The Boatgirl

I was going down into the river of solitude

You came like a rescue person with a fine boat…

You pulled me out of the water with your pretty hands

You shared your hot coffee from your mug…

When we’re half way to the shore

You let me drown again into the river

 The river of solitude, the river of insomnia…

But I’m still in love with you, my boatgirl…

Hope you’ll come and rescue me again

Till i can breathe…

Till I’m too deep to be rescued…

Read More ->>

Socio-psychological Tradition of Communication

This tradition theory is based on logical observation. This tradition requires biaslessness, and professional view. Like the philosophy of empiricism, experts believe in facts, experiment, experience and persuasion. Researchers of Yeal university discovered that a message from a high credibility source produces large shifts of opinion compared to the same message coming from a low credibility. For example, if a politician says that a proposed dam will last at least 100 years that will be less acceptable and persuasive than a famous civil engineer. But this traditions theory works well when the information is new and fades away as time passes. The researchers name it ’sleeper effect’. Even though this tradition theory did not get specific findings yet, socio-psychological tradition of communication is significant as it does not accept any claim on faith and it is based on systematic checking.

Read More ->>

Gulliver's Travell

Ques. Discuss how the first two voyages are complementary to each other.


Ans. Jonathan Swift was probably the greatest intellectual figure of the first half of the eighteenth century. He was the subtle observer of the follies and foibles of human society. He considers man as a blending of both good and evil. Because every human being has the capacity of being corrupted and idealistic minded. If we look back on us we can see those lacking which we find in others can also be found in us. Here in Gulliver’s Travels when Gulliver find Lilliputian corrupted and in Brobdingnag Gulliver find himself in same position. It indicates that human values are variable place to place, time to time. In that sense, Gulliver’s voyage to Lilliputians and voyage to Brobdingnag are complementary to each other.

By this travelogue Swift satirize the neo-stoic humanism. And the politics are remarkably present in Part l but such allusions are no more continued in Part ll. In Part l Gulliver suffered from Lilliputian ingratitude, petty jealousy, and slander, in Bribdingnag he suffered from humiliation. We observe Swift’s satirical power in Gulliver’s discourse with the king of Brobdingnag. In such discourses Gulliver heard some acrimonious comments from the Brobdingnagian king upon being reported of articulate policies of European civilization:

“How contemptible a thing was human gratitude which could be mimicked by such diminutive insects”

Another is his famous observation on mankind as ‘the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth’.

Swift plays with the size of human beings through the two voyages. A grater interest of Gulliver’s Travels lies in the relationship between human body and human reason. In Lilliput Gulliver appears more course than one can think about, and the smallness of Lilliput makes then creatures of delicacy, more than what they actually are. In Brobdingnag the mammoth bodies of giants emerge under Gulliver’s microscopic observation foulsome and uncouth. On the other hand, in Brobdingnag beside the emphatic presence of honesty there is also a tinge of mischief (as in the behavior of the royal dwarf) or dishonesty (the farmer’s greediness to acquire money by showing Gulliver) but nowhere Swift engages in overdoing ugliness of these giant people or other associating darker aspects. And Gulliver looks at the human beings through the wrong end of telescope and they appear diminutive with all their pettiness and jealousy of mind. Their minds seem to be as narrow as their tiny stature. Next he looks at these human beings through magnifying glass and they appear as big as giants   exposing all the ugliness of human physique. Their mammoth physiques correspond to the nobility of their mind.

In Lilliput, Swift particularly focuses on the political classes and follies associated with it. There was a quarrel between Big-Endians and Little-Endians alluding to the religious conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Also in Part I we come across the clash between Trumecksan (High-Heel) and Slamecksan (Low-Heal). They allude to the political clash between the Tories and the Whigs in British parliament.

In Gulliver’s Travel irony becomes more than verbal; it becomes part of the entire structure of the book, so that often the meaning- and eventually the largest meaning- is seen obliquely- and that made the first two voyages complementary. We are impressed by how Swift manipulates Gulliver in Brobdingnag: when Gulliver develops a defensive contempt for things Brobdingnagians, the reader quickly sees good in the things Gulliver condemns and conversely evil in what he champions. Thus Gulliver reports with contempt the Brobdingnagians preference for honest, simple arrangements in governments; he condemns the giant king’s revulsion from using gunpowder to enslave his own people as ‘a nice, necessary scruple’.  The reader knows that Swift’s opinion is quite the opposite of Gulliver’s.

Again, over the course of the novel, there are several changes in swift’s style. In the first two voyages, the style is constant. It is relatively light heated but still biting satire of European culture and politics, framed as an adventure among dwarves and giants. Gulliver’s perceptions of himself and the people and things around him change, giving Swift ample opportunity to inject into the story both irony and satire of the England of his day and of the human condition. Actually no form of government is ideal- the simplistic Brobdingnagis enjoy public execution and have struts infested with beggar, the honest and upright. Gulliver’s view between pants- Gulliver sees the tiny Lilliputians as being vicious and unscrupulous, and then the king of Brobdingnag sees Europe in the exactly the same light.

The elements and the contemporary politics and politicians have been reflected in the characters and philosophies of the Lilliputian’s Emperor and the king of Brobdingnag. The portrayal of the Emperor of Lilliput sharply contrasts with that of the king of Brobdingnag.

The Emperor of Lilliput and the king of Brobdingnag represent two different policies of the rulers. The differences between them are mainly due to their formation and conditions of living. The king of big giants must have opinions compatible with his size and strength, while the Emperor of the tiny people must have been mean minded.

The empire of Lilliput is an island the north-west of Australia. Its construction is ideal. While treason in any form is severely punished, accusers are put to death and the victims compensated out of their estates or by the Crown, and given appropriate rewards; fraud is the capital crime, since trade depends on credit, so the ingratitude. Moral virtues, rather than intellectual gifts, are required of candidates for the posts, and religious belief is essential. On the other hand, the kingdom of Brobdingnag is a ‘continent’ in the North pacific. The country seems well governed, by a popular king, not an emperor. We gather that to him common sense, reason, justice and mercy are the essence of state craft, and that he looks for piety, valour, integrity and wisdom in candidates for office. Indeed, what in the neglected laws of Lilliput is put into practice in Brobdingnag. That makes the first two voyages complementary. The Emperor of the Lilliput was imperialistic. He was ‘the delight and terror of the universe’ whose dominions extended ‘to the extremities of the globe’ and whose feet pressed down to the centre of the earth and whose head struck against the sun. He wants to rule over the universe. So he wants to bring Blefuscu under his sovereignty. Yet he is not satisfied and he wants Gulliver to destroy all the ships of Blefuscu. But Gulliver refused to do so. the Emperor becomes displeased with him, and plans to punish him. The Emperor also wanted to destroy the Big-Endians living in exile in Blefuscu and compelling them to break the smaller end of their eggs. Thus the Emperor of Lilliput is the idol of tyranny, persecution, and hypocrisy. The king of Brondingnag, on the other hand, is the representation of virtue and benevolence. He is peace loving and not anti-human like the Emperor of Lilliput. Like the emperor the giant king does not want to colonize countries and people. He opposed to destruction and war.

The comparison and contrast between Lilliput and Brobdingnag is vivid. The portrayal of the king of Brobdingnag gives a rise to a feeling of admirations in our minds for the ruler, but the portrayal of the Emperor of Lilliput is more or less caricature. The Lilliputians are oppressive and tyrant while Brobdingnagians are peace loving, benevolent and devoted to prosperity of their nation. The Brobdingnagian are very much honest and afraid of war.

But the personal and party grievances are absorbed in the general satire of Brobdingnag. Placing Gulliver in such a predicament doubly strengthens the satiric effect: for not only does he become to the Brobdingnagians- the name is in itself gigantic- what Lilliputians were to him, but he is inadvertently forced into re-evaluating past experience in light of present ones. Turned from giant to pygmy, Gulliver again undergoes serious bodily inconveniences and indignities, but this time finds the physical readjustment of mental values. How even brilliant minds could have been ignorant of Swift’s original genius in actually  compelling contrast between Part l and Part ll is concentrates as- when once you have thought of big men and little men it is very easy to do all the rest.

In Part l, satire does not turn into a bitter attack rather it is employed in lighter vein. For the smallness of Lilliput we can assume from distant observe the ways with harmless fun. We are lenient to them and nothing can arouse disgust at these creatures.

Some comments of Gulliver in Part ll eulogize European civilization. In his discourse with the king of Brobdingnag Gulliver took pride in glorifying the wisdom and culture of European people. After listening to Gulliver’s exaltation of European civilization, its complex laws and over jealous politicians the king concluded:

“I cannot conclude the bulk of your native to be the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that Nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth”  

This presents of the European civilization in the glorious light.

Gulliver excremental difficulties in Lilliput and Brobdingnag, his unique method of extinguishing palace fires, his outraged description of the Brobdingnagian court maids- are the examples of the theme of man’s animal  grossness, Swift’s misanthropy –which make the two voyages complementary.

Swift consider man as a blending of both good and evil. He is animal rationis capax (is an animal capable of becoming rational). Since he can exercise his rational faculty and can see the moral truth. But he is not all perfect so he prevents his reason and understanding. Gulliver’s Travel draws our base desires or actually a regeneration of such desire.

Then after the relatively mild introduction of Part l, an introduction shows men as petty, scheming, shockingly vicious little creatures. Swift gives us in Part ll a sudden expansion of possibilities for man and a hint of the devastating exposures that will follow. The noble Brobdingnagians are ‘man big’, as the sneaky Lilliputians were ‘man little’. Part ll foreshadows what will follow; when the Brobdingnagians king denounces men as most pernicious little odious vermin -but Gulliver rejects the king’s judgment as being a confined education. Gulliver is not ready to accept man’s depravity.

Swift contrasts man’s reality with the possibilities of his greatness. Parallel contrasts are present in each book even within the character of Gulliver. He presents himself as a good-natured giant when seen against the Lilliputian (morally as well as physically) against the good-natured Brobdingnag giants. Thus Swift very powerfully makes the point that the reader who dismiss the pettiness and corruption of the Lilliputians as those of a little and imaginary people cannot escape when he sees his own kind of European people taking place of Lilliputians; for Gulliver staunchly insists upon the European character of his conscience and exists European ways of acting and thinking precisely when he makes his sorry appearance by contrast against the great Brobdingnag.

So we can say that no human beings are perfect. When there will be more developed and idealistic world, there we will be able to find our own limitations, smallness and our problems. Both the goodness and badness is necessary –as well as they are complementary. So, in that sense, and analyzing all points we can come in this conclusion that first two voyages of Gulliver’s Travel are complementary to each other.

Read More ->>

Elizabeth 1

Ques. Elizabeth 1 is a brightest star in the firmament of the Tudor Dynasty. Comment


Ans. 

The Tudor dynasty or The House was a prominent European Royal House Welsh origin that ruled kingdom of England. Its realm was from 1485 until 1603. The history encompasses some the most dramatic story and characters. The Tudor Dynasty is series of kings and queens in England. The line of rule started at 1485 when Henry Vll ascended the throne.

All the opening of the Tudor Period England was a country distracted and weakened by the years of the civil strife, with Scotland as a throne of her side, and Ireland as a disturbed dependency. Vender the Tudor all these were changed. They made England strong and united, reduced Ireland to submission and bound Scotland to England matrimonial alliance. This consolidation of position of English was one of the greatest achievements of the Tudor king.

The settlement of religious question was their most outstanding work. At a time when other countries were confronted with bloody civil wars or rebellions over the question of religion, the Tudors solved their religious problem in a comparatively peaceful manner. Their strong rule and policy of politic compromise saved England from horrors of religious strive. These most important duties has confronted by Elizabeth. She had three parties to satisfy, viz the orthodox Catholics, the moderate Protestants and the extreme Protestants called the Puritans. She clearly recognized that extreme views might plunge the country into ruinous civil war and so silenced extreme opinions. Then she adopted a middle course which was designed to conciliate the moderate men of the two extreme parties. Hers system was a politic compromise between Catholism and extreme Protestantism- between the Church of Rome and the Church of Geneva. She did not exact belief in any cut-and-dried system and permitted a wide freedom of opinion. But she enforced outward conformity by demanding that everyone should attend church. It was her object to promote national unity in the Church.

The glories of Elizabeth’s reign consisted in the energy and wisdom of the queen herself, in the group of the able statesmen that adorned her court, in the enterprise of her sailors and in the wealth of literature that produced the noblest works in poetry and drama.

The manifold achievement of Elizabeth entitles her to the highest position among the English sovereigns. She possessed in an eminent degree the Tudor capacity for ruling. By her peaceful policy and thrifty government she allowed the country to recover from the disorders of the two previous reigns, and brought contentment and prosperity to the subjects. She restored ecclesiastical order in the country and settled the Church of England on a broad, national basis which still endures. What is remarkable is that she did this without provoking civil disorders. She completed the conquest of Ireland, brought the long struggle which Scotland to a close, and freed England from all foreign dangers. France was outwitted and Spain thoroughly humbled. Thus by her courage, diplomacy and political wisdom Elizabeth ably guided the nation through a sea of troubles, foreign and domestic, and achieved for England a foremost position among the European monarchies. She maintained peace and order at home and baffled the designs of her enemies abroad. In commercial and naval enterprises and every branch of material prosperity the country advanced with sure and rapid strides. She won, as no sovereign had won before her, the love and affection of her subjects, and succeeding generations looked back with patriotic pride to her glorious reign.

Elizabeth was fortunate in having secured the services of a group of brilliant statesmen who served her with rare zeal and devotion. Her chief adviser was Sir William Cecil who, first as a secretary of state and then as Treasurer, served her accession until his death. Sir Nicholas Bacon was the keeper of the great seal. Sir Francis Walshingham as Secretary of State was especially busy in detecting the secret plots that were made to deprive her of her life and throne.

The reign of Elizabeth saw the beginning of English maritime activity. A few years before her accession, seamen like Chancellor and Willoughby tried to discover a north-east passage to India and China but failed. But their attempts resulted in the establishment of the English Muscovy Company which opened up Russia to England trade and commerce. Frobisher tried to find a north-west passage to Asia and made several voyages to the northern adventures were all attempts to find an English route to the east, the southern route being in the hands of the Portuguese. But as the frozen Arctic proved inaccessible, English seamen turned their attention to warmer latitudes. They sought to have a place for themselves in the New World, the whole of which was claimed by Spain. Thus arose the friction between the English and Spaniards on the high seas. In this contest Drake made himself conscious by preying upon Spanish ports in America. He made a voyage round the world, plundering the Spanish towns on the Pacific coast and returned home, laden with booty. Hawkins was the founder of Negro slave-trade in America. Sir Walter Raleigh made attempts to set up on English colony in north America, which he called Virginia in honour of virgin Queen. The maritime enterprise of the English became aggressive in their piratical enterprises. Besides, several merchant companies were formed. The Levant Company carried on trade with Venice and the Grecian Isles. But the most important Company was the East India Company which was formed in 1600 for carrying or trade with India and the Spice islands.

The reign of Elizabeth is especially famous for the outburst of a splendid crop of literature which has never been equaled in any other period of English history. Among the writers of that age stand the most illustrious names in the annuals of English literature. It was the English Renaissance. In all departments of literature the era was a great one. It saw alike the birth of English prose. In prose the outstanding are those of Hooker, Sidney and Bacon. The latter laid the foundation of a new philosophy, and his essays are models of thought and terse vigour of expression. Among the Elizabethan poets the greatest name is that of Spencer whose Faerie Queen is the most poetic of romances in the old-world style. With Marlowe, the writer of several plays, is associated the development of English drama which in the hands of Shakespeare reached a height of perfection which was never been surpassed. New forms of poetical composition appeared. The Sonnet was introduced by Surrey and Wyatt. England became a ‘nest of singing birds’. The literary activity was characteristic of the age. It was marked by intense vitality, wide variety, joyous outlook and spirit of adventure and daring, and so it has been rightly described as the ‘golden age’ of English literature. The literature fame of England was lifted into great eminence.

By considering all glorious work of Elizabeth and the improvement of the Tudor Dynasty we can come to this conclusion that Elizabeth had kept a vital role in the improvement of Tudor Dynasty. She has worked technically and beautifully all important works as like as her character. She inherited the imperious temper of her father and had, at the same time, a large measure of her mother’s levity. She had cool, calculative temper of diplomatist. In action she was often irresolute and vacillating, shrinking from taking any deceive step till the last possible moment. She was no classical beauty. Her nose was too pronounced and her hair ‘more reddish then yellow’, but she had a lively sparkling personality that charmed all who met her, while her natural majesty commanded their respect. All on a conclusion we can say that Elizabeth l was the brightest star in the sky in the firmament of the Tudor Dynasty.

Read More ->>

Existentialism

Ques. Discuss in brief the common views/thoughts shared by all existential philosophers and also the points in which they differ from another.


Ans. 

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that arose in the nineteenth century, includes a number of thinkers who emphasize common themes, but whose ultimate metaphysical views often diverge radically because they believe the universe is unfathomable. Philosophically the term “existentialism” came to be associated primarily with the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Many other philosophers who are often tied to the existential movement, such as Martin Heidegger, Gabriel Marcel, and Karl Jaspers, rejected the term “existentialism,” though they continued to deal with existential themes broadly construed. In German, the phrase Existenzphilosophie (philosophy of existence) is also used. Some of the common themes that unite these various existential thinkers are anxiety, boredom, freedom, will, subjectivity, awareness of death, risk, responsibility, and consciousness of existing. But they differ in their point of views and also how they regard God or refuse the existence of God.

 

Perhaps the central issue that draws these thinkers together, however, is their emphasis upon the primacy of existence in philosophical questioning and the importance of responsible human action in the face of uncertainty. The main thing that all philosophers were in common was a concern about human existence and the conditions and qualities of the existing human individual.

 

The origin of existential philosophy is the Greek philosophy which is the ‘origin of all philosophies’. Although as a movement, existentialism is considered mainly a nineteenth-century phenomenon; its roots go back to earlier existential thinkers, such as Blaise Pascal in the seventeenth century, and particularly Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche in the nineteenth century. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche emphasized the subjective element in thinking and the primacy of the will over purely logical or conceptual objectivity. In the twentieth century, Heidegger’s notion of “being-in-the-world” and Sartre’s idea of “existence preceding essence” became two of the most important themes in existential thought. Other more Christian or theistic existential perspectives were also developed

Although there is no ‘system’ of existentialist philosophy, it has basic themes can nevertheless, be discovered in some representative existentialist thinkers. If we discuss their thoughts, it will be also cleared on which points they agree and differ.

It is a common matter that all existentialists have rejected the idea of traditional God and religion. Many of them did not accept the idea of God while others explained God, religion and even human existence from different point of views. Regarded this difference existentialists are divided into two groups- theistic existentialists and atheistic existentialists

 

Kierkegaard, Marcel and Jasper are the chief exponents among the theistic existentialists. Among them Kierkegaard is most renowned.

 

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a Danish philosopher. Many of the themes of contemporary existentialism were first expressed in his writing. He was born in a wealthy Lutheran family which was extremely religious. But even then, he suffered from a sense of guilt and this was very distributing for him. He saw the same condition in almost everywhere in the society and felt that the traditional religion could not give peace and purity. This brought his mental sickness and he began to dislike greatly the social rules and traditions. He sought a way of his own and disliked all who were against his personal freedom.  In this way he gave birth to the existential philosophy where much importance was given on man and his personal existence, freedom and responsibility.

 

Kierkegaard established the idea of purposive belief in God as it is necessary. He thinks like this because man himself, according to him has created the God. If this is the fact then what is there to believe? But even then the harmony and peace of his belief in the absolute ‘One’ and therefore, man should accept the idea of God out of his sense of responsibility. Kierkegaard divides human existence into three parts-

 

Ī. The aesthetic stage,

ĪĪ. The ethical stage and

ĪĪĪ. The religious stage.

In the aesthetic stage, a person lacks individuality as he has no identity then. This is a stage where nobody remains as none. None is aware of his existence. When person reaches the ethical or moral stage, he gains this individuality particularly, but it does not come completely until he reaches the religious stage. The moral stage brings some awareness in man. So he exists and feels responsible but the responsible comes completely when he feels the urge to be a part of the ‘One’ in the last stage. He gains complete existence when he understands that God exists and the urge to submit himself to God. Kierkegaard says, “The more you become individual, the more you become religious”.

Thus existence in the theistic existentialism is completely found in the transcendence of human beings to the religious stage where one becomes completely aware of God and goes to the peak where he becomes ‘One’ with him.

He thinks that a person can gain the absolute individuality by becoming God himself and this is possible by believing strongly in God. This God is not the traditional God. It is the personal God of the believer.

Besides this transcendence, there are two other factors that Kierkegaard has put emphasis on. They are- dread and existence.

 

He says that dread is a feeling different from fear. It is tremendous fear without a particular cause. It comes out from confusions when men are uncertain about their origin and their goal. Such dread has brought the philosophy of existentialism that has tied to show a way in between these confusions and uncertainty.

Theistic existentialists like Kierkegaard, have given great emphasis on consciousness as this gives existence and complete existence comes in the union between ‘being’ and ‘Being’.  According to Kierkegaard, humans with awareness of this existence are ‘beings’. A person cannot be considered ‘being’ unless he gains consciousness about his existence. Thus to exist and become a being one should gain consciousness in him. Kierkegaard says ‘beings’ are not only conscious of themselves but also of God. This awareness is a purposive one as it is necessary. The conscious existence of God is ‘Being’ and people exist with the awareness of the ‘being’ himself and the absolute ‘Being’. According to the theists, the being’s love for the God creates responsibility in him. He does something good for him and all to satisfy the ‘Being’. In this way, responsibilities come from the relation of ‘being’ and ‘Being’.

 

Kierkegaard was strongly against of the Hegelian theory. Georg Wihelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770-1831) ideas were based upon a collective viewpoint. He gave importance to social rules and said that man should advance with the society. But Kierkegaard thought this nonsense and not acceptable as it does not give individual freedom to men.

Hegel did not say anything against individuality, but he expected it to some extent. Hegel also said that the state as an organization whose purpose is a particular goal. It is the objective spirit whereas the collective spirit of the people makes the absolute spirit. He has spoken in favour for collective freedom where Kierkegaard differs as it hampers personal freedom.

Karl Jasper (1883-1969) was a famous German existentialist who was influenced by Kierkegaard and his thoughts are also theistic. He was a student of psychology and medical science and he modified this philosophy which made it different from Kierkegaard.

According to Jasper, not only man is uncertain but also his faith is also uncertain. He said that no religion is completely true. All have some false in them. He also protested his own religion Christianity saying that it is not the only true religion.

Jasper believed that all people must learn about themselves in ‘limit’ situations such as death, guilt and failure. These situations show the limitations of man. He also believed that a man can have existence and gain responsibility from the relation between his ‘being’ and ‘Being’.

As Jasper, Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) centered his existentialist philosophy upon the problem of ‘Being’, particularly upon the question “What am I?”

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French writer who becomes famous as an intellectual and literary leader of existentialism. His form of philosophy is atheistic and his atheistic existentialism is regarded as the truest of his kind. He is the most important and renowned existentialist who is still an enigma to most people. All his writings show that he was obsessed with the idea of God. The absence of God distressed him very much.

 

Sartre’s existence is different from that of  René  Descartes (1596-1650) . Descartes declares ‘Logito’ that means “I think, so I exist”. When one becomes conscious of oneself, one exists. But Sartre says that when we become aware of ourselves, we not only exist but also exist in presence of other things around. Thus existence comes with the awareness of oneself and others.

Sartre’s view on God is that he cannot exist. He is dead. He says that the idea of  God is self contradictory and illogical and thus he cannot exist at all. Sartre thinks that a person is free without God and due to this freedom, the sense of responsibility has been created. If God existed, no man would be free and responsible for anything. But as man is so , it is clear that God is not there. But this freedom is also a curse to man.

Sartre says that absolute freedom brings absolute responsibility and this responsibility makes life uneasy and full of problems. As man is free, he has to choose what he thinks best by the sense of responsibility. At this point, Sartre shows the spirit of humanism too. Because he thinks by the decisions of man, only man and the whole mankind should be saved. Man should choose what will satisfy his sense of duty and himself. Thus, determining anything, is man’s responsibility, not God.

Sartre gives stress on three terms that are necessary to gain existence. They are-

Ī. Consciousness

ĪĪ. Being for itself (‘pour-soi’)

ĪĪĪ. Being in itself (‘en-soi’)

‘Pour-soi’ and ‘en-soi’ terms are discussed in Heidegger’s (1889-1976) philosophy and consciousness is the term that is created by these two terms. Sartre says that there is a gap between a person and his consciousness. This gap is nothingness and this nothingness is sacred by consciousness itself. He thinks that ‘nothingness’ is there to create the ‘being itself’ though he is an absolute atheist and speaks strongly for personal freedom, he does not say that man can do whatever he likes. Man is a responsible being and what is good for one and all it is not true that man will be right in every selection but he should try to select the better way for himself and others around.

Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a famous literary person of Algeria whose ideas showed the signs of an atheistic existentialist. Such signs are clearer in his novel “The Outsider” where he shows the way of the world and traditional religion as an absolute inhuman freedom and individuality. The hero does not cry at his mother’s death but goes away indifferently to share bed with a girl and who expresses his strong mental suffering by killing a man is on the other day is hated by all, tried and punished severely. Killing a man is undoubtfully a sin, but the inability to cry and feel free after death of long suffering mother is no extra-ordinary. Different person show different reactions and final consolation differently but the untraditional ones are always hated and punished. This show that the traditional world and religion cannot think and accept anything beyond the tradition and common ways and in this way, they are not able to free the truth. Camus says that the human life is based on lies and illusions, and the world and religion that are around us are all absurd. This absolutely made Camus follow and preach the ideas of atheistic existentialism in his writings.

Therefore, atheistic existentialism is that which shows the presence of man’s freedom and responsibility due to the absence of God. Both kinds of existentialism, whether theistic or atheistic, show the humanistic spirit as it removes man from confusion between different faiths and works for the well being of mankind by proper use of the sense of responsibility.

 

These discussed ideas are the common views given by all existential philosophers and they differs in the ideas of God’s existence, how He exists, individual freedom and many question like these.

Read More ->>

Francis Becon and Charls Lamb

Ques. Compare n contrast Francis Bacon and Charles lamb as an essayist and persons giving their views on different aspect of life to their readers


Ans. 

For most of the people the English essay is unavoidably connected with the name of Charles Lamb (1775-1834). Many consider Lamb to be the typical essayist. But while Lamb has been called the ‘Prince of Essayist’, Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was the ‘Father of English Essay’, for introducing the genre into England. Bacon is famous for his informative essays while Lamb is popular for his personal type of essays.

Most of the time, the style of a writer is dictated by the type of subjects he is writing on. Both Bacon and Lamb wrote on a wide range of topics, but the purpose of each case differed. Bacon wrote with the declared aim of guiding his readers in matters of civil and moral importance. He called his essays- “Counsels, civil and moral”. Governed by the need of offering practical advice for worldly success, Bacons style is rhetorical, persuasive, and designed to convince his readers. On the other hand, Lamb was not governed by any such aim in his writing. His essays are purely of a personal nature, reminiscent, nostalgic and rambling. His style reflects the idiosyncrasies, whims and personal likes of his.

Bacon is never personal in his essays and his essays obviously are not influenced by his personal life. His style is clear, impressive and not in the least bit resembling a “Confidential chat” while it is the quality that is most obvious in a Lambian essay. Lamb’s essays are very much influenced by his personal life. Both writers make profuse use of allusions and quotations, but the difference lies in the method of use. Bacon uses his allusions solemnly, to illustrate his point, or to lend weight to his analysis. For example in Of Nature in Men, he warns that a man should not feel complacent about a victory over nature, and goes on to substantiate the point with the help of the allusion to one of Aesop’s Fable. His allusions and images are brought in with the specific purpose of impressing an idea all the more forcibly on readers mind. Lamb uses allusions almost casually, as if they simply came to him naturally not to convince a reader but to share an experience.

There is one aspect which both Lamb and Bacon share. Bacon in his all essays and Lamb at least some of his, show mastery over aphoristic sentences. Sentences such as-

“Studies serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability.”

                (Of Studies, Bacon)

“Marriage by its best title is a monopoly and of the least invidious sort” (A Bachelor’s Complaint of the Behavior of Married People, Lamb)

shows us that.

Lamb was a writer of many styles. His writing has complex echoes of earlier styles. Another quality that is a characteristic of many Lambian essay and hardly ever to be found in Bacons essays is the touch of poetry. A passage such as-

                “Fantastic forms, whither are ye fled? Or if the like of you exists… why              comes in reason to tear                 away the preternatural mist, bright or gloomy, that enshrouded you?...”

can be found only in Lamb, never Bacon. Bacon has used  figurative language most effectively, as he has done in Of Truth, Of Friendship, Of Unity in Religion etc. But we can not tell it poetic.

Bacon and Lamb differ in another major aspect. Bacon never distress from the topic he is dealing with where Lamb always does.

Bacon often suggests many things to his readers for attaining success in worldly life where Lamb shares his personal experiences implicitly gives suggestions and knowledge.

Bacon’s essays spring from an impersonal and ‘stately’ motive. Lamb’s essays are the out pouring of simple and spontaneous but deep personal feeling.

From their essays and biography it is seen that Lamb was very much moved by the rises and clashes of life as we can refer the matter of his pausing writing. From 1811 to 1820 he wrote nothing and was giving his time to his friends, especially to the young ones. On the other hand Bacon kept his personal life far away from his writing.

Bacon is the greatest of the English essayist of the informative, impersonal and didactic kind, while Lamb is the master of personal essays. Bacon is too magnificent to be humorous and Lamb is too companionable to be stately. Bacon states his ideas confidently in the tersest of language; Lamb’s style is full of interactions, ramblings and intimate revelations.

Read More ->>