Great discussion today everyone! We covered a plethora of interesting and difficult topics. I just wanted to post something regarding the discussion so anyone can bring something up that they may have wanted to say during class but didn’t get to for whatever reason. I really liked Alex’s reading of the title of the book. Throughout the entirety of the novel we kind of question the relevance of the Sirens as an appropriate symbol, but I think near to the end of the novel the imagery comes full circle, like many other themes. Mythologically speaking, the Sirens are meant to be threatening, something to steer clear of. Using Malachi as an example, we see how the reverse experience is possible. Giving into the tempting power of the Sirens (ie fate) need not be detrimental thing for oneself, as long as a person is able to find love and reverence in life through elements of of one’s surrounding that are present. Alex is this close to what you meant?
We also covered a couple other things such as consumerism of intellectual property, determinism via biology or fatalism, and implications of science as a subjective form of knowledge. Very interesting and controversial topics indeed. If anyone has anything that they would like to add to those discussions that we had feel free.
Ya, that is pretty much what I meant. The sirens in Odysseus are unavoidable if you hear their call. Fortunately for Odysseus, he was smart enough to plug his ears, thus avoiding their peril. In regard to Malachi, he was unable to avoid the Sirens no matter how hard he tried. However, if he had chosen to pursue a different path he may have never ended up on Titan. Alas, we will never know the answer to that possibility. I think that what Vonnegut is really trying to do with the title is what he does constantly throughout the book: mess with the idea of free will against determinism. Seemingly, the events in the book suggest that fate exists and is unavoidable (i.e. having Malachi end up on Titan), however, I’m sure there are different interpretations as well.
Tony, you tried to tie my two main points together, which you did very well. I hadn’t thought about them together that way in class today, but I like what you did with it. I think that Vonnegut does not suggest an answer to the fate vs. free will debate because it is unanswerable. I think the main message that Vonnegut wants to portray in this book is that we will never know the answer to the great debates (religion vs. atheism, free will vs. fate, God vs. science), so all we can do is love the ones around us and try to do some good in this world while we are here. We need to stop fighting each other over unanswerable questions. The passage I read in class today sums this up beautifully, unfortunately, I do not have my book with me write now or I would copy it down. It is the second paragraph on page 320 if I remember correctly.
I don’t know if i would agree that Vonnegut is not trying to suggest an answer. He seems like the kind of author that has pretty strong opinions and is trying to really elicit us to question our own beliefs. I think he really wants to stand up against the status quo and have people unite for a greater good, and a better way of living. I hope we will discuss this more and be able to come out with more insight as we continue with his works.
Ya I agree with you that he probably does give his opinion on many of the subjects. I was just trying to say that some of the topics that are covered in the book are unanswerable, so we need to stop fighting over them. Unless you feel that he does give definitive answers to some of them..?
I found that quote that I was speaking about before by the way. Here it is, “‘Only an Earthling year ago,’ said Constant. ‘It took us that long to realize that a purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved.'” To me that is the crux of the book. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
A CONNECTION BETWEEN HUMAN HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF TRALFAMADORE
On pages 279-280, Vonnegut provides “the legend” as to how the Tralfamadorians came to exist. As I read this story, it occurred to me that the exact same sequence of events could be applied to the way in which humans developed as a species. Take the time to reread the legend and then come back to the points I am about to make.
Beginning with the first paragraph in this story: The creatures on Tralfamadore were nothing like machines. They lacked the traits of dependability, efficiency, predictability, and durability. As compared to machines, humans suffer from these exact same problems. These creatures also were convinced that everything had to have a purpose and some purposes were higher than others…sound like the search for the timeless question of “Why?” to anyone else?
The story continues by telling how the creatures searched for their purpose, but every time they thought they had found it, it turned out to be too low to actually serve and a machine was therefore created to serve it instead. This too reminds me of the way that humans invented machines to take care of their lesser purposes while trying to find more important meanings in life.
Religion could be considered the result of the different ideologies that humans came up with and, as I believe Vonnegut to assert, therefore led to the slaying of one another. Also like the Trafalmadorians, humans invented machines that made it easier to kill one another until the ultimate killing machine was invented. What is the one machine that can finish the job in less time than it takes to say “Trafalmadore?” Nukes.