Esoteric Symbolism and Allegory in Faulkner’s Old Man

The version I read.

Revised. 12/8/10

By: Jay

(c) Copyrighted, all right reserved.

Old Man is part of a Faulkner work titled The Wild Palms, a collection of two stories; Old Man and If I Forget Thee Jerusalem, both of which deal with similar themes, yet are able to stand alone. Old Man is a fascinating tale, rife with allusions to biblical characters, questions of destiny and freedom, gender and sexual issues, natural and spiritual forces, social flaws and rival cultures, operating under a modernist analysis. It also uses humor to make the piece somewhat of a dark satire. Faulkner’s rich usage of symbols, and the stories’ allegorical meanings are worthy of analysis within their own context (as opposed to comparison with The Wild Palms).

     Old Man takes place in Mississippi in 1927 during a flood of the Mississippi River, where two convicts are chosen to paddle down river and rescue stranded refugees. Of the two, one is described as “plump,” while the protagonist is “tall and thin.”  Neither criminals are exceptionally bright, and have been engaged in manual labor on a levee at a place called “The Farm” for seven years, yet had oddly not seen the water itself in. They are thus isolated, nameless individuals who subsist at an animalistic level, as the “Farm” terminology suggests. In fact, we later learn that the anonymous tall convict had derived the idea to rob a train from reading pulp fiction novels.      

     His youthful reasoning was apparently that if he took the best ideas from all the novels he had read, his robbery would prove successful. This is an amusing use of irony where a completely fictional reality comes to dominate the psychological motivations for a young southern male’s decision to rob trains, ultimately for his teenage girlfriend, which lands him in jail.  The male/female dynamic will be one of the main themes of the novella, and Faulkner takes a particularly negative and antagonistic view of the social norms of his day, especially that of married life and the status quo. Several examples arise in which Faulkner makes this point as the convict is swept along by the river’s fatalistic currents.

     When the flood breaks loose, the tall convict is unaware of what is happening: He has never seen the river itself and asks a “Negro man” what has happened, who responds that it is “De old man.” The river, then, is a key player in this story, and is the Mississippi itself. The name suggests the ancient preternatural powers of nature that are brute, untamed, uncivilized and determining. Another theme in the story is that of the reality of man’s free will in the face of raw nature, which seems to sweep us along, with no concern for social strata or human virtue or vice. Read more of this post

The Absurdity of Liberalism: Response to Chris Hedges

If gender's a social construct, why do we need parties based around it?

Liberalism ends in anarchy, or to avoid anarchy, imposes its will on an unliberal world. But by imposing its will, it ceases to be liberal, and is become despotic. -Santayana (paraphrase)
 
By: Jay

 

This past week both Chris Hedges and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts spoke of the end of liberalism – that is no, or never has really been, a true left-wing movement in America. I think saying there never has been goes too far, but it illustrates the ever-prevalent fallacies and contradictions that are staring everyone in the face – liberalism doesn’t really exist. It’s a fantasy. Let’s examine Chris Hedges’ essay and see why this is. Hedges argues in “The Phantom Left” as follows:

“The loss of a radical left in American politics has been catastrophic. The left once harbored militant anarchist and communist labor unions, an independent, alternative press, social movements and politicians not tethered to corporate benefactors. But its disappearance, the result of long witch hunts for communists, post-industrialization and the silencing of those who did not sign on for the utopian vision of globalization, means that there is no counterforce to halt our slide into corporate neofeudalism. This harsh reality, however, is not palatable. So the corporations that control mass communications conjure up the phantom of a left. They blame the phantom for our debacle. And they get us to speak in absurdities.”

First of all, this assumes that the loss of a “radical left” is a good thing. Hedges even cites a loss of communism and independent press, as if these were truly organic, natural and neutral institutions that arose to combat the purportedly oppressive bourgeoisie. In other words, he appears to still believe the classical Marxist and leftist dream – that man is not fallen and basically good at heart, simply in need of more education and more government programs. The big fat pink (or red) elephant staring everyone in the face is that ” there are smart people who understand worldviews and the power of giving people a narrative to believe in. The corporate elite created communism as a way to attain real assets through a central bank that taxes the so-called wealthy. In other words, Hedges blames the very thing that created communism and anarchism as tools for useful idiots.  Having a liberal pontificate and tell us about the ills of our culture is like having Spongebob lecture us on marine biology.

Why is this? Because liberalism is a fantasy. It’s a life of contradiction – the liberal educates himself and ascends the left power structure and becomes an accomplished author and takes the “critical stance” to use the Frankfurt School’s lingo, and snobbishly engages in moral platitudes. This is pure contradiction and double-mind. Why? Because liberalism is born of pure relativism. Relativism says there are no objective morals or standards, and so every man “follows the dictates of his own heart” (Jer. 23:17).  Every liberal knows he accepts this worldview and that this is his fundamental operating principle. But no one really lives this way.  Does Hedges live in the ghetto? I doubt it. Shouldn’t a true liberal who believes in radical egalitarianism and equality move to the poorest, most crime-ridden neighborhoods and properly educate the thugs? None of these leftists do that, and thus they live a fantasy. It’s fact that some people are better than others, and can perform tasks better than others. it’s a fact that some people are more talented than others at certain things. But liberalism cannot face this, and so, because of envy, must try to level the playing field. Read more of this post

Dreyfuss on Husserl and Heidegger (4 pts.)

Read more of this post

Lengthy Response to a Thomist

N. writes:

No offense Jay, but you are operating on multiple, severely flawed groundworks. For example:

1) Thomas never taught God was like a blob of jello such that ‘Father = Son’. That is a unfair cariacture of texts like ST 1-39. You are not accepting “Father is God” is what Thomas is saying, just as if I were to say “Jay is human.”

I didn’t take anything in Thomas out of context and it’s not just question 39 where he says this. Aquinas teaches his view clearly in numerous places in the Summa, and he’s only saying what Augustine and Anselm said before him. Thomas’ scheme is a system and it all stands together.

1. God is an absolutely simple essence where will, action, attribute, generation, procession and Person are all identical to the essence. Let’s see proof of this:

For Thomas, there can be no distinctions in God, for because of Aristotelian assumptions, ALL distinction implies composition. Hence, as the famous Thomistic dictum Goes He (person) is His essence: Read more of this post

Root Problems of Western Scholasticism

By: Jay Dyer

A friend asked a good question, and it was something I began to wonder a few years ago. What exactly constitutes “scholasticism.” Varying dates, personages, movements and scholarly opinions could be listed. The Orthodox person usually thinks (wrongly – as I did 4 years ago) that the Eastern criticism is that the west was using logic and philosophy and this is what the issue was/is. That’s not exactly right and any Roman Catholic would be right in pointing out a hypocritical double standard on the Orthodox part.

But it’s really simpler than that once you get the system down. It’s a system trying to be consistent. It isn’t, but many of it’s doctrines are inter-connected and fit together. Thomas doesn’t posit something in his eschatology, say, that doesn’t line up with his doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. So what really is scholasticism? I replied as follows:

Good questions. The problems with scholasticism aren’t so much the use of philosophy and logic, since ALL the Eastern Doctors do this, as well as the ecumenical councils, but rather certain assumptions and beliefs.

It really begins with Augustine, who imports a very Neo-Platonic doctrine of God (very candidly), and Augustine then tries to mold this into Christianity. In the West, he became the dominate force and authority even into Aquinas’ works. The works of Aristotle were discovered in the 13th century and brought to the west. Aquinas attempted a great synthesis of neo-platonic, Augustinian and Aristotelian ideas. The Summa makes this clear throughout. Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers