Islam, Essay 1
02 - 20 - 09
Prompt 2: The ever cheerful philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, wrote at the end of his play Huis Clos (No Exit), “L’enfer, c’est les autres,” i.e., Hell is other people. How do the notions of Paradise and Hell function in the Qur’ân? What do they reveal about the meaning of human existence as articulated in the Qur’ân? Avoid generalities and, when appropriate, ground your argument in the text itself.
This essay will attempt to prove that the depictions of Paradise and Hell in the Qur’an aim to have a practical effect on the lives of readers. As the text states in sura 20, ayahs 2 through 3: “We have not sent down the Qur’an to you that you should be burdened, but as admonition for him who fears…” The text is intended to have an active relationship with the reader. Therefore, in turn, depictions of the afterlife are also intended to have an active relationship with the reader. These depictions, “notions,” are not merely descriptions; the descriptions are admonitions, as The Qur’an describes itself. In light of the “notions” of the afterlife, the context of the human existence is established. This essay will show that this context serves to establish that all people—thanks to the Qur’an’s references to the afterlife—make informed choices about living their lives, and, through the manner in which they live life, indirectly choose their post-life home. Because of this, free will is an essential aspect of the Qur’an. The text intends human life to be lived in the shadow of the text, so to speak. Also, in order to best understand free will and the afterlife, a human’s ability to act as an independent agent must be reconciled with God’s domineering role in existence. This is important because specific passages in the text give God the most prominent role in existence.
Before God’s role is considered in detail, however, humanity and the afterlife must be considered. The text itself acts as an earthly wedge between those going to Paradise and those going to Hell. “No one denies Our revelations except those who are unjust,” surah 29, ayah 49 states. This excerpt is followed by ayah 54, which states that “unbelievers” will go to Hell. These ayahs show that those who go to Hell go because they deny God and his revelations during their lives. Believers go to Paradise, as indicated by surah 29, ayah 58. The importance of belief cannot be emphasized too much. The Qur’an itself is obsessed with reminding the reader of God, “most benevolent, ever-merciful.” This title for God headlines most surahs. Even surah 111, which lacks any direct reference to belief in the core text carries the dedication toward God, “In the name of Allah…” Belief is the main theme of the text, and God demands faith above all else. The passages mentioned previously agree that belief is the unifying trait of those who go to Paradise. To better understand humanity in the afterlife, the concept of belief must be further examined.
Ayahs in which the nature of belief become more clear are those that describe the “people of the Book.” Surah 3, ayah 199 confirms that belief is not necessarily restricted to Muslims. The non-Muslim believers “bow in humility before God,” and respect revelations. That that passage is preceded by a reminder that believers are rewarded with Paradise reinforces the idea that belief ensures entrance into Paradise. The nature of belief becomes clearer in light of ayah 64 of the same surah. The text states that the belief in the God of the Qur’an entails that believers worship him alone, and recognize that no one is His peer. People must know this to go to Paradise. As the text proceeds to somewhat chastise the “people of the Book,” the text up to ayah 71 and beyond reinforces the importance of belief in God as omnipotent and alone in His supremacy. To repeat: belief is the key (in a sense) to Paradise. For instance, surah 56 begins with a thorough description of Paradise and Hell. Ayah 25 implies that the denizens of Paradise are believers. “They will hear no…talk of sin…” Urgings toward belief pervade the Qur’an. It is the main point of The Qur’an. The text is about nothing else in general, and the afterlife can only be understood in context of belief. Without belief, the reasons for Paradise and Hell are obscure.
Surah 56 is also important in regard to the prompt of this essay because it portrays the afterlife in vivid terms, and thereby better detail the notion of humanity’s relationship with the afterlife and existence itself. Ayahs 83 through 96 reinforce the idea that existence belongs to God, and that only two options are possible for every human being: Paradise and Hell. A third option does not exist because it is never mentioned here or anywhere else in the Qur’an. Regarding this, humanity is unable to establish the terms of its own existence. Every moment in a person’s life determines where that person goes at Judgment Day, and these acts must be infused with the notion of belief. Without belief in God, there is no Paradise for a person. For a person to be happy in the long run, God is to be the center of their existence on Earth.
The concept of the Qur’an as a wedge between the denizens of Paradise and Hell is capped by the final ayah of surah 56. “…praise your Lord…” In life, this is what counts, and nothing more. Readers see here that those are go to Hell are marked by their unbelief, just as those who go to Paradise are marked by their belief. In bears noting that descriptions of non-believers indicate their lack of willingness to analyze reality. Surah 56, ayah 53 states, “You have known the first creation, then why do you not reflect?” The “first creation” is “your birth,” referred to in ayah 57, and the object being reflected upon is “death,” referred to in surah 60. These ayahs and many others in the Qur’an paint humanity as puny, and at God’s whim. Ayahs 83 through 87 in surah 56 show that humans cannot conquer death; humanity is unable to establish the terms of its own existence. The denial of God shows that nonbelievers are unwilling to reconcile God’s role as revealed through revelation (56:81-83). They are in turn unable to come to terms with their lack of power and the notion of death; this, in detail, is the form of disbelief, and this disbelief is the reason anyone goes to Hell at all. There is no bargaining with God regarding this. The fate ultimate fate of people—death and the afterlife—is “the ultimate truth” as indicated by surah 56, ayah 95.
Readers see in 56:95 that the notions of Paradise and Hell are intended to however like cloud over earthly existence by providing the context to life itself. In light of the general requirements for entrance to either Paradise or Hell, the bellicose aspect of the Qur’an can be summarized by, “Follow God, or suffer.” This is how the Qur’an and its notions of the afterlife achieve an active relationship with the reader. In every reminded to worship God, the reader is supposed to think of where he might go when he dies. “This is indeed the ultimate truth. Then praise your Lord, the most supreme.”
The exact definitions of belief, however, become more problematic in light of the influence of God and Iblis. When considering God’s prominent role in existence, a reader of the Qur’an may be tempted to think, “Whose fault is it that people go to Hell?” A human’s independent agency seems overwhelmed by God’s power and, it will be shown, Iblis’ influence. It has already been established that God sets the rules to the game of life. Problematic ayahs include those in surah 7, which contains the story of Iblis’ first rejection of God. Iblis suggests that God “led me into error” and uses this as the reason to lure people away from “the straight path,” the belief in God (7:16-17). Furthermore, God in ayah 18 states that He promises to fill Hell with those who follow Iblis. In light of this, and the following, Iblis is the guide those who go to Hell. In ayah 20 of the same surah, “Satan suggested (evil)” to Adam and Eve to break God’s commandment.
Further on, God tells readers of the Qur’an to state that He has no part in evil, and therefore has no part in the acts of those who go to Hell. “…God never enjoins a conduct that is shameful…” states surah 7, ayah 28. This contradicts with Iblis’ claim that God led him to disobey God. It is important to further observe this contradiction because of the importance that surah 7, ayah 18 places on Iblis in regard to Hell. He is the guide of people who go to Hell, and his actions inform upon the nature of their actions.
It is important to further analyze how thoroughly God exerts himself human acts. In light of passages that reinforce God’s supremacy over reality—for instance, “God has sealed their [disbelievers’] hearts and ears and veiled their eyes” (2:7)—it is quite possible to see God as the source of evil, if not for the statement of surah 7, ayah 28. Without this understanding, sardonic readers of the Qur’an will be inclinded to say, “If God causes all evil, then shouldn’t he go to Hell?” Their blasphemous comment—a marker of the disbelief, which would send them to Hell—would be caused by God, according to such a ‘pre-determinist’ reading of the text. Paradise and Hell become absurd because humans would be receiving rewards or punishments for acts they had no control over.
The key to understanding the passage is difficult to find. The surrounding passages fail to answer Iblis’ blame on God, except for the claim that God never “enjoins” evil. The key, perhaps, is in Adam’s and Eve’s apology to God for disobeying Him. “…we have wronged ourselves…” they state in surah 7, ayah 23, and then beg for His forgiveness. In fact, God’s forgiveness is then said to be necessary to their salvation in ayah 23. Even though God’s prominent role is mentioned again, another aspect of humanity’s existence is made just as prominent: Adam and Eve take the blame. Unlike Iblis, they do not attempt to blame anyone else. They recognize that they alone face the consequences of their actions. Despite the overwhelming power of the supernatural beings, these two humans are shown to have agency over their actions. The almighty God lets them make an independent decision.
The story of Adam and Eve clear up the vagueness of God’s influence because the two take up the blame for themselves. They even leave Iblis out of their blame. For humanity, the story seems to state, sin is an individual’s own fault. This idea is supported by surah 7, ayah 30, and many other ayahs, which use the word “guide” to describe God’s and Iblis’ relationship with humanity. When describing the existence of a single man, the Qur’an gives him an active role, even though God is his primary guide toward Paradise. Surah 7, ayah 35 declares that those who “take heed” of God’s apostles will be happy. When people are stated to deny God’s signs, as in ayah 37 of surah 7, no one else receives blame for the denial. Individuals alone are responsible for the final destination, as shown by surah 7, ayahs 37 through 39. This passage shows that God does not respect the claims of those in Hell who blame other nonbelievers. Blame rests equally on each denizen of Hell. That others sin and deny God is no excuse to do likewise. Therefore, just because Iblis set the trap is no excuse for falling into the trap.
As indicated by surah 7, ayah 40, God’s role in whether people go to Paradise or Hell is thus: he provides “signs.” Iblis, too, has this role with deniers, who “fall into error” and follow him (15:42). The supernatural figures exert no ultimate power over who goes where in the afterlife. Even though God establishes the rules, it is humanity‘s choice regarding whether or not to play by those rules. God voluntarily restrains his power to that of guide, and Iblis is limited to the position of the guide. A human beings has the power over his life by deciding which power he will follow.
The individuality of belief and disbelief is further expounded by surah 66, ayahs ten through twelve, which tell the story of Noah’s and Lot’s wives, Pharaoh’s wife, and Mary. The wives of Noah and Lot are stated to be unfaithful to their husbands. That neither of their husbands (apostles of God) could save the wives shows that God is the ultimate arbiter of existence. On the other hand, Pharaoh’s wife is presented as a role model for believers. The text implies that she goes to Paradise. The story of Mary is importance in the context of the other women because she is alone. She obeys God’s revelations, and no other humans helps or hinders her belief. An individual chooses her acts, and not the acts of others; likewise, no one else chooses for her. This goes for all humans, male and female, though surah 66 is about women. Association is reason for neither guilt nor praise. Associations with certain people are beside the point of the afterlife. This is so despite the obvious tension with God’s power.
This point must be elaborated further. Imagine two brothers: Bill and Ted. Bill is a polytheist who fights Muslims and spits on the poor. His acts leave no necessary spiritual mark on Ted. Provided Ted is a believer, he will reach Paradise. Neither brother can do anything to bring up or down the other brother in regard to Paradise and Hell. In fact, Ted may reject Bill, as Pharaoh’s wife rejected her own sinful community. People are always considered on their own merits and flaws. Associations are besides the point.
An adequate understanding of human existence in the Qur’an cannot be completed without considering the intensity of the rewards and punishments in the afterlife. This will synthesize what has already been shown about human existence and the afterlife. The Qur’an states that evil deeds will be meet with an equal punishment, and a good deed gains the actor ten times the worth of that good deed (6:160). Furthermore, Hell is a “fitting reward” for those there (78:26). Indeed, Hell in surah 56 is presented as the warped form of nature. Because surah 78, ayah 26 equates the punishment with the crime, God sees the spiritual nature of disbelief as just as horrible as the Hell itself. In this light, disbelief takes on the tone of Hell itself. Considering the act of disbelief, people are supposed to be reminded of Hell and its harsh environment. People remember its lack of water, and heat. Disbelief takes on parts of the nadir of existence. In this sense, living disbelievers live in a hollow prelude to the afterlife.
Ayahs 45 through of 46 of surah 56 explain this notion. “They were endowed with good things but persisted in that greater sin.” That “good” is life. In surah 2, ayah 110, disbelief is again marked by not acknowledging that God made existence. Here, disbelief takes on an aura of ungratefulness. In light of surah 3, ayah 28, this ungratefulness is futile because death is said to come to all people. The reader sees here that God’s physical prominence establishes the moral order of existence. If one denies God, he denies the moral order of the universe. God becomes the reason for Paradise and Hell because he establishes the moral order. This also reinforces the notion that disbelief personifies Hell because God is shown to be apex of existence, even though Hell is His creation.
This is why revelation exists, according to ayahs 155 through 157 of surah 6. God sent revelation to people so people would no excuse for denying His nature. Denial when revelation is accessible deserves Hell, “a requital indeed for turning aside.” God’s preoccupation with handing down revelation is reinforced numerous passages in the Qur’an. This shows that He wants people to make an informed decision about their existence. For him, mindset (ie. mens rea) is important in considering the sins of people. Human existence is both independent and informed. Through revelation, a person will be better to understand how she relates in the cosmic scheme. God wants neither the wicked nor the stupid in Paradise, and the descriptions of the afterlife in the God serves two purposes: to warn the good to stay good, and to inform the uninformed. Humans are therefore able to live their lives as they choose; this is just because God lets them know what will happen when they stray from “the straight path.”
Every human begin will submit to God one way or another. As this essay has shown, this submission is either through voluntary belief or the harshness of death. Humanity’s agency is narrow, but it is agency nonetheless. Though God establishes the rules of reality, individuals alone decide how to live in that reality. It seems like an easy decision, considering the bliss of Paradise, but it requires humans to understand their place in God’s world, and acknowledge God’s majesty. Human existence is a process. This process is informed by the Qur’an itself, as indicated by the previous analysis of surah 20, ayahs 2 through 3. The end result is by no means a sure for any particular person. It is up to the individual to decide.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Contemporary Civilization paper #1
Contemporary Civilization, Essay 1
02 - 09 - 09
Prompt 1: Martin claims that people “live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom.” Does Voltaire think Candide’s resolution at the end of the novel (“but we must go and work in the garden”) is a solution to this problem or exacerbates it?
It seems that Voltaire believes in the absolute bleakness of life. He has two characters, Martin and the Old Woman, maintain the prompt: man is going to be unhappy, one way or another (pages 78 and 49). Based on their overall view of the human condition, both Martin and the Old Woman would predict Candide’s farming enterprise to end in either catastrophe, or boredom. Candide’s journey supports their view, with Candide and almost everyone else falling into pungent unhappiness. He seems stuck in a painful existence when the novel ends. His attempt to farm seems futile in regard to attaining happiness.
This is an oversimplification of the ending, however. Candide is not copping out. His decision to ‘cultivate’ is his attempt to live within the adequate contentment of work, suggested by The Turk, one of his neighbors. According to The Turk, work keeps people from ‘boredom,’ ‘vice,’ and ‘poverty’ (119). While there exists no guarantee of happiness—the entire novel is buried in misery—the novel ends with Candide believing work to be the only way out of unhappiness. He maintains twice--and therefore Voltaire believes--that he and his friends must ‘cultivate’ their property. Work without philosophizing—without thinking—is the way Voltaire believes people should live.
To prove this, it helps to consider the root of unhappiness in the novel, and then comparing this to the only content people in the novel: The Turk and the people of Eldorado. These people escape the apparent truism of “unhappiness, one way or another.” It must be understood what sets these characters apart, and their influence on the more mature Candide.
For the unhappy, living is a contradiction. Candide’s journey proves this. They are unhappy regardless of what they have. The contradiction becomes apparent with those with access to money, and further shows that material possession are beside the point in regards to happiness. Panquette and Giroflee are examples of this by losing all of the money Candide gave them, and becoming even more miserable than before. They did not ‘cultivate’, or in some way maintain their status of life. They saw their riches as an opportunity to splurge. Even though their impulses and desires were limitless, the money was not. Love of money is a joke because the contentment gained is transitory.
That contentment, however, is very minimal, according to the Signor Pococurante of chapter 25. As the picture of boredom, he complains as much as the one-armed, one-legged slave, who is the picture of misery (the slave appears on page 73). Signor is bored because he thinks too much, and expects way too much of the works of literature he reads. He is bored because he has no work. He simply exists. This kind of retreat from the world is opposite from the kind Candide falls into because the Signor has no aims whatsoever except fun, though he has no idea where to experience fun. It bears emphasizing: this man has everything in regard to material possessions. These material possessions, however, are insufficient for happiness, and the reader is shown that money fails to give what it promises: fulfillment. Considering this, the life of Farmer Candide will not be content due to material wealth. He works in order to keep his mind occupied with concrete work. The work keeps his mind away from the stillness of boredom. As The Turk maintains, only work can achieve this. It bears noting that despite Martin’s claim that most people believe themselves to be the most miserable people ever, The Turk does not complain. He seems completely fine.
Mind, then, is the root of unhappiness. In order to become reasonably content, Candide must live with a view of altering the content of his mind. To show the importance of mind, it is important to show that a lack of empathy leads to interpersonal conflicts. When Candide kills the women’s monkey lover, he does so because he failed to consider the chase from their point of view (59). The other acts of brutality in this novel occur for the same reason. Individuals are stuck in their own heads, and fall into misery when they fail to understand their impotency The world will progress regardless of their desires. There will be earthquakes, and plagues. There will be death. There will be boredom and misery. Therefore, interaction with the outside world is prone to some sort of disappointment. Though Voltaire seems very occupied with events occurring in the world, he shows that the attempts to control what happens aretile.
An example of the futility of controlling the world are the six kings of chapter 26. These men not only were rich, but they had political power. Of anyone in the novel, they had the best means to alter the status of the outside world. None of them, however, could save themselves. In fact, their power only acted as a target on their respective backs. Furthermore, the last page of the novel carries a list of deposed monarchs. Being king is about just as dangerous as being any one else. In light of this, it seems futile for a Farmer Candide or any other individual to engage with the world in a stable manner, or to hope to control the world outside of themselves. For instance, Candide failed to keep Cunegonde beautiful, and James The Anabaptist saved the sailor, only to get killed.
Living falls short of total futility, however. The King of Eldorado and his people, the only happy people in the book, show that happiness is possible according to Voltaire. They are different from the people of the outside world because they refrain from conflict and gain. Each individual refuses to impose their view of the world on others (67). The King greets Candide and Cacambo as equals, while a foreign leader would have required obeisance (68). It is a world without conflict because no one desires anything. Eldorado lacks the rat race prevalent in the rest of the world because everyone minds their own business. They cultivate their garden.
For Voltaire, unhappiness occurs when people want that they don’t have. In order to thrive then, people must ‘cultivate’ what they have. ‘Cultivation’ has nothing to do with the wealth of Signor. It is the cultivation of the self. Candide farms neither for food nor wealth. He farms to keep himself occupied. The abyss of the mind is only wrestled to complacency by work performed for its own sake. If this work is performed with a desire to perform something else, then the worker will become unhappy, as Cacambo does in the novel‘s end. In this case, Candide‘s decision to farm would foster the problem. Therefore, he must forego desire.
When Candide meets The Turk, the Turk has no desire. This is indicated by his apathy toward the outside world. His mind is on what he can control: his immediate surroundings. A desire for something outside his immediate surroundings would only lead to “boredom, vice and poverty.” The mind’s desire for a far away prize only destroys the desirer. For instance, when Candide leaves the uptopic Eldorado, he does so for desire of Cunegonde (70). This desire leads to further sadness. The danger of desire is further echoed by the history of Eldorado itself: the Incas used to live there, but left to conquer (66). The conquerors, however, were conquered by the Spaniards. Desire, therefore, is the ultimate destroyer. No element of life is more damaging toward the quest for happiness than desire, and because of this, most thought must be cut out of life. This includes philosophy (120).
When in chapter six Candide is being flogged, and witnesses the hanging of Pangloss, he laments, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others like?” Whenever Candide sees that the world is bad, the optimistic philosophy only serves to aggravate his distaste for the world because the “best of all possible worlds” falls short of his expectations. Philosophy, then, leads to unhappiness, and must be discarded.
In the end, what has changed for Candide is that he has quit chasing the carrot at the end of the stick. He understands now that the road of the chase is laden with broken glass, and the carrot is spoiled. In this way, he follows the example of the people of Eldorado, and therefore is beginning to fulfill Voltaire’s requirements for happiness. While the contentment attained here falls short of bliss, Candide can escape misery and boredom. Before long, this begins to actually work, and everyone working with Candide becomes content, even the feckless Giroflee. Their work compounded with lack of thought--lack of desire--help them feel at home.
02 - 09 - 09
Prompt 1: Martin claims that people “live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom.” Does Voltaire think Candide’s resolution at the end of the novel (“but we must go and work in the garden”) is a solution to this problem or exacerbates it?
It seems that Voltaire believes in the absolute bleakness of life. He has two characters, Martin and the Old Woman, maintain the prompt: man is going to be unhappy, one way or another (pages 78 and 49). Based on their overall view of the human condition, both Martin and the Old Woman would predict Candide’s farming enterprise to end in either catastrophe, or boredom. Candide’s journey supports their view, with Candide and almost everyone else falling into pungent unhappiness. He seems stuck in a painful existence when the novel ends. His attempt to farm seems futile in regard to attaining happiness.
This is an oversimplification of the ending, however. Candide is not copping out. His decision to ‘cultivate’ is his attempt to live within the adequate contentment of work, suggested by The Turk, one of his neighbors. According to The Turk, work keeps people from ‘boredom,’ ‘vice,’ and ‘poverty’ (119). While there exists no guarantee of happiness—the entire novel is buried in misery—the novel ends with Candide believing work to be the only way out of unhappiness. He maintains twice--and therefore Voltaire believes--that he and his friends must ‘cultivate’ their property. Work without philosophizing—without thinking—is the way Voltaire believes people should live.
To prove this, it helps to consider the root of unhappiness in the novel, and then comparing this to the only content people in the novel: The Turk and the people of Eldorado. These people escape the apparent truism of “unhappiness, one way or another.” It must be understood what sets these characters apart, and their influence on the more mature Candide.
For the unhappy, living is a contradiction. Candide’s journey proves this. They are unhappy regardless of what they have. The contradiction becomes apparent with those with access to money, and further shows that material possession are beside the point in regards to happiness. Panquette and Giroflee are examples of this by losing all of the money Candide gave them, and becoming even more miserable than before. They did not ‘cultivate’, or in some way maintain their status of life. They saw their riches as an opportunity to splurge. Even though their impulses and desires were limitless, the money was not. Love of money is a joke because the contentment gained is transitory.
That contentment, however, is very minimal, according to the Signor Pococurante of chapter 25. As the picture of boredom, he complains as much as the one-armed, one-legged slave, who is the picture of misery (the slave appears on page 73). Signor is bored because he thinks too much, and expects way too much of the works of literature he reads. He is bored because he has no work. He simply exists. This kind of retreat from the world is opposite from the kind Candide falls into because the Signor has no aims whatsoever except fun, though he has no idea where to experience fun. It bears emphasizing: this man has everything in regard to material possessions. These material possessions, however, are insufficient for happiness, and the reader is shown that money fails to give what it promises: fulfillment. Considering this, the life of Farmer Candide will not be content due to material wealth. He works in order to keep his mind occupied with concrete work. The work keeps his mind away from the stillness of boredom. As The Turk maintains, only work can achieve this. It bears noting that despite Martin’s claim that most people believe themselves to be the most miserable people ever, The Turk does not complain. He seems completely fine.
Mind, then, is the root of unhappiness. In order to become reasonably content, Candide must live with a view of altering the content of his mind. To show the importance of mind, it is important to show that a lack of empathy leads to interpersonal conflicts. When Candide kills the women’s monkey lover, he does so because he failed to consider the chase from their point of view (59). The other acts of brutality in this novel occur for the same reason. Individuals are stuck in their own heads, and fall into misery when they fail to understand their impotency The world will progress regardless of their desires. There will be earthquakes, and plagues. There will be death. There will be boredom and misery. Therefore, interaction with the outside world is prone to some sort of disappointment. Though Voltaire seems very occupied with events occurring in the world, he shows that the attempts to control what happens aretile.
An example of the futility of controlling the world are the six kings of chapter 26. These men not only were rich, but they had political power. Of anyone in the novel, they had the best means to alter the status of the outside world. None of them, however, could save themselves. In fact, their power only acted as a target on their respective backs. Furthermore, the last page of the novel carries a list of deposed monarchs. Being king is about just as dangerous as being any one else. In light of this, it seems futile for a Farmer Candide or any other individual to engage with the world in a stable manner, or to hope to control the world outside of themselves. For instance, Candide failed to keep Cunegonde beautiful, and James The Anabaptist saved the sailor, only to get killed.
Living falls short of total futility, however. The King of Eldorado and his people, the only happy people in the book, show that happiness is possible according to Voltaire. They are different from the people of the outside world because they refrain from conflict and gain. Each individual refuses to impose their view of the world on others (67). The King greets Candide and Cacambo as equals, while a foreign leader would have required obeisance (68). It is a world without conflict because no one desires anything. Eldorado lacks the rat race prevalent in the rest of the world because everyone minds their own business. They cultivate their garden.
For Voltaire, unhappiness occurs when people want that they don’t have. In order to thrive then, people must ‘cultivate’ what they have. ‘Cultivation’ has nothing to do with the wealth of Signor. It is the cultivation of the self. Candide farms neither for food nor wealth. He farms to keep himself occupied. The abyss of the mind is only wrestled to complacency by work performed for its own sake. If this work is performed with a desire to perform something else, then the worker will become unhappy, as Cacambo does in the novel‘s end. In this case, Candide‘s decision to farm would foster the problem. Therefore, he must forego desire.
When Candide meets The Turk, the Turk has no desire. This is indicated by his apathy toward the outside world. His mind is on what he can control: his immediate surroundings. A desire for something outside his immediate surroundings would only lead to “boredom, vice and poverty.” The mind’s desire for a far away prize only destroys the desirer. For instance, when Candide leaves the uptopic Eldorado, he does so for desire of Cunegonde (70). This desire leads to further sadness. The danger of desire is further echoed by the history of Eldorado itself: the Incas used to live there, but left to conquer (66). The conquerors, however, were conquered by the Spaniards. Desire, therefore, is the ultimate destroyer. No element of life is more damaging toward the quest for happiness than desire, and because of this, most thought must be cut out of life. This includes philosophy (120).
When in chapter six Candide is being flogged, and witnesses the hanging of Pangloss, he laments, “If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others like?” Whenever Candide sees that the world is bad, the optimistic philosophy only serves to aggravate his distaste for the world because the “best of all possible worlds” falls short of his expectations. Philosophy, then, leads to unhappiness, and must be discarded.
In the end, what has changed for Candide is that he has quit chasing the carrot at the end of the stick. He understands now that the road of the chase is laden with broken glass, and the carrot is spoiled. In this way, he follows the example of the people of Eldorado, and therefore is beginning to fulfill Voltaire’s requirements for happiness. While the contentment attained here falls short of bliss, Candide can escape misery and boredom. Before long, this begins to actually work, and everyone working with Candide becomes content, even the feckless Giroflee. Their work compounded with lack of thought--lack of desire--help them feel at home.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
America
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich fell into handcuffs after alledgedly conspiring to "sell or trade" Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat. He may beat these charges in pre-trial or trial. The trial may affirm the charges: he attempted to misuse his constitutional powers.
The point of this essay is to highlight that a governor of one of the nation's economic power-houses can be accountable in a nonviolent way. (A disturbing amount of Roman Emperors were killed in action; guys like Robert Mugabe refuse to leave without being nudged away by a crowbar.) While people in other nations live in such conditions that suicide bombing seems attractive, Americans resort to lawsuits because the process is reasonably successful and fair. A well-run, and fair legal system is a primary barrier between order, and chaos (see Afghanistan, where many areas lack regulated law enforcement agencies, and even law enforcement has been accused of abusing prisoners).
Political corruption is like a bad milk stain on the carpet. It won't leave, despite calls to a common sense of decency, and attempts to scrub corruption out. For instance, three other Illinois Governors have landed in jail since 1973, for charges such as tax evasion, bank fraud, and treating favorites to state contracts. Should the current Governor be found guilty, it would seem that more must be done to prevent corruption. The point of this little memo, however, is to remind us that his indictment is a success in regards to cleaning up the stain, if failing prevent it. In America: No one, we hope, can get away with the abuse of power, even politcal power.
That is our country, or, at least, it's political philosophy. So to speak, everyone is accountable to everyone else. You to me, me to you, us to them, them to us.
The point of this essay is to highlight that a governor of one of the nation's economic power-houses can be accountable in a nonviolent way. (A disturbing amount of Roman Emperors were killed in action; guys like Robert Mugabe refuse to leave without being nudged away by a crowbar.) While people in other nations live in such conditions that suicide bombing seems attractive, Americans resort to lawsuits because the process is reasonably successful and fair. A well-run, and fair legal system is a primary barrier between order, and chaos (see Afghanistan, where many areas lack regulated law enforcement agencies, and even law enforcement has been accused of abusing prisoners).
Political corruption is like a bad milk stain on the carpet. It won't leave, despite calls to a common sense of decency, and attempts to scrub corruption out. For instance, three other Illinois Governors have landed in jail since 1973, for charges such as tax evasion, bank fraud, and treating favorites to state contracts. Should the current Governor be found guilty, it would seem that more must be done to prevent corruption. The point of this little memo, however, is to remind us that his indictment is a success in regards to cleaning up the stain, if failing prevent it. In America: No one, we hope, can get away with the abuse of power, even politcal power.
That is our country, or, at least, it's political philosophy. So to speak, everyone is accountable to everyone else. You to me, me to you, us to them, them to us.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
A definition of Dangerous Idealogy
I.
He said, I hope they don't catch Bin Laden before the election, or it would hurt Obama. This statement uttered sometime in June. I worked with this man in a certain job, and urged by curiosity and the tightness in my stomach, I asked why he believed that Osama Bin Laden's capture would hurt Barack Obama's chances. Co-worker said that an apprehension would put the GOP in a positive light. Obama would lose the election.
But, I said, wouldn't the capture of Al-Qaeda's leader lead to a great number of benefits?
No, he said, Bin Laden's threat is over rated. (Several miles south, in downtown Manhattan, exists a giant hole.) Co-worker's ring phone: a rap song that blurted, "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!" Hardcore liberal. A real member of the group.
II.
The danger of ideology stems from an intense loyalty to a group. When group affiliation outweighs the application of the ideas, then the ideas lose ground. The group reigns supreme, but the ideas they spout retain the meaning of breaths.
He said, I hope they don't catch Bin Laden before the election, or it would hurt Obama. This statement uttered sometime in June. I worked with this man in a certain job, and urged by curiosity and the tightness in my stomach, I asked why he believed that Osama Bin Laden's capture would hurt Barack Obama's chances. Co-worker said that an apprehension would put the GOP in a positive light. Obama would lose the election.
But, I said, wouldn't the capture of Al-Qaeda's leader lead to a great number of benefits?
No, he said, Bin Laden's threat is over rated. (Several miles south, in downtown Manhattan, exists a giant hole.) Co-worker's ring phone: a rap song that blurted, "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!" Hardcore liberal. A real member of the group.
II.
The danger of ideology stems from an intense loyalty to a group. When group affiliation outweighs the application of the ideas, then the ideas lose ground. The group reigns supreme, but the ideas they spout retain the meaning of breaths.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
A Writing Exercise--What Internet Interactions Show About Humanity--Stream of Consciousness Essay
1) First, Internet comments like those from YouTube and BoredAtButler.com do not necessarily come from a representative sample of society. They come from people who enter those sites, and then take the time to comment. It is the case that many pages open to user comments are viewed more than contributed to. A video from The Young Turks YouTube Account received 1,618 views, and 79 text comments. Though repeated views and comments by the certain users can distort these numbers, it shows that most viewers of a webpage remain quiet. There is very little to be learned about the quiet ones from these statistics besides the fact that they seemed to have Interests in videos with titles such as "DWTS At Blvd 3 Part 2" and "Love Is A Lie." With this information alone, however, we know little about why the viewers find find whatever they have interest in interesting.
2) If you use the Internet to teach you about humanity, you will believe that people are jerks who make rape-jokes, believe 9-11 was a false-flag operation, and/or disdain capital letters.
3) An interesting thought: that some loud people, or "Internet gangsters," are more demure in person. Even polite. Due to cowardness?
4) Another thought: most rude behavior performed when jerk is in a position of perceived safety. Perhaps when surrounded by friends, or the abused seems less likely to defend in manner meaningful to jerk.
5) Certain acts of kindness performed from position of weakness. "Kiss up, kick down." A convicted murderer asking the court for mercy.
6) A thought: our perceptions of others are warped by our personalities, our desires, our fears, our experiences. Our views of the world are centered, strictly, around the self. Our ability to handle conflict may affect our willingness to appreciate headstrong people; whether we cling to them, or disdain them. Perhaps a fear that personal appearance will pervent meaningful interpersonal contact will promote shy behavior, thereby perventing meaningul interpersonal contact.
7) Misogyny, racism, any sort of bigotry are aspects of the more broad problems interpersonal conflict. The abuse of other people: requires explanations more broad than "I hate his face." The results and expression are the interplay of personal psychology, the psychology of others, accessibility of resources. Misogyny is nothing like a monster with a chain-saw teeth. It a variety of ideas shared by people, the varieties are more pronounced between individuals than cultures, really.
8) The Devil lives in the abstract world, pulling strings that connect him to the physical world. Metaphorically, I mean.
2) If you use the Internet to teach you about humanity, you will believe that people are jerks who make rape-jokes, believe 9-11 was a false-flag operation, and/or disdain capital letters.
3) An interesting thought: that some loud people, or "Internet gangsters," are more demure in person. Even polite. Due to cowardness?
4) Another thought: most rude behavior performed when jerk is in a position of perceived safety. Perhaps when surrounded by friends, or the abused seems less likely to defend in manner meaningful to jerk.
5) Certain acts of kindness performed from position of weakness. "Kiss up, kick down." A convicted murderer asking the court for mercy.
6) A thought: our perceptions of others are warped by our personalities, our desires, our fears, our experiences. Our views of the world are centered, strictly, around the self. Our ability to handle conflict may affect our willingness to appreciate headstrong people; whether we cling to them, or disdain them. Perhaps a fear that personal appearance will pervent meaningful interpersonal contact will promote shy behavior, thereby perventing meaningul interpersonal contact.
7) Misogyny, racism, any sort of bigotry are aspects of the more broad problems interpersonal conflict. The abuse of other people: requires explanations more broad than "I hate his face." The results and expression are the interplay of personal psychology, the psychology of others, accessibility of resources. Misogyny is nothing like a monster with a chain-saw teeth. It a variety of ideas shared by people, the varieties are more pronounced between individuals than cultures, really.
8) The Devil lives in the abstract world, pulling strings that connect him to the physical world. Metaphorically, I mean.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Who The Superheroes Would Vote For
I can't help but write this:
- Captain America: First off, Steve Rogers would never use his identity as the Sentinel of Liberty to campaign for any politician ever. It has been established that he won't even consider running for public office, even though he is aware that people would sure as hell gravitate toward him as a leader. Captain America is a symbol for the nation. This means keeping politics away in lieu of coloring the symbol in a divisive slant. Now...personally, though, he would lean toward Ron Paul. If he were even alive. He would appreciate Paul's candor, and constant, open championing of the consistitution. Stable societies rest on fair rules, which every one respects.
Bucky, the new Captain America, is technically dead. So, too bad for him. He can't even vote.
- The Fantastic Four is divided on this one.
The Thing is definitely for McCain. Obama seems too much like a hotshot for him; a man who spent at least half of his Senate career running for president may have too big a head for the job. Anyway, The Thing likes that McCain promises to help people with their mortgages because it's the biggest problem that he sees.
The Human Torch knows nothing about politics. His eyes glaze over at the words "Habeas Corpus" and "dividends." But he remembers McCain's first appearance on SNL, where the Senator sang Streisand songs. He thinks that the man is f-ing awesome for that reason alone, and yet it is a great, great reason.
The Invisible Woman believes that it is important for women to keep their right to choose, so she leans toward Obama.
Mr. Fantastic really really likes Obama's 10-year, $15 billion dollar a year to get the US off foreign sources of energy. "Actually, I have some ideas..."
- Spider-Man's life is so hectic, he feels he knows way too little to make a choice he feels comfortable about. He saw Obama in the third debate, and thinks Obama has a very cool head. Besides, the Parkers are registered Democrats.
- The Punisher doesn't care, but his father voted for Barry Goldwater (McCain's predecessor in the Senate) in the 1964 election.
- Ms. Marvel is definitely up for aggressive, responsible military defense (read Mighty Avengers #1). Also, she cut her teeth in the Air Force. From a president, McCain, for sure.
- She-Hulk is a lawyer. Though she loves her superhero life more than her lawyer life, she respects Obama's temperment. She's been in enough universe-shattering events to appreciate a guy who sits back, digests a situation, then makes a responsible descision.
- Iron Man is totally torn on this one. The former Secretary of Defense is no war monger, but he respects and knows the need to maintain peace through force. But he knows it can cause just as many problems as if fixes. In any case, if Obama had been running against the John McCain of 2000, it would have been McCain, easy. But the McCain of today bothers him. McCain has flipped his opinion on Roe v. Wade, Bush Tax Cuts, and cozied up to certain constituencies not out of real interest, but to win votes. McCain has alienated Stark, and Stark, though trusting in McCain, is really not all that trusting of McCain.
****
- Wonder Woman dislikes both candidates' interventionist policies. But she wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, a noninterventionist, because she has the feeling that Paul is a coot, albiet lovable. Besides, she's not even a US citizen.
- Superman grew up in Kansas, baby. The friggin heartland. Smallville ain't seeing any meaningful federal assistance from nobody since...when?...but Clark Kent is putting his vote for Obama, for the man's promise to move out of Iraq.
- Now, I actually asked Batman who he was for. In Midtown Manhattan, on 1st ave, he had no mask on, calling for a taxi. I was in a white 1937 cadillac town car with some friends. This is a true story. I rolled down my window, and asked, "Is Batman for McCain or Obama?"
"McCain!"
- Captain America: First off, Steve Rogers would never use his identity as the Sentinel of Liberty to campaign for any politician ever. It has been established that he won't even consider running for public office, even though he is aware that people would sure as hell gravitate toward him as a leader. Captain America is a symbol for the nation. This means keeping politics away in lieu of coloring the symbol in a divisive slant. Now...personally, though, he would lean toward Ron Paul. If he were even alive. He would appreciate Paul's candor, and constant, open championing of the consistitution. Stable societies rest on fair rules, which every one respects.
Bucky, the new Captain America, is technically dead. So, too bad for him. He can't even vote.
- The Fantastic Four is divided on this one.
The Thing is definitely for McCain. Obama seems too much like a hotshot for him; a man who spent at least half of his Senate career running for president may have too big a head for the job. Anyway, The Thing likes that McCain promises to help people with their mortgages because it's the biggest problem that he sees.
The Human Torch knows nothing about politics. His eyes glaze over at the words "Habeas Corpus" and "dividends." But he remembers McCain's first appearance on SNL, where the Senator sang Streisand songs. He thinks that the man is f-ing awesome for that reason alone, and yet it is a great, great reason.
The Invisible Woman believes that it is important for women to keep their right to choose, so she leans toward Obama.
Mr. Fantastic really really likes Obama's 10-year, $15 billion dollar a year to get the US off foreign sources of energy. "Actually, I have some ideas..."
- Spider-Man's life is so hectic, he feels he knows way too little to make a choice he feels comfortable about. He saw Obama in the third debate, and thinks Obama has a very cool head. Besides, the Parkers are registered Democrats.
- The Punisher doesn't care, but his father voted for Barry Goldwater (McCain's predecessor in the Senate) in the 1964 election.
- Ms. Marvel is definitely up for aggressive, responsible military defense (read Mighty Avengers #1). Also, she cut her teeth in the Air Force. From a president, McCain, for sure.
- She-Hulk is a lawyer. Though she loves her superhero life more than her lawyer life, she respects Obama's temperment. She's been in enough universe-shattering events to appreciate a guy who sits back, digests a situation, then makes a responsible descision.
- Iron Man is totally torn on this one. The former Secretary of Defense is no war monger, but he respects and knows the need to maintain peace through force. But he knows it can cause just as many problems as if fixes. In any case, if Obama had been running against the John McCain of 2000, it would have been McCain, easy. But the McCain of today bothers him. McCain has flipped his opinion on Roe v. Wade, Bush Tax Cuts, and cozied up to certain constituencies not out of real interest, but to win votes. McCain has alienated Stark, and Stark, though trusting in McCain, is really not all that trusting of McCain.
****
- Wonder Woman dislikes both candidates' interventionist policies. But she wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, a noninterventionist, because she has the feeling that Paul is a coot, albiet lovable. Besides, she's not even a US citizen.
- Superman grew up in Kansas, baby. The friggin heartland. Smallville ain't seeing any meaningful federal assistance from nobody since...when?...but Clark Kent is putting his vote for Obama, for the man's promise to move out of Iraq.
- Now, I actually asked Batman who he was for. In Midtown Manhattan, on 1st ave, he had no mask on, calling for a taxi. I was in a white 1937 cadillac town car with some friends. This is a true story. I rolled down my window, and asked, "Is Batman for McCain or Obama?"
"McCain!"
Monday, October 20, 2008
Several Characteristics of My Ideal Government (1st draft)
1) A representative democracy is the one major detail I will refuse to back off from. A representive democracy would be less messy than a direct democracy, and less prone to national unhappiness than a dictator ship.
A) Giving all adult citizens the ability to vote for politicians and constitutional amendments (state, federal) will provide flexibility in the system. Yes, the leaders in Washington make the decisions, but once constituents are dissapointed in a leader, they can kick him out for some one who they like. Leaders must know they that are in this position of power not because they are necessarily smarter than every one else, but because it is easier for only several hundred congressman to write a bill rather than several thousand, hundreds of thousands, or millions.
Now, depostism shares the same fundamental problem with anarchism: human nature. All systems of government share this problem, but depostism and anarchism are especially sensitive. Consider the Roman Empire, where Pertinax got murdered by soldiers. He was replaced by Didius Julianus, who was sentenced to death by the Senate after only a couple of months of being Emperor. He was replaced by Septimius Severus, who died from illness, thank God for that. But then Caracalla, assassinated. Geta, assassinated by Caracalla (!). Macrinus, executed. Diadumnian, executed. Elagabalus, assassinated. Alexander Severus, assassinated. Look, I don't need to list every body else. Let's just say that the only job more dangerous than Roman Emperor is a taxi driver who works on a mine field.
There was no system in place to make things kosher. It was run like the heavyweight championship. No simple line of succession. Or peaceful system to remove rulers who want to stay. If people don't like a lawmaker or executive, they can kick him out come election day.
2. A voting system garners respect for the government because voting will know that they stake in the system. They respect the system because they own it. That means keeping unruly mobs to a minimum. Know why there were so many riots in the 60s? Because the rioters felt that they had no other recourse. They felt powerless in the greater scheme of things. Giving people the vote--as many as physically possible--is the best means to garner respect for the system. Yes, that means giving felons the vote, too (except when they are in prison, since politics is a great way to light short tempers). The minute convicts leave prison is the minute their registration process should begin in their state.
In short: Any economic system can thrive. Any general philosohpy for law enforcement can work for the betterment of society. All you need is good management, and democracy is the best way to move with the many variables involved with governing. For example, consider when Americans during the Great Depression replaced the laissez-faire President Hoover with FDR.
2) Transparancy
The number one reason why no one trusts government. First...you need mandatory waiting periods before bill are enacted or even voted on, where the exact text of the bill is available to the public online, and in appropriate physical publications. That means 3 - 5 days for any legislative body, and 3-5 days before the executive office will sign the bill into law. When the waiting period is over, the lawmakers will vote on the bill. Appropriate parlimentary procedure will ensure that no one can amend the bill from the moment the lawmaking body decides to send the bill into its waiting period to the moment that they as a body vote for it. If it passes and goes to another law making body (eg. from the House to the Senate), and that new body decides to vote on the bill, they must wait another 3-5 days where the bill is published for the general public. Then if they pass the bill, then it is sent to the executive, who waits antoehr 3-5 day. No earlier than the exact moment of the bill's online publication should the waiting period be considered to have begun, in any governmental body.
All government funding is revealed to the general public.
All court cases are open to the general public.
Government pays for advertising to run on prime time television listing the candidates for local, state, and national office from the beginning of the 30 days before the election to the night before the election. (Television networks can reject the government's request to buy ad time, but the government must have found a byer by the relevant date.)
3) Federation
A national government handles issues that are strictly interstate, where state governments handle issues that are relevant to them. This is just a better management principle than having too many relevant decisions made for you by people who have no stake in your community. That would be like a sandwich franchise telling a New Jersey location of the franchise to overstock on mustard, but, apparantly, mustard is unpopular in New Jersey.
A) Giving all adult citizens the ability to vote for politicians and constitutional amendments (state, federal) will provide flexibility in the system. Yes, the leaders in Washington make the decisions, but once constituents are dissapointed in a leader, they can kick him out for some one who they like. Leaders must know they that are in this position of power not because they are necessarily smarter than every one else, but because it is easier for only several hundred congressman to write a bill rather than several thousand, hundreds of thousands, or millions.
Now, depostism shares the same fundamental problem with anarchism: human nature. All systems of government share this problem, but depostism and anarchism are especially sensitive. Consider the Roman Empire, where Pertinax got murdered by soldiers. He was replaced by Didius Julianus, who was sentenced to death by the Senate after only a couple of months of being Emperor. He was replaced by Septimius Severus, who died from illness, thank God for that. But then Caracalla, assassinated. Geta, assassinated by Caracalla (!). Macrinus, executed. Diadumnian, executed. Elagabalus, assassinated. Alexander Severus, assassinated. Look, I don't need to list every body else. Let's just say that the only job more dangerous than Roman Emperor is a taxi driver who works on a mine field.
There was no system in place to make things kosher. It was run like the heavyweight championship. No simple line of succession. Or peaceful system to remove rulers who want to stay. If people don't like a lawmaker or executive, they can kick him out come election day.
2. A voting system garners respect for the government because voting will know that they stake in the system. They respect the system because they own it. That means keeping unruly mobs to a minimum. Know why there were so many riots in the 60s? Because the rioters felt that they had no other recourse. They felt powerless in the greater scheme of things. Giving people the vote--as many as physically possible--is the best means to garner respect for the system. Yes, that means giving felons the vote, too (except when they are in prison, since politics is a great way to light short tempers). The minute convicts leave prison is the minute their registration process should begin in their state.
In short: Any economic system can thrive. Any general philosohpy for law enforcement can work for the betterment of society. All you need is good management, and democracy is the best way to move with the many variables involved with governing. For example, consider when Americans during the Great Depression replaced the laissez-faire President Hoover with FDR.
2) Transparancy
The number one reason why no one trusts government. First...you need mandatory waiting periods before bill are enacted or even voted on, where the exact text of the bill is available to the public online, and in appropriate physical publications. That means 3 - 5 days for any legislative body, and 3-5 days before the executive office will sign the bill into law. When the waiting period is over, the lawmakers will vote on the bill. Appropriate parlimentary procedure will ensure that no one can amend the bill from the moment the lawmaking body decides to send the bill into its waiting period to the moment that they as a body vote for it. If it passes and goes to another law making body (eg. from the House to the Senate), and that new body decides to vote on the bill, they must wait another 3-5 days where the bill is published for the general public. Then if they pass the bill, then it is sent to the executive, who waits antoehr 3-5 day. No earlier than the exact moment of the bill's online publication should the waiting period be considered to have begun, in any governmental body.
All government funding is revealed to the general public.
All court cases are open to the general public.
Government pays for advertising to run on prime time television listing the candidates for local, state, and national office from the beginning of the 30 days before the election to the night before the election. (Television networks can reject the government's request to buy ad time, but the government must have found a byer by the relevant date.)
3) Federation
A national government handles issues that are strictly interstate, where state governments handle issues that are relevant to them. This is just a better management principle than having too many relevant decisions made for you by people who have no stake in your community. That would be like a sandwich franchise telling a New Jersey location of the franchise to overstock on mustard, but, apparantly, mustard is unpopular in New Jersey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
