tea Tuesday

I guess tea is something the kids are serving up these days…good thing I love tea. The joy of being a writer is getting to use the tiny nuances you pick up from the people you meet to fill out a character in a story. Or be so inspired and filled emotion after an interaction with another that the only thing to do is write a poem or prose about it. To all the narcissistic Peter Pans I’ve tried to love, I am writing about you. And I hope you enjoy looking at yourself in this mirror as much as you enjoyed how you looked in my eyes.

Too bad that is probably the best you’ll look.

#teatuesday #writerswriteaboutwhotheydate #writerswriteabouteveryone #writerswriteaboutyou #youllendupinapoem #downwiththepatriarchy #peterpanwillneverleaveneverland #burnthatfuckertotheground #burningneverland

the beginning; continued

the following essay was written during my time at Western Washington University. i was under the tutelage of Dr. Christopher Wise, and over time this grew into a mentorship during a string of courses on radical thought until the end of my undergraduate career. the final class was a graduate-level course titled, “Incompetence,” and it was quite the talk of campus. more on that later

…the point i am trying to make is that this essay, the previous, essay, and all essays to follow marked a time of change, a time of struggle, a time i wrestled with a previously held ideal, a decision from what was and what was now then. the human writing these words and wrestling with the words of others was just beginning to blossom into being-ness…perhaps, even Being-ness with a capital B. she asked questions without answers; questions that lead to other questions; questions upon questions…and she found there was always another question. at the bottom, there was always nothing to leap into/onto; the abyss of all things.

again, i reference and use the words and works of Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jacque Derrida to explore my own personal truth and “Truth” as an archetypical concept. and i keep the original work of the author, a 21-going-on-22 year old me, in the spring of 2010.

#truth #essays #writer #writtenthings #universityessays #heidegger #derrida #nietzsche #TruthwithacapitalT #bloodtexts #2010 #thebeginning #being #unconcealment #riverlethe #remembering #notforgetting #professorwise #englishmajor #westernwashingtonuniversity

“Truth?”

Conformity with fact or reality.” “An obvious or accepted fact.” “Agreement with a standard or original.” Out of the eleven dictionary.com definitions of “truth,” I found these to be quite interesting because they do not provide any explanation of what is actually true, but simply what is “true” according to society. “Truth” is something that is constructed by society, dependent on the individual, and unfortunately, entirely unattainable. Over the course of history, man has developed norms that have become widely accepted “truths” because they are pleasantand non-confrontational, not because there is any basis of Truth to them. In man’s search for Truth, he has used metaphor and signs to convey the concept, but due to individual interpretation, these signs are far from truthful. It is with “truth” that man constrains himself from acquiring Truth. Man must abandon the guiding “center” that has been created because it is in the differance or the conflict of Being that the unconcealment of the Truth occurs. Drawing on selected works from Jacques Derrida, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Martin Heidegger, I have realized the deconstruction of “truth” that must take place for man to ever be able to construct a notion of the Truth. 

Since the beginning of thought, man has been searching for the catalyst that set the world into motion and provides an explanation for all things. Man seeks the natural Truth that governs life, but instead he has created culture, “which depends on a system of norms regulating society and is therefore capable of varying from one social structure to another” (Derrida 918).  The ideologies of cultures vary from one extreme to another, and are based solely in arbitrary conventions (not an ultimate Truth) that have been passed down from one generation to another. Nietzsche describes “truth” as “a mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms; in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem fixed, canonical, and binding” (Nietzsche 455). Man is conditioned to live by these assumed truths and is punished if he were to oppose them.  This ordinary thinking has created a culture of supposed “truths” that are put beyond question and that merely cater to the individuals wants, putting man farther away from the Truth. “Man only desires the truth in a similarly restrictive sense: he longs for the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth, is indifferent to pure knowledge, which is not consequential, and even hostile to possibly harmful and destructive truths” (Nietzsche 452). There is no basis to the “truths” of man, simply lies of beliefs society has told him to tell himself in order to make it through the day. Man has “lost the capacity to hear the few simple things” and instead gotten too wrapped up in finding a “center” that is non-existent (Heidegger 8). It is in the simple blank spaces that provide meaning and Truth. 

The “truth” of this world is merely comprised of signs that are possibly pointing towards the Truth that governs life. “The concept of the sign is determined by this opposition; through and throughout the totality of its history and by its system” (Derrida 917).  These signs are mere traces of the real or ideal form that exist only in Being and are given meaning from their difference in relation to other signs, “ not by virtue of compact force of their cores” (Derrida 938). Signs are simply human theories of concepts, which are unattainable and can neither be proven nor disprove, “but this theory already leads us astray for it presupposes that there would exist somewhere the ‘pure basic meaning’ in itself, from which the other meanings would be derived” (Heidegger 21). The acquisition of “knowledge” is merely a sense of the Truth an can be misleading because it is simply a sign. Religion is a system of signs that has guided man towards “truth” for thousands of years starting with Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Over time these religions have broken up into varying sects, all claiming to possess same truth but all with separate paths of direction. “To be truthful means using the customary metaphors; that is, in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to a affixed convention, as a herd, in a style binding upon all” (Nietzsche 455). Even though each man is different, religious law provides only one explanation of Truth, and expects man to act accordingly, no questions asked. In his lecture Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences, Derrida quotes Levi-Strauss when he says “music and mythology bring man face to face with virtual objects whose shadow alone is actual…myths have no authors” (Derrida 921). Signs are triggers that evoke certain emotional responses dependent on the individual. These responses appear to be truthful for the person experiencing them, but because human emotion is not based in Truth they are simply shadows, exhibiting some empirical evidence of what seems real, but is still intangible. The signs of man are “always only denoting and referring, but never really openly displaying” (Heidegger 32). So, is it then up to the individual to disclose the rest? 

The opposite of Truth and unconcealment is not concealment because man must experience them both in that “the “concealed” and the “unconcealed” are characters of the very being itself” (Heidegger 24). One is impossible without the other, conflicting but one at the same time. That which is unconcealed must be concealed at some point in time otherwise there would be no need for unconcealment. Without “a covering that at some time unveils something recondite,” man would have no need to struggle towards the Being of unconcealment (Heidegger 30).  The sign that conceals Truth of things provides direction to man’s, and even at times be necessary to for man to forget Being and sink into the oblivion, only to experience the remembering of Being, which “might awaken, one thinking of Being itself and nothing else, considering Being itself in its truth, and thinking the truth of Being and not only, as in all metaphysics beings with respect to their Being” (Heidegger 28).  In the act of remembering, man will improve his perception of being and move him closer towards the disclosure of Being. 

Man has been attempting to find what is at the center of the madness that is life, and it has been this destination that has actually hindered man in his acquisition of the Truth. “Man has already lost the meaning of history when he has deprived himself of the very possibility of thinking about what, in the hastiness of drawing up “historiographical” balances, he is investing in the word “meaning” (Heidegger 56).  If there is no longer pondering on the possibilities of Being and meaning, and man believes he knows what he is looking for, then it is simply a limitation to what he will unconceal. Man must not invest in finding “meaning,” but allow meaning to disclose itself to him. The world is constantly in a state of change. From the individual level to the international community, what one perceives to be “true” is actually always influx.  “History “is”the transformation of the essence of truth,” so to find a “center” would be irrational because Truth is constantly changing (Heidegger 55). This center is worth finding only because we must “interrogate the limit that has always constrained us, to form the sense of being in general as presence or absence, in the categories of being or beingness” (Derrida 937).  Man should not limit what he believes based on societal norms because they are simply a “historical illusion” (Derrida 922).  Derrida advocates for the “abandonment of all reference to a center, to a subject, to a privileged reference, to an origin, or to an absolute arché” because it is in the differance that meaning is given (Derrida 920). 

Since to seek a “center” that dictates the history of the world is irrational and unattainable, it is necessary that man make “the joyous affirmation of the freeplay of the world and of the innocence of becoming, the affirmation of the world of signs without fault, without truth, without origin, offered to an active interpretation” (Derrida 925). Man should embrace this lack of structure and realize the freedom it proposes. Without these transcendental limits, man is able to fully explore being and not be distracted by the dogma that facilitates culture. “This happily suggests that we must here let ourselves be referred to an order that no longer refers [the] to sensibility” that has been constructed by society (Derrida 934). It is differance that “the essence of Truth receives its character from the essence of falsity” (Heidegger 22). Man must take the time to discover what he possesses internally because “the beginning will show itself, if it shows itself at all, only with our contribution” (Heidegger 19). Man is then able to play in the differance and construct his own Truth no matter what conflicts arise because “the task is to experience properly the conflict occurring within the essence of Truth” (Heidegger 17). He must seek absolute Truth, encouraging a state of conflict within his being. Man must be willing to struggle as he turns away from cultural convention and towards something that will lead to enlightening questions of his existence and the unconcealment of Truth. “The question of truth becomes the question of whether and how man can be certain and assured about being he himself is as well as about the beings he himself is not” (Heidegger 51).  Man must find how he differs from others in order to unconceal who he himself is. 

Through his struggles with cultural norms and the conflicts with “truths” he was raised with, man will eventually realize “the thing in itself…[is] not at all desirable to him,” but living life towards the unconcealment of Truth, filled with questioning is worth striving for (Nietzsche 454). He must deconstruct the signs and metaphors that govern society if he is ever going to work towards a Truth that is individualistic and without misinterpretation. It is in the differance that man is free to create his own truth, instead of being constrained by the limits of the socially constructed frame of mind. Once man is able to “de-center” his life and not simply strive for “meaning,” he will find his Truth within the world’s oppositional blank spaces.  Man’s quest for Truth seeks perfect answers to the absurd, imperfect aspect of our world. In actuality, he should be embracing the absurdities as part of the journey because they are a part of the differance. “In essential history the beginning comes last” (Heidegger 1). Man’s quest for the beginning or Truth is simply that, a quest. It is the journey man takes toward unconcealment, filled with opposition and conflict that define a man’s Being. 

the process: part deux; draft deux

#poetry #poems #poet #theshining #theprocess #battlescars #bathes #drafttwo #draftdeux #tattoosuncoveredonskin #mountainwritings #writer #writing #bloodtexts #mybloodytypewriter

Sometimes the process is writing a poem, letting it marinate, letting yourself sit with the poem and returning to it months later with a fresh perspective and detachment. it helps with the editing of one’s work (sometimes we got to cut some parts) and rewriting, or making the choice to not rewrite (sometimes some lines are perfect from the moment they are laid on the page).

This is a poem I wrote in September in the mountains of northern Idaho in a tiny ski town called Kellogg. It was only 45 minutes from my home but it felt like a world away. And itched my always dormant travel bug, waiting to leave, run, drive, fly away from where ever I may be. I stayed at the resort of the mountain during the off season, and of course, got chills of the Shining and possibly from Kubrick himself.

This is an edit of the first draft, to be rewritten and edited again. Enjoy. Feel free to let me know what you think : )

“writing is rewriting”

….he said to me

like he said it himself

but the credit goes

to the professor

who said it

one day

then

everyone else

in the class that day

took the phrase with them

along their writing way, all the

way to Spokane, WA

all the way

to

me

#poetry #poems #spontaneous poetry #writing #creative writing class #writing is rewriting #poet #spokane, wa #hometown #doha-ish #avoiding editing

the process

It’s messy and complicated; the margins are full of notes and doodles; the ideas half formed, freshly inked; still wet from being laid on the page; gooey from being birthed…

This is the first draft of a poem I’m already proud of so I want to show it off. It could be a Doha as it seemed to just flow from my brain to my words to my hand to the page without thought. Instant inspiration and creation. A Big Bang of sorts; A perfect environment and combination of elements aligned just right. It only comes after a period of murky struggle and cold chaos…

So here is this. Still forming….draft one of ??

#poetry#poems#theprocess#draftone

#writing#peterpan#neverland#shadow

#hideandseek#lostboys#bloodtexts

the beginning…

in the winter of 2010 i took a course on nihilism and i’ve been believing in nothing ever since. the following text is my culminating thesis on the topic. i also started doodling intricate spirals throughout my course notes. i’ve filled journals, agendas, notepads, handouts, notebooks, napkins, the outside of take out boxes, receipts with these spirals. more recently i’ve learned the historical significance of this ancient symbol. returning to such a formative essay after ten years is refreshing and reflective. i’m tempted to edit heavily but i’ll restrain myself. i feel the writings to follow have a tide-like progression, following like waves in and out of ideas like coves and bays, the same ocean but different water. i’d like to keep the originality and integrity of the writer in at that time in tact.

now, i use some thinkings of a rather controversial philosopher to guide and inspire my thinking, but in no way does this usage condone his political affiliations in during world war ii. if anything, i use his thoughts as an opposing force for my own thoughts as over the years i have questioned, wrestled, cut, sutured, broke, cracked, incised, excised my way through western and eastern philosophy, traveling and living in cultures foreign to my own, always searching for the next question. this essay penned the first of many where i follow a line of thought and questioning leading to the question of all questions. i’ll leave you, the reader, to determine what that question may be.

the lectures, books, and writings of Jacques Derrida, Martin Heidegger, and Friedrich Neitzsche inspired this train of thoughts and are referenced and quoted throughout. i give full credit to their audacity to ask these questions first.

The Necessity and

Unperceived Beauty of Violence

When we think of violence, generally we think of something bloody, traumatic, and negative, but if there is one thing I have learned in this class is that not all violence is ugly and it is completely unavoidable. “In con-frontation, the world comes to be” (Heidegger 65). If it were not for violence, civilization would have never been able to propel itself to where it is now. Our lives are filled with violence, cutting, and confrontation because without it nothing (in the most literal sense) would emerge. It is in our nature to assault those around us. It has been thousands of years of violent social conditioning that has repressed our “animal” instincts. This process of humanization, which Derrida refers to, has turned man against himself and sparked the constant internal conflict of man that man in turn has taken out on the animals. “Time” for Jacques Derrida began with the violent act of one naming the other, just as time for each individual begins when man is named by his parents without the ability to respond. In The Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche states,to speak of right and wrong per se makes no sense at all. No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically ‘unjust,’ since life itself is violent” (Nietzsche 208). To live peacefully is not in man’s nature, but it is through his vow to the social contract, an agreement he is forced to make in order to be a member of society, that he is able to live in peace with others. There are no such things as good or bad, just our struggle to unconceal the truth. It takes a decisive decision, a will to truth for one to separate from the world of seeming and the “real” nihilists, those who refuse to question. Opposing ignorance and violently questioning the world around us is the only way man will know anything. 

In his work, The Animal That Therefore I Am, Derrida raises some stimulating arguments about the authority that man has over the animals. God named Adam and Adam named the animals, each having authority over who they named. It is with this violent naming that time began and man imposed his assumed authority over the animals. Animals have the ability to communicate and respond to certain stimuli, but lack the creativity of humans, but does this give us the right to have authority over the animal and use them for our disposal? Without communication, animals were unable to respond for their name and reject the authority of man. It has been man’s “irreversible, welcome or unwelcome event of naming whereby Ish [Adam] would begin to see them and name them without allowing himself to be seen or named by them” (Derrida 17). Since animals have been deprived of the ability to speak, man has used this to inflict “the wound without a name: that of having been given a name. Finding oneself deprived of language, one loses the power to name, to name oneself, indeed to answer for one’s name” (Derrida 19). Man has exploited the animal’s lack of communication and never allowed them to respond to the name he had given them. Animals live and breathe, have families, and are capable of suffering, but the majority of mankind doesn’t take the time to think about these things. Man has made the animal an object, deprived it of a Being or soul, and “such a subjection…can be called violence in the most morally neutral sense of the term” (Derrida 25). The animal is “the point of view of the absolute other” because there is no means of communication between our species (Derrida 11).  There is no way of us ever knowing what goes on in the heads of animals or what they are thinking. For all we know they are looking at us the way we have been conditioned to look at them

When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and became aware of their nakedness, man began to feel shame of his animality. Shame is a purely human emotion. Animals are incapable of this because they have no need to repress their natural state. Animals lack the knowledge of their nakedness and feel no shame, but for humans, this “original sin” that caused man to feel shame became the internal conflict man grapples with daily. Man feels the need to cover up and hide his nature because it has been engrained on his being to be ashamed of his nature. “This movement of shame…this inhibition…is the very origin of the religious, of religious scruple” (Derrida 47). There is no doubt that the Church, in conjunction with each civilization’s government, has abused its power over its pulpit by violently exploiting man’s shame. Using punishment and pain in order to tame man and his animal instincts, “the ghastliest sacrifices and pledges…the most repulsive mutilations…the cruelest rituals…all these have their origin in that instinct which divined pain to be the strongest aid to mnemonics” (Nietzsche 193).  This “aid” has been disguised as a way for man to avoid shame, but if it weren’t for these institutions, would man even feel shame? 

In our current age, although the Catholic Church no longer uses torture and painful punishment, it’s use of guilt has created a self-torture mechanism within man. The ascetic life that the world has come to be through the Church is “the habitation of disgruntled, proud, repulsive creature, unable to rid themselves of self-loathing…who inflict as much pain as possible on themselves, solely out of the pleasure in giving pain” (Nietzsche 253).  A religious person believes he/she is a sinner because they are told that they are, not because they actually are. The guilt that they feel is not internally motivated, but it comes from the Church which has conditioned its pulpit to feel shameful of its animal instincts. They live life denying their instincts and seeking forgiveness to appease their guilty conscience. It seems as though man enjoys being in this perpetual cycle of sinner, guilt, and shame that further represses their animal instincts. 

The violence that has repressed man’s animal instincts has ignited an internal violence within man. With help from the Catholic Church and its ability to make anyone feel guilty, man has been the one animal to be shameful of his nakedness.  “Man would be the only one to have invented a garment to cover his sex” because he is the only species to be ashamed of his natural state, and it is purely because society has told him to be so (Derrida 5).  Through “all the blood and the horror [that] lies behind all ‘good things” man was made reasonable, in control of his emotions, set apart from the animals, and in turn ashamed of being an “animal” once himself (Nietzsche 194).  If it had not been for organized religion, man would have never been ashamed of his true self, but from the generations of societal conditioning, he will always be ashamed. This is the “sentiment of shame related to standing upright” (Derrida 36-37).  True nudity without shame is never attainable for human beings because of the institutions of society. Even nudists have to put on clothes at some point, not because of their shame, but the shame that the other imposes. “Every show of modesty is linked to a reserve of shame, to a reserve that attests to a virtual guilt” and this is the guilt of original sin (Derrida 61). Adam and Eve felt the need to cover their sexual organs only after they had disobeyed God.  They became aware of their nakedness, and therefore shameful and guilty of their sin. This was the beginning of an internal conflict that was destined to be a part of man’s nature for eternity. When people meet someone new, rarely are people willing to reveal their whole self to them and feel the need to wear a “social mask” because they are ashamed of their true selves. Man is constantly struggling “between the law of nature (reaction) and the law of freedom (response and responsibility);” struggling between his instincts and the place in society he has been forced into and his obedience to being “responsible” (Derrida 83). 

The life of man begins violently and continues as he is conditioned to live up to societal standards. Childbirth itself is a violent act as the mother is in obvious pain pushing out another human being and the child is forced out of the womb “gives vent to an outburst of protestation…indicates that something is…frustrating him” because his parents have “accede[d] to culture” (Derrida 98).  Without any choice of his own, the infant must also accede to the social contract being born to his parents.  As citizens of the United States, man has no choice but to live by the law, and if he violates this agreement, he is punished for his forgetfulness. It is this law that provides us with security and protection, but at the same time has the power to take that security away. The law is essentially a threat to the society it is governing. There is no such thing as law without violence or the threat of violence to enforce it. It provides us freedom and security, but only if we agree to be obedient and act responsibly. It is our human “perverseness being veiled in the state of civil law by the constraint exercised by government” that allows us to function in society, and in turn tolerate and be hospitable to one another, even though we may not want to (Kant). 

What I consider to be one of the most tragic acts of violence in history is what Nietzsche refers to as “the genesis of responsibility.” Through enduring the punishment and torture of the law and the Church so man will never forget to repress his animal instincts, and also “the social strait-jacket, man was, in fact, made calculable,” and forced to be responsible for his actions.(Nietzsche 190-191).   He was violently molded to fit into society, no longer questioning authority because of the threat the law imposes. He feared being punished, and the shame that he would endure if he were to go against society. “We all know the history of fabulization and how it remains an anthropomorphic taming, a moralizing subjection, a domestication. Always a discourse of man, on man, indeed on the animality of man, but for and in man” (Derrida 37). In the same way we have objectified the animal, so have the law and the Church have made man a subject as well. If a person commits a crime and is convicted, all of their rights as human beings are stripped away, they are required to live in a cell, and essentially they are treated like an animal.  This “process of humanization or of the appropriation of man by man, including its most highly developed ethical or religious forms. No ethical or sentimental nobility must be allowed to conceal from us that violence…however more worthy they be than what they oppose” (Derrida 101).  This is a violence that will continue for the rest of humanity as long as we are a species governed by law, and law is not law unless it is enforced. Even though this is inevitable, it does not mean that man should continue to repress his right to question

It is from this calculation of man that we must transcend and make the decisive decision to tear away from the man who does not question. Everyday is a struggle against the supposed beliefs of society, and it is necessary that we make this cut everyday. Through this transcending and struggle where the beauty of violence occurs and allows man to simply be. “Struggle as such not only allows for arising and standing forth; it alone also preserves beings in their constancy. Where struggle cease, beings indeed do not disappear, but world turns away” (Heidegger 65). Man must violate himself everyday and question the things that he and society believe to be true. It is the act of questioning that will unconceal the truth, and the more we question “ does this not make us every day more questionable but also more worth questioning, perhaps more worthy to be alive” (Nietzsche 249)? Man must constantly question, especially if such questioning will disprove what he knows to be true.  For Heidegger and Nietzsche, the real nihilists were those with the strongest truths and who refused to question them. The more we question and discuss the notion of nothingness, the closer we are to the unconcealment of truth, even if we never attain it.  It is without questioning that man becomes ignorant. 

In a very literal sense, de-cision is also an incision, a cut that certain cultures make in to mark those who belong to them. It is a traumatic impression that makes the individual always remember and also “this act of distinguishing puts the human being, as one who knows, upon these paths and at their intersection, and thus into constant de-cision. With de-cision, history as such begins” (Heidegger 116). Circumcision in Judaism is to literally cut and figuratively name those belonging to their religion. It is what differentiates them from the other in knowing.  Relate this to the violence of the Greek word techne, translated by Heidegger as “the violence-doing of the knowing” (Heidegger 176). Man must make the decision to question the world around him, and must continue to do so daily. To make a cut or be inscribed, either literally or figuratively, is to know. This knowing “means initially and constantly looking out beyond was, in each case, is directly present” and to separate from what seems (Heidegger 169).   The act of circumcision and tribal cutting is intended to separate those cut from those who are not, those of the world of seeming. Any act of knowing is essentially an act of violence because in de-cison one must begin, even though there is no way of knowing if it is the right decision. This knowing is also “the violence-doing in its decisive basic trait; for to do violence is to need to use violence against the over-whelming: the knowing struggle to set Being, which was formerly closed off, into what appears as beings” (Heidegger 170-171).  Being may never be unconcealed, but if a decision is never made, man will be even farther from it than before.

Before Heidegger proposed the “decisive decision,” Nietzsche’s asserted that man must have a “will to truth” in opposition to the skewed ethics of society. The man who learns to ask and keeps asking questions, “his belief in ethics of any kind will begin to be shaken” and violated in the most positive way possible (Nietzsche 154-155). Man forgot how to ask questions because knowledge and supposed truths have been laid before him with such force that it seemed he had no choice but to accept them. The most apparent example is the Church and the “truth” it is preaching to its congregation. This “truth” is really an exploitation of their faith and shame. The members of the Church merely take it “as a fact of experience, and put beyond question” because the priests tell them they are going to Hell if they do not do as they are told (Nietzsche 155).   The morality of the Church has created generations of people unable to think for themselves and unable to ask questions. Nietzsche asks the question “what if morality should turn out to be the danger of dangers” and he is right in doing so (Nietzsche 155). Morality has become the end of questioning and finding out the concealed truth of the world by the individual. With the invention of religion, man no longer took it upon himself to find his truth, but just accepted what was presented to him. “It is by this dawning self-consciousness of the will to truth that ethics must perish” (Nietzsche 297).  

God gave Adam, who was made in His likeness, the task of naming the animals, “in order to see” man have the authority over the beasts, those “destine [d]…to an experience of the power of man” (Derrida 16).  In the text, Derrida puts much emphasis on the phrase “in order to see” as if God takes pleasure in seeing the exertion of authority over the animals. God gives Adam this task alone, and waits to see how man will “subject, tame, dominate, train, or domesticate the animals” (Derrida 16).  Similarly, in the Roman Coliseum, the people of Rome wanted to see the power of a strong man over a weaker man. In Ancient Rome, a “good” man was “the man of strife, of discord, the warrior” (Nietzsche 164). He was a man who found pleasure in the suffering of others and exercising his authority over the weak. “That pleasure is induced by his being able to exercise his power freely upon one who is powerless…the pleasure of rape” (Nietzsche 196).  Although this is a gruesome image, it is accurate. Even though the spectators at the Coliseum were not directly involved in this pleasure of rape, it was entertaining to watch the suffering of others. In our current society, we thrive on the misfortunes of others and exploit the personal lives celebrities when they engage in scandalous or self-destructive behavior. If we didn’t, there wouldn’t be tabloids, celebrity gossip magazines, or the E! Channel on television. 

In The Animal That Therefore I Am, Derrida quotes Immanuel Kant in his explanation of human nature in relation to the nature of animals. Man and animals are similar in that they both engage in acts of war, but Kant points out that the war of humans elevates society as “each people seeks to strengthen itself through the subjugation of neighboring peoples, either from the desire to expand or the fear of being swallowed up by the other unless one beats him to it” (Derrida 97).  Man lives in a state of constant competition; in the classroom, in the workforce, between nations, and even in trivial matters such as sports and entertainment. Everyone is striving to be better than the other. It is this threat of the other that propels us to better ourselves and therefore it propels history.  “This disclosedness of beings is the violence that humanity has to surmount in order to be itself first of all – that is, to be historical in doing violence in the midst of beings” (Heidegger 167). Without the violence of man against the other, there would be no progress because there would not be the need for progress. Kant concludes “therefore civil or foreign war in our species, as great as an evil as it may be, is yet at the same time the incentive [Triebfeder: what excites the drive] to pass from the crude state of nature to the civil state” (Derrida 97).  Without the threat of competition, how would man better himself? 

It is a necessary evil but “war, however is the only sad recourse in the state of nature by which each state asserts its right to violence, and by which neither party can be adjudged unjust” because war is neither good or bad, but necessary for each state to make itself equal to the others (Kant). It is the perpetual threat of war that one poses and at the same time fears from the other that propels civilizations and their freedom. “As an individual, the human would, like the wild beast, also be ready to go to war against its neighbors in order to affirm its unconditional freedom” (Derrida 96). Take the Cold War for example. Although neither the United States nor Russia used any of their innovations in nuclear weapons violently, just by each state developing this technology the other was forced to do the same. It is the threat of violence that made each nation advance themselves. This “drive against drive, motive against motive…which functions…like a machine for stabilizing and regularizing the course of a society and a history” that led to the majority of man’s innovation (Derrida 98).  Since “the state of peace of men living side by side is not the natural state; the natural state is war,” man has agreed to a social contract to abide by  as well as between nations, which is a vow of security to each other (Kant). The United Nations is a governing body to promote the perpetual peace between nations, and even though current international relations are far tamer than they were 60 years ago, this union is far from the perpetual peace Kant advocates. For a social covenant to be effective, all nations must be equal, but would super powers like the United States or France ever consider themselves equal to third world nations? Never, and this is why the threat of war will continue to be eminent for as long as super powers exist and countries exert their right to violence to make themselves better than the other. 

Between the violent cornerstones of our lives, birth and death, our animal instincts are violently repressed by society, and we struggle internally against this oppression as we come into being. I am not attempting to glorify violence, but it is necessary and makes us who we are.  How we react and struggle against it when a violent act has been committed is what brings us into being. The international competition of our era and what deems a country as “powerful” is the development of nuclear weapons simply because any country that possesses them poses the threat of massively exterminating the human race. Each country is striving to pose the greatest threat to their neighbors. The greatest civilizations in history were barbaric and gruesome as they created and sustained their empire. Those beginnings were liberally sprinkled with blood, as are the beginnings of everything great on earth” (Nietzsche 197). The founding of America, a “civilized” culture enslaved Africans and slaughtered Native Americans in their escape from the oppression of the English Crown.  For even the most civilized man, to be violent is a necessity of his nature. In the same way that Nietzsche provoked and violated the minds of his readers, I am sure some of the things I have said here have made you the reader, uncomfortable. It is this uncomfortable state that man must learn to exist in. Daily, he must make the uncomfortable and violent decision to cut otherwise he is living a life not worth living. It is time we accept the struggle of being and see the beauty in violence. 

#violence #essays #derrida #heidegger #nietzsche #thenecessityandunperceviedbeautyofviolance #writtenincollege #englishmajor #philosophy #metaphysics #metaphysicalphilosophy #nihilism #phenomenology #being #becoming #nonbeing #bloodtexts #thequestion #thequestionofthequestion #thequestofthequestion