In the film, Captain Mandrake is the most rational character because he looks at the entire picture before taking any stances and making a decision. He had reasonable reasons to be able to be able to persuade others easily on what he needed to happen. On the other hand, the rest of the characters only listen to one side of the story. They are all very passionate about their claims and statements, but they have no basis for their conclusions. The only way for an action to happen was through the persuasion of a loud stammering voice. All they stated were their opinions and this displayed their selfish intents and neglection of facts.

Initally, I had thought General Ripper was a rational character because he has made an understandable, reasonable choice to suicide after he had heard he was going to be tortured (since i came in halfway through the film & missed the previous scenes). But then, I realized that he was irresonsible to have killed himself before giving Captain Mandrake the code. What was missing from General Ripper’s command to instigate an attack on Russia was who was liable to take on this responsibility. He, on his own, escaped that responsibility by suiciding, even though he had issued the command. Also, even though he issued the command, he was stuck in his office room while his underlings did the actual combats. This also raised the issue of commitment to the command because if General Ripper was actually committed to his goal of attacking Russia, he wohld have given the code to Captain Mandrake before suiciding. That was an uncertain scene to me because he had seemed really passionate and intent on succeeding, yet his later actions did not follow up with it. He neglectingly sacrificed his underlings without accomplishing anything.

Ariana

Technology is at the core of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. One of the film’s most important themes is the faulty technology of war. It is the cause of the depersonalization, flawed communication, and isolation prevailing in the film. Technology places power into the hands of error-prone mechanisms (radios, telephones, a doomsday device, etc.). It lessens the political power of the “powerful” men in the War Room and discloses how powerless they are in actuality. Because the secret three-letter code was known only to General Ripper, the men lacked the capacity to act. When Mandrake eventually identifies the code, he has difficulty passing it on and communicating it to the War Room seeing that the payphone was the only working method of communication.

Technology also takes part in the depersonalization of war. General Rippler is an “armchair general” who issues “Wing Attack Plan R,” commanding U.S. aircraft to commence an attack flight on Russia while in his office. Unlike the soldiers or commanders that are directly associated with combat and warfare, General Rippler locks himself (and Mandrake) in his office. Even U.S. aircraft isn’t directly associated with combat, as the bomb simply falls through the bomb bay doors and detonates on its target. When Dr. Strangelove proposed that the President collect several hundred thousand people to live where the radiation from the doomsday device will not penetrate, President Muffley expresses that he “would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down.” Dr. Strangelove replies that it will not be necessary for him to decide because it can “easily be accomplished with a computer,” which can be set and programmed on the basis of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, etc. By utilizing a computer to decide essentially who lives and who dies, President Muffley is allowed to generate distance from this operation, both mentally and physically. He is detached and technology enables him to be – it is systematic and methodical.

Dr. Strangelove is relevant to this day. General Ripper’s paranoia in regard to the “Ruskis” and “Commies” exists amid Americans today but in regard to terrorism and individuals like Donald Trump. This culture of fear is just the same in our lives as it was in Dr. Strangelove. General Ripper is a typical example of it. Moreover, in Dr. Strangelove, women are not incorporated in the War Room and its discussion of power. The only woman seen in the film plays Turgidson’s secretary and her only power is lustful power. Even today, the idea of a woman in power is not customary.

Throughout the film, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, there were times where I found moments to be irrational (which I think was meant to be intentional for the sake of this movie). I even think the title sounds irrational and ironic because bombs are meant to create fear. The character I found to be especially illogical was General Ripper. He talked about the purity of water and how he only drinks tap water which sounded a bit insane. He even sends out the call to initiate the Plan R that becomes the main reason why there is such chaos happening. Ripper executed this plan because of his negative beliefs on Communism and without any rational thinking, he went forth with the plan. However, Mandrake was the sole character that was rational of this whole situation. He was the only one who was able to communicate because he was attentive and aware of what was happening around him unlike the others. It seemed as if he was the only one who understood. Even when he was confronted by the solider, he took action to this situation by telling him that he has to talk to the President. While watching this, it made me go back to the video about Jacques Ellul on responsibility. This movie portrayed the idea about how when something goes wrong, there is the problem of responsibility. Though it was Jack who launched the attack, a nuclear attack should require the permission from the president. So when Plan R goes into action, is it Jack who becomes responsible or the soldiers on the plane who followed his orders or the President? Towards the end, Jack even kills himself, possibly to avoid being tortured for his actions (doesn’t want to be held responsible). Though it was Jack who called out the plan, Mandrake had to call the President to deliver the recall code. I think then it comes down to where everyone becomes responsible because everyone becomes affected by the attack.

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.

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.

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.

In “Surfaciality” from Simon Critchley’s ABC of Impossibility, Critchley announces that Alberto Caeiro calls the machinic habit of familiarity the “sickness of the eyes.” Critchley asserts that “we need an apprenticeship in unlearning in order to learn to see and not to think. We need to learn to see appearances and nothing more, and to see those appearances not as the appearances of some deeper, but veiled reality, but as real appearances.” Caeiro affirms his “soul is simple and doesn’t think” and that his “mysticism is not wanting to know,” but rather, “it is to live and not to think about this.” Finally, Caeiro affirms “I don’t know what nature is: I sing it.” Essentially, Caeiro is going astray from familiarity, normalcy, and nature’s concept that something has basic or inherent features. He is getting rid of any association with himself and society as well as societal regulations. He turns down the notion of defined roles, and lives anew, without conforming to anything formerly established and specified. Caeiro declares, “and this is my definition,” which, in essence, is no definition.

“Surfaciality” is relevant to Clarice Lispector’s The Daydreams of a Drunk Woman because Maria Quiteria, a housewife, calls into question her role as a woman. Throughout the tale, Maria reveals her misery and rage as a consequence of the choices she made while seeking security and protection. These choices were encouraged by society – the exploitation of a woman’s body “to marry a man she neither loves nor respects” to escape poverty. (809) Maria is always making derogatory remarks (lazy bitch, slut) towards herself for her shortcoming as a housewife. She was unhappy filling in this role and lost her “every-day soul” as a housewife Saturday night, feeling queer and liberty, reminding her of former days as a young woman. (812) To come to the point, Maria, like Caeiro, desires to purge herself of societal regulations and defined roles.

In addition, “Surfaciality” and The Daydreams of a Drunk Woman call to mind Rene Descartes mind-body distinction and, especially, Olympe de Gouges’ endeavor to bring back the body of a woman into society. A woman does not necessarily have to assume her “natural” roles of a mother and wife, as she possesses identical capabilities in contrast to a man.

In Simon Critchley’s “Surfaciality” he states that poets uses poetry to simplify and help us to interpret. He mentions the benefits of poetry and how it helps us to interpret and understand things through the use of words. He states that poetry aims to makes things clearer “a sickness of the eyes” which he is saying that the world is simple and we tend to over analyze what essentially are just simple things. Critchley uses the body parts to talk about interpretation quite often “a sickness of the eyes” which he used to explain that by de-familiarizing we become familiar. He repeats the phrase “under our noses” which is also a way in which he’s saying things are made clear but we tend to look for some grand meaning for every aspect of our lives and then we fail to realize what’s right in front of us. I interpreted that Critchtley is saying that through the use of poetry we are able to make our lives less complex because poetry allows us to express ourselves through simplicity.

I would relate “Surfaciabilty” to Lispector’s “Daydreams of a drunk woman” in the aspects where he spoke about appearance. Critchley essentially wants us to look at the real appearance and nothing more “not as some deeper, but veiled reality but as real appearances”. Maria is a woman who clearly has a fragmented image of herself “Her eyes did not take themselves off her image… and her open dressing gown revealed in the mirrors the intersected breasts of several women.” Maria is having trouble with identifying with her real self. She’s a housewife and a mother but in her heart that is not what she wants so in looking at her appearance she fails to see the real her because the real her is not depicted in her everyday routines. I think that in her failure to realize her real self, that is where the complexities of her life come.

While reading the introduction of Simon Critchley’s ABC of Impossibility it reminded me of this post I saw a while back. It went along the lines of a teacher asking the student what the author meant by “the curtains were blue,” then with the teacher explaining that it represented depression or something of that sort, when in reality the author was just trying to say the curtains were blue. However, Critchley was probably not going entirely into this oversimplification direction. Instead he was trying to tell his readers that sometimes it is difficult for us to decipher what the poet is trying to convey in their piece of work because of our “sickness of the eyes.” This phrase refers to everything we were taught by society or our peers and the process of us using/enforcing that into the work in order to make sense of it. To truly get into the nitty grittiness of the work –of its true meaning- we must learn how to “unlearn,” how to let loose and “see, not think.” Through the protagonist of The Daydreams of a Drunk Women, Clarice Lispector is able to illustrate the inner struggle of a woman trying to come into terms of her true identity. So by first glance, this woman is a mother, wife, and homemaker, however she believes she is far more than those three titles combined. It is quite obvious in the reading that she is not content with her current lifestyle and that she does not love her husband. It is even stated that “she was anticipating her love for the man whom she would love one day.” (810) In order to face harsh reality, she drinks. She then becomes a woman she can support and someone who can support her husband, kids and lifestyle. Liquor is her way to lose herself, to break free of society’s judgement and unlearn who she is, even if it is just for a short while.

The purpose of this film in my opinion is to show the false ideas behind the rational and irrational consensuses. Like Professor Rickenback said, the irrational occurrence of General Jack Ripper created a slippery slope that triggered every possible “rational” action. The reason why I say “rational” is because when we really look at it none of it makes sense. For example, the reaction of the president when “Plan R” was presented to him shows a huge lack of sense and knowledge. He was unaware of such a plan yet he supposedly signed off on something that could kill millions of people. In addition, how could someone that isn’t the president put such a plan into effect? Cutting off all communications and stopping at nothing leaves no room for anything but the execution of the plan. It does not make it rational just because something like “Plan R” could be created and executed. It’s quite irrational once the ball gets rolling when you look at it from this point of view. I would also like to point out the fact that the entire team on the B-52 was reading off a manual!! They didn’t stop to think about why or what they were doing, they just simply read the manual and did as it said. This reminded me of what we have been talking about in class and how we lose track of ourselves. We become accustomed to certain things and no longer question it. Technology plays a big role in that because it makes life so much easier. Technology in this film could be seen when everyone in that dark room kept referring back to the “Big Board.” They depended on it to show them the information of the plan and to also calculate what they could possibly do. This in itself again seems somewhat “rational” but very questionable, technology could easily fail us and if it does we seem to be in a position where it will completely catch us off guard. Furthermore the only person that seemed rational was Group Captain Lionel Mandrake. He was the only one that tried to understand the present situation and the other surrounding factors that were attached to it. He also was the only one that communicated or at least tried to communicate with everyone. This again shows how the person who must be considered rational is the only person that cares to understand.