Would I Walk Away From Omelas? REVISED

There are many undesirable events and circumstances that happen in today's world that the majority of people are ignorant to. It pains me to know that there are still terrible times for people in the world today, but I ask myself: Am I trying to help? Do I change my habits in order to make better moral choices? I might once in a while, when I think about it. 
I do not see myself an entirely ignorant person, just busy. Sometimes I am left with no alternative than to buy an imported good or to shop somewhere that has items made by children. I do not make the best choices, but every once in a while, I stop and think about what I am doing, what I am supporting, and why I am doing it? This leaves me to think that I may be one of the many people in Omelas who “…would like to do something for the child”, but think “…there is nothing they can do” (Le Guin 3).

I wonder if the people of Omelas thought the same thing when deciding whether or not to walk away: What are they supporting by staying? In many ways, their upbringings are similar to most of ours. As children, just like the children of Omelas, we do not know all of the cruelness and tragedies of the world we live in; but as we grow older, we begin to understand just how far we have, or have not, developed as a society or as a community. 
The boy, (we'll say it's a boy), kept in the small room in the city of Omelas can represent many things: the news, child labour, dictation, third world countries and more. The boy, to me, represents many things in different cultures that are not necessarily accepted, but things that are challenged, undiscovered, misunderstood or unfair. All the things that don’t have to be, but are relevant problems in our world.

I dearly want to say that I would be one of the few who would walk away, in a silent protest to the barbaric ways of the world I lived in. I want to say that I would stand up and make a change for the better, and help myself by relieving my conscience at the thought of doing something different, something right and makes a little bit more sense than what I had previously done. Unfortunately, I cannot say exactly what I would do in Omelas. For me, it falls under the category of  ‘you have to be there to understand’. Get it? No, I have not protested against the cruelty to animals or fought for different child labour laws. I feel like those whose “tears at the bitter injustice dry when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality…” (4). It’s just that so many bad things have been happening for so long, and now it’s hard to imagine life without them. Take Walmart – it’s such a large, successful company, incredibly useful, but can I see it ever being shut down? Too many people are ‘dependent’ upon these labourious companies. But another half of me thinks that if I was there to see the whole process first hand, things would be different, my actions would be different. I might feel like I should at least try to help shut it down, no matter the consequences.

I feel that I am not directly involved in the cruelty and injustice that goes on where those products come from and do not feel directly responsible. And for these reasons, I am partly under fault. I am no better than the people of Omelas who stay in the city. I am grown and know of some of the terrible things that the world has to offer, but I am not one of the people who go to visit the boy, to see for themselves what is really happening in their world; I am one who is “content merely to know it is there” (3).                 

It would perhaps be the better decision to leave, but by staying, I would still have the

comfort of the familiar. I suppose by staying you could say that I am putting my loved ones, familiarity and my comfort before what is truly right in my society. I would turn to ignorance and neglect, and live the life I knew how to. Perhaps that would change as the years wore on. Who is to say in the future I won't become a great activist and stand up for what I believe is right. What I say now could change, who knows? Regrettably, if I view the parallels from the story and apply them to my life, I can see that I am contently sitting at the festival in Omelas, wondering what the following day at school will bring, and little more.

"Big Sister"?

Imagine a speaker. A male. Tall, dark, physically strong, deep voiced. He has a stern face, and an incredibly commanding presence. He can be speaking of almost anything, and yet you are still attentive because of his mere appearance. Now, imagine another male. He is short, boney, has a sunken and wilted appearance, high voice and is a very shy, quiet speaker. Given the single word 'Masculine', which of the males would you associate it to more strongly?
We've all seen or heard of it happening. When a boy or man does not look or act a certain "masculine" way, like being big, courageous, or daring, they are 'demoted' towards being more feminine or simply not portraying very many masculinities. If we think about figure heads, and totalitarian campaign ads, most often we think about a certain command of attention that the subject puts forth. Winston Smith, a rebel of the regulated time of "1984" does not entirely meet the standards of a leader. Being a particularly affected and quiet man, one person oddly encouraging of his deeds is a woman, Julia.
Relating masculine qualities to woman is, of course possible, yet imaging a woman's face on the "Big Brother" posters can still be followed by a small discrimination. Especially during George Orwell's time, and during the time of the books publication in 1949, women were seen as delicate creatures. Having a woman as the omnipresence of Big Brother would not be taken seriously as a Totalitarian  leader, because at the time, few masculinities were linked to women. In today's world, we see many masculinities in women. We are slowly being accepted into more male dominated workplaces, becoming leaders, running for Office, going to war, and generally showing our strengths and how men and women are not too different. Julia herself works at a higher rank than Winston, and often shows more daring, such as setting up their secret meetings together, and being firm and caring when Winston needs. She seems the more composed masculine figure in their relationship.
The thought of masculineness or masculinities as certain traits or characteristics only pertaining to the male is slowly but surely rubbing off on feminine perceptions. There is little in these times that a woman wouldn't do that a man is capable of.

Can we achieve happiness?

Unfortunately in our world today, there are so many new, better, and constantly improved materials being shown to us that we are never fully satisfied with the versions we own. With government, media, peers and all different kinds of authority figures telling us many different things about how we should live, what we need, and what we should strive for in order to be successful and happy, it is incredibly hard to think about how happiness could ever be a reachable goal. Frued suggests that "our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and...we [would] be much happier if we gave it up" (Frued: Civilization and it's Discontents, 33), meaning abandoning our part in society and returning to the root of our non materialistic/influenced existence would be a much greater benefit to our being.
Personally, as one who does not fully pay attention to the media, though I get rough accounts and explanations from those around me, I do see that much of what we would consider good, and what would give us "happiness", is full freedom and will. Money plays a huge part as well, as to express our "wants" over our "needs" is to have an excess of wealth, which we may do with as we please. Freud also states, in the documentary video watched in class, "The Century of the Self", that "[humans] must always be controlled, thus discontent". Since we have this predetermined system holding us back from our greatest desires, how is it that we could ever be content with the lives we lead? Freud is right, I believe, in saying that we could indeed be happy, only if we were to disregard the higher power.
The belief that we are set under a state of rule to keep ourselves in order, and also discontent, for the fear of civilization becoming uncivilized and therefore projectively dangerous to ourselves and others around us, is to keep our egos in check. On the other hand, what may be dangerous is, in fact, what we need in order to be happy. Freud goes as far to say, "what is bad is often not at all what is...dangerous to the ego, on the contrary, it may be something which is desirable and enjoyable to the ego". This case is seen in many instances, where what we want is often what we are told we cannot have, for example, a young child is told they are not able to have a cookie, now all they can think of is the want of that cookie, and how they are unable to have it because the higher power says so. Further, if we were given the chance to explore these wants he believe would make us happier, we may even decide that what we thought we wanted is not, in fact, what we really want, only the constant discontent we have with our current situations make us believe that what we do not have will make us happier.
In conclusion, without being given the chance to explore what we believe is best for ourselves, we create a part within ourselves that we deem dissatisfied and unhappy. Because of the higher power, or government, we stand under and regard as our leadership, we dare not disrupt it's precious ruling system for our own fear or chaos, but in doing so, we are never able to step out of line in order to put our egos before anything else. The standards in which our history has set for the current generations does not allow us to grasp full happiness, there is too much we are told we cannot have, and we know that we will never attain, and this will therefore make us ever discontent and unhappy.

2. Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

I believe I am among many people who feel quite sorry for Socrates. Though I do respect him, because he is, as I feel, standing up for what he believes to be right. He accepted his accusations, though wrongly accused, and is leaving himself as an example of the injustice of his people, but will not admit it. He will not betray those whom he is under leadership. Socrates, while attempting to reconcile, may have unobtrusively extended a position of the martyr-figure upon himself. I say this because I do not think Socrates would have been one to purposefully bestow upon others the feeling of sadness or sympathy for him; if anything, he would have wanted respect and an act of compliance from those condemning him. Socrates would only be considered the martyr-figure in my eyes if he purposefully and strongly pressed upon others to pity him. The feelings may come indirectly from others only through his honesty and reason.
Socrates fully intended to be a good person throughout his life, and by educating others without meaning harm, he fully supported those of his students who would want to return to him and chastise his teachings, and question his ways. In no way would he repel their beliefs; he would question them philosophically perhaps, but in the cases of his students, he only wished to broaden their spectrum of knowledge, not shut out their own opinions. He would enjoy talking to others who perceived themselves as intelligent, not to belittle them, but to engage in a stimulating conversation, debate, and come to a better conclusion for both the speakers. Therefore, the court really had no justly way of accusing Socrates of ill teachings and forcing unwelcome information of his students.
Furthermore, I believe Socrates was a studious man that was indeed willing to die for his own, strong beliefs, but in no way intended to be pitied for his fate. He believed that in the afterlife, a good man as he thought himself to be, would not be judged by his own God poorly and sent to an evil place, but rewarded for his goodness that his condemners could not see. He then had no reason to deny his meeting with justice and would willingly die for what he believed in.

Who Is My Hero?

Tough question. I am trying to think up some people with characteristics that I believe could make a hero what I think a hero is. It may be because I am writing this later at night and that probably really isn't the best time for me to be working on a post, but I really cannot think of someone directly in my life that I think is a hero. I suppose I have idols. People on TV, in books, family members...people that I look up to and admire, but that doesn't really fall under a "hero" category. Since I cannot think of one right now, I'll make one up. His name is Mr.  Smollie-Der. He grew up and lives in a small town, rescues animals in need on his own time and fund raises for both local and international charities. He also volunteers for the Canadian Forces and goes beyond the call of duty to help whoever he can, whenever, and where ever. He is considered a hero because of his compassion, loyalty, love, kindness and charisma. Despite the unfortunate name given to him by a silly nineteen year old girl, he is still a good man, and reminds people that there is still "good" in the world, and even though a situation seems dire, hope should never be lost and success should always be there as a very possible outcome.

Would I Walk Away From Omelas?

It seems that there are many undesirable events and circumstances that happen in today's world that the majority of people are ignorant to. I will be honest in the fact that for most of the time, I fall into that line of people. Under the occasion that someone wishes to educate me on their views of poverty, unsafe and unfair working conditions and child labour laws, I do not refute their opinions. I will listen, and absorb the information as to better understand the full extent of what I am supporting when I shop at Walmart, for example. It pains me to know that there are terrible times for people in the world still today, but am I trying to help? When the opportunity is in front of me, perhaps. Do I change my habits in order to make better moral choices? I might once in a while, when I think about it.
I do not deem myself an entirely ignorant person, just busy. Sometimes I am left with no alternative than to buy an imported good or to shop somewhere that has items made by children. I do not make the best choices, but every once in a while, I stop and think about what I am doing, what I am supporting, and why I am doing it.
I believe that the people of Omelas ponder the same questions when they are deciding whether or not to walk away from their city. In many ways, their upbringings are similar to most of ours. As children, just like the children of Omelas, we do not know all of the cruelness and tragedies of the world we live in; but as we grow older, we begin to understand just how far we have, or have not, developed as a society or as a community.
The boy, (we'll say it's a boy), kept in the small room in the city of Omelas can represent many things: the news, child labour, dictation, third world countries and more. The boy, to me, basically represents many things in different cultures that are not necessarily accepted, maybe sometimes challenged, undiscovered, misunderstood or unfair things that just are; things that never had to be, and don't have to be, but are still present, and relevant issues.
I have been trying to decide whether or not I would stay in Omelas, and trying to decide if I could stand to know that a young boy was being tortured while I lived in my own free world. There would be no alternative, and few challengers to the reason of his poor existence. Some people would want to help, but no matter what, he was still there, living in that room, alone and helpless. At this thought, I would dearly want to say that I would be one of the few who would walk away, in a silent protest to the barbaric ways of the world I lived in. I want to say that I would stand up and make a change for the better, and help myself by relieving my conscience at the thought of doing something different, something right and makes a little bit more sense than what I had previously done. Unfortunately, I cannot say exactly what I would do in Omelas. For me, it falls under the category of  "you have to be there to understand". Get it? No, I have not protested against the cruelty to animals or fought for different child labour laws. I feel that I want to, I really do. But another half of me thinks that if I was there to see the whole process first hand, things would be different, my actions would be different. I do not often look into where my clothes or food comes from, and that is my fault and it is on my conscience. But I feel that I am not directly involved in the cruelty and injustice that goes on where those products come from and do not feel directly responsible. And for these reasons, I am partly under fault. I am no better than the people of Omelas who stay in the city. I am grown and know of some of the terrible things that the world has to offer, but I am not one of the people who go to visit the boy, to see for themselves what is really happening in their world.
Half of me is undecided. Half of me is quite certain I would stay. I would stay with my family, and follow the upbringing of so many before me. I could not leave alone, independently. It would perhaps be the better decision to leave, but by staying, I would still have the comfort of the familiar. I suppose by staying you could say that I am putting my loved ones and familiarity and my comfor before what is truly right in my society. It sounds awful, and possibly if I really did live in Omelas, I would say differently. But for now I will say that I would stay, turn to ignorance and neglect and live the life I knew how to. Perhaps that would change as the years wore on. Who is to say in the future that I won't become a great activist and stand up for what I believe is right. What I say now could change, or stay the same, who knows? Regrettably, if I view the parallels from the story and apply them to my life, I can see that I am contently sitting at the festival in Omelas, wondering what tomorrows day at school will bring, and little more.