fluid
Lately have been bugging people with a plain, simple question: When people go on explorations, do they already have expectations (presuming/hoping) that they will find something? In other words, does exploration entail hope? No, Nicky, it's not one of those midnight questions when you wonder to yourself, "Hum, what is the meaning of life?" I'd rather doze off in bed by then. Yet in the meantime, having my cake means eating it, too. So here are snippets of e-mails from some brilliant minds of the century.
From: Uncle Qian
I think you are right in pointing to the purposive nature of the act of exploration: 'to explore aimlessly' doesn't seem to make much sense. The only cases in which this expression makes sense (to me) are when the act is motivated by strong curiosity: the objective may be very vaguely, partially, opaquely(?), conceived, but that there is something (worthy of discovery) to be discovered is tacitly assumed, allowing the possibility of disappoinment, of course. But then it is purposive nonetheless.
Therefore I don't think exploration makes sense as an experience in itself. It has to be accompanied by the expectation that there is something out there to be explored. The nature of the purpose (or expectation) involved, and how that purpose arises in the first place, are further issues to be considered.
From: Little brother
I think what you should be finding out is not the definition of "exploration", but the motive and purpose of exploration in the Renaissance. Mary Pratt said that travel writings are the "imperial eyes" from the eighteenth century to the twentieth century. That's because travels in these times are accompanied by the expansion of colonialism and imperialism. Travel writings serve as the vanguard in an empire's frontier. Some said that anthropology was born in these days, too.
There's always a goal or motive to explore or to travel, whether the traveler is aware of it or not. Therefore, the travel writings or drama can't be just a person's ideas or thoughts, but the whole society's consciousness.
"The other" started to become a very important subject matter in the Renaissance, since the dicovery of America. (see Bernard McGrane "Beyond Anthropology") In Montaigne's essays you can see how he is interested in these kinds of questions. Even though Montaigne is the dude who stated that there's nothing new under the sun, he still believes that the cannibals (Indians) live a very different life in contrast to the Europeans. Thus, even cosmopolitanism and humanism are the major sources in the Renaissance philosophy, they still needs to explore human diversity to back up thier statement. In other words, we are always in a process of "domesticating others". We need to put the other in a specific space, or else we won't be comfortable with their existence,
Therefore, "exploration" to me is about finding out and locating others, and domesticate them by writing novels, essays, dramas...etc.
In the end, there's no right or wrong, just something to think about.