Heroic Motifs (in The Amory Wars)

Posted by Colin Temple on April 24, 2009 in Classics, Religion, University

My course in Greek Mythology this term had quite a bit of discussion about heroes.  Heroes from all mythologies, both ancient and modern, tend to have remarkable similarities in their stories — in their origins, their lives and their deaths.  It happened for the ancient Greek heroes, it happened in legends, it happens in modern films, and it happens for superheroes in comic books.  These are the heroic motifs.

As the professor went through the list of motifs, I couldn’t help but think of The Amory Wars.

I’m a big Coheed and Cambria fan.  For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this band, their four albums (and upcoming fifth) are all part of a story called The Amory Wars, which is, essentially, a science-fiction story about a teenage boy, Claudio Kilgannon, who becomes messianic figure meant to bring about the apocalyptic end to his solar system.

In addition to being filled with philosophically interesting situations, The Amory Wars (and the related Good Apollo albums and graphic novel) are filled with heroic motifs. When our final exam presented us with an essay option to compare heroic motifs in ancient and modern sources, I couldn’t help but to develop that idea.

Consider a few examples:

1. Heroes often begin their journey with a prophecy. Perseus’ grandfather was warned that Perseus would kill him. Oedipus’ father, Laius, is told that his son would kill him and marry his wife. The Amory Wars has the prophecy of The Crowing, the messianic figure who young Claudio must become, but also has a distorted prophecy given to his parents, Coheed and Cambria Kilgannon, that their children would bring a more negative destruction to their world.
2. Heroes often narrowly escape death because of that prophecy. Perseus’ grandfather tries to prevent his birth, and when he is born, attempts to rid himself of the problem by sending Perseus and his mother out to sea in a wooden box.  Similarly, the infant Oedipus has his feet pinned together and is left on a mountainside to die by exposure.  And Coheed and Cambria, misled into believing their children were a threat, killed three of them.  Only Claudio escaped.
3. Heroes are usually aided in their quest.  The Greek heroes were usually aided by gods or goddesses, by demi-gods, other humans or lesser heroes.  Claudio is aided both by his “uncle” Jesse, and by Ambellina — a member of an angel-like race known as the Prise, who is meant to guide Claudio towards his role as the Crowing.  (”Dear Ambellina, the Prise wishes you to watch over me” – The Crowing, on In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth: 3)
4. Heroes of prophecy usually try to avoid their prophecies – especially if they are tragic in some way.  Oedipus tries very hard to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother — fleeing his adoptive parents, believing that he was escaping the prophecy.  Claudio is skeptical when Ambellina tells him that he’s the Crowing, and consistently seems to struggle with the whole idea.  Claudio also begins to fall in love with Ambellina, which isn’t exactly making him want to do the whole destroy-the-world thing.
5. …but in the end are forced to fulfill them. Oedipus feels confident when he learns of the death of his adoptive parents, but does not realize that he has already killed his birth father, and married his birth mother.  Claudio receives a more direct intervention from his ‘God’.  The Writer, who is actually penning the Amory Wars story, (after being persuaded by a hallucination – his talking bicycle) actually writes himself into the story.  He appears before Claudio, kills Ambellina, and tells him that he must fulfill his role as Crowing.  “Your time has come. Crowing. You’re burning Star IV.”  (Good Apollo, I’m Burning Star IV,Volume 1: From Fear Through The Eyes of Madness)

There are more — The Amory Wars is a very complex story, and it’s not done yet — but you get the idea.  I was a bit concerned when I wrote my exam, because I was choosing a story that the professor was probably unfamiliar with, but I got an A+ on the exam, and in the course, so I guess it was the right decision.  My paper mainly compared Oedipus and Claudio Kilgannon as heroes of prophecy.

I might be the only person in the class, or maybe the school, to use a rock album as a source in a paper for a Classical Studies course.

That’s probably the assignment I’ve had the most fun with so far.  I have a less exciting, but still interesting, paper to finish writing on animal rights for another exam.  After that, one more exam to write at the school and first year is done.  Only three more years to go… for my BA, at least.  I’m considering more, but it’s early.

{ No Comments }

Should we ban human cloning?

Posted by Colin Temple on March 28, 2009 in Ethics

I recently wrote a paper for a Moral Reasoning course in defense of human cloning. The concept of human cloning seems a bit frightening to me, but I don’t think that’s altogether rational.

Let me first define human cloning by the current hypothetical techniques for doing so.  Human cloning is the creation of a human being, or human tissues, using 100% of the nuclear genetic material from a donor.  You have to know a little bit about biology to fully understand this, but essentially the process means that instead of having two parents — each donating 50% of their genetic code, randomly — only one parent donates complete DNA, making the child, or clone, a genetic duplicate of the parent.

To examine the issue of human cloning, let’s consider the following benefits — why would we even consider cloning humans in the first place?  I won’t lay out the entire list of benefits, but instead present the four general categories of benefit:

• To create donor organs or tissues (rather than new people) for therapy to cure diseases;
• To create donor tissues to prevent aging and prolong lifespan;
• As an alternate means of reproduction;
• To learn more about genetics through the process of studying and implementing cloning in practice.

There are a number of objections and fears about cloning, as well:

• The fear that cloned humans will lack individuality, or infringe upon the uniqueness of the donor.
• The fear that cloned humans will experience social hardships;
• The fear that genetic diversity will be reduced, threatening humanity as a species;
• The fear that cloning will result in the manufacturing and marketing of human beings;
• The religious objection that human cloning is playing God;
• The objection that until a human is cloned, the risk to the clone is uncertain, making it unethical to attempt cloning.

…to which offer the following points:

• On concerns about individuality: Reasearch into human cloning may also allow A cloned human will be no less an individual than monozygotic (or identical) twins are individuals.  Identical twins share 100% of their genetic material, and occur in nature.  They do not lack individuality.  What’s more, they are further separated in time than identical twins, and more likely to be raised in different environments, making their individuality potentially greater than that of natural twins.
• On concerns about social norms: A cloned human may appear to lack the “normal” structure of a family.  It has also been suggested that the fact that clones effectively have three parents — a genetic mother and father (the same parents as the original donor), and a direct parent (the donor).  They may also have adoptive parents who are none of these three.  While the social dynamic of a cloned person’s family may be unusual or difficult to assimilate, it is not much different than cases of adopted children, children born to surrogate mothers, or children born to single parents (to widows, or by in-vitro fertilization).  The law allows these situations to arise, and it can be argued that cloning presents little difference.
• On concerns about genetic diversity: The argument here is simple.  Unless the genetic diversity of the human race dwindles so much that there are fewer than 1000 genetically unique individuals, we have little cause for concern about the survival of the human race as a whole.
• On the manufacturing of human beings: The idea that we’ll end up with designer babies if cloning is allowed is a slippery-slope argument.  We can easily restrict these things without banning cloning entirely.  Yes, cloning opens these things up as a possibility, but so do most forms of genetic manipulation.  The cloning of human beings still requires surrogate mothers, which prevents visions of clone factories from appearing.  In societies that do not allow the sale of human beings anyways, this may not be much of a concern.
• On religious concerns: I do have respect for religion, but in democratic societies where government is secular, this cannot be a driving principle.  While certain groups may decline to participate in cloning, religious principles are not grounds for legal restriction.
• On the ethics of even trying: This, I think, is one of the biggest problems.  When creating the first human clone, we run the risk of producing a person who will suffer some hardships — they may experience medical problems, age unexpectedly quickly, or have trouble integrating into society if their origin is known publicly, especially when clones are uncommon.  It’s also possible that failed attempts at cloning may produce deformed, disabled or short-lived humans who will undergo unneccessary suffering.  The fact that we cannot be certain of the risks in cloning a human until we clone a human successfully.  The best counter-argument against these concerns is that the process must not be done hastily, and must see success in other animals first.  We may wish to clone other primates, and eventually chimpanzees (who are the animals most similar to humans, genetically), before attempting to clone a human being.  Only with repeated success in other animals will this concern start to fade.

I’m not convinced that an outright ban on human clothing is justifiable.  I think there are certainly valid ethical concerns, but the result should be regulation and care, rather than a reluctance to even try.

What do you think… should we ban cloning?  Did I fail to address any key concerns?

{ 9 Comments }

Philosophers Wanted?

Posted by Colin Temple on February 2, 2009 in Philosophy, University

I was complaining the other day that, in the recession, marketing budgets are cut and it’s harder to find web marketing work these days — especially compared to a year ago.  Good thing I’m working on that degree to get me all kinds of high-paying work when I’m done…

Awesome.

{ One Comment }

I blog again.

Posted by Colin Temple on January 13, 2009 in Religion, University

A post per month is good, right?  Yeah, yeah… it’s been a while since I’ve put pen to virtual paper and updated this blog.  I should have made a resolution out of it.  But life is busy and I’m back in school after a relaxing holiday.

But actually I’m expecting to have more to say as we kick off a new term.  Last time, my courses included mostly History, Essay Writing and only the most basic Philosophy in Critical Thinking.  This time around, I have two Philosophy courses, a Religion course (in Witchcraft & the Occult, no less), Psychology and Greek Mythology.

I spent the last couple of days resuming my reading, and I’m reacquainting myself with one of my favourite works in Philosophy, The Myth of Sisyphus.  In this brief essay, and its accompanying writings, Albert Camus outlines the absurd — that is, the contrast between the human desire for meaning, and the meaninglessness of the world.

Tonight, my Fundamental Philosophical Questions lecture & discussion will center around two questions of Religion: Does religion give life meaning?  How can one know whether or not God exists?  We were assigned readings on Augustine, Aquinas, Camus, Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, to name a few.

Needless to say–but for some reason I say anyways–I’m excited to be studying this stuff in a school setting.  That is something new for me.  Hopefully I’ll have lots more to say on these matters soon.

{ No Comments }

A Canadian Coalition?

Posted by Colin Temple on December 2, 2008 in Politics

I’ve fallen behind on my blogging.  It’s crunch time at school, as I have four short papers due on Wednesday and exams beginning on Saturday.  I also have a growing pile of work to get through within the next few days.  I just haven’t had much time, but I must comment on some recent political happenings.

What the hell is going on here in Canada? I stop paying attention for a few days and it seems like everything is falling apart.

For those of you who are either outside of this country or similarly distracted from the media, here’s the deal.  The opposition and others in the House of Commons are eager to get Stephen Harper out.  No big surprise there, but their level of enthusiasm in that regard has spiked, to the point where they’ve now signed an agreement to form a coalition government.

The government would consist of members of the Liberal Party and the NDP, with members of both parties forming the new cabinet.  The Bloc Québécois has agreed to support the coalition government for at least 18 months, while the NDP and Liberals are set up to work together for 30 months if they form a government.  Dion would be Prime Minister, at least until May 2009 when he will step down as previously stated.

I’m a bit torn on this issue.  I’m not a Conservative supporter.  My views have always been towards the left (though not radically), so I wasn’t thrilled about the idea of another Harper government.  However, I’m not crazy about Dion, either.  How can we accept him as our Prime Minister when the Liberal Party itself doesn’t want him as their own leader anymore? I’d love to see the NDP make a more prominent role, but is this the right time to be mixing things up?  With the economy what it is, Canada needs some stability.

I’m definitely in support of some changes for politics — the current system is flawed.  After all, the Liberal and NDP parties together represent over 44% of the popular vote in Canada, while the Conservatives represent less than 38%.  With the support of the Bloc, the coalition would have nearly 55% of the voters’ strength behind it (and probably some of the Greens’ 6.8% of the October votes).  Overall, more Canadians voted to the left of centre than to the right. Even without Bloc support, the Liberal-NDP alliance has a better shot at accurately representing Canadian voters, if you believe the numbers.

But can it last? If the Conservative government falls next week, or in the near future, how long will a coalition hold up?  Will we be back at the polls in 2009?  Canadians weren’t thrilled to be voting a year early this fall, especially when it provided nearly the same result as the previous election.  How can the taxpayer feel good about another expensive election?

And since this government can’t hope to function without the support of the Bloc — that is, the one party that wants Canada to fall apart as a single country — it’s a bit unnerving.

Don’t worry, I’m almost done my rant.  I’m frustrated with what’s happening, because I really fear that this will divide the country and cause more trouble than it’s worth.  But I’m trying to have a little optimism… after all, if a left-of-centre coalition can actually function, I’d much prefer that to a Conservative government.  The question is, with Dion, Layton and Duceppe working together… what kind of trio are we getting? Time will tell, but Canada’s in for a bit of a headache, it seems.

{ 3 Comments }