While reading Rossetti’s Goblin Market, I was drawn to the seemingly simple nature of the poem. The poem could easily be read as a children’s story; however, closer analysis reveals rich symbolism within the poem. Goblin Market is brimming with symbolism that can be interpreted as representing Christian aspects.
Rosetti pulls her readers into Goblin Market with an interesting scene; she describes a group of goblin men peddling a wide variety of fruit to two maiden sisters, Laura and Lizzie. The wide variety of fruit is similar to a produce stand, except there is no regard for the season or climate. The imagery of fruit reminded me of the fruit in the Garden of Eden. The variety of fruit the goblins offer represents different temptations. The goblins sing about their fruit, and their song is so enchanting that Lizzie covers her ears (2). Though the sisters know they should not buy the goblins’ fruit, Laura still decides to purchase some using her hair. The appealing variety of fruit and the siren-song of the goblins does not negate the fact that Laura’s choice to listen was willful. Eating the fruit is a choice because Lizzie chose not to eat it.
The goblins represent Satan due to their animalistic qualities and their motivation for selling the fruit. Satan is described as a serpent in the garden, and the goblins are described as cat-like, rat-like, and even snail-like (2, 3). Perhaps the use of animal characteristics is to emphasize the base nature of the goblins. Additional evidence for the goblins representing Satan comes from their motivation to sell the fruit. Even though the goblins require payment for the fruit in the form of coin or, in Laura’s case, hair, this isn’t the end goal for them. The goal for the goblins is for the person to waste away - to lose their soul. The goblins become enraged to the point of violence when Lizzie reveals the fruit is for her sister (11). Lizzie had already paid the goblins for the fruit for Laura, so the goblins’ desire isn’t the money. Their goal is to make someone else suffer.
The fruit represents sin because of the way it destroys Laura. The fruit juice creates an insatiable desire in Laura. She cannot get enough. After tasting the fruit, Laura returns home to Lizzie and tells her of her plan to buy more fruit: “I ate and ate my fill, / yet my mouth waters still; / To-morrow night I will / buy more” (5). Every moment of her life is spent thinking about the next time she will eat the fruit. The day after her first taste, Laura is described as “in an absent dream” (6). She is contrasted with upbeat Lizzie to show her decline. Just as sin perverts desires, the fruit twists Laura’s desires. Laura is described as “one longing for the night” (6). In the beginning, Lizzie and Laura are shown as being very close, comparative to “two blossoms on one stem” (6). As Laura becomes more and more obsessed with eating the fruit, the further apart she and Lizzie become. The more the desire for the fruit consumes her, the less like herself she becomes.
Laura represents mankind in the sense that she gave into temptation and was unable to save herself. Similar to the rest of us humans, Laura knew what the consequences of her choice would be and believed herself able to handle whatever happened to her. Once the sin takes hold, it controls her life.
Once Laura tastes the fruit, she can no longer see the goblins or hear their call. She and Lizzie go back to the river bank, but this time only Lizzie can hear the goblins enchanting song (7). This change displays the law of diminishing returns: nothing will ever be as good as the first time. Without the fruit, Laura begins to waste away to the point that Lizzie decides she will get some fruit for her.
In her efforts to help her sister, Lizzie plays the role of a savior, not unlike Christ. She goes to the goblins and purchases fruit from them using a silver coin. She tries to leave without eating the fruit, and the goblins become enraged and begin to attack her (11). They tear at her clothes and call her names. The language used to describe Lizzie’s attitude while the goblins attack her echoes the words from Isaiah 53: “Lizzie uttered not a word; would not open lip from lip” (12). Lizzie stands firm during the goblins’ attack, and when she returns to Laura, she says, “Eat me, drink me, love me; Laura, make much of me” (13). Lizzie’s desire is to save her sister, no matter the cost.
When the juice from Lizzie touches Laura’s lips, it is not the same as when Laura drank the juice herself. The juice becomes bitter. Similar to Jesus’ sacrifice transforming the cross from curse to cure, Lizzie’s sacrifice transforms the poison of the juice into something curative. The juice changes from “poison in the blood” into “fiery antidote” (16). Her sacrifice transforms the fruit because her reason for obtaining the fruit juice is completely selfless. When the transformed juice touches Laura's lips, she goes into a frenzy, tearing her clothes and crying out (14). Her eyes are opened to the evil of the juice, and she immediately wants to be free. The fire of desire to be free overcomes the old desire for the fruit juice. The language used to describe Laura’s freedom from the juice is rich with imagery of being reborn: “But when the first birds chirped about their eaves/ [...] And new buds with new day / Opened of cup-like lilies on the stream, / Laura awoke as from a dream, / Laughed in the innocent old way” (15). Just as the blood of Christ makes us a new creation, the reformed juice heals and changes Laura.
The story of Christ has influenced many stories, whether or not the author was aware of it. The transforming power of the juice is a wonderful example of the transforming power of Christ’s blood. The sacrifice of Lizzie is just another illustration to remind us of the sacrifice Christ made on the cross. He is always willing to receive us if we come to Him and allow Him to change us.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Thoughts from Conversations
If right and wrong are subjective, then there is no need for me to follow what you say is right. Our definitions of right and wrong could be different. When there is no objective right or wrong, then there is no justification for laws. From where did this sense of right and wrong come? If it was from within humans, then it cannot be trusted because every person has had different experiences. The objective right and wrong must have come from without.
Beginnings. Something cannot come from nothing. Black holes are a vacuum, or lack of matter. The universe cannot have been created from a black hole because the universe is made up of matter, and matter cannot come from a place where there is a lack of it.
If humans came from primordial soup, then the question must be asked of the origin of the soup. The people cannot answer. So in an attempt to derail the discussion, they ask from where God came. My friend, my belief in God as the creator and sustainer of the universe and everything in it means that I inherently believe God has always existed. I can be satisfied with this answer. You, however, must live without an answer if you insist on clinging to the belief that people came about only by chance.
I don’t understand why people would rather believe there is no reason that they are on this earth than taking the time and logic to find the reason. It is just as likely that I could be here than I could have never existed, so I must decide what I’m going to do with that revelation.
We are tiny, insignificant beings next to the rest of the universe. Our view of the world around us is so small when compared with how much is around us. We measure the distance of things in space that are already dead based on how quickly the light reaches our tiny planet. There are leagues of ocean unexplored, teeming with creatures our imagination cannot compete with. Why do we assume we know so much? Why do we attach an age to this earth of which we have limited knowledge? We are too close to the picture, we only see one piece of the puzzle.
Purpose. Even if people don’t know what their exact purpose or calling is, actively searching for it is better than going through the motions. Of course, going through the motions could be someone’s purpose, in which case I have no right to tell them to alter their course.
Feelings. These should not be disregarded or scoffed at. Reason has its place, but so do feelings. Without feelings, there would be no art, no music, no movies, no dance. Everything would look and feel the same. It is feeling and reason that distinguishes humans from animals, therefore feelings must come from the soul. Feelings allow humans to connect to each other; sadness, joy, grief, a desire for justice - all of these have the potential to create bridges between people.
Jesus had feelings; he flipped tables and wept over the death of a friend. Did these emotions come from his flesh, or from the spirit? I believe his feelings came from the spiritual side of him because the Bible is also full of evidence pointing to God having feelings. When the Lord saw that the people of Noah’s time were constantly thinking of evil, He regretted making man. God desires for everyone to come to repentance. Therefore, feelings are from God and are of the soul.
Love. People long for it. Once they get it, they run.
Humans complain of heat, and humans complain of cold.
Books. Humans buy books when they already have a stack of unread books at home. We hoard knowledge.
When we write, we pour out our thoughts and our souls. This can be a very daunting process because it’s such a personal thing. My thoughts are laid out for you to read, process, and form judgments on. Am I ready to bear my soul to you?
Makeup. It is put on to cover the face, to transform it into something different. It is a mask used to give an illusion. We become scared to be seen without it, scared of what people will think of how we really look. Remove the mask, and be who you are.
Nothing motivates people like a fast approaching deadline, or food.
Equal opportunity. If any ruling power censures the choices the people have, the people are no longer free. Equal opportunity does not mean favoritism; it means giving everyone the chance to succeed or fail. Placing restrictions on people is projecting your expectations on them. Who am I to say if someone can succeed or fail?
Slow to speak does not mean slow to think. In fact, I have found that the cleverest people think so quickly and comprehensively that they need to take time to translate the beautifully profound thoughts they have into an order that will make sense to the average person.
Fear. Fear is irrational. God told us not to fear: “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God” (Trans, Is. 41:10). Gd would not tell us to do something that is irrational, therefore, fear is irrational.
However, I am quite fearful of the dark. In the dark I cannot see. When I cannot see I cannot understand. When I cannot understand, I am lost. And lost is not what I want to be.
Reflection. The best part of Heaven will be the worst part about Hell. Heaven will be so wonderful because it is where we will be fulfilled by constantly being with God. There is no more loneliness or emptiness because we will finally be complete.
In contrast, Hell will be the complete absence of God. He will not come to people there. The souls in Hell will forever be alone, forever be lacking, forever be empty. Oh, how this compels me to observe my current state!
Beginnings. Something cannot come from nothing. Black holes are a vacuum, or lack of matter. The universe cannot have been created from a black hole because the universe is made up of matter, and matter cannot come from a place where there is a lack of it.
If humans came from primordial soup, then the question must be asked of the origin of the soup. The people cannot answer. So in an attempt to derail the discussion, they ask from where God came. My friend, my belief in God as the creator and sustainer of the universe and everything in it means that I inherently believe God has always existed. I can be satisfied with this answer. You, however, must live without an answer if you insist on clinging to the belief that people came about only by chance.
I don’t understand why people would rather believe there is no reason that they are on this earth than taking the time and logic to find the reason. It is just as likely that I could be here than I could have never existed, so I must decide what I’m going to do with that revelation.
We are tiny, insignificant beings next to the rest of the universe. Our view of the world around us is so small when compared with how much is around us. We measure the distance of things in space that are already dead based on how quickly the light reaches our tiny planet. There are leagues of ocean unexplored, teeming with creatures our imagination cannot compete with. Why do we assume we know so much? Why do we attach an age to this earth of which we have limited knowledge? We are too close to the picture, we only see one piece of the puzzle.
Purpose. Even if people don’t know what their exact purpose or calling is, actively searching for it is better than going through the motions. Of course, going through the motions could be someone’s purpose, in which case I have no right to tell them to alter their course.
Feelings. These should not be disregarded or scoffed at. Reason has its place, but so do feelings. Without feelings, there would be no art, no music, no movies, no dance. Everything would look and feel the same. It is feeling and reason that distinguishes humans from animals, therefore feelings must come from the soul. Feelings allow humans to connect to each other; sadness, joy, grief, a desire for justice - all of these have the potential to create bridges between people.
Jesus had feelings; he flipped tables and wept over the death of a friend. Did these emotions come from his flesh, or from the spirit? I believe his feelings came from the spiritual side of him because the Bible is also full of evidence pointing to God having feelings. When the Lord saw that the people of Noah’s time were constantly thinking of evil, He regretted making man. God desires for everyone to come to repentance. Therefore, feelings are from God and are of the soul.
Love. People long for it. Once they get it, they run.
Humans complain of heat, and humans complain of cold.
Books. Humans buy books when they already have a stack of unread books at home. We hoard knowledge.
When we write, we pour out our thoughts and our souls. This can be a very daunting process because it’s such a personal thing. My thoughts are laid out for you to read, process, and form judgments on. Am I ready to bear my soul to you?
Makeup. It is put on to cover the face, to transform it into something different. It is a mask used to give an illusion. We become scared to be seen without it, scared of what people will think of how we really look. Remove the mask, and be who you are.
Nothing motivates people like a fast approaching deadline, or food.
Equal opportunity. If any ruling power censures the choices the people have, the people are no longer free. Equal opportunity does not mean favoritism; it means giving everyone the chance to succeed or fail. Placing restrictions on people is projecting your expectations on them. Who am I to say if someone can succeed or fail?
Slow to speak does not mean slow to think. In fact, I have found that the cleverest people think so quickly and comprehensively that they need to take time to translate the beautifully profound thoughts they have into an order that will make sense to the average person.
Fear. Fear is irrational. God told us not to fear: “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God” (Trans, Is. 41:10). Gd would not tell us to do something that is irrational, therefore, fear is irrational.
However, I am quite fearful of the dark. In the dark I cannot see. When I cannot see I cannot understand. When I cannot understand, I am lost. And lost is not what I want to be.
Reflection. The best part of Heaven will be the worst part about Hell. Heaven will be so wonderful because it is where we will be fulfilled by constantly being with God. There is no more loneliness or emptiness because we will finally be complete.
In contrast, Hell will be the complete absence of God. He will not come to people there. The souls in Hell will forever be alone, forever be lacking, forever be empty. Oh, how this compels me to observe my current state!
Monday, September 25, 2017
Miracle of Miracles
David Hume’s “An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding” is one of the heaviest texts I’ve read in Great Books so far. Within his work, he explores topics such as why people think the way that the do and calls into question many different religious practices. However, one of his most controversial points is his stand of miracles. Hume does not believe in miracles, and he dedicates the tenth section of his work to discussing different reasons why miracles are false.
Hume begins by defining a miracle as a “violation of the laws of nature” (83). Our perception of the laws of nature are defined by our personal experiences with nature. The greater the number of observations we have of an effect, the more we are steadfast in our belief that a certain effect will always follow a certain cause. It is the experiences we have had personally that attest to the truth of something. In discussing the reliability of human testimony in regards to miracles, Hume says, “It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature” (92). We compare what we have heard is true to what we know is true to see if the two line up. When something happens that seems in contradiction to the course of nature we have observed, we don’t accept it immediately as truth. We observe God through what we see in the usual course of nature, therefore Hume says we cannot attribute miracles to Him since they are not in accordance to what we see in nature (93).
In part two of his discussion of reality of miracles, Hume opens by calling into question the credibility of people who attest to the truth of miracles (84). Hume lists certain traits that must be present within men in order for us to believe their testimony; these men must be well-educated and possess good sense and a high reputation built on integrity. These men must have such undoubted integrity that they would be kept honest by fear of being found speaking false things (84). Hume also says that the miracle has to have taken place in a very public venue so that it was seen by many people.
Beyond questioning the character of people, Hume points out that there are some who use miraculous accounts to promote themselves. In exploring the motives for people to twist the truth and deceive people, Hume says, “But what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven? Who would not encounter many dangers and difficulties, in order to attain so sublime of a character?” (91). The desire to be famous and successful is strong, so we cannot believe everyone who claims to have witnessed a miracle. A person could be ignorant of the falsity of what they are proclaiming to people. However, there are people who will continue to attest to the truth in miracles and signs even after being proven wrong. These religionists may believe they’re promoting holiness by justifying how many people they convince through their lies; or they may just be unwilling to admit they were wrong (85). Vanity, operating within these people stronger than in any others, causes the continuation of the proclamation of these false testimonies. And it is the conviction with which these certain people spread these lies that Hume says is especially dangerous. When people of wisdom try to investigate and expose the lies of the false testimonies, the passion of the liar overpowers the credibility of the people trying to shed some light on the matter. According to Hume, we cannot believe the testimony of men because they are only looking out for their own benefit. However, it makes me wonder what the apostles gained from never wavering on their belief in Jesus or in their proclaiming Him to all people publicly. They would have been saved a lot of pain if they had just denied who Jesus was and what He did.
The second argument Hume presents against miracles is based upon the supposed gullibility of the common man. Hume says that we readily believe something is true if it inspires awe and wonder in us (84). Usually we relate things we don’t know to the things we do know in order to see if the two agree. If they don’t agree, we choose the cause that we have observed more often because it is more probable to us. When it comes to miracles, however, Hume says we get caught up in the moment. He claims, “The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived” (84). Apparently we are so rational and careful with our opinions, except when it comes to things that seem supernatural. We believe that since the emotion attributed to witnessing the miracle made us feel good the miracle itself must be true.
The place of origin of stories of miracles and the people who spread the stories is the third reason Hume gives to refute miracles. Hume believes that legends of miracles began and primarily spread in what he calls “ignorant and barbarous nations” (86). People used to attribute events such as earthquakes or plagues to some supernatural force lashing out against the people. The custom of sacrifices, whether people or animals, is based on the practice of appeasing the supposed gods. The further along people progress, the fewer the accounts of miraculous events become. Hume attributes this decrease to humanity’s growing knowledge of the customs of nature and the world around us. As we come to know more about the science of why things happen the way that they do, we believe less of the supposed impossible.
The fourth reason Hume gives against the credibility of miracle is that there is not one that is unopposed (87). Opposition comes not only from those who don’t believe at all, but also from different religions. The opposition is apparently so great that all testimonies for miracles are discredited, even the ones your religion is based off of. “In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established” (88). Different religions are based upon different miracles, and by discrediting someone else’s miracle, you are indirectly discrediting your own.
Hume makes some very logical points questioning the truth of miracles. He uses reason to come to conclusions that make sense. However, I have found two flaws in his argument against truth of miracles. The first flaw is how he defines the laws of nature. Our laws of nature are based on patterns we have observed, patterns that could change at any time. In discussing chance and probability, Hume says that once we get accustomed to a certain effect following a cause, we will hold fast to this truth we have observed. However, Hume does admit that there are certain causes which are more irregular or certain. If the laws of nature are what we humans have observed to usually be true, then it is possible that they may not continue to be as we have observed them. The second flaw I find in his argument is his definition of miracles. Hume defines miracles are violations of natural order of the law, but this statement contradicts itself. Miracles are not a violation of nature’s laws because God set the laws into place, and to violate His laws would be to violate Himself. God won’t break His own laws, therefore the definition of miracles must be different. Could it be that miracles are nature’s way of responding to the presence and power of God and Jesus? The bush that burned in the wilderness but wasn’t consumed was displaying the presence of God. When Jesus walked on the water, nature responded truthfully to the presence of its Creator. We may not understand how miracles are possible, but that doesn’t mean they are any less true. It is through faith that we believe they happened. “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written,” John 21:25.
Hume begins by defining a miracle as a “violation of the laws of nature” (83). Our perception of the laws of nature are defined by our personal experiences with nature. The greater the number of observations we have of an effect, the more we are steadfast in our belief that a certain effect will always follow a certain cause. It is the experiences we have had personally that attest to the truth of something. In discussing the reliability of human testimony in regards to miracles, Hume says, “It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature” (92). We compare what we have heard is true to what we know is true to see if the two line up. When something happens that seems in contradiction to the course of nature we have observed, we don’t accept it immediately as truth. We observe God through what we see in the usual course of nature, therefore Hume says we cannot attribute miracles to Him since they are not in accordance to what we see in nature (93).
In part two of his discussion of reality of miracles, Hume opens by calling into question the credibility of people who attest to the truth of miracles (84). Hume lists certain traits that must be present within men in order for us to believe their testimony; these men must be well-educated and possess good sense and a high reputation built on integrity. These men must have such undoubted integrity that they would be kept honest by fear of being found speaking false things (84). Hume also says that the miracle has to have taken place in a very public venue so that it was seen by many people.
Beyond questioning the character of people, Hume points out that there are some who use miraculous accounts to promote themselves. In exploring the motives for people to twist the truth and deceive people, Hume says, “But what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven? Who would not encounter many dangers and difficulties, in order to attain so sublime of a character?” (91). The desire to be famous and successful is strong, so we cannot believe everyone who claims to have witnessed a miracle. A person could be ignorant of the falsity of what they are proclaiming to people. However, there are people who will continue to attest to the truth in miracles and signs even after being proven wrong. These religionists may believe they’re promoting holiness by justifying how many people they convince through their lies; or they may just be unwilling to admit they were wrong (85). Vanity, operating within these people stronger than in any others, causes the continuation of the proclamation of these false testimonies. And it is the conviction with which these certain people spread these lies that Hume says is especially dangerous. When people of wisdom try to investigate and expose the lies of the false testimonies, the passion of the liar overpowers the credibility of the people trying to shed some light on the matter. According to Hume, we cannot believe the testimony of men because they are only looking out for their own benefit. However, it makes me wonder what the apostles gained from never wavering on their belief in Jesus or in their proclaiming Him to all people publicly. They would have been saved a lot of pain if they had just denied who Jesus was and what He did.
The second argument Hume presents against miracles is based upon the supposed gullibility of the common man. Hume says that we readily believe something is true if it inspires awe and wonder in us (84). Usually we relate things we don’t know to the things we do know in order to see if the two agree. If they don’t agree, we choose the cause that we have observed more often because it is more probable to us. When it comes to miracles, however, Hume says we get caught up in the moment. He claims, “The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived” (84). Apparently we are so rational and careful with our opinions, except when it comes to things that seem supernatural. We believe that since the emotion attributed to witnessing the miracle made us feel good the miracle itself must be true.
The place of origin of stories of miracles and the people who spread the stories is the third reason Hume gives to refute miracles. Hume believes that legends of miracles began and primarily spread in what he calls “ignorant and barbarous nations” (86). People used to attribute events such as earthquakes or plagues to some supernatural force lashing out against the people. The custom of sacrifices, whether people or animals, is based on the practice of appeasing the supposed gods. The further along people progress, the fewer the accounts of miraculous events become. Hume attributes this decrease to humanity’s growing knowledge of the customs of nature and the world around us. As we come to know more about the science of why things happen the way that they do, we believe less of the supposed impossible.
The fourth reason Hume gives against the credibility of miracle is that there is not one that is unopposed (87). Opposition comes not only from those who don’t believe at all, but also from different religions. The opposition is apparently so great that all testimonies for miracles are discredited, even the ones your religion is based off of. “In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established” (88). Different religions are based upon different miracles, and by discrediting someone else’s miracle, you are indirectly discrediting your own.
Hume makes some very logical points questioning the truth of miracles. He uses reason to come to conclusions that make sense. However, I have found two flaws in his argument against truth of miracles. The first flaw is how he defines the laws of nature. Our laws of nature are based on patterns we have observed, patterns that could change at any time. In discussing chance and probability, Hume says that once we get accustomed to a certain effect following a cause, we will hold fast to this truth we have observed. However, Hume does admit that there are certain causes which are more irregular or certain. If the laws of nature are what we humans have observed to usually be true, then it is possible that they may not continue to be as we have observed them. The second flaw I find in his argument is his definition of miracles. Hume defines miracles are violations of natural order of the law, but this statement contradicts itself. Miracles are not a violation of nature’s laws because God set the laws into place, and to violate His laws would be to violate Himself. God won’t break His own laws, therefore the definition of miracles must be different. Could it be that miracles are nature’s way of responding to the presence and power of God and Jesus? The bush that burned in the wilderness but wasn’t consumed was displaying the presence of God. When Jesus walked on the water, nature responded truthfully to the presence of its Creator. We may not understand how miracles are possible, but that doesn’t mean they are any less true. It is through faith that we believe they happened. “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that would be written,” John 21:25.
Sunday, September 3, 2017
It's All in Your Head
We have finally reached the period of enlightenment! I am so ready to read the works of people who have a belief in God as their basis. Pascal and Descartes are the two authors I’ve read so far in Great Books this semester. Both authors wrote during the 17th century and explore topics such as reason and imagination. However, Pascal and Descartes have very different views on the faculties of imagination and reason. Both reason and imagination are very important as they help shape how we view and handle situations. I believe that reason and imagination can be used in conjunction, and it is through employing both that a person can make good decisions and lead a happy life.
According to Pascal, imagination is the true controller of people. In his book Human Happiness, Pascal says, “Imagination decides everything: it creates beauty, justice and happiness” (Human Happiness, p. 7). The thoughts our imaginations bring to us impacts everything from our decisions for the future to our impressions of other people. Pascal illustrates the power of imagination by discussing the long gowns and big hat physicians wear (Human Happiness, p. 6); such regal clothing doesn’t affect how well of a doctor someone is, but it often decides how much respect he commands. Pascal does not think anyone is safe from the effects of imagination. Imagination is apparently so powerful it can control even the wisest of men (Human Happiness, p. 4). No matter how much reason may try to object, it is in vain. One of the problems with imagination being in control is that it leads us to believe things that aren’t true. Pascal describes it as the “master of error and falsehood” (Human Happiness, p.3). Imagination is faulty because it relies solely on circumstances inside the head that we create, instead of focusing on outside factors.
Pascal has an interesting point of view on the effects of imagination on people’s happiness. He believes that people who rely on imagination are happier than people who attempt to rely on reason. He says “Those who are clever in imagination are for more pleased with themselves than prudent men could reasonably be” (Human Happiness, p. 4). It is easy to understand how those who live in their imagination and follow their impulses would seem happier than people who have reason to guide their decisions. However, I believe this happiness is only short term. If you live in your head for too long, it’s going to be extremely difficult for anyone outside to connect with you.
Pascal believes that in the battle between reason and imagination, reason is more often than not on the losing side. “Reason never wholly overcomes imagination, while the contrary is quite common” (Human Happiness, p. 6). We are more inclined to listen to imagination than reason because we have an immediate access to imagination. Proper reason takes time to consider many different factors. Pascal also believes a that every action of man is motivated by imagination, therefore reason must become more like imagination in order to to be used (Human Happiness, p.6). Pascal even goes so far as to say that anyone who follows reason alone is a fool. I think what Pascal is saying is that reason must be willing to explore all options; just as there are no limits to imagination, reason should be willing to consider all the options. I don’t like the idea of reason changing to look like imagination, however, the most powerful argument Pascal makes on imagination over reason is that we can’t reach God through reason. It is faith moving our hearts that leads us to Him (Human Happiness, p. 20-21). Reason will only take us so far because we can’t completely prove the existence of God. If we could, there would be no need for faith.
Descartes has a very different view on reason and imagination. Descartes believes that reason can overcome imagination if the person takes the time to find the truth in the thought. Even though all of our thoughts come from God, and everything that comes from Him is truth, our imagination can trick us if we don’t use reason to discover truth in the thought. “We ought never to let ourselves be convinced except on the evidence of our reason” (A Discourse on the Method, p. 34). Descartes uses the example of sense when illustrating this point. We know the sun isn’t as small as it looks to us on earth because logically it is the distance that clouds our senses. Descartes also believes that imagination is the wrong tool with which to seek God. He compares people who seek God using their imagination to those who try to use their eyes to hear or smell. “Neither our imagination nor our senses could ever confirm the existence of anything, if our intellect did not get to play its part” (A Discourse on the Method, p. 32). However, I believe that imagination has to be in control at some point. We use make logical conclusions about the existence of God in order to make it to a certain point before faith can take over.
A unique characteristic of human beings is our ability to reason. If we didn’t use reason, we would do things just for our desires in that moment without thinking of the consequences; we would live in constant state of disillusion. God has instilled the faculty of reason in each of us, and we must decide if we’re going to use it or let it go stale and follow only the imagination. On the other hand, God also gave each of us an imagination so He must have intended for us to use it. I believe our imagination allows us to explore new ideas and open up our creative sides, but reason is needed to keep it in check. In comparing the ideals of Pascal and Descartes, it’s important to keep in mind the audience and the reason each gentleman is writing. Pascal’s view of imagination seems to me to be more of what he’s observed, not necessarily what people should practice. Descartes’ whole system of determining what principles are true by reasoning them out so that he can practice and inform people of the truest principles. By combining reason and imagination, we can have big dreams while also staying grounded in the truth.
According to Pascal, imagination is the true controller of people. In his book Human Happiness, Pascal says, “Imagination decides everything: it creates beauty, justice and happiness” (Human Happiness, p. 7). The thoughts our imaginations bring to us impacts everything from our decisions for the future to our impressions of other people. Pascal illustrates the power of imagination by discussing the long gowns and big hat physicians wear (Human Happiness, p. 6); such regal clothing doesn’t affect how well of a doctor someone is, but it often decides how much respect he commands. Pascal does not think anyone is safe from the effects of imagination. Imagination is apparently so powerful it can control even the wisest of men (Human Happiness, p. 4). No matter how much reason may try to object, it is in vain. One of the problems with imagination being in control is that it leads us to believe things that aren’t true. Pascal describes it as the “master of error and falsehood” (Human Happiness, p.3). Imagination is faulty because it relies solely on circumstances inside the head that we create, instead of focusing on outside factors.
Pascal has an interesting point of view on the effects of imagination on people’s happiness. He believes that people who rely on imagination are happier than people who attempt to rely on reason. He says “Those who are clever in imagination are for more pleased with themselves than prudent men could reasonably be” (Human Happiness, p. 4). It is easy to understand how those who live in their imagination and follow their impulses would seem happier than people who have reason to guide their decisions. However, I believe this happiness is only short term. If you live in your head for too long, it’s going to be extremely difficult for anyone outside to connect with you.
Pascal believes that in the battle between reason and imagination, reason is more often than not on the losing side. “Reason never wholly overcomes imagination, while the contrary is quite common” (Human Happiness, p. 6). We are more inclined to listen to imagination than reason because we have an immediate access to imagination. Proper reason takes time to consider many different factors. Pascal also believes a that every action of man is motivated by imagination, therefore reason must become more like imagination in order to to be used (Human Happiness, p.6). Pascal even goes so far as to say that anyone who follows reason alone is a fool. I think what Pascal is saying is that reason must be willing to explore all options; just as there are no limits to imagination, reason should be willing to consider all the options. I don’t like the idea of reason changing to look like imagination, however, the most powerful argument Pascal makes on imagination over reason is that we can’t reach God through reason. It is faith moving our hearts that leads us to Him (Human Happiness, p. 20-21). Reason will only take us so far because we can’t completely prove the existence of God. If we could, there would be no need for faith.
Descartes has a very different view on reason and imagination. Descartes believes that reason can overcome imagination if the person takes the time to find the truth in the thought. Even though all of our thoughts come from God, and everything that comes from Him is truth, our imagination can trick us if we don’t use reason to discover truth in the thought. “We ought never to let ourselves be convinced except on the evidence of our reason” (A Discourse on the Method, p. 34). Descartes uses the example of sense when illustrating this point. We know the sun isn’t as small as it looks to us on earth because logically it is the distance that clouds our senses. Descartes also believes that imagination is the wrong tool with which to seek God. He compares people who seek God using their imagination to those who try to use their eyes to hear or smell. “Neither our imagination nor our senses could ever confirm the existence of anything, if our intellect did not get to play its part” (A Discourse on the Method, p. 32). However, I believe that imagination has to be in control at some point. We use make logical conclusions about the existence of God in order to make it to a certain point before faith can take over.
A unique characteristic of human beings is our ability to reason. If we didn’t use reason, we would do things just for our desires in that moment without thinking of the consequences; we would live in constant state of disillusion. God has instilled the faculty of reason in each of us, and we must decide if we’re going to use it or let it go stale and follow only the imagination. On the other hand, God also gave each of us an imagination so He must have intended for us to use it. I believe our imagination allows us to explore new ideas and open up our creative sides, but reason is needed to keep it in check. In comparing the ideals of Pascal and Descartes, it’s important to keep in mind the audience and the reason each gentleman is writing. Pascal’s view of imagination seems to me to be more of what he’s observed, not necessarily what people should practice. Descartes’ whole system of determining what principles are true by reasoning them out so that he can practice and inform people of the truest principles. By combining reason and imagination, we can have big dreams while also staying grounded in the truth.
Monday, April 17, 2017
The Price of Power
While reading Machiavelli’s The Prince, I was confronted with many different viewpoints on politics. It was no surprise to me when I found out we would be reading a book on politics. I believe it is wise that we are studying the choices and actions of past leaders since we live in a society that is so saturated with government. Machiavelli seems to cover all of the topics pertaining to government, from establishment of a principality to the hiring of militia. However, there is one stance Machiavelli takes that just doesn’t sit right with me. Machiavelli is of the opinion that in order for a ruler to be successful, he must be willing to give up virtue. True success, according to Machiavelli, is ultimate, lasting power. Machiavelli believes that the only way to achieve that kind of power is to let go of pursuing virtue.
In order to be successful according to Machiavelli, a ruler must be willing to sacrifice doing good. Machiavelli states that if a prince wants to maintain his power, he must “learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity” (61). Machiavelli believes that a ruler must be morally fluid in order to remain powerful. Instead of pursuing virtue and striving to do good, Machiavelli believes that in order to be truly successful a ruler must be willing to do whatever it takes to gain ultimate power. Machiavelli uses Cesare Borgia as an example of someone who gained power in what he considers an effective way. Cesare Borgia was appointed duke by his father, Pope Alexander IV (27). After describing in detail the bloody rise of Cesare Borgia to power, Machiavelli says he doesn’t know how he can call the duke out on his less than praiseworthy actions; rather, Machiavelli believes “he should be put forward (...) to be imitated by all those who have risen to empire through fortune and arms of others” (32). I believe that a person in a position of power can keep his moral values and still be successful. For example, Marcus Aurelius was a successful ruler despite the fact he is considered a great philosopher. The difference is how the success is measured. If the definition of success is dependent upon how much power the ruler holds, then it should not come as a shock when Machiavelli’s poster boy for success is someone as ruthless as Cesare Borgia.
In addition to sacrificing virtue, a ruler must be able to discern which vices can be used in order to be successful according to Machiavelli. After listing some virtues and vices, Machiavelli acknowledges that we would call someone who possess all of the virtues worthy of praise (62). He goes on to say that it is impossible for anyone to possess all of the virtues at once. Therefore, according to Machiavelli, a prince should know how to avoid a bad reputation from vices by only practicing the vices that will not take the state from him. The reason I have a problem with this stance is because I do not think that practicing a wrong can put someone in the right. Goodness is achieved by practicing virtues; the opposite of virtue is vice. So the end result of vice is evil, and true evil is not good for anyone.
Contrary to what Machiavelli believes, it is possible for a person in a position of authority to be virtuous and successful. Marcus Aurelius is just one example of a successful ruler who pursued virtue. People of faith in powerful positions will be in a constant battle. Christ says that it is with difficulty that a person of great riches will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23). The measure of success does depend on the definition of success. In order to be successful to Machiavelli, a ruler must have complete and lasting power no matter the cost; he calls on rulers to abandon moral conduct and the pursuit of virtue for earthly wealth and fame. If no higher power existed, then there would be no basis for an argument based on moral standards. However, we know there is a higher power who defines success for us. “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” Matthew 16:26
In order to be successful according to Machiavelli, a ruler must be willing to sacrifice doing good. Machiavelli states that if a prince wants to maintain his power, he must “learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity” (61). Machiavelli believes that a ruler must be morally fluid in order to remain powerful. Instead of pursuing virtue and striving to do good, Machiavelli believes that in order to be truly successful a ruler must be willing to do whatever it takes to gain ultimate power. Machiavelli uses Cesare Borgia as an example of someone who gained power in what he considers an effective way. Cesare Borgia was appointed duke by his father, Pope Alexander IV (27). After describing in detail the bloody rise of Cesare Borgia to power, Machiavelli says he doesn’t know how he can call the duke out on his less than praiseworthy actions; rather, Machiavelli believes “he should be put forward (...) to be imitated by all those who have risen to empire through fortune and arms of others” (32). I believe that a person in a position of power can keep his moral values and still be successful. For example, Marcus Aurelius was a successful ruler despite the fact he is considered a great philosopher. The difference is how the success is measured. If the definition of success is dependent upon how much power the ruler holds, then it should not come as a shock when Machiavelli’s poster boy for success is someone as ruthless as Cesare Borgia.
In addition to sacrificing virtue, a ruler must be able to discern which vices can be used in order to be successful according to Machiavelli. After listing some virtues and vices, Machiavelli acknowledges that we would call someone who possess all of the virtues worthy of praise (62). He goes on to say that it is impossible for anyone to possess all of the virtues at once. Therefore, according to Machiavelli, a prince should know how to avoid a bad reputation from vices by only practicing the vices that will not take the state from him. The reason I have a problem with this stance is because I do not think that practicing a wrong can put someone in the right. Goodness is achieved by practicing virtues; the opposite of virtue is vice. So the end result of vice is evil, and true evil is not good for anyone.
Contrary to what Machiavelli believes, it is possible for a person in a position of authority to be virtuous and successful. Marcus Aurelius is just one example of a successful ruler who pursued virtue. People of faith in powerful positions will be in a constant battle. Christ says that it is with difficulty that a person of great riches will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23). The measure of success does depend on the definition of success. In order to be successful to Machiavelli, a ruler must have complete and lasting power no matter the cost; he calls on rulers to abandon moral conduct and the pursuit of virtue for earthly wealth and fame. If no higher power existed, then there would be no basis for an argument based on moral standards. However, we know there is a higher power who defines success for us. “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” Matthew 16:26
Monday, March 20, 2017
The Uphill Climb
I have to admit that I was extremely happy to be given the book Purgatory simply because it meant I was no longer reading Inferno. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find many aspect of Purgatory that I enjoyed. Even though I don’t personally believe in the Purgatory that souls go to before Heaven, I was still able to appreciate the messages Dante presents. I believe that Purgatory is symbolic of the Christian walk through its meaning and the journey of the souls on it.
Purgatory is the meeting of God’s judgment and mercy. Hell exists because of God’s judgment. Ascribed on the gates leading into Hell are the words, “Justice caused my high architect to move: / divine omnipotence created me, / the highest wisdom, and the primal love” (Inferno, 23). As sinful human beings, we deserve punishment in Hell; however, God is merciful and desires for us to be in Heaven with Him. In His mercy, God sent Jesus to endure the judgment we deserve. Purgatory is the middle of the two extremes, Heaven and Hell, and Jesus is the meeting of God’s judgment and mercy. Jesus is our way into God’s mercy.
Purgatory compares to the Christian walk in that the longer souls are on it, the more like God they become. I’ve noticed that whenever I spend a lot of time with someone, I start to talk similarly to them and develop some of the same mannerisms. The more time we spend with God and the more we saturate our minds with His word, the more we will look like God. The souls in Purgatory look more like God through the burdens they bear. The burdens souls bear in Purgatory are because of the sins they committed while living. The burdens help to turn the will of the people towards God. The souls are ready to move further up the mountain when they change their will and bend it back toward Christ. The souls choose when they move on. While traveling to the ring of gluttony, Dante and Virgil meet a soul named Statius who, after over 500 years in Purgatory, is headed towards Heaven. Statius explains that it is the will of the soul that determines when it will move forward. The souls have free will, and once punishment has been dealt, the souls are free to change their will to “find a better place” (229). Just like the souls in Purgatory must alter their will to God’s in order to move farther up the mountain, Christians are in a constant battle of wills to follow God and His commandments. Everyone struggles with sin in different ways, but God helps them to overcome the sin. The more sins overcome, the higher the soul climbs and the closer to God he becomes.
Through bearing the burdens of each circle, souls cleanse themselves so that they can be with God. The souls in Purgatory must be cleansed in order to move on. Cato, the gatekeeper of Purgatory, in an effort to gather the souls to cross the sea, says, “Hurry to scrape away the scales that keep / the Lord from being manifest to you!” (23). The souls in Purgatory must be cleansed in order to move on to Heaven, and we must be cleansed in order to have fellowship with God. When we sin, we make ourselves dirty. God is perfect, and He cannot be with us if we allow ourselves to be dirty. It is only through the blood of Jesus that we can be cleansed and be with God in Heaven.
Purgatory is similar to the Christian walk because although souls are bearing burdens, they do not seem very discouraged. The souls are able to bear the burdens because they are working towards a goal. Life can be very discouraging sometimes. Maybe it hasn’t been your day, your week, your month, or even your year. But we can be encouraged because God, and the characters from Friends, are there for us. We can’t control what happens to us, but we can control how we react. As Christians, we can be encouraged because we have a goal we’re moving towards and reward to look forward to.
The common goal of Christians allows us to encourage each other just like the souls in Purgatory. They pray for each other and uplift each other. The souls in Purgatory even pray for those who are still alive in hopes that they won’t be ensnared by the flesh as they were (115 and 117). The souls pray, “Dear Lord, we do not make this final prayer / for ourselves here, for here there is no need, / but for the ones behind us who have yet to come” (117). The souls in Purgatory pray for the living, and the living pray for those in Purgatory. It is the prayers of the living that help ease the burdens of the souls in Purgatory (45). For example, When Dante encounters the soul of an old friend named Forese, Forese explains that it is only because of the prayers of his “little widow” that he was able to ascend the mountain quicker than other souls (251, 253). Dante is asked by a multitude of souls to remind their families of them in hopes of some prayers. Though they could bear the burdens alone, they know that the burdens will be easier if they encourage each other and receive encouragement from others. Christians have a common goal, and we have the opportunity to encourage each other and help each other reach the goal.
The mountain of Purgatory and a life devoted to Christ are both an uphill climb. However, Dante shows that the end result, being with God in Heaven, is worth the punishments. It is through the grace of God that we are offered a way into Heaven. Just as the prayers from the living help ease the burdens of those souls in Purgatory, so are our burdens in the Christian walk much more bearable when we lift each other up and focus on the end goal. No matter what happens, just remember to keep on climbing.Sunday, February 5, 2017
Food for Thought
I am so glad to be out of hell. The imagery Dante uses to describe the various punishments of souls is haunting at times. From people being turned into trees to others ripping themselves apart, Dante describes a lot of interesting punishments. However, one of Dante’s characters really stuck out to me.
Among the traitors in the ninth circle of Inferno is a man named Count Ugolino. The first look we get at Count Ugolino is him eating another man’s head (p. 337). Why is Ugolino eating the other man’s head? It’s a great story. The man who is the delectable meal was an Archbishop named Ruggieri. Ruggieri betrayed Count Ugolino and caused the imprisonment of him and his four sons in a tower. As if that wasn’t punishment enough, Ugolino and his sons were left imprisoned in the tower to die. Ugolino describes the terrible experience of watching his sons die. Only a day without food had passed when Ugolino’s sons offered their bodies as food for their father. Ugolino describes the gruesome situation: “I bit both hands for grief; and they, who thought I must be longing for some food to eat, suddenly rose and came to me and said ‘Father, for us it would be much less pain if you ate us instead!’” (p. 345 lines 58-63). I can’t imagine how much pain this must have caused Ugolino. His children, his own flesh and blood, were begging him to put them out of their misery, and he couldn’t do it. While the realization that they were going to starve openly upsets his sons, Ugolino describes himself as turning to stone; he doesn’t speak a word to them out of fear of distressing them even more. By the sixth day without food, all four of Ugolino’s sons had died. After two days of mourning the death of his sons, Ugolino says “Then hunger did what sorrow could not do” (p. 345, line 75). There is disagreement on whether this phrase means that Ugolino died from starvation or that he ate the bodies of his sons. I am of the opinion that Ugolino ate his sons bodies due to his punishment in Hell. Ugolino is forced to eat the head of a man for all eternity, thus perpetually reminding him of his sin.
Besides a rather disturbing back story, the reason Ugolino intrigues me so much is that he is supposedly getting his revenge while in hell. Lines 130-132 of Canto 32 records, “Just as Tydeus in his spiteful rage gnawed at the temples of his enemy, so did he (Ugolino) gnaw the brains, the flesh, the skull.” Ugolino is part of the punishment of the man who betrayed him. No other soul in Inferno is described as being able to do the same. Dante seems to throw a little irony into the punishment. Ugolino died of starvation, but in Hell he is perpetually eating a man’s head. However, I think this supposed revenge is part of Ugolino’s punishment. Ugolino is constantly reminded of how his sons died because he is in the presence of the man he blames for their deaths.
Ugolino blames Ruggieri for the death of his sons, and while this may be justified, I have wonder why Ugolino is placed in the circle of Hell with the traitors. Is it because he betrayed someone, perhaps his sons? Is it simply because he is part of the punishment of Ruggieri? Or is it a different reason entirely? Whatever the reason, I think we can agree that Ugolino is still being punished because he is constantly reminded of the death of his sons.
By blaming Ruggieri for the death of his sons, Ugolino is punishing himself. He isn’t letting himself move on to the acceptance stage of grief. Dante takes spiritual sin and makes the punishment physical in ways that cause the reader to reflect on their own actions. I think the punishment of Count Ugolino is a great example of why we should forgive people. If we don’t forgive people, we continue to allow them to hurt us. It is only through Christ that we can truly forgive people and move past any hurt we may have.Saturday, January 21, 2017
Consolation of Feminism
I wrote a letter to feminism. It went something like this:
Dear Feminism,
I know you’re under a lot of scrutiny right now. I also know you’re one of the most controversial topics in the world today. I just have a few questions for you…
I don’t mean to sound rude, but what exactly are you, Feminism? Everyone seems to have their own interpretation, but I would like to know from you what you are.
Again, I don’t want to sound rude or too direct but this situation calls for bluntness. Do you hate men?
Who is your biggest enemy? I know what some people’s obvious answer would be, but I want to know what you think.
If you could answer these questions, I would be much obliged.
Your truth-seeking friend,
Catherine Allbritton
I put my letter in an envelope, addressed it to the proper address, and sent the letter on its way. I didn’t expect the reply I received.
I was sitting in my room, scrolling through social media on my iPad. Articles written by women who did or did not support the new President and the various reasons for their standpoints kept popping up. There were also videos about gender and racial stereotypes. News articles about a march on Washington flooded my newsfeed. Everywhere I looked I kept seeing messages of negativity and division.
I felt like someone was watching me, so I looked up and saw a striking character. She had robes that cascaded to the floor, a spiked crown, in one hand she carried a tablet, and in the other a burning torch. Everything was a light green color. She stood straight and tall at the foot of my bed. I could only sit with my mouth gaping open.
“Well,” she said in a clear voice, “do you know who I am?”
I swallowed hard and said the first thing that came to my mind: “Are you Lady Liberty?”
The figure smiled knowingly and shook her head. “We often get confused because we are so alike,” she said. “However, I am not Lady Liberty. I am Feminism, and I came to you to answer your questions.”
I was speechless. Feminism had received my letter and was answering it. I decided to ask my first question. “Feminism,” I asked politely, “what are you? I know everyone has their own definition of you, but which one do you feel best explains you?”
She answered almost immediately, “I am equality between men and women regardless of race or ethnicity. I desire for people to be rewarded or punished based on their actions, not on their gender. I am freedom from stereotypes.”
Her answer immediately prompted another question from me. I hesitated however, because I wasn’t sure if I wanted the answer. She noticed my hesitation though and motioned for me to ask the question on my lips.
“Feminism,” I asked, “if you are equality, why do people say you hate men? Equality is all people being equal, but can people be made equal by building up or must we tear each other down?”
Feminism sighed. “Of course the only true way for everyone to be equal is through recognizing and accepting their differences. Tearing a gender, race, or religious group down does not elevate another.”
I asked another question that had been on my mind since she appeared to me. “Feminism,” I asked, “why do you look like Lady Liberty? I pictured you as something...much different.”
Feminism looked me square in the face and asked me a difficult question. “What is liberty?” she asked.
I thought about it for a moment, recalling all that I’ve been told of the history of the United States and what the Statue of Liberty represents. “Liberty,” I began slowly, “is the belief that everyone is free to do what they want and say what they want within a code of moral conduct. The Statue of Liberty represented freedom to immigrants as they entered the harbor at Ellis Island.”
Feminism nodded, and asked, “How would you say that relates to equality?”
I immediately answered, “Liberty is based on equality. Everyone should have an equal chance to pursue happiness, regardless of their gender, race, or background.”
Feminism smiled. “Don’t you see where I fit in?” she asked. “I am interwoven into equality which is interwoven into liberty; those two reasons are why I look so much like Lady Liberty.”
Digesting all of the information she had given me, I asked Feminism my final question. “Who is your greatest enemy, Feminism?”
Her face darkened, and she shifted on her feet a little bit causing a clinking sound. For the first time, I noticed she had shackles around her ankles. She noticed my staring and passionately gave her answer. “My greatest enemy is ignorance. There are some people who hate me and wish I would keep quiet. There are others who claim to be acting in my name while tearing people down. Each of these groups are acting out of ignorance of what I am. I am not women over men, I am not a man-hater...I am equality. These shackles represents people’s ignorance which keeps me from being free. You see,” she said shakily, “I shouldn’t have to argue my case anymore. Equality is something that should have been established long ago. I will admit that things are better now, but we still have a long way to go.”
“But what can I do?” I asked. “I am just one person. There are millions of people who are spreading lies about what you are. What am I supposed to do?”
“I came to you to give you the knowledge you desired!” she said passionately. “Your desire brought me here, and I have told you the truth. It is now your job to inform others and spread my message of equality. You’re right, one person isn’t going to change the world. But you can tell others, and they will tell others, and more people will know what I truly am. As the knowledge spreads, ignorance will shrink, and I will finally be loosed from these chains.”
She straightened up and looked at me. “You know what you have to do,” she said.
I nodded, and in the blink of an eye she was gone. Her impact remains, and it is only through each one of us spreading the message of love and equality that we can truly free feminism.
Dear Feminism,
I know you’re under a lot of scrutiny right now. I also know you’re one of the most controversial topics in the world today. I just have a few questions for you…
I don’t mean to sound rude, but what exactly are you, Feminism? Everyone seems to have their own interpretation, but I would like to know from you what you are.
Again, I don’t want to sound rude or too direct but this situation calls for bluntness. Do you hate men?
Who is your biggest enemy? I know what some people’s obvious answer would be, but I want to know what you think.
If you could answer these questions, I would be much obliged.
Your truth-seeking friend,
Catherine Allbritton
I put my letter in an envelope, addressed it to the proper address, and sent the letter on its way. I didn’t expect the reply I received.
I was sitting in my room, scrolling through social media on my iPad. Articles written by women who did or did not support the new President and the various reasons for their standpoints kept popping up. There were also videos about gender and racial stereotypes. News articles about a march on Washington flooded my newsfeed. Everywhere I looked I kept seeing messages of negativity and division.
I felt like someone was watching me, so I looked up and saw a striking character. She had robes that cascaded to the floor, a spiked crown, in one hand she carried a tablet, and in the other a burning torch. Everything was a light green color. She stood straight and tall at the foot of my bed. I could only sit with my mouth gaping open.
“Well,” she said in a clear voice, “do you know who I am?”
I swallowed hard and said the first thing that came to my mind: “Are you Lady Liberty?”
The figure smiled knowingly and shook her head. “We often get confused because we are so alike,” she said. “However, I am not Lady Liberty. I am Feminism, and I came to you to answer your questions.”
I was speechless. Feminism had received my letter and was answering it. I decided to ask my first question. “Feminism,” I asked politely, “what are you? I know everyone has their own definition of you, but which one do you feel best explains you?”
She answered almost immediately, “I am equality between men and women regardless of race or ethnicity. I desire for people to be rewarded or punished based on their actions, not on their gender. I am freedom from stereotypes.”
Her answer immediately prompted another question from me. I hesitated however, because I wasn’t sure if I wanted the answer. She noticed my hesitation though and motioned for me to ask the question on my lips.
“Feminism,” I asked, “if you are equality, why do people say you hate men? Equality is all people being equal, but can people be made equal by building up or must we tear each other down?”
Feminism sighed. “Of course the only true way for everyone to be equal is through recognizing and accepting their differences. Tearing a gender, race, or religious group down does not elevate another.”
I asked another question that had been on my mind since she appeared to me. “Feminism,” I asked, “why do you look like Lady Liberty? I pictured you as something...much different.”
Feminism looked me square in the face and asked me a difficult question. “What is liberty?” she asked.
I thought about it for a moment, recalling all that I’ve been told of the history of the United States and what the Statue of Liberty represents. “Liberty,” I began slowly, “is the belief that everyone is free to do what they want and say what they want within a code of moral conduct. The Statue of Liberty represented freedom to immigrants as they entered the harbor at Ellis Island.”
Feminism nodded, and asked, “How would you say that relates to equality?”
I immediately answered, “Liberty is based on equality. Everyone should have an equal chance to pursue happiness, regardless of their gender, race, or background.”
Feminism smiled. “Don’t you see where I fit in?” she asked. “I am interwoven into equality which is interwoven into liberty; those two reasons are why I look so much like Lady Liberty.”
Digesting all of the information she had given me, I asked Feminism my final question. “Who is your greatest enemy, Feminism?”
Her face darkened, and she shifted on her feet a little bit causing a clinking sound. For the first time, I noticed she had shackles around her ankles. She noticed my staring and passionately gave her answer. “My greatest enemy is ignorance. There are some people who hate me and wish I would keep quiet. There are others who claim to be acting in my name while tearing people down. Each of these groups are acting out of ignorance of what I am. I am not women over men, I am not a man-hater...I am equality. These shackles represents people’s ignorance which keeps me from being free. You see,” she said shakily, “I shouldn’t have to argue my case anymore. Equality is something that should have been established long ago. I will admit that things are better now, but we still have a long way to go.”
“But what can I do?” I asked. “I am just one person. There are millions of people who are spreading lies about what you are. What am I supposed to do?”
“I came to you to give you the knowledge you desired!” she said passionately. “Your desire brought me here, and I have told you the truth. It is now your job to inform others and spread my message of equality. You’re right, one person isn’t going to change the world. But you can tell others, and they will tell others, and more people will know what I truly am. As the knowledge spreads, ignorance will shrink, and I will finally be loosed from these chains.”
She straightened up and looked at me. “You know what you have to do,” she said.
I nodded, and in the blink of an eye she was gone. Her impact remains, and it is only through each one of us spreading the message of love and equality that we can truly free feminism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)