A Request of My Government: Stand a Little Less Between Me and the Sun

The American government has, of late, overstepped its legal bounds in many areas of the American people’s lives. One of the most recent and significant economic policies that serve as an example of this trend is Obamacare. As John S. Hoff points out in his article in the Independent Review, Article I, section 8, and clause 3 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce – but the Affordable Care Act, “in requiring people to engage in commerce rather than merely regulating existing commerce, appeared to exceed that authority” (Hoff, 2013). And although the Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the Commerce Clause since the New Deal, there is a boundary the Court had never crossed in those seventy-five years – they had never found it Constitutional for the government to require a person to engage in commerce (Hoff, 2013). But now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision, the American people are being forced to buy something that not all of them want to buy. They are being compelled to engage in commerce, contrary to the Commerce Clause of their own Constitution. This is the most blatant example of disregard for the Constitution that the American people have yet seen in their history.

As Liberty University’s Government lecture notes point out, government’s role in the lives of the American people should be limited to specific areas. “The role of government is to facilitate the free association of its citizens. Government must also define and defend private property… government is not a corrective device” (Lecture Notes 8.1, Liberty University). The Supreme Court got around the unconstitutionality of the Affordable Care Act by stating that it was a tax, a tax that, once again, the American people are being forced to pay. The Supreme Court argued that “the penalty it imposes for failing to have the required insurance is nonetheless constitutional as an exercise of Congress's authority to levy taxes (Art. 1, Sec. 8, el. 1). Even though the president had assured Americans that the mandate was “absolutely not” a tax, and Congress had asserted authority only as a regulation of commerce, the administration showed no embarrassment in arguing in court that the mandate actually is a tax” (Hoff, 2013). Government health care will not only be regulated by the state and upheld by the Supreme Court in spite of its unconstitutionality, but it will be paid for out of the American people’s taxes. The government policy of Obamacare thus flouts the principles of free exchange along with the Constitution through a tax that pays for something the American people did not even want in the first place. This is a double grievance and one that doubtless has the Founding Fathers turning in their graves, for it goes against freedoms that America initially held dear – the freedom to choose, the freedom to buy and sell without state compulsion, and the freedom from unwanted taxation.

“Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature,” Hazlitt writes in Economics in One Lesson, “must in some way be paid for.” But economists all over the world “tell us that government can spend and spend without taxing at all; that it can continue to pile up debt without ever paying it off” (Hazlitt, 1946). It is obvious, however, that “all government expenditures must eventually be paid out of the proceeds of taxation” (Hazlitt, 1946). The funds for Obamacare have to come from somewhere, and what better place than the hardworking American taxpayer’s pocket? Gerald Wells writes in Arkansas Business that “Obamacare will impose higher taxes totaling $4 trillion between now and 2035” and that among these taxes are an increase in Medicare hospital insurance payroll tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, an annual fee on health insurance providers, a 2.3 percent excise tax on certain medical devices, an annual fee on branded drugs, and an increase on the medical expense deductions floor from 7.5 percent to 10 percent (Wells, 2013). Truly, as Chief Justice John Marshall warned us in 1819, “the power to tax is the power to destroy” (Lecture notes 8.1, Liberty University)

In conclusion, the policy of Obamacare and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act are severe mistakes on the part of the Supreme Court and a powerful example of how the American government has overstepped its bounds in regards to economic policy. It limits the capitalist freedom of the American people to buy and sell, forces upon them a tax to fund a product they do not even want to purchase, and goes against the oldest law of the land written to protect the country from corruption. As Hazlitt so intelligently points out, “government’s main economic function is to encourage and preserve a free market” (Hazlitt, 1946). When Alexander the Great visited Diogenes the philosopher and asked if there was anything he could do for him, the philosopher told the great king, “Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.” This is, Hazlitt states, “what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government” (Hazlitt, 1946.)

  

Reference:

Hazlitt, Henry. “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic

             Economics.” 1946. Three Rivers Press, New York, New York.

Hoff, John S. "Obamacare: Chief Justice Roberts's political dodge." Independent Review 18.1 (2013): 5+. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.

Lecture notes 8.1, Government 200 – D07, Liberty University, 14 December 2013.

Wells, Gerald L. "Obamacare costly, unconstitutional." Arkansas Business 30 July 2012: 27. General OneFile. Web. 14 Dec. 2013.

Process Philosophy and Modern Society

“The abandonment of the supernatural,” states Martin, “leaves us with a process view of life and existence, including man. We shift from an absolutist view to a process view… The conclusion was reached that there is nothing but change” (Martin, 2006). Process philosophy represented a profound alteration in thinking that greatly impacted the way we think, live, love, socialize, teach, and work today. Rather than assuming, as most intellectuals did before the 1870s, that reality was immutable and that God had created “an organological mature with theistic characteristics,” process philosophy “abandoned the absolute and absolutized the process instead” (Martin, Lecture Notes 4.1 on Worldviews from the 1870s to the Modern Era, 2013) This shift in thinking has infiltrated almost every area of American society, but there are two facets of modern civilization that have been most significantly affected – the economy and the family.

Modern economic thinking today is imbued with process philosophy at every level. A vital component of process philosophical thinking is evolution, and J. Potts, author and lecturer at the School of Economics in the University of Queensland stated that “evolutionary economics is a new scientific approach to economic analysis and one that has come of age in the past decade or so” (Potts, 2003). But of course the most powerful example of process philosophy’s influence on modern economics is Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the Bible of Communism and the basis for much of America’s Fabian Socialist thinking today (Martin, 2013). As Martin says, “Marxism presupposes that all change is progress” (Martin, 2013). Therefore Marx’s view of the economy is that through the natural forces of evolution, the lower classes will eventually take over the nation’s wealth and overthrow the bourgeoisie middle class. As we have seen, this evolutionary state of economics is a poor disguise for what is, in reality, a planned economy managed by the state. Martin points out that in the area of economics, process philosophy necessitates a “shift from a market-oriented economy toward a planned economy, as the state seeks to become the dominant force in the market, in the economy, and in the whole of society” (Martin, 2006).

A second area of modern life that has been greatly influenced by process philosophy is marriage and the family. According to Patricia G. Miller of the Pittsburgh Post, “America's divorce rate is approximately 50 percent…when you include a subgroup - those folks who have already gone through a divorce - the rate is closer to 60 percent (Miller, 2000). Clearly something has gone wrong with the marriage relationship in our society for the rates to be this high. Martin stated quite correctly that “without the absolute standard of God’s Word, marriage becomes a social contract between two presumably equal individuals” (Martin, 2013). Intimate relationships between imperfect human beings become very difficult indeed when seen through the eyes of a worldview, which holds that all change is good – there are no absolutes, rules, standards, or criteria that must be upheld to maintain such a relationship. Marriage becomes, as Martin put it, an “anarchy or hierarchy” (Martin, 2006). He goes on to declare that if God is out of the picture, “no basis for a presupposed equality remains,” and he questions, “On whose terms is such a presupposed equality established? Yours? Mine? By what standard?” (Martin, 2006). These very questions are the ones that are tearing apart family relationships in America today, because without God, there are simply no answers. John Gucciardi Jr. of the Milwaukee Journal states the situation simply: “The integrity of the family is frayed today” (Gucciardi, 2001).

In conclusion, process philosophy is an errant way of thinking that has tainted the way Americans think, which has in turned warped our ideas about many areas of life. When it comes to economics, Western society has adopted an evolutionary, Godless point of view, boding ill for America’s future as a supposedly democratic, free-market society. When it comes to marriage and the family, process philosophy has taken away the element of “unity with diversity, liberty with responsibility” and wrecked the relationships of many a couple who do not understand how to make a marriage work without some sort of absolute standard (Martin, 2013). Another shift in thinking must be made if we want our society to keep from travelling along the path to totalitarianism and anarchy, and this time, the shift in thinking must be from evolutionary, human-centered philosophy to a presupposed absolute, God-centered one.

Reference:

Gucciardi, John Jr. (2001, Apr 15). MARRIAGE.  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/261315742?accountid=12085

Martin, Glenn R., (2006). Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500. Indiana: Triangle Publishing.

Martin, Glenn R. (2013). Lecture on Worldviews from the 1870s to the Modern Era. Personal Collection of Glenn R. Martin, Liberty University, Lynchburg VA.

Miller, P. G. (2000, Jan 20). AMERICA'S DIVORCE RATE IS APPROXIMATELY 50 PERCENT. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/391389122?accountid=12085

Potts, J. (2003). Evolutionary Economics: Foundation of Liberal Economic Philosophy. Policy, 19(1), 58-62.

Runner Ramblings

Every run is a different adventure. When you first lace up your running shoes and head out the door, you never really know how your personal race is going to end up - what you might see, how you might feel, or even how far you will go. At least none of my runs have ever been the same.

During Montana summers (or during any season, really...) my favorite time of the day to run is, strangely, at night. I seem to have the most energy then, the air is cooler, and I get to enjoy the view of the sun setting (and believe me, where I live, this is not a view you want to miss.) Also, when it's really dark, I get the feeling that I'm running faster somehow. I think it has to do with not seeing where I'm going - I feel fitter and lighter - the illusion is created that I'm flying over the ground. I've been told I love running at night because I am young, but I think the above reasons are also contributing factors to my preference for getting out there around sunset.

I spend the first hour or so before my run getting myself mentally psyched to go the distance I plan to do. I am preparing to run my first half-marathon in a few weeks, and have spent the past month not only running longer distances than I am used to, but also trying to figure out what my personal preferences are when it comes to going beyond my usual 5 to 6-mile runs. Just as every run is different, so is every runner different. Everyone needs to figure out for themselves what will keep them going when they get tired, just how far they can push their bodies, and what tricks and tips they can use to improve their performance. For me, it's all about "mind games." My running partner (Abba) tells me that tonight we are going to run a 10-mile loop alongside the Gallatin River, and immediately I start prepping the most important part of my body for the challenge: "Tonight," I tell my brain, "you are going to run ten long miles and you're going to do it without stopping. Get ready."

Along with getting psyched to go the distance and running at night, a hugely influential factor in my running performance is my music. This, I am told, is also because I am young... but I think it's mostly just because I like music. It helps me focus on something other than what I am doing, transposes me to that mental zone that is so vital in long-distance running, provides me with a rhythm that makes me want to keep moving. My musical tastes are pretty eclectic, and also change daily. Currently, my running playlist contains a lot of rhythmic Bollywood music, along with some upbeat, mainstream pop, Latino remixes, Klezmer classics, and even a couple of country songs. It's all about finding the tunes that will get your mind off of running and onto the music - whatever weird stuff that takes.

Before I signed up for this race I was told that having a partner was also very important for marathon training. Since then I have realized how true this is. After long days on my feet at work I generally come home longing for nothing more than dinner and bed - getting outside and going for a run sounds like the opposite of fun. But when Abba says let's go, I have no choice but to kvetch a little, put on my running shoes, mentally prepare myself, and get out there alongside him. I've never regretted it, of course. Sometimes you just need a push to get you out the door, and the push is even better if it's from someone you respect, someone who is going to run beside you, challenge you, and keep you going when the going gets tough.

After a little stretching and a short walk to warm up, we take off through my tiny hometown. Houses speed by. The sidewalk feels good under my feet. I start to get into my music, mouthing the lyrics as we make our way down Main Street and up the overpass. I have to admit, I have no idea where we're going - I've never personally run this route before, so all I can do is mentally prepare myself to run for a long time wherever Abba leads me. It's enjoyable running this way sometimes. Other days it's nice to know exactly where you're going, but tonight is one of those nights where it just doesn't really matter.

It doesn't take us long to get out into the Montana countryside. Behind us, the famed sunset of classic Westerns spreading across the entire sky in an array of oranges and pinks. Before us, the outline of the Rocky Mountains tossing blue mountainous shadows and cutting a majestic line across the horizon. On either side of us, rolling green and golden farmland broken up by trees, farmhouses, the Gallatin River, the Crazies, and the Tobacco Root foothills. Mountains on every side make you feel protected and secure, a feeling I always miss when visiting mountain-less states. It's a gorgeous evening all around, one of those summer nights where you feel like the only thing you really want to be doing is running along a country road with the sunset at your back.

Eventually we turn off onto gravel that takes us alongside the river itself. The trees here are much more dense on our left, and houses, fences, and barns grace the fields on our right. Abba points out a couple whitetails feeding along the river who gaze at us placidly as we run by. I'm not sure how long the road lasts so I just keep running, using the rhythms of my breathing and my music and my pounding Asics to move me into that long-distance zone.

Like I said before, this zone is vital when it comes to running distances over three miles. It's where you start to feel like all you've ever done your whole life is run, and that's all you're ever going to do. It's where your brain disengages from your feet and sort of shambles off into a world of its own, allowing the rest of your body to go on its merry, mindless way. It's where you stop thinking about keeping your chest up and shoulders relaxed, and start thinking about your day and your life and your music instead. This zone is what helps the miles roll by.

It's completely dark now - all I can see is the bobbing light of Abba's iPod next to me, the faint outline of trees, houses, and mountains ahead, and the occasional blinding headlights of a car driving by. At about mile seven my first endorphin rush, or whatever it was that made me feel good running that distance, is over, and I start to wonder if this road has an end. Running in the dark, mile after mile, having no idea when the finish line is going to come into sight, can be frustrating when you're getting tired. Actually, anything is frustrating when you're getting tired. When the lag sets in, but you know you need to keep running, the slightest thing can annoy you. For instance, now I start to get irrationally irritated with the passing vehicles whose lights are causing me temporary blindness whenever they rush by. I put my arm up to block them but it doesn't really help and I trip and almost fall into the grass by the roadside a couple of times. Road-running at night has its advantages, but it also has its drawbacks, even in the relatively peaceful Montana countryside.

Finally a couple of twinkling lights horizontally flashing ahead clue me into where we are, and I can make out the highway cutting in front of us about a quarter mile away. I realize that we're going to turn left onto the path beside this highway, leading to a bridge over the Gallatin and to a route that is familiar to me from previous, shorter runs. Except that quarter mile stretches longer... and longer... we go around several bends and the cars on the highway don't seem any nearer. This is the part of the run - and every run has it - where I want desperately to quit. My philosophy as a fitness instructor is that if you don't experience this emotion during your workout, you haven't really worked out. At some point during all the runs I've ever done, I have desired nothing better than to stop and walk the rest of the distance... or even walk just for a few minutes until I get my second wind. But this is the point at which it's most important not to quit, because it's where your body's getting stronger. It's getting prepared - trained - conditioned - to run even faster and harder next time.

I know this, of course. However in the moment it becomes what feels like an epic inner struggle, one where my physicality battles with my mentality, and my psychological zone turns into a heated debate instead, each side stating the strengths of their case. My body wants to be done. It's tired - my lungs feel shallow, my thighs are aching, my calves are cramping up, my toes are blistered, my ribs are full of stitches, my throat is gasping for water. During these moments my mind often retreats to the lines from Kipling's poem If:

"If you can trust your heart and nerve and sinew,
"To serve your turn long after they are gone,
"And so hold on when there is nothing in you,
"Except the Will, which says to them 'Hold on!'"

A little melodramatic, perhaps, for a nightly training run, but usually it serves to remind me that the Will is always stronger than the body, no matter how weak the body thinks it is. Tonight I don't let my body fool me. I know I'm in good shape, my body can hold on a little longer. Just a little longer...

And there's the highway. We take a left, and there's the familiar bridge. I have never been so glad to see it in all my life. Now I know exactly how far I have to go before home is in sight, and the two-and-a-half miles down the path, over the hill, and into town seem short in comparison to the seven or so miles I just did. Or maybe I just experienced a second burst of endorphins. Or both. Who knows. All I know is that I feel better, and Abba starts to step up his pace, forcing me to stretch my legs out, open up my lungs, take in more air, and feel myself start to fly over the ground. Once again we are in town and houses are rushing by. Also, the feeling of victory sets in, making me feel like I can run even faster. Triumph can do a lot for a runner - if you know you've almost completely accomplished your goal, finishing it can feel like a breeze. After all, the worst is over - the longest, hardest miles are behind you.

This is why we turn our run into a sprint once we cross the railroad tracks. We haul it down the past couple of blocks like we're the first two competitors in a race, digging deep within ourselves to go as fast as we can possibly go. Being a short-distance runner I love doing this. Sprinting short distances makes you feel powerful, even if it's just for a matter of meters. You can go all out, give it all you got... and then you're done. Except now I have ten miles behind me, and the sprint feels that much more potent.

Until we stop. Then the tiredness - the real tiredness - sets in, and I'm just glad that it's over. Every runner, every athlete, knows this feeling. You've finished, not just a race or a run or a workout, but a journey, complete with inner struggles and highs and low... and now you're done. Sometimes I feel like I didn't even really do it. Those past ten miles carry a sense of vague unreality, now that they are behind me.

But I don't actually notice these deep emotions when I'm cooling down - generally all I am really thinking is "Water. Water. Water." And then it's off to stretching and resting and psychologically prepping for the next big adventure that is my nightly run.

Othello: Shakespeare's Aristotelian Tragedy

The great fourth-century Greek philosopher Aristotle described a tragedy as “an imitation of an action of high importance, complete and of some amplitude: in language enhanced by distinct and varying beauties…by means of pity and fear effecting its purgation of these emotions” (qtd. in Kennedy & Gioia 856).  He may very well have been describing the epic Shakespearean drama, Othello.  William Shakespeare’s famous play concerning the downfall of a Moorish general interweaves jealousy, suspense, intrigue, murder, and suicide to create a magnificent tragedy of the highest Aristotelian order.  Aristotle prescribed three main ingredients for a tragic drama recipe: hamartia, or a tragic flaw in the tragic hero’s character that brings about his downfall; katharsis, or a purgation of the audience’s emotions so that they feel that they have learned something from the play; and anagnorisis, or the character’s revelation of some fact not previously realized (Kennedy & Gioia 856-857). Shakespeare’s protagonist Othello fulfills all of Aristotle’s requirements for a tragic hero, as Othello is a character of noble status who falls from that position of power to one of shame because of his hamartia. Moreover the plot of Othello contains a powerful katharsis through its climax and conclusion, and an anagnorisis when Othello realizes that Iago and Desdemona are not who they seemed to be.

            First of all, Shakespeare’s protagonist, the Moorish general Othello, fits Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero.  According to Kennedy and Gioia, Aristotle states that a tragic hero must have three dominant qualities: he must be a person of high estate, he must fall from that position into unhappiness, and his downfall must be brought about by his hamartia, or his tragic flaw (856-857).  Othello is not only a successful general in the Venetian army but is also well respected, admired, and well liked.  Contrary to common assumption, “high estate” does not mean that the tragic hero must be royal or even noble; it simply “gives him a place of dignity to fall from and perhaps makes his fall seem all the more a calamity” (Kennedy & Gioia 856).  Since Othello enjoys a position of power and happiness at the beginning of the play, this status makes his downfall from beloved general to despised murderer infinitely more tragic and moving (Kennedy & Gioia 857-858).

            According to Aristotle, however, the tragic hero’s collapse cannot be a simple deterioration from success to misery.  The most distinctive feature of the Aristotelian tragic hero is hamartia; his downfall must be brought about by a character flaw or flaw in judgment that leads to his destruction.  “In Aristotle’s theory of tragedy,” explains The Cambridge Guide to Literature, hamartia is “the mistake or failing which brings about the hero's downfall.  ‘Tragic flaw’, the usual English translation, can mislead by its concentration on moral weakness - encouraging readers to view Hamlet's fate as a condemnation of his uncertainty, or Othello's as a condemnation of his jealousy - since hamartia can also be a matter of ignorance or mistaken judgment” (“Hamartia”).  Thus hamartia is more than a moral weakness; it is a crucial mistake on the part of the tragic hero that causes him to plunge from greatness to grief.  Othello’s mistake as a tragic hero is believing Iago’s treacherous lies about Desdemona’s unfaithfulness.  Instead of investigating the matter further, Othello rashly jumps to the worst conclusions about his wife and believes every lie that Iago whispers into his ear. Although the villain Iago is certainly to blame for bringing about Desdemona’s murder and Othello’s suicide, Shakespeare makes it quite clear throughout the play that Othello’s impulsive behavior and irrational naïveté are the main cause of his miserable end, as Iago himself states at the beginning of the play: “The Moor is of a free and open nature, / That thinks men honest that but seem to be so, / And will as tenderly be led by the nose / As asses are” (1.3. 376-379).  Iago recognizes that he can use these weaknesses of Othello’s to hasten his downfall. Therefore Othello fits Aristotle’s description of a tragic hero who has descended from high estate to destruction because of his hamartia.  

But the tragic hero is not the only element required by Aristotle for tragedy. Neither is it the only component of Othello distinguishing Shakespeare’s play from a comedic drama.  A true Aristotelian tragedy also contains what the Greeks called a katharsis, or a purgation that leaves the audience feeling justified and uplifted.  As Kennedy and Gioia point out, this purgation is not necessarily always a positive one (857).  In a tragedy like Othello, where almost all of the characters wind up dead, the audience is certainly not expected to feel happy or cheerful about the play’s conclusion, but they do feel a sort of justification at the lessons learned by the play’s characters and satisfaction in the villain’s punishment.  Elisa Galgut states that, “The concept central to Aristotle’s theory of tragedy – katharsis – has been the subject of much debate, and the traditional readings are modeled on some type of cleansing, medical purging or religious purification” (14).  Moreover, these interpretations assume that the fear and pity aroused by tragedy is purged throughout the play, resulting in the state of katharsis. The overall idea behind katharsis, she concludes, is that tragedy effects some sort of transformation in the audience’s emotions, leaving them with a feeling of justification (15).

Aristotle said, “The tragic pleasure is that of pity and fear, and the poet has to produce it by a work of imitation” (qtd. in Galgut 15).  This implies that to feel the satisfaction of a good katharsis in a tragedy, the drama must arouse feelings of pity and fear in the audience and then expunge those feelings through a satisfactory conclusion.   In Othello, Shakespeare certainly moves the audience to feel pity for Othello, for Desdemona, for Cassio, and even for Iago. They also fear for the fate of the happy couple, and realize their worst fears when Othello smothers his innocent wife in a jealous rage.  Once more the audience pities Othello when he recognizes afterwards that Desdemona is innocent and stabs himself in remorse. Even though the play does not end “happily ever after,” the deaths of the unhappy couple and the punishment of the villain Iago bring a sort of closure to the drama.

The ultimate purpose of katharsis in a tragedy, as Kennedy and Gioia point out, is to purify our feelings, refining them into something more ennobling (857).  The audience may not come away from a production of Othello laughing or feeling particularly cheerful, but they will certainly feel as though they have learned something important and witnessed an epic drama that has affected them morally and spiritually.  This is the purpose of tragedy – to dramatize the weaknesses, despair, and failings of the human spirit and to demonstrate how to better ourselves through this experience.  Through this emotionally charged plot filled with intrigue and conflict, Shakespeare has certainly met all of Aristotle’s requirements for katharsis. 

The last element of Aristotelian tragedy found in Shakespeare’s Othello is anagnorisis, a sort of epiphany or revelation of fact that was previously unknown to the tragic hero.  John MacFarlane states that Aristotle’s literal Greek definition of anagnorisis consists of two parts; “The first part of the definition characterizes recognition as a change from ignorance into knowledge, leading either to friendship or enmity” (367).  Shakespeare brings out this particular feature of anagnorisis towards the end of the play when Othello realizes that his trusted friend Iago has trapped him in a web of lies and has deceived him into thinking Desdemona is unfaithful.  Iago’s wife Emilia cries out before she dies, “Moor, she was chaste. She loved thee, cruel Moor. / So come my soul to bliss as I speak true” (5.2.258-259) and suddenly Othello understands that it is Iago who has misled him, not Desdemona.  This anagnorisis causes Othello to cry, “Wash me in steep-down gulfs of liquid fire! / O Desdemon! Dead, Desdemon! Dead! O! O!” (5.2.289-290), to stab and wound the villain Iago, and then to kill himself in remorse.

The second aspect of the Greek word anagnorisis is its more superficial, general connotation.  According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, anagnorisis simply conveys “the startling discovery that produces a change from ignorance to knowledge. It is discussed by Aristotle in the Poetics as an essential part of the plot of a tragedy… Anagnorisis usually involves revelation of the true identity of persons previously unknown, as when a father recognizes a stranger as his son, or vice versa” (“Anagnorisis”).  It is the simple epiphany experienced by the tragic hero as he realizes something significant, like the fact that he has killed the woman he loves for no reason.

This moment of revelation for Othello is the climax of Shakespeare’s play as everything comes together (or in Othello’s case, comes apart) before the tragic hero’s eyes and the full extent of Iago’s treachery and deceit is made clear to the him.  For the audience, the moment is especially climactic, because we have known the truth all along.  As Roger W. Herzel puts it: “When the man is Othello, a special kind of double vision comes into play: looking through our own eyes, we see the injustice of the action, but looking through the eyes of Othello we see its justice with equal clarity… In tragedy then, we witness an imitation of an action which has a terrible significance of which we are fully aware but the agent is not” (498).  The audience knows that Desdemona is innocent; thus, Othello’s baseless accusations and crime against her arouse special pity and loathing.  This makes the Othello’s anagnorisis at the end of the play exceptionally poignant.

How then does one distinguish a simple play of comedy from a great Aristotelian drama? Aristotle said three dramatic features provide this distinction: hamartia, katharsis, and anagnorisis (Kennedy & Gioia 856-858). Shakespeare’s great play depicting the downfall of a Moorish general through jealousy and deceit is such a tragic drama.   The Greek philosopher’s influence upon the sixteenth-century English playwright is evident in works such as Othello, as Sarah Dewar-Watson points out, “Discussion of Shakespeare's tragedies is still commonly framed in Aristotelian terms – the fall from greatness, the fatal flaw, the moment of catastrophe… It could be argued that Aristotle has had a hand in defining what is still generally regarded as the core of Shakespeare's tragic canon” (1). Through the character of Othello as a tragic hero with a fatal flaw, the purgation of emotion through the couple’s deaths and the punishment of Iago, and the epiphany Othello experiences at the end of the play, Shakespeare demonstrates with eloquence each and every one of Aristotle’s qualifications for tragedy. Othello is a tragic drama of epic proportions that has stood the test of time and continues to move audiences with its powerful themes of jealousy, intrigue, betrayal, faithfulness, death, and remorse.

References

Anagnorisis. (2013). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/22338/anagnorisis

Aristotle. (2010). Poetics. In X. Kennedy, D. Gioia, X. Kennedy, & D. Gioia (Eds.), Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing (p. 856). New York: Longman.

Dewar-Watson, S. (2004). Shakespeare and Aristotle. Literature Compass , 1 (1), 1-9.

Galgut, E. (2009). Tragic Katharsis and Reparation: A Perspective on Aristotle's Poetics. South African Journal of Philosophy , 28 (1), 13-24, 12.

Hamartia. (2000). In The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. Retrieved from http://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/cupliteng/hamartia

Herzel, R. W. (1974). "Anagnorisis" and "Peripeteia" in Comedy. Educational Theatre Journal , 26 (4), 495-505.

Kennedy, X., & Gioia, D. (2010). Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing (6th Compact Edition ed.). (X. Kennedy, & D. Gioia, Eds.) New York: Longman.

MacFarlane, J. (2000). Aristotle's Definition of "Anagnorisis" . The American Journal of Philology , 121, 367-383.

Shakespeare, W. (2010). Othello, the Moor of Venice. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing (6th Compact Edition ed.). (X. Kennedy, & D. Gioia, Eds.) New York: Longman.

       

A Brief Explanation of Capitalism

            I wrote this informative speech for my communications class last semester. Thanks to this blog, it was relatively easy to put together: I had already done most of the background research and expressed most of my views on this topic in my Classical Student posts. (That brilliant butcher analogy of mine might sound familiar.) Simplifying Capitalism But I thought a more comprehensive post that summarizes my personal definition might be interesting to read as well.

Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman said, “What kind of society isn’t structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.” So much for capitalism’s purpose. But what is capitalism exactly?

       Today you are going to come away from my speech with a full grasp of the definition “capitalism”. I will demonstrate, first of all, the literal definition of the term capitalism, along with a real-life example of what this system would look like on a practical level. I will also relate a brief history of capitalism, and finally contrast and compare capitalism to its opposing economic system, communism.    
      Capitalism has always been an interest of mine since my dad read George Orwell’s Animal Farm to us when we were young, and I’ve been studying the contrasting economic systems of Animal Farm’s socialism and its opposing system capitalism every since. I’ve also explored the topic through my writings on my blog and in my personal reading. I’m fascinated by its basic principles of free choice, non-intervention, and individual initiative.
      One way to understand a concept is through its definition. We will look at a definition of capitalism by Milton Friedman, a real-life example, and an alternative explanation.
      Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman defined capitalism and its role in society when he said: “The role of competitive capitalism is the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market – it is a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom” (Friedman, 1962, p. 4). Wow... these words are all very grand and imposing, but what does this definition look like on a day-to-day basis? What is the practical picture behind this fine-sounding economic jargon?
      Well, picture me as the owner of a butcher shop. You need meat, so you come into my butcher shop. I provide you with the resources, (meat,) and skills, (preparing and packaging the meat,) that you cannot provide for yourself, because you don't have the resources, skill, or time. In return, you give me money, which I can then use to provide for myself the things I need. I go to the bakery and buy bread with that money, because I don't have the resources (flour, ovens, bakers, etc.,) or the time, or the skills, to bake bread myself. Thus you have provided me with something I don't have, and I have provided you with something you don't have. That is a mutual exchange. This is capitalism in its purest and most basic form. 
      Maybe another butcher opens a similar shop down the street. Maybe he has a larger variety, or cheaper prices, or better quality of meats - so you go to him to buy meat instead. That's free choice. You can decide which butcher you like better. I want more money so I can buy bread for my family, so I lower my prices to bring in more business. That's competition. Does this competition hurt you, the customer? On the contrary, it lowers prices and improves quality/quantity for you, which is very beneficial for you. These laws - the laws of mutual exchange, free choice, and competition - are the basic tenets of capitalism. Adam Smith called these natural laws "the invisible hand" of the market.    
      Now that you have a clearer picture of what capitalism looks like on a daily basis, let’s look at an alternative definition from Robert P. Murphy, Ph. D. and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. He summarized capitalism this way: it is a system where people can use their property however they want – it’s also known as the free enterprise system because people have the freedom to choose their own jobs, the products they want to buy, and the products they want to sell (Murphy, 2007, p. 1).   
      But we can’t fully understand the definition without understanding where it came from – entire economic systems do not come out of a vacuum. Capitalism had a definite history, beginning with the end of the feudal system and the rise of the middle class, and continuing into the pages of today’s modern economic story. To better understand capitalism we will take a look at its brief history.
      The basic tenets of capitalism go all the way back to the Torah, where hard work, individual initiative, and private property were valued components of God’s economic system. God commands us in both Exodus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 5:13, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” and as Rabbi Spero pointed out in his Wall Street Journal article, with work a person becomes comes to understand that he has to be productive, and that success is not just an entitlement (Spero, What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism, 30 Jan 2012: A.15). (I recommend you read the full article, as it's excellent - here.) This is a fundamental principle of capitalism as well. Of course, as Spero says, the Bible “has nothing to say about financial instruments and models such as private equity, hedge funds or other forms of monetary capitalization.” But it does demand “honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and empathy” for those less fortunate than ourselves (Spero, What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism, 30 Jan 2012: A.15) 
      So capitalism’s principles were laid down in ancient times through the Torah – but modern capitalism was introduced into the world by Adam Smith. The popular economic system of the day was mercantilism, which he challenged in his revolutionary book The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. “It was Adam Smith who noticed that mercantilism was not a force of development and change, but a regressive system that was keeping the world from advancing. His ideas for a free market opened the world to capitalism” (Beattie, The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street, October 14^th, 2011). After Adam Smith popularized “laissez-faire” (“do what you want”) economics now known as capitalism, the era of the industrial revolution dawned. As Beattie stated, this new industrial capitalism was the first system that carried benefits for all societal levels instead of just for the nobles. The standards of living were raised which led to the formation of a middle class that grew larger and larger as more people from the lower classes rose to prosperity (Beattie, The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street, October 14^th, 2011). 
      Today’s version of capitalism is quite different from the Biblical models of Moshe and also quite different from Adam Smith’s “laissez faire” economic system. But the basic principles are the same. Modern capitalism still emphasizes the ideas of individual initiative, working hard to receive rewards, and getting to keep those rewards – Americans believe that these are inherent rights and American capitalism is a reflection of those basic beliefs.
      Yet another way to understand a concept is to contrast and compare it with something else (Foreman, 2013, p. 10). Let’s take a look at capitalism’s nemesis, communism.  
      A basic definition is that communism is a form of society in which the means of production and sustenance belong to the community (O’Leary, Communism, 2007) Communism, which puts the power into the hands of the state, stands in stark contrast to capitalism, which generally gives the state the role of referee, rather than player. Communism votes for working for the common good of the whole community sharing both labor and profit – capitalism relies on individual initiative and personal rewards for an economy to run smoothly. (On a side note, it is obvious form the examples of Russia and China that communism often leads to totalitarianism while capitalism generally promotes free trade, free enterprise, and political freedom in general – but that’s a topic for another speech.) As economist Milton Friedman said, “There are only two ways or coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion… the other is voluntary co-operation of individuals – the technique of the market place” (Friedman, 1962, p. 13). Communism vs. capitalism.

       Through the literal definition of the term “capitalism”, a look at a simple form of capitalism in practice, the history of capitalism, and a contrast/comparison of another economic system besides capitalism, you now have a basic understanding of this very important and influential economic system.

      Capitalism’s literal definition is an economic system that promotes individual initiative, free trade, free choice, minimal governmental interference, (except to enforce rules), mutual exchanges, competition, personal profits, and personal property. To borrow, yet again, Friedman’s way of expressing capitalism; its central feature is that it prevents one person from interfering too much with another – the consumer’s protected from coercion by the seller because there are other sellers with whom he can deal – the seller is protected from the consumer because of other consumers with whom he can deal. Moreover, the employee is protected from the employer because of other employers for whom he can work (Friedman, 1962, pp.14-15). This is how capitalism is supposed to work on a practical level in our daily, economic lives.

References

Beattie, Andrew: “The History of Capitalism: From Feudalism to Wall Street”, October 14^th, 2011, Investopedia, http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/capitalism-history.asp#axzz2CDmqGLvC.

Brearton, Steve: “A Brief History of Capitalism”, June, 2008, “Report On Busines Magazine”, The Globe & Mail division of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., Canada.

Foreman, Mark: Prelude to Philosophy: Thinking Critically About Foundational Beliefs, 2012, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.

Friedman, Milton; Friedman, Rose D.: Free to Choose, 1980, 1979, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York and London.

Friedman, Milton: Capitalism and Freedom, 1962, The University of Chicago

Press, Chicago Ltd, London.

Murphy, Robert P., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, 2007, Regnery Publishing, Inc.: Washington D.C.

O’Leary, Zina. Communism. (2007). In The Social Science Jargon-Buster. Retrieved fromhttp://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/sageukssjb/communism

Orwell, George. Animal Farm. 1945. Secker and Warburg, London.

Smith, Adam: Wealth of Nations. 1776 W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London.

Spero, Aryeh. What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism. Wall Street Journal. 30 Jan 2012: A.15; New York, N.Y.
 

Nostalgia, Regret, and Futility – Exploring the Tone and Language of Tennyson’s “Ulysses"

“How dull it is to pause, to make an end / To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use!” (22-23) Thus speaks the aged Greek hero in Tennyson’s famous poem “Ulysses” as the king contemplates the futility of life, bemoaning the passing of his youth. Although widely celebrated as a majestic piece that exhorts us to press onward in the face of grief, “Ulysses” contains yet a deeper meaning that Tennyson suggests using both the poem’s language and its tone – underneath the surface, “Ulysses” is a lament that muses with regret upon the vanity of a life wasted chasing after adventure. As Charles C. Walcutt of Michigan State Normal College writes, “The voice which speaks is not that of a trumpet, clear-throated and vigorous; it is the mournful sighing of strings” (Walcutt, 1946). Tennyson conveys his theme of regret using the following literary tools – tone and word choice.

             Tone is a powerful element of “Ulysses” – Tennyson portrays the attitudes and overall character of his poem using the aged warrior’s expression of feeling. Throughout its development, the hero of “Ulysses” articulates a broad range of emotions, from his initial frustrated reflections on his current situation, to his final determination to experience one last adventure before death – from “Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole / Unequal laws unto a savage race, / That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me. / I cannot rest from travel” (3-6) to “ ‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world…To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths / Of all the western stars, until I die” (56-61)

In the opening lines of “Ulysses,” Tennyson paints his readers a picture of an elderly Greek king sitting by an empty fireplace, lamenting the monotony of his current life. This emotion of frustration however quickly gives way to nostalgia, as Ulysses muses fondly upon his past adventures:

            Much have I seen and known, - cities of men

            And manners, climates, councils, governments,

            Myself not least, but honored of them all, -

            And drink delight of battle with my peers,

            Far on the singing plains of windy Troy. (13-17)

Then Ulysses turns to reflecting upon his son Telemachus and upon the differences between their characters – he observes that Telemachus seems contented with his lot governing the people of Ithaca, while Ulysses still feels restlessness in his own heart; “He works his work, I mine” (43). Ulysses next passes from thoughts of his son to contemplations of death and old age. His attitude towards death is similar to that of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes: “This also is vanity. For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever, since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come. And how does a wise man die? As the fool!” (Ecc. 2:15-16). Likewise Ulysses exclaims, “As tho’ to breathe were life! Life piled on life / Were all too little, and of one to me” (24-25), implying that just because he breathes doesn’t mean he feels alive – in fact, he feels his death drawing near, and the thought that “Death closes all” (51) fills him with a growing sense of despair. Ulysses has come to the same realization as the Preacher – no matter how many great deeds he’s accomplished during his lifetime, death is the inevitable end of all men. There is no escape from mortality.

The last emotion expressed by Ulysses in this poem is one of renewed, grim, and almost reckless determination to experience one final adventure before death overtakes him: “Come, my friends, / ‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world” (56-57). Tennyson enforces the despairing tone of his poem with this dramatic conclusion, in which Ulysses exhorts his fellow-mariners to join him once more on a sea-voyage. He cries,

            Tho’ much is taken much abides; and tho’

            We are not now that strength which in old days

            Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are (65-67)

The reader is never told whether or not Ulysses actually carries out his plan for a journey – he may have simply been dreaming of one last glorious adventure before death. As Walcutt states, “The effect of the poem is nearer to being an evocation of the state of mind of an aged warrior who dreams of former glory than it is to being the actual beginning of a new heroic quest” (Walcutt, 1946). The 16^th century Italian poet Dante describes Ulysses’ final journey in his poem The Inferno, and according to Dante’s version, Ulysses and his crew perish a watery death because of the wrath of Zeus: “The poop rose and the bow went down / till the sea closed over us and the light was gone” (130-131). Whether or not Ulysses actually set out on this final adventure and was lost at sea is not revealed in Tennyson’s text, but the expression of Ulysses’ emotion is the same – he senses the futility of his life and is frustrated with the impotence of old age. His solution is to turn to glorious visions of battles and adventures, which he thinks will bring him the happiness he lacks.

            Throughout the poem “Ulysses,” the aged Greek warrior gives voice to a wide array of emotions, ranging from discontentment to nostalgia to hopelessness to grim determination. Tennyson sets the tone of his poem through this expression of attitude, but he also conveys the poem’s deeper themes using word choice and language. There are two specific passages in “Ulysses” where Tennyson’s word choice particularly strengthens the sense of futility and hopelessness of this poem.

            First of all, Tennyson employs the use of metaphor when describing Ulysses’ feelings of helplessness. Ulysses compares himself to an old sword that has seen great deeds in battle but now sits abandoned and rusty with disuse (22-23) and uses the adjectives “dull”, “unburnish’d”, and “gray” to describe his sense of feebleness and age (23-30). He yearns “to follow knowledge like a sinking star” (31). Ulysses’ language and choice of adjectives in this particular passage strengthen the poem’s sense of regret and its message of life’s meaninglessness.

            Towards the end of the poem, Tennyson once again employs an implied metaphor when his hero describes the ending of the day, signifying the closing of his life:

                        The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;

                        The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep

                        Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,

                        ‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world. (54-57)

Ulysses realizes that, like the long day waning, his life is also drawing to a close. This realization seems almost to frighten him, and he grasps for comfort at the only thing he knows and loves – adventure. Instead of examining himself and apprehending the futility of the things he has spend his life chasing after, his conclusion is that, though “death closes all; but something ere the end, / Some work of noble note, may yet be done, / Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods” (51-53).

         

  The ultimate message of Tennyson’s poem “Ulysses” is a deep and powerful one, similar to the final conclusion of Ecclesiastes; “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all” (Ecc. 12:13). The pursuit of anything else in place of God – whether it be money, power, fame, glory in battle, or adventure – is fruitless and devoid of meaning. A life wasted chasing after these things is one that will end in regret and despair, as Tennyson’s Ulysses comes to partially realize. Tennyson conveys this message using his hero’s attitudes, expression of feeling, and choice of language – without God, our lives are meaningless. Without God, we have nothing to turn to when our end draws near and we begin, like Ulysses, to sense the futility of our life’s pursuits. And without God, the prospect of death is a frightening one indeed.

Sources

Dante, A. (2003). The Divine Comedy: The Inferno, the Purgatorio, and the Paradiso. (J. Ciardi, Trans.) New York, New York: New American Library.

Lord Tennyson, A. (1950). Ulysses. In P. R. Lieder, R. M. Lovett, & R. K. Root (Eds.), British Poetry and Prose (Third ed., Vol. 2, pp. 445-446). Cambridge, MA, United States: The Riverside Press.

Walcutt, C. C. (1946). TENNYSON, Ulysses. Explicator , IV (28), 3.

My most recent posts are the products of my freshman college assignments - in lit. class this week we had to analyze a particular poem's themes and the poet's methods of communicating those themes. I was pretty excited when I saw that Tennyson was one of the choices. (Because of reasons.) I hope it was as enjoyable to read as it was enjoyable to write. 

I have one more big drama paper due which I would like to share as well... and then I promise I will stop posting my college assignments on my blog. (Maybe.)