Freedom. I would define it as the ability to be in any state at any given time. This freedom however is infringed upon by out side forces. We can be restricted by several varieties of influences in the physical, mental, emotional/psychological, and social arenas. For example, gravity and other basic laws of physics restrict us in a physical manner, while ignorance of an available option can mentally inhibit a person’s freedom.
I feel that this concept is applicable when discussing responsibility and the free will (or perhaps the lack there of) of a person. The first two, mental and physical, are the more commonly excused of these such as in cases where one forgets something or a person is simply no physically able to accomplish a given tack. However, the others, emotional/psychological and social, seem to be less considered when it comes time to assert that one is worthy of blame. These influences can either come from an imprint left from some past experience or from pressures present during the time of an action of some sort. The shooting scene in The Stranger can serve as a good example of a situation in which many do not consider such things. I feel safe in saying that there would be many out there that felt that Meursault was a “senseless murder[er]” and well deserved his death sentence.
While it may be easily to pass Meursault off as just a murderer with a poor reason for it, have they not considered that perhaps this event was out his control to some extent? The novel states that it was caused due to Meursault’s discomfort from the intense heat and sun exposure. Sure, it may sound like a ludicrous excuse, but it seems reasonable enough to me. I would compare the reflex to that of some one who might snap back a sharp comment due to frustration and irritation. His emotional state from the conditions could be seen as having limited his freedom in the scenario. In addition to the psychological aspect, his state as a sociopath could have inhibited his ability to reason through the potential repercussions of his actions because of his lack of concern for them. This would be considered a mental or social restriction that has been placed on him.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Of Politics and Misunderstandings
Monthly Connection February
The difficulty in reading literature is differentiating between what is there and what is not. Any ambiguity left by the author will lead to misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the novel. This has become especially prominent during discussion of The Awakening. The largely glossed over topic of the ending was never actually discussed and it seemed to be forgotten that it never said she committed suicide. It could be seen as inferred that she did and I can see why it would fit into her situation, but it never explicitly said that she had done so. Some said that she should have just left the society and if she really disliked it so much. As I see it that is exactly what she had done. The island resort is a retreat from society and when she was there at the beginning of the novel, the symbolism coincided with her relationship with Robert. Once she returned to her home, she was without Robert and was once again pressured by society in the form of her husband. Her return to the resort and her swimming expressed her newfound freedom from society, and she very well could have stayed there alive. It is also important to note that this time she is back without Robert, since she now sees him as just another influence of society where as she welcomed his presence before as more a free spirit who could help to free her from her mundane life. Even if we were to say she had died out there where we last see her in the water, it is anyone’s guess as to whether her own death was intentional or if she had just overestimated her swimming abilities and perhaps got distracted with her thoughts while swimming.
Many stories are left “unknown” and everyone is left to find what they believe to be their own idea of a conclusion. A very similar type of situation can arise from media news coverage. If a story is brought up, you cannot trust everything you hear. Sure, you could accept it all as true, but how would you really know? How many have even been in some of the parts of the world where these stories happen? It is a 1984 type scenario in that anything we hear could be true or false. IT does tend to get very annoying how the media form of television (among others) has so much control over people and how other people view it. The recent election serves a great example. Most knowledge that people had on the topic was obtained through newscasts primarily on television (or their online counterparts). Now, people are very eager to jump at their media for their bias towards either Democrats or Republicans, saying that it could cost them public image or even the election. What I find interesting is that people will fight for that difference in press coverage, but the complete and utter lack of coverage of independent parties is of no concern to them. This lack of exposure to the truth of their existence and viability leads viewers to reach their own conclusion of these candidates not being serious contenders.
During the election I was a daily watcher of CNN. While I am sure people would be quick to point out how they favor Democrats and would only say bad things about McCain (not that these are necessarily true), I would far more concerned how little they covered any parties. Throughout all of my watching of their programs, I saw an independent discussed once, for less than five minutes, and they were just discussing Obama/McCain with an independent candidate.
You can tell that it is becoming a two party system when the following types of conversations are commonplace:
“Obama is vague!”
“You know… McCain, in that last debate didn’t exactly say what those ‘essential programs’ exempt from his spending freeze were. He could cut nothing and still be telling the truth. Its also the third variation he has given of his spending freeze.”
“But Obama..!?!”
The difficulty in reading literature is differentiating between what is there and what is not. Any ambiguity left by the author will lead to misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the novel. This has become especially prominent during discussion of The Awakening. The largely glossed over topic of the ending was never actually discussed and it seemed to be forgotten that it never said she committed suicide. It could be seen as inferred that she did and I can see why it would fit into her situation, but it never explicitly said that she had done so. Some said that she should have just left the society and if she really disliked it so much. As I see it that is exactly what she had done. The island resort is a retreat from society and when she was there at the beginning of the novel, the symbolism coincided with her relationship with Robert. Once she returned to her home, she was without Robert and was once again pressured by society in the form of her husband. Her return to the resort and her swimming expressed her newfound freedom from society, and she very well could have stayed there alive. It is also important to note that this time she is back without Robert, since she now sees him as just another influence of society where as she welcomed his presence before as more a free spirit who could help to free her from her mundane life. Even if we were to say she had died out there where we last see her in the water, it is anyone’s guess as to whether her own death was intentional or if she had just overestimated her swimming abilities and perhaps got distracted with her thoughts while swimming.
Many stories are left “unknown” and everyone is left to find what they believe to be their own idea of a conclusion. A very similar type of situation can arise from media news coverage. If a story is brought up, you cannot trust everything you hear. Sure, you could accept it all as true, but how would you really know? How many have even been in some of the parts of the world where these stories happen? It is a 1984 type scenario in that anything we hear could be true or false. IT does tend to get very annoying how the media form of television (among others) has so much control over people and how other people view it. The recent election serves a great example. Most knowledge that people had on the topic was obtained through newscasts primarily on television (or their online counterparts). Now, people are very eager to jump at their media for their bias towards either Democrats or Republicans, saying that it could cost them public image or even the election. What I find interesting is that people will fight for that difference in press coverage, but the complete and utter lack of coverage of independent parties is of no concern to them. This lack of exposure to the truth of their existence and viability leads viewers to reach their own conclusion of these candidates not being serious contenders.
During the election I was a daily watcher of CNN. While I am sure people would be quick to point out how they favor Democrats and would only say bad things about McCain (not that these are necessarily true), I would far more concerned how little they covered any parties. Throughout all of my watching of their programs, I saw an independent discussed once, for less than five minutes, and they were just discussing Obama/McCain with an independent candidate.
You can tell that it is becoming a two party system when the following types of conversations are commonplace:
“Obama is vague!”
“You know… McCain, in that last debate didn’t exactly say what those ‘essential programs’ exempt from his spending freeze were. He could cut nothing and still be telling the truth. Its also the third variation he has given of his spending freeze.”
“But Obama..!?!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
