Culminating Essay Prompt

"Refrain to-night;

And that shall lend a kind of easiness

To the next abstinence, the next more easy;

For use almost can change the stamp of nature,

And either master the devil or throw him out

With wondrous potency." 

~William Shakespeare Hamlet Act 3, Scene 4

Nature, the nature of humanity and physical nature itself, is explored in almost every novel. Some feel that as humanity separates itself further from nature, we lose morality. That to improve humanity, we must leave standards of society and become closer to our natures, as well as physical nature. They feel society is evil and nature is good. Some feel that we can not change our natures at all. On the other hand, some feel that we must strive to change our natures: that we can and should improve upon what naturally would occur.  Compose an essay, using you wonderful knowledge of literature and the arts, that argues for the need to change nature in order to achieve morality through meaningful relationships.

Fire and Ice by Robert Frost

Hamlet by William Shakespeare

Lear by William Shakespeare

Ender in Exile by Orson Scott Card

The Stranger

Meursault seems to represent the unique morality of existentialists. They believe that as we become more abstract, especially as it relates to nature, we lose something important to humanity. Meursault seems to be connected to nature. He loves walking outside during certain times of the day. He in a very sensory being, and reacts perhaps in an animalistic way to physical stimulus. Camus seems to believe that becoming more at one with nature is good. That the separation of humanity from nature is dangerous, that by separating the two, we lose our humanity. Camus would argue, that the individual is responsible for their own actions. This is how we treat animals with regards to morality, although humanity comprehends more fully the concept of a "greater good." So he would not argue for the survival of the fittest, just that having society standards is not how nature works. “I explained to him, however, that my nature was such that my physical needs often got in the way of my feelings.” Meursault is aware of the physical world more than social constructs and emotions. He is very natural if you will. I tend to agree to some extent with Camus. I feel it is the individuals responsibility to be moral, I just disagree with the idea that social norms and standards are bad. I feel some moral codes are better, and it is one's moral responsibility to chose the best moral code. And perhaps this is what separates humanity from nature, is our ability to see other's morality as better than ours and try to improve ourselves.

Invisible Man Post

I have had a hard time thinking about how this book relates to my big question, so I am just going to make this a sort of stream on conscience sort of writing. I guess this quote could relate. “Life is to be lived, not controlled; and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat.” This argument could be taking to mean that the laws of nature control us, or interferes with the making of the person we want to be. Another interpretation could be the exact opposite, that we create societies within societies which require conformity, whether good or bad, to succeed, and this does not let us be true to ourselves. Ellison seems to take the opinion of the later argument. He shows that as the narrator becomes a part of different social structures, he becomes invisible. He understands that all of those people who have been accepted into those social structures are blind. This brings out an interesting observation about nature vs. humanity. That animals are not social at all like humans. Animals are social to help get more food, water, land, etc. Humans are willing to sacrifice a lot to become more social or acceptable. Although Ellison seems to think that uniting humanity with nature would be beneficial, I tend to disagree. Society as a whole knows better than individuals what is worth doing, and what will bring happiness (although I feel like I have been becoming less trusting of society as of late.) So perhaps this need for relationships and connection that is not seen in animals is what separates us from them.

King Lear

In King Lear, Nature is a huge theme. I think the most significant use of the word nature is as Edmund is dying. He admits that his nature is evil, but that he will still try to do good. This separates his choices from his natural tendencies. I think Shakespeare does this because he feels that human's nature is changeable. Although this form of nature is not physical which is what I was originally analyzing, I think it applies very well to my question. I think the same reason explains both separations. I think that humanity as a whole believes, or wants to believe that we are more than just animals, that we are more than just impulse and response. We feel we have the agency to choose actions that go against our impulses. This is what allows for us to have morals. Our ability to think through choices and then choose an action that does not just help our self, but helps others. This seems to be a major theme of King Lear. So many characters choose to desire self gratification and success rather than caring for others.But the two characters who remain loyal to others even through being banished, and the two that remain alive at the end of the story. This shows that Shakespeare values selflessness. Selflessness is the ability that we have beyond our nature.
"Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s"
"Nature thou art my Goddess"

"some good I mean to do, Despite of mine own nature:"

Wuthering Heights Applied

The moors are one symbol of nature. I think it is interesting how as young children, both Heathcliffe and Catherine love playing in the moors. Heathcliffe I don't think ever looses that desire to be in the moors. When Heathcliffe has young Catherine meat, Linton, they meet on the moors. He goes on walks away from society. I think this is important, because Heathcliffe becomes the "nature" character. He is also the most evil character. So if he is the nature character in Bronte's mind, then she may think that nature is evil. She then would think that Heathcliffe's rival, Edgar Linton who stays on his property more, and remains in the confines of society symbolizes humanity as a whole. I don't think Bronte is completely one sided on the issue. She doesn't seem to love Edgar or Heathcliffe much. Catherine who is struggling between these two chooses society and humanity if you will, but she is not completely happy (although  I think there are other forces at play.) She seems to desire to return to nature her whole life after marrying Edgar. We do not know what would have happened, if she married Heathcliffe, but I don't think most readers believe it would have worked out.

I think Bronte believes in some balance between nature and society. Edgars seems with much passion or guts at times. Perhaps combining the passion of Heathcliffe with the logic and morals of Edgar brings a good balance. I don't know. I think finding a balance between nature and society/humanity is a hard thing to do. If one is not superior, finding a balance is hard. I don't see a simple way to argue in the middle, though I would love to here that argument.If Heathcliffe's raw passion is good, I think it inherently comes with some of the negative aspects of Heathcliffe.  And if Edgar like civility is good, then I think you lose some of the raw passion. Overall, right now I think there has to be one answer to this. I am leaning towards saying humanity, or at least the ideals of humanity and society, are superior.

Good Quotes "I wish I were out of doors--I wish I were a girl again, half savage and hardy, and free... and laughing at injuries, not maddening under them! Why am I so changed? why does my blood rush into a hell of tumult at a few words? I'm sure I should be myself were I once among the heather on those hills..." (12.46)

Oedipus Rex Applied

I think Oedipus Rex applies to my big question because fate could easily be viewed as nature, or what should happen (though the Greek Gods do complicate this fact.) Beyond this fact, Oedipus has wounded feet, becomes blind, and has he genetics of his parents. So one view of this novel could be that fate wins. It is more powerful than the human trying to escape it's grasp. Fate is all powerful in the story (or at least to the point that Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother.) He can do nothing to go against his nature. Another view would be that his parents trying to survive (survival of the fittest) do all  that they can to hinder him from succeeding. They wound his feet and send him off to be killed. Here another two opinions could separate. Some could feel that Oedipus is the fittest where as others could feel his parents are. Nonetheless, he survives when in nature he should not do so. This could be as Sophocles arguing that he overcomes nature which would imply that he may be better than nature. I don't love this book for the question but I don't think it gives a definitive side to my quesiton.

Why do we separate humanity from nature?
What is nature? This question may seem fairly simple, but I believe it has a lot to do with so much in the modern world. Google defined nature as "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." I think it is very interesting that humanity separates itself from nature, but most feel we are animals with animal tendencies. So should we not consider human impact on earth nature? Assuming we are not animals but something more, which could easily be argued, the effects we have on earth are attempts to improve nature. Air conditioning fixes weather, we stop fires from burning, and if we could, we would stop natural disasters. More importantly, we let children with issues like blindness and down syndrome survive. If we are in fact better than nature, is it not our obligation to improve it? Those that use the modern sentiment that says people are born that way, or in other words, let nature take it's course as an argument seem to forget that nature itself would reject so many people we are arguing about. I think this question could provide a lot of answers when thought through and discussed. Right now I tend to think we are some mix of animals and something more. I am interested in all these questions I have asked and think literature includes human nature (including if it is better than nature itself) and just nature as a very common theme. I think this will keep me interested and provide answers to me about much of modern sentiments. I think many books relate to this, but one is Lord of the Flies, which comments on nature's power over man and man's nature in and of itself.