Walking, Dead Roots

You can have too little or too much of me. I can hurt you and help you. What am I? If T.S. Eliot were asked the same riddle, his reply would sound something to the effect of, “(insert cryptic reference followed by a second baffling allusion) … Adam’s ale … (insert another mystifying reference just to make it parallel).” The reader would then have to infer after rereading the passage twenty times that Eliot meant water. Because so much of Eliot’s writing in The Wasteland contains references and allusions the audience needs a cipher to understand, the reader often finds it hard to grasp the underlying themes. Even when the audience starts to piece together the puzzle, the remaining pieces seem like round edges trying to fit into rectangular spaces. One instance where Eliot leaves his readers bewildered exists in the water riddle. Drinking water sustains life, but drowning causes death. Consuming too little water leads to dehydration. Nevertheless, water in baptism symbolizes rebirth. Eliot uses water’s contradictory properties in The Wasteland as a symbol of life and death in Western civilization during the 20th century.

            Eliot suggests that though the end of winter and the beginning of spring rains generally produce feelings of life and renewal, spring generates the opposite response in the people of Western civilization. Eliot writes that April consists of “dull roots with spring rain” (4). Because people have become stiffened to life, they essentially act as dull roots. When the rain hits the roots, they do not absorb any water to grow new flowers. Foregoing their purpose on earth, the roots contribute nothing to life; they only take up space and remain subject to nature. Eliot published The Wasteland after World War I, so society was still recovering from war’s trauma, causing the traumatic events to harden people. When happiness did come along, it could not touch people because they were too numb to emotion to recognize the joys of life. Like the roots refusing to absorb water and fulfill their purpose in life, people treated their existence as nothing and rejected any meaning Earth or Heaven had to offer them. Even though Eliot has 20th-century Western civilization in mind, his observations still apply today. Without a purpose to existence, no reason exists to seek self-betterment or to further society. People would just be a bunch of walking, dead roots blind to the renewal and life of spring rains.   

            In the section of the poem titled “Death by Water,” Eliot warns youth to pay attention to their mortality instead of hopelessly following life’s desires. Eliot describes the tale of a young man named Phlebas the Phoenician sailor who died at sea (312-321). When Phlebas died, he entered a whirlpool where “He passed the stages of his age and youth” (317). This sentence suggests that the whirlpool represents the constant motion of life. Even though Phlebas drowned and departed life, his desires continue to drag him around, so he cannot find satisfaction in death. Phlebas’ death results from water, but the water also symbolizes Phlebas’ life. Similar to Western civilization’s muddled view of April rains, the water in this section represents both life and death since Phlebas foolishly regarded life as insignificant, essentially treating life like death. Eliot ends “Death by Water” with the lines, “O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, / Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you” (320-321). The section concludes with a challenge to the youth of the world. Everyone holds the wheel to his or her own life, free to turn it in any direction. Although, as Eliot emphasizes, youth and life do not last forever, so living a meaningful life beats chasing worthless pleasures.

            The most noticeable instance of water prevails in Eliot’s frenzied reiterance of the contradictory nature of life and death in Western civilization. The theme develops in the lines, “He who was living is now dead / We who were living are now dying” (228-229). In both lines, life results in death, providing a bleak outlook on existence. The hopeless perspective repeats itself in the sentences, “Here is no water but only rock / Rock and no water and the sandy road” (331-332). Eliot portrays the lack of water as negative, a sort of destruction that creates a desolate, dead land. Nevertheless, water’s absence does not persist; water finally makes an appearance: “In a flash of lightning. Then a damp gust / Bringing rain” (393-394). Despite water’s representation of death, water comes like a saving grace to the dry land. Even though the people of Western civilization considered life worthless, they seemed to cling to life. Eliot uses the repetition of “Shantih” in the last line of the poem to imply that no matter how much people seek death and destruction, water and life truly do bring beauty and meaning. In other words, a meaningful life results in the peace that passes all understanding.

            Eliot speaks directly to 20th-century civilization, but all of his observations pertain to the current generation as well. Individuals in today’s society walk around like zombies thirsting after their own pleasures, leading to an anxious, unsteady civilization. Eliot frowns upon a Nietzschean perspective that highlights and emphasizes life’s lack of value. Life does not have to equal death. By creating a foundation on Christ, one can base existence on a solid structure and fill life’s void, being born again through water in Christ and experiencing eternal life in Heaven. Philippians 4:7 sums up Eliot’s point: “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (King James Version).

Bitter, Alone, and Underground

A wise professor once said, “Do not characterize someone as crazy until you have just cause.” With those words of wisdom in mind, I began reading Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground with an open mind, refusing to categorize the Underground Man as batty until I stumbled upon justifiable proof. Contrary to popular opinion about the Underground Man’s sanity, I discovered more cause to validate his lucidity than his lunacy. I found the Underground Man to be satisfyingly radical, yet rational and relatable at the same time. His character seemed difficult to simplify, but I finally stumbled upon a fitting classification. Dostoevsky created a character who believes in nothingness, but also recognizes the unattainable somethingness. To put it in academic terms, the Underground Man embodies existential nihilism. Existentialism and nihilism represent similar, but essentially contradictory, philosophies. Existentialism recognizes one’s freedom to create a meaningful life in a meaningless universe while nihilism argues that both the universe and life lack value. Nonetheless, existential nihilism can actually be defined as optimistic nihilism. This philosophical approach suggests that though the world lacks intrinsic meaning, one can create superficial meaning to life. In Notes from Underground, the Underground Man illustrates existential nihilism by acknowledging and rejecting the shallow roles idealistic values play in society.

The Underground Man’s decision to convey his overt consciousness in the form of a mouse provides a judicious example of existential nihilism. Regarding his personal characteristics, the Underground Man states, “if, for example, one takes the antithesis of the normal man, that is, the man of heightened consciousness, who came, of course, not from the bosom of nature but from a retort … this retort man sometimes folds before his antithesis so far that he honestly regards himself as, with all his heightened consciousness, as a mouse and not a man” (Dostoevsky 10). The Underground Man chooses one of the smallest mammals to use as a comparison, which provides a direct reflection of how insignificant he views himself in the entirety of nature. Although the Underground Man perceives himself as minuscule, he still recognizes the small role he plays within society. Even a measly herbivorous mouse holds the ecosystem together by linking predator and plants and sustaining animals of prey. The fact that the Underground Man acknowledges his position in the world, however infinitesimal it may be, suggests existential nihilism rather than simply existentialism or nihilism because he recognizes the somethingness he embodies but does not see it as a position of promotion. The Underground Man’s attitude toward his existence contradicts the way people both within Dostoevsky's time period and in modern society view man’s place in creation, that is, as the dominant figure on earth.

Existential nihilism also manifests itself in the Underground Man’s position on the hindrance and acceptance of the laws of nature. The Underground Man admits, “Nature doesn’t ask your permission … You’re obliged to accept it as it is, and consequently all its results as well. And so a wall is indeed a wall” (Dostoevsky 13). The Underground Man acknowledges the solidity of the laws of nature. After all, a sturdy wall, especially one made of concrete components, provides a barrier that cannot be overcome by a man of mediocre strength. Upon further reasoning, the Underground Man rationalizes, “I won’t break through such a wall with my forehead if I really have not got strength enough to do it, but neither will I be reconciled with it simply because I have a stone wall here and have not got strength enough” (Dostoevsky 13). The Underground Man yields to his incapacity to overcome the laws of nature, thus admitting nature’s hold over man. Nevertheless, he also suggests that nature’s limit on man’s abilities does not utterly negate man’s power. The Underground Man reveals he would not be satisfied with the impossibility of overcoming the wall, permitting himself the power to reason, even if it proves futile. A “normal” man, as Dostoevsky words it, would accept the wall as a wall. Existential nihilism allows the Underground Man to be aware of the wall’s resoluteness, but it does not enable him to be reconciled with the wall’s resistance.

The Underground Man further demonstrates existential nihilism by analyzing and contradicting the principles of mathematics. The Underground Man states, “I agree that two times two is four is an excellent thing; but if we’re going to start praising everything, then two times two is five is sometimes also a most charming little thing” (Dostoevsky 34). The Underground Man concedes to the undeniable fact that two times two equals four. However, similar to his view on the solidity of a stone wall, he disagrees with life being determined by the laws of nature. He believes that man has free will to dispute logic and reason on the basis of not being powerless against natural rules. The Underground Man refuses to console himself with a wall’s durability; neither will he accept mathematical methods solely because they remain established. One indication of existentialism prevails in the Underground Man’s recognition of man’s power to challenge nature. He summarizes his view on man’s capability in this statement: “Consciousness, for example, is infinitely higher than two times two” (Dostoevsky 35). Nihilism also exists in the Underground Man’s ideals because man can believe in irrational concepts like two times two equals five, but it does not grant the surmise any validity against the majority’s belief in reason and order.

Dostoevsky seems to create a character that embraces, with a bitter tongue, man’s superficial desire and need to subject themselves to the caprice of their free will. Notwithstanding, he views the universe as meaningless because the power it contains does not contribute to man’s desires, but only hinders man from overcoming the laws of nature. Readers who scan Notes from Underground on the surface may view the Underground Man as a bit crazy, but dissecting his beliefs sheds light on the basis of his convictions. In the midst of the glories of God’s creation and the profundities of the world, man sometimes feels an overwhelming sense of being a mouse among a herd of elephants. Mankind’s determination to overcome obstacles means that we do not accept a wall as wall, even if it means fighting reason. Not to mention, we argue concrete laws like two times two equals five just for the pleasure of it. So, do not cringe upon finding yourself nodding along to the Underground Man’s relatable claims. It does not mean you will end up bitter, alone, and underground. It just proves that you are a highly conscious being constantly entangled in the struggle between reason and irrationality.

Rossetti’s Love Column

Three women sit in a room and idly chat about their love lives. One wears a mini skirt with a low-cut blouse and ruby-red lipstick. She places her heels on top of the table and speaks of the many men she has loved. Another dons golden hair that falls in soft waves against her rosy-pink cheeks and blue eyes. She speaks in a low voice and gushes about how much attention she receives from the opposite sex and her particular affection for one young man. The third wears faded layered garments with unkempt grey locks loosely fitted into a braid. She describes the life of an old woman knitting needles and still waiting for the right man to knock on her door. These three distinct women can all be found in society today. Though they are different in appearance and have divergent avenues of life, they have one quality in common: they are all hopelessly searching for love. In Christina Rossetti’s sonnet “A Triad,” Rossetti offers the audience three types of women who are pursuing love on misguided paths: a harlot, an object of beauty, and a spinster.

Rossetti uses society’s idea of a harlot to describe the disillusion associated with seeking fulfillment of love through promiscuity. Rossetti introduces the promiscuous woman as the “one with lips / Crimson, with cheeks and bosom in a glow, / Flushed to the yellow hair and finger-tips” (1-3). Though red lipstick holds a reigning position in the world of beauty today, during Rossetti’s era, lipstick was typically seen as a perverse method of seduction. However, most cultures today still consider cleavage-bearing shirts to be inappropriate and licentious attire. The meaning of Rossetti’s phrase “flushed to the yellow hair and finger-tips” seems unclear, but the idea of a “loose” woman suggests a person with unrestrained sexual desires, meaning her passion reaches every part of her body, even her hair and finger-tips. Later in the poem, Rossetti states, “One shamed herself in love” (9). This line connects to the promiscuous woman because she garners a negative impression from society and ignores her moral codes by attempting to find love in various outlets. Though the woman may believe love lies in this precarious mode of living, she never finds true love and ends up feeling lost and empty.

Rossetti capitalizes on the appearance of a beautiful woman to address the vain pursuit of beauty in place of love. In the poem, Rossetti writes, “And one there sang who soft and smooth as snow / Bloomed like a tinted hyacinth at a show” (4-5). A graceful singer has always been considered an emblem of beauty to the world. In addition, fairer complexions, similar to the color of snow, characterize delicate and attractive women. Rossetti also uses the brilliant colors of hyacinth flowers to further describe the woman’s alluring nature. Because the woman has such an appealing appearance, she most likely attracts a lot of male attention, so it should not be surprising to readers that out of the three women, the beautiful one seeks love through marriage. Rossetti states, “one temperately / Grew gross in soulless love, a sluggish wife” (9-10). Since the man only married the woman for her beauty, he neglects her when she grows old and unattractive. The woman dwells in soulless love because the man’s love for her was only skin deep and did not involve her heart.

Rossetti depicts the life of a loveless old maid to illustrate the negative effects of a life in sole pursuit of love. Rossetti says, “And one was blue with famine after love, / Who like a harpstring snapped rang harsh and low / The burden of what those were singing of” (6-8). The spinster may have had previous experiences with affection, but she never found true love. The phrase “blue with famine after love” suggests that she dwells in old age, dismal from the shortage of love in her life. Because of the old maid’s lack of love, her demeanor becomes bitter and aggrieved. Rossetti chooses to compare the resentful maid to a broken harpstring since the harpstring makes a “harsh and low” sound when it snaps, similar to the woman’s harsh outlook on love. Rossetti writes, “One famished died for love” (11). The woman famishes during the “famine” she experiences because of love’s absence. The old maid spent her entire life seeking love, wasting her limited days on earth and eventually died in vain before finding fulfillment.

Though Rossetti does not make it clear which one of the women “droned in sweetness like a fattened bee” (13) and which two “Took death for love and won him after strife” (12), the reader can decipher the possible meaning. The harlot could be the bee since she seeks love in many sources, filling herself with the sweet juices of deception dressed as affection like a bee growing fat from collecting pollen and nectar from countless flowers. The beautiful woman might have mistook the man’s love of her appearance for love of her soul and left life an unloved woman when her beauty faded. However, Rossetti does make it evident that the spinster died in hopeless search for love. Though all three women looked for love in different ways, Rossetti states that they were “All on the threshold, yet all short of life” (14). Because all three women tried to find love on misguided paths, they inevitably discovered themselves at death’s door before stumbling upon true love. Rossetti’s poem offers her readers harsh realities and applicable advice about love. Love cannot be discovered in sex or beauty, and a life should not be wasted in sole pursuit of love.

I Caught Happiness in a Net

1. Life seems to be a collection of things. A collection of knowledge. A collection of memories. A collection of coins.
2. I feel transparent. Can they see what I am thinking? I feel transparent. Do they know who I am? I feel transparent. It might be time to move somewhere else.
3. Introverts strive to become extroverts. Extroverts attempt to become introverts. Then there are extroverted introverts and introverted extroverts. If every introvert and extrovert were comfortable in his or her own skin, the world might be able to arrive at a happy medium, but then again, some individuals do not fit either mold.

No matter what boundaries and rules people try to place on the world, there will always be exceptions and gaps in the perimeter. Because of this inconsistency, the law will need to be broadened and adjusted to account for all individuals.

4. What if you could bottle happiness and take it anywhere you desired? Would you choose to take it with you or let it free at a bump in the road?
5. Maybe if the future seems inconceivable, it will not happen. At least, destiny will not happen according to plan. Man struggles to conceive concepts and ideas that only the infinite knowledge of God can comprehend.

Man’s carnal future exists in the world, and God has the world in His hand. Man’s eternal future also derives from God, so why should man worry over the future, which proves ungovernable?

6. Greatness exists in the most mundane things.

A door lock consists of a series of thin metal pins. The metal pins are broken up into two separate sets: an upper set and a lower set. A set of small springs keeps the pins in place. Every lock has a distinct pin length and pattern. When someone inserts the correct key into the lock, the pins lift, opening the door. And who would have thought it was just a lock?

7. People resemble bugs persistently running into glass windows. The bug can see where he wants to be, but he cannot figure out how to make it to the other side. He just keeps running into the same spot over and over again.

In the same manner, people see their end goal, whether that be happiness, love, or success, but the means to reach the goal appear obscured by unforeseen barriers. An individual can achieve a goal by identifying the obstacle and locating the window God has open in the his or her life.

8. People adapt their personalities, attitudes, and moods to accommodate their surroundings. This adaptation seems ordinary, but upon deeper reflection, it casts an unsettling shadow on an individual’s true identity. Who are people really? To a friend, I may be witty and cheerful, but to my professor, I might be perceived as reserved and cordial.

An individual’s authenticity exists within themselves. Even so, another problem arises. How can a person know his or her own identity when it has been warped by habituation for so long? Am I all of the characteristics I pretend to be, or are all of the traits I have developed attributes of my environment? If I do not know who I truly am then other people cannot claim to know my identity either.

9. I am floating upstream. I do not know how, but I am floating upstream.
10. I caught happiness in a net and put it in my butterfly jar. I could hear happiness try to escape as it beat its wings against the lid. I walked around the earth for awhile with happiness in my jar. With every step I took, the beating of happiness’ wings grew louder and stronger. I struggled to contain happiness in the jar against the wings’ power. I wanted to keep happiness there, but the beating became unbearable. I unscrewed the lid, expecting happiness to fly into the wind, but the jar was empty.
11. The human mind so easily falters under the weight of the world. The fragility of the mind does not always hinder the person. Sometimes it provides a gateway for emotion and action that further propels a person to accomplish more in life.
12. When eyes wander upon me, I would hope that they see deeper than skin and farther than trite thoughts. But then again, platitude phrases are not overly displeasing, are they? Terms and expressions have greater depth than surface level, so perhaps pretty and smart are adequate enough for now.
13. To fully comprehend my revelation, the geometric concept of a rectangle being an elongated square must be understood first. With that in mind, college generally takes the shape of a square building filled with square rooms and square desks where students write on square sheets of notebook paper. This square phenomenon extends beyond an arbitrary circumstance; instead, it establishes a methodical pattern.

It almost seems like college encourages students to think inside the box. The same defining boundaries exist in life. A stereotypical house consists of a rectangular structure with square rooms and rectangular rugs. People read rectangular books and sleep on rectangular beds with rectangular pillows.

Creativity exists in the realization that there are other shapes in life. A whole world of opportunities lies outside society’s defined lines. Life, if people allow it, has the potential to be a freethinking environment with architecturally different rooms and contrasting environments where thoughts and ideas bounce off walls and continue flowing through the atmosphere instead of becoming stuck in the corner of conformity. People should take advantage of the triangles, circles, and maybe even octagons life

offers.

Wading into Satirical Waters

        Let me start out by confessing: I love satires. I was first introduced to satires in middle school, where my history teacher thought it wise to expose eighth-graders to the likes of George Orwell in Animal Farm. In my naivety, I proclaimed to have a vast comprehension of the text and everything it embodied. Little did I know, there was more to it than a cute story about animals overthrowing people. It was not until high school when I came across Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal when I truly began to understand and fall in love with satire. I am not sure whether it was the brilliancy of the work or the shocking proposal of eating babies that garnered my attention, but nevertheless, I waded into the satirical waters. Even now, after years of reading satirical works of art, I cannot admit to having fully grasped the complexity of satires. In reading Voltaire’s Candide, I was not aware that it was anything more than an unusual narrative until halfway through the text. I initially blamed my misunderstanding on the stress of the semester, but the truth prevails, Candide certainly demonstrates itself to be a dense satire. In Candide, Voltaire exposes many different societal inconsistencies, specifically those regarding religion, war, and wealth.

        In various instances within the text, Voltaire uses satire to cast a negative light on religion. In one example, Candide runs out of provisions, but he does not worry since the country seems to be full of Christians who will readily adhere to the Bible’s doctrine of charity and provide him with life’s necessities. However, upon addressing a protestant minister, the minister asks Candide if he believes the Pope to be the Anti-Christ. Like any man inflicted by hunger pains, Candide replies, “ ‘whether he be, or whether he be not, I want bread’ ” (12). In response to Candide, the preacher says, “ ‘Thou dost not deserve to eat,’ … ‘Begone, rogue; begone, wretch; do not come near me again’ ” (12). In this particular scene, the protestant orator does not agree with Candide’s religious differences, so disregarding all biblical principles and his previous sermon regarding charity, he casts Candide away on the street to starve. Voltaire seems to be identifying the hypocrisy present among certain religions. He singles out the ongoing feud between Protestants and Catholics by exposing the lengths that each religion takes, even so far as disobeying the principles they are founded on, in order to undercut each other. Voltaire continues to expose more than just religious inconsistencies.

        Voltaire ridicules war by unemotionally relaying its horrors. Candide, drafted to fight by the Bulgarians, describes the war scene as “heroic butchery” (10). The words appear to be an oxymoron, but upon further reflection, the reader begins to see it as an accurate analysis of war. War, though an emblem of patriotism, leads to the unwarranted death of many people. In analyzing the wasteful nature of war, Candide ironically observes, “The cannons first of all laid flat about six thousand men on each side; the muskets swept away from this best of worlds nine or ten thousand ruffians who infested its surface. The bayonet was sufficient reason for the death of several thousands” (10). Voltaire removes men from behind the actions in order to desensitize the brutality; instead, he attributes the executions to the weapons themselves. Through this desensitization mechanism, Voltaire actually increases the reader’s awareness of the needless, destructive nature of war. Voltaire’s full-frontal attack on societal issues extends beyond the scope of religion and warfare.

        Voltaire uses the Utopian land of El Dorado in order to address society’s vain aspirations for wealth. Candide and his traveling companion Cacambo arrive in El Dorado, where they first come across children playing with stones from the land composed of gold, emeralds, and rubies. Candide and Cacambo later discover that the jewels do not hold any worth to the citizens of El Dorado since they come from the “pebbles” and “yellow clay” of the kingdom (66, 73). El Dorado appears to be an ideal place, filled with happiness and riches beyond measure, but Candide and Cacambo still resort to leaving the seemingly perfect land in search of other glories. Through this example, Voltaire attempts to convey to the reader the futility of living life in sole pursuit of wealth by showing how El Dorado thrives in happiness without the vain desire for riches. Voltaire also reveals that even when a person gains the wealth of the world, human desire still remains unquenched. The riches that Candide and Cacambo brought from El Dorado into the outside world also seem to dwindle rather quickly, and it ends up bringing them more trouble rather than helping them along the way. Through this, Voltaire seems to suggest that wealth has a short lifespan and proves ineffective in making life easier.

        Voltaire’s Candide certainly unveils many inconsistencies within society. The topics he brings to light continue to reflect the controversies present in our society today, such as those regarding religion, war, and wealth. Even though Voltaire’s exaggerations within Candide give rise to an unlikely plot, Voltaire manages to capture his audience’s attention and thus bring them to consider these issues from a different perspective. I may not have fully grasped every concept Voltaire put forth, but the text provides me with a unique looking glass to use in viewing the world around me. Candide proves itself to be another satirical piece worthy of adding to my ever-growing satirical book collection. This book has allowed me to move from wading ankle deep in the satirical waters to being fully submerged.

Spoon or Fork?

My friend and I once had a riveting discussion about whether mashed potatoes should be eaten with a fork or a spoon. She firmly believes that mashed potatoes should be eaten with a spoon because reason suggests that soft foods fall through the cracks of a fork. I am convinced that mashed potatoes should rightfully be eaten with a fork because I have complete faith that the solidity of the potatoes will maintain itself on top of the fork. My friend and I have yet to resolve this conflict; we just settled on the conclusion that as long as the potatoes can be consumed, our differences of opinion remain irrelevant. Similar to this argument, the dual philosophers and mathematicians Blaise Pascal and Renè Descartes share a difference of opinion about certain elements of the world. Even though both Pascal’s Human Happiness and Descartes’ Discourse on the Method ultimately land on the same conclusions, their thought processes widely differ.

        In order to understand why Pascal’s and Descartes’ outlooks conflict with one another, we need to first understand how each of their personalities shape their thinking. Pascal’s approach to understanding humans demonstrates itself to be slightly more pessimistic than Descartes’ method. Pascal states that even though man proves to be “nobler than his slayer,” he still remains the “weakest in nature” similar to a “thinking reed” (21, 54). Pascal seems to be saying that just like a reed, humans can be swayed by external circumstances and remain subject to chance. Pascal’s way of thinking directly contrasts with Descartes’ idea that man proves himself superior by being able to discern the truth and being “so secure and certain” in truth “that it could not be shaken by any of the most extravagant suppositions” (28). Descartes believes in the infallible nature of man. Unlike Pascal, Descartes remains convinced that humans prevail over external circumstances and can make rational decisions all on their own.

        Pascal’s and Descartes’ opinions about the relationship of the mind and body also directly contradict each other. Pascal firmly supposes that “The way in which minds are attached to bodies is beyond man’s understanding, and yet this is what man is …” (54). When Pascal states that “yet this is what man is,” he indicates that even though man cannot perceive of the intertwinement of mind and body, mind and body still exist together within man. Descartes takes the opposite approach by positing that the mind “… is not sufficient to be lodged in the human body like a pilot in his ship, except perhaps to move its members …” (48). Descartes not only believes that the mind exists separate from the body, but he asserts that the mind would not even function properly if it was present in the body. Even though Pascal and Descartes have opposing viewpoints about the mind and body, they both still come to the conclusion that whatever the relationship, each entity must fulfill its purpose in man.

        Pascal’s and Descartes’ primary disagreement hinges on the emphasis of human senses versus the emphasis of human reason. Pascal remains a staunch supporter for the power of human senses. He theorizes, “Imagination. It is the dominant faculty in man, master of error and falsehood …” (3). Pascal rejects the popularly preached doctrine that reason holds the position as man’s governing force and suggests that man’s sense of imagination dictates his actions. Pascal rationalizes this theory by stating, “Reason may object in vain, it cannot fix the price of things” (4). Pascal’s statement gives imagination the power to set the worth of anything man encounters, robbing reason of man’s leading faculty. In a discordant manner, Descartes asserts, “ … because our senses sometimes deceive us, I decided to suppose that nothing was such as they led us to imagine it to be” (28). Descartes’ supposition seems to be a full-frontal assault on Pascal’s ideology. Descartes believes that the senses, such as those related to imagination, prove themselves overly fickle, so they do not offer a foundation solid enough for man to rely on when perceiving the world. Instead, Descartes places confidence in reason’s ability to discern truth from falsehood through doubt.

Pascal’s emphasis on human senses and Descartes’ emphasis on human reason lead them to have conflicting views as it relates to theology. Pascal ventures to prove the existence of God through faith rather than reason. Concerning the question of God’s existence, he affirms, “Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong” (66). Instead he believes, “We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or whether he is. That being so, who would dare to attempt an answer to the question?” (65). Pascal’s basis for believing in God roots itself in man’s incapacity to know through reasoning whether God exists, alternatively stressing faith that God exists without innate knowledge. Descartes attests that man is able to discern whether God exists because “… God has given each of us an inner light to distinguish the true from the false …” (24). In this way, Descartes concludes that we can reason that God exists by following the logic that humans are not wholly perfect, so we must derive from a “truly more perfect” being (30). Pascal and Descartes may have taken different routes, but they both arrive at the conclusion of God’s existence.

It would certainly be accurate to say that Pascal and Descartes have incompatible ideologies. Nevertheless, as science would have it, polar opposites attract and almost always arrive at the same point. I would like to think that Pascal and Descartes would make the best of friends, always arguing about which route to take, but making it there in the end. Just like my friend and me, we settled with the fact that as long as the mashed potatoes can be eaten, the question of spoon or fork does not really matter. Though we agreed to disagree, I will always voice my support for the fork.  

Fact Not Folly

     Think of a person, any person. It could be a close associate or simply a fond acquaintance. Now think of every adjective that could possibly be used to describe that individual. Did the word “perfect” happen to be one of those descriptions? Odds are that it was not. If it was, then a reevaluation might be in order because that analysis contradicts with the self-evident truth found in the person’s humanity, the individual's predisposition to faults. Nonetheless, we tend to overlook the faults in people in order to maintain a happy relationship with them. Erasmus addresses this phenomenon in his work titled Praise of Folly. In this satirical piece, Erasmus utilizes the narrator Folly in order to address societal issues in an ironic fashion. One of the social deceptions Folly speaks of lies within the confines of relationships as it specifically relates to friendship, marriage, and family.
     Folly attributes the success of friendship to the presence of, none other than, folly. She confronts this topic by saying, “Just think: winking at your friend’s faults, passing over them, turning a blind eye, building up illusions, treating obvious faults as virtues which call for love and admiration–isn’t all that related to folly?” (33). Upon first coming into contact with Folly’s statement, it may seem that her analysis has not truth to it at all. However, when a reader actually begins to meditate on what makes a friendship last, Folly’s statement morphs into a plausible explanation. Honestly, how else could a person be able to reconcile another person’s flaws in order to achieve a happy relationship except by being under the illusion of the friend’s perfect state? The subtle realization that the friend has faults may even come to mind, but the illusion remains in order for the relationship to sustain itself. Friendship proves not to be the only relationship where Folly rears her head.
     Folly also declares to her audience that she identifies herself as the ultimate arbitrator in thriving marriages. She begins her tangent on the importance of folly in marriage by stating, “Just tell me, please, what man would be willing to offer his neck to halter matrimony if he applied the usual practice of the wise man and first weighed up its disadvantages as a way of life? (20). This statement by Folly has proven to be every bachelor’s excuse for eluding marriage. But what makes someone want to throw away his or her singular status and marry another despite the other person’s faults? How can someone deal with another’s horrible sense of humor or weird birthmark for the rest of life? Folly takes full responsibility and praise for this baffling occurrence. Folly reasons that the love-smitten individual must be under the influence of folly in order to be able to take another’s peculiarities and turn them into charming characteristics. Although, Folly only accepts praise for her part in happy marriages. A breakdown of a marriage can be attributed to an absence of Folly when the mirage that once masked the loved-one’s blemishes has disappeared. Now, what other relationship remains that Folly can claim as her own?
     Folly reveals that she proves responsible for the unquestionable bond between parent and offspring. Describing an instance where the perplexing relationship between parent and child manifests itself, Folly announces, “… a father talks about the wink in his son’s squinting eye–what’s that, please, but folly pure and simple?” (33). It may seem normal for a father to love his son in spite of the son’s imperfections because love should rightly exist within a family. However, love proves to be an emotion set aside from reason, and “all emotions belong to Folly” (45). Mothers and fathers cannot help but think the best of their children because the parents are swayed by the winds of love emanating from our fellow-friend folly. Every person can agree that the illusion manifested between parent and offspring deserves praise because love within a family proves to be a wonderful sentiment.
     Folly seems to attribute an extensive volume of seemingly-natural occurrences to herself. It may appear illogical to credit Folly with the happiness of all relationships like those of friendship, marriage, and family. Notwithstanding, Erasmus does have a point with his use of Folly in addressing these oddities within the world. It leads the reader to question the cause of these peculiarities, and like everything within the world, the origin of all emotions leads to God himself. In fact, Genesis 1:27 of the Bible says that we are created in God’s own image. Our emotions originate in our Creator, and that proves to be a fact not folly.