When reading Jonathan Swift's essay, "A Modest Proposal," I am always astounded by how rational he makes his proposal of eating babies and children seem. That is the point, and his use of satire is incredible in this essay, making the reader both horrified and curious as to what he'll come up with next. But, again, the main thing I always take away from reading "A Modest Proposal" is how rational and reasonable his argument sounds, if you let go of any moral qualms.
We had our final discussion today in CORE 250, where the professors asked us questions about which thinkers we identified with and why, making us reflect on the different ideas presented in each unit. It was really interesting listening to what everyone had to say, especially in relation to how people find truth. One student argued from a Descartes standpoint, eventually ending his argument by stating that it is impossible to really prove anything beyond your own existence. Other people shared their opinions, eventually concluding that it is possible to use reason to prove or disprove anything. This made me think of "A Modest Proposal," and how rational Swift makes his proposal sound. What morals do people have in place that make his proposal of eating Irish children so horrifying, yet allow for their mistreatment and harm? I don't know if it was Leonard Oakland playing the devil's advocate today in CORE or if I've just been think more about how humans use reason to justify and explain things, but I found this connection interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment