Battle Of The Sexes

Reproduction Today

Mothers are an essential part of reproduction. As seen in The Selfish Gene it is the method that allows genes to pass from an old body to a new one. The definition Richard Dawkins uses for this book is this: "I am treating a mother as a machine programmed to do everything in its power to propagate copies of the genes which ride inside it" (123) This definition although not absolute it is the basic programming that is given to all adult females in a species. Mother must do everything to pass as many of their genes to the next generation as possible. Humans have created an incredible opportunity for themselves in which some mothers can potentially give birth to as many offspring as time allows with food and other resources as a problem. There is a worldwide trend in which countries with a low living standard have a higher population growth rate than those with an excellent living standard. It is only a problem in developed countries that the population of those being born is dramatically less than that of those ageing and because of this other problems arise like the source for pension money. I found it very interesting how couples in developed countries decide to have less children than those of developing countries. I studied this development of populations in science and apparently education isn't the only factor. The theory behind this strange pattern is that when life expectancy for a child increases a couple sees no need in having to invest their resources on more than one or two children.

The problem is that why have only have one child when you could have ten and they would all grow to continue spreading genes? The issue isn't around sexual education or accessibility of birth control methods because in many cases there are available to the population with the least wealth. Maybe it has to do with choice. Our rational brain might not want to have many children but our irrational (genes) will. If our rational brain is busy trying to figure out what you will do tomorrow in order to survive, like in Africa or in Colombian Chocó, then your irrational brain will be able to do as it pleases and genes will do as they please. It is true that rational brains in developed countries will have to be very busy as well but there are times when we can take a break. A person in danger of starvation will dedicate every bit of his rational brain to finding a solution to his situation. At this point in human evolution we are at a crossroads. We can choose to be as civilized and rational as our brains allow but if we aren't careful it only takes a blink for the genes to take over.

To Be What We Are Not

As humans we are constantly trying to better ourselves. That is part of being that machine which is working to achieve that state of "perfection". There is a flaw however on our idea of reaching perfection. We based our society and therefore environment on ideals. Our society is made for perfect people but we remain imperfect animals. This quote shows how in essence we remain animal and how our pacts which are the basis of our society fail to maintain order: "So, even in man, a species with the gift of conscious foresight, pacts or conspiracies based on long-term best interests teetering constantly on the brink of collapse due to treachery from within. In wild animals, controlled by the struggling genes it is even more difficult to see ways in which group benefit or conspiracy strategies could possibly evolve. We must expect to find evolutionary stable strategies everywhere" (73). The governments we create are based on this type of pacts. It is not that we are treacherous by trying to break these laws but simple we are working with the ideas given to us by our genes which enter in conflict with these ideas of altruism. Taxes are an example of these altruistic ideas. We surrender part of our income in order to give something to everyone else like roads. We are reducing our (and our genes) chances of survival by giving others part of our income which could be used to buy food or other needs in bad times. Still, even though we are haunted by authority who is there to impose these altruistic laws there are people who refuse to pay taxes. We see this everywhere and it proves that to nature there is only short term.

If we continue to pretend to be what we are not society as we know it will only continue to become more corrupt. We must find a system to rule ourselves that abides the laws of nature. This will allow our species to continue evolving. This is similar to the conflict that exists between our rational and irrational parts of our brain. Our irrational being our genes' implanted behavior patterns and our rational brain the part of the brain that is given the opportunity to choose. If given the opportunity to make a rational choice most people might choose being altruistic, our irrational brain disagrees. I remember from Radio Lab's Choice that it doesn't take much to overwhelm the rational brain. This means that even if we want to be altruistic we will remain selfish. This might look like there is no way out of the situation but there is. We have been accompanied by our genes since the beginning of the species. We know them and to some extent thanks to our rational brain we can predict what they will do. If this is true then we can use this predictable selfishness to our favor and manipulate it to be altruistic. Either we adapt to our genes and follow what they say or we adapt society to manipulate our genes into making them do what we want them to do.

So How Much Power Do We Have?

Life according to The Selfish Gene exists as we know it because genes developed machines to allow the continuation of their own replication and defense from other replicating genes. Thus, we were created for the survival of genes only. The competition between genes for the available matter on which they can replicate became natural selection which leads to our existence. The shape of the survival machines has changed greatly from the original molecules that began creating more of themselves but the concept remains the same. We continue to be a mean by which genes achieve their own continuation. Generally what we do is exactly what genes want us to do. They achieve this level of control by giving us a preset goal and the farther away we are from it the more we work towards it. We see this idea here: "The 'purpose machine', the machine or thing that behaves as if it had a conscious purpose, is equipped with some kind of measuring device which measures the discrepancy between the current state of things, and the 'desired' state. It is built in such a way that the larger this discrepancy is, the harder the machine works" (51). Our brains and body are there to execute the genes wishes to continue existing. This is achieved by giving us an ideal of what life is supposed to be like and genes let us work whatever way we can to reach that ideal. Genes can't work the details of life and thanks to this we are given some freedom. Because our brains are so developed that degree of freedom has become the ability to go against what our genes tell us to do. Suicides are an example of this rebellion against nature. Genes don't want to die at least not knowing that they can continue living normally.

This freedom that given to us by genes is showed here: "But as brains became more highly developed, they took over more and more of the actual policy decisions, using tricks like learning and simulation in doing so. The logical conclusion to this trend (…) would be for the genes to have the survival machine a single overall policy instruction: do whatever you think best to keep us alive" (60). The problem with this idea of taking over the genetic instructions and disobeying them is that we would be ignoring knowledge that has been passed down for millions of years. We are the best model there is for the current state of things in the world. Any change could result in damage to the species and the gene. Should we really question our instincts when it took nature millions of years of trial and error to create them?

Immortals From Mortals

Humans are mortals and we can't do anything to change that, the only thing we can do it try to leave something behind in order to be remembered. Genes are exempt from this law since they can't die like we do. Their state is almost eternal (there are exceptions but genes useful to the continuation of a species will continue to exist indefinitely). It is very hard to get rid of a gene that can continue living in different bodies. This idea of the potential eternity of genes appears here: "another aspect of the particulateness of the gene is that it does not grow senile…" (34) This reminded me of the gods from Greek mythology all around the world. They were immortal beings and all powerful. These gods regarded humans and mortals as nothing more than something entertaining to watch as eternity went by. As described here, gods could be genes. They are all powerful in our bodies. Genes can determine everything that you are physically and most of your psychological tendencies. Genes, can even determine when and how you will die(with doing what we consider to be "morally wrong" like God). What I find interesting is that these immortal things need of mortals to exist. Without us genes can't perpetuate their existence.

I then wandered what this meant for people. I realized that this book described humans (and every other living thing) as an insignificant medium to achieve the genes immortality. Our only purpose then is simply to be effective survival machines for genes. A gene "leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way for its own ends abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death"(34). Could it be that because our purpose is so simple and unimportant (because there are plenty of other humans with our genes even if not in the same order that can carry them on) that we continue to search for a more "meaningful" end?

In Search Of Purpose

In the end of Candide Voltaire gives the idea that through hard work we are to find life bearable. Through work we are to give our life a purpose even if this work is only for us. It was truly interesting how Candide went through the complexities of philosophy were there isn't really a right answer to a rather simple conclusion. Working on the garden and living in the reality posed to them and not the impossible world of philosophy. That appeared to be the decision Candide was given. He could follow either path of positiveness (Pangloss) or Negativeness (Martin). Candide was mostly influenced by Pnagloss for he had been his life's tutor and that had not proved the best way to look at life. It was like living in a bubble that would burst in any moment. The idea of the world being the best it could be simply isn't reality.

This reminded me of the End of Evangelion. Here the main character Shinji Ikari is faced with a very hard decision. He has viewed all his life in a very pessimistic way. His life was the ideal Martin gave for a humans life: "Martin's conclusion was that man was born to suffer from the restlessness of anxiety or from the lethargy of boredom." (140) Ironically his situation is rather enviable but his views of life don't allow him to enjoy it fully. He is the opposite of Candide but instead of going in opposite directions the story lines meet. In the end both Candide and Shinji are faced with the choice of living in their bubble or in their reality. Shinji could have decided to stay in that place were all souls were one and there was neither pain nor pleasure, were he couldn't be hurt by others. A place were he would not be able to live. Candide could have remained a philosopher were he could complain all the time about the wrongdoings of humanity and never do anything. He would have never been truly sad since he would not suffer what humanity goes through directly and he would never have the pleasure of helping others directly.

What I liked about both works was that both characters decided to not allow their past pain trouble their life but decided to actively change their present. This idea repeats when there are bad times. Voltaire lived during the French Revolution while Hideaki Anno lived through a period of recession in Japan known as the "lost decade". These are two periods that I wouldn't like to experience. The French Revolution was one of the most violent periods in history. The "lost decade" was also a horrible time since all the people leaving high schools and universities in Japan could not find any jobs, many of these youths locked themselves in their rooms and refused to go out. Many of them ended with deep psychological problems. This is why this generation was called "the lost generation". Philosophy for Volataire and anime for Anno were the way people escaped from such horrible realities. What I loved about both works was that their message was to live your life and try to make it a better place. "'We must work without arguing,' said martin; 'that is the only way to make life bearable'"(144). Even if your work only makes you happy not doing anything (like Anno did for four years) will only drive closer to insanity. Both works made me think that even through the illusion of change that your hard work gives you, one can find happiness. Not mattering how futile your objective is.

Taking Evolution Into Our Hands

As I begun reading The Selfish Gene I found myself agreeing with most of the things he had said. Selfishness and lack of morality (as defined by humans) is everywhere in nature, as much as we disagree with it and demonize it. Here we see his opinion expressed about helping others in order to defend the existence of the species as a whole: "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply don't make evolutionary sense." (2) This sentence that was hard for me to digest. At first I had agreed with him almost completely but then I was shocked. It is true humans aren't altruistic beings because if we were to sacrifice the strong for the weak eventually the weak would be the only ones left and the species would end. The survival of the species as a whole depends on every person even though we might not see it because each of us carries genes that will be useful for the next generation. And who knows, maybe one day one of our genes will save humanity from a pandemic. In the end it is through selfishness that we compete with others in order to test if our genes are worthy of existing in the next generation. Selfishness exists only for survival of the species.

When it comes to what he defines as altruism it isn't necessarily true that humans are selfish in the sense that we are programmed to not care about anyone. We do care for others and having to leave someone behind must be a horrible experience. Placing others before us in such situations would be very bad for the wellbeing of the species since those with worthy genes would reduce their chances of survival in order to save those who don't deserve to pass their genes on. It is horrible, but if no one dies there is no evolution.

When I continue my reading after analyzing this phrase I came upon this quotation: "Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to." (3) What he proposes is that thorough nurturing our minds to be altruistic we should then control the process of natural selection and alter the path of evolution. This idea is completely insane. Things are the way we see them for a reason (especially evolution). As advanced as we humans believe to be we are still newborns in the terrain of higher thinking. We have invented a system in which the weak is given a second chance. We have began to mess things with natural selection. There is a final decision all humanity must make, do we wish to play God and are we ready to face the consequences of doing so. We have changed our own environment so that the world has become a Petri dish. In cities we are able to exist and reproduce without limits and all designs of humans are given a chance not mattering how useless or damaging they will be for the future of the species. This process will continue until the food runs out and then we will be forced to live in the environment we were meant to live in. Nature eventually wins all wars and humanity will be claimed back from its attempt to play civilization. This book seems like an attempt to control the natural impulses nature has given us in order to create a utopia but this won't work. The only way we might be able to continue living in this civilization is by using the genes to our favor. We must attempt to use the selfishness and other tendencies in order to mold a lasting civilization. We have seen many times that wars against nature are always futile and doing this would only prove such a thing right.

Home Is Worse

Many times we aren't thankful for what we have been given and think better of what others have. This can be useful because through that dislike towards our current situation we might find a reason to better ourselves. Sadly, we are sometimes blinded and loose our sense of what is best.

In Candide we see this when Candide arrives to El Dorado. There he encounters this Utopian society where all was truly for the best. People were altruistic and nobody lacked anything. Candide even accepts the greatness of this place here: "' It is quite true, my good fellow, that the house where I was born won't bear comparison with the mansions of this country. . .'" (82) Our home can be surpassed by many places but we tend to exaggerate this. I was not very surprised to see this same type of ideas in the NYT since they are part of humanity.

As I read through Crisis Leaves Europe in Slow Lane the author, a European depicted the economic situation of the region. Apparently it was horrible and he saw the U.S as a place where the problems were ending and as a role model. It is true that he presented us with numbers and facts that supported his ideas. Although some of what he says must be truth, he is missing parts of the whole idea. He says that because of the heavy regulations on employment in Europe and all the benefits that people are given, the european powers risk lagging behind on competitivity. Although it is true that employing someone in Europe must be costly and complicated, the benefits people are given outweigh it. Life standards are better on Europe than in America which made me think whether economic growth was worth the happiness and stability in the lives of people. This made me reflect on what Candide thought about El Dorado.

This is probably the part where Candide shows his lack of judgement. Right after saying that comparison between his home and that utopia Candide said this :". . . but still, I shall never be happy without Lady Cunégonde, and I dare say you have some mistress or other in Europe" (82). Knowingly that they would never be able to return to such a beautiful paradise Candide still wanted to continue in his search for Cunégonde. Maybe that lack of reason is our way of viewing the European economy. They might be apparently in great trouble and shrinking in size yet their society is very considerate of the individual needs of each person where as the U.S is more centered around the economic needs of the country willing to sacrifice the well being of its people for such purpose.

Satires Everywhere

After being on the class where satires were explained to us I began to see them more clearly than I did before. Candide is a satire on many aspects of life particularly positive attitudes towards life. He attempts to take this away by showing a world where those who believe that all is for the best suffer greatly as an attempt of the world to disprove their blind belief. Above all this book made me think that although not all is for the best this can be changed. If one doesn't have a passive attitude towards situations and continues to work towards a better present things will be better. This Idea of passivity appears here : " The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and the people own nothing. . ." (62) If people chose to they could take over and split the land evenly. This passive attitude is what made the situation in which they were bad. It possibly reflects the attitude Pangloss had over life in which everything was meant to be as it was for the best of reasons.

This Satire reminded me of another more modern satire: Neon Genesis Evangelion. That positive and passive attitude towards life as shown in this book is probably a reflection of what Voltaire saw in his days. This series is also a satire to the genre of giant robots like transformers. (Although, the plot revolves around the character's problems and the robots are a metaphor to facing problems in life) In this scene we see a cliché common to anime that there is a gifted pilot which in the first attempt masters completely the art of controlling his machine. This cliché is shattered by making the giant robot worth millions (enough to make several countries in the world go hungry in order to pay its repairs) fall face on and then get badly damaged by the "angel". It is also Satirical that in this series humans are the bad ones. (spoiler alert!)We are the ones who in our greedy search for power have began our search to become living gods. The "angels" are there to seemingly stop our plan but fail in the end. This is the video that shows the part of the satire(In order to show the entire satire viewing the whole series is necessary).

This is a short explanation of the series:

A Masterpiece Of Reason And Justice

Continuing on the satirical theme of Candide we are given a very sarcastic phrase: "The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and the people own nothing: that's what I call a masterpiece of reason and justice. I don't think I have ever seen such god like creatures as the reverend fathers." (62) This is probably a protest from Voltaire against the Catholic Church. At his time this was the most powerful institution of the time. It moved the beliefs of many people from different countries and it shared its power with none. Even after the appearance of Protestantism and the schism that gave birth to the Anglican Church the majority of Europeans remained catholic. This is clearly a demonstration of the problems of giving a single institution so much power. The church also had inconsistencies which if mentioned could end in a sentence to hell or getting excommunication if you were a member of the church. These are the faults that Voltaire wants to show us here: "They fight the Kings of Spain and Portugal over here and given them absolution in Europe. In this country they kill Spaniards and in Madrid they send them to Heaven" (62). These great inconsistencies are probably the target of Voltaire's satire here. Through sarcasm he shows the terrible thing the church does in order to maintain itself.

The greatest of all inconsistencies revealed in that page is within the ideology of Christianity. We are thought that Christianity is about helping the poor and accepting the life one is given in a humble manner. The church is one of the most powerful entities in the world yet it doesn't use this power for the good of humanity. Instead it is more interested in spreading its power above all things (at least as depicted here). It is able to increase its power by joining both sides of the conflict and agreeing with everybody. It also refuses to give its power to the poor who are supposedly the ones this church should be protecting. This led me to wonder why the church had such immense power then. It had obtained it through the irrationality of people and their desperation to escape the fear of death in order to continue living. Desperately people joined the church seeking salvation who obtained the promise of such thing. In the end the church is born from the lack of reason and the injustice of those who have and those who don't have.

In Love With Life

After finishing the old Woman's story I was impressed by her resilience. Not physical but rather the resilience of her soul. She was able to resist incredible tortures and treasons through her life and still she retained her integrity. We see her inability to free herself from such a horrible reality here: "I have wanted o kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life" (57). She even said that her life was "a burden one would gladly throw away" (57). Those times as described here were brutal, where war and violence ruled. (like today) There was no escape for those who were innocent and meant no harm to anybody. Even though some parts of this novel are satirical and absurd there is one part incredibly realistic: "I have met only twelve who have voluntarily put an end to their misery. . ." (57). Having so much suffering in the book makes this body count possible.

I do find the story of the old woman disturbing but the way she acted is even more so. Seeing so much suffering made me think if there was a breaking point where suffering went beyond the capacity for humans to bear. Is it possible that such love for life was a clue for insanity? Is there a point that once reached makes continuing living something absurd? Most wound heal but those as deep as showed here will most likely remain open for ever in a normal person and if they were to close a scar would cover them. Was it truly worth it to continue living in such hell to finally be able to fulfill her destiny of helping Cunégonde? Could Voltaire be trying to show us that humans can make each other reach the limit in which life is no longer worth it?

A Human Reaction

As I read chapter 11 I was shocked at the brutality of the scenes described there: "In the end I saw my mother and all our Italian ladies torn limb from limb, slashed, and massacred by the monsters that fought for them" (52). As horribly violent this scene was I find the old lady's response to these events heartless specially because it looked so easy for her to talk about them. She has apparently healed from the wounds that opened in her soul for witnessing such a horrible moment. Tears don't even show when she meets with her old teacher and tells him about her experience. This is the moment where she narrates her story to the man: "I told him all that had happened to me and he described his adventures as well"(54). It is completely beyond my understanding how the teacher cried more than the daughter: "'Your mother?' he cried, with tears starting to his eyes" (54)

This was a great contrast to the response to negative events the characters of Neon Genesis Evangelion have gone through. This story reminded me to the one of Asuka Langley Soryu. She is traumatized for several events related to her mother. She listened to her mother say that she wanted to quit taking care of Asuka. Not long after Asuka's mother had a very bad case of depression. She tried killing her child but failed. Finally this horror story ends with Asuka walks in her mother's corps after she had committed suicide.
The poor kid developed a serious case of narcissistic personality disorder and is haunted by memories of those days even after "blocking" them. Also, she is completely obsessed with being as independent as possible yet still a child (about 14) in the series she unconsciously looks for company and help. It is a hyperbolae of all the problem people have, but in the end she is, to some extent, an accurate description of how messed up people can become.

Which story is worse Asuka's or the old woman's in Candide is completely up to you. The truth is that I see them both as a horrible set of events that happened to innocent and harmless people. The reactions are what make these two stories different. The one in Candide showed an idealistic person who moved on with her life after loosing all that was dear to her. Most people would probably go insane at such a horrible thing happening to a dear one. (At least I would) It is a satire to the human condition since it is completely absurd a person can talk about such a painful event so easily. Asuka on the other hand represents the real way humans are. We suffer and are completely changed by our past. There are many things we are never able to overcome. This is a satire to many things and it includes all that which revolves around the human condition. The coldness in which the old lady narrated her story probably is but a continuation of this satire hidden within the already satirical ideal that "all is for the best" (20).

The Sin Of Listening

Voltaire as always trying to enforce freedom for all in his works show us once again what happens when there is no freedom of thought. This happens when Pangloss dies and Candide is severely injured when given as sacrifice in order to stop future earthquakes from occurring in Lisbon. The exact moment where this occurs is here: "Dr.Pangloss and his pupil, Candide, were arrested as well, one for speaking and the other for listening with and air of approval."(36) This showed once again the problems that exist when there is no freedom of choice. Everyone should have the freedom of thought. Pangloss wasn't saying something that would threaten the stability of a kingdom but it would rather help it remain as it is. Still, somebody disagreed with him and that person had more power than the philosopher. Because of this the philosopher had to pay with his life and his follower had to go through extreme pain.

To humanity, this means that everyone has the right to think freely. This elemental freedom is something Voltaire emphasizes greatly since it is probably something he didn't have at his time. Today there is greater freedom in this sense although not everywhere does this freedom exist. There are countries that don't tolerate opposition but is this freedom really worth it? If an article publishing new revolutionary ideas that do opposition to that of the current government, is It really worth it if this could cost the life of many? Eventually it leads us to the choice between freedom and peace. It is true that if we fight for it we will be able to gain as much freedom as we want but is this freedom really worth it? If we were to obtain it, would we make the right decisions? Since we are humans bound to making mistakes thus doing so it very probable but hopefully we will grow in the process.

The Cost Of Life

In our society there must always be a cost for everything even if it is the most precious thing there is. Voltaire touches this issue here: "'How can I be cured?' said Pangloss, 'I haven't a penny, my dear friend and there is not a doctor in all this wide world who will bleed your or purge you without a fee'" (31). Public health is something that is rather recent and I find this prove that Voltaire was ahead of his time. Such an issue shows in a subtle but clear way demonstrates that such a thing has always been present. It isn't, as many people believe, that doctors are heartless for denying care to patients who are in need (as Voltaire seems to insinuate in this part) but rather it is the cost of their own survival that doctors charge for. It is true that most doctors won't work without a fee but there is a reason for this. If you want someone to work for free then all must be given for that same price. Sadly, we are far from that utopian thought.

This image that Voltaire wants to give about doctors being cruel isn't right. What I do agree with is that the situation depicted there is very sad. Sadly it is though medicine that the price we have given to life becomes the most obvious but this doesn't mean that this is the only place where it exists. It is the sum many different situations we have created. Society has placed a price on everything and all people must pay a price for it. Doctors are sadly placed on a very uncomfortable position since the "product" they offer is the health of others. It isn't their fault that society gives it the label of product and there for a price. The same happens with food and all other essential things some might not have an access to. Could Voltaire be trying to raise these kinds of thoughts when he wrote that?

The Slaughter

War has existed for a very long time and its results never vary. Death destruction beyond the reasons we give it to be. Voltaire tries to show the horrors of war and he probably tries to show his position towards it. Here, we see the moments of war that Candide had to go through after being captured by the Bulgars: "Finally, the bayonet provided "sufficient reason" for the death of several thousand more" (25). This part just showed how bloody wars were. Using bayonets to kill all those who had survived the initial wave of bullets must have been a horrible thing to witness in those old wars. The "sufficient reason" was probably the means to kill people without a reason. To mi this simply shows that there is no reason behind all that death surrounding war, at least I believe that was what Voltaire wanted to show us with that phrase.

Continuing the massacre that occurred in that war scene we see Candide's reaction which was this: "Candide trembled like a philosopher, and hid himself as best he could during this heroic butchery" (25). Since Voltaire was a philosopher I believe this is a reflection of his reaction towards war. He trembled before and tried to hide from it yet he still experienced it and brings it as the absurd even that it is. He talked about it as a "heroic butchery" which is likely a satirical phrase. There isn't anything heroic about killing another person it is just like a butcher cutting meat. This was very shocking because in a way killing a person with your own hands must be more shocking than shooting another person. Almost, as if we were trying to make war more bearable.

Free Will Again

In the third and second chapters of Candide a recurrent theme, free will made its first appearance. When Candide is taken by the Bulgars, he decides to take off one day ignorant of the consequences of such action. When he is forced to return he is forced with this decision: "It was useless to declare his belief in Free Will and say he wanted neither; he had t make his choice. So exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet…"(24). This piece shows life in a world without free will. It certainly is a horrible sight considering this sort of occurrences still happen. Although he says he has no free will in that situation as person he can choose many things that happen to him unlike Billy Pilgrim.

He chose to leave that place maybe taking that path took a turn he didn't expect but it still proves he chose that path. When it comes to those choices we are confronted with a sarcastic part: "So exercising that divine gift called Liberty, he decided to run the gauntlet…" (24). He had no liberty since he only had two choices no one would like to take. This is the beginning of satire since it is absurd for someone to commit a crime he didn't know was committing and to be punished with those two horrible choices. Also, his liberty which he didn't have at that moment is present in other choices on the past. This liberty of choice which comes and goes can only be taken by other humans and although sometimes it might look like its gone forever it always returns. This could mean that no matter how many chains there are on the human spirit, its nature remains being that of freedom and because of this, none of these chains will keep it enslaved for long.

Coherence In Life

In our lifetime we are constantly living experiences that others have lived that are new to us. In order for us to avoid losing coherence in our lives we must necessarily think the same way of others situations as of our own. Epictetus talks about this in his handbook: "Someone else's child is dead, or his wife. There is no one would not say, "It's the lot of a human being." But when one's own dies immediately I is, "Alas! Poor me!""(Section 26). Here, he said through several examples that people must act the same way when an event occurs to them as when the same event occurs to a different person. The example that most interested me was when he explained the case about close family deaths. When it is another person we can be indifferent yet when someone close to us perishes we are consumed by a state of self pity. This coherence in thought is something very challenging to maintain but it is possible. We can't think of others as if they weren't human but rather we need to think of how hard it must be to suffer through such an unfortunate event. Even if we are only able to imagine the horror of the situation the effort is what makes the difference.

That ability to see through other's eyes requires training and effort to do. Many times what we see is too horrible to accept and because of this we deny it. This is the reason why we try to take an objective and cold point of view of other suffering. If we don't see their suffering then we won't suffer ourselves. Even if this can spare us some pain we will not be prepared for a similar event. In order for us to be at peace with ourselves we must go through the pain of others and if such an thing were to happen to us we will already know what lies in our path.