Anthology of Ideas

For many years, the train and railroad was seen as a symbol of progress, not only in America but also in the entire world. For Henry David Thoreau this is not true, the train in his mind symbolized everything wrong with humanity: its greed, destructiveness, and its ignorance. He knew of and profited from the railroad’s good qualities, but hated and feared it for its bad. The railroad was a path to nowhere, a fiery and destructive beast, the end of agriculture and much more. For Thoreau, the railroad was also the destructor of nature and as time has shown, he was right. Although most people consider Thoreau’s view of the railroad tracks and the train to be one, this is not true. For him, the train itself and the railroad tracks were two very different things. Each symbolized different parts of humanity’s qualities.

Philosophy is by definition any theory that can’t be proven scientifically. In La Rouchefoucauld’s case this is especially obvious as he attempted to explain in terms of philosophy the behavior of humans because there was at his time no way to prove them scientifically. He used a version of the scientific method to arrive at his final maxims and although he couldn’t prove it in doing so he stumbled on to some very scientific principles.
In La Rouchefoucauld’s day humans where still popularly considered distant and distinct from animals however four centuries after La Rouchefoucauld the idea that humans are bound to nature just as animals is now becoming prevalent. Thus even though originally the maxims were written to be a sort of scientific understanding of humans they instead are a defendable philosophy. Although it does not make La Rouchefoucauld “laws” of human nature any less real, understanding the scientific basis of the laws allows one to understand not just the effect but also the cause of human nature.

People have an illogical preoccupation with death, death frightens and intimidates, it is something to avoid in all forms and when faced with death turn aside and let it pass. This is also the cause of apathy with regards to the suffering of the dying. It is far more pleasant to think that Tolstoy’s characters were just unfeeling and unkind in general (which they were) than to consider the fact that an unfortunate majority of people behave the same way in similar situations. In my personal experience as a child I watched a great-great-aunt waste away from lung cancer and at the same time watched my great aunt and uncle treat her horribly. To take care of her before she died was a chore, a responsibility, an obligation, and nothing more to them. It would be nice to believe that this was an isolated incident but unfortunately the dieing are rarely treated as equals, instead they are treated as a burden, a wasted life that will be swept aside when the end finally comes.

Tolstoy accurately portrays the feelings that abound at the thought of an acquaintances death and the social necessities one must go through. The range of emotions is nearly identical for each person: equal parts of sympathy for the family, shock at the occurrence and relief that it was not a person in a closer relationship with oneself or oneself. If you have ever gone to a friend’s relatives funeral you probably know the feelings Tolstoy refers to, the only reason for appearing at the funeral is to be a good friend but there is no personal loss at the event. If anything it is more of a chore than anything else, one stands around look appropriately grim and give sympathetic smiles to people who actually knew the deceased. But the majority of the time the only thought one has is when it would be appropriate to escape.

Although some see evil as commonplace and slavery a “natural” phenomenon, this simple is not true. Evil can change from one location to another; in some societies eating the dead is a religious experience however for others it is a great evil. Yes, there is evil and yes, it is common, but what is evil? Is slavery truly evil? Are not all humans slave to some job? Without performing their job they would die from lack of sustenance. Hunter/gatherers are slaves to the environment; agriculturists are slaves to the land; industrialists are slaves to the factory; and modern office workers are slaves to their computers. What is truly the difference between these types of subsistence and being a slave to a human? Is the reasoning behind slavery is evil that it puts one man in control of another? Yet, parents control their children; bosses control their workers; the rich control the poor; the government controls us all.

“Cinema Paradiso” shows just how important art, culture and community is in human lives. For many people in western societies art is something that hangs around the peripheral of their lives never fully entering or leaving. But for Salvatore art was the focus of his life through his youth and adult hood; art and movies were the common threads that connected his entire life together. For the townspeople art was also important to them but not as all consuming as it was for Salvatore.

The Cinema Paradiso itself was the figurative and literal center of the town in the early and mid years it was in operation. Eventually, as the community was able to connect to the outside world more and more the Paridiso was slowly forgotten, until it was finally sold and demolished. During it’s early years of operation the Paridiso was for many people was the only way for them to escape the pressures of living in Sicily after the Second World War, large numbers of soldiers died leaving families broken, the land was poor and work hard to find.