The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

What is Human?

By LeAnn J



In the years I have spent debating with people over the topic of what makes a person human, most have told me God is what makes us human. That we were created by some omniscient being that cannot be perceived with any of the five senses is the result of a few lost marbles. Assuming that these people are correct that some god did in fact create us, does that make us human? No, it does not. For one, being created is just the first step, but its a very vague one. What comes after the creation is what can be labeled as human. People cannot seem to dig deep enough and see that we are human because of our actions and how we react to situations.

My poor example of this follows: If I were God and I made people out of clay, then they have been created only. What they do with their life, and how they react, and how they live and talk and walk and think and feel, are results of their own being, not my creation. I guess what I mean is, creating a human out of clay is just about as far fetched as God creating us.

When it comes to discussing humans and computers, there is an extreme difference of what can be called human. Of course some people can say that between a human and a computer, the human is obviously human. And they are right. But it doesnt and shouldnt stop there. They fail to give their reasons as to why something is what it is. A computer is an object that can be plugged into the wall and in so doing it comes alive by doing most of the thinking for us. But humans are living and breathing creatures and we can think for ourselves without having to be programmed.

Programming is also an issue that arises out of this. Some people are programmed to think a certain way, but even after this occurs, they are still human due to how they react to certain situations. Computers can react as well but not in the same way. Just as humans die from fatal diseases, some computers shut down altogether from viruses but that does not make the computer human in any way.

Back to the definition that most people seem to give about what makes us human, God. We hear people say that if it were not for God we would not be here. But how do they know this is true? That definition does not stand well and has no solid evidence of proof. What I intend to argue here is that we are humans because of our personality and our actions and not because someone said we were made by some ethereal being.

My first example is our emotions. Humans have several emotions ranging from happy and sad, to angry and aggressive. If I go into a liquor store and see someone get shot, I am going to feel terrible for the person who got shot and I would fear for my own life as well. Now, if I were to go into that same liquor store where there is a computer, do you think the computer would feel bad about someone getting shot? No. It is just a computer and has no feelings. Our ability to express feelings and emotions make us human.

My second example is our experiences. If I am in a car accident with two other people, each of us will be having different thoughts go through our head while the accident is occurring. This is due to differences in experiences. A computer thats in a car accident wont feel anything, but it will be completely destroyed. A person might feel bad for the computer getting bashed up, but the computer will feel nothing. Our experiences, which cause us to feel emotions, make us human.

My third example is our ability to reason. If I am having a really bad day and get into some trouble with another person, I can reason with them (or hope I can) about things. It may not always work, but we have the ability to do this. A computer has no ability to reason at all. Our ability to reason makes us human.

My fourth example is that of sex and attraction. We, as people, experience attraction to others. We become interested, date, fall in love, and then engage in sexual activity. Not once have I ever seen a computer have sex. There is sex on the computer screen, but computers do not, and could not have sex. Our ability to become sexually stimulated and attracted to others, make us human.

My fifth example is that of security. When we become adults and have children of our own, we sense a new security that comes from being a new parent. We feel the need to protect our children from harm. When we do this, we are providing our own kids with the knowledge they will need for when they are grown and have their own children. Computers cannot physically protect another person. Our sense of security makes us human.

My sixth example is the passing of knowledge. We have learned from experience and from our parents and teachers about what is right and wrong. We have incorporated this into our own beliefs and have passed this on to others. We are able to spread knowledge to others by spoken or written word. Computers cannot do this without the help of humans. Computers lack self. Our ability to provide knowledge to others, make us human.

We are human because of our personalities. Our fears also make us human. The fact that we can physically destroy things after creating them shows that we are human. The tendencies we have towards things and the desires we show for others make us unique as people. Human is understanding.

Unoriginality

By LeAnn J



In reading Louis H. Sullivans essay entitled Thought, we are given an interesting view on creativity using words or other forms of expression. He tells us that beyond words are the fine arts, that which lies beyond man But in so much as we would like to believe that we are all capable of understanding this vast structure of creativity, we simply cannot even begin to grasp the concept itself. We then have to ask ourselves, does originality come from inside a person, or does it stem from creative concepts inside another persons originality? Although most of what we deem original by our own standards is, our originality, like a chain reaction, comes from ideas and thoughts expressed by others.



Our creativity comes from influence. What we see and read everyday influences us in some way. When we are influenced we start thinking, and with this thinking come ideas that we bring forth and put into action. When this is done we have something original. Or is it? We were influenced, we got an idea, and we acted on it. But this creative spark was done somewhere else. We created something that was already created. We added to someone elses originality. Changing functions or words until it becomes our own is not originality, but is for lack of a better term, borrowed originality.



If a group of people are in the mountains sitting under a tree, no one speaking to each other, they will all in some way have some kind of thought pertaining to that tree. Maybe the tree inspired them to write a story, or a music piece, or something. Now imagine these people back at their everyday jobs using this new idea. If one of these people happens to be a teacher that uses this idea as an assignment and this inspires one of the kids to write about something pertaining to a tree, then that is the chain reaction I am talking about. The child was inspired to write about a tree in which the teacher was inspired to make the assignment because they were inspired by a tree in the mountains. The very essence of nature itself can spark ideas in our heads, and every individual on this planet, though they may say different, thinks exactly the same way at some point in their life. What we think of as original already exists in some way. It could have been done one hundred or even one thousand years before we existed or it could be happening at this very same time to someone else. The thoughts we are having now could be thoughts that others are thinking at the same time, or our thoughts could be manifesting into someone elses reality as we think them. Whatever the case is, it is hard to say that our thoughts are our own. Thoughts lead to creativity; creativity to originality; but originality is not original if it was influenced by someone or something else.



The only originality we have is creativity. There can never be any originality in the world because originality is something unique and uniqueness does not exist in a world where thoughts form from other peoples thoughts and ideas. Creativity is something that everyone is capable of, but calling your creative endeavors original is like calling buttered popcorn original when popcorn already existed because of a thought that someone else had which in turn is a thought that was influenced by the ideas and thoughts of another person.

by LeAnn J



My Philosophy teacher has asked some pretty neat questions regarding how Socrates thought. On this page I am posting his questions along with my answers. His questions are in black following with my responses in red.



In something of an aside, S states that concern to make the young as good as possible is of the first importance and that anyone who would engage in political activity should have this at the forefront of his concerns.



[This is true, isn't it? Is this of the first importance to our political or social leaders?]



A good portion of politicians are corrupt. Some people say that ALL of them are, only because a certain politician does something not in their favor. Raising youth to be honest, caring individuals is almost entirely impossible since everyone tells a "little white lie" now and then. If by chance there were an honest politician, he would still be considered corrupt by the people who disagree with what he stands for.



E raises the question how Meletus says S corrupts the young. S answers by saying that "He says I am a maker of gods; he charges me with making new gods, and not believing in the old ones."



[How could this corrupt the youth?]



Man can be looked at as superior in this decision or as irrelevant. First, man can make Gods simply by believing in them, giving them character, spreading the word of 'their' word, and creating myths about them. Man can decide, "I want this God to be the creator of the world and if all people abide by his law and do his bidding, which is to treat everyone with respect and never harm a fly, then they will have eternal life in heaven." (or Hell or the chocolate factory, depending on which God he makes up). Soon, thousands and thousands of people will believe in this new God.



On the other side, man is irrelevant in this decision as a 'maker of gods". Some might argue that the gods have always existed since the beginning of time. One of my History Professors a couple years back made a statement that really stuck with me. He said, "Look at the oceans, mountains, the sky, the stars, our universe and everything in it. If God created all of this, then he is infinite, and Man's mind is too finite to comprehend infinity, therefore one cannot truely know God." I don't know if he was quoting someone else, but it makes a lot of sense. Man cannot make a star or a sky or a mountain or an ocean.

But then again, is it possible that this 'God', that a lot of people think created everything, could have done it on his own? What about all the other Gods? The 'old' gods. Could it have been possible that the universe was created by a civilaztion of gods? One to make the oceans, one to make the stars, one to make the mountains, one to make people, etc. The questions are infinite and there are no answers to infinity.



S inquires concerning the alleged crime, supposing that E must believe that his father killed a relative, for no one would prosecute his father for killing a non-relative.



[It's not clear to me S is serious here. If he is, it's worth further inquiry.]



A person can prosecute a family member for any means they feel necessary if it goes with their moral standards. If they believe their relative killed someone (even if it was another relative) unfairly, then they could prosecute without so much as a tiny ounce of regret. Seeing that Socrates was making a supposition, we are led to believe that family was more precious then non family (which is the same case nowadays). If your father killed a relative, it would probably be considered unholy because you killed one of your own flesh and blood. If he had killed this relative for a good reason, it might be dismissable but the uneasy feelings and tension would still float within family members. If he killed the relative just out of spite, that would be all the more reason for the family to prosecute their father.

As for the discussion between Socrates and Osama bin Laden...



O I know things divine and specifically know the holy and the unholy.



Again, "...man's mind is too finite to comprehend infinity, therefore one cannot truely know God."



Unless of course Osama Bin Laden is God himself. Scary thought. :o)



Many answers have been given historically to Socrates' question about knowledge of what pleases God and what displeases God.

I agree with the answer dealing with Faith. A person is born and raised usually on the faith of their parents. What their parents teach them throughout life about their chosen religion, sticks with them and is embedded into their heads. If all you ever heard when growing up was, "If you don't say thank you after you eat dinner, the boogey man will come to eat you." you would be one screwed up little kid/adult. But...you would grow up firmly 'believing' that with every ounce of faith in you, especially when everyone you knew believed in it too and when family and friends and entire congregations emphasize and stress certain scrpitures from books you are made to read. We are robots when we are born, and although we are free to make our own decisions, it isn't until we break away from the hum drum of 'normal' society, that we find and recognize what we really believe in based on our own standards.



O I could easily do that for you, Socrates, but I've got a meeting with my highest-ranking lieutenants, and the struggle to destroy the Great Satan and His minions, Israel and Great Britain, can't wait on your elementary studies.



This is great!

Morality Without Religion: An in-depth look at why one needs no religion to hold good morals.



By: LeAnn J



The morals and values of Western man derive from religious beliefs that he is ceasing to hold. He therefore needs to reevaluate his values. Friedrich Nietzsche







Since the beginning of time, man has done good and bad according to his own will, and through the ages, he has learned on a trial and error basis what works for some and what is offending to others; that which we call morals. These morals were the actions and reactions of man to certain situations in his daily life. Nowadays, morals are considered to be a fixed set of rules that each individual tries to live their life by, and that everyone can agree upon, but not all of society abides by these rules which ends up in disagreements, arguments, miscommunication, and in turn ending up in murder, rape, battery, sodomy, and all other forms or immoral actions and behavior. When the very first man walked earth, there was no structured religion, yet by his errors and downfalls, future generations have learned what is correct and what isnt. It was mans common sense and his own experiments that taught us fire is hot when you touch it, you die if you jump off a cliff, water is safe to drink, rattlesnakes are poisonous, and certain animals will kill you. Although most religions place strong emphasis on practicing good morals, our common sense, education, and feeling of what is right and wrong are the keys to morality and prove that religion is not the cause, nor has it ever been, for moral standards.



The worlds major religions teach that what is written in their holy book is sacred. Each holy book contains a set of morals (The Ten Commandments for example) in which we are raised to follow with our heart and soul, for if we ever do not abide by these rules we shall surely go to Hell. But we fail to realize that each of these holy books was written by men, not God. And just as man has written these books for specific religions, he has also created the religions and the faith, which show that morality and morals come from people, not religion.



There is a rise of morality throughout religion, due to a rise in the number of religious followers. No one ever said this was a bad thing in fact its quite nice, because religion does instill good moral practices in people, but religion is not responsible for these morals.



My grandmother on my fathers side, who recently passed away, has been religious all her life and was a hardcore Pentecostal woman. She wore no make-up, no jewelry, watched no TV, wore dresses only, read her bible faithfully every night, and attended church twice a week. She has also smoked cigarettes her entire life (which is part of what killed her). I remember that she would always tell me that you body is a temple because it is part of the Lord Jesus. I would ask her if this is true, then why does she smoke? Why does she fill her body with dirty substances that will desecrate her temple? She, of course, said it was a bad habit. But is smoking morally right? Is it morally right that she smokes but tells others not to? Is that hypocritical? Is it morally okay in a sympathetic way for her to tell others not to smoke, which is trying to save their lives, while she is destroying hers? Is addiction a good or bad moral? Usually when teens experiment with smoking, some of them go on to try marijuana and even the harder drugs after that. The fact that out of her nine children, five of them smoke, and two of them I know have done more, is grounds to question if religion really does teach good morals, or is it the people behind the religion whom are responsible for the good or ill behavior and actions of their offspring growing up?



In a debate between Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz, the topic of skeptics practicing morality came up. The answer was, Yes. But their morality in and of itself, is not defensible. (Christian Courier: Penpoints, Religion and Morality: The Connection by Wayne Jackson) Since when does morality have to defend itself? It does not, and should not matter what religion you are, your morals are no less valid or important than the next person, religious or not. In the world of morals, anything is possible, that is why we have good and bad morals.



It is true that statistics have shown that those who attend church have low crime rates, but this is largely due to the fact that while they are raised, they are told theyll go to Hell, so they fear this damnation where their soul will burn eternally. The only difference between people who believe in God and those who dont are not the validity of their morals but, the fact one believes in God and the other doesnt. His morals are not failed because of disbelief.



Non-religious people are not driven by a fear of Hell and punishment if they do wrong, but a fear of doing wrong, period. Therefore, non-religious people are more caring of themselves and others because their morals are done out of the good of themselves and not the fear of some unseen force or congregation. The fear of being immoral is not out of fear of God, but of fear of what we will suffer through society for our deeds.



Religion does not make morals it just emphasizes the good practice of them. What about the bible? God flooded the earth and killed all humans, animals, and plants, destroying everything in his path (except Noah and two of every animal of course) because he was dissatisfied by their behavior and immoral actions. Was it morally okay for a supreme being to demolish everything living? Is it morally okay for a child to throw a temper tantrum and break all of his toys because his mom wont give him an ice cream? God is supposed to be good, the creator of all, an omnipotent, omniscient being, yet he allows bad things to happen. But good and evil do compliment each other. One cannot be without the other, therefore religion echos bad morals also.



What about Christian parents who raise their child, teach them right from wrong, and watch them blossom into Christianity, a full-fledged, caring, and responsible adult? Years later this child becomes an atheist. Does this mean he does not still hold the same morals or his morals mean less or they dont hold the same relevance or validity then when he was Christian? Now turn the tables around. You have an atheist family who teaches their child the same morals that the Christian family taught their child, and their child grows up the same way, as a caring responsible adult and years later, converts to Christianity. His morals will still be with him because they came from home, through the love of others, his parents, not religion.



A belief in no God does not make you an immoral person. It simply makes you a believer of nothing, no supreme being, no unseen entity, and while man is imperfect and makes mistakes, even in Christianity, the morals handed down to us by our parents and teachers are common sense, and are not followed strictly to the T in any society.



Since God is not perceivable with any of the five senses, how do we know Heaven exists? If we say faith, then what is the difference between a religious and non-religious persons morals? No matter the religion, if you have faith in your morals, regardless of if you are religious or not, then they stand strongly, and no one, not any religion, can tell you otherwise. If religions of the world believe God is for pleasure and not pain, then why is sex forbidden in certain religions and considered immoral before marriage in others? Sex is pleasurable to all, and without it, there would be no creation of new life.



Would I commit a crime? Its possible that I could if I werent thinking straight, but if you ask anyone why they would or wouldnt commit a crime, the likely response will be because theyll go to jail. Rarely does anyone ever say because it is wrong.



People who are religious do good because they are taught they will go to Hell, so they live their life doing good but only to satisfy their religion, not out of the good of themselves. These people are selfish. People with truly good morals do things because they want to do them. If a person has faith in them that their morals are true and caring of others, as well as themselves, then that is true religion in and of itself. One doesnt need a structured religion to teach this, man can distinguish this by his own feelings of what is right and wrong.



And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. George Washington



as for certain truth, no man has known it,

Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods

Nor yet of all things of which I speak,

For even if by chance he were to utter

The final truth, he would himself not know it:

For all is but a woven web of guesses.



-Xenophanes-







Woks Cited:

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/religionMorality.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Arthur, John; Morality and Moral Controversies: readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy; 6th edition; Prentice Hall 2002

Kolak, Daniel and Martin, Raymond; The Experience of Philosophy; 3rd edition;

Kolak, Daniel and Martin, Raymond; Wisdom Without Answers: A Brief Introduction to Philosophy; 3rd edition; Wadsworth Publishing Company 1996

Magee, Bryan; The Story of Thought: The Essential Guide to the History of Western Philosophy; DK Publishing 1998

These are my thoughts on the "moral" rules.



by LeAnn J



1. To say that these rules are moral rules implies that all sane individuals follow them. Moral is what is right. Therefore, by following these rules we are doing right. They can easily be looked at as just a set of rules. Because that is what they are. Rules. We dont necessarily have to follow them either, but if we want our freedom then we have to.



2. Usually legal rules and laws are written in books that regular society does not have access to. Most of society is pretty stupid when it comes to their rights. Thats why some people go on to law school, etc. Obey the law is something your parents teach you when growing up. Not really a legal issue, just common sense, as are all of the rules above.



Where do these rules come from?

3. Not God. Because then you have to ask which God? These rules came from society, by their own trial and error. Society has done all the wrongs there is, and most suffer a guilty conscience, while others have commited a crime and reasoned that there was probably a better way of handling the situation. But society in general, or I shall say Man, has made these common sense rules for everyone to base their lives on.



4. Usually a person doesnt have to believe in any religion to know that what comes around goes around. The better word, that I am sure everyone has heard of is, Karma. If someone kills someone, they might not get killed, but they will almost always go to jail, unless it was done in self defense, and even then, being in the good ol state of Cali, criminals have rights (which I strongly disagree with). A person should keep these rules as a guide. Not every single one of these are set in stone. And a person does not have to live their lives completely by it, as no one is perfect to begin with.



5. Of course they can conflict with each other. Just look at the bible where it says, Thou shalt not kill. Okay so all meat eaters are murderers? Ahhh the wonderful contradictory bible. As you can tell, I am not Christian, but I respect Christianity, just not the book that everyone thinks is the word of God. Ive read it, its a cool story about what those men who wrote it think happened and what they think might happen, but theres just too much that doesnt add up. Is it simply saying, Thou shalt not kill? Or is it implying thou shalt not kill man, or dog, or fish, or plant? It doesnt particularly say because it only states thou shalt not kill.



6. Another gripe about that statement, if it is just meant for not killing another human being, then what about the Witch trials? They killed people whom they thought were witches and even some who werent, even though the bible said, thou shalt not kill. Hell, even Joan of Arc was killed because they believed she was practicing witchcraft.



Are there exceptions to the rules?

7. There definitely ARE exceptions. The irritating fly that keeps landing on my head. The dog that keeps coming into my yard attacking my cats and kids. The poisonous snake that is in my house. The serial killer on the loose who happens to break into my home in the middle of the night.



8. What about undercover cops? They are deceiving people by going undercover and becoming buddies with them, only to bust them at a later date. Right?



9. All things, humans, animals, plants are within the scope of moral rules. But as is the nature of man, killing for food, for revenge, for avenging, for superiority, etc., is something that has been going on since the first man walked earth. Trees are alive, yet we cut them down. We all live in them. Is it wrong? Death is a natural cycle of life. Bigger things eat littler things. Mountain lions attack deer, humans hunt animals, dogs chase and eat cats, cats hunt and kill mice, sharks attack and kill humans. It is the instinctual nature of animal and man. If it is not morally wrong for an animal to attack another animal, then why is it morally wrong for a human to attack another human?



10. Everyones duty is different depending on where they stand in society. If you are the President, you better be doing your duty to the nation and making what you feel everyone can agree upon being the right choices. If you are a student in school, you should be doing your duty to get good grades, finish school and move forward. If you are a teacher, you should be doing your duty to teach others the knowledge you have learned. If you are a parent, you should be doing your duty to raise your kids knowing right from wrong. You, as a parent, are responsible for telling them what is right or wrong.



11. There are many moral rules that people know. The bible gives the ten commandments, and all Christians, even though they believe in the same religion, believe different about each of the commandments. Homosexuality, adultery, etc., they are wrong if YOU believe they are. No one can tell you that you cannot be gay. Well, they can, but you are the one who makes the final decision. No one can make you do anything that you do not want to do. You make the final decision.

These are my thoughts on the "moral" rules.



by LeAnn J



1. To say that these rules are moral rules implies that all sane individuals follow them. Moral is what is right. Therefore, by following these rules we are doing right. They can easily be looked at as just a set of rules. Because that is what they are. Rules. We dont necessarily have to follow them either, but if we want our freedom then we have to.



2. Usually legal rules and laws are written in books that regular society does not have access to. Most of society is pretty stupid when it comes to their rights. Thats why some people go on to law school, etc. Obey the law is something your parents teach you when growing up. Not really a legal issue, just common sense, as are all of the rules above.



Where do these rules come from?

3. Not God. Because then you have to ask which God? These rules came from society, by their own trial and error. Society has done all the wrongs there is, and most suffer a guilty conscience, while others have commited a crime and reasoned that there was probably a better way of handling the situation. But society in general, or I shall say Man, has made these common sense rules for everyone to base their lives on.



4. Usually a person doesnt have to believe in any religion to know that what comes around goes around. The better word, that I am sure everyone has heard of is, Karma. If someone kills someone, they might not get killed, but they will almost always go to jail, unless it was done in self defense, and even then, being in the good ol state of Cali, criminals have rights (which I strongly disagree with). A person should keep these rules as a guide. Not every single one of these are set in stone. And a person does not have to live their lives completely by it, as no one is perfect to begin with.



5. Of course they can conflict with each other. Just look at the bible where it says, Thou shalt not kill. Okay so all meat eaters are murderers? Ahhh the wonderful contradictory bible. As you can tell, I am not Christian, but I respect Christianity, just not the book that everyone thinks is the word of God. Ive read it, its a cool story about what those men who wrote it think happened and what they think might happen, but theres just too much that doesnt add up. Is it simply saying, Thou shalt not kill? Or is it implying thou shalt not kill man, or dog, or fish, or plant? It doesnt particularly say because it only states thou shalt not kill.



6. Another gripe about that statement, if it is just meant for not killing another human being, then what about the Witch trials? They killed people whom they thought were witches and even some who werent, even though the bible said, thou shalt not kill. Hell, even Joan of Arc was killed because they believed she was practicing witchcraft.



Are there exceptions to the rules?

7. There definitely ARE exceptions. The irritating fly that keeps landing on my head. The dog that keeps coming into my yard attacking my cats and kids. The poisonous snake that is in my house. The serial killer on the loose who happens to break into my home in the middle of the night.



8. What about undercover cops? They are deceiving people by going undercover and becoming buddies with them, only to bust them at a later date. Right?



9. All things, humans, animals, plants are within the scope of moral rules. But as is the nature of man, killing for food, for revenge, for avenging, for superiority, etc., is something that has been going on since the first man walked earth. Trees are alive, yet we cut them down. We all live in them. Is it wrong? Death is a natural cycle of life. Bigger things eat littler things. Mountain lions attack deer, humans hunt animals, dogs chase and eat cats, cats hunt and kill mice, sharks attack and kill humans. It is the instinctual nature of animal and man. If it is not morally wrong for an animal to attack another animal, then why is it morally wrong for a human to attack another human?



10. Everyones duty is different depending on where they stand in society. If you are the President, you better be doing your duty to the nation and making what you feel everyone can agree upon being the right choices. If you are a student in school, you should be doing your duty to get good grades, finish school and move forward. If you are a teacher, you should be doing your duty to teach others the knowledge you have learned. If you are a parent, you should be doing your duty to raise your kids knowing right from wrong. You, as a parent, are responsible for telling them what is right or wrong.



11. There are many moral rules that people know. The bible gives the ten commandments, and all Christians, even though they believe in the same religion, believe different about each of the commandments. Homosexuality, adultery, etc., they are wrong if YOU believe they are. No one can tell you that you cannot be gay. Well, they can, but you are the one who makes the final decision. No one can make you do anything that you do not want to do. You make the final decision.

An essay I wrote on Edgar Allan Poe's story, "The Tell-Tale Heart".



A Question of Insanity

By LeAnn J



[1] Edgar Allan Poe writes extravagantly well of paranoia and the evil eye in his short story, The Tell-Tale Heart. But what exactly is the underlying problem? Are we to believe that a helpless old man, whom the narrator loves dearly, could be dismembered and internally hated by his caretaker? The narrators actions throughout the story, proves that it was not so much his fear of the evil eye, but his insanity that led him to commit this crime.





[2] Let us first examine the evil eye. According to Professor Alan Dundes, an anthropologist and folklorist at the University of California Berkeley, the evil eye causes people to dry up. This can affect a number of things including, fruit orchards, nursing mothers, and impotency in men. If this were in fact what the narrator feared most, and the reason he killed the old man, there isnt much premise to go on, seeing how the only thing that could possibly affect him is becoming impotent. Many people around the world believe that perpetrators of the evil eye have blue eyes. It is a bit ironic seeing how the narrator states, He had the eye of a vulture a pale blue eye, with a film over it. (36).





[3] We then come to investigate insanity. A student at Bryn Mawr College, Anneliese Butler, says there is no real definition for insanity, that schizophrenia is the closest given definition. Doctors agree that symptoms of a schizophrenic include delusions, hallucinations (hearing things that are not there), and disorganized speech and behavior.





[4] The narrator begins his story by telling us that he is dreadfully nervous (36) and refers to the situation as, the disease. (36) He believed the disease gave him the sense of hearing acute. (36) It is clearly recognizable within the first paragraph of the story that he is suffering from hallucinations, which is one symptom of schizophrenia and in turn represents insanity. Out of pure insanity he killed the old man. He had no motive but the penetrating glance of the old mans eye, as he clearly states, Object there was none. Passion there was none. (36).





[5] During the course of the story he goes on to explain how for seven nights straight he repeated the procedure of looking in on the old man. He wanted it to be perfect therefore it had to be painfully quiet. Each time he stuck his head in, the eye was closed and so he could not kill the old man. Another form of his hallucination is the fact he believes, for it was not the old man who vexed me, but his Evil Eye. (36) We understand this type of behavior to be abnormal, seeing things that others do not.





[6] In detail he describes what he thinks the average person would laugh at, It took me an hour to place my whole headthat I could see him as he lay upon his bedWould a madman have been so wise as this? (36) In all respect, only a madman would do this type of act for seven nights straight. And we must also remember that only a madman would say, Madmen know nothing. (36) And then proceed with saying a madman would not be that wise, thus trying to make himself non-comparable to a real madman altogether.





[7] He thought he was powerful as the old man had no idea whatsoever that the narrator was plotting his death, Never before that night had I felt the extent of my own powersTo think that there I was opening the doorand he not even to dream of my secret deeds or thoughts. (36) He lacked sagacity altogether because of his bad judgment. A madman would not understand the reasons behind why he operates the way he does.





[8] Poe uses words to express a madmans eagerness to commit a crime. He details his ventures quite stigmatically. What we, as normal society deem appropriate, Poe uses to literally assault our imagination. Using words multiple times all closed, closed (36), slowly very, very slowly (36), cautiously oh, so cautiously cautiously (36), all in vain. All in vain (37), a very, very little crevice (37), how stealthily, stealthily (37), open wide, wide open (37), It grew louder louder louder! (39) enables the reader to view the narrator as symbolically insane.





[9] While talking to the police, he says, I fancied a ringing in my ears at which point he begins to realize this ringing, was a low, dull, quick sound much such a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton. (38-39) And it finally occurs to him that this ringing is the old mans heartbeat. How can this possibly be so when he dismembered the body? His conscience was guilt ridden for his crime and he was in a state of paranoia. Did the police really hear it? He began to think so as he accusingly thought, they were making a mockery of my horror! (39) And in the end, like a true paranoid schizophrenic that thinks the entire world is out to get them, he confesses, I admit the deed! Tear up the planks! It is the beating of his hideous heart! (39).





[10] Although it seems as though because the narrator has mentioned the Evil Eye, his insanity was due to his fear of the old mans glance, but we are taken further in by the story as it unfolds his schizophrenia and the details it entails. Why did the narrator kill the old man? Schizophrenia has no one single cause and scientists, to this day, are still conducting experiments in neurology for answers. I believe Poe intended for the narrator to be seen as insane without a purpose, a schizophrenic caretaker operating in the same fashion everyday until something snaps, thus leading to the old mans death. The old saying goes, An eye for an eye. In this case, it was the mans life. (998 words)



Works Cited



Poe, Edgar Allan. The Tell-Tale Heart. Literature: An introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama. Ed. X.J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia. 3rd Compact Edition. New York: Longman, 2003.





http://www.luckymojo.com/evileye.html



http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro98/202s98-paper3/Butler3.html#2



http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p40-sc01.html#Head_4



http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizoph.cfm#schiz2