1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?"
2. What point of view is boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler?
29 comments:
Anonymous
said...
1: I think that to have "self-evidence" means that you base your decisions off of your past expiriences. Breaking down the phrase is just being able to have evidence to back up your reasoning behind your decisions. Boorstin also eludes to everyone haveing a different sense of self-evidence which makes all people unique and self defined.
2:The point that Boorstin is the comparison in thinking styles. He compares the long term thinking to the short term more compulsive thinking. From our point of view just comparing these people are great juxtaposes off of each other but it wasn't a mistake that they came to power, because sometime in all of their struggle to reach power they must of done something write to win over the people.
1. "Self-evidence," by Boorstin's definition is equatable to common sense. It's a descriptor of ideas that are so logically concrete, they prove themselves correct. In other words, they provide Evidence for themSelves. The only thing that can decide self-evident facts is experience. For if an idea applied to real life proves false, then it is undoubtedly false. And ideas that are self-evident are somewhat antagonistic to ideas that stem not from logic, but from tradition and accepted reality. With this definition in mind, Boorstin brought up the famous line, "we hold these truths to be self-evident," from the US Constitution to show a new American, logical knowledge, rather than an old English, assumed knowledge. 2. These allusions to prominent historical figures serve to realize Boorstin's juxtaposition of two modes of philosophical change. On one hand, there's men who relied on the tendencies of the people as a whole to slowly drift from false assumptions to the freedom of self-evidence and proper facts. On the other hand, there's men who believed themselves to be of superior mind and used whatever power they had to impose the contents of their mind upon those they controlled. By making all the men of the former point-of-view American men, Boorstin is indirectly saying that it is the American way to let America, and nobody else, find self-evidence
1. In Boorstin's opinion, self-evidence is the reasoning to a "back it up!" statement. Experience would take the place of learned truth to prove something. Self-evidence also meant that a mass of people would be considered as individuals. The notion of something being SELF-evident meant that it was open to each citizen in America to piece apart until the real conclusion was made. Self-evidence was one way for America to put matters into its own hands, and be an example for England; America could actually back up their truth.
2. Boorstin is trying to help the reader see the distinctness of American truth and progression compared to those in England. These comparisons of American men to European men seems biased toward America, since the only men refrenced in Europe were obviously not comparable to the good of Washington and others. But Boorstin is trying to make the reader see the point of view of the difference between a leder looking more ouward or inward. It was the outward, public approach of America's leaders that achieved the country's goals, allowing everyone to work together, while it was the inward-facing, personal sucess-minded goals of the European examples that did not achieve what was wanted. America allowed the entie world to find the self-evidence in their motives, while in Europe there wwere only hidden motives.
1. Boorstin's thoughts of "self-evidence" was that every person (or organization) must have experiences that would better their future judgement. One turn deserves another; for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. His definition of "self-evident" also states (like used in the Declaration of Independence) that the preceeding statement was self-explanitory and obvious. 2. Boorstin is trying to prove the differences between the ways of thought of the New World versus the Old World. The decisions made in the New World (according to Boorstin) were intended for positive long-term results. The decision in the Old World were based on the thought of live by each day and not plan too far ahead because things change.
1. In my opinion, Boorstin’s definition of self-evidence is believing in something not because there is philosophical reasoning behind it saying it should work but because it has been proven to work by being put through the trails of daily life and has shown successful.
2. At first glance it seems that Boorstin means that Washington is similar to Napoleon and that Truman is similar to Mussolini, but he is actually attempting to show the exact opposite. The European leaders: Lenin, Mussolini, Napoleon, and Hitler, all had grand schemes (Marxism, Fascism, Despotism, and Nazism), supported by a substantial amount of philosophy that they uncompromisingly stuck to, that they tried to put into place, and every one of them ultimately failed. What works in theory does not necessarily translate into a working reality, which is what the American leaders he is comparing them to realized. Americans were not interested in the complex theories behind their government, they were more interested in practical issues and experimenting to find what actually worked in reality.
1. Boorstin’s definition of “self-evidence” alludes to a truth that has no need to be proved through learned knowledge. As Rev. Hugh Jones observed, the American desire to learn was only applied when “absolutely necessary, in the shortest and best Method.” Thomas Jefferson argued that evidence to truth is already stored within our minds, and all applications to experience should derive from that. Boorstin notes that Americans only accepted things to be true if they had been shown through experience, not “learned controversy.” “In America the “is” became the yardstick of the “ought””, supporting their thought that all truths are self-evident.
2. By contrasting America’s most prominent leaders to oppressive and harsh dictators of the world, Boorstin presents the Presidents of the United States to be liberators, albeit less stirringly revolutionary. Boorstin shows Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler have the “ruthless demands of a genius” and Washington, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower to make “slower, more sober advances” which are better for the general welfare of the public. Additionally, the brilliantly theoretical plans behind movements such as Nazism and Fascism were supported by unrealistic schemes for rigid perfection. The “self-evident” plans of Americas, Boorstin wants us to believe, were not only realistic, but they worked.
1. Boorstin’s definition of self-evidence is that experience and experiments help one determine self-evidence. Through experiences and experiments, people gain more knowledge about their surroundings, their lives, and the truths about their lives. This was a method to free the mind. Self-evidence is an evidence discovered by oneself. Knowledge comes from past, present, and future experiences and decisions are based on such. Each person has their own sense of self-evidence, as each person learns from personal experiments and experiences. This thought also illustrates that each person is ultimately different. 2. Boorstin’s point of view suggests that rash decisions are too hasty and that people prefer careful thought and planning. Practical and rational thought prove to be much more helpful because rash decisions are what cause mistakes. Practical and rational thought cause a person to think through everything, step by step, keeping in mind past mistakes. Bringing in all perspective and considering it, Boorstin’s view says, would “liberate” men. Progress showed in America that was destroying European theories. According to Franklin, “the law of America was growth and expansion.” Little of this could be attained if the colonists were just rushing into one thing after the next. European thought is depicted by Boorstin using inward thinking, self-success in mind, whereas minds such as Washington carefully planned with outward thinking, allowing growth and teamwork to occur. In his comparison between American thought and European thought, he seems biased towards the Americans.
1. Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" is quite vague. In my opinion, "self-evidence" translates to common sense. If some thing is self-evident then it is obvious, or self-explanatory.
2. By comparing Washington to Napoleon and by comparing FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler, Boorstin shows the difference between the US and Europe. Washington, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower are known as some of the greatest presidents in US history. Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler each wanted to conquer. The American presidents and Europeans differ in how they came to power. The "great" (this is in quotations because these leaders were very brutal and not great human beings) leaders of Europe gained their power either through military means (Napoleon and Lenin) or through propaganda and conquest (Hitler and Mussolini). The great leaders of the US, however, were voted into power without violence or brainwashing. Boorstin compared these leaders form both Europe and the US to show the differences in thinking of the two areas. Europe needed to use either violence or propaganda while the US simply elected their leaders without military involvement.
1. Self evident means that people accept the notion or has some social truth to the idea, compared to having it proven and reliable. Boorstin uses the example from the opening line of the Declaration of Independence to show that just because something is self evident it doesn’t mean it is always right, meaning that it isn’t always undeniable. 2. Boorstin is trying to show that Americans like the slow and stead rater than the dramatic changes that the Europeans have. Thus why he compares American presidents like Washington to dictators like Hitler.
1. "Self-evidence" to Boorstin is common sense. Since Franklin changed from "undeniable" ) to "self-evident" is an example of how it means something that is obvious (and therefore undeniable) if one thinks on it.
2. Borstin compared the two people by how they chose to lead and their ways of thought. The American presidents lead with the masses, while Mussolini, Lenin and Hitler though of themselves as superior and didn't rely on anyone else. "...The older culture traditionally depended on the monumental accomplishments of the few, while the newer culture...depended more on the novel, accepting ways of the many" (pg 150)
1.) The seeming definition of "self-evidence" according to Boorstin is that the experiences you have during your life will be important in determining future decisions. It is the idea of logic, that once something you tried either worked or didn't work, that the next time you are confronted with a similar obstacle you will use common sense to make an adjustment.
2.) Boorstin's intention by comparing these people is to juxtapose thought processes of important leaders of America versus other world leader. They make the American leaders like Washington or Eisenhower seem better because they make slower, more thought out decisions. On the other hand, the European leaders like Lenin and Hitler, who made rash and power hungry decisions.
1. According to Boorstin, in order to have "self-evidence", you must be yourself. You must be your own individual. You need to be able to support your own statements and not other people's statements. Something that is fact cannot be self-evident because self-evidence is shown only through personal experiences, showing what was thought and felt in a certain situation.
2. In this chapter, the point that Boorstin tries to convey is that there were two very different leadership styles in America and in Europe. He shows that Washington, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower all lead the people with "slower" and "more sober" advances. The people chose these men through democracy and supposedly a fair vote. In comparison to America, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini were all considered to be power hungry and fast on their decisions. They were not voted for through democracy and they ruled by force. Even though I would agree in saying these four European rulers were brutal in the way they led the people of their countries, but Boorstin is taking a biased point of view. He is biased because he does not mention the cruel things the American leaders have done. Like killing hundreds of people in Vietnam. He only refers to the negative leaders of Europe and not the positive ones, and then calls them "garret-spawned".
I'm going to be brutally honest here. And since you said to rip it apart, I'm going to do just that. I have absolutely no idea what he meant by self evidence or his comparison. Despite reading this over and over I couldn't come up with his definition of self-evidence. How does Franklin's quote, "We are, I think, on the right road of Improvement, for we are making experiments" relate to his "belief in self-evidence"? Since the dictionary definition of self-evidence is the quality of being evident without proof or reasoning, how would experimenting tie into that? Wouldn't that be the opposite... since experiments have reasoning for their answers...? As for the comparison, I'm drawing a blank. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't get one word of this chapter. This probably isn't what you meant by rip it apart, but there you have it.
1) Boorstin seems to have a rather usual definition of self-evidence according to his examples. He expresses that if something is self-evident then it should be easy for a person to believe in the concept without much presentation or argument on the matter. He uses Franklin’s example especially in this circumstance. “If his observations were correct, he said, they would readily be confirmed by other men’s experience; if not they out to be rejected.” Not to be backing up my own argument with Franklin’s views, I am assuming by using this passage, that Boorstin agrees with Franklin and is therefore using him as evidence to the American appeal to self evidence.
2) To me it sounds like Boorstin is comparing these leaders to each other on the grounds of philosophies. The American leaders allowed for competition based of philosophies while their European counterparts forced one ideal on a group of people. This is seen in Boorstin’s claim that America allowed “the free competitions of the marketplace.” In terms of Boorstin’s point of view, he is a political analyst contrasting the liberties allowed in Europe as opposed to America.
2. In my opinion, Boorstin is first of all showing a very large ammount of bias. It seems that by comparing our presidents to dictators and communists, he is pointing at his opinion that we are being oppressed by our government. Another reason that he may be doing this is to show that he thinks politicians are all the same. They really have no care for the people they are supposed to be helping and only have eyes for themselves. Either way, this is a very biased comparison.
1. Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" is that to make descisions, a person has to look at all of his past experiences in order to make an efficient descision. He also implies a differentiality in people by their sense of self-evidence.
2. Boorstin is directly showing the american ideals to others of similar struggle. especially that people have ideals, and they stick by them to create communities, and somehow getting their ideals to the common people.
1. According to Boorstin, “self-evidence” is the ability to back up an argument, either through learning or experiences.
2. All of the American leaders are celebrated in our history, well only some of the European ones aren’t (obviously Hitler isn’t celebrated.) So Boorstin isn’t trying to make some comparison of ethics (even though countless atrocities were held upon American command.) so maybe he is trying to show how these are different. Most of the European leaders based their conquest on one philosophy or ideal, which according to the book is a “crucial mistake” (in reference to Percival and Oglethrope.) Maybe Boorstin is glorifying the American leaders because they didn’t rely on pre thought out plans simply good response to crises.
1. It seems that a basic explanation of Boorstin’s definition of “self-evidence” would be an experienced truth. Using a report on America by Jefferson which said, “We are, I think, in the right Road of Improvement, for we are making experiments. I do not oppose all that seem wrong, for the Multitude are more effectually ser right by Experience, then kept from going wring by Reasoning with them,” Boorstin seems to agree that you need experience to make something evident. Similar to this, Jefferson also stated, “…that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds,” which again goes to the fact of experiencing something instead of just debating the reasoning behind it. The Americans, in Boorstin’s eyes, “formed a habit of accepting for the most part only those ideas which seemed already to have proved themselves in experience.”
1. Boorstin seems to find Self-Evidence to be defined by truths which are proved by the experiences and trials of daily life. This is not necessarily to see that they are easily apparent, which seems to be suggested by the phrase “self-evident,” but is at odds with that which Boorstin suggests.
2. The point which Boorstin appears to me to be attempting to drive home was that leaders in the New World worked upon premises that were not necessarily reflected by those in the old world. Many of the old world leaders who were named had what one might deem “large plans.” They sought some great conquest, but failed to see the effect upon daily life, or how to manipulate daily life to work towards their ends. It seems that Boorstin suggests the opposite motif in leaders in the New World, that they though more in the long term, but based on the short term; that they used and thought actively upon daily life, or the common men, and how they tied into their plans.
1. I believe Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" shows one of the ways America different from Britain politically. In the beginning of the chapter, he states, "In deriving the essential social truths from their 'self-evidence'---rather from their being 'sacred and undeniable' as the original draft had read---the Declaration was building on distinctly American ground." I understand this to mean that Americans drafting the Declaration tapped into American experience as colonizers of a fresh country to make them relate somewhat to understandings written down, rather than binding them by a heterogeneous religion. For experience, not belief, applies more in common sense. By harkening to one's personal knowledge, 'self evidence', in why such should be such, it is easier to be accepted than 'such is to be such because our religion says so.' Therefore, I believe Boorstin's definition of 'self-evidence' is what one knows to be true by experience, and not what one believes to be true without evidence.
2. Boorstin is comparing American leaders to European dictators to show that America relied more on the people to find their own 'self-evidence' and determine their own path as per that, versus than Old World institutions where individuals in places of power used whatever means necessary to pursue their own 'self-evidence', even if it means the obstruction of the independent thoughts of those under their rule. It shows American trust in the congruent thoughts of the population, as opposed to the leader pursuing one goal and all others undoubtingly following it.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?" Self-evidence: the fact that an object exists based off the objective fact that it does exist in space and time and any aspect of its features cannot be changed merely by wishing or changing one’s perception of said object and that said object can only be changed through the use of physical force.
2. What point of view is Boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler? I think the point Boorstin is trying to make by comparing Washington to these other characters in history (especially Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler) is that all eight of these men had, somewhat, of a Cult of Personality. People knew of their deeds and of their words and revered them for that. Washington could have become the King of America because he had such a following, but rather than do that he said that “I didn’t depose George the Third so I could become George the First.” Whereas, the men compared with Washington, would have exploited that Cult of Personality (which several of them did) to expand their own political power. I think he’s trying to reflect on the moral character of Washington.
1. Boorstin seems to use the term “self-evident” to refer to ideas or actions that were easily understood by all, and could be readily validated by life experience, instead of esoteric logic or reasoning. Self-evident meant something that showed evidence of its usefulness and did not require extensive analysis.
2. By comparing these American leaders to the less effective European leaders, Boorstin is trying to show that the American way of thought was not beholden to any particular philosophers or sophisticated, esteemed system of learning. Instead, Americans were more indiscriminate and pragmatic, and open to whatever had been proven to work through life experience. Boorstin is trying to show that these European leaders functioned only by one philosophical system and perspective, and that was the reason why they did not succeed in their efforts, unlike the more open American leaders.
Chapter 25 1. Self-evidence means something that requires no proof or explanation. I believe Boorstin’s definition of self-evidence was that truths are self-evident and are only truths if proved by daily life and experiences and not by theories or philosophical notions. This is a further example of American thought as compared to English thought where truths were just from previously known and accepted knowledge. 2. By comparing Washington to Napoleon and FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler, Boorstin generalizes and contrasts the attitudes of Americans verse Europeans in ways of thinking, theory, and philosophy. He shows that Americans are more concentrated on applying knowledge to everyday life that is useful and has been proven through time. While Europeans, especially the four mentioned, created radical ideas and notions that completely wanted to change society. Unrealistic and rigid ideas in Europe were discussed and debated while in America they were put to the test of daily life with common people. Taylor Oster 2009
1. To me Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" is saying that the more experiences you have then the more experienced you are. For example when your parents say "trust me, I've been around the block a few times." I dont know though this was a rather toug concept for me.
2. The point of view that Boorstin is attempting to make is that of someone who has worldly knowledge and who knows their history.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?" Personally, I believe the answer to this question is rather self evident. Boorstin defines “self-evidence” as a truth that is easy to interpret, prove, and understand.
2. What point of view is Boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler? Boorstin compares leaders with rigid dogmatic policies (i.e. Leninism or Nazism) to the openness and flexibility of a new American leader. The early America was more interested in practical methods of government than the dogma of later leaders.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definistion of "self-evidence?" Boorstin defines "self-evidence" as something ture, that is extremely easy to prove or show. Basically what he says is self-evidence is more like common sense.
2. What point of veiw is boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, Presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler? What boorstin is trying to point out is how the American leaders think vs. the communist and dictators of europe. This hsow that the american presidents were more open mided and listened to other to make the best dicision for there people.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?" Self evidence is something that in life makes you as a person through actions, life experiences, and something that is easily understood.
2. What point of view is boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler Boorstins attempt is to say that American way of thought changed because of the new world then the leaders of Europe. That the way of logic changed.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?"
"Self-evidence" to Boorstin basically is your past experiences that back up the evidence. That rings trues seeing as the only real way to back things up IS to use past experiences that you deem to be truthful in your argument.
1. In your oppinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?" "Self-evidence" is something that can be accepted as true in and of itself. It is something that has proved itself through experience and that most rational people would not argue with.
29 comments:
1: I think that to have "self-evidence" means that you base your decisions off of your past expiriences. Breaking down the phrase is just being able to have evidence to back up your reasoning behind your decisions. Boorstin also eludes to everyone haveing a different sense of self-evidence which makes all people unique and self defined.
2:The point that Boorstin is the comparison in thinking styles. He compares the long term thinking to the short term more compulsive thinking. From our point of view just comparing these people are great juxtaposes off of each other but it wasn't a mistake that they came to power, because sometime in all of their struggle to reach power they must of done something write to win over the people.
1. "Self-evidence," by Boorstin's definition is equatable to common sense. It's a descriptor of ideas that are so logically concrete, they prove themselves correct. In other words, they provide Evidence for themSelves. The only thing that can decide self-evident facts is experience. For if an idea applied to real life proves false, then it is undoubtedly false. And ideas that are self-evident are somewhat antagonistic to ideas that stem not from logic, but from tradition and accepted reality. With this definition in mind, Boorstin brought up the famous line, "we hold these truths to be self-evident," from the US Constitution to show a new American, logical knowledge, rather than an old English, assumed knowledge.
2. These allusions to prominent historical figures serve to realize Boorstin's juxtaposition of two modes of philosophical change. On one hand, there's men who relied on the tendencies of the people as a whole to slowly drift from false assumptions to the freedom of self-evidence and proper facts. On the other hand, there's men who believed themselves to be of superior mind and used whatever power they had to impose the contents of their mind upon those they controlled. By making all the men of the former point-of-view American men, Boorstin is indirectly saying that it is the American way to let America, and nobody else, find self-evidence
1. In Boorstin's opinion, self-evidence is the reasoning to a "back it up!" statement. Experience would take the place of learned truth to prove something. Self-evidence also meant that a mass of people would be considered as individuals. The notion of something being SELF-evident meant that it was open to each citizen in America to piece apart until the real conclusion was made. Self-evidence was one way for America to put matters into its own hands, and be an example for England; America could actually back up their truth.
2. Boorstin is trying to help the reader see the distinctness of American truth and progression compared to those in England. These comparisons of American men to European men seems biased toward America, since the only men refrenced in Europe were obviously not comparable to the good of Washington and others. But Boorstin is trying to make the reader see the point of view of the difference between a leder looking more ouward or inward. It was the outward, public approach of America's leaders that achieved the country's goals, allowing everyone to work together, while it was the inward-facing, personal sucess-minded goals of the European examples that did not achieve what was wanted. America allowed the entie world to find the self-evidence in their motives, while in Europe there wwere only hidden motives.
1. Boorstin's thoughts of "self-evidence" was that every person (or organization) must have experiences that would better their future judgement. One turn deserves another; for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. His definition of "self-evident" also states (like used in the Declaration of Independence) that the preceeding statement was self-explanitory and obvious.
2. Boorstin is trying to prove the differences between the ways of thought of the New World versus the Old World. The decisions made in the New World (according to Boorstin) were intended for positive long-term results. The decision in the Old World were based on the thought of live by each day and not plan too far ahead because things change.
1. In my opinion, Boorstin’s definition of self-evidence is believing in something not because there is philosophical reasoning behind it saying it should work but because it has been proven to work by being put through the trails of daily life and has shown successful.
2. At first glance it seems that Boorstin means that Washington is similar to Napoleon and that Truman is similar to Mussolini, but he is actually attempting to show the exact opposite. The European leaders: Lenin, Mussolini, Napoleon, and Hitler, all had grand schemes (Marxism, Fascism, Despotism, and Nazism), supported by a substantial amount of philosophy that they uncompromisingly stuck to, that they tried to put into place, and every one of them ultimately failed. What works in theory does not necessarily translate into a working reality, which is what the American leaders he is comparing them to realized. Americans were not interested in the complex theories behind their government, they were more interested in practical issues and experimenting to find what actually worked in reality.
1. Boorstin’s definition of “self-evidence” alludes to a truth that has no need to be proved through learned knowledge. As Rev. Hugh Jones observed, the American desire to learn was only applied when “absolutely necessary, in the shortest and best Method.” Thomas Jefferson argued that evidence to truth is already stored within our minds, and all applications to experience should derive from that. Boorstin notes that Americans only accepted things to be true if they had been shown through experience, not “learned controversy.” “In America the “is” became the yardstick of the “ought””, supporting their thought that all truths are self-evident.
2. By contrasting America’s most prominent leaders to oppressive and harsh dictators of the world, Boorstin presents the Presidents of the United States to be liberators, albeit less stirringly revolutionary. Boorstin shows Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler have the “ruthless demands of a genius” and Washington, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower to make “slower, more sober advances” which are better for the general welfare of the public. Additionally, the brilliantly theoretical plans behind movements such as Nazism and Fascism were supported by unrealistic schemes for rigid perfection. The “self-evident” plans of Americas, Boorstin wants us to believe, were not only realistic, but they worked.
1. Boorstin’s definition of self-evidence is that experience and experiments help one determine self-evidence. Through experiences and experiments, people gain more knowledge about their surroundings, their lives, and the truths about their lives. This was a method to free the mind. Self-evidence is an evidence discovered by oneself. Knowledge comes from past, present, and future experiences and decisions are based on such. Each person has their own sense of self-evidence, as each person learns from personal experiments and experiences. This thought also illustrates that each person is ultimately different.
2. Boorstin’s point of view suggests that rash decisions are too hasty and that people prefer careful thought and planning. Practical and rational thought prove to be much more helpful because rash decisions are what cause mistakes. Practical and rational thought cause a person to think through everything, step by step, keeping in mind past mistakes. Bringing in all perspective and considering it, Boorstin’s view says, would “liberate” men. Progress showed in America that was destroying European theories. According to Franklin, “the law of America was growth and expansion.” Little of this could be attained if the colonists were just rushing into one thing after the next. European thought is depicted by Boorstin using inward thinking, self-success in mind, whereas minds such as Washington carefully planned with outward thinking, allowing growth and teamwork to occur. In his comparison between American thought and European thought, he seems biased towards the Americans.
1. Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" is quite vague. In my opinion, "self-evidence" translates to common sense. If some thing is self-evident then it is obvious, or self-explanatory.
2. By comparing Washington to Napoleon and by comparing FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler, Boorstin shows the difference between the US and Europe. Washington, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower are known as some of the greatest presidents in US history. Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler each wanted to conquer. The American presidents and Europeans differ in how they came to power. The "great" (this is in quotations because these leaders were very brutal and not great human beings) leaders of Europe gained their power either through military means (Napoleon and Lenin) or through propaganda and conquest (Hitler and Mussolini). The great leaders of the US, however, were voted into power without violence or brainwashing. Boorstin compared these leaders form both Europe and the US to show the differences in thinking of the two areas. Europe needed to use either violence or propaganda while the US simply elected their leaders without military involvement.
1. Self evident means that people accept the notion or has some social truth to the idea, compared to having it proven and reliable. Boorstin uses the example from the opening line of the Declaration of Independence to show that just because something is self evident it doesn’t mean it is always right, meaning that it isn’t always undeniable.
2. Boorstin is trying to show that Americans like the slow and stead rater than the dramatic changes that the Europeans have. Thus why he compares American presidents like Washington to dictators like Hitler.
1. "Self-evidence" to Boorstin is common sense. Since Franklin changed from "undeniable" ) to "self-evident" is an example of how it means something that is obvious (and therefore undeniable) if one thinks on it.
2. Borstin compared the two people by how they chose to lead and their ways of thought. The American presidents lead with the masses, while Mussolini, Lenin and Hitler though of themselves as superior and didn't rely on anyone else. "...The older culture traditionally depended on the monumental accomplishments of the few, while the newer culture...depended more on the novel, accepting ways of the many" (pg 150)
~Chris Sogge~ :)
1.) The seeming definition of "self-evidence" according to Boorstin is that the experiences you have during your life will be important in determining future decisions. It is the idea of logic, that once something you tried either worked or didn't work, that the next time you are confronted with a similar obstacle you will use common sense to make an adjustment.
2.) Boorstin's intention by comparing these people is to juxtapose thought processes of important leaders of America versus other world leader. They make the American leaders like Washington or Eisenhower seem better because they make slower, more thought out decisions. On the other hand, the European leaders like Lenin and Hitler, who made rash and power hungry decisions.
1. According to Boorstin, in order to have "self-evidence", you must be yourself. You must be your own individual. You need to be able to support your own statements and not other people's statements. Something that is fact cannot be self-evident because self-evidence is shown only through personal experiences, showing what was thought and felt in a certain situation.
2. In this chapter, the point that Boorstin tries to convey is that there were two very different leadership styles in America and in Europe. He shows that Washington, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower all lead the people with "slower" and "more sober" advances. The people chose these men through democracy and supposedly a fair vote. In comparison to America, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini were all considered to be power hungry and fast on their decisions. They were not voted for through democracy and they ruled by force. Even though I would agree in saying these four European rulers were brutal in the way they led the people of their countries, but Boorstin is taking a biased point of view. He is biased because he does not mention the cruel things the American leaders have done. Like killing hundreds of people in Vietnam. He only refers to the negative leaders of Europe and not the positive ones, and then calls them "garret-spawned".
I'm going to be brutally honest here. And since you said to rip it apart, I'm going to do just that. I have absolutely no idea what he meant by self evidence or his comparison. Despite reading this over and over I couldn't come up with his definition of self-evidence. How does Franklin's quote, "We are, I think, on the right road of Improvement, for we are making experiments" relate to his "belief in self-evidence"? Since the dictionary definition of self-evidence is the quality of being evident without proof or reasoning, how would experimenting tie into that? Wouldn't that be the opposite... since experiments have reasoning for their answers...? As for the comparison, I'm drawing a blank. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't get one word of this chapter. This probably isn't what you meant by rip it apart, but there you have it.
1) Boorstin seems to have a rather usual definition of self-evidence according to his examples. He expresses that if something is self-evident then it should be easy for a person to believe in the concept without much presentation or argument on the matter. He uses Franklin’s example especially in this circumstance. “If his observations were correct, he said, they would readily be confirmed by other men’s experience; if not they out to be rejected.” Not to be backing up my own argument with Franklin’s views, I am assuming by using this passage, that Boorstin agrees with Franklin and is therefore using him as evidence to the American appeal to self evidence.
2) To me it sounds like Boorstin is comparing these leaders to each other on the grounds of philosophies. The American leaders allowed for competition based of philosophies while their European counterparts forced one ideal on a group of people. This is seen in Boorstin’s claim that America allowed “the free competitions of the marketplace.” In terms of Boorstin’s point of view, he is a political analyst contrasting the liberties allowed in Europe as opposed to America.
2. In my opinion, Boorstin is first of all showing a very large ammount of bias. It seems that by comparing our presidents to dictators and communists, he is pointing at his opinion that we are being oppressed by our government. Another reason that he may be doing this is to show that he thinks politicians are all the same. They really have no care for the people they are supposed to be helping and only have eyes for themselves. Either way, this is a very biased comparison.
1. Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" is that to make descisions, a person has to look at all of his past experiences in order to make an efficient descision. He also implies a differentiality in people by their sense of self-evidence.
2. Boorstin is directly showing the american ideals to others of similar struggle. especially that people have ideals, and they stick by them to create communities, and somehow getting their ideals to the common people.
1. According to Boorstin, “self-evidence” is the ability to back up an argument, either through learning or experiences.
2. All of the American leaders are celebrated in our history, well only some of the European ones aren’t (obviously Hitler isn’t celebrated.) So Boorstin isn’t trying to make some comparison of ethics (even though countless atrocities were held upon American command.) so maybe he is trying to show how these are different. Most of the European leaders based their conquest on one philosophy or ideal, which according to the book is a “crucial mistake” (in reference to Percival and Oglethrope.) Maybe Boorstin is glorifying the American leaders because they didn’t rely on pre thought out plans simply good response to crises.
1. It seems that a basic explanation of Boorstin’s definition of “self-evidence” would be an experienced truth. Using a report on America by Jefferson which said, “We are, I think, in the right Road of Improvement, for we are making experiments. I do not oppose all that seem wrong, for the Multitude are more effectually ser right by Experience, then kept from going wring by Reasoning with them,” Boorstin seems to agree that you need experience to make something evident. Similar to this, Jefferson also stated, “…that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds,” which again goes to the fact of experiencing something instead of just debating the reasoning behind it. The Americans, in Boorstin’s eyes, “formed a habit of accepting for the most part only those ideas which seemed already to have proved themselves in experience.”
1. Boorstin seems to find Self-Evidence to be defined by truths which are proved by the experiences and trials of daily life. This is not necessarily to see that they are easily apparent, which seems to be suggested by the phrase “self-evident,” but is at odds with that which Boorstin suggests.
2. The point which Boorstin appears to me to be attempting to drive home was that leaders in the New World worked upon premises that were not necessarily reflected by those in the old world. Many of the old world leaders who were named had what one might deem “large plans.” They sought some great conquest, but failed to see the effect upon daily life, or how to manipulate daily life to work towards their ends. It seems that Boorstin suggests the opposite motif in leaders in the New World, that they though more in the long term, but based on the short term; that they used and thought actively upon daily life, or the common men, and how they tied into their plans.
1. I believe Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" shows one of the ways America different from Britain politically. In the beginning of the chapter, he states, "In deriving the essential social truths from their 'self-evidence'---rather from their being 'sacred and undeniable' as the original draft had read---the Declaration was building on distinctly American ground." I understand this to mean that Americans drafting the Declaration tapped into American experience as colonizers of a fresh country to make them relate somewhat to understandings written down, rather than binding them by a heterogeneous religion. For experience, not belief, applies more in common sense. By harkening to one's personal knowledge, 'self evidence', in why such should be such, it is easier to be accepted than 'such is to be such because our religion says so.' Therefore, I believe Boorstin's definition of 'self-evidence' is what one knows to be true by experience, and not what one believes to be true without evidence.
2. Boorstin is comparing American leaders to European dictators to show that America relied more on the people to find their own 'self-evidence' and determine their own path as per that, versus than Old World institutions where individuals in places of power used whatever means necessary to pursue their own 'self-evidence', even if it means the obstruction of the independent thoughts of those under their rule. It shows American trust in the congruent thoughts of the population, as opposed to the leader pursuing one goal and all others undoubtingly following it.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?"
Self-evidence: the fact that an object exists based off the objective fact that it does exist in space and time and any aspect of its features cannot be changed merely by wishing or changing one’s perception of said object and that said object can only be changed through the use of physical force.
2. What point of view is Boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler?
I think the point Boorstin is trying to make by comparing Washington to these other characters in history (especially Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler) is that all eight of these men had, somewhat, of a Cult of Personality. People knew of their deeds and of their words and revered them for that. Washington could have become the King of America because he had such a following, but rather than do that he said that “I didn’t depose George the Third so I could become George the First.” Whereas, the men compared with Washington, would have exploited that Cult of Personality (which several of them did) to expand their own political power. I think he’s trying to reflect on the moral character of Washington.
1. Boorstin seems to use the term “self-evident” to refer to ideas or actions that were easily understood by all, and could be readily validated by life experience, instead of esoteric logic or reasoning. Self-evident meant something that showed evidence of its usefulness and did not require extensive analysis.
2. By comparing these American leaders to the less effective European leaders, Boorstin is trying to show that the American way of thought was not beholden to any particular philosophers or sophisticated, esteemed system of learning. Instead, Americans were more indiscriminate and pragmatic, and open to whatever had been proven to work through life experience. Boorstin is trying to show that these European leaders functioned only by one philosophical system and perspective, and that was the reason why they did not succeed in their efforts, unlike the more open American leaders.
Chapter 25
1. Self-evidence means something that requires no proof or explanation. I believe Boorstin’s definition of self-evidence was that truths are self-evident and are only truths if proved by daily life and experiences and not by theories or philosophical notions. This is a further example of American thought as compared to English thought where truths were just from previously known and accepted knowledge.
2. By comparing Washington to Napoleon and FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler, Boorstin generalizes and contrasts the attitudes of Americans verse Europeans in ways of thinking, theory, and philosophy. He shows that Americans are more concentrated on applying knowledge to everyday life that is useful and has been proven through time. While Europeans, especially the four mentioned, created radical ideas and notions that completely wanted to change society. Unrealistic and rigid ideas in Europe were discussed and debated while in America they were put to the test of daily life with common people.
Taylor Oster 2009
1. To me Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence" is saying that the more experiences you have then the more experienced you are. For example when your parents say "trust me, I've been around the block a few times." I dont know though this was a rather toug concept for me.
2. The point of view that Boorstin is attempting to make is that of someone who has worldly knowledge and who knows their history.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?"
Personally, I believe the answer to this question is rather self evident. Boorstin defines “self-evidence” as a truth that is easy to interpret, prove, and understand.
2. What point of view is Boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler?
Boorstin compares leaders with rigid dogmatic policies (i.e. Leninism or Nazism) to the openness and flexibility of a new American leader. The early America was more interested in practical methods of government than the dogma of later leaders.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definistion of "self-evidence?"
Boorstin defines "self-evidence" as something ture, that is extremely easy to prove or show. Basically what he says is self-evidence is more like common sense.
2. What point of veiw is boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, Presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler?
What boorstin is trying to point out is how the American leaders think vs. the communist and dictators of europe. This hsow that the american presidents were more open mided and listened to other to make the best dicision for there people.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?"
Self evidence is something that in life makes you as a person through actions, life experiences, and something that is easily understood.
2. What point of view is boorstin attempting to make by comparing Washington to Napoleon, presidents FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler
Boorstins attempt is to say that American way of thought changed because of the new world then the leaders of Europe. That the way of logic changed.
1. In your opinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?"
"Self-evidence" to Boorstin basically is your past experiences that back up the evidence. That rings trues seeing as the only real way to back things up IS to use past experiences that you deem to be truthful in your argument.
1. In your oppinion, what is Boorstin's definition of "self-evidence?"
"Self-evidence" is something that can be accepted as true in and of itself. It is something that has proved itself through experience and that most rational people would not argue with.
Mira Schlosberg
Post a Comment