help!

i wandered lonely as a cloud
my literature teacher told us wordswoth wrote this piece in 1804 about an experiance with his brother of a voyage in 1802. but my book told me it was his sister rather than his brother whom he went out with, so who is right?

Your book.

Hmmm, beautiful poem . . . trying to remember . . . *google!
Quoted from this site: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/63.html

Quote:

---

1. Wordsworth made use of the description in his sister's diary, as well as
of his memory of the daffodils in Gowbarrow Park, by Ullswater. Cf. Dorothy
Wordsworth's Journal, April 15, 1802: "I never saw daffodils so beautiful.
They grew among the mossy stones . . .; some rested their heads upon these
stones, as on a pillow for weariness; and the rest tossed and reeled and
danced, and seemed as if they verily laughed with the wind, that blew upon
them over the lake; they looked so gay, ever glancing, ever changing."

---

Thus, in fact, your teacher ought to check his/her sources. Good luck!

i think it is nothng to do with my question , am i right ? however, thank you very much for your quotes :santasmil . now i've done my exams.

By "last paragraph" do you perhaps mean Mono's "signature" which would appear in each of Mono's posts, and would change in all posts, every time Mono chooses to change the signature portion of the profile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mono's Signature

. . . there is no need of science or philosophy for knowing what man has to do in order to be honest and good, and indeed to be wise and virtuous.

Immanuel Kant
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
Translated by H.J. Paton

---

That quote from Kant reminds me of something from the Prophet Micah, and also the Epistle of James, and Moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micah 6:8

He has told you, O man, what is good, And what the LORD requires of you: Only to do justice And to love goodness, And to walk modestly with your God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James 1:27

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 30:11-14

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

---

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/pillars_kant.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starry Skies & Moral Laws

"Two things fill me with wonder," Kant confessed: "the starry sky above and the moral law within." What a man wonders about fills his heart and directs his thought. Note that Kant wonders about only two things: not God, not Christ, not Creation, Incarnation, Resurrection and Judgment, but "the starry sky above and the moral law within." "The starry sky above" is the physical universe as known by modern science. Kant relegates everything else to subjectivity. The moral law is not "without" but "within," not objective but subjective, not a Natural Law of objective rights and wrongs that comes from God but a man-made law by which we decide to bind ourselves. (But if we bind ourselves, are we really bound?) Morality is a matter of subjective intention only. It has no content except the Golden Rule (Kant's "categorical imperative").

---

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Galaxies.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Island Universes

In 1755 Immanuel Kant first speculated on philosophical grounds that there might exist "island universes" of stars like the Milky Way. In 1845, William Parsons, third Earl of Rosse, using a 72-inch home-built telescope at Birr Castle in Ireland, nicknamed the Leviathan of Parsonstown , determined that some of the nebulae have Spiral Structure and adopted Kant's term for them.

---

A similar model was proposed in 1796 by Pierre-Simon Laplace.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KCM2.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albert Schweitzer

A good general definition of mysticism is suggested by Albert Schweitzer's description of the mystic as "a human being looking upon the division between earthly and super-earthly, temporal and eternal, as transcended, and feeling himself, while still externally amid the earthly and temporal, to belong to the super-earthly and eternal."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Kant criticizes "the forcing of conscience" which clergy tend to impose on laity, which can "forbid thought itself and really hinder it" by as*suming that doubting theoretical doctrines is "tantamount to lending an ear to the evil spirits". For a person can become aware of "the verdict of his future judge" not by examining the correct*ness of various theoretical beliefs, but only by considering "his awak*ening conscience, together with the empirical knowledge of himself [i.e. of the motives of his actions] which is summoned to its aid" [77(71)]. This implies that God will judge us on the basis of the judgment of our own conscience, which seems to be part of what Jesus intended to convey in proclaiming that "in the way you judge (yourself and others), you will be judged (by God); and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you" [Matthew 7:2].

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Transcendent, yet Immanent

Kant describes conscience as "the representa*tive of God, who has His lofty seat above us, but who has also established a tribunal in us." That it is a judicial faculty is evident from the fact that Kant describes it as "a third thing" which mediates between "the moral judgment and the moral law". "Conscience is a state of con*sciousness which in itself is duty.... [It] is the moral faculty of judgment, passing judgment upon itself". Through this "consciousness of an inner court in man", God shows Himself to be both transcendent ("above us") and imma*nent ("in us").

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Our Daily Bread

Most mystics, in fact, regard a concern for the revitalization of everyday life as the end result of the true mystical journey. For the mystical experience is not generally one of confusion or uncertainty, as is so often wrongly assumed but one of utmost clarity and immediate certainty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily-frank

i think it is nothng to do with my question , am i right ? however, thank you very much for your quotes :santasmil . now i've done my exams.

---

Oh, I apologize, emily-frank. :D
The signature from Immanuel Kant consists of something entirely separate and different from the message; it appears in all of the messages I type.
In the following quote symbols, this seems the only message I intended to type in response to your question:

Quote:

---

Hmmm, beautiful poem . . . trying to remember . . . *google!
Quoted from this site: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/63.html

Quote:
1. Wordsworth made use of the description in his sister's diary, as well as
of his memory of the daffodils in Gowbarrow Park, by Ullswater. Cf. Dorothy
Wordsworth's Journal, April 15, 1802: "I never saw daffodils so beautiful.
They grew among the mossy stones . . .; some rested their heads upon these
stones, as on a pillow for weariness; and the rest tossed and reeled and
danced, and seemed as if they verily laughed with the wind, that blew upon
them over the lake; they looked so gay, ever glancing, ever changing."


Thus, in fact, your teacher ought to check his/her sources. Good luck!

---

Oeh, this question reminds me I want to reread the poems of Wordsworth again. He is my favourite poet, I think. I am not much into poetry, but his poems moved me.

mono,
it's annoyed emily again. i have read the colonial period of american literature and been bothered by the obscurity of some description of that time period. first, as for the american puritanism, american puritun ideal is described as "a doctrinaire opportunist", my question is " what image of a doctrinaire opportunist come to you when you read these three words?"
do you know edward taylor? "he came nearest to the english baroque poets" , the book says, so what is "the english baroque poets"
what is the gothic features? of what time period did it occur ? it seems that it is originated from germany? i only know some features about it ,like, it's about ghost and castle, the famous novel "dracular"is of this style, but any details?
this is the last but not the least important one question, jonathan edwards and benjamin franklin are two representitive of american puritanism in the eighteenth century who have different views towards puritanism. one is of religious idealism, and the other is of levelheaded common sense.of course, they are both the symbols of two thought trends. my question is "in what aspects do their thought affect the following generations of americans' values, life goals, ect.?" do you think there is any necessities to compare these two pepole, since they are as good puritan as eath other?
sorry to bother you but be very appreciated if got quickly replied :nod: :lol:

mono,
it's annoyed emily again. i have read the colonial period of american literature and been bothered by the obscurity of some description of that time period. first, as for the american puritanism, american puritun ideal is described as "a doctrinaire opportunist", my question is " what image of a doctrinaire opportunist come to you when you read these three words?"
do you know edward taylor? "he came nearest to the english baroque poets" , the book says, so what is "the english baroque poets"
what is the gothic features? of what time period did it occur ? it seems that it is originated from germany? i only know some features about it ,like, it's about ghost and castle, the famous novel "dracular"is of this style, but any details?
this is the last but not the least important one question, jonathan edwards and benjamin franklin are two representitive of american puritanism in the eighteenth century who have different views towards puritanism. one is of religious idealism, and the other is of levelheaded common sense.of course, they are both the symbols of two thought trends. my question is "in what aspects do their thought affect the following generations of americans' values, life goals, ect.?" do you think there is any necessities to compare these two pepole, since they are as good puritan as eath other?
sorry to bother you but be very appreciated if got quickly replied :nod: :lol:
if these questions ar beyond your kownlege, can you give some suggestions of the access to get to kown the answer?

Hello again, emily-frank. No need to apologize for asking questions; I would like to help. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily-frank

i have read the colonial period of american literature and been bothered by the obscurity of some description of that time period. first, as for the american puritanism, american puritun ideal is described as "a doctrinaire opportunist", my question is " what image of a doctrinaire opportunist come to you when you read these three words?"

---

Firstly, Puritanism, I think I can say without offending anyone, one can call one of the strongest religious movements bordering Calvinism; and, during this time, nearly all human actions and endeavors seemed influenced by religion (primarily The Bible). Describing American Puritanism as a "doctrinaire opportunist" merely labels the historic culture a movement of people, following the same religion, same reverence for the same God, and striving toward the goal of societal perfection (thus, "idealism").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily-frank

do you know edward taylor? "he came nearest to the english baroque poets" , the book says, so what is "the english baroque poets"

---

Oddly, I know a trivia fact about the word 'baroque,' coming from early Portugeuse, meaning 'imperfect pearl;' how the word evolved into referring to a time period, I have no idea. The term 'English Baroque poets' basically seems a fancy term, referring to poets of typically from the 17th century to about mid-18th century. Literature of this era, scholars often describe as complex, extravagant, ambiguous, and very ornamented, which, if anyone has read the brilliant Edward Taylor, he/she knows of what they speak. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily-frank

what is the gothic features? of what time period did it occur ? it seems that it is originated from germany? i only know some features about it ,like, it's about ghost and castle, the famous novel "dracular"is of this style, but any details?

---

Hmm, this one I had to do some research, not exactly knowing the accurate dates. Yes, the 'gothic features' did originate in Germany, and lasted throughout Europe from about the 12th century to the 15th century. The so-called Gothic style of literature occurred about the same time, but Bram Stoker's Dracula seemed more of an imitation of the Gothic era; apparently Stoker (1847-1912) did very extensive research, and, obviously, completed a true masterpiece. The characteristics of literature in this era (as I assume you do not refer to the famous Gothic architecture) most describe as very emotional, dark, mysterious, but realistic (very unlike its late follower, Romanticism); later, I would say that the Gothic style gave much influence to the movement of Realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily-frank

this is the last but not the least important one question, jonathan edwards and benjamin franklin are two representitive of american puritanism in the eighteenth century who have different views towards puritanism. one is of religious idealism, and the other is of levelheaded common sense.of course, they are both the symbols of two thought trends. my question is "in what aspects do their thought affect the following generations of americans' values, life goals, ect.?" do you think there is any necessities to compare these two pepole, since they are as good puritan as eath other?

---

Yes, both Jonathan Edwards and Benjamin Franklin seem very complex minds to comprehend; both made a great impact on politics, religion, spirituality, and philosophy (philosophy, especially with Edwards). Two forms of 'religious idealism' seemed highly controversial during Puritanism's time, and, in my opinion, Edwards steered more toward reason and rationalization in religious thought and following, and Franklin much more toward intuition and "what seemed initially good" (very similar to the individualization encouraged by Ralph Waldo Emerson, centuries later, in his essay 'Self-Reliance'). In this way, I think Edwards showed quite a bit more concern of religious purity, making wise actions through step-by-step reason, and heavenly attainment, fearing an Old Testament wrathful Superior Being (which many could say after reading something like his short story, 'Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God'); and, on the contrary, Franklin searched more for the well-being during life, obeying a highly religion-influenced government, and that, in turn, more long-term goals would come accepted, to say it simply.

Whew! Well, I hope I have helped, anyway, and I wish you luck, though the study of the Puritan era and literature does not seem one of my stronger areas, but never apologize about asking; as I said, I enjoy helping. :)

Wow Mono,
You remind me that I want to read more.. and more importantly: remember and understand more.. :goof:.
I always love to read your replies.

Thanks!

greatings,
Bianca