignity and responsibility as a king.
I found Cortés’ action of throwing the native’s idols disturbing. I myself believe in Christianity and deeply think that there is only one God. But the natives probably don’t think so since they have been worshiping their god over a long time. The best way to convey a truth or idea is not by force for sure. I just can't believe it would work if someone ruins my faith by force without reasoning, other than telling me that it is not right and I should follow a new value that I have never heard before.
10/11/2013 Week 8 Siyuan, I loved reading this to see how your ideas changed as you thought about the story. The idea you come up with is strong and very interesting. What does sovereignty mean to women today? Do women today still need to battle men in order to find personal fulfillment? Do women today still have to challenge women-hating ideas or ideas that would limit them in order to succeed? -MH
As I mentioned in my previous weekly response on Chaucer’s wife of Bath, I was thinking of exploring more about women’s role in the Renaissance and writing a contemporary relevance paper. Throughout her prologue and story, the wife of Bath shows a strong desire for dominance over men. According to my limited knowledge so far, women in the Renaissance did not seem to have that much control over their own lives, not to mention dominance over man. I feel my mind is in chaos now. To make it easier, I just want to write down some questions first, well, brainstorming, I guess:
1. I cannot help to think about Chaucer’s view or purpose of portraying a woman like the wife of Bath. What a character she is really? If one considers her a revolutionary and upright feminist, there are just too much negative contradictions, such as her strong desire for sex, quick shifts between one lover and the other, tricks to control men rather than treating them with genuine love (the fifth husband might be an exception, what about the four before though?) But if one considers her a negative role that shows the superficial sides of women, her outspoken characteristic and revolutionary ideas are overlooked.
2. So is the Wife of Bath meant to contradict some of the woman-hating ideas of the Renaissance, or to support them?
3. Is the wife of Bath a feminist? What does it mean to be a feminist? --- Some strong women who wants to control men? Or some intellectual women who are striving for women’s rights and freedom while they hold nothing against men really? Maybe it is just enlightenment for women after a long period of gender inequality?
4. Does the idea (a woman is too strong if she is a feminist) itself show some gender inequality? I mean is it wrong for a woman wants to be treated in the same way a man does? Why it is too much or too strong for a woman to strive for her own rights?
5. If the wife of Bath came to the year of 2013, would her idea still stand out that much? Maybe, oh …maybe my paper shouldn’t be about how women’s role or status change throughout the history. Really, I don’t want to run my paper into the cliche that how women were less respected before and how their status got changed nowadays, etc. Maybe, my paper can be about women’s view toward sovereignty. I mean, for the Wife of Bath, it might be a victory for her to be able to control man. But for contemporary women, to control others might not be the standard of winning sovereignty. I mean, at least for me, I think more about dominance over myself. Instead of controlling my boyfriend, I get more fulfillment after I defeat some weaker sides within myself and feel my growth along the way. So what is sovereignty for women really? To defeat others? To defeat a man? To defeat her weak self in the past? Does this value changes over of the course of history? If it does, why does it change? Is it a general idea or it varies for individual woman? In other words, is a historical thing or an individual thing?
6. If the wife of Bath were able to find fulfillment though her personal growth, would she still focus on so much on conquering men?
I regret that I am unable to provide a detailed draft with refined ideas. But after writing down my thoughts above, I definitely feel clearer about what I want to do. Yeah. I want to do a paper on sovereignty and its meaning for women. Well, I have started to find articles on library databases under key terms such as “Wife of Bath” and “Renaissance Women”. Maybe I will get some fresh perspectives after reading through those resources. I really want to write some thing that I am interested in. I think at least I am having a start on it.
10/4/2013 Week 7
One astonishing virtue of the Utopians is that they seem to be selfless and willing to share with others. However, this virtue does not appear to extend to communities outside of Utopia. Considering the following excerpt from P1713:"The natives who refuse to live under their laws are driven out of the territory the Utopians have marked off for their use; if they resist, the Utopians make war against them. For they think it is quite just to wage war against someone who has land which he himself does not use, leaving it fallow and unproductive, but denying its possession and use to someone else who has a right, by the law of nature, to be maintained by it."
Selfish is a term that is closely related to personal interests. However, personal interests can reach different extents. For someone who only limits their personal interest to himself, the ultimate goal is to make his own life more comfortable, regardless of others’ needs. The other may expand his personal interest to his families and friends; he considers their needs are as important as his own since they are connected with him in a way that strangers cannot substitute. Thus, a stranger may not have the privilege to share his interests and love. In the case of Utopia, the shared interest is among the people within the Utopian community. Then, can I argue that Utopia is a selfish community, because it wages war against others for the benefit of its own people? Again, why selfish on a smaller scale is selfish (for one individual’s interest), but on a larger scale (for a particulargroup of people)it is not?
Moreover, I am not a fan of colonialism. Why would Utopians assume that they are just and what they do should be standard for others too? It seems that the Utopians considered themselves superior, the cultivated. What if the natives of the lands think that earth is not supposed to be endlessly overdeveloped through agriculture? What if they just decide to leave the lands as a natural environment for other species such as animals and plants? What if they considered lands are holy, and thus should not be changed by humans? My questions and assumptions might seem to be bit exaggerated. But the idea here is that things that look fit for one person may not be the case for another. There seems no reason to interfere others’ thinking and life as long as they are not doing something harmful. I don’t think the natives are portrayed of being violent and dangerous to the Utopians in this case though.
9/27/2013 Week 6
The Wife of Bath surprised me. It is not unusual for women to express their needs nowadays. I mean, women release personals as common as men do. To date someone for the possibility of marriage or simply for the sake of dating happen all the time. Some TV series actually made their fortune by arranging dating shows. However, what seems ordinary now might not be the case centuries ago. I wonder what reactions the Wife of Bath will stir during her era. I mean I am not sure whether females were able to freely speak their thoughts or desire of marriage and sex during the Renaissance period. Notice that the author, Chaucer, is a man. In other words, people might read it as something interesting because it is a man who is writing about it and borrow a woman’s mouth to get some points through. I just wonder though, if Chaucer were a woman and use a first point of view saying“ This is what I thought”, what would the readers during Renaissance say. Well, I wonder if females were even able to publish or produce works at that time. Again, my point could be too narrow-minded because I actually don’t know that much about women’s role during the Renaissance (maybe woman are granted more freedom or respect than I thought during that era); maybe I should do some research about it and write my contemporary-relevant paper on this topic.
If the Wife of Bath were able to marry some wealthy men, she probably has a relatively high social status, too. Is it possible for a man with wealth to marry a lower-class woman during that era? I thought social hierarchy was a big thing. Well, if we take the assumption that the Wife of Bath belongs to the middle class or higher, I am not sure, she would be the typical lady who were expected to be elegant, noble and not have that much intelligence. She is so direct, independent, and strong and she seems having no trouble with expressing her ideas and conveying them in a persuasive way.
Well, even now, I have rarely found someone I know who have married five times before (one of the spouse is 20 years younger than he or her) and still don’t cease to express his or her desire for the sixth in public. I mean this is not a matter of whether a woman is doing it or a man. I guess if it is a man who does it, that won’t shock me any less than a woman does. It is just the idea of remarriage in a row surprises me. Maybe as a literary figure, Chaucer just exaggerated the Wife of Bath and her experience a little to get his points through.
9/20/2013 Week 5
Our reading journey of the Inferno finally ends with Dante's ascending from the underworld. Dante's depiction of hell is so graphic, it almost seems like that he had really been there before. It is also amazing that the writer has such substantial knowledge of the historical stories and legendary figures. On the other hand, there are so many contents; each of the souls gets no more than a few paragraphs to talk about his or her stories. The idea almost resembles an experience of street fair. You see different characters passed by. Because it is really crowed, you get a flash of the character instead of a chance to fully understand them. Maybe the emphasis here is not to teach a history textbook, but rather to give an alert to people about sins and their consequent punishments.
But I have to say that the footnotes help a lot. They provide a more detailed and rounded version of the soul’s telling in the actual text. I do have questions such as: Do the Medieval readers know most of the stories well? Do they need those footnotes? What kind of readers are Dante target for? When he writes those incomplete stories, does he expected his readers to be well-educated so that they won't need the full explanations; or it is because the length of the writing is simply restricted by time or energy so he won’t be able to write more?
Dante writes about the past as well as his present. I cannot help to think that his contemporaries’ reactions to this work when it gets published. What did his political enemies do when they realized that they were putting into hell by Dante when some of them are still alive? One trick or privilege for authors is probably that they are able to construct a world with their free will, so their favorites get blessed and their hatreds get damned. It is an almost childish act but can be powerful when their readers are “innocent” enough. I mean peoples’ ideas are shaped by their readings sometimes. If one has no knowledge about certain stories, their first impression gets from the reading can affect their judgments greatly on the subject.
9/13/2013 Week 4 (Week 3 museum essay completed)
I feel there is a lot to say about Dante’s pity towards Francesca and her love story. My first impression after reading through the chapter on my own is just about: Oh… that is quite a story! And Dante does have a soft heart! But, during the class discussion, I start to feel: Wait a minute! Dante is actually showing compassion for a woman who betrayed her husband with her husband’s brother! However, another idea jumps into my mind later: This interpretation is based on a reader’s view that also considers a lot more background information that not only shows passion between the lovers but also tells us that this passion is something against Francesca's legal husband. But Dante as a traveler in the literature just come to the second circle and thus focuses on the subject of this circle: lust, or if I can say, false love relationship. Not necessarily pure and positive love, but uncontrollable desire that brings disaster. In other words, Dante treats Francesca and Paolo as lovers and pity them because they are driven by love, not because they have done shameful things to Gianciotto Malatesta, Francesca’s husband and Paolo’s brother.
Thus, it is just a matter of looking at the same thing from different angles. If one considers Francesca and Paolo betrayers, it will not be easy to forgive them. On the other hand, if one considers them sacrifices driven by love, it will be possible to have pity on them. It is also important to realize that Dante can have pity on Francesca and Paolo, but that does not necessarily mean that he thinks what they were doing is right. After all, pity is not an equivalent of support or encouragement.
Moreover, courtly love or unattained love is a major theme in Medieval literature and music. If we put Dante’s role or perspective in the historical and social context of the era he lives in, it seems reasonable that Dante is showing compassion for this sort of love that is normally not practiced between legal husband and wife.
In the text, there is a description about Dante’s reaction to the souls in this circle well illustrates my point above:
When I (Dante) had heard my teacher (Virgil) tell the rolls of knights and ladies of antiquity, pity overwhelmed me. Half-lost in its coils, “Poet,” I told him, “ I would willingly speak with those two (Francesca and Paolo) who move along together, and seem so light upon the wind.
8/30/2013 Week 2
I feel it is unbelievable that Muhammad completed Qur’an over the course of twenty-two years by receiving God’s words in his dreams and reveries. What surprises me more is that Muhammad was illiterate. So he recited the words he received from the angel to his followers who wrote them down. Thus, as Dr. Hartman mentioned, the completion of Qur’an goes through the process of God --- Angel --- Muhammad ---- the writer. I think it is not unreasonable to doubt the accuracy of the text. I mean when some thing was spread by word of mouth, by the time the information is written down, its initial meaning can change a lot. And how can Muhammad be so sure that the words he received when he was not awake definitely come from God?
It is interesting that someone mentioned in the class that some verses in Qur’an give specific rules such as inheritance is delivered differently regarding gender. Thus, someone says it is kind of political instead of religious since it would make more sense to make general moral instructions instead of specifics, almost like a how-to-do manual. I think this is an interesting point. It reminds me of the saying that “merchants think Muhammad was trying to seize political control of Mecca.” I can understand the power of religion and its ability to shape human societies. But I do hold my thoughts on this. Since I am not really familiar with the full text of the Qur’an, the social background and the origin of Islam, I do not want to go too far to criticize it that much and I feel I don’t have the position to do so.
In Dante’s Inferno, Mohammed was put in the Ninth Chasm of the Eighth Circle of the hell for being the sower of discord and schism. I feel it can be ironic that some great figures in certain values can be treated quite the opposite in other values.
8/23/2013 Week 1
The first week of our class is quite different with what I originally expected. I thought, just as any other courses, it would only be some lectures and class discussions on the reading assignments. To my surprise, in addition to these class activities, I have been watching short videos (love Khan academy) and observing art works, and guess what, I even tried to draw a sketch of the Last Supper! The class shares some characteristics with art history course in the sense of variety and focus. This is a great and interesting start.
Through the learning of the past few days, I feel that I had taken too many art works or images for granted. I usually spend no more than five seconds on an image when I go to the museum. And when I start to look at a piece of art, I question myself: Where to start? How to appreciate it? After learning about the elements of art, I started to look at the image in a more analytical way. This means being aware of things that take more than five seconds to observe. For example, how the light affects the emotion and balance of an image. I also start to raise questions such as why this man’s hands are point to that direction? Are there any hidden meanings in this gesture? All of such details make me feel that there are so much more to discover. In other words, I feel that by looking at arts mindfully, I learned how to appreciate and notice beauty that I often overlook.
However, what art does is more than helping people to be aware of their surroundings. Art is also one of the ways for people to express emotions and ideas. So in order to grasp what the artist wants to convey, we have to dig into the moods, social backgrounds and specific events happened during the artist’s lifetime when that specific work was being created. This is more than brush strokes, light and dark color, lines or spaces. These elements are tools supporting the artist to convey his thoughts. However, the essence or spirit of the art goes far beyond these technical terms.
I also think that a piece of art is recognized not only by its own value but also by its surroundings. I mean, a urinal in the restroom means a toilet. But under Duchamp’s hand, being put in a specific place in a specific time period and being criticized and appreciated by the critics, the urinal becomes a well-known piece of ART under a somewhat stylistic name, "Fountain".
It is also fascinating to learn that religion can influence art production in such a profound way. For example, some artists avoid classical artistic conventions that make the image appear more real because they do not want to violate what the Bible says, nor do they want people to view the art works as idols.
One of the reasons that I like this class is that it does not limit on literature. We talk about art works and music as well. More importantly, we compare these different art forms (art, music and literature) under a social and historical context. I always believe that art works cannot be separated from the era or the social situations it was created. Music is my major, so it is really interesting to meet this old friend in our class. We actually did many things that I did in my music theory and history classes --- listen to and analyze the music, talk about specific composer and piece, talk about the classical era. It is fun to hear from some of my classmates who are not majoring in music. Sometimes I think that I limited myself by looking at music from a more analytical way because the professional training I received--- It is very helpful and it makes me play the music more professionally;but sometimes it is just very fresh to hear non-music major students’ perspectives that usually directly connect to feelings, colors and emotions.
I love the idea of comparing sonata form with the Wizard of Orz. I have heard some ways of explaining sonata form, but none of them interests me as much as the Wizard of Orz does. It is just fantastic to compare a music form with a wonderful story, so music is not just notes, math and structure any more. It is a very vivid story and an image. Thank you, Dr. Hartman!I understand that there are absolute music pieces that do not tell a specific story; but I always try to connect the piece I am learning with some personal experience, emotions, stories and movies. It just helps me more to understand the music and be connected to the music. After all, one does not PLAY music, one INTERPRETS music. To be original and convincing, one has to be touched and wholeheartedly connect to the music.
11/16/2013 Week 13 Sat. (An update or rethinking of what I wrote on Friday)
I am not satisfied with my essay proposal written on Friday. I reconsidered my choice today and finally decided to give up the idea of writing about Kant’s "What Is Enlightenment?" and Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” Both of the two writings are related to Enlightenment. However, Kant and Rousseau seem to be examining quite different aspects of the idea or era of Enlightenment. In "What Is Enlightenment", Kant emphasizes the essence, meaning and importance of Enlightenment ideas. On the other hand, Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” focuses more on the destruction brought by artificial Arts and Sciences. Since they are so different, I feel that to find the differences and similarities between these two works are beyond my capacity at this point. And to be honest, for me, Rousseau’s work is very hard to read. It is definitely not a good idea to write about some thing that I don’t even have a clear idea with.
All things considered, I plan to compare Voltaire’s “Candide” with Pope’s “An Essay on Man”. More specifically, I want to explore more on Pope’s idea of “Whatever is, is RIGHT” and that sacrifices on a micro level serve the benefits for the whole. It seems to be the exact idea that Voltaire satirized in “Candide”. Again, I like to brainstorm a bit：
1. One question here: Do I have to talk about similarities too? Or I can just talk about the differences?
2. I think there are more to say than that Voltaire and Pope’s ideas are different. I mean, it is true that it is ridiculous to say everything is there for a reason like Pangloss’s theory about syphilis also brings chocolate. It surly shows that Pope’s idea has its limitation since it can be superficial and unmerciful and thus is artificial and non-practical. But is Voltaire’s idea any more practical? I mean, to people who are in miserable situation, isn’t more merciful to think positively? If philosophies cannot help people or at least sooth people, what is the point of it? If it is not right to think that all is well, should one think all is misery then?
3. Again, I feel what I am thinking in Point 2 is like some things against Voltaire. I am actually thinking of structuring my essay in this way: Illustrates Pope’s “all is well” theory ---- Compare it with Voltaire’s satire and criticism --- Question Voltaire as what I did in Point 2. My question here is: Would this structure be wrong for a comparison essay? If I start to defend Pope in some way, would that be a comparison between Pope and Voltaire any more? Would it be off topic?
4. Well, I suddenly feel the impulse to think about the point of philosophy: should it be an illustration of reason? Or should it be something goes beyond theory and brings benefits (psychological or intellectual) to people? Would it be off topic if I explore this in my comparison essay?
Siyuan, I think you are on a good track with your thinking here, because you are going beyond just listing similarities and differences and thinking about deeper issues--like, what is the point of all this? To answer your questions: 1) You can just talk differences. 2) No question here, but these are good things to be thinking about. 3) This structure would be fine. You begin with comparison but end up questioning and evaluating the authors. It's OK if you end up defending Pope against Voltaire. 4) These questions are not off topic, because they are exactly the kinds of questions that Voltaire wants you to ask. You might keep in mind the conclusion of Candide and the idea of cultivating your garden--this is what Voltaire ultimately proposes as a replacement for optimism. Do you think this idea is at all helpful, or is it too accepting of the pessimistic view? -- MH
11/15/2013 Week 13
To be honest, I am having a big trouble with this comparison paper. I thought about comparing Kant’s "What Is Enlightenment?" with Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” I reread these two materials and finally felt distressed by the fact that even the second time through I did not quite understand them. Kant promoted freedom in the sense of intellectual independence and awareness. Rousseau challenged science and arts by stating that they were artificial things that against innocence and originality. However, to my understanding, arts and sciences are ways for people to express and promote intellectual and emotional thoughts. Thus, I thought Rousseau’s thoughts would be some things against Kant’s statements. Then I did some background researches and realized that Rousseau was actually a big figure in speaking of the Enlightenment idea. Rousseau and Kant also seemed to influences over one another. This further confused me. Maybe there are some similarities between the two? I just felt that my understand of the texts do not support me to write an essay about it.
Then I went over to “The Good Letters” and “The Princess”. Unfortunately, since I started this process two hours ago, after I reread the readings I mentioned above. I did not have any time to sufficiently come up with some concrete ideas.
11/8/2013 Week 12
Voltaire’s Candide is so dramatic that sometimes the depicted events and people seem unbelievably random and exaggerated. For example, some died people suddenly turn alive. And a princess (The old woman), with all her advantages, falls to nothing. Moreover, Candide’s hope, the beautiful and gentle Cunégonade changes to an old-looking and ill-tempered shrew. Under all of these wild happenings, however, is Voltaire’s ingenious depiction of different philosophies. Most of the roles in the tale represent specific philosophies. For example, Pangloss holds a similar view with the philosopher, Leibniz, that everything in the world is perfect since it is there for a specific purpose. There are also characters such as the old woman who claims the authority over her past experience. It is funny that some of Volatire’s contemporary rivals are being harshly criticized in the tale.
As the protagonist, the innocent Candide encounters the sorrow of personal fates as well as religious, military and political hypocrisies. He also gets exposed to different people such as the "all is well” Pangoloss and the pessimist, Martin. After all of the conflicts, contradictions and doubt, Martin sets down with the most simple but practical realism. Instead of sitting there thinking and arguing about different philosophies, Candide comes up with the most simple but effective phrase in the end of the tale: That (Pangloss’s philophy) is well said. But we must cultivate our garden.” I think sometimes I think too much, analyze too much and plan too much. But all needed is just a simple start and a practical action. Actions cause issues but they also give further opportunities to resolve the issue and improve.
There are many witty sayings in this tale. I particularly like one of the old woman’s sayings: “My lovely Lady, I have attached myself to your destiny, and I have been more concerned with your fortune than my own. I propose that you amuse yourselves by asking each passenger to tell you his story, and if you find a single one who has not frequently cursed his own life, who has not often told himself that he was the unhappiest of men, then throw me into the sea headfirst.”
Many times, I tend to exaggerate the problems in my life as if they are over my control, so I can have a reason to complain or escape from them. As a matter of fact, they are only temporary stopping points over the course of my life. I need to remind myself that one or two temporary obstacles shouldn’t become the everlasting barriers of one’s life.
There are people like Martin who claim themselves the ones who “know the world.” And sometimes, they place them to be the superior sides and look down upon others. But the world is so large and has so many layers and possibilities. One cannot evaluate it according to the tiny part over his or her own head. It always helps to consider that what one saw and experienced might not be seen or experienced by others from a different social or family background.
11/1/2013 Week 11
Who is the greater villain - Orgon or Tartuffe? This is an interesting question. I am thinking of two perspectives for answering this question: Motive and consequence.
If one looks at the initial motive, Tartuffe surly is THE evil character. He deliberately manipulates Orgon, interferes the household’s affairs and tries to take over the family’s wealth. To make it worse, Tartuffe justifies his doings under the name of God. On the other hand, Orgon is just the foolish and impulsive character who gets manipulated easily. He does not have the motive to hurt anyone. As a matter of fact, he considers his doing is for the benefit of others. For example, he thinks Tartuffe is the upright and perfect one who will bring happiness to Marianne. On the surface, Orgon is forcing Marianne to do what against her will. On a deeper level, Orgon is trying to find the best for his daughter. Thus, it is reasonable to see that Orgon is less a villain in comparison to Tartuffe.
However, if one judges from the consequences of both Orgon and Tartuffe’s actions, what Orgon has done is no any better than Tartuffe. Actually, I would consider Orgon the worse since none of Tartuffe’s plan can work unless it gets Orgon’s permission. It is true that Orgon is being manipulated and he is not sharp. Being cheated once can be called stupid, however, being cheated several times by the same person goes far beyond being brainless. Orgon goes too far. In addition to the matter of forcing marriage, he also takes no care to his wife and son. He cares more about Tartuffe when Elmire is the one who is actually being sick. He also denies his son because of Tartuffe. On this matter, Orgon is cold-hearted and stubborn. The shift to the happy ending only arrives in the last scene of the entire play. If the prince were like Orgon, the whole story won’t be a comedy anymore.
Then, should one answer the issue according to the motive or consequence? I think there is no fixed answer on this topic. The wonderful part of human thinking is that people think in various ways and that is why the world is not boring or simply black and white. The most important thing is that one justifies his choice with reason and doing so without harming others.
10/25/2013 Week 10 (Essay no.1 due for Week 9)
I think the differences lie in Corté's description and the natives’ are very interesting. The natives’ records are more on the side of people who experienced the tragedy of losing their homes, peace and countrymen. Cortés’s view is more a superior tone who considers himself doing the just and take no shame on home arresting the native king and robbing his treasures. If I understand right, Cortés justifies his action of home arresting the king by saying that he might be responsible for the death of previous Spaniards. If his purpose is so simple --- why does he and his men rob the kings’ treasure? I just don’t like the idea of disguising one’s greedy motive with some good things and not being honest. It is almost like a wolf wearing a sheep’s skin; greedy inside but pretend to be gentle on the outside.
The King’s reaction to the Spaniards is somewhat coward. I have a complicated feeling for him, almost pity, because he blindly follows the control of the Spaniards; no matter it is related to Spiritual indication or the fact that the Spaniards are too powerful. When he faces the tragedy of his own country and men, he chooses to overlook it. Thus, before his men denies him, himself has already gives up his dignity and responsibility as a king.
I found Cortés’ action of throwing the native’s idols disturbing. I myself believe in Christianity and deeply think that there is only one God. But the natives probably don’t think so since they have been worshiping their god over a long time. The best way to convey a truth or idea is not by force for sure. I just can't believe it would work if someone ruins my faith by force without reasoning, other than telling me that it is not right and I should follow a new value that I have never heard before.
10/11/2013 Week 8
Siyuan, I loved reading this to see how your ideas changed as you thought about the story. The idea you come up with is strong and very interesting. What does sovereignty mean to women today? Do women today still need to battle men in order to find personal fulfillment? Do women today still have to challenge women-hating ideas or ideas that would limit them in order to succeed? -MH
As I mentioned in my previous weekly response on Chaucer’s wife of Bath, I was thinking of exploring more about women’s role in the Renaissance and writing a contemporary relevance paper. Throughout her prologue and story, the wife of Bath shows a strong desire for dominance over men. According to my limited knowledge so far, women in the Renaissance did not seem to have that much control over their own lives, not to mention dominance over man. I feel my mind is in chaos now. To make it easier, I just want to write down some questions first, well, brainstorming, I guess:
1. I cannot help to think about Chaucer’s view or purpose of portraying a woman like the wife of Bath. What a character she is really? If one considers her a revolutionary and upright feminist, there are just too much negative contradictions, such as her strong desire for sex, quick shifts between one lover and the other, tricks to control men rather than treating them with genuine love (the fifth husband might be an exception, what about the four before though?) But if one considers her a negative role that shows the superficial sides of women, her outspoken characteristic and revolutionary ideas are overlooked.
2. So is the Wife of Bath meant to contradict some of the woman-hating ideas of the Renaissance, or to support them?
3. Is the wife of Bath a feminist? What does it mean to be a feminist? --- Some strong women who wants to control men? Or some intellectual women who are striving for women’s rights and freedom while they hold nothing against men really? Maybe it is just enlightenment for women after a long period of gender inequality?
4. Does the idea (a woman is too strong if she is a feminist) itself show some gender inequality? I mean is it wrong for a woman wants to be treated in the same way a man does? Why it is too much or too strong for a woman to strive for her own rights?
5. If the wife of Bath came to the year of 2013, would her idea still stand out that much? Maybe, oh …maybe my paper shouldn’t be about how women’s role or status change throughout the history. Really, I don’t want to run my paper into the cliche that how women were less respected before and how their status got changed nowadays, etc. Maybe, my paper can be about women’s view toward sovereignty. I mean, for the Wife of Bath, it might be a victory for her to be able to control man. But for contemporary women, to control others might not be the standard of winning sovereignty. I mean, at least for me, I think more about dominance over myself. Instead of controlling my boyfriend, I get more fulfillment after I defeat some weaker sides within myself and feel my growth along the way. So what is sovereignty for women really? To defeat others? To defeat a man? To defeat her weak self in the past? Does this value changes over of the course of history? If it does, why does it change? Is it a general idea or it varies for individual woman? In other words, is a historical thing or an individual thing?
6. If the wife of Bath were able to find fulfillment though her personal growth, would she still focus on so much on conquering men?
I regret that I am unable to provide a detailed draft with refined ideas. But after writing down my thoughts above, I definitely feel clearer about what I want to do. Yeah. I want to do a paper on sovereignty and its meaning for women. Well, I have started to find articles on library databases under key terms such as “Wife of Bath” and “Renaissance Women”. Maybe I will get some fresh perspectives after reading through those resources. I really want to write some thing that I am interested in. I think at least I am having a start on it.
10/4/2013 Week 7
One astonishing virtue of the Utopians is that they seem to be selfless and willing to share with others. However, this virtue does not appear to extend to communities outside of Utopia. Considering the following excerpt from P1713:"The natives who refuse to live under their laws are driven out of the territory the Utopians have marked off for their use; if they resist, the Utopians make war against them. For they think it is quite just to wage war against someone who has land which he himself does not use, leaving it fallow and unproductive, but denying its possession and use to someone else who has a right, by the law of nature, to be maintained by it."
Selfish is a term that is closely related to personal interests. However, personal interests can reach different extents. For someone who only limits their personal interest to himself, the ultimate goal is to make his own life more comfortable, regardless of others’ needs. The other may expand his personal interest to his families and friends; he considers their needs are as important as his own since they are connected with him in a way that strangers cannot substitute. Thus, a stranger may not have the privilege to share his interests and love. In the case of Utopia, the shared interest is among the people within the Utopian community. Then, can I argue that Utopia is a selfish community, because it wages war against others for the benefit of its own people? Again, why selfish on a smaller scale is selfish (for one individual’s interest), but on a larger scale (for a particular group of people)it is not?
Moreover, I am not a fan of colonialism. Why would Utopians assume that they are just and what they do should be standard for others too? It seems that the Utopians considered themselves superior, the cultivated. What if the natives of the lands think that earth is not supposed to be endlessly overdeveloped through agriculture? What if they just decide to leave the lands as a natural environment for other species such as animals and plants? What if they considered lands are holy, and thus should not be changed by humans? My questions and assumptions might seem to be bit exaggerated. But the idea here is that things that look fit for one person may not be the case for another. There seems no reason to interfere others’ thinking and life as long as they are not doing something harmful. I don’t think the natives are portrayed of being violent and dangerous to the Utopians in this case though.
9/27/2013 Week 6
The Wife of Bath surprised me. It is not unusual for women to express their needs nowadays. I mean, women release personals as common as men do. To date someone for the possibility of marriage or simply for the sake of dating happen all the time. Some TV series actually made their fortune by arranging dating shows. However, what seems ordinary now might not be the case centuries ago. I wonder what reactions the Wife of Bath will stir during her era. I mean I am not sure whether females were able to freely speak their thoughts or desire of marriage and sex during the Renaissance period. Notice that the author, Chaucer, is a man. In other words, people might read it as something interesting because it is a man who is writing about it and borrow a woman’s mouth to get some points through. I just wonder though, if Chaucer were a woman and use a first point of view saying“ This is what I thought”, what would the readers during Renaissance say. Well, I wonder if females were even able to publish or produce works at that time. Again, my point could be too narrow-minded because I actually don’t know that much about women’s role during the Renaissance (maybe woman are granted more freedom or respect than I thought during that era); maybe I should do some research about it and write my contemporary-relevant paper on this topic.
If the Wife of Bath were able to marry some wealthy men, she probably has a relatively high social status, too. Is it possible for a man with wealth to marry a lower-class woman during that era? I thought social hierarchy was a big thing. Well, if we take the assumption that the Wife of Bath belongs to the middle class or higher, I am not sure, she would be the typical lady who were expected to be elegant, noble and not have that much intelligence. She is so direct, independent, and strong and she seems having no trouble with expressing her ideas and conveying them in a persuasive way.
Well, even now, I have rarely found someone I know who have married five times before (one of the spouse is 20 years younger than he or her) and still don’t cease to express his or her desire for the sixth in public. I mean this is not a matter of whether a woman is doing it or a man. I guess if it is a man who does it, that won’t shock me any less than a woman does. It is just the idea of remarriage in a row surprises me. Maybe as a literary figure, Chaucer just exaggerated the Wife of Bath and her experience a little to get his points through.
9/20/2013 Week 5
Our reading journey of the Inferno finally ends with Dante's ascending from the underworld. Dante's depiction of hell is so graphic, it almost seems like that he had really been there before. It is also amazing that the writer has such substantial knowledge of the historical stories and legendary figures. On the other hand, there are so many contents; each of the souls gets no more than a few paragraphs to talk about his or her stories. The idea almost resembles an experience of street fair. You see different characters passed by. Because it is really crowed, you get a flash of the character instead of a chance to fully understand them. Maybe the emphasis here is not to teach a history textbook, but rather to give an alert to people about sins and their consequent punishments.
But I have to say that the footnotes help a lot. They provide a more detailed and rounded version of the soul’s telling in the actual text. I do have questions such as: Do the Medieval readers know most of the stories well? Do they need those footnotes? What kind of readers are Dante target for? When he writes those incomplete stories, does he expected his readers to be well-educated so that they won't need the full explanations; or it is because the length of the writing is simply restricted by time or energy so he won’t be able to write more?
Dante writes about the past as well as his present. I cannot help to think that his contemporaries’ reactions to this work when it gets published. What did his political enemies do when they realized that they were putting into hell by Dante when some of them are still alive? One trick or privilege for authors is probably that they are able to construct a world with their free will, so their favorites get blessed and their hatreds get damned. It is an almost childish act but can be powerful when their readers are “innocent” enough. I mean peoples’ ideas are shaped by their readings sometimes. If one has no knowledge about certain stories, their first impression gets from the reading can affect their judgments greatly on the subject.
9/13/2013 Week 4 (Week 3 museum essay completed)
I feel there is a lot to say about Dante’s pity towards Francesca and her love story. My first impression after reading through the chapter on my own is just about: Oh… that is quite a story! And Dante does have a soft heart! But, during the class discussion, I start to feel: Wait a minute! Dante is actually showing compassion for a woman who betrayed her husband with her husband’s brother! However, another idea jumps into my mind later: This interpretation is based on a reader’s view that also considers a lot more background information that not only shows passion between the lovers but also tells us that this passion is something against Francesca's legal husband. But Dante as a traveler in the literature just come to the second circle and thus focuses on the subject of this circle: lust, or if I can say, false love relationship. Not necessarily pure and positive love, but uncontrollable desire that brings disaster. In other words, Dante treats Francesca and Paolo as lovers and pity them because they are driven by love, not because they have done shameful things to Gianciotto Malatesta, Francesca’s husband and Paolo’s brother.
Thus, it is just a matter of looking at the same thing from different angles. If one considers Francesca and Paolo betrayers, it will not be easy to forgive them. On the other hand, if one considers them sacrifices driven by love, it will be possible to have pity on them. It is also important to realize that Dante can have pity on Francesca and Paolo, but that does not necessarily mean that he thinks what they were doing is right. After all, pity is not an equivalent of support or encouragement.
Moreover, courtly love or unattained love is a major theme in Medieval literature and music. If we put Dante’s role or perspective in the historical and social context of the era he lives in, it seems reasonable that Dante is showing compassion for this sort of love that is normally not practiced between legal husband and wife.
In the text, there is a description about Dante’s reaction to the souls in this circle well illustrates my point above:
When I (Dante) had heard my teacher (Virgil) tell the rolls of knights and ladies of antiquity, pity overwhelmed me. Half-lost in its coils, “Poet,” I told him, “ I would willingly speak with those two (Francesca and Paolo) who move along together, and seem so light upon the wind.
8/30/2013 Week 2
I feel it is unbelievable that Muhammad completed Qur’an over the course of twenty-two years by receiving God’s words in his dreams and reveries. What surprises me more is that Muhammad was illiterate. So he recited the words he received from the angel to his followers who wrote them down. Thus, as Dr. Hartman mentioned, the completion of Qur’an goes through the process of God --- Angel --- Muhammad ---- the writer. I think it is not unreasonable to doubt the accuracy of the text. I mean when some thing was spread by word of mouth, by the time the information is written down, its initial meaning can change a lot. And how can Muhammad be so sure that the words he received when he was not awake definitely come from God?
It is interesting that someone mentioned in the class that some verses in Qur’an give specific rules such as inheritance is delivered differently regarding gender. Thus, someone says it is kind of political instead of religious since it would make more sense to make general moral instructions instead of specifics, almost like a how-to-do manual. I think this is an interesting point. It reminds me of the saying that “merchants think Muhammad was trying to seize political control of Mecca.” I can understand the power of religion and its ability to shape human societies. But I do hold my thoughts on this. Since I am not really familiar with the full text of the Qur’an, the social background and the origin of Islam, I do not want to go too far to criticize it that much and I feel I don’t have the position to do so.
In Dante’s Inferno, Mohammed was put in the Ninth Chasm of the Eighth Circle of the hell for being the sower of discord and schism. I feel it can be ironic that some great figures in certain values can be treated quite the opposite in other values.
8/23/2013 Week 1
The first week of our class is quite different with what I originally expected. I thought, just as any other courses, it would only be some lectures and class discussions on the reading assignments. To my surprise, in addition to these class activities, I have been watching short videos (love Khan academy) and observing art works, and guess what, I even tried to draw a sketch of the Last Supper! The class shares some characteristics with art history course in the sense of variety and focus. This is a great and interesting start.
Through the learning of the past few days, I feel that I had taken too many art works or images for granted. I usually spend no more than five seconds on an image when I go to the museum. And when I start to look at a piece of art, I question myself: Where to start? How to appreciate it? After learning about the elements of art, I started to look at the image in a more analytical way. This means being aware of things that take more than five seconds to observe. For example, how the light affects the emotion and balance of an image. I also start to raise questions such as why this man’s hands are point to that direction? Are there any hidden meanings in this gesture? All of such details make me feel that there are so much more to discover. In other words, I feel that by looking at arts mindfully, I learned how to appreciate and notice beauty that I often overlook.
However, what art does is more than helping people to be aware of their surroundings. Art is also one of the ways for people to express emotions and ideas. So in order to grasp what the artist wants to convey, we have to dig into the moods, social backgrounds and specific events happened during the artist’s lifetime when that specific work was being created. This is more than brush strokes, light and dark color, lines or spaces. These elements are tools supporting the artist to convey his thoughts. However, the essence or spirit of the art goes far beyond these technical terms.
I also think that a piece of art is recognized not only by its own value but also by its surroundings. I mean, a urinal in the restroom means a toilet. But under Duchamp’s hand, being put in a specific place in a specific time period and being criticized and appreciated by the critics, the urinal becomes a well-known piece of ART under a somewhat stylistic name, "Fountain".
It is also fascinating to learn that religion can influence art production in such a profound way. For example, some artists avoid classical artistic conventions that make the image appear more real because they do not want to violate what the Bible says, nor do they want people to view the art works as idols.
Interesting.