Will Lovecraft ever be feared again?

H.P. Lovecraft’s “Statement of Randolph Carter” meant to instill dread and fear into his readers hardly managed a blip on our scare-o-meter when we discussed Lovecraft a few weeks ago in class. Some of us agreed that certain parts of his two stories were a tad unsettling, but in all, had no particular dreadful or horrifying elements. I have only read a small sample of his work, but from the half dozen or so stories I have read, nothing has jumped out at me as being exceptionally frightening. Admittedly, reading “The Statement of Randolph Carter”, it did spook me a little, reading it so late at night with the wind tapping at my window pane; but it didn’t unnerve me as much as say, a David Lynch movie, or something written half decently by Stephen King. But for Lovecraft to be named one of the forefathers of horror and dread; and to have annual gatherings dedicated to him and worship of his Cthulhu creation seems a bit much.
In seminar we also discussed the desensitization of our culture to frightening things, to how Lovecraft’s writings are much too tame for what our writers and movie makers have come up with. Within the 21^st century our artists have done everything to push the viewers or the consumers as far as they can in terms of instilling fear. Books and novels have become gorier using whatever means possible to shock the audience. After the limits of scariness have reached the levels at which they now sit, can people ever find Lovecraft’s work scary again? Many obviously still find his work quite enjoyable. For some it might be his writing style or maybe his creative play with unimaginable multi-dimensional space/time horrors. Others may find nostalgia in a time where his writings actually were scary. But does anyone really find his works scary? Do we even have the capacity to find his stories scary once more?
Lovecraft’s timing was perfect within the modern world in that he was born into a time where everything was new; new ideas in mechanics, mathematics, art, as well as general ways of communities interacting on a much broader scale. And he manages to tap into this newness so well. “Dreams in the Witch-House” is a much better example of this – Lovecraft manages to twist theoretical physics along with complex mathematics into something mystical and magical. Quantum mechanics is now a vehicle for time space transportation where is hosts creatures of unspeakable existence. Even the story “The Statement of Randolph Carter” seems fairly detached from the modern world. It’s about two men seeking out to cement their “terrible research into the unknown” which is mainly sought out by Harley Warren, a man who discovered the existence of the horrific beasts living in a noxious swamp within the text of a fiendish Arabic book found somewhere in India. These devices are effective because Lovecraft is playing on common xenophobia and ignorance of other cultures. The fear of the unknown can be very powerful, and if it’s unearthed from an unknown people in another language, it can be even scarier. Lovecraft also capitalizes on the new sensations science is offering the world and the ignorance most people have regarding new scientific theories. As a society we have greatly surpassed many of the devices which Lovecraft could employ to frighten his readers and amplify the uncanny through the use of foreign cultures and ignorance of science. However, many still believe that astrology, fortune telling, and numerology mean something; that there is life beyond the grave. So, maybe there are still those who are honestly scared of Lovecraft’s writings.

Sarah Lepp

Borges and his Infinite Knowledge

For my last post I want to comment on two of Borges’s short stories “The Library of Babel” and “The Book of Sand”. I realize we didn’t read any Borges this semester, at least, I don’t think we did; but I do love his writings and think he is an extremely interesting modern writer. Reading up on him, I found he was part of the avant-garde Ultraist movement during the ‘20’s – a short lived literary movement which claimed to be anti-modern. A decade later phenomenology and existentialism was gaining great attention and Borges was even starting to deal with existential ponderings in his writing. However, Borges was critiqued as having next to nothing in common with the types of existentialism created by Sartre or Camus.
But back to the two short stories. A few years ago, for whatever reason, I happened to read these two short stories side by side, and they complement one another so well they seem eternally tied to one another in my mind. Both stories involve the infinite; “The Book of Sand” seemingly to be the answer to the question to which “The Library of Babel” does not ask. I will talk about this at the end, but for the majority of the post I will focus on what the Library of Babel is and what Borges maybe have been referring to throughout the story.
The Library of Babel is the library to contain all books; all books which exist, have been written and will be written. The library contains all information, and since the library contains all information the universe is justified because theoretically it can be fully understood if the contents of the library can be understood. Yet every book within the library is complete gibberish which nobody can comprehend or decipher. Different theories extend from different seekers of information within the library; such that a catalogue of catalogue exists that references each and every book within the library; meanings contained in the books corresponds to meaning in dreams or in one’s palm; that the books may correspond to past or remote languages; that each of the books is subject to cryptography; that the infinite nature of the library reflects the infinite nature of the universe or of god. All these ideas are pulled out of the short story and may give you a feel for the story as a whole, though it is so difficult to describe or define the story. The story consists of segmented ideas concerning the Library of Babel which should be able to be reworked into a coherent and logical fashion; however I am unable to do so.
Maybe this quote will put the story into context, that the overall dictum which best explains the library is that “the library is a sphere whose exact centre is [within] any one of its hexagon[al rooms] and whose circumference is inaccessible”. This can also be applied to the books to give an overall view of the books – each and every book contains all information but understanding of the information is inaccessible.
The librarian speaking to the audience about the library constantly makes references to true knowledge and god. That the library contains all knowledge, or knowing everything in the library can bring a person closer to divinity. This Library of Babel could be an extension of the Tower of Babel story, where instead of building the tower to god, humans have constructed a building to house all information on everything. Rather than destroying the library and changing all of human kind; god has opted to confuse the language within the library and extent the library infinitely to house slightly altered or falsified texts; all of which are unintelligible to humans.
Arguably, this story serves as an extension and more detailed version of the Gensis story, the Tower of Babel. Or maybe “The Library of Babel” is a modern interpretation of the Gensis story. Yet I wonder if Borges is instead using the Library of Babel as a critique on science. The Library of Babel was published in 1941, a time in which there was much greater understanding of time and space from the point of view of theoretical physics; communication was possible almost instantly and world-wide through the use of television, film and radio; and humans had must more control over health, life, and death through medical advances such as insulin and penicillin. Borges is witnessing quickly growing understanding of the world and the universe. Within a few decades, Borges has witnessed a massive expansion and change in literature, art, and science. He could be using the Library of Babel as an analogy to the capabilities of advances within society. The librarian within the Library of Babel postulates that there is a person within the library who is capable of decoding and knowing all that which the books contain, thus becoming like god. Society as a whole may have the abilities to advance to a point where it is capable of knowing all; though Borges’s librarian admits that this all encompassing knowledge is something which is hoped for, something which he will never fully realize or achieve.
There is also The Book of Sand I mentioned much earlier, a short story which seems to be the ultimate book of knowledge and is sought after within the Library of Babel. The Book of Sand is an infinite book with no beginning and no end which contains infinite information that the infinite pages never repeat. If the book of sand is the book of books which is sought after from the people within the Library of Babel; since the book of sand can never be finished, those who find it would have to dedicate their full existence to studying the book. The book would consume the owner thus rendering the infinite knowledge of the book useless to humans. Also, the creation of an infinite book is not possible by human hands which brings the ability of humans knowing all out of the realm of reality.

Sarah Lepp

What Ever Happened To Harley Warren?

H.P. Lovecraft’s short story, “The Statement of Randolph Carter,” is rife with similar modernist themes to those which we have discussed throughout the term, such as the pursuit of knowledge and the exploration of the unknown. The latter is especially important since Freudian psychoanalysis runs throughout the story. I’d argue that Lovecraft’s “The Statement of Randolph Carter”—in particular the end in which Harley is proclaimed dead—is a direct response to Freud’s ideas, particularly his idea of the “uncanny.” At the turn of the twentieth-century, the new science of psychoanalysis raised eyebrows and suspicions as it attempted to survey the previously unmapped terrain of the human mind. While the sciences had been hitherto concerned predominately with explaining the outside world, Freud shifted the focus inward to a strange new world—the unconscious. His idea of the uncanny followed suit, itself a response to Ernst Jentsch’s definition of the peculiar state. According to Jentsch, the uncanny is a state linked to a feeling of intellectual uncertainty. Jentsch gives the example of the uncomfortably strange feeling of seeing a life-like robot. There is a cognitive dissonance which stems from witnessing an animated inanimate object. In other words, the uncanny for Jentsch is a struggle between discerning imagination from reality. Freud revised this definition of the uncanny, focusing on what he saw as an underlying repression of infantile desires. Freud believed that as children we hold certain beliefs, which later in life are debunked with age and experience (ie. the belief that dead people can return from the grave). If this repression is ever challenged—let’s say by some medical miracle wherein a patient on their deathbed is nursed back to perfect health—there results a sense of the Freudian uncanny in real life. The situation changes when discussing the uncanny in literature, since the realm of fiction allows for greater creative freedom (thus the uncanny cannot exist in fairy tales, for instance). According to Freud, the existence of the uncanny in literature is dependent upon a certain literary realism to oppose it.

So what ever happened to Harley Warren? What do we make of his mysterious death at the hands of an unknown killer? The answer seems to be linked, at least partially, with the idea of the uncanny. His literal descent to the “center of the earth” is prefaced by a figurative descent into madness. As we can discern from Randolph Carter’s statement, Warren seems to have crossed the threshold separating reality from repressed infantile belief—his theory that “certain corpses never decay, but rest firm and fat in their tombs for a thousand years” is irrefutable proof of his madness. Even before his literal descent, Warren seems to have come face-to-face with the possibility of the uncanny. Once under the surface, Warren is confronted with the exact uncanny which he surmised he might find—something so “terrible” and “monstrous” that it renders itself “utterly beyond thought.” Poor Carter faces a similar confrontation with the uncanny, stemming from his realization that “Warren is DEAD”! His own horror comes from the uncanniness of Warren losing his life to the unknown. By the end of “The Statement of Randolph Carter,” Lovecraft has the uncanny fold back on itself and consume everything.

Aaron Guggenmoos

NEW GBLS COURSES!

Hi Everyone,

I’ll be teaching two new courses next year. Both are crosslisted with Liberal Arts (formerly GBLS, now called LART) and Visual Arts.  I hope some of you will be able to take these course.  They will be interesting!

VISA / LART 3V96
Imitation in Art and Culture
(also offered as STAC 3V96)
Imitation in Western visual art and culture from Plato to postmodernism with stops in the Renaissance and the modern period.
Seminar, 3 hours per week: FALL TERM
We will consider important works of art, texts and ideas.  The course will be in seminar format, so discussion will be a significant part of the class.

LART / GBLS 3V97
Appropriation in Art and Culture
(also offered as STAC 3V97)
Authorship and appropriation in visual and literary culture. Topics include the historical development of the notions of the artist; copyright and plagiarism; quotation, parody and intertextuality; the role of found objects, collage and montage; and the significance of digital technologies. Examination of both historical and contemporary examples from a wide.
range of media.
Seminar, 3 hours per week: WINTER TERM
Plenty of interesting guest lectures, and lots of discussion of works of art, images, texts…I’ll talk about my own research on photography and appropriation too.

– Linda

Equal Opportunity and Lateral Distribution of Power – Do we have Democracy Yet?

I find the power dynamic explained by Bentham’s Panopticon as well as Foucault’s opening on the plague in the 17^th century very interesting. The explanation Foucault’s gives concerning the power dynamic and control within a town consumed by the plague is much the same as kingdoms controlled by a head patriarch or matriarch. The actions of all the inhabitants of the infected town are controlled by a central authority and control over the inhabitants is distributed to lesser stations of office, just like a king distributes power within his own kingdom. The main difference here is that the king was put in power due to his royal blood or degree from god. In a plague infested town, the magistrate or mayor in power presides because he is still alive, he can organize people, and he is capable of conducting what needs to be done effectively and efficiently. The magistrate or mayor as well as all other intendants, officers, and guards are replaced, if necessary, by whoever is fit to fill the roll. There is no ceremony necessary, no decrees from god; only the change of power to other hands within the community. This change of power from a hierarchy with one person on top to a dynamic where there is lateral movement of power signifies a definite change in social and political power. In the Panopticon, the central figure in the tower watching everyone can be any figure. The person in power is irrelevant, and this person watching over the individuals within the cells of the Panopticon can and is easily watched by others within the central tower. Anyone who is capable of being a watcher can fill the position of power of watching. Now, theoretically, a cardboard cut-out could be in the centre of the tower since ideally each person in each cell only needs to know that they’re being watched. But practically, it is useful to have someone who is capable of carrying out action if necessary. So, anyone who is capable of filling the role within the tower should be able to hold such a position. Isn’t this the baseline of democracy?
The first European settlers within North American started with small agricultural communities where any political decisions were agreed upon by each of the town members before any action was taken. When towns grew bigger and mayors were needed to organize everyone and liaisons were needed to coordinate actions between towns; these positions of power were decided upon by the community. Anyone who was qualified could fill said positions. This is a bit different than the situation of the Panopticon since communication; organization and decision making do require specific skills. However, the idea is the same. If someone is capable of filling the role of a political position, they should not be held back. This is theory on which Canada’s political system to this day operates on, but are we actually democratic? Is the person in charge someone who is fully capable of organizing, communicating and carrying out decisions based on what the rest of the community members agree upon as a whole?
The theory for both the Panopticon and a democratic system are sound, but both can be easily manipulated. Rules or clauses can be put in place to restrict access to the position of decision making or watching affording whatever types of benefits the watcher or decision maker holds for themselves.

There is also something that jumped out right away from the post “Divide and Conquer – the mentality of twentieth century prisons”: “We forget that we can be seen at any time, and are only aware of it when our individuality is threatened.” I think that the writer of “Divide and Conquer” may be confusing individuality with privacy.
In the beginning of the post, he clearly outlines the shift in the twentieth century of the community identity to the individual identity. Moving into the modern period, individuals are much less inclined to identify themselves as a reflection of their community; instead, an individual has their own ideas of self instead of as a mirror of society. And even though I agree with the writer of “Divide and Conquer” that Foucault’s emphasis on conscience as a social construct and control of that conscience through an authority is disturbing; an individual’s conscience is not the same as their individuality. The individual’s conscience may control them to some extent to do what society dictates as right and wrong, and an authority watching the individual infringes on how they act. However, their individuality itself is not threatened – how they view themselves and how they feel does not change. Unless of course we dive into Orwell’s 1984 where surveillance and drugs do change a person’s individuality, but we’re not quite at that stage yet in society. Although, the section on individuality could also just be semantics.

Sarah Lepp

Animal Rights – Emotion Vs. Logic

The Lives of Animals by J.M. Coetzee presents, what I think of as, the better arguments for animal rights. I do not believe that there is any actual logical argument against either the eating of meat or cruelty of animals in general. Every argument for animal rights is essentially an appeal to emotion, which is foundationally fallacious. However, this does not mean that I do not believe that ethical arguments can be made on this subject. These arguments simply need to be identified and taken in as what they truly are, emotional appeals. There is nothing wrong with emotional appeals, most of the time this is what our personal ethics are comprised of anyway. Logic does not always sink into the real world, and the character Elizabeth, from Coetzee’s book realizes this. She makes her arguments as emotional appeals, but recognizes them for what they are. She makes claims about the repugnance of eating animal flesh, and attempts sway people by playing on emotions, such as sympathy. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way she argues. Although her arguments are not logical they still have a point. Is eating animal flesh immoral due to it’s repugnancy? Although this type of argument, being based on affections rather than rationality, is not effective as an argument that can stop proponents of it’s antithesis from eating meat, it is effective as a means of swaying the undecided. After all, if someone cannot handle the thought of meat being called ‘flesh’ or cannot even remotely think of the hamburger on their plate as a once living creature, then they probably find it immoral to eat meat on some level. Essentially, Elizabeth’s argument is good at making people realize what they actually believe, but it cannot convince someone who holds the contrary opinion.

Another interesting aspect of Coetzee’s book is Elizabeth’s denouncing of human rationality as a privileged insight into the world. It’s a particularly modern notion to claim that rationality, and therefore the human perspective, are not the absolute best way of looking at the world. While it is true that logic and rationality are flawed, I find it hard to understand that people would denounce these modes of thought. Rationality is how the human mind is structured, and while it may not be perfect, it is the only way we can think, and the only way we can formulate arguments. Because logic and rationality are the only way we can argue it is the only way we can get an actual point across. This is the reason that Elizabeth will be unable to convince most people to stop eating meat; her arguments are not rational. That does not mean her opinion is wrong, it simply means that her opinion cannot ever be considered fact. Also, rationality leads to the discovery of theories that sync into the real world. We, as human beings, are capable of formulating natural laws. No other animal can do this. While I realize that this argument should not be the basis for claims about whether or not animals should be eaten, it still makes a point about humanities insight into the world. Because our theories about the world, derived rationally, can be used to produce results, we can assume that we have some insight into the workings of nature. Also, because humans are the only animal that are capable of doing this, it can be argued that we have a privileged insight into the world. Are insight might not necessarily be ‘better’ than an animals but it is more versatile and productive. Essentially, I think that it does not make sense to argue that our view of things, is not as insightful as an animals. I agree that rationality is not a good justification for the argument that humans are superior to animals, however I think that a rational human mind is more insightful than an animal’s mind. Because of this I think that we might be able to find a logical solution to the debate of animal rights.

Chris Roy

Anti-Intellectualism in Steppenwolf

Herman Hesse’s Steppenwolf has many interesting ethical insights. One of the most interesting is the notion that intellectualism can actually be a harmful endeavour. There is a specific quote from the book, that the Steppenwolf himself seems to be interested in, that goes “Most men will not swim before they are able to… They are born for the solid earth, not for the water. And naturally they won’t think. They are made for life, not for thought. Yes, and he who thinks, what’s more he who makes thought his business, he may go far in it, but he has bartered the solid earth for the water all the same, and one day he will drown.” I think that this quote is very insightful, and, what’s more, it is only truly insightful advice for those who think. I once thought that taking an analytical approach to everything is a good way to go about living, but over the years I have changed my opinion about thought. That’s not to say, however, that I do not believe that it is important for one to think. However, after a while I have realized that thinking about life and living life are two completely different things. What’s more, the more thinking one does the less living one does. That’s not to say that thinking, that philosophy, is not important, but rather, that one should take thought in moderation. This is also not a statement claiming that thought is not a part of life, but that it is only a part of life. Life, being a whole or totality, is greater than it’s parts. It is more than just a particular aspect, such as thought, and it is more than an aggregate of aspects. This does not mean that I am about to go off on a tirade about how experience is the best way to live, however. Simply living by ‘experiencing the moment’ often leads to painful mistakes that proper foresight could have otherwise avoided. There must be moderation between thought and experience as well as other aspects of life in order to live properly.

I also believe that the previous quote is a statement about specific types of philosophies (or at least that’s my take on it). Specific forms of philosophy deal with questions that always remain unresolved and that cannot possibly help anyone. For example, the question of whether or not God’s existence can be proven is a pointless endeavor. No one will ever be able to find a proof for or against God’s existence, therefore the question is pointless. A much more interesting and pertinent question would be: Why should we believe in God? By asking this question instead, one leaves the realm of metaphysics and approaches ethics. Essentially, certain forms of thinking have nothing to do with life, and are completely irrelevant arguments that are typically exercises in semantics rather than insightfulness. I don not see the point in making claims about things that cannot ever be a part of life. I always thought that it was the task of philosophical thought to augment life and not become it.

It is this notion of anti-intellectualism that I find particularly modern about Hesse’s book. Modernity saw the rise of existentialism and the relegation of metaphysics to obscurity. This arose in part due to Nietzsche’s (who is arguably and existentialist) criticism of metaphysics and it’s uselessness. So, either I have made a point of denouncing metaphysics or I am a completely run-of-the-mill modern subject.
Chris Roy

Is ‘Hell’ Really Other People?

Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit deals with one of the most interesting philosophical issues: the other. The play takes place in hell where the main characters are locked in a room together. As each of the characters back-stories are revealed their relationships with one another become increasingly more strained, eventually culminating in the attempted stabbing of Inez by Estelle. All the events in the play serve to communicate two general concepts. The first being ‘Hell is other people’. And the second is that others are essentially necessary in regards to the formation of a solid identity. Both of these are modern themes that deal with anxiety, and individual identity.

The play characterizes particular identity types within each of the main characters. The first is Garcin who plays the part of the coward, the second is Estelle who is beautiful but shallow, and the last is Inez who embodies cruelty. Each of these personalities requires other people in order to become realized. Bravery and cowardice are measured by others, as is beauty. Also in order for one to be cruel one requires people to be cruel towards. Sartre is trying to get the point across that every identity requires another person, and I agree. Essentially a person is only a person because of other people. We cannot have a clear self-identity in and of ourselves due to the fact that we base our identities on relations with others (ethics) and the way others see us (image).

‘Hell’ being other people is a difficult concept to accept. All of the best memories that I have are cantered around other people. Sure there are a lot of terrible people out there but there are also some pretty decent ones. But, when it comes down to it, all relationships still entail some kind of struggle, or aggravation or compromise. This is just the way people are. No one can be perfectly happy with everyone all the time. That and the moments where one feels the most miserable happen because of other people, or at least because of the existence of other people. So others seem to be the root cause of misery. I don’t think I could, however, make the statement that ‘hell is other people’. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I don’t really think that the anguish that other people entail, out weigh the positive experiences they can convey. I have always thought that sometimes being unhappy is important; it can ground you and make you stronger. Also being unhappiness is necessary for happiness to exist, If we could be happy all the time then it wouldn’t be worth as much. While I do agree that the existence other people necessarily causes anxiety and misery I could never agree that the existence of others is a necessary ‘hell’ for the individual.

Lastly, even if a person did feel that other people were ‘hell’, there is absolutely nothing that they could do about it. I really don’t think a person could live forever without other people. That and even if someone did separate themselves from the rest of society because they hated others, then they would be miserable regardless. This is because, misanthropy, like other forms of intense and irrational hatred or disdain, always leave a person miserable regardless of whether or not the object of this hatred or disdain is around. It is the existence of other people that misanthropes cannot stand, and that’s not something that they could change. So believing that ‘hell is other people’ serves only to make one miserable.

Chris Roy

Remembrance of Things Past

Remembrance of things past – Proust

Remembrance of things past has a flow to it. The flow comes from seemingly separate events that melt into one, and the melting of words to create a picture of reality. This flow is what attracted me to the novel. There is a unity to the novel, where it feels like one conscious event.

Proust through the use of words is able to capture reality as it is experienced by a conscious human being. Seemingly quick events in what we experience in reality are broken down in words to capture the entire conscious experience of a single thing. Proust is able to ‘recreate’ consciousness, or what a conscious experience is like. So much is contained in conscious experience that it takes a grand amount of words to describe what it is like.

In a real conscious experience so much is there, the taste of deserts, the sight of a church of exquisite architecture. Describing these experiences is what Proust does with excellence.

I think this aspect of the novel makes it particularly modern. Proust is a kind of phenomenologist, describing how things appear to consciousness, as well as how memory works for a conscious being.

The unity of the novel comes from the consciousness like experience of it. Our lives have a flow to them; Proust is able to mimic this flow.

Consciousness is a particular modern area of study, Proust uses the novel as an opportunity to write about consciousness and express what it is like. Using literature to express philosophy is also quite modern; the Existentialists capitalize on the way one can express philosophy with the use of literature.

Michael Pavan

The Lives of Animals

The lives of Animals – Coetzee

Animal ethics has been getting a lot of limelight recently. Philosophers have recently been tackling the issue of whether animals should be objects of our moral concern. The issue rightfully deserves the attention it is getting; if animals should be objects of our moral concern then our treatment of them must change. Philosophers also get bored of dealing with the same questions that have been getting asked for the past 2,500 years (roughly), so it is nice to spice things up.

Modern philosophical study has been concentrating on the study of consciousness. Consciousness is important to animal ethics because a creature needs a certain degree of consciousness in order to feel pain.

Pain is paramount when it comes to morality. If a being cannot feel pain then ethics serves no purpose. Ethics is founded on the fact that sentient beings prefer a happy state of affairs than a poor one. Fact: we want to be happy, and don’t want to suffer. This applies to everyone, sadomasochists derive pleasure from their habits, so do drug addicts.

If animals are sentient then they too prefer happiness over suffering. But, not all animals are sentient. Fact: Jellyfish do not feel pain, neither does fish. Fish lack the neocortex in the brain to feel pain. Fish react to external influences, but they feel no pain to ordinary events that would cause pain.

In his book Kinds of Minds Daniel Dennett (a philosopher; book was published in 1997) sets out to understand consciousness, not merely human consciousness, but other animal consciousness as well. Dennett draws the conclusion that in order for a being to be sentient it must be conscious. A being must have an ‘I’, or there must be an enduring self or subject in order to experience pain. Otherwise, there is no ‘I’ or enduring subject that experiences the pain. Without an enduring self what looks like pain is merely the organism’s nervous system reacting to outside, external, influences. Awkward positions while we sleep create pain and our nervous system acts accordingly by repositioning the limbs to a more comfortable position. However, ‘we’ do not experience this pain. We are asleep and in a lesser state of conscious awareness. The moral significance here is that if an animal has no enduring self, or is less consciously aware then we are, then there is no subject undergoing pain. In other words, if an animal is not conscious, then it is not sentient.

Dennett notes that sentience has not been properly defined and is an open concept. Sentience is the ability to perceive or feel things. But is there a distinction between sentience and sensitivity? Plants are sensitive, so are jelly fish. They react to the environment, but they are not conscious enough to be sentient. Moreover, Dennett notes that only creatures with minds care what happens to them. This obviously has moral significance. If a creature cares that you do not harm it, not in a Darwinian sense, but in a moral sense, then a moral bond can be created between you and the other creature. If it has no mind and does not care, then anything that happens to that organism is tolerable, it can be treated as an inanimate object.

Michael Pavan

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

Thus Spoke Zarathustra – Nietzsche

I have recently been studying the hero in literature. The heroic ideal or the concept of ‘hero’ has changed throughout the history of civilization. The hero is a reflection of the time period; the hero also tells us something about how people think. Hercules was a hero by Greek and Roman standards. Arthur was the hero par excellence of the middle ages. Today’s mythical heroes flood our culture, they are comic book heroes, Spider-man, Batman, Superman, and they bombard us at every corner. They are the prize in the happy meals. They rake in millions at the movie theatres. The hero’s symbols are worn on t-shirts, and underwear.

I think Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a manual on heroism. It is not teaching us to be a poor mans Hercules or Arthur, rather it is teaching us to be heroes in our own lives, and Nietzsche wants us to become superior humans. This does not mean becoming a hero by society’s standards of what a hero is. Society’s standard of heroism is to sacrifice yourself for the good of others. And this is precisely what the super-heroes do. You should not sacrifice yourself for society’s standard; you should hold your own life as the standard. You are not a hero in the eyes of others; you are a hero in your own eyes.

Nietzsche outlines the journey of the over-human as three metaphorical physical transformations. The first stage of ascension to becoming an over-human is the stage of the camel. The camel is a creature of burden. The use value in camels is their ability to travel long distances while carrying weight attached to its body. The camel in its relation to the world and to humankind is a passive animal. The camel does not embody strength, power, or force as noble qualities. It has the potential to use those qualities for its own benefit, but as a camel it only uses them in service to others. The camel has the ability to gather in large groups, as a group, camels can be fierce. As a group, camels have the power to do damage, or to protect themselves from threats. People as camels would be the democratic group that has the power for change, and the power to protect itself. However, the camel is passive by nature; it is not an active animal for its own individuality. For Nietzsche, people as camels have strength in numbers, but they would never use it; it is not in their nature to use it. For Nietzsche, the social group would not work as a device for getting things done. Nietzsche believed that people in large groups became like sheep, effectively called the mob, or the herd. The sheep need someone of power to control them for their own safety and survival, as well as for someone to make things right for them. It is arguable that the heroic ideal is born out of the sheepishness of the group; the group creates the heroic ideal as a need to fulfill something they lack. Nietzsche is not advocating we work in groups to get things done, nor is he advocating we sit idly for a hero to make things better for us. Instead Nietzsche is advocating we become our own heroes. We ought to become the over-human; each individual person ought to become a hero. This is no easy task, nor is it meant to be. The path to becoming the over-human is a journey of hardship, but nothing in this world that is worth having comes easy. Nietzsche can be interpreted as an elitist. For Nietzsche, the people who are over-humans had to put in massive work to become heroes. For Nietzsche, the over-human is superior to the rest of society. Whether the hero or over-human receives psychological delight out of his or her superiority is determined by the individual’s character. Based on Nietzsche’s philosophy he might approve of the hero having a snobbish attitude. The over-human’s superiority breeds self-importance. The over-human looks down on the mass of people who have not become heroes themselves, “You look upward when you desire uplifting. And I look downward because I am uplifted.” (Nietzsche 36). The over-human looks down on the camels with contempt. I do not agree with such an attitude. Instead of relishing in your superiority it would be better to love the rest of humanity rather than condemn them. I understand that Nietzsche does see the over-human as a superior type of being, though Nietzsche writes that Zarathustra loves humanity and this is why he comes to them to teach to them the over-human.

“Zarathustra is transformed, Zarathustra has become a child, Zarathustra is an awakened one: what do you want now among sleepers? ‘You lived in your solitude as if in the sea, and the sea bore you up. Alas, you want to climb onto land? Alas, you want to drag your body yourself again?’ Zarathustra answered: ‘I love human beings.’” (Nietzsche 10).

Nietzsche does not want for the rest of society to remain sleepers, to keep being the passive idle people they are that wait for a hero. Zarathustra will come to them as a hero, but as a hero who will teach them to become a hero like himself, the old adage comes to mind ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime’. The hero that does good deeds for people is like giving a man a fish to feed him that day. Tomorrow you will have to repeat the same deed. Zarathustra is the hero that will teach men to fish for themselves. Yet, the people as camels don’t want any more burden. Camels think they are burdened enough, and now Zarathustra will burden them even more by giving them the task of becoming over-humans, “ ‘Give them nothing,’ said the holy man. ‘Rather take something from them and carry it for them: that will do them the greatest good.” (Nietzsche 10). It is necessary for the camel to transform into a lion if they are to become heroes.

As a lion a person has the power to do what it wills. The lion is not the burdensome animal that the camel is. The lion represents a breaking off from the group of camels. Lions are ferocious animals and pose a threat to camels. The lion represents freedom, the freedom to do what one wants, and the power to back it up. The lion stands as a necessary stage in the over-humans transformation because with the power that the lion embodies the over-human can have power for itself to act as his own hero. Lions do not need to look to others to help them, or to fix things for them. For Nietzsche, the lion is a self-reliant creature. The lion also poses as a destructive force to wipe out everything the camel had stood for. For Nietzsche, destruction of our old selves is necessary to build ourselves back up, or as the famous saying goes ‘It is only after we have lost everything, that we are free to do anything’. It is the power of the lion that will allow us to get to a blank slate stage where we can create ourselves anew, however, the lion cannot create, the child is necessary for creation. The final stage in the transformation of the over-human is the child. The child represents innocence, and potentiality. The child has the potential to be whatever it wants to be. The child has the force of creation. The child can create for itself; it is not dependent on anything else for its creativity. The child as seen by Nietzsche is a self-reliant, independent, autonomous being. For Nietzsche, the child is the hero; the child will never look to others to fix things.

Michael Pavan

No Exit

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

No Exit – Sartre.

What would the world be like if no other people existed? The world without other people.

By having other people in the world, that can lead to things like judgment, self hatred, and comparing yourself to other people. If no other people existed, in some ways you could say that could be a good thin, because ultimately you would never have to feel bad about yourself. You would never have to feel low self-esteem in comparison to other people. You would never have to make a negative comparison. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? You would never have to feel bad ever again.

On the other hand though, your life would loose a tremendous amount of meaning. You would loose a lot of the contexts in which you make meaning out of your life. You would loose social relationships, you would loose so much. It is a sort of pros and cons thing. But if no one else existed that would be absolutely absurd.

One theme of No Exit is identity. Identity is your concept of who you are. According to Sartre your concept of who you are is largely constructed based on social feedback, and the opinions of others.

Garcin is at the mercy of Inez’s judgment of who he is. Moreover, Inez says she will be a ‘mirror’ for Estelle.

At one point in the play the door of their room opens, and Garcin as the opportunity to leave. Garcin has the chance to remove himself from the judgment of others, and become independent. If he left he would no longer be defined by what Estelle or Inez think of him. Garcin does not take the opportunity and he stays. The heat wafting from outside the door scares Garcin. Who is he in the absence of the definition other people give him? Garcin is too afraid to find out. He decides to stay and convince Inez that he is not a coward. If Inez would say he was not a coward then he could accept that he is not. Garcin was free to leave if he wanted, but the fright of who he really is was more terrifying then staying in the room. Without Inez he would have to fully accept himself, which he can’t. Moreover, who are you without your relation to others?

If others create a context for meaning are we trapped? Are we at the mercy of what others think of us? And if others do not exist are we lost in an abyss without meaning?

Michael Pavan