Happiness

Note to classmates: I'm writing this on 2 hours of sleep after I finished moving everything out of my apartment last night. It's been a long weekend... and this might not make sense cause I'm barely able to function... I think Zamyatin made happiness the goal for the citizens of the One State because happiness is what (almost) everyone wants to achieve. The One State controls every aspect of life and believes that it will help its citizens to achieve happiness by eliminating all of their freedom, but Zamyatin tries to show that this system does not work with D-503's story, who discovers a new part of himself after meeting I-330 and begins to seek true happiness. I'm not sure if the novel would work if it were some other criterion other than happiness, because (using the examples that were given) not every wants to achieve excellence and not every wants to be a hard worker.

I don't know, that's it... my mind is dead. Sorry this was so short.

Oh my... I forgot....

This post is a day late... Oh well.

I think that D-503's preoccupation with math is a reflection of how he views the world around him (until he met I-330, of course). Similar to in math, in D-503's society, things are clear-cut and there is always a solution to every problem. I think Zamyatin uses D-503's fixation of math to make his audience aware that often time we are taught what to think instead of how to think. And when a problem arises where we were never told how to handle, we become distressed (and this is what happened to D-503 when he wasn't sure what to make of his feelings for I-330). I think Zamyatin also uses D-503's preoccupation with math to show that everything in the real world is not as simple as it is in the One State, where everything for the most part is black and white, and that not everything has a rational solution.

Thoughts on We

We is actually the first science fiction novel I've ever read, and I have to say it's surprisingly good. It's a fast, easy read and it keeps me interested. Though, sometimes I do wonder if Zamyatin has taken some kind of drug before writing. But as we briefly discussed in class, he might just be one of the few who have mixed perceptions of their senses (Synesthesia is what this condition is called, I think). Even with his sometimes off-the-wall descriptions, Zamyatin's use of imagery has the ability to paint a vivid picture of what's going on in the reader's mind. Pretty awesome. Based on the reading so far, I think that Zamyatin is trying to show the readers how horrible a society without freedom is. I think he uses D-503 as an example of how unaware an individual can be of their own situation. It seems as if he's been brainwashed by his government. He's been constantly told that the One State is soooo great and this strict, orderly lifestyle is necessary because a life with choices and freedom will only end as it did in the past, in chaos and war. His character believes that his life is great, while the readers see that the people in this society aren’t really living, only existing, because of this lack of freedom. I think We is Zamyatin's way of warning against overly-powerful governments that take away our basic freedoms. Did that even make sense? I hope so...

Imagery

The world Zamyatin has created with his book, We, is one of order, harmony, and perfection. When D-503 describes the sky on page 3, he claims that a blue, "unblemished" sky is how a sky should be. He then amuses himself by remembering how "the ancients" would be so captivated by things such as clouds, for in his world they were considered "absurd" and "disorderly". His description of the clear blue sky reflects the society which he is in, "sterile, immaculate" and how everything else was meant to be. If it is not perfect, it is not part of their world inside the Green Wall.

I chose this particular imagery, the sky as painted by D-503, because it was the first instances where I saw that the world Zamyatin was creating, in this opening description of his imaginary society, was that of utopia. I don't know if it's because we've talked about it so much in class (for the papers) or what, but the idea of utopia is still stuck in my mind, and the world of We in the assigned reading is exactly what I would imagine a completely over-the-top utopia would be like.

Women and Utopia

I think Socrates' concept of equal rights for the women in his State is brilliant. Considering the times, its an ambitious idea and even he himself admits that. Though they still perceive the female as "weaker by nature", at least they acknowledge that women are able to accomplish any task that men are as well. And by using descriptions of animal behavior as examples of how sexual discrimination is not present in other species, he is able to convince his companions that it also should not be present in their State, and women are to be allowed the same education and occupations as the men in their State. This concept of equality for the women of the State is very utopian. A utopian society is one that aims to achieve an ideal way of living, to achieve perfection. And there is nothing more ideal/perfect than all citizens of a society being treated as equals.
The only thing that bothers me about Socrates' description of the State was the selection of suitable mates for the people of the city, that they would be paired in order produce good offspring, and nothing more. This notion of breeding in their State, and also the one where children will never know their real parents nor will parents know their real children, seem very odd to me and not likely to be well-executed if the State was, in fact, real. Though I commend Socrates' in his ambitious ideas for the State, this one is a little farfetched; however, the one for sexual equality is, as I said before, brilliant.

Pentad

Act: A debate on justice
Scene: The house of Cephalus, at Piraeus
Agent: Socrates and others at Cephalus' house
Agency: Dialogue
Purpose: To define justice

The pentad above is a representation of the general debate between different members of the party and Socrates on the definition of justice. Though it starts out friendly, the debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus at the end of Book 1 became more intense. Most of the dialogue that was used in the debate consisted of Socrates' cross-examination (dialectic) method of a statement that was made previously by his fellow debater. He says that this is the way to which he seeks the truth. However, the debate appeared to end without a concrete definition of justice.

I personally do not think that this situation represents utopia. True there are different interpretations of what utopia is, but I believe that an important characteristic of utopia is harmony, which the situation represented by the pentad was lacking. This is not to say that the book itself does not represent utopia, merely just this situation.

Socrates wins

After finally getting myself to finish Book 1 at 7:00am, I've come to a decision that Socrates was definitely more convincing in his argument. Even in my half-awakened state, I could tell how Socrates' questions, which he claimed were use to clarify the definition of what justice and injustice, stumped Thrasymachus to the point where he not only was reluctant to reply (pg 17, 20, etc), but it also weakened Trasymachus' beginning argument that "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger," each time Socrates was able to gain his agreement to the statements Socrates presented to him. To the audience, not just us the readers but their companions in the book as well, Socrates is more convincing because he exhibits his common sense and wisdom (phronesis) through his arguments. His questions for Thrasymachus follow after an explanation of his logical reasoning of how he came to a particular claim. Though he stated in the end of Book 1, “For I know not what justice is, and therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy.” I thought that his arguments said otherwise. From earlier statements it seemed that he was claiming that justice makes you stronger as a person, that it is a virtue, and that the just man is happy.
But you know what? It’s early. I’m not even sure if what I typed made sense, which it probably doesn’t. And I don’t know a thing about philosophy and this book only partly makes sense to me.

Socrates

My impression of Socrates from the reading is that he is a highly intellectual man who likes to engage others in deep-thinking conversations or debates. He does this by asking questions or making statements on the topic at hand to challenge what has previously been said, as on page 3 "I listened in admiration, and wanting to draw him out, that he might go on-- Yes, Cephalus, I said: but I rather suspect that people in general are not convinced by you when you speak thus..." Because all of his statements or question is asked in a way to show his wisdom and knowledge on the matter, he's able to persuade the people he speaks with to think differently than before, as he did with Polemarchus. In the beginning of their debate on justice and debt, Polemarchus believed the statement "the repayment of debt is just" by Simonides was right, even if it meant doing evil to enemies as repayment for the evils done by them. However, by the end of this conversation, Socrates manages to change Polemarchus' mind on the matter by exposing loopholes in Simonides’ statement and using logical reasoning to come to the statement on page 10, “Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debt……injuring of another can be in no case just,” which Polemarchus now agrees to. Socrates does this often in his arguments, using his own reasoning to appeal to the logical side of his companion’s thoughts in order to sway him to a different conclusion.