Sunday, September 18, 2011
Conquer natural inclination?
So the question for this first entry is, what do you think of Benjamin Franklin's project for moral perfection? Henry David Thoreau a writer in our near future, once said, "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate himself through conscious endeavor." What do you think of this sentiment? Should we always be pushing to improve ourselves, to make ourselves the persons that we hope to be? Or should we relax, accept ourselves for who we are, and go about the business of living our lives? Walt Whitman, perhaps the polar opposite of Franklin, once said, "I exist as I am, that is enough." What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The argument in question is whether to accept who we were born as, or to live life trying to better ourselves. Walt Whitman claims the first while Henry David Thoreau argues the latter. Personally, I think that you aren't forced to accept every single thing about yourself if there's something you don't like. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take pride in who you are. You want to find a happy medium in this argument. For example, if there are certain qualities that you know you exhibit, you should work to overcome them and improve yourself. If you are a lazy person, you can consciously work to resolve the laziness and unwillingness to work hard. I agree with Franklin on this point, in his quest for self-improvement and moral perfection. He was clearly willing to work to be the best person possible, and he believed that he ultimately achieved this goal. However, Walt Whitman's statement also carries some truth. Even if there is something you don't like about your background or your true self, you should be proud of who you are and live that life to the fullest potential. You don't have to hate yourself and be unsure of yourself, but don't be extreme by relaxing, being inert and viewing yourself as completely flawless. Don't sweat the small things and constantly be preoccupied and paranoid about things such as your outer appearance or background. It's really a balance between the two that we should strive to achieve.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Franklin has a view of perfection that isn't realistic. Human's were born and made to make mistakes so that we learn from them so that in the long run we actually do end up as being better people. And relating to Thoreau's quote, I think Franklin would agree because Franklin himself was a man that worked his way up all by himself, despite Franklin having a different set of fundamentals. Personally, I think every one has something to work on and something that could always be better. But, I don't think it is worth it to get stressed or overly disappointed over trivial bad habits. Like Meghan, I also believe that there should be a medium with both of Whitman's and Franklin's ideas. Both beliefs are some what extreme. For example, I don't think it's healthy for someone to never do their homework and be fine with it because they exist as they are and that should be enough. They're lazy and it isn't fine. But it also isn't healthy to be obsessed with your grades to the point of getting no sleep because of your attempt at perfection or even because of taking on too many AP classes. I think both views end up in the same place. They both end up being better people just by the fact that they are content with themselves at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Franklin’s steps to attain moral perfection are completely skewed because they do not leave much room for human error. Franklin makes these goals that are completely impossible to attain and in a lot of ways many people would not want to attain them. One example of a goal that most people would not comply with is number 2. Silence, which basically says do not speak unless you have something important to say. This can be controversial because if you only say things for purpose then you cannot have conversations or get to know people. Thoreau agrees with Franklin by saying that if you put your mind to it and are determined to be successful, then you can conquer natural inclination and become successful. Whitman is opposite because he thinks that you are born one way and should not change who you are because who you are which is already good enough. I agree with both Megan and Arianna, when they said that you need a little bit of both sides to make a complete “good” person. To become a better person you have to want to be better and it may take some sacrifices but you cannot always be worrying about what you can do to be a better person, you have to accept yourself.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone who has mentioned this in the previous post, I agree that Benjamin's perception on perfectly is something that is completely unattainable, and unrealistic. Perfection is something that although is a nice idea, by eliminating human error out of ones life, how are you suppose to grow and develop? Although I believe that it's important that if there's something that can be improved, like a ones ability to understand math homework, or ones health and exercise habits, then its okay to change those things about yourself because those are the types of changes that can make you a better person. However, Franklin's theory of changing yourself COMPLETELY for the sake of perfection makes no sense because not only is perfection unattainable, some could say that changing yourself is a type of imperfection all it's own. Like Caroline said, it's important to accept the type of person that you are because it's what makes you, you. I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to be the best you can, but you also shouldn't completely change everything about yourself. It's only logical to find a happy medium between the two. You're not human without making mistakes, but it only makes sense to have the ability to improve yourself when it's necessary. So being somewhere between Whitman's and Franklin's theories, seems like a pretty good place to be for me.
ReplyDeleteI believe Franklins goal for absolute moral perfection is certainly a lofty one, but i do believe that growth and movement in a positive direction in all aspects of life is good. Walt Whitman had an acceptance of who he was, but that didn't necessarily make him a stagnant character. He was no doubt changing mentally, emotionally, physically, in whatever area it may be. While perfection may not have been the end result, growth probably occurred, mentally by reading a book, or emotionally simply through new experiences and new understandings of people and the world, which is a changing in a persons current state, a step toward perfection. An active choice of personal growth doesn't necessarily entale ones rejection of who they are and what they were born with its more an attempt to maximise what they were given. The fact that perfection can not be completely attained must be realized, its simply not a quality humans can posses, but growth is good. I think the state that exists between Franklin's ambition for perfection and Whitman's acceptance of self is one that will bring both success and happiness to an individual
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Franklin's standards of moral perfection are goals that can ultimately never be attained. His ideas of constantly working to better yourself to become a perfect person completely disregard many habits of human nature. Among these human traits is making mistakes. Mistakes are inevitable, but they pose as a crucial learning experiences. Without mistakes, people may possess less knowledge due to the lack of experiences or risks in their lives. Franklin's idea to improve ones self can also be considered a self centered act. When a person is only spending time making themselves better, they may forget to focus on the more important things in life, like family and friends. I believe that Walt Whitman's quote is a much more optimistic and realistic idea and i semi-agree with his statement. He says that a person should be happy with who they are and not worry about being anything else. I agree that a person should be proud of who they were born as, but at the same time they should be able to address their own faults and work to fix them. As everyone else has said, it's important to find a middle ground between these two opposing arguments. One should strive for success, but never lose themselves or what's important to them in the process. A person should be confident in who they are, yet at the same time, be able to make necessary changes to their character that will make them a more honorable and kind individual.
ReplyDeleteI believe the choice is ultimately up to the individual. There really is no "should" or "shouldn't" in this matter. I personally think that one should always have hopes and dreams, however, I don't think that one should be constantly looking for improvement. For if a person were to go throughout their lif doing that, nothing would ever be good enough to make the person happy. I mean, I don't know about everyone else, but one of my main goals in life is to be completely and utterly happy. And I know that if i was always looking for something better or something to improve on, I would never ever get even close to achieving that.
ReplyDeleteAs Kelly said, there shouldn't be any one way to live. Benjamin Franklin wrote this autobioagraphy as a list of personal achievements but more importantly, he made it seem casually possible so that the reader felt the were capable of a "rag to riches" type story themselves. Everything that happens in this world is perceived differently by every individual. This idea, which I totally remember from Mr. Wineholt's class, is called The Theorem of Relativity. Meaning I could stand next to Kelly and listen to a presentation on why drugs are bad and both she and I could have completly different perceptions or opionions on it even though we both witnessed the same thing. The theorem of relativity applies to this question. Should we be content with who we are, or should we strive to be better than what we think we are? I think we should a healthy balance of both. I think striving or competing with yourself to be better really tests and reveals your work ethic, ambition, and priorites because it's completly your choice and your responsibility to be the "4.0" version of yourself. You will never know what you are truly capable of until you push youself but at the same time, one should be happy with what they have and who they are. Majority of the world isn't. And I think it's truly special when you find someone who is absolutely sure about who they are, and that they're happy with it. Push yourself to see what you can do, but enjoy your natural inclinations. Because our gut feelings, or tendencies, tend to be towards who and what we really care about.
ReplyDeleteI believe that reaching the perfection that Benjamin Franklin is refering to all depends on your definition of the word. Granted, most people when looking at the word would say that perfection means without flaws or an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence. However, when you ask people to describe the "perfect" life, many would include a bit about being able to rest and relax. This completely contradicts Franklins statement about living a life that is solely productive. This would result in a person not having a "perfect" life, and thus not moral perfection. Also, Walt Whitman seemed quite content with just existing as he was. Another element that I think lends its self to all of the ideas, it the notion that everyone is born with the same potential, and that it depends on what they do in life that determins their success.This continues off of Kelly's idea that there is no one way for a person to live, and that path is left up to the individual. We do, however, all have the potential for greatness. David Thoreau states this perfectly when he says, "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate himself through conscious endeavor." It is this conscious endeavor that allows him to reach his full potential in his life. When Walt Whitman comments on being happy with just existing, he shows that one does not have to continuously strive throughout their life to be happy.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the perfect life is one were like sarah said is just pure relaxation. Though some achievement and accomplishment is felt after hard work and effort, the greatest part is finishing and not having to worry about the work any more. But unfortunately hard work and good ethics such as those of Franklin's are required to enjoy such relaxation. My dream would be to travel the world eating the best fruits and snacks that the beautiful tropical places of the world have to offer. But i can't do that unless i get a diploma, a good college education, and make alot of money with a career. Hard work is definately rewarding, but the perfect life has none of it.
ReplyDelete1. I definantly think that Nwanda is much more of a hero than a punk. He was the only boy out of the group that really grasped the idea of carpe diem. Although me may have taken it to an extreme at some points (the phone prank), and he may have been a little out of line and more punk-ish when he punched the ginger kid (but in Nwanda's defense he was being annoying), Nwanda always had good intentions and he never sought to harm anyone. I think that he was the only boy who was confident and moral enough to stand up to his parents, teachers and classmates in order to do the right thing and not sell out Mr. Keating. Nwanda is a very loyal character, he is loyal to his friends, the dead poet's society, and in the end he is loyal to Mr. Keating. He doesn't sign the agreement in the end, and in doing so , he is expelled. This can be looked at as a stupid act, or it can be viewed as a very courageous one. I agree with Caroline when she said that Nwanda caould be considered a role model. He stays true to himself and his beliefs even though that leads him to be rebellious. But in many cases isn't rebellion sometimes a heroic act? Think about that...
ReplyDelete5. I dont know if this is a question or just for fun, but I'm going to talk about it because i found the scenes with the birds rather extraordinary. I think that having the flocks of birds can symbolize either conformity (because they are all flying together in the same direction), or they can symbolize freedom, free thinking and nature. Having birds in the movie not only showed off the landscape and wildlife surrounding the school, it also gave a nice break from the heavy parts of the movie. In one scene there was a flock of Canada Geese: did you know that in the summer, some Northern populations of these geese make a trip all the way to Greenland! And the next group is a flock of wrens: did you know that the average baby wren can eat up to five hundred times a day? Just a few fun facts.