The True Underlying Theme of the Semester

By
Revelation! I have made my conclusion about the central idea which all the semester's books revolve around. No, it isn't really about "losing paradise" or anything of the sort. The common thread between Paradise Lost, Candide, and Faust is all too clear. Where does everything go wrong in Faust? It's all the result of the doctor's romantic affairs with Margaret. Their burning (read: way too quick and idiotic) passion for each other leads Margaret to insanity as she apparently murders her family for the sake of her relationship. Candide's tale isn't very different-- he and Cunégonde have their childish little moment of romance, and all of a sudden Candide is cast into the cruel and unforgiving world. Reuniting with his love results in floggings, shipwrecks, cannibals, cranky old Martin, and a most unsatisfying marriage. Then we have Adam, who Milton depicts as dooming mankind to a fallen planet after eating the forbidden fruit with the intent of keeping his beloved Eve from having to suffer the punishment of her sin on her own. Adam's love was a bit misplaced and costly for the rest of us, according to Milton.

So what is this subliminal message that Dr. Schuler is trying so insistently to impress upon our minds with this semester's readings? Being in love sucks. 

This is why I'm still single. 

All jokes aside, can we really call the feelings between Faust and Margaret "love?" Love doesn't drive you to murder your mother or command Satan himself to run errands for you. It certainly isn't "at first sight," as it was for this couple. I would call it passion, and that isn't the same thing. A godly, loving relationship doesn't come with strings of guilt attached, as Margaret felt. It also doesn't start with a boxful of jewels the devil rustled up. I can only wonder if Margaret would have been so easily seduced had she not gotten that jewelry to stoke her pride. Starting from a point of "Look what I've gained from this" is just another tally on the list of things that make this anything but a love-based relationship... Love is about the other person, not yourself. I'd compliment Satan for so masterfully leading Faust astray with counterfeit romance, but I'm pretty sure that would be blasphemy.

P.S. I commented on Darby and Nate's posts.
P.P.S. Haha, please don't take this seriously, I don't actually think love sucks. I hoped immediately questioning Faust's "love" would make that apparent, oops. 

Comments

  1. Sophia ColbertOctober 30, 2017 at 4:08 PM

    Perhaps a better conclusion would be that the wrong kind of love, such as where God is not involved, sucks. Remember that when Adam and Eve worshiped God together, everything in their relationship was perfect. It is selfishness that ruins things. Not to mention, the definition of love has been so warped and twisted ever since the fall that not many people know what true love is any more. Modern uses don't help, either ("making love" = sex? Really?). Margaret and Faust were never loved each other, they craved each other. It was an addiction, if anything. It's quite gross.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownOctober 30, 2017 at 4:49 PM

    I like the direction you are going with this. Though, I might disagree (alongside Sophie) a bit and fight for the conclusion instead that being in love doesn't suck, but rather selfishness and pride, two of our root sins that many others flower from, gets you in fact no where but chained in the Enemy's lair. Did not Creator God create every faculty of man- imago Dei- including both spiritual and physical parts? Is not sex a physical act that God indeed instituted within the bounds of sacred covenant marriage? Is not this holy marriage a physical representation of the Father's agape Love for us? Is it not indeed a most rich discipline of both sanctification in the virtue of selflessness and worship? We cannot deem what was originally beautiful and now distorted as sin, but rather detect the distortions and the sin that seeped through, working to rid ourselves of such. Here is the lesson to learn from.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Darby CallicuttOctober 30, 2017 at 5:27 PM

    I agree with this revelation that you've had Will. I think that all three of the world you've mentioned have tendencies towards misdirecting love. And I can only think what would have happened with Faust and Margaret had they both not been swayed and tempted by the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Natalie SchulerOctober 30, 2017 at 8:35 PM

    Will, this comment wins the Honors blog. Plus it made my dad laugh. Kudos. Anyway, although I see your point, I think I have to side with Olivia and Sophia--being in love doesn't suck as long as it is being "in love" the way that God intended. All of these stories do emphasize the difficulties of love, but I think it is to stress that the love of those characters was perverted.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Honest Reaction to Reading "Honest to God"

By
Originally I said in my last blog post that I liked this book, but I have sort of changed my mind. It is not that I hate it or anything, it is just weird and I don’t really agree with what John Robinson is saying most of the time. I appreciate that he is trying to write something different and new, but my problem is that some of the ideas are just a little too radical for my taste, and I disagree with him a lot. In the seventh and last chapter of the book, Robinson himself acknowledges his radicalness and writes about how he knows that this type of thought on religion is controversial. He goes on to write how all great thinkers were seen as controversial when they first started and says, “Every new religious truth comes as the destroyer of some other god”. To further prove this point, he uses the example of how Socrates was condemned as an atheist for not believing in multiple gods, and while it is true that Socrates was a great philosopher who was not seen as so when he was alive, I ...
Read more

Raphael and a man walk into Eden...

By
I'll just start off by saying Raphael is one of the three named archangels in Scripture we hear the least about, and I thoroughly enjoy just reading and seeing his name pop up. Regardless, I want to touch on Adam's recounting of his own..."birth". Take that with a grain of salt as Adam was not physically born, but rather he simply became. In truth, we should all be able to give a similar account to their first memory of consciousness and fully aware. Adam was created, but he realized he could walk, talk, and speak without first learning. Imagine being able to think clear thoughts in your native language and be a functioning individual right out of the womb. It's an incredible thought, and Adam can give a recall of this like it were yesterday...which it might have been, who knows? Aside from that, Adam could even give an account to Eve's creation. The Bible says nothing pertaining to this matter so this is where Milton does a bit of adlibbing and writes around ...
Read more

Extra blog

By
OK so, honors project! Honestly I really loved it as a whole. I said this already in the video, but I feel like I personally could've done better. I just feel like I didn't have enough time to completely process some questions and be able to give my best responses. I really enjoyed reading the O'Connor piece, which I think was everyone's favorite anyway. I love narrative stories like that, but honestly I'm glad I got to be in the Russell group. I feel like that group was the easiest to argue and answer from, honestly. As a whole, I would love to do a project like this again in later semesters. It was a lot of fun and time FLEW by.
Read more