Slaughterhouse Five Post

Religion is a big part of Slaughterhouse Five. The serentiy prayer's motif shows that religion (as a symbol) is indeed important. Although the superiority versus inferiority of religion versus concrete science is not addressed, the mention of religion can lead us to understand Vonnegut's stance on this issue. Maybe, the serenity prayer and the cross on Billy's wall is apparent in order to show some practicality to Billy after the trauma of war. It could also hold the hidden meaning to Vonnegut's opinion that religion brings about sanity in our insane world, it is the concrete rock (apart from concrete science) that no outside stimulus could alter. The serenity prayer repeated shows the full circle of the power of religion to base ourselves off of.

I think Beloved addresses my question silently. Although true religion is never directly touched upon, one could argue that Sethe's religion was slave to the past emotionally. Religion, in some ways, can be an inside belief one is attached to throughout life's experiences. Sethe is attached to her past, through the ghost of her dead baby, Beloved. As Beloved is nearly ressurected, she becomes the physical chains to her past. I wonder if this submission to such an eficacy shows enough dedication and energy that it could be considered a "religion" in it's own sense. Tough to tell, the church is mentioned quite a few times, but only evil doings occur in their so the church couldn't possibly symbolize the stereotypical holiness it usually is labeled as. I think Morrison did not mean to address my issue, but if I dug deep enough, I could find something that relates. Although, I think this stretch may in a sense be harmful to Morrison's overall intent. "This book is not about slavery," a quite debatable statement indeed by the author herself, but if she says so, it must be. In the same way, this book is definately not about religion, so finding any correlation would be detrimental towards Morrison's overall intent which seems to be more focused on the emotional effects slavery imprints on it's victims.

The Stranger

The Stranger is about a secular man living in a dominantly secular world.  Albert Camus does not present the religious side to dealing with any of the problems Mersault encounters. Evidently enough, Camus uses the neglect of Mersault through his life experiences to show that through this life, secular dealings are the only solution. However, when reviewing the book maybe Camus uses this horrible fate of Mersault to highlight that attending to problems through a secular lens does not work, and only something greater, possibly a religious lens, could affectively help cope with the problems presented through The Stranger. Although this idea may be applicable, no sign of any religious aspect is used throughout the story, which leads me to believe this secular insufficiency concept was not Camus' intention. Unlike the Stranger, Crime and Punishment uses little traces of religion to usher in that other side to dealing with life, and by the end it was evident Dostoyevsky intended to highlight secular insufficiency compared to religious superiority.  Camus does not show any intention of doing this, which highlights his idea of neglect of religion both through him and through Mersault. The Stranger, and Camus, if addressed my question, would probably respond something like, "What is religion?  Religion sounds illogical, don't put your faith in things you cannot see."

Finally! A piece of literature that directly addresses this controversial concept of opinionated superiority between faith and reason, and whether the two may coexist.

Throughout Crime and Punishment, both reason and faith are addressed prominently, and the events that take place around a character's (I will focus on Rodia) actions help to highlight what Dostoyesvsky offers in addressing this debate. At the beginning of the novel, Rodia finds himself in the midst of a secular hell hole. St. Petersburg is not entirely encompassed by this sinful exposure, but the market where Rodia primarily resides is not the privileged suburb we are so ungratefully accustomed to here in America. Initially, a secular world represents reason throughout Rodia's journey. Rodia's thoughts are his own, and his own motives (questionably insane) lead him to sinful acts. As the time of the murder closes, no sense of religious faith justifies his action, only what makes sense to him. A very arguable theory presented throughout the book is the idea of Rodia being a so called "Superman", which constitutes action based on no one but your own personal opinion, whether it be socially correct or not is beside the point. Rodia seems to think this way about himself, and believes everything he does is correct, even the murder of Aloyna and Lizaveta is dubbed a service to society in his eyes.

Here is where I take a break from the piece of literature, and begin the background of Dostoyevsky himself. I know, from his past, that he was a very reasonable and secular man, but while he was writing this book he was evidently influenced by the Christian religion. From personal experience, in a time of drastic change such as this, the passion that he feels internally for his newfound faith overflows into his literature.

In this light of reason contradicting faith, Dostoyevsky uses the journey of Rodia to prove that reason can only get you so far in life, and through Rodia's physical and emotional struggle, he eluminates the idea of the feebleness of reasoning. He never once makes decisions or places faith in someone else, he only goes off of what he believes is correct. This shows the naiivity of the absense of faith in life, whether that be through relationships or religion. His isolated nature hints at the idea that he believes in the irrelevancy of connection and support of others.

Towards the latter part of the story, however, Dostoyevsky begins to introduce biblical allusions such as the story of Judas scene. This ushers in the idea of faith into Rodia's life, and though reluctant to cling to such an intangible concept initially, he comes to realize that through faith the road to redemption can begin.

I think its important at the very end that Rodia reads the bible before he turns himself in to the police to show his shift of allegiance from self sufficiency to the benefits of self dependance, because no one can do it all in life, we all need somebody (or in the argument of faith, something) to lean on. Dostoyevsky leaves the reader with the symbolism of the bible Rodia possesses, representing a path to rebirth and reconciliation for what he has previously done. It is evident that Rodia struggles with this shift as even at the final part, he questions what he's doing and needs the help of Sonia to finally turn himself in, and begin the road to forgiveness internally.

Overall, Dostoyevsky addresses his theme that both faith and reason may coexist, but to merely cling to one in neglect of the other only leads to destruction. Towards the end, the final concept of rebirth helps show that he believes both are necessary to effectively survive, but faith reigns supreme over reason. Reason can lead you astray because the human mind is sinful in nature, but having faith to cling to in times of trouble, as well as times of prospering, is the only chance we have of living a righteous and respectable life.

In "King Lear" the frequent battle between faith and reason is prominent. Lear leads his kingdom, and most follow him blindly. Most trust that what his decisions entail are for the best, and for that reason they entrust an aspect of faith upon the King. Whether Lear's overall decision is correct or not, most follow without question. Some, that oppose this sometimes illogical faith base, believe that at times the reason behind his decisions has overrided the faith, and revolt occurs. Cordelia feels that her father's damand for proclomation of affection is unjust, and because it is illogical she goes against the tide. Shakespeare emphasizes throughout the play that faith is only reasonable to a point, and at times reason must take over to make decisions. In this case, I would conclude that Shakespeare agrees faith is foolish, and reason is the only path to a just life. One reason this may happen is because people put faith in a naturally sinful man, as all are. When they held this faith in a corrupt source, they themselves becamce corrupt. Following man is only to result in treachery, so logic and reason is the only way to oppose this majorly illogical standpoint of entrusting your life to a man. I think Shakespeare addresses the line between faith and reason well. He alludes to the idea that faith is completely beneficial, such as the faith it took Cordelia to express to oppose Lear's demands. But faith can only benefit to a certain degree, at times your conscience must take over and oppose faith if it is in the wrong light.

Oedipus Response to Big Question. 09.11.11.

Oedipus inadvertently touches upon the concept of my question. I think in order to grasp the connection the play has with my speculation sprouts from understanding Sophocles, the playwright of Oedipus. Sophocles, a very influential tragedian at the time was Greek. As proven throughout history, Greeks practiced a very strong faith in the supernatural, and religion was a daily routine of practice. Gods were revered with such importance that most plays, such as Oedipus, were created to honor the Gods, such as Dionysus at an annual event. Even the success of farming, an important source for food, was majorly attributed to the favor of the Gods at the time. Evidently, Greeks including Sophocles had a very strong religous base in their lives. But how is this belief portrayed throughout the story of Oedipus? The recurring battle between man and the gods (the prophecy) is important in addressing Sophocles' tone towards this subject. Prior to the story, King Lauis hears of the prophecy and abondons Oedipus in an attempt to counteract the prophecy. This resistance to the prophecy of Apollo, a Greek god, ultimately leads to the inevitable death of Lauis at the hand of his own son. Later in the story, as Oedipus stands on the throne of his own father, he denies the words of the wise man as he identifies the murderer of of the King is Oedipus himself. This repeated resistance, and negation of the supernatural and the Gods leads to Oedipus' swift decline and crushing realization that he is the murderer of his own father. Sophocles offers a harsh reality throughout Oedipus that disrespecting the knowledge and power of the Gods leads to devastation to all.

This evidence leads me to believe that the story of Oedipus demoralizes disrespecting the supernatural, and emphasizes the superiority of religion over reason.

Big Question Proposal. 08.25.11

What is the origin of our universe? Researchers spend many tedious years of their lives dedicated to answering such a question, but some are baffled by the never ending possibilities that could potentially explain how our universe, even our world, suddenly sprouted out of emptiness into it's present splendor. What standpoint is more logically applicable in explaining our world, reason or faith?

Never has such theories spurred so much controversy than in our present day world. With progressive technology, the majority of the world is trained to believe in reason over faith to explain the impracticality and impossible idea of life in our universe. From the mystery of the universe itself, to how a terminally ill cancer patient suddenly is healed, people need a strong belief in "something" to help shape their personal opinions on how and why things happen. Can reason or faith better explain the perfectness of our world's origin and chemistry? Can an individual believe in reason to explain some ideas, and faith to solve others? Where can the line be drawn between the two, and is there a possibility that they can co-exist to properly explain the mystery of life?

My personal belief has and always will remain in faith as the ultimate solution to everything that we know and things we can’t explain.

I read A Short History of Nearly Everything recently, and Bill Bryson (the author) is brilliant in solving, or attempting to address, the numerous riddles of our world. But which side does he believe credibly accounts for our never-ending questions? Evidently, Bryson seems to side with reason. Most tend to hover closer to reasoning as their explication because faith is tough to grasp, and reasoning is tangible. Some argue it’s foolish to place your beliefs of our world in the hands of something that “You can’t see.” For this very reason, most believe it’s impractical while others argue faith is the only possible way to understand our existence. So which one reigns superior?

Let the brainstorming begin!