MarcFriedenberg.com

Section 1 (Fahrenheit 451)

Guy Montag lived in a corrupt society that went against nearly everything we claim to believe in today. After becoming aware of his surroundings and environment, he took the necessary actions to change his world. These actions were viewed as illegal by his government, and he was made out to be a criminal. His actions, however, were valid. Guy was not acting out of a greedy desire for fame or wealth. He was acting out of a legitimate fear that his world had become a wasteland and that mankind itself would become useless if the then-current trends of book burning and TV-existence were allowed to continue unabated. He wasn’t acting to help himself – he was acting to help others. That is what makes his actions valid from a philosophical perspective. He was willing to risk his life in order to do what he felt was right.

I believe many would agree that Guy’s actions were justifiable. From our comfortable perch of (until-recently) secure America, we can see that Guy is in the right. We must then begin to feel uneasy about whether the people who complain about our way of life are in fact correct. To future generations, perhaps we will be the ones who appear closed-minded and doomed to fail.

The anti-social actions of those with unpopular beliefs (Timothy McVeigh, for example) are viewed by many as sheer lunacy. Perhaps the late Mr. McVeigh was like Guy. He committed his act in what he thought was a heroic effort to save a society that was headed downhill. We assume that he is crazy. Mildred assumed Guy was crazy. Society must deal then with these anti-social actions. Terrorists and anarchists do not make a compelling case by using violence; America is designed in such a way that facilitates debate, and concerned parties should take advantage of this fact in advancing their causes. Societies should deal however necessary with violent anti-social acts, even using violence when called for. Guy Montag, though, was not given an opportunity to peacefully voice his opinions, which explains why he was forced, and validated, to do what he did. Societies should not shut the door on debate involving the unpopular beliefs that are so often the cause of the more violent anti-social actions.

As an extension of the American debate system, people or groups are allowed to express opinions freely and without fear. This does not mean, however, that we allow anarchy. The Constitution allows these behaviors in general, but our justice system places more specific restraints on what is and what is not acceptable. I believe that this is the best solution. A society need not eliminate freedom is speech in order to prevent anarchy – a system of rules and regulations will check those who wish to take advantage of their rights. Although people do indeed have freedom of speech, they do not constantly wish to use this power to spiral their society into anarchy. Over time, an educated consensus will emerge, and this will prevent mass confusion. Thanks to free speech, however, that consensus can change as people to continue to explore the topic in question. In Guy’s world, ironically, the lack of freedom of speech led to anarchy in the form of nuclear annihilation.

Essay 2 (Lord of the Flies)

Golding felt that, if left to their own devices, humans will compete with each other so intensely that they will in fact destroy each other. I agree with him. It is important to note, however, the distinction between competition in day-today existence and competition in a situation of the magnitude like the one in Lord of the Flies. In a typical situation, people will calmly rationalize the advantages of sharing with others and working productively together. They will see that a group will usually work far more effectively than an individual. That is why, in most cases, we do not see students competing for class office roll boulders onto each other (perhaps this year was an exception). They know that the repercussions of their actions will be severe, and that they would be better off competing on a level playing field.

In the island scenario of Lord of the Flies, however, no such behavioral restrictions were in place. The boys were free to behave as their instincts told them to, and the divisions and chaos that occurred were the inevitable result. We would like to believe that we are above what took place, that our humanity would prevent us from degrading into the situation on the island. In fact, it is our humanity that would ensure the same result. To cite a relevant cliché, desperate times call for desperate measures. In a life-or-death situation, our instincts would not allow us to willingly submit to the temporary discomfort or uneasiness that are sometimes the compromises that teamwork necessitates. We would focus entirely on our own well-being, teamwork be damned. Evolution has led us down this path, and we would be hard-pressed to bypass it (assuming it was even possible).

A discussion on how I would mediate the situation on the island is moot. If I were there in my actual form, I would simply overpower the boys physically and mentally (we would hope). As such, no mediation would take place. I would not allow it. I assume then that your question is based on my being a character of the novel, such as Ralph. Ralph’s great failing as a leader was that he was unable to sufficiently describe the advantages of teamwork to the other boys on the island. Because of this, the moretyrannical Jack was able to assume nearly complete control. If I were Ralph, then, I would concentrate more on communicating rationally with the boys, and specifically on trying to get the younger boys (who were generally disinterested in the power struggle that was taking place on their island) to come to my side. My mediation plan is based on giving power to Ralph because I feel that he is by far the leader with the most potential for success. His implementation wasn’t perfect, but his intentions were solid. He would have insured the continued survival of everyone on the island. Clearly, Jack did not have the same intentions. There is a place in society for people like Jack and Simon (perhaps as leaders of hunting), but I don’t believe that it is at the top of the political ladder.

Essay 3 (Ishmael)

According to Ishmael, Takers rely upon prophets to give direction and meaning to their lives. Furthermore, the more “industrious” Takers can spin the words of prophets to support their own causes (think religious disputes, environmentalism, politics, etc.). Prophets and the religious bases they have created are the cause of many of the woes of the modern world. Osama Bin Laden’s prophet is not the same as ours, and this is part of his justification for his attacks.

The man in Ishmael is “awakened” by Ishmael, his teacher. While it is true that, according to the ad in the newspaper, Ishmael was seeking a pupil, the man had far more to gain. Ishmael came suddenly and imparted upon him knowledge that potentially may have converted him from a Taker to a Leaver. In this respect, it can be said that Ishmael was a prophet.

Ishmael tells the man that Ishmael’s method is superior. He doesn’t suggest that perhaps a mixture of the two worlds is best. In essence, Ishamel’s beliefs are just as artificial as the man’s. Does Quinn (as Ishmael) pretend to have eaten from the same Tree of Knowledge that Ishmael claimed began the Taker revolution?

It is interesting then that a man who had previously relied so heavily on prophets to support his Taker lifestyle was converted by a Leaver prophet who argued against the very concepts of prophets and prophecies.

Perhaps the impact of this is that prophecy is not something only in the Taker lifestyle – perhaps the Leavers rely upon them too. The Leavers may desire outside verification and justification of their actions as much as the Takers do. From this, we may be able to say that prophets are necessary in either type of society. In the strictest sense, the difference between the Leavers and the Takers is the agricultural issue. Otherwise, they are fundamentally the same. They require the same emotions and religious experiences, which explains why the prophets are such a key ingredient in either society. The fact that Ishmael is unwittingly making this point clear adds to the irony. He tries to paint a Leaver society as far better and more natural, but at the same time he is showing that his beliefs are not necessarily any better than those that most of the world has adopted. Rather incongruous, wouldn’t you say?