|
Post by naomiporter on Oct 23, 2013 7:47:50 GMT
I would like to focus on the similarities between the two views of Self. My opinion is that both Kafka and Hesse believe in a Self that cannot be changed; it is there all along, one just has to find it. The search for one's Self might involve experimenting with several different personalities or identities, as Siddhartha did, but regardless, one always has a Self that does not change. Kafka writes about the metamorphosis of Gregor, which could be interpreted as a change of his Self, but I think that his physical form (even in this short story) does not necessarily accurately portray his true Self. His physical (and later mental) metamorphosis has to do more with how he is received by others. Their opinions of him change even before his transformation, as can be seen in the difference between his family's original reaction to his job and money, and the expectation they come to have of it. So I think that his physical form mainly reflects what people think of him, not on his actual Self. I believe that his true Self, like that of Siddhartha, does not change. Gregor's different physical forms are comparable to Siddhartha's different stages (Brahmin, Samana, gambler, etc). So, in this regard, Kafka and Hesse do seem to have similar perspectives on what the Self is.
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Oct 23, 2013 8:03:17 GMT
In Siddartha’s journey, Hesse suggests that there is a linear path to attain self. First you have to break off from the pack, then you must experience sin and vice, and finally follow the eight-fold path until your journey is complete. Through this step by step journey, Siddartha eventually attains Nirvana, and even though Nirvana does not turn out to be as absolute and transcendent as he initially believed, his journey ends with a newfound sense of self.
I think that Kafka offers a more realistic approach to the whole idea of self. Self has a certain variability by nature- it can never be attained because it is always changing. Even though I feel fairly connected to my sense of self, the truth of the matter is that this self-awareness is completely transitory. Life is an endless journey to understand, not because we are incapable of reaching our final destination, but because that destination is never defined in the first place. This reminded me of a comparable (but dumb) analogy to a principle of chemistry: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It is in this way that humans are like electrons, for an electron can never be pinpointed to an exact location at a point in time. This is because the act of observing and "figuring out" where the electron is inherently effects where the electron is. This in many respects is similar to finding self, for if you try to create a concrete definition of self in an ever-changing world you will prove to be unsuccessful.
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Oct 23, 2013 12:57:57 GMT
Oh golly gee self, when will I ever understand you. I see similarity between these two interpretations of self, because both focus on searching. The end goal of finding self, however, is found in different locations. In Siddhartha, the progression of events occurs because Siddhartha is constantly searching and striving to find a self that he understands. Enlightenment, and understanding of self, comes at the end of the journey. Archetype of a typical plot line. When Siddhartha achieves enlightenment, he recognizes the constantly evolving state of self, "The sinner is not on the way to a Buddha like sate; he is evolving, although our thinking cannot conceive things otherwise. No, the potential Buddha already exists in the sinner; his future is already there. The potential Buddha must be recognized in him, in you, in everybody" (143). Future self already exists within you, but current self is continually evolving. Here is where I see Kafka fitting into the equation. The idea that your current self is always evolving and changing connects these two authors. In Metamorphosis, however much Gregor seeks to understand his identity and self, he is continually tumbling through different versions of self. He cannot connect with his identity of being the breadwinner, no longer the caring brother or supportive son. Gregor loses what he previously considered essential to self, but does Gregor still have a self? Yes! I too had circled and starred the line in Wallace’s piece, “That our endless and impossible journey toward home is in fact our home." While Gregor attempts to journey to (what he thinks) is home, he begins to accept being stuck in the journey. He is continually seeking and evolving as with his identity and idea of self. I personally connect with Kafka’s definition of self. Thinking that (hopefully) at one point in my life, I will suddenly be at peace with myself and everything around me does not make sense. I believe we are always evolving and adapting, so how can you be at peace with everything you have not yet experienced? It doesn’t make sense to me. Thinking that this constantly changing self is my true self, however, makes more sense. (Despite the fact that it sounds very confusing.) No end exists to our journey, contradicting Hesse who spoke to the end being enlightenment. These end goals may differ, but everyone is just struggling to find peace with their own definition of self.
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Oct 23, 2013 13:35:43 GMT
To be honest, I’m with Julia on this one. The closer I get to understanding what “self” is, the less I actually understand it. This fuzzy comprehension puts my analysis of each author’s points of view into question, I have to say. But let’s try anyway, shall we? All of this talk about selves, time, life, and meaning remind me of one of my favorite Emily Dickinson quickies (#1292):
In this short Life that only lasts an hour / How much - how little - is within our power
In these brief syllables, Dickinson is describing the same journeys and choices that Hesse and Kafka (or Wallace believes Kafka) make(s). Wallace describes Kafka’s self as the voyage to discover self, echoing Dickinson’s assertion that our lives and selves are “within our power”. Hesse also acknowledges the vital role that the journey plays in the construction or discovery (I still can’t figure that out) of self.
But, Hesse does not believe that the journey is what the self is, but the realization and “Om” that arises from the journey. Wallace says that Kafka thinks that when it comes to self, the means ARE the ends. Hesse believes that the means LEAD to an end. These theories are fundamentally different, and also irrationally similar, which, I think, is a pretty powerful lens to view “Metamorphosis” and “Siddhartha” through when comparing. Both stories are centered on characters who journey through or to self, one loses his self and one obtains a self.
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Oct 23, 2013 13:53:41 GMT
Put most simply: Kafka's self is created, while Hesse's self is discovered.
Siddhartha is directly and explicitly about self, while The Metamorphosis is more subtle in its inclusion. In Hesse's book, Siddhartha bases his life on finding his self, but his self is not defined by how he finds it. He can look for self in both the life of a rich man and the life of a ferryman because his self is a constant, complex entity. Siddhartha can look for the self from many angles because his self has many sides; it is far more than the sum of his experiences. Hesse's conception of the self is like Om: it is something that was always there, but Siddhartha finally perceives it when he gains enlightenment. Hesse's view of the self is optimistic in that he views it as a good entity that is separate from the strife of the material world. Hesse sees the self as a constant, all-good entity that one's struggle allows one to see.
The Metamorphosis, on the other hand, defines self as something we create. Gregor's self is defined by his struggles as he unsuccessfully tries to make a place in the world. After the transformation into an insect, Gregor spends most of his remaining life trying--hopelessly--to be loved or at least tolerated by his family. He has a sense of self to some extent before his metamorphosis, but he loses this identity when he is no longer the provider for his family. In terms of self, Gregor starts over with a blank slate. He is no longer the traveling salesman he once was, and he can no longer hold this concept of his self. He tries to make himself part of the family again, but this struggle becomes his self: a vermin which refuses to accept that it is a pest. Kafka's view of the self is negative. It is defined by pain, suffering, failure, shaped by the realities of life instead of being above it like Hesse's self. The entirety of The Metamorphosis is nightmarish, but Siddhartha ends with enlightenment. Hesse's self can be found, but it can never be changed; Kafka's self is changed by our efforts to find it.
|
|
|
Post by billfeng on Oct 23, 2013 14:06:02 GMT
In my own opinion, the concept of self-hood is a variable state that will always be viewed differently by different individuals. In Siddhartha, Herman Hesse depicts self-hood as the ultimate achievement out of a series of trials and tribulations. Siddhartha traverses through the virtuous beliefs of the Brahmins, the Samanas, and the Buddhists. He then moves on to life of vice in the city life with yet a good sense of self-hood. Hesse shows that this understanding of the different aspects in the spectrum of good and bad brings out the true sense of self-hood in Siddhartha. I find the Siddharthian (a new term by Bill) concept of self-hood to be a little too ideal, since it seems to show that a simple soul-searching adventure would lead to a greater understanding of self-hood, and possibly even Nirvana.
Kafka, on the other hand, totally contradicts the Siddharthian self-hood in "The Metamorphosis". Through Gregor's transformation, Kafka shows that self-hood and humanity are explicably linked. I remember people saying during the discussion in class that Gregor's human mentality is never reshaped during the arc of the story. I found this idea to be hard to believe, since the tone of the story at the end is dramatically less human from the beginning. This is evident in Gregor, whose self-dialogue drives much of the story in the beginning while expository writing drives more of the story at the end. Also, Gregor Samsa is thrown into a state of panic when his sister and mother remove the furniture from his room. While Gregor's sister seems to be moving the furniture out of good intention for Gregor-giant-bug's sake, Gregor fears that the removal of the furniture will further dehumanize himself. Hiding the portrait of a woman in fur, Gregor attempts to preserve an emblem of his past self. Kafka's idea of self-hood is definitely the more pessimistic approach. By assuming that self is lost if humanity is lost, I see human self-hood as only a biproduct of natural human factors: self-preservation and rationalism.
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Oct 23, 2013 18:50:25 GMT
The quote posted by Mr. Parris reminded me of a particular poem I wrote about way back in Freshman Honors English as part of my poetry paper. It’s one of Robert Frost’s relatively unknown poems. I would love to post it here, but it consists of many short lines and I would like to refrain from page stretching. So, I will instead link to it here. “Eldorado” makes a crucial statement about the human existence: even though the knight’s goal is to find Eldorado, by the end of his life he realizes that the search is ultimately more important than the goal itself. Taken together with Mr. Wallace’s comment that “our endless and impossible journey toward home is in fact our home,” our selves must be defined by our journeys rather than our goals. In Siddhartha, the opposite is true. At the end of his life, Siddhartha is defined by his crowning achievement: enlightenment. It doesn’t matter that he was at one point in his life a businessman who squandered away his earnings on gambling, nor does it matter that as a Samana he used to sneer at other people in contempt. In this sense, Siddhartha does not really find out that his “self” consists of everything meshed together as Om until close to the end of his life. His life is defined solely by the achievement of his goal. This contrasts sharply with Mr. Wallace’s belief that the self is defined by the process of reaching a goal. As a student who is currently on her journey, I believe that the journey is more important than the destination—but I’m probably biased.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by Kasey on Oct 23, 2013 20:42:49 GMT
While DFW defines self as the culmination of all of our experiences and a infinite Work-In-Progress created only by being alive, it's shown in Siddhartha as a reward after years of searching. I think the modern human being (or, more specifically, me) relates more to the DFW definition. Back when we looked at little baby nephew Parris, most of us agreed that even though he was only a few days old, he had a self, fitting more into the DFW definition. When I think about why that is, my first conclusion is that we don't want to think that the self - something that we base religious, political, artistic, and all other opinions on - is something that you have to earn.
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Oct 25, 2013 4:29:48 GMT
Hesse portrays self as something that is gained, while Wallace states that we all just have a self. It is important to make that distinction. Hesse illustrates self as something that is realized as one goes through different learning experiences. Wallace argues that self is something that is simply present. This brings up the interesting question: "How does the outside world affect one's self?"
In Hesse's story, the outside world is essential. One must be exposed to different people and ideas to be able to learn from them. In addition, the cyclical and interconnected nature of Siddhartha's journey suggests that every human is part of a greater circle of life. At the same time, it is important to understand that every human is different in his or her own way. This is symbolized by the different motions of every water molecule that is part of the river.
Using the river analogy, I believe that Wallace would argue that in today's society, the entire river should be viewed as one particle. In this scenario, there is no longer a struggle between water molecules to move around and find a niche. Going back to the question above, Wallace believes that this is because of the impact of society. Society has trained us to think that self is something to be taken for granted. Wallace bemoans this idea and doesn't seem to believe that this trend can be changed...it is hard to change the flow of an entire river.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Harter on Oct 25, 2013 20:03:36 GMT
Selfhood in Siddhartha is not about what the final result is, but rather what is the only result; the result that comes naturally upon enlightenment. In "The Metamorphosis", however, self hood is directly linked to the voyage that is life, meaning self is ever changing, and at all times, revealed through how the individual behaves and lives. Siddhartha's behavior, which changed dramatically through the course of the novel, does nothing to reflect his true self, unless one was to say that his self is embodied by the inherently different experiences he undergoes. But Kafka represents self as a point on a graph, always bobbling up and down its line until the end is met. Although Kafka's philosophy may be more morbid, as it can be argued that a specific point cannot show a person's true self, it is not random. A point in time doesn't happen by chance or randomness, rather it is the accumulation of previous experiences that determines its place along the line. In essence, Hesse shows self as a link between what matters and what is artificial, while Kafka argues they are one and the same. The artificial actions we as humans make determine how we truly are, making us constantly connected, and responsible, to our self.
|
|
|
Post by travistoal on Oct 25, 2013 20:05:29 GMT
I absolutely love DFW's essay on Kafka's stories. Ergo, I absolutely love Kafka's stories looking at them the way DFW did. DFW, and by extension Kafka, described 'self' as something that people are, rather than something they are born with. I like this much more than Hesse's idea of a 'self' that everybody must seek, and model their life toward. Kafka's idea is almost mocking of Hesse's concept, and makes the whole of Siddhartha into a Kafkaesque tragic comedy rather than spiritual exploration. If Kafka were to describe Siddhartha's quest, he would say that the whole search is recursive, for Siddhartha's search for his 'self' becomes his self. There is humor in that, the belief that the more he confusedly struggles to find his self, the more he pigeonholes himself into a character whose only defining trait the endless search for his true traits. Kafka sees modern society as one that makes its citizens think of their self as an unchangeable defining quality of themselves, rather than something that adapts to literally who they are. This can be seen in Gregor, as he continually attempts to deny himself his beetley joy of walking on walls under the false belief that he still is a human, despite the fact that when he became a beetle, his self did as well.
|
|
|
Post by rileyhatfield on Oct 31, 2013 6:02:55 GMT
Siddhartha found his "self" through a grueling journey where he went through other "selves" that he thought he wanted. He tried out a few things here and there like being a Samana and a Brahmin and realized by the end that it was the journey itself that shaped him to who he was and that he had to find it all on his own. Being one of those "selves" was not going to get him anywhere because everyone's journey to their "self" is different and unique. Because this journey is unique, the "self" is also very unique and one-of-a-kind. By the end of the book, Siddhartha realizes this s reiterates it to Govinda so that he won't waste his time searching for something that will only come when you're not searching for it.
On the contrary, Kafka takes this view of finding one's "selfhood" in a very different and yet similar matter. When Gregor turns into a cockroach, we see his struggle to want to become a better version of his old "self" so that his family can see that the giant cockroach crawling in their house is actually their son/brother. The difficult thing is that he can't be a better version of his old "self". In fact, he can't even be the old "self" at all because he is now a cockroach; this "thing" that lacks all of what Gregor thought he was. And yet, wasn't Gregor a lot like a cockroach in his old "self"? Metaphorically speaking of course. But this fact is very scary. Gregor had it coming because his "self" was already very cockroach-y. And then even when he wanted to be better, it was too late because he could not change back. Which is even scarier because this means that after our "selves" have fully formed, we cannot change. The essence of who we are will always be the same, according to poor Gregor's story.
|
|
|
Post by haleyjensen on Nov 1, 2013 21:30:36 GMT
In one of our class discussions about self, a few people discussed whether the notion of "self" is more linear or if it's more of a squiggly line. I can't remember who, but the person who was talking about Hesse's self suggested that it was a squiggly line. On Siddhartha's journey, he takes multiple twists and turns in search of his true self. This is how I saw Hesse's depiction of self as well.
Then, another person discussed how self was depicted in The Metamorphosis. They paused it that Gregor always had a self, and with each moment of his life he gained more and more of that self through his experiences. This may have been the same class in which we discussed self in regard to a worm. Even if a person loses a piece of themselves (like a worm may be severed in half), in a way that piece is still there because something happened to cause a person to lose that piece of themselves. So, here's the way I saw Kafka's notion of self...
Finally, someone suggested that Kafka and Hesse version's of self mushed together may be an actual depiction of self. If the two became intertwined according to the way I laid them out visually above, here's what that would look like.
I tend to agree with the third way that self is posed above, because I think it most accurately expresses the idea that everything we do and all of our journeys in life affect our "self". However, the thing that I do believe which the drawings above do not convey is that in our lifetimes on earth, there is no "final self". We are constantly evolving as human beings in regard to who we are, what we believe, and how strongly we believe our beliefs. However it is discovered/found/unearthed/revealed, it is a constant process in which we are continually finding more about who we are and who we are made to be.
|
|
|
Post by anaritter on Dec 19, 2013 4:25:17 GMT
Hesse suggests that self is this thing you'll eventually come across if you look correctly and try hard enough, while DFW suggests that self is something that is developed through struggles and experiences. In short, Hesse's self is there all along, whereas DFW's self is grown over time. Hesse's Siddhartha literally goes on a physical journey or trek to find himself, as if identity can just be stumbled upon in the forest if you search wide enough and talk to the right people and don't get distracted along the way. DFW's self is BUILT by those distractions. The more distracted and misled you are, the more distinct of a person you will become. And the worst (or maybe best) part is that while you're looking for something, little do you know you're actually just creating it by looking so hard. I don't entirely understand self, and I don't feel that I'm at a position to even begin to say or weigh which theory is most correct.
|
|