Satire in the Enlightenment

I wish that we had spent more time in class studying the satirical pieces in the book like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," which is one of my favorite works not only of the Enlightenment period, but ever. I feel that "A Modest Proposal" displays unique characteristics that unite the ideals of the philosophes and romantics. While Swift's essay is educational in that, through attempting to "rationalize" a solution for a problem caused by absurd and unfair treatment of the Irish by the English, Swift's engagement with his subject matter also shows clearly throughout the essay and while it is not a spontaneous work, it is sincere.

The playfulness of Vivaldi's music

In many of Vivaldi's composition's, such as The Four Seasons, the listener hears an almost play tone in the music. In the concerto, he is able to break through the formal and rhythmic structure by giving brightness to it, which really highlights the quality of his work. He is able to impress the listener with a variety of innovative melodies which were quite pleasing for the listener to hear. He was also among the first to compose music that was meant to be heard by a wide majority of the public, instaed of simply by the minority of educated people who had for so long been the desired audience for composers. His popularity among people of all educations may in fact come from this joyous and playful quality that his music contained. He was one of the most influential composers, and helped bring Baraoque music into the classical style.

Rococo

The rococo period of art was an interesting subcategory of French art that gave a bit of insight into the tastes and activities of the French nobility at the time. The delicate nature of rococo art indicates that the nobility of France had begun to move past the richness of baroque art and were embracing a more natural, floral type of art. Baroque art was created during a time of philosophical upheaval and religious revival, so it was appropriately bold and passionate. Baroque art was characterized by bold contrasts, depictions of religious and mythological figures, and strong strokes and accents. As the nobility in French centered around Louis XV, their lofty status, isolation from the people of France, and Louis XV's own excesses allowed them to cultivate a more delicate art form. Rococo art had an element of playfulness to it that matched the spirit of the nobility at the time and notably appeared in paintings depicting people performing everyday tasks in a lighthearted manner. Rococo art also drew influences from foreign cultures, such as Oriental artwork and German baroque. The nobility were well-cultured in foreign arts, unlike the lower classes, and they utilized their knowledge of these other cultures in the creation of Rococo art.

Rousseau's Lack of Evidence

Rousseau's largest flaw was his lack of evidence in his arguments. His views on education were basically unfounded, as well as his views on the role of women and family units. His claims were basically supported by his insistence that nature dictated these rules, and that disobeying nature leads to failure. However, Rousseau had no actual evidence to support his theories on the supposed rules of nature. His views on women were probably based on the established attitudes at the time among men, which were inherently sexist. His views on education were also relatively unfounded. While he did challenge the concept of universal education as indoctrination, his foundation for his views is flawed.
Rousseau did have some ideas that were good. His "Contract Social" was a forerunner of many treatises of the same spirit. While this work did not contain much evidence, it was based more on original observation and was quite progressive. While Voltaire avoided the question of racial equality, his statement implied that racial equality was an issue for him.

Surprise Symphony

When i heard about Haydn's Surprise Symphony(Symphony No. 94), I wanted to learn more about the intentions that Haydn had when he composed this particular work. After some investigation, I learned that what we learned in class was not 100 percent accurate. It was never Haydn's intention to include the "surprises" as a means of keeping his audience awake. According to Haydn's biographer, Haydn simply wanted to surprise the public with something new which they had not experienced before, and make a brilliant debut that would outdo his student Pleyel. The supposed awakening aspect the symphony has on the audience is merely a side effect.

Rococo

The Rococo period marks a movement in art towards subjects that exist in nature and their ability to bring pleasure the observer. Personal pleasure after all was the whole purpose of Rococo art. In rococo paintings, bright pastels are used to create an air of happiness, and the subject matter doesn’t usually stray far from human sexuality, the depiction of human sexuality in painting actually lead to some criticism from people who found it immoral. With ornamentation and sculpture there was an effort to recreate nature, in some sense the outdoors was brought indoors. This was not the first time in history where an emphasis was put on finding personal pleasure. This was also found during the Greek Hellenistic period where written works shifted away from profound topics and dealt with nature and human sexuality. Philosophies of the time such as Epicureanism encouraged people to seek pleasure in their everyday lives. This shift came as a result of the political turmoil of the period. Is it possible that the same thing is true with the Rococo period?

The Oath of Horatii

This post deals with The Oath of Horatii. I wanted to make a post about this painting because when I was examining it for aspects of the Enlightenment period, I noticed something strange. In the back part of the painting, a woman is covered in a blue cloth which is most likely her clothing. She is not watching what is going on with the three brothers and their father because she is clearly upset that they are going to battle. She also is shielding two children from what is going on. She manages to cover the eyes of the little girl, but not the young boy. Why is the young boy so interested in what is going on? I came up with an idea. I think that the young boy wants to watch what is going on because it is in his blood. Basically, he is a boy and one day will be a strong man. He wants to see what the three brothers are doing so that when he becomes that age, he will be as strong, curageous, and loyal as them.

The Farewell Symphony

When we learned about "The Farewell Symphony," I was really interested in why it received the name it did. It is really called Symphony No. 45 in F-sharp minor by Joseph Haydn in 1772. The symphony was written for Prince Nikolaus Esterhazy. Well, the symphony received its name because one summer, Haydn and the orchestra were staying at the prince's summer palace. They weren't there by choice, but they were forced too. They ended up staying a lot longer than they were supposed to. They all wanted to go home to their wives but they couldn't. Haydn, being the smart and genuine man, decided to hint to the prince that this was unacceptable. During the last movement, each musician of the orchestra left one by one and blowing their candle out as they left. By the end, there were only two musicians left: Haydn himself and the concertmaster. The Prince got the hint and let everyone leave the next day. One other interesting thing I found out was that in Haydn's Symphony No. 85, he references The Farewell Symphony. It is referenced in the first movement. I wonder why he wanted to reference it in this symphony?

On my mind

Hey! Whoever is reading this I would just like to say I had a great time in this class. I did learn quite a bit about the French, thanks to Professor Matthews. Even though at first I thought the class would be horrible because we had to sing the first few classes, I kind of thought that is what Dr. F was going to have up do every time we talked about music. But over all this class was a good course to talk as a freshman and I ended up enjoying more than I thought I would.

Mozart's Formula

Despite the impression of Mozart's music on people, his music did have a more casual tone than composers such as Bach and later Beethoven. Mozart's music is rife with self-plagiarizing and formulaic use of musical form, as well as a strict adherence to tonal rules and basic counterpoint. It is reasonable to assume that Mozart held a less adventurous view of music than other composers.
However, this strict adherence to tonality suggests that while Mozart may not have been terribly creative, he was very skilled in the mass production of well-written music. He knew exactly what he was doing as he was writing. This strict adherence to the rules, of course, did not allow him the creative freedom that other composers took, which led to the aforementioned self-plagiarizing and use of formula.

Freemasons in Music

I thought it was very interesting how much music was inspired by or contained characteristics of the Freemasons. Some of the major elements/ideas include equality, love, forgiveness, tolerance, and brotherhood. 

Haydn included some of these elements in his music. He is credited with creating the string quartet, which is meant to be musically equal. Each instrument (two violins, a viola, and a cello) has its own "big moment" and the music flows like conversation; there is never a fight between two parts for the spotlight. Mozart's opera, The Magic Flute, is known as the Masonic opera. Many of the Freemason elements are themes in the opera: love, enlightenment, truth, and wisdom.

The number 3 also appears a lot in music inspired by the Masons. For example, Haydn's Opus 33, number 3 ("the bird movement") lasts 3 minutes and 33 seconds. In The Magic Flute, the opera opens with 3 chords in E flat major (which has 3 flats). There are 3 ladies, 3 boys, and 3 tests. 

Voltaire's Candide

Voltaire's Candide, being a satire, comments and pokes fun at society. One of the things I found most interesting was how revolutionary his views were. We discussed how the book gives evidence to Voltaire being a feminist. All of the female characters (the Old Woman, Cunegonde, Paquette) undergo terrible treatment. They raped, treated like property, shared between two men... Voltaire seems to sympathize with the women and promote equality between the sexes. In the play, Dr. Pangloss is seen educating both young men and women in the same classroom.

Candide also reveals Voltaire's views on slavery. In Chapter 19, Candide meets a slave on the road. The man is missing both a hand and a leg; his master had cut them off. The slave tells Candide about his horrible living and working conditions, and mentions how all mankind is related, no matter what skin tone. Candide is deeply affected by what he sees and cries. He even renounces Pangloss's ideas about optimism. This scene clearly shows that Voltaire was against slavery.

The Sorrows of a Young Werther

Goethe's Sorrows of a Young Werther are profoundly sad. Yet, his style of writing allows the reader to truly see the world through another person's eyes. Werther looks at the world in a far different manner than I do and more than likely, different than many people do. Reading this story allowed me to see life, love, hapiness, and the arts in a different light. Although the novel was written in 1774, there are so many things that a reader can relate to, even if you're from the 21st century. Goethe has so much to say about life, love, literature, music, and relationships. Here are some quotes involving the afore mentioned which the modern day reader can relate:
"...those people are happiest who live for the moment" (29).
"And I like those writers the best who help me find my world again...and the story is interesting and sympathetic as my own life at home, which may not be paradise but is, on the whole, a source of inexplicable joy to me" (37).
"Distance is the future" (43).
"One this is certain---nothing justifies a man's existence like being loved" (63).
"A man who is never satisfied with himself and can therefore never be satisfied" (73).
"To think that there are people who have no feeling at all for the few things on this earth that are of real value" (91).
Goethe creates a highly passionate and emotional character, Werther. This characer is someone everyone can relate to in even just the slightest way. From his sheer joy for learning, to the pains of unrequited love. The Sorrows of a Young Werther explores the vast depths of human emotion.

Goethe and Towns and Country

I have been struck by Goethe's view of towns.  Throughout this semester we have found philosophers trying to explain the state of nature and people living as closely to nature as they can.  In The Sorrows of a Young Werther, Goethe gives the opinion of the town being an example of people not living in a natural state.  The town is not an attractive thought because it is a group of people living together and making rules.  Rules seem to be where conflict starts, people trying to tell other people what to do.  But he finds "indescribable beauties of nature surrounding it," it being the town.  This is the country, which, to Goethe, is an example of people living in the closest state of nature.  It is untouched by man, no thought put into it, no scientific interference, so civilization has ruined it.  The country is where people should live if they want to living in the closest state of nature that they can.  I'm not sure why, but this view has stuck with me since we talked about it in class.  I think that it makes sense with the views of the time.  People living together in a place created by humans isn't as natural as living a more isolated life in an area that has been left untouched seems more natural to me. 

Music and Autism

I don't think that it would be too bold to call Mozart one of the greatest composers to ever exist.  He was a child prodigy and wrote some of the best music in history.  He covered the bases when it came to writing in different genres.  He wrote concertos and operas and his Requiem Mass is, in my opinion, one of the best and haunting masses ever written.  You would expect a figure this great and this historical to be serious and stoic.  You would expect them to act appropriately and be an example to the people of his time (not just the musicians).  However, with historical evidence to back this up, Mozart was quite the opposite.  He would act inappropriately and would make rude comments to his employers and would joke around all the time.  Just watch the movie Amadeus which is, for the most part, pretty historically accurate.  There is a reason for Mozart's behavior and this is because he was high functioning autistic man.  While it may come to a shock that one of history's greatest musicians could be autistic, it does not to me.  There is a proven link between autism and music.  Many people who are autistic are actually musical geniuses, no matter how high or low functioning they are.  They have a remarkable ability to remember and repeat rhythms and melodies.  Many times they have perfect pitch, where if someone were to play any note on the piano they would be able to say what that note is just by listening to the pitch.  Mozart being autistic doesn't surprise me as much as it might knowing this link between autism and music.

Descartes

I was thinking back upon a discussion we had in class about which philosopher's views were most in line with our own, and I recall how many students discredited Descartes based on his principal of "cogito, ergo sum." However, this statement seems infallible to me. If you make the argument that this is just an assumption being made, then you are unable to assume anything at all in life, for if any assumption is true it is this one. Even by disputing the validity of Descartes statement, one is in a way reinforcing his belief. One has to think of an argument, and by this thinking it is quite evident that you exist in one form or the other. If you do not exist by thinking, then what would be the benefit of thinking of an argument to refute Descartes claim?

Alexander Pope

The enlightenment was a time of great discoveries and understanding.  Isaac Newton discovering gravity, while Locke and Hobbes passed their ideas of government on to the masses.  The enlightenment touched every aspect of humanity, even poetry.  Alexander Pope has been given the title of greatest poet in the eighteenth century as he captures all of the ideas of the enlightenment in his writings.  Being a student of ideas from the enlightenment Pope discovered and contributed great findings to poetry.  Pope wrote in his new device, which he called heroic couplets.  These couplets involved iambic pentameter and reach completion in structure at the end of each line.  Where as before the enlightenment poetry seemed with out aim and wandering, during the enlightenment, with Popes writings as an example, it is clear that poems of the enlightenment contained a solid purpose.  The poems by Pope argue about several issues of the 18^th century.  In his Essay on Man Pope argues the purpose of human kind, nature and god.  All of these thoughts would be considered thoughts of the enlightenment.  Alexander Pope may be the greatest poet of the enlightenment, but in my eyes he is, in general, one of the greatest contributors to the enlightenment.   

Crazy Mozart

Who would have thought that the composer of such great works as The Marriage of Figaro, The Magic Flute and Don Giovanni was so goofy! I thought it was extremely interesting that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was the absolute opposite of what i thought he was like in my mind. I also thought it was very interesting that many people believe that Mozart had Autism. This made me wonder why he seemed so extraverted in the film we watched. The Mozart that most people probably envision is a quiet genius that sits behind a piano in his secluded home in Austria like a hermit. In the film he is a womanizer, goofy and quite childish. Despite one might think about these qualities, they are what made Mozart so great. Mozart would not let anyone tell him what to do because he simply knew he was the best at what he did. The "freelancer" nature of Mozarts personality i thought was cruicial to his fame becuase it gave him the vast ability to do whatever musical pieces he wanted. If he did not like what one ruler was making him do he would simply leave. Although Mozart does not quite fit the stereotype for genius musicians his childishness and stubborness allowed him to be so famous.

Wollstonecraft vs Rousseau

I really enjoyed the way we went about learning the ideals of both Mary Wollstonecraft and Jean Jacques Rousseau. After listening to how devoted Mary Wollstonecraft was to the liberation of women, I was very suprised at what we learned Wollstonecraft did towards the second half of her life. I thought Mary Wollstonecraft really sold out on the ideals she discussed in her work The Vindication of the Rights of Women. Although Wollstonecraft once said that "Life did not depend on any 1 person" she tried to kill herself after she found out her husband Gilbert was cheating on her. I thought this to be extremely suprising because of the feminist views that Mary seemed to be so devoted to. On top of this, I thought it was also very suprising that Wollstonecraft got pregnant out of wedlock and then went on to marry Godwin. I was just wondering if anyone else had any ideas about this or comments on why they think Mary didnt quite live up to what she discussed in her vindication.

Locke

Of all the enlightenment philosophers, John Locke seems to be the most practical. His view of the world seems to most fit the way that things actually are. His metaphor for the infant mind being the empty chest of drawers just seems more logical than Descartes for instance who believed that people are born knowing certain truths. Simply observing the way that babies view the world should have clued Descartes as to the falseness of his theories. To an infant everything seems new and strange. Over time they start to understand the ways of the world. Descartes was not the only one who disagreed with Locke's philosophies. The Catholic church also believes that babies are born containing the original sin, which is why they are baptized so early in life. During the early stages of Christianity in the Roman empire it was common practice to be baptized shortly before death to absolve the person of their earlier sins. This seems to be very much in keeping with Locke's beliefs because it would seem to be saying that humans are corrupted over time rather than being sinners at birth. Overall, Locke's philosophy seems to be in keeping with basic logic, while other philosophers of the time seemed a bit abstract.

Dutch Flemish School

     When considering the baroque elements within 17th century Dutch painting, a viewer is able to discern what factors define the work's baroque nature but are often left with an impression differing from a similar viewing of Italian baroque art. 

     The Dutch took it upon themselves to master the art of landscape/still life and to redefine the essence of portraiture. Maria van Oosterwyck's Vanitas Still Life (1668) is not merely a picture of flowers and a butterfly, but instead is a didactic suggestion of "the corruptibility of worldly goods, the futility of riches, and the inevitability of death (Fiero 85)." In turn, Gerard ter Borch's The Suitor's Visit (1658) isn't a grand depiction of a biblical scene but instead simply communicates a prosaic moment without any exceptional significance. similar to the portraiture of Judith Leyster. Leyster's Self-Portrait (1630) is an unidealized, honest representation of a woman absorbed in her work, absent from any glorified setting or dignified action. 

     The Dutch Flemish School was able to capture the sincerity of life that the Italian Baroque School chose to overlook. Both art forms are equally influential and equally deserving of appreciation; however, if one wishes to view genuine humanity, one must look to the Dutch Flemish School. 

Epistemology and the aprior

Immanuel Kant had a slogan that encompassed his work about knowledge and internal philosophies of mankind: “Thoughts without content are empty, institutions with out concepts are blind.” Kant’s epistemology philosophy was revolutionary with the discovery of the “aprior,” which means to exist before experience. This idea was the basis for Kant’s argument on innate idea at birth. He believed that every person has these concepts like geometry and arithmetic when they are born. This doesn’t mean they have the knowledge to communicate, but the knowledge is there. These ideas were controversial in the philosophical community. The aprior was very similar to Descartes idea that we are born with innate ideas, but Kant said that these ideas are not derived from a greater being like Descartes and Plato thought. These concepts with in the human mind “…are derived from certain fundamental categories which are presupposed by experience.”(Kant)
These ideas make sense to an extent, but I have a problem with the foundation and fundamental existence of the aprior. The ideas need to be formed by an individuals experience and cannot be pre-existing. I would agree that these ideas are know by man pre-existing the birth of a child, but that doesn’t mean the newborn will be able to understand the concepts in the future. Kant basically says from my understanding that everyone starts with the prior knowledge. This is wrong because knowledge comes from the experience and there are no preexisting thoughts about experience upon birth. Kant’s ideas revolving around knowledge from experience are strong, but the creation of these controversial ideas can not supported by empirical evidence.

Werther's Romance

     The reading of Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther offers a prime example of Romantic ideology and its combatant nature with the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Our young character Werther seemingly refutes all reason when he allows his emotional attachment to Lotte to fuel an internal desire that eventually leads to his suicide. Though in his own mind Werther has reasoned that ending one's life is greater than facing unrequited love, death is not the remedy for an unsatisfactory life. Yes Werther's attempt to fill a personal void with the love of Lotte is unsuccessful; however he allows this incident to cause him to overlook the greater meaning of life.

     Lev Tolstoy stated in A Confession that there were four ways in which to live life. One of them being that the individual chooses to completely ignore the fact that life is corrupt and meaningless. Another concerned epicureanism and a person's dependence upon material goods to add meaning/value to their existence. The last two, however, interested Tolstoy the most as he considered them the weakest and the strongest position an individual could achieve. The weakest person recognizes life as empty and trivial while continuing to live, while conversely the strength of an individual is apparent in their willingness to commit suicide with the understanding that life is futile. Werther believes himself to be in this position; he has claimed power over his destiny and has ended his life in order to obtain some significance. 

     Tolstoy, however, later changed his position when he understood why he so long found himself acting as a "weak individual;" he had reasoned that life had no meaning and yet he could not succumb to the logic supporting his suicide. Tolstoy found a purpose, a reason worth living for; he found faith. Werther, however, is not able to reach the same conclusion as Tolstoy because his Romantic ideals supersede the teachings of the Enlightenment. Though the Enlightenment was a movement apart from the influence of God, Tolstoy used the teachings of the Enlightenment to "reason" his rejection of reason; while Werther, is condemned to death based on his reliance upon purely Romantic notions. 

The Magic Flute

After reading the libretto of The Magic Flute, I was able to better imagine Mozart's characteristics and techniques that we discussed in class. The lyrics were quite light and humorous in my opinion, especially because of the character of Papageno, the feather-covered bird catcher. He added a lot of jest to the libretto with his foolish comments and senseless actions. Even the opening of the opera was silly when Tamino is being chased by a huge snake. I feel as if The Magic Flute was a perfect play for Mozart to write the music for; at some points while reading I could almost hear his obnoxious cackle.

Although I was not listening to the opera, I was able to still pick out some of the instrumental symbolism that Mozart employed in his works. The frequent "trumpet blasts" indeed indicated some sort of royalty, many times the coming of Sarastro. Obviously the sounds of the flute and the glockenspiel were quite important to the opera, but I was not positive as to what, if anything, they symbolized. In this case, they seemed to represent salvation or some other type of help. Any other ideas?

The Garden

During our discussion of Candide, I felt I learned a lot which I didn’t catch while reading the story. Thinking back to the discussion, I know at the time I hadn’t thought much about the actual meaning of every event. I can’t go into detail on every event from Candide because this would end up being hundreds of pages, but I would like to talk about the last chapter in which Candide is living on the farm.

In class, someone mentioned that the garden could symbolize the garden the Eden. I don’t refute that statement, but only because I don’t have a strong background with the bible. However, I believe the garden symbolizes a fair and just world. Throughout the entire story there is no rhyme or reason to what happens. The Pope breaks all the rules, Candide is almost killed several times, all the women in the story are raped, and there are countless acts of murder and thievery. The people who try and do good in this story end up killed, while thugs seem to rise higher and higher.

The garden is the only place where this isn’t true. Everyone who lives there does their share of hard work, and they are rewarded for it. Through hard work and proper technique, Candide and everyone else can grow plants. Though they can still see the atrocities occurring in the outside world, they don’t care because they have finally found a place that treats its inhabitants justly.

Looking Back on Locke and Descartes

After reflecting on the conversation we had in class about the theories of Locke and those of Descartes, I don't recall a single person who voiced their opinion in favor of Descartes. I believe that this is due to the fact that we are citizens of the United States. The entire foundations of our country were founded on the basis of John Locke's political theory. Therefore as U.S. citizens it is hard for us to separate ourselves from the ideas of Locke. The knowledge that we have rights as a citizen has been ingrained in our heads since the beginning of our formal education. It is by no means a coincidence that our rights as a U.S. citizen, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" line up nicely with Locke's "life, liberty, and property". It is because of these beliefs that it is hard for us to take off our Lockean lenses in order to view other political or religious theories.

Rembrandt

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was a painter of great skill and created
quite the collection of works to look back upon. However, most people do not think of
an artist for their work as a whole, but rather for those remarkable
pieces of work that leave an imprint. Among Rembrandt’s more
famed pieces of work are his Night Watch, Belshazzar’s Feast, Bathsheba
at her Bath, and The Jewish Bride.
When Talking about Rembrandt’s art one must talk about his most famous painting: The Night Watch. It is ironic that his most
famous painting was also misnamed, its original title was The Militia
Company of Captain Frans Banning Cocq. However, it was not a popular
work during its time and after being rediscovered a century later, it was named The Night Watch. It received this name due to dark tone of the picture, caused by weathering
and poor condition. However, after its restoral it became evident that the image
portrayed in The Night Watch was actually taking place in daylight
Among his famed paintings preserved at the Louvre in Paris is Bathsheba
at her Bath, yet another of his paintings that takes its material from
the Bible. It is a calmer painting than much of his prior work, moving
away from the Baroque technique and making something more contemplative
and tragic. It is considered Rembrandt’s finest example of nude
painting and was also his last.
Another one of Rembrandt’s most famous works was
The Jewish Bride , perhaps not so
much because of the composition, but because of the controversy
regarding who is pictured. Popular theory ranges from Biblical figures
such as Isaac and Rebekah from the Book of Genesis to other couples
from the Old Testament such as Abraham and Sarah. Some also believe
that the couple pictured could be Rembrandt’s son Titus and his wife.
It should also be noted that The Jewish Bride was painted in the
twilight of Rembrandt’s life and may have reflected a spiritual
exploration of love or religion.Given the breadth of work to examine
and the varying talent of the artist, it is never a simple matter to
say what the most famous work of an artist may be, as many works
exemplify different aspects of his life and career. These are but a few
of his most celebrated and well known paintings, revered today as works
of a true master.

Enlightenment vs. Romanticism

While going over the Enlightenment and the main idea of the importance of reason during class, I couldn't help but think how important it is to understand the difference between the Enlightenment and Romanticism.

Romanticism was in general a reaction against the Enlightenment, which I think is something many can't grasp. Romantics valued intense emotion, and overdone characteristics. The romantics lived in a very unrestrained world, while the Enlightenment thinkers valued more of tradition. The enlightenment showed the strong importance of reason while romanticism showed more imagination and enjoyment. I think it's important to understand the difference between the two movements and it's brilliant influence.

Neoclassicism

Neoclassicism was the renewal of Greek and Roman culture and it occurred from 1600 to 1750. I think it is amazing to look at some of the characteristics of neoclassicism and see how it has still survived today. Neoclassicism consisted of clarity, simplicity, and restraint. When looking at these characteristics, it may be difficult to comprehend how this period was successful and how elements of it have still survived today, but when taking a closer look, one can see that this period may have been in response to the Enlightenment period. Stuck in between Enlightenment and Romanticism, Neoclassicism was an attempt to bring back old ways. The Enlightenment tried to understand everything in the world and even deal with future thinking. This is where Neoclassicism became popular because people attempted to bring back what they already know, and also the prior intelligence that had already been brought before them by the Greeks and Romans. The simplicity and clarity of Neoclassicism were appealing elements as they counter acted those complex elements of the Enlightenment. Neoclassicism brought balance to society through its cultural aspects that had been present in the Greek and Roman cultures. It was an attempt to go back to previous ages that had survived for so long and bring their simple, clear, and balance elements into an age that was muffled with obscurity and opaque understanding. The elements of Neoclassicism are still in affect today as they remind people of cultures that were and cultures that flourished.

Romanticism in The Sorrows of Young Werther

In our discussion of Romanticism in class, it was said that Romantic works were often characterized by absolute creative freedom; they valued spontaneity and sincerity; and they were perfectly at home with obscurity (without necessarily seeking to be obscure). Furthermore, to Romanticists, what was going on in the heart was more important than what was going on the the head. They felt that nature was experienced by the entire body, not just the mind. Goethe's work, The Sorrows of Young Werther, characterizes this Romanticist ideology extremely well. In almost every letter, Werther mentions his heart:

"How strange is the human heart!" (23).
"I have met someone who has touched my heart" (34).
"My heart was full" (48).
"My heart is so overflowed with joy" (50).

Werther follows his heart, not his head. His obsession with Wahlheim and nature is that of a true Romanticist as well. In his May 10th letter, he describes his experience with his natural surroundings. He states that when he is in nature, he "can sense the presence of the Almighty, who in a state of continuous bliss bears and sustains us" (25). According to Romanticists, God is in nature, and nature is in God. Werther demonstrates his belief that God is best contacted through nature. He is not there to analyze like a scientist; he is there to feel. Goethe's work very accurately expresses Romantic thoughts and values. Reading The Sorrows of Young Werther was a great way for me to fully grasp the Romantic ideals. How else did Goethe's work convey Romanticism?

Hobbian Ideals

While reading through the Hobbsian Vocabulary I found some of the ideals contradicting of each other. Hobbs states in his “Second Law of Nature” that equal amounts of rights between everyone must be given up, and in the “Contract” that there must be a mutual sacrificing of rights between people. Yet Hobbs also says in “Natural Passions” that people will be at war without a governing body, and in the “Subject” that the people must be ruled by the sovereign. To me these ideals compete. How can one say that all people must make sacrifices of their rights so that people can be equal while also saying that there is still someone who rules over all the people? What rights would the absolute ruler have given up to put him on the same level as other people, since he has power over all of the people?
I know the point is that there still needs to be someone with the responsibility to rule, as stated the Hobbsian Vocabulary as “Sovereign”, and to keep the people in order; but with one person ruling over all the people, then all people cannot be equal.

Mozart and his childishness

I think it is interesting to note the childishness of Mozart and how it is apparent in his music, and ultimately how it helped him achieve the success that he indeed achieved. Because Mozart remained and acted like a child throughout the entirety of his life, he had the imagination needed to create such riveting pieces of music. He had the imagination necessary to compose new and brilliant pieces of music. He was fearless in this aspect in that his imagination caused him to tell stories and display heartfelt emotion through his music. It allowed him to be fearless. Of course he ha his influences, but it was his childlike imagination that caused him to explore a side of music that had never really been heard before. These youthful characteristics that are presented in his music allows listeners to be taken from their daily lives and into the imagination of a child. His understanding of different instruments prompted him to use specific instruments for specific purposes. There is a beauty to every instrument he uses, because he, with a childlike mind, appreciates every instrument. He was fearless in the sense that he did not let any boundaries be placed on his music and for that matter, his imagination. For this reason, one can appreciate the childishness that Mozart carried with him throughout most of his life. Without it, his music would not have been the same.

The Philosophes Vs. The Philosophers

In the early 1700’s a new type of thinking man was invented.  The philosophe was an intellectual rather then a philosopher.  It is interesting to note however that philosophe in French literally translates to Philosopher.  The philosophe’s got their start in France after King Louis XIV died and all of the nobility fled the palace of Versailles.  In their new homes the middle class and nobility of France met to exchange thoughts about morality, politics, science, and religion.  These philosophes took their ideas and saw an opportunity to change the world.  Through their thoughts and ideas the philosophes set out to enlighten the common people and move them towards reform. 

The philosopher was a much different person then the philosophe.  While the philosophe sought to use their ideas to change the world, the philosophers were interested in acquiring knowledge for the sake of understanding.  For this reason I believe that the philosopher was a well-intentioned person while the philosophe was only interested in his or her own personal gain.  René Descartes who can most certainly be called a philosopher demonstrates this well.  Descartes did not discover or reason ideas to gain power for himself; he acted on what would be best for the advancement of humanity.  The philosophes were undeniably important in the sense that they started reform and revolutions, however, it is my belief that philosophers were much more important overall in helping with the advancement of humanity.  

Mozart and Autism

Although there is no solid evidence that Mozart was autistic, since autism could not be diagnosed until 1911, I think it is an interesting idea to consider. If Mozart was autistic, it is probably a good thing that no one was aware of this condition because Mozart could have been institutionalized, as those with mental defects often were, and he probably would have been unable to develop his talent. In any case, Mozart became one of the greatest composers to ever live. His extraordinary talent could have been the result of savantism, which is almost always accompanied by some degree of autism spectrum disorder or another developmental disorder. His ability to hear a composition once and then play it by ear (as shown in Amadeus) coupled with his ability to create intricate and elaborate compositions and his talents with language as well give credence to the notion that Mozart was autistic. I've also heard hearing classical music aids development in autistic children, so if Mozart was autistic, his musician ship could have improved his ability to function normally. None of these ideas are proof that Mozart was autistic; however, this is an idea I am interested in exploring further.

Voltaire and Bernstein

Bernstein really was one of the greatest musicians to ever live.  His Overture to Candide is a fine example of this.  He really picks up the ideas and characters of Voltaire's Candide and puts them into his music.  The opening section of the song gives the image of Westphalia.  The trumpets and the trombones come in with a sound full of glory.  The castle is described as this wonderful place, the most wonderful of all possible places.  If you close your eyes, you can almost see the castle and its grandeur and if you listen to the trumpets and percussion you can almost feel the sense of safety and power that it holds.  Then the woodwinds come in with a running part and you can almost see the castle grounds and the gardens where Cunegonde saw Pangloss and the servant.  The atmosphere of Westphalia is brought to life and you can get the feel that it actually exists.

Another aspect of Voltaire's Candide that reappears frequently is the character Cunegonde.  Again, Bernstein captures Voltaire's words in the form of music.  This section of the piece just flows with melodic beauty, just like Cunegonde was described as flowing of physical beauty.  The strings are the first to play her motive and gradually more and more instruments are added until the section reaches its musical climax.  I believe that the beginning part of this section represents Candide's gazing at Cunegonde from afar and once the section reaches its high point, it represents the kiss.  This motive returns several times throughout the overture just like the character returns several times throughout the novel.

The last section that I can see representing an aspect of the novel is the last really distinct section.  I believe that this represents the extreme highs and lows of Candide's life and how it seems to spiral out of control.  It begins with a simple little melody in the flute and oboe, very carefree and innocent.  Then more and more instruments are added and you can start to get the feeling of losing control.  It gets louder and louder and then begins to speed up until it feels like the conductor doesn't have control of the ensemble anymore, just like Candide's life seemed to be out of his control at times.

Bernstein really was a musicial genius.  He did it all; composed, conducted, played piano.  This particular piece really tells the story without using words.  Instead he uses music, which gives the mind even more freedom to imagine.

Mozart vs. Haydn

Haydn's gift to music was a way of composing which was at the same time in accord with the new style of Classicism. However, a younger man, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, brought his genius to Haydn's ideas and applied them to two of the major genres of the day: opera, and the virtuoso concerto. On the other hand, Haydn spent much of his working life as a court composer. Mozart wanted public success in the concert life of cities. This meant opera, and it meant performing as a virtuoso. Haydn was not a virtuoso at the international touring level. Moreover, Mozart also had a taste for more chromatic chords (and greater contrasts in harmonic language ), a greater love for creating many melodies in a single work, and a more sensibility in music as a whole. He found, in Haydn's music and later in his study of the polyphony of Bach, the means to discipline and enrich his gifts. Mozart was all about getting his name out there. He loved playing for large audiences and especially for royalty. Haydn did not care for large crowds. He was mostly focused on the people in the audience. These two men contributed so much to the Classical style of music. They were similar in style but were different in many ways as well.

The Gift of Mozart

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart can easily be regarded as one of the music world’s most influential composers. Most of the most famous operas that we have today were products of Mozart. Operas like the Magic Flute, The Marriage of Figaro, and Don Giovanni are all well known and were all composed by Mozart. Not only was Mozart known for his operas, but also for his concertos of the many different instruments. While Mozart wrote 27 concertos for piano, the concertos I know the most are the ones for French horn and more specifically Concerto Number 3 in E flat Major. When one first looks at the concerto, it looks overwhelming; there are three movements in the pattern of fast-slow-fast and in this case allegro-larghetto-allegro. There are several melodies all of which might not seem to hard, until one tries to play them. Mozart was a genius at making music sound so light and airy with flourishes perfectly placed, but actually playing the music that light is not easy. Musicians back then and even today are challenged trying to play Mozart’s pieces light while getting all the right notes and dynamics. But when a musician does play everything right, the sound is incredible and that was the genius of Mozart. When we watched the movie in class, it showed Mozart easily changing that march into something more exciting and difficult and that was his gift, he was so in touch with music and how it worked that pieces and melodies came to him. The world will never know what could have been created if Mozart had lived to an old age, but the music that he did create made the musical world better.

Werther is a Child

During our last class we discussed The Sorrows of Young Werther by Goethe. During the course of our discussion, we talked about how we felt about Werther as a character. At the time of our last class I hadn't finished The Sorrows of Young Werther, so I hadn't formulated any strong opinions on the matter. However, since finishing the reading I have come to the conclusion that Werther is an incredibly selfish, immature character.
Werther only seems to care about himself throughout the entire story. For most of the novel he simply complains about how sad his life is, and mentions how he thinks Lotte would be much happier with him than Albert. Werther has no real evidence to back this up, in fact, it seems that if Lotte thought she would be happier with Werther, she would have been with him, but instead stayed with Albert throughout the entire story.
When Werther leaves Walheim, he writes that he is doing a good thing because it hurts him to much to see Lotte with another man. If Werther had an ounce of maturity he would at least have had the courtesy to tell Lotte he was leaving. It's my opinion that Werther leaves without telling Lottte just to cause her anguish for rejecting him.
When Werther decides to go back to Walheim it's because he misses Lotte, who has since married Albert and been just fine. Instead of letting Lotte enjoy her new marriage, Werther has to come back into her life more distressed than ever. When Werther finally tells Lotte exactly how he feels Lotte rejects him. It's obviously understandable that Werther would be sad and even depressed after this, but he goes way beyond what a normal person would do and decides to kill himself. I don't think Werthers suicide stems from his sadness, I believe he was trying hurt Lotte by showing her what she had driven him to do. Werthers plan works better than he expected, his suicide doesn't go smoothly and he lays on the floor dying for a long time.
Werther never shows any signs of caring about anyone but himself. He seems to be dependent on his family for income yet he doens't show any gratitude. He claims to be in love with Lotte yet he causes her more pain than joy. Most characters usually start off with problems or flaws but they progress throughout the story, Werther is no different at the beginning of the novel than he is at the end.

Romanticism

After discussing Romanticism in class on Thursday, I have come to find myself in agreement with the writers and artists of this era. Before this era, the writers and philosophers of the time were obsessed with finding reason and truth in every aspect of human life. They devoted their time to deciphering the human mind and actions, which is almost a lost cause in my opinion. The mind is so complex, why not move onto a part of humans that is a lot more blatant...feelings. Romanticists were obsessed with people who feel and create feeling rather than what goes on in the head. I think that people are so uptight at times with learning and intellect that if they took a minute to tap into their feelings and emotions they would see a change may be in order. Although I did not read all of Goethe, I found some messages in this book very real. On page 85 Goethe talks about how lived experience is more than what a person would learn from books. I completely agree with this statement. Life is hard and there isnt a book out there that will teach you how to live it right. Experiences on the other hand teach people lessons and how to better handle a situation the next time it occurs. I also liked when Goethe says life is composed of bliss, misery, and strength. There are things in life that are indeed blissful whether it be the birth of a son or daughter or marriage. There are also things in life that are miserable, like death, but there is strength in people that allow them to endure. Goethe had a correct outlook on life, in my opinion, because of his ability to trust his emotions and explore his heart. Again, I agree with the outlook the romanticists had and I think that if the philosophers of the time would have taken a page out of their book, they would have realized how much more life is about than arguing over who's method to truth is the best.

Romanticism and Goethe

After reading Goethe and then discussing Romanticism in class it's easy to discover the elements of Romanticism in the novel. There are many instances where it is apparent this was written in the romanticisim era. Dr. Matthews said Romanticism at it's heart is about conflict and this novel has plenty of conflict. Young Werther is in love with Lotte, who is already bethrothed to someone else whom she loves, yet he continues to pursue her even after she is married. This of course creates conflict between Werther and Lotte, Lotte and Albert as well as Albert and Lotte. In the end of the novel, Lotte has a conflict with herself. She isn't sure what to do after Werther finally puts his emotions into action and kisses her. She knows if she does fully reject him and tell him they can't see each other anymore that he will be so distraught and possibly kill himself. On the other hand, if she doesn't do this her marriage could be in jeopardy.
This novel is vastly different than Life is a Dream and Candide, since these two were focused more on philosophy and the meaning of life. Goethe doesn't attempt to answer philosophical questions, instead it addresses love and emotions (like all works written in the Romanticism era). Throughout the novel Werther is constantly discussing his emotions towards Lotte, her siblings, Albert, William- the infamous receiver of the letters and any other possible thing. It seems he has feelings about everything.
Another key component of Romanticism literature is the presence of nature. This is very prevalent in Goethe because he is constantly discussing the garden, the river, the hills and the outdoors. He talks about their impact on his emotions and what emotions they invoke in him. In Goethe, young Wether truly experiences nature with his body and his mind (another important aspect of Romanticism literature).

Artifacts & the present

The focus on history and past cultures that began with the neoclassical era is reflected much in today’s society. Archeology, which began with excavations at Herculaneum, has continued to grow throughout time and has contributed a great deal to the present. Museums such as the Louvre and Vatican both began to gather up numerous findings from past worlds. This new practice of searching for lost history has molded the society that we live in today.
From the artifacts that have been discovered throughout time, people have been able to learn about past societies and thus grow from the knowledge gained. By taking technologies discovered in our search for history, modern people have been able to manipulate former ideas to invent new technology. With ideas taken from the past we can see mistakes that earlier people made, and grow as a population. The history of earlier societies is a great aid to the continuance of our current civilization, and people in the Neoclassical era were able to realize this and start a new revolution of knowledge.

Absolutism

Absolutism in our American society is definetely viewed as evil. Although we have been conditioned to think in this manner, absolutism can have many advantages compared to a democracy. Our society is conditioned to think of naturalism as evil for a few reasons, war is one of them. Throughout the history of time the US has been at war with absolutist countries. Many of these countries are in a time of great despair before absolutist power takes over. This is because of the weak economy and the need for a quick government to be established without alot of complications. What can be less complicated than absolutism? One man descides everything and what he says goes. This is one of the advantages of absolutism. In our society today descisions, laws and rulings often take an extremely long time because of our democratized government. Everybody has to have their hand in on the descision, everyone must approve everything, everyone must make changes, and nobody can ever agree on anything. For these reasons our government is comlicated and judgements and descisions can take a very long time. In an absolutistic government the descisions are made immediately and without questioning or adjustment. This is clearly and extremely efficient means of government. On the other hand it is hard to find an absolutist leader that hasnt been driven crazy with power. Everything always seems to begin well, but as time goes on they begin to take advantage of their power and make drastic descisions that may not be in the best interest of anyone but themselves. For this reason, I dont believe that absolutism is the right form of government for any society. Although it may seem tempting, in time everything goes wrong in an absolutist government. Just looking at history i cant think that it would work out.

Locke

I, like most others in the blog, find my ideas lining up with Locke's the best. Unlike Descartes who believed humans are born with knowledge of things like math, Locke believes humans have an innate capacity to learn rather than innate knowledge. I agree with Locke on this point because the knowledge a person acquires comes from the way he/she is raised and the ideas put in his/her head by parents. I think a child has the ability to learn things like math but they are not born with it. If it were true that babies are born with innate knowledge of infinite perfection and whatnot then why aren't all people geniuses? Again, I believe knowledge relies upon the way a person is brought up and the ideas planted in their brain by the people that surround them. I also agree with his idea that the principles, "whatever is, is" and "it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be" are not universal ideas because there are people who do not have the mental capacity or stability to grasp ideas such as these. Like Locke said, it is through the senses that we gain ideas and concepts. For example at the age of 2 a toddler may not know that a stove is hot so he or she will touch it and by reaction pull back their hand because the sense of touch and heat tells them to. The next time the toddler sees the stove he or she will recognize, through the now ingrained sense of heat and pain that they remember from last time, and will not touch it again because their senses tell them not to. Experience is the main source of knowledge for people according to Locke and I totally agree with this principle. People are unique characters with an almost unlimited capacity for knowledge and feelings and thoughts, but it is through experiences and learning as they grow that shape their minds and determine how far that knowledge can run.

John Locke

Of the philosophers we studied in class on Thursday, the one whose ideas I agree with the most is John Locke. This is largely because I strongly disagree with the religious views of Spinoza. I disagree with his view that God is an idea or philosophy and with his attempt to strip God from his role as creator. I believe that God is the creator and is more than a philosophy and more than nature, which is all Spinoza took him to be. As far as Descartes, I respect that he acknowledges the presence of God as the creator of the world, but disagree with his view that God is not the caretaker or redeemer. I also disagree with the idea that God doesn’t interfere with humans and nature, one of the main principles of deism. I believe in a God that is active in the lives of His followers. I also think Descartes was wrong in believing that individuals are born with the knowledge of infinite perfection and math. Locke proved he was wrong in thinking this when he pointed out that if children weren’t aware of these innate ideas, then they weren’t innate. I also support Locke because he believed in faith, religion, and the existence of God. His view on the human mind is also more in accord with my own. Even though I don’t believe that the mind is completely empty or blank as he suggested, I agree with his ideas that experience and the senses shape the human mind. I agree with his thinking that humans are born with the potential for gaining knowledge, but that the knowledge is not already present in the brain.

John Locke's link to modern cognitive psychology

John Locke was the most important thinker to live in the Baroque period because he founded the tradition of empirical study. This became the basis of the modern sciences; especially psychology. One of the most important fields of modern psychology is the study of the brain's cognitive processes - called sensation and perception. These two terms describe how people first sense something in their environment, and how that is synthesized further in the mind. The study of sensation and perception has not drastically changed since its birth, with John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). The main point I am trying to make is that John Locke was much more than a philosopher, like Descartes. He was a man who made contributions that were essential to the formation of all modern sciences.
So the main question is then: which type of reasoning is more important, deductive (Descartes, obviously) or inductive reasoning (Locke). It seems pretty obvious that inductive reasoning led to the modern social sciences, but would Locke's inductive reasoning have come about if Descartes wouldn't have asked such profound questions? Descartes was the first to ask such profound, deep questions; he arguably started the Baroque philosophical movement. Locke, meanwhile, lived during the Baroque, but contributed to future progress much more than Descartes did. Therefore Descartes might have technically been the most "Baroque" thinker, but Locke was definitely the most influential on future generations.

John Locke

I most agree with the philosophy of John Locke. I agree that our experiences and senses are what determine our knowledge. I cannot agree with Descartes’ philosophy that people are born with innate ideas because it has been shown that different people know different ideas depending on where and how they live. Descartes claimed that people know of mathematics but many people in poorer nations know little of mathematics and according to Descartes they should. Unlike Descartes, Locke believes that we have innate capacity and that our experiences throughout life will determine how much and what kind of knowledge we will have. Therefore, places and people who value math and science will have more math and science experience whereas other places that value the arts will have more artistic experience. I like the metaphor that Locke uses in saying the mind is an empty cabinet in which ideas flow into it through the senses. This is how younger children learn. They experience something for the first time such as learning the alphabet. They see and hear the letters through the senses and after repetition they learn to recognize the letters as the alphabet and the names they correspond to and they then remember them. Eventually the children can form language with these letters, which was the ultimate goal. The second metaphor Locke uses is also good in the white paper with markings on it coming through experiences. Where Descartes would say everyone has the same innate ideas, Locke says people have different ideas but the same innate capacity. In the context of the metaphor, everyone has the same capacity, the paper, but different experiences (markings). If we examined the papers of different people in different places, we would see different markings and therefore different experiences and this makes sense even in today’s world. Furthermore, Locke believed in the optimistic view of humanity. This optimism would lead to a positive look on government that the people should have a good relationship with their government as opposed to a negative one under an absolute monarch and this would lead to the foundations of democracy. Locke helped lead to democratic governments and even our own government. John Locke’s philosophy on knowledge is one that I can agree with.

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.