People’s lives are comprised of a variety of moments and experiences that are cumulatively added together in order engender an existence. An illusion of time is created in order to satisfy man’s urge to dominate the universe; however, life’s paradoxical character makes eternity an instant. Italo Calvino’s book Invisible Cities, as well as the film Waking Life, present various schemes that develop in different contexts and indicate how a single moment can comprise the universe’s endless diversity and indisputable truths.
“Not the labile mists of memory nor the dry transparence, but the charring of burned lives that forms a scab on the city, the sponge swollen with vital matter that no longer flows, the jam of past, present, future that blocks existences calcified in the illusion of movement: this is what you would find at the end of your journey.” (Calvino, p. 99).
As the previous quote explains, memory is subject to change every time a new experience is encountered. The perspective one possesses on existence itself is altered every instant by both the actions and emotions one commits or fails to execute. Transparence may symbolize the air itself, dry and impalpable. Even though some may argue that the concept of a “dry transparence” is too vague to be analyzed, this symbol defines reality in the same sense memories give meaning to the past and present existence: air is the medium through which the self is able to perceive that which surrounds him. Ironically, human beings themselves act as the mist that bars the mind and body, like a scab or a sponge, from achieving a complete understanding of existentialist thought. It is important to notice how the author refers to time as “jammed,” meaning that the past, present, and future all converge in order to form one sole unit. Movement, as is explained by the quote, is merely an “illusion,” a creation enacted by the human mind in order to provide explanations and perpetrate mankind’s dominion of nature. The “end of your journey,” or the culmination of life, gives way to an intricate yet infinite state unknown to any individual inhabiting the planet. It is then when one realizes that existence, now complete after one’s permanence on Earth has been terminated, is not a compilation of events that have taken place over a period of time, but rather one sole instant contained together for infinity. Like the man in the arcade in the movie Waking Life said, “time is an illusion – we live in an instant: eternity.” (Waking Life).
Both Invisible Cities and Heart of Darkness discuss the contrasting characteristics of light and darkness. Although Conrad’s novel does so in a more explicit manner, Calvino is able to perceive human feelings through a figurative definition of the concepts stated above. “If you want to know how much darkness there is around you, you must sharpen your eyes, peering at the faint lights in the distance.” (Calvino, p. 59). This passage poses a contradiction in the sense that in order for someone to be aware of the darkness that surrounds them, the person must be able to scrutinize the “faint lights in the distance.” Like the Judeo-Christian Bible, a comparison between opposite elements needs to be established in order to provide a clear definition of each of these aspects. Figuratively, the “faint lights” in this quote represent those individuals who are good in essence. Once one has had a glimpse of them, other people will seem more evil by comparison. It is important to emphasize that darkness abounds but that light is scarce; consequently, one can infer that the forces of evil dominate our daily lives, but that these are so common that one is barely able to notice them.
Heart of Darkness provides a wide variety of instances where darkness is mentioned. All of these refer to the jungle, or the place where Kurtz employed his brutal and evil methods in order to obtain the ivory that was bound to satisfy his worldly desires. “I saw him extend his short flipper of an arm for a gesture that took in the forest, the creek, the mud, the river,- seemed to beckon with a dishonoring flourish before the sunlit face of the land a treacherous appeal to the lurking death, to the hidden evil, to the profound darkness of its heart.” (p. 59). Darkness extends throughout the vast magnitude of the Earth, making it contrast sharply with the land’s “sunlit face,” which the absence of light seems to irrevocably overwhelm. The “lurking death” and “hidden evil” invade the heart of darkness, or the jungle itself. The fact that it is “lurking” and “hidden” makes it much more treacherous and dangerous. Although Calvino uses darkness to define human conduct and Conrad utilized this concept in order to provide an explanation for its boundless influence, both of them cohere in the sense that evil remains hidden and unseen, yet possesses a universal influence.
miércoles, 11 de junio de 2008
martes, 10 de junio de 2008
Existentialism and the Relevance of Time: Invisible Cities, by Italo Calvino, Chapters I-III
Invisible Cities is a book about the conceptualization of desires and the role of perceptions in determining human thought and opinion. Due to its independent, random, and detached character, the text can be easily associated to the staccato of scenes in the film Waking Life. Both of these works treat with a separate aspect of existentialism, whether it be human lives themselves or the manifestation of the self in the place one inhabits. An aspect that caught my attention in both Waking Life and Invisible Cities is the importance that is attributed to time. For one part, every moment is relevant in determining the course of one’s life and the pattern of existence as a whole. “To say yes to one instant is to say yes to all of existence.” (Waking Life). As Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” says, it is the paths each individual decides to take what makes “all the difference” in the future course of events. Existence can be considered as a sole unit in the sense that every one of its components, experiences, can be regarded as equally necessary in the regulation of one’s present reality. This can be compared to the city of Zoe in Invisible Cities:
“The traveler roams all around and has nothing but doubts: he is unable to distinguish the features of the city, the features he keeps distinct in his mind also mingle. He infers this: if existence in all of its moments is all of itself, Zoe is the place of indivisible existence.” (Calvino, p. 34).
When considered from a figurative sense, the merging and fusing of the elements that compose the city of Zoe can be considered as the separate yet equally significant components of existence itself. A city, or the materialization of human life and thought, brings forth everything and everyone that has contributed to the formation of individual lives. Each unit intermingles and joins with all the rest in order to give way to a massive, intricate, and abstract reality. The features are indistinct because of the synthesis it has undergone; thus, one can infer that existence “is all of itself.” In other words, the separate instances contribute to the formation of the present as we know it. Every moment can be regarded as an entire existence because each event brings forth a series of chain reactions that have taken place in order to produce an “indivisible existence” such as Zoe. The relevance of time is perfectly clear when considering life’s perpetual and incessant transformations; consequently, it is able to encompass the complexity of the past and the variations of the present.
The distorted and somewhat surreal digital clock that appears in Waking Life conceals a double meaning that may lead to the debunking of my thesis; however, it is the irrelevance the film places on the scientific approach to life what highlights the importance of moments rather than measured time itself. Even though the passage of time cannot be accurately calculated, the existentialist experiences that the main character undergoes remain intact. Time is not halted but rather altered. The significance of instants and experiences overwhelm the human urge to control the universe. Science is replaced by the weight an existentialist point of view places in the individual actions that take place throughout the course of our lives and that continually characterize our realities.
Italo Calvino proceeds to incorporate the future as an equally important unit of existence by associating it with a discarded possibility from the past. He talks about how another person’s present could have been a part of our own lives if only we had chosen another path or done something different. (Calvino, p. 29). “Futures not achieved are only branches of the past: dead branches… ‘Elsewhere is a negative mirror. The traveler recognizes the little that is his, discovering the much he has not had and will never have.” (Calvino, 29). Marco Polo’s reply to this matter highlights the paradoxical importance non-action has when determining the course of events that will unfold later on in our lives. The contending elements of space, being and non-being, are equally significant when discussing our present. Our negative mirror, or everything that does not make part of ourselves, is barred from our reality and therefore excluded from existence itself. Each person’s reality encompasses everything that is, was, or simply never existed. We live life making the decisions that we think will determine our future, unaware of the fact that everything which is never carried out is equally important as the actions we commit.
“The traveler roams all around and has nothing but doubts: he is unable to distinguish the features of the city, the features he keeps distinct in his mind also mingle. He infers this: if existence in all of its moments is all of itself, Zoe is the place of indivisible existence.” (Calvino, p. 34).
When considered from a figurative sense, the merging and fusing of the elements that compose the city of Zoe can be considered as the separate yet equally significant components of existence itself. A city, or the materialization of human life and thought, brings forth everything and everyone that has contributed to the formation of individual lives. Each unit intermingles and joins with all the rest in order to give way to a massive, intricate, and abstract reality. The features are indistinct because of the synthesis it has undergone; thus, one can infer that existence “is all of itself.” In other words, the separate instances contribute to the formation of the present as we know it. Every moment can be regarded as an entire existence because each event brings forth a series of chain reactions that have taken place in order to produce an “indivisible existence” such as Zoe. The relevance of time is perfectly clear when considering life’s perpetual and incessant transformations; consequently, it is able to encompass the complexity of the past and the variations of the present.
The distorted and somewhat surreal digital clock that appears in Waking Life conceals a double meaning that may lead to the debunking of my thesis; however, it is the irrelevance the film places on the scientific approach to life what highlights the importance of moments rather than measured time itself. Even though the passage of time cannot be accurately calculated, the existentialist experiences that the main character undergoes remain intact. Time is not halted but rather altered. The significance of instants and experiences overwhelm the human urge to control the universe. Science is replaced by the weight an existentialist point of view places in the individual actions that take place throughout the course of our lives and that continually characterize our realities.
Italo Calvino proceeds to incorporate the future as an equally important unit of existence by associating it with a discarded possibility from the past. He talks about how another person’s present could have been a part of our own lives if only we had chosen another path or done something different. (Calvino, p. 29). “Futures not achieved are only branches of the past: dead branches… ‘Elsewhere is a negative mirror. The traveler recognizes the little that is his, discovering the much he has not had and will never have.” (Calvino, 29). Marco Polo’s reply to this matter highlights the paradoxical importance non-action has when determining the course of events that will unfold later on in our lives. The contending elements of space, being and non-being, are equally significant when discussing our present. Our negative mirror, or everything that does not make part of ourselves, is barred from our reality and therefore excluded from existence itself. Each person’s reality encompasses everything that is, was, or simply never existed. We live life making the decisions that we think will determine our future, unaware of the fact that everything which is never carried out is equally important as the actions we commit.
domingo, 25 de mayo de 2008
The Vagueness of Human Thought: The Coast of Utopia, Voyage Act II
Are all philosophical doctrines true even if they are contradictory, or is there only one sole correct belief people must adhere to? Michael Bakunin, Nicholas Stankevich, and all the other young thinkers in the play The Coast of Utopia spent their entire existence searching for the proper ideology that was followed universally, ultimately arriving no place. “What you think is reality is nothing but the shadow thrown by the firelight on the wall of the cave.” (p. 66). At first, these individuals proclaimed reality to be inexistent. It was just a mere illusion of the mind, or the flames, that reflect their firelight, or way of thinking, on the wall of the cave, in this case the world itself. The product is a shadow or a false reality created by us. Like a shadow, it is vague, intangible, and inexistent.
This philosophy eventually gave way to that proclaimed by Fichte. “How do I know the world exists? I know it when a seagull shits on my head. The world achieves existence where I meet it. The Self is everything, it’s the only thing. At last a philosophy that makes sense!” (p. 90). Bakunin, Stankevich, and all the others abandoned their previous ideology, which at that time they fervently adhered to, and replaced it with Fichte’s beliefs. These completely contradicted the former philosophy in the sense that the world existed in a subjective sense. For example, a perfume’s essence may be to sweet for one person and to subtle for another one. Although their perspectives on the same matter may be different, the perfume is a reality for both individuals. The experiences one goes through present a clash of the exterior world with the privacy of the human mind. The footprint or mark of the human mind upon the world creates the Self, a tangible, factual, and physical reality. Most important is the contradictory attitudes the philosophers adopt about their previous way of thought, at first believed to be the only truth and later viewed as a senseless and absurd dogma that did not make sense.
Previously declared as the only “philosophy that makes sense,” Fichte’s doctrines eventually gave way to Hegel’s.
“Belinsky: So, the objective world is not an illusion after all?
Stankevich: No
Belinsky: The laundry, the blacksmith, everything that Fichte said was just the shapes left by the impress of my mind… is real?
Stankevich: Yes. Everything rational is real, and everything real is rational.” (p. 103).
A strict and objective universe in which reality was the same for everybody almost instantly replaced the subjective view of the world, where every individual had a different reality according to what their senses perceived. Different personalities and tastes did not affect what was real; thus, individuality was undermined and instead replaced with a stringent, unbendable view of the universe. The young philosophers contradicted their ideals once again. They did not merely abandon their previous points of view, but went so far as to proclaim them erroneous. “Fichte? You must read Hegel. Hegel is the man! Fichte tried to argue the subjective world out of existence. No wonder I was going wrong!” (p. 100).
Such disorder and change of ideals was bound to confuse everybody on what was the definite doctrine followed by the universe and reality itself. Even though the permanent change in ideals was meant to be an intricate search for the truth, it ended up undermining the entire concept of philosophy. No theory was correct because they would eventually succumb to the pattern discussed above and be replaced by a newer and fresher philosophy that appealed more to society. “Then what is the shadow on the wall of the cave? That’s philosophy.” (p. 104). The flames are not the human mind, but rather the universe itself. It is projected on our lives, or the wall of the cave, producing a shadow. The shadow, philosophy, is all the doubts, thoughts, and conceptual representations our individual minds have constructed. Like a shadow, they are the reflections of the exterior world upon our intellects; consequently, they are merely a reaction to external events, not the ultimate truth itself. They are simply a vague manifestation of out thoughts. The world does not follow a definite philosophy, but rather separate philosophies follow the different aspects of the universe and society.
Also significant is the meaning of the title to the overall development of the text. Political corruption and underdevelopment characterized the Russian government of the nineteenth century. Like in 1984, the authorities attempted to suppress any type of protest or revolt. “We have renounced our right to be the gaolers in a population of prisoners. There’s no air, no movement. Words become deeds. Thoughts are deeds. They’re punished more severely than ordinary crimes.” (p. 64). However, unlike 1984, the government failed to manipulate society and establish their own ideals among the people. The word “coast” in the title is relevant to this issue in the sense that the coast, or shore of a utopia, signifies only a vague intromission of the Romanov dynasty in the lives of the Russian people. The efforts to create a utopia stand on the sidelines of society. The standards for creating a perfect country had not yet implemented in Russia, but instead were on the border of this civilization, on the verge to break the barrier of the unhappiness and stubbornness of active political protesters like the ones introduced throughout the book. These, as the title of the section indicates, had embarked on a voyage to remedy society’s evils and oust the stalemate that, like in 1984, was believed to satisfy an ignorant mass of people who lived inside a fabricated utopia that still hadn’t managed to drown the whole of Russia.
This philosophy eventually gave way to that proclaimed by Fichte. “How do I know the world exists? I know it when a seagull shits on my head. The world achieves existence where I meet it. The Self is everything, it’s the only thing. At last a philosophy that makes sense!” (p. 90). Bakunin, Stankevich, and all the others abandoned their previous ideology, which at that time they fervently adhered to, and replaced it with Fichte’s beliefs. These completely contradicted the former philosophy in the sense that the world existed in a subjective sense. For example, a perfume’s essence may be to sweet for one person and to subtle for another one. Although their perspectives on the same matter may be different, the perfume is a reality for both individuals. The experiences one goes through present a clash of the exterior world with the privacy of the human mind. The footprint or mark of the human mind upon the world creates the Self, a tangible, factual, and physical reality. Most important is the contradictory attitudes the philosophers adopt about their previous way of thought, at first believed to be the only truth and later viewed as a senseless and absurd dogma that did not make sense.
Previously declared as the only “philosophy that makes sense,” Fichte’s doctrines eventually gave way to Hegel’s.
“Belinsky: So, the objective world is not an illusion after all?
Stankevich: No
Belinsky: The laundry, the blacksmith, everything that Fichte said was just the shapes left by the impress of my mind… is real?
Stankevich: Yes. Everything rational is real, and everything real is rational.” (p. 103).
A strict and objective universe in which reality was the same for everybody almost instantly replaced the subjective view of the world, where every individual had a different reality according to what their senses perceived. Different personalities and tastes did not affect what was real; thus, individuality was undermined and instead replaced with a stringent, unbendable view of the universe. The young philosophers contradicted their ideals once again. They did not merely abandon their previous points of view, but went so far as to proclaim them erroneous. “Fichte? You must read Hegel. Hegel is the man! Fichte tried to argue the subjective world out of existence. No wonder I was going wrong!” (p. 100).
Such disorder and change of ideals was bound to confuse everybody on what was the definite doctrine followed by the universe and reality itself. Even though the permanent change in ideals was meant to be an intricate search for the truth, it ended up undermining the entire concept of philosophy. No theory was correct because they would eventually succumb to the pattern discussed above and be replaced by a newer and fresher philosophy that appealed more to society. “Then what is the shadow on the wall of the cave? That’s philosophy.” (p. 104). The flames are not the human mind, but rather the universe itself. It is projected on our lives, or the wall of the cave, producing a shadow. The shadow, philosophy, is all the doubts, thoughts, and conceptual representations our individual minds have constructed. Like a shadow, they are the reflections of the exterior world upon our intellects; consequently, they are merely a reaction to external events, not the ultimate truth itself. They are simply a vague manifestation of out thoughts. The world does not follow a definite philosophy, but rather separate philosophies follow the different aspects of the universe and society.
Also significant is the meaning of the title to the overall development of the text. Political corruption and underdevelopment characterized the Russian government of the nineteenth century. Like in 1984, the authorities attempted to suppress any type of protest or revolt. “We have renounced our right to be the gaolers in a population of prisoners. There’s no air, no movement. Words become deeds. Thoughts are deeds. They’re punished more severely than ordinary crimes.” (p. 64). However, unlike 1984, the government failed to manipulate society and establish their own ideals among the people. The word “coast” in the title is relevant to this issue in the sense that the coast, or shore of a utopia, signifies only a vague intromission of the Romanov dynasty in the lives of the Russian people. The efforts to create a utopia stand on the sidelines of society. The standards for creating a perfect country had not yet implemented in Russia, but instead were on the border of this civilization, on the verge to break the barrier of the unhappiness and stubbornness of active political protesters like the ones introduced throughout the book. These, as the title of the section indicates, had embarked on a voyage to remedy society’s evils and oust the stalemate that, like in 1984, was believed to satisfy an ignorant mass of people who lived inside a fabricated utopia that still hadn’t managed to drown the whole of Russia.
martes, 20 de mayo de 2008
A Truth Refuted by Science: The Coast of Utopia, Voyage Act I
Time goes by, but human behavior remains static. Days, weeks, months, and even years are completely irrelevant when determining the unchanging pattern followed by every individual. Even though man possesses a rational mind that leads to the creation of a wide variety of different philosophies one must adhere to, his overall conduct towards life in general is always the same. The first act of “Voyage” in Tom Stoppard’s play The Coast of Utopia takes place in exactly the same setting but is developed throughout an eight-year time period. The author selects excerpts that in some way prove to be relevant to the development of the plot, but fails to mention what happened between these time periods; consequently, it appears as if these had never taken place. Although the fragments narrated take place in different times, the characters conserve the same postures from the end of an interval to the beginning of the next. “Alexander and Liuvov are where they were, her head against his breast, his fingers searching her hair.” (p. 29). The scene that takes place at the end of autumn 1835 concludes with Liuvov resting against her father’s breast, which is exactly the same posture that inaugurates the following episode in the spring of 1836. This defines part of the form the play follows, which in turn modifies the context in order to show that time is irrelevant when talking about human conduct.
Man has been considered a rational being ever since the Greek philosophers began introducing their empirical views on human nature. The rise of modern science in the XVIIth century and the emergence of the scientific view of the world inaugurated a time period known as the Age of Reason. Both René Descartes and Francis Bacon addressed themselves to the problem of knowledge and advocated the use of a more reliable and truthful method to be able to understand the complexity of nature. Systematic reasoning influenced the thinkers of the Enlightenment and those who proceeded afterward. The existence of a unique and established truth derived from rationality was considered to be the only acceptable view of society during these time periods. People’s ideas were limited in order to create a rigid and unbendable mind that would be able to shun the transcendentalist element. Science was replacing what Vissarion Belinsky referred to as art, creating a society that was more intent on imitating than innovating.
“When philosophers start talking like architects, get out while you can, chaos is coming. When they start laying down rules for beauty, blood in the streets is from that moment inevitable. Because the answer is not out there like America waiting for Columbus, the same answer for everybody forever. The universal idea speaks through humanity itself, and differently through each nation in each stage of its history.” (pgs. 44-45).
Belinsky is careful to make a distinction between science, which only possesses one indisputable answer, and art, which comprises millions of valid theories and ideas. The sentence that defines philosophers as architects is a protest against the empirical and rationalist view every individual began to adopt. Literature as a form of art needs to proceed from the author’s inmost thoughts. It cannot be established by rigid parameters, but rather engendered by the senses. Most importantly, it is neither right nor wrong, but simply unique. “Every work of art is the breath of a single eternal idea breathed by God into the inner life of the artist.” (p. 45). Art is composed of a metaphysical element and a person’s beliefs, both of which are untested by man and refutable by science; nevertheless, they compose the multifarious “universal idea.”
Since there are no incorrect ideas, everyone’s perspective about the nature of man is equally valid and acceptable. According to Michael, “The life of the Spirit is the only real life: our material existence stands between us and our transcendence to the Universal Idea where we become one with the Absolute!” (p. 14). This character creates a paradox by saying that the “real life” is the intangible soul, while the physical body is just an illusion. This belief contradicts the one embraced by the philosophers who relied on experimentation as the sole basis of their knowledge. Man’s “material existence,” or dependency on worldly objects, prevents him from reaching a state of complete spirituality. This makes it unable for him to get immersed in the “Universal Idea,” understood as the collection of all truths established throughout the history of mankind. The “Absolute,” or God, is an omnipresent force that can only be felt when someone is able to understand every ideological doctrine. Considering our dependency on material goods, one may imply that it is impossible to achieve a state where man and God unite to form one sole presence. Philosophy and art proceeding from the human mind converge in order to create the Universal Idea, a concept so deep that, paradoxically, will never be fully understood by mankind.
Man has been considered a rational being ever since the Greek philosophers began introducing their empirical views on human nature. The rise of modern science in the XVIIth century and the emergence of the scientific view of the world inaugurated a time period known as the Age of Reason. Both René Descartes and Francis Bacon addressed themselves to the problem of knowledge and advocated the use of a more reliable and truthful method to be able to understand the complexity of nature. Systematic reasoning influenced the thinkers of the Enlightenment and those who proceeded afterward. The existence of a unique and established truth derived from rationality was considered to be the only acceptable view of society during these time periods. People’s ideas were limited in order to create a rigid and unbendable mind that would be able to shun the transcendentalist element. Science was replacing what Vissarion Belinsky referred to as art, creating a society that was more intent on imitating than innovating.
“When philosophers start talking like architects, get out while you can, chaos is coming. When they start laying down rules for beauty, blood in the streets is from that moment inevitable. Because the answer is not out there like America waiting for Columbus, the same answer for everybody forever. The universal idea speaks through humanity itself, and differently through each nation in each stage of its history.” (pgs. 44-45).
Belinsky is careful to make a distinction between science, which only possesses one indisputable answer, and art, which comprises millions of valid theories and ideas. The sentence that defines philosophers as architects is a protest against the empirical and rationalist view every individual began to adopt. Literature as a form of art needs to proceed from the author’s inmost thoughts. It cannot be established by rigid parameters, but rather engendered by the senses. Most importantly, it is neither right nor wrong, but simply unique. “Every work of art is the breath of a single eternal idea breathed by God into the inner life of the artist.” (p. 45). Art is composed of a metaphysical element and a person’s beliefs, both of which are untested by man and refutable by science; nevertheless, they compose the multifarious “universal idea.”
Since there are no incorrect ideas, everyone’s perspective about the nature of man is equally valid and acceptable. According to Michael, “The life of the Spirit is the only real life: our material existence stands between us and our transcendence to the Universal Idea where we become one with the Absolute!” (p. 14). This character creates a paradox by saying that the “real life” is the intangible soul, while the physical body is just an illusion. This belief contradicts the one embraced by the philosophers who relied on experimentation as the sole basis of their knowledge. Man’s “material existence,” or dependency on worldly objects, prevents him from reaching a state of complete spirituality. This makes it unable for him to get immersed in the “Universal Idea,” understood as the collection of all truths established throughout the history of mankind. The “Absolute,” or God, is an omnipresent force that can only be felt when someone is able to understand every ideological doctrine. Considering our dependency on material goods, one may imply that it is impossible to achieve a state where man and God unite to form one sole presence. Philosophy and art proceeding from the human mind converge in order to create the Universal Idea, a concept so deep that, paradoxically, will never be fully understood by mankind.
lunes, 19 de mayo de 2008
Annihilation of Evil by Evil: Final Reaction to Macbeth
As many other classical works, Macbeth ends with the triumph of good over evil; however, unlike most pieces of literature, the wicked forces exterminate themselves without the action of the righteous. One such example is the apparent suicide of Lady Macbeth who, after confessing her feelings of guilt while in her sleep, was unable to carry the burden of murder and sin, represented by the illusion of blood in her hands. The queen achieved all that she ever longed for, but was unable to remove the stains of blood from herself. At the end, remorse and a heavy conscience outweighed power and social status, leading to her death. “… his fiend-like queen (Who, as ‘tis thought, by self and violent hands, Took off her life)…” (V, viii, 82-84).
A second example of this suicide by evil is presented in Macbeth. Macbeth was guilty of his own death because he knew he would be slain by Macduff, but nevertheless the king decided to continue the fight. “Though Birnam Wood be come to Dunsinane And thou opposed, being of no woman born, Yet I will try the last.” (V, viii, 35-37). However, the prophecies of the Weïrd Sisters make the reader doubt about Macbeth’s self-inflicted death. Was Macbeth’s murder caused by his failure to heed the witches’ prophecies or was it simply a rhetorical trick played by the “fate” sisters in order to assure Banquo’s linage? In order to understand this, the reader must analyze the definition of destiny and fate. Are these concepts only able to predict events or are they capable of foreshadowing human responses and behaviors towards particular actions as well? Based on the three apparitions seen by Macbeth, it is possible to infer that the Weïrd Sisters were only attempting to trick the king; consequently, they were merely able to predict actions, but were incapable of foreseeing Macbeth’s reaction to external events. They did not guarantee the murder of Macbeth, but skillfully hinted at it by fooling Macbeth into expecting a different outcome. “And be these juggling fiends no more believed That palter with us in a double sense, That keep the word of promise to our ear And break it to our hope.” (V, viii, 23-26). Birnam Wood’s moving to Dunsinane and the threat of a man not born of woman put Macbeth’s life in danger; however, if he had not fought Macduff, the king would have been deposed and condemned as a tyrant and allowed to conserve his life. The third apparition, which presented Banquo’s descendants as kings, would have been fulfilled even if Macbeth had not been killed. The Macbeth couple did not have any children (alive, that is) that would be able to preserve the dynasty; consequently, Banquo’s descendants would have eventually become kings, whether Macbeth had died or not.
Throughout the drama, Lady Macbeth appeared as the dominant, harsh, and cold character that dominated Macbeth’s desires and actions. Beneath her stiff core, however, lies an individual who, being much weaker than Macbeth himself, is not able to withstand the horrors of blood and murder. Macbeth is less prone to succumb to evil, but when he does, is able to confront it in a much braver manner than his wife, who was not able to endure the though of a murder she had not committed. A puppet of evil, Macbeth failed to feel that same compassion as that experienced by his wife when she refused to assassinate Duncan, whom she claimed to have resembled her father as he slept. When faced with his wife’s death, Macbeth responded coldly by saying, “She should have died hereafter.” (V, v, 20), meaning that her death was inevitable and therefore useless to cry for. The bonds of love were broken by the greed and avarice that resulted from the idolatry of power.
Macbeth knew that the decision to defy fate and fight Macduff would lead him to his death. The exclamation “Yet I will try the last.” (V, vii, 37) is a proof of this man’s valor and perseverance to achieve what he longed the most: honor. Honor comprised both power and an elevated social status, both of which were technically preserved by Macbeth at the moment of his death. When placed in a scale, death and honor outweighed life and shame. Macbeth died a tyrant to his country, but at least managed to secure pride and drag it with him towards the dark pits of hell.
A second example of this suicide by evil is presented in Macbeth. Macbeth was guilty of his own death because he knew he would be slain by Macduff, but nevertheless the king decided to continue the fight. “Though Birnam Wood be come to Dunsinane And thou opposed, being of no woman born, Yet I will try the last.” (V, viii, 35-37). However, the prophecies of the Weïrd Sisters make the reader doubt about Macbeth’s self-inflicted death. Was Macbeth’s murder caused by his failure to heed the witches’ prophecies or was it simply a rhetorical trick played by the “fate” sisters in order to assure Banquo’s linage? In order to understand this, the reader must analyze the definition of destiny and fate. Are these concepts only able to predict events or are they capable of foreshadowing human responses and behaviors towards particular actions as well? Based on the three apparitions seen by Macbeth, it is possible to infer that the Weïrd Sisters were only attempting to trick the king; consequently, they were merely able to predict actions, but were incapable of foreseeing Macbeth’s reaction to external events. They did not guarantee the murder of Macbeth, but skillfully hinted at it by fooling Macbeth into expecting a different outcome. “And be these juggling fiends no more believed That palter with us in a double sense, That keep the word of promise to our ear And break it to our hope.” (V, viii, 23-26). Birnam Wood’s moving to Dunsinane and the threat of a man not born of woman put Macbeth’s life in danger; however, if he had not fought Macduff, the king would have been deposed and condemned as a tyrant and allowed to conserve his life. The third apparition, which presented Banquo’s descendants as kings, would have been fulfilled even if Macbeth had not been killed. The Macbeth couple did not have any children (alive, that is) that would be able to preserve the dynasty; consequently, Banquo’s descendants would have eventually become kings, whether Macbeth had died or not.
Throughout the drama, Lady Macbeth appeared as the dominant, harsh, and cold character that dominated Macbeth’s desires and actions. Beneath her stiff core, however, lies an individual who, being much weaker than Macbeth himself, is not able to withstand the horrors of blood and murder. Macbeth is less prone to succumb to evil, but when he does, is able to confront it in a much braver manner than his wife, who was not able to endure the though of a murder she had not committed. A puppet of evil, Macbeth failed to feel that same compassion as that experienced by his wife when she refused to assassinate Duncan, whom she claimed to have resembled her father as he slept. When faced with his wife’s death, Macbeth responded coldly by saying, “She should have died hereafter.” (V, v, 20), meaning that her death was inevitable and therefore useless to cry for. The bonds of love were broken by the greed and avarice that resulted from the idolatry of power.
Macbeth knew that the decision to defy fate and fight Macduff would lead him to his death. The exclamation “Yet I will try the last.” (V, vii, 37) is a proof of this man’s valor and perseverance to achieve what he longed the most: honor. Honor comprised both power and an elevated social status, both of which were technically preserved by Macbeth at the moment of his death. When placed in a scale, death and honor outweighed life and shame. Macbeth died a tyrant to his country, but at least managed to secure pride and drag it with him towards the dark pits of hell.
domingo, 18 de mayo de 2008
Candide, Continued...: Uncle Vanya, Act IV
When life becomes unbearable, the best attitude one can adopt is a Stoic indifference and ability to deal with whatever comes to you. Both Sonya and Voynitsky led a miserable life full of pain and suffering; however, their separate reactions to these adversities were quite different. Uncle Vanya tried to murder the professor and, when this did not work, stole Astrov’s morphia in order to commit suicide. Sonya, although less learned, decided to continue on with life as if there was nothing she could do to remedy her present situation. “I am just as unhappy, perhaps, as you are; but I am not going to give way to despair. I am bearing it, and will bear it till my life ends of itself.” (Act IV, p. 238). This behavior coincides with two of the philosophies presented in the Handbook of Epictetus. Sonya accepted the things that were not up to her and adopted an attitude that would prove favorable in order to withstand the troubles she was facing. The different reactions of Uncle Vanya and his niece towards the same event show how different perspectives mold a certain circumstance into becoming more or less suitable. As Epictetus said, “‘What weighs down on this man is not what has happened, but his judgment about it.’” (Handbook of Epictetus, p. 15).
Apart from withstanding the burdens they were forced to face, the characters in the play proposed a “Candide-ish” way to live life. When overwhelmed with suffering, the best action one can adopt to relieve the pressure is work. “… you must work, my friends! you must work!” (Act IV, p. 240). As soon as the professor and Yelena left the house, Sonya and all the other characters, including Uncle Vanya, felt a certain vacancy and longing in their souls. Instead of lamenting themselves and wishing their family was back, they sat down to work in fixing accounts, knitting, writing on pamphlets, or even playing the guitar for the entertainment of others. It is important to keep oneself occupied in order to distract one’s mind and forget the pain while simultaneously doing something useful. This same point of view was presented at the end of Candide as well; however, the play Uncle Vanya goes one step forward when Sonya mentions at the end of the text that work will precede rest.
“…we shall patiently bear the trials which fate sends us; we shall work for others, both now and in our old age, and have no rest; and when our time comes we shall die without a murmur… and we shall rest. I have faith, I have faith. You have had no joy in your life, but wait, Uncle Vanya, wait. We shall rest.” (Act IV, pgs. 243-244).
Work will relieve pain and suffering and will able us to endure our lives. Eternal rest is guaranteed by offering a more profound and transcendental view of life after death that not only goes beyond that posed by Candide, but also accords with Newton’s third law of motion and the Judeo-Christian view of reward for sacrifice.
Uncle Vanya’s similitude to Candide is also present in the last sentence and titles of both works. Candide ends with the words “we must go and work in the garden,” or something of the sort, while Uncle Vanya is concluded with Sonya’s exclamation “We shall rest!” (Act IV, p. 244). “We shall rest!” implicitly promotes labor by assuring that eternal rest will be the result of hard toil It can therefore be implied that not only do both of these sentences possess parallel structures, but also revolve around the same concept of work as the key to enduring life. The title “Candide” is based on a character who, after having a very naïve and optimistic view of life, was forced to endure a series of hardships until finally, with the help of other characters, he was able to develop a more realistic view of human existence. The title of Uncle Vanya is also derived from a character that, even though possessing an ill will towards life and every mishap he encountered, also led a pretty wretched life and came to develop a different point of view similar to that sustained by Candide. The ideals and perspectives endorsed by both works are practically the same, making their titles bear the same significance. Although written in different geographic and ethnic contexts, Candide and Uncle Vanya share an increased parallelism and resemblance. By further developing the idea of work with a reward after death, the play Uncle Vanya can be best understood as an extended and revised version of Voltaire’s work.
Apart from withstanding the burdens they were forced to face, the characters in the play proposed a “Candide-ish” way to live life. When overwhelmed with suffering, the best action one can adopt to relieve the pressure is work. “… you must work, my friends! you must work!” (Act IV, p. 240). As soon as the professor and Yelena left the house, Sonya and all the other characters, including Uncle Vanya, felt a certain vacancy and longing in their souls. Instead of lamenting themselves and wishing their family was back, they sat down to work in fixing accounts, knitting, writing on pamphlets, or even playing the guitar for the entertainment of others. It is important to keep oneself occupied in order to distract one’s mind and forget the pain while simultaneously doing something useful. This same point of view was presented at the end of Candide as well; however, the play Uncle Vanya goes one step forward when Sonya mentions at the end of the text that work will precede rest.
“…we shall patiently bear the trials which fate sends us; we shall work for others, both now and in our old age, and have no rest; and when our time comes we shall die without a murmur… and we shall rest. I have faith, I have faith. You have had no joy in your life, but wait, Uncle Vanya, wait. We shall rest.” (Act IV, pgs. 243-244).
Work will relieve pain and suffering and will able us to endure our lives. Eternal rest is guaranteed by offering a more profound and transcendental view of life after death that not only goes beyond that posed by Candide, but also accords with Newton’s third law of motion and the Judeo-Christian view of reward for sacrifice.
Uncle Vanya’s similitude to Candide is also present in the last sentence and titles of both works. Candide ends with the words “we must go and work in the garden,” or something of the sort, while Uncle Vanya is concluded with Sonya’s exclamation “We shall rest!” (Act IV, p. 244). “We shall rest!” implicitly promotes labor by assuring that eternal rest will be the result of hard toil It can therefore be implied that not only do both of these sentences possess parallel structures, but also revolve around the same concept of work as the key to enduring life. The title “Candide” is based on a character who, after having a very naïve and optimistic view of life, was forced to endure a series of hardships until finally, with the help of other characters, he was able to develop a more realistic view of human existence. The title of Uncle Vanya is also derived from a character that, even though possessing an ill will towards life and every mishap he encountered, also led a pretty wretched life and came to develop a different point of view similar to that sustained by Candide. The ideals and perspectives endorsed by both works are practically the same, making their titles bear the same significance. Although written in different geographic and ethnic contexts, Candide and Uncle Vanya share an increased parallelism and resemblance. By further developing the idea of work with a reward after death, the play Uncle Vanya can be best understood as an extended and revised version of Voltaire’s work.
Realism vs. Idealism: Uncle Vanya, Act III
Act III of the play Uncle Vanya acts as the climax, or “boiling point,” of the entire work. Serebryakov’s selfish desires spark forth a conflict between him and Uncle Vanya, who takes advantage of the opportunity to accuse the professor of having made him live a miserable life. “You have destroyed my life! I have not lived! Thanks to you, I have ruined and wasted the best years of my life. You are my bitterest enemy.” (Act III, pgs. 230-231). In a way, the reader feels pity towards Voynitsky, making him sympathize with this character. A despiteful attitude towards the professor is developed, especially when his daughter Sonya pleads him to have pity on Uncle Vanya and herself because they have spent their entire lives sacrificing themselves and working for the retired old man. These words almost make the reader support Voynitsky’s attempts to shoot Serebryakov. Even though the professor, his wife, Sonya, and Uncle Vanya are active participants in the play’s plot, I believe that all the attention is drawn towards Marina’s calm words at the end of the act. Although she only speaks to soothe Sonya and to condemn the arguments that are going on, she possesses all the qualities that will able a person to confront every adverse situation: calm, moderation, tranquility, and good will. Although she is merely a secondary character in the drama and is the only one that does not take an active role in the argument, Sonya’s words before the curtain closes emphasize the importance of a character like Marina. The exclamation “Nurse, darling! Nurse, darling!” (Act III, p. 233) shows that Marina is both a symbol of relief and the role model everyone must learn to imitate in times of crisis.
Apart from the conflict previously mentioned, there also exists a confrontation between civilization and nature sparked forth by man’s eminent need to modernize. Astrov prefers civilization over conservation; however, he advocates for the preservation of Mother Nature because its present destruction is not achieving any substantial gains. “We have here a degeneration that is the result of too severe a struggle for existence. This degeneration is due to inertia, ignorance, to the complete lack of understanding… And everything has been destroyed already, but nothing as yet has been created to take its place.” (Act III, p. 224). The increasing scientific and technological advancement of mankind a century and a half ago ignited the need to appropriate oneself of everything that lies on one’s way. The advent of an age where man competes against itself appears in the play when, desperate not to succumb under the theory of Social Darwinism, the less privileged and ignorant masses struggle to keep up with modernization and end up destroying nature. Apparently, “the survival of the fittest” will slowly lead to the complete extermination of Mother Nature. As Serebryakov exclaimed, “One can put up with illness, after all; but what I can’t endure is the whole manner of life in the country. I feel as though I had been cast off the earth into some other planet.” (Act III, p. 227). Modernization and technology has shattered our natural habitat and instead replaced it with civilization, or our futile struggles to construct one.
The last “battle” or point of contention in this act is that between truth and uncertainty.
“Yelena: Yes, of course. It seems to me that the truth, however dreadful it is, is not so dreadful as uncertainty. Rely on me, dear.
Sonya: Yes, yes… I shall tell him you want to see his charts… No, uncertainty is better… One has hope, at least.” (Act III, pgs. 221-222).
Subjectivity dominates each person’s point of view on this subject. A more empirical, practical person like myself would prefer the truth over uncertainty. Even though hope is the driving force that leads a person’s life when he/she is in doubt, the truth will always provide the individual with a factual base they can use to construct their lives hereafter. Someone who possesses a more idealistic view of life prefers uncertainty over truth. This way, they will be able to construct their own versions of a fictional reality and live life as though they were in a dream. A wide variety of different outcomes leaves room for imagination and a certain sense of romanticism. Truth generally influences a person to lead a life of rigid order and a strict reality, while many times uncertainty encapsulates an individual from reality and permits him/her to live inside a pleasant dream. It is up to the person to determine the standards that will dominate their existence.
Apart from the conflict previously mentioned, there also exists a confrontation between civilization and nature sparked forth by man’s eminent need to modernize. Astrov prefers civilization over conservation; however, he advocates for the preservation of Mother Nature because its present destruction is not achieving any substantial gains. “We have here a degeneration that is the result of too severe a struggle for existence. This degeneration is due to inertia, ignorance, to the complete lack of understanding… And everything has been destroyed already, but nothing as yet has been created to take its place.” (Act III, p. 224). The increasing scientific and technological advancement of mankind a century and a half ago ignited the need to appropriate oneself of everything that lies on one’s way. The advent of an age where man competes against itself appears in the play when, desperate not to succumb under the theory of Social Darwinism, the less privileged and ignorant masses struggle to keep up with modernization and end up destroying nature. Apparently, “the survival of the fittest” will slowly lead to the complete extermination of Mother Nature. As Serebryakov exclaimed, “One can put up with illness, after all; but what I can’t endure is the whole manner of life in the country. I feel as though I had been cast off the earth into some other planet.” (Act III, p. 227). Modernization and technology has shattered our natural habitat and instead replaced it with civilization, or our futile struggles to construct one.
The last “battle” or point of contention in this act is that between truth and uncertainty.
“Yelena: Yes, of course. It seems to me that the truth, however dreadful it is, is not so dreadful as uncertainty. Rely on me, dear.
Sonya: Yes, yes… I shall tell him you want to see his charts… No, uncertainty is better… One has hope, at least.” (Act III, pgs. 221-222).
Subjectivity dominates each person’s point of view on this subject. A more empirical, practical person like myself would prefer the truth over uncertainty. Even though hope is the driving force that leads a person’s life when he/she is in doubt, the truth will always provide the individual with a factual base they can use to construct their lives hereafter. Someone who possesses a more idealistic view of life prefers uncertainty over truth. This way, they will be able to construct their own versions of a fictional reality and live life as though they were in a dream. A wide variety of different outcomes leaves room for imagination and a certain sense of romanticism. Truth generally influences a person to lead a life of rigid order and a strict reality, while many times uncertainty encapsulates an individual from reality and permits him/her to live inside a pleasant dream. It is up to the person to determine the standards that will dominate their existence.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
