Point Counter Point Character Analysis: Lord Edward Tantamount

Lord Edward Tantamount is a member of the royal Tantamount family. While growing up, he was always depressed and felt that he didn't have a purpose in the world. This changed when he discovered science and threw his life into research in the topics of biology and chemistry. His wife, Lady Tantamount, married him for his money and together they had a child, Lucy. The most prominent appearance of his in the book is during Lady Tantamount's party, during which he leaves his experiment on newts to listen to Bach being played downstairs.

A representative quote I found: "The only result of your progress...will be that in a few generations, there'll be a real revolution- a natural, cosmic revolution. You're upsetting the equilibrium. And in the end, nature will restore it." (58).

Lord Edward Tantamount's personal philosophy of life is revealed to be completely based in rational, scientific roots. In the quote, he is telling Webley that nature is much greater than all of society, and he argues that the draining of phosphorus in the soil will cause the downfall of our modern civilization. From this, it is clear that he doesn't care about politics and other "human" topics, but would rather concentrate on his academic pursuits. In fact, I chose to analyze him because out of all the characters in the book so far, I strongly identified solely with him and his beliefs on nature and balance being greater than us all.

Death

We have a "free post week" so that means I can write about anything! So, of course, I've decided to write about death. Not to be depressed or anything, but because I find it interesting how my idea of it has changed so much over the past few years. (Don't worry, I'm not suicidal or anything).

Death is a "taboo" topic in many cultures, we often don't talk about it because of the negative connotation it carries: it is often presented as the "ultimate sacrifice" or a "horrible price to pay". We mourn when others die: we wish with all our hearts our passed loved ones are still alive and those of us lucky enough to lead happy lives fear our own with a burning passion. I suppose this does make sense because if our ancestors didn't have an aversion to death, who's to say they wouldn't all die happily and make the entire species extinct? Natural selection and evolution seems to be very much present in our lives, as much as we try to separate ourselves from simple biological instinct and hold ourselves above other "lowly" animals. It's clear that we can't all live forever, but it's still difficult to accept passing as a natural step in the circle of life. I think maturity comes with age, as young children, death is the worst possible fate one can have, and we feel blessed to be as young as we are with long lives ahead of us. As we grow older and experience new things, we learn to appreciate our lives more, if we lived forever, the appreciation would be lost in meaningless repetition. Everything must be in balance: life and death are equal and opposite, without death, there cannot be life. A rock will never die, but it was never alive in the first place. Just like how the biggest and brightest stars burn out the most quickly, we, as humans, have short lifespans in the timeline of the universe, but with this comes the beautiful gift of being able to live life to the fullest of our ability. I love my life, but I know that death is coming. Instead of fearing it however, I will welcome it when it comes. An eternal sleep, peace, and final present for facing and struggling through the hardships of life, as well as a provider of perspective onto our own.

Given the existential idea of Existence precedes Essence, at what point in the book does Mersault finally make a choice that would give his existence essence? In other words, at what point does he finally become a person, an identity, a 'self'?

In The Stranger, Mersault is portrayed as a fairly flat character who doesn't seem to feel much emotion at all. I don't think he ever really becomes "a person, an identity, or a self" at any point in the book at all, because in order to do so, he must have made an important choice in the first place. He never really chooses anything, he just "goes with the flow" and lives as a reaction to his environment. He views everything in a practical light and never acknowledges the fact that his existence has any essence at all. I don't think Mersault has made that crucial jump from simply existing to living as an individual with a unique identity. He almost lives as if he doesn't really have free will to make decisions, he complies with everyone else and doesn't even consider going against the wishes of those around him. The reason he does everything is because he tries to fit in with society and please others or if something in his immediate environment pushes him to do so. He attends his mother's funeral because it's the right thing to do by societal standards, he dates Marie because as a male human, his body naturally feels a physical attraction to women, he testifies for Raymond because Raymond asks him to, and he kills the Arab because the heat from the sun and reflection of light from a knife makes him "unbearably uncomfortable". It's because of his lack of acknowledgement of his own being and free will that leads me to believe that Mersault never makes a choice that gave his existence essence in the novel.

Reflection on Whitman's poetry

"I have heard what the talkers were talking...the talk of the beginning and end,

But I do not talk of the beginning or the end.

There was never any more inception than there is now,

Nor any more youth or age than there is now;

And will never be any more perfection than there is now,

Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now" (Whitman,  Song of Myself Part III)

The selection of poetry I read by Whitman shows a lot of the writer's character: he is religious (he speaks of God, and of heaven and hell), optimistic (emphasizes living in the present), and adores all objects in this reality (especially the human body). His view of America is that the country works so hard, too hard, and that everyone is valiantly pushing on and on without stopping to "smell the roses". As Americans, we can gain perspective on our lives by thinking about this, and making sure to enjoy life as we live it, instead of chugging on like a machine. Whitman also encourages the reader to stop talking "of the beginning and end" because there is no "more youth or age than there is now". This carpe diem - esque philosophy is also related to his view of the world: all Objects are beautiful, why not enjoy them while we can? Whitman speaks of the relationship between Man and his environment as being potentially in peaceful coexistence, when we are not bustling through our lives like madmen at least. He emphasizes the beauty in our world that we pass by when we don't stop to appreciate life. He also speaks highly of the human body; the body is portrayed as a beautiful physical gift that we possess that we should enjoy as well!

Discuss a significant person/event/moment/etc. that's had a profound impact on the identity you have today (in other words, pick a specific incident or event that has made you who you are today)

If I had to narrow it down, I think the one most influential person in my life is Mindy Kaling, someone I've never met and probably never will. I'm obsessed with her show, The Mindy Project and look up to her so much. Her character, both in the show and in real life, is so outgoing and open, very different from the way I present myself. She is completely comfortable in her own skin and not afraid to show it, as well as being smart and successful as a doctor in the show and an actress and producer in reality. Normally, I am a fairly introverted and self-contained person. I feel uncomfortable acting "differently" in front of strangers and hate the feeling. Now, when I find myself in situations I normally wouldn't be comfortable in, I try to think of life as a reality show, and I wonder what Mindy would do. It's crazy to think that I look up to someone whom I don't know at all personally so much, yet I feel a strong connection with her. I want my life to be like hers, free and open and not afraid of the world. She faces embarrassment and awkwardness with humor and tells it how it is. This is the person who I want to be, no matter where I go and what I do in life. I don't want to be constrained by societal standards or even my own standards of how a proper person should behave. The way she lives is more fulfilling than I could ever imagine. Since I knew who Mindy Kaling was, my life hasn't quite been the same, I saw that there were more possibilities and that what did it really matter what other people thought of you? No matter how cliched it sounds, it's true: as long as you are true to yourself, you can do anything! I have held myself differently, and been more confident. I don't feel so bad anymore when taking pride in accomplishments I do, and making it clear to others when I feel proud and happy. Although I'm still working on it, I feel as if I have improved and that my life is more fulfilling than ever before. I am a more open minded person, still fairly quiet when with people I don't know well, but it's only been a year or two and I have a long time to strive and reach for the stars.

Reflection on Out of the Silent Planet Socratic Seminar

The issue of the distinction between humans and other animals was brought up today. Although many people believed that humans are superior in intelligence to animals and therefore capable of evil, I don't think the dualism between humans and other species is that defined. Dolphins and apes have been proven to be self aware and intelligent, and many other animals are also constantly surprising us with how similar to humans they really are. I don't think humans are really "evil". First off, evil is subjective. What one person may view as evil may be seen as heroic by another. For example, terrorism. One side sees it as evil, the other as noble. In this case, evil really depends on what side of the conflict you're on. Second, no human does evil for no reason. If evil is done for a practical reason, it doesn't really count as pure evil because the perpetrator is probably doing it for food. To survive. Or for their families. Or because they have an unfortunate physical addiction or fetish that they can't get away from. No human does something purely evil. All of our actions have reasoning behind them, murderers have psychological problems and can't fight it. School shooters are depressed and feel wronged by society. Robbers want money to live more happily than they are currently. The problem of evil is more of an illusion than a real problem. Also, all of us have the same built in goals in life: perpetuation of our offspring and species and self preservation. "Evil" acts are often justified by these goals. Balance is also important for life. Without any "evil", there wouldn't be any good. Although evil is subjective and has problems with its definition, many of us have built in morals that preserve the goals stated previously and portraying all opposing acts as evil. Everything is relative and lies on a spectrum. Nothing is pure evil, nothing is pure good. Another issue that was brought up is war. I think war is caused by struggle for power (resources), for the same reason we want to perpetuate as much of our genes into the future generation as possible. Other causes are simply stated reasonings for the same power. Religion, for example, is an excuse for conflict and war even though the basis of religion lies in good things like hope and prayer and peace.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not a truth." (Marcus Aurelius, Roman leader, philosopher, Stoic).

I agree with Aurelius in his view of our perspective of the surrounding environment is subjective and unique to each of us. No two of us experiences that exact same event quite the same. When we hear a bird chirp or see a sunset, we live the experiences differently because of the fundamental nature of who we are. Everything is relative, there is no such thing as an absolute. There is nothing 100% good, nothing 100% evil, everything is simply different shades of gray. Looking at the same item of clothing, two different people can have completely different opinions on it. In fact, this is the case almost every single time. We all have different tastes, different likes and dislikes, and therefore different world views, all based on our genetics and individual experiences growing up. We create definitions and language to help us communicate similar experiences, but no definition or language can quite entail the entire experience and all of its meaning and implications to us because we are simply different people. Because of this basic truth, "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not a truth".