The tiers of orientalism

Orientalism is best described as a patronizing attitude that westerners can hold towards societies in the east. However, there are tiers of orientalism.

The first tier is the least harmful, but still bad idea that people from the east are “weird.” These can be the basis for jokes, like jokes about Asians and their thinner eyes, for example. When you think a group is odd based on their differences, you are committing the act of orientalism. Instead, one should celebrate the differences that others have, not belittle other societies or races for being different.

The second tier is the idea that people in the east need “civilizing”. This was common through the colonial period when people like Kipling would write poems about the burden of having to ‘civilize’ others. This idea is misguided at best and leads to blood-lustful imperialism at worst. A society being different does not make it worse, and there are ways to improve other countries or help them without thinking that they are fundamentally misguided or that you’re the only one that can help them.

The third tier of orientalism is not viewing people in other hemispheres as human. An example where this was prominent was during slavery. When one is viewed as property and not as a person, it is the highest form of patronization. This is worse than viewing someone as “funny” or “lesser”, this is the full-blown dehumanization of someone from another place.

King Lear Poems

Howdy. I am going to write a few poems inspired by King Lear.

This poem is a golden shovel and a double Haiku. It follows the typical golden shovel form, yet is in a 5–7–5, 5–7–5 format. This is inspired by Edmund’s speech at the beginning of King Lear, where he laments his place in society as a bastard, but makes a wish at the end to topple his legitimate brother. The POV of this poem is Edmund speaking to fellow bastards before his rebellion.

they all see us now
the world’s armpit. the gods
don’t call us wrong. stand
up proud, tall, lift up
our true real names, for
they just use “bastards”

The POV of this next poem is a speech from Edgar to Edmund as Edmund dies. It has greater themes of revenge and triumph.

You, Edmund, I call you a fool
But you don’t wear a hat with bells
You told our dad that I was cruel
From our kingdom, I was expelled
I’ve seen many things since
Including father, no eyes on his face
But even the blind could see this:
That you could never take my place
And now you lay beneath my sword
A dying man, a thing to savor
I hope the history books record
What happened to you, you bastard traitor

Poetic Analysis of “I Never Told You What I Do For A Living” by My Chemical Romance

INTYWIDFAL is the final song in the concept album Three Cheers For Sweet Revenge.

A concept album is an album with a storyline to it. In this album, the story builds off the story from the previous album, centering around two people called the Demolition Lovers.

According to lead vocalist Gerard Way, the story of the album goes like this:

“The concept for the record Three Cheers For Sweet Revenge, was the story of a man and a woman who are separated by death in a gunfight and he goes to hell only to realize by the devil telling him that she’s still alive. The devil says you can be with her again if you bring me the souls of a thousand evil men and so he hands him and a gun and he says I’ll go do it.”

The final song on the album centers around the killing of the last evil man, which turns out to be himself. He cannot see his lover for now but hopes one day, they will be reunited again, shown by the line: “Another night and I’ll see you”

Throughout the song, we also almost see a sense of self-disgust for the protagonist after having killed all those people. He wants his lover to clean him off, but he feels the stains will never come out. This is likely a homage to Macbeth, where Macbeth, after killing King Duncan, feels so much guilt and feels that no water could wash the blood of his hands.

“Another knife in my hands, a stain that never comes off the sheets / Clean me off, I’m so dirty, babe”

However, we see the protag rationalize what he is doing through the lines:

“Touched by angels, though / I fall out of grace / I did it all, so maybe / I’d live this every day”

The protag wants to be alive and return to earth, so he took up the task. However, by noting he fell “out of grace”, he knows he is not a great man.

We now arrive near the end of the scene where the protag realizes he will not be able to see his lover. Although the protag is upset, he remains hopeful that one day, through some circumstance, he will be reunited with his lover again.

“And we’ll love again, we’ll laugh again / We’ll cry again, and we’ll dance again”

Overall, this is a gutwrenching song about loss, death, hope, and murder with incredible music to accompany it. I find it to be a good ending song to an album with an amazing story. I also this the album does a good job at continuing the story from the first album “I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love”. I would recommend listening to both albums if you like horror movies, theatrics, or just a good ominous story.

Haikus on xenophobia, racism, etc

How bold, immigrants

from generations ago they

dared to call it theirs

you hear the chants

america for americans

define american

claiming land, what a

silly concept, it all belongs

to nature or god

you born here first gives

you little right, animals

were here before us

citizenship for

dinosaursrs now? they lived here

we just made buildings

birthright citizen?

we are all citizens, but

borders are made up

when you embrace that

we are world citizens

watch hate trickle out

love thy neighbor and

welcome the sick, welcome the

world in your heart

Breakdown of “Since we’re all going to die…” by Meursault: HD

“Since we’re all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter.” (114)

What an interesting thought. What a dark one too.

I have heard people say before they enjoy watching documentaries on murder and psychopathy because the complete radically different nature of them is intriguing.

I would hold similar sentiments about philosophy, and today I am going to dive into this quote. I have been exercising my philosophy muscle quite ardently these past few months; I would hope I am able to pick apart this quote for the juicy undertones.

Let’s start by discerning the difference between subjective and objective value. Subjective value is value we assign either as a collective or individually, and objective value are things that are objectively valuable, no matter how one looks at it. I do not believe in objective value too much, I think most of all meaningful things in our lives do originate from us placing meaning in them. However, as you read this book, I bet you have thought that you and Meursault radically differ in values. I will touch on that more later.

We could also denote the difference between the descriptive and normative statements Meursault makes here. A descriptive statement is a statement regarding what the world is or things we consider to be facts; something that describes the world, and normative statements relate to what we should do about it or statements that invoke our values. One example of a descriptive, then normative, statement would be: “Dogs generally have four legs. We should give them five.”

Anyway, let us return to Meursault. The descriptive claim is that we are all going to die, and the normative is that because of that, nothing matters. He first discusses a factual statement regarding the seemingly inevitable force of death, but he then adds an opinion to it.

Another key thing to remember is that normative values cannot be proven to be correct or incorrect. You can fully disagree with Meursault, because you perhaps subjectively value life more than he does. One cannot prove life is meaningful or meaningless, because that is up to you to decide.

Finally, before we go, Meursault is also wrong that it is obvious that time and death doesn’t matter…because that is also subjective.

Today we broke down one of the most famous quotes from The Stranger, and we discusses its formation. I hope my walkthrough of the quote was satisfactory.

And remember, you’re more than entitled to disagree with Meursault. And…if we share similar moral values, I would say you should oppose this man.

Camus’ Theory of Life: HD

Life is objectively meaningless and full of absurdities, we are temporary beings in a subjective world.

To many, it is a shocking statement, a statement that goes against our conceived notions on life and what exists.


Think about that word.

We can say that word probably comes from latin or greek or some old language, but I propose something different, and stick with me…I will get to Camus…but I want you to stick with me while I explain something

We created the word conceived, or its predecessor words, in order to describe a feeling we hold. It appears humans have desires, it appears we want to fill those desires, and we created language because we desired it.

This, what I am taking about right here, is metaphysics. I am talking about what humans are, and I am talking about how things got the way they are. Notice how I have not made any *pre*scriptive statements yet, any ‘should’ statements. I have only discussed what we appear to see.

I will once again make another metaphysical claim; a *de*scriptive claim: humans appear to use metaphysics to describe the world, because we cannot say what we should do before we have the conditions for the world, the world in which we create terms like ‘conceive’ and ‘should’.

So…speaking metaphysically…we have desires…and we created the language necessary to make moral ideas.

But now I will show the difference between the metaphysical and the normative. With the metaphysical lens, we can see a tree exists because we have the eyes to do so, and we agree on what a tree is. With the moral lens, the subjective lens, the ‘should’ lens, we ask: should we look at the tree?

You cannot answer that objectively due to the difference between the metaphysical and the normative; the pre and de scriptive.

This is why I do not think there is not objective morality. Perhaps we are all born with similar desires for happiness and fulfillment, but we cannot say that it is “right” or “wrong” objectively.

To say something is right or wrong presupposes that we both agree on the same systems of ethics, which…is evidently not true.

Now I return to Camus.

Camus believed, among many things, that we live in a subjective, absurd world.

A world without objective truth, and that our search for objective purpose or some authoritative god is futile, and that we must realize that we are devoid of any ultimate explanations to the “why’s” of the world, and that we don’t even know all of the “what’s” either.

We cannot find the answers, whether the descriptive ones or the moral ones.

The famous Socrates quote: “I know that I know nothing”, the Descartian method of doubting everything…is correct. Really…what else to we know except our own inadequacy in this world, and that we know that we want the answers, but we. simply. cannot. find. them.

This realization has driven many into depression, myself included. And Camus would agree…somewhat.

Camus would ardently agree that life is absurd, so absurd! It is absurd because we are beings built to observe in a material world that does not allow us to find the ultimate answers of what we are and why we are here, as well as some other deep stuff.

But Camus…loved life. Why?

Well, his theory was that yes…we live in a wild world, but we might as well revel in it. We have no answers or masters?

We make our own, dammit. So why not be happy?

Frederick Neitzsche once said: “Everything in the world displeases me: but, above all, my displeasure in everything displeases me.”

Camus diverged:

“Love is not just a confrontation with the absurdity of the world; it is a refusal to be broken by it.”

Should you love life not despite but because it is absurd?

I cannot tell you that. That is up to you.

But it is one hell of an attitude.