Modernism Term Paper (awesome)
MODERNISM H
TERM PAPER
Period II
Mrs. Carey
Modernism H
“Stoicism & Modernism”
(An essay on Transcendence and Proportion)
(and maybe even sociology)
Jesse Parent
c. November 2004 - March 2005
(“I-search”... perhaps) An introduction?
First, I should start off by saying that in this essay I will be taking some risks, and that I accept the outcome of those risks. Mrs. Carey has often persuaded us to be more outgoing in our grasps, or attempted grasps at modernism, and, while I am not sure this correlates with that, I’d like to think it does. From the first day we were in the library with this project, I sort of found out that it has essentially nothing to do with the “topic”, which, in my case, is stoicism, (and yes, I will get to that), but really, it’s about modernism. I don’t claim to know anything about modernism, nor to I really think I will prove something. That’s not really my goal here. Really, I am sort of using this as a medium for something else, and hopefully that “something else” won’t distort the true intention of this project, but then again, since modernism connects to many things, perhaps it will turn out to be more than I expect.
I don’t expect this first page to be considered in the required 8-10 pages, (that’s why it’s not double spaced), but if I run low on ideas, I just might fit it in somehow.
For me, modernism is related to stoicism in a few ways, and really, all it takes is a swift mind to relate a few things to each other- you can relate night to day, because they both involve the sun, or better yet, perspective. It’s night in some parts of the world, while it’s day in others. And you can go on and on about parts of the galaxy and universe and all that, if you like. In one way, though, similar to stoicism, modernism is essentially a “religion”, or perhaps, a lens with which things can be viewed through. I for one can’t tell if I am completely ignorant or right on, because for me, modernism, or that way of looking at things, is how I look at things all the time, and have done so for quite a few years. But really, I think that’s sort of the trick - and, as like the Zen theories on enlightenment (Fletcher & Scott), it’s not “learning something new”, it’s more discovering that you were enlightened all along. But I take a philosophical approach to many things, and once again that holds true for this course on modernism, and as far as this paper goes, be that approach right or wrong, I’ll accept the consequences. And really, if I didn’t that would sort of be incredibly hypocritical, seeing as how this is supposed to be a report on a philosophy called “stoicism”...
(Oh yes, and lastly, I say this all started in November, but really it was sooner than that. The bigger picture in the below essay is something that really started about two years ago, when some major changes took place, and since then, I’ve been on some sort of a quest, be it for understanding or justification I don’t know. But I can’t honestly say that I started this researching, or studying this topic the day it was handed out in class. It goes well beyond that. (transcendence).)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Right or wrong, this is the way it is. Now, am I referring to this essay in regards to the above “introduction”? Or am I making a pun on stoicism? I’m not quite sure myself. I wonder if I will end up writing this essay in the language of modernism, really. But I don’t want to get your expectations up, so you shouldn’t think that. Stoicism, as a philosophy, originates essentially to way back in 300 B.C. Believe it or not, it started in Greece, and originated from many of the thinkers of that famous country, and it was designed as a “practical” and logical approach to understanding happiness and life. Modernism is, or should I say one “semantication”, one version, one definition, is a movement in literature that originated around the turn of the 19th century, as the world shifted into mass industry. It was brought about with the shift from the rural setting to the city setting, as industry changed lifestyles. Along with that change, a lot of “norms” were broken, and perhaps, in the gaps that appeared, new ideas could come through and reach the surface of thought, or maybe, as Freud might say, a higher level of consciousness. Because really, it isn’t fair to say that modernism simply happened- like in the introduction above, it was there all along, people just weren’t able to voice it, or didn’t know how. So in the pages below, I propose to draw a connection between this “modernism”, and this “stoicism”, that they are both essentially forms of philosophy, and they have more in common than one would think.
((But really, if I did that, I would spend a lot of time essentially trying to justify why I picked stoicism, and that’s sort of bland, really, because I feel that you can make connections between any two things, (thus my subtitle “transcendence and proportion”). Really, in-between all the formalities, I am going to greedily exploit the opportunity to voice my own thoughts about philosophy and sociology, and talk about something that’s not entirely traditional. Perhaps that might work to my advantage, since modernism isn’t that quite traditional, either...))
But I understand that I have to conform to some of the guidelines, citing sources and a logical flow of information- you know, the typical things English teachers are supposed to enforce. (And let me say, that if I fail to get those requirements done, it’s not Mrs. Carey’s fault, I’m just being entirely too greedy). Right, so now you’re going to learn some things about stoicism. Like above, it started back in Greece with a guy named Zeno, born in 333 B.C. (Standford; Molloy; Stoicism). Around 300 B.C., Zeno began his teachings and lectures on a new brand of philosophy. It’s name originated from it’s location- originally called “Philosophers of the porch”, Stoa is the Greek term for porch, or colonnade, the name is in a way a rather humorous extension of the logic and reasoning of stoicism itself (Molloy; Stanford; Stoicism). Stoa Poikile, or painted porch, describes the location in the Acropolis where Zeno and his teachings took place.
Stoicism originates from the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato, among others, and Zeno had been taking lessons from the cynic Crates, and even some knowledge through Heraclitus. Between 300 B.C. and the time of Augustus in Rome, there were many adaptations and transitions in Stoicism, which originated from a very harsh and inhuman practice (Stanford; Molloy). Yet thanks to the Roman Seneca, Stoicism was made more universal and appealing, as well as practical. Cicero, Cato and emperor Marcus Aurelius also deserve mention in a Stoic essay.
One interesting and subtle aspect of stoicism that is often overlooked is how it affected the Roman empire, and it did so in such a way that can be related to modernism. Prior to stoicism, Roman religion had no ethics at all involved in it (Ferguson). Essentially, as long as the gods were appeased with properly executed (no pun intended) sacrifices, you were in the clear. Most of it was basic augury, and sacrifices were made to the gods, each god representing a certain realm of jurisdiction - Neptune for the sea, Ceres for the fields, Hera, Jupiter and all the rest. (Ogilvie). What stoicism did, on a broad level, is prep the Roman Empire, (we are talking in terms of the first century AD), for Christianity. Stoicism has nothing to do with the birth of Christ (Parent), [[note: not to be read as “the birth of Christ Parent”; I’m not that greedy. (Semantics)]], don’t get me wrong, but it did help lay the foundation for the transition. The then “modern” road way systems and common language throughout the empire perhaps most evidently allowed for the actual spread of Christianity, yet it is reasonable to conclude that stoicism subtly prepared the minds and mindsets of the people. Now, how that connects to modernism...
You see, modernism is of a similar nature, in that it fits in a time period that deals with cultural changes. This is a connection of atmospheres surrounding the two subjects, modernism and stoicism, rather than the actual “stuff”, or content, in each item. However, it is relevant relationship nonetheless. Modernism, though it remains to be seen, hasn’t necessarily set the table for a new religion, per se, but it is a movement, much like stoicism was, (Parent; The Internet Encyclopedia...), in that both introduced to a society new ways of looking at things, new perspectives. For a whole lot of people, it opened their eyes and made them think in new ways, and whenever that happens, new ideas can sometimes slip through the gaps of the breaks in societal molds. So, in a rather unorthodox way of things, stoicism and modernism are quite nicely in congruence (Parent).
One other similarity between stoicism and modernism, in alignment with the ideas of philosophy and time periods is the aspect of improvement, or perhaps more so, evolution. Stoicism came about as a way to be the best, to live life in the way that was most virtues, and essentially, most rewarding (Seneca; Stanford). Stoicism, on one level, can be thought of as a tool that was used to chisel the figure of an ideal man out of a block of marble, and make that figure more clear. As far as modernism goes, it provided a critical lens to look through, a drastic, and, at the time of it’s “insurgence”, radical perspective and view, questioning society and the workings of the world itself, as the world itself went into transition (Parent). Modernism has allowed for things, even most simplest and seemingly commonplace, like fog and a boat; or artillery shells and cheese; life and death; intention and purpose; or jaundice- all into different perspectives. While modernism may not offer a concrete answer to these speculations, it allows for the individual to witness and think for themselves in a way in which they could determine if something was appeasing or not, or, say, if the liked a book, or movie or not. Modernism promotes questioning and understanding, both of which are integral to improvement. Stoicism itself promotes improvement and understanding, thus completing the connection.
Going with the notion of questioning things, modernism and stoicism are once again stunningly similar. Stoicism, at it’s highest level, promotes removal from everyday society, and the progression of individual thoughts and interpretations of justice (Molloy; Stanford; Encyclopedia...). Within it’s most revered positions, the Sage of stoicism is one who is completely virtuous in all his actions, as he is free from the everyday hustle and bustle of the common folk, of the unwise. In modernism, the same actions of those everyday folk are questioned, and looked at with interested eyes. The connection here is that both modernism and stoicism seek to look at society, to be observational. Both subjects are dealing with culture and people, relations to sociology.
On a more concrete level, there are inherent differences. And while the stated hypothesis of this “essay” was to promote similarities, I wonder if it is really out of place to have something ironic or, as it were, out of place or “un-traditional” in an essay for a modernism course. Well, I’m not really going to be the judge of that anyways, so let’s move on. The obvious conflict of stoicism and modernism is that, in stoicism, everything is about whether it’s right or wrong (Seneca; Stanford). Stoicism, especially in it’s early days, was an essentially mathematical approach to life, as to what is right and wrong; “Virtue is the ultimate good, Vice the ultimate evil” (Molloy; Seneca). Either you were doing something right or wrong. In modernism, there is seldom a definite yes or no, right or wrong, or sense of concrete-ness, (or, if there is a sense of right or wrong, in terms of this paper, I hope those terms are used very, very liberally...). With all it’s shifting forms of perspectives, questionings, and rather over the top versatility, modernism is not “easy” to define. In fact, it is an essential aspect of modernism that there are few restrictions placed on it, for, if it were to follow a concrete set of rules, it would be no less that the typical Victorian style stories of the past, and that would sort of defeat the purpose of modernism entirely. (Parent)
However, in terms of “eastern stoicism”, a loose term that I will associate with the likes of Zen Buddhism, there is more similarity with that aspect of modernism. Zen has a lot to do with the mindset of, perhaps, the modernistic reader. The reader must have an open and capable mind (Parent). But also, like mentioned previously, the reader must, and I repeat, must be able to allow for the mind to look at things in different ways. Unlike the harsh western stoicism of Greece and Rome, the likes of Zen relates to modernism in the flexibility of the mind (side note: it is rather ironic, considering this, that western stoicism paved that way for something, yet it is of concrete rules. [transcendence/proportion]). For instance, an episode in Chung’s “Shouts of Nothingness...”, a monk becomes enlightened in this way: he sits in a temple all day in meditation, waiting in silence for the master to reveal his wisdom, but when night comes, the master suggests that the monk goes back to the dormitory, and offers him a candle to see in the night. As soon as the candle is in the hands of the monk, the master extinguishes the flame, and thus the monk is enlightened. Now, to the average student of Zen, that seems pretty strange. This is similar to modernism, because as many students I have known have acted, when modernism is revealed to them, they do not understand it right away. And, just as the monk was alarmed at the act of the flame being extinguished, so to are many people alarmed when a story is read and afterwards they are told that it is a piece of literature that is modernism (Parent). Unfortunately, both reading a story and extinguishing a candle are not surefire ways of obtaining either enlightenment or the supreme knowledge or modernism, or stoicism for that matter, (Parent). However, this goes to show that there is yet another connection between a form of stoicism, and a form of modernism.
Philosophies are very tricky things, and though it was not addressed to me in this way, I do see modernism as a philosophy. But then again, that’s my own perspective, and I suppose that according to modernism, I’m not wrong... though that doesn’t mean I’m right, either. Nevertheless, the simple attribute of being called a philosophy fits well for both, I feel. Within modernism, there exists a list of, quote, philosophical questions, end-quote, and perhaps few things are more connectable than two things having a common word, (philosophy), in the context of their definitions. But more so, I see both stoicism and modernism as being ways to view the world, “perspectives”, if you will. To me, that ability to hold a perspective designates the foundation of a philosophy, and, just as one can live stoically, (Seneca; Standford; Molloy; wikipedia...), one can just as conceivable live “modernistically” (Parent). One can live to embrace the fundamentals of each philosophy - be it ethics and morals of stoicism, or the “radical” ways and observational fluctuations of modernism. Each of these “items” are considered “movements” in history, as well. But going back to “living modernistically”, I would like to address a perhaps core aspect of modernism itself, or perhaps, a core subtlety...
According to Parent, most people, and, perhaps this is why they don’t see it right away, already live “modernistically”. The elements of the modern day society, (emphasis on modern), are very much related to those of modernism- there is a general liberation from right and wrong, and wide variety of perspectives available, and many more “modernistic” characteristics in today's society. We are searching for answers, often with philosophical questions, and some people may turn to stoicism, some maybe to Christianity. We do question and strain, everyday, the limits of the human condition. With exception to recent infusions of “postmodern society”, we are quite in semblance with “modernism” (Parent). And, perhaps, going all the way back, this is connected with the realization of enlightenment - that is, it is not that you gain new knowledge, but that you simple reach a higher, awakened level of understanding of what you already know, of what is already around you (Parent).
In concluding this paper, I want to mention, or perhaps, refer back to my subtitles of transcendence and proportion. You see, while I attempted to maintain the original purpose of this assignment, much of the underlying drive comes from my own personal philosophical, and perhaps, metaphysical studies. Transcendence, in my own way, is an idea that essentially, everything is connected, and can therefore transcend, or be transcended through any thing. You can put modernism through stoicism, or stoicism through modernism, or Zen, or Christianity, or anything, jaundice, even. It’s sort of like the unification of everything, so, if you are familiar witch science, (I’m not), it’s like having one theory that explains all the actions of the universe. Transcendence, really, is like modernism, and everything else I’ve already mentioned, in that it isn’t something that needs to be found out or learned, but perceived. Proportion, or proportionality, is sort of my idea of the different levels of transcendence- micro/macro, the differences and similarities therein. Universe to galaxy, or area code to phone number, now that I think of it, it’s almost like the labels for a chart the ‘x’ and the ‘y’ axis. I suppose that transcendence would be the independent variable, like where time would usually be, on the bottom and horizontal, and proportion would be on the vertical. But that is, of course, going off on a tangent.
Modernism and stoicism are two philosophies, two movements, that both offer a way to view society. They are also indicators of time periods, and allow for the manipulator of each philosophy to look at things in ways which may not have been previously considered. Both are historical, and can be looked up either via books or internet, and perhaps most strongly and undeniably, ultimately true, both have been mentioned in this essay. While the finer points of that argument may be debatable, one cannot refute the fact that on several occasions I have use both the word ‘modernism’ and the word ‘stoicism’ in the same sentence. I like to finish off my essays for school with a common phrase, and it still applies here, though this isn’t Latin class, for stoicism undoubtedly lead through Rome, so, as they say, “all roads lead to Rome.”. In addition to that, I would like to make another connection, in that Rome is a city in Italy, which is a country referred to in Hemmingway’s A Farewell to Arms. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude for anyone who reads this, because honestly, it was a great deal of fun to write, and I don’t write things like this enough. It was all a very good time, and, though my processing methods were... unconventional, and perhaps, not to be recommended or ever spoken of, I really have had a good time. Like I said, I don’t know the reaction this will receive, but, for my purposes, it has served me well, and tomorrow when I hand it in to Mrs. Carey, I will undoubtedly have a smile on my face. And, because I do like do go full circle, let me close by saying, in regards to my paper...
“Right or wrong, this is the way it is” Bibliography I
Burr, John R. and Goldinger, Milton. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. The Macmillan Company, New York. 1972
Chung, Tsai C., “Zen Speaks: Shouts of Nothingness”, Anchor Books, Doubleday, London. 1994
Ferguson, John. The Religions of the Roman Empire. Cornell University Press, Ithica, New York,1970.
Fletcher, Tenshin & Scott, David. Way of Zen. Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2001
Grant, Michael. Roman Myths. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1971.
Ogilvie, R.M. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. W W Norton and Company, Inc, New York. 1969
Parent, Jesse. Numerous written works and thoughts, internet posts, emails dialogues, musings, scribbles, observations, and lectures. New York. ?? - March, 2005
Seneca. Letters From a Stoic. Penguin Books, NY, 1988.
Bibliography II
“Stoicism” molloy.edu 2004. 15 Jan 2005 <
http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/sophia/ancient_lit/happiness/stoicism1.htm>
“Stoicism on encyclopedia.com” Encyclopedia.com. 2003 Jan 10, 2005 <
www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Stoicism.asp>
“Stoicism” wikipedia.org 2004. Jan 10 2005 <
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism>
“Stoicism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004. Jan 10, 2005
<plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/>
“Stoicism” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004 Jan 15, 2005 <
http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/stoicism.htm>
Works Cited I
Burr, John R. and Goldinger, Milton. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. The Macmillan Company, New York. 1972
Chung, Tsai C., “Zen Speaks: Shouts of Nothingness”, Anchor Books, Doubleday, London. 1994
Ferguson, John. The Religions of the Roman Empire. Cornell University Press, Ithica, New York,1970.
Fletcher, Tenshin & Scott, David. Way of Zen. Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2001
Ogilvie, R.M. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. W W Norton and Company, Inc, New York. 1969
Parent, Jesse. Numerous written works and thoughts, internet posts, emails dialogues, musings, scribbles, observations and lectures. New York. ?? - March, 2005
Seneca. Letters From a Stoic. Penguin Books, NY, 1988.
Works Cited II
“Stoicism” molloy.edu 2004. 15 Jan 2005 <
http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/sophia/ancient_lit/happiness/stoicism1.htm>
“Stoicism on encyclopedia.com” Encyclopedia.com. 2003 Jan 10, 2005 <
www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Stoicism.asp>
“Stoicism” wikipedia.org 2004. Jan 10 2005 <
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism>
“Stoicism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004. Jan 10, 2005
<plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/>
“Stoicism” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004 Jan 15, 2005 <
http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/stoicism.htm>
