Monthly Archives: December 2016

The Earthquake in Chile by Heinrich Von Kleist is a German short story that is best known for its question of theodicy and whether there is meaning to all events in life. The people of the city are searching for an answer as for why god would create an earthquake that destroyed buildings and some people. However in the midst of the destruction Joesphe and Jeronimo, a couple in love who were sent to be executed and prisoned for their sins are freed because of this earthquake. Although they are temporarily freed, a mob tries to kill the two lovers and their child but mistakenly kills the wrong child. The twist in events makes people question whether there is an underlying reason for this natural event of the earthquake as well as what it has done to the people living in the city.

During lecture as well as seminar, we discussed how philosophers such as Immanuel Kant believed that natural events have no real meaning yet we live in a world where people constantly want to place explanations onto everything that occurs. The people in the story though, are searching as to why God would create something as evil and destructive as an earthquake. To some, this is god’s displeasure at the sexual promiscuity in the town, but realistically it is clear that the earthquake is nothing more than chance and luck. It is the only valid explanation that the earthquake is just a random natural event that can occur in many parts of the world and at random times, and that god has simply nothing to do with it.

It is understood that the reason people are in constant search for meaning has to do with search for their true selves. To find one’s true self is to project meaningful values that connect with the purpose of living. Finding oneself, is finding meaning to life, and without meaning the purpose of living is often questionable.

I’m just going to leave this blog post with a meme because I’m still trying to figure out whether it is a good thing to believe that everything has meaning or not.

“Then Don Fernando and Dona Elvira adopted the little stranger as their own son; and when Don Fernando compared Felipe to Juan and thought of how he had acquired both, her felt almost as if he should rejoice.” (33)

The first part of the last line is self-explanatory as it can be easily discovered that Don Fernando and Dona Elvira adopt Felipe after his parents have died and their own child has met his premature end. It’s the second half of the last line that seems to bring about debate. Don Fernando compares the two boys, Felipe and Juan, and ponders how they both came into his life. Juan was Don Fernando’s biological son with his wife Dona Elvira who was murdered my Master Pedrillo in a mob of people and Felipe is the son of Jeronimo Rugera and Josefa Asteron. Both boys were entrusted to Don Fernando to keep them safe and sadly he only succeeded protecting one. Since he’d lost his own son quite tragically and Felipe had lost his parents, perhaps he thought that two would be kindred spirits who could find comfort in one another. Perhaps he thought the hole in his heart due to the loss of his own child could be filled by Felipe and for that reason, he should rejoice as at a time of loss he gained a son and an orphan gained another family who would care for him.