Paper draft/paragraph ideas

Basic idea: Robinson Crusoe as a proof (in 18th century terms) of ability of European (white) to master savage (land/people).  (the empty boxes are formulas in Microsoft Word).  
Introduction - will explain 18th century concept of proof, focusing on (probably), examples as proof of general by outlining algorithm/procedure for example (exactness/concreteness being valued over abstractness).

In Arithmatick books in the 18^th century, mathematical operations, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. operate by means of an explicitly defined procedure for proving, or solving.  By following this algorithm, one is able to solve any problem of that type (i.e. addition, division, etc.).  Further, this algorithm, in order to arrive at the correct solution, must be done in a certain order, and arrive at only one solution.  That is, up to equalities (i.e. 1 gallon is 4 quarts), the solution is unique.    For subtraction, say 5842 – 2751, as outlined in Spence’s Arithmatick compendiz’d..., “The Operation is thus. Begin at the right Hand, and say, 1 from 2, there remains 1, which set down.  Next 5 from 4, I cannot but from 14 (borrowing 10 as was directed to make it 14) there remains 9.  Then proceed, saying, 1 I borrowed and 7 is 8, from 8 remains nothing, for which set down a Cypher [0].  Lastly, 2 from 5 , remains 3, which set down, and the Work is finished” (12).  This algorithm has two parts.  Let’s say we’re subtracting  If the first number is bigger than the second, “say,  from , there remains ”. If the second is bigger than the first, “say  from , I cannot but from 1 (borrowing 10 as was directed) there remains , and proceed, saying 1 I borrowed and  is , from  is , which set down.”  For each column of numbers, this procedure holds. What is not explained here, or in any other arithmatick treatise in the 18^th century, is why this works.  However, because mathmaticians know that the algorithm works, following it is the ‘reasonable’ approach to arithmatick. 

Similarly, Crusoe knows algorithms work, so, in order to help make sense of his surroundings, solitary existence, and apprehensions of danger, he uses reason, exemplified by this procedural, mathematical approach to his environment, to create an ‘empire’ of his island.  After acquiring supplies from his wrecked ship, Crusoe’s first endeavor is to secure himself from savages or wild beasts. Such a dwelling must have four characteristics,LIST? limiting his options greatly, but, finally, allowing him to find one spot.  Once he finds the appropriate spot, Crusoe explicates his procedure for securing himself against those things which would threaten his livelihood.  “Before I set up my tent, I drew a half circle...[and] in this half circle I pitched two rows of strong stakes ... [which] did not stand above six inches from one another. Then I took the pieces of cable...and laid them in rows one upon another ... between these two rows of stakes ... about two foot and a half high ... so I was completely fenced in, and fortified, as I thought, from the world...” (90-91).  This follows the pattern of the subtraction algorithm, beginning with a half circle, moving next to pitching stakes; then proceeding to lay cables; and ‘there being nothing’ left to do to secure the wall, he, lastly, “lifted over [a short ladder]” (91), ‘and the work is finished’ (for the wall).    

Week 10: ToM, Part Two

NOTE: I'm having a hard time getting a handle on this week's readings.  I'm not sure I'm on a track, much less the right one.


"Where sensibility was the basis for civic harmony, imagination, loosening the hold of the five senses, made people vulnerable to demagogues and was therefore responsible...for...all manner of fanaticism" (14)

So, I'm understanding this chapter (Sensibility and Enlightenment Science) as arguing for an 18th century thinking of morality, emotion, and empathy as something related or the same as the sensations (sentiments) people experience from the external world on their senses (seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling).  And, that not having/experiencing these sentiments would hinder a person's social functioning. Then, thinking about Persuasion I was trying to place different characters within this framework.

There's significant talk of the Elliot pride and Sir Walter's "vanity of person and of situation" (6).  Most of the Elliots, with the exception of Anne, are portrayed as merely tolerated, but also complained about behind their backs (usually to Anne).  Though they are invited, due to their stations, to various households, Anne gets the hints that "it would be a great deal better if she [Mary] were not so very tenacious [during these visits]" (43-44).  Anne, however, seems to be the only one who has the ability to interpret her five senses' information to give her educated guesses on the mental states of others (i.e. has empathy/ToM) with any sort of regularity.  I guess I'm trying to get at the question of if the other, non-empathetic characters in the novel are 'imagining' what people think about them to contribute to their vanity or sense of self-importance? I know Mary imagines herself sick to get attention, but I don't think that's the same thing.

Week 10: Empathy and Theory of the Mind, Part One

I haven't read Persuasion yet, so this is a fairly limited post.  I'll attempt to add to it once I'm able to start the novel.

"Human beings, like other primates, tend to experience empathy most readily and accurately for those who seem like us"  (Keen, 214)

This makes me question if, during some of the more violent/dangerous scenes (the consensual(ish) whipping, the attempted rape by the first suitor, etc.), the men reading Memoirs of a Women of Pleasure experience less empathy for Francis Hill than perhaps the women might? Or, is she too far displaced in time from even the women of today to feel empathy? Do we feel sympathy for her?

"My research suggests that readers’ perception of a text’s fictionality plays a role in subsequent empathetic
response, by releasing readers from the obligations of self-protection through skepticism and suspicion." (Keen, 220)

Does this theory also function in Hill's naivety at the beginning of the novel?  That is, because this world is so different from what she knows, does she let herself empathize with the other women more than she does later in the novel when she understands what women are expected to do to survive in her world?

Each article also mentioned mirror neurons, involved in empathy as well as seeing/reading actions.  The brain also activates similar structures toward words as what those words represent in real life would activate in a brain.  This felt like what the class talked about last week when we mentioned the way Hill's voyeurism of the varied sexual acts she sees seem to arouse her.  We had touched on the idea of the involvement of mirror neurons, I believe, and I wonder if the physical feelings within her body are a sort of empathy she feels while watching these acts.  Or, are they something different? If so, what do we call it and how does it work?