Ishmael, who lived in an apartment under the ownership of a Mrs. Sokolow, got evicted. Not surprising, considering I don't think a landlord would take kindly to a gorilla that can't pay taxes and spends his time preaching philosophy. Our narrator manages to track down Ishmael, finding him at a carnival, the same environment that Ishmael spent his adolescence in. Ishmael continues his teaching, while the narrator sleeps in a motel and tries to gather enough cash to buy Ishmael from the carnival. I'll skip the rest of the summary so as not to spoil too much, and get into the philosophical teachings.
In my last post I introduced the idea of Takers and Leavers. In this reading, Ishmael put the two groups into more simple, organized terms. Leavers, which are basically hunter-gatherers, ancient civilizations, or wild animals, were peoples that belonged to the earth. Takers, which is modern mankind, are peoples that think the earth belongs to them. Ishmael talks about how, by modern standards, almost no one would want to go back to pre-revolutionary living if they were given the option. But Ishmael argues that living as a hunter-gatherer meant living at the hands of the gods, which goes in accordance much better with the community of life than living as if the world is human property. Ishmael explains the mindset of the Takers, stating that by having control over its own crops, by saving on things like water for times of drought, man is able to take its life out of the hands of the gods, so that the world is in mans hands.
He goes further with this idea, stating that homo sapiens only evolved because they lived at the hands of the gods. By taking the world into its own hands, man cannot evolve any more, as it is not living accordance with the rest of nature. If man were to evolve, more civilizations could come and model their civilizations after man, since man would have set the example by living in the hands of the gods and allowing nature to take it's course. Ishmael says that this doesn't mean having to go back to being hunter-gatherers, but it means not trying to control all other species and elements in nature.
Another working definition for Takers is that they know good and evil. This idea Ishmael ties back to the Bible with Cain and Abel. Ishmael says that the Leavers could coexist with not only animals but also other civilizations because they didn't pretend to know the right way and the wrong way to live. They didn't kill people simply because they did not have the same way of life. They just knew what worked for them and went on about their business. That's an interesting idea, especially since today you turn on the news and hear or read about armies and militias invading other countries, taking territory and trying to plow under other groups of people. This happens most noticeably in the Middle East, but can be seen throughout history, with any major war (i.e World War 2), and even with American imperialism, manifest destiny, and stopping the spread of communism.
Ishmael has given me a lot to digest in its 263 pages. I don't own a personal copy of the book, but it's definitely a book I'd be interested in buying to refer to and think on what it offers. The idea of changing society and changing the world is daunting, and, to quote Ishmael,"Like calling the Atlantic damp." But it's something that is not entirely unthinkable. Although Ishmael talks about entire societal changes, and even compares his ideas of revolution to the revolutions in the Soviet Union and Germany in the late 20th century, I think a lot of changes comes down tho individuals thinking about how decisions they make impact the world. It's a message that's been preached for decades, but hasn't affected everyone. Maybe in time it will, but for now the Earth's future isn't much brighter than it was in 1992 when Ishmael was unleashed to the public. Now it's time to go on with daily life, thinking about how to bring up a physics grade rather than how to save the planet.
P.S. I just started watching an interview with Daniel Quinn. The first questions asked was"What does it mean to save the world?" and Daniel Quinn replied "Good question, what do you think it means?" That is literally just like how the book reads. Talking to Daniel Quinn is exactly like having a conversation with Ishmael. I would hate talking to him at Christmas dinner.
A nice discussion of the philosophical questions of the book, Joe. It certainly sounds like an interesting and thought-provoking book. When Quinn/Ishmael discusses evolution and mankind evolving, what does he mean? Certainly we have had technological evolutions over the past century or so, so does he mean more physical and biological ways of evolving?
ReplyDeleteThe religious implications are also interesting, especially given the overall decline in religious belief statistically.
So, overall thoughts? AP worthy? Don't forgot required posts.
I would definitely agree with that afterword, I think Daniel Quinn had himself in mind as playing Ishmael when he wrote the novel and so it's no surprise he seeks to play the role of a wise teacher. I would also agree that, although not extraordinary, the book certainly provides some food for thought. The issue, I feel, with his message is that it's extremely hard for a few thousand even a few million people, let alone a single person, to change the lifestyles of 7 billion others. Unfortunately, people just have more pressing things to concern themselves with than the big picture. Even though the big picture is pretty important in this case, it's a difficult concern for one to pursue, let alone millions of others. My criticism of the novel is exactly what you said, "Now it's time to go on with daily life." I feel as though the novel leaves you with no lasting desire to act upon this vision of a better future. You can read it and think, "Huh, this is pretty true actually," and then keep living unchanged.
ReplyDelete