Is Man Naturally Good?
Quintessence writes, quoting me:
". . . the erroneous belief in the natural goodness of man": That makes me so sad. What a pessimistic view. . . . I'm probably just confused, but shouldn't that mean that when you get a new batch of students you trust none of them[?] You would expect them to lie steal kill cheat and otherwise sin until they've proven you otherwise. Haha I do think I'm mistaken sorry. Will you explain what you mean? The goodness of man is one of my primary beliefs and I don't understand how it's so easily dismissed. I automatically trust people and believe they will strive toward good until they disprove me. And even if they do disprove me, I still have hope for them. --Posted by Quintessence to Raplog at 12/01/2005 11:02:38 PM
I’m very glad Quintessence has written because it provides a good opportunity to point out the importance of dialectic reasoning. Please notice that I did not say “the erroneous belief in the goodness of man” but “the erroneous belief in the NATURAL goodness of man.”
The key is the difference between the idea of natural goodness and
a) man’s goodness as a creation of God (“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good”); and
b) man’s goodness as a function of his own free moral choices.
Of course I trust students until they show me I shouldn't. Of course I’m optimistic. (One can't keep teaching for long if one is truly pessimistic; why bother?) And of course I have hope even for those who disappoint me, just as I have hope for myself when I disappoint them, which I’m afraid, being human, I do all the time. But I trust and hope because my students have, in varying degrees, been taught the value of choosing to be good.
However, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that man is naturally good and it is society that corrupts him, he altered the picture significantly.
This is not the place for a full lecture on the destructive influences of Rousseau and Romanticism from the late 18th century to the present. (There have been some good influences as well.) But if we believe in the natural goodness of man, we begin to think (wrongly) that “getting back to nature,” “following our impulses,” being guided solely by our feelings, letting children decide what they should learn, and freak dancing are the best ways to preserve individual goodness from the evil of society (not noticing that all these notions have been embraced and are taught by our popular culture—i.e., society!).
I believe, instead, that we are created to be good, but that our goodness is hard won, the result of education in the difference between good and evil and of the myriad choices between good and evil that we are called upon to make between the age of moral responsibility and the age of senility.
Now keep thinking dialectically: I’m not saying all feelings and impulses are bad or that we should never follow them. I’m only saying that they need to be governed by the reason and the will, so that we follow the good ones and resist the bad ones.
Why would anyone write a blog if he thought man were naturally good, and why would he think anyone should listen to him? He’d only tell people, as pop singers and beat writers do, to ignore him and drop out, go with the flow, let it be, follow your bliss, etc. (But have you noticed that even pop stars and beat writers don't drop so far out that they refuse to let society publish and distribute their words? And who but society is persuading us to gobble them up?)
Neither mind nor goodness is merely natural, and though nature is good, it doesn't itself care about goodness. Man is created to be good, but we all need help in learning what is good and in striving to pursue it.
". . . the erroneous belief in the natural goodness of man": That makes me so sad. What a pessimistic view. . . . I'm probably just confused, but shouldn't that mean that when you get a new batch of students you trust none of them[?] You would expect them to lie steal kill cheat and otherwise sin until they've proven you otherwise. Haha I do think I'm mistaken sorry. Will you explain what you mean? The goodness of man is one of my primary beliefs and I don't understand how it's so easily dismissed. I automatically trust people and believe they will strive toward good until they disprove me. And even if they do disprove me, I still have hope for them. --Posted by Quintessence to Raplog at 12/01/2005 11:02:38 PM
I’m very glad Quintessence has written because it provides a good opportunity to point out the importance of dialectic reasoning. Please notice that I did not say “the erroneous belief in the goodness of man” but “the erroneous belief in the NATURAL goodness of man.”
The key is the difference between the idea of natural goodness and
a) man’s goodness as a creation of God (“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good”); and
b) man’s goodness as a function of his own free moral choices.
Of course I trust students until they show me I shouldn't. Of course I’m optimistic. (One can't keep teaching for long if one is truly pessimistic; why bother?) And of course I have hope even for those who disappoint me, just as I have hope for myself when I disappoint them, which I’m afraid, being human, I do all the time. But I trust and hope because my students have, in varying degrees, been taught the value of choosing to be good.
However, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that man is naturally good and it is society that corrupts him, he altered the picture significantly.
This is not the place for a full lecture on the destructive influences of Rousseau and Romanticism from the late 18th century to the present. (There have been some good influences as well.) But if we believe in the natural goodness of man, we begin to think (wrongly) that “getting back to nature,” “following our impulses,” being guided solely by our feelings, letting children decide what they should learn, and freak dancing are the best ways to preserve individual goodness from the evil of society (not noticing that all these notions have been embraced and are taught by our popular culture—i.e., society!).
I believe, instead, that we are created to be good, but that our goodness is hard won, the result of education in the difference between good and evil and of the myriad choices between good and evil that we are called upon to make between the age of moral responsibility and the age of senility.
Now keep thinking dialectically: I’m not saying all feelings and impulses are bad or that we should never follow them. I’m only saying that they need to be governed by the reason and the will, so that we follow the good ones and resist the bad ones.
Why would anyone write a blog if he thought man were naturally good, and why would he think anyone should listen to him? He’d only tell people, as pop singers and beat writers do, to ignore him and drop out, go with the flow, let it be, follow your bliss, etc. (But have you noticed that even pop stars and beat writers don't drop so far out that they refuse to let society publish and distribute their words? And who but society is persuading us to gobble them up?)
Neither mind nor goodness is merely natural, and though nature is good, it doesn't itself care about goodness. Man is created to be good, but we all need help in learning what is good and in striving to pursue it.
posted by G.Rap | 11:23 AM
15 Comments:
Dr. Rapp. I've got nothing to say about this blog. It's all fine and good and well-stated. I do have something to say, however, about your continued unexplained abuse of contemporary music. You owe your readers an explanation of your beliefs regarding modern folk art, particularly modern folk music. What's good? What's not? Why and why not? In my mind, your credibility in discussing modern folk art went straight down the toilet when you insulted Paul Simon's genius. So if I'm all wrong, and the men I think are geniuses are quacks, enlighten me. Who from this century is a genius? Which of our folk artists are valuable? I will be open minded in my reading of what you write.
I might remind you that Skakespeare was, in his time, a folk artist. He drew audiences in by creating characters with ass-heads and a propensity for lewd language. Please don't cite the occassional fluffy or bawdy lyric as reason to disregard an artist. Everybody writes something fun like "Cecilia" every once in a while.
Hoping to hear from you very soon,
Craig
Well said, Craig.
And you too Dr. Rapp :)
I'd really be interested to read that too. ::pokes Dr. Rap::
That'd be an excellent raplog entry.
Ok. You'll get your wish soon. Only I wish Craig wouldn't abolish distinctions so cavalierly. If I criticize particular examples of modern "folk" music, it is not because they are modern or folk, nor do I think I am abusing anything, let alone a whole class of music. There are plenty of old Elizabethan plays (not Shakespeare's) that I thinks are forgettable, and newness is no reason to disapprove of something--or to approve of it. It is Craig who seems to be making a fetish of the present day. I hope my judgments are based on the qualities of the works I'm talking about, not on their age. And really--reminding me that Shakespeare was a popular artist in his day is like reminding CBS news that there's a presidential election every four years. Get real. But I will turn my thoughts to his questions.
slap slap!
No offense, Dr. Rapp, but if Craig is making a "fetish out of the present day," I don't think that's entirely his fault. We've sort of been taught to do that . . . ever since the cult of the avant-garde (1900's or so), "modern" has been the word on everybody's lips. It's all about what's new, not what's necessarily right. It's not his fault that he's been influenced by that.
Woah there, Anonymous. With people like you defending my position, I no longer need Dr. Rapp to attack it. I've read The Aeneid, The Tain Bo Cualgne, Gilgamesh, and I'm halfway through Dante. I read The Tain and Gilgamesh of my own volition. I have no "fetish" that excludes me from appreciating ideas put forth hundreds of years ago. I simply don't think it's fair to disregard an idea simply because it originated in the last hundred years. The way in which Dr. Rapp seems to treat contemporary music (or, as he lumps it all into: "raging words screamed to a primitivistic beat or syrupy words whispered to a sentimental drone") seems particularly unfair. Of personal concern to me is the fact that Dr. Rapp nonchalantly disregards what I consider to be the flat-out genius of Paul Simon. I would simply like to know why. I want to know why Paul Simon isn't great and who in our time is. I would like the names of musicians, poets, and authors. I believe that if Dr. Rapp is going to continue to hurl insults at our artists, he owes them an explanation regarding why they deserve it.
Why would anyone be anonymous when one can just as easily make up a cool name?
I must say that in the context of Craig's comments and Dr. Rap's blogs, to describe Craig as having a "fetish for the new" is a bit inappropriate. I mean, if we're going to start accusing people of having fixations for time periods, then why doesn't anyone point out that the only people Dr. Rap ever refers to are those who have made an impact before hte 20th or even 19th century (granted, with the exception of C.S. Lewis) and that even his blog background is the color of worn parchment? If anyone has a fetish for time, Craig's not hte one to be accused. I mean, a great man (or woman) is great not because of his time period or his company or his audience, but because of his ideas and his intellect and his art. Am I wrong?
Anyway, the main point is: the comment about Craig was very much out of place.
I'll wait for a real answer to Craig's well-stated question.. until then, lay off of the unnecessarily snide comments, okay?
On an un-Craig related thought: you once told me that we cannot trust humanity. Is that statement based off this concept of our goodness being hard won (in addition to our fallen state)? At the time I couldn't understand how one couldn't, or shouldn't, put faith in humanity. Maybe it's a semantics error of mine. Then again even after discussing it with you, I still cannot understand how people can cause others to suffer or just stand aside in the face of suffering. And because of that I fear I am losing faith in humanity. I just don't understand it. Maybe you can help.
Craig is right!
He had nothing to say about this blog.
I know that the media attacked recently has been music, but i believe that you could swap in video games as well and blame them for 'corrupting our youth.' On that note i would suggest reading http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
in regards to "No one's scrambling MY eggs."'s comment...
Whoa there, calm down. From a completely neutral point of view, I think it should be pointed out first and foremost that any comments Dr. Rapp and Craig make to each other are certainly not based solely, or even mainly, on content to be found in this blog. The basis for discussion and anything that they say here comes not only from blog content but also from what they know of one another in other contexts, namely at school.
Secondly, I would point out to you that in trying to turn accusations in Dr. Rapp's direction, all that you have really done is restate almost the exact question that Craig had asked originally, although in terms that make you sound more angry, bitter, and accusatory than curious, as I think Craig originally intended the question to be read.
That's my two cents, anyways.
- Sarah
I did not intend to "turn accusations in Dr. Rapp's direction" - I was simply giving an example of how seemingly absurd (well, this is how it sounded to me) to accuse someone of having a fetish of a time period. I wasn't accusing Dr. Rapp - I don't think he has any sort of fetish for the old. I think he has an appreciation for it. That was the point I was trying to make - it seemed as if he was overanalyzing Craig's question, just as I was "mock" overanalyzing the nature of his blog background. I'm sorry you didn't see that.
I know Dr. Rapp knows Craig in a much wider context than a normal, detached reader of this blog would understand. Even if Craig had done something outside of this blog worthy of the accusation of having a 'fetish for the new,' its still quite unfair for him to bring that up in response to Craig's question about Paul Simon. I really don't see what point you're making - Craig asked a simple and well-stated question about Dr. Rapp's continuous ragging on contemporary music, and it seemed to me that Dr. Rapp responded a little more aggressively than he perhaps intended.
I have reread my comment, and I fail to see how it is "bitter" or "angry" - "defensive" and "assertive" I can see, but anything past that - you must admit - is probably overanalyzation. I respect Dr. Rapp immensely, and I respect Craig as a friend and colleague as well. So tell me, SKB, do YOU think that Dr. Rapp, in the context of this blog, was 100% right to make that comment? I doubt he meant it to sound the way it did, and I merely meant to point that out.
one more thing - why do you consider your view more "neutral" than mine? (I know you didn't say this outright, but you seem to imply it in your first sentence.)
Post a Comment
<< Home