Doubt 2

When I reread the play, I actually found myself admiring Sister Aloysius more than I did the first time. There is a lot, I think, that is admirable in the way in which her strict, harshness is grounded in what can only be called morally necessity. She has chosen to walk down a path of isolation in pursuit of helping others, albeit unusually, but also in a more productive manner, and in doing so, is promoting the greater good, which I suppose would make her a utilitarian. By putting aside her own desires, she can better bring about utility in others. That's my impression. For me, this second reading has given me a better insight into the different ways in which people view the job of a moral cultivator. By that, I mean that in my first reading, I despised Sister Aloysius for similar reasons that I admire her this time. I had to look past my own prejudices about what a "moral person" is in order to really understand what this person was trying to do.

ASIDE: I understand what Professor McCrickerd was saying earlier in class today about a teacher not being a friend, but rather someone that students should be slightly distanced from and should look up to as an example. I pretty much agree with that, but upon thinking it over, I think that there is more to that teachers have to offer. The teacher, I feel, should be mentor. Where would Heidegger be without Husserl? Wittgenstein without Russell? In order to be a mentor, you have to be that person's friend. That doesn't mean you have to go out drinking or partying with them, but it does mean that there needs to be a positive relationship that both parties feel is beneficial in some way. I believe it was Aristotle, maybe Plato, who had differing degrees of friendship. At one stage, there's the friend who advises the other, and one who receives the advise, but it's not in dogmatic way, rather a comfortable, productive manner. Anyway, that's just my thoughts.