It can happen anywhere

Having past over a month in a 'third world' country, two striking news bulletins of note crossed my eye, coming from very stable and prosperous 'first world' countries: Norway and (my place of residence): United Kingdom.

During my stay thus far in Chile, the social inequalities here are been protested by students claiming for fairer education system, something that, if amended, would be a stepping stone to solving the staggering class differences.

The right-wing government (the first since the dissolution of the Pinochet regime in 1990) are unable to handle the protesters, slipping down to an all-time low 26% approbation. An incompetent government, constantly changing tack and direction without a fixed plan, the social injustices have exploded all over Sebastián Piñera's face. In short, there's turmoil here - but in a 'third world' country.

Can delinquency, social unrest, carnage only erupt in third world countries? These two news bulletins to me completely refute this: social unrest can surface in any part of the world. If anything, it is very like to surface in tranquil areas.

The case in Norway is staggering, a terrorist act carried out by a single man, killing over eighty people in a country where nothing happens. I know nothing of sociology, but my gut instinct says that when a country is fully-developed and anesthetised, this can unleash many repressed feelings and... wreak havoc.

A few weeks later these brutal riots surface in England... A group of youths, perhaps bored with the mundanity of their every day lives, injected a dose of violence into this calm little island. Apparently there was no political motive, it was merely an anxious need for brutality in a world lacking it.

My Good Reads account

http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/5993530-simon-king

Can't believe that I didn't start to use this marvellous website sooner.

Thoughts on religion, existentialism and the supernatural

1

The main factor that makes me uncomfortable about religion is that mulititudes of people, from different walks of life, adhere to a single set of morals. Whatever you may believe, think or aspire, the morals you stick by are from a religious creed, not something personalised.

What I admire about existentialism, Sartre et. al. is the necessity for an individual to construct his own set of morals... You can make whatever choice you like as long as it is a moral one, and this bars any choice of murder, rape, etc.

But for someone to read this ancient book, that in essence is a piece of apocrypha, and see relevance in it to contemporary life... I don't think that one set of morals can govern what different people, from different persuasions, believe.

2

Now that I have pointed out my admiration for existentialism, I will talk about my qualms with it... Existentialist literature is antagonistic to the supernatural and is often rooted in the concept of proactivity and, often, political change. On the other hand, I am often disinterested in many forms of fantasy because of its reticence to explain itself or make comments... But a lot of the time, this idea of the supernatural emerging out of this new world of moral choices is completely out of the question for many existentialists. (Albert Camus wrote a fulminating reply to Andre Breton's surrealist manifesto.)

Something that to me bridges the gap between the two territories is Franz Kafka. Admired by both existentialists and magic realist writers, his writing depicts both troubled characters striving to form their own take of the world yet at the same time... crushing defeat often results in the supernatural, like the metamorphosing of Gregory Samsa...