--Wald der Begeistert
Friday, March 4, 2011
Naturalism Presentations: Day 2
Today in class, the groups that did not get a chance to give their Naturalism projects yesterday presented them today. After watching two other groups, Georgina and I gave our report. I spoke mainly during the first half of the presentation. I discussed the definition of Naturalism according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), the significance of Naturalism as a philosophy, Darwin's influence on the development of Naturalism, and how Naturalism is connected to the Realist literary movement. I also spoke specifically about Jack London, and analyzed his short story, "To Build a Fire," and how it exhibited features of Naturalism and Realism. Georgina talked about Émile Zola, George Becker, and the Gilded Age. Our presentation went well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So what do you think of this philosophy/movement? Did Zola have some good ideas about using literature as analysis? Has the idea of natural law run amok in this movement? What do you think? I hope that it is clear from my last several comments exactly what I want you to do here and why it is necessary for you to do these posts for each day. I want to see how your thinking develops. And, of course, my hope is that you ARE thinking.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I see what you are trying to say in your comments. Excuse me if I seemed to be ignoring or purposely acting contradictory to your comments; I tend to read them in bursts every few days rather than daily, which is how you seem to make them as well.
ReplyDeleteAs for what I think of the Naturalist movement: Logically, the philosophy makes perfect sense, although I suppose that it is a bit tautological to say that a school of thought based in pure logic and reason is logical. What I mean by this, however, is that the idea of viewing the universe from a pure, unbiased, empirical standpoint holds a certain degree of appeal to me. Possessing a rather logical and analytical way of thinking myself, a strictly scientific weltanschauung is a philosophy that I can most definitely appreciate, if not necessarily totally agree with. While I believe that the vast majority of phenomena can be explained scientifically, I do believe in God (the Christian one, for what it's worth), and I certainly believe that things happen for a reason. I would even go so far as to aver that *all* things happen for a reason. However, I do believe that these occurrences, despite their super-inherent significance, take place by natural and explainable means. I suppose a way to sum up my position on the matter would be to say that I believe that HOW things happen is natural and can be explained by the empirical sciences, but WHY things happen may transcend into the metaphysical.
What I think about Zola: Frankly, I did not read any Zola. Georgina did, but I read more about the actual philosophy of Naturalism as a whole than exploring its application in literature.
Has the idea of natural law run amok in this movement: The idea of natural law *defines* this movement. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question. If you are asking whether or not I think that a philosophy based exclusively in secular science is overkill, then yes, I do. I am certainly no Romantic, but there has to be some degree of balance between the head and the heart.
And finally, I wish to express my opinion on these blogs and your goal in making us do them, if I may. The idea itself is a good one: by writing about what we do each day, we not only prove to you that we took in some of the information presented to us, but we also demonstrate that we can recall it in a (hopefully) coherent and thoughtful manner. The system itself is quite efficient as well; it works a lot better than some of the other electronic assignment systems I've had to deal with while attending this school. However, I don't believe we can truly describe how certain things that we read change our way of thinking on a daily basis. Such a statement requires explanation and support, which I am prepared to give: For individual works, especially ones by different authors, it is not terribly difficult to read the text, think about it, and blog a short summary/analysis/reflection on it on a daily basis, but in a situation where we are doing an extended project, there is only so much we can say about what we are studying each day. When the subject is something like a philosophy or a movement, it is difficult to truly give an in depth analysis of it more than once. I suppose a possible suggestion would be to explore the core concepts of the philosophy itself one day, and reflect on its ideas expressed in a number of literary works over the following days, but as I was really just trying to get an overall picture of Naturalism per se, this wouldn't have really worked for me. Moreover, on days which we are constructing an actual presentation rather than gathering information, there is little more one can blog about than a straightforward description of what we did. Of course, at this point, seeing as the project is already over, most of these concerns are null and void. In the event of a similar, future project, however, my points would hold equally true. I suppose my aim in even expressing them is to at least show you that, contrary to what you may believe, I do in fact think from time to time.