“Self-Reliance”, Emerson, Dialogue 6 – D58

There are few things better to do at the MPC than read Emerson in the Jardín Ayau, sitting on the grass and reading it aloud. Instead of doing performing arts, we decided to keep reading Self-Reliance by Emerson. In this dialogue we discussed the things we value, the nature of observation, the scientific ethics, and materialism. The most important quotes we talked about were the followings:

“Yet they (material things) all are his, suitors for his notice, petitioners to his faculties that they will come out and take possession. The picture waits for my verdict: it is not to command me, but I am to settle its claims to praise.”

• Things related to this quote: “value what you value”, nature of observation, Polanyi: “Science has a moral dimension.”. 

“…it (the popular fable of the sot and the duke) symbolizes so well the state of man, who is in the world a sort of sot, but now and then wakes up, exercises his reason, and finds himself a true prince.”

• There are people, like Socrates, who we think of them as “gods”, but we forget they were once humans who have awaken. 

“Who is the Trustee? What is the aboriginal Self, on which universal reliance may be grounded? What is the nature and power of that science-baffling star, without parallax, without calculable elements, which shoots a ray of beauty even into trivial and impure actions, if the least mark of independence appear?”

• Here, Emerson puts in question materialism; something that we are still questioning in the 21^st century. 

Inner and Outer Circle (Discussing if Kant and Twain agree) – D10

After reading Kant’s and Twain’s essays about Enlightening, we had to do an essay arguing whether they agree or not in their essays. That was due for Tuesday. Today we made a dynamic called the inner and outer circle. It consisted in forming two circles (one in the other). The circle that was inside (inner circle) would dialogue while the others (outer circle) would only listen. The inner circle was conformed by two groups previously formed for this semester, so the dynamic would be repeated three times. The first two went pretty smooth; they reached conclusions very fast and agreed on most things. The conclusion both circles draw was that Kant and Twain agree on their essays. I was on the last circle and everyone thought we would go as the other two circles went. My conclusions about the questions were very different from those of the previous circles and I thought I was alone on this one. I thought it would be an exhausting discussion between the rest of my circle and me. To my surprise, Katarina thought the same way I did, and almost arrived to the same conclusions I did! We did have a lot of disagreement on the circle; nevertheless it was full of good arguments and discussions, reviewing in very detail both texts. We didn’t even notice that the 15 minutes we had already had passed. We were having a great dialogue for more than 20 minutes until the whole circle achieved a conclusion. They understood the point Katarina and I were making and got persuaded by our arguments. It was a great dialogue!

*Here you may find both, Kant and Twain essays and also my essay regarding whether they agree or not. I strongly recommend that before you read my essay you form your own criteria on both essays. Have fun!

Who are the guardians? – Dialogue on Kant in individual time – D8

During our individual work time, I decided to invite whoever wanted to discuss Kant’s essay, What is Enlightening? I had a particular question about this essay and it was regarding the guardians. Who are they? Could they be enlightened? Are they bad people that affect our society in a negative way? To be honest, the dialogue was not so helpful to answer my question, but it made me realized that the question was always in front of me if only I could’ve read more carefully. After reading it several times, I got to the conclusion that the guardians are negative influences, also people at nonage, that try to prevent the minors to not step to majority. Thus, the guardians are not enlightened. They are in some sense the profit seekers of the minors, and are those who stop them from thinking by their own, although the minors will always have the capacity to step out of the go-cart.

*Here you may find Kant’s essay, Answer to the Question, What is Enlightening?

The Enlightenment: Kant and Twain – D4 & 5

“Enlightening is, Man’s quitting the nonage occasioned by himself. Nonage or minority is the inability of making use of one’s own understanding without the guidance of another”

–      Immanuel Kant, Freedom to Reason

During these days, we discussed Kant’s definition of Enlightening. We had trouble finding what Kant meant by nonage, because in my perspective we can have understanding and use it. The difference between some who has reached the Enlightment and someone who hasn’t is that the enlightened does not need the guidance of another for him or her to use their own understanding. Nevertheless, both can make use of their understanding. This idea was one of the main points to discuss, without getting to a unanimous decision. What I liked of Kant’s essay was the phrase, Sapere aude! In Latin, this means, “dare to wise” or “dare to know”. Kant made this phrase well known, however it is attributed to Horace in his Epistles where he wrote: dimidium facti qui coepit habet: sapere aude, incipe ("He who has begun is half done: dare to know!").

On Tuesday, we read Mark Twain’s posthumous essay, Corn-Pone Opinions. It is about the relationship he had with his family’s slave, a black man. Twain says: “The black philosopher’s idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter”. Bread and butter? Please, don’t get me into it again! After an exhausting discussion (which I take part of the responsibility) of what does Twain meant by “bread and butter”, we concluded that it was the “well being” of people. At first, I thought Twain was referring to the group’s opinions and way of thinking in which one belongs. Part of the problem was that many of my classmates thought of “bread and butter” as only the food and way of survival, there was my problem. I then realized that it was not only that, but also the social status and general well being, and how can our opinions, if different from those of the general opinion, can harm our well being, our “bread and butter”.

Today, I also learned that many times in a dialogue people discuss what they believe, and not the texts. They don’t try to understand what the author is trying to tell us. It also bothers me that people don’t respect their time to talk, and just keep interrupting. Some of them don’t listen, but they want to be heard. I keep telling myself that this is a process of learning to dialogue, so I try to keep calm. Easy Hulk, not yet! Goosfraba…