the great gatsby

Desire is never satisfied. When Fitzgerald labels the houses "inessential" his word choice almost seems to imply that the houses are of no use, as anything desired and retrieved is then less wanted obviously, and thus becomes eventually undesirable and "inessential" as this is the nature of desire. He also says the "old island..flowered once.." describing America as once beautiful when it was desired but then when the desire vanished upon the retrieving of it, America must have grown...stale. This is also implied when he says America when desired was a "fresh green breast"- a metaphor that could mean both that the breast was like youth to grow old when was it retrieved and also the desire for America was as empty as the desire for lust, which is notoriously empty since such a desire can never really be eternally satisfied. Fitzgerald also said "his dream must have seemed so close..He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in the vast obscurity behind the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled under the night" which seems to say that dreams can never be achieved as desire is truly never satisfied and that obscurity is the emptiness of desire thus. Also, the dark fields of the republic rolling under the night was the desire for America being obfuscated and ultimately discintigrated by the darkness of the emptiness of desire. The "orgastic future..reced[ing] us" is making the future-the goal to satisfy desire-equivalent to a sexual encounter, in which a climax is followed by what? The satisfaction is fleeting and never tangible enough to be true, and so the future, the satisfaction, must inevitably discintigrate as any pleasure of attaining the desire must. "It eluded us then, but that's no matter- to-morrow we will run faster, stretch our arms farther....And we beat on, boats against the currenty, borne back ceaselessly into the past." Desire always breeds a useless hope as is described by the wishing that if efforts are just greater, so shall be the satisfaction. But truly, trying to obtain the satisfaction is as useless as trying to swim against the current.

My wood......

Forster's view of owning property claims the act to be the cause of an aviricious discontentment. Is he correct? Owning possessions does seem to breed a mentality which is expectant of the maintenance of at least the original quantity of possessions while also aspiring to secure an even greater amount. This phenomenon is observed greatly in the trends that arise in a consummerism society, such as that of America, in which the richest Americans continually trend to become richer, and, in effect, the size of the lower class and the severity of their poverty grows. This poverty growth, though, is not the evil Forster describes in his essay. Instead, he focuses on the effect of the self of owning property. Its detrimental damages include the growth of desire to continually possess more, and the issue now is whether desire breeds discontentment or not. Desire can be said to be the ultimate cause of suffering, for if one does not desire to not suffer, how can they suffer of suffering? Logic seems to demonstrate that Forster is right on target.

ad

This ad boasts a motorcycle flying across the pavement- an experience that is probably a little excessively risky for the average purchaser, but certainly proves attractive in its powerful speed. Most buyers will probably never experience the rush conveyed in this ad, and thus this rush shown can be considered a bearer of false implications, which are establiched only to capture attention of consumers-stir about desire-without any hint of reality embedded.

Quarter 3 Books

i read 6 books, the equivalent of 6 books

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
Slapstick by Kurt Vonnegut
To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
Bloodsucking Fiends by Christopher Moore
Bite Me by Christopher Moore
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer


Animal Liberation
Singer proves that an animal has the natural right to not have pain unfairly inflicted upon them because and ONLY because that animal possesses the capability to experience pain. Singer's case is presented in such palpable logic it would be impossible to deny the validity of his reasoning without being unreasonable.

Quote

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.

-Ivan Illich (1926-2002)


Capitalism is a consumer society, and indeed there may in it be a sense of contentment, yet does such satisfaction not prove to be hollow? Capitalism favors the establishing of enormous businesses and, in turn, an extremely wealthy class. Yet this class, however prosperous it becomes, seems to act continually in pursuit of furthering their wealth. Is it not ingrained in human nature to do so? And it seems that once the taste of wealth strikes one, it becomes nearly impossible to plunder from one the inevitable desire to have that wealth maintained, or, better yet, increased. Is it for the ego boost of possessing more? Or the familiarity of their possessions which catalyzes the looming threat that the consolation of it would possibly diminish? No matter, it is certainly true that such a desire is an addiction to which one can with tremendous ease suffer of. It is an addiction which one can fall slave to and prisoner of without even the slightest recognition of their imprisonment. And it inevitably siezes any whose prosperity is to any superior degree. Thus, the wealthy class can be claimed all prisoners. But who remains? The prisoners of envy, those who are not prosperous. In a consumer society, if there is a wealthy class, there must exist a poor class, the have-nots. And is it not true that the entirity of this group looks upon the wealthy with only jealous eyes? Who does not wish to be rich? They are the slaves of coveting, endlessly harvesting their envy.