Blood Meridian- What's your take on the central…
1 reactions
Blood Meridian- What's your take on the central philosophy?
I have a few views on the book but I am really curious to hear other people's takes on what the philosophy is.
I believe Judge Holden subscribes to Max Stirner's egoism. The Glanton Gang represents a "Union of Egoists" who are working together temporarily to advance a material interest (money) but ultimately as Stirner says, its each man for himself and you must look our for your own self interest.
Stirner states: “Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.” This seems to perfectly encapsulate Judge Holden. Everything is a resource- either material or immaterial. Rape is not an infringement against the person in this view- it is the strong taking what they want to increase their own pleasure. Because everything in the world under Holden is a resource to be exploited, to be cataloged, etc.
Finally there is the theme that as civilization grows, we ourselves become softer and less resilient. In ***The Civilizing Process***, Elias argues this very same point. That as violence becomes monopolized by the state we become more restrained and polite. But when the capacity for violence is available to private citizens (in this case Glanton's gang), ironically we become more resilient and stronger. Despite Judge Holden being the most violent, he is also the most competent and capable. His theory on raising children "Throw them in a pit of dogs, let them choose one of three doors based on clues that does not contain lions, let them run naked in the desert" shows that he wants to prepare people for a stark world rather than shielding them from it. Its not about brutality, its about preparation and competence in the case he makes for how a child should be raised.
So what are your thoughts? Do you agree? How did you interpret the novel?
#entertainment
I have a few views on the book but I am really curious to hear other people's takes on what the philosophy is.
I believe Judge Holden subscribes to Max Stirner's egoism. The Glanton Gang represents a "Union of Egoists" who are working together temporarily to advance a material interest (money) but ultimately as Stirner says, its each man for himself and you must look our for your own self interest.
Stirner states: “Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.” This seems to perfectly encapsulate Judge Holden. Everything is a resource- either material or immaterial. Rape is not an infringement against the person in this view- it is the strong taking what they want to increase their own pleasure. Because everything in the world under Holden is a resource to be exploited, to be cataloged, etc.
Finally there is the theme that as civilization grows, we ourselves become softer and less resilient. In ***The Civilizing Process***, Elias argues this very same point. That as violence becomes monopolized by the state we become more restrained and polite. But when the capacity for violence is available to private citizens (in this case Glanton's gang), ironically we become more resilient and stronger. Despite Judge Holden being the most violent, he is also the most competent and capable. His theory on raising children "Throw them in a pit of dogs, let them choose one of three doors based on clues that does not contain lions, let them run naked in the desert" shows that he wants to prepare people for a stark world rather than shielding them from it. Its not about brutality, its about preparation and competence in the case he makes for how a child should be raised.
So what are your thoughts? Do you agree? How did you interpret the novel?
#entertainment
1
| 4,000 mlx | |
| 7 | |
| 1 |