The Permanence of Life
To understand humanity’s issue with death we must first understand humanity’s love for life. As a species, we love life; we love its excitement and its hardship. We love everything it brings to us such as love, friendship, fun, romance, heroics and everything else. We have such a desire to live that we do not know how to cope with the fact that when we die all, this might end. We do not want to face the fact that death is an end to our part. There is trouble in accepting our departure from the world of the living. In life on earth, even though faiths and religions have views on the afterlife, we still have our fears.
When Gilgamesh witnesses the death of Enkidu he searches for immortality he does not want to face the fact that he too could end up like his friend and no longer be able to enjoy this world. We must note that during Gilgamesh’s time there was no concept of a glorious afterlife thus the fear and uncertainty of death would have been far greater than during a time where an afterlife existed in religion. Never the less, when Gilgamesh reaches Utnapishtim he is meet with this response, “There is no permanence.” This statement is true in a physical sense. In the world, nothing is permanent. Utnapishtim was referring to the physical Gilgamesh and that all mortals will die. Even though individuals die humanity will continue to exist. However, I believe that we all have the potential to live on in or works and accomplishments on this earth. For example a hero like Achilles has been dead for ages however he lives on in his legend and in the memory of what he accomplished. in the same way a person may live forever in the way that the knowledge and the values we pass down to each coming generation gets built upon and passed down to new generations, we live on in the ideas we leave behind. I think that this is what Utnapishtim meant when he commented on permanence. He was talking about an earthy sense of permanence that we all die but through our lives we allow for humanities survival after our deaths.
I think that our world accepts this version of permanence, I think we are very reluctant to face physical death however the majority accepts it as inevitable. It seems that people accept that they will in fact die, look at life insurance people gamble on dying before the insurance company thinks they will to collect money for their families. Actually the idea of having life insurance is almost a way for people to feel that once they die they will still have a connection to this world that they will still be able to affect the world of the living even when they have long departed from it. In this way they are able to exist in the lives of the people who have inherited this money. And through them they live on. This is an example of how Utnapishtim view on permanence is apparent in the modern world. Although we die, we are all looking for ways to survive through others. I think these ideas of permanence and trying to live on give humanity a reason for life. To the individual the idea of having his/or her own existence terminated is almost unfathomable. What does it mean to not existing? I myself have wonder why we pursue life when all there is waiting for us is death. Six or seven years ago I felt very frightened about death and its repercussions; I looked to religion and found comfort in its ideas of living a good honorable life and the rewards that follow in the afterlife. I still believe this but I also believe that the purpose of life or rather what keeps us going in life is the idea of how will I be remembered. Everyone wants to have a good life one that is fun and worthwhile; but one that has purpose a life that is worth living to those that come after us. I find comfort in the idea that I will be remembered; this is the very reason why I strive to live to a certain code. A large portion of humanity also feels this way whether it is mother or father raising their children or a humanitarian helping others they have made a difference and one that will carry them on into time. They may die but they will be carried on through their work. I believe this is why people have no problem living with death on the horizon, because they have hope of living through others; vicariously. Because of our religious views and ideas of affecting the world after we have gone humanity as come to better terms with death than those of Gilgamesh’s time. We no longer weep at the realization that we all must die like Gilgamesh did. We have a created a certain order with our ideas of life after death. A belief that if we live well no matter what we will live on either in some sort of heavenly rest or in the people we influence or possibly both. We better acknowledge an individual's life as not being permanent while affirming that humanities permanence lies with the passing of ideas through generations, this allows us to accept our mortality and live life to its potential.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Permanence
The Permanence of Life
To understand humanity’s issue with death we must first understand humanity’s love for life. As a species, we love life; we love its excitement and its hardship. We love everything it brings to us such as love, friendship, fun, romance, heroics and everything else. We have such a desire to live that we do not know how to cope with the fact that when we die all, this might end. We do not want to face the fact that death is an end to our part. There is trouble in accepting our departure from the world of the living. In life on earth, even though faiths and religions have views on the afterlife, we still have our fears.
When Gilgamesh witnesses the death of Enkidu he searches for immortality he does not want to face the fact that he too could end up like his friend and no longer be able to enjoy this world. We must note that during Gilgamesh’s time there was no concept of a glorious afterlife thus the fear and uncertainty of death would have been far greater than during a time where an afterlife existed in religion. Never the less, when Gilgamesh reaches Utnapishtim he is meet with this response, “There is no permanence.” This statement is true in a physical sense. In the world, nothing is permanent. Utnapishtim was referring to the physical Gilgamesh and that all mortals will die. Even though individuals die humanity will continue to exist. However, I believe that we all have the potential to live on in or works and accomplishments on this earth. For example a hero like Achilles has been dead for ages however he lives on in his legend and in the memory of what he accomplished. in the same way a person may live forever in the way that the knowledge and the values we pass down to each coming generation gets built upon and passed down to new generations, we live on in the ideas we leave behind. I think that this is what Utnapishtim meant when he commented on permanence. He was talking about an earthy sense of permanence that we all die but through our lives we allow for humanities survival after our deaths.
I think that our world accepts this version of permanence, I think we are very reluctant to face physical death however the majority accepts it as inevitable. It seems that people accept that they will in fact die, look at life insurance people gamble on dying before the insurance company thinks they will to collect money for their families. Actually the idea of having life insurance is almost a way for people to feel that once they die they will still have a connection to this world that they will still be able to affect the world of the living even when they have long departed from it. In this way they are able to exist in the lives of the people who have inherited this money. And through them they live on. This is an example of how Utnapishtim view on permanence is apparent in the modern world. Although we die, we are all looking for ways to survive through others. I think these ideas of permanence and trying to live on give humanity a reason for life. To the individual the idea of having his/or her own existence terminated is almost unfathomable. What does it mean to not existing? I myself have wonder why we pursue life when all there is waiting for us is death. Six or seven years ago I felt very frightened about death and its repercussions; I looked to religion and found comfort in its ideas of living a good honorable life and the rewards that follow in the afterlife. I still believe this but I also believe that the purpose of life or rather what keeps us going in life is the idea of how will I be remembered. Everyone wants to have a good life one that is fun and worthwhile; but one that has purpose a life that is worth living to those that come after us. I find comfort in the idea that I will be remembered; this is the very reason why I strive to live to a certain code. A large portion of humanity also feels this way whether it is mother or father raising their children or a humanitarian helping others they have made a difference and one that will carry them on into time. They may die but they will be carried on through their work. I believe this is why people have no problem living with death on the horizon, because they have hope of living through others; vicariously. Because of our religious views and ideas of affecting the world after we have gone humanity as come to better terms with death than those of Gilgamesh’s time. We no longer weep at the realization that we all must die like Gilgamesh did. We have a created a certain order with our ideas of life after death. A belief that if we live well no matter what we will live on either in some sort of heavenly rest or in the people we influence or possibly both. We better acknowledge an individual's life as not being permanent while affirming that humanities permanence lies with the passing of ideas through generations, this allows us to accept our mortality and live life to its potential.
To understand humanity’s issue with death we must first understand humanity’s love for life. As a species, we love life; we love its excitement and its hardship. We love everything it brings to us such as love, friendship, fun, romance, heroics and everything else. We have such a desire to live that we do not know how to cope with the fact that when we die all, this might end. We do not want to face the fact that death is an end to our part. There is trouble in accepting our departure from the world of the living. In life on earth, even though faiths and religions have views on the afterlife, we still have our fears.
When Gilgamesh witnesses the death of Enkidu he searches for immortality he does not want to face the fact that he too could end up like his friend and no longer be able to enjoy this world. We must note that during Gilgamesh’s time there was no concept of a glorious afterlife thus the fear and uncertainty of death would have been far greater than during a time where an afterlife existed in religion. Never the less, when Gilgamesh reaches Utnapishtim he is meet with this response, “There is no permanence.” This statement is true in a physical sense. In the world, nothing is permanent. Utnapishtim was referring to the physical Gilgamesh and that all mortals will die. Even though individuals die humanity will continue to exist. However, I believe that we all have the potential to live on in or works and accomplishments on this earth. For example a hero like Achilles has been dead for ages however he lives on in his legend and in the memory of what he accomplished. in the same way a person may live forever in the way that the knowledge and the values we pass down to each coming generation gets built upon and passed down to new generations, we live on in the ideas we leave behind. I think that this is what Utnapishtim meant when he commented on permanence. He was talking about an earthy sense of permanence that we all die but through our lives we allow for humanities survival after our deaths.
I think that our world accepts this version of permanence, I think we are very reluctant to face physical death however the majority accepts it as inevitable. It seems that people accept that they will in fact die, look at life insurance people gamble on dying before the insurance company thinks they will to collect money for their families. Actually the idea of having life insurance is almost a way for people to feel that once they die they will still have a connection to this world that they will still be able to affect the world of the living even when they have long departed from it. In this way they are able to exist in the lives of the people who have inherited this money. And through them they live on. This is an example of how Utnapishtim view on permanence is apparent in the modern world. Although we die, we are all looking for ways to survive through others. I think these ideas of permanence and trying to live on give humanity a reason for life. To the individual the idea of having his/or her own existence terminated is almost unfathomable. What does it mean to not existing? I myself have wonder why we pursue life when all there is waiting for us is death. Six or seven years ago I felt very frightened about death and its repercussions; I looked to religion and found comfort in its ideas of living a good honorable life and the rewards that follow in the afterlife. I still believe this but I also believe that the purpose of life or rather what keeps us going in life is the idea of how will I be remembered. Everyone wants to have a good life one that is fun and worthwhile; but one that has purpose a life that is worth living to those that come after us. I find comfort in the idea that I will be remembered; this is the very reason why I strive to live to a certain code. A large portion of humanity also feels this way whether it is mother or father raising their children or a humanitarian helping others they have made a difference and one that will carry them on into time. They may die but they will be carried on through their work. I believe this is why people have no problem living with death on the horizon, because they have hope of living through others; vicariously. Because of our religious views and ideas of affecting the world after we have gone humanity as come to better terms with death than those of Gilgamesh’s time. We no longer weep at the realization that we all must die like Gilgamesh did. We have a created a certain order with our ideas of life after death. A belief that if we live well no matter what we will live on either in some sort of heavenly rest or in the people we influence or possibly both. We better acknowledge an individual's life as not being permanent while affirming that humanities permanence lies with the passing of ideas through generations, this allows us to accept our mortality and live life to its potential.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Heroes big and small
When one thinks of a hero the first image that comes to mind is a mighty man of incredible ability and perseverance. Someone that even in the face of great danger will hold true to the ideals and beliefs that they value. Heroic characters are common in literature and film. These characters represent the truest and most honorable ideals of the societies from which they were created. In some works the heroes are mighty warriors who are selfless and courageous, while other heroes are average people who do extraordinary things. The one thing that seems to be universal in all heroes is that they are unwilling to waiver there ideals and honor to usually unfathomable opposition. This idea is clearly apparent in many of our most famous works. Luke Skywalker a great warrior and Jedi is constantly faced with overwhelming opposition from the “dark side” he could have easily at any time given up his ideals at any time and joined is father Darth Vader. Luke refuses to surrender his cause and instead stands and fights the enemy. Luke is a hero because he would rather fight and die than be taken by the darkness. Similar is the tale of Frodo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings. Frodo a small average hobbit finds himself the only hope for the deliverance of middle earth and the end to Saurons evil. Unlike Luke, Frodo is not a warrior actually quite the opposite he is a peaceful person who is torn apart by the violence and evil of war. However the two characters are true heroes because they hold fast and do not wavier there ideals of truth, justice, and all that is inherently good even when faced with extreme adversity.
Any hero is driven by his or her defense of a certain set of ideals. This definition of a hero holds true in all situations of true unadulterated heroism. A fireman risks his life while running into a burning building to save a child because he defending the ideal of helping the innocent. This definition also holds true in the great literary works such as the Odyssey, The adventures of Huckleberry Finn and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whether it was Odysseus or Huck Finn or even Indiana Jones all of these characters where in the end fighting to defend a set of moral values, a code that they hold dear to them. Although the actions of these characters are great and courageous they are not the defining piece that makes a hero a hero. Most see only the courageous charge or the valiant last stand. What they don’t see is the hero’s inner struggle to keep fighting for his cause no matter how hard. It is the conscious decision to fight for what they believe in no matter what the peril that makes a hero true. The common misconception that Heroes are defined by there heroic actions seems to keep women from the spotlight. Because of woman’s absence from the battle field until just recently that whole field of heroism has been pretty much none existent. That is why we don’t see women as the heroes in the major works of literature and film. However women as heroes are actually very common. By what I believe to be a true hero women more times than not fit the definition quite well. As a society we look for the obvious heroes the warriors the big risk takers and the sometimes foolhardy; however we miss out on the quite heroes’ women especially.
Throughout history women have demonstrated selfless, courageous, and often extremely dangerous acts in order to defend there ideals. To demonstrate these actions in defense of an ideal is to be a hero so why are heroines not adorning the stories and literature of today. Sexism and bigotry could play a role in this but I think the issue roots in the fact that women are everyday heroes rather than the epic style of hero seen in the movies and literature. For example the everyday woman who is a single mother and works two jobs so that she can send her children to a good school so they may have a better future for themselves. To me this woman is a hero her self sacrifice warrants her distinction as a hero. But because her actions are not on a grand scale she is just an average hardworking person to society, even though she is a true hero.
The hero carries with him an important functional purpose in our society. Because heroes are so inherently good and because they stand for a cause we look up to them. We emulate heroes and aspire to be like them. When we read there stories we dream to be able to hold our ground like they did we hope to be able to stand our ground like the hero did. Heroes carry with them the pure ideals that all people aspire to live up to.
"Unhappy the land that needs heroes." Bertold Brecht
I don’t believe this is true because I believe that we all need heroes in orde to strive to be better people. Heroes provide us with a goal of excellence that we must strive to reach. In my opinon a land without heroes is land without hope.
Any hero is driven by his or her defense of a certain set of ideals. This definition of a hero holds true in all situations of true unadulterated heroism. A fireman risks his life while running into a burning building to save a child because he defending the ideal of helping the innocent. This definition also holds true in the great literary works such as the Odyssey, The adventures of Huckleberry Finn and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whether it was Odysseus or Huck Finn or even Indiana Jones all of these characters where in the end fighting to defend a set of moral values, a code that they hold dear to them. Although the actions of these characters are great and courageous they are not the defining piece that makes a hero a hero. Most see only the courageous charge or the valiant last stand. What they don’t see is the hero’s inner struggle to keep fighting for his cause no matter how hard. It is the conscious decision to fight for what they believe in no matter what the peril that makes a hero true. The common misconception that Heroes are defined by there heroic actions seems to keep women from the spotlight. Because of woman’s absence from the battle field until just recently that whole field of heroism has been pretty much none existent. That is why we don’t see women as the heroes in the major works of literature and film. However women as heroes are actually very common. By what I believe to be a true hero women more times than not fit the definition quite well. As a society we look for the obvious heroes the warriors the big risk takers and the sometimes foolhardy; however we miss out on the quite heroes’ women especially.
Throughout history women have demonstrated selfless, courageous, and often extremely dangerous acts in order to defend there ideals. To demonstrate these actions in defense of an ideal is to be a hero so why are heroines not adorning the stories and literature of today. Sexism and bigotry could play a role in this but I think the issue roots in the fact that women are everyday heroes rather than the epic style of hero seen in the movies and literature. For example the everyday woman who is a single mother and works two jobs so that she can send her children to a good school so they may have a better future for themselves. To me this woman is a hero her self sacrifice warrants her distinction as a hero. But because her actions are not on a grand scale she is just an average hardworking person to society, even though she is a true hero.
The hero carries with him an important functional purpose in our society. Because heroes are so inherently good and because they stand for a cause we look up to them. We emulate heroes and aspire to be like them. When we read there stories we dream to be able to hold our ground like they did we hope to be able to stand our ground like the hero did. Heroes carry with them the pure ideals that all people aspire to live up to.
"Unhappy the land that needs heroes." Bertold Brecht
I don’t believe this is true because I believe that we all need heroes in orde to strive to be better people. Heroes provide us with a goal of excellence that we must strive to reach. In my opinon a land without heroes is land without hope.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
