Some Simple Thoughts.: Blog Portfolio

Guilt: A Temporary Sensation of the Soul

What is guilt? Guilt could be described as an emotional response triggered by an offense or an omission committed by oneself. Or, in this case, a feeling brought on simply by the consciousness of another’s suffering without taking action to prevent it. There are several different situations in which one may feel the sensation of guilt, but how long does it last for?

It would be difficult to argue that guilt can constantly be felt when 99% of our society is aware of the suffering of others on many different levels and do nothing about it. Whether it is natural disasters, poverty, food shortages, or any other reason, people in our world are constantly in misery, but since we are not constantly subjected to the image or thought of this misery, our guilt is very short-lived. Children may be slaving over our clothing in a third world country for little to no money, but do we refuse to buy the clothes as a result of an infinite sense of guilt? The answer, sadly, is no. Now, I’m not condemning every single person in this world of being heartless. I believe this is just purely human nature and I’m not saying I’m any better. Furthermore, I’m not saying there is no one in this world that has or had a sustained sense of guilt about a certain situation that resulted in action taking place. There are several organizations that do their best to relieve suffering. But when we consider the idea of guilt being constant, we can just look at our own society and find the very apparent answer. Is it easier to dwell on situations that induce guilt? Or, just push them out of our minds with thoughts and ideas more relevant to us? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is rather obvious.

Guilt: A Temporary Sensation of the Soul (Revised)

What is guilt? Guilt could be described as an emotional response triggered by an offense or an omission committed by one. Or, in this case, a feeling brought on simply by the consciousness of another’s suffering without taking action to prevent it. There are several different situations in which one may feel the sensation of guilt, but how long does it last for?

The nature of guilt is an intriguing discussion. It’s a raw emotion that we have all experienced at some point in our lives, and something we all like to toss around in attempt to avoid ownership. No one enjoys guilt, but it is a very real response in human life that is virtually unavoidable, which is why Le Guin’s constructed utopia of Omelas is such a difficult concept to grasp. However, I would say that guilt is not a limitless emotion. Le Guin’s story of Omelas demonstrates this idea very bleakly and seemingly points out similarities in human behavior within Omelas and within our own society. It seems that most people will feel guilt for the amount of time they are subjected to it. In Omelas (even though guilt somehow didn’t exist), most witnesses of the abused child felt badly when observing, but quickly forgot soon afterwards, except for the select few who chose to leave. For example, in our own society, if someone were shown a video clip discussing the food crisis in Africa and the starvation of African children they may feel guilty and disgusted with themselves for the duration of the clip, and maybe for a short while after. In fact, maybe even a few days after this feeling may still linger. But, the fact is, this feeling seems to wear off as this person carries on with their normal life because they are no longer subjected to the images that disturbed them so deeply. Guilt is not a pleasant feeling, so most people will avoid it at all costs. A perfect demonstration of this can be seen when people leave Omelas. Although Le Guin says guilt does not exist here, some sort of emotion compels a select few citizens of Omelas to leave the town after seeing the suffering boy. To be honest, I don’t quite understand how that works, but I digress. By leaving, these people seem to simply avoid the emotions that they felt, and I’m sure once they left the town and were not subjected to the situation, they never felt those feelings again. However, the idea can be explored that perhaps these people could not rid themselves of this shame so it forced them to leave. Maybe it wasn’t ignorance; it was in fact a rebellious, stubborn conscious. When we analyze our guilt that has to do with large social issues, it is easier to argue that we push responsibility out of our mind to ease our conscious. However, when situations of guilt and shame arise in our personal lives, it seems to make it a lot harder to forget. There are plenty of situations where people’s lives are destroyed due to constant, painful guilt. We can almost separate these two types of guilt into two categories: ‘macro-guilt’ and ‘micro-guilt.’ The ‘micro-guilt’ is the regret than can endure forever in our personal lives. An example of this could be the guilt a father feels after he allows his son to be out driving past midnight, which results in a fatal accident with a drunk driver. Yes, the ‘macro-guilt’ of the tsunamis in Haiti may subside, but the ‘micro-guilt’ of allowing his son to be subjected to dangerous conditions may never diminish. Although, this persistent guilt could possibly lead to a drive for social change (ex. Mothers Against Drunk Driving), which is a major positive. Yet, this doesn’t seem to be the case for the ones that walk away from Omelas.

Whether it is natural disasters, poverty, or food shortages people in our world are constantly in misery, but since we are not constantly subjected to the image or thought of this misery, our guilt is very short-lived. It is within our personal lives that guilt can prevail more frequently. Children may be slaving over our clothing in a third world country for little to no money, but do we refuse to buy the clothes as a result of an infinite sense of guilt? For most, the answer would be no. I believe this is just a result of our distance from the issue, emotionally and physically, and I’m not saying I’m any better. Furthermore, I’m not saying there is no one in this world that has or had a sustained sense of guilt about a large, social situation that resulted in action taking place. There are several organizations that do their best to relieve suffering. But when we consider the idea of guilt being constant, I would argue that it is possible to experience enduring guilt in certain, more personal situations, but on a larger scale, ignorance of bigger social problems seems to be bliss. Is it easier to dwell on situations that induce guilt? Or, just push them out of our minds with thoughts and ideas more relevant to us? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is rather obvious.

Socrates the martyr?

Socrates was a man who possessed an unquestionable conviction to stay strong in what he believed. It’s almost as if he had an innate sense of duty to dissect the minds of others in order to persuade them to follow his thinking and challenge their own. Now, before reading The Apology and The Crito, I could imagine nothing less than Socrates sacrificing his life ultimately for his fervent preaching of his beliefs and ideas. Now, these thoughts in conjunction seem to be the necessary preconditions required of a martyr, but what exactly is a martyr? This is a very debatable and absorbing question when examining the actions of Socrates.

Socrates the Martyr? (Revised)

Socrates was a man who possessed an unquestionable conviction to stay strong in what he believed. It’s almost as if he had an innate sense of duty to dissect the minds of others in order to persuade them to follow his thinking and challenge their own. Now, before reading Apology and Crito, I could imagine nothing less than Socrates sacrificing his life ultimately for his fervent preaching of his beliefs and ideas. Now, these thoughts in conjunction seem to be the necessary preconditions required of a martyr, but what exactly is a martyr? This is a very debatable and absorbing question when examining the actions of Socrates.

Some definitions would identify a martyr as someone who embellishes their suffering to gain sympathy, but I struggle with defining the word martyr so simply as I believe it to be a multifaceted term. I see Socrates as a very real illustration of this in the way he challenges such a simple definition. With the definition of a martyr being one to extract sympathy from exaggerating pain comes the preconceived notion that a martyr possesses selfish motives that dictate his or her sacrificial actions. When I look at the actions and ways of Socrates, I don’t see someone who is driven by such selfish intentions and motives. For example, in Crito, Crito expresses his concern that Socrates’ lack of effort to escape will result in a loss of respect from the public, on himself and on Socrates. Socrates refutes this argument by declaring that public opinion is worthless and is not of concern. Now, if Socrates were at all distressed about gaining public attention and his own personal glory, he would show more apprehension about the matter. I see Socrates as representing the facet of martyrdom that would sacrifice everything to spread their beliefs and ideas, not promote themselves. Although, I’m obviously not going to claim to know the concrete motives of Socrates’ actions, but I cannot see him as someone suffering pain to pursue his own personal glory. If we analyze more closely the discussion between Crito and Socrates, we can clearly see that the values and beliefs of Socrates are clearly genuine. Socrates argues and wrestles with Crito about what would be the just act in his situation. If he were merely concerned about exaggerating his suffering and gaining admiration, he would not be so concerned about carrying out the honorable action. He would simply do whatever he could to gain sympathy and the discussion with Crito regarding morality and ethics would not have been so passionate. However, I still would give Socrates the title of a martyr for other reasons. He definitely was a man willing to die for his beliefs and philosophical ideas, but I would argue that the difference lies in his purpose of doing so. When reading Apology, it leads me to believe that Socrates will not plead guilty and submit to the state purely for the reason of publicizing his ideas and convincing others to believe his trial represented injustice. In Apology, Socrates argues that the prejudice formed against him has arisen from his wisdom being magnified when compared to the stupidity of others. If he were trying to gain adoration from the people, he would not have said such things. I am reluctant to believe he was willing to suffer through the trial process simply for the purpose of self-gratification and sympathy. So, this brings me back to my original point, how would you define a martyr? I believe that while there are martyrs that die for their beliefs or suffer for other reasons in order to fulfill their insecure desire for sympathy, there are also martyrs that suffer for the development and advancement of their beliefs. I see Socrates as a suitable illustration of the latter. Whether or not this is a correct supposition or not, I think Socrates can genuinely challenge our thinking in how we view a martyr and how their motives can greatly alter our view of the definition. Martyrs can be defined in several different ways giving everyone different interpretations, but in the case of Socrates especially, I feel it’s very important to recognize the goals behind the sacrifice.

Unattainable Happiness

Sigmund Freud does not seem to be the most positive, joyful fellow. Some may even go as far as to call him the “scrooge” of his time. Freud wrestles with the idea of happiness and how the repression of innate human instincts results in a discontent within civilization – hence, the title of his book. Although some of his ideas may be seen as quite extreme, it is fascinating to consider the reality of his points and the relevance within our 21^st century society as well as the societies leading up to this time period.

It seems as though Freud does not believe true happiness and the superstructure of society can co-exist. At one point in his book, he states, “…A man thinks himself happy merely to have escaped unhappiness or to have survived his suffering…” (44) Basically meaning happiness is defined by the absence of unhappiness. Freud even states that creation may not have even intended for mankind to achieve happiness. So why does Freud seem to have this view of happiness being an impossibility? Well, it all seems to stem from one thing – the pleasure principle. The pleasure principle, according to Freud, is the notion that people continually pursue pleasure while trying to avoid pain and suffering. He argues that it is our instinctive desire to govern our lives via the pleasure principle, but the development of ego through maturing within our civilization causes us to be in fact governed by the reality principle. The reality principle follows the same pursuit of happiness, but it is a realistic pursuit in the sense that we have a universal understanding that all desires may not be gratified immediately. Gratification may, in fact, have to be deferred when the reality of regulations within our civilization are considered. And, according to Freud, this is a result of our inner desire to satisfy our deepest cravings clashing with the reality of our civilization. He discusses three main areas of displeasure that we all try to master, and that’s basically our mortality, the devastation of the natural world and the reality coexisting with other people in a society. He seems to dwell on the last point and make it the focus in explaining our eternal unhappiness. Civilization restricts our primitive desires from being gratified and from this, Freud derives an intriguing idea. He proves that it was essentially us that manufactured our own discontents by the construction of civilization and society. Civilized regulations and rules among societies were put in place to protect us, essentially, from unhappiness; yet, it seems to be our largest source of unhappiness in Freud’s mind. He strongly argues that this repression of instinctual desires causes this perpetual unhappiness. Freud even goes as far as saying chemical substances and religion are the only escapes from unhappiness that exist; however, they are still temporary sensations. He describes the consumption of certain substances giving us a feeling of pleasure, by eliminating the pains of society for a short time and the idea of religion distancing us from suffering through the expectation of something more.

While I may not necessarily agree with Sigmund Freud’s unfavorable view of happiness in our civilization, it is fascinating to explore his theories and try to apply them to our society today. In Freud’s mind, happiness seems unattainable, but in my mind there’s a balance between innate, primitive desires and the regulation of those desires within society that allows for happiness to exist.

Unattainable Happiness (Revised)

Sigmund Freud does not seem to be the most positive, joyful fellow. Some may even go as far as to call him the ‘scrooge’ of his time. Freud wrestles with the idea of happiness and how the repression of innate human instincts results in a discontent within civilization – hence, the title of his book. Although some of his ideas may be seen as quite extreme, it is fascinating to consider the reality of his points and the relevance within our 21^st century society as well as the societies leading up to this time period.

It seems as though Freud does not believe true happiness and the superstructure of society can co-exist. At one point in his book, he states, “…A man thinks himself happy merely to have escaped unhappiness or to have survived his suffering…” (44). Basically meaning happiness is defined by the absence of unhappiness. However, I find this idea hard to comprehend when his assertion is problematized in so many instances within modern society. For example, when someone has their family over for the holidays and it truly makes them happy, you cannot say their happiness is a result of the absence of pain. The family is bringing happiness, not pushing away suffering. Freud even states that creation may not have even intended for mankind to achieve happiness. So why does Freud seem to have this view of happiness being an impossibility? Well, it all seems to stem from one thing – the pleasure principle. The pleasure principle, according to Freud, is the notion that people continually pursue pleasure while trying to avoid pain and suffering. He argues that it is our instinctive desire to govern our lives via the pleasure principle, but the development of ego through maturing within our civilization causes us to be in fact governed by the reality principle. The reality principle follows the same pursuit of happiness, but it is a realistic pursuit in the sense that we have a universal understanding that all desires may not be gratified immediately. Gratification may, in fact, have to be deferred when the reality of regulations within our civilization are considered. And, according to Freud, this is a result of our inner desire to satisfy our deepest cravings clashing with the reality of our civilization. To illustrate, we cannot just take an impromptu vacation to Hawaii because we have obligations like work and school that prevent us from doing so. The reality of societal requirements obstructs the pleasure principle. He discusses three main areas of displeasure that we all try to master, which are essentially our mortality, the devastation of the natural world and the reality coexisting with other people in a society. He seems to dwell on the last point and make it the focus in explaining our eternal unhappiness. Civilization restricts our primitive desires from being gratified and from this, Freud derives an intriguing idea. He claims that it was essentially us that manufactured our own discontent through the construction of civilization and society. Civilized regulations and rules among societies were put in place to protect us, essentially, from unhappiness; yet, it seems to be our largest source of unhappiness in Freud’s mind. He strongly argues that this repression of instinctual desires causes this perpetual unhappiness. As an example, it may be one’s primitive desire to take money dangling from another’s pocket, but society tells us that the act is not only immoral, but a criminal offense. Freud even goes as far as saying religion and chemical substances are the only escapes from unhappiness that exist; however, they are still temporary sensations. He describes the consumption of certain substances giving us a feeling of pleasure, by eliminating the pains of society for a short time and the idea of religion distancing us from suffering through the expectation of something more. Although, I believe this argument is easily refuted. When someone plans a gathering with friends, some may drink and some may not, yet they all who attend enjoy themselves and have a good time. Some may be more dependent on alcohol to bring happiness, but you cannot say it is the only way to experience ‘happiness.’

Our Contrived Definition of Masculine

What makes a man manly? Is there a factual answer, or is it a vague, subjective answer that has been slowly concocted over hundreds of generations? Well, we know for a fact that science is largely excluded from the measure of masculinity. The separation between males and females is predominantly the presence of testosterone and estrogen respectively; therefore, a homosexual male being viewed as ‘not masculine’ refutes a scientific answer to this question. It forces us to see masculinity as a concept derived from modern day societal opinion.

Many people would see masculinity defined by several different ideas. This is where we see manliness not only described by one masculinity, but numerous different masculinities. These masculinities include the archetypal hunter/protector image, the athletic image, the ‘bad boy’ image, and even the powerful executive/CEO image. Popular culture suggests that what makes a man masculine is defined by many different characteristics. And, these suggestions are made apparent through a variety of different sources including magazines, advertisements, the film industry and even athletics. Ford truck commercials are a perfect example of how advertisements depict what masculinity is and how it can be achieved. Ford’s slogan is, “Built Ford Tough,” and their advertisements typically involve a big macho Ford F-350 pulling a plane effortlessly, crushing concrete, or contributing to some other ‘powerful’ action. Essentially, they are advertising that you can achieve ultimate masculinity by simply buying their trucks. But does anyone ask why pushing around big chunks of rock is perceived as masculine? No, we simply accept the idea that society presents us with. Not many people would say Ford F-350 is anything less than extremely masculine. Or, we can look at the typical example of the ‘ripped’ athlete in magazines or on TV, with muscles so big he can hardly move. Ever since ancient times culture has taught us to perceive this image as the ultimate form of masculinity. Here’s a question: which would be considered more masculine, a 6’4’’, 230lb muscle-bound beast, or a scrawnier man who is twice as strong? Odds are most people would immediately view the bigger man to be more masculine, even though he may not be as powerful. Popular culture has taught us to view masculinity in a very vain, shallow way. While everyone’s definition of masculinity may not be exactly the same, it is usually derived from some superficial, exterior qualities of man.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is interesting to see how he portrays men versus women. Throughout the novel he seems to play on the typical stereotype of the ‘weak’ woman and the ‘powerful’ man. When we first meet Julia, who we do not learn the name of for a significant amount of time, she is on the ground, requiring the help of a man (in this case Winston) to get back up. Seemingly a small, sly jab at women’s dependence on men. It is also interesting to note how all characters who possess power in Oceania are male. In fact almost every single character is male including Big Brother, O’Brien, Mr. Charrington, Emmanuel Goldstein, Parsons, Syme, and Winston. I doubt that Orwell did that unintentionally. He seems to show masculinity through the possession of power and the dependence of women on males. Simply the fact that Julia goes so long being unidentified displays the level of importance Orwell places on her as a woman. She possesses no power; therefore, she has no importance. Also, the differences between Julia and Winston display Orwell’s view of Winston’s masculinity as superior. Julia is content just gratifying her sexual desires and living in the moment, while Winston is more concerned with the larger societal picture. The characteristics of the female versus male characters in 1984 really emphasize Orwell’s designation of power as a large factor of masculinity, which is a widely accepted idea within our culture as well.

Our Contrived Definition of Masculine (Revised)

What makes a man manly? Is there a factual answer, or is it a vague, subjective answer that has been slowly concocted over hundreds of generations? It is an absorbing question, especially when it is so typical of our culture to analyze the components of femininity or the growth of feminism. Well, we know for a fact that science is largely excluded from the measure of masculinity. The separation between males and females is predominantly the presence of testosterone and estrogen respectively; therefore, a homosexual male being viewed as ‘not masculine’ refutes a scientific answer to this question. It forces us to see masculinity as a concept derived from modern day societal opinion.

Many people would see masculinity defined by several different ideas. This is where we see manliness not only described by one masculinity, but numerous different masculinities. These masculinities include the archetypal hunter/protector image, the athletic image, the ‘bad boy’ image, and even the powerful executive/CEO image. Popular culture suggests that what makes a man masculine is defined by many different characteristics. And, these suggestions are made apparent through a variety of different sources including magazines, advertisements, the film industry and even athletics. Media is littered with examples of these promptings. Ford truck commercials act as perfect examples of how advertisements depict what masculinity is and how it can be achieved. Ford’s slogan is, “Built Ford Tough,” and their advertisements typically involve a big macho Ford F-350 pulling a plane effortlessly, crushing concrete, or contributing to some other ‘powerful’ action. Essentially, they are advertising that you can achieve ultimate masculinity by simply buying their trucks. Preying on the common insecurity of masculinity in males is a typical marketing ploy for companies like Ford. But does anyone ask why pushing around big chunks of rock is perceived as masculine? No, we simply accept the idea that society presents us with. Not many people would say Ford F-350 is anything less than extremely masculine. Or, we can look at the typical example of the ‘ripped’ athlete in magazines or on TV, with muscles so big he can hardly move. Ever since ancient times culture has taught us to perceive this image as the ultimate form of masculinity. Here’s a question: which would be considered more masculine, a 6’4’’, 230lb muscle-bound beast, or a scrawnier man who is twice as strong? Odds are most people would immediately view the bigger man to be more masculine, even though he may not be as powerful. Popular culture has taught us to view masculinity in a very vain, shallow way. While everyone’s definition of masculinity may not be exactly the same, it is usually derived from some superficial, exterior qualities of man.

In George Orwell’s 1984, it is fascinating to see how he portrays his stereotypical views of men versus women. Throughout the novel he seems to play on the typical stereotype of the ‘weak’ woman and the ‘powerful’ man. However, it is also interesting to dissect the importance of Orwell’s use of feminine traits in his male protagonist, Winston. Winston is described as a frail, weak, almost feminine man, which is noteworthy as he is oppressed by the totalitarian regime. This could be another tactic Orwell uses to display the ineffectiveness and powerlessness of women in society. If a man is not a completely masculine figure (like Big Brother), or possesses some femininity, he stands no chance in driving social or political change. In addition, when we first meet Julia, who we do not learn the name of for a significant amount of time, she is on the ground, requiring the help of a man (in this case Winston) to get back up. Seemingly a small, sly jab at women’s dependence on men. It is also interesting to note how all characters who possess power in Oceania are male. In fact almost every single character is male including Big Brother, O’Brien, Mr. Charrington, Emmanuel Goldstein, Parsons, Syme, and Winston. I doubt that Orwell did that unintentionally. He seems to show masculinity through the possession of power and the dependence of women on males. Simply the fact that Julia goes so long being unidentified displays the level of importance Orwell places on her as a woman. She possesses no power; therefore, she has no importance. It is also interesting to note that at one point Winston makes a statement noting that the power Julia possesses is solely beneath her waist. Orwell could be hinting at the idea that any authority or power women possess is derived solely from males’ dependence on sex. Also, the differences between Julia and Winston display Orwell’s view of Winston’s masculinity as superior. Julia is content just gratifying her sexual desires and living in the moment, while Winston is more concerned with the larger societal picture. The characteristics of the female versus male characters in 1984 really emphasize Orwell’s designation of power as a large factor of masculinity, which is a widely accepted idea within our culture as well.

Word Count: 2296

Word Count (Revised): 3152

Works Cited

The Epic of Gilgamesh. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. Free Press, 2006. Print.

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print.

Le Guin, Ursula K. The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. Print.

Orwell, George. 1984. Penguin UK, 2008. Print.

Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Trans. F.J. Church. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1948. Print.

Some Simple Thoughts.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Blog Portfolio

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Blog Archive