Gulliver's Travels

2017/Jan/19th Open Question: What is Swift saying about rationality or reason? It is obvious that there are two different kinds of rationality in Laputa and Houyhnhnms. How do we understand it? At the beginning of Gulliver's travel, he went to Lilliput and Brobdingnag by accidence, which we can describe it as an unpredictable physical reason. However, this time, Gulliver was sent to Laputa by pirates. Later on, he lost his own ship because of robbery and was dropped near to Houyhnhnms. In such movements, the countries he visited are stronger related to human beings, the people caused his travel are far away from rationalities. How can we interpret this? It worth mention that Hbuun doesn't have written language nor their records of history. How could we understand them as the representations of the most rational human beings? I guess Rousseau will like Swift's description of Hbuun. Their living status is very similar to what Rousseau described in his book The Second Discourse. But it is a puzzle to me that why their appearances are more like horses. Yahoo, which has similar appearances as human beings are wilder. I had a debate in class to argue whether Yahoo is an image of primitive human beings or degenerated human beings. I thought they are more like corrupted human beings rather than primitive ones. For the mystery that Hbuun knows, two Yahoos came first and then there are more and more. It sounds like they are survivors of some huge disasters. Because they have relied their lives too much on mechanical machines. They lost their basic skills to live in a wild land and they have been given up by nature. Is it a warning that offered by Swift to us? Btw, Hbuun, in Hebrew means the preferences of nature. I also hold some different opinions on the comparison between the Divine Comedy and Gulliver's travel. In fact, I have forgotten how my classmates compare these two books. I remembered that I think Dante's expedition and Gulliver's travel are totally different. I would illustrate how I think. It might be suitable to add in another literature: Don Quixote. Dante is seeking for God in his trip and he holds a certain belief on the God. He travels with a very clear purpose. Don Quixote is not clear for where he wants to go and what he wants to do on his trip, but he has a general idea of pursuing justice. All his actions conform his principle, at least from his perspective. Gulliver is idle and he does not have any purpose and also destinations, mostly he travels caused by differents kinds of accidences. I am wondering whether these works of literature can tell us how people think in general by time. The religious characteristics gradually disappear and people become freer. At Dante's time, most of the people are very pious Christians, later, someone has given up all the forms but still hold similar beliefs, concerning on truth and beauty. Till Swift's time, along with the development of marine technics, the culture also gets to be more complexed and people get more perplexed. Swift work includes many of his comments on previous philosopher's political works. He criticizes Hobbes on Book I and then tells a story of about property of Locker's story. For the third voyage, it seems the country are mostly influenced by scientists. The fourth offers us a warning and an ironic story of horses and human beings. On each voyage, the story contains a part of descriptions or comparisons relevant to politics. I bet Swift cares politics a lot and worries his home country England. There are some hard parts to understand in the book:

The word PRIDE is italic on the original text. I am wondering what does it mean. What is Gulliver's pride? In general, I agree with Gulliver that his miseries start with being exiled by Hbuun. I don't like his reactions after he returns tome. If he truly learns how to be virtuous from Hbuuns. How could he be so cruel to his wife and children? His wife raises his children up by her own in eight years and how can he treat her like a yahoo? Is it necessary to lose some abilities to deal with undesirable situations? On the flying city, people have done amazing science work even though I think some of them are meaningless and useless. I respect their curiosity and efforts. But this advantage seemingly has weakened their another ability. The minister's wife escaped twice and he does not have a good solution to solve the problem. In Houyhnhnms, it becomes more unbelievable that Hbuuns don't think untrust, robbery and so on is possible to happen. Since they have no experience of it and they never think about it, they are lacking the ability to deal with it. Is it a good sign for to be rational?

2016/Jan/16th Open Question: For Don Quixote, it is a story about a man with imaginary faculty but traveling in a real world; here, the story of Gulliver, is about a man with ordinary faculty that traveling in an imaginary world. In Gulliver's journey, what is real? Further illustration:

How this world (of Brobdingag) is supposed to have any application on the public and private life? Personal thoughts, notes & summary: While reading the story, I think the Gulliver is a giant in Lilliput because of his physical ability that he is able to easily hurt the inhabitants. In the same way, Gulliver is a dwarf because of his physical defection. Comparing with the locals of Brobdingnag, he is unable to do any damages. My thought was simple and straight. I was then inspired by the conversation about the political system of two countries and the attitude that two Kings hold toward Gulliver. The King of Lilliput prompts an officer according to their ability of dancing and the politics corrupt there. It seems that Gulliver's knowledge could affect the King to make new policies and his existence is an unstable factor to the country. He could be helpful to the fire and he also sympathizes the enemies, in which way Lilliputians may treat him as a traitor. The King of Brobdingnag dislikes Gulliver's description of gunpowder and he even thinks that Gulliver is very inhuman to produce it. The King of Brobdingnag is very satisfied with the current society and trust his people. Gulliver's knowledge or ideas won't be able to hurt the whole society or affect the political situation at all. The Kind of Brobdingnag is very confident with what he has and thinks the historical context of the England is so dark. Thus I am wondering whether the size of Gulliver was made based on his affections on two countries' politics respectively. Then, I need to think again about the metaphor of size now. If there is a cause to induce the different sizes of the bodies, what it could be? I propose this question because I think the physical ability is a phenomenon indicating different political influence. Following this way of digging, the political influence that we could perceive is also another layer of the phenomenon rather than the final cause. What does it cause the different political influence? Is it the morality? Since Gulliver is constant, the difference made can only be caused by two countries' own traits. To compare the Lilliput and Brobdingnag, there are some differences between them. If I understand correctly, the Lilliput has a well-developed machine system and applies a complete citizen laws than Brobdingnag. The usages of words are more limited in Brobdingnag and their knowledge of math and other subjects develop only if it relates to practical reality. Even though Brobdingnag is more straight forward, people there seems more virtuous. Lilliput's clear and detailed law are intentional to make people live harmoniously but now it runs badly because of the improper applications. I cannot say Lilliput is constructed badly, because some of its law, education and custom are well-designed. The problem is about the usage and applications. I prompt the possibility of morality because of the passage on page 178(a paragraph on chapter 7, part II)

It sounds like that the degeneration is about virtue. The above passage also makes me think the essentials of the voyage. Does Gulliver accidentally travel into the different area or he actually is in a time storm and be brought to the different eras? Both following the theory of the degeneration and the development of technics, Lilliput is more like what could happen in future, if we set the England now as the current. Then, Brobdingnag represents the past. Brobdingnag shows what England was and Lilliput predicts what England will be. In this sense, everything in the trip could be real. (Here, I am also thinking about Rousseau's theory of human development in his second discourse.) It is also interesting to think about the proportion of the people and their stuff. They are always proportional to each other. The trees and animals are always either zoomed out or zoomed in with the size of human bodies. What could we make it to our theory of reality? Certainly, neither Lilliputians nor Brobdingnag is aware of their size of bodies and there is no way for them to notice this part unless they see a different size human to make a comparison. Nevertheless, Swift and us as a reader, treating Gulliver as the standard to make the comparisons. I am wondering what would they think if they know there are even tinier or grander rational creatures. If none of them are aware of their sizes of bodies, for their own identity, they treat themselves as human beings and the Gulliver as a stranger. In our discussion, there was a question on the table that why Gulliver performs differently in Lilliput and Brobgingag. Gulliver pities the enemies and does not want to hurt them in a war of Lilliput, and he tries very hard to explain how great England is and even tries to teach the king of Brobgingag how to make gunpowders. Where does the difference come from? I think Gulliver does not change since he is him. Thus, he performs always as a human being and his nature or well-educated mind teach him to pity the weakness and prove his utility in the front of the strong. If so, the way of his thinking also indicates that Gulliver treats both people of Lilliput and Brobgingag as human beings. They are all real human beings. However, it is not easy to get the same recognition from Lilliput and Brobgingag. Gulliver seeks for freedom in both countries of his stay. For the Lilliput, he was treated as a prisoner or potential crime maker. For the Brobgingag, he performs like a toy. But I think there are some differences of his situation although Gulliver looks unfree in both situations. Brobgingag actually offers more liberty. Because of Gulliver's defection that he has to be protected and taken care of carefully. Thus Gulliver feels to be watched, but it is for his safety. The king of Brobgingag always put Gulliver in an equal height to make eye contact in their conversations. But near the end of Gulliver's trip of Lilliput, the king wants to blind him and to use him a powerful military weapon in the future. The last part that confuses me is Gulliver's behaviors after the second trip.

It is so weird to me in my first reading. Why does Gulliver bend down rather than with no worries at all to pass the door? It looks like that Gulliver identifies himself as a giant. At first, I think because of 2 years living experience with giants, Gulliver thinks that he is part of the giants. It is also another evidence to prove the life of Brobdingag is real. Later, I have a slightly different idea when a classmate ask what benefits him from his travel. I think Gulliver has no choice when he came into either Lilliput or Brobdinag. He was put into the situation that he was tiny or giant compared to the locals. But after his travel, maybe Gulliver chooses to be live like Brobdingagians. He now is freer and has earned an ability to choose what life he prefers since he has deeper understandings. The understandings could be relative to what a good citizen should be or what is a good political system. Other questions: In what way that Gulliver has been honored and how this shows the differences between two countries? How does Gulliver even knows that he is real?