Gregory Chan
World Literature II
Mr. Hathaway
February 28, 2014
Working thesis: The setting of Flatland and its [something] can be paralleled to several examples of similar [settings] in our own history.
If we look back at our history, we often see eras when the laws and regulations seem unfair compared to our society today. The setting and perspective in the world of Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions can be easily paralleled to the events that have occurred in our own history. For almost the first half of the story, Abbott describes the the world of Flatland and all of its idiosyncrasies. Although lengthy, this description is necessary for the reader to fully understand the social structure of Flatland, which is a critical aspect which the rest of the story revolves around. In Flatland, there are only two dimensions, as opposed to the three dimensional world that we live in. There, everyone is divided into their respective social classes; the lowest level are Isosceles Triangles, which are made up of workmen and soldiers. Then come Equilateral Triangles, which are the middle class. As we move up higher into the ranks, the inhabitants of Flatland gain more and more sides until we reach a Polygon with so many sides, it is essentially a Circle. These are composed of the priests and are considered the highest order. The narrator, who is a Square, gives “a feeling of immediacy [and] we feel as though we are getting the description directly from a participant.” Because a Square is neither the lowest rank nor the highest, his opinions and emotions are those that would be common amongst the civilians of Flatland. This aspect is important because it imparts a reliable description of the setting to the reader.
Abbott’s callous d...
... middle of paper ...
... is often what we are taught, even if there is evidence contradicting what we believe.
The result of the Square’s spreading of his knowledge was his imprisonment for the rest of his life, an act that occurred often in our society for disagreeing with the traditional ideas. During the French Revolution, tens of thousands of citizens were executed for trying to introduce new ideas into the government and people. The government of Flatland is effective in its satirical projection of the injustices committed by the monarchies of the time. The Square, who is imprisoned for simply spreading his ideas, demonstrates to the reader how unjust this system is, that one cannot even express what he feels without having to fear going to prison. Ultimately, the world of Flatland has many parallels to several different societies during Abbott’s era, as well as those of our own era.
As a result, at the end of the 18th Century, Foucault mockingly tells the story of how our society became “humane” and the public cried out for punishment without torture. When the invention of prisons came about, most people chose to forget the disappearance of public executions. Foucault states: “Today we are rather inclined to ignore it: perhaps in its time, it gave r...
...es of individuals can be used to explore a broader social wrong, in this case the injustice of a totalitarian government. Both authors use their protagonists to depict how a dictatorial state can destroy all sense of individuality, Orwell by presenting Winston in his fight against “The Party” and Niccol by depicting Vincent in his battle against society. Both authors also use individuals, who must isolate themselves in order to survive to expose how an unjust authoritative government can manufacture isolation. Orwell and Niccol also present conflicting views on the possibility of individual rebellion in an oppressive society, reflected by the success of Vincent and failure of Winston. In their prophetic dystopian texts both George Orwell and Andrew Niccol use the experiences of their protagonists to explore the broad social wrong of a totalitarian government.
Several conflicting frames of mind have played defining roles in shaping humanity throughout the twentieth century. Philosophical optimism of a bright future held by humanity in general was taken advantage of by the promise of a better life through sacrifice of individuality to the state. In the books Brave New World, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451 clear opposition to these subtle entrapments was voiced in similarly convincing ways. They first all established, to varying degrees of balance, the atmosphere and seductiveness of the “utopia” and the fear of the consequences of acting in the non-prescribed way through character development. A single character is alienated because of their inability to conform – often in protest to the forced conditions of happiness and well being. Their struggle is to hide this fact from the state’s relentless supervision of (supposedly) everything. This leads them to eventually come into conflict with some hand of the state which serves as the authors voice presenting the reader with the ‘absurdity’ of the principles on which the society is based. The similar fear of the state’s abuse of power and technology at the expense of human individuality present within these novels speaks to the relevance of these novels within their historical context and their usefulness for awakening people to the horrendous consequences of their ignorance.
Simplicity clashes with stress. Living with the bare necessities, the working class families keep themselves happy. The husband works while the wife cooks the meals and takes care of the children. No desire for excessive amounts of m oney exists, just a desire for a strong bond within the family. Upper-class families or families striving for success invite stress into their lives. Too much stress from greedy desires of power creates tension in homes. The higher people c limb up society's ladder, the more likely their families are to fall apart. Flatland, by Edwin Abbott, presents the two dimensional world as a society with mostly working class families. A. Square, the narrator, enlightene d by a three dimensional experience longs to tell of the new knowledge revealed to him. Having no desire to learn of this foreign land called "Spaceland," the citizens of Flatland have A Square locked up. From past experiences, peo ple in Flatland know that new ideas cause turmoil amongst themselves. Focusing on having the basics for survival and a strong love within the family produces a peaceful and less stressful environment.
During the course ofthe conversation, the Monarch called the Square and his ideas "uneducated," "irrational," and "audacious" (P. 51). The Monarch thinks if A. Square "had a particle of sense, [he] would listen to reason" (P. 51). Upon listening to the opinion that Flatland is lacking so much as compared to Lineland, A. Square strikes back, saying, "you think yourself the perfection of existence, while you are in reality the most imperfect and imbecile" (P. 5I). A. Square continues, claiming, "I am the completion of your incomplete self" (P. 51). Neither the Monarch nor A. Square could be swayed to the other one's way of thinking.
...that what they believe might not be correct, it is what they believe but others do not have to believe that they are right.
something that was taught over hundreds of years, it is deeply embedded and it actually does
After reading Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott, it was clear to me that this book was in many aspects a reflection of the world Abbott lived in. Abbott lived in England in the late 1800s. The women in Flatland, much like the women in Abbott’s world, were seen as inferior and subordinate to the men. Although the men had a chance to rise above what they were born into, the women lived out their days as a straight line, just like their mothers and grandmothers did before them. There were many instances throughout the book that probably mirrored the time that Abbott lived in. There was one in particular that struck me, however. The narrator of the book, Arthur Square, stresses the doctrine of the Circles, who are the supreme rulers of
and other scary things. Yet it is true that those beliefs are wrong and have been proven wrong.
...rom our original anchor points or beliefs, so we assume that it is not correct, and continue believing the way we did before.
...demonstrates that my experience did not benefit me from knowledge because I felt upset that if I have not known science, I would not doubt and my trust in God would not be at stake.
The English public park from 1840-1860 provides a physical reflection of this Victorian frame of mind in that it exemplifies one of the grave contradictions that defines the upper-middle class Victorian society which boasts for universality of its ideals for all yet is exclusionary toward the proletariats.
It is impossible to just have one answer. There are many different ways you can get to the answer. This is what makes it complex. With science there is no one true conclusion. Scientific results are unreliable because it is exposed to subjective methodologies. Behind science is one man that still has an interest. He can dictate what he wants to inquire about. The one scientist relates to the person who is authoritative on what their child should believe in. They should be found as equally wrong. Yes, you can give your ideas about what your beliefs are, but it is up to that one person to decide whether they wish to accept it. They also have the alternative of disregarding it and accepting a different way of believing in their own conception of the world.
Literary elements are demonstrated throughout the story and further improve our understanding of the central idea. The setting is important to the central idea because it shows the reader the type of society being described in the story. The language is also important to the central idea because it contains metaphors which further prove that the people are afraid of going against tradition because they are scared of being the target of violence. The conflict contributes to the central idea as well, because there are many examples of the society going against character, Mrs. Hutchinson, for not respecting the traditions put in place. The central idea is important to our understanding of the story because it sums up the main objective and furthers our
While faith alone cannot be said to necessitate truth, it is by no means useless as a basis for knowledge in the areas of knowledge of religion and the natural sciences. Faith allows a knower to make the decision of what is knowledge and what is not, even when the knowledge claim cannot be justified by evidence or empirical reasoning. Yet simultaneously, this quality of faith renders it useless in finding absolute truth. In the natural sciences, faith can be seen as both a necessity, as it is essential for the building of knowledge, and yet also it must be challenged, as the advancement of science is through the disproving of current theories.