Today was going along with the usual boredom until English. My English teacher usually annoys me because he manipulates philosophy, describes a philospher's philosophy in a very narrow way, and leaves everyone to believe that that is the essence of the philosophy. Having actually read the philosophy of the philosophers he talks about, I know that he is ignoring much of the philosophy and emphasizing things that distort it.
Today, though, I was fascinated in English class. A somewhat rare occurrance.
We read this short story. Read it. It's amazing. So we read it and he finished and the bell rang, and everyone else seemed to pull themselves out of that steamy English rut and move on, but I couldn't. We didn't talk about it, so I was left only with my own interpretations, my own struggling to dissect the story with the writing of Dostoevsky, William James, and utilitarianism (Mill's, whoever). Which only lead to more questions. I was so rabid for understanding of the story that I considered skipping tennis to go to the library to look it up on the net. I managed to resist, which is good as I don't think my coaches would have quite understood or bought my reason.
So I thought about it all night, all of the crazy possibilities of it rolling around in my head, all the questions it brings up agitating themselves. I have come up with my own conclusions, finally, about the scapegoat, the need for it, the need for LeGuin to separate us from the society in the story, the people that leave, why they leave, and where they go (in the allegorical sense of course).
But if you read this, read it. Please. I wasn't expecting it. It caught me off guard. And I think this is really the first time I've thrown all of my mental faculties into something school-related since September.
Actually, despite my hazy conclusions, I'm still asking myself questions about this story. I'm curious as to whether my English teacher will try to manipulate and limit it into his own perceptions tomorrow. I'm glad he gave us a day to think (or rather me, as no one else really looked affected).
I love stories like that. But the ambiguity could drive me insane.
Then again, is there ever a right way to interpret things?
Finally, are the ideas of utilitarianism/pragmatism (utilitarianism being the greatest good for the greatest number, whatever that is... I'm sure we could dive into Histonic calculus, but let's not be that zealous) and justice (that ever person receive their just due, whatever that is... we'd have to run to another philosopher I suppose) mutually exclusive?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
omg, I *also* read this short story in ethics last semester (i loved that class... and roncalli...). anyway, it is a story that really makes you think about the utilitarian-justice relationship. i think the first thing that needs be said about it is that it is taking the utilitarian framework to one of the greatest extremes possible. the very value of it, though, is that is does take the extreme. her proposition is one that violates any sense of decency and justice- all to provide what is essentially a hedonistic, comfortable environment. the main observations/interpretations of it that i gathered are as follows:
1) the 'happy' society is established on the involuntary and perpetual suffering of one individual. this is something i could never accept as remotely just
2) the citizens' lack of suffering, trial, difficulty, etc makes their perfect society entirely trivial, or as le guin puts it 'all smiles have become archaic'
3) i do not believe happiness lies in the absense of suffering, and that archaic joy is no joy at all. i think le guin also means to imply this point
4) despite that, it is interesting that she sets it up so that no ends the suffering of the child. for as she explains, this would cause the society to collapse. in doing this, i think she is pointing out that however wrong one may believe a social institution of this nature to be, the choice to reject it must be individual, it cannot be made for everyone.
5) also, in setting up the 'society will be destroyed' consequence, i think she reveals an important weakness in both the ideology of the society and utilitarianism in general: there is no explanation of *why* this dogmatic belief in determinism should be accepted
6)what was the most fascinating part for me was definitely 'the ones who walk away'. i think their choice is best explained by my number 4, and also that these individuals are those who cannot accept this concept of justice. they are somehow more actualized than those around them, and in realizing this they have to reject the society. i think the place they go to is a place where happiness is more than sensual gratification and comfort. where happiness is augmented and understood by our capacity for suffering. it is an acceptance of responsibility for the life you bear manifested in action.
but yeah, this story is kind of mindblowing. i really like it, and i've actually gone back to it several times since reading it in november
Wow, that was good. Not what I expected, but definitely something you want to chew on for awhile.
What I thought about most with this story kinda lines up with what Fishbowl said in 3 and 4. That happiness can't exist without sadness. I was thinking about this tonight while sitting through another boring board meeting, and though I was uncomfortable in that plastic chair and wanting to leave I was so looking forward to getting home, eating some chocolate, watching Robot Chicken, etc. I seem to get more pleasure out of these simple things on a weeknight, after eight hours of work, than I do on a weekend where I'm totally free. Actually, on weekends I tend to get really antsy and bored when I should be relishing in all the free time I have! Weird.
My second major thought is, could I walk away from that child and ignore its suffering? Honestly I want to say no, but if *everybody else did it* and they told me often enough that it was for the greater good, maybe I could just let the child suffer and stay happy in Omelas.
Post a Comment