Montaigne
All of this brings me to the question, are all social practices equally valid, good, true, beautiful? Should we never judge other people's culture? Are there no absolutes?
Is everything relative? Some radical postmodern theorists would agree that this is true. And on some level, everything we feel is 'correct' has its root in cultural assumptions and stereotypes. Even the profound American confidence in individualism and freedom is not universal. Some European nations prize the value of socialism and the welfare of the community equally as much as the American ideal of 'don't tread on me.' In other words, even in the so-called developed world, what is considered to be true is actually a cultural product and is nationally contextual. What is beautiful has famously shifted from age to age, as the beauty of a modernist Picasso painting or the spare architecture of a Frank Lloyd Wright design would be hideous in the eyes of a Victorian aesthete.
But taken to its logical conclusion, radical relativism is quite dangerous, and leads to self-destruction of societies. Although standards may be infinitely more flexible than they may appear to be, this does not mean that all standards are equally life-sustaining. A cannibalistic society would literally consume itself, even though Montaigne grapples with the innate disgust of cannibalism in the essay where he muses about the possibilities of relativism as an ideology. A society founded upon genocide or warlike violence must be contained, lest it threaten the existences and equally valid perspectives of neighboring cultures.
And there is the paradox that although cultural tolerance of diverse practices may be a new ideal, and itself a cultural product, such tolerance as a universal value is necessary to create a world of multicultural lands living side-by-side in a state of peace. There may be no unchanging world values, but values that enable the world to function and remain in a state of peace and homeostasis must be judged superior to those that do not allow such peaceful coexistence.
As Diaz states: some fifty of us soldiers clambered up and overturned the idols, which rolled down the steps and were smashed to pieces. Some of them were in the form of fearsome dragons as big as calves and others half-man half-dog and hideously ugly. When thy saw their idols shattered the Caciques and the papas who were with them wept and covered their eyes; and they prayed to their
If the soul is immortal, then the perspective upon death changes. Suddenly, it is no longer so scary, since it does not represent an ending but a mere passage to another type of existence. However, there are other implications which we can not afford to ignore. The most important one refers to the just way in which man must lead his life. The responsibility for our actions is to be
The play continues in a similarly tragic manner as all the children are shot without having any real guilt to defend themselves against. The play ends symbolically with Mother Courage pulling the cart in which there are now fewer supplies and no children, an overwhelming imagistic that the war practically takes away everything you have dear and leaves you empty. While Brecht's play is very direct and uses a lot of
Plato, Augustine and Montaigne all define friendship in different ways, though they share many similarities. Augustine, for instance, defined it in terms of the ultimate aim of man as a Christian, which is to be united to God: a friend was thus one who assisted or supported the development of that holy union. Plato viewed friendship in a more philosophical (and less theological vein) but nonetheless defined it as one
Katharine, what Montaigne means is that inanity which we human beings are full of is one of those things that makes life worth living. The absurdism and comedy in life and in each other are the things that make life so unique and so worthwhile. In returning to your life, your children, your family and friends, I feel you will be able to rediscover this absurdism, the silliness in
Anti-Colonialism Montaigne: The Embodiment of Identity as Grounds for Toleration A crucial issue between many identity groups is conflict. Toleration by definition is basically the rejection of a belief or practice, which is followed by restraint of one's self from suppressing that belief. Those seeking to make social and political aspects of toleration among people from different backgrounds need to delve more deeply into the idea of toleration; what it means and
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now