For Nietzsche, contradictions are implicitly essential to life – while paradoxically – the downfall of every contemporary ideology. At moments throughout his work, it seems as if Nietzsche were trying to escape the necessary truth of perspectivism – as he delightedly employs reason to subvert reason and the pre-conceived notions of virtue to undermine prevailing and static moralities. The methodical, sometimes even Cartesian, discourse Nietzsche pursues to arrive at this celebrated insight into truth is a recurring theme in passages such as Origin of knowledge (The Gay Science) and How the 'Real World' at last Became a Myth (Twilight of the Idols).
Essentially, humankind's natural desires and perceptions of the world (to Nietzsche: man's passions and senses) are what, up until the Socratic era, constituted our very being – "The Real World". At this point, Nietzsche applies a Darwinian model to the evolution of our reason in that a belief, whether "true" or erroneous, will persevere among the species only to the extent that it is life-preserving. A belief in "free will" and that 'reason' overcomes the folly of the senses would eventually culminate in the works of Descartes and Kant, where all bodily passions and sense perceptions are subverted.
Nietzsche's age is one presented with the limits of this truth. Recognition of this history – that our reason is as much built on the values we bring to it and our pre-conceived notions of certainty – would destabilise its very foundations and allow a shift towards the age of the overman, where a "plurality of truths" are embraced.
Life and art, saturated necessarily with contradictions, are destroyed and sterilised by reason, morality and ideology. These systems, where human reality is denied, are what Nietzsche hopes to undermine.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Friday, April 15, 2005
Einstein vs Winterson
I had to read Gut Symmetries by Jeanette Winterson for a literature class, and I took great issue with it! I can safely say that I did not prejudge the book, I was ready to love it. As I began reading and was introduced to the characters I wanted to read up on their significance - i.e. perhaps the Alice was a reference to Alice in wonderland, one of the guys is called a Don Juan, so i wanted to read up on him too, and then I thought about looking into the meanings of the astrological signs etc that are in it. I'm glad I didn't - that all would have been a waste of time.
Some people like this book, and I don't know why. It reminds me of a person who just rubs you up the wrong way - goes on about him/her-self, thinks they have it worked out, have strange ideas that you are embarrassed even to talk about because they're so ridiculous, and just an indulgence in their own art - even though they don't know anything about artists... something like this.
The book tells the story of Alice, the son of a conservative jew (i've read that she doesn't even get the Jewish culture down very well, but i know nothing of it) who is married to a scientist (a time-travel scientist... ?). Unfortunately for her, he ends up having an affair, so she throws his stuff out the window, and sleeps with the woman who took her husband... and Alice has a diamond at the bottom of her spine, which got there because her mum swallowed it while she was pregnant.
So the themes of the story (just to illustrate that I didn't miss the point) are: 1) the unconventional love triangle, and 2) the inability of science to sufficiently explain and justify human experience. I understand well the significance of these ideas, and they are good.
However, the unconventional love triangle isn't expressed too well in Winterson's writing because it seems a bit overborne by her apparent hatred of men. So the man is a 2-dimensional pig: unapologetic, unfaithful and condescending. The Alice character doesn't get heaps of sympathy because she is too vague and lacks integrity. She can throw her husband's junk out the window, and say she's upset, but you would never quite believe her.
Throughout Winterson's writing she can't help but throw in sentence fragments, references to masturbation (in walking down the street, one has to notice that a cement mixer is "jacking its load"... because that's just what one notices??) and other various unnecessary vulgarities.
Now, to what I really disliked - her use of Science. It's a good idea to talk about science and its relationship to the human experience, but if you are going to talk about science, please at least read something. In the world of Winterson, people considered the world flat until the 1600s (so why did Columbus try to find a west route to the indies... why then did Eratosthenes estimate the "circumference" of the earth around 200 BC???? - interesting story here... Columbus used a map that didn't use Eratosthenes predictions, as a result severely underestimating the size of the earth, maths is great). Also, she talks quite a lot about Einstein's theory of relativity, about time-travel and clocks, but she has absolutely no idea about it. I may as well write a story that rejects the practices of modern day schools because students are made to hang upside down and eat apples.
The fortunate upshot of this, was that it prompted me to read Einstein's Relativity since I couldn't understand how Winterson could possibly be right. Einstein's nice little book is merely an introduction, with very little mathematics. It contains the Lorenz transformation, which looks at time experienced in relation to the speed of light (it's this function that is used to make the prediction that passing the speed of light is impossible, as once speed > c, you have the square root of a negative number). Einstein is a very accessible writer, and if you're not too interested in reading Relativity and seeing what all the fuss is about, you could read his Ideas and Opinions - he's quite funny.
So my problem with Winterson, is that she's pretentious and just generally unlikeable. One of those writers who equates writing something controversial with writing something profound. She leads her readers up an unorthodox stairway to nowhere and says "see! I told you", and the less resilient will say "ah yes, you're right" rather than "i think you've confused yourself". In this way, I think post-modernism is sometimes reminiscent of The Emperor's New Clothes, they're all trying to trick us into thinking they're geniuses!
Some people like this book, and I don't know why. It reminds me of a person who just rubs you up the wrong way - goes on about him/her-self, thinks they have it worked out, have strange ideas that you are embarrassed even to talk about because they're so ridiculous, and just an indulgence in their own art - even though they don't know anything about artists... something like this.
The book tells the story of Alice, the son of a conservative jew (i've read that she doesn't even get the Jewish culture down very well, but i know nothing of it) who is married to a scientist (a time-travel scientist... ?). Unfortunately for her, he ends up having an affair, so she throws his stuff out the window, and sleeps with the woman who took her husband... and Alice has a diamond at the bottom of her spine, which got there because her mum swallowed it while she was pregnant.
So the themes of the story (just to illustrate that I didn't miss the point) are: 1) the unconventional love triangle, and 2) the inability of science to sufficiently explain and justify human experience. I understand well the significance of these ideas, and they are good.
However, the unconventional love triangle isn't expressed too well in Winterson's writing because it seems a bit overborne by her apparent hatred of men. So the man is a 2-dimensional pig: unapologetic, unfaithful and condescending. The Alice character doesn't get heaps of sympathy because she is too vague and lacks integrity. She can throw her husband's junk out the window, and say she's upset, but you would never quite believe her.
Throughout Winterson's writing she can't help but throw in sentence fragments, references to masturbation (in walking down the street, one has to notice that a cement mixer is "jacking its load"... because that's just what one notices??) and other various unnecessary vulgarities.
Now, to what I really disliked - her use of Science. It's a good idea to talk about science and its relationship to the human experience, but if you are going to talk about science, please at least read something. In the world of Winterson, people considered the world flat until the 1600s (so why did Columbus try to find a west route to the indies... why then did Eratosthenes estimate the "circumference" of the earth around 200 BC???? - interesting story here... Columbus used a map that didn't use Eratosthenes predictions, as a result severely underestimating the size of the earth, maths is great). Also, she talks quite a lot about Einstein's theory of relativity, about time-travel and clocks, but she has absolutely no idea about it. I may as well write a story that rejects the practices of modern day schools because students are made to hang upside down and eat apples.
The fortunate upshot of this, was that it prompted me to read Einstein's Relativity since I couldn't understand how Winterson could possibly be right. Einstein's nice little book is merely an introduction, with very little mathematics. It contains the Lorenz transformation, which looks at time experienced in relation to the speed of light (it's this function that is used to make the prediction that passing the speed of light is impossible, as once speed > c, you have the square root of a negative number). Einstein is a very accessible writer, and if you're not too interested in reading Relativity and seeing what all the fuss is about, you could read his Ideas and Opinions - he's quite funny.
So my problem with Winterson, is that she's pretentious and just generally unlikeable. One of those writers who equates writing something controversial with writing something profound. She leads her readers up an unorthodox stairway to nowhere and says "see! I told you", and the less resilient will say "ah yes, you're right" rather than "i think you've confused yourself". In this way, I think post-modernism is sometimes reminiscent of The Emperor's New Clothes, they're all trying to trick us into thinking they're geniuses!
Thursday, April 14, 2005
my first murakami
Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World, is probably the most sci-fi oriented of Murakami's novels. Like all good sci-fi, Murakami begins with an idea and explores it within the well established rules of the world - i.e. things still need to make sense, there is a difference between sci-fi and a far-fetched plot... that is my belief anyway.
This novel threads two stories, one which takes place in a future world, the other in the unconscious of the protagonist. The End of the World component is rife with Jungian symbols and archetypes: the wall, the shadow, the gate-keeper - each developed according to Murakami's own ideas. In the Hard-boiled wonderland, the protagonist is getting a little confused and persued for what a code that is in his head (he is a human encryption device... lovely idea). Murakami's talent here is to describe interesting details of the worlds he creates as if he were writing a "normal" novel. The opening scene describes a simultaneous counting process where coins are counted and backwards and forwards simultaneously. In the End of the World, the dream-reader is given a riddling description of a song as "some words spoken quickly, others stretched out", which i also found quite beautiful in its own way.
As with all of Murakami's novels, he likes to give a couple of nods to his favourite authors, in this one we hear about Mersault from the Outsider (coming to mind because he apologized all the time) which adds another dimension to Murakami's work that makes him interesting beyond the telling of a good story.
This was a nice introduction to Murakami. It's an interesting and well-executed story. It is one that I would perhaps recommend to others as it is not as depressing as something like Norwegian Wood (not my interpretation of depressing anyway... i guess there is The end of the world to consider). The book ends with one of Murakami's trademork ambiguous drop-offs. One is reading, feeling that everything is coming together and then a final sentence forces a reinterpretation of everything just mentioned. All stars.
This novel threads two stories, one which takes place in a future world, the other in the unconscious of the protagonist. The End of the World component is rife with Jungian symbols and archetypes: the wall, the shadow, the gate-keeper - each developed according to Murakami's own ideas. In the Hard-boiled wonderland, the protagonist is getting a little confused and persued for what a code that is in his head (he is a human encryption device... lovely idea). Murakami's talent here is to describe interesting details of the worlds he creates as if he were writing a "normal" novel. The opening scene describes a simultaneous counting process where coins are counted and backwards and forwards simultaneously. In the End of the World, the dream-reader is given a riddling description of a song as "some words spoken quickly, others stretched out", which i also found quite beautiful in its own way.
As with all of Murakami's novels, he likes to give a couple of nods to his favourite authors, in this one we hear about Mersault from the Outsider (coming to mind because he apologized all the time) which adds another dimension to Murakami's work that makes him interesting beyond the telling of a good story.
This was a nice introduction to Murakami. It's an interesting and well-executed story. It is one that I would perhaps recommend to others as it is not as depressing as something like Norwegian Wood (not my interpretation of depressing anyway... i guess there is The end of the world to consider). The book ends with one of Murakami's trademork ambiguous drop-offs. One is reading, feeling that everything is coming together and then a final sentence forces a reinterpretation of everything just mentioned. All stars.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Camus plays
Camus' plays are harder to obtain than his fiction - obviously they are not viewed to be as literarily important. I am still looking for a copy of his play-version of The Possessed, although I will probably read the big book before I get too serious about this search.
Of the plays in this collection, Caligula and The Just Assassins are the most important to his philosophy and indeed, the better written. Caligula represents a perversion of unquestioned Christian values. He operates alongside Mersault in Camus' philosophy of the Absurd. For some reason, I feel like there is something quite admirable about this Caligula. Despite all he does, it seems like he really does just want "the moon" (contrast to Mersault's Sun), and the inauthenticity of the characters around him draws little sympathy for all he puts them through. There is a resemblance between the way Caligula and Hamlet approach their destinies. In light of a modernist anguish, a deprivation of meaning, they manipulate the world around them in an attempt to find something tangible.
Here is a poster I have framed and in my room - was done in poland I think to advertise a performance of Caligula.
The Just Assassins consumates the philosophy presented in The Rebel. It retells the (true) story of the assassination of a Duke, the perpetrators failing in a prior attempt because they refused to attack while he was around his niece and nephew. For Camus, the refusal to sacrifice innocents is important for the Rebel - who wants all or nothing. As a french-algerian, Camus believed in the rights of the native Algerians, however refused that it was necessary to attack innocent settlers in order to gain their independence.
The misunderstanding is an attempt by Camus to write a tragedy in the style of Oedipus. As a result, it reads more like a literary experiment - frankly, something that might be written as a text response by a Year 12 student. A son returns home only to be killed by his sister and mother, because he neglects to tell them who he is. There is a very nice sentiment conveyed here which I think is worthwhile, something which comes through in Kafka stories like Metamorphosis, The Trial and the Castle.
We hold onto a naive belief that many of the problems we face arise as a result of misunderstanding. If we can just express ourselves clearly enough, get in contact with the right people, then our problems will be resolved.
This is certainly a trap I find myself falling into, it's hard just to accept that some things cannot be communicated, and it's better to shut-up than to dig yourself into more and more misconceptions. Sometimes it's a sad thing to realise.
State of Seige is somewhat similar to The Plague. Camus liked to write A Novel, an Essay and a Play to explore the same idea. In this play, a plague is used as an excuse to implement a totalitarian regime. It is reasonably unremarkable - perhaps not refined as was the case with The Plague.
Of the plays in this collection, Caligula and The Just Assassins are the most important to his philosophy and indeed, the better written. Caligula represents a perversion of unquestioned Christian values. He operates alongside Mersault in Camus' philosophy of the Absurd. For some reason, I feel like there is something quite admirable about this Caligula. Despite all he does, it seems like he really does just want "the moon" (contrast to Mersault's Sun), and the inauthenticity of the characters around him draws little sympathy for all he puts them through. There is a resemblance between the way Caligula and Hamlet approach their destinies. In light of a modernist anguish, a deprivation of meaning, they manipulate the world around them in an attempt to find something tangible.
Here is a poster I have framed and in my room - was done in poland I think to advertise a performance of Caligula.
The Just Assassins consumates the philosophy presented in The Rebel. It retells the (true) story of the assassination of a Duke, the perpetrators failing in a prior attempt because they refused to attack while he was around his niece and nephew. For Camus, the refusal to sacrifice innocents is important for the Rebel - who wants all or nothing. As a french-algerian, Camus believed in the rights of the native Algerians, however refused that it was necessary to attack innocent settlers in order to gain their independence.
The misunderstanding is an attempt by Camus to write a tragedy in the style of Oedipus. As a result, it reads more like a literary experiment - frankly, something that might be written as a text response by a Year 12 student. A son returns home only to be killed by his sister and mother, because he neglects to tell them who he is. There is a very nice sentiment conveyed here which I think is worthwhile, something which comes through in Kafka stories like Metamorphosis, The Trial and the Castle.
We hold onto a naive belief that many of the problems we face arise as a result of misunderstanding. If we can just express ourselves clearly enough, get in contact with the right people, then our problems will be resolved.
This is certainly a trap I find myself falling into, it's hard just to accept that some things cannot be communicated, and it's better to shut-up than to dig yourself into more and more misconceptions. Sometimes it's a sad thing to realise.
State of Seige is somewhat similar to The Plague. Camus liked to write A Novel, an Essay and a Play to explore the same idea. In this play, a plague is used as an excuse to implement a totalitarian regime. It is reasonably unremarkable - perhaps not refined as was the case with The Plague.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
the brothers karamazov
The Brothers Karamazov is not as famous as Crime and Punishment, although it is probably more important philosophically, its themes referred to throughout various essays. Two examples that come to mind are the Sartre paraphrase "If God is dead, then everything is permitted" (attributed to Dostoevsky as a quote but Sartre said it this way, not him) and the story of a boy being mauled by a dog - the "is this evil necessary?"/god existence dilemma.
These two examples are both presented in the story through Ivan Karamazov, and indeed, Camus refers to Ivan throughout The Rebel. A particularly nice (Camus) quote is "All the truth in the world is not worth a child's tears" - Ivan's level-headed philosophy, which Camus believed represented the real views of Dostoevsky.
So there is all that to bear in mind - the story is beautiful. It is a big book, however it is very enjoyable to read, and one sees elements of this story arise in other literature. The court case, of patricide (perhaps alluded to in The Outsider) is particularly enthralling, although it is perhaps just an excuse for Dostoevsky to write long showy speeches.
The three brothers, quite shamelessly manifest the heart, the mind and body. Alyosha (the heart) is such a beautifully innocent character that one can't help but admire his goodness. Classic Dostoevsky trademarks are present, in particular the madness which consumes Ivan (madness is a necessary consequence of all Dostoevsky's characters who cease to believe in God... not to be confused, although reminiscent, of Nietzsche's madman).
Finding a good translation, I think, is important. Some of the sayings, e.g. "One reptile will devour the other" must have quite a bit of room for interpretation, another translation reads "Viper eats viper..." and one American book I read was filled to the brim with the word gotten.
Whilst I enjoyed this book far more than Crime and Punishment, if recommending one or the other, I would probably defer to Crime and Punishment. It more clearly executes an idea that is important historically, whereas Brothers Karamazov is more a nice story with a few philosophical side-investigations.
These two examples are both presented in the story through Ivan Karamazov, and indeed, Camus refers to Ivan throughout The Rebel. A particularly nice (Camus) quote is "All the truth in the world is not worth a child's tears" - Ivan's level-headed philosophy, which Camus believed represented the real views of Dostoevsky.
So there is all that to bear in mind - the story is beautiful. It is a big book, however it is very enjoyable to read, and one sees elements of this story arise in other literature. The court case, of patricide (perhaps alluded to in The Outsider) is particularly enthralling, although it is perhaps just an excuse for Dostoevsky to write long showy speeches.
The three brothers, quite shamelessly manifest the heart, the mind and body. Alyosha (the heart) is such a beautifully innocent character that one can't help but admire his goodness. Classic Dostoevsky trademarks are present, in particular the madness which consumes Ivan (madness is a necessary consequence of all Dostoevsky's characters who cease to believe in God... not to be confused, although reminiscent, of Nietzsche's madman).
Finding a good translation, I think, is important. Some of the sayings, e.g. "One reptile will devour the other" must have quite a bit of room for interpretation, another translation reads "Viper eats viper..." and one American book I read was filled to the brim with the word gotten.
Whilst I enjoyed this book far more than Crime and Punishment, if recommending one or the other, I would probably defer to Crime and Punishment. It more clearly executes an idea that is important historically, whereas Brothers Karamazov is more a nice story with a few philosophical side-investigations.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil was the first Nietzsche book I read - as a result, I read it without guidance and I must say not too much comprehension of what was going on. The most prominent criticisms are those of Women - I've had friends (a man, by the way, who converted from being a conservative women/gay/refugee distrusting conservative to a vegetarian feminist overnight) who could not understand how such views as are in Beyond Good and Evil to be published.
Of course, anyone who's studied Nietzsche will know how misconceived the racist/sexist perceptions are, so I won't go on too much about this.
It is hard, without having read much Nietzsche at the time, to differentiate between his sarcastic statements, his deliberate eccentricities and his sincere concerns. I think everyone at some point would like to write the way Nietzsche does - just get all your ideas out there and refuse to sensor any ideas that might seem a little askew.
What resonates in Beyond Good and Evil, as well as his distrust of organized religion and manipulative women, is his love of art. When one picks up on this value, the other statements can be interpreted toward it. e.g. what is wrong with Christianity is the suppression of the artistic soul, what is wrong with women is ... well, yes, I guess that stuff is more an expression of impotence and desire - which is indicative of a torn and longing individual, rather than a sexist one.
Of course, anyone who's studied Nietzsche will know how misconceived the racist/sexist perceptions are, so I won't go on too much about this.
It is hard, without having read much Nietzsche at the time, to differentiate between his sarcastic statements, his deliberate eccentricities and his sincere concerns. I think everyone at some point would like to write the way Nietzsche does - just get all your ideas out there and refuse to sensor any ideas that might seem a little askew.
What resonates in Beyond Good and Evil, as well as his distrust of organized religion and manipulative women, is his love of art. When one picks up on this value, the other statements can be interpreted toward it. e.g. what is wrong with Christianity is the suppression of the artistic soul, what is wrong with women is ... well, yes, I guess that stuff is more an expression of impotence and desire - which is indicative of a torn and longing individual, rather than a sexist one.
Friday, August 13, 2004
The Wall
"Le Mur" (The Wall) is included in Sartre's collection of short stories, released under the title "Intimacy" in English (although I think the collection was also called Le Mur in French).
I had heard about this story from a friend doing a French Lit unit, and that apparently it retold lived experiences from Sartre's days in the resistance, and that one of the characters is Camus. Unfortunately the publishing of the story predates the war (and the resistance, it's actually set during the Spanish civil war), and furthermore predates Sartre's introduction to Camus (Camus had reviewed the short stories, an essay which is published in the collection: Lyrical and Critical Essays). However, what was quite delightful when I had heard about it was the connexion between this story, and an essay by Kant "On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns".
Kant's essay gives a hypothetical dilemma: a murderer is at your door, asking for your friend. You think your friend is at the cinema, so you can either tell the truth, or lie (inaction is not possible). The argument runs like this: if you lie, and say your friend is at the cemetary, and by some strange coincidence the murderer finds him there, then you are morally responsible for the death. If you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible.
Yep, it's pretty dumb (in its condensed form anyway), but without getting into the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian philosophy, Sartre's story is an allegory of this anecdote (is an allegory of a fictional story still an allegory?). In Le Mur, the protagonist, Pablo, is being interrogated about the wherabouts of the rebels' leader - Ramon. When they do finally bring him in (all because Pablo tries to give them the runabout by lying about his whereabouts), Pablo falls to the ground in some ambiguous fit of tears and laughter.
I should revisit this short story collection, I don't remember it to be that memorable. I much prefer Sartre's plays - in his stories, there is something bitter, a smirk at the human condition, which I can't help but feel is a result of Sartre's dissatisfaction at being ugly... (i'm only being half facetious)... but respect there is always.
I had heard about this story from a friend doing a French Lit unit, and that apparently it retold lived experiences from Sartre's days in the resistance, and that one of the characters is Camus. Unfortunately the publishing of the story predates the war (and the resistance, it's actually set during the Spanish civil war), and furthermore predates Sartre's introduction to Camus (Camus had reviewed the short stories, an essay which is published in the collection: Lyrical and Critical Essays). However, what was quite delightful when I had heard about it was the connexion between this story, and an essay by Kant "On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns".
Kant's essay gives a hypothetical dilemma: a murderer is at your door, asking for your friend. You think your friend is at the cinema, so you can either tell the truth, or lie (inaction is not possible). The argument runs like this: if you lie, and say your friend is at the cemetary, and by some strange coincidence the murderer finds him there, then you are morally responsible for the death. If you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible.
Yep, it's pretty dumb (in its condensed form anyway), but without getting into the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian philosophy, Sartre's story is an allegory of this anecdote (is an allegory of a fictional story still an allegory?). In Le Mur, the protagonist, Pablo, is being interrogated about the wherabouts of the rebels' leader - Ramon. When they do finally bring him in (all because Pablo tries to give them the runabout by lying about his whereabouts), Pablo falls to the ground in some ambiguous fit of tears and laughter.
I should revisit this short story collection, I don't remember it to be that memorable. I much prefer Sartre's plays - in his stories, there is something bitter, a smirk at the human condition, which I can't help but feel is a result of Sartre's dissatisfaction at being ugly... (i'm only being half facetious)... but respect there is always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)