{"id":50,"date":"2021-11-15T21:52:15","date_gmt":"2021-11-15T21:52:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/?post_type=chapter&p=50"},"modified":"2024-08-17T16:19:37","modified_gmt":"2024-08-17T16:19:37","slug":"omelas","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/chapter\/omelas\/","title":{"rendered":"Omelas"},"content":{"raw":"

The Eleventh Chapter,<\/strong>\r\nin which you ask yourself<\/strong>\r\nHow do I get out?<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n

\"\"<\/h3>\r\n

Preparation<\/span><\/h3>\r\n

Required Reading: Calcutt, \"Against Moral Sainthood<\/a>\"\u00a0 (Aeon<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Optional Reading: Ratner-Rosenhagen, \"The Lost Hope of Self-Help<\/a>\" (Aeon<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Writing:<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. Calcutt describes the \"rational saint\" and the \"loving saint.\" What are these two types of \"saint\"?\u00a0 Answer with paraphrase, not quotation.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
  2. An argument is a\u00a0thesis <\/i>supported by one or more reasons. <\/i>What is Calcutt's thesis? What reason(s) does he provide in support of his thesis? Paraphrase or quote briefly.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
  3. What is your immediate reaction to Calcutt's argument? Agreement, disagreement, or something else?<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Respond to the following question by writing at least one paragraph:\u00a0Who is someone in your life who somewhat fits into one of the two categories of \"saint\"? Describe them in some detail, and describe how you feel about them.\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n\r\n
    \r\n\r\n

    Introduction<\/h3>\r\n

    So we\u2019re saying there really is real morality, and that you\u2019d better figure out what it is, if you want to be real happy.<\/p>\r\n

    Ok.<\/p>\r\n

    But how do you do that? How do you \u201cdo philosophy\u201d?<\/p>\r\n

    On the one hand that\u2019s a weird question: isn\u2019t philosophy just what you\u2019ve been learning how to do in class? The Basic Move, and all that? Tackling dilemmas, examining assumptions, trying to hold on to that mental posture where you\u2019re alert-but-also-relaxed?<\/p>\r\n

    Well, yes. So let\u2019s rephrase the question: what do you need if you\u2019re going to \u201cdo philosophy\u201d?<\/p>\r\n

    Actually you already know the answer. You need what Pizan built for herself, for her readers. You need what Du Bois found in all his books. A city in speech. Breathing room. Some kind of distance between you and the normal world. Maybe it\u2019s distance in your head, maybe it\u2019s literal, maybe it\u2019s both. But whatever it is, to get it, you might need to do something drastic. You might need to just walk away.<\/p>\r\n

    History, not just of philosophy but of politics, is full of people who \u201cwalked away.\u201d Sometimes it was forever; sometimes it was a few years, a few months. Sometimes it wasn\u2019t actually walking away; it was more like getting dragged away and sent to Siberia. But hey: it doesn\u2019t get much more distant from the normal world than Siberia. Some people have made good from bad. And others have freely chosen the \u201cbad\u201d (does 40 days in the desert sound fun to you?) in order to break through the noise and discover the good.<\/p>\r\n

    But what if you had it all? I mean really had it all \u2014 what if you had not just \u201cwhat you want,\u201d but \u201cwhat\u2019s good for you,\u201d and what was good for you was also what you wanted, just like Confucius in his old age? What if you had a world where there was justice, where there were no puppetmasters and no prisoners? What if you had happiness, and it wasn\u2019t the shepherd\u2019s fake happiness, it was real happiness? What would possibly make you want to walk away from that?<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[embed]https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/U2AmhCHRCXM[\/embed]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Discussion<\/h3>\r\n

    What is Omelas? Simple. It\u2019s the world outside the cave. It\u2019s the city the philosopher built when she got out in the sun. It\u2019s where the prisoner is trying to go. It\u2019s the destination, the end of all this wandering. It\u2019s the answer to all the questions, the big ones and the bigger ones. It\u2019s the bottom of the rabbit hole. It\u2019s where philosophy takes you, if you let it. It\u2019s Zion. It\u2019s home.<\/p>\r\n

    Does that seem wrong to you? Then look at the story again. What\u2019s not in Omelas? First, there are no puppetmasters. There are no masters at all; the endless master-slave dialectic has finally ended. There are plenty of shepherds, but there are no kings lording it over them. There\u2019s equality, real equality. The people don\u2019t have to be forced by a government into treating each other as equals. They just like treating each other as equals. They prefer having friends to having inferiors. It\u2019s what they want. And in Omelas, you get everything you want.<\/p>\r\n

    Second, there are no prisoners, because there are no shadows. The people are free from illusions. They are free from illusions about what is worth wanting: they know how to distinguish their needs and their wants, and they know how to distinguish their destructive desires from desires that do no harm. So they know how to practice philosophy, because that\u2019s what philosophy does: it draws the right distinctions. It throws out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. Since they know real morality, they\u2019re free from the limits placed on them by conventional morality, which doesn\u2019t know how to draw the right limits, and ends up setting the limits in all the wrong places, and enforcing those limits with rewards and punishments, carrots and sticks, praise and shame. \u201cOne thing I know there is none of in Omelas is guilt.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    What they have in Omelas is happiness. But \u2014 and this is the crucial thing \u2014 it is real happiness. It\u2019s the happiness of a full, meaningful life, a fulfilled life, a complex life full of joy as well as sorrow. It\u2019s not the prisoner\u2019s happiness, the happiness of getting what you think you want. And it\u2019s not the puppetmaster\u2019s happiness, the shepherd\u2019s happiness of getting what you really want, by using philosophy like a magic ring to manipulate the wants of others. It\u2019s the philosopher\u2019s happiness, the happiness you get when you finally learn what\u2019s truly worth wanting, and how to truly enjoy it. It\u2019s not the happiness you get inside the cave. It\u2019s the happiness you find outside in the sun. The happiness that you get when you get rid of conventional morality, without falling into the trap of believing there\u2019s no morality. It\u2019s the happiness of true morality.<\/p>\r\n

    \u201cBut it\u2019s built on a lie!\u201d you say. Except, it\u2019s not. That\u2019s what makes Omelas so incredible: that\u2019s what really puts it outside the cave. Not only do the people in Omelas have no illusions about what\u2019s truly good; they also have no illusions about the price they pay to have what\u2019s truly good. They\u2019re not being lied to; there is no puppetmaster. And they\u2019re not lying to themselves, either. Not only does this mean that they live in the truth; it also means that the happiness they have is that much richer, that much deeper. A full, meaningful life surely has to include feelings of compassion: compassion is part of what it means to be human. In a world where no one suffered, there would be no need for compassion. And life there would lose some of its meaning. A world without suffering offers only the cheap happiness the prisoners have in mind. Daydream happiness. \u201cIgnorant bliss.\u201d But Omelas offers real happiness: not perfection, not utopia, not ignorant bliss. Real bliss.<\/p>\r\n

    So now, face to face with the destination, the thing you\u2019ve been looking for this whole time (and of course you\u2019ve always been looking for it, even though you\u2019ve tried to keep the right mental posture, to forget goals, to focus on the journey, to wander around the city for the sheer pleasure of asking questions without needing final answers); now you finally arrive, and what do find? Just another question. In fact it\u2019s another damned trolley problem. You\u2019re back to where you started.<\/p>\r\n

    Imagine: you reach that age where they take you down into the basement, and show you the truth about the city. They show you the little cave that the great city is built on. You see the single prisoner, the only one left behind in the cave, and you are faced with a choice.<\/p>\r\n

    On the one hand, you could save the prisoner, release the child from its nightmare and bring it up into the sun. You could not do this alone, probably: you would have to find allies. You might have to lead a revolution, take the building by force. People might have to die. And even if those who opposed your revolution surrendered peacefully, you will have changed everything already: you will have introduced power into the city. You, or someone, will have had to become the master, in order to force everyone else to let the slave go. But now the people you forced are your inferiors, and you are their superior. Omelas is over; you have destroyed it.<\/p>\r\n

    Suppose none of that is necessary. Suppose you simply unlock the door and take the child out. The story tells us that this in itself would be enough to destroy Omelas. No one wants the child to be there. The people are not sadists. They are truly moral people! The child simply has to be there. \u201cThose are the rules.\u201d This is a thought experiment, just like the trolly problem. It\u2019s not supposed to be realistic. It\u2019s supposed to show you what\u2019s a stake and force you to choose. If you choose to let the child go, whether by leading the revolution or just by opening the door, you will destroy the happiness of the many. And more than this: you will not secure the happiness of the one, of the prisoner itself. The prisoner is beyond saving: that\u2019s what the story tells us. The prisoner cannot be happy in the sun, because it\u2019s been shut up in its cave for too long. You can\u2019t do anything for it, and if you try, you\u2019ll only hurt everyone else.<\/p>\r\n

    So your choice here is not \u201csave the many or save the one.\u201d It\u2019s different from the original trolley problem. You can\u2019t save the one, and if you try, the many will suffer. Now, you might think this makes the Omelas problem much easier than the trolley problem \u2014 you might think there is no dilemma, no real choice. But in fact there is. Because you can leave. The choice is whether to stay or go. If you stay, you accept the situation, and you keep the happiness, the kind of happiness you can only have if you do accept the situation. If you go, you give up the happiness, because you are not willing to accept reality if reality is so wrong.<\/p>\r\n

    You still accept that you can\u2019t change reality, that you\u2019re not free in that way. You\u2019re not free to bend and break the rules like that. You\u2019re not free from the limits. You\u2019re not The One. That kind of freedom is a fantasy, and really it\u2019s not a even a fantasy of freedom. It\u2019s a fantasy of power. What you don\u2019t accept, if you decide to walk way, is the idea that since the situation can\u2019t be changed, the situation must be good. You don\u2019t accept the that reality is morally acceptable. You\u2019re free to insist that this is wrong, even if you have to admit you can\u2019t fix it. And you\u2019re free to give up the happiness that requires you to give in to the idea that whatever can\u2019t be changed must be right.<\/p>\r\n

    Or, that\u2019s what you find when you walk away and leave real happiness behind: you find real freedom. Not the fantasy of freedom from limits, not the freedom Neo has in the Matrix. You are still limited. You can\u2019t fix this. You can\u2019t break the rules that make Omelas what it is. You can\u2019t just decide for yourself what will and won\u2019t make you truly happy. If you\u2019re going to be happy, you really do have to make those \u201cjust discriminations.\u201d But you can give up on Omelas itself; you can give up on the dream of happiness, the dream of \u201cenlightenment.\u201d The dream of feeling at home in the world. And maybe that\u2019s what real freedom is: choosing not to feel at home in a world that makes the happiness of some depend on the unhappiness of others. Choosing not to be happy with the way things have to be. (because that\u2019s the message of the story: this really is the way things have to be). Choosing to strike out for some other way of being in the world, something that can\u2019t be understood as \u201chappiness,\u201d not even real outside-the-cave happiness. Something even harder to describe than real happiness.<\/p>\r\n

    Harder to describe, but maybe not impossible. Here is one way think about where \u201cthe ones who walk away\u201d might be going. It may seem strange, but consider: they might actually be going back. Back into the cave, back to the normal world, the everyday world that you yourself live in. After all, in the story of the cave, that\u2019s what the philosopher does. He returns. And Plato doesn\u2019t clearly explain why he returns. Why would he go back, now that he\u2019s out? Maybe the story of Omelas points to an answer.<\/p>\r\n

    When the ones who walked away chose not to make themselves at home in Omelas, not to accept an unacceptable reality, perhaps they chose instead to accept the reality of the cave. Because the cave is real, too, even though it\u2019s built on illusions. It\u2019s the real world of common sense. It\u2019s where flesh-and-blood people live, getting up in the morning, going to class, going to work, shopping for groceries. It\u2019s the world that philosophy didn\u2019t build, the imperfect world, full of boredom, violence, poverty, stupidity, arrogance. Maybe the ones who walk away sacrifice the real happiness of the city of philosophy for a different kind of real happiness. It\u2019s not the daydream happiness of the prisoners who never left. Because the ones who walk away have been to Omelas; they\u2019ve been outside. They can never unknow what they know. They can\u2019t plug themselves back into the Matrix: no ignorant bliss for them. So when they go back in to live with the prisoners, they\u2019ll give up their happiness: but they\u2019ll keep their freedom from illusions. They\u2019ll be \u201cin\u201d the cave, but not \u201cof\u201d the cave. Part of it, but apart from it. Engaged, but not assimilated. They\u2019ll keep a place in their heads that stays aware, without needing to make the whole world look like that space in their heads, without needing to drag the prisoners into their utopia. They\u2019ll go about their business, getting up in the morning, going to class, going to work, shopping for groceries. They\u2019ll do all the same things everyone else does. They\u2019ll follow the same stupid moral rules. But they\u2019ll do the same things in a different way; they\u2019ll follow the rules for different reasons. Their posture of mind will be different. Others might not even notice the difference. But the difference will make a difference.<\/p>\r\n

    It seems important that in the story, they walk away alone. And they might be alone for quite a while, before they find their way to wherever they\u2019re going, whether that\u2019s back to normal world or on to somewhere else.<\/p>\r\n

    Remember that the philosopher who built Omelas was once a prisoner, and that getting free of his cave meant withdrawing not only from its illusions, but also from his fellow prisoners and their common life. This is part of philosophy as a way of life. The philosophical way of life requires taking some kind of distance from society (even if it\u2019s utopia!). Not necessarily forever: not everyone is cut out to be a hermit. But at important times in one\u2019s life, or at regular intervals, maybe you need literal distance from people, from distractions and social pressures. Maybe solitude is necessary for freedom.<\/p>\r\n

    The next two readings explore these themes. The first, Simone Weil\u2019s \u201cRight Use of School Studies,\u201d talks about what it might mean to be \u201cin but not of\u201d the normal world, to take up a philosophical frame of mind even while we are doing normal-world things, with normal people. The second, from Henry David Thoreau\u2019s Walden, shows us the freedom of perspective we might attain when we take ourselves away from normal people, out of the normal world altogether.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n

    Reflection<\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n \t
    1. Omelas is a situation<\/b>. What is your reaction <\/b>to the situation? You can use words, phrases, full sentences. Just feel and write, don\u2019t think.<\/li>\r\n \t
    2. The situation raises an ethical question: should they stay, or walk away? <\/i>What is your initial answer to this question? Your answer is part of your reaction.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
    3. List some features of the situation <\/b>in Omelas that might have led you to react this way.<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t
    4. Is the situation in Omelas similar in any way to our general \u201csituation\u201d in life - just as the cave or the matrix is supposed to correspond to the human situation? Are their \"children in the basement\" of Normal World?<\/li>\r\n \t
    5. Read David Brooks, \"The Child in the Basement<\/a>\" (New York Times). <\/b><\/li>\r\n \t
    6. Reflect <\/b>on your reaction to the situation, and on your own answer to the question.\u00a0Vary\u00a0<\/strong>the situation by comparing it to the human situation (using your answer to #4 above). How does your real-world reaction to the human situation compare to your reaction to the story of Omelas?\u00a0Explain<\/strong> by asking \"what's the difference\"?<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n

      <\/p>","rendered":"

      The Eleventh Chapter,<\/strong>
      \nin which you ask yourself<\/strong>
      \nHow do I get out?<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/h3>\n

      Preparation<\/span><\/h3>\n

      Required Reading: Calcutt, “Against Moral Sainthood<\/a>”\u00a0 (Aeon<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

      Optional Reading: Ratner-Rosenhagen, “The Lost Hope of Self-Help<\/a>” (Aeon<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

      Writing:<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Calcutt describes the “rational saint” and the “loving saint.” What are these two types of “saint”?\u00a0 Answer with paraphrase, not quotation.<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. An argument is a\u00a0thesis <\/i>supported by one or more reasons. <\/i>What is Calcutt’s thesis? What reason(s) does he provide in support of his thesis? Paraphrase or quote briefly.<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. What is your immediate reaction to Calcutt’s argument? Agreement, disagreement, or something else?<\/span><\/li>\n
      4. Respond to the following question by writing at least one paragraph:\u00a0Who is someone in your life who somewhat fits into one of the two categories of “saint”? Describe them in some detail, and describe how you feel about them.\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n

        Introduction<\/h3>\n

        So we\u2019re saying there really is real morality, and that you\u2019d better figure out what it is, if you want to be real happy.<\/p>\n

        Ok.<\/p>\n

        But how do you do that? How do you \u201cdo philosophy\u201d?<\/p>\n

        On the one hand that\u2019s a weird question: isn\u2019t philosophy just what you\u2019ve been learning how to do in class? The Basic Move, and all that? Tackling dilemmas, examining assumptions, trying to hold on to that mental posture where you\u2019re alert-but-also-relaxed?<\/p>\n

        Well, yes. So let\u2019s rephrase the question: what do you need if you\u2019re going to \u201cdo philosophy\u201d?<\/p>\n

        Actually you already know the answer. You need what Pizan built for herself, for her readers. You need what Du Bois found in all his books. A city in speech. Breathing room. Some kind of distance between you and the normal world. Maybe it\u2019s distance in your head, maybe it\u2019s literal, maybe it\u2019s both. But whatever it is, to get it, you might need to do something drastic. You might need to just walk away.<\/p>\n

        History, not just of philosophy but of politics, is full of people who \u201cwalked away.\u201d Sometimes it was forever; sometimes it was a few years, a few months. Sometimes it wasn\u2019t actually walking away; it was more like getting dragged away and sent to Siberia. But hey: it doesn\u2019t get much more distant from the normal world than Siberia. Some people have made good from bad. And others have freely chosen the \u201cbad\u201d (does 40 days in the desert sound fun to you?) in order to break through the noise and discover the good.<\/p>\n

        But what if you had it all? I mean really had it all \u2014 what if you had not just \u201cwhat you want,\u201d but \u201cwhat\u2019s good for you,\u201d and what was good for you was also what you wanted, just like Confucius in his old age? What if you had a world where there was justice, where there were no puppetmasters and no prisoners? What if you had happiness, and it wasn\u2019t the shepherd\u2019s fake happiness, it was real happiness? What would possibly make you want to walk away from that?<\/p>\n

        \n

        https:\/\/youtube.com\/watch?v=U2AmhCHRCXM<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        Discussion<\/h3>\n

        What is Omelas? Simple. It\u2019s the world outside the cave. It\u2019s the city the philosopher built when she got out in the sun. It\u2019s where the prisoner is trying to go. It\u2019s the destination, the end of all this wandering. It\u2019s the answer to all the questions, the big ones and the bigger ones. It\u2019s the bottom of the rabbit hole. It\u2019s where philosophy takes you, if you let it. It\u2019s Zion. It\u2019s home.<\/p>\n

        Does that seem wrong to you? Then look at the story again. What\u2019s not in Omelas? First, there are no puppetmasters. There are no masters at all; the endless master-slave dialectic has finally ended. There are plenty of shepherds, but there are no kings lording it over them. There\u2019s equality, real equality. The people don\u2019t have to be forced by a government into treating each other as equals. They just like treating each other as equals. They prefer having friends to having inferiors. It\u2019s what they want. And in Omelas, you get everything you want.<\/p>\n

        Second, there are no prisoners, because there are no shadows. The people are free from illusions. They are free from illusions about what is worth wanting: they know how to distinguish their needs and their wants, and they know how to distinguish their destructive desires from desires that do no harm. So they know how to practice philosophy, because that\u2019s what philosophy does: it draws the right distinctions. It throws out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. Since they know real morality, they\u2019re free from the limits placed on them by conventional morality, which doesn\u2019t know how to draw the right limits, and ends up setting the limits in all the wrong places, and enforcing those limits with rewards and punishments, carrots and sticks, praise and shame. \u201cOne thing I know there is none of in Omelas is guilt.\u201d<\/p>\n

        What they have in Omelas is happiness. But \u2014 and this is the crucial thing \u2014 it is real happiness. It\u2019s the happiness of a full, meaningful life, a fulfilled life, a complex life full of joy as well as sorrow. It\u2019s not the prisoner\u2019s happiness, the happiness of getting what you think you want. And it\u2019s not the puppetmaster\u2019s happiness, the shepherd\u2019s happiness of getting what you really want, by using philosophy like a magic ring to manipulate the wants of others. It\u2019s the philosopher\u2019s happiness, the happiness you get when you finally learn what\u2019s truly worth wanting, and how to truly enjoy it. It\u2019s not the happiness you get inside the cave. It\u2019s the happiness you find outside in the sun. The happiness that you get when you get rid of conventional morality, without falling into the trap of believing there\u2019s no morality. It\u2019s the happiness of true morality.<\/p>\n

        \u201cBut it\u2019s built on a lie!\u201d you say. Except, it\u2019s not. That\u2019s what makes Omelas so incredible: that\u2019s what really puts it outside the cave. Not only do the people in Omelas have no illusions about what\u2019s truly good; they also have no illusions about the price they pay to have what\u2019s truly good. They\u2019re not being lied to; there is no puppetmaster. And they\u2019re not lying to themselves, either. Not only does this mean that they live in the truth; it also means that the happiness they have is that much richer, that much deeper. A full, meaningful life surely has to include feelings of compassion: compassion is part of what it means to be human. In a world where no one suffered, there would be no need for compassion. And life there would lose some of its meaning. A world without suffering offers only the cheap happiness the prisoners have in mind. Daydream happiness. \u201cIgnorant bliss.\u201d But Omelas offers real happiness: not perfection, not utopia, not ignorant bliss. Real bliss.<\/p>\n

        So now, face to face with the destination, the thing you\u2019ve been looking for this whole time (and of course you\u2019ve always been looking for it, even though you\u2019ve tried to keep the right mental posture, to forget goals, to focus on the journey, to wander around the city for the sheer pleasure of asking questions without needing final answers); now you finally arrive, and what do find? Just another question. In fact it\u2019s another damned trolley problem. You\u2019re back to where you started.<\/p>\n

        Imagine: you reach that age where they take you down into the basement, and show you the truth about the city. They show you the little cave that the great city is built on. You see the single prisoner, the only one left behind in the cave, and you are faced with a choice.<\/p>\n

        On the one hand, you could save the prisoner, release the child from its nightmare and bring it up into the sun. You could not do this alone, probably: you would have to find allies. You might have to lead a revolution, take the building by force. People might have to die. And even if those who opposed your revolution surrendered peacefully, you will have changed everything already: you will have introduced power into the city. You, or someone, will have had to become the master, in order to force everyone else to let the slave go. But now the people you forced are your inferiors, and you are their superior. Omelas is over; you have destroyed it.<\/p>\n

        Suppose none of that is necessary. Suppose you simply unlock the door and take the child out. The story tells us that this in itself would be enough to destroy Omelas. No one wants the child to be there. The people are not sadists. They are truly moral people! The child simply has to be there. \u201cThose are the rules.\u201d This is a thought experiment, just like the trolly problem. It\u2019s not supposed to be realistic. It\u2019s supposed to show you what\u2019s a stake and force you to choose. If you choose to let the child go, whether by leading the revolution or just by opening the door, you will destroy the happiness of the many. And more than this: you will not secure the happiness of the one, of the prisoner itself. The prisoner is beyond saving: that\u2019s what the story tells us. The prisoner cannot be happy in the sun, because it\u2019s been shut up in its cave for too long. You can\u2019t do anything for it, and if you try, you\u2019ll only hurt everyone else.<\/p>\n

        So your choice here is not \u201csave the many or save the one.\u201d It\u2019s different from the original trolley problem. You can\u2019t save the one, and if you try, the many will suffer. Now, you might think this makes the Omelas problem much easier than the trolley problem \u2014 you might think there is no dilemma, no real choice. But in fact there is. Because you can leave. The choice is whether to stay or go. If you stay, you accept the situation, and you keep the happiness, the kind of happiness you can only have if you do accept the situation. If you go, you give up the happiness, because you are not willing to accept reality if reality is so wrong.<\/p>\n

        You still accept that you can\u2019t change reality, that you\u2019re not free in that way. You\u2019re not free to bend and break the rules like that. You\u2019re not free from the limits. You\u2019re not The One. That kind of freedom is a fantasy, and really it\u2019s not a even a fantasy of freedom. It\u2019s a fantasy of power. What you don\u2019t accept, if you decide to walk way, is the idea that since the situation can\u2019t be changed, the situation must be good. You don\u2019t accept the that reality is morally acceptable. You\u2019re free to insist that this is wrong, even if you have to admit you can\u2019t fix it. And you\u2019re free to give up the happiness that requires you to give in to the idea that whatever can\u2019t be changed must be right.<\/p>\n

        Or, that\u2019s what you find when you walk away and leave real happiness behind: you find real freedom. Not the fantasy of freedom from limits, not the freedom Neo has in the Matrix. You are still limited. You can\u2019t fix this. You can\u2019t break the rules that make Omelas what it is. You can\u2019t just decide for yourself what will and won\u2019t make you truly happy. If you\u2019re going to be happy, you really do have to make those \u201cjust discriminations.\u201d But you can give up on Omelas itself; you can give up on the dream of happiness, the dream of \u201cenlightenment.\u201d The dream of feeling at home in the world. And maybe that\u2019s what real freedom is: choosing not to feel at home in a world that makes the happiness of some depend on the unhappiness of others. Choosing not to be happy with the way things have to be. (because that\u2019s the message of the story: this really is the way things have to be). Choosing to strike out for some other way of being in the world, something that can\u2019t be understood as \u201chappiness,\u201d not even real outside-the-cave happiness. Something even harder to describe than real happiness.<\/p>\n

        Harder to describe, but maybe not impossible. Here is one way think about where \u201cthe ones who walk away\u201d might be going. It may seem strange, but consider: they might actually be going back. Back into the cave, back to the normal world, the everyday world that you yourself live in. After all, in the story of the cave, that\u2019s what the philosopher does. He returns. And Plato doesn\u2019t clearly explain why he returns. Why would he go back, now that he\u2019s out? Maybe the story of Omelas points to an answer.<\/p>\n

        When the ones who walked away chose not to make themselves at home in Omelas, not to accept an unacceptable reality, perhaps they chose instead to accept the reality of the cave. Because the cave is real, too, even though it\u2019s built on illusions. It\u2019s the real world of common sense. It\u2019s where flesh-and-blood people live, getting up in the morning, going to class, going to work, shopping for groceries. It\u2019s the world that philosophy didn\u2019t build, the imperfect world, full of boredom, violence, poverty, stupidity, arrogance. Maybe the ones who walk away sacrifice the real happiness of the city of philosophy for a different kind of real happiness. It\u2019s not the daydream happiness of the prisoners who never left. Because the ones who walk away have been to Omelas; they\u2019ve been outside. They can never unknow what they know. They can\u2019t plug themselves back into the Matrix: no ignorant bliss for them. So when they go back in to live with the prisoners, they\u2019ll give up their happiness: but they\u2019ll keep their freedom from illusions. They\u2019ll be \u201cin\u201d the cave, but not \u201cof\u201d the cave. Part of it, but apart from it. Engaged, but not assimilated. They\u2019ll keep a place in their heads that stays aware, without needing to make the whole world look like that space in their heads, without needing to drag the prisoners into their utopia. They\u2019ll go about their business, getting up in the morning, going to class, going to work, shopping for groceries. They\u2019ll do all the same things everyone else does. They\u2019ll follow the same stupid moral rules. But they\u2019ll do the same things in a different way; they\u2019ll follow the rules for different reasons. Their posture of mind will be different. Others might not even notice the difference. But the difference will make a difference.<\/p>\n

        It seems important that in the story, they walk away alone. And they might be alone for quite a while, before they find their way to wherever they\u2019re going, whether that\u2019s back to normal world or on to somewhere else.<\/p>\n

        Remember that the philosopher who built Omelas was once a prisoner, and that getting free of his cave meant withdrawing not only from its illusions, but also from his fellow prisoners and their common life. This is part of philosophy as a way of life. The philosophical way of life requires taking some kind of distance from society (even if it\u2019s utopia!). Not necessarily forever: not everyone is cut out to be a hermit. But at important times in one\u2019s life, or at regular intervals, maybe you need literal distance from people, from distractions and social pressures. Maybe solitude is necessary for freedom.<\/p>\n

        The next two readings explore these themes. The first, Simone Weil\u2019s \u201cRight Use of School Studies,\u201d talks about what it might mean to be \u201cin but not of\u201d the normal world, to take up a philosophical frame of mind even while we are doing normal-world things, with normal people. The second, from Henry David Thoreau\u2019s Walden, shows us the freedom of perspective we might attain when we take ourselves away from normal people, out of the normal world altogether.<\/p>\n

        \n

        Reflection<\/h3>\n
          \n
        1. Omelas is a situation<\/b>. What is your reaction <\/b>to the situation? You can use words, phrases, full sentences. Just feel and write, don\u2019t think.<\/li>\n
        2. The situation raises an ethical question: should they stay, or walk away? <\/i>What is your initial answer to this question? Your answer is part of your reaction.<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. List some features of the situation <\/b>in Omelas that might have led you to react this way.<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. Is the situation in Omelas similar in any way to our general \u201csituation\u201d in life – just as the cave or the matrix is supposed to correspond to the human situation? Are their “children in the basement” of Normal World?<\/li>\n
        5. Read David Brooks, “The Child in the Basement<\/a>” (New York Times). <\/b><\/li>\n
        6. Reflect <\/b>on your reaction to the situation, and on your own answer to the question.\u00a0Vary\u00a0<\/strong>the situation by comparing it to the human situation (using your answer to #4 above). How does your real-world reaction to the human situation compare to your reaction to the story of Omelas?\u00a0Explain<\/strong> by asking “what’s the difference”?<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          \n","protected":false},"author":8,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"part":38,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/50"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/50\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":222,"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/50\/revisions\/222"}],"part":[{"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/38"}],"metadata":[{"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/50\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=50"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=50"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/pressbooks.dbq.edu\/bigquestions\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=50"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}