Philosophy

In Paul’s Case, Cather characterizes a young boy’s over-obsession with an insular fantasy world as a deadly portal of escape from the mundanities of middle-class life. Cather equates Paul’s incongruity in society and corresponding weaknesses to the life cycle of the red carnations that he adores.

The author marks Paul’s attitude in the face of authority through his use of the bright, red carnations in a dull, gray environment. Cather notes Paul’s repetition of the “scandalous” red carnation in his behavior through dramatic bows, falsified smiles, and unimaginable splendor. Worriedly, the teachers see Paul’s vivacious adornment of his uniform as a dismissal of their authority and as a flaw to exterminated. Further introducing Paul’s diversion from the accepted, Cather innumerably portrays the minute details of the working-class life that Paul despises.

As he returns home from an abstract world of his own creation, Paul detests arithmetic, the “horrible yellow wallpaper,” and the “respectable beds, of common food, of a house penetrated by kitchen odors.” Paul’s every mention of the “respectable” neighborhood that he so disrespects increasingly drips with hatred for the middle class’s simplistic nature.

Desiring the abstract fantasy and impossible, the gaudy and the creative, and the world beyond the glass, Paul repudiates concrete solutions in life such as hard work, logic, and arithmetic. Cather rationalizes the invariably penalized, spirited, and bright Paul’s suicide, likening Paul to a red carnation.

Sitting beside the deadly train tracks, Paul admires the red carnations one last time and expresses that although the flowers bravely “mock the winter outside the glass,” they inevitably lose to the dominant “homilies by which the world was run.” Like the flower’s struggle to survive in the hostile winter, Paul’s idiosyncratic nature cannot endure the plight of living in a world where he feels judged.

Cather marks the addictive nature of Paul’s theatrical excursions through Paul’s disdain for life without glamorous wealth and fame. Cather even likens the histrionic character of the boy to an “addiction to belladonna.” The inescapable manner of Paul’s fancy for the arts proves the fatality of having wild fantasies. After having a taste of the beauty that he religiously craves, Paul leaves the Carnegie Hall restless and irritable, despising any moment outside of this delicious enchantment that flavors his life.

Cather equates Paul’s disastrous attitude to the “morbid” desire for “cool things and soft lights and fresh flowers.” By labelling a seemingly harmless habit as “morbid,” Cather implies that Paul’s obsession is abnormal and unhealthy. As Paul delves further into his sacred place, Cather chronicles the ironic consequences of his lavish, debonair lifestyle. Although Paul falls asleep to the “chill sweetness of his wine,” he wakes up one morning to a “painful throbbing in his head,” resulting in his intolerance of the walls standing between him and his ideal world.

Much like a hazardous addiction, Paul’s artificial attempts to escape endless swarms of duplicates ironically amplify his inability to tolerate ordinary life. Single-mindedly, Paul labels the “exotic, tropical world” that he reveres so fervently as one that he will forever watch from afar, feeling buried and entrapped by the ordinary.

Although his fanatical, private lifestyle provides him an escape from the mundanities of middle-class life, his raised expectations and brief kisses with success ultimately result in his suicide. Creating a consistently morose environment, Cather indicates that Paul’s lavish lifestyle proves not only to be a sanctuary from judgment, but also a fatal method of self-isolation and reason for Paul’s depressed view of ordinary life.

Francis Bacon has been one of the most famous philosopher s during the last 400 years. The range of his interests is very wide. There are dominating such philosophical and social themes as history, government, politics, law, science, ethics, religion, as well as gardens, health, parents and children in his works. The main writing that expresses variety of his interests is his Essays, originally published in 1597, and enlarged twice before his death. These short essays, often no longer than one page, raise the major problems and give a noticeable look into the thinking of that period. For instance, his essay Of Revenge presents the notion of revenge that was common in these times and dominated in Elizabethan drama. Francis Bacon s Essays contain the rules on men, on his life and behavior, on pleasures and their uses, and on great subjects influencing people fate such as truth and death. The sentences are brief, impersonal, practical, but also witty and lively, so that some sayings have almost a proverbial meaning, such as Man fear death as children fear to go into the dark. Francis Bacon s Essays are full of sentences, expressing author s opinion towards the described things. He never writes about them individually but only collectively. The narrator is like a teacher who suggests the young men how to arrange their lives and their careers within practical and moral evaluation. There are no mentioned any particular people names in his Essays, except for the Biblical, mythological or other famous heroes (Pilate, Ulysses, Saturn, Plutarch, Augustus Caesar). Often Francis Bacon is compared to William Shakespeare and one of his character s Hamlet.  Both Bacon and Hamlet raise many philosophical questions, not every – day life worries, such as unwashed dishes or dirty clothes. They look in the life more deeply and raise other problems. Fr. Bacon believes that people are the servants of nature. The author says that knowledge is based on experiences and that the truth is not got from somebody. Francis Bacon s Essays got not only positive, but the negative reviews as well. For example, it is said that William Blake has thrown Bacon s book away and noted that these essays are Good advice for Satan s kingdom. It even can be said that the result was more important to the author than the means used to reach the aim. That is why Bacon s attitude towards some subjects may sometimes seem to be egoistic.

Bacon s essays usually have an interesting beginning that focuses reader s attention. Then it is followed by a series of practical evidences. These evidences include quotations and references from classical texts and the Bible.  For example, in the essay Of Truth , he points out some Biblical scenes:  What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer ; another scene:  it being foretold that when Christ cometh, he shall not find faith upon the earth. Many of the essays are made up of extracts, taken and combined from his other works, and put together into a new whole. He usually paraphrases the quoted authors in another way, for instance, Lucretius On the Nature of Things: It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tossed upon the sea: a pleasure to stand in the window of a castle, and to see a battle, and the adventures thereof below: but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth. Therefore, many famous people Latin sayings are used in Bacon s Essays: Illi mors gravis incubat, qui notus nimis omnibus, ignotus moritur sibi (from Seneca, Thyestes). It seems that Francis Bacon is trying to include all experience, all knowledge, in these brief texts. In his essay Of Death , Bacon focuses attention to the art of dying; in the essay Of Studies , he writes about practical process of learning.

The essay Of Truth raises the problem of the difficulty in defining lies. It is difficult to decide whether marriage is a good or a bad idea in the Bacon s essay Of Marriage and Single Life. On the one hand, the author says that unmarried men are best friends, best masters, best servants , but on the other hand, certainly wife and children are a kind of discipline of humanity and single men are more cruel and hard-hearted. Some of Bacon s essays expresses the author s attitude to religion. In the essay Of Superstition he claims that atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation, all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not. In his essays Bacon expresses the abstract ideas in the ordinary objects. Thus, Men in great place are thrice servants, Fortune is like the market, Virtue is like a rich stone, best plain set. Bacon’s homosexuality is known from the two seventeenth century writers, John Aubrey and Sir Simon D’Ewes. In his Autobiography, Simon D’Ewes says of Bacon, “Nor did he ever, that I could hear, forbear his old custom of making his servants his bed-fellows so to avoid the scandal that was raised of him”. Francis Bacon’s essay Of Friendship confines itself to relations between men. His Of Beauty discusses only male examples. It is noticeable that in his essays the word men is found very often, and the author usually refers to male, not to female. Loren Eiseley in his book about Francis Bacon The Man Who Saw Through Time remarks that Bacon: ” more fully than any man of his time, entertained the idea of the universe as a problem to be solved, examined, meditated upon, rather than as an eternally fixed stage, upon which man walked.” Bacon s essays discuss not individual, but state values. He concerns the whole sphere of knowledge and claims that it is useful to the individual and beneficial to society not paying attention at politic or religion attitudes. Moreover, the narrator recognizes the need for laws and rules. He believes that human and natural world have to be observed, but not imagined. In many respects Francis Bacon can be called as one of the most outstanding and leading figure in the development of English thinking.

Loeb’s second chapter of Soul of a Citizen continues to expand on earlier statements about how iconic public speakers such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King were average people. Loeb highlights the human qualities that each possessed; Gandhi stuttered as a lawyer and Martin Luther King questioned himself and wondered if his efforts were all in vain. Loeb then connects how these influential people were just like everyone else and that all people contain the same potential. One of loeb’s quotes that encompesses the whole chapter is” we wait our entire lives to find the ideal moment to get involved”.

This quote can be found in every person’s life, no matter their backgrounds or lifestyle. It seems that many people always have stories where they say that there was situation that they wished they would have acted instead of sitting back, waiting for the perfect moment. If people would begin to take the initiative when it is presented instead of waiting, communities and the environment would be much better off. I feel that when the opportunity presents itself, it is the best time to jump in. Waiting for the perfect moment normally results in regret and forlonging to go back in time and take the opportunity when it was available. Loeb also writes about the perfect standard and how you feel that you need to be perfect to get involved in your community. I know that everyone is human and will make mistakes. This is why I never hold someone to a “perfect standard”, a standard that is unachieveable by any human.

Some people see figures such as Martin Luther King and Ghandi and feel that, unless you’re perfect, you can not change or influence others. This is simply untrue and Loeb tries to convince readers that it is possible to change the world just by having a passion for something and being human. My favorite quote from chapter two was the one from Rabindranath Tagore “If you shut your door to all errors, truth will be shut out.” (pg. 49). This is my favorite quote due to it applying to everyone who has ever lived. Knowledge is only gained through the errors made throughout life and if the errors are shutout, knowledge can never be learned.

If knowledge can never be learned, the truth will never be able to differentiated from the lies. Another way this quote affected me is that it also applied to a personal level. If everyone denies the fact that they will make errors, they will never truly be able to not only learn but become a better person. Another quote by Martin Luther King “Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.” (pg. 63) also is important to me. King’s quote can be directly linked to how he became the face of the Civil Rights movement, but is also relevant in many more situations. Most successful entrepreneurs and inventors would never be where they are without first taking a step in faith, not knowing if their product or service was going to be profitable. Many people sometimes don’t take the risk as they are unsure where they will end up.

It is human nature to want to see what the outcome of a situation will be before getting involved. I believe that without taking that first step, no one can achieve greatness. Chapter two of Soul of a Citizen elaborated on some of the questions that I had from chapter one. Loeb also managed to expand on many of the theories that were laid down in the first chapter. I felt that the main part of the second chapter was to show the reader how both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were not the perfect people that they were made out to be and had human flaws. Paul Loeb also sets up chapter 3 of Soul of a Citizen to contain more information on how average people can tackle an issue by just taking it on at their own pace and ability.

Personality is defined as the collection of various thoughts, feelings, behaviors and other characteristic traits that are associated with a person (Burger, 2008). Various theories and approaches have been devised to try and come up with an explanation of how one acquires personality. The humanistic theory and the biological approach are just some of the various divisions which try to explain personality. Although most of these theories tend to attract criticism and acclamation in equal measures, they try to justify how personality comes about and this will mostly depend on how various psychologists who formulated these theories justified their ideologies.

The humanistic theory came about after various psychologists objected the earlier theoretical approaches to personality. The psychodynamic and behaviorists justification of personality did not have the necessary ideological reasoning and they did not take into effect some of the qualities that distinguished human from animals. It was with this approach that the humanist approach came into effect. Various psychologists tended to give the human being an optimistic approach by highlighting the ability of a human to control their personalities (Hagan, 2007). This means that someone is responsible and has the freedom to choose the path in which their life will take.

Abraham Maslow who was a renowned humanistic psychologist, argues that the human mind is in such a way that one tends to strive to realize their full potential. In his hierarchy of needs ladder, he argues that one tends to satisfy needs at the bottom of the hierarchy such as basic needs then afterwards one strives to reach the top of the model which is the self actualization stage. Various psychologists seem to agree with the notion that various environmental factors will play a formidable part in forming the personality of humans. The reasoning behind this theory is that various environmental factors tend to interact with the genetic composition of a human and thus they play a dominant role in forming the personality of an individual.

Eysenck in his arguments of biological interventions in formulating ones personalities suggests that the personality one is ever to gain is already embedded in the genetic composition. Eysenck argues that the genetic composition in any human is monumental enough to take precedence over any other external sway towards deciding the personality.

He also points out that genes and the environment play a formidable role in deciding the personality of an individual (Burger, 2008). Although both the humanistic and biological theories have gone to large extents in trying to explain the formation of personality, there exists a no of fundamental differences in their approaches. The humanistic theory is highly optimistic while the biological approach as fundamentally critical and straight forward. Many critics have argued that most of the assumptions that are characteristic of the humanistic theory are hard to prove and hence most of the credit goes to the biological approaches which have been tested and deemed fit to be incepted as valuable arguments.

In the UK, the National Lottery can lead to a man winning millions of pounds. But the question is if it could also push someone to commit suicide or at least cause them to think about committing suicide. However, there are various sociological variables and factors that need to be considered, such as the socio-economic background or the stability of the individual, before the question of whether the lottery contributes to suicidal tendencies or not can be answered. Theoretical and sociological theories and arguments will be analyzed and used to support the arguments for and against this question.

In particular, the research and theories formulated and conducted by Emile Durkheim will play an integral role in responding to this question. Emile Durkheim was a well-known sociologist who deeply researched the nature of suicide and even wrote a published book about it in 1951 titled “Suicide: Studies in Sociology”. He theorized that “every disturbance of balance… gives impetus to voluntary death” (Suicide, p. 271). “The causal factor is thus not to be found in the material circumstances themselves, but in the social unrest they create” (www.academicdb.com). This statement implies that it is not necessarily the material effect that the Lottery has that leads to suicide, but the radical impact it has on the social environment as a result of the radical changes it brings to human life. So a sudden increase in wealth, such as winning the National Lottery, can lead to “social declassification”.

For example, a National Lottery winner is likely to move to a bigger house in a new area and therefore surround themselves with completely new people, new atmosphere and surroundings. Everything changes and this can lead to “anomie suicide”. Durkheim came up with the theory of ‘Anomic Suicide’. The word anomy comes from the Greek meaning lawlessness. Webster’s Dictionary defines it as social instability that results from a breakdown of standards and values. It flourishes wherever there is a “collapse of the rules and conventions which pose realistic limits on the desires, expectations and aspirations of the fated individual” (www. Academicdb.com). Therefore the individual can effectively do whatever they want but as Durkheim states, they must have something clear to strive for (goals). They cannot advance if there are no goals or if goals are infinity (www.d.umn.edu).

People that are freed from constraints become “slaves to their passions, and as a result, according to Durkheim’s view, commit a wide range of destructive acts, including killing themselves in greater numbers than they ordinarily would” (Ritzer, p92). Therefore the evidence suggests that people need limits and rules in their everyday lives as this provides a socially stable framework for them to live in and have goals, desires and aspirations. Without these, a person may have nothing important or worthwhile to live for. Winning the National Lottery can create a sense of isolationism as the winner can be separated from friends and family. This could happen if the winner relocated into a new environment therefore distancing themselves from their friends and family. They could also attract new family and friends who could be defined as being ‘false’ as their interests are in the money and not the friendship. For instance, there have been regular cases of distant or estranged relatives suddenly and unexpectantly appearing out of the blue when hearing of a family member’s recent fortunes.

Eventually the individual may not be able to distinguish their genuine friends from the ‘false’ ones. They may then isolate themselves from all of them or just accept the realisation that some of their friends are only really interested in what the winner can do for them and not the winner themselves. As there has also been an abrupt growth in the power and wealth, the “scale is upset” (www.d.umn.edu – on Durkheim). “Drastic change is abnormal” and therefore the individual may not be able to handle such a big change in such a short amount of time. Consequently when a relatively ordinary person in terms of wealth becomes extremely wealthy overnight, the immediate effects it has on their lives will be enormous and they may not be prepared for such a drastic change. There may also be too much pressure on the individual. There are family members, friends as well as financial advisors, all of whom have conflicting and competing interests. This can lead to tension and stress as well as a moral dilemma for the individual as a result of them having to decide between whom they should listen to and take advice from.

This could eventually manifest itself into a form of guilt and hostility towards these people and loved ones. For this reason, the lottery can create an uncomfortable situation for the winner who would otherwise not have had to make such important decisions and choices. This could create an unhealthy and depressed state of mind for the individual that could eventually lead to suicidal tendencies. However, it can be argued that it is not winning the lottery that leads to people committing suicide, but various socio-economic factors and variables that are the real causes of suicide. For instance, whether or not the individual was beaten as a child or if he/she came from a single parent family are important factors that must be taken into account as they play a key role in shaping a person’s mind. The individual could also have been psychologically unstable in the first place.

Therefore suicide can not be proved to be directly related to winning the lottery as the person’s psychological state of mind before winning is a key determinant. Important factors such as age can have an integral role in whether or not the National Lottery promotes suicidal tendencies. For instance, a young lottery winner is more likely to be susceptible and vulnerable to the pressures and media attention that winning a lottery brings with it. They may also decide to drop out of school or university and therefore have no education to fall back on if or when the winnings run out, leaving them in a position that could result in further drastic changes to their everyday lives. This could occur if the winner has to relocate to a less wealthy area disrupting their already frantic lives. Another aspect is that in general, lottery winnings do not actually are not actually large amounts of money taking into account inflation and rising taxes through National Insurance contributions and excise duties.

But a young winner could be more ‘reckless’ and excessive with their money than they should be. In the long run, this could be extremely damaging to their account balance. Whereas an older winner who for instance is middle aged, is more likely to be reserved with their money and do more sensible things with it such as investing it. However it can also be argued that despite Durkheim’s theory that we must have “something clear to strive for (goals)” and that we “cannot advance if there are no goals or if goals are infinity”, winning the National Lottery can actually lead to happiness. This can occur as it provides the winner with a sense of financial stability.

This can lead to reduced levels of stress and tension as they no longer have to worry about money troubles too much. They may also gain some satisfaction from the gifts they can provide loved ones with which can produce a sense of pleasure. It also provides them with opportunities for goals they may otherwise not have been able to achieve. Therefore winning the lottery does not promote suicidal tendencies as it can lead to new and exciting possibilities that were not available before. An example is the lottery winner who built a racetrack and then crashed a large amount of cars for purely entertainment purposes. It brought him a huge amount of happiness and fulfilled his dreams which he may otherwise have not been able to achieve. Winning the National Lottery provides the winners with materialistic pleasures and often leads to a better lifestyle in terms of housing and luxuries.

Materialism can therefore have a positive effect on an individual’s wants and needs. It would therefore be logical to assume that having materialistic desires fulfilled would not promote suicidal tendencies. Looking at the evidence obtained and in particular Durkheim’s perspective and theories, it would appear that winning the lottery can promote suicidal tendencies. His theory of Anomic Suicide in which there is a breakdown of standards and values and that people need to strive for goals, otherwise they become “slaves to their passions” which results in a higher rate of suicide seems to be logical and rational. It makes sense that if people don’t have goals or any external constraints on their lives, they cannot advance as there are no real limits on their desires and aspirations. Another interesting point he made was how “drastic change is abnormal” and that people cannot handle large changes in such a short amount of time as a result of the social instability that winning the lottery creates.

Although, an important point that must be taken into account is the individual’s psychological state of mind before winning the lottery. Socio-economic factors and childhood history have key roles in shaping a person’s mind and are therefore very important when answering this question. After taking these perspectives and arguments into account, it would be logical to assume that winning the lottery does not necessarily promote suicidal tendencies unless they were partially there in the first place. Winning the lottery simply brings out these tendencies but does not create them. With a few rare exceptions, a socially and psychologically stable person who wins the lottery is highly unlikely to commit suicide. Background factors would have to come into it and therefore although winning the lottery cannot create suicidal tendencies, it can promote them.

English 101 is a rollercoaster, sometimes scary, sometimes fun, but when it’s over you can say you did it. Teaching is not unlike parenthood. It requires enthusiasm, commitment and an enormous amount of patience. The professor’s teaching is like painting. Sometimes the subject makes a difference but mostly it’s the style. His positive attitude is a lighthouse for the hopeful(slideshare.net).

Students ideas mushroom and expand quickly in this class. It is easy to enjoy even if you don’t like to write. Now learning of metaphors, which can be very powerful and persuasive, but also have limitations. We use metaphors on a daily basis and they can be used in positive or negative ways. Learning is hard and if it wasn’t hard everyone would do it. It’s the hard that makes it great! One should never stop learning, because life never stops teaching. Thoughts seem like fire and little spark can make a big flame. To learn is to have your cake and eat it too! “Creating thoughts can be hard, but if you people realized just how powerful thoughts are, you would never think a negative thought”(Katherin Cowley).

Share a bit of knowledge and it becomes another’s A metaphor is basically understanding one concept in terms of another. When looking at a metaphor it may be easier to understand if viewed as a figure of speech. Our use of metaphors is a reflection of our inner conditions. “The metaphor is probably the most fertile power possessed by man”(Jose Ortega).

A metaphor, most simply tells a story which parallels actuality or actual life, It tells a story without actually coming right out and giving the actual events. The parallels to actual life may not be obvious at first, but requires thinking about it(Bodywindow.com). Now, knowing what is a metaphor becomes really important because we have to dig deeper to understand the true meaning. We state our condition in figurative language, as if to hide it from the world, or more importantly to hide it from ourselves. But what we are really telling the world in a figurative way, is a reflection of our unconscious understanding of this collective truth.

Despite the ongoing growth of the internet and the constant integration of technology in both classrooms and home life, many children still marvel at the opportunity to read books. Whether physical copies are purchased or electronic versions are rented, there is much to be said about the fact that children are excited to read. One of the most renowned writers of children’s books Dr. Seuss. Many of his books have enthralled people of all generations, and he has remained relevant to this very day. One of my favorite works by him, “The Butter Battle”, focuses on the differences between the two societies called the Yooks and the Zooks. On the surface, it is merely a child’s book about feuding societies. When looked at through a Marxist Criticism lens, though, we can see a much deeper meaning.

The two feuding societies in “The Butter Battle” are representative of how different ideologies set by those in power blind both societies and the people in them, rendering them unable to tolerate the views of others and refusing to substantiate the others’ views. In the beginning of the story, we are told that the Yooks eat their bread with the butter side up. The Zooks, alternatively, eat their bread with the butter-side down. The book starts out with a young boy whose grandfather is taking him to the wall that divides the two people. The grandfather then describes how terrible the Zooks are for eating their buttered-bread in such a preposterous way.

It is not shown that the grandfather gives the issue much thought; it appears as if he is just predispositioned to believe this. This parallels to a Marxist lens idea. According to later Marxist criticism, “Later Marxist criticism … bringing out the beliefs, values, and ways of thinking through which people perceive what they believe to be reality and on which they carry out their roles in society” (Schakel, 1456). The Yooks, having their bread with the butter side up, believe that this is the only way for it to be done. This plays off of one of my biggest fears in society, and that is when people say “It is done this way because that is the way it has always been done.”

The Yooks and the Zooks have been brainwashed by their respective societies because of those in power. It is at this point that we can start discovering Marxist views. Marxism, according to the book, delves into the conflicts between the owners/capitalists and workers power is manipulated (Schakel, 1455). Let’s think about how the Yooks and the Zooks must have started out. This, being no different than many movements that have taken place, was started by the ideas of the few. These people, just as George Washington and our other founding fathers laid the grounds for our country, probably became very involved in the formation of their respective societies.

The people who lived as either a Yook or a Zook were taught by those in power that they had the superior way of life. They were not allowed to sympathize with each other, as the grandfather makes clear in the beginning of the book. This idea is very Marxist. Those who are in power, the respective leaders of the Yooks and the Zooks, oppress the views of their people and tell them how they should feel about the other society. The people don’t choose how they feel about each other; they feel how they are told to feel. Later in the story, the two societies build absolutely extravagant super-weapons, which they call a “Big Boy Boomeroo”, with the intention of setting them off to destroy the other group of people for eternity, thus ending the threatening of their way of life. This was because their ideology that the Yooks and the Zooks possessed of each other.

In a Marxist criticism, “Ideology includes everything that shapes the individual’s mental picture of life experience- not what life really is, but the way it is perceived” (Schakel, 1456). As mentioned before, the Yooks and the Zooks were unable to fathom the way of life that the opposing society possessed. Their ideology was that the only way for their society to prevail was to eliminate the heretics and bring them a timely, inevitable demise. In reality, there is no reason the two societies couldn’t have coexisted. Their ideology blinded them, however, and they were unable to see that they could live and thrive together with their differences.

Throughout this of the story, this character remains neutral. They do not proclaim that the Yooks are right, but they do not say that the Zooks are right, either. The grandchild in this story is representative of how Marxism eventually manifests. We are not born predispositioned to hate or to judge the story, it is important to focus on our main character. During the entirety choices and actions of others. People are taught how to hate, and “The Butter Battle” makes that very clear. The leaders of the Yooks and the Zooks teach their people that the other society is evil and heretical. Rather than choosing to coexist or even to agree to disagree, the leaders demand walls be built and that weapons be invented to out-gun the other society.

The grandson, though, is impartial. He does not take action against either society. He watches as his grandfather fights with all the weapons invented, but never does he antagonize the Zooks himself. It is important to note that this story is an example of a time where Marxism has failed. This story does not outline true Marxism. Marxism discusses the disagreements between classes and how they affect each other; this story is mostly discussing the differences between two peoples and how their ideologies have blinded them. We are given no indication in this story that either the Yooks or the Zooks are better off socially and economically and therefore cannot come to a distinct, irrefutable conclusion as to whether this accurately fits Marxism. Both societies are able to create weapons that match and out-gun each other, so it is safe to assume that neither society is superior to the other. The rich and those in power in this story also seem to be working with their people more (to an extent), as opposed to trying to isolate themselves from the common people in many Marxist stories.

This story, as outlined before, does contain elements of Marxism in terms of a power struggle, though. The higher-powers in the story influence the common people and create not only a rift between the Yooks and the Zooks, but between themselves and the common people. The Yooks and Zooks fight and disagree to no end because it is merely the way things have been done even before the wall went up. Despite their being no official conflict between those in power and the common, we can observe that there is a distinct lack of communication and freedom between the two. As mentioned earlier, the Yooks and Zooks don’t question their order and their ideologies; they only do what they are told. If one were to speak out and go against the rest of the society, it is likely that they would be treated poorly and possibly exiled.

Tolerance for the other group of people does not exist in this story, and that is largely due to the bigotry of the ones in power. We have all been blinded by an idea or a thought at one point, and it is important to remember how we overcame these obstacles and continued on the path to righteousness. The events in “The Butter Battle” depict a cruel, intolerant world in which a person’s provincialism thrives when compared to the thoughts of the rational and the impartial. Were it not for the bigotry of the Yooks and the Zooks, there would have been no final stand-off. When looked at through a Marxist lens, we can see that both societies are subject to many of the elements of a Marxist society, and the conflict outlined in the story can definitely be viewed as a Marxist conflict.