|
Post by mjunious on Jun 2, 2024 8:36:26 GMT
I might be misreading the more "American" interpretation of Existentialism, and would like to hear your thoughts on this.
I've thought of Existentialism as (simply and among other things) a path for an individual to find their place in the world. "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" takes this idea and, by telling the story of a secessionist, Americanizes it by describing Farquhar's dream to escape death and live to fight another day. Part one says that he is not a soldier, for unspecified reasons, but we learn that he still has strong convictions and a desire to be raised to the patriotic status that those who are in service to the country, let's say, receive from fellow citizens. For Farquhar, he is not searching meaningful contributions to the global society, but rather a serviceable role in his country. It would be, therefore, that through the American lens, Existentialism is centralized to a more focused, nationalized relationship, not because the rest of the world is discarded, but because Americans inherently see America as the umbilicus mundi.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jun 2, 2024 18:06:18 GMT
No, not misreading at all--- I'm glad you brought this up. I do think it's significant that Farquhar is a Southern Confederate (even if not a soldier), and it's clear that he's willing to risk his life for the Confederate cause-- especially because he was unable to serve as a soldier. Was his plan to be killed, or was his plan to escape? I suppose either way he would feel like he had done his duty...
In a sense, then, he may have fulfilled his goal and achieved meaning in getting killed for his cause.
And yet, a lot of existentialist thought suggests that pre-given ideas like patriotism, glory, honor, morality, duty, etc. -- and especially war!-- are just empty vessels that must be abandoned in the modern age. Especially after World War 1 and World War 2, these didn't have a lot of currency for those who had actually seen war.
I suppose that makes this story anachronistic in a sense; it was published in 1890, well before those other conflicts and during the period in which the South was trying to resurrect the "Lost Cause" myth.
What do y'all think about this dimension of the story? How do we place Farquhar's valiant yet foolish deeds in this context?
|
|