In Memoriam

Today is May 26, 2008 it is Memorial Day. Today is the day we are suppose to pause and remember all those who have fallen in defense of our country, our freedom and our way of life. We might tend to look down upon today as a worthless holiday for those who ignorantly died for a worthless cause but we are mistaken. We ought to honor our heroes who died for our country because without them we would not be free. I went to Fredericksburg, Texas this past weekend with my parents and two of my sisters and their husbands to visit the Museum of the Pacific War in honor of those who fought in the Pacific theater in World War II. As  I walked through the museum I thought to myself how incredibly important it is for us to learn about the second World War. When we were attacked by the Japanese on December 7, 1941 we have a very dim view of what we were getting involved in.

The Japanese had isolated themselves from the western world for 200 years until Commodore Matthew Perry forced the Japanese to open their ports at Nagasaki to open for trade with the United States. Some historians argue that this was the true beginning of World War II for the Americans. The Japanese were 200 years behind the power curve at this point in history and in a short amount of time they revolutionized their military to protect their homeland. They sent military officials to all the major countries in the world at the time: England, France, Germany, United Netherlands and the United States to learn the best military tactics from the best armies and navies in the world. The Japanese were a formidable opponent to say the least as they had never lost a war in their entire history. The men who fought the Japanese in the Pacific theater deserve not only our gratitude but our respect for fighting an enemy that could not be beat.

This should be the case for all our soldiers no matter what war or conflict they have been sent to fight in on behalf of the American people. Those men and women who today are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve just as much thanks as those who fought in World War I, World War II, the Civil War and all the other wars we have engaged in. Let us pay respect to the dead and the living who fight and have fought for our freedom and let us give thanks to the God for giving us these individuals.

Published in: on May 26, 2008 at 19:18  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Die Pflicht: Fortschritte machen Nationalismus

Die Ideen von der deutscher Novelle ist Pflicht. Pflicht zum Selbst, der Familie, oder zum Stadt. Aber gibt es eine Reaktion zum Staat, die ist die Pflicht zum Gott. Heinrich von Kleist schrieb über Pflicht zum Selbst. Die Verlobung in St. Domingo ist eine Novelle über Willensfreiheit, und so Pflicht zum Selbst. Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck ist auch ein Novelle von Pflicht zum Selbst. Aber Der blonde Eckbert ist, auch Die Judenbuche von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, über Pflicht zu der Familie. Der Schlimmelreiter von Theodor Storm ist über Pflicht zum Staat. Es ist die Novelle über Nationalismus. Und die Reaktion gegen Nationalimus ist Der Tod in Venedig von Thomas Mann. Thomas Mann schrieb über eine Pflicht zu der Übermenschlich, z.ß Dionysus, Gott, oder die Teufel. Es gibt ein Fortschritt in die deutschen Novellen, die ist eine Fortschritt zu Nationalismus.

Erst werde ich über Pflicht zum Selbst, ich werde über Die Verlobung in St. Domingo von Heinrich von Kleist und Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck schreiben. Zweite werde ich über Pflicht zu der Familie. Ich werde ein Bisschen über Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck schreiben, aber werde ich über Die Judenbuche von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff auch schreiben. Dann werde ich über Pflicht zum Staat, werde ich über dem Schlimmelreiter von Theodor Storm.schreiben. Am Ende werde ich über Pflicht zum Gott, werde ich über dem Tod in Venedig von Thomas Mann schreiben.

Am Anfang gibt es ein Pflicht zu Selbst. Heinreich Kleist schrieb über Pflicht zum Selbst in Die Verlobung in St. Domingo. Gustav ist die Hauptfigur in Die Verlobung in St. Domingo. Er ist ein Soldat und ist er weiß. Gustav liebt Toni, aber Toni ist eine Mulattin. Der Kampf zwischen Gustav und Toni ist den Kampf zwischen Weiß und Mulattin. In Frankreich gibt es ein Revolution. In St. Domingo gibt es ein Revolution von der Sklaven. Gustav und Toni hat ein Kampf mit ihren Familien. Toni hilf Congo und ihre Mutter, die ermordete vielen weißen Soldaten. Aber mussen Gustav und Toni sich Entschlusskraften machen. Sie haben Willensfreiheit, sie haben ein Pflicht zu sich. Kleist schrieb über Willensfreiheit. Man mußt sich Entschlusskraften machen, nicht seinem Familie oder Staat oder Gott. Gustav und Toni symbolizierten diese Idee von Kleist. Am Ende Gustav mußt Selbstmord machen, und mußt er Toni schlossen. Das ist eine Thema von die deutschen Novellen. Pflicht zum Selbe, die Familie, zum Stadt oder Gott enden mit Tod. Aber Toni und Gustav machen der Entschlusskraf sich.

Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck ist auch über Pflicht zum Selbe. Tieck schrieb über Schicksal und nicht Willensfreiheit, aber hat er über Pflicht zum Selbe. Am Ende eine alte Frau sprachte zu Eckbert, „Und Bertha war deine Schwester.“[1] Eckbert hat ein Pflicht zum sich. Aber er hat auch ein Pflicht zu seinem Familie. Auch Bertha hat ein Pflicht zu sich. Sie mußt der Freund ihres Mannes die Wahrheit sagen. Sie könnte nicht alle Zeit lügen. Sie hat ein Pflicht zum sich. Sie mußt es sagen, weil die Lüge Bertha ermorden. Tieck schrieb:

Es gibt Stunden, in denen es den Menschen ängstigt, wenn er vor seinem Freunde ein Geheimnis haben soll, was er bis dahin oft mit vieler Sorgfalt verborgen hat, die Seele fühlt dann einen unwiderstehlichen Trieb, sich ganz mitzuteilen, dem Freunde auch das Innerste aufzuschließen, damit er umso mehr unser Freund werde. In diesen Augenblicken geben sich die zarten Seelen einander zu erkennen, und zuweilen geschieht es wohl auch, dass einer vor der Bekanntschaft des andern zurückschreckt.[2]

 

 

Die Pflicht zum Selbst ist nicht dieselbe als Die Verlobung in St. Domingo. Tieck schrieb über Schicksal nicht Willensfreiheit. Aber auch schrieb Tieck nicht total über Pflicht zum Selbst. Seine Novelle ist ein Gemengie zwischen Pflicht zum Selbst und der Familie. Bertha’s Pflicht ist zum Selbst. Aber Eckbert’s Pflicht ist zu der Familie. Aber Eckbert starb als Gustav. Die Pflicht ermordete Eckbert und Bertha. Bevor Eckbert starb, die Frau sagte, „Weil du in früher Jugend deinen Vater einst davon erzählen hörtest; er durfte seiner Frau wegen diese Tochter nicht bei sich erziehn lassen, denn sie war von einem andern Weibe.“ Eckbert’s Vater wusste seinem Pflicht zu der Familie. Eckbert vergaß seinem Pflicht zu der Familie. Weil Eckbert vergaß, mußt er sterben.

Seine Familie machst du. Das ist die Idee von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff. Sie schrieb Die Judenbuche, eine Novelle von die Idee Pflicht zu der Familie. Friedrich werde seinem Vater und Onkel werden. Es gibt kein Willensfreiheit in Die Judenbuche, es ist nur Schicksal. Friedrich und die anderen Dorfbewohner leben ausserhalb des Staates. Sie haben ein Pflicht zu der Familie und nicht Selbst. Annette von Droste-Hülshoff schrieb:

Unter höchst einfachen und häufig unzulänglichen Gesetzen waren die Begriffe der Einwohner von Recht und Unrecht einigermaßen in Verwirrung geraten, oder vielmher, es hatte sich neben dem gesetzlichen ein zweites Recht gebildet, ein Recht der öffentlichen Meinung, der Gewohnheit und der durch Vernachlässingung entstandenen Verjährung. [3]

 

 

Es gibt kein Stadt in diese Novelle. Friedrich mussen seinem Onkel helfen. Er hat ein Pflicht zu seinem Onkel und Familie. Aber am Ende ist der Stadt notwendig. Die einfältige Dorfbewohner brauchen ein Stadt. Annette von Droste-Hülshoff schrieb eine Warnung am Anfang, die ist ein Warnung zu die einfältige Dorfbewohner:

Wo ist die Hand so zart, dass ohne Irren

Sie sondern mag beschränkten Hirnes Wirren,

So fest, dass ohne Zittern sie den Stein

Mag schleudern auf ein arm verkümmert Sein?

Wer wagt es, eitlen Blutes Drang zu messen,

Zu wägen jedes Wort, das unvergessen

In junge Brust die zähen Wurzeln trieb,

Des Vorurteils geheimen Seelendieb?

Du Glücklicher, geboren und gehegt

Im lichten Raum, von frommer Hand gepflegt,

Leg hin die Waagschal’, nimmer dir erlaubt!

Lass ruhn den Stein – er trifft dein eignes Haupt![4]

 

 

Pflicht zu Familie ist ok aber sehr schädlich. Der Recht ist was die Familie machen. Man kann nicht die andere Dorfbewohner urteilen.

So sprachen wir über Pflicht zum Selbst und der Familie. Jetzt werden wir über Pflicht zum Staat. Nationalismus braucht Pflicht zum Staat, oder es kann nicht sein. Theodor Storm schrieb Der Schimmelreiter. Am Kern der Idee ist ein Kampf zwischen Willensfreiheit und Schicksal, oder Pflicht zum Selbst und Pflicht zum Staat. Der Staat beschließt, was man wird. Die Hauptfigur der Novelle ist Hauke, Hauke will mehr als das Shicksal des Staates. Die Frage der Idee ist der Staat besser als das Individuum? Der Schimmelreiter ist eine Geschichte über den Begehren des Mensches gegen die Pflicht zum Stadt, der Familie oder zum Gott. Hauke ist individualistisch. Er denkt, wenn etwas für sich gut ist, dann auch für den Staat. Hauke begehrt mehr als das einfache Leben. Aber am Ende ist Hauke tot und er wäre für seinen Staat gestorben. Hauke sah ein, daß das Individuum nicht ohne den Stadt sein kam. Die Pflicht zu der Familie, zum Selbst sind nicht wichtiger als die Pflicht zum Selbst. Man mußt wollen was den Staat würden. Die Ideen von John F. Kennedy „Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.“[5]

Nicht aller Autoren mögen die Idee von Nationalimus. In Der Tod in Venedig von Thomas Mann gibt es Pflichter zum Gott, oder der Übermenschlich. Gustav Aschenbach ist die Hauptfigur in Der Tod in Venedig. Am Anfang gibt es einem man, vielleicht der Teufel oder Dionysus?[6]Dann geht er nach Venedig. Aber hat Gustav Willensfreiheit, oder Shicksal? Wenn er Schicksal haben, dann gibt es Pflicht zum Gott. Wenn er Willensfreiheit gibt es kein Pflicht zum Gott, aber es ist Pflicht zum Selbst. In Venedig sah Gustav ein Jung, der heißt Tadzio. Gustav ist von dem Jung faziniert. Tadzio ist ein religiös figur für Gustav. Tadzio ist „David“ von Michelanglo. Nach diese Zeit gibt es einer Massenvermehrung der Cholera. Gustav könnte nach München flugen. Warum hat er nicht? Er will Tadzio sehen, er will Gott sehen. Er liebt Tadzio, aber ist es ein unmoralischen Liebe? Wenn er Willensfreiheit hat, ja es ist! Aber ich denke, daß er kein Willensfreiheit hat. Am Ende ist Gustav zu den Strand. Gustav ist krank, aber will er Tadzio einmal Zeit sehen. Gustav hat die Cholera, und er will sterben. Er müßt Tadzio sehen. Tadzio symbolizert Gott, Religion, Moral. Der Tod in Venedig ist eine Warnung, daß Gott ist Tot[7] und Pflicht zum Staat ist überalles. Gustav sah Tadzio „fallen“, er sah Gott fallen.[8] Die Cholera ist Pflicht zum Staat, die ermordete alles. Pflicht zum Gott ist die nure Idee, das kann mit Pflicht zum Staat kampfen. Wir mussen an Gott glauben, oder an unmenschliche etwas. Der Staat ist nicht alles. Gott ist über dem Staat.

Die deutschen Novellen hat ein Fortrschritt zu Nationalismus. Erst ist Pflicht zum Selbst, dann zu der Familie. Heinrich von Kleist, Ludwig Tieck und Annette von Droste-Hülshoff schrieben eine Warnung: Der Selbst und die Familie sind nicht ohne den Staat. Theodor Storm schrieb über die Idee von Pflicht zum Staat. Aber Thomas Mann schrieb eine Warnung: der Staat wird Gott ermorden. Nationalismus ist Shicksal, es gibt kein Willensfreiheit. Man kann nicht ein Individuum in Nationalimus werden. Der Staat macht der Individuum. Nationalimus sagt, „Alles für den Vaterland.“ Es ist die Idee hinter Nationalsozialistlichen Arbeiters Partei, und die Sowjetunion.

 

Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck pg 24

Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck 3-4

 

Die Judenbuche von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff pg. 3-4

Die JudenbucheAnnette von Droste-Hülshoff pg. 3

President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Speech on January 20th 1961.

„Freilich trug er dazu den landesüblichen Rucksack um die Schultern geschnallt, eine gelblichen Gurtanzug aus Lodenstoff, wie es schien, einen grauen Wetterkragen über dem linken Unterarm, den er in die Weiche gestützt kielt, und in der Rechten einen mit eiserner Spitze versehenen Stock, welchen er shräg gegen den Boden stemmte und auf dessen Krück er, bei gekreutzen Füßen, die Hüfte lehnte.“ Der Tod in Venedig pg. 12

Friedrich Nietzsche Die fröhliche Wissenschaft

„Und plötzlich, wie unter einer Erinnerung, einem Impuls, wandte er den Oberkörper, eine Hand in der Hüfte, in schooner Drehung aus seiner Grundpositur und blickte über die Schulter zum Ufer. Der Schauende dort saß, wie er einst gesessen, als zuerst, von jener Schwelle zurückgesandt, dieser dämmergraue Blick dem seinen begegnet war. Sein Haupt war an der Lehne des draußen Schreitenden gefolgt: nun hob es sich, gleichsam dem Blicke entgegen, und sank auf die Brust, so daß seine Augen von unten sahen, indes sein Antlitz den schlaffen, innig versunkenen Ausdruck tiefen Schlummers ziegte..“pg. 139 Der Tod in Venedig

Published in: on May 14, 2008 at 18:40  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

And Those Who Have Fallen Away From the Lord

In our modern world when we hear the word vampire people have a tendency to laugh it off as mere legend, myth. Yet for centuries Europeans feared vampires as though they were real. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church developed an interest in demonic possession and witch craft resulting Malleus Maleficarum by Heinrich Kramer & Jacob Sprenger. In the 18th Century, Europe was once again brought under the thrall of the Vampire as stories  circulated throughout Europe. This culminated when Dom Augustin Calmet, O.S.B. wrote Traitéi sur les apparitions des esprits et sur les vampires. Of any work concerning demonic forces this work comes closest to acknowledging the existence of vampires, though Dom Calmet does not explicitly accept nor deny their existence. Since then the Vampire has become something of fiction only written about by authors of horror stories. However, the Vampire has also been used to explore other ideas, particularly in the United States. Anne Rice, the first to create the modern genre of the vampire story, molds both European mythology and Catholic theology on vampires and demonic possession to explore Catholic themes such as salvation, redemption, free and grace into Interview with the Vampire.

Interview with the Vampire is composed of four parts which span from 1791 to present-day (circa 1970’s.) The novel, originally written as a story, explores the concepts of salvation, redemption, free will and grace through the person of a Vampire named Louis. Louis is a Frenchman living in New Orleans, Louisiana when he is turned by the vampire Lestat. The novel was completed by Anne Rice after the death of her first born daughter, an event that sent Rice into a spiral of self doubt and questioning God. To completely grasp Interview with the Vampire an exploration of its themes should be done by events. Only then can there be an understanding of how Catholic themes play into the novel.

Certain events in Part I of Interview with the Vampire are pertinent to exploring the conception of grace and salvation. Chief among these events concern Louis’ brother Paul and his preternatural brother Lestat. Louis comes to French America and settles in New Orleans on a plantation called Ponte du Lac. His love for his family is undoubted, specifically for his younger brother Paul. Paul is a devout Catholic and Louis agrees to build him an Oratory on plantation grounds. Yet, when Paul comes to Louis and reveals that he has been receiving apparitions from the Blessed Virgin that he should sell all of his possessions Louis doubts his brother. As a result Paul flees his brother’s room, only to be killed falling down a set of stairs. The circumstances of his death are unclear, Louis reports that his brother was lifted from the ground as he fell to his death. As his brother’s death eats away at Louis, no one is aware of the conversation Paul and he had moments before Paul’s death. While on his own death bed, a result of fever and being bitten by Lestat, Louis confesses to a Priest what his brother told him before falling to his death. The Priest refuses to believe Paul was visited by the Blessed Virgin, instead claiming Paul was possessed by demons and visited by the Devil. This infuriates Louis to no end, yet it serves as a precursor to his life as a vampire.

Lestat makes Louis into a vampire, and Louis struggles with his new found immortal life. For four years Louis refuses to feed on humans and instead chooses to feed on animals. However, this changes with the assistance from Lestat; Louis kills a five year old girl named Claudia and Lestat turns her into a vampire. Claudia’s death and rebirth as a vampire is an important event for Louis. Claudia becomes a daughter to both Louis and Lestat and ultimately becomes a pseudo lover for Louis. And it is with Claudia that Louis will begin to truly question his nature and will repeatedly attempt to answer the question of whether or not he is damned. Louis constantly refers to Lestat and Claudia as different from himself. Louis, while he feeds on those whom he comes across, still seeks to understand his own immortal nature  never fully letting go of his human nature. Claudia’s birth as a vampire serves as a key moment in Louis’ existence; he has partaken in the act of making a human into a vampire. Louis has killed his own child like innocence; there is no turning back at this point for him. If Louis is to receive grace and be redeemed, he must do it as an adult and as a killer.

So after some seventy years after Claudia’s transformation; she vows to kill Lestat after a period of angst over his refusal to speak of their origins. Further, Claudia and Louis conclude that they will travel to Europe in an attempt to find more of their kind and for Louis, an attempt to discover his nature and whether he is damned. However, on the night before they are set to sail for the Old World, Louis finds himself at the same Cathedral where his brother’s funeral took place so many years prior. He enters on a Saturday night and people are at the Cathedral for confession. Louis finds himself seated in one of the pews when he is hit with a vision. In his vision, Louis sees the Church falling apart around him; he admits that he is the only preternatural being in there. This admonition by Louis demonstrates the first time Louis openly denies the existence of God. Like other created beings, Louis has sunken to utter loneliness and denies his creator. The statues for Louis are nothing more than art work. He reaches out to grab the hand of the statue for the Blessed Virgin and it crumbles as he touches. Those who reach out to the Blessed Virgin for help are never turned away, yet Louis finds himself in the situation of being denied help.

Next, Louis sees a vision of a funeral procession coming into the Church and among the mourners is Claudia. Claudia begins to read a passage from the Bible aimed at Louis, the passage is that of Cain. Like Cain, Louis has betrayed his flesh and blood. First he betrayed his brother Paul for refusing to believe he had visions and then he betrays his preternatural brother Lestat by allowing for his execution. His vampirism is a mark upon himself, such as God gave to Cain. No one will come near Louis, nor will anyone attempt to kill him out of fear. Louis has received his judgment, or so he thinks, he is damned. Claudia at this point is not a vampire, but a child and from this child comes the pure truth that Louis is in fact damned for the destruction of his family. This vision is what Louis has desired to hear since his earliest day as a vampire. Louis is unable to accept himself; he believes he must be condemned for his nature.

Yet, Louis’ ultimate defiance of God comes moments after his vision ends. The Priest who had been hearing confessions comes to Louis and asks if he wishes to confess his sins. At first Louis is hesitant but ultimately agrees and follows the Priest to the confessional. Louis confesses the murders of thousands of persons over nearly a century and ultimately confesses that he is a vampire. Disbelieving Louis, the Priest leaves the confessional and Louis grabs him and ultimately takes the Priest’s life. Louis has gone from doubting God, to struggling over his nature, to ultimately rejecting grace and salvation by killing an agent of God. Twice has Louis confessed to a Priest, and twice has a Priest doubted Louis. These are important symbols as the represent Louis’ exploration of grace and salvation. He has to find the answer for himself whether he is damned or saved. If by his nature, Louis is damned then what does it say for free will and predestination. This difficulty that Louis is presented with eats away at him, causing him to bemoan his immortal existence. Grace is out of Louis’ reach; he has been denied by the Mother of God and has destroyed a most Holy Priest of the Lord.

Leaving America for Europe gives Louis a chance to contemplate further his nature and existence. Europe stands as Louis’ exploration of his vampire nature, in hopes of understanding his nature as a vampire he can understand if he can be saved or not. After spending time in Eastern Europe and coming across an Old World vampire, Louis and Claudia head for Paris. While in Eastern Europe, Louis and Claudia have an encounter with their first vampire. This vampire defies their expectations, as he is animalistic such as in the stories of Bram Stoker. This perplexes Louis and Claudia, and makes Louis feel more alone and that he will never be able to find answers to his questions. Louis and Claudia resolve to leave Eastern Europe and make their way to Paris. One night, while walking the streets of Paris, Louis encounters a new vampire who mocks his every move. After this encounter a third vampire appears and leaves a business card telling Louis to bring himself and Claudia to the Theatere des Vampires the following night. The following night Louis and Claudia encounter vampires like themselves for the first time since leaving America, though these vampires are similar to Louis and Claudia they will prove to be completely different creatures. For nearly a century Louis has lived under a cloud of suspicion as to the whereabouts of other vampires. Now in France, the place of his origin as a human, he finds his origin as a vampire.

Among these vampires is one named Armand, a 400 year old vampire who Louis comes to seek the knowledge he is certain Lestat had with held from him. Armand cannot provide him with the answers he seeks; he is only able to provide Louis with what he wants to hear. Louis is unable to accept that God still loves him despite his depraved nature. Louis struggles with his place in the world; he thinks his nature to be the same as the Devil. Yet, Armand questions whether or not this can be true because if God created all, including the Devil, then all must receive their power from God. Louis cannot himself; he believes that by being a vampire he must be damned. Yet Armand inquires, “And how is this evil achieved?”[1] This evil is an irredeemable evil that damns one for all eternity. Is evil without gradation, and if it is the as Armand says; “only one sin is needed…” But this only matters if God exists, but if God does not exist, “Then no sin matters…”[2] Louis cannot accept this, even though he himself cannot say if God exists. Armand is only able to say he knows one thing, and that is he is the oldest living vampire in the world. He has found no proof that there is a God or a Devil; this directly contradicts Louis’ admission to the reporter earlier when he admits that even those who deny God’s existence believe in the Devil.[4]

With the end of their brief discussion, Louis is still at a loss as to whether or not his nature is that of pure evil. Louis inquires to Armand of the nature of their power, whether it is of Satan or not. Armand inquires to Louis whether he believes Satan made the world, and Louis says it was God. Armand uses this to explain that their nature is that of God, not of Satan because Satan is a created being while God is not. This alludes to the story of Job, as Satan was an agent of God. Likewise, all living things are agents of God as we were all created by God. Whether we choose to accept God or not is where salvation and damnation differ. Louis once again takes the opportunity to bemoan his preternatural existence while back at his hotel when he says, “To be mortal, and trivial and safe.”[5] Like any person, Louis is caught between belief and disbelief in God and yet he wishes to be human, where he did not have to worry if he was damned or saved because he believes his nature then was not that of the Devil. This is where Louis falls apart, even humans are depraved irredeemable creatures who do not deserve salvation and yet are offered it anyways.

Louis’s ultimate fall from grace comes when, at the urging of Claudia, Louis does what he has sworn he would never do; transform an innocent into a vampire. Louis feels a deep responsibility that prevents him from wanting to turn someone into a vampire; Louis explains, “What has died in this room tonight is the last vestige in me of what was human.”[6] By condemning Madeleine, Louis has also condemned all of her victims to death. In Louis’s mind he has just become the greatest mass murderer of all time. Yet Louis confesses to Armand, “I don’t know if the child possesses the power to release the parent.”[7] This is a direct reflection on Claudia and Louis, but it is also a reflection on Louis’s relationship with God; and as a result of man’s relationship with God. Is it man who leaves God? Or God who leaves man? God does not give up on man and so ultimately it is the child who has the power to leave the parent. Louis has turned his back on God.

Interview with the Vampire is a personal tale, as well as a universal tale. The novel is a contemplation of salvation and grace and how it applies to those who do not deserve either. Catholicism plays an important role in Interview, namely through the aspect of Louis’ human religion. His childhood formation in the Catholic faith informs his understanding of salvation and grace. Ultimately he is a demon, but what does it mean for him and his chances of salvation. Like Adam and Eve he has be persuaded by Satan instead of adhering to God. Ultimately Louis’s tale, Interview with the Vampire, is a cautionary tale. Anne Rice wants her reader to think of these things, because we are all children of Adam and Eve and are all guilty of Adam’s sin. None of us deserve redemption, yet God has extended to us the possibility of grace, it is for ourselves to choose whether we wish to accept that gift or reject it.

 [1]Pg. 236

 [2]Pg. 236

 [3]Pg. 236

 [4]“People who cease to believe in God or goodness altogether still believe in the devil.” Pg. 13 This is also mirrored on page 236, “That’s not true. Because if God doesn’t exist we are the creatures of highest consciousness in the universe.” Thus, true evil still exists even if God does not.

 [5]Pg. 259

 [6]Ibid, 273

Published in: on May 10, 2008 at 01:57  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The University of Dallas, Catholicism and Liberal Arts

Let us begin by looking at the University of Dallas’ slogan: A Catholic University for Independent Thinkers. What can this possibly mean? The University of Dallas was founded in 1956, set on the verge of the sexual revolution and the rejection tradition values; the University set itself up as a beacon to all those individuals who wanted the tools to push back this new onslaught. Today we are still in the grips of these two radical revolutions and the need for solders to return us to a better time are needed more than ever. The University of Dallas still proclaims herself to be “A Catholic University for Independent Thinkers”.

Why is UD so important? Some may say that the University has an archaic way of thinking. Others might argue that the University is closed minded for not succumbing to the popular culture. The University of Dallas provides the world with a way to remember where it came from and where it ought to return. The University has set itself up to re-institute the notion that there is morality and that it is universal; that there are wrong opinions and that there is truth. In today’s world you can have any opinion you want, as long as it is not conservative, nor religious. If one can find morality in today’s world it is relativistic, not universal. People who don’t fall into this hideous trap must have a place of refuge; one where they can study the tradition that has been handed down for more than 5,000 years.

What good is a liberal education? The liberal arts are intended to teach someone how to think, what truth is and how it is applicable to one’s own life. The modern university system has created a world where people are trained like monkeys to perform a specific task and nothing else. UD has realized the importance of a true liberal arts education and maintained it for a half century. Liberal education isn’t for the greedy, who only want to get an education so they can go to med school or law school and make hundreds of thousands of dollars. No, liberal education is for those who want to genuinely help those around them.

In the end the University of Dallas provides Catholic persons with a working knowledge of the western tradition. People who think that the western tradition is wrong, or think that morality doesn’t exist or that truth is whatever one makes of it need not apply. By Catholic methinks the University doesn’t entirely mean one who proscribes to the Catholic faith. Catholic means universal, and by that contrast of today’s relativism we can find that even Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can come here and thrive. Catholicism is the hallmark of western religious thought. The Catholic Church has kept the western tradition alive for nearly two-thousand years. The University of Dallas has survived for fifty years trying to instill in each student the knowledge of the western tradition. It truly is a Catholic school for Independent Thinkers. There is proof in the University that the western tradition still matters and that there are people still interested in learning it.

Published in: on May 8, 2008 at 04:05  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Locke’s First Treatise Chapter II: Paternal and Regal Power

Quotes taken from John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government edited by Peter Laslett.

Help from Ashok

Having completed his introduction of Sir Robert Filmer’s work Patriarcha, Locke endeavors to explore the arguments made by Filmer. The first argument made is that of Paternal and Regal power. The argument for absolute monarchy according to Locke is far above anything man can think of, so high in fact “that Promises and Oaths, which tye the infinite Deity, cannot confine it.” This is a curious way of describing the idea behind absolute monarchy but upon further inspection one might find that even God cannot be described as an absolute Monarch in the manner in which Filmer uses the words. But if Locke is able to demonstrate that the logic used for absolute monarchy is faulty, then man can start a new with government by consent; Locke ends with “using their Reason to unite together into Society.”

The first instance of Absolute Monarchy is that of the parent over the child, which means that the child is not free and that the parents possess a regal authority over that child. At first glance one might think this is an argument against Filmer, but instead is actually against Aristotle who in the Politics argues that the relationship between a father and his child is that of kingly rule. Exactly what that fatherly authority is Locke and Filmer neglect to tell, instead Locke lays out three basic foundations in the beginning of the Patriarcha:

1. En Passant, Made his Obeysance to the Arcana Imperii.

2. Made his Compliment to the Rights and Liberties of this, or any other Nation which he is going presently to null and destroy.

3. Made his Leg to those Learned Men, who did not see so far into the Matter as himself.

In sum, Locke argues that Filmer’s use of absolute monarchy thumbs its nose at the idea of rule by consent of the majority. The basis for his argument of Fatherly authority stems from the Bible: Adam was the first human, our father who possessed absolute authority over the world; Noah and his sons reestablished the monarchy of Adam until the captivity of the Israelites; God re-established the line of king over Israel. And finally Filmer uses the commandment of Honor thy Father as proof of absolute fatherly authority. Locke immediately points out that this is only a half quote from the Ten Commandments and that the full commandment reads Honor thy Father and thy Mother. The problem of stating both Locke points out is that it would be a mixed monarchy, which ultimately leads to anarchy. It is for this reason that Filmer leaves out the latter part of the quote, which Locke calls Filmer “a wary Physician,… when he would have his Patient swallow some harsh or Corrosive Liquor…” for having done. Here Locke compares Filmer to the physician, who is representative of the legislative authority within philosophic thought.

It is then that Locke goes on to say “Without this, What Good could our A——do, or pretend to do, by erecting such an unlimited Power, but flatter the Natural Vanity and Ambition of Men, too apt of if it self to grow and encrease with the Possession of any Power?” The discussion of Absolute Monarchy, by extension of this argument, is the same as talking of anarchy. Locke finishes, “And by perswading those, who, by the consent of their Fellow-Men, are advanced to great, but limited degrees of it, that by that part which is given them, they have a Right to all, that was not so; and therefore may do what they please, because they have Authority to do more then others, and so tempt them to do what is neither for their own, nor the good of those under their Care, whereby great Mischiefs cannot but follow.” Everyone has a right to security and therefore they have the power to ensure their freedom, creating an anarchical state. Further, consent exists in the wrong system creating multiple centers of power as a result of Filmer’s argument.

From this Locke argues for three points for the argument of fatherly regal authority: Sovereignty of Adam, Absolute Power of Adam, and Adam’s Royal Authority. The first concerns with Adam’s authority over his own family, for Filmer argues that Adam had absolute power over his family including the power over life. In this the paternal powers becomes the regal power, and by extension calls into question maybe the polis and family. If Adam was not king by virtue of his title of father, then is the fatherly authority political, for if it is not then family is not by nature political which is contrary to the teachings of Aristotle. As for the second, Absolute Power of Adam, this is based on the authority of Adams over his posterity; this dominion then makes men nothing more than herds. Locke calls for Proofs and Reasons as to how Adam has gained this absolute authority, which creates two types of rule: reasonable and unreasonable. Filmer’s argument of Adam’s absolute power is an example of the unreasonable, because there lacks any proof or reason for such an assertion. Finally there is Adam’s Royal Authority, which is to say Adam’s paternal authority: Adam is king because he is father. While Filmer continues to argue for Adam’s Royal Authority, Locke points he fails to provide a proof. Analogously, the royal authority of Adam or the rule of absolute monarchy is the power of opinion or the power over the passions.

Locke’s argument against Paternal and Regal Authority is summed in that Filmer provides no proof of Adam’s authority as both father and king other than the half quote “Honor thy father.” Which itself is purposely cut short because the introduction of “honor thy mother” would imply a mixed monarchy and thus destroying any hopes of an absolute monarch. The argument for absolute monarchy does not exist within the realm of proofs or reason but rather in the power over opinion; which makes the argument far stronger because men are inclined to follower their passions. The Sovereignty of Adam, his absolute power, and is royal authority combine to make Adam a tyrant. He contains the power over life of his own family, he rules over his posterity like they are a herd and rules by appealing to human passions. This is juxtaposed to the idea the Law of Nature, social contract, and rule by reason. The first makes man a slave while the second provides for his security and safety.

Published in: on May 7, 2008 at 00:00  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Love and Hate in ABC Family’s Greek

Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Season 1 & 2 of the ABC Family Show: Greek. The Author is not responsible for anyone who reads this and learns things they don’t already know about the show.

The relationships which form after those of family and friends are those of sexual and enemies. They are the most difficult relationships to understand and to deal with though they are just as vital to who we are as humans as the others. Greek provides us with ample examples of both of the latter relationships just as it does the former. The relationships which form between males and females within the show on a sexual level are interconnected to those of the friendship and familial levels. For better or worse these relationship help to spur human passions and life to a level that the familial and friendship based relationships cannot.

And yet finally we come upon the actual sexual relationships within the show, Evan and Casey, Cappie and Rebecca, Cappie and Casey, and Rusty and Jen K. All of these relationships are an example of what makes Ashleigh and Calvin’s relationship so difficult, at least for Ashleigh. Cappie and Casey are the original Greek couple, hooking up in their freshman year only to end because of Cappie’s on going desire to be in a constant party. While the glimpses we are shown of their relationship demonstrate that they were truly in love, and both characters acknowledge this at different points in the first season, their relationship is ultimately doomed to fail. Cappie is too much about himself and unwilling to focus any attention on others, which is possibly attributed to his age at the time. They break up because Cappie can’t be trusted anymore and Casey leaves him for his former friend and roommate Evan. Evan and Casey seem to be the perfect couple, with the exception that Evan cheats on Casey and Casey in turn cheats on Evan at the beginning of the show. While we are unsure of exactly how Casey feels about Evan, there are examples that she truly loves him but that comes after they break up and in season one we are only left with the impression she wants to use him. When things get rough between Casey and Evan she immediately turns to Cappie, either because she knows it will hurt Evan or because she has never lost her true feelings for him. Evan assumes, based on misinformed information from Frannie, that Casey is only using him to get what she wants, which is the ZBZ presidency.

The two youngest relationships on the show are between Cappie and Rebecca and Rusty and Jen K. Rusty and Jen K. seem to be a great couple; they are very much alike and get along famously. Rusty is inexperienced in relationships while Jen K. appears to have more practice. On the outside looking in Rusty seems to only want a girlfriend because everyone else is dating and feels left out. Jen K. appears to be truly attracted to Rusty, most probably for his social awkwardness which she can relate to no doubt. Jen K. ultimately betrays Rusty and the rest of the Greek system by publishing her expose on the system and airing out all the problems of the first season, which oddly enough all go back to either Rusty or Casey. Initially Rusty wants to take her back but is pressured by his Greek brothers and sisters to break it off because of the article. The relationship between Rebecca and Cappie seems to be of the same kind as Rusty and Jen K. in a lot of ways. They first meet while Cappie is attempting to earn money to pay Casey back for bailing him and his KT brothers (including Rusty) out of a $250 bill at the local strip club. He volunteers for a pysch field test which is proctored by Rebecca. There are hints that Rebecca wants to get with Cappie because she can sense Casey is still in love with Cappie. Nevertheless, after almost sharing a moment during the test the two finally are seen laying in bed together at the end of season one and we find out throughout season two that they are a couple. Rebecca might only be with Cappie to get at Casey, while Cappie seems to have truly moved on and wants to be with her..though it might just because she is extremely attractive.

These relationships appear to be based around the few feuds within the show between Frannie and Casey, Casey and Rebecca, Cappie and Evan, and Rusty and Evan. Frannie and Casey begin out as sisters in the ZBZ house but by the end of season one that friendship is broken by the lies produced by Frannie. Casey, while naive, wants to do what is truly best for herself and those around her which leads her to sell Frannie down the river to the ZBZ National Rep at the end of season one. But initially, from flashbacks in season two, Frannie always wanted what was best for Casey. At the beginning of season one things might be a little different in the present-day as it was Frannie who encouraged Casey to take Evan back after he cheated on her. Their relationship is further strained by Frannie’s desire to use and befriend Rebecca, whom Casey hates. Casey and Rebecca have their main contention in that Rebecca slept with Evan and Casey just doesn’t seem to rub off well on Rebecca. From their first, pre-cheat, meeting Rebecca has no interest in Casey and Casey goes through hell to get Rebecca to pledge ZBZ. When she finds out that she slept with Evan, Casey is furious and is out for revenge against Rebecca. In a similar way is the relationship between Evan and Cappie, though it began on much better terms. Friends from summer camp, Evan and Cappie room together freshman year. It was Evan who got Cappie into the Greek system to begin with and it was Cappie who helped get Evan into the Kappa Taus. Evan eventually leaves KT to pledge Omega Chi after being nick named “Bing” because he was only in the KTs because of Cappie. This drives a wedge between the two friends as they exist in separate houses; this wedge is only further driven deeper as Casey and Cappie hook up. Eventually Casey turns to Evan when Cappie fails be a good boyfriend for Casey. When this finally happens at the Greek Ball their freshman year we see Cappie and Evan finally turn into complete enemies.

Enemies and lovers, war and peace, they both go so well together and describe each other so much. The writers of ABC Family’s Greek do a great job showing us the complex relationships within human life on all levels, family, friends, lovers and enemies. We can see so much within these relationships that reflect on each and every one of the viewers. While at times these relationships are over simplified and dramatized to the max they are great reflections we should all take the time to understand.

Published in: on May 6, 2008 at 00:51  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Further Examination of ABC Family’s Greek: Relationships Part 1

Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Season 1 & 2 of the ABC Family Show: Greek. The Author is not responsible for anyone who reads this and learns things they don’t already know about the show.

Relationships, human nature is based on the desire for relationships with our fellow humans whether they be sexual, familial, brotherly, platonic or other. Humans are by nature social political animals which means we crave to be with others of our kind. The one aspect of ABC Family’s hit television show Greek that is best representative of real life is the desire for relationship. There are multiple relationships within the TV show including: Casey and Rusty,, Evan and Casey, Evan and Rusty, Rusty and Cappie, Cappie and Rebecca, Rebecca and Casey, Rebecca and Evan, Frannie and Casey, Frannie and Rebecca, Rusty and Jen K, Rusty and Calvin, Evan and Calvin, Ashleigh and Calvin, Cappie and Evan, and Casey and Ashleigh.

The first of these relationships is a familial relationship between brother and sister, though these two couldn’t be any more different if they tried. Rusty is a science geek while Casey is the social butterfly of the Greek system. From the feel of the show we can inquire that Rusty is probably the child every parent would want while Casey has a rebellious side to her. At the beginning of the series Casey ignores her brother’s call when he is trying to find his dorm. When Rusty finally goes to the ZBZ house to find Casey she tells him that she will set up a monthly brunch, a nice way of telling him to go away. While rushing Rusty meets Evan and Cappie; only Evan knows of Rusty but its clear from the show that it has only been a recent discovery while Cappie is astonished to know that his former girlfriend has a brother. In season two we discover that when asked if she has siblings Casey dodges the question. The two have to build a relationship now that they both matriculate at Cyprus-Rhodes and Casey has to learn to become the older sister she never was. Without mommy and daddy around to guide and watch over him, Rusty has to receive guidance from someone and who better than his own sister to help. Rusty feels a sense of honor towards his sister, which is what leads him to tell her of Evan’s indiscretion against her and ultimately to engage in a fight with Evan over Casey’s “honor.” Typically for a brother and sister that are at most 2 1/2 years apart in age this is quite strange that they are so distant from each other. It is clear that they do not understand each other and come from different circles. The most interesting relationship to watch is that of Rusty and Casey because they are brother and sister and it is the one relationship that they can never ignore.

With that we leave behind the familial relationship to enter into the platonic friendly relationships specifically between Rusty and Calvin, Cappie and Rusty, Ashleigh and Casey and Ashleigh and Casey. Rusty and Calvin’s relationship is tricky; Rusty has a lot to learn from Calvin and Calvin has a lot to learn from Rusty. Their relationship from the beginning is built around the idea of a friendship of necessity; both know that they have something the other needs and are willing to give what they can. This is most evident by Calvin’s willingness to assist Rusty in the rushing process. As the show progresses so does their relationship as Rusty becomes the one person Calvin is comfortable telling his secret (he is gay) to. The closest relationship outside these two that resembles it the most is Cappie and Rusty. Cappie, the “big brother” of Rusty within the KT fraternity could be seen as only trying to get to Casey’s heart through little brother. Of course this doesn’t make too much sense seeing that Rusty and Casey are still attempting to define their relationship. Ultimately Cappie sees a little of himself in Rusty and wants to try and help Rusty break out of his shell. Their relationship borders on that of a true fraternal, brotherly, relationship because Cappie does look out for Rusty as a brother would. Likewise, Casey and Ashleigh have a sister-like friendship. Casey and Ashleigh have been friends since freshman year and pledge ZBZ together and are now roommates in the ZBZ house. They are able to go to each other for anything and can always rely on the other but when when disrupts that balance and attempts to make it all about them the relationship begins to shake. Ashleigh and Calvin appear to be of the same type of friendship as what might happen in those circumstances with Ashleigh and Casey. Calvin is a pledge with Omega Chi and offers to assist in the shopping process for the first mixer of the year. Unknown to Ashleigh, Calvin is gay and he feels he is forced to conceal his homosexuality from her. He selfishly, wanting to escape the constant girl loving frat bothers, to assist Ashleigh and in turn she uses him whenever she is in most need of help; specifically in regards to her boyfriend. When Ashleigh discovers the truth of Calvin’s homosexuality she freaks namely due to the one problem that exists between guys and girls, it is difficult to be friends.The most blatant friend of necessity and pleasure in the show is that between Rebecca and Frannie. Frannie is attracted to the idea of adding a Senator’s daughter to the list of members of ZBZ. Rebecca recognizes that she can use her status to influence Frannie in her on going battles with Casey. This relationship has no true merits and is doomed to fail from the beginning because it is only founded upon the idea of mutual assistance.

These first two relationships are the most basic relationships within the show and help to precipitate the events regarding the other relationships. For the most part they are the relationships we strive for day in and day out with those whom we are related to and those whom we aren’t. Greek does a great job of demonstrating the difficulties within life in attempting to build these everlasting ties that make us human. Without familial and friendly relationships we would be hallow shells of what we are suppose to be; these two relationships are by nature. Ultimately they are stronger than the sexual relationships we form between the sexes, but there is a cautionary tale at the end of the road that demonstrates the frailty of these relationships.

Published in: on May 5, 2008 at 02:02  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

A look at Book I of John Locke’s First Treatise of Government

Quotes taken from Two Treatises of Government edited by Peter Laslett published by the Cambridge Texts in History and Political Thought.

I would like to think Ashok for reading through the First Treatise with me.

John Locke begins the first chapter, “Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our Nation; that tis hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a Gentleman, should plead for’t.” Locke starts his treatise with the theme of slavery, which according to him goes against the “temper and courage” of England. He claims astonishment that an English Lord (Englishman…much less a Gentleman) would write such a work. This individual that Locke is arguing against is Sir Robert Filmer, the writer of the work Patriarcha or The Natural Power of Kings. Locke uses Filmer’s work to refute the belief in Divine Right Monarchy. He calls Filmer’s work a “Rope of Sand” and a “Chain for all Mankind” whose business it is to “raise a Dust” that would “blind the People” but cannot bind those “who have their eyes open.” This is a very interesting argument against the work, Locke has set out on the stance that Divine Right Monarchy really means slavery and that Filmer’s treatise is only meant to blind the people into bondage.

Locke makes reference that Filmer’s work was long before his own First Treatise, and the editor notes that the Patriarcha was written in 1637-8 but not published until 1680. Filmer is called the “Champion of absolute Power” and anyone who reads his treatise cannot but think himself no longer a freeman. When published, Locke argues that Filmer’s treatise removed all liberty from the world. Furthermore, it intended to make itself the model of all politics for the future. However, Locke argues that the treatise by Filmer can be summed in two lines:

1. That all Government is absolute Monarchy

2. That no Man is born Free

These are two very dangerous beliefs for Locke, the champion of consent of the governed.

Authors of the generation in which Locke is writing, and the previous generations are said by him to have “flatter[ed] princes with an Opinion” this opinion being that despite the laws which constituted their authority, and are to govern under, they have absolute power under the title of Divine Right. They are not restrained by “Oaths and Promises” because their authority does not come from those, whom they govern, or from the laws but rather from God Himself. By making such an argument, these authors have stripped man of his natural rights and freedoms and made them subject to tyranny and oppression. Even more, Locke argues that they have “unsettled the Titles and shaken the Thrones of Princes.” Why is this? Because if there is such a thing as Divine Right monarchy, than all except them monarch are slaves to the monarch. Further, as Locke will argue, if Adam was made the first monarch then only one Prince in the world living has claim to that title passed down from Adam. All persons with the exception of that single heir have been made slaves and all government has been destroyed because of these Divine Right authors. If all are slaves then there cannot be politics and if there cannot be politics there cannot be government.

Yet, Locke argues that if we have to accept this argument, that we are all born Slaves, then it does not end. “Life and Thraldom” continue together until the former ends and we are released from the latter. But this notion of Divine Right monarchy, Locke claims, is a new idea. “Scripture or Reason I am sure doe not any where say so notwithstanding the noise of divine right, as if Divine Authority hath subjected us to the unlimited Will of another.” The notion that we are all slaves to a single human, a fallible person, is not present in our own human reason or in the Divine Scripture, where one would expect to find Divine Right authority promulgated first. Natural freedom and equality are the older opinions of mankind, not absolute Authority of a single man. Locke even argues that Filmer assents to this belief, that his opinion is the junior.

At this Locke leaves the argument of the age of this argument for historians to debate, but wishes to argue the point against Filmer who he believes was allowed to carry the opinion the furthest.

Published in: on May 2, 2008 at 19:18  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.