re-thinking Lily's suicide

Re-reading the scene of Lily's death I'm starting to think that maybe it wasn't a suicide after all. Although she doesn't seem to care too much about the risk, this is more of an act of neglect and apathy then a decision to commit suicide.

"She knew she took a slight risk in doing so; she remembered the chemist's warning. If sleep came at all, it might be a sleep without waking. But that was but one chance in a hundred : the action of the drug was incalculable, and the addition of a few drops to the regular dose would probably do no more than procure for her the rest she so desperately needed. "

Then the narrator speaks more as an outside analyzer of Lily: "She did not, in truth consider the question very closely; the physical craving for sleep was her only sustained sensation. Her mind shrank from the glare of thought..."

House of Mirth

I was thinking about the title and why it was named House of Mirth. The title comes from Ecclesiastes 7:4 "The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth." I found a bunch of other versions of the same quote (from different bibles)

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The mind of the wise is in the house of mourning, While the mind of fools is in the house of pleasure.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The minds of wise people think about funerals, but the minds of fools think about banquets.

King James Bible
The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.


Then to give it context I looked up 7:3 and 7:5

Ecclesiastes 7:3

Sorrow is better than laughter, For when a face is sad a heart may be happy

Ecclesiastes 7:5

It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man Than for one to listen to the song of fools

Marx and Wharton

The society that Wharton describes in The House of Mirth is the type of society that Marx is reacting to. Lily lived in a world of Commodity-Fetishism. Lily's world is capitalism at its worst.

Edith Wharton

I looked up Edith Wharton on wikepedia, and although I knew she was born into a wealthy family I found interesting how involved she was in high society. She was friends with many famous and powerful people and she was an influential "taste-maker" of her time.

Money Beats Soul

Thinking about the moral of the story made me think of a song:

Money Beats Soul
-The Doors

There are two paths a man can go
One leads to money, and the other leads to soul
Money beats soul,
Money beats soul every-time
Hard fact of life boy,
but money beats your soul every-time

and the moral of the story is.....

I think that the moral of the story is not a very positive one. I think that while it may be critiquing the high society of the time, I think the overall message is one of despair. I feel as if it is saying that society is a poison, but the rehab can kill you. Sort of like how with extreme alcoholism, rehab is potentially fatal. Also I think it is saying that if you grow up in that world, that it becomes a part of you and affects your character and principles so you can never really get away from it. I mean, Lily got out and had a chance to leave it behind and she killed herself. What does that say?

Lily's Suicide

I think that Lily intended to kill herself. I think the discussion/debate we had in class was very interesting because it brought up a lot of things I hadn't thought of, but it wound up strengthening the position I had. I think that Lily lost control of herself and her life and her suicide was partially giving up, but partially an attempt to regain control. Her death was the one thing that she could control.

more Gandhi...

When I was writing my paper (on gandhi and nietzsche) I started skimming through gandhi and I found a part devoted to sex and I figured it was worth commenting on because he is famous for those opinions. He pretty much claims that sex is common and low and people should show restraint. He says that if love is pure then sex is unnecessary and to be avoided. He uses the example of his own marriage and says that although he used to lust after his wife, and she was hesitant and showed resistance but was willing, he learned to control himself completely.

He makes sex analogous to chocolate. He reasons that people eat chocolate, become unhealthy, and ask the doctor for a cure when they should just not eat chocolate. I think he's making big, and unwarranted leap. First off, with that analogy couldn't he just advocate moderation? Secondly, I think he's way off base when he lumps all pleasureful activities into one pile. His argument is so single-minded on the subject of sex that it barely deserves a counter-argument. The only thing that saves him at all is the fact that he admits that there is an argument for the spirituality of sexual union. However, the whole premise of his argument against sex (non-procreational) is closed-minded.

How to Create a Utopia

I read a while ago about a philosopher (don't know his/her name) that said that the way to create a governmental/economic system that results in a utopia is this (hypothetically):


A large group of people have to agree on a system of government and upon the agreement they will all drop dead and be reborn anywhere in the socio-politico-economical continuum. Meaning they could be anyone (randomly) in their new society. This would solve the problems of social and economic mobility and the problem of self-interest in those that form the government.

Of course you can't do that but I thought it was interesting and related to Marx because of his visions of Utopia.

Ghandi the philosopher-king

We discussed in class a while back about how Ghandi believes that we all have seperate but equal jobs (example; women and men). This reminded me of how in the Republic Socrates talks about being moral in terms of doing what is natural. Meaning that doing what your supposed to do in life (good at carpentry, be a carpenter) is moral. In their views on education however, Socrates and Ghandi are very different. Ghandi believes that education should be limited and consist of mostly religion. Socrates believes that education has to include the arts, music, math, physical etc. (at least for the guardians). The reason that this education is required is so that the guardians of the Ideal City are balanced and have a sense of loyalty, gentleness, courage, and spirit.

Nietzsche and Morrison

http://www.litkicks.com/BeatPages/msg.jsp?what=JamesDouglasMorrison

I've been looking at the connection between Jim Morrison and Nietzsche. I know that Jim was influenced by N a lot. John Densmore famously said that Nietzsche killed Jim Morrison. In the link above there are a lot of really interesting connections between the two. I can see how Jim's character reflects N's philosophy. Jim being the passionate Dionysian anti-society philosopher always pushing life to its limits.

On the Road

I've been reading On the Road by Jack Kerouac and random Nietzsche references come up and then on top of that theres a character called Carlo Marx which I have a hard time believing is pure coincidence, seems like an allusion to me. It's like it was meant for Core. I just find it amusing that when you start to study and think about things you start noticing them all over. It seems uncanny but they were probably all there before, just had to become aware of them.

"Pain is the most powerful aid to mnemonics"

I can see how, tragically, this would be true and it is something you can see throughout history. One thing I wonder though is what would Nietzsche say to someone like Freud who claimed that we repress memories of pain. Or to more modern research (of course he didn't access to any of this...but just theoretically) that shows that we are more likely to remember happy things and that unpleasant memories are harder to recall. I think he might say that it is irrelevant because whether or not that N.'s theory is true, man has always used his mnemonic tactics as though it was.

Style of Nietzsche

I find that N. reads like a monologue. He sounds passionate and excited and it makes it feel more like someone is speaking to you then writing. He puts a lot !'s in his writing and he uses strong language. He also uses irony which makes you imagine the inflection in his voice and give it a more speech-like feel.

say Yes to Life

On page 19 Nietzsche refers to Schopenhauer's ideas about life and self.

"What was especially at stake was the value of the unegoistic, the instincts of pity, self-abnegation, self-sacrifice, which Schopenhauer had gilded, deified, and projected into a beyond for so long that at last they became for him "value-in-itself," on the basis of which he said No to life and to himself.

When I read "No to life and to himself" it made me think of the language of existentialism. I remember reading in existentialist writings that you should say Yes to life and spurn death and so on and so forth.

Nietzsche then says: "...it was precisely here that I saw the beginning of the end, the dead stop, a retrospective weariness, the will turning against life, the tender and sorrowful signs of the ultimate illness: I understood the ever spreading morality of pity that had seized even on philosophers and made them ill..."

Will to Nothingness

N. talks a lot about nihilism and mentions the 'will to nothingness'. I more or less know what Nihilism is but I decided to look it up on Wikepedia. It said that Nihilists generally assert most of the following:
- There is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator
- a "true morality" does not exist
- secular ethics are impossible

I think that this way of thinking wouldnt be so hopeless if you cut out the last part. I think that N. might agree because the last problem traps people into having only two options. a) believe in a higher power b)no higher power, no ethics, no meaning.
The true morality bit I don't think is that desperate of a problem, because subjective, relative morality could work just as well.

Opposition to Opposites cont'd (Religion)

Relating back to Nietzsche, when he says that God is the father of evil. I'm not sure that necessarily makes God the father of good. Maybe he did mean that too, I'm not sure. Nietzsche was notoriously anti-christian. It is interesting that Nietzsche's father was a pastor. Also, I read (http://goinside.com/00/6/nietzsche.html), that Nietzsche wrote a poem to "the unknown God", at 20, saying "I want to know you -- even to serve you." But Nietzsche became one of the greatest critics of religion.

This is from the essay I linked to:

"The criticism of empathy and love Nietzsche challenged some of the main thoughts within Christianity in a very concrete way. Sometimes he seems to admire Jesus, and claims that the church made a picture of Jesus which is not veridical. He is skeptical to the church and its ideology, and claimed that the existential perversion which, according to him, Christianity represents, does not stem from Jesus himself, but from the church. According to Nietzsche there has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross. Nevertheless the teachings of Jesus that we find in the Gospels, are attacked by Nietzsche.

The Russian author, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, claimed that pity was the essence of Christianity. In Matthew we read about Jesus that "When he saw the multitudes, he was moved by compassion for them." (Matt 9:36) Nietzsche was critical to the ideal of compassion in Christianity. In Anti-Christ he wrote that "Christianity is the religion of pity." The German thinker, claimed that pity had a depressive effect, and that this quality is opposed to those emotions and attitudes which lead to the promotion of life. "

The Opposition to Opposites

In the works we have done up till now, we've talked a lot about opposites. The basic idea being: if you define something, you've defined its opposite. "Is and Isn't produce each other" or When you recognize X, unX is born. It sounds nice, but it's not sitting well with me. All these clear cut boundaries, black v. white definitions. . . the world is full of gray area, abstracts. You can try and pigeonhole all ideas and concepts systematically. . . but it just won't work. There's an endless series of exceptions , lines are blurring everywhere and it can leave you more lost than when you started.

Take "love". We say the opposite of Love is Hate. Really? So unLove is Hate? I thought unLove was the absence of love. So is that it's opposite? The lack of love? Well that's not very polar. . .but wait. . .Hate lacks love. . .so are they both opposites? What makes "hate" the opposite of love anyway? What are we talking about, are we talking about passionate anger, or something evil, how extreme should you go? If you talk about them as only emotions (I'm not sure you can define them like that), then what? You can't use the word in the definition so it starts getting hazy. Hate is angrier than love I guess? Where to from here?

I'm not even sure if I know exactly what "opposite" means when talking about abstract ideas. It's even hard with concrete ideas. . .the opposite of 2 is -2. . . or is it un2. . . which would be 0?. . . Maybe thats a stretch, but if you go back to the abstract. . .what if you get away from the easily polarized concepts (love/hate, happiness/sadness) and get more vague.

What I am opposing here, is not the basic idea that when you define one thing, you define what it is not. I am opposing that a) all these things can be defined. and b) the idea of a concrete opposite

We try to apply our systems of measurement and our categorization on everything. . .
but sometimes you have to just step back. . . take a breath. . . and at least acknowledge that the world is not black and white, sometimes human expression isn't capable of expressing what we try to define, not in the way some want to anyway.

Compliment

Compliment is probably my favorite poem by Rives. It's meaningful, has a really cool rhythm, is hysterical, and makes me want to watch it again (which i have many times now). I thought it was filled with awesome ideas; patchwork bath, fireworks for poor folks, why men and women's shirts button on opposite sides, weird with a capital We, giggle with lips closed like you've got a secret little moon in your mouth, sunflower growing in the courtyard of an old folks home (you mean things to people on a daily basis)

I thought that the climax was effective, and really caught my attention, especially with the beatboxer's pause and then sort of explosion of sound imitation:

I said once Ohhh I wish i had a picture
and you said Ohhh I wish that you and I had hot sex
you gave me a pedicure and elves showed up at our doorstep
with a pizza to tell us Jesus just built a treehouse in the backyard
and he'd like to meet us both so hop in hot shot.

I love when the beat boxer (Joshua) takes the harmonica and beatboxes into it, and how, seemingly (although it was probably planned) spontaneously Rives compared how pretty the woman ("you") was to Joshua's solo.

Rives cont'd

I started watching more of his poems, and they're all amazing! Some of them are hilarious (especially Compliment w/ beatboxer, Babble, Kite).

I like that the rhyme is never forced, a lot of times, even though I know its coming, I don't expect it because its so natural. I like that I don't have to wonder, like you sometimes do with some people, 'where is he going with this?', because he has an air about him that makes you want to trust him and assures you that everything will fit together.

Rives

I thought Rives was really cool to listen to, it reminded me a lot of stand up comedy. I've actually heard a few comedians use a style similar to his in certain shows. His presentation is really engaging. He has a strong control of his language, but it seems relaxed and free. You get the feeling you get when someone is guiding you who makes whatever it is seem effortless, so you trust them and you and have to worry about where their going. You can just listen to him. The rhythm and rhyme makes everything more powerful. He strikes me as someone who gave up on trying to mold what he wants to say, and just says it. I can admire that in a person, and a performer.

Not Thinking: Meditation

Emptying your head is a lot harder than it would seem. When you can do it though, it's really satisfying. Sometimes before I go to sleep, and I'm thinking about things that are stressing me out, I'll stop and think, I'm probably going to dream about this...I don't want to dream about stressful things...so if I think about nothing...then the things i'm worrying about won't affect my dreams. So i'll lay there and start trying to empty my head. I start by closing my eyes and focusing on a "point" in the nothing that I see. Things start popping in, borders, random flashes, thoughts, etc. I try to empty them all out as they come. It starts to become layers; there is the not thinking, the trying to not think, the awareness that your trying to not think. You can catch yourself doing that though, and empty those thoughts too, but you can't react with the thoughts. You have to just let them empty out.

I think the challenge is to not react...either once you get it you want affirmation of the accomplishment...or if you lose it you want to start fighting thoughts with thoughts.

I tend to be very analytical and I think a lot, so not thinking is a difficult challenge. But it's really worth it, even if just to relax and take a break from thinking every second of every day.

Think Tao

So I sat outside and tried to think like Lao Tzu. I went over to the lake, and thought for a while about the water.

"Best to be like water,
Which benefits the ten thousand things
And does not contend. It pools where humans disdain to dwell
Close to the Tao." pg 8

Water is a symbol of the Tao because it is constantly flowing. It can fit around anything, and hold all things. Its shape is indefinite. It does not impose its will on anything, but instead lets itself be moved. Yet, without action, it can shape stone, and carry you away with a wave as if you weighed nothing. The usefulness of an ocean is in its endless "empty" space.

Letting go

I was thinking about how Emptiness and Non-Action fit together. I started with:
Emptiness creates open possibilities.
Non-emptiness is definite.
Emptiness requires non-action.
Emptiness = endless possibilities
Tao is inexaustable energy.
Tao is harmony.
Empty your mind to non-action.
If Tao is harmony, any action within Tao is non-action.
Action within Tao is non-action because it aligns with harmony and because it is a part of harmony it is not acting against anything.
Harmony = Going with the flow = non-action

Neo-evolution

There's a scene in Waking Life (again...i know) where the main character talks to a scientist about the evolution of man, and where it might be going. The class discussion about morality and what was talked about on the discussion forum made me think of it because it talks about how morality was a part of the "old evolution".

We normally think of evolution on a physical level, or on a basic psychological level (maternal instinct, competition, parasitism etc.). We don't normally think of evolution having to do with scientific breakthrough and information. If you look at it using that in the timeline of evolution as well, you begin to see the "telescopic nature of the evolutionary paradigm". The scientist in the film talks about how evolution might start to move at a fast pace because as we evolve, the new input for evolution is at a higher level, which makes evolution accelerate until, as he says, we hit a crescendo and realize the ultimate of human, the "neo-human and human potential".

link to scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4

Darwinian theory in the B.C.

In my reading for Ancient Greek Philosophy I came across an philosopher by the name of Empedocles that had a theory similar to Darwin's over a thousand years before!

Empodocles stated that:

[quotation not direct] "originally there must have been the strangest creatures - men with the heads of cattle, animals with branches like trees instead of limbs. But in the struggle for existence those less fitted for survival perished, and only those whose members happened to have come together in practical ways have survived."

That sounds a lot like Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection to me. I just thought that it was interesting that a theory of natural selection came out as early as the ancient Greeks.

For comparison here is a general statement made by Darwin:

"...it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner, profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form."

Waking Life

I was surprised to hear Waking Life mentioned in the podcast that we listened to during class because I don't know that many people who have seen it. I feel like the movie Waking Life is relatable to everything. The scene that I think relates most to Phaedo is the scene with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy where they are talking about what happens when you die. The concept that they come up with is one my favorite's of the movie. I actually wound up choosing to write about it in an open subject paper for English class senior year.

They start by quoting Timothy Leary, a famous "psychedelic scientist" I guess you could call him. He said that he looked forward to the moment when his body was dead, but his brain was still alive (they say that there's six to twelve minutes of brain activity after death). They go on to talk about how dream consciousness is infinitely longer than waking consciousness and how those 6-12 minutes could constitute all of life. This seems to parallel Anaxagoras' theory that the universe is directed by the Mind, but takes it further, saying that life is lived in the mind and denying the objective physical being. I think that Socrates might have been somewhat pleased with this observation because it connects the mind and the soul, even in an extremely abstract way. Instead of saying that the soul lives on after death, they are saying, maybe, that the life of the mind, which is all of life itself, is infinite because time and consciousness are relative.

Socrates: "The soul is most like the divine, the deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself. . ." (later Socrates talks about how souls come from the world of the dead to the world of the living and vis versa, a sort of reincarnation theory)

In the second half of the scene, they deny the eternal cyclic nature of the soul itself. So that throws the Socratic view (of a deathless soul that comes from the underworld to the living world and goes to the underworld from the living world in a cycle) out the window. However, I'm not sure if this new theory is completely opposite of it's Socratic counterpart because instead of the soul being eternal you have this collective consciousness, that we are all a part of, being eternal, and compounded with the first theory you've got a persistent non-physical identity that is sort of soul-like. I'm not sure if that explanation is clear, but here is the link to the scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5YGCRb0WM
(rated R for language)

Socrates in a better light....

I've criticized Socrates for being hypocritical concerning his assumptions. A perfect example being the soul's existence. "Let us examine it in some such manner as this: whether the souls of men who have died exist in the underworld or not." Here he starts his logic with the affirmation of the soul rather than the question of it.
Recently, however, I've been thinking that, although I've always respected Socrates, I've been a little harsh. If I were to replace the word "assumption" with "belief" it makes Socrates look a whole lot better.
It's true, that an argument has to start out with an assumption, but there is a difference, I think, between just an assumption, and a belief. Socrates starts with certain beliefs, and then orders life around those core beliefs. He believes that man has a soul and a body and that these are at two ends of the spectrum of being. Those are his beliefs about the nature of man, and those who listen can make there own personal decisions concerning man and his/her nature.
The difference between a belief like that of Socrates, and the belief in the Greek gods, is that the Greek gods have elaborate stories of mythological proportions and have personalities of their own, while Socrates' belief about the nature of man is his attempt to describe the existence of something beyond the physical that we all feel and have in us in some way. The nature of the soul and body is debatable, as well as their separation on a "spectrum". But their is some soul-like essence and an obvious physical body to all of life. You could call the soul an "ego" a "self" an "identity", and give it any nature you want, but I think it is hard to say that there is nothing but physical body...So for the sake of argument I think that Socrates' logic isn't flawed by assumption after all. The logic is based on a belief or idea, which I think is fine.

Pain v. Pleasure

I was looking back through Phaedo, and I came across the part where Socrates says that whenever one experiences one thing, it's opposite is soon to follow:
"What a strange thing that which men call pleasure seems to be, and how astonishing the relation it has with that is thought to be its opposite, namely pain! A man cannot have both at the same time. Yet if he pursues and catches the one, he is almost always bound to catch the other also, like two creatures with one head."
I think that that is an interesting view on life, especially because I've known a lot of people that have subscribed to it. I think, as an observation, it is insightful and often true, but when it becomes a view on life it can have problems. I say this, because I can think of people in the past for whom it has become a self-for filling prophecy. When things are good, they think something bad will happen and act accordingly, and then something bad does happen, most likely because of their state of mind, (except when it has nothing to do with their control of course). But then I started thinking; could it be that the state of mind is all a part of the cycle and that it is a part of the good event leading to the bad event, or the bad event leading to the good event?
Despite the universal moments of doubt, I tend to think that we have more control over our lives than we often think. Sometimes, the belief that if you experience pleasure, pain is not far off, and vis versa, is more destructive than anything.

Being fooled by experience: Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates

The way that Socrates uses logic reminds me of the way Zeno argues for the paradoxes of motion (i'm taking ancient greek philosophy right now). The basic argument that Zeno makes when he's defending Parmenides claim that everything is one motionless being, is that motion requires an impossibility so there must be no motion. He uses various arguments to defend this claim, and when you read them, it makes sense...sort of. However, it seems to me that the ancient greek logic is flawed when it comes to connotation because there is none. I do understand that the ancient greeks didn't have the concept of a word meaning more than one thing (according to our textbooks) and this creates a problem. Piousness, to an ancient greek, is the exact opposite of impiousness, there is no gray area.

"Socrates: Then teach me what that characteristic itself is, in order that by concentrating on it and using it as a model, I may call pious any action of yours or anyone else's that is such as it, and may deny to be pious whatever isn't such as it."

Socrates wants a clear definition of what piousness is and isn't, there is no relativity. When you use logic that is black and white like that you run into impossibilities, which is how you you decipher what is true and what is not true. Like Socrates, Zeno has certain black and white logic that determines that motion is impossible. For example:
If you start the logic stream with -Nothing can come from nothing.- then you can assume that everything that is always was and always will be. If x doesn't exist, then x can't exist. Which means that "nothing" is impossible, and their is no "void". If you look at an object, the object must fit exactly in the space in which it is, so therefore it must be still. If movement were possible then during flight the arrow would always have to occupy a space that fits it exactly which means it would have to be at rest which creates an impossibility, therefore No Movement. Of course modern science fixes all those problems but it illustrates how cold, non-experience based, logic/reasoning can create impossibilities that may/may not exist.

Parmenides or Zeno would say that people should not be fooled by experience. But it seems to me that people can easily be fooled by logic. I think this has relevance to Socrates because in some cases, he's pulling the same trick.

Socratic Logic working against him...

So far all that I've read from Socrates (via Plato) there's been a recurring theme. When I read Euthyphro, it reminded me of the Symposium (I had to read that last year) and noticed that Socrates' argument style was exactly the same. Also, I noticed that you don't really get a clear answer in the end, although you may get closer, or find out what the answer is not. It seems that Socrates doesn't really aim to find a lasting and clear cut definition of the subject at hand, although he seems to insist that there is one, but he really is teaching about the pursuit of truth. He shows his "students" how one can use logic and reasoning to pursue truth and how one can be a rational person. I'm not sure that there is a defined way to be rational, or that truth can be found. In fact, I don't think truth can be found, or that there really is any objective truth, which is fine by me. But either way, that seems to be Socrates' MO. Socrates sort of contradicts himself because he insists that wisdom is the knowledge that you know nothing but at the same time suggests that using logic is the way to get to an objective answer. So I'm not sure if he's saying that the world is subjective, or that there are objective answers that no one will be able to know.

"But Socrates, I have no way of telling you what I have in mind, for whatever proposition we put forward goes around and refuses to stay put where we establish it." - Euthyphro

Socrates is trying to show Euthyphro that if an argument "moves" then one should follow it wherever it leads and not stick with something that has been proven false. He is teaching the art of "logic" to Euthyphro.
Socratic Logic Working Against Him: During the trial, his style works against him because his reasoning only serves as an example of how to get to truth through ration. He doesn't, however, address his subject (innocence) with the proper importance.

"One thing I do ask and beg of you, gentlemen: if you hear me making my defense in the same kind of language as I am accustomed to use in the marketplace by the banker's tables, where many of you have heard me elsewhere, do not be surprised or create a disturbance on that account." - Socrates

Arrogance: I agree that Socrates was a pretty arrogant person, that's not to say he should have been punished or that he was not also wise. I think that using the Oracle as justification for his modesty isn't really effective because Socrates was too smart to take all of that seriously, and I think he was just using that as a story to prove his point about wisdom.

"...in my investigation in the service of the god I found that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable." - Socrates

He starts out talking about being in the god's service but ends up with an observation on human nature.

My problem with Socrates' and his use of his own method is that:

-He leads his student with questions but does so in a way that's demeaning and doesn't let them learn on their own, only see their mistakes. Mistakes are valuable but in order for it to completely stick I think that the student must figure out something for hirself, rather than just agreeing and recognizing the fault in their arguments. A good teacher should lead, but not do everything. At least in the Symposium, the other characters spoke first. But then the conversation with Socrates always seems to consist of:

Socrates: "...or is that not correct?"
Euthyphro: "Yes that's correct"
Socrates: "Is this not true Euthyphro?"
Euthyphro: "Of course it's true Socrates"
Socrates: "...would you like me to continue making you look like an idiot?"
Euthyphro: "Please sir, may I have another..."

-Lastly, my problem, more with Plato than Socrates, is that the characters (other than Socrates) seem so weak, and I'm wondering whether that's an accurate representation of his normal audience, or is he just repressing them. For me, I am constantly seeing little flaws with Socrates' reasoning. Some things are taken out of context, some things are jumps in logic that may or may not be called for. As the person "talking" to Socrates I would jump all over those fractures in his arguments because it might change the outcome significantly, and I don't understand why all the people that Socrates talks to are so helpless in their own defense. All arguments seem to be one sided assuming that Socrates is god of all things wise. Usually the best way of finding a better answer is taking two arguments, chipping away the bad bit s, and then having the rest crystalize (the dialectic method) and then repeating the process. This is shown in the Symposium, but it all boils down to the same thing in the end. Socrates' arguments are infallible and his logic is perfect. This may or may not be the case. I respect his wisdom and intelligence, and I don't think he's completely in the wrong concerning his teaching method, especially cause i have no idea what "in the right" would be. But I don't think Socrates is omnipotent.

Magic Realism

After finishing the book, I can see why on the back cover, the Wall Street Journal says "The latest challenge to South America's supremacy in the field of magic realism comes from. . .Orhan Pamuk." The ending of the book, where the visitor is reading a book with a story that is the reality of the lives of Hoja and the italian...or the italian as Hoja and Hoja as the italian...or however you want to spin it, reminds me of the end *spoiler* of 100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, where Melquiades' parchments are completely translated as the story and prediction of all of their lives, which makes it seem a fiction because as the story is realized by its participants, the story ends. I may be completely off base, but that's what it reminded me of, although they are very different books. My additional point with the "magic realism" observation, apart from the ending, is that the writer/s seem to have a loose obedience to the reality of the story, in many parts the author/s seem to say that he/they chose a sequence of events in his/their life/lives because it suited him/them and could have just as well have chosen another (very existentialist, but I might be stretching that connection a little far).

The Mistranslation

"I already sensed then that I would later adopt his manner and life-story as my own. There was something in his language and his turn of mind that I loved and wanted to master. A person should love the life he has chosen enough to call it his own in the end; and I do."

I think this quote, more than any other, parallels with the mistranslation. First off, in the second sentence the narrator speaks of some alternate way of living that is mysterious and attractive to him. The mistranslation starts "To imagine that a person who intrigues us has access to a way of life unknown and all the more attractive for its mystery....we will begin to live only through the love of that person..." Although this connection matters, I think the more important connection is the question of his identity. In the mistranslation, "Marcel" says that you begin to live through the love of that person. To me that triggers all sorts of alarms. It makes me think that the writer (whoever that is) is living through Hoja....so maybe is Hoja? There it gets hazy...I think it comes down to the interpretation of that line - "live only through the love of that person". Throughout the book he says things about choosing a life, fictionalizing a life. You could interpret that line as living vicariously, as adopting an identity, or as literally being one and the same with that person. It not only reflects on the writer, but also the relationship between the direct narrator and Hoja. As the relationship becomes stronger, the narrator starts to reveal, or become Hoja. I'm still reading so we'll see how it plays out....

Little by little, you're just letting yourself become... Tyler Durden.

This book is Fight Club.

Argument #1: Hoja v. Narr.

Hoja acts. Hoja has the qualities that the narrator lacks and desires. Hoja is Tyler Durden.
Hoja keeps the narrator trapped in his 'game'. Tyler acts in a similar way towards the narrator.
Hoja has a contempt for people who live in the 'game world' just as Tyler has contempt for people living in the consumer/media/non-necessary world. Hoja and Tyler think in a different way that intrigue Narr. 1 and Narr 2. Both have a special bond with their stronger counterparts and grow to love them.

Argument #2 Plotline of Hoja and Narr. relationship

Hoja and Narr.

Teacher/Student---->Out of control/Resentful----->Love/Hate/Wishing he were more involved...still reading....

Tyler and Narr.

Teacher/Student---->Love/Hate/Wishing he were more involved--->Out of control/resentful--->Reclaiming of Identity

Argument #3 They never interact in front of other people

Although Tyler and Narrator do interact in front of other people, it parallels because it stresses how Hoja and the narrator seem to be the same person. The narrator observes from the outside, or sometimes is within the action, but the other is always present (think of the meetings with the sultan, or when the neighbor comes over...where is narrator??). In Fight club the narrator is sometimes playing the role of observer, observing himself. And sometimes he is within himself, but being influenced by Tyler.

Argument #4 Intimate emotional knowledge is known between each other.

Hoja frequently tells the narrator about his outings but the narrator seems to know an inordinate amount of what Hoja was feeling and nuances that make it seem as if he was there.

Argument #5 Hoja "was going to teach [him] fearlessness"

remind anyone of the chemical/hand burn scene??

Argument #6 Hoja and Narrator are pretty much, or actually, the same person.

self explanatory for those who have seen fight club....

.....I would go on but I think that I've exhausted the Fight Club theory for now....

Siddhartha

The main character reminds me of Siddhartha. The reason being that the main character is generally calm and goes through different stages. Throughout the whole book he is a "slave", but he starts as "doctor", then becomes "teacher", then "peer", then in a sadistic way "student" of fearlessness. In Siddhartha the main character (siddhartha) goes through different modes of living but almost always maintains his calm. Also he has, many times, an air of superiority much like "narrator".

LastFm

First Blog

testing...