So It Goes

Is dying for your country in wartime altruistic? Honorable?

Vonnegut feels that war is meaningless – does he therefore believe that it is not altruistic or honorable to die for your own country? I would say no. Vonnegut, through the progression of the characters in his novel is more specifically trying to criticize the men who are sent over to war, and are still clueless about what they are fighting for. With the exception of Edgar Derby, every soldier depicted in Slaughterhouse Five seems oblivious, naïve, child-like- especially Billy. At one point, Billy is dressed in a blue curtain toga; shiny silver boots and has a fur muff. He is also once described as a “flamingo” and Vonnegut is continually referencing how “clownish” Billy is. His point in alienating Billy is to illuminate the foolishness of sending children to war, who don’t even recognize what they are fighting for. David Friedman adequately reflects Vonnegut’s sentiments towards “The Children’s Crusade” in this famous quote:

“The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.”

How can someone be considered altruistic if they die for a cause they didn’t know they were fighting for? I personally don’t think this act is altruistic. War in general, is foolish and romanticized. I think one of the biggest ways war is romanticized is through the thought that it is so honorable to fight and die for one’s country. While I greatly respect the soldiers fighting for my freedom, Vonnegut prompted me to ponder the purpose of war. The answer? There is no purpose, only pointless brutality, destruction of lives, and in the end, you’re only left with “three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves. “

Thick Love

“Love either is or it aint. Thin love aint love at all.”

Was Sethe’s violence to her children altruistic, sacrificial, or evil?

To the unassuming public, Sethe’s gruesome violence towards her children—harming three of them and killing one—would undoubtedly be considered murder. But as Morrison exposes Sethe’s mind, heart and emotions, her intentions are evident.

She killed Beloved to save her.

… from Sweet Home, from slavery, from any pain.

While certainly unnatural, strange and disturbing, Sethe’s intentions can be weirdly understood. But did Sethe truly save her daughter, her Beloved, by killing her? That answer, clear as mud, I’m sure will be debated forever.

In my opinion Sethe’s act was altruistic in the sense that she loved her child so much, she was willing to sacrifice her love and her daughter, to prevent her from experiencing the horrors that she faced at Sweet Home. And while it is understandable that a potent combination of destructive pain, temporary insanity, loneliness and the past prompted Sethe to harm her children, I still question the necessity of her act. Aren’t there other options: couldn’t she have run away with her children to hid? What bothers me even more is Sethe’s lack of regret when reflecting on that horrible day. While she initially suffers in pure ignorance and denial of the reality of Beloved’s apparition, when she finally recounts the story to Paul D, she shows no remorse. She sincerely believed she did the right thing by killing her daughter. How can it be the right thing? I found myself agreeing with Paul D when he reacted to the story with “You’ve got two legs Sethe, not four” indicating the presence of some sort of beast in Sethe that prompted the killing. But from Sethe’s perspective, that beast inside of her was love- passionate, “I’ll do absolutely anything for you” kind of love. Her immense love for her children transformed into a subhuman creature. (Similar to the instance at Sweet Home when Schoolteacher is teaching his nephews about “blacks” and tells them to write “human characteristics” on one side and “animal characteristics” on the other.

This realization led me to the conclusion that,

Love is not always beautiful, but it is never ugly.

The Stranger

I think Albert Camus had many purposes in writing The Stranger. Not only did he expose his feelings towards the meaninglessness of life, the emphasis on the physical world, and the lack of rationality in the universe, but he managed to create a main character so strange and so distant from the reader that allowed for a certain vulnerability and newfound openness. He successfully revealed how quick we are to judge, and the danger of conforming to society's norms. While it is still debatable whether Meursault is a true hero, it is certain that the reader finishes The Stranger with an odd but sympathetic relationship with Meursault, and a greater understanding of the universe.

What is unclear to me about The Stranger, is whether any element of sacrifice is included at all. While Meursault is very easygoing and tends to go along with any plans his friends have, by no means is he selfless. He does things that other's tell him to simply because he has no reason not to. He doesn't help Raymond because he firmly believes in their friendship or in order to save him - he is even somewhat annoyed when Raymond calls him "pal." He helps Raymond with an attitude of "Why Not?" This attitude carries throughout the novel, coming off as apathetic and indifferent. Meursault does not sacrifice anything for anyone- evident in the fact that he is peeved by how long the journey is to his own mother's funeral. Because this novel is written in first person limited, we are restricted to only Meursault's thoughts, making it very difficult to understand the human nature of other characters in this novel such as Marie, Raymond, and Salamano.

Perhaps the absence of any sign of altruism is Camus' way of expressing that he thinks sacrifice, especially religiously speaking, is not necessary to the functioning of society. (this is also seen in the way Camus' portrays the Chaplin as over the top, narrow minded & judgmental.)

While Camus' uncovered many universal truths and exposed the judgmental aspect of human nature, he did not even address the theme of sacrifice. So, in relation to my big question, I began to wonder, can there be a world without the existence of sacrifice?

Redemption

Raskolnikov confesses to Marmeledov early in the text that his murder was of selfless intentions. Yet, when Raskolnikov nears the end of his disquieting journey to find himself, he confides in Sonia that he committed the murder solely for himself – far from an altruistic attitude. So if the main character cannot show this redeeming quality, who can?

Dostoevsky introduces Sonia into the novel just after Raskolnikov’s insincere confession to Marmeledov. The timing of Sonia’s début is very clever, directly contrasting Raskolnikov, a character who is driven by his selfish nature, with Sonia, a timid, humble, sacrificial, selfless young lady. Dostoevsky includes numerous religious allusions; many times implying that Raskolnikov is a Christ like figure. However, it is apparent to me, that Sonia fits this role. She humbly transforms Raskolnikov from his tormented state into a man at peace with himself. Without Sonia’s help, Raskolnikov wouldn’t have confessed or repented of his actions. Most importantly, though, Sonia represents the only altruistic character in the novel.

When I originally came up with my question, I had Christ in mind--who paid for the sins of the world, scorning of shame, not for his own benefit, but for our own. I saw this truly selfless quality in Sonia, who sacrifices her whole life to follow Raskolnikov to the ends of the earth, physically to Siberia, but also metaphorically sacrifices her own self, following Rodya knowing that he may not love her at all. She followed him when he directly told her not to. In the same way, Christ follows us into our darkest hour, even when we think our “dirt” is too shameful for him to witness.

When reviewing Sonia as a character, it is quite ironic that she is a prostitute. She is pictured as the most compassionate and faith-filled character and yet it would seem that her moral choice of selling herself to sacrifice for her family is wrong. Dostoevsky creates this battle inside the reader’s mind for the purpose of illustrating that each of us carries baggage. Every one of us has done things we are ashamed of. But somehow, through religious transformation in Christ, or from a secular point of view, through the transformation of our mind, there is hope. Like Raskolnikov, we can be redeemed.

Ultimately, Dostoevsky was a key author in helping me to uncover the mystery of altruism. Maybe true altruism doesn't exist. Looking through a religious lens, maybe, just maybe, that's a good thing. Because through our imperfections and selfish desires, we are brought low in order to recognize who truly reigns over us.

King Lear Connection

"Sacrificing your happiness for the happiness of the one you love, is by far, the truest type of love." ~Anonymous

King Lear by Shakespeare addresses the idea of altruism in a different way. It accounts for the fact that sacrifice can account for love and is required, but sacrifice does not always lead to love. This is demonstrated in Lear himself: unsure of what love is, but through different sacrifices, he is better able to understand "true" love. (He sacrifices his Kingdom and sanity for his precious girls, receiving little to nothing in return.) For Lear sacrifice is necessary in order to identify if love exists or not.

Goneril's sacrifice went to the extremes. She sacrificed herself and her own sister, by poisoning her, in order to fill her wishes to love Edmund - all which ended in utter destruction, and ultimately death.

Kent's sacrifice seems to be overlooked and underwritten; which is ironic, because Kent's sacrifice seems to me to be the most genuine. After being banished by Lear, Kent degrades his own identity to that of a peasant just in order to remain loyal to Lear and serve him, eventually leading to assumed suicide so Kent could follow his King even unto death.

It is interesting in Lear that love is not evident without some kind of sacrifice. I think that Shakespeare uses Lear to prove that sacrifice is an essential component of love, but often, when we sacrifice in order to obey selfish desires, like Goneril, it amounts to nothing.

So in regard to my big question relating to Lear, I've discovered that you can sacrifice without necessarily being an altruistic, selfless person.

Oedipus: A Square into a Circle...

al-tru-ism [al-troo-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the principal or practice of unselfish concern for or the devotion to the welfare of others, a selfless concern for others ( Opposed to egoism. )

Oedipus is certainly not the best picture of unselfishness. In fact, through his dialoges with other characters, it is evident that he has an egotistical attitude and seems very full of himself (because of his cleverness that helped him solve the riddle of the sphinx.) However, there seems to be a hint of selflessness in his voice as he addresses the city of Thebes at the beginning of the play. He cares for the greater good of his people, he wants the city to recover from the plague. It is obvious in the following quote both Oedipus' self-righteousness blended with the concern for his people and willingness to hear their cry, " Children, I would not have you speak through messengers,/And therefore I have come myself to hear you- I Oedipus, who bear the famous name."

As I thought more about my big question, however, I considered the element of sacrifice more than the characteristic of selfish/selflessness. Does Oedipus' concern for his people manifest itself in the form of sacrifice? Does Oedipus ever put himself aside in order to sacrifice for a different purpose?

Finding the answers to these questions was certainly difficult and frustrating. Like trying to fit a square into a circle, I tried to fit Oedipus into an altruistic mold, one that he surely was not meant to fit in. I found very few redeeming qualites, or public display's of selfless sacrifice. The only example I could think of is included in the background information of the text, not even quoted in the play itself. Oedipus runs away from Corinth, his hometown, where he grew up, where he had friends, and where was taken care of, because the oracle told him he would kill his father. Unknowingly and falsely believing that his father resided in Corinth, Oedipus makes a break for it, to try to escape his fate, in order, he thinks, to protect his father (from the death he would inflict on him.)

Sure, I could stop there, and tell you that Oedipus is, in fact, somewhat altruistic, because he made a sacrifice that he thought would save his (adopted) father and mother from the horrible prophesy of the oracle. But going back to my first post, I realized that sacrificing is only half the battle. The real issue, is if Oedipus' intentions are truely for (who he thinks is) his father, or for himself. Considering this, I would say that Oedpus is not altruistic at all. Running away from Corinth to save his father, only appears to be a sacrifice, when in fact, he must have been thinking of personal gain. In his mind, if he chose not run away, he would have killed his father, and married his mother, which would be horrible for his reputation, something in which Oedipus is highly concerned about thoughout the whole play. (which is funny, because as hard as he tries to run from his fate, he actually runs striaght to it.) I believe that Oedipus' intentions for running away from Corith are more self centered than centered around the good or wellbeing of his father/mother.

Therefore, Oedipus only completes half the equation. He sacrifices his whole life and comfort in Corith to escape his fate, but without pure intentions, he can hardly be considered altruistic.

The Sublime Song

"Once I heard a song of sweetness,

As it cleft the morning air,

Sounding in its blest completeness,

Like a tender, pleading prayer;

And I sought to find the singer,

Whence the wondrous song was borne;

And I found a bird, sore wounded,

Pinioned by a cruel thorn."

There is a legend about a bird which sings just once in it's life. More sweetly than any other creature on the face of the earth. From the moment it leaves the nest it searches for a thorn tree, and does not rest until it has found one. Then singing among the savage branches, it rises above its own agony to out-carol the lark and the nightingale. One superlative song, existence the price. But the whole world stills to listen, and God in the heaven smiles. For the best is only brought at the cost of great pain... or so says the legend.

As I pondered the above poem and the story behind the thorn bird, I imagined a world in which we all acted in selflessness as the thorn bird does. It would be a beautiful world. Which led me to thinking of the ultimate sacrifice that this bird pays in order to save its young. It distracts the predator away from the nest and then impales itself on a bush made of thorns. I stopped in my tracks upon reading this piece of the legend.

How divine a love is this, that a beautiful creature of nature willingly offers its own life to save its young, not seeking fame or attention?

The bird somehow grasps the idea of sacrifice for the greater good: an idea that is so commonly preached in our society, but very rarely acted upon. Which led me to question, Does true altruism exist in the human condition? Or does man sacrifice for others with intentions of personal gain and attention?

The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck did not disappoint in beginning to explain and answer my big question. Throughout the whole novel, O-lan is ready to make any sacrifice needed in order to obey to her husband Wang Lung. Stricken with poverty, and seeing the desperateness of Wang Lung to return to "his earth," O-lan offers to sell her daughter, whom she loves, into slavery. At the time meant giving her beloved daughter into a life of torture and abuse. O-lan's whole-hearted submission to Wang Lung and compliance with her moral duty is truly out selflessness and sacrifice without expecting anything in return. This is the heart of altruism.

Reflecting back to English Literature class last year, I remembered a fantastic article entitled "The Man in the Water." The link for this article from Time Magazine is: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925257,00.html

and I strongly recommend that you read it. It pictures an anonymous man, a hero by all measures, willing to give his own life in order to save countless others. This article alone instilled a strong, stirring hope in me, that humankind is capable of sacrificing all that they are. The most beautiful part of this essay, in my opinion, is that the man still remains nameless.

He is proof that no man is ordinary and that ultimately human compassion knows no limits... It's whether we have the true intentions and motivations to display this type of sacrifice that really matters.