Many of the travelers in our readings so far travel in a spirit of open-ended inquiry (even if they find it harder than they realize to escape from their prejudices and underlying assumptions). Diderot is more of an "armchair anthropologist" than a traveler. So committed is he to a certain lessons that can be learned from foreign cultures that he doesn't even need to travel himself in order to extract them. Instead he reworks and extrapolates from a travel narrative that was already out there--Bougainville's account of his voyages (please note that he does this with utter transparency--he wasn't trying to make anyone think he had made this voyage himself).
So: what are some of the specific claims that Diderot is trying to advance through this pseudo-travel-narrative? What does want readers to take away from their literary encounter with Tahiti?
Deadline: Friday (3/8), start of class.
4 comments:
Diderot seemed to try to portray a very anticlerical message in he supplement. The two biggest sections of the piece dealt with two men describing either their doubts about God, or their praises for the "savage" lifestyle of the Tahitians. Orou finds it hard to believe that a being could exist "who is everywhere, but nowhere to be seen; a craftsman who, without a head, hand or tools has made everything; etc.. (436). Orou expresses many doubts in his long stretch of speaking, but that one seemed to be one of the most prominent.
Man "B" doesn't necessarily attack religion, but praises the simple culture of the Tahitians. He respects the idea that they value life's basic needs rather than delving deeper into more complex issues. "B" also mentions how the laws of the Tahitians are "good laws" and that they are better than laws made by most civilized cultures.
I'm not so sure that Diderot is only attacking religion, but rules in general. He is probably using religion since most westerners during this time period, would probably understand what he message he is trying to tell. Orou is not only surprised that a being such as God can exist, what he really finds odd about religion is the fact that God is "everywhere but nowhere to be seen; who exist today and endures tomorrow without ever ageing a single moment; who commands and is not obeyed; who does bot prevent occurences which it is in his power to stop" (436). So God is just an obervant who has made a bunch of laws that should be followed, yet instead of helping out humans to follow the rules and be moral, he is pretty much useless. Not only that, but the ruler argues that such rules are pretty much useless since they are "contrary to the general order of things" (437). It is irrational to him that some being may constrict the actions that a human being can take, and the natural impulses that a human makes. In such a situation he describes the humans plight "worse than that of an animal" (437). In this way he is saying that not even the lowest of creatures are confined in such a way that they cannot enjoy what nature has givenn us. Not only that but the people that follow religion based on the thoughts of the magistrates and priest, this would mean that "nothing could then be true or false, good or evil, beautiful or ugly, unless it pleased [the] great craftsman and his magistrates and priest" (437). Orou has used the logic of the Chaplain against him, by criticizing the manner by which they decide what is what in life. If the opinions of the magistrates and priest were to change, then the people that follow them would come to believe it whether it's good or bad. For example if stealing became accepted by the magistrates and priest, it would no doubt be accepted by all, and that which was once considered bad would based on the opinion of a couple of people who are in power and free to change rules as they please. He argues that by creating rules all the people are doing is breeding "rascals and wretches, inspired by fear, punishment and remorse, depraving their conscience, corrupting their character" (437). Thus the decision to do good or bad no longer is decided by their conscience, but by the punishments that they could receive for such acts. It is only when people are able to come to terms with no stealing on their own, and not because they will get punish for it then they will truly be able to comphrehend what it means to be good. Eventually there will be people who will not care so much about punishment and when that happens there will be nothing that can stop them from committing bad behavior. On the other hand if they were able to see what is good or bad and arrived to the answer without any threats or fear of punishment can they truly know what is right and wrong.
After reading Jay’s and GaryM's blogs, I feel compelled to say that my blog is a gut reaction and is not meant to be flippant!
As I was reading the Longman preface and Diderot’s works, I kept thinking of the Charlie Harper character from the TV show Two and a Half Men. The TV character’s philosophy is not unlike Diderot’s philosophy. They both embrace an anti-marriage sentiment which validates the playboy lifestyle and, it seems to me, might be nothing more than an elaborate defense of the same. It’s not that I think Diderot’s commentary is shallow. Rather, in some small way, I give Two and a Half Men credit for being a “trip to Tahiti” for C21 audiences. C21 audiences love to watch Charlie’s shenanigans. I wonder if Diderot’s works received the same type of attention from the non-authority readers of C18?
This account by Diderot seems to focus on the contrast between Western societal values and what he sees as the logical values to have naturally. This is highlighted from the first page in the episode where Orou is confused at the unwillingness of the Chaplain to accept his daughter, saying the Chaplain's moral code prevents him from "enjoying an innocent pleasure to which Nature, that sovereign mistress, invites every person... rendering a service which the father mother and children all ask of you; repaying a gracious host, and enriching a nation"(434). Orou points out how this is a win-win arrangement and that the Chaplain has a code which conflicts with executing it suggests that it is not an applicable to peoples' lives. This is stated more clearly in the dialogue towards the end of the passage speaking of "religious institutions, which have attached the names of vice and virtue to actions which were not susceptible to moral judgement"(440).
Across this text, Diderot seeks to use these far-away people to make a point about the accepted systems of Europe, highlighting how impractical it appears to any outside observer.
Post a Comment