In Stanley Kubrick’s film Dr. Strangelove, General Ripper and Captain Lionel Mandrake are significantly different from each other and the rest of the characters in the film. After watching this film, I believe that General Ripper represents irrationality. This can be seen primarily through his irrational demand of “Wing Attack Plan R.” Before administering this attack, he did not consult any other commanders or officials. This then created an eruption of chaos and commotion. He ordered this attack because of his fear of communist “infiltration” and “subversion.” In his conversations with Captain Lionel Mandrake, he claimed that the communists were going to “impurify” all of their “bodily fluids” and force them to lose their “essence.” This is his (insane) justification for sending nuclear weapons to the U.S.S.R. General Ripper can symbolize the overall paranoia that occurred during the Cold War. Also, by shooting himself, he lifted the burden of responsibility that he put onto himself when administering this attack.

RAF Group Captain Mandrake, on the other hand, represents rationality and reason. Throughout the film, he is completely aware of what’s going on. When he and General Ripper were locked inside the room, he tried to rationalize with him to obtain the recall code and halt the nuclear weapons. Because of his awareness and understanding of the situation, he acts carefully to accomplish his own specific tasks. He shows respect to General Ripper in attempts to “get on his good side” and retrieve the code. Although Ripper’s explanation of the communist conspiracy was very absurd, Mandrake did not make any irrational statements to anger Ripper. He was calm and knew what needed to be done and how it needed to be executed. He represents the rationality throughout the film. At the end of the film when Mandrake found the recall code, he immediately made it his mission to deliver the code to the President.

In the “Surfaciality” excerpt, Simon Critchley claims that our vision is obscured by our habit to think and not truly see. This habit, which Albert Caeiro refers to as the “sickness of the eyes” is problematic because we disregard and pay no attention to the simple and plain surface. According to Critchley, poets present these overlooked things in plain simplicity through poetry. The ideas present in this excerpt can be applied to the protagonist in Clarice Lispector’s The Daydreams of a Drunk Woman. Although she is very miserable with her life, Maria has followed the “ideal” role of a woman as encouraged by society. She is a homemaker, a mother and a wife (the typical expectations of society) who leaves her true wants and desires to fulfill her role as the housewife. However, she is unhappy of the choices she’s made in her life. Her role in this society can be viewed as “familiar” and very traditional. As a drunk woman, she’s able to grasp this misery. The “unlearning” Critchley’s excerpt emphasizes can then be thought of as the alcohol in Lispector’s story. Once we forget our traditional ideals, we are able to see things plainly as they are. The alcohol allows for Maria to see the “obvious” that Critchley emphasizes. By truly seeing herself without thinking about her role in society, she’s able to see her true appearance. I interpreted her state of being sober as “veiled reality” rather than “real appearance” because her actions as a housewife are expected and familiar to us. I think that Critchley brings up a good argument however I would not consider familiarity “a sickness of the eye.” I believe that although it is essential that we see appearances as real appearances, it is also important that we investigate and question through thought.

Beckett creatively uses character, setting, and language to display a depressing world without any meaning or purpose. There seems to be an emphasis of the void or emptiness. The main characters (Hamm and Clov) lack depth and appear to be suffering and miserable throughout the play. Hamm and Clov are physically and mentally broken. Hamm cannot see or walk and ironically, Clov cannot sit down. Also, their relationship lacks warmth and real connection. This is depicted through their constant arguing. These characters, along with Nell and Nagg have no purpose in this world. They remain in this small room (especially Hamm, Nagg and Nell that cannot physically move) and live mundanely. The characters do not change or develop in any way.

The setting of this play also adds to the nihilistic worldview that Beckett creates. The room that these four characters inhabit is dull and lifeless. It is “bare” and “gray,” nearly empty, with only two windows, two ashbins and an armchair. The overall atmosphere in this room parallels to the dull and lifeless depiction of the characters. Hamm explicitly questions the purpose of life when he says, “To think perhaps it won’t all have been for nothing!” (778). To further emphasize nihilism, Beckett manipulates language. The language in this play can be described as repetitive and fragmented. There are several pauses in this play. When the play first begins, Hamm yawns in middle of the word “absolute.” This can hint that Beckett is bored of the absolute (perhaps God) and directs the play towards nihilism. Also, the dialogue is random and pointless. From this static dialogue, readers do not anticipate or expect a climax. Instead we only see a contemplation of existence. This nihilistic language may pose a challenge because it fails to communicate meaning and explanation. Readers of this play are left in confusion trying to decipher the meaning of the dialogues and this play in general. Although the language throughout the play leaves the readers in question, the brief glimpses where we could grasp meaning is stressed. The two instances of storytelling where meaning can be extracted illustrates that literature has the ability to express experiences and concepts that ordinary language cannot. Also, the overall theme of nothingness and death challenges readers to question existence and implicitly offer that man can choose to be miserable or accept this meaningless life.

In the video, Jacques Ellul makes the interesting argument that advancements in technology have confiscated individual freedom and social responsibility. In order to argue this, he explains that cars are used very similarly, although they give us the ability to go and travel anywhere. We “freely” choose to travel at the same time and to the same destinations. Because of this conformity, the individual loses its value and combines with the greater mass of society.This loss of individuality then brings up the question of responsibility. In a community where the individual is not considered, who can be held responsible for wrongs in society? These themes are similar to the ideas present in Durrenmatt’s The Visit. The people of Guellen have lost their sense of individuality, not due to advancements in technology but because they all accepted that Alfred would die and the town would be saved. In the play, we see that money makes people lose their sense of individuality. The townspeople conformed and began buying the same yellow shoes and other expensive items on credit. Because they are all participating in creating more debt for Guellen, this illustrates the lack of responsibility from the townspeople. Giving Alfred’s life to Claire then becomes the general decision that the town implicitly agrees upon. With this in mind, who is held responsible for Alfred’s death? No single person can be held responsible for the death of Alfred. Ellul explains this loss of responsibility by describing the collapse of a dam. The construction of a dam includes several groups of people including politicians, builders, etc. Each group is responsible for a specific task and the work is fragmented. When the dam collapses, Ellul argues that no single person can be held responsible. With this mentality, it can be concluded that responsibility diminishes where individuality is not present. However, as readers we know that every single person that bought goods on credit has contributed to the death of Alfred. Once there is conformity in a society, wrongdoings are overlooked. This can also prove the power of the larger community and the act of conformity.

The short film Un Chien Andalou is a silent, bizarre film that does not follow traditional form or logic. The chronology of the film is also unusual, creating a mass confusion within the audience. Watching this film, I could not pinpoint the plot, which was most likely the filmmaker’s intention. As we see books turn into guns, mouths completely (and randomly) disappear, hands covered in ants, and illogical changes in settings, the film has a dreamlike quality. With these themes, this film accurately represents surrealism as described in Andre Breton’s Manifesto on Surrealism. The film seems to challenge all rational thought by getting rid of any logical thought or realism. Breton defines surrealism as free-flowing thought with the absence of any control exercised by reason. Similarly, the film breaks away from the constraints of reason and thought to provide us with a visual stream of consciousness.

Ballet Mecanique embodies key themes found in the futurist and dada movements. Throughout the film, there is a constant repetition of movements. The reappearance of spinning gears can symbolize concepts of the future (innovation). Also, these moving objects can represent the world in motion and change. This film seems to embrace technological advancement. In addition to content, this film lacks traditional form, which reminds me of the Dada movement. The video clips presented in this film are random and unconnected. There is no plot to this film, which must have confused the audience of its time. Because I am familiar with traditional story form, this video’s unrelated clips and loud soundtrack created a sense of uneasiness. I believe that the filmmaker is bringing attention to this feeling of unease and is ultimately trying to have the audience break away from established beliefs that film must follow certain forms or have meaning. In my opinion, this film was created with the intention of challenging film (a form of art) rather than enjoyment. The filmmaker is constantly distorting images. A woman’s lips are first shown as upright (which is normal and correct), then flipped upside-down. This unusual view can represent a new alternative observation of the world.

Lu Xun challenges social conformity in Diary of a Madman by presenting the practice of consuming human flesh as acceptable and “normal” behavior. Xun cleverly uses this disturbing and ironic presentation to symbolize the oppressive Confucian society in China and his desire to break away from tradition. Similar ideas emerge in Kafka’s The Judgement, as Georg Bendemann is pressured into choosing between societal demands and desires considered unacceptable in the eyes of society.  Through the use of complex, subjective characters, both artists seek to challenge their rigid social system and break away from societal expectations.

The Madman’s refusal to conform to society identifies him as the enemy to the general public. According to the people, he is a “madman” (or insane). Although he may be literally insane (from illness), readers of this text are able to notice that the man who opposes cannibalism is actually sane while the others continue to live ignorantly. Xun uses the disturbing practice of cannibalism to compare to the “man eating” world in China. His desire for progression and reform in the Chinese political system is evident when the Madman speaks about this disturbing tradition, “Just because it’s always been that way, does that make it right?” (p.249).

Georg receives similar oppression as he is forced to choose between his Writing Self and Working Self. The Writing Self (the Friend) has no place in society. Not only is the friend unnamed, he is obscurely described (bachelor for good). Kafka’s Working Self however, fits into the standards of society. Georg was engaged and working in a successful business. The Friend threatens to disrupt this calm and structured peacefulness. In the end however, Georg chooses to devote his life to “drudging uselessly” and chooses The Writing Self as he decides to jump into the river.

Both Xun and Kafka effectively utilize art as a means to disturb societal norms and ultimately address their concerns with traditional concepts. These artists emphasize the judgement and perception of society in order to force readers to question previously accepted tradition (such as the political system in China and the general expectations of society).

Friedrich Nietzsche challenges human intellect in his essay “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense,” by claiming that knowledge is simply an invention of the individual that deceives rather than guides us to the actual truth. Because knowledge is a human creation, Nietzsche concludes that truth and lies are also manmade concepts and are therefore false and illogical. This idea of “truth” he therefore defines as “a mobile army of metaphors…a sum of human relations which have been enhanced…and after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people.” (Contradicting to Descartes belief of certainty and truth).

I found Nietzsche’s assessment of the validity of language to be intriguing. He argues that language is unable to capture the true nature of reality. He describes language as metaphoric because a word is simply a nerve stimulus transferred to an image and then copied in sound. These metaphors cannot grasp the essence of objects or entities. He emphasizes how language generalizes experiences which disconnects the experience from the words. He also finds language to be subjective because it did not originate from truth and certainty. He states, “If truth alone had been the deciding factor in the genesis of language, and if the standpoint of certainty had been decisive for designations, then how could we still dare to say ‘the stone is hard,’ as if ‘hard’ were something otherwise familiar to us.” Because “hard” is a subjective stimulation, to say “the stone is hard” would be an illusion. Due to the fact that Nietzsche finds language as metaphoric and arbitrary (and meaningless), there seems to be no sense of certainty. Humans can never actually know the truth. Although Nietzsche makes a strong argument about truth and language, I find it to be problematic. Is finding truth even possible?

Nietzsche also argues that human ability to categorize concepts creates a false sense of truth. When explaining how humans that encounter a leaf may be able to categorize it from previous experiences (leaf prototype), he argues that this may be problematic because this categorization (language) does not capture the leafs individuality (essence). He claims that “we obtain the concept by overlooking what is individual and actual.” He thus concludes that both language and concepts are deceptive and cannot lead us to the truth.

In “Philosophy in the Bedroom,” Marquis de Sade uses logic and observed fact to argue whether or not murder is considered a crime from Nature’s point of view. To understand the relationship between Nature and cruelty, he first discusses that cruelty is not a vice, but the “first sentiment Nature injects in us all.” Humans are cruel before they are able to use reason. He claims that once a civilized society creates laws, cruelty becomes dangerous. For this reason, de Sade urges to repeal any laws and constraints.

He begins his overall argument by claiming that man is no better than any other animal or plant. He parallels man to these species and concludes that there should be no difference in the killing of a beast or an animal. He then provides an in-depth explanation about the nature of destruction and how it is essential in order to bring transmutation. Therefore, he concludes that death can be seen as an alteration. However, it is Nature who advises man to “destroy his fellow” and Nature’s voice that “suggests to us personal hatreds, revenges, wars;” therefore man must not be found guilty when they do nothing more than to obey her. Sade further argues that murder is not a crime against society because nor man or Nature would be affected by the outcome of an individual death or a great number of deaths.

The reason and logic used by Marquis de Sade is similar to the thinking we’ve seen in the Enlightenment era. However, Sade’s questioning is very extreme because his arguments reject laws created by a civilized society (which reminds me of Cartesian doubt). He bases his reasoning off of human instinct and observed fact. Also, this text describes Nature as the enemy and the creator of evil rather than a place for inspirations of beauty (which we’ve seen in the Romantic Era).

Halaea is one of the three traditional Hawaiian folktales found in “The Despotic Chiefs of Kau.” Similar to other tales found in the trio, Halaea portrays the power that the people of a community have against a despotic chief. In this tale, the people sought to rid themselves of the chief’s oppression. Together, the people were able to overthrow their oppressor by sinking him “in a sea surrounded by the objects of his greed.” This shows how great the community is valued in Hawaiian culture, which allowed for them to erode structures of authority. In this story, the power belongs to the people and it is clear that they are both feared and respected. This story connects to the events that occurred in Hawaiian history in the early nineteenth century. Hawaiians had long been ruled by royal chiefs until traders and missionaries brought new social values along with them and were able to end traditional authoritarian rule. This story encourages unity and harmony within the people of a community. Harmony is essential in a community in order to gain agreement. It also reinforces the strength of a group and its ability to rebel and bring change for the benefit of society. This lessens the power of higher authority and illustrates the consequences of abusive power. Power must not be granted to a single individual.

The theme of oppression from higher authority illustrated in this Hawaiian folktale is similar to the oppression that slaves received from slave-owners. In the Hawaiian tale, we see the community work together against higher power by holding a council and agreeing to deposit all of the fish onto the chief Halaea’s canoe. By unifying, the people were able to escape their leader. In the U.S. Slave Spirituals and Secular Songs, the slaves worked together and planned secret meetings with the intent to escape oppression. Their songs suggested dreams of escape using the underground railroad system. They worked together and incorporated instruments, such as constellations of stars that would lead the way for slaves on the run. For the slaves however, there were many authoritative leaders whereas the Hawaiian Folktale had a single chief.

Charles Baudelaire is able to capture the grotesque and beautiful nature of death in his poem “A Carcass.” He recalls discovering a carcass with his lover while walking along a path and begins a descriptive recollection of what he saw: “The flies buzzed and droned on these bowels of filth where an army of maggots arose, which flowed like a liquid and thickening stream on the animate rags of her clothes (17-20).” Although the imagery he provides is mostly discomforting, throughout the poem, he seems to include brief glimpses of beauty to suggest that death can be beautiful. He then explores the ugly and the beautiful when mentioning that even the beautiful decay and “molder with the bones of the dead (44).” It seems that Baudelaire is a realist and accepts that death is inevitable.