I do not think that Mr. Shapiro's class is a waste of time, or that it is pointless. If I thought that way, I wouldn't read every book he gave us, or put so much thought into our assignments; I would simply Sparknote every book and BS every paper/blog entry. I believe that Mr. Shapiro's class is enlightening; personally, it has shed light on aspects I never noticed about the world, and more specifically, about myself.
That being said, I can see the potential validity of the other side as well. People got upset when I said this, and I understand why, but isn't one of Dostoyevsky's central arguments that nothing can ever be fully justified? That, when it comes to different possible answers, each one can be proved to hold equal value?
Many of the things we learn in Mr. Shapiro's class (the aspects I am referring to, anyway) are those that necessitate our being a societal antagonist. In order to truly be intelligent, we must never make a decision, which would result in us turning into a hermit (NFTU). To achieve clarity throughout our life, we must act and think like Mersault (The Stranger). To achieve true peace and free reign, we must separate ourselves from society (story of the cult).
None of us (as far as I know) are planning on diverging from society, because the sacrifice is too extensive, and the risk, too great. Therefore, my question is, is it better to be conscious of society's shackles that we are so inextricably bound by, even though we will never do anything about it? Or, as the old saying goes, is ignorance truly bliss?
Is it better to know that the path to clarity exists (even at the expense of knowing we are too cowardly to choose this path), or is it better to remain oblivious?
According to Dostoyevsky, we will never know, as an equal case can be made for both.
No comments:
Post a Comment