Cultural relativism: Cultural relativism is the concept that no culture is superior to another

since culture is based on custom rather than reason and takes its meaning from the people who
hold it.
Michel de Montaigne’s ‘On Cannibalism’ - he talks about different customs and different
cultures. What church authorities said was interpreted as the best way of behaving / doing. The
culture they influenced (the European culture) was considered the best one. De Montaigne put
forward the idea that culture is relative and certain values are not absolute. There is no absolute
idea to which all cultures should look up to. He questions the absolute nature of values in the
culture of Western civilization. He puts forward an extreme example, posing a question if
cannibalism is the worst crime one can commit. He prepared a field for scientists who did not
exist before and their findings.

Metaphysical optimism: the belief or disbelief in god being the almighty, who has created life
as it is and he made it perfect. But he does not interfere in human lives. He created is a perfect as
he could and then let if function as a mechanism. Yet the thought that the world is perfect and
everything is meant to be as it is dangerous.
It is important to consider deism and 17th / 18th century’s metaphysical optimism - it is the
belief in a supreme being who has created nature, life, earth; everything is perfect as it is. He is
an absent creator, God does not interfere in human lives. He has created the world as perfect as
possible in the universe, and stepped back from it, and decided to let it function as a clockwork
mechanism full of little parts and cogs. If one cog is not working properly, this whole mechanism
stops - all is in harmony.
What is dangerous in this metaphysical optimism is the fact that the world is perfect as it is, and
everything is happening as it is supposed to happen. Evil cannot even be considered as evil, it is
something that is a part of a bigger picture and can be rationalized as God’s plan. Even really bad
things can be justified by this thought. God likes variety so he made lots of different species
(plants, animals, human beings - the Great Chain of being); every being in that chain has its
place. Every being has a proper position and human beings are in the center of that chain - he is
on the isthmus of being (A. Pope). He is considered better and more knowledgeable, has more
recognition than plants and animals, but is not as high up on the chain as e.g. angels. Because of
his position, man has limited knowledge, which is one of the characteristics of this philosophy.

The great chain of being: It is a concept that we reflect certain ideas from this time and this is
society can be viewed as some sort of change where every single part of change is occupied by
particular unit or entity that is a set by God himself. God is the X absolute being he has a greater
plan and he knows certainly more than we do. He created a green train of being he created the
world itself in such the order that is perfect.
The chain of being is an everlasting construction that should not be violated in anyway because it
was sent by God not to be violate.
We are the guardians of the great chain of being- placed on Earth to look after each other and
every other creature on it; we should not disrespect or disarrange the perfect mechanism of the
all-knowing clock maker. (Unfortunately in only few decades we managed to disturb the system
leading to a great manifest of pollution and weather change).
Cosmic toryism: Basil Willey was an English Literature professor at Cambridge. He wrote two
books, 17th and 18th century, which came as a result of his lectures. In them he talks about all of
the changes that occurred during this time. Cosmic toryism is the term he coined first. Willey
considers nature to be the source and test of art, as well as a built-in reason. They refer to human
nature as a given that is essentially immutable and unchanging. Nature serves as a measure of
poise and a source of inspiration for their work. The word protean means changing, ever
changing and ambiguity means that it has various interpretations. During this time of the
Enlightenment nature and reason are almost interchangeable. Even a religion was founded on
reason. They believed in the existence of a supreme being solely based and exclusively based on
logic and reason. Dryden, Willey and Pope believe that good poetry comes from following these
strict rules of writing that by imitating the rules of nature they were creating natural poetry but at
the same time here Willey calls Pope's poetry artificial. The reliance on reason is primary and
most important. He says that whatever produces a sense of delight with pleasure is natural
meaning that if poetry or literature is able to produce this effect in the reader it means that the
author has done a good job. The readers preferences and aversions could well seem those of
average educated humanity so they have to please them. The educated man was seen as natural,
the one who adheres to the rules of the quorum, pays attention to how he behaves in public to his
personnel, as well as public affairs. Poetry had to combine fiction and faction or imagination and
reality to such a degree so in such proportion that would be preferable to truth. The poet draws
inspiration from nature, optimizes it, and adds to it. We may build something with our minds,
something that does not exist in nature, using the poetic form. It's necessary to think about deism
as well as metaphysical optimism, which was popular in the 17th and 18th centuries. According
to Willey, the characters in our heroic poems or plays must be archetypes or kinds rather than
people, therefore the focus is on archetypes or types rather than individuals. As a result, he
claims, this purity is being replicated, if not duplicated, throughout the neoclassical age. He
refers to it as "oldest decorum," "propriety of thoughts and words," "this unity and
proportionable listings this meaning of nature by nature herself" in literature. In social situations,
decorum refers to proper rules of behavior, such as how you're going to walk, sit, and talk, how
you're going to behave when talking to specific people, how you're going to behave in the public
sphere, etiquette, so proper decorum, proper etiquette, and in literature, decorum refers to
specific language and characters appropriate to genres.
The formal essay 'An Essay on Man' is written in heroic couplets (a couplet where each line has
10 syllables). Pope's essays are realistic representations of the time's essays. Through multiple
verses, varied word combinations, and rhyming patterns, the same themes are repeated a lot. The
essay is written in the style of a theodicy, in which he attempts to defend God's creation of the
world. He begins by directly addressing someone which is what we call an apostrophe and
announcing the topic of his essay: the globe (all of nature's flowers, animals, humanity, and
civilization) and God's methods. God created perfection, therefore nor God nor heaven should be
blamed. Man is designed to be flawless, as he should be. His existence is finite, and the time he
spends on Earth is only a fraction of a second in space. He can't get much better than he was
when he was born; progress isn't an option. One should not aspire to be more; one is not meant to
be more. Man has no idea what spirits or angels know; all he knows is his present and past. Man
has no idea what will happen to him in the future, and we all have no idea what will happen to
us. It would be awful for us if we knew what would happen in the future because we would
suffer. Accepting your fate, the status quo, and the fact that you cannot alter it is the ultimate
aim. Knowing that your existence is still meaningful in God's eyes gives you a sense of comfort.
Death is certain, but individuals must also worship God, have faith in this system, and believe in
the perfection of God's created universe. Because one's knowledge is limited, they cannot predict
the future, leaving only hope and a sense of relevance. It is more likely to be understood in terms
of deism than if heaven and hell were included (particularly for Christendom). We would do
more harm than good if we had too much information (God knows this). We couldn't understand
what we saw even if we had a'microscopic eye.' We may die from smelling a rose - 'die of a rose
in aromatic anguish.' We can hear loud noises, and so it's possible that an insect might find it too
much. God did not provide us with certain features or knowledge for no cause. There's this idea
of the infinite chain of being. A hierarchy is assumed by the chain. God is at one end of this 'vast
chain of being, which began with God.' Everything is intertwined in this vast web of existence.
'Chain' also implies slavery. All beings are compelled to do so, and they cannot be freed; they are
doomed. Every link in the chain is significant in some way. If we use our weak strength to
pressure higher powers, someone else will do the same, and they may be in a worse situation
than us. If they don't, the system will be left with a void. Within this flawless system built by an
absent creator, man has limited control. He has no authority to improve his situation, and he has
no way of moving up the chain of being. That would mean that someone in a lower rank would
usurp his former position. Even the tiniest adjustment in a single area of the system might cause
the entire world to change/end. All things are directed by God. Every aspect of their body has a
purpose, which is why it functions flawlessly. He compares our body to this flawless cosmos
created by God, describing it as a perfectly operating system. We were made exactly the way
God intended us to be. The working class would be shut down if they sought to be the governing
class. Their uprising would be put down. Alexander Pope is one of the most often cited authors
in the English language. Some of his couplets have been utilized in popular media, music, and
pop culture in general. He relies on the knowledge that surrendering (rather than questioning or
trying to alter anything) is always safe. There is a restricted distribution of information; we only
see a portion of it and are unable to perceive 'chance, direction' (the future). Only God has
complete access to this information, and he is the only one who can see it.

In the ‘Essay on Criticism’ Pope does not offer new ideas here, he summarizes certain
statements said by classical thinkers, e.g. Aristotle. He is not addressing mankind as a whole but
talking about criticism and critics, artists, writers. This essay also consists of certain statements
and premises of the entire Neoclassical tradition. Criticism is less harmful than the literary work
itself, because incompetent judges may deceive our senses. If a critic's judgment is incorrect, he
is effectively deceiving us. The number of worthless critics exceeds the number the number of
writers. In contrast to poets who wrote in poetry, critics tended to write in prose. Because there is
a type of critique written in poetry, it is not entirely accurate to say that critics write in prose and
writers write in verses. We frequently have diverse views and techniques to analysis, therefore
not all critiques are valid. Someone must first write something wonderful before he can appraise
the work of others - he must first shine. The neoclassical rules are represented by this 'nature.' He
recognizes nature, reason, and natural norms that should be obeyed. He confirms the idea of
natural principles that must be observed, as well as limits that organize and control the universe.
Heaven, light, reason, rules, and restrictions are all associated with nature. This removes the need
for experimental study because everything is perfectly ordered and additional investigation is
pointless. He doesn't believe in human potential or creativity, which is a Renaissance
characteristic. The focus is on the system rather than on the person. We can lose everything we
have if we wish to grow and capture new territory. For example, if you're a painter, you can
exclusively specialize on portraits or landscapes. He restricts information to the point that he
doesn't believe in our potential. Over time, the rules of nature (of writing) remained the same.
They were found rather than devised; they had previously existed and had been made by God;
humanity had just discovered them. Nature, like liberty, is governed by the same rules that she
established. Nature kept itself in check by enforcing its own set of laws. He is referring to
ancient writers, and we should be familiar with their personalities, as well as what they wrote
about their faith and life. To be an excellent writer, one needs read a lot (particularly ancient
writers). To be able to criticize ancient writers, we must first understand what they wrote and
how they wrote it. We can construct critique based on the knowledge we receive from their
writing. This material was written for individuals who were educated at the time and knew what
they were talking about. They were following to all of the rules, studying old books at all hours
of the day and night and analyzing them. He thought he was beyond nature, but afterwards
realized that these ancients were nature. Nature and reason were associated with ancient norms.
It's ironic that he says they're unlimited when they're actually constrained. He is a fan of tight
standards (grammar, rhyme) and striking design. He admires Virgil's use of all of this to constrict
his writing. He means 'follow your reason' when he says 'follow these guidelines.'