What is the price tag for morally reprehensible behavior? Cleary this dilemma drives the conflict in may great works of literature. Consider this prompt using examples from literature, history, modern culture or anything else to substantiate your assertions.
4 comments:
I like animals. I enjoy studying them, and interacting with them as well. However, I worship two things in this world, myself, and money. Although I have problems with killing animals, I must say that if I were offered a certain amount of money ($50 in private, $200 in public assuming it would not impact my ability to graduate), I would desensitize myself and kill the duckling.
I wish that I had looked at this blog earlier to be a part of the series of arguments that took place. Trevor, I must say that I have had, in isolation, many of the thoughts that you have had regarding the significance of our existance and how even the most famous legacies are not permanent. Also, I hope you realize that your posts are quite contradictory to your entire academic life. Are you trying to achieve some sort of permanance by winning all your academic awards and doing all your work on time all the time, is that your "weakness"...your value?
I also disagree that having things of value can be considered weaknesses. I feel that if we can accept the futility of our existence and still asign value to some of the things that we enjoy, we can endure the many years of our lives with some sort of sense of fulfillment. I'm losing my train of thought so I'll wait for your response and then argue again.
Money may be too easy to dismiss; it is cliched to use it as a motivator. The novel 1984 teaches us that if one wishes to control others, simply control their fears. Would you compromise your disdain for hurting innocent animals to prevent someone from covering your body with spiders if you feared spiders? In the novel, Winston forfeit his relationship with the women he loves to assuage his fear of rats.
Despite Camus’s lifelong opposition to existentialism, there are commentators who continue to classify him as an existentialist. Might this be a sign that Camus had more incommon with the existential thinkers than he himself realized? Or is there another explanation, more respectful of Camus’s understanding of his own work, yet also taking into account the intelligence and good will of those professionals who persist in calling him an existentialist? The explanation I would propose consists of two postulates:First, there is no one-word term—no “-ism”—which accurately identifies Camus’s thought, with the result that a terminological vacuum has existed since the time Camus began his philosophical writings. Second, commentators have tended to fill that vacuum by designating Camus as an existentialist, in order to anchor him firmly in his period and to ensure that he not be marginalized with respect to his contemporaries.
Richard Raskin explains Trevor's existentialism vs absurdism distinction.
Many suggest that Camus was an existentialist, but afraid to admit it. He wished to distance himself from the movement in an attempt to rise above his peers hence the conflict with Satre. As Camus's Nobel Award winning speech suggests, he desperately needed public accolades to feel complete...a sad irony.
6:05 PM
Post a Comment