In response the question four, there are a few instances of rational and irrational actions coinciding. The first is when General Ripper gives the irrational order to execute Wing attack Plan R, which causes the rational response by the air force to confirm the plan. Subsequently, there is the irrational chain of command explained by General Turgidson, that allows General Ripper to give the order without consulting higher-ups.  President Merken Muffley has to come up with a rational plan to avoid , however he is working with a Russian diplomat which is irrational considering that the United States is supposed to be against them. The most obvious example of rational/irrational is Dr. Strangelove’s plan for after the inevitable apocalypse where a specified amount of people will stay in an underground bunker for 100 years to repopulate the earth.

In response to question five, under General Ripper’s command, he orders the air force to execute wing attack Plan R, an emergency war plan. The plan is meant to be executed in response to an attack by Russia against the United States. However, General Ripper gives the commands as a preemptive move against Russian forces. The air force responds to the plan by first assuming that it must be a mistake because the plan is so drastic that it doesn’t make sense for it to be their orders. The air force pilots then decode the message to confirm the plan, and realize that something bad must have happened in order for Plan R to be needed. In the War Room, General Turgidson explains to President Merken Muffley the complicated chain of command that allowed General Ripper to execute Plan R, but for some reason doesn’t allow anyone else to know the three letter code to stop it. General Ripper cut communications to the base so he is the only person capable of reversing the commands. This is a clear oversight that appears to the result of bureaucratic incompetence. Therefore, President Merken Muffley has to come up with a contingency plan to essentially avoid an apocalypse.

Simon Critchley describes the concept of “surfaciality” in the ABC of Impossibility according to heteronym ‘a sickness of the eyes’, which he explains essentially comes from that saying “familiarity breeds contempt”; in which we limit our perception by taking for granted how we understand things as they are and stop searching for more meaning. He states that “Poetry returns us to our familiarity with things through the de-familiarization of poetic sayings” or ‘lessons in unlearning’. This unlearning that he describes is a process of forgetting predetermined ideas in order to view the world in its most basic form. Critchley describes this state as reaching lucidity, where there is no explicit conclusion, however, the level of understanding is deeper, so deep that that it too complex to pinpoint.

The “surfaciality” is an unconscious glossing over of certain aspects of things because of their everyday appearance. This relates to The Daydreams of a Drunk Woman by Clarice Lispector, in which the drunk woman doesn’t to see meaning in her life because of how mundane she perceives it has become. She is dissatisfied with her role as a mother and wife and contemplates what would giver her life more substance. In her drunken state she examines the restaurant and comes to conclusions for herself based on simple observations. The drunk woman is able to view the world in simpler terms in her inebriated state; as if it has increased her sensitivity to what goes on around her. The state that she is in when she is drunk reveals to her the dynamics of everyday things. For example she makes a analysis of the blonde woman in the restaurant based on her appearance. It seems like petty judgement at first, however, the drunk woman continues to examine the woman based on her looks to deduce her character.

Beckett proposes a world view that seems to be influenced by post WW2; following the events that took place and attempting to fathom how the degradation of values could have led to WW2, Beckett appears to have been at a loss to comprehend it all. In consequence, Beckett reigns that the meaning of life and existence cannot be found and moreover, there may not be any purpose. Endgame, illustrates Beckett’s understanding or lack of, of the purpose of existence. The play is intended to leave the reader/view in a state of confusion and reflection on the existential.

Endgame, challenges views/readers to find meaning for the characters in the play. Each character appears to be in a state of perpetual wait; it isn’t clear if the characters are waiting for an event such as death or another defining moment. The characters all seem bound to the empty room repeating mundane tasks to pass time, Endgame also has a nostalgic quality in the way the character’s recall past experiences. This element of the play feels nihilistic; their existence has no real meaning aside from remaining alive. Nell states “Yes, yes, it’s the most comical thing, in the world. An we laugh, we laugh, with a will in the beginning. But it’s always the same thing. Yes, its like the funny story we have heard too often, we still find it funny, but we don’t laugh anymore. [Pause.] Have you anything else to say to me?”. This statement sounds reminiscent of better times, almost as if she recounts moments that used to give life a direction but that are no longer sufficient to sustain a meaningful existence.

The play does not have any direction or cohesive plot, however, there is repetition of some phrases. Most of play is written with short straightforward, sentences from each character with frequent pauses, implying deeper meaning and for the reader to fill in the pauses. Beckett appears to have used a simple writing style to convey the thought process of the character’s. Beckett doesn’t seem to hint at any grand question about the purpose of life, however, Beckett poses a simpler question about how to live daily with resolve.

Jacques Ellul in his interview asserts that responsibility in our society becomes “so fragmented and broken up into small pieces that no one is responsible”. He argues that the way our society operates is similar to a coherent mind in which people believe that they are preforming individual tasks, however they arrive at a same conclusion. He uses the example a dam bursting to explain how the different elements that created the damn were equal parts not responsible for its collapse. The geologists that studied the terrain and engineers planned the dam, the workmen who built the damn, and the politicians who decided where the dam cannot be held accountable for the collapse of the dam although their separate jobs had the same consequence. Jacques Ellul concludes that no one is free either; regardless of if responsibility can be assigned to an individual.

In The Visit, the citizens of Guellen acted in a similar way when faced with the option presented by Claire and ultimately Ill’s death. The citizens acted independently of one another but still arrived at Ill’s death somehow. No one is explicitly responsible for his death; the police, the priest, and the rest of the citizens didn’t plan to kill Ill. However, their separate acts become complicit in Claire’s intentions for Ill. The citizens premature buying on credit were indicative of their expectations of money. The policeman’s willingness to overlook Claire’s incitement to murder Ill as well as his new shoes, gold tooth, and expensive beer was enough reassurance that he would ignore his duty to “maintain order and protect the individual” for personal gain. The priest ignored Ill’s concerns about his life by redirecting the conversation to Ill’s personal salvation and prompting him to examine his conscience, ironically the priest the church has a new bell.

The citizen’s agree at the time with the mayor’s response to Claire’s offer that “we would rather have poverty than blood on our hands”, but their actions were indifferent. In a sense the people of the town had an attitude of whatever happens, happens; and left Ill in a position without any reassurance of their support but also of not their intent to kill him. In the end Ill is found dead but there is no way to point the blame.

The ideas presented in the films are representative of the logic or rather the lack of logic argued for in the manifestos. The films did not have a plot or a direction that could be followed, which is the essential purpose of the films, to upend deliberate thought and actions. The films illustrate a contradiction of traditional logic and seek to oppose established institutions by introducing concepts that are uncensored and question convention in an effort to create a new form of thinking.

Un Chien Andalou does not have a plot, however it does appear to display certain ideas about what is considered normal behavior. The scene of the eye cut open, the woman poking the severed hand in the street, as well as the ants crawling out of the man’s hand, would provoke shock at a grotesque occurrence, however it is presented in the film as an element of intrigue. Rather than viewing these scenes are objectively gross, the film prompts the viewer to reexamine if these scenes can be interpreted alternatively.The film appears to use the images in their context to challenge their interpretation. In addition to that there are to main characters the man and woman who interact throughout the film. The man appears to be a different person in every scene, while the woman appears the same person who reacts to his new persona differently each time she meets him, this implies that there is cohesive idea. The film appears to have surrealist elements such as the spontaneous and irrational scenes depicted, which are suggestive of a dream-like state.

Ballet Mécanique is almost a video compilation of random short video clips. Images of people, objects, numbers, machines, and other indistinguishable images appear in a random order, sometimes repeating. The scenes don’t have any connection or particular order. The film appears to be a visual representation of the ideas presented in the Dadaism manifesto on rejecting established norms of aesthetics and what is rational. The film also draws on ideas from Futurism, a lot of the scenes are of what looks to be metal objects and of machines preforming tasks.

Lu Xun’s Diary of a Madman is a social commentary that used cannibalism as symbolism for traditional Chinese Confucian teachings, that although “…its always been done that way” (249) doesn’t excuse the continuation of the practice and the participation that comes with the pressure to assimilate into societal norms. Similar to Georg in Franz Kafka’s The Judgement, the pressure to live according to traditional ideas of fulfillment eats away at the main character who rejects the norm at the expense of isolation. Success and happiness in life correlate with marriage for Georg, who is unwilling to loose a part of himself that he is sure will diminish with his marriage to Frieda, which is represented by his distant friend.  Consequently, the madman and Georg cave in under the false image created by their surrounding that imposes a norm that doesn’t apply to them.

The madman identifies the cannibals “some thoughts its always been like this and that they really should eat human flesh. Others knew they shouldn’t but went right along doing it anyway, always on the lookout for fear someone might give them away”. The way the madman categorizes the cannibals as those who follow blindly with tradition and those that participate for fear of being different but don’t agree. This is a parallel for the traditional Chinese teachings that requires consensus. The madman attempts to reason that the cannibals can change if they are willing to repent their ways and live like real human beings. However, he realizes that that comes with confronting their way of life as wrong which threatens ‘the way its always been’.

The madman concludes that at some point he might have unknowingly ate his sister, therefore the implications of his cannibalism is a reflection of how embedded the practice is. In consequence, he reasons that in order to stop cannibalism the future generation has to be brought up without the practice and taught that it is an obsolete and barbaric act.

The end of both narratives leaves the reader with the question of if the character is really insane or are they a product of societal pressure to conform. Is the madman really paranoid or is the only one aware of the truth; is Georg imagining his entrapment through marriage or is free will intact whether or not he remains a bachelor.

Frederich Nietzsche on Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense examines the formation of concepts in their most basic form. He asserts that every word is a concept due to the inherent nature of words as a means to describe or “…serve as a reminder of the unique and wholly individualized original experience to which it owes its birth”. The application of words to divulge the significance of a subject has to be unique; words cannot or rather should not have double meaning or else they fail to define an intended subject. Nietzsche compares the origin of concepts to leaves, He argues that “…the concept “leaf” is formed through an arbitrary abstraction”. Each leaf is unique, however when we speak of a leaf it is meant to define a broad and general idea, a concept. Nietzsche maintains that by principle there should be a standard leaf from which all leaves are derived. Therefore, a leaf is itself a concept from which an exact definition cannot be given.

In comparison, concepts are formed as a result of the lack of actual knowledge of a particular subject, so words act as a substitute for an uncertain definition. Nietzsche states that “We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual…”, thus he reasons that elements such as these will always be unknown since there is no way to define words in relation to what they are applied to.

Frederich Nietzsche’s essay attempts to analyze the misconceptions of truth that occurs in common idea’s of what knowledge is. He also questions the purpose of knowledge; here he questions the value of words as a form of knowledge. Nietzsche argues that the knowledge that comes with words is limited because rather than a true definition words really provide abstract ideas. Nietzsche challenges the certainty of what categorizes as truth.

The question that I took away from Frederich Nietzsche’s essay is how much truth exists if what appears to be trivial in the world; words, can’t even qualify as truth? Nietzsche’s standard of truth appears to go beyond what can be practically understood.

Hegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic examines the real and subconscious relationship between Master and Slave, and who is actually in control. The relationship is based on recognition between two parties in which one exercises power or is as Hegel asserts, ‘willing to fight to the death’ for that power over the other. The Master becomes the Master when the Slave acknowledges the Master as their Master. The self-conscious aspect of the Master-Slave relationship Hegel describes comes into play when the Slave is aware of the Master’s dependency on them. The Master depends on the recognition of the Slave, therefore when the Slave is aware of the ‘agreement’ that was made, the Slave diminishes the Master’s position of power. The Master-Slave relationship is a central idea in the French Revolution, which emerged from the working class resistance to the French bourgeoisie. The working class dismantled the old hierarchies that gave power to the upper class which allowed them to suffer. The indifference of the French bourgeoisie to the suffering of the working class is an example of the disconnect between the Master and the wealth that he obtains from the Slaves that, according to Hegel, in consequence allows the Slave to realize their work empowers the Master. The direct contact that the Slave has with their work enables them to realize their power over the Master.

The Master-Slave dialectic was also seen in the Haitian Revolution as the slaves became aware that their position as Slaves was dependent on their recognition of the French as their Master. Dessaline’s understood that the power was with the Haitian slaves; their work on plantations made the French wealthy. As a result, the Haitian Revolution occurred when the slaves became conscious of the power that the French had was relative to the power the slaves allowed them to exert. In the case of the French Revolution and the Haitian Revolution the Master-Slave relationship is deconstructed at the point where the oppressed comprehend that their oppressor has power in relation to their recognition of that power.

Malagasy wisdom poetry are meant to serve as a guide as how to live according to traditional ideas and cultural values. The two poems Ohabolana and Hainteny, are based on the traditions Ohabolana, wise proverbs that were used to explain various situations and emotions; and Hainteny, which demonstrates the ups and down of love and its tribulations.

In Ohabolana it describes life in relation to common place occurrences. The poem describes life in terms of “Life is like the aroma of a cooking-pot: when it is uncovered, it escapes…” (938) and “…Death is not a condemnation but part of a tax” (938). The poem relates life to the excitement of smelling food coming from a pot. Death, like taxes, is an unavoidable part of life; essentially the tax for life is death. The poem explains the fundamental elements of life in a way that is relatable, taking the complexity of life and attempting to condense it.

In Hainteny, love, abandonment, and blame are the central themes. In the first two parts of the poem there is dialogue between a couple, with one asking repeatedly “How, then, do you love me?” (939), and the other responding with various objects such as water, food, and money. The first person is only satisfied when they are told that the other person loves them as the ruling prince. In the second part of the poem it seems that one of them has been abandoned by the other and describes themselves, “I am like a friendless child who plays alone in the dust, a chick that has fallen into a ditch…”(940). However, they also plead with the other person to reconcile the relationship saying “…not to make our love a love of stones: broken, they cannot be joined. But make it a love of lips: although angry, they approach each other.”(940) The third part of the poem describes what blame is like, relating it to nature and accidents, and forms of greeting. Hainteny, tells a story of lovers in which one initially seeks to be reaffirmed about how much the other loves them. Later they are abandoned, and subsequently are blamed for the relationship failing.

In Charles Baudelaire’s poem A Carcass, he seeks to have the reader understand the beauty in the grotesque death of the woman; that death is an inevitable and natural occurrence in life. The descriptions that he gives of the corpse reveal his alternative view of death; he almost admires the corpse as a testimony to the raw and unfiltered side of nature that isn’t usually praised. We’ve seen poems that appreciate nature’s beauty in conventional terms, flowers and trees and the stars at night. Very rarely is nature recognized in its ugly state. Baudelaire is able to reveal that nature doesn’t have to be pretty to be meaningful.