Saturday, February 16, 2019
Kafka and Dostoevsky
I think Kafka’s The Metamorphosis brings about a topic that we discussed concerning Underground Man and that I have blogged about previously which is emotion is the “enemy” of logic. We have explored the theme that Gregor isn’t fully in touch will his human emotions until he is well into being a bug. Concerning the Underground Man, we have debated what makes animals human and if they are purely logical for the purpose of surviving in their environments. But I really enjoy this topic, although fictional, that the physical being of an animal enhanced emotions not previously felt by Gregor due to his mechanical, robotic everyday life. This obviously just goes to convey Kafka’s overlying meaning of his work that we in society are the ones truly just “surviving” in our environments. Does this change your perspective relating the two works? I would love to hear what everyone thinks about this!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I love this connection, Farah! I think emotion being the enemy of logic is a theme that runs through both stories we read, though the authors use different methods to get the point across. The Underground Man states his thoughts (they often need to be interpreted, but they are seemingly straightforward) whereas Kafka created a situation and environment which portrays these ideas.
Farah, your post further strengthens my belief that logic is the predominate quality that separates humans from animals. Don’t take this to mean that I believe that humans and animals both do not experience emotions and logic; both do. The differences, however, emerge when one examines the levels of complexity of logical and emotional thinking in humans and animals. I believe that we humans are much more similar to animals in the emotional department than we are with them when it comes to logic. While certain species of animals can display miraculous feats of logic (octopi can solve puzzles), there’s no denying that we humans have proven our dominance in the logical spectrum. Getting back to emotions, I think it’s fair to conclude that humans are, in general, capable of much more complex emotions than animals. We are more able to process the circumstances and events leading to our emotions than animals. For example, when a human is physically abused, he/she can process this abuse; they (if they’re old enough) can understand what is happening and why it is happening. Abused animals, on the other hand, can not comprehend the “why” of their abuse. While all of this points to greater emotional complexity among humans, an interesting paradox arises when we consider the emotions of humans and animals on a daily basis. As Farah mentions, many humans are overly engaged in their work and can grow numb to their emotional side. Often, we become so obsessed with the task at hand and, although capable of even complex emotions, drown out those that are even remarkably simple. Animals, however, are simple creatures for the most part. They know happy; they know sad; they know companionship. They know all of these emotions and more, and they are often more in touch with them than humans.
Post a Comment