How are the texts by Diderot that we're reading for Friday consistent--or not--with some any of the other particular readings we've encountered thus far? Respond to this post by identifying one point of similarity between this and one other reading.
The usual rules apply: be respectful of one another's opinions and always, always, always, back up your claims with directly quoted evidence from the texts.
Deadline for this post and the one below: Friday (9/11), start of class.
Posts
5 comments:
I'd like to argue that there is a similar theme that threads between the readings for today (Hooke, Sprat, etc) and the Diderot which proclaims that man must be free to follow his pursuits and discover what he must discover. In the Hooke and Sprat readings, there is the sense that even if science is just "man playing with his toys," man should be justified to do what he desires to do. The pursuit for knowledge is not something to be limited. In the Diderot, we see a similar mentality applied to the notion of sex. Orou looks down upon the idea of religion because it threatens man's natural expression of his sexual identity. The contraversial idea that man should be free to express his natural impulse to discover can be seen in both.
While I agree with what Whitney has said, I was also like to elaborate on topic of religion in this piece. This is the first time I've seen where religion is being challenged by reason in our readings. "I find these singular precepts opposed to nature and contrary to reason" Which is Orou commenting on his opinion of religion. Another point I would like to bring up his Orou questioning their judicial system, and, in turn, a good amount of their morals. Morals probably isn't the right word but I can't think of a better one. For example. Orou defends a so called "dishonored" girl in a hypothetical situation.
I agree with Eric that this piece is interesting in that it presents a completely different perspective on religion. To me, religion and the idea of morality are central in the piece. In all of our previous readings religion was taken as a given. Everyone believed in a higher power, the tension arose out of how individuals chose to worship God. In "Enjoyment and Tahiti" Orou does not even understand the concept of religion asking, "I see that my daughter is well satisfied with you and I thank you. But would you teach me what is meant by this word 'religion' which you have repeated so many times so sorrowfully?" (269). Because Orou has no understanding or tie to religion he presents an entirely new perspective on religion. He points out inherent contradictions and hypocrisies that exist in the religious structure. No honorable Englishmen of the time would question religion as openly as Orou does in this piece.
What I have noticed, that is common in the stories we've read (mainly "Fantomina" and "Enjoyment and Tahiti") is that people question what they don't understand. Fantomina, who wanted to know what it was like to be one of the lower class women, she wasn't afraid to experiment to find out. Orou questioned what religion is, and wasn't afraid to ask the Almoner what it was. He then asserted his opinions about religion to show the Almoner the other side.
Along the same lines as Whitney, I see a common link between Diderot's Enjoyment and Tahiti and Sprat's works being an appeal to the natural, or nature, as either being reasonable (an aim of the Enlightenment thinkers) or in some sense beyond reason. When describing how the members of the Royal Society of London are trying to improve the basic understanding of "Natural Knowledge" for his era, Sprat says that "They exacted from all of their members a close, naked, natural way of speaking..." (2177). Similarly, Diderot uses an appeal to nature to claim that "reason, the slave of instinct, limits itself to serving the latter, and nature is satisfied" (267).
Post a Comment