Heaven and Hell

William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell constantly compares heaven and hell and always relates them to each other. Blake concludes that if there is a good, there is also an evil comparison. "Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell" (xvi). Notice that "Reason" and "Energy" are both capitalized and he intends his audience to view Reason as good or heaven and Energy as evil or hell. William even states that evil and good are inside all of us and relate to the five senses we have. Is Blake trying to instill the same message that Plato did in The Republic, that humans are divided into parts of good and evil, and how we react to these parts decides how we think?

In The Republic, Plato says our souls are divided into three parts, the reasoning part, the part that feels ashamed or angered, and the appetitive part. He then tells us the example of the charioteer and his two horses. One of the horses was good, and the other bad. These horses were supposed to represent parts of the soul. I suggest reading Plates 3 & 4 in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell because they tell about what Blake believes of the soul and body. Are Plato and William Blake relaying the same overall message about good and bad/evil? If not what are the differences in their themes of their respective texts.

Thoughts, Ideas, and a Supreme Being

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume begins by stating that memory is never as accurate as reality. Therefore, Hume divides all perceptions of the mind into two categories: the “less forcible and lively” thoughts and ideas, and “the more lively” impressions. He draws the conclusion that “all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones”. Hence, all our ideas and thoughts can be broken down into simple ideas that came from different impressions. Berkeley, as Cesar said in the last post, talks of abstract ideas as “more compounded beings, which include several coexistent qualities”. Do Berkeley and Hume agree about the origin of thoughts and ideas? Later Hume states, “all the abstract reasoning in the world could never lead us one step towards the knowledge of it”. How does this relate to Berkeley’s attitude toward abstract thinking?

Hume later presents evidence against the presence of a Supreme Being. He states that some philosophers believe “it is the universal Creator, who discovers it to the mind, and renders it present to us”. Therefore, a supreme being places all thoughts and ideas in our minds. Hume has three issues with this argument. First, he argues that these philosophers “rob nature, and all created being, of every power”, taking away the ability of the mind to independently create a thought or idea. Second, he believes that the argument cannot be made because it “carries us quite beyond the reach of our faculties”. The conclusions drawn are regarding a world beyond our existence, and “our line is too short to fathom such immense abysses”. Our methods of argument cannot be assumed to hold in this alternate space. Thus, we cannot make assumptions about a Supreme Being. Third, Hume believes that we do not understand the workings of our own minds so we cannot claim to know how the mind of the Supreme Being works. All we know is what we learn from impressions and reflections on our own lives. Therefore, we created a God from our own experiences and impressions. As we know, Berkeley opposed Hume in that he believes God perceives all external objects, and therefore external object always exist. I am not a religious person, so Hume’s argument resonates with me strongly, but I am curious as to the response of religiously affiliated people. If you agree more with Berkeley or believe in a Supreme Being, how do you respond to Hume’s arguments?

Abstract Ideas and Words

George Berkeley introduces his essay A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge with the idea that uncertainty, doubt, and contradictions arise from the “imperfection of our understandings.” Berkeley believes that a root cause of this failure is the notion of things, or what he calls the “abstract of ideas.” The abstract ideas that the mind conceives are surreal. For instance he writes, “And as the mind frames to it self abstract ideas of qualities, so does it,... attain abstract ideas of the more compounded beings which include several coexisting qualities.” Berkeley exemplifies this idea with an example. A person may see three men, of different statues and color, and pick out common abstract ideas of the single particular men and then form a larger abstract idea of what a man is. In this larger abstract idea however, the peculiar nature of each man demonstrates many more abstract ideas. Does it make sense that Berkeley believes that we can’t have an abstract idea that applies to many distinct ideas? For example we can’t have an abstract idea of motion because it is neither swift not slow, not curvilinear or rectilinear; it’s many distinct things. What can we say about the perception of an individual and the way each person tries to form an abstract idea of something? More specifically, how do people grasp abstract ideas?

Secondly, Berkeley discusses the way words come in to play when talking about abstract ideas. He states that by annexing a meaning to a word of what we perceive this word should mean, then the idea becomes general by being made to represent for all other abstract ideas of the same sort. By combining all perceptions of that same abstract idea we can formulate a word which represents the overall general perceptions of the concept. How, if possible, can we state Berkeley disagrees with Locke in the way each depicts the understanding of an abstract idea through words? There’s a strong belief that Berkeley uses universality as a basis for what words represent, “universality, so as far as I can comprehend, not consisting in the absolute, positive nature or conception of any thing, but in the relation it bears to the particulars signified or represented by it.” Furthermore, he believes words that represent abstract notions were not only created to communicate but to transcend emotions such as passions, fear, love. etc. We can conclude that Berkeley believes in clear, and concise use of words when trying to convey ideas. Is there a a way then in which we can compare and contrast Locke’s and Berkeley’s view on words and how they should be used? How do the views of Berkeley criticize those of Locke when talking about the use of words to convey abstract ideas?

Locke's and Plato's Quest for Understanding

Locke's discourse on words is a more pragmatic and broad approach to Plato's ideas of the rhetoric of truth. Locke begins by stating that understanding comes about by perception and reflection. In this definition, he proposes several flaws, specifically about perceptions, that resonate with Plato's critique about bad rhetoric in the "Phaedrus." Foremost, Locke argues that the senses are not perfect in collecting information about the world. He states when discussing sound and hearing "A sufficient impulse there may be on the Organ; but it not reaching the observation of the Mind, there follows no perception: And though the motion, that uses to produce the Idea of Sound, be made in the Ear, yet no sound is heard." While, Plato argues for good rhetoric and grounding in words to discover truth, Locke presents a different viewpoint. Locke acknowledges the inherent flaws that we have in discovering truth.

Locke, criticizes words because they can result in a fragmented understanding. He raises the point that our biggest downfall is the application of words to collections of ideas. He represents this point in two ways. One example he utilizes is the element gold. He proposes the several ways in which we can come to define that element such as solubility, color, value etc. However, to each individual the word gold will elicit a different blend of all those qualities which it comprises. Further along, he exemplifies how words not grounded in reality, such as words dealing with morality, which have no standard basis from which to measure are impossibly difficult to reconcile.

Plato, similarly, touches on this point when he chooses to define love so as to be specific to his argument. However, Plato chooses to focus more on the rhetoric aspect of finding true understanding. Plato is concerned with the overall dynamic of writing as a means at reaching the essence of ideas. Locke focuses on suggesting that many of the differences that arise in meaning are due to the ambiguous and varying definitions that individuals assign to complex ideas. How do you suppose we can reconcile these two views on reaching understanding, if at all? Do you see more merit in one approach more than the other?

The Officer and Reality

There must be a deeper meaning to the officer in "In The Penal Colony". The narrative is driven by his explanations. From him, we learn about the machine, about the commandant, and about the enlightenment at the sixth hour. His words and arguments, however, are less convincing when we examine them in greater detail. Furthermore, the assumptions he makes about his surroundings color his narrative. Those problems lead us to ask the question whether or not he is a reliable source. Or, to put it in a Platonic perspective, whether perception has distorted his view of reality.

What is it, for instance, we know about the machine? From the officer's explanation, we learn that it now "works all by itself" (141), yet when the machine is in action the wheels creek (149) and the straps break (161). He even somewhat takes this point into consideration ("it can't be helped that things are breaking or giving way here and there; but one must not thereby allow oneself to be diverted in one's general judgement" (151)). The only proof we have that the machine ever worked comes from the officer, and neither the prisoner nor the guard offer support to his claims.

There are multiple occasions where the officer's world view may not correspond with reality. When we hear about his assumptions about the Commandant or the explorer's intentions, we clearly see the gap. When we hear about the size of the audience or their amazement by the enlightenment, we wonder what really happened. What does his character tell us about Kafka's view on words? Authorities in Kafka's texts often hide behind words, and the officer is no exception. When we examine the officer's claims, however, only he establishes his own authority. If we can point to these holes in his world view, can we believe him as a character? Does he have any authority at all? It seems easy to write off his world view simply as wrong or flawed. When we keep Kafka's style, the other characters, and the officer's narrative in mind, can we draw a more nuanced conclusion?

Perfection, Messiness, and The Penal Colony

Throughout the Penal Colony, the officer repeatedly posits that the colony and the system it operates under is perfect in several ways. First, he says that the former Commandant organized the penal colony through his own work, arguing that "We who were his friends knew even before he died that the organization of the colony was so perfect that his successor, even with a thousand new schemes in his head, would find it impossible to alter anything, at least for many years to come" (141). The officer continues to say that through its torturous techniques the Harrow produces enlightenment in its victims (150) and that even though the officer is the single judge who convicts and executes without the victim having a chance to defend him/herself, "they [the people who witnessed the Harrow in action] all knew: Now Justice is being done" (154). Through his detailed description of the Harrow's mechanisms, the officer concludes that all things considered, "its one drawback is that it gets so messy," a seemingly meager tradeoff for the pursuit of a perfect colony (147).

The officer later, however, shows fairly clearly that the system is not perfect. The justice system appears to be lopsided against the common person, and the Harrow ultimately malfunctions when it operates on him, stabbing the officer to death rather than making any design. The officer concedes that he is the Harrows "sole advocate" (153), and talks a lot to convince the explorer that the machine is an ideal implement for justice.

The Harrow seems to be frought with problems because of its messiness. The officer explains while describing the machinery that he has failed to maintain its many parts since the former Commandant died (151), and that a prisoner who did not know what was happening would immediately become revolted when he/she is forced to wear the same gag used by hundreds of people before. Even the design that was supposed to say "Be Just" was just a mess of scribbles on paper rather than anything meaningful.

Through the apparent contradiction between the officer's description of the Penal Colony and the Harrow and the way that they actually work, Kafka reveals that people have to be exceptionally careful about the way they uphold their own beliefs. The officer's logic behind why the Penal Colony and the Harrow are perfect are insubstantial and "messy"--namely, he bases his beliefs on the how the Harrow is a marvel of technology and his admiration for the former Commandant rather than anything logical or explicable, and that senseless zeal becomes apparent in the way that he treats the machine. On the other hand, the explorer relies on actual moral consideration after traveling throughout the world and learning about many cultures and thought systems for why the Harrow is an unacceptable implement of justice, and hence, has a far more carefully considered, "orderly" view of the world. I therefore believe Kafka does think the written word is a useful tool for discovering truth, but only when it is done carefully, and with thoughtful moral consideration.

The Power and Weakness of Language

The most prominent example of use of words and images as well as imagery in The Penal Colony comes through the words of the unnamed officer. Unlike the taciturn explorer and the almost entirely uncomprehending soldier and prisoner, he uses an excess of words, describing in exhaustive detail the torture that the machine inflicts, and yet still insisting that there is even more to tell, if he only had more time. Kafka then juxtaposes this unending stream of words and descriptions with the character's deep-seated belief in the power of words. He believes that words can be used as weapons, as a powerful and unstoppable force of persuasion, even concocting an elaborate plan to save his way of life by having the explorer shout his approval of the machine from a balcony (Kafka 159).

From the events that transpire, however, it seems that Kafka doesn't agree with the officer's belief in words as the ultimate source of power. All the officer's stream of description isn't enough to fully convey what he wants to about the machine. His powers of persuasion don't extend to overturn the basic human decency of the explorer. And even more importantly, his vaunted words, and his belief in his precious machine aren't enough, in the end, to grant him the beauty and serenity of true enlightenment he claims that others have had. For Kafka, the officer, the one who relies the most on the use of words, dies bereft of the hope and beauty that come with true understanding. Kafka seems to imply that revelations cannot come from speech, from crude and man-made words. This is reinforced by the fact that it is the prisoners who are gagged and unable to speak who achieve the understanding that eludes the officer. Unlike Plato, Kafka doesn't believe in the power of the written word to arrive at truth, but neither does he offer an alternative. The story leaves us uncertain, knowing only the dangers of abandoning truth for speech.