Restless and bitter, Gilgamesh states, “How can I rest, how can I be at peace? Despair is in my heart. What my brother is now, that shall I be when I am dead” (Epic 97). Revealing the existential crisis Gilgamesh begins to experience once truly grappling with what dying means, as many do when so closely confronted with the death of a loved one. But it is not as if anyone who has had an existential crisis wasn 't previously aware that they would one day die.
However, Enkidu, who was the only person in the world to be considered equal to him, was taken down, and the implications of that struck Gilgamesh hard, making him realize that he's not immortal. This causes him to become emaciated, and obsessed with the idea of finding immortality. He wanders aimlessly for a while, before remembering Utanapishtim, a man who was granted immortality by the
The death of his friend Enkidu plays a big role in this transformation. Gilgamesh goes from independent to having companionship, which he had never had, back to being alone again. This grief would incite in him the fear of his own mortality and drive him to press forward for the answer to immortal life. Pressing forward on this journey would prove to be a daunting task for Gilgamesh. The struggle of losing his friend and the difficult terrain brings him to a low that he had never experienced before.
He grieves heavily over the loss of his dear friend and vows to find the key to everlasting life. So he sets out on his journey, his journey through the underworld, through the otherworld. Is Gilgamesh now just intellectual man without instinct, without Enkidu? Death, loss, mortality are too much for Gilgamesh to bear. Why toil on earth to end up in a terrible afterlife?
The Epic of Gilgamesh reflects this spirit of the warrior. Although Enkidu’s death indicates that mortals seemingly are at the mercy of the gods and death is inevitable, Gilgamesh nonetheless embarks on a quest for godhood: Enkidu has to die so Gilgamesh can live. Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s friendship prefigures G... ... middle of paper ... ...venture onto the stone walls of Uruk. The irony is that the story is about his failure rather than success. His quest started when he realized “[he had] not established [his] name stamped on bricks as...destiny decreed” (70).
It is known by himself, and by the gods, that he is to live a short, but glorious life, however it is not known how or when his life will come to an end. Achilles himself, wishes to live one of longevity without great glory, and therefore tries to escape his lot in life. Is it just for him to give his life for war, or should he live a life to satisfy himself? Throughout the “Iliad”, Achilles’ actions bring his eventual doom closer to reality than perhaps may have been planned. “Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus’ son Achilles and it’s devastation which put pain thousandfold upon the Achaians.” The wrath of Achilles begins in Book One of “The Iliad.” Agamemmnon, leader of the Greek army, takes Achilles booty prize, Briseis to replace his own concubine, Chryses, daughter of a priest of Apollo, who was returned to end the plague put on his people by the angry god, Apollo.
However, this still fails to point towards a god or conscious creator. After exhibiting faulty methods of argument and frequent logical fallacies, the teleological argument fails as a well-crafted argument. The content of this argument refuses to account for evolutionary theory, and fails to solve the burden of proof in showing how everything is designed deliberately. Even the criterion for god, which William Paley outlines, is faulty and unachievable by the current state of reality. Although the argument proves that an amalgamation of forces formed the universe, to consider them conscious is begging the question.
Shamash, Gilgamesh’s protector, pleads with the other gods to spare his life. The other gods disregard Shamash’s appeal and Enkidu dies. In each instance, one god is not able to impose his agenda against the wishes of the other gods. Enkidu’s death evokes a disturbing thought in Gilgamesh. He finally realizes that he is mortal.
As the argument is reliant on this assumption, it falls apart as the deductions made are based on this whole concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept can’t be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. I don’t believe this to be valid however, as we don’t know for certain anything about God’s properties. Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion... ... middle of paper ... ...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”.
In his book, The Fall, Albert Camus writes, “Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful. Hence one must choose a master, God being out of style. Besides, the word has lost its meaning; it’s not worth the risk of shocking anyone.” Camus centers his writings on his choice to live without God, and refuses to buy into the notion that there is a stable meaning in the world that we, as humans must simply submit to. He argues that in the real world, God is nothing, a dead and irrelevant figure. Albert Camus rejects all hierarchical concepts of truth and is frequently accused of believing in nothing.