Is it Fate?

The House of Mirth centers on the theme of fate and how many of Lily's early actions and characteristics hint toward later events and issues within the novel. For example, in the beginning we saw Lily as a very impulsive character obsessed with her material life. Oftentimes she blames her misfortune with money on fate or destiny. Like it's not her fault that she loses all her money. Then later we find that her character traits lead her into these situations, she is more or less doing this to herself. She is manipulative and slightly obsessive by nature so then throughout the novel she keeps manipulating people and obsessing over her societal status, this doesn't surprise us. She also has trouble committing as we see with her multiple relationships and proposals. She is creating her "fate" for herself with her actions. It's almost as if she's hopelessly impulsive, obsessive etc. She can't get out of it so she blames it on fate.

This reminded me of a book a read last year by Thomas Hardy titled Tess of the D'Urbervilles. The protagonist in this novel, Tess, also deals with fate and how fate affects the plot with Tess. Tess's character is also "hopeless" in some areas areas. For one, she is easily influenced and has trouble making her own decisions. This trait hinders her actions throughout the rest of the book and keeps her from overcoming her issues. This is like Lily. Lily cannot overcomer her character traits either. And in the end it get the better of her. Tess died at the end of her story and so did Lily...was this their fate?

It is interesting too that both of these stories are so similar in format and theme. They both are in the same sort of time period, the turn of the century, I guess it must of been the style for novels or something.

I Take it Back...

In an earlier post I compared Lily to Lizzy Bennett from Pride and Prejudice, and now I would like to retract that statement after further reading into the development of Lily as a character. Lily is not like Lizzy at all I can see. Perhaps it was just the Victorian theme that made me think of them together, but I think Lily has evolved. She cares so much about money and has become so desperate that she is starting to break down. She is finally realizing how much she has alienated people for the want of money and social respect. The ironic thing is that she has sacrificed so much climbing the social ladder that people have taken notice and therefore have lost respect for her in her sort of wild desperation. Lizzy Bennett saw this part of society as ridiculous and tried to distance herself from it, she was never one to worry about financial security and in fact thought the opposite, especially when considering marriage. I think that Lily would like to do things for herself and marry for love not money and such, but she has become too dependent on her extravagant lifestyle that she can't imagine anything else.

A Financial Connection

"All her life Lily had seen money go out as quickly as it came in" (116).

Lily isn't very good at handling money as we have seen, she gains it gambling, then spends it on luxury clothes and jewelry, but it's nothing really practical. This quote kind of sums up Lily's financial situation. When I read it, it reminded me of Marx and how he argues that people are too reliant on money. They get caught up in it and forget about other things. Then there's the gap between the rich and the poor. That is why he advocated communism, because it decreased the physiological value of money and put everyone on an equal level. Lily is always trying to prove that she is in the top tier of society, she is always trying to appear like she has more money than she does. I think Marx would disapprove of her thinking and her obsession with money

Seldon

It seems to me that Selden's character in The House of Mirth is created to help the reader understand and realize some of the absurdities of the social scene. He is sort of on the fringe of this level of society and sort questions it himself with his relationship with Lily. He questions her actions and her values. Maybe Wharton is using him a "control" to sort of compare to with the rest of the characters and how they act in their world.

And it All Connects Back...

"success-what is success?" and the response "personal freedom...from everything" (70)

This is a piece of a conversation between Lily and Seldon about the idea of success. Lily thinks success is about making the most out of life, "to get as much as one can out of life..." whereas Seldon's definition is about gaining personal freedom, freedom from everything material and concrete. I found this to be an interesting connection in the text to Marx, Nietzsche and Gandhi, (as well as along the themes of this entire semester...) that total success in life requires man to take a step back from society and its many restraints. To forget about material goods and focus on spiritual philosophy and knowledge.

Marx wants us to give up our obsession with material goods and work instead as a community for the good of everyone. Nietzsche stressed the rigid formality of society and the need man retained to break away from it. Gandhi also, spoke of personal freedom when he talked about living a simple, modest life of nonviolent behavior and without predetermined expectations or duties. All philosophies arguing the benefits of thinking for yourself. In a way, Lily is right as well, this is how to make the most out of life, to break from the norm and the dependency of modern civilization to enjoy life in its most natural state, a free mind and free body. Personal freedom.

Flexibility is a Must

"Misfortune had made Lily supple instead of hardening her, and a pliable substance is less easy to break than a stiff one" (37).

I liked this metaphor in The House of Mirth because it talks about how adapting to one's situation and dealing with it is better than remaining stubborn and unmoved by it. When Lily and her mother lose most of their money and are forced to become more or less nomadic, Lily does not break down and lose hope, she doesn't close-up and harden her shell. Instead she becomes more flexible than before, accepting her new fate for the time being and adapting to her environment to make the most of it. She will not break with such a sudden change of lifestyle, instead she will bend around it and make it fit.

Lily and Lizzy

So far reading the House of Mirth has been a fun, new change considering our past titles of Gandhi, Nietzsche and Marx. I am enjoying the characters and an actual plot, not to mention the excellent writing style. Finally. This book actually reminds me of one of may favorite books: Pride and Prejudice . The descriptions about how the rich live, the lavish parties, dresses, food etc all remind me of the lifestyles of the Bennett's and the rest of them. The values are the same too. The young women are worried about getting married, missing opportunities. Worried about dying an old maid, poor, without any financial security, etc. They spend their money on dresses and jewelry all in hopes of bettering their chances to advance in society. Lily is like Elizabeth Bennett (or Lizzy as they called her), they are both deep thinkers and strong women. They both are looking beyond what the average woman wants, they are the rebels of their time, much to their mothers' disappointment. Young, pretty (but not overly so...), and thoughtful, they are anomalies.

Product Value to Personal Value

"If commodities could speak, they would say this: our use-value may interest men, but it does not belong to us as objects. What does belong to us as objects, however, is our value" (243).

Marx emphasizes here that it's not really the product we are interested in that makes up buy more and pay more, it's the relationship we imagine with that product. It's the way we think that product will affect the value we place on ourselves. This behavior is reflective of our "fetish" with the Monetary System. We, as humans, as a society, are obsessed with branding and personal value. We seem to try to express our own self worth through the products we buy. For example, if I choose to buy a $100 pair of jeans I may deem myself more valuable as a person than if I bought a $30 pair. The fact that I was able to spend this amount on a pair of jeans tells others that I am worth more than they are. Such a simple conscious purchase with such a powerful subconscious societal message attached. Also, consider the product's use-value. Working with my example again, the expensive pair of jeans may not prove to be any more useful or of any higher quality than the cheaper pair, but it's all about the brand, the money, and how that money and that brand portray me as a person to the rest of the members of society.

I find this phenomenon super interesting and I love to analyze how people buy things and why they buy them due to marketing, fashion trends and role models. There was actually a book I read recently called Why We Buy which explained our buying habits according to certain store displays and how the stores choose subconsciously our next purchases depending on floor plans, sales, and customer service. But for the record, my favorite pair of jeans cost me $15 at a consignment store and are worn at least five times as much as my $70 pair, so it's all relative.

"To Produce His Means of Subsistence"

Marx defines man as a creature who "begins to distinguish himself from the animal the moment he begins to produce his means of subsistence, a step required by his physical organization" (Marx 107). This is like Gandhi and his metaphor with the railroads and how railroads are bad because they are created by man and pull man faster and farther away from his maker. Man is one of the only animals who really does produce for himself. Think about it. We are constantly creating machines and certain inventions meant to make our lives easier, to aid us in our existence, to sustain ourselves. These are not natural creations and were not inherited in our genes. These "alien" developments are what Marx says separates Man from animals and thus natural history and the history of man. The idea of further production is, as Marx stresses, the main goal of man in society. Thus, the division of labor, the economic system, etc etc.

Communism is what Marx thinks is the next step in man's history. Man's "physical organization" and production. But can man subsist off this?

The Value of Property...

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for 9/10ths of the population" (Marx 171).

This quote sums up one of Marx's main points in support of Communism, the fact that private property is sort of an illusion. The gap between the rich and the poor is large and it's true that the rich are in control of most of the "property" which we value today, including company shares, land/real estate, banks, etc. But it seems there is still a value in the idea of private property and the idea that owning property is a feasible goal. If the whole concept of private property was destroyed with a controlled economic installment like Communism, then all motivation would be lost.

The Middle Class Stuck in the Middle

I thought it was interesting what Professor Dolson was saying her her blog about President Ayer's speech on financial aid at UR> CoreCownexions: Marx and Property and UR. It's true. The Middle class is really squeezed by our society. We want to help the poor and all those who are less fortunate, and we dedicate a lot of money to do that. Though, there are people who are living comfortable lives who still need help because prices are so high. These are the middle class and college tuition is a great example. The University of Richmond is an extremely expensive school that also has a lot of money to burn. I know a lot of scholarships are given out and many kids do not pay the full tuition price, but there are some who are forgotten. Mainly those qualified, but not stellar, students who are on the edge for being eligible for financial support, but do not quite make the requirements. I am one of those kids. A member of the forgotten middle class. I know, I have to pay for a good portion of my education and it's hard, especially here. But there are also kids worse off than me. It's hard to find this middle ground. To make sure there is enough for everyone. That type of equality of all classes is one of the main arguments in favor of Communism, and what Marx is really pushing for.

The Untouchables

When I read the passage about untouchability in India I remembered a podcast I came across a while back in the summer about this same subject. Though a little dry, the podcast is extremely interesting and offers a new perspective on the untouchables and how they were viewed by Gandhi. The story in the podcast describes Gandhi as a supporter of keeping the caste system out of fear of destroying Hinduism. A man named Ambedkar is seen as the true untouchable hero and worked hard to demolish the caste system. Ambedkar gained support of Britain for his cause and as a result Gandhi began one of his famous fasts. Anyway, I think this is a worthwhile podcast to listen to even if it is 30ish minutes. I learned a lot.

National Geographic Magazine: "India's Untouchables"
http://podcastmedia.nationalgeographic.com/bestofngm/pc5_untouchables.mp3

Dorm Life

Yesterday in class we were told to think about our roles in the dorm community and how that works together. It's true, my dorm is a thriving community composed of my roommate, hallmates, RA, etc. we all work together to make dorm living as easy and as fun as possible. All the roommates have room contracts which set out the initial boundaries of that particular room. Then in the next tier, the RA runs each different hall with different expectations and feelings. We've had a couple hall meetings to discuss certain rules or even fun things, like hall outings and bonding time. All hall problems, unless worked out individually, are taken up with the RA. Overall, life runs smoothly in my hall and their are few conflicts. Everyone knows whats expected and generally gets along well with the rest of the floor.

Perhaps it is like a government. The contracts like a constitution: basic guidelines. The RA as a president of sorts to handle domestic problems. All the citizens working together to create the best possible lifestyle. Each hall is self-sufficient and independent, as a whole, hardly any of the other halls interact with each other. I have found my niche as a member of this community and proud resident of the first floor, B-wing hall.

Outside Help Weakens the Inside

"Doctors have almost unhinged us...Their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it...The doctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby felt more at ease; but my mind became weakened" (33).

Here Gandhi uses an analogy with doctors to illustrate how our indulgences and outside remedies are weakening our minds. He explains that we never learn not to indulge because we immediately ease the pain or consequences with medicine or some sort of remedy. This treatment is bad because we feel better from our indulgences and never suffer the actual consequences of our actions, we ignore it and numb the affects with medicine. Thus, the mind is weakened because it is being deprived of its true feelings. For example, I get headaches a lot. Sometimes because I am tired, stressed, dehydrated etc. I know these are the reasons I get them, but I never treat a headache with more rest and less stress. I usually just take an Advil and get over it and continue on with my fast paced life. I am just ignoring the problem when the headaches are my body's way of telling me something is wrong. In a spiritual sense, as Gandhi states, this is overall weakening my mind because I am not in touch with the workings of myself, only reliant on outside help.

I think this metaphor can also be used to describe India and the English rule. The Indians rely on the the English to keep their government somewhat stable because the political parties have too many conflicts. So, the Indians just rely on the English to keep everything under control, an outside remedy, the English medicine. Therefore, India "mind," or independent capability is becoming weaker because the English are not allowing it to feel for what the country really needs and what needs to be done to rule independently with out the foreign help.

The American Culture

Gandhi touches on the idea about mixing cultures in his writings. He talks about the Indian culture mixing with the English culture and whether or not to accept that. He also describes how important it is to have national pride, pride in one's home country. It was interesting how this related to our discussion in class on Wednesday, how Americans have a different feeling of national pride than most countries.

Americans don't like to admit they are American. When someone from another country asks where they're from they'll say their state or perhaps where their family is from. It's interesting that we take traditions from all over the world and mix them into our society creating our own "semi-homemade" mixture of culture. It isn't completely foreign, but it's not a purely American idea. Americans, it seems, take a lot of pride in their ethnicity or family background and seem to try to celebrate that more than the fact they American. Maybe it's because our country is so new, and has yet to become established enough to create a defined culture. But for sure this sort of lack of our own culture is our culture. Also our ideas, the consumerism, the drive to succeed, the bigger, better, more, attitude. That is what fuels our country. It just is kind of funny, to see people all the time trying to separate themselves from their American roots and striving to express their individual diversity.

But then, it's sad that sometimes tragedy strikes and suddenly, everyone's "oh yeah, Go America." Events like Katrina and September 11 spurred nationalism in America that was never before seen. Suddenly everyone wanted to help, to be involved. If only this type of enthusiasm would happen during the good times as well.

Two Hands and Two Feet

I found it extremely humbling when Gandhi talks about the limits of man, "...man is so made by nature as to require him to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him" (25). It's interesting to think about, man started with only two legs with two feet and two arms with two hands. The rest of our existence has been built up around us by these physical traits combined with willpower and brainpower. These were the limits of man's "locomotive ambition" (26) as Gandhi puts it and man has been working ever since to override it. Since our creation man has built a society to live in, civilization has taken over. He has built with his hands and feet, buildings, highways, technology as well as the ideas of God, nationality and morality. None of these "inventions," I shall call them, existed before man existed and he created them.

Keep em' Busy

One of Nietzsche's main problems with society is that we don't let ourselves feel pain. We try to numb our senses, to distract ourselves from our feelings through what Nietzsche defines as "mechanical activity" (134). He describes how we fill our minds with this said activity and thus leave no room for consciousness, no room for suffering.

This made me think of death and how people grieve. When you go to a funeral or if someone has died, it's always seen as a good thing if the family stays busy for the next few months. Keeping busy, not thinking about the pain of the recent death. I think it's healthy to grieve for a period, but I also think it's healthy to do something, to get involved to take your mind off it. I guess I agree with Nietzsche to not let the mechanical activity take over and numb everything, overworking is not healthy and puts even more stress on the mind. But a little numbing can help, just to cope until an appropriate time. To which Nietzsche would respond with a lecture on societal pressure and our need to always be polite and appropriate. Oh well, I don't think I can win this one.

Nietzsche as a Moderate

For as extreme as Nietzsche likes to sound, I think most of it is for show. To command the attention of his audience and to promote debate and argument. I think at heart Nietzsche supports moderation. A comfortable middle ground between believing in God and believing in nothing. At first he seems like nihilism is the only way to go and that one must abandon all faith in abstract ideas. But now he seems to be revisiting these same abstract ideas and destructing them and trying to understand how they work within society One example is guilt, and how man only feels guilty because he believes in God and the godly standard.

Perhaps too, at the beginning Nietzsche did fully support nihilism. Now he is backtracking a little as he begins to understand his own ideas and change them a little to support new claims. He now seems to think a little faith is a good thing, but he cannot yet comprehend what type or what form this object of trust may take. This is one of the aspects (there are many) which frustrates me about Nietzsche. He is so vague. He offers ideas and solutions with no direction. Perhaps it is something we must contemplate individually and come up with within ourselves. Self understanding. Existentialism. The fact that humans recognize their world and cannot dismiss it for something spiritual. That humans take their concrete world and apply their own meaning to it from within themselves. That, perhaps, is Nietzsche's third item. But at this point even he has no idea.

Guilt-free if only God-free?

Nietzsche brings up the idea that the worship and acknowledgment of God, or higher being, causes mankind to feel guilty. That man sees Gods as "the ultimate antithesis of his own ineluctable animal instincts." With this man knows he can never stand up to the godly standards and that he is a mere mortal with an animal nature for which he will never escape. It is like a disability, this thinking, says Nietzsche because it only leaves man feeling guilty about his disposition, which he has limited control over. Instinct in its very definition means something that is inherent, not learned or practiced by choice.

But would we really be without guilt if there was no belief in God? This question seems unanswerable since we have no idea how life would be without the presence of God in society. But I think we would still have guilt. God is just the excuse we've made to blame this guilt on. The guilt come from within us, our own consciousness and self-awareness. We create the guilt because we have seen the consequences of our own actions. Even, without the godly standard from which we compare ourselves, I think the "pain" in our memories, like mnemotechnics, is enough to create a sense of guilt.

Mnemotechnics

"If something is to stay in the memory it must be burned in: only that which never ceases to hurt stays in the memory" (pg. 61)

This quote seemed a little unnervingly true for me. Society likes to cement the importance of good behavior by severely punishing those who display bad behavior. Of course, if a murderer doesn't get put into jail than, people will think it's alright to kill others. That is the mentality. It is instinctive, like Nietzsche says, to think like this. But when I read over the list of punishments Nietzsche describes from centuries back, I was shocked! It was so harsh! I guess if I saw someone stoned or trampled to death I would behave well too. It does work, I remember when I was a little kid and if I did something bad I was deprived of dessert and toys. The "pain" of this seemingly insignificant loss "burned" in my 5yr old mind for days and never again would I repeat my action. Well, that is until I forgot...but thus is the nature of childhood :)

Is Church a Poison to Man?

I grew up in a Catholic family and I was taught that faith was something special to work at, but to also enjoy. It was something you never questioned, it was just a part of life. Since then my thinking has changed a bit, but I still don't understand why Nietzsche labels the church as a "poison" (36). Here Nietzsche questions, "does the church today still have any necessary role to play?"

I answer: yes to some people it does.

Nietzsche asserts throughout his entire essay that mankind is too caught up in the clouds and needs to come back down to earth. In other words, man is too preoccupied with abstract concepts and should look instead at concrete forms of progress.

However, the Church is important to a large chunk of the modern human population, just as important as it was hundreds of years ago. I think the Church has the power to speed progress of society rather than as Nietzsche says "hinder it." With it's themes of good works, good faith, compassion, honor, etc, the church is laying the foundation for progress. The people need to understand their role in society, their significance in life. The church can help these people with this journey. With the assurance of a solid faith and a set of values, man can be free to progress in the concrete world. The church is what grounds man. Without it we would wander aimlessly, skeptical of our worth, our role in the world, and nothing would be accomplished. Whether a person is Catholic, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion, their faith creates a firm base from which to confidently progress in society.

Something Funny

Reading Nietzsche's thoughts about God and spirituality made me think of a quote I heard awhile back.

"God is dead" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead" - God

I love this quote, it's hilarious. But it also makes you think. It forces you to realize the power of your own beliefs, to choose a side sort of. If you believe in God then it was God who killed Nietzsche. If you believe Nietzsche and his ideas, then the quote doesn't even matter, it's not important. I just like that it puts a nice perspective on things. We are all still mortal and can choose to how to view the world and our lives.

Rhyming Rives

The first thing I noticed when I listened to Rives's poems was how funny and entertaining they were. I loved "Mockingbird" where he goes off on who's voices he'd collect. Each example wittier than the next, from "...a postman making dinner plans" to mothers, daughter, artists, I even heard hooligans in there somewhere. I loved it. I thought it was so clever how perfectly each word flowed right into the next, so the rhyming was there, but it wasn't entirely noticeable. He really paid huge attention to the specific words he chose to describe his ideas and thoughts. The words made it a poem, not the subject. That was apparent as he easily turned even the most significant event into a poem. Like about the poetry slam for the deaf kids, or about his sister, or the internet. Who rights poetry about the internet? That doesn't seem traditional. But Rives does. And he does it with such ease and with such wit that even rhyming with the internet can sound deep, heartfelt, even romantic.

It wasn't like Rives was trying really hard to recite a poem. Rather he was sharing a story or an idea, which happened to sound as nice and rhythmical as a poem. He made it look so painfully easy!

My Personal TAO

Something small can be significant
Something large can be forgotten

We often lose what is small

in the busy bustle
in the day to day routine

Stop
Breathe

Enjoy what is around
Take notice of the details
Enjoy what maybe small

Gather the Weak to Conquer the Strong

TAO 78,

"Nothing in the world is soft and weak as water
But when attacking the hard and strong
Nothing can conquer so easily."

This piece of wisdom seemed especially vague and sort of hard to understand for me. I interpret it as if thinking of a waterfall or flood (to continue the metaphor). Just a few drops of water is pretty harmless, either it evaporates or easily flows away. But a waterfall, a collection of countless drops of water, carries an unmatchable force. Look at a flood. The water reaches every crevice, drowns everything in its path, washing away anything including homes, cars and even people. It is when these soft, weak streams of water band together to create something huge like a flood, that the damage is done, and the strong is conquered.

In life, even one person, seemingly weak against the crowd, can make a huge difference, beat the stronger force, by influencing others, by spreading word, by gathering together.

I Like It

I don't know about you, but I keep feeling oddly reassured after I read these poems of the TAO. It's like the poems take all the simple truths, rules and patterns of the world which are never outwardly discussed, and puts them in writing, in concrete language. It's reassuring to just know that these ideas actually work together and all harmonize together. The poems are pretty and they have a nice rhythm, I find just reading them relaxing. The circular messages are sometimes annoying to think about, but it's nice to know that they go in circles. It's nice to know that there is no controversy associated, that you can't really argue with the case presented. The thruths are just accepted and contemplated. I like it.

To Create

Taken from TAO 64,

"Create before it exists
lead before it goes astray"

"...nine story tower, rises from a pile of earth,
a thousand mile journey, begins with a single step."

I love these quotes from TAO, I found them so inspiring and so true. Really another way of expressing the value of "carpe diem," seizing the day, and motivation. Everything starts small as they say, you have to work hard accomplish the big feats. This made me think of the huge billion dollar companies that capitalize society today. They all started small, maybe in a home. Maybe as just one, lowly restaurant. And now, through time and hard work they have succeeded and spread all over the world. My dad owns start up company, and so I have witnessed this theme firsthand. Sometimes the company seems near bankrupt, but then it'll spike and have huge sales and huge profits. The company started with only five employees, and now employs a couple hundred. It's amazing what can happen.

I can't stop thinking about the theme of creating before it exists either. For some reason I just thought of art and how when you go to an art show you see the projects and you wonder how the artist possibly came up with their ideas. Even an abstract painting, it puzzles me how sometimes the piece is so simple, but in reality it's the idea that matters, not the simplicity of the construction. It is then I realize I could have never come up the same, raw, simple idea and so I could have never produced something quite like it. Darwin too, was worried about creating before it already existed. He wanted to make sure his theories were right on, but he ran out of time and someone else was already ready to publish. Darwin wanted to be the first step, the initial creator of his theories, that is why he was more or less forced to publish.

Doing Nothing

Today I sat in my room for a good fifteen minutes and essentially "did nothing." I sat on my bed and tried to clear my thinking, I didn't let my eyes focus on anything, I just tried to relax and meditate for a time. Honestly I love the idea of meditation. I do it while I run and sometimes while I paint. I do it in airports waiting for a flight. Just sitting, not really thinking, waiting, doing nothing. This summer I did yoga a lot and after the stretching exercises there was a time for meditation. This time came to be my favorite part of the class and it felt so refreshing after.

Nevertheless, today I was a little out of practice. I found it really difficult to keep my mind clear and to relax. But after about five minutes I was totally emerged. Just sitting and breathing, subconsciously reflecting. When I came out of it, I felt so rested and sort of recharged. It's so relaxing just clearing your mind. I was able to put everything sort of in perspective, focus on the work I had to do tonight and other responsibilities. It's like hypnotizing yourself. I didn't really reflect on anything directly that had to do with the TAO, but it's that sort of yin/yang feeling that I get from meditation. Like everything will work itself out and that everything works in harmony with it's counterpart. Such wonderful, cheap, stress relief.

Observing

I am seated in front of the library staring across the lake, looking. I watch the trees, the people and the water's surface. I love to look at the trees, they are my favorite. In my town, we have many pine trees and spruces. Here the trees are large, leafy and very green. Much different than what I am used to. I wonder how old these trees are? They seem ancient judging by the thick trunks and large, expansive branches. I wonder what type of day it was when they were planted? Was it as warm as it is now? Were the campus building even here?

Nevertheless, I guess this is supposed to be a scientific observation, already I am deviating. It's officially fall now, the leaves have started to drop. In a few weeks they will turn, just before dying. This much I know. But what created this process, of leaves, of the budding, the growth, the turning of colors and then dying, falling? Was this something the trees have always participated in? Is it a mutation, from thousands of years ago? Did one tree suddenly drop its leaves in the winter and have a higher rate of survival, therefore producing more trees with this same trait? I would not know for sure, but I can wonder.

I notice each tree has its place. Almost like a territory set out around it. No other trees dare to grow in this area. Is this because of competition for water and nutrients? Or, more artificial, like the landscaping crew for campus. Although the answer is probably the latter, I enjoy the thought of these trees engaging in some sort of unseen fight for survival. In an actual forest maybe they would, but not here. Here these trees are babied, cared for, weeded around and watered if needed. But then, does that make them weaker than the rest of the trees in the world? The trees around the University campus are more or less protected from natural selection. If they show signs of despair the landscapers take over and protect it. In the wild, this same tree would probably die. I can connect this curiosity back to what Darwin said about humans, how we care for our weak and thus weaken the species. Mmmm...all that just by observing.

Working Together to Select the Best

Darwin makes a critical jump in his theory when he combines the ideas of natural selection and sexual selection. He concludes that both processes work together and need each other for success. Darwin writes, "the more vigorous and better-nourished individuals...will be ready to bread in the spring before the others." "Such early pairs would have the same advantage in rearing offspring" (262). In other words, the strongest survive and by surviving they get the best mates, winning both in natural selection and sexual selection.

It's true though, the way they work together. You can't have natural selection without some sort of sexual selection, then the species would never reproduce. And you can't have sexual selection without natural selection because sexual selection is natural selection in the sense that only those with the best genes will find the best mates and continue on the instinctive goal of perfecting the species.

The male with the best feathers, song, show will get the best females. Therefore, they will reproduce more beings with good genes and improve the population. The others with out the best feathers, songs, etc. have been naturally selected out of the population because they were sexually selected not to continue the species by not reproducing or reproducing very little. It's harsh, but it's nature and Darwin just recognized it working at a new, co-dependent level.

For the Love of Health Care

"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed" (247).

I found this quote quite fascinating and unfortunately very true. Darwin explains how when we are sympathetic, and give care to those who are too weak, we are weakening our species as a whole. He also makes a point that man is one of the only species who allows those weakest in his population to breed. As insensitive and immoral as it sounds, this statement speaks the truth. The human species is slowly weakening. I don't want to sound harsh, but for the sake of the argument, humans would be such a stronger species if we didn't save and nurture the weak. If we had limits on health care, perhaps those too sick to survive without modern technology would just die off and leave more space for the rest of the population. This is one of the reasons why the human population is out of control anyway, technology, our ability to cure almost any disease. People can live after huge, deadly diseases now because of our extensive health system. There are people with brain deformities living normal lives, people missing arms and legs, people with artificial hearts. In the natural world, none of these people would be able to survive. They would be the ones naturally selected, weeded out, for the good of the species.

But on the other hand. I like health care. I want to be treated, to be cured. That is another part of the natural selection. The will to live. One must have some sort of will to live in order to survive, obviously. That is why humans came up with health care in the first place. We are, once again adapting to our environment, finding ways around the natural checks. I just find this a delightful irony. As a species we survive by inventing ways to conquer death, but that is ultimately making us a weaker species.

The Power of Adaptation

Darwin talks about man in many ways during his discussions on evolution and natural selection. One thing I found interesting was when he mentions how adaptable man is and how humans can basically survive anywhere on the Earth. Darwin states about man, "He has the great power of adapting to his habits to new conditions of life" (242).

I agree with this. Humans are amazing the way they can make almost any situation livable with the aid of technology and certain tools. I guess it's something we've had to evolve to be. Could our will to adapt and power over our surroundings be something natural selection has allowed to evolve? I think so. Otherwise we would still be hunting and gathering in the heart of Africa, unable to tolerate any other climate, food or environment. I think it was necessary for humans, for survival as a species, to learn how to be adaptable because we have such a large population and we live for so long. We also take up a lot of space, using a lot of resources. We have to adapt to be able to expand our "territories" to gain more space for the species.

This also makes me think of college. Adapting. I was suddenly thrown into a campus full of young adults, in the middle of VA, on the west coast, expected to thrive and prosper. At first I was shocked coming from an average Oregon town. But I learned to adapt. To make my situation livable and now enjoyable. As a part of the human species, I survived.

And Then We Delve into Darwin...

When reading over Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," my mind immediately brought back memories of Biology class, all the way from Sophomore year of high school. Darwin is indeed a great scientific thinker and a valuable contributor to the scientific theory. But, CORE is a class based on the Human Condition and here we must think of Darwin on a philosophic level. Darwin created the idea of natural selection, or the power of the individual. He asserts that one beneficial genetic mutation in a species will eventually become a part of said species in the process of survival and inheritance. As he states, "From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form" (163).

This, I believe, can be applied to the thought process as well. Humans come up with new ideas all the time. When these ideas are announced, or show themselves to the rest of the population, they can take hold and become a part of that population. A simple example would be considering apes and the use of tools. One very intelligent ape decided to use a "tool" to help complete a task. Soon, the rest of the ape population saw how beneficial this tool was and started using it. And so the idea progressed and eventually became a part of the species. Today, we use tools all the time. For instance this computer is helping me organize my thoughts. We don't even think about where these original ideas came from, such as the benefits of tools, but Darwin helps us realize how the influence spreads. Like an inheritance of the mind, of ideas.

We can connect back the Socrates as well, his thinking, his thoughts on life and the universe have traveled through the ages to modern times. We are reading his work now in 2007, still trying to contemplate his ideas. Socrates stands for the natural urge to question life by humans. Think about it. We, as humans, have something to say about everything, we all have opinions. Could it be that Socrates, among other people, helped us realize the power and curiosity of a simple question? I would not know, but maybe with Darwin we can wonder.

Socrates Has a Plan.

In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates does not take his rambling questions lightly or with any sense of frivolity. He has a plan. He has formulated this plan from the very beginning, his very first question. That is why he is so successful at proving his point. I like how he does this and how he does this so easily, it really speaks to his level of intelligence to see what a brilliant thinker he is. The average person, if they have a grand idea about things, may just announce it. Maybe in the form of a speech or in a journal. But Socrates is better than this. He would not trust a journal or speech to be convincing or altogether true. He instead creates his announcement about the world in the form of questions, gradually building up his point. proving it over and over through logical proofs so that it is hard to argue with him. Socrates also uses his questioning strategy to make it easier for others to understand, so others can keep up.

An example:

"Then if the soul is neither more nor les a soul than another, it has been harmonized to the same extent? - Socrates
That is so - Listener
If that is so, it would have no greater share of disharmony or of harmony?
It would not..." (44)

and the conversation continues on like this until Socrates has exhausted any doubt left in his idea and one is more or less forced to agree. But, like I said earlier, Socrates makes it easier for the listener to keep up with his thinking, which at times is very hard to take in. He keeps them engaged in his ideas as a way for the listener to further retain the information given and to fully comprehend it. This, I believe, is the true genius in Socrates at work.

Why Bother With a Body?

In my last post I touched on the fact that Socrates is such a high-and-mighty philosopher that he has no need of the physical world or life of any sort. He believes that the soul does better without the body, free to explore all aspects of the universe. As he puts it, "The body keeps us busy in a thousand ways because of its need for nurture...they impede our search for the truth" (Phaedo 15).

Well, that can work for Socrates maybe, but I happen to like my body. I am conscious of it for one. If you exist only as a soul, are you aware that you exist? I have no idea because I cannot recall the last time I was "just a soul." I also value the idea of mortality, it gives meaning to my life and forces me to make the most of everyday. If I was on some eternal meandering path to wisdom as a body-less soul, I really don't think I'd have as much fun. Interacting with other humans and the environment is important, even if you do get sick. Eating, Dressing, Exercising and other bodily privileges are important. They remind us that our bodies do, in fact, matter and need to be taken care of...back the mortality point.

This thinking about the separation between body and soul can also be related to the ending of The White Castle. Throughout the whole book the narrator and Hoja are on a constant search for knowledge and wisdom. If only Socrates could have tipped them off that you really have to die and exist as a soul before you can attain this glory. But nonetheless, the characters spend years writing, discussing and researching the ideas behind truth. Then in the end, suddenly the research has stopped and the narrator has a family and a garden. In a sense the narrator became aware of his own mortality and chose to live first and philosophize later. Maybe he has realized the importance of the body and its needs and pleasures associated. How it is a human right to care for our bodies, and thus enjoy them. For we only have so much time until our souls are separated and we will finally be free search for all wisdom. Thanks Socrates for the tip. Now I can really live.

Is Death the Way to the Truth?

I thoroughly enjoyed the last bit of reading we had on Plato's Phaedo. I really liked what Socrates had to say about death and how it isn't something to be feared or avoided. Socrates asks about death, "Is it anything than the separation of the soul from the body?" (12). With the answer being "no" Socrates goes on to explain that the body hinders the soul with it's physical needs and plain mortality in general. As a philosopher with no interest in the physical world or bodily pleasures, Socrates dismisses the idea that one cannot live without his body.

Socrates asserts that "The body confuses the soul and does not allow it to acquire truth and wisdom whenever it is associated with it" (14). His belief is that "if we are ever to have pure knowledge, we must escape from the body" (15). I find this extremely interesting to find that Socrates has distanced himself so far from the human world that he does not believe such physical pleasures worth his while. He is too far on his quest for the ultimate truth that he sees no other way to live.

The fact that Socrates is more concerned with wisdom than life connects back to his trial and his defense in saying he was not "teaching" the youth his beliefs. Of course. Why would he bother his mortal self, why distract himself, with such a physical privilege when he could be discovering the truth of the universe? Instead he argues that those willing to learn, listened to him. They sought him out.

A Lesson in Trial

When reading the banter between Socrates and Euthyphro I couldn't help but be reminded by my experience with mock trial and classic debate. The point of both being to get the opposing side to agree with you over simple logical facts, before unleashing your main contention in such a way that it would be completely hypocritical for the opposing side to contradict you.

The cross-examination process, as Law would call it, scared me the most during my first year on mock trial as a witness. I was so afraid to accidentally agree with everything the prosecutor said and thus dig a hole for myself from which I had no plan to escape. But I soon learned how vital it was to listen to the actual format and key words of such questions and find away to get around a definitive "yes, it is so" in my answer. For I knew if I agreed with everything, without defending myself, the last question, the crucial point would already be won.

Socrates is having his own little cross-examination session with Euthyphro, Euthyphro is agreeing with what Socrates says until he gradually states his really argument and purpose, to which Euthyphro has no choice but to agree. Now, if only I could figure out how serious in his answering Euthyphro acting, or for that matter, how serious Socrates is in his question. Is it only a game? Or for actual truth?

Plato 1: Who is the Teacher?

Euthyphro and Socrates make up the two characters in the story/commentary by Plato titled: "The Trial and Death of Socrates." However, during my reading and through the discussion in class I still cannot place who the teacher is and who the student is in the text. At first Euthyphro portrays himself as the teacher when he explains concepts to Socrates and Socrates announces "It is indeed most important, my admirable Euthyphro, that I should become your pupil" (5). Socrates also asks Euthyphro all the questions about the logic and relationships between fear and shame, piety and justice, etc. It seems at a first look that Socrates is the interested one and the one motivated to learn, not to educate. Socrates comes off as confident and at times it seems as though Euthyphro is mocking him with one word answers. It is like Euthyphro is only agreeing with Socrates to humor him, stopping every once and a while to point out a break in Socrates's logic or an area which needs further investigation.

"Socrates: ...Come, try and show me a clear sign that all the gods definitely believe this action to be right...
Euthyphro: This is perhaps no light task, Socrates, though I could show you very clearly" (10)

Here Socrates tries to assert his intelligence over Euthyphro by daring him to prove his point. But, Euthyphro challenges back that he could indeed show Socrates, and show him very quickly if only he had the time and place.

But a second look displays how Euthyphro could be the student as well and Socrates could be the teacher. It could be that Socrates is in fact mocking Euthyphro by setting him up with simple logical arguments, to which Euthyphro agrees, before shooting him down with something more complex though similar enough to the previous that it should also be agreed upon. Socrates, in a sense, is the mighty prosecutor cross-examining Euthyphro. So, it is possible that the roles are opposite.

An Ending or Beginning?

Having finally finished and read the very last page of White Castle I can honestly say I am thoroughly confused. But, I think that is the way it's supposed to be. I think we are supposed to end without any sort of concrete ending and instead be left alone to create own conclusions. The White Castle is less of a traditional novel and more of a tool for stimulating thought and ideas about philosophy, life and human nature. Throughout the text the characters, Hoja and the narrator, switch places at every interval and, in turn, the reader is constantly unsure of who is really telling the story. At some points we can be sure that it's the original narrator, sometimes it's Hoja and sometimes it seems as though someone totally unrelated is telling the story.

One of the main themes of White Castle is the idea behind knowledge and truth. The common man's quest in life is to gather the truth about the world around him. There is no way to obtain all the knowledge and truth of the universe and thus we have philosophy and faith, to counteract the unknown. Throughout the story each character is on a quest, literal and metaphorical, to find the truth about themselves, each other and the world around. Yet at the end he (Hoja, the narrator or someone else, we aren't really sure) abandons his search and settles for a peaceful garden with a family and a meager life. Perhaps "abandons" is the wrong word. Maybe he just accepts the fact that no man can acquire all knowledge and truth and the very concept of truth doesn't even exist. For what is truth? One of the great unanswerable questions favored by pseudo-intellectuals. Many times we must accept our situation in the fog. I that is what the narrator finally did and he was finally able to have a normal life.

Switching Personalities

Having only read to page 125 of "The White Castle" I do not know the ending, but I am endlessly intrigued by the switching personalities between the narrator and Hoja. I have noticed that every time one of the characters looks into a mirror or a portrait they realize how much they have changed. Hoja and the narrator have swapped roles and personalities several times throughout the story in this fashion. Because they look so much alike, it seems at times they are the same person with a series of dramatic mood swings. At one point Hoja thinks he is dying of the plague, he looks in the mirror and realizes his mysterious resemblance to the narrator. They decide to switch places so the narrator can become a free man and Hoja will die peacefully. Before this point, the narrator served only as Hoja's slave of sorts.

However, Hoja does not die and later meet back up the the narrator when they both end up working for the Sultan. At first Hoja deals only with the Sultan and the leaves the narrator home working endlessly. Then the roles shift and suddenly the Sultan would rather learn from the narrator, leaving Hoja at home. This marks a profound change in our narrator. He attends parties, eats luxury foods and shows off his new power and knowledge. The narrator finally realizes his transformation while gazing at a portrait of himself some months later to find himself overweight and much older. At this moment he realizes he has made the final jump into his new self, no one from his former life can recognize him.

Interestingly enough, this time when the narrator's appearance is least like Hoja's is also the time when he realizes he enjoys his life. He states, "...I learned that life was to be enjoyed, not endured"(117). the narrator has finally found his true identity and separated himself as much as he can from Hoja.