Enlightenment Appetites

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

PaMeLa

4.8

Text: 

Mrs. Jervis gave me her Smelling-bottle, and had cut my Laces, and sat me in a great Chair and he call’d her to him: How is the Girl said he? I never saw such a Fool in my Life. I did nothing at all to her. Mrs. Jervis could not speak for crying. So, he said, she has told you, it seems, that I was kind to her in the Summer- house, tho’ I’ll assure you, I was quite innocent then as well as now; and I desire you to keep this Matter to yourself, and let me not be nam’d in it. (Pg. 32) 

Thoughts:

This passage I found particularly chilling. The way Mr. B is so quick to tell Mrs. Jervis that he “did nothing at all to her” and discredit Pamela’s character made me feel slightly sick. And once he realizes Mrs. Jervis in fact already knows he attempted to rape her, he qualifies his actions as being “quite innocent then as well as now.” His lies are built around his social class standing and what significance that is meant to hold. Men of the upper class are not meant to attack young servant girls they are supposed be honorable and respectable worthy creatures of their class. Yet Mr. B is the a most retched man who doesn’t appear to care particularly about how a moral human should act let alone someone in his social class. However, that doesn’t mean to say he doesn’t care about how people perceive him. Mr. B’s reputation is everything to him, the idea that he upholds the vision of an elite upper-class man is intensely important to his ego. Therefore he calls Pamela “a Fool” and claims he did nothing to her in hopes Mrs. Jervis won’t speak a word of it to anyone. And he goes even further to directly tell Mrs. Jervis  “to keep this Matter to yourself, and let me not be nam’d in it.” His grossly manipulative manner comes across as he tells Mrs. Jervis she now knows nothing of the matter demonstrating Pamela is of little consequence to him.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Kant and Animals

4.4

Text:

But since all animals exist only as means, and not for their own sakes, in that they have no self-consciousness, whereas man is the end, such that I can no longer ask: Why does he exist? as can be done with animals, it follows that we have no immediate duties to animals; our duties towards them are indirect duties to humanity. Since animals are an analogue of humanity, we observe duties to mankind when we observe them as analogues to this, and thus cultivate our duties to humanity.  (Pg. 212)

Analysis: 

This excerpt comes from Kant’s Lectures on ethics and specifically how ethics pertain to animals. What Kant argues is animals exist  “not for their own sakes” because “they have no self-consciousness” but for the means of humans. Kant maintains his view that humans exist and serve a purpose because “man is the end, such that I can no longer ask: Why does he exist?” Although this appears to be a rather circular argument Kant feels the purpose of humanity is undeniable while the purpose of animals is questionable at best. Therefore animals exist mainly to act to serve “duties to mankind,” so in simpler language they live to serve. Kant’s assertion that animals exist without any self-conscious is one founded on conjecture and not from any preexisting knowledge or science for that matter as since today we know animals that are able to communicate with each other, one example being dolphins. This form of communication probably indicates they have some form of self-conscience because communication is hardly ever done without some form of thinking.  

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

BeEs bzzz bzzzz

3.30

Text:

The Moral.

Then Leave Complaints: Fools only strive

To make a Great an Honest Hive

I’ enjoy the World’s Conveniences

Be fam’d in War, yet live in Ease,

Without great Vices, is a vain

Eutopia seated in the Brain.

Fraud, Luxury and Pride must live,

While we the Benefits receive:

Hunger’s a dreadful Plague, no doubt,

Yet who digests or thrives without? 

Analysis: 

The Moral follows the preface and the entirety of the fable as a quick rap up and take away. The author of The Fable of the Bees is Bernard Mandeville and in the first stanza of this moral he is articulating his disregard for “fools only strive// To make a Great an Honest Hive.” This appears to insinuate that Mandeville’s final thoughts on the matter of society or as he ascribes the hive too is that it is an impossible task to have a just and honest society and corruption and deceit is inevitable and inescapable. Mandeville goes on to describe the great vices, as “Fraud, Luxury, and Pride must live” again reinstating the idea that our vices are too strong to overcome permanently. Mandeville also writes, “Hunger’s a dreadful Plague, no doubt, // Yet who digests or thrives without?” The answer to this question he poses “Yet who digests or thrives without” while pertaining to a lack of food is most likely the wealthy. Since the wealthy always go hungry last in famine if they even go hungry at all because they have the resources to find outsourced food while the poor have no such resources and continue to starve. This depressingly realist view is shown throughout the entire poem but is condensed into a page length format to hammer the point home by Mandeville.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Late Night Thoughts on Hogarth

3.18

I’ve decided to take the to write about my feeling on William Hogarth. There are a lot of feelings on the subject and some feelings cannot even be correctly articulated mainly due to my confusion over the plates created by William Hogarth. To clarify the confusion does not come from a lack of liking because in many ways it’s the opposite, I find his story telling through engraving wondrously impressive but mainly overwhelming. I think this is due to all the madness that is happening in each piece. For example the first plate of A Midnight Modern Conversation includes eleven people in it, and that is small number compared to previous pieces I’ve seen of his. All of the men seem to be absurdly drunk, okay, I can get that but then when you look more into each action of these stumbling drunks that is when things get more intricate. Every single one of the men serves a purpose if there is one thing I have learned about William Hogarth’s plate there is never just a person filling a space for an idle reason. This is what is so compelling about Hogarth as an artist he creates a scene of mayhem and madness and it’s overwhelming, yes, but you still have a longing to know what it all means. And that is why he confuses me because I can never get to that end goal! How each character fits into the story, how the clock means to tell a certain narrative in itself and how the fallen bottle represents something other than just drunkenness. I’m not at the level of full comprehension of his pieces and I think I should end this with something grossly hopeful but unfortunately I think I might have plateaued with Hogarth. But don’t worry I’ll sneak something cheesy in here, that doesn’t mean my lack of appreciation for him will diminish any less.

--> Ellen Page relates how this post is basically randomness and how a shrug encapsulates my emotions on randomness at this point in my life

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

VoLtAiRe

3.16

Text:

‘Now tell us this, my dear Pangloss,’ said Candide. ‘While you were being hanged, and dissected, and beaten, and made to row in a galley, did you continue to believe that all was for the best?’-‘I hold firmly to my original views,’ replied Pangloss. ‘I am a philosopher after all: it would not do for me to recant, given that Leibniz is incapable of error, and that pre-established harmony is moreover the finest thing in the world- not to speak of the plenum and the material subtilis.’   

Analysis:

Pangloss’ refusal to accept that being hanged was not the best of scenarios is the epitome of the idiocy of his philosophy. The reasons he won’t accept that his philosophy is invalid are do to the simple reason, “I am a philosopher after all: it would not do for me to recant, given that Leibniz is incapable of error.” The pure stubbornness that is shown by Pangloss is almost admirable he was “hanged, and dissected, and beaten, and made to row in a galley” but he still believes it was all meant to happen the way it did. And why? Because of the “pre-established harmony” and this harmony is created through the constant mantra that all is for the best. And Pangloss is too far committed to admit defeat he will have to continue living a life that accepts his own untimely death as part of the “pre-established harmony.” This is Voltaire’s cleverly crafted satirical sarcasm at play as he directs his readers to all the misgiving and misfortunes occur when you so thoroughly commit yourself to one idea and one idea alone.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

The Continuation of Cannibals

3.11

Text:

‘I am familiar with the gibberish these people speak. I will address them.’- ‘Be sure to impress upon them,’ said Candide, ‘how frightful and inhuman it is to cook people alive, and how very unchristian.’ (pg.41)

Thoughts:

I feel like this is what we can call a reoccurring theme! The eighteenth century apparently had a real thing about people eating other people, rightly so I mean that is seriously unethical thing to do. However, for all the superiority the Europeans constantly remind any foreign people who they invade and not so kindly change their culture and take their goods from, how horridly inhumane and how very unchristian it is to eat people! Again I totally agree with this, eating people is definitely one of those things on the never permissible (except if your Chris Hemsworth and your lost at sea). But as research from the trusty old Smithsonian shows us “that in 1098, after a successful siege and capture of the Syrian city Ma’arra, Christian soldiers ate the flesh of local Muslims.” So in reality Christians were doing things donned “very unchristian” and ironically becoming rather hypocritical. Plus just to add to anyone wanting to know more about cannibalism in Europe as this continent, “boasts the oldest fossil evidence of cannibalism.” This old fossil dates back more than 100,000 years so not only do we have Christians eating people but now we have the mighty conglomerate of all Europeans eating people too. Well, well, well I guess those Europeans should have gotten off their high horses and instead of condemning these cannibals they should have said, “hey we had a stint of cannibalism in our culture too, but we’ve moved on and I highly recommend you do too.” Problem solved.  

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Voltaire

3.9

Text:

 After dinner some men arrived with ropes and tied up Doctor Pangloss and his disciple Candide- the one for what he had said, and the other for having listened with an air of approval: both were led away to separate apartments…Candide was flogged in cadence to the singing; the Biscayan and the two Portuguese who did not relish bacon were burned to death”

(pg.16) 

Analysis:

Voltaire’s satirical style is at it’s best in this section when the narrator observes Pangloss and Candide were arrested on the account, “one for what he had said, and the other for having listened with an air of approval.” The sarcasm that follows the idea that if you are a follower you will be held equally held accountable for what the leader of your group says. Voltaire may possibly be associating other countries and willing citizens that follow laws that discriminate outwardly towards other people. The logic being although Candide did nothing he allowed Pangloss to say what he had to say and then agreed with it “with an air of approval”. The phrase “air of approval” also indicates Candide might not have even agreed with whatever philosophical ideas he was sputtering but was just agreeing for the sake to agree with a friend. Again this relates to a larger metaphor of Pangloss being a country and Candide the submissive citizens. Another note that is simplified to cut a dry joke was “the two Portuguese who did not relish bacon were burned to death” this line remarks theses men were burned for being Jewish. Since they were discovered to eat kosher food they were killed for their faith but Voltaire displays the absurdity of killing people over religion as he says they were killed because they “did not relish bacon.”

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

PoPe

3.4

Text:

This I might have done in prose; but I chose verse, and even rhyme for two reasons. The one will appear obvious; that principles, maxims or precepts so written, both strike the reader more strongly at first, and are more easily retained by him afterwards: The other may seem odd, but is true, I found I could express them more shortly this way than in prose itself; and nothing is more certain, than that much of the force as well as grace of arguments or instructions, depends on their conciseness. I was unable to treat this part of my subject more in detail, without becoming dry and tedious; or more poetically, without sacrificing perspicuity to ornament, without wandring from the precision, or breaking the chain of reasoning: If any man can unite all these without diminution of any of them, I freely confess he will compass a thing above my capacity. (Pg.502)

Analysis:

This passage is one of the most fantastically odd segments of sections from this philosopher’s writings. That is because the introduction leading up to his prose he writes on his upcoming work the language will, “both strike the reader more strongly at first, and are more easily retained by him afterwards.” Pope attempts to stay neutral in gender as he refers to his audience members as a “reader” but he shortly resorts back to gendered pronouns as the human who shall be reciting or memorizing his prose will be “easily retained by him afterwards.” There is also a slight comical moment that came across in this use of the word “obvious”, Pope uses this word to describe why he has chosen to use verse and even some rhyme but as the reasons were mentioned prior to this he makes the side note to claim the first principle was rather obvious. The use of “obvious” appears to be a slight nod that he is catering to a far more educated crowd than mere plebeians. This passage further continued down the road of amusing as Pope flexes his literary prowess at poetry to show he is more than capable to switch from normal writing to prose in an instant. As he states his capabilities to write in a style, “…more poetically, without sacrificing perspicuity to ornament, without wandering from the precision, or breaking the chain of reasoning.” For some reason this read as more conceited than commendable while it is impressive he is able to write so beautifully in prose and verse the prologue to his poem seemed a little forced and unnecessary.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Because I can’t get enough of Ship’s Biscuit

2.29

Maddie and I did what all college students do over a weekend: we watched In the Heart of the Sea. You may ask why did we decide to spend our weekend in this way, well the obvious answer is because we are literary humans who want to better our minds through the power of film. A secondary answer would be due to an odd amount of time that was given to us in the space-time continuum of our lives and with it we decided to watch a movie about a rambunctious whale that also happened to have Chris Hemsworth in it. However, what we stumbled upon while watching this average movie (I don’t recommend CGI was cool but that’s about it) was ship’s biscuit. Yes, I would be the first to admit I didn’t think I would be coming across ship’s biscuit again but here in this movie there were sailors scattered in little row boats being given a measly portion of ship’s biscuit to eat per day with an even smaller ration of water. I know what you’re thinking did I just imagine it to be ship’s biscuit and haphazardly put my faith in movie directors of big budget films that might not know eighteen-century food like myself? Never fear I have a website that seems almost practically reliable that notes, “The whole point about three ounces of ship's biscuit and half a pint of water a day under the burning sun, is that they are just that; and that in time they will reduce you to eating the heart and liver of your friend.” I know the ending is a little morbid with the whole cannibalism aspect but again relevance to eighteen-century cannibalism, am I right?? I know these connections are mind blowing, long live ship’s biscuit and whales that try to kill Chris Hemsworth.

 http://www.economist.com/node/333448

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Huzzah more Crusoe

2.26

Text:

After this, I had been telling him how the Devil was God’s Enemy in the Heart’s of Men, and used all his Malice and Skill to defeat the good Designs of Providence, and to ruin the Kingdom of Christ in the World; and the like. Well, says Friday, but you say, God is so strong, so great, is he not much strong, much might as the Devil? Yes, yes, says I, Friday, God is stronger than the Devil, God is above the Devil, and therefore we pray to God to tread him down under out Feet, and enable us to resist his Temptations and quench his fiery Darts. But, says he again, if God much strong, much might as the Devil, why God no kill the Devil, so make him no more wicked?  

(Pg.184)

Analysis:

Friday is portrayed through the eyes of Crusoe as a specie of lesser intellect or as he likes to refer to him on occasion by “creature”. However, Friday is the characterization of a noble savage and his lack of knowledge pertaining to the civilized world allows him to see the world through an unadulterated lense. This all culminates in this revealing exchange between Crusoe and Friday on the topic of God. Friday poses the question “God is so strong, so great, is he not much strong, much might as the Devil?” And consequently why can’t God overpower the Devil and all evil in general. Friday is asking a question that all Christians have been asking for centuries if God is all knowing, powerful, and loving why does evil exist? Or as Friday inquires “why God no kill the Devil, so make him no more wicked?”  The inherent wickedness in the world is something Friday as an outsider can see clearly and how if his companion Crusoe preaches about all the worldly powers God is endowed with why wouldn’t God just fix them. This philosophical question posed by Friday is merely shrugged off by Crusoe and he continues to believe he is a superior being of the two because he classifies himself “civilized”. Yet Defoe makes a point in this passage to show that Friday has an equal amount of intelligence to Crusoe and being properly civilized does not automatically create for a more knowledgeable human.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

More Crusoe

2.22

Text:

In the relating what is already past of my Story, this will be the more easily believ’d, when I shall ass, that thro’ all the Variety of Miseries that had to this Day befallen me, I never has so much as one Thought of it being the Hand of God, or that it was a just Punishment for my Sin; my rebellious Behavior against my Father, or my present Sins which were great; or so much as a Punishment for the general Course of my wicked Life…But I was merely thoughtless of a God, or a Providence; acted like a meer Brute from the Principles of Nature, and by the Dictates of common Sense only, and indeed hardly that.  (Pg.76)

Analysis:

Crusoe is a tale of fiction that was marketed as nonfiction. However, the public was suspicious of all the amazing adventures and events that happened to occur to the elusive man named Jonathon Crusoe. Defoe smartly weaves in little phrases such as, “this will be the more easily believ’d” to insinuate the reader may be thinking this story is too fantastical to be true but don’t worry this normal event is definitely far more believable. The language Defoe uses shows he sympathizes with his readers that this story is unbelievable but his underlying message: believe it. The irony of course being this is a fiction book Jonathon Crusoe only lived in Defoe’s imagination but fiction was not a popularized way of writing in the eighteenth century and he advertised a story so unremarkably true any person had to read it. Other than Defoe’s hidden advertising in Crusoe- who would have known this blog post was going there- this passage directly discusses Crusoe’s struggle with his faith. Crusoe seems to understand why he is being banished to a life of isolation as he states, “that it was a just Punishment for my Sin; my rebellious Behavior against my Father, or my present Sins which were great” but still he qualifies this with, “But I was merely thoughtless of a God.” Crusoe knew his sins were great and he doesn’t appear to outwardly despise God for allowing his life to crumble but instead he became indifferent and stopped for a brief period relating his misery to his sins but just to plain misery. Crusoe’s disconnect to God comes after his isolation and he begins a deep introspection that allows him to make the observation about how he has become distant and now it appears his renewal of faith and belief in God.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Crusoe

2.17 

Text:

I went to Board s Ship bound for London; never any young Adventurer’s Misfortunes, I believe, began sooner, or continued longer than mine. The Ship was no sooner gotten out of the Humber, but the Wind began to blow, and the Waves to rise in a most frightful manner; and as I had never been at Sea before, I was most inexpressibly sick in Body, and terrify’d in my Mind: I began now seriously to reflect upon what I had done, and how justly I was overtaken by the Judgment of Heaven for my wicked leaving my Father’s House, and abandoning my Duty; all the good Counsel of my Parents, my Father’s Tears and my Mother’s Entreaties came now fresh into my Mind, and my Conscience, which was not yet come to the Pitch Hardness to which it has been since, reproach’d me with the Contempt of Advice, and the Breach of my Duty to God and my Father. (Pg.9)

Analysis:

This text foreshadows Crusoe’s perilous journey as he narrates his soon to be series of unfortunate events as, “Never any young Adventurer’s Misfortunes, I believe, began sooner, or continued longer than mine.” But what strikes me most about this section is how while a raging storm is going on and all the men on board are fearing for their lives Crusoe manages to take the time to account for all the poor decisions that lead him there. Since his rationale directs him towards the idea that now is the time to start feeling remorse as he mournfully thinks “I began now seriously to reflect upon what I had done” and he goes on to list his reasons the storm is venomously trying to kill him because his defiance of his father and therefore inherently God’s will. The sad ramble of blaming his own idiocy during the storm is something that detracts from the storm that is actually happening around them. Defoe turns a scene that is exciting into a guilt filled stream of consciousness and this exemplifies where Defoe’s writing lies not in thrilling outward actions but internal chaos that tends to include countless catalogues.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Cook

2.15 

http://www.nypl.org/blog/2014/07/09/captain-cooks-mouldy-bread

This short blog post from the New York Public Library describes the event that occurred in Cook’s journal when all the bread was fond “to be very damp and moudly” and this bread is known as ships biscuit. I found this post to be relevant because of our in class activity of making this not so savory bread. Also I discovered that there was more than 60,000 pounds of bread on the ship, which is an absurd amount and puts into perspective how long their voyages were. Another interesting tidbit was a response to Cook’s request for more ships biscuit that was not in our selected sections of his journals. The response presumably from someone on the victualing commission responded “Let bags be forthwith sent down to bring up this bread, and acquaint the captain: and tell him we shall send other bread in lieu when he acquaints us the sloop is ready to receive it.” So now my heart can rest easy as I know Captain Cooks food provisions were replenished.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Pamela

4.13

Text:

Mrs. Jewkes, the vile Mrs. Jewkes! may yet investigate the Mind of this Master: His Pride of Heart, and Pride of Condition, may again take place; and a Man that could, in so little a Space, first love me, then hate me, then banish me his House, and send me away disgracefully; and now send for me again, in such affectionate Terms; may still waver, may still deceive thee. Therefore will I not acquit thee yet, O credulous, fluttering, throbbing Mischief! (p.251)

Analysis:

           This letter may be the most telling of Pamela’s character. For she is falling in love with a man, who has done horrid things to her but yet she doesn’t seem to mind them too much now. Since she lists all of the grievances he has committed against her starting with, “first love me, then hate me, then banish me his House, and send me away disgracefully; and now send for me again”(pg.251). It’s practically comical because she ends her phrase with “in such affectionate terms” yet what can affection really mean when it’s coming from Mr.B. She is too trusting and hopeful and she is so ready to forget all of the horrible things he did to her. Such as assaulting her on more than one occasion but that is a fact to little to no matter in the eyes of Pamela since her heart has magically decided to fall in love. This seems to be the pinnacle of her innocence and naivety believing that Mr. B is sincere in anything he does and that their “love” is based off anything other than Mr.B’s obsession for Pamela. And Pamela falls into his web hoping all of the things he has done were done in a passion. But the issue with that idea she has become so attached to is, why does that make his actions permissible? The easy answer is, they don’t. It doesn’t matter if Mr.B’s passion drove him to assault and berate her on numerous accounts it doesn’t mask the fact that he still did those atrocious things. But in the eyes of Pamela his atrocities mean nothing for she is now falling in love and becoming blind to all of these instances.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

The Obsession of Pamela

4.11          

 Mr.B does not simply like Pamela or even love, but he is obsessed. She is no more a person at this point than she is prize he wants to win. And all she does to protect her virtue and her self only work to make Mr.B want her even more. After Mr.B gives Pamela a contract of what he believes to be a fair compensation for having her body, Pamela refuses the offer to become little more than a “base born prostitute”(p.192). But Pamela’s refusal did little to hinder Mr.B as he shouts, “ I cannot live without you: And since the thing is gone so far, I will not!”(p.193) Mr.B has become delusional in his idea of Pamela; she is perfect and virtuous and must be attained by him and only him. He refers to their relationship, if that, as a “thing” because maybe even his own mind and rationale he can’t justify his behavior to Pamela as a healthy relationship. His obsession heightens in this statement as it means that Pamela does not have a choice in the matter whether he wants to be with Mr.B or not. He presented her with a contract while fully knowing her refusal would mean nothing to what he would get out of her. Because in the end, Pamela’s opinion and wants do not matter, because Mr.B only wants to have her in the post possessive way possible.  

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Pamela

4.18

Text:

HERE end the Letters of the incomparable PAMELA to her Father and Mother. For, as they arriv’d at their Daughter’s House on Tuesday Evening in the following Week, she had no Occasion to continue her Journal longer.

….As for the excellent PAMELA, she enjoy’d for many Years, the Reward of her Virtue, Piety and Charity; exceedingly beloved by both Sexes, and by all Degrees; and was look’d upon as the Mirror of her Age and Sex. (p.498-499) 

Analysis: 

           This paragraph follows the ending of Pamela’s letter correspondence with her parents and in turn starts a new narration. This narration comes from a third party that seems to be an omniscient observer of the story who knows all its unfolding’s. This distinct change comes as quite a shift from Pamela’s voice and is meant to serve as the equivalent to a conclusion. However, this stark change in narration is abrupt and comes off forced by the author. This out of place wrap up of the story tells of all the characters virtues that the reader was meant to understand throughout the story. But just in case the reader didn’t catch these subtleties-the author supposes- he has neatly spelled them out in the last few pages.

           An example of the virtues that Richardson spells out for the reader is followed in a few later paragraphs as he proclaims of Pamela, “was look’d upon as the Mirror of her Age and Sex”(p.499). Her virtuous nature is what an ideal woman should be. For she has “Piety and Charity” and is leading an example all woman can only attempt to emulate. Richardson uses these final pages to stress the perfection of Pamela almost as a way to justify Mr.B’s fervent obsession with her. Pamela is an unattainable idea that Richardson has set up for woman to be and men to want.

[megaenlightenmentappetitess-blog]

Cook

2.12

Text:

“From what I have said of the Natives of New-Holland they may appear to some to be the most wretched people upon the Earth, but in reality they are far more happier than we Europeans; being wholy unacquainted not only with the superfluous but the necessary Conveniences so much sought after in Europe, they are happy in not knowing the use of them.”  (p.29)

Analysis:

 James Cook wrote of his travels to new lands in an observational manner that was rather flat lined so at times it was unapologetically honest. This honesty was apparent from the very beginning of his journal when he stated the Natives as the “the most wretched people upon Earth” than qualified the harsh statement with “but in reality they are far more happier than we European.”(p.29) Truly a fantastic opening line that exemplified how he was planning on narrating his stories by writing how a simple way of living can create a far better happiness than the contrived happiness money and power brings in Europe. Cooks commentary on “superfluous but the necessary conveniences” of English life show how he understands the absurdities of his life and is taking that in to account while visiting different places with different cultures. His understanding of the European way of life is one that pokes fun at their dependency on material goods and he allows for this insight to create a unique perspective in his journal.