Deception As a Means of Control

Woven into the tapestry of Shakespeare's Hamlet are threads of deception and lying. From the opening revelation of the ghost of Hamlet's father to the fatal dual that brings death in the final scene, deception and subterfuge are what make the play so intriguing. Almost all the characters are involved in some act of deception. Their motives are different but in each case deception is used in order to gain control of people or situations.

The villain Claudius is a prime illustration of a character using deception to gain control over people and situations in the play. His is the most far reaching deception. By secretly assassinating his brother the king, Claudius hoodwinks the entire nation of Denmark. By lying to the nation about the cause of his brother's death, he is able to installs himself as king, thereby effectively controlling the entire nation. This massive act of deception puts him in control of the people and situations around him.

But Claudius's deceptions don't stop there. In attempts to control his nephew and stepson Hamlet, he employs spies and dissimulation. Enlisting the service of Hamlet's old school fellows Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as spies, the king at first wants to secretly find out what is bothering Hamlet and, presumably, what will restore him to sanity. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's subterfuge is quickly sniffed out by the canny Hamlet who says to them:

“You were sent for, and there is a kind of confession in your looks, which your modesties have not craft enough to color” (Act 2. ii. 294-296).

Failing with this method, Claudius hatches a more sinister plan to once and for all eliminate Hamlet. Pretending to send Hamlet on a diplomatic voyage to England but really intending to have him executed upon arrival is Claudius's way of reasserting his power in the face of a threatening Hamlet. When this plan doesn't work due to some counter spying on Hamlet's part, Claudius resorts to deception yet again in contriving a sword match between Laertes and Hamlet. To remain in control of the situation he instructs Laertes to use an envenomed sword against Hamlet and poisons a cup of wine. The goal of all these deceptive and villainous measures is the same as all Claudius's actions: to remain in control.

Claudius is far from the only one practicing deception in the play. Working hand in glove with the king is Polonius, the royal adviser. In on the most intimate details of Hamlet's life, Polonius is not only privy to all the king's schemes but has a few tricks up his own sleeve as well. Using his daughter as a spy he fakes “accidental” encounters between Hamlet and Ophelia, all the while eavesdropping on their conversations. Directly, this allows him to remain in control of his daughter's future; indirectly, this helps strengthen his position as advisor to the king.

Another episode sheds light not only on Polonius's desire for control but also the use of deception throughout the play. Wishing to know if his absent son is behaving himself, Polonius tells a servant to make up imagined faults for his son Laertes and, by dropping them in conversation, see if anyone agrees that he indulges in these sins. In this way:

“Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth; and... With windlasses and with assays of bias, By indirections find directions out” (Act 2. i 69-72).

To put it in different words, the suggestive lies will draw the truth out of Laertes's unsuspecting acquaintances.

This type of deception, whose sole existence is to discover the truth, is another thread in the tapestry of deception whereby characters attempt to gain a superior edge of knowledge in order to feel in control of their situations. The title character of the play, prince Hamlet, is famous for using this type of deception. Hamlet fakes his own madness in order to get at the truth of his father's murder. As he tells his friend Horatio: “I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on” (Act 2. v. 196-197). The disguise of madness will allow him to uncover his uncle's secret—or so Hamlet hopes. Just how the semblance of madness will help him is not clear.

Suspicious that the ghost may also be a deceiver sent to snare him with a lie (in fact the ghost is one of the few who are honest) Hamlet thinks up a further deception to get at the truth.

“...I'll have grounds More relative than this. The plays the thing Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King” (Act 2. ii. 611-613).

Utilizing the make-believe fictions of a group of traveling players, Hamlet hopes to trick the King into betraying his part in the murder of his father. This is a clever twist on the motif of deception depicted throughout Hamlet. Not nearly as sinister as the deadly lies of Claudius, still, the actors spend their careers pretending for a living. All actors, it must be admitted, want to manipulate and control the audience they perform for. It is a part of the art and the way they make their plays successful. Actors try to deceive to bring pleasure, enjoyment, or catharsis; Hamlet wants to use the actors to bring his uncle misery, guilt, and a different sort of catharsis: a purgation in the form of a confession. He does this through the pretend--and therefore deceitful--script that the actors follow.

The supporting role that Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, and the players have in the circle of deception has been touched on already. All of these, either for their own ends or at the command of another, are caught up in the lies and deception at Elsinore Castle. One last character who deepens the darkness of deception at Elsinore is Hamlet's mother Gertrude. What role she may have had in the death of her first husband is left unclear. Certainly if she were complicit in his death, hers would be one of the most horrendous acts of deceit in the play. What is clear is that she is no stranger to the intrigues of court life. Acting in unison with Claudius and Polonius in the spying upon her son, she shows herself an expert in deception.

It is no wonder that “Elsinore” has become a slang term for deception and intrigue. Each of the characters at Elsinore Castle desire to control events or learn something through deceiving others. They wish to be in charge of their own destiny by this control. But in the end, all their plotting and scheming not only cannot save them, it strangles them with the very cords they have intended for others. Hamlet is right to deny Rosencrantz's flippant remark that, “the world's grown honest” (Act 2. ii. 254). As everyone learns in Shakespeare's masterpiece of deception, it hasn't.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet: Prince of Denmark. The Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington Square Press-Simon and Schuster, New York. 1970.

America's Best and Brightest

The following are some quotes I compiled from classmates in my Environmental Science class. In the beginning I expected this to be one of my dullest classes, but, quite the contrary, this class won the prize for most entertaining, albeit, unintentionally. My only regret is that I didn't start saving quotes until halfway through so the list is shorter than it otherwise could have been. Some of these sayings are funny, some are sad, some are totally incoherent, but as one student in my Ancient World Literature class remarked: “Truth is, those sayings are quite true.”

[Editors note: Names have been changed to protect the guilty.]

“This section of the book was interesting to me. I have never studied California in depth and did not know that California was once underwater.” --Stephanie S.

“Whether it be the heat and fiery licks of lightning that strike the Earth, or the simmering butt of a cigarette; wildfires are disastrous and continue to devastate based on our actions. I am convinced that lightning and other weather-related causes of fire are effected directly by our fuel emissions (which cause global warming and the ozone layer to deteriorate) and our lack of preservation for forests (chopping down trees for paper, fuel, etc.). So I think it is quite clear what needs to be done in order to improve the health of the Western U.S.’s forests, albeit it may not be the most favored.” --Joy M.

“These two issues are related to each other because. They both happen in the "forest." Also you always see how there are so many Wild fires going on around the unites states on t.v. In the papers everything that has advertisement. I' ve heard a lot of reports in southern California. because winds down there can cause a wild fire to go out of control. These wild forest fires can damage the health of the forest as well. And of the natural environment. For the forest to get healthier we will have to cut back on cutting the forests down. So much for the fact that they are going a way at a rapid rate. Also i believe everyone needs to drastically cut back on there driving. Because the emissions in the air can cause a lot of damage. Did you all know if everyone in the world would not drive for one year our world would get healthy again? its so true look it up i just love this stuff so much:) i pray that everyone can save this world thank you best regards Bill...” --Bill C.

“Some people of the U.S. are saying we dont impact the economy's [could he mean “ecology”?] damage? Let me tell you the people in this country are so greedy that I don’t think that they will care if the planet would blow up tomorrow? This country is so wealthy and powerful that why would any one want to take an extra look at the climate lol except for inviromental scientists lmao! Some examples of what humans are doing to impact the climate are driving cars, using a lot of electricity, using air conditioners, burning coal, terring sown ecosystems, and just destroying the planet damn people! We cant guarantee other countries would follow alone go until we reached a breaking point and the precious planet is gone watch the movie pandorum look how messed up we are on destroying such a beautiful world!” --Bill C.

“there are many types of mining activites that are just killing our precise earth its just to messed up for this to be taking place lol because we need our planet to survie anything lol i say everyone joinning together to comabat this crisis and say you quit in the name of law like back in the sixtys or 70's (hippie) are lol let earth water and frie free hahah thats right the activitys are coal gold copper and many many more this poor earth needs our hope. ps this has been an amazing couple chapters!!! love them.” --Bill C. [p.p.s. This has been an even more amazing couple sentences! Although I cannot say I love them.]

[What follows is a complete and unabridged post in an online forum. I repeat, no editing has been done, this is the entire post.]

“this weeks chapter was interesting:) haha cnt wait tell halloween:D what is every doing for then? hmmm????? well have a happy holidays lol.” --Bill C.

[Not surprisingly, Global Warming propaganda had effectively indoctrinated all but two students in my class. So effectively, in fact, that not just any pollution is destroying our planet, it is "American pollution." Never mind that Less Developed Countries do not use or develop clean technology as the US does.]

“The desolation of ice bergs in the arctic regions, and the horrendous uprisal of hurricanes, tsunamis, and floods, are all natural disasters that are becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pollution. American pollution.” --Faith R.

[Quote from real student in my class]

“The earth will never come to a balance without a catastrophic event, which has happened in the past. People have become the termites, so to say, of the earth. We will destroy the earth from the inside out until it collapses, like a house made of wood.” – Euphoria L.

[Quote from real scientist in US Senate report]

"Many people believe there is a difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2. There is no difference. Carbon dioxide is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is a natural, vital part of biological life. Ants, termites and decaying foliage account for the formation of most of the CO2. There are more than a quadrillion ants and termites." --Chemist Frank Britton (http://epw.senate.gov/ pg 208)

Hope you enjoyed!

Propaganda In College and Society: Part 2

In my last post we examined some of the most disturbing ideological positions in a college science textbook called Visualizing Environmental Science. In this post I will continue giving examples of the propaganda it contains along with some other observations and random quotes from the text. There is no particular order since I wrote these down over the course of an entire semester as I first came across them. Some of these examples have serious and disturbing ideological underpinnings, others were perhaps intended to be serious but are quite funny, so read with a lighter heart.

What does the book say about evolution? Surely here we can get the hard facts of science without any controversial politicization. “Our immensely complex and multi-dimensional brains evolved precisely because we interacted with growing things, weather patterns, and other animals” (41). Unfortunately, we aren't going to continue evolving because, “the world we have created screens us from all that. The sophisticated devices we imagined and manufactured—such as televisions, computers, and automobiles—now define our world” (41). So if you want to continue evolving you need more interactions with “weather”! Next time there is a thunderstorm get away from everything man-made and go stand on the top of a high hill. I guarantee a little natural electrical stimulus in the form of lightning will help your mind evolve!

On page 28 a large picture shows a “typical” American family of four with all their possessions grouped around them on the street in front of their house in order to show the “large amount of natural resources” they consume. Standing in the midst of this opulence, the mother of the family is prominently seen holding a large family Bible, opened to a picture of Jesus with hands raised. What this picture is meant to suggest I have no idea but no doubt a tree was cut down to supply paper for that huge Bible! These religious fanatics (from Texas, no less!) are part of the problem and should make major changes to their “consumption patterns and lifestyles” (28). The first change, if I might suggest it, would be to get rid of that useless Bible with its “environmentally disruptive” command to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

According to the current paradigm, people are starving from overpopulation and the earth cannot sustain many more people. So... to remedy the situation in Florida, “State and federal governments are working on... the conversion of some agricultural land to marshes... Restoration will take more than 20 years and cost $8 billion” (124). Convert farmland to swamp... no wonder the models all predict that the earth won't be able to sustain any more people. If all farmland is converted into swamp at massive cost to taxpayers not one person will have enough to eat.

“Different groups propose different solutions for resolving the world's food problems, including controlling population growth, promoting the economic development of countries that do not produce adequate food, and correcting the inequitable distribution of resources” (Berg 340). We can only laud the book for giving fair representation to all (well, at least some) of the possible solutions; unfortunately, the first, which deals with world population, is clearly not a solution even by the standards of the text since just two sentences earlier it points out that current agricultural output is sufficient to feed everyone on the planet (Berg 340). In addition, everyone knows that even in the past when population was reckoned in millions not billions, huge numbers of people went hungry. The second solution is at least a valid possibility. The third solution about correcting the unequal distribution of resources is also a valid possibility that has been trumpeted for a long time by Marxist theorists. Socialism, according to a Marx or Trotsky can only be successful on a global scale through the redistribution of all resources. It is interesting that in a discussion of political solutions to world hunger the authors of the book fail to mention the competing political theory that democratic capitalism could reduce world hunger. Perhaps some mention of the theory that since hunger is greater in autocracies and warlord or communist controlled governments what is really needed is freedom to produce food and security to keep it and sell it. Or as Frances Lappe succinctly puts it: “Hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food but a scarcity of democracy” (www.smallplanet.org).

Then there is the stab into psychology and philosophy as if physical science and politics were not scope enough for a science textbook. Sounding like Thoreau meditating on the bank of Waldon Pond, the authors assert: “Wild areas—forest-covered mountains, rolling prairies, barren deserts, and other undeveloped areas—are important to the human spirit. We can escape the tensions of the civilized world by retreating, even temporarily, to the solitude of natural areas” (313). Now, I happen to agree with this statement and what it tells us about the universal human condition; however, I find it out of place in a “science” text of this nature, especially in the context of encouraging the creation and permanent management of more public lands by the federal government. In what almost sounds like an endorsement of religion the text claims that, “organisms not only contribute to human survival and physical comfort, they provide recreation, inspiration, and spiritual solace” (365).

“Slightly more than one-half of US forest are privately owned... Many private owners are under economic pressure to subdivide the land and develop tracts for housing or shopping malls, as they seek ways to recoup their high property taxes.” (322) You got the high property taxes right... but “shopping malls”? How many shopping malls are being built in the middle of the forest? Or again when talking about rangeland the text laments: “...two thirds are privately owned. Much of the private rangeland is under increasing pressure from developers, who want to subdivide the land into lots for homes and condominiums” (325). Seriously, how many condos are being planned on the rangeland of Kansas?

Deforestation. The word can freeze the blood and send an acid rain of sadness and anger pounding on the roof of the mind. Ai! Ai! O forest, where art thou? No doubt logging companies in North America trying to supply lumber to bloated consumer economies like the US account for most of the world's deforestation. Well... not really. Despite the other environmental flaws of the developed world, deforestation is not one of them. We have to give credit to the book for making the unpopular claim that, “Most of the world's deforestation is currently taking place in Africa and South America” (318). Total forests in Europe and Asia have actually grown recently (319). In less developed nations trees are cut down for fuel or slash-and-burn agriculture is practiced. If we want to stop deforestation we need to improve the energy and food supply of Less Developed Countries.

“Most Species facing extinction today are endangered because of the destruction, fragmentation, or degradation of habitats by human activities. We demolish or alter habitats when we build roads, parking lots, bridges and buildings; clears forests to grow crops or graze domestic animals; and log forest for timber. We drain marshes to build on aquatic habitats, thus converting them to terrestrial ones, and we flood terrestrial habitats when we build dams. Exploration for and mining of minerals, including fossil fuels, disrupt the land and destroy habitats. Habitats are altered by outdoor recreation, including off-road vehicles, hiking off-trail, golfing, skiing, and camping” (370).

If you don't feel guilty about that round of golf or ski trip there is something wrong with you. And whatever you do, don't dare wander around in the woods “off-trail” like some modern-day John Muir because that will drive an entire species to extinction!

But, if you read very attentively “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free:” “the effects of many interactions between the environment and humans are unknown or difficult to predict, we generally don't know if corrective actions should be taken before our scientific understanding is more complete” (14). A strangely contradictory admission from those preaching to people everywhere to repent of their evil ways because the time is short and the imminent destruction of the Earth is near.

“The involvement of governments in childbearing and child rearing is well established” (174). Yeah, what next? “They” are already in our bedrooms and our nurseries.

One last funny and off the wall excerpt from the text:
“Contraceptive use is strongly linked to lower TFRs [Total fertility rates]” (172). No kidding! Who would have guessed!?


Linda Berg and Mary Hager, Visualizing Environmental Science. John Wiley and Sons Publishers-National Geographic Society, 2007.

Propaganda in College and Society: Part 1

Visualizing Environmental Science is a textbook used in colleges all over the country in Environmental Science classes. Printed by Wiley Publishers in cooperation with National Geographic, one would assume this book deals with environmental topics like water and air and soil. And indeed it does, to a limited extent. But what it also does is make some pointed political and ethical statements. Embedded in the opening paragraphs the authors make what could be considered the thesis for the book: “Earth's central environmental problem, which links all others together, is that there are many people, and the number, both in North America and world-wide, continues to grow” (Berg and Hager 4). While the imprecision of this statement may cause some English teachers to smile condescendingly, the message is clear enough: people are a “problem” that needs to be reduced or eliminated. Yes, that's right, the same basic premise used by Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to eliminate “socially undesirable” elements of society like the Jews. Only, in this case, the environment--not race or ideology--is used as the justification; all of humanity is the problem and not just one small political or racial minority group.

Consider some of the other ideas that the book puts forth in explicit and implicit terms. This one also deals with population: “A single child born in a highly developed country such as the United States causes a greater impact on the environment and on resource depletion than perhaps 20 children born in a developing country” (9). The obvious conclusion the authors want us readers to reach is that having children is a planet destroying evil. Every child you have is twenty times worse than a child in a Less Developed Country. One is tempted to ask how accurate this statistic is: perhaps it is only 10 children? Perhaps 5? The end of chapter summary has this question for students: “Criticize the following statement: 'population growth in developing countries is of much more concern than is population growth in highly developed countries'” (23). We know what the answer is since we read the text. Children in developed countries are twenty times worse than in Less Developed Countries. Knowing this fact, how could anyone in the United States or Europe dare to have children: it would be immoral!

Turning from the evil of children to the evil of other groups within society, the authors ask this question: “Which groups in society are responsible for the greatest environmental disruption? How can we alter the activities of these environmentally disruptive groups? It will take years to address such questions, but the answers should help decision-makers in business and government formulate policies that will alter consumption patterns in an environmentally responsible way.” (11-12) Clearly, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and Republicans are “environmentally disruptive groups” since they are the ones logging forests, manufacturing cars, and encouraging oil drilling. They need to be stopped by whatever means possible. They are the global enemies.

Perhaps anticipating objections to these positions, the authors dismiss ethical and political counter-arguments by pointing out that, “several areas of human endeavor are not scientific. Ethical principles often have a religious foundation, and political principles reflect social systems” (15). The implication is that because these disciplines are not “scientific” they are somehow of inferior importance and, should a conflict ever occur between them, “science” should always have the final say. But in the surrounding paragraphs the authors take pains to assert the universal postmodern “fact” that even science can never “prove” anything (17). “there is no absolute certainty or universal agreement about anything in science... scientists never claim to know the final answer about anything” (15). “There is no absolute truth in science, only varying degrees of uncertainty” (18). When it comes to some of their ideas, that could be a comforting thought, because it means there might be a possibility of deterring them from plunging humanity into further misery by returning us to the technological conditions of the third-world in order to “save the planet.”

I can hear outraged voices: “nobody wants to return to the conditions of the third world!” Are you sure? On page 36 the authors bemoan the “very unequal distribution of the world's resources” (36). Rather than attempt to raise the living standard of the entire world to that of the 19% who live in industrialized nations, the solution put forth in the text is to lower the living standard of highly developed nations. Backward thinking? Decide for yourself: “Such poverty, along with the enormous pressures of human population growth and consumption rates, are global problems that can't be solved without modifying the standard of living enjoyed in highly developed nations” (36 emphasis mine). Clearly there is an agenda here that seeks to strip away the comfort and security Western nations have provided for themselves. The promotion of socialism is also unmistakable. Invoking an undefined morality (Marx's perhaps?), the text states bluntly that, “everyone must have a reasonable share of earth's productivity” (36).

Far from being a small side issue taken out of context, the evil of the Developed World is a major theme of Visualizing Environmental Science. “Perhaps the single most important lesson you will learn in this text is that those who live in highly developed countries are at the core of the problems facing the global environment today. Highly developed countries consume a disproportionate share of resources and must reduce their levels of consumption” (40). Of course this comes right out of the thinking of environmental idol Paul Ehrlich who in the 1970s said: “Most people do not recognize that, at least in rich nations, economic growth is the disease, not the cure.” (as quoted in Gerdes) How shall we reduce our consumption? The text is quick to point out that the UN could help: “The strengthening of the United Nations as an effective force for global sustainability would contribute greatly to the creation of a sustainable, healthy, peaceful, and prosperous world” (40).

Clearly, from what we have seen, the authors (or the publishers, or both) have a political agenda that includes curbing the world's population, instituting socialism, and giving trans-national organizations like the United Nations legislative authority over national governments. For such a social revolution to take place extensive propaganda must be used. The text itself gives an illustration of the type of propaganda that can be used. Large-scale public health risks are minimal, to paraphrase the example I have chosen from page 72, yet they are often hyped-up by the media. The authors of Visualizing Environmental Science admit that, “these stories are more sensational then factual” (72). Nevertheless, instead of trying to correct and educate by presenting the true facts without the sensationalism, they welcome this misinformation for its usefulness as propaganda. According to the authors, “these stories serve an important role in getting the regulatory wheels of the government moving to protect us as much as possible from the dangers of our technological and industrialized world” (72, emphasis mine).

Using science or psuedo-science as a weapon of propaganda is a powerful means of waging ideological battle. Few people are bold enough or have knowledge enough to defend themselves against “science” or “experts” who tell them what to believe. Convince people that the earth is overpopulated and they will freely give up their right to reproduce; convince people that humanity is a parasite sucking life out of “mother earth” and they will rejoice when whole segments of this parasite are “eliminated” through holocaust, euthanasia, or abortion. Convince them that they are in imminent danger from rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures, and rising seas, and they will give up their money, give up their comforts, and, ultimately, give up their freedom. In the name of “protecting the environment” they will give up protecting all their rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Berg, Linda and Hager, Mary. Visualizing Environmental Science. John Wiley and Sons Publishers-National Geographic Society, 2007.

Gerdes, Louise I. “Overpopulation Does Not Threaten the Environment or Humanity.” Opposing Viewpoints: Humanity's Future. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.

A Christmas Carol for Christmas

Last year on this date I posted about four Christmas reads. In that post I admitted I had never read Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. This post is to let you know that that problem has been rectified. Rather than reread last years selections (delightful as they are) I decided to take my canoe down an unexplored river. Along with A Christmas Carol I also sampled Dickens' similarly ghoulish new-years tale The Chimes. And if all goes well, I hope to read A Cricket on the Hearth before the year gets much older.

So, is all the fuss about A Christmas Carol justified? Probably, although some of its popularity might stem from it being authentic Dickens in a nutshell. At only an hundred pages long it is a great way to claim you have "read Dickens" without reading one of his novels of five times the length. Luckily, some of us are immune to such a way of thinking. Since I'm probably the last person to read A Christmas Carol I won't bore anyone with the details.

Instead, I'll just quote one passage that swooped from the ceiling and struck me. When Scrooge tries to comfort Marley by saying he was a good man of business in life, Marley retorts with an interesting description of vocation:

'Business!' cried the ghost, wringing its hands again. 'Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!' (24).

Merry CHRISTmas!

Charles Dickens, Christmas Books of Dickens. New York, Black's Readers Service Co.

The Character of a Hero

Ancient literature is filled with heroes. Epic tales of epic quests abound. People were looking for role-models to look up to in the past as much as people are looking for role-models today. Two pieces of literature from antiquity that follow the exploits of incredible heroes are The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Ramayana of Valmiki. Both portray a hero of larger than life exploits. Gilgamesh and Rama both have the prowess and courage to face fierce adversaries and defeat them in battle. But while physical strength and an indomitable spirit may be two of the most recognized characteristics of a hero, other qualities are just as important. Two of these qualities include moral virtue and the self-sacrifice of doing one's duty whatever the cost. Rama exemplifies these secondary qualities to a greater extent than arrogant Gilgamesh; therefore, Rama succeeds in his role of hero and establishes himself as a role-model for posterity.

In the Ramayana Rama is described as a model son whose entire life is guided by the Hindu principle of Dharma. Dharma corresponds to the Chinese Tao or Western philosophy's “law of nature” which believes an ultimate reality based on law and harmony in the universe calls for certain actions of right conduct. A hero is often forced to go on a quest for the common good or perform an action of Dharma that appears to be counter to self-interest. This means giving up comfort and security in favor of one's duty. Rama's duty, and hence, his Dharma, is to accept the authority of his father and the rule of law rather then assert his own interest.

Gilgamesh, on the other hand, is on a quest for something that is frankly contrary to the laws of nature and Dharma: physical immortality. In the end Gilgamesh sees that his quest is futile and that he has been fighting against order and the laws of the universe. Belatedly, Gilgamesh understands that his duty is not to seek after physical immortality but to be the leader of his people for the time he is alive.

In the Ramayana the moral virtue of Rama is also praised. His exemplary life wins him the respect of his father the king and all his peers. The grief and sadness they experience at his exile testifies to the goodness they see in him. By contrast, the hero's nemesis Ravana is a villain because,

The bonds of law and right he spurned:
To others’ wives his fancy turned. (Valmiki 394).

Interestingly enough, this description of a villain in the Ramayana is remarkable similar to the description of Gilgamesh. The Epic of Gilgamesh records that Gilgamesh,

Has altered the unaltered way,
Abused, changed the practices.
Any new bride from the people is his (Epic of Gilgamesh).

Clearly, when it comes to morality--respecting the rights of other people--Gilgamesh falls far short of the heroic ideal set by Rama.

Gilgamesh cannot match Rama's adherence to the duty inherent in the order of the universe nor can he match Rama's moral virtue. Gilgamesh fights against the order of the universe presented in The Epic of Gilgamesh that asserts a man cannot attain physical immortality. Also, his selfish and arrogant behavior demeans his otherwise remarkable exploits. In contrast, Rama, through his adherence to Dharma, fights on the side of order and righteousness. He sets a heroic example of selflessness and duty. Prince Rama is endowed with heroic virtues whose ultimate worth far exceeds those of arrogant Gilgamesh.

Works cited

The Epic of Gilgamesh. Trans. Robert Temple. Tablet II “Gateways To Babylon” http://www.angelfire.com/tx/gatestobabylon/temple1.html

Valmiki, The Ramayana of Valmiki. Trans. Ralph T. H. Griffith. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/24869

Ayn Rand On Healthcare

Ayn Rand, writing some 50 years ago in her masterpiece of political philosophy—Atlas Shrugged—makes some uncannily astute observations about the future of American society. While only a weak sampling of the profundity found in other passages of this epic novel of a nation's devolution into senility, the following quotation on health-care is timely in light of the issues facing the US. The heroine of the novel asks the greatest surgeon living why he suddenly quit his practice and went into hiding.

“I quit when medicine was placed under state control, some time ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation?... the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.' [...They] proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims... Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't.” --Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged. New York, Signet Classics. 40^th edition 1957. pg. 692