|
Post by Lacey Doby on Oct 23, 2013 2:00:51 GMT
Self is just one of those concepts that doesn't seem to have a definite definition. Hesse and Kafka both view self as something entirely different. For Kafka, self appears to be something that is always there and always growing and developing with a person and the experiences they have, but for Hesse, self seems like something that comes to be recognized by a person at a certain defining climax in their lives. Personally, I am drawn to Kafka's definition of self because it seems to somehow makes more logical and reachable sense. While a person being turned into a bug isn't exactly what I would describe as a logical happening, a sudden unexplained obstacle that alters a person's ability to function in what they would consider a "normal" lifestyle is something that people come across much more often than a victory at the end of a search for self. At least in our familiar American society, I haven't come across many people who are striving to complete some great quest to find out who they really are. It is much more common to find people who are simply trying to get along and in doing so, discover more about themselves and develop who they are. Kafka does do this odd thing, though, if you don't mind me babbling, when he makes Gregor as well as his family appear sort of nonchalant about the whole ordeal, viewing it as more of an inconvenience than a serious issue. It's almost as if Gregor's situation is simply another obstacle, as if Kafka is saying that everything that happens to a person is just another thing that adds to their character and self, nothing really special or significant. There is no defining moment when a person suddenly realizes that they are different than the way they were before; they just accept the circumstances as though it is a regular day, even though one tiny moment could forever alter the rest of their life. Though technically, every tiny moment alters to future in some way, there is no timeline set in stone as far as we understand. If Gregor had been able to hop out of bed and go to work as a cockroach and do everything a human can do on a regular basis, according to the general flow of the story, there probably wouldn't have been much of a plot. The fact that being a cockroach left him unable to talk altered his life a tiny bit, and the fact he couldn't get out of bed altered it more, and every detail about the story simply adds up to this very unfortunate person and the events his situation brings on, including his eventual death. It seems as though Kafka is emphasizing the idea that a person's self grows and changes in tiny bits that build on themselves.
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Oct 23, 2013 2:02:45 GMT
I don't really understand how the two "selfhood"s are durastically different. DFW is saying that the journey is our self- that we are not "born" with one we make ourselves through life. Siddhartha says the same thing, right? That the journey, where we lose ourself, is where we find ourself. Hesse goes about the topic through trails and tribulation. He portrays a story of a wanderer, one that we hate and one that we love. Throughout the wandering, the story develops into a message- when you stop looking (or forcing) for yourself, you'll find out what's really there- SELF. Hesse portrays this through a story, a relatable one. Kafka, however, shines a different message with the same ending- your life is yourself. The difference, being, the portrayal. Gregor experiences a whole different journey than Siddhartha- suffering as a giant roach. Both of these stories differences, however, contribute to the overall message of both the novel and the 'novella,' that everyone experiences something different through life- that is why we are different. Wisdom and "self" is noncommunicable.
|
|
|
Post by stever on Oct 23, 2013 2:25:36 GMT
The two definitions of the self are not only different, but Hesse's definition of the self seems to be the opposite of that put forth by DFW. In "Siddhartha," the title character tried tirelessly to remove his self. He was unsuccessful in this feat; this demonstrates that the self is incredibly difficult to get rid of. While Siddhartha tries to get rid of his self, Gregor from "Metamorphosis" desperately tries to latch onto his human self after he turns into a coach roach; this demonstrates that the self is incredibly difficult to maintain. These opposing views about the self seem to stem from varying definitions of what the self truly is, and whether is is constructed by society or constructed by the individual.
Hesse seems to demonstrate the self as a concept that is constructed by the individual. No matter how much Siddhartha would remove himself from society to try to remove his self, his self would always remain. When he eschewed sensorial living to become and ascetic and when he embraced the sensorial life, he was still the same person, and could not remove the human that made up his personality.
DFW, on the other hand, seems to view the self as a socially constructed concept, dependent on how the others around you view your self. When Gregor turned into a coachroach in "Metamorphosis," he initially kept all of the human qualities he once had. However, the people around began to view him and his role in society much differentially, which in turn reflected the way he thought and acted. His role in society changed, and while his giving personality did not change, he realized that the most he could give to his family was to stay out of their way. While Hesse may say that his self was the same because his mind did not change, DFW would probably agree that his self changed drastically because his family perceived him as having a drastically different self. Society and the people around Gregor changed Gregor's identity, which means that his identity was fundamentally dependent on society's perspective on him.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Oct 23, 2013 2:35:26 GMT
I’d like to dance with several of my classmates, waltzing to the tune of “They aren’t that different” in F# minor. Because the interpretation of Kafka’s work is done by Wallace, I will refer to the interpretation of the self as Wallace’s interpretation of the self to avoid wordiness and the accidental “Kafka states…”
Morgan brings up David Foster Wallace’s line, "...our endless and impossible journey toward home is in fact our home," (Wallace) which I believe is the most direct definition of the struggle to find self in Foster’s piece. This seems at first very different from Hesse's sense of self, but it is not actually different at all. The thing that divides Hesse and Wallace’s ideas of self are their methods of looking at time.
Putting the two side-by-side, we see that in Siddhartha, as mentioned by Patrick in a previous forum, Hesse describes the self as "thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure, and sorrow" (Hesse 14). Meanwhile, Wallace recognizes the “impossible journey” as the self—which is surprisingly not too different from Hesse’s definition. What drives the impossible journey? The exact traits Hesse describes as indicative of the self; the urges that drive life.
What needs to be recognized, then, is how surrounding ideologies of these authors warp how the conceptions of the self are interpreted. Looking at the work Wallace draws his conclusion from, it is understood that Kafka’s work follows the “western” philosophy behind time—in The Metamorphosis, Gregor and the other characters are certainly conscious of time—Kafka writes, “…as soon as I’ve saved enough money to pay back what my parents owe him—that should take another five or six years—I’ll go do it for sure…Right now, though, I’d better get up, as my train leaves at five” (Kafka 319). Meanwhile in Siddhartha, Hesse follow an "eastern" philosophy, writing “during deep meditation it is possible to dispel time, to see simultaneously all the past, present, and future, and then everything is good, everything is perfect, everything is Brahman” (Hesse 144). Perhaps what causes us to push away the idea that Wallace and Hesse have similar interpretations of the self is the inability for one to ever completely achieve the self with Wallace’s interpretation. The understanding that time exists all at once explains the ability to fully achieve the self in Siddhartha—all the struggles and the journey that make up the self can be understood at once, and thus the overall self—of which arises from the culmination of the life experiences that make up Hesse and Wallace's "selves"—can be realized. This is why I breakdance with Elizabeth when she writes “…Hesse's idea of self (that one-time thing)…” and Gary when he writes “Hesse, however, argues the idea that one's self is the human hidden behind the facade of actions, the true image that is not changing, nor is it reflective of any life journey.”—because the self is Siddhartha is not a one-time thing, it is an all-time thing, and the image is reflective of a life journey, just all at once. This is clear in Siddartha, when Hesse writes “everything is necessary…to learn to love the world, and no longer compare it with some kind of desired imaginary world…to leave it as it is, to love it and be glad to belong to it” (Hesse 144). Although the aspect of time limits Wallace’s “self” from achieving the full “selfdom” found in Siddhartha, the “everything” that Hesse describes makes up the self—the self that is both "thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure, and sorrow" (Hesse 14) in Siddhartha and the “impossible journey” (Wallace) in Wallace’s piece.
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Oct 23, 2013 3:06:25 GMT
Kafka and Hesse indeed pose completely different ideas of self. Whereas Kafka's idea of self-hood seems to be that it is a perpetual process, Hesse seems to say that there is one moment in time in which one achieves a sense of "self", as exemplified by Siddhartha. I personally agree more with Kafka, for as I have said many times before, I do not believe that there is simply one point where we can deem we have found ourselves. Rather, different events in our lives amalgamate to create our "self", leaving us to struggle to find ourselves at certain times. This is exemplified in The Metamorphosis through Gregor. I liked what Gary said about Gregor never admitting to truly discovering himself. Gregor's transformation into a cockroach leaves him trying to save the human "self" he has within. Yet, in the end, he does not succeed. Thus, this suggests that it is very possible for us to not be able to have a definite idea of who we are because we are constantly evolving. On the other hand, Hesse demonstrates through Siddhartha that we have a moment when we define our "self". Although Siddhartha goes through many different phases in his life, he never truly finds "self" until he is by the river, suggesting that there is a certain point in our lives when we can see who the person we are.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by joelk on Oct 23, 2013 3:13:00 GMT
The big difference between the two concepts of selfhood is the final position of one in relation to one’s self. DFW’s interpretation suggests that you are always with your self, you can’t escape from your self, and, conversely, you can’t find your self. As he proffers, it is something defined by how you go about searching for it. You are thus forever stuck in the search.
This idea of self goes against the self present in Siddhartha. If self was defined by your journey and search, then Siddhartha would never reach Om or be enlightened. His search is long and often unhappy; Siddhartha rejects the ways of Brahmin, the ways of the Samana, and the ways of the merchants because he is continually frustrated in his inability to escape from his self. But Siddhartha does find Om, and, many would argue (including myself), his self. The Gotama that Siddhartha so admires also seems to have found his “self.” (Note: if you’re looking for quotes/justification or what I would consider one’s self—the inner voice bridging the gap between conscious and unconscious—you can find that on the first page of the Baby Luke thread). In other words, neither character experiences an “endless…journey” to find their “selfs.
These concepts from Siddhartha are doubly contradictory to DFW’s conceptualization. Firstly, if Siddhartha’s search was so troubled, he would never have heard Om, because he would have a similarly troubled self for the rest of his life. Furthermore, it would be impossible to find self, because self is defined by the search/struggle. If you ceased struggling, your self would no longer have any definition, because it takes its definition from the struggle. (On a deeper level, that would explain the never-ending search for self of DFW’s interpretation: even if you did suddenly find your self, it would vanish instantly, and so you’d go back to searching, and your self would go back to being defined by the search, and you could repeat that cycle an infinite number of times, etc.).
I find it interesting that in defining Kafka’s/Wallace’s interpretation of Kafka’s/our interpretation of Wallace’s interpretation of Kafka’s entirely different self, Wallace uses an example with phrases that speak strongly to the plot of Siddhartha. He mentions the “endless and impossible journey” and the “horrific struggle,” which both sound a lot like the first parts of Siddhartha. Perhaps this suggests a truth that believers in either concept of selfhood could agree on: you aren’t born with your self (I suppose that also could tie back to the thread about Luke). Rather, they differ only in if they believe the search has a conclusion—whether the self is a thing that can be found, or is simply a word that can describe our futile search for what we believe must lie at the end.
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Oct 23, 2013 3:25:10 GMT
The dramatic difference between Hesse and Wallace's ideas on self is fascinating. I think both are equally valid, as each person can have their own interpretation of self. Not everyone must travel the same path to enlightenment as Siddhartha. So Wallace thinks that one must find self, that it is not an innate part of humans, and that the self is part of the struggle. His idea can be seen in Kafka's "Metamorphosis" through Gregor's character. His character is defined by his struggles rather than by any of his personal traits. Gregor starts off as eager and diligent, due to his family's economic struggles, then changes to depressed and, later on, accepting of his fate, when confronted with the struggles of being a giant, detestable insect. Kafka believes that the story lies in the journey, which explains why Gregor dies the moment that he gives up on his struggle and accepts his fate.
Meanwhile, Hesse sees the struggle and the journey as a path to reach the final goal, though the goal is to understand the self that already exists inside every human. The novel ends when Siddhartha achieves enlightenment after his struggles. The ending gives hope that struggles can turn into peace and contentment, while Kafka's story maintains that humans cannot escape the struggle until death. The structure of these two stories show two polar views on the journey to acceptance of one's self.
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by alice on Oct 23, 2013 3:25:48 GMT
Kafka appears to host this importance of self by showing someone who thinks they know what their "self" fully entails, and then rips it all away. Gregor had to try to find his true self once his external self (provider for the family, regular worker, punctual man) was gone. With this, the reader can see that Kafka is saying that the self can change and is changed with circumstance and how hard you look for it. If you just suppose you found yourself, you've found a self that is superficial and volatile (like Gregor's).
Hesse on the other hand writes the self as as something that the person is constantly aware of and pushing to find. Siddhartha is obsessed with the self and does not rest until he satisfies his journey as compared to Gregor's supposed self and eventual semi-discovery. The self to Hesse seems to remain as big moment and then continued revelation from then on.
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Oct 23, 2013 3:27:57 GMT
A few nights ago I was discussing "The Metamorphosis" with my dad and he mentioned that Kafka is known for being an Existentialist. As we continued to discuss the story, I found my perception of the story flipping around entirely after becoming aware of Kafka's Existentialist view of the world. So while a few nights ago I may have argued that Gregor maintains his human self after becoming a bug, I now believe that is not at all the case.
In fact, I believe that at the heart of these two contrasting depictions of the self is a debate between two disparate philosophies: Existentialism and Plato's Theory of Forms.
Hesse certainly subscribes more to Plato's Theory of Forms in *Siddhartha* because it is only after Siddhartha stops trying to find his own self that he hears the Om, the ultimate representation of the interconnectedness of everything and the foundational essence which all things in the world share. Siddhartha realizes in the end that all things are part of one larger "self"; everything contains the same fundamental form, and his search for his own distinguished "self" was solely a deviation from the true path to enlightenment and an understanding of the world's commonly shared self. Ultimately, Hesse asserts that the self is an essence--to use Plato's word, a "form"--which exists outside of the boundaries of time and space; everything in the world contains this essence, it is indestructible.
Kafka, on the other hand, seems to take the complete opposite--Existentialist--approach to the nature of the self. Actually, perhaps Kafka is saying that a fundamental nature of the self does not even exist; rather, the notion of the self is completely dependent on the form which it inhabits. After Gregor morphs into a bug, his human mind evidently begins to diminish. Sure, he longs to retain the memories of his life as a salesman, caring for his family and helping his sister achieve her dream of attending music school, but in the end it is obvious that such a feat is impossible. No matter how much he resists the psychological transformation to a bug's mind, he cannot. For instance, at some point Gregor begins to get the urge to crawl all over the walls of his room without the furniture in his way. Yet, soon after he wishes this and Grete begins removing the furniture from his room, he realizes that removing such relics of his past life from his room is threateningly symbolic of the fact that he is no longer human, even in his mind. Hence, he begins to try and keep Grete from removing more furniture and pictures from his room by positioning himself on them to scare her. I think on a subconscious level Gregor realizes that he is no longer human in any sense, but this idea is so frightening to him that he hangs on to any remnant of his past self that he can. And sadly, in the end Gregor finally seems to submit himself to this realization consciously by allowing himself to die. After crawling out to listen to Grete play the violin and witnessing the anger and fear which that action causes in the rest of his family, he understands that his self has changed along with his body; he is no longer Gregor, and hence his family is unable to treat him the same as they had the human Gregor. While in *Siddhartha*, the self is at the unbreakable core of all things, "The Metamorphosis" contradicts this concept, instead suggesting that the self is a construct of individual perspective--in this case represented by a change in physical forms; when Gregor's family's perspective on what Gregor looks like physically changes, so does their perspective on who he is inside.
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Oct 23, 2013 3:33:44 GMT
Wallace describes Kafka's definition of self as a struggle to find self. He sees it as more of a conflict with life than a journey. Wallace sees the struggle itself as the true meaning of it all. The result is completely irrelevant. I think Hesse's definition of self is wildly different, as he focuses more on the outcome of the journey. While Hesse doesn't completely discredit the pilgrimage (if you will) itself, he still concentrates on what becomes of it. Hesse sees self as an immaculate interconnection with the entirety of the universe. Kafka sees self as a brutal grudge match between you and a 250lb four armed Russian mafioso when you're only outfitted with a bucket and a toothbrush. It doesn't matter if you miraculously win (probably by default) or if your head is bludgeoned in by a furious mutant mob boss with a hankering for vodka, as long as you learn from it.
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Oct 23, 2013 3:35:07 GMT
Having read a few of the responses above mine, I agree that Kafka's version of selfhood is flexible and changing. One has the ability to change his or her self. In The Metamorphosis, Gregor gradually becomes less and less human, with a primal force taking over his personality and thoughts. Perhaps this change is due to his recognition of his new form as a gross insect. As he dies, "his own belief that he must disappear was, if anything, even firmer than his sister's" (345), showing his acceptance of grotesque form and his new role within the family. Likewise, when I read The Trial over the summer I discovered K.'s self changing over the course of the book. Stymied by distant court bureaucracy, he grows ever more fixated on his supposed innocence. His utter obsession with proving his innocence to the court is a conscious and willful obsession; therefore, he actively changes his self over the course of the story to the point that his legal affairs come to dominate his life and define his thoughts and emotions. Here, I think it's important to note that while Kafka's version of selfhood allows for a changing self, it does not allow one to change his or her fate. The inevitability of fate is evident in both these works I have mentioned. In The Metamorphosis, Gregor becomes a bug and always remains one, never challenging why he was changed. In The Trial, K.'s eventual execution is predetermined, and nothing he does (include change his self) can budge fate to be more lenient. Kafka's use of nightmarish circumstances and the oppressive feeling of utter frustration at these circumstances reinforces the inevitability of fate. Also, Kafka's self tends to be negative, one-sided and illogical. As an omniscient reader, I can clearly see the futility of the individual and his changing self against the cold immovability of fate. As a final thought, I find it interesting that both of Kafka's works that I've read portray events as a stream-of-consciousness through the narrator, showing events as they occur and subjecting the reader to every whim and distraction experienced by the protagonist.
In contrast, Hesse's definition of selfhood is preordained. Instead of one being able to actively shape his own self, an individual must go to great lengths to discover the already-existing self. Siddhartha goes to the extremes of the Samanas and the dissipated merchant in order to finally discover his Om. In contrast to Kafka's rendition of self, Hesse believes that self is benign, the collection of everything that was, is, and will be. While self is elusive, finding it will unlock peace and tranquility in life (as opposed to Kafka's changing self that leads itself to more suffering). Hesse's portrayal of self is positive rather than negative, with his language suffused with phrases such as "With great joy and gravity he watched him, saw his steps full of peace, his face glowing, his form full of light" (137). Perhaps Hesse's use of such diction prompts us as readers to be subconsciously affected by the words, leading us to connect the positive connotations to self and the concept of Om. It's a bit of trickery on Hesse's part, but I don't feel ashamed to have fallen into the trap. Finally, Hesse shows self-finding is a meditative process full of rational thought and contemplation, such as "When Siddhartha listened attentively to this river, to this song of a thousand voices; when he did not listen to the sorrow or laughter, when he did not bind his soul to any one particular voice and absorb it in his Self, but heard them all... then the great song of a thousand voices consisted of one word: Om" (136). His effusive language prompts us to view self-finding positively, especially because self cannot be changed, but is predetermined. There's no in-the-moment change of self as Kafka does. There is merely the gradual change in one's perspective to allow for self to become evident.
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Oct 23, 2013 3:36:13 GMT
I'm not sure what I think about this. It seems to me that Kafka's idea of self as seen in "The Metamorphosis" is that a persons self can be controlled by the way they are treated. It has been my theory since the beginning of the story that Gregor became what he was treated as. Neither his family nor his coworkers appreciated him and he was treated hardly better than a nuisance so Kafka turned his form to fit the type of treatment he was receiving. Later, when his furniture is being removed, he realizes that he is letting his new form replace the self he once was on the inside. Siddhartha, on the other hand, alters himself through the inner mental journey on which he embarks. Foster Wallace remerks that the "very central Kafka joke (is) that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle. That our endless and impossible journey toward home is in fact our home". In the case of Gregor, he became his struggle. Were this true for Siddhartha he would be at the end not a transcendent Om-posessing man but rather a lifelong journey of discovery and tribulations. This is not supported by Hesse but I find it plausible.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Oct 23, 2013 3:53:30 GMT
Before exploring how David Foster Wallace and Hermann Hesse illustrate the nature of self in their works, let's first look at their definitions of self:
According to Hesse, self is something one has from birth, yet it is something that one might not fully comprehend or see at first. Hesse, in Siddhartha, argues that one's true self is unchanging. Conversely, David Foster Wallace asserts that self is a trait continuously molded by experiences. Like Hesse, Wallace believes that all individuals have self from the moment they are born, but unlike Hesse, Wallace contends that self is dynamic.
In Siddhartha, Hesse explicitly defines self; commenting on Siddhartha's desire to find enlightenment, Hesse explains, "Siddhartha had one single goal -- to become empty, to become empty of thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure, and sorrow -- to let the Self die" (Hesse 14). However, Hesse's complex approach to describing the journey to discovering true self, to reaching enlightenment, (he uses the entire novel to do so) actually describes a concept that is fairly simple. We can infer from Siddhartha that Hesse views self as unchanging. That is why Siddhartha searches for only one version of his self in the novel...because there is only one version of self, and that is the self that one is born with. Self is a something everyone has that is simple in nature but complex to obtain. According to Hesse, this complexity is due to the necessity for individuals to search for their self on their own. They cannot be taught self; Siddhartha could not reach enlightenment, and thus see his true self, using the teachings of the Buddha.
Wallace, in his response to Kafka's Metamorphosis, illustrates the dynamic nature of self. Wallace, like Hesse, believes that individuals have self from birth, and he explicitly states this when he says, "...a self is something you just have" (Wallace). The journey to find self is what makes self dynamic: Wallace sees life as an attempt to discover self, and it is life's experiences that mold the self. In Metamorphosis, Gregor's transformation into an insect causes obvious changes in his life. Gregor the insect climbs walls, eats moldy food, and hides from his family. It is not reasonable to identify him as pre-metamorphosis Gregor even when his physical changes are discounted. The change in his life molds his self into a Gregor that readers barely recognize.
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Oct 23, 2013 3:57:31 GMT
DFW's assertion regarding selfhood fundamentally differs from Siddhartha's. DFW argues that Kafka's humor is rooted in the idea "that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle." In other words, the journey through which one searches for his self eventually becomes an essential part of his identity.
Siddhartha contrasts DFW's assertion, positing that the self and all qualities remain within one from birth to death-- time is of no relevance. "The potential Buddha already exists in the sinner; his future is already there. The potential hidden Buddha must be recognize in him, in you, in everybody" (Hesse 143). Although Hesse is driving at a diametrically opposed concept, he ironically and indirectly supports DFW's quote. Siddhartha claims to have realized his self has always been within him and always will be with him. Yet, he only achieved this realization through his journey. So, logically, his realization (proving the self is pervasive) is inseparable from and paramount to his identity. The novel seems to imply that Siddhartha would not have achieved enlightenment without undertaking his spiritual quest. While Hesse is trying to show that the self is timeless, he is actually circuitously and unintentionally agreeing with DFW.
In The Metamorphosis, Kafka furthers DFW's point, but differently than Hesse does in Siddhartha: “A man may be temporarily unable to work, but that’s just the time to remember the service he has rendered in the past, and to bear in mind that later on, when the present problem has been resolved, he is sure to work with even more energy and diligence than before” (325). While Siddhartha spends his life searching for his self, Gregor forcefully pushes it away. It is clear that, through his jaded perception of reality, he is truly trying to mask some painful aspect in his life. Gregor's efforts, whether it be his attempt to gain acceptance from his family or acquire friends, reflect his desire to push away his real self and obtain one to satisfy his façade. The reality of his true self causes him to reject it, and in turn, endure a miserable journey in search of a new one. What he does not realize, though, is that in the process he is only detrimentally impacting his true self.
Both Siddhartha and Gregor reflect the idea that a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from the horrible struggle of establishing one. Siddartha indirectly implies the importance of the journey, since his realization is contingent upon his undertaking of the journey. On the other hand, Gregor fights to avoid his true self, therefore inflicting more wounds upon his already damaged self.
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Oct 23, 2013 4:16:59 GMT
The philosophy presented in Siddhartha represents "self" as desires, and the ultimate goal of achieving OM requires a relinquishment of self. During Siddhartha's pursuit of Samana practices, he, "travelled along the path of self-denial through pain, through voluntary suffering and conquering of pain, through huger, thirst and fatigue" (Hesse 15). To have a "self" is to have inexorable desires and sensations and emotions, and once those experiences are quelled, are made silent, the self is lost.
This is, I believe, quite similar to the ideas of Self in Metamorphosis. Gregor's personhood declines steadily, one could say, throughout the novella, as his guilt reaches insurmountable levels for subjecting his family to care for themselves. He desperately clings to his Self when he is filled with hatred for the renting tenants for disrespecting Grete's musical performance - one of his last human traits is the appreciation for music. However, as the tension in the apartment grows, Gregor finally realizes, "He recalled his family with deep emotion and love. His own belief that he must disappear was, if anything, even firmer than his sister's. He remained in this empty and peaceful reflection" (345). On first glance, the use of the word "disappear" might be interpreted to mean that Gregor should leave the apartment. Upon second look, however, the word "disappear" is intended to mean that Gregor ought to surrender his humanity. He ought to relinquish his Self and desire to remain with his family to bring greater peace to the people he loves. This pursuit is quite Siddhartha-like in nature; it takes a while, but eventually Gregor realizes (like Siddhartha always knew) that he has to shed his Self.
Hopefully, this makes the method in which both authors present Self a little bit more lucid. Hesse takes a little bit more time underscoring a struggle that doesn't change. Siddhartha knows that he needs to lose his Self to achieve OM, peace, and ultimate serenity of the soul. Kafka, on the other hand, makes his character experience an "ah-hah" moment. Until the moment before his death, Gregor desperately clings to his Self, trying to stay true to the idea that he is a human. Only after hearing Grete speak about how much the family is suffering does Gregor realize that he will achieve peace, OM, by allowing himself to lose his desires and cease to cling to his personhood.
|
|