Of Cannibals and Men

Reading Montaigne is interesting. The topic and the way he goes through it seems kind of hamfisted and cliche now but at the time it was probably a pretty cool argument. It's all just a big the real barbarian...is you looking glass type argument though which is such a played out concept now.

I'm still not totally convinced that Montaigne's own religion is the key to understanding the reading, though. It seems like his views of religion are more a product of his views of society in general. Montaigne admired the cloeseness of the Brazilian communities and how they all viewed each other as relatives and equals as opposed to the class distinctions of Europe. This social ill is Montaigne's biggest issue with France in his time, and the one which I feel he most wishes to address.

Flashbacks 2

Alright so the next thing we read was Genesis from the Bible, right? We spent a long time on this one. I'll talk about something that I don't think we touched on much but was in the back of my mind the whole time we read this. Does the character of God change through Genesis? I think his character changes in so much as he acts differently toward humans in different parts of Genesis. With Adam and Eve, it kind of seems like God sets them up for failure by only making one rule, to not touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which he places right in the middle of the garden. Adam and Eve, as humans, were bound to try the fruit sometime. The snake just kind of sped things along. Then with Noah he was ruthless. God hadn't really supplied any rules on how to live outside the garden yet and so as people became more corrupt (because of normal human behavior) God got pissed. Only one man was worth not killing. Then even later he told Abraham to kill his son. Which is messed up and is against God's own rules. Luckily at the last second (literally) God stops the whole mess and Abraham sacrifices a ram instead. I think God earlier in Genesis would have just let Abraham kill Isaac and then reprimanded Abraham for killing him.

Flashbacks 1

So this is the beginning of a series of retrospective blog posts I think. I have been the definition of not keeping up to date with this blog thing so hopefully blogs about past events will be okay. And regardless of whether it's okay or not, I'll be doing it.

This post is gonna be about Gilgamesh. Remember it? I was thinking recently about the topic of the paper we wrote a while ago, everlasting life in Gilgamesh. Since we'll be revisiting this paper soon, I'll try to collect my thoughts about what I wrote. Gilgamesh's view of death is the main character trait that changes through the epic. In his youth, he accepts that death is inevitable and is mainly concerned with leaving a lasting impression through the deeds he accomplishes in life. This is why he kills Humbaba, the bull of heaven, spurns that sexy lady god and all the other stuff. However, with the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh starts to worry about the idea of death itself. He resolves that he should not have to die and stop doing such crazy awesome deeds.

This idea of everlasting life becomes Gilgamesh's dream, his one desire. However, in my paper I argue that it is just an illusion. This is beacause Utnapishtim the Faraway is the only other mortal to obtain everlasting life, and rather than a warrior posed for battle, he is just constantly relaxing and doing nothing in particular. This is the reality of everlasting life: a loss of the meaning that mortality gives life.

Now I feel more prepared.