Category: ENG221 (Page 2 of 3)
Quotation:
“II. Ways in which a principle may be wrong. A principle may be different from that of utility in two ways: 1. By being constantly opposed to it: this is the case with a principle which may be termed the principle of asceticism. 2. By being sometimes opposed to it, and sometimes not, as it may happen: this is the case with another, which may be termed the principle of sympathy and antipathy.” page 12.
Comment: I had a really hard time with this reading… I didn’t really understand it at all. I have never read anything on this subject or anything that was written the way that it is so it was really hard for me to follow and comprehend. I chose this passage because this was one of the only things that I could partially comprehend. I looked up most of the terms in this passage so that I could get a better understanding of the concepts and ideas and look at them in my own perspective. I found that the principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right as long as they promote happiness or pleasure and they are wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Asceticism is a lifestyle of severe self-discipline in which you avoid all forms of indulgence, usually for religious or spiritual purposes. The principle of antipathy is the opposite of sympathy: It is a voluntary or involuntary dislike of something or someone. If you are opposed to a principle, it differs from utility, meaning that it does not make you happy. I’m confused as to how that relates to asceticism, because I feel as though many people practice asceticism because it brings them join, it lines up with utility. I understand how you can sometimes be opposed to sympathy or antipathy because sometimes it is an involuntary like or dislike, so you may not want to like or dislike whatever it is, but you still do, which can be frustrating. What came to mind for me for this concept is going to the zoo. Contemplating going to the zoo is so difficult for me because I would love to go and see all the animals and have fun, but the morals behind the zoo are so sad and unjust to me that I don’t think I should go, because I have sympathy for the animals but antipathy for the morals behind the zoo. This is frustrating to me because I don’t like that I don’t like the morals of it, but it is the right thing because animals in the zoo should not be kept in enclosures like they are and paying to go see it only profits the zoo and what they do.
Question: What does asceticism have to with the first concept of “ways in which a principle may be wrong?” I’m confused about this.
Quotations:
“Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive. In the middle category, however—that of the unnecessary but undestructive, that of comfort, luxury, exuberance, etc.— they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuelless power, a cure for the common cold. Or they could have none of that; it doesn’t matter.” paragraph 3
“They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does ot exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.” the last few sentences
Comment:
Context for quote #1: This quote is at the end of the third paragraph. The topic of this paragraph was indirectly describing the city of Omelas. I believe this is a complex city, therefore its description is complex as well. It says they are happy but not simple, they do not have a king or slaves, they are not barbarians, and they have very few rules. They consider happiness to be stupid. They can’t describe a happy man and they can’t make any celebrations of joy.
I picked this quote because I was very confused by it and its meaning. I broke down the quote by definitions of words… I replaced “necessary” with “needed” and “destructive” with “harmful”. I believe they recognize the differences between what is needed, what is not needed and not harmful, and what is harmful. I believe the middle category is to be a category of comfort, things that people don’t need and things that wouldn’t cause harm, but things that are considered a luxury and are wanted. For example, central heating isn’t a necessity in life because we could have heat in other ways, but it is a luxury and a common longing for most people in society. I believe the author is saying that the citizens of Omelas could have all of these luxurious things or they could have none of them; because to this city, those luxuries don’t matter.
Context for quote #2: This quote is the last couple sentences of the text. The author is describing people who go to see the child that is “in a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas.” This child is pretty much locked away in this dirty room under one of the most beautiful buildings in the city, because the child could have been more defective or the child has been declared an imbecile, etc. Basically, the child is neglected in this room in the city and suffers. So the author is describing what those people see and after they go see this child, they leave the city of Omelas.
This quote was a little easier for me to interpret. I believe that the author is saying that when these people are leaving Omelas, they are committing suicide. I believe the meaning is along those lines. These people go to see the child that is suffering right beneath the beautiful city that is so happy, and these people realize the pain and suffering that is hidden in the city of Omelas and they just can’t handle the thought of it. So they decide to leave Omelas. I believe “they walk into the darkness, and they do not come back.” can be interpreted as they have killed themselves, so they will not return. “The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist” Most people can’t imagine this place because most people that hear this are still living. The only people that can imagine that place have died. I believe he cannot describe it at all because he is not dead. How could he describe the feeling or place of being dead if you are alive? “But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.” The ones who walk away from the city of happiness, they walk away from happiness, they walk into darkness by killing themselves. It is a very dark interpretation, but to me, it just makes sense.
Question: Can there ever really be a city of happiness (I don’t think so because utopias can never exist)? Is walking into darkness the only way out? Why can’t they find another city (another source of happiness) instead?
Quotation:
“Callimaco: It’s certainly true that fortune and nature balance their accounts: if anything good happens to you, something bad is bound to spring up right after it. The more my hope has increased, the more my fear has increased.” page 39
“Friar Timoteo: There’s a truth in the old saying that bad company leads men to the gallows; and often a person gets into trouble as much for being too easygoing and good-natured as for being too vicious.” page 47
Comment:
Context for quote #1: It is in part of Callimaco’s monologue at the beginning of Act IV. He is explaining that the more his hope grows for the success of his scheme, the more he grows fearful that his plans will fall through.
When I read this, I underlined it right away because I interpreted it as foreshadowing. This was one of many lines that I interpreted that way. It left me wondering what was going to happen: Was his hopefulness going to help him succeed? Or would his fear overcome him and screw the entire plan up? I do also agree with this statement, because I believe that if you’re really hopeful and passionate about something, there is always going to be an equal, underlying anxiety about the possibility of failure.
Context for quote #2: Friar, Callimaco, Liguiro, and Siro have just finished up their conversation. In their conversation they discussed some last minute details to outline their plan. Liguiro, Callimaco, and Siro leave to go and disguise themselves. Liguiro gives orders to Friar to stay put and wait for them to return so they can all go meet up with Messer Nicia. It is in scene 6 and Friar is now by himself.
I do believe this statement to be truthful. If you involve too many people into a situation, such as scheming, it can cause a bad mixture and can cause some trouble; in this case the trouble is death by hanging. I also believe it is true that you can get into trouble for being too soft, but you can also get into trouble for being too harsh. You have to find the right balance of passion, determination, etc. so that you don’t run into trouble.
Question: Should there be limits to how many people you go to for help and company? Would this help you in the end? Would this help lessen your fears and strengthen hopes or would that be determined solely by yourself?
Quotation:
“Callimaco: Nothing’s ever so completely a lost cause that there can’t be some way to hope for it, even if it’s only weak and empty; the passion and desire a person has to get what he wants keeps it from seeming so.” page 9.
“Callimaco: I’ve simply got to try something, and I don’t care what it is—huge, dangerous, hurtful, infamous. Better to die than live like this. If I could at least sleep at night, eat, talk to people—if I could find even the slightest pleasure in anything, the strain of waiting might not wear me down so much. But there’s no relief here. If my hopes aren’t kept up by some possibility of action, it will mean the death of me, one way or another; and with death in sight, I’m not going to be afraid of anything else: I’ll try even the most brutal, crude, and vicious thing!” page 13.
Comment: Context for both quotes: Callimaco is venting to Siro about his desire for Donna Lucrezia. He explains all the troubles that come with his desire, such as her husband, but he still can’t help but feel such passion for her. He refuses to believe that lost causes exist and that everything can have hope. He explains that his passion and desire is what keeps his hope going and what keeps him believing that it is not a lost cause. Then he really digs deep into his passion for this girl. It’s quite extraordinary to have such feelings for someone he barely even knows. To want to die to be with her is so extreme, but that is how much passion and desire he has to be with her. Part of me really likes how passionate he is for this girl, but part of me doesn’t. If this were a more modern time, like today perhaps, I think I would like it more. I think this because back then, women were objects… to me he only wants to have sex with her. But i’ve never heard of anybody feeling this much passion about anything ever, so to see it is pretty cool and it excites me, but then I remember that he’s so passionate about being with her sexually. So I have mixed emotions.
Question: Is it possible to be too passionate about something/someone? How are we supposed to know? How do we determine how far we should be willing to go for such passion?
Quotation:
“Tiresias:
And tyrants have always loved cheated profits.” page 52, line 1064
“Tiresias:
All the cities are stirred by hatred, whose mangled children took their only burial from dogs and beasts—or some winged bird, bearing an unholy stench into his native city.” page 53, lines 1089-1092
Comment: Context for quote #1 & #2: Creon and Tiresias are fighting about the whole Antigone situation. Tiresias explains to Creon that his actions have caused him a great deal of backlash and hatred from the citizens of Thebes. The second quote includes a footnote that reads, “This indicates that all the slain Argive, not just Polynices, have been denied burial.” So Creon has denied many fallen soldiers a proper burial and it has seriously angered the people of Thebes. These two quotes really stuck out to me because the first one is just shady towards Creon. I love that multiple characters have called him out for being a tyrant. How I took it is, Tiresias is saying that tyrants always long for death, suffering, injustice, obedience, etc. All tyrants care about is themselves and their power. In the second quote, Tiresias is explaining to Creon that the people of Thebes hate him for what he has done. This shows Creon that he has made the wrong decisions about burial, he is an unfit and unjust king. What kind of king doesn’t give his own fallen soldiers a proper burial? Not a good one!
Question: How do we choose who has authority? How can we change that process so that tyranny basically disappears?
