andreskrey

Andres Rey Rey desde Khalari, Chhattisgarh 494347, India desde Khalari, Chhattisgarh 494347, India

Lector Andres Rey Rey desde Khalari, Chhattisgarh 494347, India

Andres Rey Rey desde Khalari, Chhattisgarh 494347, India

andreskrey

Me encuentro releyendo mucho el libro. ¡Es solo una gran historia de amor! En la Tierra de Pendaran, Shelby Parker vive una vida humilde pero buena. Finalmente, el rey y la reina de la Casa de Markham notan sus cualidades especiales, que buscan una nueva esposa para su hijo viudo, el príncipe Nikolai. Para mantener la tradición de su país, Shelby y Nikolai acuerdan un matrimonio arreglado. Pero mientras Nikolai es un caballero perfecto en público, permanece distante en casa, dejando a Shelby preguntándose qué hay en su corazón. ¿El príncipe la amará alguna vez como lo hizo con su primera esposa? ¿Puede la fe que comparten superar las barreras entre ellos?

andreskrey

The basic premise of Rancière’s work is to provide a history of the early nineteenth century French schoolmaster, Joseph Jacotot. Jacotot found himself in a position where he was asked to teach French to a group of Flemish students. The problem, however, was that the students knew no French and he knew no Flemish. In devising a method of teaching these students French by having them read and recite a book in French until they could understand and discuss it, Jacotot developed a “pedagogy” (in scare quotes because it is precisely an anti-pedagogy) based not on explication but on emancipation. The conclusion he reached by “teaching what he didn’t know” was that all students were of equal intelligence because they all had the same capacity for reason; the purpose of education, therefore, was not to explicate an established body of knowledge (which posits the schoolmaster as a “master” and the children as ignorant) but rather to have children realize their own capacity for reason and intelligence by recognizing the necessity of its use. Rancière's argument in support of Jacotot’s conclusions is easy to follow and quite convincing; the book also does well is recasting the basic premises of Jacotot’s system in the basic terminology of twentieth-century theory. Language, for example, plays an important role in the entire argument because Jacotot concluded that intelligence was prior to, and corrupted by, language: we are not intelligent because of language; rather, language is merely a tool by which we communicate with and understand each other. “Man does not think because he speaks – this would precisely submit thought to the existing material order. Man thinks because he exists” (62). Truth, therefore, cannot be expressed in language but must rather be grasped or felt in spite of its inadequacies. On the whole, the conclusions of the book are at once hopeful and discouraging. Progress, especially in terms of the refinement of social institutions to reflect rationality, becomes a negative term because it constitutively perpetuates the very inequalities that it supposes itself to be overcoming. Equality, therefore, can never be realized on a social level because we need social institutions and they necessarily produce inequality. At the same time, however, the book is hopeful and potentially revolutionary insofar as emancipation is always possible – at least intellectually – because every human being has the capacity to realize his or her capacity for intelligence by submitting his will to rationality. As Rancière says, “There cannot be a class of the emancipated, an assembly or a society of the emancipated. But any individual can always, at any moment, be emancipated and emancipate someone else, announce to others the practice and add to the number of people who know themselves as such and who no longer play the comedy of the inferior superiors. A society, a people, a state, will always be irrational. But one can multiply within these bodies the number of people who, as individuals, will make use of reason, and who, as citizens, will know how to seek the art of raving as reasonably as possible” (98). I also found this book extremely interesting in terms of Enlightenment thought. Having spent the last few months reading a lot of Kant (among others), the conclusions reached by Rancière (via Jacotot) provide an interesting counterpoint to Kant’s understanding of the relationship between politics and freedom: “One must choose between making an unequal society out of equal men and making an equal society out of unequal men. Whoever has some taste for equality shouldn’t hesitate: individuals are real beings, and society a fiction. It’s for real beings that equality has value, not for a fiction” (132). This book - short and easy to follow - is a must-read for those who teach or who are interested in issues of justice, as it forces us to think about just what i