First Confession

First Confession - Frank O'Connor

6.24.07



Jackie was indoctrinated with Christianity. How terrible.

The story focuses on the aforementioned boy's troubles with his first confession, partly due to the forceful introduction of the fear of hell among other things, such as being cursed to living life as some obscure burning thing due to a "bad confession", that is, omitting sins in one's confession. The main reason of the protagonist's fear of confession, however, comes from societal consequences. Admitting all of one's faults to a person whom one hardly knows is difficult, but when those faults include plotting to kill one's own grandmother, the entire thing goes to "hell". Such is the reason for Jackie's troubles.


The story was sad.

All literary works, especially the fictitious ones, are ultimately subjective; it's high time that I seize this trait to my advantage.

In my view (Wow, subjective), the story inadvertently exposes a few flaws in the Christian faith. This little stratagem composed of fear and eternal torment is quite efficient in subjugating children. Is it, however, worth it?

Richard Dawkins doesn't think so. He classifies it as child abuse, and he goes on to state that "the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them." (1)

This, then, can also be defined as psychological abuse, since according to Wikipedia, "Any situation in which the repeated and extreme impact of a situation affects a person's emotional and rational thinking, in such a way as to adversely impact their later lives, could be termed as psychological abuse at some level." (2)


No doubt that a few harmless and retractable lies can be justified in the context of shaping behavior, but can such a destructive and recurring superstition be justified on the same grounds? I think not.


The narrative, therefore, just goes to show what unnecessary pains the indoctrinated youth have to go through.

Besides, what is the need for confession if one's god is the ultimate omnibenevolent being, the one who does not require neither motive nor action, since infinite love does not demand nor require reciprocation, since such a being is beyond all? You could say emotional comfort on the part of the man, but that's just plain evasion of the question, since the need we speak of is that of salvation, not of living comfortably.


(1) Dawkins, Richard. "Religion's Real Child Abuse." The Official Richard Dawkins Website. 15 May 2006. Accessed 23 June 2007. http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins

(2) Psychological Abuse - Wikipedia. 21 June 2007 (Last modified). Accessed 23 June 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse

Hills Like White Elephants

Hills Like White Elephants - Ernest Hemingway

6.20.07


Ah, a story revolving around a rather friendly discussion between a standard heterosexual couple waiting for a train in Ebro. According to induction, the conversation revolves around the decision to have an abortion, although it could may as well be anything that relieves discomfort by "letting the air in" since abortion is never directly mentioned in the story.

It is prudent to note that I frown upon any expression of subjectivity, especially those that concern love. The statements associated with it can be extremely and inexorably ambiguous but I digress.


So. What, then, is the "point" of the story?

Like any other literary work that makes use of fiction and whatnot, one can make it mean what he wants it to, similar to how different readers can interpret George Orwell's 1984 to suit their own views. As Rickyroma from www.atheistforums.com put it, "Christians will tell you it is a parable against atheistic states such as the Soviets and North Korea; capitalists that it is about the evils of communism; socialists that it is about the evils of inequalities in wealth and power; atheists that it is a metaphor for religion."(1)

Philosophical crap aside, I suppose that the temporality of everything is what the story apparently tries to get at. "...once they take it away, you never get it back," the story states. That is definitely true, but that does not seem to be neither profound nor useful, since everyone rational knows that. The affirmation of this fact could perhaps drive some to think about their lives, but I don't know.

The issue of abortion is also present, but it does not seem to be discussed in an ethical manner. It looks to be a "prop" of sorts. I don't know.

I don't know for sure. Induction is a shaky business.


...copy-paste the forthcoming link. It doesn't work when you click it, for some reason.

(1) Rickyroma. "Creationism in Orwell's 1984" Online posting. 09 Aug. 2004. Atheistforums. 20 June 2007 <http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2321>.

The Use of Force

The Use of Force - William Carlos Williams

6.18.2007


Though the story seemed to have little in the way of a profound point, it does inspire some questions about the actions of both the doctor and the child. Was the escalation of hostilities due to the fault of the doctor? the child? both of them? or perhaps neither has fault in the situation, insofar as moral responsibility is traditionally attributed to free will?

Determinism shows how people tend to have sympathy for criminals when they learn of all the past causes that necessarily got them into jail, such as childhood abuse, psychological problems, family disputes, etc. until there lies no room for what we would call free will, which in itself is a fancy way of inscribing responsibility into an individual due to ignorance of the prior causes that leads to an individual's actions.

In class, some have reasoned that it was the parents' fault for what we would call a crappy upbringing, and some have reasoned that it was the doctor's fault for being rash and impatient. One could also argue that it was the child's fault, since she presumably has the necessarily faculties to understand conversation and make decisions. If being at fault is defined as being morally responsible due to contra-causal free will, then I would say that no one holds this so-called state of faultness, for I am a determinist. However, if being at fault can be described as a moral error of sorts regardless of responsibility, then I would have to say that all involved would have a hand at the necessitation of the situation assuming that we all have a uniform moral standard, which is vastly improbable. This is still open to more conjecture since this spawns a great many questions, but addressing all of them would simply be too long for this entry.

Edit:
The main point of the story is presumably the use of force, which is presented in a utilitarian perspective. Is the use of force justified when it accomplishes a greater good? I would absolutely think so, insofar as it propagates happiness (not necessarily pleasure) and virtue.

Rationality aside, it did infuriate me when the child just stubbornly refused medical examination on what is presumably a petty basis. I despise kids, if you didn't already know that.

So, there you have it. In the end, the doctor broke his objectivity and can thus be called a hypocrite for the time being, but I think that hypocrisy does not in any way detract from the value of one's arguments and/or actions, assuming that the latter accomplished a greater good. A "so what?" would be a sufficient reply to such an accusation.

I for one approve of the use of force.

An Introduction

The forthcoming text is reserved only for those who know not of the nature of this Reading Journal.

Those who do know are allowed to read, insofar as I cannot control those who view this site, but why the hell bother?

The Reading Journal is basically a requirement for Lit 13 class. 'Tis a task, apparently, that will have us writing down at least five sentences borne of our gut reactions to each and every reading material that will be taken up in class. It won't be numerically graded, since one cannot assess emotions - to do so would be folly. Therefore, if one writes 5 sentences for each story, one has fulfilled the requirement, however cretinous those 5 sentences may be.

I don't think that I'd be doing the bare minimum of writing merely 5 cretinous sentences, though.