Polish film director Andrzej Wajda points out in an article that Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment" kills for a "theory." Raskolnikov had already expounded upon this theory in his justification for murdering the old pawnbroker and her sister. That theory went something like this: There are two groups of people, one group are your ordinary worthless scum of the earth and the other are geniuses like himself, Raskolnikov, who have the right merely for that reason to do what they will to the scum of the earth. He brings Napoleon into the argument, equates himself with him, claiming that Napolean took what he wanted and killed when he had to with no remorse because he had a theory and a belief in himself and its rightness, that his actions served a higher purpose. Thus Raskolnikov's actions served that same higher purpose.
In particular the argument was demonstrated again while he was engaged in one of his dialogs with the examining magistrate Porfiry Petrovich who is not entirely shocked by this theory. In fact he's the one who refers to it as a theory. Raskolnikov wasn't some crackpot, foaming at the mouth, who hadn't thought through his theory. In fact Raskolnikov is a brilliant ex-law student yet a sensitive & compassionate individual who demonstrates his compassion on a number of occasions in particular with Katerina Ivanovna and his love for his sister, Mother and for the prostitute Sofya/Sonia, daughter of Katerina Ivanovna and he also confesses to her, his Magdalene. In fact she is forced to hear his confession. So if he is a psychopath it would have to be determined by psychiatric treatment, but since he is not a living, breathing being we have to go by his actions in the novel where he tried and believed he did good after the murders. No that wasn't in particular to atone for the murders, he still believed his theory, but actually the "good" developed out of the feelings of empathy within him, particularly for Sonia. Svidrigailov, that swine points out to Dunya that she should think of the good her brother might do one day (even though Svidrigailov has ulterior motives and is trying to blackmail Dunya into marrying him) According to Svidrigailov, Raskolnikov is a genius and he may do more good in the world eventually that allows one to ignore such a transgression against humanity as murdering two "worthless" women, one who in Raskolnikov's eyes was definitely scum of the earth. . . However, Poor Lizavetta, who witnessed the initial crime, was just collateral damage.
But who else killed for a theory and still continues to kill for a theory? Everyone who has ever engaged in the violence of war in the modern era. Is Nazism a theory? Communism? Democracy? Even radical Islam? Not to mention all the other radical religious interpretations, interpreters & other smaller theories that operate where madmen masquerade with rationality. They don't foam at the mouth. Hitler fulminated. He didn't foam. Stalin ruled with an iron fist. No one dared think of him much less call him a Madman until he was dead. President Obama is as rational as any Professor can be and so was a no account like G.W. Bush and so were all Presidents and congressmen & congresswomen & all the judges. But they all live for theories. All of their theories are right. All of their theories justify murder. Or they find ways to justify it when they have to. They are no different then the murderers who fly planes into buildings or who drop Sarin gas in a subway or blow up children in marketplaces. Because those people also don't foam at the mouth. They're rational. They all share this one feature. They murder out of rationality and claim their theories are the true theories. They claim that their theories are better than the murderous theories against which they are opposed.
It's really no different than religion. Yes Islam is a religion. But its radical form, like radical Christianity, radical Judaism is also a theory. It is a theory that always proves that the adherent is always right and that they are doing it for the glory of God and the mass of people who would otherwise suffer if they didn't that they would lose the love of God. They claim to be merely the messenger listening to the words of a being greater than themselves. Political leaders, however, aren't listening to the word of a greater being but to their own inner greater being. That being is their so-called conscience. What Socrates called his "inner demon" they call their conscience. But most if not every political leader's only conscience is to maintain the power that he possesses and thus it is this power that is rationalized as his conscience and if conscience dictates that murder must occur to salve that conscience, well so be it.
So what about our savior of the nation, Abraham Lincoln? Our greatest President. Our most revered. The one who was so ignominiously slain in office? Our Lincoln who "freed the slaves," an act of, I believe, genuine courage and conscience, even if it was the conscience of many at the time. By doing so he risked his political power. And there was John Brown who murdered in the cause of ending slavery. He was following his conscience. But he had to do that just like Lincoln had to though the ends were different. Brown murdered as an abolitionist. It was a necessary belief ultimately a theory supported by religious and moral belief. And even with Brown there is an element of rationality. But that "good" thing, ending slavery, required at least according to Brown, murder. But it was limited, limited to the end of slavery. Lincoln, however, had to condemn thousands to death for a theory. It wasn't just a religious and moral belief that prodded him to end slavery or his conscience screaming to end slavery but the overriding theory. That theory was that the United States was a democracy and that it would not, that it could never be torn asunder by states seceding because their secession was over the question of slavery. So whether or not Lincoln was just excerising his free will, listening to his conscience or willing to risk everything in order to maintain his power and hold together the nation we can never truly know. But murder was the necessary supporting beam for his theory.
Yet there have been those in the modern era who did not believe that their theories should be supported by murder. And for that what was their pay back? Ghandi, MLK Jr. Even RFK who atoned for his sins was later murdered like Ghandi, like Martin Luther King Jr. for having a theory without murder as its driving force or main support.
In the modern era the ends always justify the means. and political leaders can always justify those means whether it means one dead, two dead or thousands upon thousands dead And so often it is done without anger, without prejudice, without concern for the knowable or unintended consequences along with innumerable innocents as collateral damage. But for Raskolnikov. though there really were no "ends" to justify his actions, his means are murder in support of a theory, a theory that is just as boneheaded as any theory that justifies murder as its bearing wall or main beam or driving force.
Some News items. But mainly personal opinions that may be unreasonable, without warrant, meaningless and shameless but relentless and consistent as a blinking light. Of course there is that story about Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier, the guy who discovered and named oxygen & hydrogen and executed during the reign of terror. He purportedly asked a servant to see if his eyes blinked after he was beheaded. No one could prove the story. But maybe we can see after death.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
The origins of some commonly used phrases and customs
1. Where did "Piss Poor" come from? They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families used to all pee in a pot. And then once it was full it was taken and sold to the tannery... If you had to do this to survive you were "Piss Poor". But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't even afford to buy a pot...thus
2. "Didn't have a pot to piss in." Those who "didn't even have a pot to piss in" were the lowest of the low.
3. Custom of the bride carrying a bouquet. In the 1500's most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and they still smelled pretty good by June.. However, since they were starting to smell, brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
4. "Don't throw the baby out with bath water." Baths when they occurred consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, Then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!"
5. "It's raining cats and dogs." Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs."
6. Canopied beds. There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
7. They're dirt poor. The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying, "Dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery In the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on the floor to help keep their footing..
8. A threshold as your entrance way to a house. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, It would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance-way. Hence: a thresh hold.
9. The rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, etc." In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers In the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while.
Hence the rhyme:
“Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special.
10. "Bringing home the bacon." When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, "bring home the bacon."
11. Chewing the fat. They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and chew the fat.
12. Why tomatoes were considered poisonous. Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
13. The Upper Crust. Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, And guests got the top, or the upper crust.
14. Holding a wake after death. Lead cups were used to drink ale or whiskey. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom; “holding a wake."
15. Saved by the bell or he was a dead ringer. England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell.
16. The Graveyard Shift. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, “saved by the bell" or was "considered a dead ringer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)