Schwartz?

Schwartz?       

        When reviewing the case of Schwartz, my philosopher friends, John Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas and I uncovered some curious and profound metaphysical questions.  Like who exactly is Schwartz? How does he/she differ now from before his/her ordeal?  And will he/she be the same in the future? This paper aims to explore Schwartz’s existence through philosophical examination and is our attempt to answer these questions.

       Almost immediately John Locke declared that indeed if Schwartz’s memories have been transplanted from one body to another then Hylomorphism (a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle that views “being” as a combination of form and matter.) must be false because Schwartz proves that mind and body can be separated into discreet existences.  He also states that regardless of the body the mind will believe it is the same self it was before the accident because all the memories of past experiences remain unchanged. And sensory input would not change much either with a new body.  A flower would still be recognizable, red is still red, a bell still sounds like a bell and so on. Even though the accident and subsequently the operation would add to the experience of the mind and shape the self dramatically it wouldn’t force Schwartz into accepting an entirely new identity.  Simply put; time and experiences change everyone but it doesn’t mean they are not the same person.

       St. Thomas Aquinas replied that without the operation Schwartz would not even exist and therefore mind and body can only exist, as a whole, in relation to one another. He continued by stating that both of the two individuals that comprise Schwartz would be, or were considered dead and incomplete as a person without their respective mind or body functioning.   St. Thomas contends that it is unnatural for humans to exist without a body because the soul is incomplete without the body just as the body is inanimate without the soul.  Although Schwartz retained memories of the past life, St. Thomas insists that, Schwartz is a completely new person having undergone a second birth of sorts.  The operation forced a soul into an unfamiliar body meaning mind and body had different physical experiences.  Aquinas believes that memories of physical injuries and scars that don’t exist on the new body, as well as those that do without any such memory, would only prove to influence Schwartz to accept his/her new identity as different from before the accident. 

       Locke made some very interesting points with his arguments.  However he can’t prove that while mind and body are separate they can still function independently of one another.  While we know the mind can store and retain memories outside the body we don’t know if it can function properly without sensory input or if it can gain any new memories while separated from the body.  Although I agree that all people change or evolve over time with experiences, Locke has no way to prove that changing the body wouldn’t profoundly affect the mind or alter its’ perception of self. Making his argument unsound.

       St. Thomas on the other hand seems to contradict his own religious beliefs by suggesting that the soul is incomplete without the body (and vice versa).  To which I ask; what about Jesus Christ?  Was he incomplete when his body died?  Isn’t God without a physical body?  And angels?  What of them?   Seems like an invalid argument to me.  However his belief that the injuries and scars obtained through physical experiences would influence the mind into accepting an entirely new identity doesn’t seem that farfetched.  But his argument that Schwartz wouldn’t exist without both the mind and the body is both valid and sound. 

       So who is Schwartz?  Schwartz is definitely a person because it possesses both a mind and a body.  The memories Schwartz has will ultimately influence his/her person more so than the body in which the mind inhabits simply because it has no other information upon which to draw conclusions from.  Schwartz can only make use of what is stored in the memories it has access to.  The body may have some ability or limitation the new mind is not aware of but the body need not know the IQ of the mind to function at peak performance.  This leads me to believe that Schwartz, and indeed the self, is the mind more than the body. 

      Now is Schwartz the same person he/she was prior to the accident and operation, obviously there is some ambiguity there but the short answer is no.  A change as profound as replacing the mind or body with another, especially of the opposite sex, will undoubtedly change a person’s perspective and perception.  Gender is a big part of self-identity.  And to suddenly find ourselves on the other side of the fence would force anyone to reevaluate their opinion on the opposite sex.  But gender aside the entire experience would cause most of us to question everything we knew about reality, self and religious beliefs.  So one must come to the conclusion that Schwartz will never be the same person he/she once was but will also not be a completely new person because the mind possesses information, memories and feelings attained before the accident occurred. 

What is Justice?

What is Justice?

      It is from behind the “veil of ignorance” proclaimed by John Rawls, basically meaning without identity or not knowing who you are, that I must give the general principle/s of “justice” which should be used to govern society.  This philosophical inquiry overlaps into several areas; requiring the examination and thought given to ethics, political philosophy (politics) and possibly even logic.

       Without knowing who I am, my social status, wealth, age or gender I believe I would agree with John Rawls in that I would foremost want to be guaranteed fair treatment and opportunities to succeed in a society.  I also like the way John Stuart Mill defined liberty and I find it to be remarkably similar to the ideas written by Thomas Jefferson in “The Declaration of Independence.”   They both were influenced by John Locke because they insist that there are basic human rights that need to be protected; an idea first put forth by Locke that he called “inalienable personal rights.”   These are rights that all people have.  They are needs that must be met in order to live and maintain a functioning society.  Mill adds a boundary on these rights by stating that they shouldn’t harm another or infringe on the right of others. I also tend to agree with Rawls concept of “justice” because he believes that truly “just” means it must be truly “fair.”  The two are one-in-the-same or intrinsically linked.  Social utility is the core principle of social justice according to Mill.  Social utility is basically like democracy in that it’s a majority rule type system by defining justice as whatever “creates the greatest social benefit for the greatest number of people.”(Chaffee570)  This seems fair at first, until realizing that a majority of people can be disillusioned, deceived, misinformed and uniformed by means of manipulation and propaganda.  That sort of thing could and most certainly has led to unjust action and choices.  Unfortunately this allows for potentially large portions of the population to feel unfairly treated and that justice did not occur. 

       I find Rawls concept of “justice” to be both a sound and valid argument because to be fair is to be just and to be just is to be fair.  I simply cannot find or think of an instance where they are not one in the same.  I do not find Mill’s social utility to be quite as convincing an argument.  There is no proof that the fairest course of action is always the most popular.  Mill did make some very good points about liberty that are valid.  His insightful idea to include free thought and expression undoubtedly laid the foundation for the “Bill of rights” in the American “Constitution.” He also insisted that one has the freedom to exercise these rights as long as they don’t harm anyone else or infringe in any way on another’s rights.  These are both important ideas when considering “justice” in a society.   John Locke’s “inalienable personal rights” concept has validity in that it means that no one person should hold the power of life and death over another.  No one should be denied the ability, opportunity or necessary resources to survive. 

        I would create a just society by governing on the principles of rights and liberty and equality and fairness with each individual having the freedoms to engage in any form of activity they so choose as long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others, whether purposefully or otherwise.  These same rules would apply to corporations and governments organizations alike.  Some particular instances where it is necessary due to location and resources for some people to suffer relocation or seizure of property for the greater good should be duly, fairly, timely and completely compensated.  In order to prevent the prediction of Karl Marx we would not use a monetary system.  Monetary systems are inherently flawed and have only proved to promote greed.  Greed compels and tempts individuals to do immoral or unethical practices often leading to the unfair treatment, violation of rights and harm of others. With term limits on policy makers, proficiency tests and equal representation, laws would be fair and just.  In a just society, taxes would be evenly spread out by the use of resources.  Those that use more and consume the most put more strain on the society and system.  Therefore they should be required to pay more especially if those resources are used for profit.  The consequences for violating laws should be fair and swift.  All penalties for violations are the same regardless of any status.  There are no exceptions.        

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson

Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Ethics and Morality

Another Fantasy Discussion About Ethics and Morality

        When it comes to situations as serious and complex as the philosophical issues of morality and ethics that must be considered in these types of cases, I often find myself incapable of making any decision without council.  For this reason I have consulted with both Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.  Here I recount our discussion and deliver my conclusions based on its content.

        I start the conversation by simply asking, “In general, what does it mean to act ethically?”  After a moment of thought, Kant opens up and replies “To fulfill the moral duties that all people in all situations should follow.”(Chaffee461)  Nietzsche laughed in response insisting that what we are talking about is really what he calls our “will to power”.(495)  He continued by reminding us he has always maintained that the ultimate moral good is simply the individual imposing his or her own values on to others by means of exerting their own will to power to its extreme potential.  I thought about this for a few moments before asking them to relate their philosophical theories directly to these three particular cases.  Kant said that all three are instances of individuals not acting morally or as they should be.  Nietzsche laughs again at my ignorance and states that it is obvious that all three cases are about one individual trying to impose his or her own will to power or set of values on the other respective parties.  “Thank you,” I said to them both as I shook their hands, “I have some thinking to do.” 

         As I began considering our discussion I had to side with Nietzsche and his belief that all three cases did seem to involve one person forcing their own will or morals onto another in some way.  However Kant throws a broad net when he stated that people act ethically when they fulfill moral duty and implying that moral duty is what all people should follow in any and all situations.  But define “moral duty”?  Is it what’s best for the individual or for all?  It almost seems to suggest a “gut feeling” type of reaction.  Some situations and circumstances are not easily determined as to the morally correct thing to do.  Indeed it can get rather complicated.  Overall it does make for a sound argument. On the other hand, Kant’s theory allows a set of universal morals by which most of us believe in and live by today.  Unfortunately it is Nietzsche’s theory that seems to be on to something.  When applying his theory to history it is apparent that people have always forced and imposed their values, morals, beliefs, ethics and religion onto others since we have existed.  So Nietzsche’s argument is, to some degree, valid. 

        After reflecting for some time on the conversation/discussion with my friends Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, and after carefully reviewing the cases before me once more, I have come to a conclusion.  Taking into account Kant’s theory I cannot deny that there are indeed some universal values and morals that all people share.  However I have come to believe that, whether we know it or not, whether intentional or unintentional we do try to force and impose or will and values onto others.  That said, I can see that in each of the three cases there is some kind of moral/s being questioned, broken and/or challenged.  While each situation here brings its own set of circumstances that make them ethical dilemmas, all of them are, in some way or another, both ethical and unethical depending on the morals and ethics of the individuals involved.  This supports the notion that ethics is a set of the individuals’ morals that determines if they act morally.  Moreover it lends credibility to Nietzsche’s theory because the individual always fights for his or her own moral beliefs and ethics to be imposed as law.  They do this regardless of others opinions or values or beliefs.  Everyone believes themselves to be right and everyone else as wrong.  With this in mind I give my verdict on the three cases. So in the case of the medically assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez I say she was not treated unethically because it is the law of the land against it and the law reflects the ethics and morals of the population.  As for the defense lawyer contemplating violating her oath and allegiance to her client, I say she would be acting unethically to do so.  She knew when becoming a criminal defense attorney that she would represent guilty people at some point.  She also has the ability to refuse or step aside as this man’s attorney.   And finally the case of the animal testing and reported cruelty by the university I must agree that, at least in this instance, the testing is not necessary because it cannot prevent the disease from spreading regardless of whether it does or not.  Thus the experiments are unethical. 

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson

A Question of Morality

A Question of Morality

        Should I take a life to save 29 others and risk my own prosecution, or should I allow all 30 people to die and save myself?  A position I wish on no other but also one that overlaps from ethics to religion to politics.  Realizing my ignorance, I consulted two of history’s greatest thinkers, Ayn Rand and W. T. Stace to help me sort out this mess. I asked them “[Given the situation], what is the morally correct thing to do?”

        Rand replied that because the situation is unique and beyond my control that I could choose either way and arguably still be a moral man.  But he continued by stating that even if I chose to act only in my own self-interest I would still be acting morally.  Suggesting that if I chose to allow all 30 people to die just to protect myself against prosecution at some later time, that I would be acting morally.  W. T. Stace agrees with Plato but only because morality is relative more than universal and as he states, “…some moral values are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures.” (Chaffee 419)  Ayn Rand says Altruistic Morality is noble but “…although it may be possible for humans to act in a way that sacrifices their own self-interest, it is immoral to do so.”(428)  Stace concluded the discussion by saying; “Moral right means what people think morally right.  It has no other meaning.” (421)

         When reflecting on our conversation, I began to understand what Stace was trying to suggest.  He made me think of the religious side of things by suggesting that regardless of the situation, the act is immoral and probably all the same in gods’ eye.  While Ayn rand really made me think that self-preservation is neither shameful nor immoral.  Rands’ perspective allows for an individual to make selfish choices without guilt.  We always seem to recognize, honor and award selfless acts.  As well as celebrate those who do them - sometimes even elevating them to hero status.  However we all know many successful people who have made many selfish decisions.  Choices that have served them well I might add.  But I doubt I could ever live with doing the act itself and would forever be filled with regret.  Possibly even be filled with regret regardless of the choice I make.  According to Stace it is all subjective and simply a matter of perspective.  Meaning each situation or decision has its own morally correct choice.

        Making a decision in this matter is an unbelievably hard thing to do, even after discussing it with some very intelligent philosophers.   Considering the fact that this is not my culture I don’t believe it is my place to make judgements on their morals, values and/or beliefs.  That said, I must also live by my own moral code as well as take into account the laws of land I call home.  It reminds me of the old cliché; when in Rome – do as the Romans do.  I cannot take that advice this time.  I do not believe I can take a person’s life with my own hand unless given proper reason.  I can find no such reason for me to be involved at all.  While I have been given this opportunity to be a part of this ceremony, I must respectfully decline the honor.  My choice is to allow the proceedings to continue as though I were not even there.  I must look past my involvement and realize that this sort of thing happens here all the time.  And that the people chosen on this day, at this time had nothing to do with me or my presence here and would likely have been chosen for execution anyway.  Even if I decided to try and save 29 lives by taking one, how long would it be before those 29 were again chosen to be executed?  These are the reasons I give to remove myself and allow things to unfold as they would without me.  It is best to observe and comprehend before either becoming involved or passing any judgements.  

 

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed.  

City University of New York, Pearson

Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Reality

A Philosophical Discussion About Reality

        I dreamt that Leucippus, Democritus and I entered an enlightening metaphysical conversation while enjoying an orange on a casual stroll through the countryside.  The entire exchange of ideas began with my querying the great thinkers that although we all agreed the day was perfect and the oranges delicious; were they actually real or sensory illusion?  Is it really a perfect day?  Is the orange really as I experience it to be?  

        As we spoke I realized these questions are anything but simple and require deep thought.  Leucippus began his answer by insisting that the experiences we have are real because the atoms upon which all things are made of are real and indivisible.  He went further by stating that Parmenides once argued that “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.”  And that if true, something cannot come from nothing so therefore all that exists has always existed in one form or another.  Democritus agreed and added that the arrangement of the atoms is what makes things what they are, be it an orange, the sun, the earth or anything.  And that we remember familiar matter arrangements like these things.  He continued by explaining that decay, change and mutability is just the rearrangements of the atoms themselves.  Together they suggest that what we are experiencing is as real as it seems because of the arrangement of not only the atoms upon which these things are made but also the atom arrangement of our own bodies.  We feel and see things as we do because of how we are made.  With both philosophers being of the same mind exclaiming atom theory as the nature of reality, I chose to ponder their argument and reflect upon it by considering the opposing ideas of other great thinkers as well. 

         When thinking about Leucippus and Democritus answer to these questions, I challenged their concept of atoms because they had no way of proving they exist when they came up with idea.  They could not even see an atom.  Now we can and have proven that atoms exist with modern technology but if we use that in our argument then we must also use the fact that we can split atoms as well.  Nuclear fission and fusion are undoubtedly possible.  And thus the idea that atoms are indivisible is proven false.  Unless this is considered just an extreme form of mutability or decay because albeit the atom itself may be destroyed the individual components of which it was made continue to exist and will eventually end up becoming part of another atom making up some other matter.  This reinforces the idea that that matter cannot be created nor destroyed only transformed.  Common understanding and concepts held by people on what a nice day is and how an orange taste and feels support the claim that since we are all made similar than we all experience like things the same way.  

          My exploration and reflection on these questions and the argument posed by Leucippus and Democritus were enlightening but I do believe further analysis through both philosophical inquiry and scientific investigation are required.  That said, based on the information provided, time spent researching and in deep thought about these questions lead me to believe that Leucippus and Democritus were not too far off in their theory and assumptions.  Impressive when considered they pioneered the atom theory long before modern technology could prove some of their ideas correct.  Personally I found that many of the ideas and theories posed by great minds of the past tend to be similar and overlap.  Existing and not existing are similar to duality of worlds Plato referred to as Being and Becoming.  The void between matter is like the unchanging eternal world of Being.  Conversely the world we know that is physical and constantly changing is the world of Becoming.  This relates to the influential philosopher Heraclitus own view that the world is in a constant state of flux (the world of Becoming) but is governed by logos or and underlying intrinsic set of universal laws (the world of Being).  So the conclusion I have come to is that the world of Being lives alongside or within the world of Becoming.  That which exists exists within that which doesn’t.  Matter exists in the void.  One cannot exist without the other.  They are two sides of the same coin.  Atoms drawn together create form.  Which eventually deteriorates or decays but is reused or recycled into another form.  We experience these things as we do because the atom arrangement of our bodies allows us to.  Our senses, which themselves are made of matter consisting of atoms, allows us to distinguish one form of matter from another.  So the day is perfect and the oranges are delicious because they do exist and whether we experience them or not the atoms they consist of are indeed real. 

Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Epistemology

A Fantasy Conversation with Two Great Philosophers

         Another discussion I had with two of history’s great thinkers was in the realm of epistemology also referred to as the Theory of Knowledge.  This time it is both George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant that provide some stimulating conversation and insight on the subject after I posed a single question to them; what can be truly known?  As you will read, this question is extremely deep and difficult for even the most intellectual minds in philosophical history.

       Now if you know George Berkeley, or read any of his work, especially A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, then you would know his stance on the subject is that “to be is to be perceived”.  He restates this argument aloud again as though neither I nor Immanuel Kant have ever heard or read his widely known beliefs before.  Basically his answer is no because truth is just an idea or perception of the sensible world.  While both I and Immanuel agreed that he exposed the flaws or poked holes in (however you choose to see it) John Locke’s  An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, we couldn’t accept perception alone as the only measure of true knowledge.  And I as I pointed out to George Berkeley, God was his ultimate answer to the physical world that he couldn’t fit into his own theory.  Kant countered by insisting that true knowledge comes from using our minds to interpret our sensory experiences and not sensory experience alone.  And that an external, material world must exist in order for our senses to actually be of any value.  “Otherwise,” he continued, “why would we have any need for them or God have endowed us with them?”  I could tell this question bothered Berkeley.  After a few minutes of intense thought, Berkeley finally responded by suggesting that it is the mind that allows the senses to exist because it believes them to exist and uses them to develop perceptions and ideas.  But it was Kant that had the last word by saying that the world of objects indeed exists and our minds allow us to interpret, remember, organize experiment and test our theories to gain a better understanding of the material world and allowing true knowledge to be attainable.

           A long period of silence gave the three of us a chance to reflect on the conversation.  I began to understand why Kant felt obligated to combine the rationalist and empiricist view into a unified theory.  Both were dead ends when followed to their conclusion but I wondered how he could be certain in his assumption that the material world actually exists if other great philosophers were not as convinced.  However I found it equally as hard, if not harder, to accept Berkeley’s answer that nothing can ever be truly known. How can he say that confidently?  How is that statement in itself truly known if nothing can be truly known?  It is a self-contradicting statement and argument.  Also, I wonder how can we contemplate these things forever and never achieve any real or true knowledge about it.  How can verifiable and repeatable results not lend to the validity of certain things being facts instead of theories?   The fact remains that we, humans, have achieved many things based on what we believe to be truths.  We have developed fundamental laws and mathematics that are the foundations for our technological advancement and our civilizations ultimate success.  All of which seem to support the idea that some things are truly known.  

         In conclusion, after reflecting on the conversation with these two highly intelligent men and reviewing several other opinions and theories from a few other notable philosophers on the same subject, I found that some things can be truly known while others may never be.  I say that I honestly found Kant’s theory to be much more likely then Berkeley’s.  Personally I completely believe and hold certain things to be undoubtedly true and no matter how hard we may try to disprove them as true we cannot.  For example water is wet, life exists and the sun is hot and bright. These things are facts not because I or we all experience them with our senses but because we have cannot disprove their existence or end their existence. They are not here simply because I or we experience them or perceive them because we have not always existed and at some point we will all cease to exist.  Yet water will still be here and wet, life will still exist in some form or another and the sun will shine regardless of whether they are experienced by humans or not.       

Hemingway’s Clever Usage of Misogyny

Hemingway’s Clever Usage of Misogyny

            

           When reading literature it is often a good idea to clear your head, keep an open mind and

read without expectation or prejudice.  This is especially true of some authors like Ernst

Hemingway.  A man that wrote with so many symbolic references and hidden meanings it is

virtually impossible to take his work at face value.  It is important to note that, when reading his

work, we don’t overlook his masterful ability to manipulate the reader and almost control the

emotional response to the text.  After reading his very short story titled “Hills Like White

Elephants” I was admittedly puzzled. I couldn’t identify a plot or recognize the theme. At first I

couldn’t see its subtle implications and symbolisms made by the author but after rereading it

several times I did and then found it to be a perfect example of Hemingway’s mastery of his

craft.  Many reviews have been written about this story with some suggesting that it is just

another example or expression of Hemingway’s misogynistic view.  However, it’s my opinion

and the thesis of this paper that his inclusion of, what many consider, misogynistic behavior of

the male character, identified only as “the American” (Hemingway789) in the story, was

intentional and used solely to manipulate the reader into identifying more with Jig, the female

character, and/or her plight. And that is what Hemingway was trying to accomplish and not

necessarily to represent or express his own views.  Regardless of his own personal, almost

legendary, struggles with women.

            First, let’s get a clear definition misogyny.  According to Webster’s Dictionary,

misogyny is the “hatred of women.” (Merriam-Webster, Web).  That definition would suggest

either a male view point or perspective would be presented in the story and that the female would

be more submissive.  However the story isn’t presented this way and according to Nina Baym

it’s quite the opposite when she wrote that the story “…Hills Like White Elephants” present a

woman’s point of view and attribute her plight -…” (p.112-120).  I tend to agree Baym in that

the story is more aligned with a woman’s point of view than a man’s.  Adding only that

Hemingway enforces this purposefully by using the insensitive nature of the male character to

make the reader empathetic to Jig.  Secondly, Jig only shows some submissive behavior in the

beginning but her ability to manipulate the conversation allows her to dominate the conversation.

In my view, if the story were misogynistic in nature then the man’s perspective would be given

more attention but instead we find that it is Jig’s struggle we identify with.  In fact, I would argue

that it is Jig’s struggle that makes the entire story.  It is only possible to view the story from Jig’s

point of view. The argument for abortion combined with his actions and dialogue with Jig make

siding with the male character unattractive to the reader. The man’s name isn’t even given.  That

alone makes him seem less important than Jig.  I believe this is done so that the emphasis is

focused on her not him.  The review “Hemingway’s Women’s Movement” supports this idea

when it points out that “Hemingway’s focus here is on her victimization by her immature lover.”

(Nolan148).  And that “There is little doubt that Hemingway highlights Jig’s maturity and

superiority as he excoriates the selfishness and insensitivity of her companion.” (Nolan148). 

These interpretations are further supported by another in a comparison study done between

Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” and John Steinbeck’s “The Chrysanthemums” by

Stephen K. George.  In it George admits that “The strongest evidence for implied author

sympathy for Jig and Elisa rests with the male-female conflicts within the stories and how

unsympathetically the male antagonists are drawn by the authors.” (George103)  These ideas are

undoubtedly brought forth because the text almost insists that the reader identify with Jig’s

circumstance.  Both physical and emotional through the character dialogue and actions. 

            The dialogue between Jig and her male companion can be hard to decipher even for the

most experienced of readers.  Their conversation is almost entirely implied.  But careful

interpretive and critical reading allows the reader a better chance to pick up on some of the

subtleties. Reading many other reviews of text should help shed some light on any symbolisms

missed.  That said, the story reads almost like a play or as though eavesdropping on a couple’s

conversation at a train station that’s having a few drinks while waiting for their train.  The topic

of the conversation is abortion but that can be rather difficult to pick up on at first until after

reading a few lines into the conversation.  Right from the start the male seems to almost have a

dismissive tone, with his response to Jig’s white elephant analogy about the hills, when he says

“I’ve never seen one.”(Hemingway789).  Which is the first indication of trouble or that you can

really start to notice something is wrong.  As you read on they seem to bicker and the male

continues to push Jig into the abortion by saying things like “It’s really an awfully simple

operation, Jig.”…“It’s not really an operation at all.”(790)  and “I think it’s the best thing to do.”

(790). It’s exactly this insensitivity by the male character that is exposed and used by

Hemingway to make the reader identify with Jig’s plight.  Along with some of her own words

when she states “Then I’ll do it.  Because I don’t care about me.”(791). Again Hemingway

shows empathy to Jig’s situation. This time making both the male character as well as the reader

feel sympathy for Jig’s circumstance. As the story continues to unfold we can see that Jig

actually begins to manipulate the conversation in her favor almost confusing the man.  And by

the end it of the story it is her, Jig, that has the last word. “I am fine.  There’s nothing wrong with

me.”(792). This type of dialogue doesn’t seem consistent with a man expressing his misogynistic

views.  Allowing a woman to have the last word in an argument doesn’t show a hatred of women

at all.  Instead it shows a respect for what she has said or for women in general. 

            The actions of the characters are very few and far between but important none the less.

Remember what I said earlier in the opening paragraph about being careful not to overlook

anything.  So that means that everything must be scrutinized and evaluated when looking at this

short story.  Each action can be very significant and telling in a story this short.  For example,

during their conversation Jig gets up and walks away from the man and towards the hills for a

better view it could suggest her desire to flee the situation and not go through with the planned

abortion.   Or when later when the man gets up to carry the luggage to the other side of the

station it’s on the assumption that Jig will go through with the abortion.  And then when the man

stops at the bar on his way back, from moving the luggage to the other side of the train station, to

Jig for a drink alone it suggests his happiness to be away from her if even for a moment.  He still

had his beer waiting for him at the table with Jig - so there was no real need for him to stop at the

bar except to enjoy a moment alone without bickering with Jig.  Even his thought of the other

people “waiting reasonably” (792) while he has his drink alone shows he is still unsympathetic to

the situation.  He is simply looking past the situation without realizing its’ implication on his

relationship with Jig.  All of this is used perfectly by Hemingway to make the reader sympathize

with Jig and her plight.   Their actions only seem to put more emphasis on the female plight of

abortion and make the male look more antagonistic.  This is not exactly what one would expect

from a man with misogynistic point of view.  In fact I would say it is exactly the opposite of

misogyny altogether. 

            Hemingway clearly used the males’ insensitive, unsympathetic and selfish behavior to

make the reader sympathize and identify with Jig and her plight as a woman in her situation. 

Although abortions may be fairly common even in 1927, when the story was first published, they

are not always an easy decision for a woman to make.  The male characters relentless pressure

and persistence was realistic and only served to help Hemingway in achieving his goal of making

the story more sympathetic to women.  In conclusion, I find the claims of Hemingway’s

misogyny described in other people’s reviews is completely unfounded and/or poorly interpreted.

The story is too inconsistent with the hatred of women definition of misogyny to support such a

claim.  It is not an expression of male dominance over women but more of an acceptance or

validation of the feminine point of view.

Works Cited

‘Surrendering to the Feminine’: Implied Author Compassion in ‘The...by  Stephen K. George.       John Steinbeck and His Contemporaries. Scarecrow, 2007.  p61-67.                                          Rpt. in Short Story Criticism. Vol. 168.  Word Count: 3718.

Hemingway's 'Hills Like White Elephants.'.  Paul Rankin.  Explicator  63.4 (Summer 2005):  p234-237.    Rpt. in Short Story Criticism.  Ed. Jelena O. Krstovic. Vol. 117.  Detroit: Gale. Word Count: 1708.FromLiterature Resource Center.

'Hills Like White Elephants': Lean, Vintage Hemingway.  Kenneth G. Johnston.                   Studies in American Fiction  10.2 (Autumn 1982):  p233-238.                                                    Rpt. in Literature Resource Center.  Detroit: Gale. Word Count: 2097.FromLiterature Resource Center

Feminist Perspective: 'Actually, I Felt Sorry for the Lion.'.  Nina Baym.                                  New Critical Approaches to the Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. Ed. Jackson J. Benson. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990.  p112-120.                                                             Rpt. in Short Story Criticism.  Ed. Jelena O. Krstovic. Vol. 137.  Detroit: Gale. Word Count: 4668.FromLiterature Resource Center

Hemingway’s Women’s Movement by  Charles J. Nolan, Jr. Save                                            Hemingway Review  3.2 (1984):  p14-22. Rpt. in Short Story Criticism. Vol. 190.  Word Count: 5519. From Short Story Criticism Online

Misogyny, Definition of misogyny by Merriam-Webster                                         http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

Hemingway, Ernest.  “Hills Like White Elephants”  The Norton Introduction to Literature  Ed.  Kelly J. Mays 11th ed.  New York:  Norton, 2013.  788-792 Print

My Take on Raymond Carvers' "Cathedral"

My Take on Raymond Carvers' "Cathedral"

    Raymond Carvers’ short story “Cathedral” is not the type of story I ever thought I would

analyze or even read with so much thought. On the surface the story seems like a rather dull yet

different first encounter for the narrator as he and his wife welcome her former, blind and

recently widowed, boss to come visit and stay at their house a night. But after having read it,

I find that the story has more depth to it than that. It is filled with subtle bits of information

that, if analyzed can make the story more complex. For instance, I have come to the conclusion

that the narrator is jealous and suspicious of the true nature of his wife and the blind mans’

history. Is it possible the two of them were a little more involved emotionally and that their

relationship was once romantic.  I believe the narrator is forced to consider that as a possibility.

            I say this for several reasons. One because after only one summer of working for the

blind man ten years ago, “…she and the blind man had kept in touch.” (p.33).  And because he is

blind, instead of using conventional letter writing to correspond, “They made tapes and mailed

them back and forth.” (p.33).  This type of communication takes a little more time and effort.

And admittedly by the narrator “...was her chief means of recreation.” (p.34).  To the point that

he, the narrator, almost seemed annoyed with it when he said “...and of course she told the blind

man about it.” (p.34).  Not to mention this type of correspondence undoubtedly costs more than

a postage stamp to mail. Also, keep in mind that hearing a person’s voice can be a very moving

and powerful thing and is simply a much more personal way to communicate. Especially for the

blind whose other senses are more heightened and attuned than the average sighted individual. 

On these tapes, sent back and forth between the blind man and the narrators’ wife, there were

uninhibited feelings about their lives, marriages and personal feelings. In depth sharing of

marital problems and insecurities can be emotional. Indeed the narrator even admitted that “She

told him everything…” (p.34). Not only did she share everything with him but she also must

have kept her conversations with the blind man very private because the narrator says “Once she

asked me if I’d like to hear the latest tape from the blind man. This was a year ago.” (p.34). 

After all the tapes sent back and forth between the two of them and only once did she want to

share one of them with her husband?  But at that point, the narrator agreed to listen and finally

got to hear part of one tape the blind man had sent.  On it was the blind man’s opinion of him.

Which understandably made him upset for a moment. Although interrupted while listening to it

he never made an attempt to go back to hear the full thing.  However it proves that the narrators

wife had shared private, personal feelings about their relationship. One thing that no one is

particularly happy to find out.  Another thing to note is that she wrote a poem, something she

enjoyed doing, about the blind man which suggests that she also thinks about him. Enough so

that, according to the narrator, “When we first started going out together, she showed me the

poem.” (p.33).  The reason given for Roberts’, the blind man, visit is that he had just lost his wife

Beulah.  Whom, as it just so happens also started out working for the blind man, taking the

position formally filled by the narrator’s wife, the very next summer after the narrator’s wife had

left to marry her high school sweetheart. Soon after beginning employment with him, Beulah and

the blind man married.  So idea that a woman could fall for the blind man that she works for and

helps is not an unlikely scenario and has precedent.  Now, however, the blind man was left alone

and in the house of a close friend that he has spent many hours over the years conversing with

about personal and private feelings.  Rebounds can happen during these types of situations.

Considering all they have shared, I would say it would be almost impossible for the two to not

have a personal connection and indeed some feelings for one another.  The narrator even shows a

hint of reluctance about meeting the blind man by stating that “I wasn’t enthusiastic about his

visit.  He was no one I knew.” (p.33)   This could be interpreted as being partially due to his

closeness to the narrator’s wife and not only because of his blindness. Once the blind man had

came and the three characters were chatting the narrator felt left out.  He shows his frustration

while waiting for his wife to say something about him “But I heard nothing of the sort.” (p.37). 

And again a hint of jealousy when it was “More talk of Robert.” (p.37)

            So the story shows glimpses of jealousy from the narrator about the closeness his wife

and her blind friend Robert have.  It also references how much they know about each other on a

personal level. As well as making it a point that the blind man indeed find love from an

employee that had held the same position his wife held previously.  The narrators depicted

almost like a spectator to their friendship and has some difficulty adjusting to someone knowing

his life, having a relationship with his wife, marriage and himself so intimately from

conversations that he has neither heard or even been a part of.  It only seems natural for the

narrators mind to wonder and question the true nature of the relationship between his wife and

the blind man Robert. 

             

Work Cited

Carver, Raymond.  “Cathedral”  The Norton Introduction to Literature  Ed.  Kelly J. Mays 11^th ed.  New York:  Norton, 2013.  32-42 Print