Regarding Art...

What is art? Can and should it be limited by a definition?

Childrens' Movies For Adults

In this BBC article, a BBC news reporter analyzes a new target in modern film which was previously directed at children... By broadening the audience spectrum, are producers signaling the demise of naive childrens' films in the traditional sense?

CHILDREN MAY NOT NOTICE...

The Lion King: echoes of Hamlet

Chicken Run: loose parody of The Great Escape

Wall-E: Wall-E and shiny white robot Eve make noise like Apple Mac booting

The Incredibles: discussion of dangers of baddies 'monologuing' and allowing hero to escape

Up: the old man is styled to look like Spencer Tracy

Finding Nemo: seagull scene echoes Hitchcock's The Birds

A Helpful List of Cliches...

http://www.bored.com/findcliches/sciencefiction.htm

Orwell's Vision Of The English Language

1. Argument: Everyone is corrupting the English language, making it become a set of prefabricated clichés by the use of ambiguous phrases and jargon and euphemistic words for political ends.

2. Examples of Irony:

· The fact that Orwell ends the Operators or False Limbs section with “and so on and so forth” after saying that such anticlimax endings are to be avoided is ironic.

· Orwell begins to write political writing after fallaciously alleging that it is definitely bad writing is ironic as well.

3. Definitions:

· Dying Metaphors: These are worn-out metaphors which have lost their original meaning and merely exist to spare people the trouble of inventing original phrases for themselves (ex. Play into the hands of).

· Pretentious Diction: Scientific impartiality to biased judgments through the use of words like phenomenon, exhibit, element. International politics makes use of words like epoch-making, epic, and historic. Words to glorify war are based on archaic language like realm, throne, chariot, while foreign words and expressions (e.g. cul de sac, deus ex machina) are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Also, the replacement of Saxon words by Greek and Latin words for scientific terms because they sound more “professional”.

· Meaningless words: Words like romantic, plastic, values, and human are as meaningless as the word Fascism (as something not desirable) and democracy (as something good).

4. Some Habits Of Highly Effective Writers:

· What am I trying to say?

· What words will express it?

· What image or idiom will make it clearer?

· Is this image fresh enough to have any effect?

· Can I put it more shortly?

· Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

· Avoid lack of precision.

· Avoid staleness of imagery.

· Avoid the not un- formation.

· Let the meaning choose the word… not the other way around.

· Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

· Never use a long word where a short one will do.

· If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

· Never use the passive when you can use the active.

· Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

· Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

All Hail Whitman

In poems 11 to 20 of Leaves of Grass, Whitman is inclusively mimetic: He attempts to represent everyone’s reality. This purpose is epitomized in poem 15, where the author, or everyone, is describing everyone’s reality without trouble because all reality is his reality; from the “pure contralto [who] sings in his organ loft” (15), to the “old husband [who] sleeps by his wife, and the young husband [who] sleeps by his wife” (15), the author, or everyone, as he so explained in the first poem, is everyone and everything and every possible situation at once.

I perceive the image that the author promotes of himself as being of an omnipresent being, who exists in all always. He also describes the unity of everything, much like Hinduism does. At the same time, he has a romantic air, for he celebrates the American landscapes in some of his poems such as number 16. What is his purpose in doing so? Is a purpose even required? Why would we require it?

The Perfume

For an indispensable book of poems such as Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, it is prudent to give scrupulous attention to the first part. It is an introduction to what is to come, demonstrating Whitman’s style and themes so that we may be prepared for what is to come: Whitman is inclusive when he begins by saying that “What I shall assume, you shall assume;/For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you” (1). He connects himself with the reader, whoever he may be, by saying that they are one and the same. When he says “I celebrate myself” (1), he may be, according to the fact that we are all one, celebrating that very connection. The fact that he is celebrating implies a social gathering designed to praise a person or event.

A predominant theme can be seen: nature. I don’t mean nature per se, but rather the detachment of society into the silence found in nature. There is another theme: nature, which promotes loafing. Society requires haste and occupation. Everyone is in constant contact with everyone. For that, he says that “the distillation would intoxicate me also, but I shall not let it” (1), which means that being engulfed in the hive that is society is addicting and pleasurable, but, for that, all the more dangerous. Then, he praises loneliness, but without the lonely part, for he will “go to the bank by the wood, and become undisguised and naked;/ I am mad for it to be in contact with me” (1). The disguise he mentions is that of the image he must (and in turn, all of us as well) maintain when part of society (as is the theme in Patrick Suskind’s The Perfume, which is adequately titled, considering the mention of perfumes in this poem, which I believe play the same metaphor: Perfumes are disguises, or inauthentic images created by society’s individuals for themselves). He praises genuine silence and freedom, which only nature can offer.

Beauty And The Bird

Gustave Flaubert’s description of objects and settings is utterly breathtaking: “He was called Loulou. His body was green, his head blue, the tips of his wings were pink and his breast was golden. But he had the tiresome tricks of biting his perch, pulling his feathers out, scattering refuse and spilling the water of his bath. Madame Aubain grew tired of him and gave him to Felicite for good” (Ch. 4). This description never tells the reader what to think of the bird: If you think that a green body with a blue head, pink wing tips, and a golden breast is ugly, then so be it. However, there is something about the description that makes us think of the parrot as beautiful, even if Flaubert doesn’t say so. Flaubert simply describes the characteristics of the bird and expects the reader to create their opinion of it. However, are we responsible for viewing the bird as magnificent, or is Flaubert sending a subliminal message to sway the reader to have an image of the bird? I believe in the latter. People appreciate exotic, uncommon things. This is why a multicolored bird appeals to the reader.

In the sentence, “But he had the…”, the word ‘but’ is demonstrating how the bird’s habits of “biting his perch…” opaque its beauty. Using only one word, Flaubert signals the existence of a positive trait by hinting the possibility of its corruption through bad habits. But while these hints are ingenious (Flaubert, anyone?), they force the reader to have to close-read most of the text, in search for these subtleties. The density of such text contrasts with the simple plot and characters of the story, like with the simplistic personality of simple Felicite.

Tricky, Tricky

Flaubert’s subtle yet excruciating illustrations are but a mere detail of his style’s components in Un Coeur Simple. He manages to depict Felicite’s naïve and extremely forgiving personality without actually saying so. He lets the reader make his own assumptions about the character without being told anything about his/her characteristics. The following is an example of this, where I was surprised at how the unimportance Flaubert gives to an event emphasizes the same unimportance that Felicite gave to another event: "Oh, yes, your nephew!" And shrugging her shoulders, Madame Aubain continued to pace the floor as if to say: "I did not think of it.-- Besides, I do not care, a cabin-boy, a pauper!--but my daughter--what a difference! just think of it!--" Felicite, although she had been reared roughly, was very indignant. Then she forgot about it” (Ch. III). The last sentence forces us to hastily forget the event. It is also a very simple sentence, which can be assimilated to the ease with which Felicite absolved the occurrence.

In this way, Flaubert characterizes Felicite without telling us anything about her personality, and is ironically urging the reader to have Felicite’s same softhearted personality. Flaubert, of course, knows that the reader will catch on to his trickery, which is ultimately what he is trying to show. Flaubert attempts to show us how subtle his deception can be. If we would not become aware of this, then Flaubert’s work would go unappreciated.

Artistic Synesthesiacs

Synesthesia: “(1) The production of a sense impression relating to one sense of part of the body by stimulation of another sense of part of the body. (2) The poetic description of a sense impression in terms of another sense, as in “a loud perfume” or “an icy voice”.” (Oxford English Dictionary). Garry Lutz’s essay, The Sentence Is A Lonely Place, describes, among other things, the characteristic of literature of attributing words and letters that have a secondary attribute, to a context in which the situation’s description is enhanced through such use of words. Many of these examples include those attributed to music and nature. Nature, in particular, is stressed: In Shakespeare’s plays, like Romeo And Juliet, the famous sonnet May I Compare Thee To A Summer’s Day… (Sonnet XVIII) has tons of nature attributions.

A Nag, Anagnorisis.

Anagnorisis is immediately followed by the consideration of possibilities, somewhat like the “zeroes and ones” (150) of a computer’s binary code. Then the moment of shock falls upon the unfortunate one, followed by a brief period of denial, and then panic. The Panic is responsible for the need to corroborate the possibilities and find the truth, and then it helps the person deal with the damage as immediately as possible. Depending on the degree of revelation, and the adrenaline that the ensuing panic stage produces, we see the person’s sweat turn cold.

In Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49, he mocks anagnorises by actually demonstrating one. He satirizes his character, Oedipa Maas’s anagnorisis by describing every possibility for the reasons of her past experiences and their causes. Normally, when an author writes a revelation, he leaves it to the reader to be surprised and figure everything out for him/herself. It’s more fun that way. Pynchon, however, forces the surprise upon us, exaggerating what he believes other authors do without meaning to. Some authors’ revelations, he believes, are either unwitty or waste the situation at hand, exiled by their makers to the hells of bad literature.

Is Pica Absurd?

A crazy psychiatrist, a philosophical beggar, "an aging night-watchman, nibbling at a bar of Ivory Soap, who had trained his virtuoso stomach to accept also lotions, air-fresheners, fabrics, tobaccoes and waxes in a hopeless attempt to assimilate it all, all the promise, productivity, betrayal, ulcers, before it was too late" (100), "a Negro woman with an intricately-marbeled scar along the baby-fat of one cheek who kept going through rituals of miscarriage each for a different reason, deliberately as others might the ritual of birth, dedicated not to continuity but to some kind of interregnum..." (100) are all characters which Pynchon uses to convey satire. The Mr. Hilarius' fit is ironical, for if anyone is expected to be sane, its those helping others achieve it. The beggar's case of teaching Oedipa a lesson of life (that we should try to help without concern for the outcome) is also ironical; for who would expect philosophical insight from a beggar? The night-watchman's pica case is a satirical example of not so absurd absurdity. The Negro woman's habit of carrying miscarriages out is an example of targeting. She satirizes the habit of abortion and the "mistake" of pregnancy.

So why the overloaded satire in one chapter? Maybe Pynchon is laughing at satire itself. He may be targeting undiscreet and mediocre satire with his own examples of what not to do. This would defenitely coincide with Pynchon's attitude towards other common things in other parts of the book, like when he laughs at the readers themselves for reading such a book (this mystery that Pynchon's Nancy Drew is trying to unveil is somewhat stupid).

Sweatshops, In General

The novel has now provided us with many more questions: Why was anybody’s aim “to mute the Thurn and Taxis post horn” (78)? First off, what was the Thurn and Taxis, and what does it mean “post horn”? What role does the color black have in the whole issue? Is it possible that black represents the secrecy and anonymity of the organization? The fraudulent postage stamps even contain a satirical “transposition-U.S. Potsage, of all things.” (78), which targets the possibility of pot trafficking throughout the US, or, even more probable, the fact that the US has always been a big drug-consumer of the world.

Enough with this satire, though. It is possible that the organization responsible for “muting” the Thurn and Taxis did so by unconventional means, and remains doing so, which is why so many people are still reluctant to divulge any information. Modern technology, made by “teams” of inventors, may be playing an important role in this silencing of the mysterious Thurn and Taxis. It is even possible that Yoyodine is participating, as many corporation giants participate in controversial issues such as sweatshops.

Postal Fraud

It is safe to say that a vast majority of my class’s blogs on this book, The Crying of Lot 49, will analyze the saturated satire within the novel. For this reason, I wish not to continue to burn the topic to over-analysis. No. This blog will be about something else: A play within a play/novel.

In chapter 3, most words describe a play that entices Oedipa’s curiosity through its possible connection with the hieroglyph she saw in the bathroom of that bar. In The Scope, her mystery-solving journey began with that WASTE symbol. She also had to solve the connection between the name ‘Trystero’, reluctantly mentioned in The Courier’s Tragedy directed by one Randolph Driblette, the inked bones, and the assassins, with the death of merchandized bones of not-fighting-any-more soldiers of WWII. Enough of that…

Why does everyone Oedipa inquire about the W.A.S.T.E. case close up, keeping more to themselves, as if the whole issue were something to fear? The person who fears the unknown is the philatelist Genhis Cohen, while people who know about the 800-year old conspiracy include director Driblette, who chooses to be courageously mysterious, the old man Mr Thoth who’s old age has erased any nature of fear, and the Yoyodine worker Stanley Koteks, who revealed to much. The “800-year old tradition of postal fraud” (79) can be compared to modern conspiracies that are to atrocious and powerful to even mention. Recently, I saw the last few episodes of the sci-fi series Heroes, where a group of people also attempt to solve a mystery of the past, only to be rejected by the locals by fear. Corral Springs was a place where inhumane treatment of people with abilities took place one generation ago. All those with abilities were brutally exterminated. Conspiracies often leave those implicated or those who witnessed in a traumatic state of denial.

Our Founding Fathers

The founding fathers: all those who helped establish the new Constitution of the United States in 1787. Pierce, a character from Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49, “owned a large block of the shares [of the Galactronics Division of Yoyodyne Inc.], [and] had been somehow involved in negotiating an understanding with the country tax assessor to lure Yoyodine here [to San Narcisco] in the first place” (15). According to Pierce “it was part, he explained, of being a founding father”(15). Is Pynchon saying that corruption is a requirement for being a founding father? Is he somehow insinuating that America’s founding fathers were themselves corrupt?

We know through documented history that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 contained aristocratic participants who’s main purpose for redefining the laws of the time was purely economical. With this background, we know that Pynchon’s satirical target for this historical reference are the multinational giants which are controlled by wealthy minorities who exploit the poor majority. An epitome of this is McDonalds, which advertises super-low prices which are “beneficial” to the public, while lowering the health standards of the production and preparation of the food. The products are so mass produced that the care for each unit has been lost to the temptations of low-cost products.

The Life That Is Prison; The Prison That Is Life

It is a prison. Life, if not taken advantage of, becomes a jail cell in which we enslave ourselves. Victimizing our lives and choices is our way of not living life and giving an excuse for it. The guilt of knowing that one’s life has been utterly wasted to the oblivion of the past is beguiling. Is it easier to simply go with the flow? How shall we know if we don’t try it? It is also possible that we become hooked on indifference and inaction. If all our lives share the same destiny, death, what is the point in fighting for individuality?

Like Oedipa, we could “carry the sadness of the moment with her that way forever, see the world refracted through those tears…” (11), which is when we ponder and dissect our guilt into something we long to liberate from. There is a certain comfort in knowing that all one’s experiences have not been one’s doing, and thus, all disappointments and failures are not our fault. That’s truly heartening, for there is truly nothing to be gained from the past, right?

A Helpful Parasite

Macbeth and his wife’s relationship can be compared to that of the theoretical host-parasite relationship that Richard Dawkins describes in the final chapter of The Selfish Gene. He supports the logic that “our own genes cooperate with one another, not because they are our own, but because they share the same outlet-sperm or egg- into the future” (245). Since both Macbeth and his lady have the same objectives of being powerful so that their genes may be powerful, they cooperate to achieve that common goal.

Another aspect of Macbeth’s relationship with his wife, which can be applied to one of Dawkins’ arguments is that of the desire to give one’s genes a prosperous destiny. They must leave something beneficial behind. The fact that Lady Macbeth fails to produce an heir has both spouses worried. “It must have an impartial exit channel into the future, for all the genes inside it” (256). Their worries are same as those of every other organism on the planet: How to propagate one’s genes to achieve eternal legacy. So now what? Some people have failed to leave something behind and they are truly the ones who perish, especially if, as in Macbeth’s case, they didn’t live happily.

I Am Punctual. My Blog Post Is Not.

Does becoming a traitor by murdering the king and taking his place make Macbeth a bad person? According to Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, it does. If “a strategy’s niceness is recognized by its behavior, not by its motives (for it has none) nor by the personality of its author (who has faded into the background…), [and if] …a computer program can behave in a strategic manner, without being aware of its strategy or, indeed, of anything at all” (228), we can infer that Macbeth’s actions are not “evil” at all, but rather “strategic” and genetically selfish. Through the logic that Dawkins proposes, Macbeth is not the guilty party (for he is simply the computer program designed by a computer programmer, Lady Macbeth, who isn’t guilty either). The guilt lies in the strategy of achieving “success”.

The culprit in Macbeth, as The Selfish Gene proposes in Chapter 12, is Lady Macbeth’s strategy of achieving the crown by deceptive of “defective (231)” means. The mentality of receiving all and giving none is purely selfish. While Dawkins advocates that this selfishness lies in the strategy, I believe it is born, in Macbeth’s case, with the author, Lady Macbeth. Even if her motives are predictably selfish, for they are inscribed and programmed on her genes, she chooses to accept them. She, as all humans, has the luxury of choice. She does not appreciate it. Her instincts overpower her. This makes her program the malleable Macbeth into her survival machine.

So, is Macbeth truly guilty for his actions? According to our understanding of choice, he is. Macbeth had the choice, unlike “programmed strategies” to override his directive.

Battle Of The...

Fighting for genes' survival...

Hit-'N-Run

Is it really more beneficial to be a cheater in life? Do liars actually do better than honest people in the long run? According to Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, being a cheater actually pays off. After reading Chapter 10 of his book, I realize that "no matter what the ratio in the population, cheats will always do better than suckers" (184). Suckers are those who are altruist and do good to all and bear no grudges. Cheats are those who never do good but always accept it from others. In a population where there are Grudges (those who remember the previous acts of others), it is better to be a cheat until all the suckers are gone then become a Grudge.

This situation reminds of the current political mentality of Colombian senators. They, among the rest of those in power around the world, practice clientelism, which is a type of attitude most commonly attributed to Grudges. More notably, we see through the senators' attendance in Congress the Cheat personality. They collect all $701.520 pesos every 24 hours in while they scam the country. They are expected to repay the state in their service, but they end up being selfish and gyp the people. According to El Tiempo, one of Colombias newspapers, the senators give childlike explanations to excuse their absences. The allege they were in a doctor's appointment which from which they couldn't get a note; in a traffic jam; out of town; or sick. One explanation for this phenomenon, that a liberal senator, Hector Heli Rojas provides is the following: "Los que vienen a sesionar están perdiendo votos con los que está en campaña" (Rojas).

Aunque ganan 701.000 pesos por día, muchos congresistas no van las sesiones

Reproduce Again If Possible

1. Choose a partner.

2. Be loyal.

3. Propagate genes.

4. Equal energy investment for each offspring.

5. Reproduce again if possible.

Freeze! Drop it! Don't Make Me Hurt You!

My younger brother is extremely competitive: he takes joy in the knowledge that he will be taller than me. His objective is to surpass me, as all brothers should in the role model/pupil situation of fraternity. However, when it comes to food, as all young animals, he is vicious. Stealing from his portion of fries is punishable by death at knife-point; however, if an ‘elder’-say a father or grandfather- takes from his fries without due clearance, he knows he must bite his tongue and accept the truth: it’s not that bad. As Dawkins says, “Selfish greed seems to characterize much of child behavior” (128).

As his elder brother, my responsibility is to sacrifice some of my benefits to his advantage: “If I am competing with my brother for a morsel of food, and if he is much younger than me so that he could benefit from the food more than I could, it might pay my genes to let him have it” (128). If I am not convinced, I still, in my case, have no choice: My brother’s super-fast reflexes can sense any danger to his food…its an ability he has. Although he has much to learn about generosity, I now know that as he gets older, he will come realize , or rather, his genes will come to realize, that such fight for food no longer deserves the energy. His biological hunger for food (even when he is not hungry), is not his fault, and all that I must do is wait until he thinks that he can fend for himself in the wilderness.

Another point that I must greatly consider is that although he requires more food to satiate his genes’ security, I must not exaggerate in my altruism, for if I do, he will never seem to learn and will remain in a state of competition. He must learn to rest when it is his time…or at least be more flexible on sharing food.

I Called Her

Do we, humans, also practice the animalistic ESS, “if resident, attack; if intruder, retreat”, as described in The Selfish Gene (80)? I believe we do: Males commonly fight over girls, but it considered chivalrous if the one who “saw her first” or “called her” is allowed to “keep” her by peaceful means. Is this a system that has developed within our genes, or among ethical standards?

If we look at it from the genetic point of view, we could understand how fighting for a girl might not help the individuals’ survival: friendships might crumble, leading to less aid in time of need. If we inspect the morals involved in chivalry, we see that through honor, peace could be achieved. If both parties fight for the girl, one will get her, and, seeing how we are historical beings (remembering past events), another relationship would be broken. On the other hand, if we accept defeat when we are “intruders”, we can end up with at least one solid relationship. The other person, the “victor”, would finish having two good relationships in place of one (if the other system would take effect). In this way, irrefutable systems such as flipping coins are primordial to establishing relationships and thus maintaining a good social position, being everyone’s friend.

Humans: The Only Truly Selfish Beings

Some animals are considered opportunistic when taking advantage of others’ naïve beliefs: In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how “whenever a system of communication evolves, there is always the danger that some will exploit it for their own ends” (65). This means that if a flower takes advantage of the feromones a bee searches in his mates, to spread pollen, it is the gene’s fault. The gene is the selfish one. The plant is simply carrying out a programmed set of instructions.

If a person were to do a similar thing, for example by tapping into a telephone wire or manipulating someone, they are blamed, not their genes. Maybe it is the fact that humans can choose to not be selfish that makes being selfish so scornful. We don’t think of manipulative animals as unethical at all, but rather opportunistic and just. Everyone does what they need to survive. They have no other choice. Humans, on the other hand, do, which means that any effort to take advantage of a situation that involves the demise of another is preposterous. Having the choice to override some of our selfish instincts imposed by our selfish genes has granted us the freedom to be altruist. The question is: Will we succumb to our animal instincts or think rationally as a human should do?

In response to this analysis, we come to the philosophical assumption that defines selfishness. Is it selfish if there’s no other choice? If that may be the case, then we’re the only selfish beings on Earth.

Mini-Fiction. Revised And Retold.

"...", I told myself, since I alone was left to tell.

"Your windshield will soon be stained red", read the horoscope.

A roadrunner is tripping today!

Duck season!; Wabbit season!; Alien season.

Why time time if all you get is time? Time!

It wont kill you. Come. Have a nice, juicy apple.

She can´t love him is she´s dead. Right?

The rain in Spain has moved to the city.

The Torah that can be told is not the eternal Torah.

A parrot: "Quack-a-poodle-moo!"

Hell? No! Hell no. There´s no place like church. There´s...

Hi mom. My name is ___. I´m your son.

A tour through hell: And to the right you´ll see...

"Live long and prosper", said one clown to the other.

"Let my people go", said one guy to the other.

How do you measure lonliness?

We are once upon a time, in a galaxy, far, far away.

Oh no! Why me? Oh.

And now, for my final illusion, I give you peace.

or: And now, for my final illusion, I give you hope. (or faith, friendship, reality, the truth, honesty, loyalty, benevolence, democracy)...

States Of Trauma

Richard Dawkins’ metaphors, particularly the one concerning the mimickry of certain butterfly species, can be compared to the United States’ embryonic development as a nation. Mimickry, as The Selfish Gene explains, is the basis of survival of certain harmless species that are preyed upon. It is easier to change the appearance than to completely transform the defense system into an attacking one. This is why certain species of butterflies and other insects have learned to mirror similar species’ characteristics, particularly those species that are dangerous to their predators. In doing so, the butterflies can fool their hunters by making them think that they are to be feared. One could almost say that they use the predators’ trauma to their advantage.

After the American Revolutionary era, people were traumatized by the tyrannical power that ruled them, and vowed to avoid a powerful central government at all costs. Although the fact that the British crown’s power didn’t inspire the hatred, the way in which that power was used did. In the same way that the butterflies’ predators, the birds, fear all strong colors because one species with strong colors was dangerous, so did the people of the new nation fear all strong governments because one power had gone bad.

Your Like Is Your Beneficiary

In Richard Dawkins’s A Selfish Gene, a theory on segregated benevolence is proposed. In it, Dawkins explains how all humans feel that “one’s own species deserve special moral consideration compared with members of other species” (10). Among others, he uses the following example: “A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee. Yet the chimp feels and thinks and--- according to recent experimental evidence---may even be capable of learning a form of human language” (10).

I believe that we favor those in our species because we are identified by them. If someone is being bullied, it is easier to consider the possibility of one’s similar position, whereas, if one presences an animal being abused, a softer heart is required to defend him, for identifying oneself with an animal seems preposterous.

During one of my religion classes, I asked the rabbi, Rabbi Moti, why Jewish teachings command that all mitzvas, or good deeds, be done first to the fellow Jew, and then to the non-Jew. I thought this was terrible racism. His defense was the following: In this world, Jews must stick together to survive and prosper. We must help each other out, for, if we don’t, who will?

In this way, I believe that this patriotic altruism is not prejudice at all, but merely a system to focus good-deeds on a more “selfish” cause. We must bind together if we want to be more. This survival mechanism is confused with biased compassion, but it actually is something our genes have acquired. This is something that works.

We Live on Purpose

I am woken at 5:45 a.m. I school starts at 7:06 a.m. School ends at 2:05 p.m. I do extracurricular activities. I go to sleep after homework by 9:30 p.m. on good days. I dream. I am woken at 5:45 a.m. Am I happy? I’m certain of my lack of sadness, but does that guarantee my joy? I don’t think so. I feel as if my life were flashing before my eyes (in slow motion, of course) and I am not even dying yet. Life is living me. I go with the flow. Is this life? Or is life true joy? If this were true, and I go on as is, I will die without ever living. What is the purpose of living this way, or any other way, for that matter. Do we have the choice to live happily or not to live happily? How hard are trying to truly live with joy? Is the pursuit of happiness eternal? Will we ever be able to achieve our goal of living?

I believe we will only be happy if we change our definition of happiness as a society. According to the King of Eldorado, whose Hinduist philosophy is generously shared, “a man should be satisfied with what works moderately well” (83). My life works moderately well, hence, I am satisfied. Yet, have I found true happiness? I believe that according to Voltaire’s teachings, we must be satisfied with the external to find joy in the internal. We should be gratified and indifferent with the spoils of the material to focus the search of peace within. We shall never achieve tranquility if we are focused on finding happiness in the wrong place. The material luxuries’ sole purpose is to ease the meditation process, so as to not concern oneself with the needs of the body. This is why we must be content with what works, not what we want, because, ultimately, what works is all that matters. We see that the happiness of the people of Eldorado has nothing to do with their gold or precious stones. They are happy because they have found joy within themselves and gratitude with what they have: “We never pray…we have nothing to ask of God, since he has given us everything we need. But we thank him unceasingly” (79). Here we see that something that works is the greatest luxury. We must remember and acknowledge this when we ask God for more. Do we want more, or do we need more?

In his conclusion, Voltaire reveals his work’s raison d’être: The journey is the destination. In the very last paragraph of Candide’s experiences, the writer, through the enduring optimism of Dr. Pangloss’s philosophy, explains how “there is a chain of events in this best of all possible worlds; for if you had not been turned out of a beautiful mansion at the point of a jackboot for the love of lady Cunégonde, and if you had not been involved in the Inquisition, and had not wandered over America on foot, and had not struck the Baron with your sword, and lost all those sheep you brought from Eldorado, you would not be here eating candied fruit and pistachio nuts” (144). In this maxim, the purpose of life is explained: We go through much, but our experiences are for the best if we learn from them. If not, then they will occur pointlessly.

However, why does Candide claim “we must go and work in the garden” (144), where we, as Adam and Eve had to do, must work for our survival and happiness? If we don’t work to survive and be happy, what is the true purpose of life. If we achieve joy, what then? Will life go on pointlessly, or will the existence of true bliss in our lives eliminate the need for an objective? The people of Eldorado don’t seem to have much of a purpose, but they don’t feel the need for one either. In that case, life’s purpose is to be happy until one doesn’t have the need to have an objective any longer.

What Is "Satisfaction"?

In the 18^th chapter of Voltaire’s Candide, we are shown a crude reality: We shall never be happy with what we have if we seek happiness in the material and not in the spiritual. Our society is confused because it believes that innovation brings joy. We must find satisfaction in stability and gratitude in real prosperity: the one that only involves survival and happiness.

The wise king of Eldorado gives Candide and his valet, Cacambo, a sound piece of advice when they inform him of their intentions to leave the utopia: “I realize that my country is not much to boast of, but a man should be satisfied with what works moderately well” (83). This captures the essence of satisfaction and man’s wild-goose-chase for well-being. Candide and Cacambo’s reasons for departure are purely materialistic and venturesome in nature. They would have no problem staying there, but they are lured by the prospects in the spoils of the journey: fortune, fame, and Cunégonde’s hand in marriage. In this NY Times article by David Leonhardt, source of society’s happiness today is described as being dependent in changes in status. In other words, the article "Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All" shows how people who acquire more than they usually do are happier than those who acquire values they are used to, as we can see in the map above. Why does this occur? Maybe people are more content with a change of status than the change itself. This area of society's psychology strongly depends on propaganda and popular trends. It is getting harder and harder to be happy every day.

Candide And His Intentions

I believe that if one’s intentions are noble, all can be forgiven…even murder. The question is: Will the person who committed the crime forgive himself? Self-forgiveness is the most important part to overcoming mistakes. It precedes, even, the attempt to make amends. In Candide, Voltaire, describes how his clumsy character’s personality causes him to do terrible things, all with noble intentions. Some of these include: the murder of two priests (one, his brother-in-law to be, and the other a jew) and an inquisition officer. He also kills two Oreillon women's lovers, thinking that they are harming them.

Candide’s intentions are always magnanimous, for a person with such a innocent mentality can’t bear the thought of wittingly causing harm. Although he kills “those two young ladies’ lovers” (69), he only meant to help. Cases where good-willed action have negative effects are common: I have been told countless times the situation where a friend’s friend once defended an unknown woman being stricken by her husband in a public fight. The women of all the stories scolded their saviors, explaining how their being harmed by aggressors is an act of “love”. They continue to reprimand my friend’s friend by telling him that he has no business intervening in something she “obviously deserves”. In such way, many times the right action is not always the correct one. The linked Youtube clip, although slightly radical, describes certain situations where “Good Intentions Go Bad, Or Worse”. Is it better to act based on good intentions or not act at all in the fear of an unintended outcome? I believe that all good intentions should be turned into good-actions, even if the result is undesirable.

Benedict Arnold, The Slave

Chapter 14 of Voltaire’s Candide, I believe, employs satirical targeting against traitors. The egotistic drive that so easily convinces them of disloyalty is also targeted. Cacambo, Candide’s newly acquired servant, condenses the purpose for treason: “When you don’t get what you expect on one side, you find it on the other” (62). Benedict Arnold is known for his greed-driven treachery. In the same way, Cacambo describes infidels’ motives.

What Voltaire describes as deceit lacks the moral implications. He hints that traitors ignore or lack a strong code of ethics that would otherwise impede their selfish choice from taking place. In this way, Voltaire mocks traitors as attributing ignorance to their list of defects. He condemns turncoats as being unaware of, or willing to accept/ignore the negative effects of their choices. By doing so, he not only gives us a reason to pity deserters, but also stresses that their amount of egotism is enough to bypass the “rational system” of the brain, responsible for logical thinking and planning, according to Radiolab’s “Choice”.

Candide And The Attack Of Temptation

When we have the impulse to give in to our whims, whether or not we honor them is up to our “rational system’s” (Radiolab’s “Choice”) strength. Our capacity to maintain our logic through distractions greatly decides our fate. If our rational mind is trained, the more calculated our future is. We can decide our destiny if we are completely conscious of our choices. Temptation, then, as we have seen in Voltaire’s Candide, weakens the existence of free will by imposing emotions.

One example of a weakening logic are is the frequent ravishing Cunégonde and her maid, Abigail, experience throughout their war-filled past. Soldiers abstain from choosing during battle, but rather resolve to act based on instinct and emotion. There is no way they can restrain themselves when they are faced with temptation, because they haven’t practiced doing so. For instance, we see a barbarian who uses power to heed his whims: Don Fernando, governor of Buenos Aires (who “everyone who saluted him wanted to hit him” (58)) is as impulsive as can be, which we can see when he proposes to Cunégonde upon seeing her: He “declared his passion to her and swore that he would marry her the following day…” (59). Although they don’t know each other, he doesn’t hesitate to challenge her “escort”, Candide. Candide, being himself, suspects nothing and expects the governor’s complete honor and Cunégonde’s unconditional loyalty. Since this man’s power has protected him from his behavior’s effects, he has lost self-restraint and the conscience it entails.

Through these examples that Voltaire provides, we are proven that logic is a learned skill though time and practice. The absence of rational thinking results in unpredictable consequences, as I expect the Governor to experience upon his hypothetical marriage with Cunégonde.

Fight Of The More Unfortunate Misfortune

Sometimes, comparing current circumstances to more unfortunate ones helps promote optimism. An example of this technique to cope with reality is mentality of the hobo prisoner of Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. The forty year-old hobo was in Pilgrim’s boxcar when he claimed that he, “”been hungrier than this”, the hobo told Billy. “I been in worse places than this. This ain’t so bad”” (68).

In the same way that this hobo endeavors to convince himself of the “positive” circumstances, so do Cunégonde and her maid, Abigail, struggle to pursue happiness. Ensuing Candide’s banishment from the Baron’s estate, Voltaire illustrates the woman’s despair and desolation. Her loss of hope is clear during the conversations between Candide and his lover, Cunégonde.

The maid gets tired of listening to the complaints, and so, to lessen the desperation, she alleges that she has been through much more than her employer. In comparison, Cunégonde’s terrible past is shriveled once Abigail’s life is evoked. She successfully communicates her opinion when she uproariously complains about “’The way you both complain!’ exclaimed the old woman. ‘You haven’t had misfortunes like mine to bear, I assure you’” (48). There is irony in the thought of having to recount worse experiences to endure unfortunate ones. Must we be optimistic only by extreme comparisons?

The great irony occurs in the next line, for this fight for hopefulness becomes just that: a fight. When “Cunégonde started to titter with laughter, for it was amusing of the good woman to pretend to be more unfortunate than she” (48), she was not fighting for the worse past, but for the better perspective of the present. It is ironical that in a time of crisis, these people must fight for the worse past in order to be satisfied with the present. If Cunégonde’s past is proven “better” than her maids, then her present will not seem as terrible as she believes it to be, and all her complaints will appear childish. Although she would be granted a degree of gratefulness (for her past is not as bad as her maid’s), she would be silenced. They are fighting for the “better” misfortunate past. This irony is sickening.

Candide's Intentions

Candide’s journey, as told by Voltaire, is not one without curious occurrences. In particular, Voltaire encrypts subliminal and ubiquitous clues designed to send a deeper message than what is meant literally. One of such messages occurs when Candide and his mentor, Dr. Pangloss, are readied for death. Their execution is caused by “one for speaking and the other for listening with an air of approval” (36).

It was believed at the time that “the sight of a few people ceremoniously burned alive over a slow fire was an infallible prescription for preventing earthquakes” (36). Candide’s ignorant personality is befitting for this ignorant attempt to well-being. What is interesting about the ceremony is the variation in attire which both people are given: “The decorations on Candide’s mitre and cassock were penitential in character, inverted flames and devils without tails or claws; but Pangloss’s devils had tails and claws, and his flames were upright” (36). We can infer from these differences in dressing that both mentor and pupil are being punished for different things. Dr. Pangloss, who is a lucid and knowledgeable person, is directly responsible for every one of his actions, while Candide’s actions are like those of a child: mostly unwittingly affecting others. Furthermore, Candide’s actions are almost never to the expectation of others. He is as spontaneous as can be. This is probably the reason why his robe is decorated with an opposite fate than that of his master. He will probably be punished for his actions in hell, as the people of the time believe, but should he be punished if his intentions are noble? The question we must ask ourselves is the following: Should we be equally punished for our actions than for our intentions?

A Color-Coded Adventure

In Candide, Voltaire employs a color code to differentiate people’s different intentions towards other people. Evidence has proven that the color ‘black’ identifies those fanatics who wish terrible harm on a select group. We find people throughout chapters 3 and 5 who are given a black accessory. The “little man in black” (35), an inquisition officer at the end of the 5^th chapter, has dark intentions. He is a religious fanatic, as is the preacher of chapter 3, who indoctrinates charity, but ruthlessly refuses it to Candide for being an unfaithful. This “gentleman in the black gown and his wife” (27) are too religious zealots.

There is one person who Voltaire smudges with a hint of blackness in chapter 3. Dr. Pangloss, although completely benevolent, contains a trace of close mindedness. It is also possible that the color black does not symbolize maliciousness at all, but rather pure intolerance to anything foreign, for, in his way, Dr. Pangloss too is a fanatic. As opposed to the others, this radicalism is philosophical, as opposed to the religious extremism of the others. Also, Dr. Pangloss’s darkness is represented by his “teeth were black” (28), and we get the impression that he wishes to better himself by gaining tolerance when Voltaire said that “at every bout which he spat out a tooth” (28). It is also possible that Dr. Pangloss’s newly discovered evil is foreshadowing his future actions. It may be that while he is good now, Voltaire is warning us of his forthcoming transformation.

The color blue signifies the partial altruism of people like who helped Candide in his time of need. Good-hearted people like those who helped Candide find some food, like, the “two men in blue noticed him” (22) are the epitome of a degree of kindness which demands something in return. This is a service that is not truthful, but rather costly and conditional. I will be attentive to other mentions of colors in this novel, particularly blue, so that I can clearly define attributes it gives to characters.

It's Satire. Honest!

I noticed a degree of satire when reading Voltaire’s Candide, particularly during chapters 2 and 3. Although this will be the topic of another blog, I have noticed similarities between Don Quixote and Candide, particularly in their picaresque and naïve manner of being, which cause them to be grotesquely treated by some and humorously valued by others.

When Candide is starved and seeking generosity, we find irony in a preacher’s behavior: “For a man who had just been addressing a big audience for a whole hour on the subject of charity” (26) couldn’t bring himself to help Candide, a man certainly in need of generosity. In this case, the man’s religious zeal made him able to preach the values he didn’t pursue. However, If his teachings involved charity segregated to the faithful, then he certainly acted on behalf of his “moral” doctrines, however unethical.

Another example of satirical humor, particularly irony as well, is the instance where Voltaire describes the scramble for battle and the organization it entails. What should be described as a dissonance of sides battling against each other is depicted as “bugles, fifes, oboes, drums, and salvoes of artillery [that] produced such a harmony as Hell itself could not rival” (25). Voltaire illustrates perfectly orchestrated chaos. Not only is this ironic, but it implies the innocent mentality of Candide. He sees the simplicity of the world with its complications: Two groups don’t agree so they will organize a confrontation. Everything has a reason: Cause and effect.

Animals In Slaughterhouse-five: An Insight On Resisting Reality

Why does Billy Pilgrim have an abnormal number of animal encounters in Slaughterhouse-five? Pilgrim’s experiences with animals depict the inhumane treatment of people in World War II in an indirect and satiric manner. They also portray the effects of war on people’s consciences. Billy’s clumsy personality and fantastic experiences help delineate such things in a humorous manner. His extraterrestrial escapade to Tralfalmadore further stresses the non-human conditions of people and the animalistic behavior of those in favor of the war.

Although there are dozens of references to animals in Slaughterhouse-Five, I shall make reference to a select few. One of Vonnegut’s connections of human to animal treatment in World War II includes the moments during Billy Pilgrim’s imprisonment by the Germans. He mentions the source of the lubrication for the axles of a cart. On one page, he claims them to be “greased with the fat of dead animals” (157), while in a different part of the book, Pilgrim alleges: “The “candles and the soap were made from the fat of rendered Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists, and other enemies of the state” (96). Although he doesn’t directly mention grease in the second quotation, we do know that some soap and candles are made from animal fat. I believe it is safe to say that Vonnegut has juxtaposed these references to lubrication so that we may find a hinted simile in their sources of fat. The “Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists, and other enemies of the state” were regarded as animals. If they weren’t always considered as animals, they were certainly treated brutally.

Concentration camps were common hells of the Holocaust. One of their dreaded characteristics were the gas chambers, where mass numbers of prisoners would be mercilessly butchered. Vonnegut envisions the thoughts of the Germans while they were gassing the Jews: “When Billy got his clothes back, they weren’t any cleaner, but all the little animals that had been living in them were dead” (90). Vonnegut makes an allusion to gas chambers and decontamination chambers, comparing the death of the animal pests living near the person with the “Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists, and other enemies of the state” (96) living alongside the “elite”. These minorities were considered pests to be exterminated.

There is one intolerable thing war is known to: strip people of their conscience. For instance, Paul Lazarro is a perfect example of a human whose intention to do good has been dismantled by war. We can see that brutality was not limited to the German troops by recognizing Lazarro’s hunger for pain. He rants that he is impervious to pain, especially if he is the one inflicting it, when he proudly retold what he did to a dog that once bit him: “So I got me some stake, and I got me the spring out of a clock. I cut that spring up in little pieces. I put points on the ends of the pieces. They were sharp as razor blades. I stuck ‘em into the steak-way inside. And I went past where they had the dog tied up. He wanted to bite me again. I said to him, ‘Come on, doggie-let’s be friends…He believed me…He swallowed it down in one big gulp…’Now Lazzaro’s eyes twinkled… ‘Anybody ever asks you what the sweetest thing in life is…it’s revenge” (139). War has made people like Paul Lazarro animals: taking pleasure from seeing others in agony.

As we can infer from another animal reference, during the Second World War, minorities were barbarically treated. On one occasion, Billy becomes the unwitting aggressor of a pair of horses. In their toil, they become afflicted by effects of the work they were set out to do: “The horses’ mouths were bleeding, gashed by the bits, that the horses’ hooves were broken, so that every step meant agony, that the horses were insane with thirst” (196). In this maxim, the reader is astonished to be informed that a horse, which we relate to perfect health in the simile, “as healthy as a horse”, is being overexploited. Furthermore, humans were also forced to endless drudgery during this period (hence the animal torture). As the Americans here “had treated their form of transportation as though it were no more sensitive that a six-cylinder Chevrolet” (196), so had the Germans treated the Jews as if they were no more than mindless animals, good for nothing but labor. Known to be an enduring people, the treatment of Jews was lowered to remorseless segregation. In the same way, the horse, which is famous for its health, was greatly deprived of its wellbeing.

Certain animals have gained linguistic attribution for a variety of traits: “Blind as a bat”, “strong as an ox”, a “cunning fox”, “as busy as a bee”, and “healthy as a horse”, among other similes. When describing his abduction by the Tralfalmadores, Billy Pilgrim makes an allusion to an animal, the owl when he recalls that “he heard the cry of what might have been a melodious owl, but it wasn’t a melodious owl. It was a flying saucer from Tralfalmadore…” (75). Owls are known to be the wise ones of the animal kingdom. This is probably due to their superior awareness of their surroundings, considering the fact that they have great eyesight, and can turn their heads more than 360 degrees to any side. Furthermore, Athene, the Greek goddess of wisdom, was so marveled by the observant eyes and majectic appearance of owls, that she honored it by making it her favorite feathered bird. Also, the hoot of an owl was known to be an omen of defeat, death, or even pure evil, while the mere sighting of the bird meant victory in battle. It is possible that a part of Billy Pilgrim will die with the arrival of truth and choice less reality: the human part, which clings to hopes and dreams. It is also possible that Pilgrim is signaling the arrival of wisdom into his life. In particular, he refers to the wisdom of one’s environment and how to act based on conclusions obtained from the acquired knowledge. In Tralfalmadore, Billy will learn that the purpose of life is nonexistent. He is given the wisdom required to cope with war: Believing that it was unavoidable and thus, merits no guilt. It is the shortcut to accepting unfavorable circumstances: Assuming that predestination is the way of life. This indirectness aids the author, Vonnegut, in his recollection of the war: It becomes easier, somewhat detached.

In Tralfalmadore, Pilgrim “was displayed naked in a zoo, he said” (25), where, excluding his luxurious accommodations, his status of imprisonment could be easily compared to that of a Jew in a ghetto or concentration camp. People would pass by the perimeter and contemplate the existence of the “animals” within. Although people in Tralfalmadore didn’t view humans, or Billy in particular, as inferior (as people in the Holocaust did), they did view him with pity for his lack of perception. Pilgrim’s incarceration however, couldn’t have been clearer.

Finally, after analyzing the evidence, we can safely assume that the inhumane treatment of people in World War II is depicted in an indirect and satiric manner Billy Pilgrim’s animal encounters in Slaughterhouse-Five. They also portray the effects of war on people’s conscience. Kurt Vonnegut, the “pillar of salt” (22) who wrote this book, is regretting recalling his past, which he does so by means of animal references, which make everything easier to bear. Now, the question we must ask ourselves is the following: To make it “easier to bear”, would we be avoiding reality if we believed in the Tralfalmadorian theory of life and time, or should we confront actuality with the determination to make amends? Billy Pilgrim seems to favor the former, while Kurt Vonnegut, his creator, acknowledges the truth of the present and the possibility of a different future. However, Vonnegut still swerves reality using a method other than the belief of predestination and the impotence towards the past, present, and future: he uses clever similes, metaphors, and juxtapositions. Why would Billy and Vonnegut be using different methods to cope with the truth?

Is Freedom Kosher?

Today, in my religion class, I learned about the approach which we should take when treating others. My teacher, Rabbi Moti, told me a famous saying that advised you to “treat your fellow as yourself” (Jewish proverb). We analyzed this meaningful teaching for the entire class’s duration. I learned that you should give what you like to be given, be treated as you would like to be treated, speak as you would like to be spoken to, etc…

Epictetus, in his handbook of free will and freedom to be free, has a much more stoic approach towards unfortunate events in comparison to the Jewish religion. Epictetus recommends an indifferent reaction towards losses. He gives a sample which he uses to describe the target psychological effect: We must think that “it’s one of those things that just happen” (18.26), as we do when somebody else has experienced a loss. We should be equally passive in regards to our losses instead of thinking “Alas! Poor me” (18.26)! The Bhagavad-Gita has a similar modus operandi: “He does not rejoice or hate,/ grieve or feel desire;/ relinquishing fortune and misfortune,/ the man of devotion is dear to me./ Impartial to foe and friend,/ honor and contempt,/ cold and heat, joy and suffering,/ he is free from attachment” (111.17-18). (Losses are known, when not accepted by the mourner, to enslave the griever.)

Jewish teachings contradict advice from the Bhagavad-Gita: According to Jewish religion, we must treat other's grievances as if they were our own. If we are to live contently, is it better to heed the Bhagavad-Gita and be unconditionally indifferent, or be an emotional being of society, appropriately mourning others’ losses as if they were our own? Which would make us happier?

Dear Mr. Frost

Dear Mr. Frost,

I would like to make a criticism regarding your poem, “The Road Not Taken”. You must not sigh after you take the choice that you decided. If you go on “telling this with a sigh” (Frost), you will never be content with your choice. You must never look back, but live in the present. It is necessary “to look down one [choice’s effects] as far as I could” (Frost): Planning the future is crucial for one’s well-being, but let this not hamper your complete existence in this moment.

Do as my handbook to happiness instructs to do, and you will be content with every choice you make, however “equivocal”: “Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well” (13.8). Do not grieve you’re the road not taken, but rather rejoice the one you did. Take joy in every path life leads you through, to make every experience constructive and positive. Finally, take joy in this moment, not hindering on the past, for from past only comes regret. Be happy with your choices and they shall always lead you to the best way.

Sincerely,

Epictetus

Supreme Gratification

Even today, death and reputation are some of principle concerns of the common person. As the Bhagavad-Gita explains, "for a man of honor, shame is worse that death" (36.34). When someone is shunned by society, to some, it may appear as if death has engulfed them. For us to become "gradually tranquil, firmly controlling his understanding; focusing his mind on the self, he should think nothing" (68.25), we should be unconditionally grateful for what we have. Only by this shall we lack the desire of that which is not up to us, that which binds us to our fears and cravings.

According to The Handbook of Epictetus, we must consider the worst of possibilities in order to be grateful for the way our life turns out: "Let death and exile and everything that is terrible appear before your eyes every day, especially death; and you will never have anything contemptible in your thoughts or crave anything excessively" (16.21). We must discipline ourselves to be confident of the joy we find within ourselves, for, as the Gita teaches, "an ignorant man is lost, faithless, and filled with self-doubt; a soul that harbors doubt has no joy, not in this world or the next" (56.40). We must be eternally content with what we have and find joy within ourselves to be rid of the shackles of fear and materialism.

Is Life Is Finishing School?

The Secret’s philosophy (by Rhonda Byrne), which says that we must not wait for the things we want, but rather “expect the things you want” (93), is a philosophical dichotomy with The Handbook Of Epictetus’s teachings. The Secret tells us to be grateful for what we have and what we want to have to “turbo charge your desires and sends a more powerful signal out into the universe” (93) and the universe will grant them. However, The Handbook of Epictetus says that we must, as if in a banquet, “reach out your hand politely and take some. It goes by: do not hold it back. It has not arrived yet: do not stretch your desire out toward it, but wait until it comes to you” (15.15) In brief, what must we do when approaching the things we want in life: Do we politely take what is offered or scream across the table demanding for what we want?

Respecting the Secret’s teachings would be a rude thing to do in a metaphorical banquet like the one described in The Handbook of Epictetus. I believe that the stoic philosophy of The Handbook would shun the Secret’s imprudent and disrespectful way of leading life, demanding anything and everything upon mere whim. This contrast of teachings reflects the enduring question of our purpose of being. What place do we have in the cosmos? Are we unique, entitled to rightly demanding our wishes? Or are we simple guests in the divine banquet of gods who demand supreme modesty and respect? We shall never truly know.

Tralfalmagita

As I write this blog, I’m thinking of trying to finish it in time to do other things before it gets too late. If I expect to accomplish this, then I may be greatly disappointed, while if I don’t expect anything at all, I will agree with any outcome. The Handbook of Epictetus, much like the Bhagavad-Gita, teaches us to accept the future and whatever it brings. While the Handbook of Epictetus instructs us to cope with the future by accepting everything unchangeable as unchangeable, the Bhagavad-Gita commands us to “be intent on action,/ not the fruits of action;/ avoid attraction to the fruits/ and attachment to inaction!” (38). The Handbook of Epictetus is a text which promotes focusing on the acceptance of the fruits of action, however they appear to be, while the Gita indoctrinates to ignore the fruits altogether and learn from the journey, which is a win-win situation: You will learn either way if the fruits are rotten or not.

The Tralfalmadorians of Slaughterhouse-Five can be easily compared to the teachings of the Gita: They both encourage the focusing of attention on the journey rather than the outcome, which is a much more constructive experience than simply accepting every result. In this sense, I believe that the Handbook of Epictetus is lacking a fundamental trait in living. If we merely “do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen” (13.8), as the Handbook of Epictetus advises, we let ourselves be carried away by the current of life, learning nothing from the journey. Experiences are very valuable and the Handbook has proven to be a guide to simply live life neutrally, without focusing on the fruits, but not focusing on the journey either.

So, Does It Go?

One of many realizations many people experience upon losing a loved one, I believe, is the How-can-everything-be-going-on-normally-as-if-nothing-had -happened? surprise. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut describes the fictitious existence of the Tralfalmadorian race who, aided by their superior perceptive capabilities, have accepted time and nature, let alone fate, as unchangeable and predetermined; a world I describe in my blog, God Is A Mechanic.

One thing we must acknowledge is the passing of time and the emotions its varying events carry. For instance, when the writer of the Dresden book describes the book, he begins with introducing a massacre. He tells of how “everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre. . .”(19). The birds say “all there is to sat about a massacre, things like “Poo-tee-weet?””(19). As I see it, here Vonnegut leads us to believe that the birds ask what reaction we will take from this massacre: Will we be Tralfalmadorianly indifferent, or humanly emotional? Billy Pilgrim’s view regarding this question changes throughout the book. I mention this metamorphosis in my blog, Billy Pilgrim’s Indifference: So It Goes. This is the question the birds ask.

Mine is a philosophical question which we may never know the answer to: Even if the Tralfalmadorians were to exist and they would be correct on their theory of time, would we still be lachrymosely affected? After the bombing of Dresden and the end of the second World War (and the end of the book as well, for that matter), “one bird said to Billy Pilgrim, “Poo-too-weet?””(215). This makes the Billy as well as the reader himself question the reaction he must have with respect to the war: Shall I be indifferent or shall I be human? Is it possible to be humanly indifferent? Poo-tee-weet?

Animals in Slaughter House-Five

Thesis Statement: Billy Pilgrim's experience with animals shows the savage treatment of World War Two victims.

Argumenting points:

1. Billy's stay in the Tralfalmadorian zoo: Pg. 75, 113.

2. Billy's interactions with animals during the war: Pg. 197, 82

3. People treating Billy like an animal during and after the war: 192 & 193, 42 & 48

Billy Pilgrim's Indifference: So It Goes

I believe that everyone, no matter how toughened, has a minimum of one emotional weak spot. The unfair and often cruel treatment of animals is my personal debility. Some people take advantage of animals by making them fight others of their sort. Animal abuse also includes cruelly scolding an animal, confining them to small spaces or collars (their necks eventually grow thicker than the diameter of the collars, choking them), or starving them. I can’t stand the sight of an abused animal without doing something about it.

Billy Pilgrim endured all of World War II without shedding a tear for anything: The bombing of Dresden, the cold frontier Winters, and the cruel treatment of Nazi officials. It wasn’t until he was shown the state of the horses he was using for transport in Dresden that his emotional indifference burst. Vonnegut describes how the German obstetricians he met in the ruined Dresden “made Billy get out of the wagon and come look at the horses. When Billy saw his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn’t cried about anything else in the war” (Vonnegut pg. 197). This type of cruelty is something to “weep quietly” (Vonnegut pg. 197) about. “Loud boohooing noises” (Vonnegut Pg. 197) only demonstrate the need for others to acknowledge your distress. A private weep is something much more personal and solemn. Here, I believe that Vonnegut gives Billy Pilgrim a degree of personality and psychosomatic reaction towards the events taking place. His grievance finally signals the existence of his human response, where before, he was indifferent to everything.