Universal "We" vs. Informal "You" and "I"
Look over comments from Schopenhauer essay, discuss
The Importance of Active Verbs
Complete worksheet, discuss
Grade student examples using rubric, provide rationale
HW: Rewrite your Schopenhauer essay without using "you" or "I",
and with ALL active verbs, unless absolutely impossible.
Put all verbs in ALL CAPS. (Post as comment to THIS Blog). Due
7 am.
21 comments:
I really don't know if I did this all right, but here goes!
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer had unconventional views when he asserted that reading BURDENED the mind and the truest geniuses THINK independently. He incorrectly asserted that reading causes the mind to suffer under ideas it does not like, it robs the mind of elasticity, and it leads to one becoming more foolish than they would by nature. Reading can both stimulate individual thought and it can also broaden one’s perspective.
There have been features written about practically every topic man kind knows of. Much can be learned from reading those features. And when one man reads literature with good content, his mind OPENS UP to new thoughts. He will relate things in his life to the literature, he will compare or contrast, and he will draw messages from the writing. Those messages can expand his mind further and stimulate many new thoughts he never would have had without reading. Just relying on thought alone, he never would have reached conclusions that the reading pushed him to reach.
Furthermore, when one reads, it does not “rob the mind of elasticity”. Reading pieces on new topics can enlighten the mind of what the outside world holds and how others think and feel. This can open the mind further to new ideas and emotions. IRONICALLY, Schopenhauer dislikes reading and FINDS it a bad art when his feelings towards reading are written- intended to be read, and intended to stimulate the mind of its readers, something he claims books do not do.
If a man relies on just his thoughts to learn and grow, he will go nowhere. Not every man has the opportunity to experience life and learn from his surroundings, and books teach those who cannot. Therefore, reading does not stifle the mind. It broadens it.
Schopenhauer used a quote by Pope Duncaid III: “Forever reading, never to be read.” This quote FALSELY means that man who surrounds himself with books, then writes his own, will fail. When one reads, they learn not only the facts and knowledge in the books, but the technique and style of the author. Their vocabulary expands and they can develop techniques for writing well. Their works have a greater chance of being read than a common man, who wrote a work based solely off his thoughts. That man may have less knowledge of authoring and therefore, a less appealing work.
When one writes, they create art, meant to be enjoyed by many. If one ACHIEVES writing well then their art should be shared and enjoyed by the world. Reading a written work SHOWS appreciation for it and gives its ideas a chance. By doing this, one expands their mind and their capacity for intelligent thought. Reading does not CREATE fools out of men, nor does it suppress men. In truth, reading broadens the mind, engages new thoughts, shares knowledge, and creates an appreciation for the written word.
Men that read a lot tend to be more intelligent than most. Reading shows thought and wonders. Wonders from a man becomes more elastic when he READS, forcing him to think about what is going on in the world even more. Therefore, he will see things clearly, taking a different APPROACH to LIVING life.
“ If a man does not want to think, the safest plan is to take up a book directly he has a spare moment.” A quote that many may not AGREE on, German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, stated these words saying that reading forces thoughts into the brain, causing men not to think for themselves. CHALLENGING his words, many BELIEVE that it takes thought to read a book. To comprehend and UNDERSSTAND reading, one must EVALUATE the setting, vocabulary and ideas that are in the book. Reading SETS FORTH our creativeness and mind on life situations.
Others may also ARGUE that even if men BELIEVE that reading a book EXEMPLIFIES him from thinking, he is wrong. He may not be thinking about what he was thinking before he picked up the book, but now his mind EXPANDS. He now becomes more of an intellectual, COMPARING how he views the world to the author of a book, CONSTRUCTING new ideas.
In conclusion, Arthur Schopenhauer’s assertion is CHALLENGED with the fact that reading certainly causes one to think. Ideas and expansion of thought comes from a simple read.
DO books or images GIVE the reader more room for imagination? Schopenhauer CLAIMS that those who WANT to LEARN read from books but those who have “ENLIGHTENED” the world have EXPERIENCED it themselves. Schopenhauer correctly ASSERTS that the smart men JOURNEY the world themselves.
Those who have MADE a huge impact on the world have BASED their ideas on what they have EXPERIENCED as compared to STUDYING it from a book. Schopenhauer STATES that “Thinkers, geniuses, and those who have enlightened the world and furthered the race of man, are those who have made a direct use of the book of the world”. In other words, the smartest of all people have USED the “book of the world”, that is TRAVELING the world and ANALYZING it to CREATE their assertions and ideas.
Studying from books GIVES man less room for expressing his true thoughts. “This is why much reading robs the mind of all elasticity”. Reading books does not ALLOW the reader to THINK any other way than what IS said in the text. He states “if a man does not want to think, the safest plan is to take up a book he has a spare moment.” He HINTS that if one WANTS to be SUCCESSFUL and PURSUE his own thoughts do not PICK UP a book. Those who WANT to SHARE and LEARN about his ideas must JOURNEY the world.
Books DO no good for those who WANT to EXPRESS their own imagination and thought because there IS not room for that in reading. The smartest people of all time have EXPERIENCED the world and themselves as compared to reading a book which TELLS them what to think.
Reading and thinking are two things thath go hand and hand, but when we COMPARE the two to see which is more important and helpful in life, thought has most logic.
When we read, our minds are being controlled and told what to think. Being told the plot, setting, characters, ending, facts, and statistics does not allow us to use our minds and imnaginations to think up the unthinkable. In addition, without THOUGHT there would be no purpose to read because when we read we have to think an image in our heads. Thinking is a skill we have to have in order to read, but we dont have to read to be a successful thinker.
Conceding to the fact some belive that reading makes us out to be successful and we need it to move on, but to SPECULATE deeper into it, reading does not define us or make us who we are. "Men of learning are those who have read the contents of books. Thinkers, geniuses, and those who have enlightend the world and furthured the race of men oare those who have made direct use of the book of the world. Arthur Schopenhauer." For example, is someone wants to be a fashion designer, that person could read every single book in the whole wide world about making clothes but it still would not make him/her successful. The person would have to use their mind to think up original and exotic pieces that would set them aside from everyone else and draw attention to themselves for marketing their product. Without thinking to oneself and being our own kind of creative that no book can teach us how to do, sucess is out of the question.
Reading is a talent and thinking is a needed giving. Without thinking we would not be ourselves. Thinking is the root of all success, without it nothing would be right. Our writing would be bland with no type of personal creativity. Reading would have no significance becuase there would be no ability to come up witha vivid picture of whats being read in our minds. Reading all day long robs us a whole days worth of constructive creativity that could have gotten us to the next step in life. While thinking to oneself and being our own creative person opens doors for us to take the next step to self made success.
Most people CONSIDER reading an important activity. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, however, ASSERTS that reading SLOWS mental development, PREVENTS diversity of thought, and RESTRICTS significant contributions to the world. He BELIEVES that successful writing COMES from thinking for oneself because that PROVIDES a wider variety of ideas. Books, however, MANIFEST man’s thoughts and “thinkers, geniuses, and those who have enlightened the world” would BENEFIT most from a balance of reading and thinking.
Schopenhauer IDOLIZES the thoughts of men and ARGUES that they should be free from outside pressures. He hypocritically DENOUNCES reading, even though books HOLD the very thoughts he ADMIRES. Reading does not have to RESTRICT thought; reading SUPPLEMENTS thought. When one READS something new, the information SPEEDS the thinking process and PROVIDES the writer with more ideas to develop. Reading does not “rob the mind of all elasticity”; rather, it DIVERSIFIES thought, MOVING the mind in different directions like a “spring” and often inciting action. History EXEMPLIFIES the idea that books move men to action. During the Progressive movement in the United States, Upton Sinclair WROTE The Jungle, an exposé of the meatpacking industry; when government officials READ this book, they CREATED new legislation that greatly IMPROVED food safety and factory conditions. This book ENLIGHTENED citizens and officials of the United States and as a result, a whole industry BECAME healthier, showing how reading SUPPLEMENTS the thinking process and CONTRIBUTES to the world in general.
To truly BENEFIT from and CONTRIBUTE to the world, one must COMBINE reading and thinking. Schopenhauer’s claim is arrogant—readers must LEARN from others and ACHIEVE humility before they can PRESENT significant ideas to the world. People who REFUSE to read and who merely THINK for themselves will REMAIN ignorant of important ideas, assertions and facts—this could severely DAMAGE their writing. Ideally, those who wish to write successfully must READ the works of greater authors, ANALYZE how that knowledge AFFECTS their thoughts, and CONTINUE with their thinking process considerably more enlightened than before. For example, someone who CONCLUDES that women everywhere are pressured to be thin and DECIDES to write a book denouncing such societal pressure will sound ignorant. This RESULTS from the fact that he or she HAS not RESEARCHED the status of women everywhere, CAUSING ignorance of certain conditions—in African regions such as Mauritania, for example, society PRESSURES women to MAINTAIN overweight bodies, without which they BECOME unfit for marriage. Exclusion of such information MAKES the book incomplete and inaccurate; this SHOWS that reading others’ works is essential to successful writing.
Reading DEVELOPS a wide range of ideas that the mind, LIMITED by its own bias and immediate surroundings, cannot ACQUIRE independently. Clearly, Schopenhauer himself DID not read very much before WRITING this assertion; after all, books LED to the occurrence of important events during his own lifetime. The French middle and lower classes READ the works of the Enlightenment—the ideas of which were so revolutionary that the French masses COULD not have CONCEIVED them on their own—and WERE INSPIRED to start the French Revolution. Without reading and thinking simultaneously, there can be no “elasticity” of the mind, and without such diversification of thought, there can be no change in the world.
“Men of learning are those who have read the contents of books. Thinkers, geniuses, and those who have enlightened the world and furthered the race of men, are those who have made a direct use of the book of the world.”
Many people CLASSIFY reading as entertainment and not a form of learning. This distinguishes the learners from the thinkers and geniuses. Geniuses READ for both knowledge and pleasure. Can we INTERPRET that people who QUALIFY as geniuses and thinkers– reading for both knowledge and pleasure– are qualified just because they UNDERSTAND the content of the reading?
Schopenhauer STATES that people who are LEARNING have just read books. Geniuses and thinkers have read these books and applied them to the outside world. TAKE scientists for example, they READ certain books, USE their knowledge and PRESENT what they have learned in discoveries and inventions. Many of these scientists are classified as geniuses, aren’t they? Therefore Schopenhauer’s assertion, in this case, IS correct. According to Schopenhauer, thinkers USE the content they have read and APPLY them in different situations. To a certain extent this isn’t always true.
To CHALLENGE one of Schopenhauer’s assertions, one can POINT OUT, in the first paragraph where he states that reading forces thoughts upon the mind which are foreign and heterogeneous to the bent and mood in which it may be for that moment. Do thinkers and geniuses have those foreign and homogeneous thoughts? Or are these on the thoughts from men of learning. It all depends if that something you are reading is interesting or not. When reading, of course some of our thoughts are going to be foreign or homogeneous. For example reading about American history can BRING upon foreign thoughts such as, origin? Where did our people GENERATE from? One can then IMPLY that much reading does not ROB the mind of all elasticity. Schopenhauer cannot alone DETERMINE the standard for the qualification of being a genius, thinker, or a learner. Therefore, a decent quantity of his assertions are irrelevant.
“Men of learning are those who have read the contents of books. Thinks, geniuses, and those who have enlightened the world and furthered the race of men, are those who have made direct use of the book of the world,” An assertion by Schopenhauer that SUGGESTS “geniuses”- compared to those learned people of the textbook- learn from their surroundings and nature around them. Though up to a point Schopenhauer IS correct, all smart people do not LEARN exclusively from nature. After all why would students GO to school if the didn’t LEARN anything from textbooks.
But maybe Schopenhauer IMPLIES that the book of the world has TAUGHT us about life unlike the quintessential textbook. Then yes, a text book can not TEACH a person how to interact with people, a textbook can not ENLIGHTEN a person, such as Buddha had RECEIVED under the Bodhi Tree in nature and all of its wonder.
People’s surroundings can CAUSE them to think and ask questions. By SEEKING out the answers and answering them, a person will have learned a lot more than just going to the nearest textbook or Google search.
Learning from the book of the world allows the mind room to ROAM, without the stress or “heavy weight” to know only specific things. With this freedom a person could REVEAL more than just what they were searching for other than “one single definite thought as reading does”
Those who LEARN from nature will find themselves in more complex and reasonable thoughts. Learning from a textbook can HINDER someone’s true knowledge.
I hope I did this right...
The passage by Arthur Schopenhauer ASSERTS, men who read are stupid, unlike those who think on their own, being geniuses.
Men and women have been taught with books since they were little for years and years. How does reading make one more stupid? Learning through reading gives us the basic ideas and training to become smart or succeed at what we do. “Reading forces thoughts upon the mind which are as foreign and heterogeneous to the bent and mood in which it may be for the moment as the seal is to the wax on which it stamps its imprint.” To SUMMARIZE the quote, the mind is forced to think through reading and shouldn’t be, but reading is meant to make us think. Reading from when we are little helps us to start thinking on our own, and helps us establish thought.
“Men of learning are those who have read the contents of books.” To SUMMARIZE the quote, reading only helps us learn, but doesn’t reading take thinking to learn? In order for someone to learn they have to think about what they are learning or they are not learning at all. Men who read are learning the contents of the book, which takes thought to OBTAIN the information. So how does reading make someone stupid, since they OBTAIN information and learn about the book? Reading establishes thought throughout the process.
Yes, he makes a valid point that there have been many great men who have become geniuses without reading, like Einstein when he failed school but became one of the best known scientists to this day. But even if there have been great men who have been geniuses without reading, doesn’t mean there are not people who are geniuses who read. Many people who have impacted today’s society and done great things read a lot and are not stupid, like Theodore Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln, who both impacted today’s U.S. from their presidencies.
Arthur Schopenhauer’s ASSERTS that reading makes one more stupid, while pure thought makes one a genius. The statement PRESENTS a questionable and inaccurate point of view.
“This practice (reading ) accounts for the fact that that learning makes most men more stupid and foolish than they are by nature.” In the passage, well known German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer asserts reading HOLDS less importance than SUPPOSEDLY, therefore the real geniuses are “those who have enlightened the world…by directly using the book of the world.” Schopenhauer’s assertion is valid – real knowledge does not come from books.
Although many people may argue that lessons and knowledge come from books that is not important. True lessons, true knowledge, true perfection, all come from the real word, not books. Knowledge can not be gained merely from a book because a book is simply writing. Lessons from a book are predetermined which disallow one’s mind from GROWTH. We must open our mind’s to the world ENABLING the development of intellect.
On the contrary, READING the “book of the world” does POSSES true value unlike that of text books. People who READ the book of the world THINK and thinkers actually further the race of men. Schopenhauer ASSERTS that READING books BRINGS about foreign thoughts – therefore knowledge learned from the world actually CONTAINS knowledge.
All in all, Arthur Schopenhauer’s assertion on the knowledge gained from books is overrated. In order to make a difference STOP READING books and READ the word.
Arthur Schopenhauer ASSERTS that reading books gives a person more of a closed mind; thoughts and ideas EXPRESSED by the authors would be used by the readers rather than their own. This is not true because books help people have an open mind, they read about ideas that they might never THINK about, but then understand and believe in it. Reading helps gain knowledge and ideas that I had never thought of, so in the end it GAVE me more of an open mind and a better perspective.
It may seem that reading books would force people to not have thier own beliefs because they READ about other peoples but it puts things in another perspective and benifits the reader because they could see something from another point of view that they had never seen. This shows that people can "ENLIGHTEN" the world by reading books, reading about different ideas, and then being able to APPLY them to life.
Schopenhauer said that reading GIVES people less ability to think for ones self, but it actually HELPS a person think for themselve becuase throught reading they have seen many ideas and then they have the ability to BELIEVE in them or not. People get thoughts from books, but it's not tight to say that people STEAL the writers thoughts because no ideas has only been thought by one person. So if that were the case, everyone would have closed minds because they all USE a form of someone else's idea, sort of RECYCLED into their mind as not an exact copy but something similar.
Schopenhauer also said that, "Thinkers, geniouses, and those who have enlightened the world are frthered that race of men, are those who have made direct use of the book of the world". By saying this he IMPLIES that people who have really HELPED change the world have USED the world to get ideas, they USED the world as a way to change things rather than reading boks and getting ideas from them.
From personal expierence, reading boks and seeing the views of various authors has HELPED me become a better person, they AIDED in seeing things though "different eyes". Seeing different perspectives in books GAVE me an open mins and I am still able to think for myself, because i am able to have my oen differing views from boks, USE ideas in boks, or just COMPILE my views and the authors views into one.
These assertions by Schopenhauer are not valid. People who read books can get ideas from authors and be able to APPLY them to their oen thoughts, and then USE them in life, to make a difference, not just people who have actually done things and seen the world, but also people who gain insight and perspective on things and are able to APPLY it.
German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once NOTED that “too much” reading will ultimately cause the reader to ADOPT the thoughts of others and to LOSE their true beliefs. Though reading often INFLUENCES the reader, reading can not be done without some input from the reader and so the reader can never fully ADOPT the authors views without their own personal taint.
Thoughts are not necessarily true just because they are down on paper, and statements do not have to be believed just because they are read. Just like all forms of communication, reading contains both truth and lies. The responsibility to ACCEPT or DISMISS what others have WRITTEN belongs to the reader.
Schopenhauer BELIEVES that where reading CAUSES narrow mindedness, the truly intelligent individuals are those who “have MADE direct use of the book of the world”. He basically (said ) that GOING out and EXPERIENCING the world firsthand is the only way to truly ENHANCE oneself. While EXPERIENCING the world may INFLUENCE people greatly and FORCE them to come up with their own beliefs, reading does the same thing.
Many books have been WRITTEN over time about anything imaginable. Rather than TRAVELING great distances to VIEW the world, books ALLOW people to VISIT all over simply by reading. Places that may never be SEEN can be VISITED through the pleasures of reading. In reality, it is possible to EXPERIENCE “the book of the world” without ever LEAVING the confines of the indoors.
Though reading others’ beliefs may INFLUENCE the reader greatly, much of what is WRITTEN is truth, if only to the author. The way someone else’s’ words AFFECT another are purely based on personal aspects. When one person SPEAKS to a large crowd, their words may AFFECT different individuals within the crowd differently- it is the same when reading, and though some people may CHOOSE to INTERPERET the authors words contrarily, it is up to the reader to DETERMINE their own take on the piece.
Not all things said have the same IMPACT, but those found to be beneficial can help greatly in FORMING personal beliefs. Things that RESONATE on a personal level can be ACCEPTED and INCORPORATED in a positive way. Such thoughts are not necessarily being “FORCED” upon the reader but may BENEFIT them by simply CAUSING them to PONDER whatever they read. Literature CAUSES people to THINK every day. The thoughts INFUSED within reading can INFLUENCE the thoughts among the reader that may have never been THOUGHT of if not for the extra STIMULATION FOUND within the text.
Reading does not LIMIT the mind but rather helps NURTURE it to GROW. While books may be an out let for the authors beliefs, the information within them can be soaked up by the reader to help EXPAND the mind to its full potential, contrary to HINDERING it in any way.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once ARGUED that reading BENEFITS the mind less than thinking. “Reading forces thoughts upon the mind which are as foreign…as the seal is to the wax on which it stamps.” Schopenhauer ASSERTS that reading PROVIDES no enlightenment to thought, but IMPOSES its own. On the contrary, to a practical reader reading ADDS – not IMPOSES – new ideas.
A lot of educational reading FOCUSES on the fact that there EXISTS a duality to everything. Opposing viewpoints on various ideas ranging from gun control to ancient history ARE COMPILED in collections BEARING titles such as “Varying Viewpoints,” or “Point/Counterpoint.” This material INTENDS to FOSTER deliberation on wrong and right for oneself, not to FORCE a certain perspective as right or wrong; they DO not CAUSE the mind to “suffer total compulsion from without” as Schopenhauer stated.
Not all writers frame their work that way. Many ASSERT their own philosophies as correct. But often rather than IMPOSE these philosophies on non-believers, the writing REINFORCES thoughts already in place in the readers mind. For example, when I READ Walden by Henry David Thoreau, his ideas about societal conformity, consumption and education were all things that I already BELIEVED, but to READ them further STIMULATED thought on those beliefs.
According to Schopenhauer, writing forces people to believe in writing that they did not formerly agree with. Though many writers have this goal, it rarely becomes complete reality. In truth, dissenters to Walden IGNORE the assertions they disagree with and PUT the book down without another thought. Indeed, Thoreau’s negative assertions about towns and friendships were not ABSORBED into my own belief system as Schopenhauer HYPOTHESIZED.
Schopenhauer correctly STATES that “thinkers” ARE geniuses but wrongly BELIEVES that reading cannot LEAD to thought and therefore to a genius. To a pragmatic reader, books STIMULATE and STRENGHTEN their own intellects – most people READ that which they already BELIEVE. If people READ something they DO not already SUPPORT, they usually ANALYZE the reading, not “suffer total compulsion” by these “foreign ideas.” Therefore, more often than not, READING LEADS to further, deeper, and more meaningful thought and why Schopenhauer’s belief ultimately PROVES wrong.
I tried. Hope this one is better
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer ARGUES that experimental learning PROVES to be a better form of leaning what’s being read and that a fuller life will be gained. He BELIEVES that once we have seen something, we will be able to understand it more, versus just reading about it. “His visible surroundings do not leave upon his mind one single definite thought as reading does, but merely supply him with material and occasion to think over what is in keeping with nature and present mood.” He is ASSERTING that, once something is seen, it is more likely to stick with us, COMPARED to reading something. The author conveys the assertion that reading will most likely be forgotten and once something is seen, it will be easier to learn.
Schopenhauer explores two different sides in his essay, but the one side, visual learning, proves to be the most SUPPORETED. He talks about what reading does and why some might believe that what is being ARGUED might not be true. Some people may INDICATE that reading is the best form of learning because it is meant to stay in the mind. They might even say that reading fills the mind with a lot of useful information. Although reading does fill the mind with a lot of useful information, the visual experience makes it possible to understand. If something proves hard to understand, the material that was jus read is WEAKENED because the message was not clear. If something being read is not understood, it is not being learned. Once something is seen, it might be easier to learn and understand.
When being introduced to something new, the eyes are studying the material. Schopenhauer INSISTS that the mind, and seeing what is being taught, helps everyone understand and learn how to do it. “Reading forces thoughts upon the mind which are as foreign and heterogeneous to the bent and mood in which may be for the moment…” He is indicating that once something is read, in stays in the mind for that moment and time. If something is seen, the image is bond to stay longer. Once the eyes have seen something, they are learning and understanding how to do it. Reading teaches how something should be done. If the material is not understood, the only possible way to learn how to do it correctly is to see how its supposed to be done. This is true for everything, not only for reading.
The visual learning experience affects learning more, when being compared to reading. Schopenhauer explains that reading is not a thinking process because the words that are written down are just being read. “If a man does not want to think, the safest plan is to take up a book directly he has a spare moment.” Reading does not really teach anything because the material does not force the readers to read and think about what is being said, information is just being SET FORTH. “Thinkers, geniuses, and those who have enlightened the world and furthered the race of men, are those who have made direct use of the book of the world.” This statement IMPLIES that the author believes that thinking males you smart. Reading does not require the material to be thought about, it just requires the material to be read. When you see something, it makes it easier to learn how to do it, proving to be a better way to learn. The author conveys the message that in order for someone to be taught and actually learn how to do something, they have to see it being done.
This essay has shown how seeing something helps it to be learned. If we are just reading something, we are not really learning how to do it. Learning a math problem exemplifies this. Reading how to do a math problem will not help learn to do it. In order to learn how to do it correctly, we need to see and experience how it should be done. Seeing something first hand helps everyone learn how to do it, and that was the message that Schopenhauer conveys.
In disagreement, when man is GIVEN a visual interpretation, he is GIVEN a non-elastic view of someone else's thoughts. Man cannot CREATE his own image upon the mind of himself. He TAKES visual interpretation for only what he's SHOWN. This non-elasticity TRAPS the viewer in an opinion other than their own.
In literature, the reader is GIVEN an elastic verbal view. The reader CREATES their own image of the passage and TAKES the passage as whatever they feel is being INTERPRETED. The reader MAKES this personal image because there is no biased image THROWN at them.
"This practice(reading) accounts for the fact that learning makes men more stupid and foolish than they are by nature". In other words, German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer ASSERTS that learning, most of the time by reading, GUIDES the mind in digressing from its natural state. This logically ASSERTS that we can lose originality in our thought process by conforming to what we read. However, we cannot learn as much about the world by observing as we can by reading, and just because people read what someone else observes does not make that observation any less real.
Schopenhauer logically ASSERTS that reading can decrease the originality in the thought process of the human mind. Also when one focuses on reading and believing what someone else writes then we spend less time observing the natural world and formulating our own thoughts.
On the other hand, the German philosopher's assertion loses value when it OPENS UP to more observation. If we only observe and never record then eventually all of our thoughts would reoccur and the originality of our thought process would cease.
As we become more familiar with what others think we can better CONSTRUCT our own ideas. In stupidity and foolishness we discredit thoughts because we obtain them through what we read. Schopenhauer STATES "Thinkers, geniuses, and those who have furthered the race of men, are those who make direct use of the book of the world." But we could not further the race of men if our thoughts are not familiar to others. Also the "race of men" would not ACKNOWLEDGE growth if we do not know where we SET FORTH from. Comparisons of how we think and observe now to that of the past PROVES that we have records of previous thoughts which we learn of through reading.
"Learning makes most men more stupid and foolish than they are by nature, and prevents their writings from being a success; they remain, as Pope has said, "Forever reading, never to be read." Schopenhauer's generalization is that people who read OBTAIN less education in CONTRAST to those who gain knowledge by observing their surroundings.
World Wars I and II, the Great Depression, and the Civil War happened before many SET FORTH upon this earth. Obviously, their lack of PRESENCE REVEALED the CHALLENGE in grasping the importance behind each historical event. Without history books, how would we be able to educate our generation? Word of mouth by the figures PRESENT during that era ATTRIBUTES an alternate solution, but chances STATE most of these people parished since that time. These types of texts REPORT useful information from the authors that developed the research or witnessed the life changing event.
Martin Luther King Jr. made a DISTINGUISHED impact on this world. This man read book after book, earned his education, and went on to be one of the most influential people in history. MLK Jr. advocated the importance of blacks and whites to become socially equal. By preparing and performing his famous "I have a dream..." speech, he touched the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. It's highly doubtful Mr. King Jr. ILLUMINATED his education by sitting back and taking in obersvations of nature. It's inevitable for political figures to be up-to-date on the facts, which requires reading.
Often, people learn best when they read the work of someone with more first hand knowledge of the subject. Take National Geographic for example. This magazine is written by scientists and environmentalists that ORGANIZE their observations for the world to see. By doing so, they appeal to those who PROPOSE a lower knowledge rate which in return will boost that rate. When those kinds of people read National Geographic, they become aware of what is happening in the world on a scientifical standpoint.
Infinitely many solutions MEASURE how people learn. Some PRESENT themselves to be visual learners while others INDICATE verbal discussion helps them best. It could be a combination of both, with more or less of each. It all depends on the capacity of knowledge one CONFIRMS to OBTAIN. To have knowledge REVEALS knowing stuff whereas reading INDICATES that acquired knowledge.
Today people are told that reading is the key to learning; the more a person reads the smarter they become. Philosopher Arthur Schopenhaur CLAIMS that reading too much "Robs the mind of all elasticity". Schopenhaur does not correctly ASSERT this claim on reading.
In high school, experiences REVEAL how important reading is to the success of learning. Reading textbooks, novels and other writings, are all part of class curriculum; which teachers use to EXPAND and SUPPORT a student’s thought process. Scopenhaur states that reading "practices the accounts for the face that learning makes most men more stupid and foolish". This is not true; without reading the minds of humans SUGGESTS that people would not ponder the existence of our language.
There is no such thing as too much reading. Schopenhaur SUGGESTS that people learn new words by “nature”. The brain becomes more elastic with reading, reading does not rob it. In any classroom, there are books that are used as learning tools. Because the dictionary is full of all the words of a language, it REVEALS different ways of understanding things, and EXPOSES new ways of learning things. In learning, knowledge is EXPANDED without preventing a person from success.
Reading is needed in everything a person does. Without OBTAINING knowledge from reading and basically being illiterate a person is robbed of success. Reading produces thoughts of creativity and emotion. Every work has an underlying message or lesson that is to be learned from. Scopenhaur says, "if a man does not want to think, the safest plan is to take up a book directly he has a spare moment." This statement is falsifiable; in order to read, one must think and be able to comprehend the language, visualize situations and feel emotions; this all takes thought. Learning is DERIVED from thoughts; thoughts are what learning is made up of. Books may not TEACH a person how to ride a bike or tie shoes, but they EXPOSE a person to emotion, experience and written language. The more one reads the more words, styles, historical events and controversies that are EXPOSED. Also, this does not "rob the brain of elasticity: but ENHANCES it, and makes one think "what if", which ultimately teaches a lesson. There is no such thing as too much reading, because frankly one cannot stop learning.
Arthur Schopenhauer SUGGESTED that reading AFFECTS the reader’s thoughts but wrongly ASSERTS that reading silences those thoughts. Contrary to Schopenhauer’s assertion, one can be both a thinker and a reader.
Henry David Thoreau EXEMPLIFIES this perfectly. Thoreau WROTE books such as Walden, books laced with his own assertions and opinions on man’s disregard for nature and reality. In accordance with Schopenhauer, this MAKES Thoreau a thinker.
Despite his many original assertions on the complexity of people's lives, Thoreau FITS Schopenhauer's description of a “reader”. His pages ALLUDE to writing such as The Vedas and the works of Homer. Thoreau PRODUCED his own ideas despite the fact that he was well read. Thoreau’s reading enhanced his ability to view the world, not inhibited it as Schopenhauer suggests.
History shows that reading ALLOWS people to form and strengthen their own thoughts. For example, the work of British authors from the Glorious Revolution INFLUENCED the founders of America. This did not LIMIT the founders of America to one view point; rather, it INSPIRED them to CREATE a nation based on revolutionary values. Reading was not a handicap but rather an inspiration. In nineteenth century America slaves were not ALLOWED to read because slave owners had to SUPPRESS thoughts to avoid revolt. Slave owners RECOGNIZED that reading INSPIRED revolutionary thoughts.
Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer ASSERTED that reading LIMITED mankind’s range of thought and true thinkers only GAINED their knowledge through observation.
His assertion is correct to the extent that reading will affect people’s thoughts. However, Schopenhauer wrongly IMPLIES that these effects are negative. Through the work of Thoreau and the founders of the United States, reading PROVES to be the source of original thoughts—not the death of them.
German philosopher , Arthur Schopenhauer’s assertion that “much reading ROBS the mind of all elasticity is ludicrous. READING is one of the most powerful and mind blowing acts that we may experience. So, how can those words be spoken from a man’s mouth with such great stature? Just the thought of reading being classified as a handicap upon ones mind is astonishing. Just think; the very thing put on this earth to CULTIVATE our minds, are pronounced as the very thing holding it back.
-----------------------------------The category of the READING also plays a significant role in deciding whether what Schopenhauer ASSERTED is compliant. In order for the implacable to become a considerably respectable dispute, the material presented must come across as absolutely horrifying. As if, a thirty-three year old man read these sorts of books periodically for pleasure. Otherwise the REPORT is correct, as is.
The overall assertion can be argued considerably well on behalf of both benefits. But, in a more logical expense as stated in the thesis, the belief that reading will ROB the mind of all elasticity is just absurd.
Ohhh how I love cutting it close to deadlines. :)
------
People often THINK that by READING every book we can GET our hands on, we can BECOME geniuses. Schopenhauer RECOGNIZES this, and he also RECOGNIZES it as a misconception when he SAYS, "Men of learning are those who have read the contents of books. Thinkers, geniuses, and those who have enlightened the world and furthered the race of men, are those who have made direct use of the book of the world." He SAYS, in short, that actual smart people DON'T just read books, but they TAKE their knowledge and APPLY it to the world around them. People often THINK that just by BEING in an AP class of because someone READS a book, they BECOME a genius, when in reality that DOESN'T happen.
AP students are most NOTED FOR their intelligence, but according to Schopenhauer, just because they CAN read an AP biology text book DOESN'T mean that they BECOME a genius. By USING knowledge GAINED from the textbook beyond High School and in the real world, one CAN then potentially BECOME a "genius." By TAKING facts PULLED out of books and GOING beyond that with analysis or simply GENERATING ideas, someone BECOMES genuinely smart, rather than just book smart.
Also, some people THINK that by READING a few hundred pages of Twilight they BECOME smarter. But, as previously STATED, that only PROVES that a person CAN read. Actual intelligence COMES from DOING--like DOING an experiment, research, or CREATING an invention or idea. Schopenhauer says that smart people, "are those who have made direct use of the book of the world." Basically, smart people actually DO things. The USE books and the world around then and as a result, GET smarter.
Schopenhauer correctly ASSERTS that just READING doesn't MAKE a person a genius, but that by APPLYING knowledge and GATHERING it from the world, one can GAIN intelligence. And by GAINING that intelligence, a person COULD, as Schopenhauer CLAIMS, "enlighten the world and further the race of men."
Post a Comment