Response
to George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”
http://www.bygosh.com/Features/072002/shootingelephant.htm
This was quite a brilliant piece in my estimation. I particularly liked how inept at killing the beast he was. It really stressed how ridiculous it all was. I also really liked the idea that he brought up that basically when you oppress someone you not only take away their freedom but your own. That thought really got me thinking and was pretty interesting. I don't think I would have shot the elephant though, but one never can tell because I'm not in the situation and I'm sure if I had written the essay and it were him replying, he'd think the same of himself. But I bet as a teacher you must have threatened to kick a student out of class or something sometime and seen the miserably eager little faces waiting for you to hand out your punishment, and felt obligated to carry out a punishment that you were not entirely convinced you should. We've all been in some kind of situation like that. It's interesting because only in a position of power are we able to experience that feeling, and laughably really it is when you are completely usurped by the underlings that you feel that. But there certainly is a need in this life to be decisive, and fumbling around and not doing anything often comes at a cost. (Hamlet...) Once again I think it is important that someone acts and strikes out to do what they feel they should, otherwise there would be nothing. No reason to live. I was going to say that if everyone was like Hamlet we'd all be nihilists, but in reality in the end he did do something, so that's not true. But then again, if we were all Fortinbras it would be just like the animal kingdom. So instead we're all mostly somewhere in between like Hamlet, lost in indecisiveness most of the time but sometimes also active out of necessity. (Dam I hate that word, necessity, I'm always looking for a good synonym out of fear of spelling it incorrectly but there are no real adequate synonyms!) Another thing that I think is important to understand from this is that on one level really it's not so much that the Imperialists were bad and the Indians good and just being oppressed, but that it didn't matter what nationality or skin colour, they were all human and flawed in one way or another. It was really not so much a problem with a particular group as a problem with humans in general that Orwell has. I think anyone who tried to condemn Imperialists and elevate natives clearly hasn't inspected the issue closely enough. I always hear people saying that they're ashamed to be white when they hear of atrocities that white people have committed in the past and it makes me sort of sick; I'd like someone to name a skin colour that's never been wicked and spilled blood. I remember because of the media and the way our culture is now with the reverse racism that is being spewed forth each day, there was a time when I almost wanted to be black. I think there's actually a lot of that going on these days, people being made to feel ashamed of their culture and today especially Europeans.
A
Second Response from Tristan on being caught between Science and Art
Why
Science Alone Cannot Satisfy the Soul
SEHDEV
KUMAR
Special to the Globe and Mail
This
was one I certainly couldn’t resist because I see this as being a
problem. Unlike my last response where I agreed with nearly
everything I have quite a few disagreements here.
I
would want to know more about why Blake was against Isaac Newton’s
thoughts because his statements don’t seem to really say much
about
I
also don’t think that the obvious distaste for religion our
society seems to be developing is good either, but I do believe
there are some definite truths is science that are being belittled a
bit here.
I
think that it is also true that there is
a large number of people out there that believe in creationism
simply because once more they refuse to admit that they have
boundaries and limits. The idea of creationism is fantastic and
infinite, but I think many are drawn to it out of weakness to
attempt to live well in the face of futility because they do not
think they are capable. In a world with boundaries we must attempt
to decide what is right and wrong ourselves and sense it in us
universally, whereas little thought is needed when you believe that
you can be/do anything. I also agree that science alone will not
take you to the uttermost truths, but nor will just belief. The
union of logic and feeling is really the only way to get anywhere I
believe, to ignore one or the other is to ignore our greatest of
tools. I do not see
where evolution explains our purpose for existence unless you think
that to continue and to procreate is our purpose, or that simply we
have none. My question would be then why do so many people who
supposedly believe in nothing still do the right thing? Not just out
of fear of society’s reaction, but because they feel right and
wrong in them and cannot wholly ignore them. If Freud didn’t
believe this than isn’t it a bit contradictory to believe in the
idea of a sociopath unless you believe in right and wrong and
people’s ability to sense them? Also the thought that any attempts
to understand the human condition before the theory of evolution are
worthless and best ignored strikes an eerie chord that echoes from a
reverse perspective from ages earlier as is mentioned. Ignorance is
never a good choice in my opinion, it can be necessary at times, but
I will not go into detail. Fyodor Dostoevsky seems to have been a
truly brilliant man that really did sense something and understood
something, now ultimately it was nothing I suppose but this is where
relativity does have its day. Compared to most of his peers he knew
much. Relativity itself is a scientific sort of idea, and it has its
place most certainly and was a large step in understanding, but it
is when people try to take it too far and lose sight of what it
really is that it becomes a problem. And when things are sort of
jammed into places they don’t fit just because you want to make
something consistent, one theory that exists cannot explain all,
life isn’t quite that simple.
Evolution
has not proven the lack of designer at all. You still must take into
account where did the first energy/matter come from in the universe?
What set up the stage so that the magnificent accident that is our
existence could take place? The idea that evolution alone can
explain every question we have and ends the idea of a designer is
mind-numbingly stupid.
There
is of course also the un-nerving idea to wrestle with that biology
may be the sick designer behind all of this. And that we are all
just prisoners within our own minds. Designed not to know things
because in seeking the answers we perform tasks required, all our
thoughts, no matter how outside the box they may seem, could
theoretically just be from chemical sort of origins and are simply a
complex method of keeping us in the system. This is a thought I had
that I have yet to find a really solid argument against. Best so far
is what would the practical use of the feeling you get when a
magnificent classical piece is played on a pipe-organ be? It seems
to appeal to something else within us that we know little of. But
even things like these can be explained and I invite a good
criticism of this possibility.
I suppose if given enough thought I have come to a few things
that would fly somewhat in the face of this belief. Why then would
you wish to die for someone you love, why then would you want to die
in their arms? Does that make sense to procreation etc? In some
ways, but at least I have stranger less practical thoughts, not of
so much risking my life for another, but just ending mine in the
splendour of another. And that’s not to be taken as suicidal clap
trap, I’m talking about some of the most absurd feelings and
thoughts we get - Romeo and Juliet - if
it is all for efficiency what was the efficiency in killing one’s
self after the other is already dead?
The
absurd thing is that I believe something in a sort of round about
but still blind way. I am somewhere between an essentialist and an
existentialist if possible. I believe that for the most part the
existential outlook on life is correct, but then also that because
of this we must create and derive meaning ourselves not through
thought always but through sensing the universal truths that do
exist. There may not really be a reason for me to live a good life,
and I do not fear punishment for whatever way I choose to live, yet
I live well just the same. Like Sisyphus in some ways because I see
no reward or end to my struggle and realize that I am knowingly
taking the hardest way through life at nearly every turn, and yet
there is no reason for it. But there is a reason, my reason; it
feels like the right thing to do. Some may argue that it is
conditioning but I do not think so, conditioning only works when you
are more or less unawares of your conditioning. I believe that we do
have some reason we recognize for ourselves in us. So really I guess
in an odd sort of way I am purely essentialist. It can be a
confusing battleground, but I think that it is necessary to take
part in if you are to be considered living at all. I guess this is a
bit why I do not believe Meursault was a
messiah-like figure; it is true that he lived for truth and
preserved one virtue. But what of the other virtues he ignored? Is
it better to preserve wholly one virtue, or try desperately despite
failing somewhat to preserve several? I believe that the second is
truer for me. And this is where pity enters it, in one way we all
are equal, we are in some way trying to live well. And ultimately we
will all fail repeatedly, but we will also succeed and that is what
life is about. It isn’t the successful completion that is
important; it is the attempt and the ideas. I got a little off topic
sort of but sometimes unfortunately I tend to think aloud or on
paper and it is much like flood-gate. Sadly maybe a fourth of what
is thought is actually said, and each day I carve away layer after
layer of thought into all this, and I know I will never reach the
core. But damn it, I’m going to keep carving!
Perhaps
that is the true miracle of evolution…
- Tristan Gray