The River's Lesson

Leone Morello

The River’s Lesson

Siddhartha listens to the river as Vasudeva guides him along his new life of living with almost nothing and discovering enlightenment. He learns from the river that time doesn’t exist. The river is in all places at the same moment: the source, the delta, the rapids, the meanders, etc.. From this, Siddhartha realizes that only the present matters and is of importance and the shadow of his future means nothing for it is the future and not his “now”. He learns to listen from the water and that he only discovers more of the essence of his self and the world if he remains present. The river represents Siddhartha’s life itself, because it is constantly changing and seeking over difficult obstacles and gentle spurs.

Kamala's Songbird

Leone Morello

Kamala’s Songbird

Siddhartha has spent many years with Kamala and learning the business of being a merchant, but he begins to feel disgust and dissatisfaction within himself at everything he does. He dreams of the beautiful caged songbird belonging to Kamala, and in this dream the usual birdsong is nonexistent to his hearing. As he approaches the cage to see what is wrong with the animal, he notices that it has died. He opens the cage and throws the bird’s corpse out into the street, and from after that Siddhartha wakes up from the dream. He is rattled and goes to sit in his garden where he realizes that he is no longer on his original path and has subjected himself to what he hates most. The songbird represents Siddhartha’s self, his conscience. The bird dying represents his silenced inner voice and peace, and throwing away the bird makes him realize how blinded he had been by possessions, ego, etc.. After contemplating all this in his garden, Siddhartha decides that it is time to move on and continue his journey. When Kamala hears that he has left, she releases her songbird from the cage and watches it fly away. This represents Siddhartha continuing his journey with freedom again.

Siddhartha's Awakening

Leone Morello

Siddhartha’s Awakening

When Siddhartha leaves Buddha, he becomes aware of what his self is and needs thanks to the conversation. Siddhartha doesn't feel need to learn under Buddha because he has no need for teachers anymore to teach him about his self. He says “Truly, nothing in the world has occupied my thoughts as much as the Self, this riddle, that I live, that I am one and am separated and different from everybody else, that I am Siddhartha". Now that he is sure of what his journey’s destination is, he understands that he must continue to find his self on his own without friends or family, which is why he renounces them. “I will learn from myself, be my own pupil; I will learn from myself the secret of Siddhartha" is his newfound thesis of sorts. This is the causation of his changed perception of the world. His time as a brahmin’s son and as a samana was spent criticizing the nonsense he and others were following to ensure what he saw as a harmful illusion. Now, this awakening had given him freedom and honesty to create a path for himself that allowed him to take in everything wondrous that the brahmins and samanas ignored. His destiny is solely his own and he sees that now.

Is Gladiator a good representation of Roman History?

Leone Morello

Is Gladiator a good representation of Roman History?

Gladiator tells the story of a Roman general named Maximus who becomes an enslaved gladiator when the new emperor of Rome, Commodus, attempts to get rid of him. It becomes Maximus’ goal to overthrow Commodus as a personal act of revenge as well as to restore the republic. The movie skims over some heavily underlying themes of the Roman Empire correctly, but not with complete historical accuracy. Gladiator provides some truth in its representation of the actual brutality endured as a slave-turned-gladiator as well as the violence and energy accompanying the combat sports, but it does not accurately delve into the historical reality of Roman gladiators or the real historical events and figures included in the film.

Violence and brutality are key elements made focus throughout the movie. Although the presence of these themes are what make the life-threatening combative fighting between trained slaves an entertaining sport for Ancient Rome, the movie exaggerated these themes to be overly gory and dramatic for the sake of entertaining cinematic audiences. Unlike in the movie, there were formal rules in place and all gladiators fighting against each other would have different weapons that would make their fight a struggle. Gladiators would not have any disadvantage against their opponents, but in the movie Maximus and his fellow gladiators were put up against those with the advantage of extensive armour and better/advanced weaponry. Drama fuels the plot of Maximus’ aim to achieve personal revenge on Commodus and to fulfil Marcus Aurelius’ request to restore the republic, however this plot is inaccurate to the mindset of Rome at this time in history. Gladiator is set at a time when restoring the republic would be an unfavourable decision. This is because under the empire, wealth was distributed more equally, expanding territory made the empire richer than the republic, imperial projects and construction provided entertainment and more services to the public, and Roman citizenship and rights were given to more people in all areas of the empire.

Maximus aimed to fight as a gladiator until he could get close enough to kill Commodus. Even if he managed to survive after killing the emperor, he would still remain an enslaved gladiator. The movie depicted a personal agenda that could change things for one or a few people, but in Roman history everything revolved around the big picture. For example, Spartacus was a slave who strived to crush slavery in Rome’s republic and he revolted and escaped as a gladiator. He soon after accumulated an army of 120,000 people and together they all fought against the republic and defeated many Roman legions in order to escape slavery. In the movie, Rome appears thrilled at Maximus’ flipped misfortune and vengeance on his enemy, which makes him famous and honourable. This is a lesson incorporated into the plot that states you can achieve greatness and freedom from slavery if you just fight for it. This hints along the lines of stoicism, but it was not reality for Roman slaves and gladiators who died and could not leave enslavement. Even Spartacus fought and became heroic, but he remained and died a slave. The lessons are untrue to the nature of Ancient Rome and are only relevant to the movie’s plot. On the topic of slavery however, a Roman general like Maximus becoming a slave in Ancient Rome would be unheard of. It’s true that Roman citizens could become slaves if they didn’t pay their taxes or if they owed borrowed money, but it wouldn’t make sense for someone like Maximus to become a slave. The fact that his home was destroyed and his family killed may be used as evidence to argue that he could possibly be enslaved as an unidentified person, but in reality it still wouldn’t make sense for that to make him automatically become a candidate to slavery by Roman procedure.

Maximus is a completely fictional character, yet his personality and morals accurately depict what it was to be a Roman citizen and noble of his time period: a stoic person committed in obligation to the empire and concerned over virtue and duty. Existing figures such as Marcus Aurelius and Commodus were emperors of Rome as well as father and son. The truth to their characters in the movie portrays Marcus as a great philosophical emperor and Commodus as a bad emperor hated by the senate, but their cinematic story is not like what it is in history. The real Marcus ruled solo for awhile before sharing his reign with his teenage son Commodus. Marcus was not murdered by his son, he had been ill for a few years and died of natural causes. Commodus’ struggle for power against Maximus in the movie never occurred outside of fiction, but the Roman Empire did experience many power struggles in its days as a Republic. Commodus did fight as a gladiator and his sister did plot against him with the senate, so some elements of the storyline had a certain degree of truth.

Despite exaggerations, incorrect information and the fictional storyline, the movie portrays a powerful and exciting collage of ideas that creates an understandable version of what Roman society and culture was like. It remains historically imperfect regarding Roman history, with the butchered timeline and the invented, ignored or tweaked facts of the past, but the film wasn’t a poor example of what the Roman Empire was like.

Socrates' Justified Death - Ancient Greece

Leone Morello

Socrates' Justified Death

Socrates’ goal was for others, and himself, to uncover the truths of society (particularly focusing on politics and ethics). Socrates did not tell his students what to think, he merely urged them to think outside of the proverbial box that was Athens’ systematic societal views. This alarmed many Athenians, and led to his trial and execution. Although today Socrates’ death may seem harsh and unjust, Ancient Greece’s history and society justifies Athens’ decision to put him to death.

Ancient Greece was very serious about their religion and worship of gods, so to dismiss or criticize these gods was deemed a punishable crime. Socrates was indeed guilty of impiety, because he questioned the legitimacy and authority of the gods. Athenians also wanted answers explaining what had offended the gods to make them allow Athens’ recent defeat in the Peloponnesian War, as well as the devastating occurrence of the plague that struck them at that time as well. Athenians made Socrates a scapegoat for these events, because his impiety fit the description. Charging him for this was in many of the public’s interest since they feared further disastrous actions from the seemingly upset gods.

Athens was a democratic city-state up until its defeat by Sparta, and the democracy was replaced with pro-spartan dictatorship called the “rule of 30”. Before, during, and after democracy was restored to Athens, Socrates preached favourably of Sparta’s government system and incited tyranny. This was reasonably seen as treasonous with him being in allegiance to Athens. Socrates was perceived as a threat to democracy, and because Athens was still in a fragile state while trying to recuperate from the horrible dictatorship, it seemed appropriate for him to be tried for his contribution to political and social unrest.

He was accused of corrupting the youth with his teachings, because it caused them to think in ways that opposed or were different from Athenian religion and politics. On many occasions, some of his students protested and rebelled against democracy. A previous student of Socrates, Critias, rigidly interpreted Socrates’ anti-democratic teachings. Critias became a harsh and ruthless dictator who was known as the bloodiest and most powerful of the 30 tyrants. Athenians could not prosecute Socrates as the teacher of Critias, because it would have been a violation of an oath they had made at the end of the “rule of 30”. However, the situation and relationship fueled ill feeling and fear towards Socrates.

Socrates was a great philosopher who shared a wide range of ideas and prompted others to question everything. He believed that philosophy was meant to achieve practical results for the benefit of society, so he had brought it upon himself to teach others his philosophies in order to enlighten people so that they would think for themselves. Socrates died, because the content and outcome of his shared philosophy infringed laws and scared Athenians, and that made it legitimate and just.