Socratic Seminars
Being Peace
Those Who Leave Omelas
Jihad vs McWorld posed some very thought provoking ideas to me, and Lori posed an even more thought provoking question from those thoughts. Only being able to choose one, which is more important, peace and stability, or identity and community? This is an insanely tough question, but I ultimately have to choose identity and community. Knowing one’s self and feeling a part of something is an imperative aspect of true happiness and well being. Peace is important, as is stability, but these things are merely ideals to strive for, not something that can really happen on a wide scale. It is a part of human nature to be violent. Regardless of how you slice it, humans are pack animals. As pack animals, we have a need for a pecking order, and a need for that order to be followed. To establish that pecking order, we will be inclined to resort to violence. Obviously we have sufficient gray matter to counteract those impulses, but the impulse is there, and will dominate sometimes. Therefore true peace is an impossible achievement. And because of this, so is total stability. Thus, identity and community are more important, because they are aspects that can be achieved.
Those Who Leave Omelas
T h e c i t y o f O m e l a s . P e a c e f u l . H a p p y . A r e a l j o y o u s p l a c e . Y e t t h e r e a r e p e o p l e w h o l e a v e b e c a u s e t h e r o o t o f t h e j o y i n O m e l a s i s t h e s u f f e r i n g o f a y o u n g c h i l d . W h y a r e t h e y d r i v e n t o l e a v e ? I c o u l d n ' t t e l l y o u . I f I l i v e d i n O m e l a s , I ' d b e o n e o f t h e p e o p l e w h o s t a y e d . I n t h e s t o r y ( p a g e 3 , p a r a g r a p h 3 ) i t s t a t e s t h a t " t h e r e i s [ n o g u i l t i n ] O m e l a s . " E v e n t h o u g h t h e r e i s a s t a r v i n g , s i c k , s c a r e d c h i l d k e p t l i k e a n a n i m a l w i t h i n t h e t o w n t h a t t h e y a l l k n o w a b o u t , n o o n e f e e l s a n y g u i l t f o r i t . S o i t i s w i t h m e . I s e e t h e t h i r d w o r l d c o u n t r i e s w h e r e p e o p l e a r e d y i n g o f h u n g e r d a i l y w h i l e I p i g o u t o n d o n u t s , s t e a k , b r o w n i e s a n d r a m e n . D o I f e e l r e g r e t , s h a m e a n d g u i l t ? N o r m a l l y n o . I ' m n o t t o o d e e p l y a f f e c t e d b y t h e i r s u f f e r i n g . W h e n I s e e t h e h o r r o r t h e y l i v e i n i n t h e t h i r d w o r l d , I g o t h r o u g h a p e r i o d o f g r i e f a n d r a g e , b u t i t c o o l s . I l e a r n t o . . . N o t a c c e p t i t a n d l e a r n f r o m i t , a s t h e c h i l d r e n d o i n t h e s t o r y , b u t r a t h e r i g n o r e t h e s u f f e r i n g a n d c o n t i n u e w i t h m y l i f e . I t h a s n o a f f e c t o n m e , s o w h y t h i n k a b o u t i t ? G u i l t h a s n o p l a c e h e r e . B u t w h y ? O t h e r p e o p l e a n d o t h e r c o u n t r i e s i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s f e e l g u i l t a n d g r i e f f o r t h e s e t h i r d w o r l d c o u n t r i e s . W h y ? I t ' s b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e a b r o a d e r s e n s e o f t h e w o r l d t h a n w e d o . O u r c o u n t r y i s a s m a l l , c u l t u r a l l y i s o l a t e d p a r t o f o u r w o r l d w i t h a n e v e n s m a l l e r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e w o r l d , j u s t l i k e O m e l a s . I h a v e n o r e a l i d e a w h a t l i f e i s l i k e i n U g a n d a o r I n d i a . A n d I d o u b t I e v e r w i l l . S i m i l a r l y , t h e o n e s w h o s t a y i n O m e l a s h a v e a b s o l u t e l y n o i d e a w h a t i s o u t s i d e o f O m e l a s . T h e w o r l d o u t s i d e t h e c i t y " i s a p l a c e l e s s i m a g i n a b l e t h a n t h e c i t y o f h a p p i n e s s . . . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t i t d o e s n o t e x i s t . " S o u n d s l i k e a p a m p e r e d A m e r i c a n ' s v i e w o f t r u e p o v e r t y . I h a v e a b r o a d e r v i e w o f t h e w o r l d t h a n m o s t , a n d I a m s t i l l v e r y c u l t u r a l l y r e t a r d e d , f o r l a c k o f a b e t t e r w o r d . I h a v e n o g o o d i d e a w h a t i s o u t t h e r e . T h e p e o p l e i n O m e l a s a n d I h a v e m u c h m o r e i n c o m m o n t h a n I w a n t t o a d m i t , a n d i t i s e m b a r r a s s i n g .
I d o n ' t w a n t t o b e l i k e t h e p e o p l e o f O m e l a s , f o r t h e y a r e s i c k , i g n o r a n t a n d d i s g u s t i n g p e o p l e . O f c o u r s e , t h e s a m e c a n b e s a i d a b o u t m o s t A m e r i c a n s . O m e l i a n s a n d A m e r i c a n s a r e v e r y s i m i l a r . A n d , m u c h a s I d i s l i k e t h e p e o p l e o f O m e l a s , I a m v e r y h a p p y w h e r e I a m a n d m y s t a t i o n i n l i f e , a n d I h a v e n o r e a s o n t o l e a v e . I c o u l d l e a v e t o f r e e m y s e l f o f t h e h o r r i b l e c o s t s o f h a p p i n e s s , a n d e d u c a t e m y s e l f i n c u l t u r e . . . B u t I d o n ' t r e a l l y w a n t t h a t . I w a n t t h e a m e n i t i e s p r o v i d e d b y m y l i f e i n t h e f i r s t w o r l d . I ' m c o n t e n t h e r e , i n m y O m e l a s . B u t j u s t b e c a u s e I ' m h a p p y h e r e a n d f e e l n o r e a l g u i l t f o r i t . . . I ' m n o t a h e a r t l e s s m o n s t e r . N e i t h e r a r e t h e r e s i d e n t s o f O m e l a s . W e s t i l l r e a c t t o s e e i n g t h e s u f f e r i n g w e c a u s e , a n d w e f e e l h o r r i b l e . I t m a y n o t l a s t f o r e v e r , b u t i t ' s s t i l l t h e r e , a n d i t c o u n t s f o r s o m e t h i n g . W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t w h a t i s h o l d i n g u p o u r h a p p i n e s s i s h o r r i b l e , e v e n i f w e d o n ' t a c t a g a i n s t i t . W h e n y o u g e t d o w n t o i t , t h e r e i s r e a l l y n o m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n m e a n d t h e o n e s w h o s t a y i n O m e l a s . I ' m n o t t e r r i b l y p r o u d o f t h a t , b u t i t ' s n o t a l t o g e t h e r a t e r r i b l e t h i n g . T h e r e i s g o o d i n O m e l a s . T h e r e i s g o o d i n m e . I t j u s t d o e s n ' t s h o w i n a l l w e d o .
Jihav Vs. McWorld
Jihad vs McWorld posed some very thought provoking ideas to me, and Lori posed an even more thought provoking question from those thoughts. Only being able to choose one, which is more important, peace and stability, or identity and community? This is an insanely tough question, but I ultimately have to choose identity and community. Knowing one’s self and feeling a part of something is an imperative aspect of true happiness and well being. Peace is important, as is stability, but these things are merely ideals to strive for, not something that can really happen on a wide scale. It is a part of human nature to be violent. Regardless of how you slice it, humans are pack animals. As pack animals, we have a need for a pecking order, and a need for that order to be followed. To establish that pecking order, we will be inclined to resort to violence. Obviously we have sufficient gray matter to counteract those impulses, but the impulse is there, and will dominate sometimes. Therefore true peace is an impossible achievement. And because of this, so is total stability. Thus, identity and community are more important, because they are aspects that can be achieved.
McWorld is definitely the most prominent force of the two in my life. Most Animas High students are going to be members of McWorld, or else their Jihad pull would take them out of the public school system. Any Jihad influences in America I can think of (Goths, Juggalos, Crips, Bloods, etc.) encourage dropping out of school ASAP. So that is one benefit already. My life is also very predictable and violence free, and I can tell you almost everything major happening in other parts of the world. I have all the modern technological amenities of the first world. I also have a great balance of Jihad influence so the negative effects of McWorld are relatively small.
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
During the seminar yesterday, I felt very lost at the beginning. I hadn’t read Slaughterhouse-Five before, and since the book was by Kurt Vonnegut, I remained very lost throughout about half of the seminar. People would discuss how Billy Pilgrim was insane and debated whether or not the Tralfamadorians were real and if Billy’s unsticking in time was an actual happening. I had no point of reference to debate, but the longer the conversation continued, I began to wonder how my peers could doubt the insanity of someone from a very realistic setting seeing aliens and flying at random through. Obviously, science fiction is a very flexible field and it is possible for these things to happen, but I don’t see the context allowing the events to transpire in the book’s reality. Anyone claiming the things Billy does should be sent off to the loony bin. Immediately. His own daughter was screaming at him because of his “stories”. There would be very little, if any, debate over his sanity. It awes me that we debate over something that seems so cut and dry.
I think the book is more anti-war than pro-war, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it an anti-war book. Vonnegut simply slides through his war experience. A prominent theme throughout the story thus far has been the lack of war stories. War stories, from both the victor and the victim, are always derived from strong emotion. Even the harrowing experiences of soldiers that they barely survive turn into war stories, but not for any of Vonnegut’s characters. For example, Billy’s time as a POW just blows on through him and his fellow prisioners, like a cold wind blowing through a ghost. During the time many storybook soldiers would team up, riot, and escape, Billy just “Went to sleep with his head on the shoulder of an unprotesting captain.” (pg 55). The book just lacks a lot of passion I would expect out of an anti-war book.
Another reason I don’t feel like Slaughterhouse-Five is an anti- war book is because of the character Ronald Weary. He is a bloodthirsty warmonger, an essential character to anti-war books, but he was given far too much depth. In what I consider a good anti-war novel, the bloody warmonger should be punished and killed for his cruelty. He should be left miserable and alone. But if you give him a poor childhood and a deep emotional hurt driving his sadism, the reader sympathizes with the warmonger! That’s exactly what happened with Weary. His character lost all of its effectiveness when you learned that, “[Robert] had been unpopular in Pittsburgh… He was always being ditched…” (pg. 35). Anti-war books are supposed to inspire passionate hate of war, and a key component of fostering that hate lost all of its power, due to the addition of Robert’s tragic history of being friendless.
Slaughterhouse-Five is a very hard book to understand, but I can really get what Billy Pilgrim means when he says “So it goes” when someone dies. Death has been a huge part of my life since I was just a baby, when my parents died in a car accident. Since then, I’ve been losing family members at an average of one per year. It hurts every time I lose a family member, but it’s just a fact of life I’ve better accepted. Someone mentions a recent death in my family, and I just think “Bummer, but that’s just how life goes.” Am I sad that I view death so apathetically compared to other people? Not really. Emotions come and go, but to dwell on them for longer than is necessary will cause ill effects. I’m not exactly proud of my outlook, but it helps in times of struggle. I’m sure that that is also a lot of the reason that Billy Pilgrim says “so it goes” so often. Especially after the plane crash that he lost all of his family in. Billy just doesn’t want to deal with the pain.
