Descartes Group: John Locke

Out of Spinoza, Descartes, and Locke I feel that my ideas coincide the most with Locke's philosophy. I believe that at birth humans are more or less a "blank slate" and it is the information they receive through others, the world, and society that shapes their opinions, beliefs, and notions. Simply, it is their experiences as coded by sensation as well as the reflection on such experiences that fills the mind with ideas. Even when an individual attains ideas by reading, it is the visual input that is processed by sensory neurons in order for that information to reach the mind. I do not believe that everyone is born with innate ideas because one's ideas can vary greatly as a function of location, culture, history, environment, upbringing, education, etc. For example, some people would like to believe that the wrongness of killing another human being is a "universal truth." There are some cannibalistic cultures that do exist however, that are not necessarily bothered by the murder of another human being. Similarly, most of those that commit homicide or genocide clearly do not view murder as being wrong.

Contrary to Descartes, I do not believe that "God" is an innate idea. There are numerous religions in today's world and some people choose not to take any religion at all. If an idea such as "God" or some higher being is innate, then how come non-religious people have not succumbed to this innate truth? Another example of the world's influence (or lack thereof) is "L'enfant sauvage:" a boy who lived in the wilderness for what seems to be his whole life until Itard comes across him. Without the influences of society, parents, and education this individual did not act or think like "normal" human beings. Moreover, this boy did not have innate notions that were considered "normal" of European citizens. Even at birth we are taking in countless stimuli that begin to shape who we are as individuals. From what our parents teach us to the media we are exposed to, everything has an effect on our beliefs and opinions. For many people there is a point where the ability to reason for oneself is reached, so outside influences can be questioned. Nevertheless, the environment we live in can often have an unconsciou influence that may be difficult to question because one does not even realize the occurrance of this process. In these cases ideas may seem to be inherent or "natural," but they are really inserted into our minds by oustide forces. Perhaps that is why so many individuals like Descartes believed in innate truths because the influence of other factors can be impossible to notice.

Regarding question 1

In the context of the English Revolution, I think that the line "They also serve who only stand and wait" could be interpreted as a passive call to action. Because this line does not use conventional syntax, many poets met the demand of their forms (meter, rhyme scheme, etc.) by using odd phrasing such as this, the line might more clearly read, They who only stand and wait also serve. While one might argue that the phrase is truncated, meaning that a word has been omitted to serve the same aforementioned purpose, this makes little sense because it would change the meaning of the phrase entirely. For example, if the omitted word was "those" (as in They also serve those who stand and wait) such an omission completely alters the reader's perception of the phrase. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Milton, or any poet, would have made such a change. So, let's go with the first interpretation of the line.

Here, Milton suggests that those who take no action still serve a purpose. If one is looking to this line for support of the English Revolution, one might argue that it means that anyone who did not take action against the English goverment was serving its purpose, but I think it would be wrong to make such a leap. The best reading of this line follows the tone of the rest of the poem, which is not political but spiritual. Milton expresses frustration that his blindess has rendered him incapable of serving God as well as he would like. However, Milton rationalizes, his blindness was given to him by God and concludes that "God doth not need / Either man's work or his own gifts" and that those who serve God best stand and wait for His instruction. This notion is what Milton expresses in the last line of the poem.

Rembrandt

Rembrandt(1606-1669) was one of the most famous artists in Holland. Holland loved its relationship as well as competed with Italy. He was not only a painter, but he was also drawer and etcher. Rembrandt was most famous for his etchings and he has more credit for them. Before getting into Rembrandt's artwork one must know he looked at Caravaggio, an Italian artist. From Caravaggio, Rembrandt learns bold naturalism and chiaroscuro. Chiaroscuro is the light and shadow, which shows the depth of the painting or etching. In Rembrandt's paintings he uses the technique of impasto. Impasto is the layering of paint. Rembrandt's paintings are almost 3-dimensional because of how many layers of paint he uses. His paintings with figures, he creates each figure to almost as if they are grabbing you with their eyes and wanting you to keep looking at the scene. One thing Rembrandt does with quite a lot of his figures is the Rembrandt triangle. The Rembrandt triangle is the a lighter spot in the shape of a triangle on the figures face on the cheek bone and close to the nose.

     Within his sonnet "On His Blindness," Milton emphasizes the struggle of a man who has suffers blindness but nonetheless possesses the ability to manage his affliction with the assistance of God. The subject's "one Talent which is death to hide," proves unsuccessful to distance the man from his Creator with his "Soul more bent to serve therewith my Maker." Blindness fails to weaken the man due to his understanding that God does not value worldly works above his child's ability to "best Bear his milde yoak, they serve him best..." Though there are "thousands at his bidding speeed and post o're Land and Ocean without rest," God does not forsake those who "only stand and waite."

     Milton's commentary on his own blindness offers an intimate sense of his relationship with God and his willingness to live his life in accordance with Biblical principles. Though his sight is a  "Talent" hidden away, Milton did not intend to hide, or bury, his Talent in allusion to the Biblical parable, and therefore his lack of sight becomes a yoak to bear rather than an oversight, or mistake on the part of Milton. 

     Milton's Christian influence is apparent within his sonnet and remains consistent with his writing of Paradise Lost. Milton's works are, in reality, God's works and are produced not through his own ability but, instead, through God's gifts and the bearing of his yoak.

Milton's Poems

John Milton's poems demonstrate many strong baroque characteristics that are easily found in all of his poems and sonnets. In Milton's poem "On His Blindness" baroque characteristics are used in describing things. He writes the dark world or the ocean without rest, these descriptions show strong baroque influence that is also portrayed in Milton's Sonnet VII. In Sonnet VII Milton uses lines such as, "That some more timely-happy spirits endu'th", and "It shall be still in strctest measure ev'n" to show off his strong baroque writting style. The line "Have linkt that amorous power to thy soft lay" from Milton's Sonnet 1 also portray his writting style that others also used in a barogue age that strongly influenced many other writter's including Shakespeare.

The Baroque Era Reflected in Literature

I thought that distinguishing "Baroque" characteristics in literature would prove to be much more difficult than seeing the Baroque's influence in a painting. However, after class on Thursday, the effects of the Baroqe period in literature were made much more clear than I had anticipated. For example, in John Donne's poem "Nativity," the contrast we noted in the colors of paintings was obvious in the words of the poem. "Well-beloved imprisonment" and "He/ Which fills all place, yet none hold Him" are examples of such contrast. Similarly, Donne evoked deep, mysterious questions from his poems which were quite distinctive as being Baroque in nature. In "The Computation," he ponders "What is considered a long time? A lifetime?" Even in "Sermon 25," he asks the profound question, "What is nothing?" These inquiries are definitely not easily answered. The intricate language, the elaborate words used in the literature is another key element of Baroque literature. Did anyone find it difficult to pick out Baroque features in the examples of writing we were given? What other aspects of the Baroque era is represented in writers such as Donne and Milton?

Rembrant...the most important Baroque-era painter?

While most of this course has covered Baroque painters from Italy such as: Carvaggio, El Greco, Tintoretti and Gentileschi, the best painter of this time period might be from Holland. Rembrant van Rijn (1606-1669) is similar to these Italian painters in how he uses mysticism, chiaroscuro, and contrasts to convey his subjects. The main difference between Rembrant and his southern contemporaries is infact, subject matter. Most painters of the time painted "realistic" paintings of famous biblical scenes like: Jesus's last supper, St. Peter's crucifiction and Judith's slaying of Holofernes. Rembrant, however, conveyed scenes that were much more obscure and unknown to his viewers. These included, the return of the Prodigal Son, Jesus preaching, and many other common scenes that were previously not in art. He used contrasting colors to create drama and, miraculously, used layers of paint that caused these "everyday" biblical scenes to actually "lift off the page." It is more important that Rembrant painted common scenes because that was more realistic than conveying famous scenes. He allowed his viewers to feel like the biblical world was around them by showing them scenes that they could have easily seen, rather than if he painted the Bible's more exclusive moments. Everyday scenes, such as the one in the etching "Christ Preaching", were the most important pieces in Baroque art because they connected viewers to the more "everyday" moments of the Bible.

Lully and Louis XIV

It would be an overwhelmingly stressful job to be the musical CEO of Paris and Versailles, but Lully held that position for years. Lully had to compose music for everyday tasks, from the king getting out of bed to music while the king ate. Louis XIV’s court can be described as one of constant rules and etiquettes. Everyday life and tasks had a specific set of rules to govern what and what not to do. It is then no surprise that the music during Louis XIV also had a set of rules to follow. Louis XIV was very fond of music that followed a set form and did not deviate from it; it would not have like contemporary music but rather musical pieces that followed the rules. Lully, of course, had to compose pieces that followed the rules in order to please the king. In Lully’s Chaconne in G Major he does exactly this. A chaconne is a musical form in which a short harmonic progression is presented and then repeated with variations to it. It is a form of music that has a set of rules that must be followed and Louis XIV would approve of. The piece starts out presenting essentially the melody, it is a melody that one could easy dance to. The chords are in major and give off the feeling of grandeur and eloquence while all the while keeping the actual melody relatively simple. Another piece by Lully is Te Deum or Symphony and it also has a form that it follows. It introduces a melody filled with grand trumpets that would represent the king and then it follows with the strings that represent the rest of the court. It is easily another piece that can be danced to and because dance was so important to Louis XIV, it would make sense that Lully created pieces that could be danced to. Lully’s pieces have an air of sophistication that makes them come off as belonging to the king and not to any commoner. This was music that only the court and the king could truly enjoy because it emulated them and their lives. While Lully had a stressful job composing music for Paris and Versailles, he was successful and created music that governed French music for years to come.

Descartes Group: Philosophy of René Descartes

René Descartes presents many interesting ideas in his Meditations on First Philosophy, however I feel some of his ideas are contradictory and not well-established. Descartes continually brings up the problem that the senses are faulty so they cannot be used as solid evidence of certainty. His solution is to wipe out all of his opinions and reconstruct his ideas around the foundation of his beliefs. What are these foundations? I am led to believe that these very foundations were also created from "faulty senses." After all, where else would these foundations come from? One reads with the eyes and listens with the ears, both of which can be deceived. Of course I am in no way suggesting that the unreliability of senses provides proof that they should never be used to acquire knowledge. It merely seems that Descartes is reverting back to the very source of his problem. Eventually, wouldn't he return to square one; Once again discovering his senses deceived him and distorted his opinions, causing him to abolish them? Rather than drastically casting out all of his prior beliefs, it would have been more feasible for Descartes to accept the fallibility of the senses while being cautious of their deceptive capabilities. Even today scientific fields recognize that nothing can truly be proven, but there are methods used agree on the acceptance of a theory because it has not yet been disproved.

Additionally, Descartes is frustrated by the uncertain nature of philosophical readings yet he establishes that nothing is certain. Then Descartes tries to argue that although nothing is ever certain, in that there is always some grounds for doubt, our existence is certain. As inspiring and thought-provoking as his writings are, I feel that this faulty reasoning puts him at the same level with the philosophers that he was frustrated with in the first place. How do we know we exist? Due to our senses telling us that we are thinking, that we are being deceived, that we are breathing? If the senses are faulty enough to deem unreliable, than how can we make ourselves hypocrites by relying on their feedback to tell us we are existing? It seems unsound that Descartes chooses which senses to believe and in what situations. Ultimately, anybody can choose which sensations to trust and believe at what times. So Descartes may be deceiving himself in his ignorance to search for a non-existing "certainty."

Human perception is fallible. It is subjective to each individual. Perception is not what the senses actively take in, but it is the processing of sensory input, an interpretation of information. Nevertheless, one cannot actively decide that all senses should not be trusted without proving oneself a hypocrite. It is inevitable that at some point in time that the brain and senses will be trusted, otherwise we would cease to live our lives.

Louis and Lully

I had never head of Jean Baptiste Lully before this class. It is now apparent that he was the most famous composer of France at that time due to the fact that King Louis XIV put him in his court. It is also apparent that his music displayed the prominence and eminence of Louis' court. I believe that part of the reason Lully did this was out of fear for what happen if he did not commend the king in his music. However, I also believe that Lully actually enjoyed King Louis and his court, thus explaining the real reason why he was very favorable of the king in his music. He became a Frenchman in 1661 so he obviously did not have an issue with France or King Louis' court. In addition to this, I believe that Louis was so fond of Lully that he let Lully do pretty much whatever he wanted to. As long as Lully stayed in the court and composed his music, Louis gave him a lot of freedom. Louis also let Lully become somewhat of a businessman in the way he monopolized the French opera. Lully controlled the entire opera and ran it like a businessman. This allowed for mutual appreciation between Louis and Lully and could help explain why Lully wrote so fondly of the king in his music.
As far as music, Lully's Battle March simply praises the country of France and attepmts to display the dominance of the king's army. With trumpets blasting and drums rolling Lully successfully portrays the dominance of the French army as if they were going off to battle with their battle march. This too is a compliment to the king in that he is saying the king is great and his army is great.

Jean-Baptiste Lully

I've never considered myself to be a conossieur of music, but Lully's pieces that I have listened to obviously emanate the lavish characteristics of King Louis XIV's court. Louis XIV's court was the most prominent European court of the time having the best in all aspects of French culture. The best artists, scultpures, dancers, architects, and musicians were available to please Louis XIV's needs at any moment. So naturally the best musician Louis could find was appointed composer of the King's instrumental music and music teacher for the royal family. Lully was in charge of all aspects of music at Versaille and in Paris. Louis prided himself on his ability to dance so naturally he noticed Lully while he danced in a Ballet de la nuit. From then on, Lully composed music and wrote operas to impress/please Louis. Lully often wrote operas about greek mythology and the god's of the stories and made them prototypes of Louis and his ruling. All of the topics he wrote about in his operas were made to compliment the King. Money was no object in the court of Louis XIV so Lully composed musical pieces and wrote operas as splendid as the King's tastes year round. Lully's composition, Marche Pour la Ceremonie des Turcs, was one that I listened to on youtube and I instantly pictured Versaille and the spledor of its surroundings in my head. The piece was very catchy and I could almost see myself walking through the drawing rooms and luxurious halls of Versailles pictured in our text. In my opinion, Lully tried very hard to reflect the tastes of Louis and his court and did a spectacular job of capturing the grandeur of it all in his pieces.

Lully and Louis XIV

The magnificence of Lully’s music can be strongly linked with the lavishness of Louis XIV’s French court. This is largely because Lully received his fame as "father of French opera" because he was recognized as talented by the King when he danced in a Ballet de la Nuit. Louis then gave the Lully the prestigious position of royal composer and music teacher. Louis had essentially given Lully power over all music in the royal court. Because of the position Lully had been given by the King, he must have felt obligated to please the king through his music. For example, Lully was famous for his operas, and it was under Lully, that the French opera first began to include formal dance. This was clearly a tribute to Louis and his love and talent for dancing. Lully also based many of his operas on heroes from classical mythology. These heroes were representations of Louis to honor him. This relates to Louis’s view of himself as the Sun King, which he danced the part of in the 1653 Ballet de la Nuit. This idea of the Sun King is based on the god Apollo from Greek mythology. Lully’s opera Cadmus et Hermione also praises Louis by having him be represented as Apollo. Also, Lully’s opera Alceste, based on mythological characters, was presented to celebrate Louis’s victory in battle.
Louis also desired to unite France by making himself the center of it. Versailles is the visual symbol of his reign, and Lully’s orchestras and operas can be seen as the auditory symbol of his reign. Indeed, just as Louis made strides to unite France, Lully stressed unification and discipline in his orchestras. He is the person responsible for having all violinists point their bows in the same direction so that a unified sound could be heard and the orchestra could be heard as a whole rather than as individuals. His unification of the orchestra was rewarded by Louis as he granted Lully control of court chamber music and made him head of the grand violins. Therefore, just as Louis was the absolute ruler of all of France, Lully was like the absolute ruler of all of French music. He controlled all aspects of musical performance, French opera, and French orchestra. The King’s Versailles led the way in magnificence in French fashion, furniture, and court, while Lully led the way in magnificence in French music. Therefore, I believe that Lully felt obligated to praise and honor the King with his music and to use his work as a means of unifying and glorifying France.

AbsoLOUIEtism

There is no way that the absolutism that occurred in both Europe and Asia during the 17^th and 18^th centuries could have been by coincidence. By the time the 17^th century began, Europe and Asia were not strangers, they had been linked by trade routes for centuries. At the very least, both continents were at least a little about the lifestyle of the other. In fact, there were already ties between the French and the Ottoman Empire. These ties paved the way for the spread of absolutism.

The term absolutism means a monarch has the power to rule their land however they please. In France, rulers would often embellish themselves so that the people admired them, so is true of Louie XIV. These monarchs of Europe feared ever being overthrown by the people, and who can blame them. Can anyone real say they wouldn’t like to have absolute control over an empire? Louie XIV tried to stop this by having people build sculpture or paint portraits of him to make the people of France believe he was a great ruler. Of course by the end of Louie’s reign, the French people still disliked him for using excessive amounts of money for wars. Once stronger relationships were made between the East and the West, the route was paved for absolutism to spread. The East began to show imitate many political practices from the West, and absolutism was reborn.

To think that absolutism occurred out of pure coincidence is crazy. There were enough ties between both Europe and Asia at the time that it only makes sense that each would try and learn from the other.

Globalization + Coincidence = Worldwide Absolutism

The Age of Absolutism, which began between the 16th and 17th centuries, was a time period when many of the world's most powerful civilizations were becoming linked. This time period could also be called the dawn of true globalization, when the world became drastically smaller due to a combination of technological advances that allowed for further travel and expanded trade routes. Various magnificent societies including the Ottoman Empire, the Mongol and later Qing dynasties in China, and European kingdoms became trading partners that relied on each other to maintain their high standards of living. The most important thing that these societies traded, however, was ideas. These ideas were scientific, technological, philosophical, and even political in nature. This allowed for increased competition between these advanced civilizations because now, they could now see each other's advances. This competition, in short, came to be because of this marvelous "shrinking of the world."
The other main factor in this worldwide age of absolutist governments was coincidence. There is no factor that could have determined what leaders came to power of these world superpowers, and it is sheer happenstance that each of these major civilizations had rulers that were audacious enough to enact policies with the main goal of competing with the rest of the world. Many of these rulers (Louis XIV, Akbar, Sokollu Mehmet Pasa) that had trade desires could have very easily had more introverted political philosophies. If any of these civilizations had been more inclined to not trade with the outside world, the Age of Absolutism would have not occurred with such magnitude. It was this coincidence, along with the world's rapid globalization of trade, that created the prefect atmosphere for the Age of Absolutism.

Coincidence?

Although the similarities between Persian, Indian, Japanese, and European governments may seem like a coincidence, there are actually many reasons why these four countries were experiencing similar forms of absolutism. During the time of change in the early modern era, governments were becoming more unified because of strong leaders who formed absolutist governments. This was a time of transition from the medieval period to the early modern period. The orderly governments were forming because of widespread economic prosperity and religious tolerance. Also, the invention of the printing press helped countries to become more unified because information was more accessible and circulated through a greater number of people. Trade between countries also helped fuel these similar changes because each country could specialize in products and therefore become more united. Each country also tried to compete with each other through the arts and architecture. They wanted to create structures that would be around for many years to come, and could stand as a symbol for their national pride. These architectural marvels included Versailles, the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort, and the Imperial Mosque. Different forms of art also emerged in each country which helped give more national pride and made each country unique. Overall, all these characteristics show how these countries were undergoing similar changes, but for specific changes that influenced each other and helped create national pride and transition into the modern era.

The Age of Absolutism

I believe that the wave of absolutism that occurred throughout Europe and Asia was not a coincidence. The trade routes that existed between the East and the West linked them together. The numerous goods, people, and news that traveled along those routes all assisted in the coinciding absolutist kingdoms. Not to mention that many different rulers of the time were marrying off their children and relatives in order to strengthen political ties with other absolutist reigns. For example, King Henry VIII's marriage of Catherine of Aragon established a bonded between England and Spain. The mere fact that all these different absolutist reigns were connected and not separate provided the means for which absolutism could prosper.

The Rise of Absolutism

Absolutism was the trend in both Western and Eastern Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Many leaders maintained control of their countries by controling a centralized beaurocracy, having a strong military, and advocating economic policies that would maximize their own wealth.
I do not believe that this "Age of Absolutism" came about merely by coincidence. I believe that the trends and conditions of the world at the time contributed to the success of this form of government. One such trend was that of theocracy. The belief that the ruler had divine rights allowed one monarch to control his empire.
Stong diplomatic ties between the West and the East also contributed to the spread of the aristocratic style of government. Ambassadors were well-recieved at Versailles by French kings, and alliances had been formed between France and the Ottoman Turks. The Moguls in India also modeled their government after that of the "sun king." The relationships between the East and the West made the spread of Absolutism inevitable.

The Age of Absolutism in Europe and Beyond

From the sociopolitical and religious ferment of the sixteenth century in Europe arose Absolutism: a political theory advocating the vesting of unlimited power to autocrats. In pursuing endeavors to consolidate their authority, absolute rulers sought to maintain societal stability as a means to promote peace and economic growth within their nation-states. Moreover, many attempted to maintain their "divine" right to rule by glorifying their reigns through majestic works of art that greatly augmented the prestige of their authoritarian roles. As absolute rule was a norm during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries throughout the world, noticeably present in the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Mogul India, and Ming and Qing China, many historians have scrutinized the origins of the Age of Absolutism so as to reasonably conclude how absolutism emerged as a viable form of government.

Prior to the Age of Absolutism, much of Europe experienced incessant warfare as religious and politcal factions vied for power within newly forming nation-states. The continuous conflicts that entrenched Europe in sociopolitcal decay came to a head during the devastating Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), during which multiple nations, German principalities, and religious factions fought one another over politcal and religious differences. The war concluded with the Peace of Westphalia, which resulted in the rise of France as a regional power, the deterioration of the Holy Roman Empire's hegemony, and the assertion of the principle of national sovereignty.

In response to the widespread chaos that erupted during the Thirty Years' War, European rulers sought effective measures with which to consolidate power and to prevent the occurrence of internal upheaval. King Louis XIV of France, the epitome of absolute power in Europe at the time, created a highly centralized bureacracy, formed a standing military, subjugated the Church and nobles, and commissioned masters to commemorate his reign through audacious architectural and artisic feats. As cultural diffusion ensued, moreover, foreign entities, including the Ottoman Empire and Persia, absorbed many of the characteristics of absolute rule in Europe into their cultures that greatly strengthened the authenticity of their imperial traditions. Ideas pertaining to absolutism spread throughout the world and effected substantial change throughout Asia, whether through the support or opposition to the growing cultural influence of European nations.

Because the study of the origins of the Age of Absolutism is multifaceted and complex, many conjectures may be developed that describe the rise of absolute rulers. As such, many feasible explanations may be formed regarding this unique era in world history.

The word absolutism is laced with bad connotations. this form of government brings to mind pictures of egotistical tyrants who continuously exploit their subjects. However, these rulers were very influential; they made guided their countries in making great strides in the world of art.

Absolutist leaders ruled all over the world in the seventeenth century (France, England, Spain, India, China, Japan...). These rulers succeeded in unifying their nations. Without nobles and regional princes squabbling over boundaries and religious issues, people were able to develop their unique cultures. Absolutists became patrons of the arts, and music, theater, art, architect, and dance flourished under their reigns. 

Although some leaders did enforce the negative stereotypes about absolutism, they did wonders in cultivating the world.

More then Just a coincidence..

In regarding the fact that the absolute rulers were arising in all of these different places, I believe that it was more than just a coincidence.

Throughout all the listed places there was huge political problems that alos resulted in religious and other types of wars. In ways of uniting the states they looked to Absolutism, finding it very practical and what they thought would work. As society started to become more and more organized a leader..well a stronger one at that..was felt needed. I think there was certainly similar responses with absolutism and that was not just a coincidence. It was a great theme and pattern throughout Europe that created a new dramatic style.