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.
domingo, 25 de mayo de 2008
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.
A Machiavellic Individuality: Uncle Vanya, Act II
The play Uncle Vanya is characterized by a sense of pessimism and ill will towards life itself. Alexandr Vladimirovitch Serebrayakov, the professor, is a key element in both determining the form of the novel and in shaping the miserable lives of the characters in the play.
“Yelena: I am worn out… for God’s sake be quiet!
Serebrayakov: It seems that, thanks to me, everyone is worn out, depressed, wasting their youth, and I am the only one enjoying life and satisfied. Oh, yes, of course!” (Act II, p. 206).
The exclamation at the end of Serebrayakov’s passage permits the reader to understand the sarcasm of his entire comment. Due to him, everyone is living an unhappy existence; however, he is the most wretched individual of all. He does not understand that everyone, including his young wife Yelena, his tired daughter Sonya, and the restless doctor Astrov are permanently at his service, ready to aid him in whatever he needs. His presence in the house, and hence Yelena’s too, causes Voynitsky to abandon his work and adopt an attitude of utter despair that revolves around his love for Yelena. Even Marina, an old nurse, is forced to pray and take care of the professor, who is indifferent to Marina’s terrible leg pains. Apparently, Serebrayakov does not realize this and instead goes on making a victim of himself and sacrificing the happiness and tranquility of those around him.
The mood of the novel is dominated by this tension and unfriendliness. It is so common and quotidian that we do not realize the gravity of this issue until Yelena mentions the magnitude this type of behavior has in determining the peace and stability of the world. “… the world is not being destroyed through fire or robbery, but through hatred, enmity and all this petty wrangling… It ought to be your work to reconcile and not to grumble.” (Act II, p. 209). Uncle Vanya, to whom this comment is directed, does not heed the warnings Yelena gives him but instead goes on complaining and lamenting about his current situation. This type of attitude is reflected almost daily in our lives. A sense of rivalry towards the opposite individual, group, or nations shapes our desire to crush the opponent and achieve supremacy over others. Most of the world conflicts have been sparked forth by “petty wrangling” over insignificant issues that could easily be solved with a little of self-sacrifice from each nation. One such example is the Vietnam War, waged with the purpose of detaining the spread of communism. The armed conflict could have been avoided if the governments of the United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam had agreed on a boundary between these two nations. A little self sacrifice from the leaders at Washington D.C., Saigon, and Hanoi could have prevented the deaths of many innocent troops and civilians, as well as the staggering war costs and destruction undergone by the Vietnamese cities. This proves how greed and enmity dominates human relationships in both the play and the real world, often leading in the destruction of the world.
Many times in life, a goal or an ultimate destination is the necessary force to drive one’s actions and behavior. “You know when you walk through a forest on a dark night, and a light gleams in the distance, you do not notice your weariness, nor the darkness, nor the sharp twigs that lash you in the face.” (Act II, pgs. 213-214). This machiavellic view of life, where the end justifies the means, can be very useful in persuading oneself to achieve a certain objective; however, it can sometimes ruin the lives of many individuals for the sake of accomplishing one’s own selfish motives. This metaphorical passage, although machiavellic in a sense, does not comprise the well-being of other people and instead offers an alternative to that posed by the Italian philosopher in his book The Prince. The forest, like in Dante’s Inferno, represents one’s troubled and confused life. The light, or one’s target, drives a person to continue on with the struggle until finally one is able to exit the forest and reap the fruits of what one managed to achieve. Especially significant are the mishaps and difficulties one encounters during the journey: weariness, darkness, and pain. Darkness represents confusion and the “sharp twigs that lash you in the face” symbolize all the problems one is prone to encounter. If the reader notices carefully, all the troubles and inconveniences faced throughout the journey only harm the individual that is “walking through the forest,” and not everyone else that surrounds him/her. Chekhov is careful to make a distinction between the different magnitudes of machiavellic behavior through a redefinition and limitation of the standards posed in The Prince. The expression “the end justifies the means,” therefore, is only valid when oneself is the only individual who remains at stake for one’s own actions.
“Yelena: I am worn out… for God’s sake be quiet!
Serebrayakov: It seems that, thanks to me, everyone is worn out, depressed, wasting their youth, and I am the only one enjoying life and satisfied. Oh, yes, of course!” (Act II, p. 206).
The exclamation at the end of Serebrayakov’s passage permits the reader to understand the sarcasm of his entire comment. Due to him, everyone is living an unhappy existence; however, he is the most wretched individual of all. He does not understand that everyone, including his young wife Yelena, his tired daughter Sonya, and the restless doctor Astrov are permanently at his service, ready to aid him in whatever he needs. His presence in the house, and hence Yelena’s too, causes Voynitsky to abandon his work and adopt an attitude of utter despair that revolves around his love for Yelena. Even Marina, an old nurse, is forced to pray and take care of the professor, who is indifferent to Marina’s terrible leg pains. Apparently, Serebrayakov does not realize this and instead goes on making a victim of himself and sacrificing the happiness and tranquility of those around him.
The mood of the novel is dominated by this tension and unfriendliness. It is so common and quotidian that we do not realize the gravity of this issue until Yelena mentions the magnitude this type of behavior has in determining the peace and stability of the world. “… the world is not being destroyed through fire or robbery, but through hatred, enmity and all this petty wrangling… It ought to be your work to reconcile and not to grumble.” (Act II, p. 209). Uncle Vanya, to whom this comment is directed, does not heed the warnings Yelena gives him but instead goes on complaining and lamenting about his current situation. This type of attitude is reflected almost daily in our lives. A sense of rivalry towards the opposite individual, group, or nations shapes our desire to crush the opponent and achieve supremacy over others. Most of the world conflicts have been sparked forth by “petty wrangling” over insignificant issues that could easily be solved with a little of self-sacrifice from each nation. One such example is the Vietnam War, waged with the purpose of detaining the spread of communism. The armed conflict could have been avoided if the governments of the United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam had agreed on a boundary between these two nations. A little self sacrifice from the leaders at Washington D.C., Saigon, and Hanoi could have prevented the deaths of many innocent troops and civilians, as well as the staggering war costs and destruction undergone by the Vietnamese cities. This proves how greed and enmity dominates human relationships in both the play and the real world, often leading in the destruction of the world.
Many times in life, a goal or an ultimate destination is the necessary force to drive one’s actions and behavior. “You know when you walk through a forest on a dark night, and a light gleams in the distance, you do not notice your weariness, nor the darkness, nor the sharp twigs that lash you in the face.” (Act II, pgs. 213-214). This machiavellic view of life, where the end justifies the means, can be very useful in persuading oneself to achieve a certain objective; however, it can sometimes ruin the lives of many individuals for the sake of accomplishing one’s own selfish motives. This metaphorical passage, although machiavellic in a sense, does not comprise the well-being of other people and instead offers an alternative to that posed by the Italian philosopher in his book The Prince. The forest, like in Dante’s Inferno, represents one’s troubled and confused life. The light, or one’s target, drives a person to continue on with the struggle until finally one is able to exit the forest and reap the fruits of what one managed to achieve. Especially significant are the mishaps and difficulties one encounters during the journey: weariness, darkness, and pain. Darkness represents confusion and the “sharp twigs that lash you in the face” symbolize all the problems one is prone to encounter. If the reader notices carefully, all the troubles and inconveniences faced throughout the journey only harm the individual that is “walking through the forest,” and not everyone else that surrounds him/her. Chekhov is careful to make a distinction between the different magnitudes of machiavellic behavior through a redefinition and limitation of the standards posed in The Prince. The expression “the end justifies the means,” therefore, is only valid when oneself is the only individual who remains at stake for one’s own actions.
An Unsuccessful Quest for the Meaning of Life: Uncle Vanya, Act I
Throughout the ages, many people of different cultures and places have wondered about the purpose of life. Humans’ increased rational capacity has led them to question mankind’s role here on Earth. Some individuals argue that life is a quest for happiness, and therefore each one of us must struggle until we accomplish the ultimate goal that will completely satisfy us and eliminate the urge to want more. Others, like Martin and the Turk in Candide, believe that suffering and hard work are the sole purpose of life. In the play Uncle Vanya by Anton Chekhov, the character Astrov, a doctor, contradicts both of these views by complaining about hard work and the people that surround us. The fact that Astrov is a doctor is greatly significant in the sense that not only is he a very learned man, but is also an expertise in the study of humans. “And the life in itself is tedious, stupid, dirty… This life swallows one up completely. There are none but queer people about one - they are a queer lot, all of them - and when one has lived two or three years among them, by degrees one turns queer too, without noticing it.” (Act I, p. 194). By saying that life is “tedious” and “stupid,” Chekhov is implying that our existence here on Earth is completely fruitless and monotonous. There is nothing deep or transcendental about life and there are no secrets behind our creation. Life simply is. The adjective “dirty” adds a sense of misery and distaste to every person’s lifestyle. This pessimistic and somewhat realistic view almost makes us wish for death. The second part of the fragment says that everyone, including ourselves, is queer. Although the reason for our strange and odd behavior is not stated, the previous descriptions of life make it possible to imply that mankind’s bizarre conduct is the product of a fruitless quest to make life pleasurable and worthwhile. We are permanently looking for reasons that do not exist, trying to find meaning inside a shallow existence. We make life a quest for happiness, but we will never be able to find it because “life in itself is tedious, stupid, dirty.” (Act I. p. 194).
Suffering and hard work, unlike the search for happiness, will someday yield fruitful and worthy results. Astrov, however, also deems this practice as a waste of time. “I sat down, shut my eyes like this, and thought: those who will live a hundred or two hundred years after us, for whom we are struggling now to beat out a road, will they remember and say a good word for us? Nurse, they won’t, you know!” (Act I, p. 194). We are breaking our backs and sacrificing ourselves in order to achieve the betterment of future generations. Those who will live after us will reap the fruit of our hard toil, but will never even take the time to thank us for improving their lifestyles. This reasoning undermines the philosophy of Martin and the Turk in the sense that suffering and hard work will only bring exhaustion and oblivion to our lives. This reminds me about the actual debate on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, in which highly industrialized nations such as the United States refuse to cooperate in an effort to reduce the emissions of global warming because of the increased production costs this effort would imply. This is a perfect example of “Astrovian” philosophy, in which private energy need not be sacrificed for the public good.
This type of negative view towards life is also present in many other characters, such as Voynitsky or Uncle Vanya. When Yelena exclaims that it is a beautiful day, Voynitsky merely responds by saying “A fine day to hang oneself!” (Act I, p. 200). These contending points of view reflect the opposite extremes of the human mind. When faced with an objective, unchangeable fact, everyone tends to react in a different manner. Some, like Yelena, are prone to observe the beauty and good side of every situation; however, there exist others like Uncle Vanya who are only able to see the pessimistic and unfavorable side of things. Both positive and negative views towards life shape our beliefs and actions towards the experiences we encounter. Our personality is the main factor in shaping our reactions to certain events in life. This play showed the reader how, in exactly the same time and context, different characters were able to perceive different things when faced with exactly the same situation. This proves how ourselves and not the burdens we are forced to carry are the most important component in determining the way each one of us leads their life.
Suffering and hard work, unlike the search for happiness, will someday yield fruitful and worthy results. Astrov, however, also deems this practice as a waste of time. “I sat down, shut my eyes like this, and thought: those who will live a hundred or two hundred years after us, for whom we are struggling now to beat out a road, will they remember and say a good word for us? Nurse, they won’t, you know!” (Act I, p. 194). We are breaking our backs and sacrificing ourselves in order to achieve the betterment of future generations. Those who will live after us will reap the fruit of our hard toil, but will never even take the time to thank us for improving their lifestyles. This reasoning undermines the philosophy of Martin and the Turk in the sense that suffering and hard work will only bring exhaustion and oblivion to our lives. This reminds me about the actual debate on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, in which highly industrialized nations such as the United States refuse to cooperate in an effort to reduce the emissions of global warming because of the increased production costs this effort would imply. This is a perfect example of “Astrovian” philosophy, in which private energy need not be sacrificed for the public good.
This type of negative view towards life is also present in many other characters, such as Voynitsky or Uncle Vanya. When Yelena exclaims that it is a beautiful day, Voynitsky merely responds by saying “A fine day to hang oneself!” (Act I, p. 200). These contending points of view reflect the opposite extremes of the human mind. When faced with an objective, unchangeable fact, everyone tends to react in a different manner. Some, like Yelena, are prone to observe the beauty and good side of every situation; however, there exist others like Uncle Vanya who are only able to see the pessimistic and unfavorable side of things. Both positive and negative views towards life shape our beliefs and actions towards the experiences we encounter. Our personality is the main factor in shaping our reactions to certain events in life. This play showed the reader how, in exactly the same time and context, different characters were able to perceive different things when faced with exactly the same situation. This proves how ourselves and not the burdens we are forced to carry are the most important component in determining the way each one of us leads their life.
viernes, 2 de mayo de 2008
Fictitious Permanence: A Simple Heart, by Gustave Flaubert
The story A Simple Heart, by Gustave Flaubert, narrates the story of Felicity, servant in the household of Madame Aubain. Throughout the story, the reader is able to notice Felicity’s dependence on other people and her vulnerability when forced to face the outside world by herself. Virginia’s death was a matter of intense grief and sadness for those who knew her; however, Felicity suffered more from this loss than Madame Aubain, the mother of the child.
“In the morning, from habit, Felicity went into Virginia’s room and looked at the walls. She missed not having her hair to comb, her boots to lace, to tuck her in her bed… She was good for nothing, could not sleep, to use her own expression was ‘a wreck’.” (p. 7).
Felicity did not miss the character of Virginia herself, but rather the tasks she engaged herself in while Virginia was alive. When the child passed away the servant’s occupations ceased to exist. Having nothing to do to pass the time away, she became “a wreck.” Felicity’s urge for someone to be with increased to such extent as to be willing to act as her family’s slave in return for some company. She cherished every moment she spent with Victor, her nephew, simply because of the pleasure of having something to do while the time passed by. “He brought his clothes to be mended, and she accepted this task, glad of the chance which forced him to come back.” (p. 7). Felicity’s dependency on someone to keep her company made her a very vulnerable human being. Her fear of solitude placed her at the mercy of others and made her reliant on external situations to preserve her own spirit.
Victor’s death at sea forced Felicity to search for other objects or people she could use in order to satisfy her need for companionship. She developed a reciprocal relationship with the insect-eaten hat Madame Aubain gave her and the cancer-consumed Father Colmiche. Since the sick man depended on Felicity’s care in order to continue living, the servant was able to “own” him. The same situation happened with the hat and every other material good she accumulated in her room. These were objects Felicity could call her own, thus satisfying her simple heart’s desires for someone or something that could keep her company at any time.
These wishes were finally secured with the appearance of Loulou, a parrot that soon became Felicity’s devoted pet. When she began to loose her hearing and alienating herself from the exterior world, Loulou acted as the string that kept Felicity attached to reality. “Loulou, in her isolation, was almost a son, a lover.” (p. 14). When Loulou passed away, Felicity was forced to evade solitude by stuffing the bird and idolatrizing his figure. “This spot, to which she admitted few people, had the look at once of a chapel and a bazaar, it contained so many religious objects and heteroclite things.” (p. 15). Felicity began to venerate the bird as a holy figure, as something comparable to the Holy Ghost. She “... contracted the idolatrous habit of saying her prayers before the parrot.” (p. 16). Felicity could not bear the loss of the bird because its body was the only object that kept her satisfied. Material goods became the main focus of her life. Beings lived and died, their souls lost forever, but material goods appeared to last infinitely.
Later on, Felicity was forced to halt the passage of time by retaining all the material goods that reminded her of the past and made the illusion of delaying change. The house began falling apart and the stuffed parrot started to decay. Nevertheless, the servant would not let these things go. She mourned change and needed a tangible proof to show her that the present had not altered its course. She clung to the past, trying to hold time still and denying the natural flow of events. This reminds me of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot’s wife Ruth was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back into the past instead of looking forward into the future. Nothing is permanent in the world, so there is no purpose in trying to freeze the past. Felicity’s attempts to satisfy the worldly desires of her simple heart were submerged under life’s natural course. Like Heraclitus said, permanence is an illusion and everything is in a process of constant change and movement.
Note: the above reflections on the importance of the present and the irrelevance of the past reminds me of an ancient Sanskrit poem my mom has framed in her room:
Look to this day
for it is life
the very life of life
In its brief course lie all
the realities and truths of existence
the joy of growth
the splendor of action
the glory of power
For yesterday is but a memory
And tomorrow is only a vision
But today well lived
makes every yesterday a memory of happiness
and every tomorrow a vision of hope
Look well, therefore, to this day!
“In the morning, from habit, Felicity went into Virginia’s room and looked at the walls. She missed not having her hair to comb, her boots to lace, to tuck her in her bed… She was good for nothing, could not sleep, to use her own expression was ‘a wreck’.” (p. 7).
Felicity did not miss the character of Virginia herself, but rather the tasks she engaged herself in while Virginia was alive. When the child passed away the servant’s occupations ceased to exist. Having nothing to do to pass the time away, she became “a wreck.” Felicity’s urge for someone to be with increased to such extent as to be willing to act as her family’s slave in return for some company. She cherished every moment she spent with Victor, her nephew, simply because of the pleasure of having something to do while the time passed by. “He brought his clothes to be mended, and she accepted this task, glad of the chance which forced him to come back.” (p. 7). Felicity’s dependency on someone to keep her company made her a very vulnerable human being. Her fear of solitude placed her at the mercy of others and made her reliant on external situations to preserve her own spirit.
Victor’s death at sea forced Felicity to search for other objects or people she could use in order to satisfy her need for companionship. She developed a reciprocal relationship with the insect-eaten hat Madame Aubain gave her and the cancer-consumed Father Colmiche. Since the sick man depended on Felicity’s care in order to continue living, the servant was able to “own” him. The same situation happened with the hat and every other material good she accumulated in her room. These were objects Felicity could call her own, thus satisfying her simple heart’s desires for someone or something that could keep her company at any time.
These wishes were finally secured with the appearance of Loulou, a parrot that soon became Felicity’s devoted pet. When she began to loose her hearing and alienating herself from the exterior world, Loulou acted as the string that kept Felicity attached to reality. “Loulou, in her isolation, was almost a son, a lover.” (p. 14). When Loulou passed away, Felicity was forced to evade solitude by stuffing the bird and idolatrizing his figure. “This spot, to which she admitted few people, had the look at once of a chapel and a bazaar, it contained so many religious objects and heteroclite things.” (p. 15). Felicity began to venerate the bird as a holy figure, as something comparable to the Holy Ghost. She “... contracted the idolatrous habit of saying her prayers before the parrot.” (p. 16). Felicity could not bear the loss of the bird because its body was the only object that kept her satisfied. Material goods became the main focus of her life. Beings lived and died, their souls lost forever, but material goods appeared to last infinitely.
Later on, Felicity was forced to halt the passage of time by retaining all the material goods that reminded her of the past and made the illusion of delaying change. The house began falling apart and the stuffed parrot started to decay. Nevertheless, the servant would not let these things go. She mourned change and needed a tangible proof to show her that the present had not altered its course. She clung to the past, trying to hold time still and denying the natural flow of events. This reminds me of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot’s wife Ruth was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back into the past instead of looking forward into the future. Nothing is permanent in the world, so there is no purpose in trying to freeze the past. Felicity’s attempts to satisfy the worldly desires of her simple heart were submerged under life’s natural course. Like Heraclitus said, permanence is an illusion and everything is in a process of constant change and movement.
Note: the above reflections on the importance of the present and the irrelevance of the past reminds me of an ancient Sanskrit poem my mom has framed in her room:
Look to this day
for it is life
the very life of life
In its brief course lie all
the realities and truths of existence
the joy of growth
the splendor of action
the glory of power
For yesterday is but a memory
And tomorrow is only a vision
But today well lived
makes every yesterday a memory of happiness
and every tomorrow a vision of hope
Look well, therefore, to this day!
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
