Work for ENG 3630:
Considered the father of the essay, Michel de Montaigne's essays are an appropriate way to begin a blog. It is the continuation of a writing tradition. Like Montaigne, who wrote introspectively and in a conversational manner, a blogger writes easily to his or her audience. Although his sentence structure may seem very lengthy, his argument circular and his use of quotations formal, his topics are universal. His essays examine the behavior of humans and cast insight into the human condition. His metaphors of comparing nature or mathematical equations like geometric lines to human behavior are timeless.Maybe by imitating his style and topics with a modern twist I can show you.
Emulation of Montaigne's "That Our Mind Hinders Itself" and his other works:
Daily our professors address the biochemistry and physiology of the body and in particular, the brain, never addressing the inner workings or the complex processes of thought. Yet it would be wondrous to imagine the human brain in an everlasting dilemma, where it could not break the perfect equilibrium between two opposite but equal cravings; for if it did, it would create an insurmountable imbalance that could never be corrected. For example, if we were to elect between dreaming about the perfect life and studying or planning for it, with the equal aptitude to dream but fret and act but fail, there could be no solution; hence, we would pine away from worry and frustration.
To avoid such a conundrum, psychologists, who are constantly plagued with the workings of the human brain and how we decide, claim that this causes a chemical and hormonal imbalance in our mind and forces us always into a rash resolution.
Yet can there be a dilemma where one desire is not more advantageous than the other by a bit, one where superficial benefits can actually tempt it to lose any sense of equilibrium and break free of its bonds of order? It is said that nature tends to favor entropy, that the tendency for disorder is more energetically favorable. This is seen every day through most chemical reactions that break this very state of equilibrium for more disorder only to become more stable. Perhaps our brain could follow these laws of chemistry and nature, but Scientists have also argued that the human body rejects the general trends of nature daily. Our physiology dictates a rejection of disorder through our very organization of cells, tissues, and organs; the very proof of this lies in the food that we must ingest to allow our cells to run and for ourselves to even exist. Perhaps then the inner workings of the brain behave in this way, rejecting disorder and maintaining equilibrium like a nonexistent limit, where its line never crosses the y axis and goes on into infinity.
Then again the contemplations of the brain is a rather unknown territory and sometimes "all we know is that we know nothing" (Socrates).
I really liked your example of college professors because I found it very relatable. You have a very nice writing style and your way of emulating Montaigne was very spot on. I also wanted to compliment your metaphors and enjoyed the whole feel of this blog. Ps. The idea of a pseudonym is really smart when posting online and also fun! I might follow in your foot steps on that!
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of Montaigne was so right, and very well put.
ReplyDeleteYour emulation is a great example of what I would assume a "familiar essay" to be. You did SO well emulating Montaigne's vocabulary/word choice. I also agree with Erica about the relatable quality of the first sentence.
Really excellent emulation of Montaigne as the comments above say. Honestly it seemed like I was reading more of his writing.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to say that even though it wasn't part of your essay, I thought "Although his sentence structure may seem very lengthy, his argument circular and his use of quotations formal, his topics are universal" was a really well put.
Nicely done, though occasionally confusing, E (much like Montaigne, in places). It seems you're writing about the very same theme that we saw in the Montaigne essay, and that works well for me. The final point about food and imbalances could be a bit more clearly put, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI second (or fourth!) the assertion that you have a way with Montaignean idiom and diction. Good!
Your use of Socrates works well here, too. Of course, he thought he was the wisest man in the world because he uttered that line! I wonder what he might have thought about the brain? Is that something you might be able to imagine here? Or could you enjoy yourself in thinking about thinking about thinking, about the fact that everything you can possibly say about the brain is brain-created?!
Any judgment of the brain is a kind of conflict of interest, no?
Good start.
DW
Thank you!
DeleteAnd that is a good point. Montaigne definitely talks about the mind, but I am not quite sure what he would say about the brain. Would they have been considered the same thing in the 1500s?
And yes, any decision would be a conflict of interest. I feel like we would always want to make an intellectual or positive output on the brain. I mean, we would always want to show ourselves in a good light, right?
Haha, and the thinking about thinking about thinking! Oh, goodness, that would start to get messy. I am sure psychologists and sociologists or philosophers would do it. It almost reminds me of a new fad to watch people watching people?
Again thank you for the comments.