Recent orders
Natural to the End
Natural to the End
“Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.” – Abraham Lincoln
Loyalty cannot be bought, sold, or traded. Loyalty must be achieved through the admiration of your peers. Loyalty is giving your word and sticking to it – not compromising your morals when the going gets tough or when you are presented a better deal somewhere else. A man who is admirable possesses the traits of loyalty. Crichton is admirable and remains loyal to the end. When the time is right, he parts. Is it natural to remain loyal?
We must first establish a definition of naturalness in the framework of the text. In The Admirable Crichton, whatever is natural is right. English social hierarchy is natural to the characters in the play. Crichton possesses respect for the system, for he immersed himself in it for a great deal of his life. However, his respect does not evolve out of fear or intimidation, rather, out of his understanding of the important role masters and servants naturally play in civilization. Crichton’s immersion into and understanding of the hierarchal system explains the significance of what comes naturally in the play; moreover, it lays the foundation for his loyalty. His position on hierarchy and social order is parallel to the stance Darwin, a British naturalist, established in the 19th century; stating social adaptations, herein to hierarchy, are natural for humans. In Act I, Lord Loam and Lady Mary speak to Crichton regarding the division into classes, and they discuss if these divisions are natural or artificial.
LORD LOAM: […] can’t you see, Crichton that our divisions into classes are artificial, that if we were to return to Nature, which is the aspiration of mylife, all would be equal?
CRICHTON: The divisions into classes, my lord, are not artificial. They are the natural outcome of a civilized (sic) society. (To Lady Mary) There must always be a master and servants in all civilized (sic) communities, my lady, for it is natural, and whatever is natural is right. (Barrie 13)
The characters in the play are familiar with the idea of social order; Crichton understands this circumstance, and he employs the appropriate conditions to reach the top later in the play. He recognizes others follow whoever reaches the top first. In order to reach the top first he relies on his leadership skills, which may not be natural to mankind, but are natural to Crichton.
Leaders are not born. In no doubt, there are some natural endowments that affect relative abilities, but they are not born, they are made. Crichton has studied and understands the English system of hierarchy. His reason for remaining with the family is stated in the following text:
CRICHTON: [To Lady Mary] I should have felt compelled to give notice, my lady, if the master had not had a seat in the Upper House. I cling to that. (12)
Aware of Lord Loam’s appointment in the House of Lords, Crichton’s prolonged stay with the family is due to the prestige he acquires by remaining at hand. For the duration of his ride with the family, he undeniably gains imperative leadership traits and principles.
Leadership is characterized as the art of influencing, directing, guiding, and controlling others in such a way as to obtain their willing obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in accomplishment of an objective. Crichton acquires the notions listed above, mainly through his study and respect for the system, and moves on to accomplish the objective of filling the natural role of the master. Crichton explains that on the question of leadership – it will settle itself out. It is a matter in which he has nothing to do.
His transition to the head occurs towards the end of Act II, and the issues of birth and guarantees are replaced by skill and ability. His move to the top takes shape rather suddenly on the island, and it does not take long for the others to naturally follow behind him. In a conversation with Treherne, after the brief exit by the family, Crichton explains that the pot he heated is full of Nature, and the others are hungry and will return, for that is what is natural.
His natural succession to the position of commander and the clashes over social philosophies are noticed through dialogue when Crichton speaks to Lady Mary. Notice here, Crichton speaks, and not Lady Mary speaks; contrary to their normal social implications.
LADY MARY: (determined to have it out with him) you are not implying anything so unnatural, I hope, as that if I and my sisters don’t work there will be no dinner for us?
CRICHTON: (brightly) if it is unnatural, my lady, that is the end of
LADY MARY: If? Now I understand. The perfect servant at home
Holds that we are all equal now. I see.
CRICHTON: (earnestly) my lady, I disbelieved in equality at home because it wasagainst nature, and for that same reason I as utterly disbelieve in it on an island. (28)
The pivotal shift in Lady Mary’s point of view of Crichton, a shift in the play as a whole, comes once she recognizes Crichton as being more than a servant, for she recognizes him as a human being. The pivotal transition transpires after she realizes he did everything he could to save their own and Lord Loam’s life.
LADY MARY: You did all a man could do. Indeed I thank you, Crichton. (With some admiration and more wonder) You are a man. (27)
The shift between the social orders juxtaposed in the play, natural and adaptive, is brought to light here. The proposal of individuals being able to adapt to their surroundings and being naturally fit for a specific role in life, flourishes throughout the remainder of the island endeavor.
We have concluded that whatever objective we end up with is right. From Crichton’s point of view, social adaptations to the surroundings are a necessity and natural. We end up in current positions through nature. Crichton is someone certain to succeed on the island; he is a natural for the job. Naturalness is whatever is right.
Now we must examine the course of actions that illustrates Crichton’s loyalty. Productive leaders remain even-tempered and are calm, confident and predictable during a crisis. The key is remaining predictable at all times. His loyalty is observed easily because Crichton is predictable. Others are able to foretell his actions since Crichton is always honest first.
From the beginning Crichton is seen as the loyal servant. In a discussion with Ernest, over the topic of monthly tea-cup gatherings in the servants’ hall with the servants amid the noble, his loyalty is first noted.
ERNEST: […] you don’t approve of his lordship’s compelling his servants to be his equals – once a month?
CRICHTON: It is not for me to, sir, to disapprove of his lordship’s Radical views. (5)
Regardless of Crichton’s contempt for Ernest, he restrains from unfolding the idea as foolish and irrational; acquiescently he states the truth, and his loyalty endures. Crichton’s loyalty shins through during the crisis on the island. His loyalty gains legitimacy through his courageous and predictable actions.
Crichton conquers omnipotence on the island, and his legitimacy climaxes in Act III by his decision to summon a boat; Lord Loam was not aware of the option and even Lady Mary urges him to rethink the decision.
LORD LOAM: A ship – always a ship.
LADY MARY: Father, this is no dream.
LORD LOAM: (clutching him) you are not deceiving me?
CRICHTON: (cheerily) have no fear. I shall bring them back.
LADY MARY: Stop! (She faces him) Don’t you see what it means?
CRICHTON: (firmly) it means that our life on the island has come to a natural end.
LADY MARY: Gov., let the ship go.
CRICHTON: Bill Crichton has got to play the game. (55/56)
Crichton “plays the game” – the game of life; remaining loyal to himself and to the world by doing what is right, what is honest, and what is natural. Loyalty is composed of a special blend of personal traits specific to each individual. Some traits of loyalty include honor, courage, admiration, and commitment. Crichton holds these traits on the conditions that they are important to him, natural to him, and who he is.
Upon returning from the Island, Crichton’s loyalty is put to the test when the memoirs relative to the astonishing island survival are written, yet despite his efforts Crichton receives zero recognition in the memoirs and continues to be a nonentity. In spite of everything, in the end, Crichton’s loyalty remains at hand. While loyalty is a personal trait, some people continue to believe that loyalty can be bought. In Act IV, Catherine explains to Lord Loam how Crichton’s loyalty may well prove compromising for the family.
CATHERINE: (reveling the worst) But suppose Lady Brocklehurst were to get to him and pump him. She is the most terrifying, suspicious old creature in England; and Crichton simply can’t tell a lie. (60)
Quite the opposite do Crichton’s loyalties prove to be. His loyalty continues to serve the family even in the course of interrogations established by Lady Brocklehurst. He could have confessed what occurred on the island and exposed the “real” story for a few minutes or pages of fame and recognition, but remaining loyal to Lord, remaining loyal to his ideals, presents the ultimate fame and recognition to him.
When considering the family’s narcissistic point of view, alas, Crichton is merely remaining loyal to himself. He would not have sold-out the family name in order to prosper from a better deal somewhere else; perhaps someone would fancy a servant so resourceful. People are generally more willing to respect a person who remains loyal to an institution even if they disagree with it, or, at the least, keep their discrepancies private; Crichton understands this and parts gracefully when the time is right.
For a person who is admirable, Crichton is, it is natural for them to remain loyal. Remaining loyal is natural to Crichton. Self-pride and allegiance to ones ideals and values is what loyalty means to him in the play. He realizes the significance of individuals appreciating their adaptive and natural roles in society and continues to serve this theory to the end, until the time is right, then he parts. Loyal to the end.
Bibliography:
Natural Rights And Herbert Croly
Natural Rights And Herbert Croly
“They did it, no doubt, in the name of democracy; but of all perverted conceptions of democracy, one of the most perverted and dangerous is that which identifies it exclusively with a system of natural rights” (Croly 81). To Herbert Croly, in his book The Promise of American Life, God or nature cannot secure individual rights. The entire nation, as a whole, must work to make sure that all of the people have equal rights and equal opportunity.
The American people’s loyalty to the idea of democracy, as they understand it, cannot be questioned. But what it means to them is more of an idea of popular sovereignty. The will of the people determines what the government should or should not do. For Croly, democracy means much more than just popular sovereignty. Although “there can be no democracy where the people do not rule,” a “government by the people is not necessarily democratic” (Croly 179). While individual freedom is important, the whole of a nation must create the future; thus no one person can do it. For this to work there must be equal rights for all individuals.
“A community in which no man or no group of men are granted by law any advantage over their fellow-citizens is the type of the perfect and fruitful democratic state” (Croly 180). The majority of Americans would contend that this arrangement is perfectly fine. Individuals are free to pursue the interests that they want, and all individuals can enjoy any liberties that one person enjoys. Under this arrangement, there should be no room for permanent legal privileges for any class of citizens. Equality is then associated with individual rights, when in reality individual rights do not always mean equality in receiving such rights.
The natural rights philosophy clearly won’t work for Croly. God or nature does not give equal rights and equal opportunity to all. Although all are born with the same rights, not all people are born with ways to attain these rights. Equal rights do not mean equal resources. Americans who believe in the notion of an equal start are “wholly blind to the fact that under a legal system which holds private property sacred there may be equal rights, but there cannot possibly be any equal opportunities for exercising such rights” (Croly 181). Comparative material conditions dramatically affect opportunities. In the current system, a person who is born to privilege starts with an advantage over others born at the same time.
So then, how can a society be built with true equality if natural rights won’t do? Revere those that have truly made it on their own, and have lived the American dream. Those who have merely used the privileges they were born with to achieve the same goals should not be congratulated. Privileges do not translate into rights. Men who are “naturally disposed to be envious and suspicious of others more fortunate than themselves come to confuse their suspicions with a duty to society” (Croly 184). This confusion shifts the blame of American social development from the vagueness of America’s fundamental development, to different social groups. Those that have more money, or are better looking, or live in a different part of town are playing unfair. Instead a truly democratic society must rely on an underlying unity.
Democracy “cannot prevail unless the individuals composing it recognize mutual ties and responsibilities which lie deeper than any differences of interest and idea” (Croly 185). It is not God’s divine will that makes men equal. Men make men equal. Individuals must come together in a sort of brotherhood if they are to be truly free to pursue their destiny. Narrow-mindedness and selfishness must be transformed for genuine equality to exist. For equal rights and equal opportunity to coincide, individuals must be empowered to do their best. To do so would require some individual property rights to be given up to the nation. Only by doing this can private ambition and selfishness be changed into brotherhood. In Croly’s mind only liberty can overcome selfishness, and liberty and thus equality can only come from a nation united in itself. To create a true brotherhood of men, a new Declaration of Independence must be written.
The existing Declaration as is only says that rights are self-evident; it does not say that rights are self-attaining. “The idea of a constructive relation between American nationality and American democracy is in truth equivalent to a new Declaration of Independence. It affirms that the American people are free to organize their political, economic, and social life in the service of a comprehensive, lofty, and far-reaching democratic purpose” (Croly 278). If nothing is done to change the fabric of the United States citizen, then the “independence of spirit vanishes” (Croly 279). For the American people, this point may soon be approaching.
“They must either seize the chance of a better future, or else become a nation which is satisfied in spirit merely to repeat indefinitely the monotonous measures of its own past” (Croly 279). The national government is responsible for the social improvement of its people, but the people must stand united behind the government for it to work. Popular sovereignty is essential to the democratic process; people in themselves, however, are not sovereign so popular sovereignty must then mean “national sovereignty” (Croly 280). The people are sovereign “in so far as they are united in spirit and in purpose; and they are united in so far as they are loyal one to another, to their joint past, and to the Promise of their future” (Croly 280). For democracy to work, people must work together for this Promise and possibly give up pieces of their past or give up wishes for their future. Democracy is not simply the creation and exercising of rights; it has to be a collaborative effort of brotherhood for all people.
Natural rights are simply unchecked individualism and selfish attachments to private property. True and equal rights are not something that nature can give individuals. The belief that rights are given in such a way is destructive to the fabric of American democracy. If the public only believes that rights are given and can be associated with privilege, no one will work for true equality. Men must come together and strive to achieve their goals through helping each other; they must all meet their goals by starting on equal ground. When one individual makes it, he or she should be praised above all others and held up as an example of what true freedom can do. “The common citizen can become something of a saint and something of a hero, not by growing to heroic proportions in his own person, but by the sincere and enthusiastic limitations of heroes and saints, and whether or not he will ever come to such imitation will depend upon the ability of his exceptional fellow-countrymen to offer him acceptable examples of heroism and saintliness” (Croly 454).
Bibliography:
1.Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. New Jersey: Transaction
Publishers, 1993.
Natural philosophy is the orderly investigation of the phenomena of the universe through the use of experimental observation
Natural Philosophy
Natural philosophy is the orderly investigation of the phenomena of the universe through the use of experimental observation and/or logical reasoning. It was introduce by Alexander the Great in his creation of the Library of Alexandria. This gave consent to the pursuit of knowledge and, since Alexander was taught by a natural philosopher, to the study of natural philosophy. In Ancient Greece (480-323 BCE), natural philosophers observed particular things like the phenomena of the natural world, along with abstract things like the nature of reality. These natural philosophers looked for universal principles by which phenomena could be explained, which among these philosophers included Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato. The philosopher, Heraclitus (ca. 545-475 BCE) of Ephesus, believed that flux, or change, was the basic principle of the universe. Parmenides (ca. 515-440 BCE), Heraclitus’ successor, believed that Being is rational, that only what can be thought can exist. Since “nothing” cannot be thought, without thinking of it as something, there is no nothing, there is only Being. Plato (427-347 BCE), who was one of the most powerful thinkers in history, emphasized the immortal and unchallengeable consciousness over the mortal and changeful body. But Plato advanced a new division, favoring the invisible world of Forms, or Ideas, in opposition to the physical world. Evidently, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato used the basic principle of change to explain the nature of the universe.
As interpreted by the later Greek philosophical tradition, Heraclitus stands primarily for the radical thesis that everything is in flux. Born in 545 BCE in Ephesus, a city on the coast of modern Turkey, he was a man of strong and independent philosophical spirit. Unlike the Milesian philosophers whose subject was the material beginning of the world, Heraclitus focused instead on the internal rhythm of nature which moves and regulates things, namely, the Logos (Rule). Heraclitus is the philosopher of the eternal change. He expresses the notion of eternal change in terms of the continuous flow of the river which always renews itself. Although it is likely that he took this thesis to be true, universal flux is too simple a phrase to identify his philosophy. Heraclitus accepted only one material source of natural substances, the fire. He held that fire is the primal element out of which everything else arises. Fire is the origin of all matter, through it things come into being and pass away. Fire itself is the symbol of perpetual change because it transforms a substance into another substance without being a substance itself. “There is something about the nature of fire that gives insight into both the appearance of stability and the fact of change”(Palmer 24). From this vision, he obtained some remarkable conclusions. Change occurs within a range of opposites. The unity of opposites means that opposites cannot exist without each other – there is no day without night, no summer without winter, no warm without cold, no good without bad. Comparing the union of opposites with the contrary tension of a bow and a lyre is perfectly in harmony with his theory of flux and fire. Also, he focused on aspects such as Logos, which ruled change in an orderly manner. This cosmic order made change a rational phenomena rather than the chaotic, random one it appeared to be. The basic principle of change to explain the universe is evident throughout Heraclitus’ beliefs.
Another philosopher, Parmenides believed that Being is rational, that only what can be thought can exist. Since “nothing” cannot be thought, without thinking of it as something, there is no nothing, there is only Being. A Greek philosopher from Elea in southern Italy and founder of the Eleatic school, Parmenides was the most influential of the Presocratic philosophers. He is the first philosopher to insist on a distinction between the world of appearances and reality. Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality, “Being”, thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that “all is one.” From this concept of Being, he went on to say that all claims of change or of non-Being are illogical. Given this, it follows that Being is uncreated, indestructible, eternal, and indivisible. Furthermore, Being is spherical, because only a sphere is equally real in all directions. “Being has no holes, because, if Being is, there can’t be any place where Being is not” (Palmer 28). From this argument it follows that motion is impossible because motion would involve Being going from where Being is to where being isn’t, but there can’t be no such place as the place where Being isn’t. In fact, for Parmenides the very idea of empty space was an impossible idea. Either space is a thing, in which case it is something and not nothing, or it is nothing, in which case it does not exist. Because all thought must have an object and because nothing is not an object, the idea of nothing is a self-contradictory idea. Evidently, Parmenides understood that Being is rational, and only what can be thought exists.
One of the most powerful thinkers in history, Plato, emphasized spiritual values and makes ideas, rather than matter, the basis of everything that exists. He supported the invisible world of the Forms, or Ideas, in opposition to the physical world. Plato was born in 427 BCE in Athens from an Aristocratic family. He received the finest education Athens had to offer from Sophocles. Plato “argued for the existence of an ideal world” (Donley). Plato recognized two worlds, the world of Forms, or Ideas, which is the ideal world and the world of Particulars, which is the world we see it as. He saw the particular world, and the things in it, as imperfect copies of the world of Forms or Ideas. These forms are unchangeable and perfect, and are only comprehensible by the use of the intellect or understanding, whereas as the particular world is constantly changing. But indeed, in the particular world, the particular objects we see around us bear only a dim resemblance to the more ultimately real forms of Plato’s world of Forms. Since he reasoned that what we learn about physical objects empirically by means of the senses, we look at them, taste them, listen to them, and so on, he thought that sense experience are not a valid mean. None of the information we gain in this way is reliable or trustworthy, therefore, we don’t have real knowledge of the visible world, just mere opinion. Whereas we learn about the Forms, not by means of the sense, but by means of reason. We don’t need to look at the Forms or listen to them, indeed we cannot do so, we figure out what they are by thinking about them. In a sense knowledge of the forms also enables us to better understand the visible world. When we understand the Forms, we know what the visible world is a pale imitation of. Plato also understood that our physical bodies are a part of the in the world of particular world. Our sense organs, by means of which we learn about the visible world, are also part of our physical body. But our souls are part of the world of Forms, which for Plato is more or less identical with our reason. So one result of coming to learn about the Forms is that we will become less concerned with physical matters and less reliant on our unreliable senses for knowledge. It is obvious that Plato heightened the idea of the world of Forms and the particular world.
Heraclitus, a natural philosopher, argued that everything is in flux. Parmenides, Heraclitus’ successor, understood that Being is rational, that only what can be thought can exist. Since “nothing” cannot be thought, without thinking of it as something, there is no nothing, there is only Being. And Plato recognized our universe as two worlds, the world of Forms, or Ideas, which is the ideal world and the world of Particulars, which is the world we see it as. These natural philosophers sought for universal principles by which phenomena could be explained, which, among these philosophers, included Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Plato.
Bibliography:
Works Cited
Donley, Jeffery. Plato. Valencia Community College. Orlando. 05 Nov. 2003.
Palmer, Donald. Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made
Lighter. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.