Frankenstein (1818) - Mary Shelley

I love this novel and could not put it down last night - a sign of a very good book.  Impressive that this text was written by a very young woman at a time when there weren't that many female authors.  I was surprised that 'Frankenstein' refers to the creator of the  'Monster' rather to the 'Monster' itself.  I think it is unfair to label Frankenstein's creation as a monster - it strips away the 'humanity' for a lack of a better term of creature.  Henceforth, I will refer to Frankenstein's creation as the Creature.

The longings of the Creature - love, companionship, comfort - these are all longings of all sentient beings.  How easily we as humans dismiss them in other creatures.  How arrogant! I know Frankenstein isn't about speciesism  but as a vegan,  I can't help but reflect upon this topic.  When I say pigs, cows, etc. are social creatures who care about their young, who grieve for their dead, who long for companionship, suffer, love, experience pleasure as we, humans do, I hear remarks like "Oh, you're anthropomorphising the animals."   What a load of ignorance...  Anyone who has spent time with animals know that what I say is true.  I am most certainly not anthropomorphising the creatures.  This is just what life is, be it human or non-human.  Then, what gives us the right to take away these natural longings of certain animals (cows, chickens, pigs, sheep) while we coddle and demand the good life for dogs and cats (within the context of North America)?  None, if you ask me.  We have wilfully turned a blind eye when it suits us and to have the audacity to claim cruelty and inhumanity when the same is done to a cat.

We are in a sense, the God and 'Maker' of farm animals, pet animals, fur animals - we have purposefully deprived these creatures of their natural longings, habitat, etc.  I think most of us empathize with the Creature as we see the longings (humanity) that are in essence the same as ours, even if he is not entirely human yet we turn a blind eye when it comes to the reality of life of an animal born in captivity for the sole purpose of human use. Chatter but no action.  It is depressing to me and some days I despair more than others.

Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us. ― Carl Sagan 

The same can be said about Frankenstein's Creature.

Random thoughts:
1. Who are we to judge that someone is flawed and not worthy of love/life just because we consider them "ugly"?
2. Thinking of Island of Dr. Moreau and the ethics (or lack of) in vivisections and biomedical experiments on non-humans.
3. What right do we have as humans to cause the (unnecessary) suffering of another? (human or non-human)

The Present Age by Søren Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard would have likely thought our time as one that is passionless.  There is much chatter and hype but little action and passion.  In our hyper media and advertised world, it is easy to chatter.  It is disheartening to see uneducated, racist, sexist, speciesist and other biased comments on websites and on social media outlets.  These comments come in often anonymously and with little consequences to the commentators but may have deeper consequences to readers and authors of the websites/social media outlets.

Social media has allowed for passionless inaction within the social justice movement in which there is much publicity and majority support for important issues like economic injustice, animal abuse, the broken food systems, racism, sexism, etc., little is actutally done.  There is just much chatter online but at the end of the day, we generally continue to accept the economic injustice, animal abuse, the broken food systems, racism and sexism of this world without actually actively doing anything about it.

I agree that passion is needed to propel one into action.  Malcolm X said, "Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change."  I do think that there is deep truth in tihis statement.  It is deep passion that propelled me towards veganism and my limited involvement with social justice causes.

In a sense, we feel sympathy for a cause for a brief moment but essentially tune it out of our mind immediately afterwards causing apathy.  In the end, most of us do nothing after learning about injustices in this world.

When one reflects on the lack of passion and on the high passion in 'heros' like Malcolm X, Steve Biko and other activists and ordinary concerned citizens, the tension caused by our lack of action in turn causes endless reflection and is often, at least in my experience, reaffirmed by the public majority - "It's no use.  One person cannot change the world." - you  start to believe in this statement.  There is truth to the statement after all...  Apathy affirmed.  No action.  No passion.

I, too, have been guilty of this apathy.  But also of passion.  Such is the human condition... or is this just something I say to make myself feel better?

I agree that we need to apply our knowledge, that is to act.  I disagree with one of my classmates who said that to publish in an academic journal is to contribute back to society.  Well... let me clarify - there is value in producing and publishing in academia but the reality is that academia is a highly privileged world, available to only a small group in this world.  I am much, much more interested in learning on how to act on a daily basis and how to give back to society at large, not just producing literature for the consumption of a select privileged few, of which I am a part of.  This means figuring out an ethical path in life and in the context of the GLS program, a project that w ill be widely accessible to a greater population than just those privileged enough to be a part of higher education.

2010 Olympics protest

A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful

Just like reason and passion are never really two separate concepts, neither are beauty and sublime two opposing concepts as Burke notes - at least not to me.  While in class, we talked a lot about sublime of the natural world, of losing one's self in nature's vast expanse.  I understand and love that feeling.  It is good to lose one's self sometimes.  There are certainly therapeutic effects of the natural world and of the sublime.  "It's good for the soul." - whatever that means.  I am not sure that it can be put into words.  "Who feels it knows."

What surprised me is that in class, no one talked about the sublime of the "everyday" but rather of being in beautiful natural surrounding and we briefly touched upon sublime from the arts.  Perhaps my definition of the sublime is different from Burke's...   I am not sure but since we talked about the feeling of sublime from music and other art forms in classs, I take sublime to mean the feeling of losing one's self, of great emotion (happiness and pain/terror at the same).  I feel this feeling when I am around Kaslo, my canine companion.  She moves me to great depths of pleasure and sorrow.  I am in awe that such an amazing creature exists, of the immense emotions that stir up in me when I am with her, of the connection I feel to her and other fellow animals on this planet, of how humans are merely one of many, many creatures on earth (insignificance of the human-animal in the bigger scheme).  If this is not the feeling of the sublime, then I don't know what is. This sublime feeling that I have when I am with Kaslo moves me just as much the sublime feeling of being in the beautiful forests of Britsh Columbia.

I do think that the feeling of sublime sometimes has to be learned.  In this manner, one can argue that it is not a natural or instinctive feeling.  For example, I have listened to the song, Rivers of Babylon since I was a child but it wasn't until I was in my mid 20s that this song moved me to tears in a shinsanken ride in Japan.  It was only then that I was able to feel the sorrow inherent in the lyrics of the song.

Letters written during a short residence in Sweden, Norway and Denmark

Mary Wollenstonecraft's A Short Residence is beautifully written!  This text reminds me of travel narratives like On the Road by Beat authors such as Jack Kerouac.  I am impressed by the self-reflexivity of Mary and her ability to make connections and to empathize with the 'Other'.  In many ways, this text reads like fieldnotes and/or an ethnography on the various societies and cultures she visits, gender issues, capitalism, the environment, etc.  She makes observations of particulars (individuals) but does not make the mistake of applying particulars to the general (the whole nation).  In many ways, this writing from 1796 is much more relexive than many of the anthropological writings from the early 20th century.

ASR demonstrates the importance of narratives as a literary form to understand the human condition, political and social issues.  Narratives allow us to understand the entwined ensembles of relations and to bind events and past knowledge into a coherent framework.  Narratives are also invaluable in their ability to communicate embodied experiences and to evoke memories, thus producing a re-experiencing of performance and context.

I enjoyed this text much more than Burke's text.  A book theorizing ideas of the sublime just took the beauty of the sublime for me.  The sublime is a whole body experience to me which cannot necessarily be put into words.  As I have mentioned in an e-mail to the class in week 2, there is a tendency as humans to overanalyze and I feel like the sublime is just one of those issues that must be felt and enjoyed, not overanalyzed and overtheorized.  "Who feels it knows".

The sublime at Zao, Yamagata, Japan

Antony and Cleopatra

Bard on the Beach 2010 production

Where does duty lie?  To the individual (Cleopatra) to the community (Rome)?  To both really.  There is not one in particular that is necessarily more important than the other.  My partner and I were talking a little bit about this issue last night.  He talked about people we admire - musicians, activists, intellectuals, artists and so forth - people who have moved us, caused awe in us and who have influenced society in profound ways and how he did not feel that he is currently doing anything at all to further himself/influence society, etc.  I think he was in many ways just feeling hard on himself, a lack of insecurity and self-loathing.  I pointed out to him that things may not seem as rosy or perfect as they really are.

Howard Zinn admitted that he missed most of the meaningful events in his children's lives and neglected his relationship with his wife because he was too busy working.  If Zinn has not been an obsessive hardworking man committed to education and social activism, his children may have benefitted from a closer relationship with him but then again, this may also mean that we may not have had the volumes of incredibly important work from him.  A balance has to be struck and sometimes it is difficult to determine how.

Cleopatra, much as I don't particularly like her character (for her extravagance and childishness at times), I still empathize and can relate to her.  She is the "Other" as a sexual female and as a dark foreigner.  The biases of the Romans come out with their racist and sexist overtures.  The female exotic "Other" is portrayed as an overly passionate individual rather than the more subdued culture of the Romans but not in a good way.  I think this portrayal of the "East" lives on today and certainly even in more recent times in which certain races of peoples are hypersexualized.  Cleopatra proves herself principled in the end and chooses to commit suicide to die in honour rather than to die as a slave/prisoner to be paraded as an example.

Aristotle's Politics

In reading Aristotle's Politics, I am starting to see the connections between his philosophy and the central themes in the modern day constitution, in the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and so forth.  Interesting that Hegel and Marx derived many of their ideas from Aristotle.

I agree with the thesis that all relationships and associations are formed with the intent of achieving good, although 'good' can carry a variety of meanings.  No one can deny that humans are social and political animals.  The community's interests trumps over individual interests (within reason).  But how does one decide which are the community's interests?  Aristotle suggests a democracy in which all citizens know each other and partake in active decision-making processes - quite different from our current conception of democracy.  In some ways, the 'communitarianism' advocated by Aristotle reminds me of anarchism except that within Aristotle's context and view, hierarchies need to exist and not all are qualified to become citizens.  If only a minority can reach the end goal, the life of leisure, contemplation and virtue, does the majority (means) really need to be sacrificed so that the minority can reach this goal (end)?  I asked myself similar questions in the context of animal ethics (or lack thereof issues).

I would have to reply with a very strong 'no'.  Even Aristotle admits that  a constitution (the organisation/guidelines of a community) is just when it benefits everyone in the city and unjust when it benefits only those in power.  Yet, he advocates exactly this - that (generally) only Greek men of a certain amount of wealth are eligible to become citizens - rather hypocritical if you ask me...  I am aware that slavery was the norm in his time and slavery was 'needed' to maintain Greek civilisation at the time but I use the word 'need' with much apprehension - I see a significant difference between 'needs' and 'wants' and while slavery was the norm does not necessarily excuse Aristotle's lack of awareness of the injustice of slavery and blatant discrimination against women and other minorities.

I am not discounting's Aristotle's vast contribution to society, rather I am making the point that the elite class that Aristotle belonged to had an agenda to maintain their power, wealth and leisure - he was part of the status and strived to do exactly this.  Sadly, not much has changed in this respect - we still have this conundrum of who can be a citizen today, who has the right to vote, when do they have the right to vote, when they can dissent and how they can become active members of their community/polis/nation-state.  Economic migrants seem to be the preferred class of migrants in Harper's government - is this just?  Is this really in the nation-state's best interest?  I am not convinced that it is.

The demarcation of labour espoused by Aristotle is also very much alive today and in many ways, they are the 'non-citizens' of our society - they remain in stasis, unable to move beyond their current economic condition and education level which people in the middle class (and the wealthy) are able to 'progress', to have some time for leisure and contemplation - I fall into the privileged middle class in society.

Is this the best constitution?  The best possible world?  I don't think so.  I think we can do better.  While I agree with the general essence of Aristotle's argument in Politics, the privilege of citizenship and the ability to reach the good life should be an opportunity available to all, regardless of their status in society.

Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

I can't help but feel disgusted by the Underground Man but I also feel an odd affinity and empathy for the him.  Perhaps because I see myself in the Underground Man and can relate to his angst and self-loathing.  I do feel the same as he does in that the more I learn about the state of our world (pollution, environmental degradation, human and non-human suffering, etc.), the more I am plunged into despair and the more I become disillusioned.  I have had moments of rut much like the Underground Man but thankfully, I have always pulled myself out of them and to move on as best as I can (perhaps like Candide did, although in far less severe circumstances, thankfully!)  I can certainly also relate to the beauty of the sublime or “the beautiful and lofty” as the Underground Man calls it.  I do think that it is still possible to enjoy the sublime even if we live a mostly mundane existence.  We all have our routines, get up, go to work, go home, do chores, slep and repeat all over again.  This is likely most of our human existence.  Sure, somedays, I think, "What is the bloody point?" or you fall into a rut because of your mundane routine.  But there is so much more to life as well!  Granted, we all have varying degrees of success (tangible and intangible) and happiness and may fall into different degrees of rut but ultimately, we can also choose how we deal with this.  We can drive ourselves deeper underground or we can emerge and engage in the world around us.

Everyday, without fail, I am in awe of “the beautiful and lofty” of my pup, Kaslo, the only non-human sentient being that I spend a good deal of my time with.  She never gets "old" or boring to me.  Everyday, my affection and bond to this being increases.  I never cease to be in awe of her, in the beauty of life, in my connection to her.  Ever since she came into my life, the ruts I experience have decreased significantly.  My relationship with "the beautiful and lofty” is experienced daily via Kaslo.  She is one of a few factors that help to guide me through the tremendous suffering in this world.

The alienation of the Underground Man and his perpetual dialogue with himself, overanalyzing his every move past, present and future and motives is absurd and reminds me a bit of the suffering of Gogo and Didi in Waiting for Godot.  I, too can relate as I babble endlessly some nights with my partner about concepts, issues and questions that we will never really know the answer to but we keep on babbling causing much confusion and sometimes self-loathing.  On this, Dostoyevsky hits the spot on human nature.  I think we can all see ourselves in the Underground Man.  Why do we do it?  I do not know and I do not think that we will ever know.

I can understand Underground Man's bitterness given his circumstances... much of it, self-inflicted.  Love as domination over others - how sick...  at least he admits this much.

Book of Job

An odd story, much like many of the other stories from the Bible.  The Book of Job seems to be a story of God, with the help of Satan, testing Job's loyalty to Him.  As with other stories in the Old Testament, God seems to have a big ego who appears to take sadistic pleasure in testing people's faith in Him or to assert his power and authority over others.  As mentioned in my journal entries for LS 800, it is difficult to detach my bias over this kind of 'sick' God.  That said, I do understand that Job can be interpreted in many different ways.

It is also a tale about 'why do the righteous suffer?'  The Bible tries to explain the unexplainable, in my humble opinion by using God's omnipotence as the answer.  I feel that God does not provide an adequate response to Job's question - precisely because it is not something that we have answers to although this has not stopped mankind from posing this question for thousands of years.  I, too have caught myself asking the same questions, albeit in secular manner.  I think that we continue to ask this question partly to put our hearts and souls at ease as best as we can, in dealing with suffering and the imperfection of the world around us.  I have on some occasions driven myself crazy with this question, often leading to episodes of depression - a sense of despair that the world is not going to get better unless I help to do something, to help exact change.  But how?  I am not clear that I have found the right answers.  A clique perhaps but there is truth in the statement that life is a journey and we are all in a continually learning process, including how to deal with and reduce suffering.

Job's keen sense of duty/loyalty to God is commendable but misguided.  Job 'wins' in the end by having his fortunes doubled by God.  The fortunes appear to be material and/or status related only.  I didn't get the sense of true happiness of peace for Job.  If success depends upon such unjust suffering, what sort of 'win' is this?  What kind of sick God plays these cruel tricks on the people we reigns over?

Do we need to suffer in order to be able to experience happiness?  I am not convinced by this argument. I do think that the ability to fully experience happiness means also to be able to fully experience unhappiness/suffering - it is part of a continuum of emotions, rather than causal relationships.  You basically have to take the bad with the good (within reason) and learn to live with it.