Is this the real life.. Is this just fantasy?

     Haruki Murakami, I think, is a brilliant writer. His works were introduced to me by my Philosophy master only recently, and just a week or two ago, I finished reading one of his firsts and my first HM work, Norwegian Wood. Now, I am halfway finished in reading 1Q84. That is why, I was delighted when I found out that one of his short stories is going to be tackled in our HUMALIT class – and that is, Super-frog Saves Tokyo.

     First, I would say that this short story, just like Norwegian Wood, really affected me and made me feel sad after reading. (Although, I must say that Norwegian Wood is way more depressing. I spaced out for a day after reading the book.) However, in the case of Super-frog, I was able to look at the situation in a positive way as well. More to that later in the blog.

     I must say that I really appreciate Sir's explanation of the story. I would like to share in this paper, however, the impression that the story has left me. The most important question that I find myself asking after reading the story is, “WHAT IS REALITY?”. I think that it is a question that almost everyone takes for granted. People are so consumed by this material, physical world that we do not stop to think, is this life real? People have been so accustomed to what their routines that they simply accept that this really is life. However, I find myself doubting this reality sometimes, and just like in the story, this is because of DREAMS. When we dream, we do not actually know that we are dreaming. We see all the weirdness and what we would normally call 'unreal' when we are awake as totally NORMAL while we are dreaming. We only recognize their weirdness when we are finally awake. It leads me to the questions: What if this life I am dreaming right now is not actually real? What if every one I encountering and every thing I am experiencing right now are just figments of my mind?

     In reading Katagiri's story, the question is rephrased, but the sense is quite similar. What if I am actually a crazy person, and this life I consider right now is only made up by my mind, when in fact, I am only lying down a bed in a mental hospital somewhere? The vagueness and fluidity of 'reality' is so great that I cannot really think of a way to be very sure and to have concrete answers to my questions. Even the answers of the philosophers that I constantly read and study and all the efforts and hardwork of my rationality are not enough for me to answer this simple answer that many people do not even bother asking.

     What I can only do, just like Katagiri, is focus on making the most of whatever there is now. Since I cannot really be sure whether this life is actually reality or not, I would just do what I can to make a sense of it. This may not be the same for others, but I think that the way I, personally, can do this is to shape this 'reality' as my own. It brings to a mind a story told in Paulo Coehlo's Veronika Decides to Die. In the story, there was a peaceful kingdom ruled by great King and Queen until a traveler poisons the well of the common people. This particular poison affects the minds of its victims and drives them crazy. The King and Queen, drinking from their private well, were the only ones who remained sane, while the whole kingdom went crazy. Since the King and Queen wanted to rule still the Kingdom they love, they decided to drink from the public well. Of course, they go insane as well like the common people, but then, they went on ruling the kingdom for many more years. The same kingdom was very odd and different in the eyes of the other kingdoms surrounding them, but the kingdom was able to live in peace , anyways. What this tells me is that sanity, which can signify reality, is not based on perception. It bases on what works. And for Katagiri, his happy dreams were what worked, not this everyday 'reality' that drove him crazy in the first place. And to be honest, I guess that's not too bad.

Lastly, I would like to quote Dumbledore from JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. This is one of the most impressive things that the wise old man said in the totality of the series: 

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

Is there really Evil in the first place.

My first interpretation of Estrella Alfon's Magnificence, I must say, is far from what we have discussed in class. The first time I read it, the theme and idea I thought it revolved around is the special relationship and bond between a mother and a daughter. The last thing I would have thought is that it is actually an allusion, a response to the Genesis' story of the Fall of Adam and Eve, which it really is.

This is actually hard for me to say. Even if I am a Catholic, I must admit that I myself do not truly understand all the teachings of the religion I belong to. There are still many questions that I found no answer for. I cannot even be biased about this since I am truly passionate about knowing many things and knowledge itself, just like the many philosophers I read about and admire.

However, I have always liked challenging myself. I also tried to come up with my own answers to the questions that Alfon has raised through her response to the Genesis story. The two stories, Magnificenc and the Fall of Adam and Eve, were very similar in many ways but Alfon missed many important aspects of the characters and events in the Genesis story that kind of misleads the readers:

1. First, the Mother flawed but she was not aware of what the kind of person Vicente really was, for she really is a person, still. God, however, is a perfect Being, omnipotent, omniscient. He would not be perfect if He did not really know everything. So He does. He put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because He loves Adam and Eve, and He wants to give them choice to follow and love him back and not make them His mere puppets. The mother, on the other hand, did not have the same awareness as God.
2. The little boy and little girl did not really have the choice that Adam and Eve had.
3. We cannot really say that there really is evil in the first place. I would say that it is only a term to describe absence of goodness. And we can't really say that Adam and Eve eating the fruit does not really give an account to say that there was ignorance and knowledge then, which is presupposed by Alfon. Knowing evil is not a knowledge because it's just a consequence of something that is in the absence of good.

There were many more missing points, but it would be too long to pin point each. However, I would like to conclude by saying that we cannot question that story in such a way that we are using only our limited knowledge. Being a believer of a notion of God, I believe there are things that we cannot fully fathom or comprehend. We now live in a world wherein we know what is good and evil, and this is what we are used to. Knowing this has become a part of our routine and habit in this world. Therefore, we cannot really judge what life would have been if we did not have this knowledge. Let's not look at the Biblical story only in the context of our time and situation. We would say that life would have sucked if we did not know what was good and evil, and it would have exposed us to even more evil. But what if the act of choosing to know what is good and evil is actually choosing to renounce goodness, thus making us see its absence, that which is evil?

The Potential to be Unselfish

This week in HUMALIT, we played a group game. We were divided into 5 groups, then we were assigned to 5 other boats. The groups would then vote for which group will get to the shore and which group will eliminate one of the people aboard their ship.

Basically, this game symbolizes the story of The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas in many aspects. First, the goal of the game was something positive - to survive shipwreck. It is just like the situation in Omelas; the goal of the people of the city is to gain prosperity, wealth, and peace for the city. However, the other aspect of the game which is sacrificing some individuals who had to jump out the boat to save the other people, is also visible in Omelas. For the sake of the majority of the people in Omelas, an innocent life of a child must be sacrificed. This single child must be deprived of the prosperity and wealth that the majority of the citizens of Omelas experience.

I answered in our paper that it is not worth it at all, to sacrifice an innocent child for the many, that it cannot be for the "greater good" if there is one, even just one, who is hurt and done evil to. However, through this game, i have realized that that point of view has become an ideal, an impossibility. It seems that humans are all willing to sacrifice other people just to give themselves what they want and need, that humans are selfish in nature. Everyone else in the class was willing to compete not only to get to the other side and survive, but also to beat each other for the sake of the plus points. Truly, we live in a world that lives by the saying "dog eat dog".  

No matter how great my ideals are, I am continuously being beaten by the innate instinct of selfishness in me... And it makes me sad. That is why, I am posing a challenge to myself and to my other fellow human beings: if selfishness truly is our nature, then let us defy nature. It might seem impossible, but then again, it seemed impossible for everyone to step on the moon and Neil Armstrong defied that common belief. An impossibility remains an impossibility, a potentiality remains a potentiality, an ideal remains an ideal, if we do not try and act to reach it. I think that in the end, we form our nature and reality. So why not try to start now and defy our nature of selfishness?

The Leap of Faith - Take it.

       Although I do not fully agree with some of the messages that James Joyce's Araby conveys, I would admit that it is crafted very well, for unlike many stories today, “there is more to it than meets the eye”. I always found allegories quite spectacular, for it transcends these mere words into an idea that is indirectly, creatively, imaginatively, and entertainingly told.

       Araby uses a coming-of-age short story to express his views on religion, particularly the Roman Catholicism. He uses Mangan's sister to show that the Church is manipulating and taking advantage of the people only for its own benefit, when in the end, they will experience what the narrator had – the 'epiphany' or the feeling of disappointment and anguish after realizing that they were founding themselves on false hopes.

       I will repeat that Araby is very well-crafted and creative, and it truly deserves a title of being good literature. However, I would not agree with the opinions of the author. He expressed that this idea of religion or 'faith' is there only to put you up high then let you go to fall hard on the floor. Based on my personal experience and what close friends tell me, yes, 'faith' does bring you down sometimes. Yet, unlike the perspective of Joyce, things do not end there, unless you give up easily. I think that's what faith really is about. The idea of faith would become silly and pointless if it always assures happiness and positive things. In terms of faith, there will be challenges, downs, and even doubts, but that's part of the whole idea itself. Actually, if you do not easily give up on 'faith', you can even experience yet again another 'epiphany', but this time, instead of a negative one, it is the one that will bring you back up from your first fall. And that faith is what keeps me living because in this life, we will always fall, we will always trip... But I always try to keep the faith that I will somehow stand back up again. And that is what religion is for me.

       Yes, I know and admit that my explanation's clarity and creativity is nowhere near to the art of Araby, but I think I have made my point. I disagree but appreciate the story and the message of the story. Yet, I would say that in faith and religion, it will always be a matter of perspective. It will always be up to us to see them in a negative fashion, just like Joyce, or in a more optimistic way the way that I do. And what's wrong in trying to be more positive even if it's not sure, right? Saying 'no' does not make things unreal... So I would say, let's take the leap of faith. 

      Let me end this short reflection with what this cute little puppy has to say:

Absurdity.

ABSURDITY

It is a

Round, loud

Wheel of steel

On and on it goes

Wheel of steel

Round, loud

This it is

Run, Lola, Run: Analysis based on Aristotle's Poetics

Run, Lola, Run (1998) presents three different outcomes of one story with the same people and same situations; the differences were a matter of timing. On this paper, the three different runs will be analyzed in accordance to Aristotle's standards of elements that compose a good Tragedy in his book Poetics.

First, it can be established that all three runs have what Aristotle called Mimesis which is the imitation of an 'action'. All three runs imitate human actions such as running which Lola did most of the time, and even emotions such as anxiety which was most obvious in Manni as he waited for Lola. Death was also experienced by the characters except in the third run, by Lola in the first and by Manni in the second. The element Catharsis was also present in all three runs, although it was weaker in the last run caused by its being a bit ideal or unrealistic. However, all three purify the emotions of pity and fear for Lola and especially Manni, who is facing a life-and-death situation. The other elements, on the other hand, differ in every run. Those differences will be made much clearer in the next paragraphs.

Run 1

The Hamartia or the inherent flaw of the protagonist, Lola, in the first run is her uncontrollable anger and also, the fact that she was not a real daughter of whom she knew as her father, or in her father's words, a 'cuckoo's son'. Those were the flaws that caused her not to achieve her goal of borrowing the money from her father. Next comes the Peripeteia or the 'reversal of fortune'. The situation of the first run, in the beginning was not very good already. Lola was not helped by her father, and she was even upset as she finds out that she is not his real daughter. However, they were able to get the money as they robbed the market. Yet, the peripetia comes as they were surrounded by the police, and a nervous police officer accidentally shoots Lola in the chest.

(Lola, after she was shot in the first run)

Run 2

Hamartia is present in the second run because of Lola's violent tendencies, although that enabled her to rob the money from the Deutsche Bank. The Peripetia present in this run which comes after Lola being able to rob the money from the bank where her father worked, when she calls her lover, Manni, is ran over to death by an ambulance as he runs to Lola.

Run 3

The problem with the 3^rd run as to why it will not be considered a good Tragedy is, firstly, it is not a Tragedy at all. All the odds are in the favor of Lola and Manni. There is no Hamartia, because as it can be seen, Lola is actually a very nice and thoughtful person, especially when she stays with the bank security guard in the ambulance car as he struggles from heart attack. Her means of getting the money was not something totally bad; she harmed nobody in the process, since she earned it rightfully in the Casino. Peripeteia is also not present. There was no reversal from good to bad, for it had a good ending. In fact, it was better than resolution to the presented problem, since they got to keep 123,000 marks that Lola got from the Casino, as Manni was able to get the money from the homeless man who was able to get the money from the train in the beginning of the movie.

(The third run ends smoothly, with Manni getting the money from the homeless man and back to the crime boss, and both of them getting to keep the 123,000 marks Lola won from the Casino)

I on Drama, Plato on Drama, and Arisotle on Drama

I must say… It’s quite a relief to finally finish Poetry. I admit that Poetry is actually my weakness in the world of Literature despite my being a bookworm and a lover of wisdom (or Philosophy, which is quite ironic since many well-known philosophers are poets).

It would be quite pointless for me to repeat the things we tackled so I should just get this over with and tell my comments on Plato and Aristotle on Drama. Basically, Plato is against drama which the avenging Aristotle (the ‘avenging’ part is another weird but cute story but it’s out of the context) contradicts…

Hmm.. This is actually quite hard for me to comment on. Firstly, I am more convinced with Plato’s World of Ideas and I find his philosophy quite more sensible than Aristotle’s. In fact, one might even consider me a Platonist. And yes, he did make a quite great argument as to why dramatists should be banished from the ideal society or what he calls “The Republic”. However, I must also not disregard the sensible reasons that Aristotle pointed out because that would be quite biased! So if you’ll ask me, who is right?

Of course, not that my opinion really matters or that my opinion is what’s really right.. But for the sake of writing something and for the sake of an answer to a quite philosophical question, here it is: They are both right in a way, but I reckon Plato is still more right. Yes, there “might” be a need to prepare for the ‘actual’ pity and fear situations as Aristotle clarifies through the “Catharsis” thing…But then again, Aristotle is quite limited to physicality.  Being a believer of the “world of ideas”, of course I would think this is stupid. We need to look beyond the physical, and being preoccupied with the copies of the ideas will leave us no time to pursue the world of ideas. Also, I think that’s quite lame and boring. Exposure to drama does make life quite predictable at times, or we might reckon it’s too predictable that we expect an outcome that would not really happen, based on what we see on Dramas.

However, it’s not that I am saying that drama is stupid and we really don’t need it! Even Plato does not banish poetry and myths totally, since he himself uses it (e.g. Allegory of the cave). It is the same for Drama. I think we do not need to totally disregard it, but we must not use Drama for the sake of Drama, but for the sake of pursuing the Truth (of the world of Ideas) just as Plato used the Allegory of the Cave to express his special points and to reveal easier his Philosophy. We must not let Drama hinder us from the reality… or to make us be contented with this Physical world. It’s okay to go and entertain Drama, but remember that there is always something beyond..

It's All A Matter of Perspective.

Aux Imagistes

by William Carlos Williams

I think I have never been so exalted
As I am now by you,
O frost bitten blossoms,
That are unfolding your wings
From out the envious black branches.

Bloom quickly and make much of the sunshine
The twigs conspire against you
Hear them!
They hold you from behind

You shall not take wing
Except wing by wing, brokenly,
And yet—
Even they
Shall not endure for ever.

This poem, at first look and as we analyzed it, seems to be something negative. Williams is trying to tell his readers through his poem that despite the difficulty and uncertainties of life, there is no certain 'end' or purpose anyway at all. This kind of view is not very rare, and I would admit that I myself feel this way sometimes – in fact, I think everybody goes through the kind of phase of looking life this way, as if nothing really matters, nothing really makes sense, and life is just a waste of time.



I have been a pessimistic one for such a long time. Even at a young age, I started questioning what really is the meaning of everything in life. Life for everyone, as it used to seem to me, was quite repetitive, and I saw nothing special for it was only a routine. It brings to mind a movie which I personally find very good for the questions it poses for its viewers – The Truman Show. For those who have not seen the movie yet, it is about a man, Truman, who, ever since his birth, has unknowingly become a star of a reality show. Everything in his life was a set-up, from the weather up to what he calls his family. For such a long time, he did not question his existence or why he does this and that every single day. I brought this up in here for sometimes, we all are like Truman; we are all blinded by the routine of life, the hustles and bustles of everything without really stopping and thinking, what is the use anyway, in the end? One of the lines in the movie that really caught my attention was that by Christof, the creator of the show in the movie, when he said: “We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.” And he's not really wrong. Many really do fall into the trap of thinking that.



Yet, as I grew, my perspective of the world grew as well. I have realized that I have fallen into the world's mind bandwagon. And thankfully, I have woken from this deep sleep in the arms of pessimism just like how Truman started to question the weirdness of why such routine exists in his life, of wanting to live something quite different than what we are presented with. Just like Truman, we have to open the door of our enclosed world in order to see life beyond this routine which makes it seem unfair, meaningless. It is through that can we finally start to see life with a purpose. It might be a risk.. but I think it is a risk I am willing to take, rather than enclose myself in the boringness and ordinariness of this life with a routine.

It would be wrong for me to tell for sure what one's purpose is. What I can say is this: it's all a matter of perspective. Even looking at this poem is a matter of perspective! People would usually say that Williams is trying to tell that life is unfair and pointless, but for me, I would like to look at it differently. Instead of seeing at as a 'downer', it could be viewed in such a way that would motivate the people. Knowing that we 'shall not endure for ever' would make us 'make much of the sunshine' or make the most of life. It's quite the same with looking at the purpose of life. Everyone seems to be looking for a GREAT 'purpose' like that of Christ's – dying for the sake of humanity or something like that which is quite ideal and impossible to attain– while we do not really count the small differences that we make. We take for granted all these things that we do everyday. In my own perspective, I think that every 'act of random kindness' (from the movie Evan Almighty) we do, no matter how small or unnoticeable, makes up our purpose in life. For me, we do not need to do one massive favor for the world; in fact, I think it's the small things that matters, just as there is no 1 peso if it isn't for a hundred cents. Let's not be blinded by the kind of standards the world has for what a life with a purpose is. I would say that it is really up to us to say if we have lived a life with a meaning. I think it is only ourselves who can answer that question... So we should just make sure that we live our lives not like the way Truman used to, but the way he did when he walked out the door of the 'normalized' world set for him; we should live and end our every day in this world making sure that we know in the deepest of our hearts that we have an added a cent into our piggy bank of life's purpose.

What's Next?

All Along The Watchtower

by Bob Dylan

"There must be some way out of here" said the joker to the thief
"There's too much confusion", I can't get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth.

"No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.

Having discussed this song has really caught my attention for two main reasons:

1. Because it's written by Bob Dylan. That statement is supposedly self-explanatory, but to make it clearer (especially for non-Old school stuff fans), I have a great liking for old music. One of the legendary names in music (during the time when most songs actually made sense and showed situations of society) is Bob Dylan, which explains my instant overreaction when I saw his name on the projector screen. Not many people, especially here in the Philippines, actually still listen to Bob Dylan or the like.
2. Seeing that the song is made by Bob Dylan, I expected the song to be something with great metaphors and reflects the way things really are in an exceptionally creative manner. And yes, my expectations were met – the song is beyond my expectations, in fact.

Having explained why this is what I have chosen to reflect about for this week, it would be just time to tell what I think of it. The first time I heard this song was, I admit, in the class itself. To be even more honest, I did not find it truly that special the first time I read its lyrics. Obviously, my judgment of it changed eventually after scrutinizing every line.

The metaphors of this song are quite hard to understand if not taken wholly. Line after line, the story reveals more the real message that Dylan wants to express to his listeners. After the song finishes, what it really means hits the listeners and get an “Oh!” moment. Apparently, I am one of those listeners. Basically, this song is about the revolutionaries represented by outsiders (fool and theif) who try to make a difference (about the social 'caste' or 'hierarchy' in the case of our class discussion but I think it could be more than that; Dylan may have been also referring to other injustices in the society that he could see). It was also established that the 'repetitive' tune of the song implies the never-ending cycle of it – society having a problem, some outsiders trying to change it, problem remains – and it goes on.

I would probably agree with Dylan in many aspects of his views manifested in this song. Yes, the representation of the revolutionaries or what I would prefer to call the 'fountainheads' (in reference to Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead) is quite right, that it is through the fool and the thief. This is true, not in all but in many cases since people who get to see the society as an outsider gets to pick out what the problems in it are rather than those who participate fully and are pampered inside that society. Also, yes, this has become truly a cycle that keeps repeating itself all over the history of mankind through many people of many kind who do it with many different strategies and ways, and yet, here we are still, stuck in the same centuries-old system.

However, I find myself wondering what would really happen if the 'end' that the joker and the thief strive hard to achieve is met. What would be of the world, really, if people are all equal and all these divisions and hierarchies in society are shattered? What is the point of living if the world is already at peace? I am not trying to be a sadist here or something, but I think it's quite reasonable to point that out, since I think what makes life interesting the way it is now is the problems we have and what makes people strive hard and think revolutionary is because of these injustices they see. But then, if all that is gone... “What's next?”

Let me also tell that I find these lines hard to forget - “"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke/But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate/So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late". I like this very much, being a fan of Philosophy and all. I remember through these lines a song by the Beatles: “Living is easy with eyes closed/Misunderstanding all you see”. And those lines are only too right. Ignorance is indeed bliss. Somehow, knowing connotes a sense of responsibility. It's a challenge to know, because you know you have to do something about what you know, especially when it is something wrong. The thief through those lines is trying to say that we must do something, us who know. It will not be easy, just as it had not been for the 'two riders' approaching the watchtower... Those who know may not even be able to destroy the watchtower... But then again, who said that is the only end to the means of those who know? Trying to make a change and making sense out of the one who knows' life is through that trial, is I think, quite enough.

The Beyond

ODE TO THE SEA

by Pablo Neruda

HERE
Surrounding the island
There’s sea.
But what sea?
It’s always overflowing.
Says yes,
Then no,
Then no again,
And no,
Says yes
In blue
In sea spray
Raging,
Says no
And no again.
It can’t be still.
It stammers
My name is sea.


It slaps the rocks
And when they aren’t convinced,
Strokes them
And soaks them
And smothers them with kisses.
With seven green tongues
Of seven green dogs
Or seven green tigers
Or seven green seas,
Beating its chest,
Stammering its name,


Oh Sea,
This is your name.
Oh comrade ocean,
Don’t waste time
Or water
Getting so upset
Help us instead.
We are meager fishermen,
Men from the shore
Who are hungry and cold
And you’re our foe.
Don’t beat so hard,
Don’t shout so loud,
Open your green coffers,
Place gifts of silver in our hands.
Give us this day
our daily fish.

 

The Earth wherein we Men live in is only contained in the Solar System, which is a part of the Solar Interstellar Neighborhood, which is found in the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of the Local Galactic Group, which  is in the Virgo Supercluster, which is only one of the Local Superclusters. All of these are inside the ‘Observable’ Universe. Imagine how much vast existence is beyond what we are and where we live. Yet, we still treat ourselves as the Superiors, as if we rule everything, as if we own not only the World, as if we are the Kings and Queens of universe, as if we have the power to be truly the conquerors, as if we have the right to every riches in the universe.

What is the reason why people find it hard to believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster? What is the reason why men abuse their environment as if they could provide for themselves without it? What is the reason why men reckon that they have the capability to save it from the damage they have caused it? What is the reason why humans are afraid of the notion of the ‘End of the World’, thinking it will be the end of life itself? What is the reason why aliens are always portrayed as much more intelligent but bad beings in the movies produced today? What is the reason why people fear the unpredictable but inevitable coming of their end, Death? What is the reason why many are frightened about the concept of a God, or a Superior Being?  

When there is something beyond our control, we treat it as our competitor or foe. We are so limited to the notion that we are the only powerful ones in this Universe, probably because of our ability to reason out, that in contrary, it makes us closed-minded which leads us to our very own ignorance. And it is this ignorance that leads us to our own destruction.

We try so hard to take control of everything without having considered thinking about things that are greater than us. As one would see, our ability of reason has not only given us enough greatness; we thought too much of this greatness that we think we possess more than we really do. And this is exactly the ignorance which ruins us. Why is it that we cannot accept the fact that not everything is in our control, for it is not we who possess the infinite greatness and power to have the right to act with the proudness we have now.

Life is a dream... And death is waking up.

On Death
by John Keats
I.
Can death be sleep, when life is but a dream,
And scenes of bliss pass as a phantom by?
The transient pleasures as a vision seem,
And yet we think the greatest pain’s to die.

II.
How strange it is that man on earth should roam,
And lead a life of woe, but not forsake
His rugged path; nor dare he view alone
His future doom which is but to awake.

‘Death’ has always been a special topic for me. It is probably why this poem by John Keats is what I have chosen to reflect about.
Upon reading this, I remember 8^th issue of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman Comics wherein Sandman (Dream) is visited by his sister, Death. It is impossible for me to forget what Dream said about death. He said:
“I find myself wondering about humanity. Their attitude to my sister’s (Death’s) gift is so strange. Why do they fear the sunless lands? It is natural to die as it is to be born. But they fear her. Dread her. Feebly attempt to placate her. They do not love her.”

(Dream and Death together in a park. Sandman Vol. 1, Issue #8)

Obviously, both Keats and Gaiman view death not as a punishment which is what everybody thinks of it; they see it, rather, as a beautiful thing, a blessing. I must say that I cannot agree more with both of them about their notion of death. I myself cannot fully comprehend why people fear death so much. I have talked openly to people, especially to my friends, about my views on death, and they have always reacted scared by the things I say. Of course, I would ask them how come they fear it so much, even when it is only talked about it, and they would tell me same reasons which I find not good enough to justify this fear. They would say that they fear it because they are too young, they still want to accomplish many things, they haven’t even met their ‘true love’ yet, they are worried about the people they will leave behind, they are afraid of what is ‘beyond’ this life, and many other reasons like so.

Then, it hits me why people act the way they do when they encounter the ‘death’ topic. Actually, I do not think it is death itself they fear. Based on the varying reasons people give me when I ask them the fear of death question, people are afraid of living in the present, in the NOW. All their reasons talk about not having done this, what would their family think after they die… They are all about the future but never about the ‘now’. In here walks my existentialist view. Martin Heidegger said that “The moment we are born, we are old enough to die.” And I agree. We never really know; death has never given us a promise on how much time we have or when it will come for us. My only solution is to live in the NOW. In that way, I will not regret anything even if I die right now. I will not have any ‘should-haves’. I would depart this world contented, happy, with no regrets. This, I think, is what everyone else must do.

Many people complain about life being difficult and full of sufferings, yet they fear it ending. Of course, I am not encouraging suicide here. Like what Keats said “And lead a life of woe, but not forsake His rugged path”, we must still live life. In fact, we must live it to the fullest. We must make the most of it. Yet, the only way we can do such things is if we accept that someday – in a few minutes, tomorrow, in a few weeks, years – we will die. That way, we know that we are going to end, so we will be able to live in our present instead of dwell in the past or hope for the future.

Death is a powerful Force we can never avoid. When it comes, it comes. There is no use avoiding it for we will never have the power to do so. So we might as well should welcome, embrace, and accept it whole-heartedly, just like when we welcome waking up from a good night’s dream.

“Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.” – Epicurus