There are various philosophies expressed within the books we read, each of which possessing their own unique tones, themes, and characters that solidly reflect their authors' principles. For instance, if one were to analyze these elements in one of Plato's prisoners from "The Allegory of the Cave" or possibly even the four characters of Sartre's "No Exit," we should be able to clearly distinguish their philosophies from one another while also connecting some of their more similar aspects. Since all characters within the two texts display some sort of ignorance, how would they react to a second chance based on both Plato and Sartre's intentions?
For the sake of the example, suppose that a denizen from Plato's allegory was given a chance to see the outside world beyond the shadows of his origins. Given that Plato's tone was insightful, one could deduce that this cave-dweller would be shocked by the new world that he must witness, and his eyes that were once kin to the darkness would have much trouble adjusting to the blinding rays of the sun. Now, if one were to put him back into the cave, how would he respond? Since Plato wished to display his character as a type of blind man who cannot therefore make decisions due to his inability to see, the cave-dweller would happily return to his place among his people where his thoughts on alternate realities could once again return to an ignorance where only one reality exists. Plato's theme of ignorance is based on mankind's sense of sight. "The Allegory of the Cave" is the middle-ground between the two quotes "Ignorance is bliss" and "Seeing is believing."
Flip the example around to Sartre, and the outcome is a totally different philosophy. Sartre, being an existentialist, wrote in a crude, ironic tone. Much like the existentialist play, "Waiting for Godot," "No Exit" contains a small set of characters who constantly bicker among each other, and as their conversations constantly move forward, their positions in life stand still. For instance, if one were to present Estella, Garcin, and Inez with a transient exit from their position, they wouldn't take it. If God Himself announced to them that they could be free within seconds, they would argue amongst themselves until the opportunity slowly faded away. Sartre's philosophical theme of ignorance based on his characters' inability to make agreements has inspired newer fictional authors to write novels on "Moves and counter-moves" as seen in Collins's Hunger Games: Catching Fire.
The list goes on. If we were to give Siddhartha enlightenment at a young age, would Herman Hesse allow his character to take it? If we were to warn Caesar of his death before the Senate, would Shakespeare spare him? Every piece of literature has some sort of philosophy behind it that cannot be ignored. Every fictional author wrote for a reason. Whether their reasons be to state the universal ignorance that succeeds through blindness or their reasons be to state the ignorance that arises from arguing, thoughts on life conclude the source of all writing, and it is up to the audience to find them.
No comments:
Post a Comment