Thinking Outside the Box, Take 2

Although Plato and Sartre had different intentions in writing each of their respective pieces ("Allegory of the Cave" for describing effective leaders and "No Exit" for describing the existentialist vision of a true "hell") they both took advantage of several literary techniques, such as allegory and symbolism, to describe the limitations of human thought.

"Allegory of the Cave" and "No Exit" were two allegories that illuminated their author's philosophy regarding the way humans think. Both Plato and Sartre used a form of symbolism to demonstrate the idea that our concept of reality restricts our ability to think/act freely. For Plato, this was manifested graphically by shackles chained around the cave-dwellers bodies, physically limiting the men's abilities to view the real world. Sartre's example was much less graphic, and much more implied. One example of symbolism in "No Exit" would be the representational value of the character Garcin.

Because the men imprisoned in "Allegory of the Cave" were shackled in a certain position, they were incapable of seeing everything that was happening behind them. (There stood the puppeteers that cast Forms in front of the light.) Instead they could only see images reflected onto one of the cave walls-- shadows. These shadows are abstractions, ideas that are separated from their tangible form. Because they were chained in for all of their lives, they were comfortable with their condition-- implying that they innately believed everything they saw reflected on the cave wall was real. However, Plato insists that the men are intellectually limited to realizing what is real because they constantly mistake the abstractions for the real thing. For instance, if one of the puppeteers held an object like a pencil up to the light, the men would see the image on the cave wall and say "I see a pencil." When taken at face value, this seems quite reasonable. But Plato points out that the speaker is wrong because he is in fact seeing the shadow of a pencil, not an actual pencil. The man doesn't realize that he is wrong because never knew differently from the shadows, therefore they had no reason to disbelieve what he saw. What is important here, and what I am getting at, is that Plato believed that our thinking was limited and/or flawed at birth. This is shown by the fact that the men (representative of society at-large) are being kept in the cave against their own will. All that they ever knew were the shadows, the abstractions; they must be disabused of their perception of reality by the enlightened philosophers.

As an existentialist, Sartre gave a very different interpretation on why human thought is limited. Existentialists focus on the fact that humans think differently about their own existence and mortality than other animals do. They tend to examine how the human mind copes with the ideas of true individuality, the possibility of empathy, and the authenticity of our motivations through internal reflection. This is primarily why Sartre's philosophies are so much different from Plato's. With "No Exit", Sartre demonstrated that man creates his own hell by thinking about his being and his existence. For example, Garcin was entirely consumed with reflecting on his life on Earth. At one point in the play, he called on his roommate, (for lack of a better term), Inez to pass judgment on whether or not he was a coward. Since Garcin felt that she had encountered many of the same moral obstacles during her lifetime that he had, he assumed that she would identify with his struggles and ultimately support him. His "torture", and what made the room so hellish for him, was the fact that his Inez refused to empathize with him. In this case, Garcin was limited to thinking about his short-comings because he refused to be candid and true with himself about his actions on Earth. Sartre implies that man (symbolized by Garcin) is completely aware of his true nature, as seen by Garcin's anxiety and guilt, but refuses to accept it, thus restricting his ability to think freely and inadvertently creating a sort of personal hell.

Both pieces venture even further into the human psyche to explain why an expansion of the human mind is nearly impossible for its characters by giving them an opportunity to escape their confines and explore another world. In "Allegory of the Cave" the prisoners are confronted by freed man who claims to have seen the Forms and knows what is real and what is abstract. Though the men are given a chance to escape the cave and the confines of their thinking, they revolt against the man and kill him. This could only be explained by an innate human fear of the unknown, demonstrated by the men's rejection of the free man's assertions. They were so comfortable with their own sense of reality that they would-- and did-- kill to preserve that norm. A similar scenario occurs in "No Exit". When the door opened upon Garcin's request, and he and Estelle where given a chance to escape their hells, they refused to walk out of the door. Even Inez, who completely resented the torture that Garcin and Estelle bestowed upon her, was afraid to be thrown out. This is because they were all so desperately afraid of the unknown that they would "rather bear those ills [they] have Than fly to otters that [they] know not of."

Thinking Outside of the Box

Although Plato and Sartre had different intentions in writing each of their respective pieces ("The Allegory of the Cave" for describing effective leaders and "No Exit" for describing the existentialist vision of a true "hell") they illuminated very similar limitations on human thought.

Both Plato and Sartre used a form of symbolism to demonstrate the power that a fear of the unknown possess over the mind. For Plato, this was manifested graphically by shackles chained around the cave-dwellers bodies, physically limiting the men's abilities to ascertain new knowledge. The fear was also shown in the men's rejection of the free man's assertions. They were so comfortable with their own sense of reality that the would-- and did-- kill to preserve that norm.

Sartre's example was much less graphic, yet so entirely conspicuous and blatant it could not be ignored. When Garcin and Estelle where given a chance to escape their hell they refused to walk out of the door. Even Inez was afraid to be thrown out. This was because they were all so desperately afraid of the unknown they would "rather bear those ills [they] have Than fly to otters that [they] know not of". (I couldn't resist...) This fear is the very same fear that shows up in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", and it also restricts the characters' abilities to think and act.

The Big Question.

My big question deals with the human psychological state of anxiety. Specifically, I want to explore three main questions: (1) what is the nature of anxiety? (2) to what extent is it genetic, environmental, cultural, or learned? and (3) how can one effectively manage or cope with their anxieties?

Hamlet versus Beowulf

The difference between Hamlet and Beowulf lies with the influence that self-overhearing holds over Hamlet. Beowulf did not concern himself with over-analyzing his actions, reconsidering his motives, or foreseeing the consequences that would befall him. His words did not constitute his actions. He simply did what he felt was necessary of him.

Beowulf, like the several other heroic figures of the era, did not waver over decisions and consequences. He acted impulsively, without regard. For example, when Beowulf heard that the danes were in trouble he immediately set out to help them. He didn't think much of whether or not his men wanted to go with him, or if his presence would even be welcome in Denmark, he just felt that it was his responsibility as a great warrior to take their battle (with Grendel) upon himself.

There's a scene in the play where Hamlet witnesses a similar sort of dutifullness. In act IV scene iv Hamlet comes across the men of King Fortinbras headed for battle over a small plot of worthless land. His conversation with the captain reveals that even though over twenty thousand men may lose their lived over this squabble, they feel no ambivalence because it is simply their responsibility to fight for their king and their land. Upon his astonishment, Hamlet utters: "How stand I then, That have a father killed, a mother stained, Excitements of my reason and my blood, And let all sleep". During this soliloquy Hamlet self-overhears and realizes that he has all the reason in the world to kill Claudius; all he needs is the conviction. From this session, Hamlet learns that he mustn't have context to take revenge on Claudius, as he thought when he first saw the players, and resolves to kill his uncle.

The example above also shows the role that language plays in Hamlet. Since Hamlet is stuck in a sort of paralysis, he relies on his thought processes and his words to motivate him to action, and sometimes to explain his inaction.

The "to be or not to be..." soliloquy is an example of Halmet's dependence on thought and reflection to explain his inability to act. Although Hamlet has already decided to avenge his father, he still has not done it, and continues to buy time with endless reanalysis. During the soliloquy Hamlet self-overhears to discover what is truly holding him back-- "the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country". He says: "To die, to sleep-- To sleep-- perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub, For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause." Hamlet reveals his inability to act with that statement alone. He admits that the consequences of his actions (in this case, the life after death) are far too great to be ignored. "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all".

Beowulf would never be caught second guessing himself, much less allowing his own thought-process render himself impotent to fulfill his responsibilities. As you can see, the role of language is much greater in Hamlet than it is in other epics like Beowulf, and distinctly characterizes Hamlet as a unique type of protagonist/hero.

Performative Utterances in Hamlet

It is a common misconception that Prince Hamlet’s ultimate struggle, his dilemma, is whether or not to avenge his father. However, after studying Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it is evident that Prince Hamlet never wavered over that decision. Hamlet resolved to exact revenge on his uncle very early in the play. His true difficulty is in connecting his words and his actions. For example, even though he decides to avenge his father, he repeatedly fails to allow his thoughts to manifest in real-life actions (i.e. killing Claudius). This can be explained through Fredrik de Boer’s paper on performative utterances, in which he explains the character of Hamlet through J.L. Austin’s theory of performativity and Harold Bloom’s idea of self-overhearing.
 
Austin’s theory of performativity explains the power of spoken language by dividing it into three forces: the locutionary, the illocutionary, and the perlocutionary forces. The locutionary force consists simply of the words that are said; the illocutionary force is the way that the words are interpreted, or what is meant/implied; and the perlocutionary force is the response to or the consequence of what was said. Austin holds that these three forces are responsible for language’s ability to create a sense of reality by establishing facts in the world and, in some cases, constituting action.

The character of Hamlet is certainly one of those cases. Hamlet is characterized by his inability to kill Claudius. While some think this is because Hamlet is insane, others think it is because he is depressed and indecisive. The truth, to the contrary, is that Hamlet is neither mad, nor irresolute; he simply lacks the ability to translate his thoughts into action. Thus, his words (thoughts) are his only form of execution. This is why Austin’s theory of performativity is pivotal to understanding Hamlet the character, and in a greater sense, Hamlet the play.

Hamlet’s action exists in the transition from the locutionary to the perlocutionary forces. Since he suffers some kind of psychological paralysis—which will be discussed later on through Bloom’s idea of self-overhearing—Hamlet is incapable of physically taking revenge on Claudius. Therefore he must use his words to manipulate the other characters in the play. Hamlet choreographs his “mad” outbursts to draw certain reactions from Gertrude, Claudius, Polonius, and the others. Forcing everyone around him to concentrate on something as significant as insanity distracts them from Hamlet’s true thoughts and allows him ample time (and opportunity) to kill Claudius. For example, hhhidhhdsgjlhljhgfjbfdsljbgslkjkljnbsbsnlnnnlfdHamlet uses his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to feign a sort of madness. He reacts to their presence with rage and incomprehensible utterances (locutionary), causing them to believe that he is insane (perlocutionary). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern then report back to Claudius and Gertrude that Hamlet is still in bad temper. This keeps them wondering what could be troubling him, defining certain plot events and giving Hamlet the time he needs to take out his uncle.

Another example of Austin’s performative language is the play acting in Act II. Hamlet is astonished at how the player’s words, devoid of meaning or context, can be delivered with so much conviction (illocutionary) as to draw such an impressive response from his audience (perlocutionary). This causes Hamlet to recognize his own flaw and reflect upon it.

This reflection comes in the form of what Harold Bloom calls self-overhearing. Self-overhearing is any instance in which a character hears himself speaking and consequently learns about himself or his motivations. Immediately after Hamlet meets the players, he undergoes a self-overhearing process (Act II, scene ii). In this scene Hamlet realizes the power of words and his own inability to act with conviction. He develops. Hamlet continues to develop with every sequential soliloquy. Though it is not a form of action for Hamlet, self-overhearing is his means of growth, allowing him to realize his ultimate flaw and motivate him to act against Claudius.

Just as self-overhearing plays a big role in Hamlet, it has played a big role in my life. When I think about the decisions I have to make I often tend to actually stop and think about why I want to go with a certain option and why that would/would not be a good decision. This self-overhearing session gives me insight into my character and motivations. It also creates a sense of reality. Though I do not believe that it defines who I am, I do believe that it refines my memory of the past. For example, if I tell myself a story about what happened on any particular day, I find myself revising it; I think of things that could have happened to make the situation better or funnier and inadvertently change my memory of the event.

Thus, performative utterances play a tremendous role in the development of the characters in Hamlet and in myself. In Hamlet, Austin’s theory of performativity explained Hamlet’s form of action and Bloom’s self-overhearing explained Hamlet’s character development. Self-overhearing has also had an impact on my sense of reality by giving me insight into myself and motivations, and by minutely altering my memories.

Guest Speaker: Roy Christopher

Roy Christopher joined our English class today via video chat. He spoke briefly about himself, technology, and the impact of digital media. These are my notes:

Roy Christopher—Background

·         Became interested in the internet during the mid-nineties, when he learned that it was an easier way to distribute his BMX/skateboarding magazines

o    His friend (who was in web-development) introduced him to it, and it was a “slippery slope” ever since

§  The internet was barely growing during this time, so it was impossible not to get completely sucked in

·         His self-published book has begun to sell more now than it did when it first came out 4-5 years ago        

o    Attributes this to the fact that people are learning more and more about the internet and social media, making his ideas more significant/understandable/relevant

·         Focuses on mash-ups, remixes, and repurposing technology… not ramifications of social media

His view on Technology

·         Cited Program or Be Programmed by Douglas Rushkoff

o    Said learning about technology is just like learning about your car: you don’t need to know every detail about how exactly it works, but the more you know, the more prepared and “digitally mature” you are

·         Learning technology is like working out or mowing your lawn: some people will do it, some people won’t

o    For example, he doesn’t have a  car or smart phone because those are technologies that he has chosen not to participate in

§  **This idea poses problems:

·         Can you ignore the evolution of technology, or is there a point where it is necessary to adapt?

·         Although it seems like mobile technology is moving in to supplant older technologies (i.e. television, desktop computers), big things, like movies and books and complex web-pages, will always require technologies like the TV and the desktop computer because they are too difficult to view on mobile devices

o    Doesn’t buy into the whole sci-fi idea of rapidly growing technology taking over our lives just yet

·         Believes the older generations should trust the youth with new culture and technology

o    Every generation has that suspicion, that resentment of the fact that the new generation is destroying your generation’s traditions

o    People his age grew up just fine, even though the older generation was discouraged

o    The practice of changing the way you talk for different mediums is nothing new, so “text talk” shouldn’t be an excuse for the older generations to bag on the younger

·         Technology is only a vehicle to your “end”

o    It doesn’t change your motives or goals, it just helps you get to the ones you already had either more quickly, or more efficiently

o    You can choose what technologies to use and to which extent you use them; we are in control of the technologies, not the other way around

Advent horizons

·         “A fish knows nothing of water.” – Marshal McLuhan

o    Technology that was invented either before or very early in a person’s life has virtually no effect on the person

§  They grew up with it, so it’s natural to them (called digital natives)

·         Advantages:

o    If they are born into, they are more accustomed to it, more fluent

o    They can teach it to others and potentially replace the digital immigrants that don’t understand as well

“The medium is the message.” – Marshal McLuhan

·         The nature of each individual medium forces the characters/aspects of a story to be changed in translations from medium to medium

o    For example, in the books, James Bond is smooth, suave, incognito; but on film he is overtly physical and obnoxious

Learn more about Roy Christopher on his website: http://roychristopher.com/