Friday 26 February 2016

The Fallen Julius Caesar



  "Julius Caesar, Act Three, Scene II" from William Shakespeare  recounts of the aftermath of the murder of Julius Caesar. Accused of greediness and dictatorship, he was killed by the Senat and by his trusted friend Brutus. As Brutus delivered to the nation of the news, Antony, a friend of Caesar's whom was ordered not to say any word going against the Senat's decision, commits to redeem the honor of the fallen Julius Caesar by giving one of the most reknown speechs in history. Between the lines and the hidden meanings of his words, he succeeds to lead the crowd indirectly from supporting Caesar's killing to rejecting it. This text stirs up several questions in my mind: Where does our loyalty lie in the end: to our friends or to our homeland ? Does the final outcome remain acceptable and honorable if we use the wrong methods to attain it ?  How is this story different from what we are living in our era ? Manipulation, Friendship and What is right from what is wrong are key concepts to reflect on in this act.

Brutus, annoucing the death of Julius Caesar
Manipluation starts with the speech Anthony gave to the crowd. He, who is a genuine companion of Caesar, guarantees Caesar's spirit that he would look for vengeance against the ones who betrayed him and he uses an appropriate approach to do it. Antony's strategy in the burial service address was an insightful stride by reporting the opposite of what he was thinking. This strategy roll out the supporting natives the way they perceived the story and were influenced by his rationality. The interesting thing is that after all these years we can say that the history is repeating itself in real scenes and by true actors called politicians; the same strategy with various speeches and names in order to manipulate people's minds. Eventually we can say that because of such rules and processes people do not trust neither policy nor politicians for the unexpected flow of events that will occur seeing that corruption is considered as a fundamental element of politics.

The degree of influence caused by manipulation varies from one person to another of course. Some people are more inclined to change their minds very quickly while others tend to need more arguments. But in the end, what we choose to believe in is what becomes our reality and it is all defined by our approach of the matter.

Julius Caesar once wrote down in his recollections of the "De Bello Gallico" (Book III, Ch. 18) that men freely believe in what they want ("Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt"). When applied to the context, one may attribute the quote to Cassius', Brutus' and Marc Antony's perspectives on the death of Caesar as throughout the Shakespearean play the roles of each character unfold, revealing their point of view. While all opinions are clearly and cleverly given during the speeches to the crowds, a crucial aspect to take into consideration is the vulnerability of the plebeians who switch their opinions from Brutus' speech to Marc Antony's and question their loyalty to Caesar. This belief is clearly demonstrated in Marc Antony's lines as he speaks: 

"But yesterday the word of Caesar might have stood against the world. Now lies he there, and none so poor to do him reverence."

 Indeed, within the lines the reader perceives the sense of betrayal by the crowd whom minutes before had praised Brutus and Cassius and, ironically enough, shifts again but in favor of Marc Antony. This passage alone serves as a personal reminder to the once happy friendships ended due to either one of the parties no longer being there or leaving the country, reinforcing the idea that those who seem to revel in your presence might just be the first to forget you once you've gone.

Julius Caesar's death.
Throughout the text, we can understand that having fake friends can sometimes be more dangerous than having enemies. One of the main turning points of the story was the assassination of Julius Caesar by conservationists, and among them Brutus, his friend. A friend should share the same ambitions and goals, instead of using his social position to betray others. Even though Brutus did that because he thought that it was for the greater good of Rome, true friendship focuses on communication, and that is the difference between a real and a fake friend. As the Italian proverb goes: “From him whom I trust, may God defend me; from him whom I trust not, I will defend myself”. This quote was later used by Antignous, a general of Alexander the Great who made sacrifices for the gods to protect him, and also by Marshall Villars, a French general under Louis XIV who interpreted that before going on a new campaign far from Versailles, in Poland. This proves that no matter how powerful you are, enemies can be confronted and defeated. However,  you cannot expect to attack a friend by the same manner, especially if you cannot anticipate his acts.

Thus, trusting fake friends can lead to digging our own grave. Which is what happened to Caesar in the end. Being betrayed by people whom he trusted did not favor him at all although one of the murders', Brutus, seemed to be led by honorable reasons that is the survival of the homeland. Trusting the allegations against Caesar, he made his final choice between his loyalty to his friend and his loyalty to Rome by choosing to betray his compagnion in favor of the country. We can see that Brutus committed a crime to prevent a greater crime in his own perspective.


Julius Act 3, Scene 2: Marc Antony giving his speech


« Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men? »

 Through this quote, he is trying to transform a cold blood murder into a noble act he commited despite his love and his respect for Ceasar in order to save rome. But a question remains: can one person act as judge, jury and executioner? The first thought that comes to my mind is the events the world is facing today. The war against terrorism has become the major argument used by governments to justify the transgressions towards citizens. Let’s take the example of The Guantanamo Bay detention camp the United States military prison where hundreds of people have been detained because they were suspected to be terrorists. No fair trials have been conducted for most of them. Many detainees locked up in Guantanamo Bay were innocent. They have been jailed and tortured for years with no proofs against them only doubts. Current and former detainees have reported abuse and torture. Some have seen their lives destroyed because of their religious beliefs or because they lived in the war zone. Retired Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson who worked under the Bush administration said that many detainees have been arrested "without regard for whether they were truly enemy combatants, or in fact whether many of them were enemies at all." William Blackstone said once “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
A sculpture of the tragedy of Julius Caesar 
The question that comes to my mind is: Can good come out of Evil ?  The reality of evils confronts us everyday. In our daily lives, we constantly have to make decisions that affect us and the people around. Each one of us has his own definition of good and evil. However we live in a society where some acts such as murder cannot be justified. Moreover, the political and social situation that Syria and Lybia are facing today well illustrates that. The main argument to the war launched by the United States, Russia and other countries is mainly to counter terrorism and dictatorship but the truth is that this war did not oblige terrorists or dictators to leave Syria or Lybia. It generated thousands family homeless, thousands orphens and generated only hate. Each one of us has been or will have to be in Brutus’s place one day and will have to make a bad decision that will affect others. Each one of us  will have to face the consequences of his/her acts because the only truth that remains since the beginning of mankind is that time never forgets and never forgives.


Julius Caesar and his Army

While the story of the killing of Caesar transcended generations to become a symbol of what treachery is, it teached us at the same time the true meaning of what friendship is to be. That is to remain faithful and to not betray our companions as Antony did by honoring the memory of Caesar. It also teached us that people can be induced to make difficult decisions or wrong choices on behalf of what they think will be for the Greater Good as Brutus showed by his choosing to murder Julius with the Senat. Moreover, this act highlighted the advantages of using manipulation, saving the honor of Caesar, and the drawbacks of using such methods such as low faith in politics and low esteem for easily suggestible individuals. These concepts remain very current since we encounter betrayal, manipulation and hard decisions often as we go by in life. Therefore, Julius Caesar's story will not vanish for it is timeless and will prevail as a grim reminder of the wrongdoings mankind are capable of doing.

Friday 12 February 2016

Hrafnkell's Saga : A Viking's Tale


Viking ships 

Nordic Mytholodgy, Freyja

“Hrafnkell's Saga” tells of the struggles between chieftains and farmers in Iceland in the 10th century. It recounts the story of a father who seeks to avenge his son’s murder. Since the murderer is a powerful man he looks for support from his relative and powerful chieftains. Even if he wins the case he ends up losing what he fought for.
Our analysis of Hrafnkell's Saga will take a close look to two main themes: The first one will be how the inner power can be drawn from social interactions rather than religious beliefs. Second, we will discuss how a person must not give up and surrender even if he or she faces challenges and failures.

One of the lessons that can be learnt from the Hrafnkell's saga is about inner power. One’s strength and prestige does not lie in one's beliefs, but rather on one's social interactions with others. The saga portrays Hrafnkell as a pious man devoted to one of the Nordic gods (Freyr). The turning point of the story is when he loses what he holds most dear to him: his temple, demolished and Freyfaxi, his horse and best friend, killed. He understands by that time that worshipping gods is futile, as he said in the story: “I think that believing in the gods is stupid”. He also makes new friends, and proves himself generous and respectful among his fellow neighbors when he moves to a new region. It is the way in which he regains honor and supporters.

Never giving up is also great lesson to learn.  While the story may not emphasize the concept of what is right and wrong, it shows how sometimes the winning side is not always the good  one but rather the side that does not renounce till the end. We see that Sámr, one of the main characters of the story, is content to have helped his cousin against Hrafnkell who kills his nephew Einarr. However, the situation takes an unexpected turn when Hrafnkell, who is portrayed as a bad character, succeeds in taking his revenge after several years. Therefore, the one who gets what he seeks at the end is Hrafnkell . Thus, being right or wrong does not matter in changing the outcome because only those who do not yield to achieve what they want have the highest possibility of seeing it happen. Thomas Edison, a world-famous inventor, once said: "Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time". Thus, if one wants what he or she thinks is right to triumph, he or she must not abandon. Let's take the example of J.K.Rowling who wrote “Harry Potter”. None of the editors whom she sent her books to accepted to publish it. However, she did not give up and kept on trying until one of the twelve editors she send it to accept. The final outcome is her being a famous author of one of the most renowned fantasy sagas in the world.

Hrafnkell's saga reflects on how important inner power can be in helping people to overcome difficulties. It also motivate to never give up in order to achieve goals.




Friday 5 February 2016

The Zhuangzi, Chapter 29.

The Zhuangzi, Chapter 29.


The "Zhuangzi" is an intricate collection of ancient Chinese texts most likely written between 369 and 286 BC which challenges the mind and subsequently its perception of life in all ways, as its readers may confirm. Ever since the early days of childhood, some humans are taught various values and codes of ethics which usually tend to be kept in mind throughout the years. The Zhuangzi, through its Daoist philosophy, unravels a more unusual way of being (or not being as the Dao would argue) and questions some of the morals taught to most of us from a young age. 


Chapter 29, more specifically the passage focused on Robber Chi, might be interesting to read as the two main characters Confucius and Robber Chi challenge the reader's idea of the "good" character from the "bad" one. Confucius, while in dialogue with Chi, mentions three virtues. The first goes as such:" I have heard that in all the world there are three kinds of virtue. To grow up to be big and tall, with matchless good looks, so that everyone,young or old, eminent or humble, delights in you - this is the highest kind of virtue".  The second virtues are wisdom and eloquent speaking while bravery and fierceness are mentioned as the third. These virtues mentioned by the mocked Confucius in a text written thousands of years ago are still very present in today's modern ideologies. Looks and appearances are very much valued and cherished by most western societies as most important in life. An example of this would be the "photo or no photo" debate, which argues the inclusion of photographs in CV's as many employers base their decisions on whether the candidate may be attractive or not, rather than focusing on their professional experience.



Another virtue mentioned in the text is the hunger for power. In some cases, people choose different means to attain their goals.  Achieving goals may require a strong mentality and a powerful will, especially if the goals set are hard to achieve. However, that should not force someone to change their personality or behavior in a negative way to attain them. Liu-Hsia Chi, for example, had a brother named Dao Zhi who, with 9,000 followers, dug through walls and broke into houses (driving away people's cattle and horses, and carrying off people's wives and daughters) in order to enjoy a good reputation and have some sort of credibility and power. One of the morals that can be learned from this text is that no matter who you are or what position you have if you do not own these characteristics you will not benefit from a good reputation. 

Another point in question throughout the text is the definition of happiness, which has been one of human's  main concern and a topic of discussion (such as philosophy of happiness analyzed by the likes of Aristotle, Socrates, and Kant, for example). As individuals, people might spend their lives setting objectives thinking that they might reach a certain level of happiness. However, for some, once happiness it attained, they realize they might want more. To what extent may one fix these objectives? And is it possible to define happiness? 
Throughout the text, some may understand that no one has the right definition and everyone should listen to his or her inner voice and follow one's own path. What makes happiness unreachable are regrets, as psychologist Marc Muchnick points out in an article on the online magazine Psychology Today. By silencing the inner voice inside each individual and listening to others,  regrets are likely to be formed. One day he or she might wake up and realize how much time may have been wasted living the life that others wanted them to live. This innate desire to strive for success is highlighted and, most importantly, criticized in this chapter.









Psychologytodaycom(2016)Psychology TodayRetrieved 15 May, 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/no-more-regrets/201101/the-regret-factor-how-it-impacts-our-happiness