GB Faulkner Film Society Favor

On Thursday, February 13, the Faulkner University Film Society hosted a small gathering for the viewing of City Lights. City Lights is the number 1 romantic comedy of all time, and was made in 1931! It stars Charlie Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill. The movie was completely silent because it was made during the time when the movie industry was starting to make movies with sound. I thought this was very interesting because I did not have any knowledge of movies like this at all. The story is about Charlie Chaplin's adventures in the big city. During his time in the city, Chalrie falls in love with a flower girl who is blind, and he stops at nothing to help her gain the money to get her sight when he learns of a cure for blindness.

A Good Grandma is Hard to Find

Flannery O’Connor is the author of several great short stories. One of her stories in particular, A Good Man is Hard to Find, is about an American family living in Georgia. The family consists of Bailey, his wife, his mother, and his three children, John Wesley, the newborn baby, and June Star. The main character of the story, the grandmother, is a typical southern grandmother who acts as if she is graceful, lady-like, and has selective mannerisms. The grandmother’s son, Bailey, is a short-fused man who has partially raised two extremely rude children. Although the grandmother feels the need to make up for the family’s socially unacceptable behavior, she is blinded to her own flaws. In this story, the family has a run in with the famous criminal who goes by “The Misfit.” In this text the reader can see that, though they come from very different backgrounds, the serial killer and the grandmother share a common humanity in their lack of faith and a commonality of corruption, demonstrating __________________.

         The story begins with the family preparing for a road trip south to Florida. The grandmother, who is along for the family vacation, is unsatisfied with the decision to go to Florida. Her distaste can be seen when O’Connor writes, “The grandmother didn’t want to go to Florida. She wanted to visit her connections in East Tennessee and she was seizing at every chance to change Bailey’s mind” (O’Connor 117). The grandmother’s biggest argument, which may just be an excuse, for not going to Florida was because a famed serial killer, “The Misfit,” had broken loose from a federal penitentiary. Knowing that a father is instinctively protective of his family, she attempts to use this information of the killer to her advantage by showing Bailey the particular article in the newspaper in an attempt to deter him from driving  to Florida. She says, “Now look here, Bailey, see here, read this. Here this fellow that calls himself The Misfit is aloose from the Federal Pen and headed toward Florida” (O’Connor 117). The grandmother goes on to tell Bailey about the awful things that The Misfit has done to the people he caught, and she finishes her statements by saying that she could not answer to her conscience if she took her children in the direction of the murderer (O’Connor 117). Her attempts did no good. Bailey did not even look up from his reading to entertain her comments. Here the grandmother shows the reader her first example of manipulation.

         The grandmother then turned to the children’s mother who is too busy taking care of the baby to listen to her. The grandmother says to her, “The children have been to Florida before. You all ought to take them somewhere else for a change, so they would see different parts of the world and be broad. They never have been to east Tennessee” (O’Connor 117). Even this had no effect on the family’s vacation destination. In fact, the children were even rude to her about not wanting to go to Florida and John Wesley told her she should stay home. Here, the reader can see the second example of manipulation by the grandmother.

After the family leaves for Florida, the grandmother remembers a house that she visited when she was younger near the area they were traveling and begs Bailey to take them. When she sees that no one cares to go see the house she lies about a hidden door to spark the children’s interest, and she does so perfectly. The children begin screaming how they wish to see the house, and between the grandmother, John Wesley, and June Star, Bailey is convinced to make this one detour on their way to Florida. (O’Connor, 123-124). Here the third example of the grandmother’s unrelenting manipulation is shown.

When they arrive at the house and begin driving down the long dirt driveway, the grandmother recalls that she had mistaken the house that they were driving towards for a house that was actually in Tennessee. Instead of owning up to her mistake she allows Bailey to keep driving. A little farther down the long dirt driveway they wreck their car , and the grandmother, fearful of Bailey’s short temper coming down on her, decides to exaggerate an injury in hopes that he will have pity on her. (O’Connor, 124-125). The grandmother’s exaggeration of her injuries is another prime example of manipulation.

After the wreck, another car pulls up and finds them stranded, and three strange men emerge from the car. Shortly thereafter, the grandmother recognizes the leader of the men as The Misfit. After exchanging a few words with the family, The Misfit wastes no time in his plans to kill the family off and orders his men, Bobby Lee and Hiram, to take John Wesley and Bailey deep into the woods and shoot them. After this, Bobby Lee and Hiram take the mother, the new-born, and June Star to the exact same place and do the exact same thing. During the course of all the murders, the grandmother is pleading with The Misfit to turn his heart to The Lord and pray. In their dialogue the reader can see The Misfit explain why he has no faith or allegiance to a higher power. They talk about Jesus being raised from the dead and at one point the grandmother says that Jesus might not have been raised from the dead. The Misfit responds to her by saying that he cannot know for sure whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead because he was not there. He goes even further to say that it is not fair that he was not there because if he had been he would have known for sure and that he would not be like he is now. The grandmother responds by saying that he is one of her own children and reaches out and touches him. In response, The Misfit jumps back and shoots her three times (O’Connor 125-132).

Above, the reader can see that the grandmother’s faith crumbles in the end and in this way, she shares a common humanity with The Misfit. His faith was destroyed because he believed that it is impossible to know whether Jesus was raised from the dead, and the same thing happens to the grandmother. Also, the corruption that the two shared is quite evident. The grandmother is corrupted by her selfish and unrelenting desire to manipulate any situation to be in favor of her desires while The Misfit was a cold-blooded murderer. They both shared a commonality of corruption and they both hurt others.

The Anti-Nietzsche

     Friedrich Nietzsche is an Empiricist much like David Hume. Nietzsche is a Darwinist. He believes that virtue is largely misunderstood among religious people and that religious people will go against their instincts to preserve themselves in order to serve or help others, allowing for the survival of the weakest as opposed to the survival of the fittest. Because of his abhorrent behavior towards virtues and natural law commonly accepted among religious believers, Nietzsche especially hates Christianity. Nietzsche’s hate for Christians is clearly displayed in his book The Anti-Christ. In his book, Nietzsche discusses many “fallacies” or “inconsistencies” that he says Christianity teaches. Two of Nietzsche’s most significant  arguments against Christianity is that there are no real Christians except for The One Who died on the Cross and that Christians have misinterpreted their feelings and made them into social morals that only serve to hurt and deter the natural order of the universe. Nietzsche is wrong in his view towards Christianity, and he has wrongly accused the belief system of Christianity and all Christians throughout history.

         Nietzsche first claims there are no real Christians when he says, “In reality, there has only been one Christian, and He died on the Cross,” noting later , “In fact, there have been no Christians at all. The ‘Christian’, that which has been called Christian for nearly two millennia is merely a psychological self-misunderstanding” (Nietzsche 163). What Nietzsche is saying here is that that anyone who calls themselves a Christian is completely deceived because none of them can follow perfectly what they “believe” or live up to the “perfect” standard which Christ has set. Nietzsche’s take on Christianity being unattainable in its standards can be seen when he writes, “Not a belief but a doing, above all a not-doing of many things, a different being.” (Nietzsche, 163)What Nietzsche fails to realize is that just because someone does not follow a philosophy perfectly does not mean that they do not believe in the philosophy or accept the philosophy as truth. The fact that someone did not follow the philosophy perfectly means that they simply were not perfect. He should understand that humans are not perfect given that he believes we are unfinished products of evolution. Nietzsche also does not recognize the example and faith of martyrs. He makes the statement that believing is about doing and that no one can believe fully in Christianity and live up to Christ’s example, but martyrs have believed and followed the example of Christ so closely that they even died the same death as Him.

         Nietzsche then goes on to say that Christians have misunderstood their feelings and live in a world in which they completely forget reality as if Christians have wrongly convinced themselves that their beliefs are true. Nietzsche’s belief that Christians live in a sort of “make belief” world can be seen when he writes, “The Christian’s world of ideas contains nothing which so much as touches upon actuality: on the other hand, we have recognized in instinctive hatred for actuality the driving element, the only driving element in the roots of Christianity.” (Nietzsche, 163) He then goes further to say that personal immorality is a sham when he says, “The great lie of personal immorality destroys all rationality, all naturalness of instinct – all that is salutary, all that is life-furthering, all that holds a guarantee of the future in the instincts henceforth excites mistrust.” (Nietzsche, 168) Nietzsche hates the idea of virtue and personal immorality simply because it will cause the strong to help the weak instead of letting them die off “naturally,” and he blames Christianity for this “unnatural” way of life in which the weak band together.

         Nietzsche, as stated above, is an Empiricist. He believes only in what he can see, and he only takes what he can see at its face value. He does not look for any deeper meaning to anything in the natural world. Therefore, he claims that things such as God and morality are not real and clings to the belief that Darwinian evolution is the only logical and rational explanation for the beginning of the universe. He also believes that Darwinian evolution is the only way to explain why humans operate the way that they do. His belief in the universe being a product of Darwinian evolution has led him to conclude that there is no truth and that everything is relative. Nietzsche’s “empirical” belief in a naturalistic worldview would make sense if his belief was actually empirical. No one can see evolution happening and no one saw the beginning of the universe making his empirical belief not very empirical. Therefore, Nietzsche exhibits faith in the same capacity as the Christian. Nietzsche claims to believe that there is no such thing as truth, yet he believes in his own truth about the beginning and operation of the universe and does not realize it. He blames the Christian for what he himself does, and what Nietzsche fails to realize here is that faith is inevitable no matter what we as humans claim to be true because everyone believes in something. He also does not recognize that everything in the universe is set up in order. Everything that happens has happened because it was set into motion and everything operates together. Knowing that the universe is set up in this orderly fashion makes it very irrational to believe nothing is deeper than face value.

         Nietzsche gets quite upset and hates Christianity a lot for it to be a lie. Nietzsche’s belief in only what he can see is unreasonable given that he cannot see evolution taking place and he cannot prove that evolution is the origin of the universe. Ultimately, neither God nor evolution can be empirically proven, though there is also reasonable evidence for each case. Each person must look at the evidence for themselves and reasonably conclude their own belief on the matter because the will drives reason and the will should drive each person to conclude what is true. I personally disagree with Nietzsche and believe, as a Christian, that God is real and that it is much more reasonable to conclude so, but to each his own.

How Can You Know For Sure? (Formal Paper)

Stephen Thornton

   

Dr. Joshua Fullman

Great Books III

October 12, 2019

How Can You Know For Sure?

Descartes’ A Discourse on Method focuses on the idea that reason is superior to faith. In the book we find that Descartes is trying to discover truth, and in doing so he also discovers what is morally true. Descartes is said to be the first modern philosopher who used the practice of skeptical critique as a means to shut out all certainty with exception to the thinking ego (Woo 47). In the process of discovering what is morally true, Descartes realizes that before he can begin to argue what is true he must argue what is real. Therefore, he questions himself and his own existence, making sure that he himself is real. By questioning his own reality, Descartes makes the famous quote, “I am thinking, therefore I exist” (Descartes 29). This statement brings the reader to the realization that in order to think, one must be real, because without thought there would be no consciousness of reality. If what is true can be known using The Method, then Descartes is also able to discern what is morally good using The Method. In other words, The Method gives the reader a guideline to follow. If men have boundaries and stay on track, then they will reach the goal much faster than if they were allowed to roam aimlessly. If we can use The Method to find what is true, then we can use it to prove the existence of miracles. It is a battle to defend the things unseen, but “we are making progress, one small step at a time” (Boethius 39). In  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume’s  argues from an empiricist’s point of view, specifically addressing the controversy of miracles. He dissects many of the concepts that have been believed throughout human history and measures them up to his standards of what is real or imaginary. From the perspective of Hume, miracles do not happen because they do not hold strong enough evidence to prove their existence, and if he is right, then Christianity into a house of cards and Hume has removed the bottom card. Though Hume rejects the existence of miracles, Descartes’ method can be used to prove objective truth and the work of God through miracles.

In order to discover what makes Descartes’ findings true, we must first look at his method of knowing what is true. Descartes has a four-step process with which to make his 

conclusions. The first step is the “step of facts” as some might say, to “never accept anything as true that [he] did not incontrovertibly know to be so” (Descartes 17). What Descartes is trying to accomplish by the previous statement is avoiding all prejudice and premature conclusions (Descartes 17), and to include nothing in his judgments other than which has made itself so clear and distinct that he would have no reason or logical, reasonable chance to doubt it. The second step is a “problem solving step.” In this step Descartes’ goal is to “divide all the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as many as were required to solve them in the best way” (Descartes 17). No one eats a whole cake in one bite. Some might call the third step the “step of order.” Descartes’ primary focus in this step is to “conduct his thoughts in a given order, beginning with the simplest and most easily understood objects, and gradually ascending, as it were step by step, to the knowledge of the most complex; and positing an order even on those which do not have natural order of precedence” (Descartes 17). This way the reader should focus on the easiest part of his problem and work his way up to the more complex parts of his problem. Step four could be called the “big picture step.” Descartes describes the fourth and final step as being one in which he “was to undertake such complete enumerations and such general surveys that I would be sure to have left nothing out” (Descartes 17). This way the reader should finally revise and review their conclusions to make sure that they have been thorough and not left anything out. 

Descartes says that we have the ability to know that we exist based on  our ability to think about ourselves thinking. If one has the ability to think about themselves thinking, then they can know that they are in at least some form of reality. Descartes says that the only known truth in the statement is that in order to think one must exist (Descartes 29). From this realization, Descartes concludes that anything that can be known clearly and perceived distinctly is true, but that it can be very hard to identify what we conceive to be distinct (Descartes 29). The search for moral truth begins when Descartes decides to look for the source from which he had learned to think. Descartes’ realization that he exists because he has the ability to think brought him to the incontrovertible realization that there must be a nature that was more perfect than him that created him (Descartes 29). This incontrovertible realization completes the first step of The Method. Descartes then goes on to analyze  his own reasoning. He eliminates the flaws in his argument and puts his thoughts in order, beginning with the simple parts of his philosophy. Then he ascends to the more complex and difficult parts. He says that the realization that there must be a nature that is superior or more perfect than human nature would naturally point to the idea of God because it is inherent that if man was created that the capacity of the man can be no greater than that of his Creator. Therefore, the capacity of the Creator must be greater than the capacity of the man. Therefore, if there is a perfect God, there must be a perfect law by which we must abide. The elimination of flaws and the structure of order completes the second and third steps of The Method. Descartes then paints the big picture and makes a point to leave no loopholes in the argument in order to complete the fourth step of The Method. He eliminates the loopholes by saying that the reason that a perfect law should exist would come from the fact that God is more perfect in nature than we are since He created us. If humans make up moral or ethical standards, then it must mean the concept of standards came from God because the creation is only as perfect and knowledgeable as the Creator created it to be. Therefore, God will have standards as well. God having standards is explained clearly in Scripture in Matthew 5:48 (NKJV), which reads, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

Knowing that objective moral truth exists because of a perfect God, we switch our  to Hume. Hume claims that miracles do not happen because there is not strong enough evidence to support them. We, as humans, can only think or imagine what we have experienced with our senses (Hume 79). Anything that we think is a direct result of what we have already seen or experienced in some way. The same is true  for what we can know for certain physically. Therefore, Hume says that the senses carry more evidence than the testimonies of the authors of The Bible because we cannot experience what the eye-witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus claim to have experienced for themselves. If Hume is right about the miracles of Christ being impossible, then he will have completely destroyed the entire argument of Christianity. Christianity believes entirely in the miracles of the Old and New Testament. Its foundation is built on one miracle - the resurrection of Jesus Christ – but if one can use The Method to know that objective moral truth exists because of God then one must be able to use The Method to know that miracles are true as well.

            The first step of the method would be to find what is incontrovertibly true. Miracles cannot be incontrovertibly true. A miracle is an act that defies the known laws of nature and may be reasonably attributed to the intervention of a deity, and many have been claimed to be real throughout history. The next step is to divide the problems in the argument up into different parts. There are three main problems with miracles. The first problem is that they have not been seen and will not be seen by most people in their lifetime. Therefore, they do not happen regularly. The next problem is that the universe is set up in an orderly fashion and was designed to remain constant in its function. And the last problem is that the testimony of any given person is not as strong an evidence as our senses. The next step here is to discuss the problems of the argument in order from least complex to most complex. Therefore, the first problem is the problem of how often miracles occur. Even though most people will not claim to have seen a miracle in their lifetime, it does not mean they do not happen. The next problem would be the testimony of The Bible. The Bible’s miracles are recorded from testimony, meaning that the apostles could have lied for personal gain. The apostles could have lied in order to create their own religion, but this belief seems outlandish given that anyone with access to a Bible has the ability to know what happened to them. The apostles were all killed for Christianity in very brutal fashion, and there are hundreds of copies of manuscripts written describing the Christ after His resurrection. Therefore, one must ask why the apostles and so many others would have died to start a religion that they would never see succeed or fail (given that they died for it), that pointed to worship someone other than themselves, and that they knew was not true. The last problem is the universe being constant in its function. It has already been proven that there is a moral objective truth given from God using The Method. Therefore, God could be a reasonable explanation as to why something could happen outside the laws of nature because if God made the laws of nature He can exceed them. The last step of The Method is to paint the big picture: the concept of miracles is not beyond human comprehension, and knowing there is a God means that miracles are absolutely capable of happening.

            In conclusion, Hume’s empiricist views have provided us with a very detailed and well reasoned argument for why he believes miracles can never have existed. It is hard for humans to automatically accept something that we have never seen or experienced before. But if Hume is correct, then Christianity means nothing. If he is wrong, then the case for the supernatural is made infinitely stronger. Ultimately, each man must pursue the truth. “I am thinking, therefore I exist” has shown Descartes that he can be certain that he exists. From this statement, Descartes can also know that anything that is clear and distinct is most likely true. Descartes then realizes that he is the source of knowing that there is something more perfect than himself. The realization of this knowledge leads him to know that there has to be a nature more perfect than his own, and this nature could belong to none other than what we know to be God. In light of these evidences, miracles can be supported from the existence of objective truth using The Method.

Works Cited

Descartes, René. A Discourse On The Method Of Correctly Conducting One's Reason And Seeking Truth In The Sciences. Trans. Ian Maclean. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Hume, David, and P. J. R. Millican. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Boethius, and David R. Slavitt. The Consolation of Philosophy. Harvard University Press, 2010.

Woo, B.Hoon. “The Understanding of Gisbertus Voetius and Rene Descartes on the Relationship of Faith and Reason, and Theology and Philosophy.” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 75, no. 1, Spring 2013, pp. 45–63. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=aph&AN=112779306&site=ehost-live.

Thoughts from Samford Hall

      I.         I saw the movie Woodlawn. Sometimes I think about racism. I wonder why some people see others as so different from themselves based off of the amount of melanin in their skin. It’s not like we are different beings. We are all human. We are all made in the image of God. When I think about the fact that we are all made in God’s image, I do not think that means that we all look like God. I think that it means that we all have free will, the ability to make decisions consciously. We can create things, and we know right from wrong inherently according to natural law. Again, if we could set aside our differences and respect one another the world would be a better place.

    II.         Life is so short because the moment we are born we begin to slowly die.

  III.         One time I ran over a possum and I went back to check on it. It was playing dead, but eventually it got up and limped into the woods. This made me think about the common response of a human when facing a trial. When adversity strikes, we tend to fall down. A part of us may even die, but in the end, we have to get back up and keep moving forward, even if it is painful.

 IV.         When we read Moliere’s The Misanthrope, I saw that Celimene wanted the attention of too many men. This made me think that it is better to have the attention of one man and to keep it forever than to have the attention of many men and keep it only for a time.

   V.         Sometimes I think about “people pleasers,” and think about how disappointing it can be to live that way. They give and give and receive nothing in return because in the end most people do not reciprocate the same generosity. Therefore, I have found it better to live life caring and pouring only what those who are close to you think about you. It is okay to help others and be kind (as we ought to do), but to trust them with our feelings, secrets, and heart is not a good idea.

 VI.         I think about all the useless and discouraging thoughts that we think in a day. I wonder if we could take all of them and think useful and positive thoughts instead how much more we could accomplish because a person is only as good as they allow themselves to be, and it all starts with their thoughts.

VII.         Losing and failing are two different things. Losing is getting beat by a superior opponent and learning from your mistakes, leaving room for improvement. Failing is when one loses and does not learn from their mistakes, with  no room for improvement.

VIII.         Sometimes I look at trees in the winter, lifeless and without  leaves. Then I look at trees in the autumn and see how full of life and blossoming they are. It makes me think about the “seasons” of life. The winter represents the seasons of life that are challenging. These seasons can often leave us feeling empty like the trees with no leaves, but then autumn comes. Spring  comes after the winter and represents the fulfilling and happy season of life . This season can make us feel like the tree that has all of its leaves and is booming with color. Lastly, this makes me think how life has highs and lows, but that the lows always have to come before the highs like the winter has to come before the autumn.

 IX.         I saw a homeless man the other day begging for money at an intersection. I wondered what happened in his life. Was it his fault? Was it not? Then I started to think about how we are beggars for God’s mercy. Without His mercy we would perish.

   X.         I work in the prison ministrywith Frank Lee Work Release Center. It is a low-level security, non-federal prison that has men who have committed relatively small crimes for the most part. Therefore, this thought applies only to men who are in places like Frank Lee. I see the men that are locked up, and I see how normal most of them are. Then I go into society and see the stigma associated with prisoners, and I think how most of these prisoners are just like us. Then I think about the prison in a spiritual sense. Many people in society would wonder why I would want to work in a prison system, but I think that those men are just like us. They made a mistake, and weren’t we all slaves to our own sin at one point? Christ set us free and sees us as a new creation. I think that the same should be extended to these men. They should be given a second chance. I do not necessarily mean giving them their freedom back, but I mean that they should be given a second chance spiritually. Therefore, we should not seem them clothed in shame and shackles as so many do, but we should see them as normal people who need Jesus just as much as we do. Therefore, we should treat them with the same decency and respect as anyone else because the fastest way to push someone away from the light is to be cold and mean.

Congratulations, You Played Yourself

Moliere’s story The Misanthrope  is a classic piece, originally, French literature. Its dramatizations being translated to English have earned it the title of “masterpiece.” In the story, a man by the name of Alceste falls for young lady by the name of Celimene. The fact that Alceste falls for Celimene proves to be an ironic problem for both parties because Alceste is blinded by love and Celimene is blinded by lust, ultimately ending in their mutual loneliness. 

         Alceste is a aggressive person who is only interested in knowing sincere people and being sincere himself. Alceste’s desire to have only sincere encounters with people can be seen when he says, “I’d have them be sincere. And never part from any word that isn’t from the heart” (Moliere 17). Alceste will have nothing to do with “fake” people. Even his good companion, Philinte, disgusts him given that Philiente is a “flatterer.” Alceste clearly displays his disgust when he says to Philinte, “My God, you ought to die of self-disgust” (Moliere 16). Here, Alceste is rebuking Philinte because Philinte acts very excited to see someone even to the point of “hugging them to death” and yelling for joy until he is out of breath only to forget the person’s name as soon as Alceste asks him what it is.

         As the reader can see above, Alceste is so bent on being sincere and surrounding himself with sincere people. Therefore, the irony of Alceste’s love life will come as a shock. At some point in the story we are shown that Alceste has gained quite the interest in a woman named Celimene. Celimene is a woman of remarkable beauty. In the story the reader sees that Celimene professes her love for Alceste when she says, “You know you have my love. Will that not do?” (Moliere 52). Instead of keeping her beauty to herself, she leaves herself open to any of the men in town, and Alceste does not like that fact at all. The reader can see Alceste’s frustration when Celimene says, “You’re jealous of the whole world, Sir.” Then Alceste responds with, “That’s true, since the whole world is well-received by you.” This statement by Alceste shows everyone very clearly how he feels towards Celimene.

Another instance in which she is exhibiting promiscuous behavior towards other men is when she writes them letters. These letters are not to inform these men of important details and are not business-like in their tone. They are quite flirtatious and seem to portray that Celimene is seeking comfort or is confiding in these men that she is writing to. In One letter particularly, Celimene professes her longing for Oronte’s company and her being weary of Alceste. Her letter reads, “I simply cannot be bothered to listen to him (Alceste), and his prose wearies me quite as much as his poetry. Be assured that I am not always so well-entertained as you suppose; that I long for your (Oronnte’s) company, more than I dare to say, at all these entertainments to which people drag me; and that the presence of those one loves is the true and perfect seasoning to all ones pleasures” (Moliere 143). Here the reader can see that Celimene is being quite the “flirt” as well as confiding in Oronte by talking poorly of Alceste.

As stated in the paragraph above, Alceste’s affection for Celimene is an ironic  surprise. The reader can recall how Alceste is only interested in sincere company and in being sincere himself. Therefore, why would someone like Alceste be so interested in someone like Celimene? It appears that Alceste desires to have a serious relationship while Celimene desires to have no relationship at all. It also appears that Celimene views love as a loose term because she uses it with no obligation. Therefore, why is Alceste so obsessed with such an unhealthy person, especially one that is quite insincere as he would say? It appears that Alceste’s reasoning for still wanting to keep Celimene comes partly from his lust for her, but mostly because of his love for her. The reader can see that Alceste is quite “crazy” about Celimene’s physical attributes when they read, “That woman knows the art of pleasing me” (Moliere 28) and “Her charm outwits her faults” (Moliere 28). The reader can then see that he truly loves her because he is willing to overlook her flaws, proclaiming, “How should I cease to love you, even now? Though mind and will were passionately bent on hating you, my heart would not consent.” His willingness to overlook and forgive all of Celimene’s flaws is also demonstrated when he says, “Woman, I am willing to forget your shame, and clothe your treacheries in a sweeter name. I’ll call them youthful errors, instead of crimes, and lay the blame on these corrupting times” (Moliere 149). Even after all this, Celimene chooses to deny Alceste, proving that her lust is greater than her so called “love.” As stated above, Celimene wrote many letters to various men and all of these men thought that they were Celimene’s favorite. When news reached all of them that she had treated them essentially the same way that she treated Alceste, they all left her completely, and Alceste, having chased a young wild woman, ended up with a broken heart and gave up on people.

In the end, the reader can see that both Alceste and Celimene were left with no one to love. Alceste’s own love led him to be alone because he allowed himself to chase after a woman who “ran with the wind.” Celimene ended up alone simply because not many people are willing to pursue a lying and promiscuous woman. Therefore, do not be like Alceste or Celimene and “play yourself.”

Works Cited

Molière , and Richard tr. Wilbur. The Misanthrope and Tartuffe: Translated into English Verse by Richard Wilbur. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1965.