The Restoration period (1660-1785) was supposed to be a time of enlightenment for England. When the monarchy came back into power, all sorts of excitement arose. There was plays, different books, music, and much more. However the the restoration took a bit of a dark turn. Catholics were treated badly. It was a time of satire of the government and odd solutions like eating babies to help with Ireland's poor people. Overall, I think the restoration worked but only in the entertainment area. The politics of the time maybe didn't work so well for them.
Both Locke and Hume had very similar concepts of government and the freedoms that come with them. Locke believed that left to our own devices, with no government, we'd have anarchy everywhere. We would all be trying to kill each other to either protect what we have or to steal what someone else has. Hume however, thought that we wouldn't be nearly as destructive as Locke would have us think. Locke and Hume believe that government should be around to help protect the people and their possessions. They both believe that no government should be run by tyrants and monarchs who have too much authority on the people. Today, much of these concepts are the same. We believe that government shouldn't have too much power, that their should be a balance, and that the government's main point is to protect us and our property. Government can go too far by stretching this belief in order to giving up some of our other rights or freedoms.
What would Jonathan Swift and Henry Fielding think of social media today? How would they use it? I think these two would definitely use this platform of writing to inform the nation of what's going on around them. they would write about the situations going on in the world and make suggestions to them. I feel like they would really enjoy social media in the sense that they could get news out quickly and efficiently. They would be able to make their point in short sentences and phrases. It would be fun to see the hashtags they create. I think Swift would say something like #IrishThePoor #IrishProblems #JustEatingBabies. I feel as though Fielding would discuss more issues with the rich people compared to the poorer people. He'd propably make blogs over the poor people problems and blame the rich people. Again I just think it would be really very interesting for people today to read social media by these two great writers.
Addison and Steele have made great lengths in changing the way journalism is done. Writing papers, whether in a newspaper or magazine, have had changes and have stayed the same in some ways. Newspapers looked pretty different back in the day. The first page is often the same and so are the columns they wrote in, but the subjects they wrote are different. Our newspapers not only have news, but also deaths and new things that pop in the world today. Magazines were also quite different than ours. They were mostly aimed toward men. Women didn't read much, so most magazines were male based. It taught about how to be a proper man and things like that. Magazines today are aimed toward all kinds of people. There are specific magazines for men, women, and children. Everyone has access to them. The writing has also changed since the 18th century. We incorporate a lot of new language and art into our writing. The style of writing has changed significantly. Writing a public writing feels much different than something you put in a D2L dropbox. Public writing feels as though it needs to be neater and more sophisticated, whereas a D2L dropbox paper feels more informal.
The anonymous lady is a well-known writer, but her she is not well published. Her real name is Martha Fowke Sansom. She wrote mostly love poems, yet she also wrote about her own writing. In "On Being Charged with Writing Incorrectly", she writes about how she doesn't write like scholarly educated men. She says that other "wiser" people's writing is dull and boring. All the sophistication in the world can't make their writing very interesting. This is supported with line 14 "These mighty dull, these mighty wise" and is repeated at the end. She explains that she doesn't write like the well-known instructor Busby. That she writes incorrectly because the one man that is determining how everyone is supposed to write says she's doing it wrong. This I believe to be significant because women at this time didn't get a say in anything. Women were also not as educated as men, so how would she know the proper way to write something? I feel as though this helps lead the way for other women to write and become more educated.
Can slavery be justified? The simple answer is no, not really. It is horrific to enslave a human being, however, people found many ways to justify this terrible act. In 'Captains and Slaves: Aphra Behn and the Rhetoric of Republic', Warren Chernaik talks about Locke's and Hobbs' view of slavery. Both had essentially agreed that slavery was indeed okay if it was within a war content. This means that if one group of people wins a war between the other, that the winning people can hold the other captive. They become slaves to the other group. They're the looser, so why should they get to be free? They are a disgrace to their community, who would want them now? Chernaik makes references to Oroonoko to back his arguments. He makes it seem like because they're losers, they can be owned no problem. He also discusses the wrong ways of slavery. He says that the way it came about was bad. The things these people did to their captives was awe-full. Either way slavery can never truly be justified.
John Locke wrote about how human understanding works. He wrote that the search for ideas were of better delight than a hunt. He said that pursuing great ideas was just as good as hunting. You could tell that he probably liked hunting...for ideas. Get what I did there? Anyway, he thought that your own experiences lead to our own conclusions on certain things. He tells us in this writing that we should think for ourselves. Because of this, people began thinking for themselves and making their own decisions on what their life should look like. It would lead to people wanting a better government and even to independence in the United States. It does the same thing today. We read more and try to keep up with what's going on around us. We want to be made aware of what goes on in our lives and decide whether we agree or disagree with the state we're in. We think for ourselves and our own experiences and ideas help us to fight for our rights and things we want for ourselves.
How on earth can science and religion possibly be related? Well actually, they can be related in several ways. They can help each other in their topics. In a sense, science and religion need each other. Science gives us the how and religion gives us the who, when, why aspect. Science describes how something happens, whereas religion tells why it happened and who made it happen. In fact, scientists used to research science for the soul purpose of religion. They wanted to learn more about what God made and by doing that, it was glorifying Him. Now scientists believe that science and religion has nothing to do with each other. Sir Isaac Newton wrote on how prisms work and how rainbows are made. Bunyan wrote about a Christian's journey and the trials in it. At a glance, these two could never be relevant to each other. Newton is relevant to science; Bunyan is relevant to religion. But as I stated before, science and religion help each other. God made the rainbow and science shows us how we can make a rainbow using a prism. Both of these writings help us to understand the how, who, and why of a thing or situation.
Most of Dryden's work was satirical and criticisms of older poetry. There are some similarities but I can see a lot of differences too. For instance, our "satire" tends to be less subtle and more of a parody. Saturday Night Live is a great example of this. They are very open with their criticisms. On the contrary, Dryden's satire is almost hardly noticed, if you don't know what to look for. Someone might think his work to be serious instead of funny. The Onion is another good example. If you don't know about the Onion and try to read it, you'd think it was real. His style of poetry is also very different than ours. Dryden uses a lot of triplets for emphasis in his works. His audience is often toward the people of his time subtly making fun of other writers or the government. We aren't so subtle, but we do crack jokes about our government and people who do stupid things in the media. I believe the purpose of said works is simply to make the people laugh because we understand what is being written.
The enlightenment period is an interesting time. It begins with a Restoration. The kings return after a long time of protestant rein in England. This period very closely resembles the 21st century. There is an uproar of creativity, such as: and increase in literacy, movies, lending libraries, shopping, music, and art. Also this time period brings on the "produce more, pay less" type of economy. England joins forces with Scotland and Whales and became known as Great Britain. What's so interesting about this is that so many good things started happening in England; cities flourished and there was an increase in civil power.
