He is neither a spectator with subjective and objective colors, nor a character in the story, but the creator of the city directly explains and introduces the city to the readers, just like selling a product. Le Guin uses a unique narrative to create this story. When people treat Omelas as a philosophical fable, they ignore their literary value. The best choice for philosophical thinking is not to use these fabled fables, but real cases and events. Moreover, judging people for and against the story. These stories go in the opposite direction, creating a story and then constructing a theory based on that story. However, there are no such premises in these fictional stories, or they do not make sense anymore. If you do not agree with the premises, then the allegory is invalid. Like Plato’s cave was based on a more realistic ideal world, John Locke’s primitive society was based on people being born with these rights. ‘Īnother is the proper allegory for the figurative exposition of the theory that philosophers have constructed from reality. Instead, no one thinks, ‘what is the big deal? I will never be in that cave. ‘It is never going to happen to me anyway,’ they think. No matter how detailed these stories are, no matter how precise the features are, it is impossible to think seriously about them. Those virtual stories try their best to make them concrete to appear real, but make them more and more false and special cases. One is that these apposite allegories are all so abstract that they can be accepted as real, akin to mathematics. There are two essential differences between these appropriate fables and the fictional stories that precede them. In addition to these over-interpreted fictions, there are also good philosophical allegories like Plato’s cave, John Locke’s primitive society, and so on. There is no difference between constructing a theory from these fictional stories and thinking that killing someone in a game was murder. There are other stories like if you can kill one person and save nineteen others. It is not rigorous, especially now that we know that there are still many people who want to bring these factories back home. Because of the opposition to child imprisonment, the analogy is against sweatshops. The pair of analogies look similar, but they do not apply to each other at all. For example, some people understand that the children in this story represent sweatshops in third-world countries, and the citizens represent developed countries. However, this is more of a literary association than a grim analogy. Of course, it can be said that the elements of this story symbolize real society. This story can be told without explanation. It is absurd to apply a philosophical theory derived from a virtual story to reality. This interpretation, like many other stories, is oversimplified and put into realistic philosophical thinking. If you support the imprisonment of this child, then you are a utilitarian. The story has been treated as a classic critical examination of utilitarianism’s philosophical thought experiment. They just crossed the beautiful city gate of Omelas and started on the way out of Omelas. Instead of going home to Omelas, they went to a place we could not imagine. However, a group of people, they went to see the child, saw the horror, and left. Many children grow up and act like other adults. However, if they showed sympathy for the child, the city would be destroyed. Many children in the city went to see him in the basement. Many adults know the child but do not look at it, instead of using it as a creative motivator or as a reminder of their conscience. Because the child’s suffering made the city happy, people knew that once he was released and fed and warmed, the splendor of the city would go up in smoke. There was a child in it, and no one did not know the child. The door of the room was locked, and there was no Windows. However, the city has an open secret: there is a basement under the castle in the center of the city.
0 kommentar(er)
