Analysis of American Virtue

http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/WarnerTeach/E172/images/Boston.tea.party.1746.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/images/2cris2378b.jpg

Throughout the reading, we have heard the American colonies petitioning for representation in the British Parliament as well as their own power as individual assemblies. The American colonies manage to make it look like they are the oppressed minority, fighting the greater ruling power, England, for their fair share of political representation. Throughout the reading, America is portrayed as a small,innocent, and struggling body, when through their actions prove otherwise.

Samuel Adams, a major voice in the colonies' revolt against British rule, went as far as saying: "England...had become a place of morass of sin and corruption; only in America did public virtue survive". Is this true? Did America obtain such a high degree of moral competence that it could affirm that no other nations, especially Britain, possessed virtue? I think not. Although America had justified cause to try and rid themselves of Britain's ominous monopoly in the colonies, be it because of lack of parliamentary representation, the unfair Townshend Duties of 1767 passed by Charles Townshend that imposed taxes on imported goods such as paper, paint and tea, which were all vital supplies in the colonies, the Mutiny Act of 1765 that forced colonists to shelter and provide for British troops, or the Tea Act of 1773 that exempted Britain's East India Company from paying all the regular taxes that colonial merchants had to pay, which was followed by what the Americans deemed the Intolerable Acts of 1774 which put further constraints on autonomy in the colonies. We read all this information that deemed England to be uncooperative, unrelenting, and worst of all, corrupt, but what we need to realize is that America was not as virtuous as they claimed to be. In fact, on many occasions, Americans became violent as we see in events such as the Boston Massacre, which the Americans failed to accept was their own fault. The Americans were in fact no where near virtuous, they were in fact more morally corrupt than England. The Americans saw physical violence as their means of getting the representation and equality from England that they deserved. They tarred and feathered customs officials and a mob of patriots pillaged and sank English ships and their tea cargo which became known as the Boston Tea Party. The colonies willingness to revert to violence in no way reflects virtuous nature, but rather savage and wild behaviors that could possibly further contribute to Britain's hesitance to allow them representation in Parliament. For the Americans to think that they were the only nation of virtue is completely biased and false. Do you agree or disagree? Was America as virtuous as they claimed to be? Or where they just as or even more uncivil than the English? Was Samuel Adams correct?

Women In The Enlightenment

After reading about the Later Enlightenment, one main concept caught my attention. This concept was the role, however small or big, that women played in the Enlightenment. During the later Enlightenment (during the 1800's), there were some highly educated french women who were of high class. These women held litirary salons where great aristocrats, wealthy middle-class financiers, high-ranking officials, and noteworthy foreigners came and discussed uncensored observations on literature, science, and philosophy. The main role of Women in the enlightenment was to advocate it. These women were called philosophes, intellectuals who strongly endorsed progress. These women publically supported the enlightenment by discussing their opinions on the matter and basically spreading the word to other women. They also helped other philosophes to avoid censorship. The main questions here are: did women really benefit from their part, was their role in the Enlightenment that significant, and if so what did they accomplish (how did they help the enlightenment to progress)? In my opinion, no, the women's role was not that significant. They did not benefit from it because the philosophes barley mentioned the rights and abilities of women. Even Rousseau, an important enlightenment thinker, stated that men and women were in seperate spheres and that women should not be granted the same rights as man, even going as far to say that women who "pulled the strings of power" had a corrupting effect on politics and society. What do you guys think?

Hobbes vs. Locke and Voltaire's Opinion on Equality

After Friday’s reading I have two topics that I would like discuss.

The first is whom do you agree with more, Thomas Hobbes or John Locke? Personally, I cannot truly take either side because I agree with certain elements from both of their arguments. According to Hobbes, people are inherently dishonest, violent, and uncontrollable in the State of Nature. On the other hand, Locke believes that people are intrinsically good people. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I agree with Thomas Hobbes. If morals and social norms did not limit people’s behavior, we would still be cavemen and cavewomen. However, I agree with the rest of Locke’s case. I do not believe that all power and trust should be invested in one dictator. Instead, the people should consent to an overall legislative assembly as Locke suggests. I understand that Hobbes believes that the worst possible evil is anarchy and that a strong leader must rule over the people. I agree that the government should be a powerful force in order to execute laws and control its people. However, a dictator in Hobbes’s theory would abuse power. Over all, I agree with Locke about how government should rule a country, but I concur with Hobbes’s theory of mankind in the State of Nature. What is your opinion?

The other topic I would like discuss is Voltaire’s opinion on human equality. Unlike Montesquieu who believed that all are created equal, Voltaire believed that inequality is inevitable. In his opinion, it is impossible for servants to have equal status as their masters. In some ways, I have to agree with Voltaire. Obviously, I believe that all people are created equal and that everyone should have the same opportunities. However, it is impossible for a country to function if everyone has the same opportunities. If everyone had the same amount of money, then surely everyone would complete a high level of education. As people in each family became more educated and aware about the world, values about the importance of education would be passed down. Therefore, people would naturally work harder. In this scenario, society would dramatically alter for the better. The only drawback is who would physically build roads, take orders at a restaurant, or work as flight attendants? A constant society is completely impossible.

Alexa Bieler's Post

The first thing that jumped out at me during the assigned reading was the fact that Isaac Newton was incredibly religious. Much of our reading over the summer and in the past few weeks has dealt with the effect of religion on scientists and the scientific revolution and the controversy attached to this discussion. Yet one of the greatest thinkers of the time, Isaac Newton was able to believe in his faith and create one unified solar system. My question is this; “Can the study of science work in tandem with the blind faith of religion?” And by extension, “Does strong religious bel­­iefs repress the progress of science?” Newton seemed to be able to balance his religious beliefs with his scientific theories, but as science progresses, will it still possible to be faithful to science and religion?

The textbook describes four main contributors to the scientific revolution; Medieval universities, Renaissance mathematics and patrons, navigational problems, and better instruments. For this discussion, I am posing the question first: “Which contributing factor played the most significant role in the Scientific Revolution or do you believe that all the contributors are equally important?” My position is that the medieval schools were the most important contributors. They gave scientists a place to learn, work, and collaborate with other great minds of the time. Collaboration is incredibly important as evidenced by Descartes and Bacon. Both men were brilliant, but their knowledge was confined to their unique study. But when their ideas were combined, the scientific method appeared and the study of science advanced.

The textbook states that during the scientific revolution, the position of women in society deteriorated, lowering rather than elevating women’s standing. I don’t believe that the book makes a convincing case on this point. There does not appear to be a correlation between scientific research and an expected change in women’s status as the book would insinuate and personally, I would not expect the position of women to change due to scientific discoveries. Further, I do not agree with the book that women’s position worsened. It is true that women were not allowed into scientific communities, but that condition was not new, such limitations for women existed prior to the scientific revolution. That women were offered academy posts, and had jobs relating to science in a more artistic form surprised me and suggest that women were afforded some social and intellectual standing. Where do you stand on this subject? Were women given less opportunity than you expected or more?

At the conclusion of this section, the book states that the scientific revolution was an intellectual revolution, a conclusion to which I agree. There are periods in history when a combination of circumstances coupled with the great minds of the time create an environment of highly charged intellectual exchange. The confluence of the scientific pursuits of such men as Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes, and Bacon at that time in history makes for a rare moment in scientific advancement. Do you agree with this last statement, that this period marked a unique moment in scientific history?

Alex Amari's post

I'm reposting Alex's discussion piece here, as a post, so everyone can easily find it. Thanks, Alex. Please read and comment.

***

After completing tonight’s reading, I’d like to know what other people think of similarities between Galileo’s world and our own. I don’t believe this is something we’ve talked about in class with detail thus far but it probably will come up in the near future. The Catholic Church in the play is depicted, in my opinion, as “the evil system” or “the man” in pop culture. The church is made up of those who would vanquish change to represent their personal agendas. Perhaps the major question presented by Brecht is, to what extent can we allow doubt to rule our lives? Should we eliminate doubt altogether and live within a bubble of complacency or should we sacrifice faith and risk the crumbling of society itself? Every time I turn on the news I see these same issues raised in our modern world. What information should be withheld from the public? The images we see in the paper or on TV of our wars overseas or of our disasters at home only tell one side of the story, but perhaps the other side could have disastrous consequences if it were revealed. I don’t want to seem like a conspiracy theorist but I’d like to see what you guys think about issues between doubt and faith in our modern world. Do you think that truth is, “the daughter of time” and will eventually surface?

Welcome to Revolutions Honors, Block 1

Welcome! This is the class blog for Revolutions Honors, block 1. You should use this blog to post your thought piece on the night's reading (when it's your turn) and to comment on others' thought pieces. I look forward to some stimulating conversation. Enjoy!