Religion and OMG: Oh My God! Muvie

Thinking Activity

As a part of thinking Activity of a Tale of tube by Jonathan Swift , here I write a blog about religious controversy in movie Oh My God! 

Identify any one movie/web series/song/poem/novel which talk about the sensitive topic like religion. Write in brief about it and explain what kind questions are raised through that work.

 So much about religion is spoken every day in India. But it somehow still doesn’t seem enough. While it started as a personal connection to the divine power, religion has become rather commercial in the modern times. Age old customs are still in practice today even though times have now drastically changed. Some religious practices result in discrimination amongst gender, race, color and more.

This is seriously a massive issue that exists in our society and over the past few years, we have seen many Bollywood films address the issues. Obviously, many of these films faced protests and a lot of pressure across the nation from political parties and religious groups.

OMG – Oh My God! is a 2012 Indian Hindi language satirical comedy-drama film written and directed by Umesh Shukla, The film's core plot is based on 2001 Australian film The Man Who Sued God, and produced by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, S Spice Studios, Grazing Goat Pictures and Playtime Creations. The storyline is based on a Gujarati stage-play entitled Kanji Virudh Kanji, originally written by co-writer Saumya Joshi, with Bhavesh Mandalia as an additional co-writer. The film features Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar in the lead roles, along with Mithun Chakraborty, Om Puri, Govind Namdeo, Poonam Jhawer, Puja Gupta and Mahesh Manjrekar in pivotal roles.

OMG- Oh My God! Movie Official Trailer

                     

In a country like India that is widely God-fearing, a film like OMG Oh My God, that fearlessly and unwaveringly raises fingers at the commonplace commercialization of religious customs, is certainly an audacious attempt. Oh My God shouldn’t be mistaken to be a film that endorses atheism. Rather it questions blind faith.

             

Storyline of the  movie Oh My God!

Kanji Lalji Mehta (Paresh Rawal), a middle-class atheist, owns a shop of Hindu idols and antiques in Mumbai. He makes fun of religious activities around him and one such day, a low-intensity earthquake hits the city, and Kanji's shop is the only shop that is destroyed. His family and friends blame this on his atheism.

At the insurance office, Kanji learns that the disaster claim does not cover any damage caused by natural calamities classified under "Act of God". Running out of options, he decides to sue God but fails to find a lawyer for such a lawsuit. Hanif Qureshi (Om Puri), a poor Muslim lawyer, helps him file the case after Kanji decides to fight on his own. Legal notices are sent to the insurance company as well as to religious priests, Siddheshwar Maharaj, Gopi Maiyya, and their group's founder, Leeladhar Swamy (Mithun Chakraborty), summoning them to court as representatives of God.

As the court case commences and gains traction for its bizarre quality, Kanji finds himself facing armed fundamentalists and harassment, with his mortgage bank occupying the house, and his wife and kids leaving him. He is rescued from all of this by Krishna Vasudev Yadav (Akshay Kumar), who claims to be a real estate agent originally from Gokul, Uttar Pradesh, but appears to do fantastical tricks not possible for a human.

In a steadfast devout nation, this film has the nerve to openly point out how religious traditions like pouring milk on idols in temples or offering sheets of flowers in mosques or burning candles outside churches are merely moneymaking gimmicks, devised in the name of God. The film rightly points out how devotees, without a second thought, would make divine donations but hardly even consider charity for the needy. 

Since the film is primarily argument-oriented, it heavily relies on dialogues and it’s important to point here that the lines are pensively penned, making even the improbable seem persuasive. Kanjibhai draws your attention when he says ‘ Dharm insaan ko bebas banata hain ya antankwadi’ (Religion makes humans either vulnerable or terrorist). Subsequently Krishna enlightens ‘ Tum kisi se uska dharm mat cheeno, phir woh tumhe apna dharm bana lenge’ (If you take away a human’s religion, they will make you their religion). Perhaps one can attribute the sensibility and thoughtfulness of the written material to the Gujarati play ‘ Kanji Virrudh Kanji’ on which the film is based.

           

The lawsuit causes a public outcry. On Krishna's advice, Kanji goes to the media and gets wide coverage. Many people in a similar situation join him in the lawsuit, causing the amount of claims to skyrocket and Catholic priests and Muslim Mullahs to also be summoned as defendants. When the court demands written proof that the earthquake was an 'Act of God,' Krishna steers Kanji toward holy books like Bhagavad Gita, The Quran and The Bible. Kanji reads them and finds a passage in each that says the world and all that happen in it, from beginning to end, is a creation of God and comes from God's will alone. This strengthens his case and increases public support. However, Kanji suffers a stroke in court and is rushed to the hospital where he goes into a coma and is paralyzed. When he opens his eyes after a month, he finds Krishna, who reveals that he is God, and proves it by curing Kanji completely. He further reveals that He created the entire world, animals and humans but religion was created by humans, and he was the one who destroyed Kanji's shop because he sought to punish the godmen who showed his fear to the public, to earn money. He adds that he created the entire world and thus doesn't like to live in temples contrary to what the godmen claims and he is not interested in the offerings he gets from devotees. Instead, he created millions of humans who die of hunger and would be glad if those offerings were given to them instead. He figured out that an atheist like Kanji would end up exposing them if he destroys his Shop, and thus destroyed it by causing the disaster and started to help him with lawsuit by appearing as a human and befriending him, and revealed himself in his true form so that Kanji realizes that although he does exist, he doesn't live in temples, but in every creature he created.

       

Kanji learns that the lawsuit's verdict was in his favor and religious organizations were ordered by the court to pay the compensation to all the plaintiffs; people have begun revering Kanji himself as a god. Leeladhar, Gopi Maiyya, and Siddheshwar have taken advantage of this by opening a temple dedicated to Kanji and accumulating millions in donations. Krishna explains to Kanji that his job as God is to show people right and wrong - people do with it what they will. Kanji decides to fight back. He breaks his own statue, admonishing the crowd about trusting in God-men. He advises them to search for God in themselves and in others, not in statues; that God is everywhere, not just in temples, and faith should come from within. He tells them not to believe in fraudulent God-men, as their job is to turn religion into business.

Krishna looks on proudly as Kanji speaks, then vanishes when Kanji tries to reach him after. Kanji is reunited with his family and sees Krishna's key chain on the ground. When he is about to keep it, he hears Krishna's voice, telling him to get rid of the key chain as fear of God and reliance on religious objects was what he'd fought against all this time. Kanji smiles and throws it away, watching as it disappears in the sky with a flash.

Oh My God is moral science lesson that doesn't sound preachy. This is a film that not only entertainment and inspires but also enlightens.

Lessons to be learnt from OMG - Oh My God

OMG – Oh My God' is an exception from the films that release in Bollywood for the way it tackles a thorny issue and actually leaves you thinking.

The structure of this movie pits an atheist versus god. Now, the very notion of being an atheist in a country with the maximum number of gods is baffling to many Indians. We see God everywhere and want to share our experiences with the divine power with others. Therefore, an atheist always finds himself being the subject of pity. “Poor soul. God’s love and power have yet to touch him,” the believers say to themselves and their neighbors. 'OMG' manages to tell the story of god from an atheist’s point of view by making the latter a strong figure. This is the first film where despite getting pity from others, Kanji Lalji Mehta (Paresh Rawal) does not arouse any sympathy from viewers. He is strong enough to stand by his beliefs even when his life has hit rock bottom.

Nor is Kanji painted out as a weirdo. His arguments are logical and to the point. Pushed against a corner, he knows what he must do and never shies away from the fight. And the fight is huge. Kanji, and the movie, take on the centuries old system of worship in the country, not an easy task by any means. Fair warning if you haven’t seen the film yet: Spoilers ahead.

'OMG' talks about the cause of humanity over idol worship. This is one of the strongest points of the film. It does not shy away from telling that people should help others as and when they can instead of blindly going to religious places and placing their offerings. As a society we are so inured to any suggestion that our faith has gone haywire over so many years that making a stand against idol worship is truly commendable. But if the example of a beggar drinking milk flowing from a gutter that has been filled from worshippers pouring the drink over a shelving to sustain himself doesn’t rouse people, I don’t know what will.

The movie also tackles the thorny issue of Godmen. These ‘agents of God’, who in real life have been accused of amassing property worth crores, being manipulated by politicians and even having sex videos of them circulated in recent years, still have a huge following among their fans. The thinly veiled reference to various Godmen in the movie is nothing short of courageous and the film’s directors deserve applause for bringing out the hypocrisy of this tribe in the limelight. If nothing, at least we should ask these Godmen to be frank and clear about their business transactions. While Kanji comes off as being shrewd and manipulative of other people’s faith in the beginning, it is only towards the end when he himself is turned into a God to be milked money out of, do audiences get a taste of how badly religion has been taken over by vested interests. 

One of the most interesting points of the movie is the difference people need to know between being God-loving and God-fearing. Love of God will mean living in peace and quietude in such a way that their religion will never harm any other human. However, a God-fearing person will be either very shrewd or very angry in case anyone defames his religion. Kanji says that religion gives birth to only two types of people – cowards and terrorists. Truer words were never spoken. The example of Sai Baba, who lived in penury but whose statue is now adorned with gold is a telling example of the state of affairs among us. We shower a part of our ill-gotten gains to God, as if giving him a part of our profits will absolve us our own sins.

It is high time we realized the highlight of the movie and applied it in our lives so that we can spend our lives in peace and not be bothered about terms like Hindu terrorists and Muslim jihadis. For it is true what the movie says, “Where there is Religion, there is no Truth, and where there is Truth, Religion is not needed.”

Metaphysical poetry

Thinking Activity: Metaphysical poetry

     Here is my blog in regards to thinking Activity given by Dr Dilip Barad sir on Metaphysical Poetry.

 The word ‘Metaphysical Poetry’ is a philosophical concept used in literature where poets portray the things/ideas that are beyond the depiction of physical existence. Etymologically, there is a combination of two words ‘meta’ and ‘physical in word “metaphysical”.’ The first word “Meta” means beyond. So metaphysical means beyond physical, beyond the normal and ordinary. The meanings are clear here that it deals with the objects/ideas that are beyond the existence of this physical world. Let us look at the origin of word metaphysical poetry in more detail.

Origin of the Word Metaphysical Poetry

In the book “Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (1179-1781)”, the author Samuel Johnson made the first use of the word Metaphysical Poetry. He used the term Metaphysical poets to define a loose group of the poets of 17th century. The group was not formal and most of the poets put in this category did not know or read each other’s writings. This group’s most prominent poets include John Donne, Andrew Marvell, Abraham Cowley, George Herbert, Henry Vaughan, Thomas Traherne, Richard Crashaw, etc. He noted in his writing that all of these poets had the same style of wit and conceit in their poetry.

Definition of Metaphysical Poetry

Metaphysical poetry is a genre of poetry that deals with deep and profound subjects like spirituality, religion, etc. It is highly intellectual form of poetry and presents the world to its readers in a different way. It asks questions that science cannot answer. Metaphysical poetry prompts the readers to question their reality and existence. It takes one beyond the physical world and gives new perspectives through its imagery, wit and paradox.

Definition in Merriam Webster Dictionary

“Highly intellectualized poetry marked by bold and ingenious conceits, incongruous imagery, complexity and subtlety of thought, frequent use of paradox, and often by deliberate harshness or rigidity of expression” .

Characteristics of Metaphysical Poetry

(1) Dramatic manner and direct tone of speech is one of the main characteristics of metaphysical poetry. In the starting line of the poem “The Canonization” – there is given a dramatic starting –

"For God’s sake hold your tongue, and let me love”.

(2) Concentration is an important quality of metaphysical poetry in general and Donne’s poetry is particular. In his all poems, the reader is held to one idea or line of argument. 

(3)  Fondness for conceits is a major character of metaphysical poetry. Donne often uses fantastic comparisons. The most striking and famous one used by Donne is the comparison of a man who travels and his beloved who stays at home to a pair of compasses in the poem “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning” –

“If they be two, they are two so

As stiff twin compasses are two,

Thy soul fixt foot makes no show

To move, but doth, if th’other do”.

We find another conceit in the very beginning couple of lines of “The Exctasy.” –

“Where like a pillow on a bed,

A pregnant bank swel’d up, …”

(4) Wit is another characteristic of metaphysical poetry. So, here we find various allusions and images relating to practicality all areas of nature and art and learning-- to medicine, cosmology, contemporary discoveries, ancient myth, history, law and art. For instance, in “The Extasie”, Donne uses the belief of the blood containing certain spirits which acts as intermediary between soul and body –

“As our blood labours to get

Spirits, as like souls, as it can,

Because such fingers need to knit

That subtle knot, which makes us man:” 

In the same poem, the Ptolemaic system of astrology is also used when he says –

“… We are

The intelligences, they the sphere”.

(5) Metaphysical Poetry is a blend of passion and thought. T. S. Elliot thinks that “passionate thinking” is the chief mark of metaphysical poetry. There is an intellectual analysis of emotion in Donne’s Poetry. Though every lyric arises out of some emotional situation, the emotion is not merely expressed, rather it is analyzed. Donne’s poem “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning” proves that lovers need not mourn at parting. For instance,

“So let us melt, and make no noise,

No tear-floods, nor sigh-tempests move,

‘Twere profanation of our joys

To tell the laity our love”.

(6)Platonic Love: Platonic love is another feature of meta physical poetry. Platonic love means, spiritual love, which is free from elements of physical love.

 Famous Metaphysical Poems:

1.'Death,be not Proud' by John Donne

2.'The Flea by John' Donne

3.'The Sun Rising' by John Donne

4."The Collar' by George Herbert

5."To His Coy Mistress' by Andrew Marvell

• Death, be not proud' by John Donne: 

Summary of the poem:

Death, be not Proud,” also referred to as Sonnet X, is a fourteen-line sonnet written by John Donne, an English metaphysical poet, and Christian cleric. It is one of the nineteen Holy Sonnets which were published in 1633 within the first edition of Songs and Sonnets.

 

The speaker personifies and addresses Death directly. He tells Death not to be arrogant and proud of snatching people’s lives away. He converses with Death that just because people are scared of Death and find it powerful and monstrous, it shouldn’t be proud. He tells Death that it is not as people perceive it because people do not die when it comes to killing them. The speaker pities Death and says that even the speaker will not truly die when Death will arrive for him.

The speaker compares Death to rest and sleep. He calls them the other images of Death. He predicts Death to be more pleasant and delightful than rest and sleep. The speaker calls those people “best men” who are taken away by Death. The reason for this is because Death is nothing more but a means of the resting of these bodies and the transformation of their souls to the eternal world.

Death is a submissive activity to luck and fate. It is obedient to kings, rulers, and those people who act in despair. The speaker also mentions that Death is linked to toxins, battles, and illness. Intoxicants and magic spells work more effectively than Death by putting people to rest. The speaker then asks Death that after knowing all this, why is it still so full of pride?

Next, the speaker says that Death is just a short sleeping phase between the temporary world and the eternal afterlife. There in the eternal world, Death visits no more. It is the Death itself or a certain scary idea of Death that is going to die.

The Flea by John Donne:

summary of the poem:

The Flea’ is one of the most popular poems written by John Donne (1572-1631). Like many of his greatest poems, it contains elements associated with metaphysical poetry. John Donne, a master of wit uses unusual metaphors to convey the love between a man and a woman. The Flea is amongst such an unusual love poem, where the poet uses a flea to reveal his sexual interest with his lover. Published in 1633, the poem is about a man trying to convince a woman to have intercourse with her and he shows that it is not a sin as flea already mingled their blood. The poem is witty, romantic, fascinating, and is one of the best poems of John Donne.

The speaker curiously asks the woman to take notice of the flea and to consider about the act it has done. He compares the act of the insect which sucked their blood to that of the speaker’s whose intention is to mingle with his beloved. As the insect has combined their blood, it would be superfluous to call their anticipated union as shameful or sinful. According to the speaker, the insect has mingled their blood in a way that they cannot possibly do or achieve; hence, he asks her not to think of their meeting as a loss of maidenhead. 

The Flea by John Donne is a revolutionary poem when one compares it to the principles of those living in the 16th century. However, John Donne uses his words carefully and never shows any obscenity even when he discusses about private matters such as sex. The ingenious play of words, metaphors, and the love theme makes The Flea one of the best poems in literature.

She attempts to kill the flea, but the speaker implores her to not to commit the act. He attempts to convince her by saying that the insect has his life and hers because of the blood it sucked. He also says that it is the place where they are married within the walls of the insect. However, his beloved doesn’t heed to the words of the speaker and attempts to kill it again. The speaker once again tries to convince her and says that it would be murder and suicide at the same time. He adds that it would be a sin to kill three lives – the speaker’s, hers and the insect’s – because flea has the blood of the three.

The speaker’s beloved kills the flea suddenly and with cruelty. He claims that the insect was innocent and wants to know the sin of the creature! She says that by killing the insect, neither of them has lost any honor and it didn’t make them weaker also. This is used by the speaker to convince that there is no loss of honor if she yields to him and it would be as simple an act as killing the flea.

• The sun Rising by John Donne

Summary of the poem

Stanza – 1

Busy old fool, unruly sun,

Why dost thou thus,

Through windows, and through curtains call on us?

Must to thy motions lovers’ seasons run?

Donne begins the poem “The Sun Rising” personifying and describing the sun as a busy, lawless, foolish person. He scolds the sun and interrogates him why he sends his early morning rays into their bed room through the windows and curtains. The poet-lover and his mistress are disturbed by the sun when they are busy in love-making. He also asks the sun if he (the sun) thinks that the activities of the lovers depend on his motion. The poet informs the sun that their love is not subject to its time-table.

But love knows no season or climate. It remains unchanged over time. The poet believes that love is beyond the fragments of time and thus beyond the control of the sun’s movement.

Stanza – 2

Thy beams, so reverend and strong

Why shouldst thou think?

I could eclipse and cloud them with a wink,

But that I would not lose her sight so long;

The poet inquires the sun why it thinks its beams are strong. The poet lover claims that he can cover the sun simply by a wink of his eyes. But he will not do this because he doesn’t want to deprive himself of the sight of his lover even for a moment. The speaker’s ability to obscure the sun by the wink of his eyes is a hyperbolic (exaggerating) expression. Actually, the poet-lover focuses on the power of love which dominates over the sun.

Saucy pedantic wretch, go chide

Late school boys and sour prentices,

Go tell court huntsmen that the king will ride,

Call country ants to harvest offices,

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,

Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.

Here the sun is called an overactive wicked person. The comparison is implicit, so it’s an example of metaphor. The poet admonishes the sun to rather go and do some useful stuff. According to the poet, the sun should bother the late school boys and apprentices who are not hurrying to get to work. He should also tell the court’s hunter that the king has decided to go for a ride. Here the poet hints at king James I’s passion for horse-riding and early hunting. Donne also advises the sun to remind the farmers (country ants) to harvest the land. All those people (school-boys, apprentices, hunter, farmers etc.) and their such activities are subject to the fragments of time and thus might be governed by the sun. 

Stanza -3

in the third stanza of the poem ” The Sun Rising” the poet says that his mistress represents all the states of all the kingdoms of the world and he represents all the kings of the world. There is nothing else apart from them and their love. All the kings and queens only play the role of them. They (the kings and queens) try to enjoy love, peace and happiness as the poet and his mistress enjoy. All the honour seems to be mimicry and all the wealth is worthless before their love and enjoyment. Here, the poet wants to say that nothing is more important than their love.

Thou, sun, art half as happy as we,

In that the world’s contracted thus.

Thine age asks ease, and since thy duties be

To warm the world, that’s done in warming us.

Shine here to us, and thou art everywhere;

This bed thy centre is, these walls, thy sphere.

The poet says that the sun will be half happy with the poet-lover and his mistress to know that the entire world has been contracted into their bed. It is much easier for the old sun to do his duty. His duty is to warm and shine the whole world. According to the poet the whole world will be warmed and shined on if the sun warms and shines on the poet-lover’s bed. So, the poet curtly invites the sun to shine and warm their bed room. He even asks the sun to revolve around their bed as his centre and treat the walls of the room as his sphere.

• The Collar by George Herbert

 Summary of the poem

“The Collar” is a one-stanza, free-verse poem that is widely understood to include a dialogue between a single speaker's two inner voices, sometimes identified as the heart and the will. While the will rebels against God and the “collar” or yoke of religion, the heart wins the battle, overcoming the will.

In the first sixteen lines of the poem, the speaker (or “the heart”) states that he is fed up with the current state of affairs and plans to seek out his freedom. He laments that he is “in suit,” in a lowly position, and that he has not reaped greater rewards. As these lines progress, we learn that the speaker has undergone a period of pining and sadness, leading to his present anger.

In lines 17-26, another inner voice interjects, “not so, my heart,” reminding the first speaker that there is an end to sadness in sight. If only the speaker will “leave [his] cold dispute” and stop his rebellion, he will be able to open his eyes and see the truth.

In lines 27-32, the will reappears, commanding the other speaker “away!” and restating his commitment to going abroad. In the final four lines of the poem, the irregular free verse gives way to an ABAB rhyme scheme. The second inner voice reveals that, even in the midst of raving, he heard someone calling “Child” and replied “My Lord.” This indicates a return to God after a period of rebellion.

 

• To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marwell

Summary of the poem

To His Coy Mistress" is divided into three stanzas or poetic paragraphs. It’s spoken by a nameless man, who doesn’t reveal any physical or biographical details about himself, to a nameless woman, who is also biography-less.

During the first stanza, the speaker tells the mistress that if they had more time and space, her "coyness" (see our discussion on the word "coy" in "What’s Up With the Title?") wouldn’t be a "crime." He extends this discussion by describing how much he would compliment her and admire her, if only there was time. He would focus on "each part" of her body until he got to the heart (and "heart," here, is both a metaphor for sex, and a metaphor for love).

In the second stanza he says, "BUT," we don’t have the time, we are about to die! He tells her that life is short, but death is forever. In a shocking moment, he warns her that, when she’s in the coffin, worms will try to take her "virginity" if she doesn’t have sex with him before they die. If she refuses to have sex with him, there will be repercussions for him, too. All his sexual desire will burn up, "ashes" for all time.

In the third stanza he says, "NOW," I’ve told you what will happen when you die, so let’s have sex while we’re still young. Hey, look at those "birds of prey" mating. That’s how we should do it – but, before that, let’s have us a little wine and time (cheese is for sissies). Then, he wants to play a game – the turn ourselves into a "ball" game. (Hmmm.) He suggests, furthermore, that they release all their pent up frustrations into the sex act, and, in this way, be free.

In the final couplet, he calms down a little. He says that having sex can’t make the "sun" stop moving. In Marvell’s time, the movement of the sun around the earth (we now know the earth rotates around the sun) was thought to create time. Anyway, he says, we can’t make time stop, but we can change places with it. Whenever we have sex, we pursue time, instead of time pursuing us. This fellow has some confusing ideas about sex and time. Come to think of it, we probably do, too. "To His Coy Mistress" offers us a chance to explore some of those confusing thoughts. 

Conclusion

Metaphysical poetry is to be read with an open mind. It is not purposely trying to convince readers to think in a certain way but it provides a new way of thinking. Metaphysical poets are highly intellectual and people of learning. Reader’s minds open up, their area of thinking expands, and they awaken by their writings. The challenging approach of such poetry develops the concentration of readers on the things that exist beyond this physical world. It also permits the poets to state their inner thoughts in the poetry though higher cognitive skills are required to digest the abstract ideas and concepts coined in metaphysical texts of poetry.

Words - 3,096

Absalom and Achitophel

Absalom and Achitophel:

In this blog, I am going to talk about the characters in the poem who are favoring King David (Charles II) and those who are against him.

Click here and read the original poem

Absalom and Achitophel FullAudio Book

 Absalom and Achitophel is a celebrated satirical poem by John Dryden, written in heroic couplets and first published in 1681. The poem tells the Biblical tale of the rebellion of Absalom against King David; in this context, it is an allegory used to represent a storey contemporary to Dryden, concerning King Charles II and the Exclusion Crisis (1679–1681). The poem also references the Popish Plot (1678) and the Monmouth Rebellion (1685)Absalom and Achitophel are "generally acknowledged as the finest political satire in the English language". It is also described as an allegory regarding contemporary political events and a mock-heroic narrative. On the title page, Dryden himself describes it simply as "a poem".

Absalom and Achitophel is a widely celebrated satirical poem written by John Dryden, first published anonymously in November of 1681. It is written using the heroic couplet form and is considered one of the finest English political satires of all time. It is credited with being the first written satire in the English language and tells the Biblical story of Absalom, who rebels against King David. This, however, is commonly understood as an allegorical reading, and the events of the poem are actually about Dryden’s contemporaries, Charles II and the Exclusion Crisis. In writing the poem, Dryden hoped to rouse the populous against The Earl of Shaftesbury, along with the Whig Party. These groups had sponsored and advocated for this Exclusion Bill, which if successful, would prevent James II from succeeding to the throne. The bill was blocked by the House of Lords on two separate occasions. This was during the era of the Popish Plot, which took place during the years 1679 to 1681.

           

King David

According to biblical tradition (and some say myth), David (c. 1035 - 970 BCE) was the second king in the ancient United Kingdom of Israel who helped establish the eternal throne of God. A former shepherd, David was renowned for his passion for God, his touching psalms and musical abilities, his inspiring courage and expertise in warfare, his good looks and illicit relationship with Bathsheba, and his ancestral connections to Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament. Born around 1000 BCE, David was the eighth son (and youngest) of Jesse, from the tribe of Judah. Like King Saul and King Solomon, David reigned for 40 years in one of the highest and most prosperous periods in Israel's history - called by many, “The Golden Age” of Israel. Although presented just as flawed or sinful as the kings who preceded and followed him, in Judaism and Christianity, King David is presented in various books of the Bible (from where most information originates on him, currently) as a model king of piety, repentance, and submission as well a forerunner to the Messiah—the Jewish "anointed one" and champion.

Make a list of characters who Favoured king David and those who were against him?

        

Character Study

Against king David:

• Absalom 
• Achitophel
• Corah 
• Shimei
• Zimri
• Jonas
• Balaam
• Nadab

Favour of King David:

• Barzillai
• Jotham
• Ameil
• Zadok
• Hushai
• Adriel
• Barzillai's Eldest son

Discuss in detail:

Against King David:

• Abslom:

David’s illegitimate son and the protagonist of “Absalom and Achitophel.” David does not have any legitimate heirs to the throne, but Absalom is his favourite child. Absalom is handsome and ambitious, and he has made himself a hero at war. The people of Israel love Absalom almost as much as David does, and Achitophel believes that the Jews would accept Absalom as their king. Achitophel begins to encourage Absalom and herald his birth and blood as royal, and he tries to convince Absalom to rebel against David. Absalom, however, is not a malicious man, and he doesn’t initially believe he has a right to the crown, but he is eventually worn down by Achitophel’s flattery and his own growing desire for more power. Absalom agrees to rebel against David, and as he travels to Israel in a procession with Achitophel, Absalom conforms to Achitophel’s deceitful ways. as an obedient son, he will never step against him. But gradually, the words of Achitophel start to haunt the young man’s mind. Finally, he agrees that King David shouldn’t be the King anymore.

That Absalom, ambitious of the crown,

Was made the lure to draw the people down;

That false Achitophel’s pernicious hate

Had turn’d the Plot to ruin church and state;

The council violent, the rabble worse,

That Shimei taught Jerusalem to curse. (923)

Achitophel seduces Absalom to commit “a pleasing rape upon the crown” and after that, the young man throws away all his morals and hesitations and is completely immersed in the vision of his power as a new King.

• Achitophel:

A deceitful counsellor to King David and the antagonist of “Absalom and Achitophel.” Of all the men who oppose David within the government, Achitophel is the most influential. He is smart, ambitious, and morally flexible. He pretends to be David’s friend, but in actuality, he either wants to rule Israel or completely destroy it. Achitophel stokes the “malcontents” of the Jews and incites anti-Jebusite hysteria in an attempt to ruin David, and then he encourages David’s son Absalom to rebel against him. Achitophel hates David’s brother, the heir presumptive, and he wants to make sure that he never ascends the throne. Achitophel begins his plan to ruin David by claiming David is a Jebusite, and while he knows that his argument is “weak,” he also knows the Jews fear the Jebusites, and his approach proves very effective. As Achitophel works on Absalom, Achitophel’s trusted men wreak havoc with the Sanhedrin and try to bring David down from inside the government. Achitophel finally convinces Absalom to rebel, and they embark on a procession through Israel to further ingratiate Absalom with the people and identify enemies to their cause. What comes of Achitophel is never revealed in Dryden’s poem, but historically speaking, Shaftesbury was tried for treason after encouraging Charles’s son the Duke of Monmouth, to rebel against the crown, but he was later acquitted. 

• Corah:

The most important of Achitophel’s men. Corah is a priest, although he lies about his rabbinical degree, and he hatches the plot that helps Achitophel discredit David’s brother and ingratiate Absalom to the people of Israel. Corah’s memory is impeccable, and his account of the plot never once changes, which is why the Jews believe his fictitious plot. In the Bible, Corah leads a rebellion against Moses, and in Dryden’s poem, he represents Titus Oates, the Englishman who engineered the Popish Plot. Like Corah, Oates was a Puritan priest with a dubious rabbinical degree, and members of Parliament put stock into his unbelievable conspiracy because of his perfect memory and ability to tell and retell the plot without discrepancies.

• Shimei:

The most powerful of Achitophel’s men. Shimei is a dishonest crook who steals and cheats the Jews every chance he gets, but the Jews appoint him as their magistrate anyway.

 

• Zimri:

Zimri likely represents George Villiers, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham, an English statesman and poet who had disgraced himself in war, organized an unsuccessful plot against the government and was accused of treason. He played an active role within the Popish Plot.

• Jonas:

Jonas is a prophet in the Bible, but in Dryden’s poem, he represents Sir William Jones, a member of Parliament who prosecuted many of the Catholics falsely accused in the Popish Plot and also supported the Exclusion Bill.

• Nadab:

In the Bible, Nadab disobeys God and is consumed by fire. In “Absalom and Achitophel,” he represents William, Lord Howard Erick, a Puritan preacher who supported the Exclusion Bill.

• Balaam:

Balaam is a prophet in the Bible, and in “Absalom and Achitophel” he represents Theophilus Hastings, a Member of Parliament and proponent of the Exclusion Bill.

Favour of King David:

• Barzillai:

David’s oldest and most trusted friend. Barzillai was with David when David was in exile after the death of Saul. He likely represents James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond, who was likewise in exile with Charles II after the execution of Charles I. Ormond returned to England with Charles after the Restoration and was his close friend and ally.

• Jotham:

One of David’s trusted men. According to the Bible, Jotham is the king of Judah and the grandson of Zadock, but in Dryden’s poem, he represents George Savile, the nephew of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the man allegorized in the character Achitophel. Savile was a staunch supporter of Charles II, and he is credited with being instrumental in defeating the Exclusion Bill in Parliament.

• Ameil:

One of King David’s trusted and loyal men. Amiel is an important member of the Sanhedrin and helps to quell the uprising against David within the government. There are several Amiels in the Bible, so it is unclear which one Dryden is referring to here, but Amiel is thought to represent Edward Seymour, the speaker of the House of Commons in Parliament during Dryden’s time and a famous supporter of King Charles II and an opponent of the Exclusion Bill.

• Zadoc:

One of David’s trusted men. According to the Bible, Zadock is the High Priest of Israel, and in Dryden’s poem, he represents William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, a supporter of Charles II.

• Hushai:

One of David’s loyal supporters. In the Bible, Hushai is David’s friend who agrees to spy on Absalom during his rebellion. Here, Hushai represents Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, who fought against the Exclusion Bill in Parliament.

• Adriel :

Another of David’s trusted men. In the Bible, Adriel is a nobleman in Israel and another of Barzillai’s sons. In “Absalom and Achitophel,” Adriel most likely represents John Sheffield, 3rd Earl of Mulgrave, who opposed Monmouth’s succession to the crown and supported James II.

• Barzillai's Eldest son:

The son of one of David’s trusted men, who has died and is forever mourned by the speaker of “Absalom and Achitophel.” Barzillai’s eldest son likely represents Thomas Butler, Earl of Ossory. Butler was the son of the 1st Duke of Ormond, who is represented in Dryden’s Barzillai. The Earl of Ossory died in 1680, and Dryden dedicated his book of poems called Fables to him.

There are many different ways of understanding Dryden's poem Absalom and Achitophel. The most common reading compares "the connections between fatherhood and kingship".Through biblical allusions, Dryden connects ancient fatherhood with current events not only to show a precedent but also to show how it connects with a royal's responsibilities. Throughout the poem, the relationship of fatherhood and kingship is united.

Words- 1,784

Post truth

Thinking Activity: post Truth 

 

This blog reflects my understanding of the word- ‘Post-truth.

What exactly is meant by the term post-truth? Paradoxically, post-truth is among the most-talked-about yet least-well-defined meme words of our time. Most observers in the English-speaking world cite the 2016 Word of the Year Oxford English Dictionaries entry: post-truth is the public burial of “objective facts” by an avalanche of media “appeals to emotion and personal belief”.

        

 

The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘Post-truth’ as,

"relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief".

The concept of post-truth has been in existence for the past decade, but Oxford Dictionaries has seen a spike in frequency this year in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States. It has also become associated with a particular noun, in the phrase post-truth politics. The popularity of the German postfaktisch (post-factual) usage captures much the same meaning. Selected as word of the year by the German language society Gesellschaft für Deutsche Sprache (GfdS), it refers to the growing tendency of “political and social discussions” to be dominated by “emotions instead of facts”.

The GfdS adds:

Ever greater sections of the population are ready to ignore facts and even to accept obvious lies willingly. Not the claim to truth, but the expression of the ‘felt truth’ leads to success in the ‘post-factual age’.

The Oxford Dictionaries define “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” In this, they underline that the prefix “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed—that it is irrelevant. These are fighting words to many philosophers, but it is worth noting that this is much more than an academic dispute. So is post-truth just about lying, then? Is it a mere political spin? Not precisely. As presented in the current debate, the word “post-truth” is irreducibly normative. It is an expression of concern by those who care about the concept of truth and feel that it is under attack.

The concept of truth in philosophy goes all the way back to Plato, who warned (through Socrates) of the dangers of false claims to knowledge. Ignorance, Socrates felt, was remediable; if one is ignorant, one can be taught. The greater threat comes from those who have the hubris to think that they already know the truth, for then one might be impetuous enough to act on a falsehood. It is important at this point to give at least a minimal definition of truth. Perhaps the most famous is that of Aristotle, who said: “to say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”

There are other interesting relationships one can have with the truth. In his delightfully brash yet rigorous book On Bullshit, philosopher Harry Frankfurt makes the case that when one is bullshitting, one is not necessarily lying but instead may just be demonstrating a careless indifference toward what is true. Is that what Trump is doing? And there are other, more partisan, attitudes that one can have toward truth as well. When Gingrich claims that how we feel about the murder rate is more important than FBI statistics, one suspects he is just being cynical; he is a kind of enabler for post-truth.

If one looks at the Oxford definition, and how all of this has played out in the recent public debate, one gets the sense that post-truth is not so much a claim that truth does not exist as that fact are subordinate to our political point of view. The Oxford definition focuses on “what” post-truth is: the idea that feelings sometimes matter more than facts. Thus post-truth amounts to a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it or not. And this is a recipe for political domination.

Post-truth communication

We can say that “post-truth” is not simply the opposite of the truth, however, that is defined; it is more complicated. It is better described as an omnibus term, a word for communication comprising a salmagundi or assemblage of different but interconnected phenomena. Post-truth has recombinant qualities. For a start, it is a type of communication that includes old-fashioned lying, where speakers say things about themselves and their world that are at odds with impressions and convictions that they harbour in their mind’s eye.

Liars attempt alchemy: when someone tells lies they wilfully say things they “know” not to be true, for effect. An example is when Donald Trump claims there was never a drought in California, or that during his inauguration the weather cleared when actually light rain fell throughout his address.

Complaints against post-truth are often robust, loud and couched in high moral tones. Post-truth is said to be the beginning of the end of politics as we’ve known it in existing democracies.

There is talk of an emergent “post-truth era”. More than a few critics warn that the spread of post-truth is the harbinger of a new “totalitarianism”. Others speak of populist dictatorship or “fascism-lite” government.

The descriptors are questionable and display little understanding of the historical origins of the present drift towards government by gaslighting. Politics as the art of evasion, befuddlement and engineered public silence isn’t new. Lying in politics is an ancient art. Think of Plato’s noble lie, or Machiavelli’s recommendation that a successful prince must be “a great pretender and dissembler”, or Harry Truman’s description of Richard Nixon as:

… a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he’d lie just to keep his hand in.

Lying in politics isn't new, but digital media decadence is. Thomas Cizauskas/flickr

Some things don’t change. Still, there are several things that are unusual about the gaslighting trends of our time. Each is bound up with the unfinished communications revolution.

The digital merging and melding of text, sound and image, the advent of cheap copying and the growing ease of networked information spreading across vast distances in real-time are powerful drivers of post-truth decadence. New techniques and tools of communication are its conditions of possibility; they enable its production, rapid circulation and absorption into the body politics of democracies, and well beyond.

Think of photoshopped materials and mashups, web applications and pages that recycle content from more than one source to create a single new service displayed in a single graphical interface. Trump’s first campaign advertisement showed migrants allegedly crossing the Mexican border; in fact, it was an image of migrants crossing from Morocco to Melilla in North Africa

.

Then consider impostor news sites (using URLs such as abc.com.co) and fantasy news sites, such as WTOE 5 News, which created the “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Trump for President” story, built using such tools as Clone Zone.

Post-truth spreads; it knows no borders. So, for instance, many Muslims living in countries as far apart as Britain, Pakistan and Indonesia understand that they are among the targets of the project of attacking “fake news” and making America great again. There’s yet another novelty of our period: the production and diffusion of post-truth communication by populist leaders, political parties and governments. The historical record shows that our times are no exception to the old rule that populism is a recurrent autoimmune disease of democracy. Some people fall for the promises not because they “naturally” crave leaders, or yield to the inherited “fascism in us all”. Among the strangest and most puzzling features of the post-truth phenomenon is the way it attracts people into voluntary servitude because it raises their hopes and expectations of betterment.

What’s the difference between lies and post-truth in politics?

In the public imagination politicians are professional liars par excellence, or as the writer, George Orwell once put it: “Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

In her essay Truth and Politics, published in The New Yorker in 1967, the philosopher Hannah Arendt was already lamenting the fact that politics and truth don’t mix. But even Arendt was aware that not all lies are the same. There are lies that are minimal forms of deception, a micro-tear in the fabric of reality, while some lies are so big that they require a complete rearrangement of the whole factual texture, a shift to another reality. In today’s terminology, Arendt was alerting us to the difference between a lie, and the 2016 Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year – “post-truth”.

One way to understand the difference between lies and post-truth, which I’ve written about in a new paper, is that a liar denies specific facts that have precise coordinates in space and time, whereas post-truth questions the very nature of truth. A liar knows the truth, and, by trying to persuade us of an alternative narrative, a liar is paradoxically honouring the truth, whereas post-truth allows no last refuge for the truth.

Clinton versus Trump

This distinction between a lie and post-truth becomes more clear by comparing two recent American presidents, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. At a White House press conference on January 26 1998, Clinton famously said:

I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.

           

Clinton’s statement, given the subsequent revelations and a semen-stained blue dress, is disconcerting. It’s possible that Clinton did not consider his intimate interactions with Lewinsky as a “sexual relation”, but that is unlikely – it would require a phenomenal effort of self-deception, or ingenuity, to defend that position with honesty and integrity. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice because he lied under oath, but he was ultimately acquitted in a Senate trial.

This is the major difference between a lie and a post-truth. While a lie subverts a specific truth, post-truth tries to subvert truth itself. Trump’s abhorrence of truth is reflected in the remarkable claim by one of his lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, that “truth is relative”. Giuliani was talking on NBC News about the request by special counsel Robert Mueller for an interview with Trump regarding the Russia investigation. Giuliani raised concerns that Trump could perjure himself because “truth isn’t truth.”

We can cope with politicians lying, but we cannot afford the risk of allowing politicians to delegitimise truth.

Post-truth is a murky concept, but it should not be confused with a lie. Post-truth is much more devious and dangerous to the democratic fabric of our society. The prefix “post” in post-truth refers to the claim that a specified idea has become redundant and therefore can safely be discarded. Post-truth is the belief that truth is no longer essential, that truth has become obsolete.

Words- 1,897