Evil

In the play ‘Othello’ by William Shakespeare it could be said that in the end, despite the killing of Desdemona, Othello and Emilia that, “we grieve that the innocent have suffered but we are satisfied that evil has been defeated”, but to what extent is this actually true?

There is no doubt that ‘Othello’ is full of the suffering of innocence. None more so than the suffering of Desdemona who can be described in no other way than pure and virtuous. At no point in the play can it be said that she shows anything other than these qualities and there really can be no justification for the fate that befalls her. ‘She is indeed perfection’, which is stated by Cassio, is the perfect description of this woman and yet she arguably suffers most within the text. Not only is her integrity questioned, the man she loves and has given her soul to, denounces her as a ‘whore’ and a ‘strumpet’ and in the end murders her.

There is no doubt either that Othello suffers within the play. He is driven to kill Desdemona, the woman he loves, due to the notion that she has lied, cheated and is ultimately a lustful adulteress.

His innocence however, could be questioned. The only proof that Desdemona has done the things she had been accused of is that which is in imagination. He never really has any real proof, just suggestions. It is in fact his jealousy and imagination that makes him believe that Desdemona is an adulteress. Without his jealous tendencies, the seed of suspicion could never have been planted. As well as the circumstances it is a personal failing within Othello himself that leads to the murder of his wife and so therefore he is not completely innocent in his suffering, or that of Desdemona.

Despite Othellos already jealous personality playing an important role in the events, it cannot be denied that Iago is the character who initiates, and through exploiting Othellos jealous nature and the naivety of Desdemona, brings about the suffering of all. The blame, to a great extent, lies with Iago. His character is nasty, crude and disrespectful. This is shown in the scene where he encourages Roderigo to inform Brabantio (Desdemonas father) of her where abouts. He says, ‘an old black ram, is tupping your white ewe’, which is an altogether crude and animalistic way to describe the act of love making between two people who are clearly in love.

He again uses a vulgar description of the pair when he says, ‘your daughter covered with a Barbary horse’. Despite talking about Othello in this derogatory way he pretends to be his friend throughout the play. He clearly states that ‘I follow him to serve my turn upon him’ and ‘I must show out a flag and sign of love, which is indeed but a sign’, which shows his vindictive and scheming nature. Although he pretends to be a friend to Othello, he is actually only doing it in order to let him suggest that his wife isn’t the women he thought she was. With this in mind, the most truthful words that Iago says are, ‘I am not what I am’.

Iago never actually does anything, he doesn’t kill or hurt anyone physically and yet he undoubtedly lies behind the suffering within the play. This makes what he’s doing all the more sinister. His evil nature is unquestionable and so when he is found out at the end of the play it could be said that evil has been defeated. However, Iagos true colours being shown and him being punished hasn’t stopped him doing what he set out to. He has after all still made Othello suffer significantly and in turn got his revenge.

In conclusion I feel that although it is true that innocence has suffered a great deal throughout the play, the fact that Othello played a role in his own suffering cannot be over looked. Nor can the question of to what extent he really was innocent in the whole scenario. In addition to this there is the question of, has evil (Iago) really been defeated? I don’t believe that it has, as in my opinion, evil has done what it set out to do and has in fact won.

In our world today there is one item that controls us and influences us all, money; the thing that makes us who we are or who we want to be. However, money is not necessarily the root of all evil. If money is used appropriately, money has the influence of benefiting those around us, yet at the same time it can bring out the worst in many people. Money also controls society where it can cause substantial problems in politics, the government as well corrupt cities. Lastly, although money is indeed the root of everything, we cannot live with money because of our economic society.

Everything has its pros and cons and whatever it may be there is always an outcome. Money however, is not necessarily the root of all evil. Money can definitely help many people. Through my experiences, I’ve learned that money can make a huge impact for those around us. For instance, every year I stock a shoebox with toys and goods for the yearly event of Operation Christmas Child. Knowing that a child from around the world is receiving my shoebox, I can understand that a little money can bring happiness for those who are in need.

However, anyone can use money, even well off citizens; it doesn’t matter if you are poor, wealthy or rich. You can spend money on whatever you like; whether its computer games, food, entertainment, or even gambling. The problem with money is that everyone would like an abundance of it, but not everyone has the opportunity to have it at their disposal. When too many people are longing for the same thing and there is not enough to go around, people start creating their own ways on how to get their own share.

Soon enough, crime becomes a factor and humans lose their morality and start stealing from one another. When I was in grade 10, my parents bought me a brand new IPod; nevertheless, it was stolen because someone wanted it as well. Money also can cause significant damage to once a stable political society to become spiteful and greedy. The United States is the perfect example. President Bush has always had a strong desire to lead his country. However, the decisions that he made only benefited what he believed was best and not what the country believed.

In 2001, President Bush made the decision of declaring war in Afghanistan. The main purpose of the war was to capture Bin Laden as well as to destroy Al-Queda. Nevertheless, the mission became into trying to control Afghanistan itself. Over 20,000 troops were sent to insure control. In order to pay for the enormous project and mission, cuts were made and state entities had to be closed; many workers lost their jobs. President Bush Mayor found that the war was more important than the country itself.

In turn, the country has to find its own ways to pay for its own necessities; which only will result in depreciation. We also see on a regular basis of other federal government cases that centre on embezzlement with government funds when all the while more important issues can be solved with the money being cheated by our leaders and superiors. Eventually, the focal point becomes on money and not the important issues such as the homeless and crime. People in general love money; we love to own nice things and are excited when we are able to purchase that item we once dreamed about having one day.

There are some, though, that have problems using it in the proper way. Instead of saving money, I purchase useless items that are not necessary. Last March break, I went snowboarding with my friends in Banff with my brand new fast snowboard rather than paying off the debt I owed to my parents. In reality, we place money at the top of everything; it is the first and foremost on the minds of people. We dream constantly of what would make our lives better; if we need the money desperately, if we need to satisfy our desires, or even to try and fulfill our dreams.

A Homeless man on the street needs money to buy food, a mother needs money to take care of her child, and a father needs money to pay his home mortgage payment. We would all like to “have it all. ” I dream of living in the perfect world; where I live in the perfect community, drive the fastest car and owning the newest entertainment systems. It all comes down to how we place the importance of our wants and needs. I always desire what my friends have, but by what means will I go to get it? Will I get another job? Or ultimately even choosing the negative outcome by stealing?

Money is surely the root of everything, good and evil. Money controls the world that we live in. It’s something that we need to survive with and it’s one of the most manipulative objects that can control us. Money is the root of everything, good and evil. In our society today, we cannot walk out the door without seeing something that involves money. It is up to us on how we manipulate it and how we use it in our daily lives. I’ve learned that with money comes discernment. What type of discernment will I use when I want to have something?

The Parable of the lost son in the bible tells the story of a young man who wants his share of his father’s inheritance. Not long after that, the young son took off to a distant country and squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, he had nothing, and continued by living by working on a farm and eating what the pigs ate. The lesson of the story is that we need to use money wisely and to have the right discernment. So ask yourself, how do you spend money? Do you use it wisely? Or spend it foolishly?

Weather, Evil, and Chaos in Macbeth “So foul and fair a day I have not seen” (1. 3. 38) proclaims Macbeth as he unwittingly echoes the Weird Sisters’ incantation from the opening scene of Macbeth. The imagery of foul weather permeates the play, setting the tone and underscoring the unnaturalness of Macbeth’s treacherous behavior. Foul weather symbolizes both evil and the chaos it creates, and the most important function of weather imagery is to link Macbeth with evil and chaos. The connection between foul weather and evil is emphasized from the opening of the play. The stage directions for scene I reads, “Thunder and lightning. As the witches enter and begin speaking, the connection between evil and weather is established: “When shall we three meet again / In thunder, lightning, or in rain? ” (1. 1. 1-2). This is an interesting question, since the audience later learns (during the witches’ second appearance) that the witches themselves can control winds and create storms. Before Macbeth appears on stage, foul weather is firmly associated with the forces of evil. Thus Macbeth’s opening line (quoted above) foreshadows his descent into evil. The evil that takes root in Macbeth’s soul ultimately leads to chaos.

To early modern audiences, murdering a king represented perhaps the greatest evil that man might commit, for the monarch was the highest human link in the great chain of being linking man to God. When Macbeth murders Duncan, he severs the great chain, throwing everything into chaos. According to Tillyard, To us chaos means hardly more than confusion on a large scale; to an Elizabethan it meant the cosmic anarchy before creation and the wholesale dissolution that would result if the pressure of Providence relaxed and allowed the laws of nature to cease functioning. 16) That such chaos exists within the world of the play is emphasized when Lennox and Ross discuss the unnatural weather during the night of Duncan’s murder. Lennox’s remarks imply a connection between foul weather and chaos: “The night has been unruly…. Our chimneys were blown down…. Some say the earth was feverous and did shake” (2. 3. 50-57). Ross’s response suggests that nature has died, an idea anticipated by Macbeth’s earlier observation, “nature seems dead” (2. 1. 50). In a sense, nature has died with Duncan, and the destructive weather reveals that evil and chaos rule in his place.

The references to foul and unnatural weather underscore Macbeth’s relationship to chaos and evil. The murder of Duncan creates chaos that undoes many characters, until nature is revived by the death of Macbeth. Foul weather imagery is thus an important aspect of the play, serving not only to provide a sinister atmosphere but also to symbolize the chaos that follows the murder of a king. Such imagery powerfully contributes to making Macbeth one of Shakespeare’s darkest and most powerful tragedies.

SOCS350-ON November 7, 2008 THE SWASTIKA-A SYMBOL OF GOOD AND EVIL The hackenkreuz, gamma cross, gammadion, St. Brigit’s cross, fylfot cross and swastika are all references to one symbol, the oldest cross in the world. This symbol is represented several thousand years B. C. in multiple cultures. It is not until the 1900’s that the term “swastika” elicits such a fervor of emotions. It is interesting to contrast the viewpoints of the Chinese community versus the enormity of human passion that ensues in a Jewish community when the symbol is displayed.

As cited in Chinese Symbols – Common Five Asian Attributes,http:symbolic-meanings. com/2007/11/01chinese-symbols-commonAncient Chinese symbols and their meanings are a product of a very savvy people who understood the human need to progress in their conjunction with their propensity to link positive change with visual/allegorical concepts. The Chinese believe that crises in one’s life bring the opportunity for change. Symbolism is incorporated in the kanji, more commonly referred to as Chinese characters. Kanji, itself means both crises and opportunity.

As many people of China embrace the Buddhist religion, it is an opportunity to discuss the swastika from this point of view. As cited in ReligionFacts; “ The Swastika Symbol in Buddhism” htt//symbolic-meanings. com/2007/11/01chinese-symbols-common Page 2 Swastika In Buddhism, the swastika signifies auspiciousness and good fortune as well as the Buddha’s footprints and the Buddha’s heart. The swastika is said to contain the whole mind of the Buddha and can often be found imprinted on the chest, feet or palms of Buddha images.

It is also the first of the 65 auspicious symbols on the footprint of the Buddha. The swastika will also be found in homes, on the doorways to temples, at the beginning of books, in decorative borders and in clothing as well as being carved into Chinese coins. The swastika is seen as a symbol of luck and life. As cited in NewsFinder. org/site/more/swastika “The Oldest Known Symbol” In Nazi Germany, the swastika became the national symbol.

In 1910, a poet and nationalist, Guido von List suggested that the swastika be a symbol for all anti Semitic organizations. On August 7, 1920, at the Salzburg Congress, this flag became the official emblem of the Nazi Party. The actual drawing of the thousands of year old swastika remained the same with one exception after the adoption by the Nazi’s—the exclusive use of the colors black, red and white. The swastika holds a vivid, powerful vision for those of the Jewish community.

The impact though now changes from positive and serene as seen with the Chinese community to that of conjuring up memories of the holocaust, a time of horror and hate. The brief appropriation by the Nazi’s of the swastika has forever destroyed the positive a Page 3 Swastika and serene interpretation of this symbol for much of the world but especially for those of Hebrew belief. So deeply imbedded in the minds of those with an ancestry to Judaism that to merely see the swastika is to re-live the stories of the holocaust, the inhumanity and despair.

So powerful a symbol is that the swastika can create havoc on one’s limbic system. Though fewer victims are left now from this reign of terror, the legacy lives on to this day and assuredly shall for many generations to come. Two cultures, two moments in time, two opposing interpretations as related to a simple drawing have been discussed. The power is of course not in the drawing, but in the meaning perceived by the drawing. In one culture we see the swastika as life, in the other we see the swastika as a vile destruction of life.

plays a strong central character throughout the play, Romeo and Juliet. The Friar is linked to both the Capulet’s and the Montague’s through religion and the church. Friar Lawrence is presented as a “holy man” who is trusted and respected by the community because he is a priest. Friar Lawrence is an advisor and close friend to Romeo. This is apparent when Romeo addresses the Friar as “father” and Friar Lawrence addresses Romeo as his “son. ” Romeo goes to Friar Lawrence for help and consolation, for example, when Romeo speaks about Juliet for the first time, Friar Lawrence speaks to him about Rosaline.

This shows that their relationship is close as they seem to know a lot about each other and becomes more apparent throughout the play as he influences Romeo’s decisions. This shows the irresponsibility of the Friar as he has broken the stereotype of a regular Friar because he does not always seem to speak to Romeo as a Friar but more so as a friend. Romeo asks Friar Lawrence “that thou consent to marry us to-day. ” Friar Lawrence thinks at first that Romeo is moving on too quickly from Rosaline and does not think he is doing the right thing. Young men’s love then lies not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes. ” Friar Lawrence’s advice seems to be good because he believes that Romeo just says that he loves anyone or says it when he thinks he is in love until the next woman comes along. A Friar would not usually say that to anyone and this is showing that their relationship is unprofessional. Whilst Friars do advise people, this seems to have been unprofessional. Friar Lawrence quickly changes his attitude and decides to unite Romeo and Juliet in marriage. He believes that this will end the feud between their two families. For this alliance may so happy, to turn your households’ rancour to pure love. ” Friar Lawrence’s first motive was to create peace for their families. Friar Lawrence at the same time could have also thought of uniting Romeo and Juliet to boost his own status in Verona. He could have wanted to portray himself in a more respectable light to show that he ended the vendetta between the Montague and Capulet families. In secret, Romeo and Juliet marry, without their parent’s permission. Friar Lawrence is seen as a figure that is a highly trustworthy character of great importance.

By performing the marriage, he is keeping secrets from the two wealthiest and most powerful families in Verona, which would be seen as a sin for a Friar. In going ahead with the clandestine marriage, it shows that he can be devious and untrustworthy in order to protect himself as he does not want the blame if anything goes wrong. When Romeo killed Tybalt, his punishment was banishment and was ordered to Mantua. Romeo goes to Friar Lawrence for more guidance on what to do. “Go get thee to thy chamber, hence and comfort her. Friar Lawrence encourages Romeo to go to Juliet’s home and consummate their marriage, knowing that the differences between the families are now inconsolable. Friar Lawrence knew that if Romeo was to get caught at the Capulet’s home with Juliet, Romeo would have been killed and this demonstrates that he was willing to sacrifice Romeo’s life by sending him there in order to make sure that the marriage was not annulled. Friar Lawrence was making sure it happened so that the plan in his mind was going to work. He thinks he will still gain power and recognition so everyone is happy in the future.

Friar Lawrence is shown as a good man as Romeo and Juliet are grateful for his help in making sure they spend their wedding night together. However, giving this advice to Romeo can also illustrate that he is a bumbling individual because he is putting Romeo’s life in danger. Friar Lawrence devised another plan for Juliet to help her escape from her father and the arranged marriage. “And if thou dar’st, I’ll give thee remedy. ” Friar Lawrence plans on giving Juliet a drug that will make her sleep for 48 hours, but at the same time, make her seem dead.

The Friar also tells her that he will write to Romeo to inform him of the new plan. Friar Lawrence’s egotistical attitude seems to have caused more grief than comfort. By suggesting that Juliet drinks the potion, he shows a more selfish side to his personality. I believe that the Friars intensions are still good at this point, however he could be trying to save himself from the situation as he may have doubts about the upcoming events, showing that there is a very unforgiving side to him. Friar Lawrence has to be devious in order to carry out the new idealistic plan.

As a priest, he should not lie in any situation. Friar Lawrence asks “come, is the Bride ready to go to church? ” to the Capulet family. He already knew full well that the wedding was not going to go ahead, however by saying this to the family, he is pretending that he knows nothing and gets prepared to bury Juliet. This shows how deceptive the Friar can be as he remains very composed throughout the day, which only reinforces his superiority and confidence amongst the community. As Juliet awakes from her planned long sleep, she asks Friar Lawrence “where is my Romeo? ” He tells her he “lies dead. At this point, Friar Lawrence would have been very worried about his actions and he tries to cover up the lies to fix what happened. He asks Juliet to “come, I’ll dispose of thee, among a sisterhood of holy Nuns. ” Friar Lawrence is afraid of his actions and of being exposed as a failure and liar. Proposing this to Juliet would have been the last desperate attempt to help him remain in a good light and not ruin his reputation for good. Friar Lawrence asked Juliet to become a Nun to forget about Romeo and start a new life, however, I believe that he only suggested this because he panicked and is afraid that the secrets will be unfolded.

In Friar Lawrence proposing this, it shows he has a weak side to his personality as he is portrayed as a bumbling individual who shows concerns, only for himself. Friar Lawrence may have got involved in Romeo and Juliet’s plans so much that he found it hard to let go and thought he could keep helping. The Friar knew in his mind that it was wrong to help Romeo run away with his lover, (Juliet) however, because he was more than a priest to Romeo and Juliet, he knew they were in a desperate situation and did genuinely want to help.

To conclude, Friar Lawrence was a good man. Friar Lawrence played a controlling role into being responsible for the marriage, all aspects of the plans, meetings/reunions and the potion. The Friars motive never intended for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet to occur as he did come across to be genuine to both families (Montague’s and Capulet’s) by wanting to end the feud. Each narrow minded plan was planned to allow, the loved up teenagers (Romeo and Juliet) to be happy together as they were hopeful that their families would be united by their love.

Friar Lawrence started off being honourable to both Romeo and Juliet as he could tell they were both in love, however as their plans go off track, one by one, he had to abuse his trusted role more and more. Friar Lawrence’s plans were intelligent because he used his knowledge in medicines and flowers to provide the potion for Juliet. With his experience of herbs and remedies, it enabled him to carry out the potion plan and without him; Juliet would not have been able to fake her own death. Some people may feel that this was a cunning and calculative plan. It can e viewed that the plan was evil as well as the character of Friar Lawrence. In my opinion, l think that the Friar wanted to help and tried to rectify matters as they went wrong to the best of his abilities, he did not think clearly about the consequences of the plans of what potentially could have gone wrong and only thought about the positive outcomes. This could be because he never had the time to sit and think though it, however l thought his plans were simple and effective. Friar Lawrence always wanted to “do the right thing” since his reputation was paramount to him.

In contrast to being a good character, Friar Lawrence does show an evil side to him. His behavioural response when he finds Juliet in the tomb, for example, instead of remaining with her and preventing her death, he flees when he hears the sound of people coming. In his actions, it shows his fear of accepting responsibility and his selfishness. Although Friar Lawrence’s plans seemed achievable at the time, he was naive in his assessment of the feud between the Montague and Capulet households and he hadn’t reflected fully on the implications of Romeo and Juliet’s secret and concealed marriage.

For many people, religion has been a pillar of our society for as long as we can trace back. A psychologist however, would argue that religion developed from the day that the people of our society started questioning their existence. As Sigmund Freud, physiologist, doctor, psychologist and the father of psychoanalysis, is generally recognised as one of the most influential and authoritative thinkers of the twentieth century, we need to consider his analysis of religion when approaching this topic.

However as some of Freud’s theories were developed over a century ago is it really possible to apply them to our society today, especially as our society is so multicultural and faith still holds a key role within many people’s lives? According to Sigmund Freud religion is an “illusion” we as a society or as individuals, conjure up for ourselves, for a number of key reasons. The first and most essential reason Freud claims we turn to religion is as a way of expressing psychological anguish from our childhood.

The second is we turn to religion as a way of overcoming and preventing dangers from the natural world, in hoping to gain control “the necessity of defending oneself against the crushingly superior force of nature. ” The third is that religion is used as a stress relief, stress that has developed from living in a suppressive society that condones the expression of sexual desire.

A final key reason Freud developed is that we follow religion to prevent the feeling of helplessness we can get when we no longer have the protection of our parents or guardians: “And thus a store of ideas is created, born from man’s need to make his helplessness tolerable and built up from the memories of the helplessness of his own childhood and the childhood of the human race” I shall address Freud’s key idea to begin with: religion is a way of expressing psychological anguish. All of Freud’s work is focused around the idea of our unconscious or our subconscious.

Freud claimed that as children, any emotional torment we may suffer, instead of dealing with it directly at the time, we suppress it in our unconscious mind, only to channel it into another outlet later in life as an obsession or repulsion of any particular aspect of life. This is referred to as sublimation. One of the ways in which a person may choose to “channel” their negative experiences is through religion. This link was brought to Freud’s attention as he began to notice similarities in his patients’ obsessions in relation to the source of their compulsive behaviour as to that of a religious person and their faith.

Both have a symbolic meaning to the follower and have a set ritual – failure to complete this ritual (however regular it may be) leads to guilty feelings of regret. Seeing this comparison Freud came to the conclusion that religion is another form of neurotic illness that stems from our unconscious. Freud then began to address the matter of what suppressed feelings from childhood actually were. It is through this thinking he developed the concept of the “Oedipus Complex “.

This suggests that as children, young boys hold loving feelings of a sexual nature for their mothers. Through this they develop feelings of envy and hatred for their fathers. Due to the society we live in the Oedipus complex has to be suppressed as it is not acceptable behaviour but the sexual urges, Freud claims, are still there. It is these urges that are pushed to our unconscious that later come out in obsession or infatuation with something – obviously in this case – religion. “Thus religion would be a universal obsessive neurosis of humankind.

Just like the obsessive neurosis in children it springs from the Oedipus complex, the relationship with the Father” As mentioned before Freud made a direct link between psychological anguish and guilt and religion and guilt. Freud put forward a process that humans use to channel their guilt, particularly that of a sexual nature from the Oedipus/Electra complex. In an attempt to rid themselves of these feelings of guilt the person develops idols or Gods. By doing this they feel they can repent for their guilt by worship or sacrifice to these idols.

Initially the idol may be a representation of the child’s Father yet later on, in the same way the Father is rejected through Oedipus, the God is changed to an animal of a primal sort. The animal becomes sacred and inflicting harm upon the animal becomes a sin. Sacrifices are made to and worship becomes a ritual. This first stage of sublimation Freud labelled as animism. The second stage is, however, called religion. During this stage, the animal develops the status of a God and once again takes the form of the father figure thus completing the cycle from Oedipus to religion.

As Freud said “I put forward a suggestion that mankind as a whole may have acquired its sense of guilt of its history, in connection with the Oedipus complex” Closely linked to this is the theory that religion is used as a “stress” relief, stress that is placed on us by the society we live in. The stress that is caused by the suppression of our natural urges as children. This stress forces us to channel our libido into other areas of thinking and working, areas in life that are more socially acceptable.

As I explained previously it is common for this area to be religion and worship. Freud’s second theory for religion is that we use religion as a way of protecting ourselves or overcoming fears from the natural world. The problem of evil and suffering and religion has long being a conflict for many philosophers and psychologists. It is through this conflict that “St. Augustine’s Theodicy” was developed. St. Augustine based his arguments on the Bible and his theodicy suggests that God is perfect and created the world perfectly.

Created things are susceptible to change and evil comes from angels and human beings that chose to turn away from God. Augustine concluded that God cannot be blamed for creating evil since evil is not a substance rather than a deprivation (a lack of good) and it is not logical to say God created that deprivation. Despite this theory and many others that have been presented to us since the problem of evil and suffering is what gives science a higher appeal than religion to many people living today but it is also, according to Freud why we invent religion in the first place.

Religion offers us a “reward” for any suffering we may have inflicted upon us during our lifetime and adds meaning to life and its purpose. Otherwise we would be suffering unnecessarily and there would be no point to continue with life. Also through prayer and worship we feel we can control naturally occurring events that can cause us suffering such as death, illness, natural disasters etc. We do this in an attempt to abolish our fears of things we cannot control or change and hope to have some power over them through religion.

Freud’s next point is not dissimilar to the ideas of Karl Marx. Marxists would claim that religion is encouraged by the state to enforce order in society. Freud suggested a purpose for religion is that it is developed to give us a reason to obey authority. Regardless whether it is state authority or religious authority according to Freud people develop an attitude that “Everything in our world is an expression of the intentions of intelligence superior to us, which in the end, though its ways and byways are difficult to follow, orders everything for the best. We feel that if we disobey we shall not be rewarded, or worse punished for our crime or sin and we, by consequence, do not disobey. Freud came to the conclusion that religion must be overthrown for society to develop and progress. A final key reason Freud presents for humans fabricating religion is to prevent the feeling of helplessness we can get when we no longer have the protection of our parents or our guardians. This is simply that we develop “Gods” in order to protect ourselves, so we have someone to care for us and someone to look up to in the same way that we as children looked up to our parents.

When Freud’s theories were first published they were considered deeply controversial, interestingly though people took interest in what he said and took his psychoanalytical theory very seriously because at the time science was starting to make it’s breakthrough and Freud’s explanations were fresh and appealing to many. However whether theories that were developed over a century ago can still be relevant today is a different consideration.

For Freud’s work to still be relevant today, when science has developed further than psychology, which in comparison is considered the “soft science,” there would have to be some evidence to support the basics of Freud’s theory. Freud based his “Oedipus Complex” on the ideas of Darwinism, a stage of life in prehistoric men when the family unit was the “primal horde”. It consisted of a mother a father and offspring. As the dominant male the father would scare off any male threat to the female. This continued until all the male offspring joined together and turned on the father and eventually killed him.

The idea of religion stemming from guilt is not such a controversial one, particularly linking to sexual guilt and religion. Religious figures have often condemned sexual activity for the use of anything other than reproduction. Figures such as St. Augustine (who was greatly influenced by Plato) viewed sex and sexual desire as “having been implanted by the Devil at the time of the fall” as Peter Vardy explains Augustine claimed that it was best to avoid all sexual activity even within wedlock.

If the situation should occur when sex was needed for reproduction then the man “should descend to his task with a certain regret. ” Peter Vardy also outlines the common Catholic teaching which even today, in what we like to consider a sexually liberated society is still very traditional in it’s approach, namely: – – Masturbation is sinful since this means using genitalia for a purpose for which they are not intended – Sex can never have pleasure or the expression of love as its main object since, again, this means using genitalia for a purpose for which they were not intended Homosexuality, if it is practised, is deeply sinful as this means using genitalia for a purpose for which they were not intended since procreation cannot result and it is “against nature” So considering people are still raised to believe sex for any other reason other than reproduction is sinful, it is easy to see why sexual feelings may lead to feelings of guilt.

Particularly as sexual feelings are present throughout all stages of childhood that Freud identifies in the following ways: from birth to the age of eighteen months the child goes through what Freud named the “Oral Stage. This is to say all gratification of learning is gained through the mouth (feeding, chewing, sucking fingers etc. ) From eighteen months to three years the child progresses into the “Anal Stage” this normally happens when the child goes through potty training and often as a result develops fascination in anus and faeces. The period of time between three and six years of age was coined as the “Phallic Stage” and it’s during this stage that the child develops features of the Oedipus complex (if male) or the Electra complex (if female).

After the initial rush of feelings from the phallic stage have passed the child falls into the “Latent Stage” during which Freud claims there is no sexual development but this could be due to a suppression of the sexual feelings from the “Phallic stage. ” The final stage of childhood according to Freud is the “Genital Stage” and depending on how the child’s feelings from their younger years were dealt with, this is the time when sexual desire develops and is explored deeper.

So if a child is raised to deny themselves the sexual feelings their body releases then they may begin to feel sinful or guilty for having these feelings in the first place. Therefore for Freud to find a link between sex, guilt and religion is not entirely controversial. This all acts as evidence towards Freud’s theories and the relevance they hold in our society today. However, that said, there is plenty of reason why Freud’s theories are not at all relevant to us in such a developed society.

Freud has been criticised for focusing on the link between a father figure and a “God” in religions such as Judaism and, of course, Christianity. He fails to address eastern cultures and religions, which are based on worship of female idols or Goddesses,” such as the Egyptian Isis cult and Buddhism who have no one single object of worship. One of Freud’s major critics, Bronislaw Malinowski, who went on to write a book called “Sex and Repression” disputed Freud’s theory that religion develops from sexual guilt caused from the Oedipus complex.

He points out for Oedipus to be a complex it needs to be universal. You cannot apply a complex such as Oedipus to matriarchal tribes in which the male is not dominant and takes the role of a nurse. Malinowski also brings to our attention the lack of evidence for “Oedipus” within the animal kingdom, as Darwinism only applies to early mankind. Also there is less evidence of “Oedipus” leading to religion in our society today as it is becoming increasingly secular and fewer people are turning to religion.

This could suggest that the Oedipus complex does not occur, or if it does it does not have a link to religion. It is more likely, however, that all children still do go through the Oedipus complex but as our society is more sexually liberated people are allowed to express sexual desire in other ways rather than it becoming sublimated and channelled into religion. Another key criticism of the “Oedipus Complex” is the suggestion that religion is a cause of the complex rather than a result of it.

If it was not for religion then, it is possible, these sexual urges would not have been suppressed at an early stage and a complex would not begin to develop. It could be just a possible that a child was made to feel guilty about the loving feelings towards his Mother and as a consequence developed a complex (Oedipus. ) Rather than the “Oedipus Complex” leading to religion. Another more general criticism is that even if religion is a cause or result of guilt, or fear it still works as a “Buffer” between the soul and reality.

It is essential to society, as, music, art or literature as it is an expression of self and belief. Therefore it is not sound to suggest, as Freud did that religion must be overthrown. ” Donald Winnicott essentially presented this criticism of Freud’s work but is the popular feeling of many today. Psychology self – help book “Love is the Answer” presents the argument that some none – religious responses to misfortune of frustration e. g. Cynicism has actually been shown to be bad for physical health.

So a “religious” view (of forgiving and repenting) might actually be health giving to us, and to dismiss it from our society would be to dismiss this positive outlook on life. So Freud’s theory may have been apt for his society, a society built on religious structure, and some of his points may appear to justify the behaviour of people today. But I feel that in the twenty-first century when we are all encouraged to express our beliefs, ideas, sexuality and “bare our souls”, a theory based on suppression (even if it is unconscious) seems radical.

I think religion itself has become more liberal and has resulted in many “branches” of Christianity all with a different strand of tradition. Some “branches” base their morals on the word of the Bible where as others feel that we have to “update” the word of God and adapt it to how we live today. To apply a theory from a century ago is to digress, in the same way technology has evolved, and our knowledge of our universe and surroundings have developed, we have to advance spiritually. We have to question what we already know, even if this means abandoning Freud’s theories and all its implications.

Peaceful Triumph in the Face of Evil Atonement can be achieved without vengeance. Revenge is so basic, so animal a reaction to evil; it takes a higher level of thinking to achieve redemption without hateful spite and revenge. Atonement is satisfying after the anguish of rancor and internal violence brought on by maltreatment. When the goal is to equalize one’s enemy rather than destroy him, the end result is fulfilling. Although one immediately wants to take down his aggressor, in the long run, he will discover that this does not bring him the peace that they seek.

In the short story “The Five- Forty- Eight” by John Clever, a businessman named Blake is kidnapped at gunpoint by his former secretary, Ms. Dent. She is mentally ill and angry with him for ignoring and promptly firing her after their one night stand, bringing him to a warehouse where she contemplates shooting him in revenge, but instead simply walks away. Having confronted the man that has wronged her without taking his life, Ms. Dent eventually leaves the scene, reborn without her anger.

Redemption found in the absence of revenge is far more fulfilling a solution to a problem than one found through vengeance and violence. “The Five- Forty- Eight” is a prime example of this philosophy. Ms. Dent feels that Blake’s malice is the root of her unhappiness. While her mental illness has contributed to her deep inner turmoil, a great deal of it has been stirred up by his cruelly insensitive actions towards her. He preyed on her as he had other women, revealed through the narrator’s assertion that “most of the many women he had known had been picked for their lack of self- esteem” .

This gives us a brief glimpse into Blake’s past treatment of women. It is meant to be assumed that the women that Blake has “known” in the past are others that he was intimate with in brief and loveless affairs. Having said “picked” allows the reader to recognize that these were not simply women he happened upon in passing, these were in fact women that he specifically chose amongst all others, having perceived them as the easiest targets. Most importantly, the narrator says that these women were picked for their “lack of self- esteem. This reveals Blake’s true predatory nature. He wanted a woman he perceived to be weak and easy to manipulate for his own devices. Blake used Ms. Dents “oversensitivity” (Cheever) and “lack of self- esteem” (Cheever) in order to satisfy his own desires. Blake personifies evil within this story, and his actions against his secretary are the execution of aforementioned evil. Had Ms. Dent killed Blake and therefore vanquished evil, she would not have found peace with her inner demons. Ms. Dent was quite ill to begin with, having spent eight months in a hospital prior to her work for Blake, and her handwriting giving “the feeling that she had been the victim of some inner some emotional conflict that had in its violence broken the continuity of the lines she was able to make on paper” (Cheever). The use of the word “victim” incites that she is suffering unduly by no fault of her own. The idea that there is “violence” in her illness lends to the reader the severity of her disease.

That the disease should have “broken the continuity of the lines she was able to make on paper” shows that the troubles of her disease are now pouring outward, evident through things so ordinary as her handwriting. Ms. Dent is quite ill, the impact of this illness becoming obvious long before she kidnapped Blake. Shooting him and thereby expressing the violence and “conflict” within her would push her over the edge and completely destroy her. Had Ms. Dent destroyed Blake, the evil in her life, she could never and been vindicated of the burdening emotional pain she felt.

She is quite capable of overcoming the sadness he caused without killing him. Ms. Dent successfully overcomes the reprobate, evil character in her life without killing him. After bringing him to the warehouse, Ms. Dent forces Blake to the ground, repeating several times, “Put your face in the dirt” (Cheever). He is now beneath her, having been forced to bend to her will so far as to put his face against the dirty floor of a city warehouse. She then goes on to say “I can wash my hands of this” (Cheever) several times as well.

The washing of hands is an allusion to the Bible, where Pilate, the Roman general who decided to hang Christ upon the cross, also claims to wash his hands of any fault he has in persecuting Jesus. In saying this, Ms. Dent cleanses herself of the “filth” in her life that has caused her such misery. She then leaves Blake there on the ground, crossing a wooden footbridge and disappearing. This crossing of the bridge metaphorically shows that she is now beyond the obstacle that had impeded her ability to be happy, having done so without harming the obstacle itself, much like a bridge continues one’s path over a river without ever disrupting it.

The narrator goes on to say that “he saw by her attitude, her looks, that she had forgotten him” (Cheever), and we finally know that she is ultimately at peace with herself, and has managed to find this peace without resorting to the ultimate violence of murder. Ms. Dent had purged herself of evil without ever having to destroy its source. The root of nearly all great pain and emotional toil is evil. However tempting it may be to destroy this evil, to vanquish it, to kill it, this will never bring he who suffers the peace he seeks.

Should Ms. Dent have killed Blake, she never would have found the redemption she sought. Forcing him into the dirt, lowering him below her, and therefore allowing her to elevate herself above evil gave her the fulfillment that she desired and alleviated the pain that she felt. John Cheever’s “The Five- Forty- Eight” shows us that the destruction of evil is not necessary when overcoming it. It is in elevating oneself above evil, the realization that one is greater than that which has caused one such suffering, that peace is finally found.