pase6638-blog

[pase6638-blog]

My Passion- The Nature of Philosophy (Believe it or Not)

In the west, God is normally attributed three qualities- omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Problems arise out of all of them, but the last quality in particular, omnibenevolence, leaves the conception of God in a pickle. It’s called the logical problem of evil. No matter how you define evil, you cannot deny that it exists in the world. So, if God is omnibenevolent, why doesn’t God just take away the evil? If he[1] doesn’t, he’s not omnibenevolent. If he wants to, but can’t, he’s not omnipotent. If he doesn’t know that evil exists in the world, then he’s not omniscient. How can one resolve this problem? Many propose free-will; we ourselves are capable of making good choices or bad choices, and the evil that exists in the world is on account of us. However, couple of problems arise here: one, can free-will be compatible with omniscience? If God knows everything, he knows the past, present and future. If he knows your future, then how can you truly exercise free-will? God will always know every decision you make. Second, free-will resolves evil caused by humans; but what about plagues, and natural disasters? Surely we have no control over that! Now, what I’ve done here is explored a branch of religious philosophy called theodicy, or the study of God and evil.

 As I’m reading the paragraph that I just typed, the one above this sentence, I think about theodicies, and free-will, as well as the nature of reality, with a little bit of logic sprinkled in there for good measure. Yes, I think about philosophy. Then, I think about what my mother said when I told her about my love of philosophy. “Oh, you think philosophy is going to pay bills? Make you rich? How you expect to make a lot of money with philosophy degree[2]?” Whenever I reflect on what she said, I realize that there’s truth in it. When I grow older, I want to be rich[3]. If I pursue my love of philosophy, however, I won’t be rich. The dilemma is quite an interesting one. It all boils down to which I love more. Now, you probably expect me to sing my love of philosophy, and state that “the unexamined life is not worth living!” That would be a lie. I love money more[4]. However, the prospect of money remains so far away, almost like a girl I like, sitting so close, yet seeming so far, foreign even. Then what role does philosophy play in my life? I don’t know. Knowing theodicies won’t help me in my future. Nor will knowing Plato’s Allegory of the Cave; so why do I do it? Why do I love something that’s so useless? Now that I’ve asked myself this question, I ride on a slippery slope, evaluating everything I hold dear, and I start to fall into a nihilistic chasm. Why do I love something that’s so useless? Why do I love life, which is so useless? After all, we all will die at some point. Like that, we will cease to exist. We will be cast into oblivion, and in knowing this, our moments of existence are tormented by the fear of oblivion, this purgatory where we’re not punished or rewarded. We just cease to be. So what’s the point of life now? What’s the point of living a pitiful existence, full of suffering, pain, and turmoil? Why go on? 

To answer these questions, I turn to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who said “to live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.” That’s what philosophy does for me. It gives me some meaning to cling on to, some unexplainable hope, a feeling that I can’t describe, whenever I read the archaic texts that line the walls of this ancient study. It’s like poetry, like literature, like the arts. Inherently, all of these are useless, pathetic wastes of time that serve no real purpose. Yet, they give us purpose. You could say that their purpose is to give us purpose. It sounds stupid, I know; but at the same time, it’s a fundamental truth about humanity: we live for a reason; however, there is no reason provided for us. Thus, we have to create our own reasons, our own purposes for living[5], for marching forward into the new dawn, which will hold tragedies that none of us can bear. Yet, we persist. We do so due to the little things in our lives; and for me, that little thing is philosophy. It’s what keeps me going day to day, learning something new, exploring possibilities that I never could have conceived. It’s my passion. A useless passion, yes- but a passion nonetheless.    

[1] Yes, I use “he” to describe God. Tell me, does that trigger you?

[2] My mom’s Indian, so I don’t know why I made her sound Asian. Same thing anyways, right?

[3] For a person who’s into philosophy, I sure am superficial and greedy. Socrates would be disappointed.

[4] I say as a copy of the Communist Manifesto sits on my desk

[5] As I’m writing this, I realize that I’ve just talked about The Absurd, a concept which I got familiar to from studying Albert Camus

[pase6638-blog]

Freedom, and A Clockwork Orange

The Meaning of Freedom

What exactly is freedom? From a purely scientific standpoint, the question of free-will remains quite open. Even from a philosophical standpoint the question remains open, too! Are we free? To answer this question, we will first need some definition of freedom. Let me provide my own simple definition: freedom is merely the ability to choose. Now, many of us believe that we make all the decisions in our lives on our own accord- something as small as choosing what to eat for breakfast; to something massive, like marrying your best friend Becky. However, are we truly making these choices? What else could possibly affect our choices? What about genetic predisposition? Environmental factors? Perhaps how someone was raised as a child? Maybe even God? Now, being the atheist that I am (until I become a politician, in which case I will be a born again Christian), I don’t think God has any role in our lives. However, what about all the other factors that I mentioned? I want you to think about it: imagine all the factors in existence that you can’t control that can control you. Now, I can’t answer the question of free will in a Tumblr post- I’m smart, but I’m not that smart. However, for the remainder of my post, I will be assuming that free will does exist, thus giving the notion of freedom some value.

Is Freedom of Choice Important?

In an article by Anthony Burgess, he states “One of the slogans of George Orwell’s superstate in ‘1984’ is ‘Freedom is slavery.’ This can be taken to mean that the burden of making one’s own choices is, for many people, intolerable. To be tied to the necessity of deciding for oneself is to be a slave to one’s will.” In today’s fast paced, American, capitalist mentality, consumer driven society, we all are slaves to the forces that drive us. It’s quite paradoxical, actually. We all make a choice to give up our ability to make choices, for we don’t want the burden of making any more choices that is contrary to the first choice. For instance, when I decided to enter the full IB program, that was on my own accord. However, now that I’m in full IB, my ability to make decisions has greatly deteriorated- my fate for the next year is sealed. I won’t be able to hang out with my friends, I can kiss any free time goodbye, and school work will be on my mind at every second. Inherently, my ability to choose is nonexistent- my life is now dictated by the IB Bogs, or Gods, and their prophets, the IB teachers who carry out their bidding. Right now, I don’t have the power to choose any other direction than the one I chose in the first place. “Why did I choose this path?” To get into a good college. “Why do I want to get into a good college?” So that I can make money. “Why do I want money?” So that I can lead a good life. “What’s the point of leading a good life if I’m going to die in the end?” I don’t know. I just do it. It’s an end unto itself. I’m trapped in a vicious cycle in which the only absolution I can see is complete annihilation; but I don’t care. I myself decided to take away my own freedom. It was a choice I myself made, in full knowledge of its implications; and that’s what we all have to do today. Our will to succeed in this world pushes us to the limits of our existence; a threshold in which, if we are to pass, we must give up our freedom in the pursuit of some higher goal. It’s quite absurd, really. That’s why I greatly admire those who fight against the clockwork, those who attempt to retain their humanity. These people, they are those who, as the saying goes, “go with the wind”. These are people who revel in their humanity, and indulge in their existence. Take Alex, the anti-hero of A Clockwork Orange. In the beginning, he is a vicious psychopath who enjoys stealing, raping, and killing. However, he does this on his own accord. All of this is his choice- and that’s what I admire. Alex is capable of making choices. He is free in a freedom-less world. For me, human existence is itself chaotic and unpredictable, and that is freedom. However, when we attempt to bring forth order, we take away the chaos, thus denying ourselves of our existence. We become clockwork oranges.  

[pase6638-blog]

I am not gonna die sober!

Jordan Belfort (The Wolf of Wall Street)

Who does?

[pase6638-blog]

Meaningful Mondays- Religion and its Role in Our World

For thousands upon thousands of years, religion has played a huge role in the history of us, humans. It has produced some of the greatest pieces of art; the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, painted masterfully by Michelangelo; or the Blue Mosque, a testament to the architectural beauty the Ottomans were capable of. Religion has also given us order, bringing together entire masses of people under the banner of faith, unifying them under one doctrine. Religion has been the driving force behind the rise and preservation of many great civilizations, from the Byzantine Empire to the Islamic Empire under its many caliphs. 

However, religion has a dark side to it. It has been the inspiration for a lot of bloodshed, and a great amount of violence. It has been the greatest divider among people: Protestant versus Catholic, Sunni versus Shiite, and much more. Given all of this, the main contention that many people in the modern world have with religion is its reliance on faith, and seeming rejection of reason. As the popular political comedian Bill Maher puts it, “... faith, which is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking.” Many would say that religion has no place in the modern era. After all, it is a very old way of thinking about a world in which we know so much about. Many would argue that religion is the way of old, and the future is paved by science. Out with the old, and in with the new.

Some would say religion is more than a faith- based system. Human beings can essentially be split up into two parts- the rational, and the emotional. Science is the result of the rational side of humanity; centuries of honing the way in which we observe nature, and how we come to understand the universe around us. Religion, however, can be thought of as a reflection of our emotional side. A side which, at times, can be peaceful- but at other times, violent and turbulent, like a raging sea. A side which revels in beauty, and finds order in the depths of chaos. It’s a side which ponders into the mystical. It’s a side which reflects the place of humans in the vast universe in which we live. It’s a side which is paradoxical, doing things which are contrary to reason. In fact, pure emotion requires no reason. It just requires existence; and religion is a reflection of this existence, of this side of humanity. Religion is the result of thousands of years of human beings merely existing. It is the reflection of our emotional side, the side which, in conjunction with our rational side, makes us. Human beings. We are a combination of the emotional and the rational; and a rejection of either would be a rejection of us being humans. A rejection of science would be a rejection of the rational, thus being a rejection of who we are. A rejection of religion would be a rejection of the emotional, a rejection of the very essence of who we are. It would be a rejection of our humanity.  

In our modern world, does religion have any place what-so-ever? Should religion be relegated to the confines of history as a failed system of knowledge? Or should we preserve it, and indeed revel in it, as it’s a reflection of our emotional side? What should be the role of religion in our world today?

[pase6638-blog]

Jurassic Park as a Work of Literary Merit

For me, the lines on page one hundred and thirty-four really highlight Jurassic Park as being a work of literary merit. “’The reason I ask,’ Malcolm said, ‘is that I’m told large predators such as lions and tigers are not born man-eaters. Isn’t that true? These animals must learn somewhere along the way that human beings are easy to kill. Only afterward do they become man-killers.’” Before I delve into why I believe this line constitutes a defense of Jurassic Park as a piece of literature with merit, I first want to explain what I view literary merit as.

Literary merit is relative within the genre of the text. For example, merit within historical fiction would constitute a deep story told within the context of some historical period, with that period playing a role in the main story. Also, the quality of the story would also come into question. A prime example that many consider a book with literary merit in historical fiction would by War and Peace, by Leo Tolstoy. Fictional stories, in general, have to have quality writing in order to be considered works of merit; but what constitutes quality writing? For me, the use of literary devices, such as symbolism, and the use of motifs, all woven together masterfully in order to form a story told in an elegant manner, would be what constitutes a work of merit. However, when it comes to the genre of science fiction, I believe that the condition of literary merit changes. Instead of using literary devices and motifs, facts, science, maths, and logic is the primary tools of weaving a story; and what constitutes literary merit is how these tools are integrated into the story, and how cohesive this integration is.

Back to the original quote, and how it constitutes Jurassic Park as being a work of literary merit. In this line, Crichton uses logic to explain Malcolm’s thinking and show how he reasons that there have been fatal accidents. This form of reasoning, combined with the countless facts woven into the story, help constitute Jurassic Park as being a work of literary merit. More so, how these tools help advance the story also matter. From page one hundred and ten and onwards, the whole explanation that Henry Wu gives of how the dinosaurs were able to have been cloned is very technical; but Crichton presents all of these is a way that detailed, but not complicated. He weaves this technicality into the story, so that it’s not just Crichton trying to sound pretentious- it in fact plays an important role later on (like Chekov’s Gun), in the form of the dinosaurs being able to reproduce.

All in all, Jurassic Park is a work of literary merit, especially in the science fiction genre; and to be honest, I don’t care what any masseuse (yeah, I called him a masseuse) says about it.  

[pase6638-blog]

Machiavelli and Illusions

“Never mind reality, image is everything.” This one saying captures what Machiavelli has to say about illusions (or- what I believe to be a more apt term- perceptions) and how they relate to reality. 

On the whole, I believe this to be a very good strategy when dealing with any situation involving people or social conditions. Now, why do I think this? It’s quite simple, actually. But first, I would like to talk about humans in general, and how they interact with each other. Now, there’s a Japanese proverb that goes like this; people have three faces: one they wear around other people, the other they wear around their family, and the final they wear when they are alone. Although it would be impossible to establish this saying as an axiom of human nature, it is one that can be assumed when dealing with other people. Why? Because human beings, by their very nature, aren’t honest. Nor are they “true to themselves” (as that cliche goes), as they pretend to be what they’re not in order to impress people, impress themselves, or to accomplish some other menial task. You see, what I believe, is that people can’t be trusted. Inherently, people work for their own self interest. And in order for me to work in my own self interest, it would require to put on a mask, to give an impression of someone I’m not (at his point, I realize I’m sounding really pretentious; I ask you to bare with me). Now, many people put on masks not necessarily for the purpose of self interest, but more so due to habit (social pressures, make/ keep friendships, etc.). But, others choose to put it on for reasons (like I said) of personal gain. They present to the world an illusion, instead of the truth. And sometimes, the illusion is much more pleasant than the truth.

Now, how can presenting an illusion be helpful to a person? For one, many people will gain an impression of you that is totally wrong. They will assign to you a certain nature, a falsity which you can use to you advantage at any time you want to. For example, if you come off as empathetic, people might put in you a certain trust, or a certain friendship, which would be easy to exploit in any given situation. If you come off as being friendly, people will take a certain liking to you, which, again, you could exploit at any given situation.You see, presenting to people a version of you that is false has many benefits. The only downside I can think of is that most, if not all, of the human bonds you form would have no depth, and would be fake, as the bonds are between that person and your illusion, not that person and you. But, this is a very small downside, and really, one need not take it as a downside, but positively; human bonds, especially those of the social nature, are very tenuous in nature. And to some people, these bonds carry no meaning but as means to some end. Now, the point I’m trying to make here is that, presenting an illusion of yourself is permissible, and even preferable, in social situations, as well as political situations (I assumed that the political situation would be a given; my argument mainly focuses on the personal situation). For when presenting an illusion to the world, the illusion can be anything that you deem necessary; be it an illusion of power, to make people respect you; or an illusion of humanity, to make people like you; or an illusion of empathy, to make people trust you; in the end, illusions help to further one’s goals when dealing with people, as people are, for the most part, blind, gullible, and emotional- all traits that can be exploited by a person who wishes too, all traits that make a person weak. 

[pase6638-blog]

Making a Murderer and The Prince

Now, even though I did feel negative emotions regarding the way Steven Avery was “set up” (if you will), I still stand by everything I said in my original quick write. Yes, I know people will be negatively impacted by the tactics used. But in the end, it will end up being beneficial to the person employing the tactics. Now, would I want the tactics employed on me? Of course not. Would I feel like I’ve been treated unfairly, and what happened was wrong? You bet. But, I would still employ those same tactics that I would normally find disdainful on other people. Hypocritical? Yes, yes it is. To quote from Frank Underwood (that show has some really good quotes); “the road to power is paved with hypocrisy. And causalities.” 

Now, as to the role of force and violence, and whether their justified, they are if the help achieve some end. Now, of course it depends on the end. For example, the Holocaust wasn’t necessarily justified, as Hitler could have come into power (in fact, he did) without killing 6 million jews, plus millions of more people. However, as much as people would disagree with me, one could justify his use of antisemitism to reach an end, that is uniting the rest of Germany (for he gave them all a common enemy to hate). Also, he used it effectively to come into power. Let me take a contemporary example. Now, many in this class will probably hate me for what I say (those darn liberals! (I’m kidding, btw)), but I do admire Donald Trump for just a few abilities. One of them is his ability to gain support by giving people a common enemy to hate. These enemies are Barack Obama, immigrants, muslims, and many others. Now, many republicans have tried to do this in the past. But Donald Trump is highly effective at it (for he’s leading in the republican polls). You see, Trump plays off the hatred and fears of others to gain power. And this, I admire. I don’t agree with it. But I admire it. (You may ask how I don’t agree with it yet admire it. Let me give you a rather morbid example. I disdain the holocaust. I truly think that it’s immoral. But I do admire how organized the whole effort was). 

So what does this all mean? The end does justify the means. Now, if you judge any act just by itself, obviously it will come off as being immoral. But, judging in the bigger context, one could come to justify the actions. Now, all that there’s left to do is judge the end itself. Now, for me, power and money are their own ends. And any means to get to them is justifiable (and I do realize that I sound really pretentious here...). 

[pase6638-blog]

I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best.

George Bush In Washington, D.C., on January 12, 2009

And republicans think Obama is stupid...

[pase6638-blog]

The Greatest Story Ever Told- Srihari’s Stories

           All my life I’ve been a pretty avid reader. Ever since elementary school (when I got in trouble by my parents for reading too much) to the present day, I read a lot. But, there have been a few books that helped influence who I am.

1.)   Sherlock Holmes

I remember the first time I read a Holmes story. It was the summer of 2013, and I had just gone to the library. From the library I had brought back a huge book with bunch of stories pertaining to the eccentric detective. From the moment I started reading, I was hooked. But how did this influence me? After reading this book, I grew a deep interest in logic (as Holmes primarily used logic to solve his cases, as well as keen senses of observation). This starting interest in logic ultimately gave way to a deeper pursuit of mathematics.

I freaking love this man...

2.)   Meditations

This book by Marcus Aurelius was the book that really got me into philosophy (believe it or not, I’m really into philosophy). Although Aurelius’ style is not very enticing, the message in itself was one that profoundly spoke to me. The ideas of being free from harmful emotions, to live according to one’s nature, those (I thought) was very noble ideas. Although I don’t consider myself a stoic, I do incorporate many concepts from stoicism into my own philosophy.

3.)   The Godfather

Although this book isn’t a literary masterpiece, I remember getting a morbid interest in organized crime after I read this book. In fact, it influenced me so much that I planned on doing something, but I can’t say, cause you know, omerta. This book also sparked my passion for gaining money and power, but also being a benevolent, yet feared, ruler (like Vito Corleone). I mean, to this very day, I am still on my path to becoming a (legal) Godfather.

The man I used to, and admittedly sort of even now, admire.

4.)   What the Buddha Taught

Although this is an introductory book on Theravada Buddhism, this book greatly impacted me, and that impact can still be felt to this day, and will be felt in the future. Now, before you get the impression that I’m one of those hipster teenagers who’s accepted Buddhism as some phase they’re going through, I’m not one of those people. Keep in mind, I come from an Indian- Hindu household. And in Indian- Hindu households, the Buddha is a big deal. In neo-Hinduism (as I call it), he’s considered the 9th avatar of Vishnu. Ever since I was young, my parents taught me about this religion. What I used to consider a hippy religion meant for pacifists, I later learned (through this book) that it wasn’t the case. I also was taught (from my parents) how to meditate when I was young. What I used to think was an arduous task, I now see as an activity that, truth be told, helps calm my mind. And although I don’t consider myself a Buddhist, I do incorporate a lot of its ideals into my own philosophy.

Not to be mistaken with Gautama Buddha

5.)   Calvin and Hobbes

Although this is a comic book series, I would be committing a great sin if I were not to include this in the list of books that shaped who I am. Calvin and Hobbes, to me, is more than just a comic strip. It’s my entire childhood. I remember the feeling of companionship the book gave me in my times of isolation (which was always). I remember the way it made me laugh, and all the ways I could connect with the protagonist, Calvin. In fact, I felt so much despair when I learned that Bill Waterson wasn’t making anymore strips. Also, now that I think back on it, there were so many philosophical themes overlaid in the comics. Back when I was young, I barely could understand them. But now, I realize that there was a lot that the comics could have taught me, lessons I’m learning right now (I own the complete collection).

6.)   The Bhagavad Gita

This one, here, is an interesting one. I haven’t actually read this book… But before you write me off, here me out. My family is a Hindu family. I’m an atheist, but was still raised with Hindu ideals, and keep many Hindu ideals (for example, being a vegetarian). Now, this book right here is the key to understanding the predominant philosophy of modern day Hinduism. This is because many of the philosophies one finds in modern day Hinduism can be traced back to the Gita. One being the conflation of Krishna, the avatar of Vishnu (just bear with me) as being a God in himself. This is interesting, because there are ten avatars of Vishnu (the dashavatara), yet Krishna tends to be given the most importance. This is (perhaps) because of the Gita. Now, for a quick summary, the Gita is a part of a larger text called The Mahabharata, which is a really, really long epic. It tells of the story of two different royal families, both related to each other, and the power struggle between them to gain the throne in Hastinapura. Now, I’ve read snippets from the book, and must admit, it’s a pretty interesting read. The opening itself describes the prelude to the battle of Kurukshetra, when the warrior prince Arjuna views the army he’s going against, and sees that of many of them, he used to have some past relationship too. So, he doesn’t want to fight, then talks to Krishna (the avatar mentioned earlier), and both of them get into a huge conversation regarding philosophy, just warfare, and all that stuff. Plus, the Gita was quoted by Oppenheimer after the first atomic bomb test, “Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds”. I think that’s pretty cool.

7.)   Mein Kampf

I’m kidding. I haven’t read this book. I just really wanted to add it to my list. You know, cause… gotcha. So anyways…

8.)   Where the Red Fern Grows (Actual 7th Book)

This book right here. This book… after reading this book, it was the only one that brought me close to tears. And I’m not a very emotional person to begin with…This book really spoke to me, you know, a book about a kid who wanted something, pursued it to no ends, just to lose it. It really broke my bodily systems responsible for emotion. And it also really got me into liking dogs (which is ironic, because I recently found out that I was allergic to fur).

Somewhere in your heart, you know this dog is either dead, or is going to die...

[pase6638-blog]

Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

Rush Limbaugh

What far right thinking can do to a man...

[pase6638-blog]

Chekhov and Women

I think it depends on how women are portrayed in Chekhov’s stories. Take The Grasshopper for example. Olga is portrayed as a pretentious, shallow, materialistic person, and when compared to Dymov, many would agree that he is a superior character. But, and this is a huge but, do not think that (in the particular context) Chekhov is a sexist and (somehow) misogynistic pig. Let’s take, for example, Ryabovsky. He is as equally shallow as Olga, later “cheats” on her (cheats is in quotations because they “technically” broke up and Olga wanted him back), and is a pretentious jerk (remember all his ramblings on the Volga?). Let’s also look at The Duel. In it, both Laevsky and Nadia are as equally lazy, filled with vice, and deplorable as each other. Or take My Life. Misail is the hero, yes, but his flaw is that he has all of his ideologies mixed up, and they’re whack. You see, my opinion is that Chekhov writes people who are very real. They have strengths and flaws, vices and redemptions, and many traits that make them human. So to say that a women was perceived in X way due to some bias of the author is, I think, is unfair to the author.

As for the roles Chekhov had women portray, I think in The Grasshopper he was really braking stereotypes about women. I wager that, during that time period, women of the higher class were expected to stay back home, and be the quiet partner, while the husband went out, socialized, and did all that stuff. But in the story, we see a role reversal, with Dymov taking the former role, and Olga taking the latter.

In conclusion, I believe that Chekhov cared less about “breaking societal norms” and “questioning the existing patriarchy” (which are all good things), but cared more about creating believable, flawed, and in the end, human characters.  

[pase6638-blog]

Meaningful Mondays- on a Tuesday

Idealism. We all have it. We seem to have a certain conception of the ideal way, object, person, or anything else. But keep in mind, these are just conceptions. They exist in the mind. And they are of what we would prefer, rather than what is. 

So, chasing these ideals can be dangerous. We can give our whole lives to going after them, just to end up in disappointment, for the world is not an ideal place to live. But than again, why shouldn’t we chase ideals? Why shouldn’t we try to go after the seemingly unattainable perfection that we conceptualize? Again, we humans are a race of passion, emotion, and beauty. And what other concept highlights this than idealism? So my question is: Are chasing ideals dangerous, for the are a conception of the seemingly perfect?

[pase6638-blog]

Chekhov’s Writing

How does Chekhov avoid adopting a strong moral authoritative tone? Now, by no means am I a professional literary critic, but nonetheless, I shall attempt a brief foray into this matter. Now, if one would take notice in The Duel, there are many different characters that propagate many different views, and at many times, these views are contradictory. For example, take Von Koren, and his propagation of social darwinism, and the excessive talk about getting rid of Laevsky. Many would agree that this is quite a stand to take. Yet, Chekhov backed up the point so well, that I found myself sort of agreeing with Von Koren. And yet, people such as Samoylenko stands up for Laevsky, and speaks up against Von Koren’s doctrine, and also provides ample reasoning for it. Here, these contradictory claims serves to show how Chekhov isn’t trying to propagate a stance, but is rather trying to tell a story. Another example would be My Life. In the story, Misail expresses many views regarding the working and higher classes. We’ve already went over in class how many of these views are hypocritical, and at times, are very ambiguous. Yet, the points the Doctor made, the points against Misail, were still very good points (at least in my view), as they were well reasoned out (such as why artists and scientists shouldn’t have to preform physical labor).

In conclusion, I believe that Chekhov is merely trying to explain the different ideologies out there, and just showing the reader that they exist, while masterfully intertwining them in his stories. Now, I remember reading that Chekhov was an atheist, and this atheism could have contributed to him not taking moral stances on questions (due to the whole question of objective morality, and the such). Also, at this time, Russia was undergoing a lot of change. In this change, many new ideologies were probably rising up, and Chekhov was simply taking these ideologies and exploring them in his texts.   

[pase6638-blog]

Separation

How are the themes of separation shown in Three Sisters? Please note I had a really hard time following the names of the characters, and I highly doubt that I could detail them here. But here goes: First off, I would like to draw attention to the love triangle between Masha, her boyfriend, and her husband. Between Masha and her husband, there was a clear separation from Masha’s side, but it was also clear that her husband was truly infatuated with her. This plays into an interesting role in which Masha is, in what I feel, separate from her for no other reason than a loss of interest. This is especially clear in how Masha is cheating, literally, right behind his back. But, the shocker came when her husband found out about the affair. He just put it behind him! This, I found, illustrates the difference between Masha and her husband; he’s loyal, while she’s dishonest. This dichotomy in their characters leads to the separation that Masha creates between her and her husband. Another example would be the separation between the Baron and the other guy (who he later dueled). It can be inferred that, both were on good terms in the past, but later on they came to hate each other (as evident by the duel). This shows a separation caused by lust, lust for the same person (in this case, Irina). This goes to show the power of lust, and how it can totally separate two people, and ultimately destroy one person. Another example would be the emotional detachment that Irina felt towards the Baron and the other guy who he dueled. Both of these men “loved’ (if you can call it love) Irina, yet Irina didn’t love them back (this is parallel to Masha and her husband). Here, yet again, the separation is caused by Irina. Now that I think about it, Irina and Masha caused the separation between them and other people. What I’m wondering (although I can’t recall any) is whether Olya caused the separation between her and any other “thing”; for this could imply that Chekhov deliberately characterized the three sisters as being people who tend to separate themselves from other people.  

[pase6638-blog]

Failed Ideologies

Well, now that I’ve thought back on my life, I’ve never really had a failed ideology. “Well, this is a cop out” you might say. No, it is not. Let me explain to you the ideology that I’ve held from the time I could comprehend ideologies. That ideology is not to hold onto ideologies to zealously. Now, you may say that this is a contradiction, for to not hold onto an ideology is an ideology in itself. But this is more so a principle I live by. And it has served me well over the years. For example, politically, I’m an independent, in the sense that I don’t like to identify with either political spectrum (I do lean left most of the times though). I don’t hold any religion, but do adopt different principles from other religions (like Buddhism, although I’m not one of those hipsters who goes around calling themselves Buddhist all because they read a book on it and found that they liked the idea). I don’t believe in a God/s, but I’m not anti-theistic. The only ideology (apart from the base principle) that I hold onto dearly is a huge distrust of people and negative view of humanity (I’ve tried to shake it, but it’s hard). Probably stems from experiences I’ve had in the past, but that’s a story for a different day. Now, this has actually served me well. I don’t hold people to high standards, look at every seemingly good intention with doubt, and try to see the bad in people. Do I like it? No. Have I tried to change it? Yes. But has it served me well? You bet. So overall, I believe I’ve never had any failed ideology. I haven’t had any existential crisis, no life changing moments (except a few, but their unrelated), and no perspective changing event. For me, the world has always been a cold place. Now, you may think I’m a angsty, pretentious teenager for thinking like that. But it’s truly how I think. Ever since I was little, it was how I thought. And as time went on, I haven’t been proved wrong. 

[pase6638-blog]

How I feel after doing Computer Science assignments.

[pase6638-blog]

The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.

Michael Jackson (I want to you think about why it’s so funny)