Much like Dr. MB statement about the definition of Utopia, I do not mess around with the definition of feminism. Whether it is good or bad, it is still a Utopia. I do not humor people who claim we should really be humanist or that feminism is misandry at its finest. No. Just no. Feminism has undoubtedly changed over time and we have to acknowledge that before anyone writes this book off as not feminist. It is, but not in the way we think of now. Even the feminism of 2015 is radically different than the feminism of 1995, much less 1915. We should not be afraid to call this a feminist work. We really should not be afraid of the word at all. Feminism is not about man hating, it is about gender equality. Feminists just want to "smash the patriarchy" and make sure we all have equal rights. That is all.
Now that that is out of the way...
I think this book is inherently feminist even though it may not seem so at first. While we wonder why she started out so great with her all female society and then succumbed to what we deem a less feminist ending, I think she did it on purpose for a variety of reasons. The most glaring is that she really intended to juxtapose the two worlds so that in making a shocking world only focused on females and the female perspective, it really forces one to look at the current male society. By showing an almost overbearing female society, Gilman really points out the double standards of the present. Terry, Jeff, and Van (though Terry mostly) really react to being confined and being treated as somewhat lesser. They are always watched, much like women in Gilman's society were always being judged and kept on a short leash that did not extend too far outside the home. One of my favorite double standards that Gilman subtly addressed is the idea of maternity. Many people have this idea in them that all women want to be mothers. Gilman certainly plays on that idea in the female society she writes about, where motherhood is exalted. However, when the men are formally joined to their "wives" the burden of fatherhood is suddenly thrust upon them. Terry exclaims, "Fatherhood! As if a man was always wanting to be a father!" (106). By Terry pointing out that not every man wants to be a father or is enraptured by it, it makes one think then of the reverse view of modern society and presents a novel idea: not every woman wants to be a mother.
Another reason for the switch to a love story and inherently less feminist to some, is that Gilman is commenting on the fact that males and females really need to work together to find a middle ground. Gilman presents various stereotypes of man. Terry is the burly manly man who represents masculinity in all its glory. Jeff represents men who see women as a beautiful idea rather than a person (manic pixie dream girls, anyone?). Then Van represents the middle ground. We are meant to think Van is a great guy. In this regard, I think Gilman is calling for men to set aside a hyper masculine way but also to not be too disillusioned with the woman spirit as well. We do not need to be worshipped, just equal.
Finally, the books reversion to needing men to survive I think is a call by Gilman admitting that there is still a long while to go. I am somewhat reminded of The Awakening (which you should all read if you have not) where the main character breaks free of her womanly duty and is a woman on her own but ultimately ends up *spoiler alert* committing suicide in the end as she cannot fully escape. I think the way Gilman ends Herland is similar. She acknowledges the desperation she must be feeling. She can be an activist and write stories with feminist messages, but that does not always equate to results. In her ending, Gilman admits this is a hard fight that is not won and may seem hopeless at times. I certainly commend her for her contributions.
Showing posts with label Asimov. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asimov. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
Big Brother Knows Best: Stop Trying to Cheat the System
Well, if those readings weren't comparable to falling down a rabbit hole, then I don't know what is. My brain is thrumming with confusion and ideas and I think I might have to read both these texts in their entirety to figure out what exactly is going on and if I like it. I feel like we have been dropped into two typical "dystopian" societies that we would find in a leisurely work of literature but instead of seeing that system fall or seeing that protagonist question the system or rebel, we are only getting the system's view. We are given two unreliable narrators who barely know who they are themselves and are figuring out what societies they've fallen into. Both in the future, with people from the past, these stories show immense changes in societies similar to the one we live in now. This makes it almost easier to grip as far as this being possible in the future, but also terrifying that we could one day slip into a coma or travel away and come back and see a whole different working of the world.
Both stories have a resounding totalitarian vibe no matter what their government actually goes by. And both are introduced to the characters in the same way. Welcome to our Utopia. You look confused. Here's what you've missed. But on another note, they are both very modern and make me think more of angsty teen utopian fiction than the other works we have read so far. Neither seems ridiculous and field by robots or time machines either. They're completely plausible and have reasons for why everything is the way it now is.
I'm still mulling over what we've read and I think I need to think out loud this time around, but here are some ideas that stood out to me.
Bellamy:
"There was absolutely no violence. The change had been long foreseen." (31)
"The nation, that is to say, organized as the one great business corporation in which all other corporations were absorbed; it became the one capitalist in the place of all other capitalists, the sole employer, the final monopoly in which all previous and lesser monopolies were swallowed up, a monopoly in the profits and economies of which all citizens shared." (30)
"To make a beginning somewhere, for the subject is doubtless a large one, what solution, if any, have you found for the labor question?"
"The solution came as the result of a process of industrial evolution which could not have terminated otherwise"
"We have no wars now, and our governments no war powers, but in order to protect every citizen against hunger, cold and nakedness, and provide for all his physical and mental needs, the function is assumed of directing his industry for a term of years." (32)
Wrap-Up: I am also fascinated by the lack of political parties. Does this mean that everyone has similar values or that there is more chaos without labels? I understand requiring service from people for a few years, but from 21-45 seems like a ridiculous plan. No selling and buying of anything? Credit cards that are really debit cards with no spending freedom? Equal pay for work that is only determined when we say that everyone works equally? And labeling people as the Invalid Corps because they are the lowest class of contributors; is that kind or absolutely cruel and unusual?
Morris:
For Morris' read, you had to dig a little deeper to figure out the laws and customs. We see that there is some sort of required uniform from the phrase "work-a-day" clothes. We also see that money is different or not used when the protagonist pulls out coins as a tip and is met with confusion. It's interesting that money is always seen as dangerous in these societies. Many don't have it or control it so differently.
We hear that here have been no crimes like robbery in 150 years, which sounds great. There is no criminal law, no civil law courts and crime is treated like a "spasmodic disease". However, murder seems to be looked at with just a brief shrug. Sometimes people fight and sometimes it leads to killing each other, but no worries "remorse will certainly follow transgression". No punishment necessary. What the hell?
Work sounds way too Buddha and Hippie-like for my liking, but that could be my Myers Briggs personality that thrives on tangible rewards like grades and honors. The reward for labor is life. You should be thrilled to work because it means you're alive. Work is pleasure! Wealth is having your work complete! Who needs machines, they ruined all the fun of work. Let's get rid of them so we can love work again!
It's also interesting to see how this society came to be. It sounds like the rich were upset that they would have to financially support the poor which would eventually create a giant middle class. State Socialism starts and then there's the destruction of commerce. Then comes 'the lesson' or country-wide meetings with a new plan that sounds creepily like Hitler's 'Final Solution'. Massacre breaks out and turns to civil war and then the conservatives defeat the liberals. Chaos ensues. A massive strike starts and then the party of ORDER arrives.
I don't know how I feel. And I find it interesting how these stories both contradict and echo each other. The purpose for creating them sounds similar. But one started from peace and one from violence. One worships machines and one despises them. One decided change was necessary and one had to persuade a nation for change. I enjoyed both reads, but I'm still completely baffled. All I know is that these people have accepted their governments and worship them and think they are best. They do not question, they do not look back at the past and they would never try to cheat the system or work against it.
Both stories have a resounding totalitarian vibe no matter what their government actually goes by. And both are introduced to the characters in the same way. Welcome to our Utopia. You look confused. Here's what you've missed. But on another note, they are both very modern and make me think more of angsty teen utopian fiction than the other works we have read so far. Neither seems ridiculous and field by robots or time machines either. They're completely plausible and have reasons for why everything is the way it now is.
I'm still mulling over what we've read and I think I need to think out loud this time around, but here are some ideas that stood out to me.
Bellamy:
"There was absolutely no violence. The change had been long foreseen." (31)
- I would think that any kind of change in our world would start with some kind of conflict that eventually led to war or destruction. I don't think we would ever come to a point of mutual understanding where we agreed that a change would need to come, but maybe it's just never gotten to that point. Our country comes together when tragedy strikes and maybe if the impact was that big, our togetherness would stay until we resolved out world.
"The nation, that is to say, organized as the one great business corporation in which all other corporations were absorbed; it became the one capitalist in the place of all other capitalists, the sole employer, the final monopoly in which all previous and lesser monopolies were swallowed up, a monopoly in the profits and economies of which all citizens shared." (30)
- We spent years of school learning that monopoly was terrible and that any big spender who monopolized something like the railroad system was a pompous jackass to be frowned upon. But here we have someone saying that we were only afraid of monopolies because we didn't see their value and that they're actually good and we should monopolize even the biggest monopolies to create one giant one. We apparently shouldn't fear being taken over by the big leagues, but instead succumb to them and encourage it to a higher more extreme level. "The absorption of business by ever larger monopolies" (29)
"To make a beginning somewhere, for the subject is doubtless a large one, what solution, if any, have you found for the labor question?"
"The solution came as the result of a process of industrial evolution which could not have terminated otherwise"
- This was interesting and was mentioned in Morris' text as well. Machinery and industrialization were able to tackle issues with labor. I would think this would take away job opportunities and increase poverty, but they see it as being better.
"We have no wars now, and our governments no war powers, but in order to protect every citizen against hunger, cold and nakedness, and provide for all his physical and mental needs, the function is assumed of directing his industry for a term of years." (32)
- I like that war does not exist or is at least quite rare and that the government cannot declare war. I also applaud the values and goals of the government. It is not power play, but rather making sure that everyone is comfortable and has the basic necessities for the basic rights to live.
Wrap-Up: I am also fascinated by the lack of political parties. Does this mean that everyone has similar values or that there is more chaos without labels? I understand requiring service from people for a few years, but from 21-45 seems like a ridiculous plan. No selling and buying of anything? Credit cards that are really debit cards with no spending freedom? Equal pay for work that is only determined when we say that everyone works equally? And labeling people as the Invalid Corps because they are the lowest class of contributors; is that kind or absolutely cruel and unusual?
Morris:
For Morris' read, you had to dig a little deeper to figure out the laws and customs. We see that there is some sort of required uniform from the phrase "work-a-day" clothes. We also see that money is different or not used when the protagonist pulls out coins as a tip and is met with confusion. It's interesting that money is always seen as dangerous in these societies. Many don't have it or control it so differently.
We hear that here have been no crimes like robbery in 150 years, which sounds great. There is no criminal law, no civil law courts and crime is treated like a "spasmodic disease". However, murder seems to be looked at with just a brief shrug. Sometimes people fight and sometimes it leads to killing each other, but no worries "remorse will certainly follow transgression". No punishment necessary. What the hell?
Work sounds way too Buddha and Hippie-like for my liking, but that could be my Myers Briggs personality that thrives on tangible rewards like grades and honors. The reward for labor is life. You should be thrilled to work because it means you're alive. Work is pleasure! Wealth is having your work complete! Who needs machines, they ruined all the fun of work. Let's get rid of them so we can love work again!
It's also interesting to see how this society came to be. It sounds like the rich were upset that they would have to financially support the poor which would eventually create a giant middle class. State Socialism starts and then there's the destruction of commerce. Then comes 'the lesson' or country-wide meetings with a new plan that sounds creepily like Hitler's 'Final Solution'. Massacre breaks out and turns to civil war and then the conservatives defeat the liberals. Chaos ensues. A massive strike starts and then the party of ORDER arrives.
I don't know how I feel. And I find it interesting how these stories both contradict and echo each other. The purpose for creating them sounds similar. But one started from peace and one from violence. One worships machines and one despises them. One decided change was necessary and one had to persuade a nation for change. I enjoyed both reads, but I'm still completely baffled. All I know is that these people have accepted their governments and worship them and think they are best. They do not question, they do not look back at the past and they would never try to cheat the system or work against it.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Sir/Saint Thomas Moore
I would like to first state a surprising fact I found. As I was driving to campus with my roommate, I was telling her I was reading Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore. She replied, as she went to Catholic school, that Thomas Moore was a canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic church as a martyr of the reformation. I found this intriguing as we refer to Saint Benedict and Saint Augustine by their canonized titles, but not Moore. I guess all of Moore's other accomplishments, such as his role as Lord Chancellor and his classic works outweigh his sainthood. So do we look at Utopia from a religious perspective the same way we look at City of God? I would inherently say no, but I think his religious background perhaps comes into play as he describes Utopia. Utopia is not Heaven and I do not think Utopia is a religious text at all, but I think elements were definitely taken from it.
For example, Moore places men in the characteristic head of household saying that "wives are subject to their husbands" and that "the head of household looks for whatever his family needs" (50). We discussed earlier how in past days, the head of households were not only responsible for taking care of the household but also their salvation. It would not have made any sense for Moore to exhibit other views about women at the time, though women did contribute to society in that they had assigned work. Even though Moore did use the phrase "weaker sex" on page 42, I will of course forgive his sexism because of those olden times he lived in. When he also mentions the religion of the people of Utopia on page 60, it sounds very similar to the Christian tradition; monotheistic, there is an afterlife, and good deeds on earth pay off in the end.
Anytime we talk about Utopia and whether it is good or bad, of course our morals come into play. I think there are a lot of good things in Utopia that we can all agree are good. Required farming so everyone has food seems pretty okay to me. Having people not covet money seems awesome! Venerating those that did not choose the academic life and instead chose trades and appreciating their contributions to society is something we talked about on the first day. Sure enough, this is discussed early on in the text. Moore obviously chose the way the people of Utopia lived based on what he deemed a morally good society. For him, and many others that are of Christian faith, these morals come from what their higher power deems right and wrong. Most of us being brought up in the society we live in which is bombarded with similar morals, whether we are believers or not. It does not suprise me that people genuinely like Utopia and think it is a cool place.
I am interested when we move on to sci-fi and more godless societies to see how our morality comes into play with liking or disliking the texts. Until then, I will think on the crescent island and its unreachable "perfection".
For example, Moore places men in the characteristic head of household saying that "wives are subject to their husbands" and that "the head of household looks for whatever his family needs" (50). We discussed earlier how in past days, the head of households were not only responsible for taking care of the household but also their salvation. It would not have made any sense for Moore to exhibit other views about women at the time, though women did contribute to society in that they had assigned work. Even though Moore did use the phrase "weaker sex" on page 42, I will of course forgive his sexism because of those olden times he lived in. When he also mentions the religion of the people of Utopia on page 60, it sounds very similar to the Christian tradition; monotheistic, there is an afterlife, and good deeds on earth pay off in the end.
Anytime we talk about Utopia and whether it is good or bad, of course our morals come into play. I think there are a lot of good things in Utopia that we can all agree are good. Required farming so everyone has food seems pretty okay to me. Having people not covet money seems awesome! Venerating those that did not choose the academic life and instead chose trades and appreciating their contributions to society is something we talked about on the first day. Sure enough, this is discussed early on in the text. Moore obviously chose the way the people of Utopia lived based on what he deemed a morally good society. For him, and many others that are of Christian faith, these morals come from what their higher power deems right and wrong. Most of us being brought up in the society we live in which is bombarded with similar morals, whether we are believers or not. It does not suprise me that people genuinely like Utopia and think it is a cool place.
I am interested when we move on to sci-fi and more godless societies to see how our morality comes into play with liking or disliking the texts. Until then, I will think on the crescent island and its unreachable "perfection".
Monday, February 9, 2015
Love thy neighbor, Hate thyself
While everyone is feeling guilty that they should be brushing up on their Bible readings or going to church more, I am in a whole new world of wonder. Some of the phrases match the ones I hear in the Torah on Yom Kipur (Our day of judgment), but my religious knowledge is more attuned to how to prepare a mean bagel with Lox and Cream Cheese or knowing how to deal with curly hair. Growing up Jewish meant not really understanding communions and confirmations, and just trying to make comparisons with the holidays and traditions I grew up with instead. As I mentioned to Dr. MB, I attempted to learn the basics of the bible for fear of not knowing allusions used on my AP Lit test in high school. I believe I used the Precious Moments children's bible.
Needless to say, my knowledge of bible verses is slim, and unless Laura Ingalls practiced writing the bible verse on her slate in her little house on the prairie, I'm probably not familiar with it. I really liked the way that this was organized. The is the topic I want to discuss and this is how I'm going to explain it. I guess Augustine was set up similarly, and I know I bashed it, but I felt here that the explanations were vital to understanding the topics and subjects presented and that it was written in a pretty clear and easy manner that kept it interesting and not as dry.
There are so many thoughts both positive and negative brewing in my head, but I guess I'll just focus on the things that stood out. I suppose the biggest point to be aware of is that those in a monastery are to live their life for God. This, of course, seems obvious, but I've never realized how demanding that statement is. You live your life for God. Not for you, at all. You should never do anything to make yourself feel better or happier, and you should never be upset with yourself or angry at yourself. In fact you should feel nothing yourself, and you can't even pity yourself if you feel any of these things. You were born merely to serve God and that is all you will do. If you are happy, it is because you have done things to make God happy. Nothing can be for personal gain. Everything comes back to God.
And while we're on the subject of what life is meant to be lived for, it's also key to note that everyone should be fearful of God and Hell. Everyone must accept that God is awesome and almighty and there should be fear in their hearts and minds in order to serve God. You may love God, but you may not think yourself a comrade or equal to God. You must always serve God and respect God. You also must live in constant fear of Hell. You can't just be aware that hell is a bad place, you must constantly fear it every day and it should be your biggest worry. Your life goal should be eternal bliss in Heaven. Everything you do is to earn that eternal glory, but you must also remember that it is easy to fall into the pits of hell. It is so simple to think a bad thought that turns to sin and drives you to hell. There is even a portion of the text that says to never follow your intuition. It basically states that it might seem like a good idea at the time, but that ultimately whatever trial you attempt will end with you in Hell, because any personal idea or plan is apparently unholy and can only result in hellish turmoil.
The other points that seem to get drilled into your head during the reading are obedience and general rule following. Rules of any kind are law. You should follow these rules and respect them above all else. You must also be obedient. You must do everything you are told to no matter what you think of it. This goes for the rulers at your institution or from God himself. It doesn't matter what the command is, you must follow it for God. It is considered insane to follow your heart and instinct. Why should you need to come up with ideas and plans of your own if you have rules and obedient orders to follow?
I could go on and on with the bad and the good, but my notes and the text itself are endless. (The discussion should be filled with content and length too!) But overall, I found the rules fascinating because they were all backed by bible verses that seemed to be the perfect mottos and slogans for installing the rule. Everything also circled back to serving God. So while a rule might not make sense to us in a modern sense, they did all serve a purpose to serving God. A monastery resident would know everything to do, think, say and act without having to ask [which is good because we shouldn't really be talking unless absolutely necessary...I mean a question could provoke an answer which is scandalous] It's perplexing to read something in a Utopia class that is all about living for one thing: God and not for creating a perfect world for ourselves. In this sense, we must serve God and think nothing of ourselves in order to gain that Utopian eternal life, but while you live, you may only serve God, you must respect all others, but you can think nothing and do nothing for yourself. You can live, but you can't live for you.
Needless to say, my knowledge of bible verses is slim, and unless Laura Ingalls practiced writing the bible verse on her slate in her little house on the prairie, I'm probably not familiar with it. I really liked the way that this was organized. The is the topic I want to discuss and this is how I'm going to explain it. I guess Augustine was set up similarly, and I know I bashed it, but I felt here that the explanations were vital to understanding the topics and subjects presented and that it was written in a pretty clear and easy manner that kept it interesting and not as dry.
There are so many thoughts both positive and negative brewing in my head, but I guess I'll just focus on the things that stood out. I suppose the biggest point to be aware of is that those in a monastery are to live their life for God. This, of course, seems obvious, but I've never realized how demanding that statement is. You live your life for God. Not for you, at all. You should never do anything to make yourself feel better or happier, and you should never be upset with yourself or angry at yourself. In fact you should feel nothing yourself, and you can't even pity yourself if you feel any of these things. You were born merely to serve God and that is all you will do. If you are happy, it is because you have done things to make God happy. Nothing can be for personal gain. Everything comes back to God.
And while we're on the subject of what life is meant to be lived for, it's also key to note that everyone should be fearful of God and Hell. Everyone must accept that God is awesome and almighty and there should be fear in their hearts and minds in order to serve God. You may love God, but you may not think yourself a comrade or equal to God. You must always serve God and respect God. You also must live in constant fear of Hell. You can't just be aware that hell is a bad place, you must constantly fear it every day and it should be your biggest worry. Your life goal should be eternal bliss in Heaven. Everything you do is to earn that eternal glory, but you must also remember that it is easy to fall into the pits of hell. It is so simple to think a bad thought that turns to sin and drives you to hell. There is even a portion of the text that says to never follow your intuition. It basically states that it might seem like a good idea at the time, but that ultimately whatever trial you attempt will end with you in Hell, because any personal idea or plan is apparently unholy and can only result in hellish turmoil.
The other points that seem to get drilled into your head during the reading are obedience and general rule following. Rules of any kind are law. You should follow these rules and respect them above all else. You must also be obedient. You must do everything you are told to no matter what you think of it. This goes for the rulers at your institution or from God himself. It doesn't matter what the command is, you must follow it for God. It is considered insane to follow your heart and instinct. Why should you need to come up with ideas and plans of your own if you have rules and obedient orders to follow?
I could go on and on with the bad and the good, but my notes and the text itself are endless. (The discussion should be filled with content and length too!) But overall, I found the rules fascinating because they were all backed by bible verses that seemed to be the perfect mottos and slogans for installing the rule. Everything also circled back to serving God. So while a rule might not make sense to us in a modern sense, they did all serve a purpose to serving God. A monastery resident would know everything to do, think, say and act without having to ask [which is good because we shouldn't really be talking unless absolutely necessary...I mean a question could provoke an answer which is scandalous] It's perplexing to read something in a Utopia class that is all about living for one thing: God and not for creating a perfect world for ourselves. In this sense, we must serve God and think nothing of ourselves in order to gain that Utopian eternal life, but while you live, you may only serve God, you must respect all others, but you can think nothing and do nothing for yourself. You can live, but you can't live for you.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Legitimacy in the City of God
I was intimidated before reading this based on what Dr. MB said in class. I have not taken an English class since senior year of high school, so I think you can imagine my fear. However, I trusted my Lutheran upbringing and tried to go into this with an open mind, like always. What I found was a text riddled with what one classicly sees when dealing with Christian theological texts. The phrases seem long and circular, but really everything just leads back to God. All answers for moral questions brought up in the Earthly City lead back to reasoning based solely in scripture and the Word of the Lord, and that we cannot hope to be happy or perfect in this earthly place when the perfect City of God is waiting for us.
I think what is interesting to me that popped out right from the beginning was how the City of God gains legitimacy. Many utopias or utopian stories are just that: stories. Plato's Republic describes Socrates and his friends coming about the perfect city and in turn the perfect citizen, but it never is seen as real. For St. Augustine and many, many people, the City of God is a very real place that we will one day be able to live. I think that makes this text rather interesting, though. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal city that is not real and inherently unattainable, St. Augustine discusses what he believes to be a real, and attainable, perfect place. For St. Augustine, and his readers, there is no debate about whether it is possible, because it already is in existence. We just have to get there.
The context is also everything for this writing. It occurs after the Fall of Rome where people were scrambling for meaning and a sense of community. The great empire of Rome has fallen and these people are no longer the most powerful. In the classic days of Rome, the Gods were to blame for good and bad happenings, so naturally people were turning to God to blame for the ruin. St. Augustine, being the saint he is, took this opportunity of despair from the people to evangelize like no other (except that the majority of the population could not actually read what he wrote so who really knows how good he was). He spreads the "good news" and tells the lost sheep that God is not to blame for Rome's destruction because how could things not go wrong in the Earthly City? He mentions how our Earthly city was founded in selfishness and speaks of a city founded on the greatest love of God (393). That seems pretty great to someone who suffered in the Fall of Rome. Is the idea not tempting of a place founded in love and not hate (unless you are an inherently wicked sinner. They are not invited to the party, of course), one where we are protected by God's Divine Grace? Throughout the rest of the passage, Augustine just continues to mention the impossibilities and wrong doings of the Earthly city and continues to make points about how much better this City of God is and will be when/if we get there. We will no longer be tempted, we will be free of our earthly tethers, and we will know true peace. He rejects the old way of thinking, the old philosophers, and dismantles the idea of a commonwealth of the people in the Earthly City later on.
This text overall I just find to really be harkening to our human nature of wanting community in some way. For the people of Rome who are undergoing turmoil, I am sure they were looking for a sense of community too. Is it too cynical to say that perhaps Augustine is taking advantage of that fear and using promise of a perfect community to spread Christianity? Perhaps, but is there no better setting to spread beliefs and doctrine than in times of trial?
I think what is interesting to me that popped out right from the beginning was how the City of God gains legitimacy. Many utopias or utopian stories are just that: stories. Plato's Republic describes Socrates and his friends coming about the perfect city and in turn the perfect citizen, but it never is seen as real. For St. Augustine and many, many people, the City of God is a very real place that we will one day be able to live. I think that makes this text rather interesting, though. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal city that is not real and inherently unattainable, St. Augustine discusses what he believes to be a real, and attainable, perfect place. For St. Augustine, and his readers, there is no debate about whether it is possible, because it already is in existence. We just have to get there.
The context is also everything for this writing. It occurs after the Fall of Rome where people were scrambling for meaning and a sense of community. The great empire of Rome has fallen and these people are no longer the most powerful. In the classic days of Rome, the Gods were to blame for good and bad happenings, so naturally people were turning to God to blame for the ruin. St. Augustine, being the saint he is, took this opportunity of despair from the people to evangelize like no other (except that the majority of the population could not actually read what he wrote so who really knows how good he was). He spreads the "good news" and tells the lost sheep that God is not to blame for Rome's destruction because how could things not go wrong in the Earthly City? He mentions how our Earthly city was founded in selfishness and speaks of a city founded on the greatest love of God (393). That seems pretty great to someone who suffered in the Fall of Rome. Is the idea not tempting of a place founded in love and not hate (unless you are an inherently wicked sinner. They are not invited to the party, of course), one where we are protected by God's Divine Grace? Throughout the rest of the passage, Augustine just continues to mention the impossibilities and wrong doings of the Earthly city and continues to make points about how much better this City of God is and will be when/if we get there. We will no longer be tempted, we will be free of our earthly tethers, and we will know true peace. He rejects the old way of thinking, the old philosophers, and dismantles the idea of a commonwealth of the people in the Earthly City later on.
This text overall I just find to really be harkening to our human nature of wanting community in some way. For the people of Rome who are undergoing turmoil, I am sure they were looking for a sense of community too. Is it too cynical to say that perhaps Augustine is taking advantage of that fear and using promise of a perfect community to spread Christianity? Perhaps, but is there no better setting to spread beliefs and doctrine than in times of trial?
Monday, January 26, 2015
Everybody Wants to Rule the World
Senior year philosophy class is slowly making its way back into my mind although it's hard to pinpoint which school of philosophy belongs to which philosopher. I thought I had read this before, but it turns out I was thinking of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Luckily, The Republic is written differently and is not dry and is amazingly easier to follow than other works by Plato. For those of us who were in British Literature last semester, I imagine I'm not the only one who was reminded of Beelzebub and the other little devils making up their plans for what to do in hell. It was all too easy to picture Socrates and company sitting around in the same way discussing plans for how their city was going to work.
Anyway, I found it especially interesting how a "city" comes into being. This reading made me think of the expression, If you don't like the way it's done, you're welcome to do it yourself. Every day, I know that we all take turns complaining about something, no matter how petty, and talk about how we wish it was different or how we would do something differently. Maybe it's the way a class is graded or how someone conducted an interview. But sometimes it's even larger like how a country is ruled or how a powerful person decides to make a grand decision like go to war or create a new law. Often times, it's so easy for us to disagree or say what we would do instead because we don't actually have that real power to make a change or it's easy to say something when only so few are listening and the situation is purely hypothetical.
So when it comes to the case of creating a utopia, or even just a successful city, it's interesting to see how that plan comes into play. A person might say that we should not have laws because they feel that laws create a lot of pressure for society and restrict peoples' freedom. This all seems well and good until a store gets robbed or a person is murdered and there are no rules against it and no repercussions for doing these things. So then we go back and say, well, maybe laws aren't so bad after all because they protect us. The same trial and error could follow with government, education, guidelines, etc. Plato's writing goes along with this concept as it starts with a single person and the realization that one person cannot do it all, so obviously why not have more than one citizen in this city? So Socrates decides to have a handful of people who each provide different abilities and trades and in turn will use their skills to provide for the other city members. The list of people grows and grows as Socrates and the others realize that so many people are needed to make, share, export and exchange different things. If a person is amazing at a trade, it is better to let them spend all their time practicing and perfecting their trade than to make them juggle several different tricks and trades at a lower quality.
I also was intrigued by the discussion of heroes and leaders that make up a society. There were so many rules and quirks that were necessary to creating the ideal people for general city members to look up to. Heroes had to be tough and unafraid of death and had to be earnest and true. Heroes are designed to show what true justice is and to show humankind that you must be just in order to succeed in both life and the after life. Acting unjust can make you successful in the short-term, but it will catch up with you in the end. Characters in stories also had to act a certain way because young city members may not know how to separate fact and fiction and should only be shown the proper ways to act and values to have in a good society. All of these people, whether real people of the city or people just being talked about or passed around as stories need to be poised both in action and mind and cannot be vicious or graceless because that might give people the wrong idea. I agree with the theory behind this as I do think people are poorly influenced by celebrities who have gone off the rail or criminals who are sensationalized on the news, but I also disagree because I think there is something to be said for learning from mistakes or by learning stories that teach morals and lessons from failures and trials.
Finally, I find the brief discussion of medical necessity interesting. Socrates and the others agree that there is a need for doctors. They also agree that the doctors must be experienced and wise beyond their years, having seen a variety of illnesses and ailments so that nothing comes to them as a surprise. However, they say that these doctors must also have been diseased or injured themselves, because why else would they spend their life caring for the ill if they were not ill themselves? It sounds crazy to us, but if we think about it, a hospital is one of the easiest places to get sick in. We say to avoid them if possible because disease travels and is everywhere and we don't want to make ourselves unnecessarily sick if we don't have to. Maybe doctors should be the same way. You can only treat someone for something you have already been exposed to or had experience with. We also see the ever-popular Utopia-style view on life. Do we treat those with chronic, incurable disease or do we leave them to their fate? In books like The Giver, we learn about "the release" where older people are killed once they reach a certain age or in Utopia where we offer those who can no longer contribute to society an easy way out. Are we being kind by helping people prolong their lives if they are terminal or are we fighting nature? Would these people be more comfortable letting go and accepting their fate? Are we actually being too cruel by letting those live who are mentally ill and have no chance at a normal life?
We all have our own opinions, questions, faiths and morals that we would shape into a city or our own or even a world, but how much of what we want would actually work? Would we eventually run through trial and error and realize that the world we have now is how it should be or is there really a better way?
Anyway, I found it especially interesting how a "city" comes into being. This reading made me think of the expression, If you don't like the way it's done, you're welcome to do it yourself. Every day, I know that we all take turns complaining about something, no matter how petty, and talk about how we wish it was different or how we would do something differently. Maybe it's the way a class is graded or how someone conducted an interview. But sometimes it's even larger like how a country is ruled or how a powerful person decides to make a grand decision like go to war or create a new law. Often times, it's so easy for us to disagree or say what we would do instead because we don't actually have that real power to make a change or it's easy to say something when only so few are listening and the situation is purely hypothetical.
So when it comes to the case of creating a utopia, or even just a successful city, it's interesting to see how that plan comes into play. A person might say that we should not have laws because they feel that laws create a lot of pressure for society and restrict peoples' freedom. This all seems well and good until a store gets robbed or a person is murdered and there are no rules against it and no repercussions for doing these things. So then we go back and say, well, maybe laws aren't so bad after all because they protect us. The same trial and error could follow with government, education, guidelines, etc. Plato's writing goes along with this concept as it starts with a single person and the realization that one person cannot do it all, so obviously why not have more than one citizen in this city? So Socrates decides to have a handful of people who each provide different abilities and trades and in turn will use their skills to provide for the other city members. The list of people grows and grows as Socrates and the others realize that so many people are needed to make, share, export and exchange different things. If a person is amazing at a trade, it is better to let them spend all their time practicing and perfecting their trade than to make them juggle several different tricks and trades at a lower quality.
I also was intrigued by the discussion of heroes and leaders that make up a society. There were so many rules and quirks that were necessary to creating the ideal people for general city members to look up to. Heroes had to be tough and unafraid of death and had to be earnest and true. Heroes are designed to show what true justice is and to show humankind that you must be just in order to succeed in both life and the after life. Acting unjust can make you successful in the short-term, but it will catch up with you in the end. Characters in stories also had to act a certain way because young city members may not know how to separate fact and fiction and should only be shown the proper ways to act and values to have in a good society. All of these people, whether real people of the city or people just being talked about or passed around as stories need to be poised both in action and mind and cannot be vicious or graceless because that might give people the wrong idea. I agree with the theory behind this as I do think people are poorly influenced by celebrities who have gone off the rail or criminals who are sensationalized on the news, but I also disagree because I think there is something to be said for learning from mistakes or by learning stories that teach morals and lessons from failures and trials.
Finally, I find the brief discussion of medical necessity interesting. Socrates and the others agree that there is a need for doctors. They also agree that the doctors must be experienced and wise beyond their years, having seen a variety of illnesses and ailments so that nothing comes to them as a surprise. However, they say that these doctors must also have been diseased or injured themselves, because why else would they spend their life caring for the ill if they were not ill themselves? It sounds crazy to us, but if we think about it, a hospital is one of the easiest places to get sick in. We say to avoid them if possible because disease travels and is everywhere and we don't want to make ourselves unnecessarily sick if we don't have to. Maybe doctors should be the same way. You can only treat someone for something you have already been exposed to or had experience with. We also see the ever-popular Utopia-style view on life. Do we treat those with chronic, incurable disease or do we leave them to their fate? In books like The Giver, we learn about "the release" where older people are killed once they reach a certain age or in Utopia where we offer those who can no longer contribute to society an easy way out. Are we being kind by helping people prolong their lives if they are terminal or are we fighting nature? Would these people be more comfortable letting go and accepting their fate? Are we actually being too cruel by letting those live who are mentally ill and have no chance at a normal life?
We all have our own opinions, questions, faiths and morals that we would shape into a city or our own or even a world, but how much of what we want would actually work? Would we eventually run through trial and error and realize that the world we have now is how it should be or is there really a better way?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)