After reading “Surfaciality”, “The Mirror Stage”, “The Daydreams of a Drunk Woman”, and learning about depersonalization, I want to know if the authors could have been suffering some level of depersonalization. Depersonalization is essentially a “detachment within the self, regarding one’s mind or body, or being a detached observer of oneself”. I find some of the elements of the definition to be very evident in the author’s texts. Lispector basically wrote about a woman that, after staring at 3 mirror, is all of a sudden then being hit with an imagery crisis (not being contempt with knowing who she is). She sees herself in fragments, which was initially seen as, an intersection of breasts of several women. But of course, that kind of observation can not hold very much meaning if had she not tried to think and rationalize who she is, with respect to society’s standards. So, she went ahead and made meaningful assertions about herself, for example, she is a mother and a wife, as well having a “strong” social status (she escaped poverty and got married). Yet, even after “rationalizing” her “identity”, she still pities herself. She may be pitting herself not just because she didn’t reach her “true value” as a person (being a painter), but because she is starting to enter, what I would call a, “depersonalization” zone, where she has detached herself from our world , in order to pioneer and engage with a world that actually does reflect a human’s innermost thoughts and feelings.

Critchley’s text “Surfaciality”, not literally, addresses the depersonalizing feelings that overwhelmed Lispector’s character after viewing herself in 3 mirrors. He addresses the issues that comes with those feelings, as well as an “antidote” (literature, more specifically, poetry). The way Critchley describes those feelings are by calling them “a sickness of the eyes”, which is to say that our appearances are often being obscured by things we learn. To be able to remove these obscurities we would have to unlearn, and no better way to unlearn than to use poetry. It seems that he believes that poetry holds an absurd essence, and could therefore be used to de-familiarize (depersonalize) an ignorant understanding of ourselves. My question is how much absurdness do we fill ourselves to where we have completely unlearned any obscurities. Also if this is something that can only be achievable individually, that is to say that unlearning while listening to the poet “sing” would technically be an obscurity.

The play, Endgame, by Samuel Beckett is a tragicomedy that does not have any correct meaning to it’s story, but rather is a piece of literature that can help us make sense of the world. The play helps to depict, in what I find to be a more truthful, worth view through the use of absurdness and nihilism. Through the use of the absurd, and a nihilistic tone, the play breaks away from any previous “absolute” meanings that humans have, and puts us at a zero point (the core of human purpose).

The play, from the beginning to the end, does not have a plot that would, traditionally, get developed to where it would then be concluded with a moral/ lesson. The dialogue between the characters are rather absurd, because they demonstrate meaninglessness towards life and human values. For example, when Hamm says, “But we breath, we change! We lose our hair, our teeth! Our bloom! Our ideals!”, it shows how growth can reasonably be viewed as losing. This is rather not logical (absurd), because growth is commonly viewed as obtaining, but here no matter how much you can learn or develop, it’s going to be lost regardless. In addition, the play exposes our human nature to avoid solidarity, purposelessness, and pain. For instance, when Hamm and Clov confront each other with the question of why they keep each other, it shows that there really isn’t clear reason as to why. Clov says that he doesn’t have anywhere to go and Hamm doesn’t have anyone to be company to him. But, then why is this the limit of their existence? It’s absurd that anyone would remain in the position of being a servant, but is this worse than being left in solidarity and have no purpose?

The challenges that the nihilistic tone of the play poses is what do humans do if life is so meaningless and depressing. From this play, it seems that there are really only two options when confronted existentialism. They are: death, or participating in a master-slave relationship. Death can go about in two different ways, that being just suffering a meaningless life till death, or choosing suicide to avoid the pain. The master-slave relationship gives purpose, only as far as a purpose for two humans. Yet, there is another option that humans can go about, that is evident in Hamm’s and Clov’s dialogues. It is to chose who we are with stories and the different fragmented ideas that are found in life. Since, we do not have any preconceived notions of meaning or self, we are then more free than ever to control our futures, and to choose our stories that will serve to be the meaning of our existence.

In class, we’ve discussed three themes: power, responsibility, and justice in relation to Durrenmatt’s The Visit. After watching Jacques Ellul’s interview, I was able to make connections with his and Durrenmatt’s view towards society.

Jacques Ellul and Durrenmatt both make it evident that there is an issue of power. Ellul argues that people are living an illusion that they are free, when actually they are submitting themselves to a system. The system that he addresses is the very same technological system that is found in Durrenmatt’s play: money. People believe that with money, they are, “free to eat nice things, free to buy a car to travel, etc”. While yes, it is arguable that you can go where ever you want, but the ability for you to travel is only given to you when you trade your time for money. So does that really make you free? A similar idea can be found in Durrenmatt’s play when the people start buying on credit. The people are given the “freedom” to buy all sorts of things like new shoes, but at what cost? To be put in debt to Claire? That would be the same thing as submitting to her, and when viewed in a certain way, she is the symbol of “money”.

Jacques Ellul and Durrenmatt are also both attacking “justice” within a society, more specifically what is moral/good. Durrenmatt makes it evident when Claire bends the rules for certain characters. For example, when Ill tells the policeman about the corruption of Claire, but he refuses to arrest her. In addition, when Claire told the doctor that the next diagnosis ought to be a “heart attack”. These characters were influenced by the wealth (good) that Claire provided, rather than their intended roles by society (also good). This then creates a problem, because it’s unclear of what is morally right to do. Should a society function with fairness, as in ALL people are equal, or is it okay to bend rules as long as the person bending them has a lot of money? Ellul touches on this subject in a way that I believe is more related to the working class people. A lot of the working class citizens work in fragmented roles, and are given justice for their work (bosses gives a salary). That leaves a lot of people determined that what they are doing is morally good, and that the lives they lead are justified. But then that raises the question of why we, as a society, believe that our worth is limited to the same value we give to money? Why does money justify everything? When did a salary become the “good” for someone than actually wanting to play a truly valuable role within a society?

After watching the two short films Un Chien Andalou and Ballet Mecanique, I can say that I was thoroughly impressed with the effects that they had on my friends and me (my friends wanted to watch the films too). Compared to the many “scary” movies (I’m being generous when I say they’re “scary”) currently being watched, watching these two short films gave us the most chills. From beginning to the end of watching the films, I tried to rationalize how the scenes were related to each other. Unsuccessfully, I realized that the scenes were kinda random and held their own meaning. Although, the theme of the scenes became more clear when I thought back to the Surrealist manifesto. The Surrelist manifesto relates, because it’s about releasing one from “everyday reality” to see another “reality” that holds some truth. For instance, in the film Ballet Mechanique, there were many scenes that had a “logical place” in society, such a woman swinging, hats, numbers, shapes, etc. When put together in a different order and various viewpoints, the scenes seem almost unreal, yet those things happening are actually happening.

The film Un Chien Andalou was able to capture the theme of the Creationist manifesto because it used a lot of weird scenes and random sequences. It felt like an entirely different society, which falls in the Creationist theories, because that society existed as a phenomenon in itself and was incomparable to anything else. For instance, for the time period, it was strange to find a man riding on the bicycle dressed as a girl. Yet, there were no comments in the film made about the man to indicate that the man was out of place in their society. Another example would be, how the officer and the woman used a similar looking box for separate reasons. The officer used the box to keep a bloody hand, while the woman used it to keep a tie. The box was defined by the owner of it, and could therefore symbolize the possible realms that someone could create.

Also, the dadaist theme could be found in Un Chien Andalou, which was when the man and the woman walked into the sunset, and then died. It shows how insignificant the love of a man and woman, and that it’s just a made up value. Walking into the sunset or dying, there is no correct way for what should happen to the man and woman.

In the passage, On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense, Freidrich Nietzsche explains that humans have created an illusion of the world, and what we think we know about the world is actually not the truth. The purpose of the passage is to evaluate the entirety of human intelligence.

An interesting argument that Nietzsche brings up at the beginning, is the world is something in itself, and that the world’s explanation, by humans, only holds its value to human beings. He brings up a comparison between a mosquito and a philosopher in the same sense that they both have individual values. First it is important to note why the comparison was made with a philosopher. The philosopher was chosen because they, of all humans, take the stand in examining the world without personal feelings, and rather a truthful point of view. Yet, as Nietzsche brings up the mosquito’s individual value, it’s only ability is to float through the air, and with that one, limited value, it goes to believe that it is flying at the center of the universe. The human philosopher is like the mosquito, because he too is self-centered. He thinks that with his one, limited human intellectual ability, that he may take on finding the “truth” of the universe. This “truth”, as Neitzsche explains, is only the truth that humans have created. Our truth is not perceived as the truth by the rest of nature, therefore it’s value is only to humans.

Nietzche furthers his argument by challenging the design of human language when used to discuss the “truth” of something. He starts with the question, “What is a word?”. The word is in itself a sound, and when heard is a nerve stimulus. As soon as the word is spoken about, it has already been made false. These words, when inferred by humans, are always going to always be different. People have their own metaphors of what that word means, therefore the meaning of it will always be subjective/ unique. Overall, proving we as an linguistic species are very limited in obtaining the actual “truth”. “Truth” is in itself, and would be a “lie” when a human use language to describe it.

Up until the early 19th century, Hawaiians did not have much contact with the outside world, and thus were able to establish their own traditions. These traditions organized the social life in Hawaii until foreign traders and missionaries arrived to the islands. With the new ideas and technology being introduced by the foreigners, the natives feared the loss of traditions. One native in particular, Mary Wiggen Paiku, was able to take three Hawaiian oral stories, and write them as a folktale, “The Despotic Chiefs of Kau”.

The purpose of the stories in, “The Despotic Chiefs of Kau”, is to teach political theory, as well as exploring weak and wrong forms of government. The three folktales all demonstrate what happens to a chief that does not respect his people. The chiefs that oppressed their people are not tolerated, and will be quickly removed from the community. In the story, “Halaea”, the chief oppressed his people by taking all their caught fish only for himself, leaving his people hungry in return. For this, the people gave him what he wanted, which led to the chief’s death. The natural order that is established in this story is that people will not have a leader that does not represent them as a community. The chief is not compassionate and only takes from others. The community, on the other hand, are hard working and compassionate.

The story, “Koihala”, shows how powerless a chief really is. The chief ordered food to be sent to him, and as requested the food was going to be brought by his people. The chief decided to leave the delivery location, and his people followed him. The chief’s actions eventually tired his people, and left them frustrated. His people threatened to eat his food, only to then lure the chief in to stop them. The furious king was then stoned to death. The community’s values can be identified with this story by their lack of care for the chief’s orders and/or feelings towards them. It’s clear to the people that a chief that does not help his people, will not receive help from his people.

These folktales could be compared to the revolutions that took place in world history. For example, the French Revolution showed the world how people don’t have to take orders from anybody. In addition, the government is theirs to help them, not something to be a servant to. The folktales also relates to Olympe de Gouges, “Rights of Women”, because they both emphasize the importance of human rights and being free to resist oppression. That no one individual can not exercise authority that is not found/ expressed from the community/nation.

In her poem, “A Glowworm Scatters Flashes through the Moss”, Rosalia De Castro is able to visually depict the two life perspectives people had at around her time. Lines 1 to 8 addresses the perspective of man who uses science to explain his world. She says, “A glowworm scatters flashes through the moss… Abyss above, and in the depths abyss”. What she does is create the image that an “enlightened” man does not see actually see the entire world for what it is, but is simply a “glowworm” who’s “light” is merely a “flash” in the “abyss”(world). That science is only a part of the understanding of the world, and that even with it, we are still ignorant.

The second life perspective that people had at her time, were the people that were religious and had a relationship with their G-d. Throughout lines 9 to 25, she mentions how people build material things to display their relationship with G-d. For example, the poem says, “Kneeling before an image rudely carved”, “My Deity, shattered in a thousand bits”, and “When lo! from their lofty marble niches”. This shows, and as we went over in class, that people can’t truly show how they feel, and they show things physically as a way to express themselves. For example, a hug to show you love someone. The relationship with G-d is only something that occurs in one’s mind, and in the poem, people build buildings out of stone as a way to show what’s in their mind. De Castro finds this to be something that “shatters” and is “rude” towards the spiritual image of G-d.

Edmund Burke was an Anglo-Irish politician and writer that was strongly against the French Revolution. As a response to all the supporters for the French Revolution, he wrote, Reflections on the Revolution in France. In this text, his main argument is to show why having tradition is vital for stability and freedom in a nation.

Reflections on the Revolution in France clearly demonstrates Burke’s argument being rationalized around the fear of human nature. He begins his argument by observing the policies of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights as being, “…the result of profound reflection; or rather the happy effect of following nature, which is without reflection, and above it. A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. (30)” Burke fears that people may think that their motives for revolution are rational, when actually they are anything but rational. They are, instead, just displaying the human aspects of selfishness and feelings of purpose. By maintaining tradition, humans can free themselves from their barbarous nature and focus more on progressing their country and form connections within their civilization.

The tones used in Reflections on the Revolution in France are shocking and terrifying. Edmund Burke displays this tone because people are rebelling against the orderly traditions that have been put in place by past ancestors throughout the years. These systems have kept humans feeling secure and free. Now with a revolution there is no order and, society, will from that point on, be perpetually chaotic. Ideas such as trade, religion, nobility, commerce, arts, etc. will no longer stand without the fundamental principles of a traditional society.

The thinkers have an enlightened view on the world. They want people to think critically and rationally, and to leave behind their primitive prejudices towards the world. For example, Immanuel Kant discusses that humans are held back by their primitive sense of security. We are cowards and lazy by nature, therefore we fear and set ourselves up as minors to guardians. We can never truly be free if we restrict ourselves to other people’s unquestioned beliefs. By being more conscious and rational human beings we can only then achieve true freedom. Rene Descartes also makes an interesting point that it is not possible for us to truly know anything at all. We often times think we know something, but in reality our conclusions are derived from primitive, irrational prejudice. We would have to observe the world from all humanly possible perspectives to only then make a credible conclusion.

My gut reaction to these texts is that they may contain a lot of truth to them. The authors have dissociated themselves from society’s view of the world, and put together a different perspective towards the world as we know it. I find these perspective very interesting and uncommon. I agree with the authors for the most part because there is a lot of human suffering and unanswered questions that come from irrational and primitive ideas. By removing these ideas, we open ourselves for progress and possibilities to end human suffering. But I also believe that some people are better off holding onto their “irrational” ideas because that’s the only feeling of freedom they could ever have.

-Ethan Pavlov