burke watches the ship explode from across the water

The point of this post is to point out similarties between the french revolution and the events on the island.

Parrallels didnt really dawn on me until Juliet watched the ship explode from accross the water.

What ties the boat to the revolution?

A) The groups on the boat

The peoples on the boat break down into two main groups. Scientists and commando rabel.

The first contact with the island is through ths scientists. I admit its kind of a shoe horn job trying to fit miles in this group, but anthropology and physics are mainline enlightenment sciences.

Enlightenment thought might have been introduced by scientists, but as science allows for bourgeoise mastery of nature to upset the natural order imposed by the ancien regime, the rable, via Keamey and his people, assert themselves.

Totally out of control.

B) Rousseau's death

While Rousseau's signal probably reached no one, as it was not permitted to leave the island, Rousseau's philosophy breached the top down dissemenation of reason, and welcomed people to the island, preaching social contract between parties of equal bargaining power (ie equal dignity).

Rousseau's murder by Keamey and his followers is symbolic of the betrayal of the philosophy by the French Revolutionaries, by the rabble.

C) Burke

Burke supported the American Revolution but was against the French Revolution.

Why? Briefly the american colonial response was appropriate. The french explosion was the upsurge of the mob: "the break with the ancien regime did [...] represent a sudden erruption of natural rights of individuals, or their rediscovery in a society corrupted by gothic institutions." ) Francois Furet. This sudden upsurge of the rabble broke down the necessary instutions necessary for order.

In 1789, while liberal english were lauding the regime change, by the mid 90s (sorry for the sloppy history) everyone was in horror. Burke predicted the end result.

Juliet had a strained relationship with Ben the monarch. Privately, she never, shall we say, got in bed with him, commit to his program fully. But pubilicly, as far as any of the others knew, she was all his.

Thus Juliet favors the Losties, and is skeptical of the boat people. In "The Other Woman", she moves to stop the scientist, it is only with resignation that she allows them to do what they do. In the end she watches the events unfold, watches the ship explode/nation explode from across the water.

D) Regime Change

The end product is regime change. Locke replaces king Ben. The popularly elected ruler, will not be divine to the extent of Ben.

But note that Juliet is still on the island, she will necessarily exert a conservative presence on the events that are about to happen.

I predict strange interplay between her and Sawyer (who is american rable personified).

Also, maybe her conservatism will be open to island control from outside influence promising stability.

This is just a brief sketch, maybe it could be better done by an other.

Thanks

Again, a post that reminds me how many people out in the world (and Here) are smarter and more insightful than I will ever be.

Great historical parallels.
A+

I like it, but tbh I think if we really wanted to, we could draw parallels from any point in history.

Its a little too vague for me to fully buy it.

Pengy, I agree with you, it is all kind of vague.

We dont have any tennis court oath or robespierre stabing danton in the back, but the broad outline is there.

If you put in context with Season 1 (state of nature), Season 2 (tribal, colonial conflict), season 3 (Hobbesian monarch (living in the hydra station no less)), season 4 (revolution and removal of the monarch). I think it works, and quite frankley (sp?) im confused right now by the theories throwing the island forward in time, becasue to me, the events occuring on the island are analogous to simple historical succession, and because the theories throwing the island forward seem to make so much sense.

Just out of curiosity, what other historical parallels can you tease out?

Wow, you must be a history teacher or something.

But, do you really think that the writers would write these countless episodes and multiple seasons to parallel the French Revolution? To me, Lost is all about originality and new ideas, not reinventing the events of a particular time in history. Honestly, I would lose a lot of respect for the writers if that is what they were doing.

Therefore, I would have to say these similarities are either a coincidence, or as SP pointed out, a result of the ability to draw parallels from anything if we really wanted to.

Can anyone else smell smoke?

::points to her ears::

I'm going to come right out and say it: While LOST does parallel certain events in world history, it is but a t.v. show (I know, hard concept to grasp). While it assumes an intelligence about it's audience, it cannot possibly run this deep. Why? Well lets face it: most folks do not possess a great body of knowledge concerning world events, mathematics, literature and sociology. Sure those of us who took philosophy recognized the names Locke and Rousseau right off the bat. And while I love her dearly, I doubt Ian's Mother (my future mother-in-law) even made that connection. To her, its a show about people on an island...LOST.
In the end, I think the hows, whats and whys will be explained in a manner that is so simple, none of us will ever see it coming.
I've always maintained that we get caught up in the minucia of the story and never see the forest through the trees.

~end rant~

retroactiveman wrote:I think it works, and quite frankley (sp?) im confused right now by the theories throwing the island forward in time, becasue to me, the events occuring on the island are analogous to simple historical succession, and because the theories throwing the island forward seem to make so much sense.

I think your perception of time is a bit off of the time travel theories. I think you're looking at historical time, rather than space-time. No one is saying the island goes forward in time and it spontaniously becomes the future there, and they have flying cars. Quite the opposite. Pushing the island forward in time would be like the island just skipping a certain period of time. The sky goes purple, nothing seems to change for the observers on the island, but off the coast, it's now 2008. The island inhabitants simply skipped 2005, 2006, and 2007, but to them, nothing changed.

MollyCocktail wrote:I'm going to come right out and say it: While LOST does parallel certain events in world history, it is but a t.v. show (I know, hard concept to grasp). While it assumes an intelligence about it's audience, it cannot possibly run this deep. Why? Well lets face it: most folks do not possess a great body of knowledge concerning world events, mathematics, literature and sociology. Sure those of us who took philosophy recognized the names Locke and Rousseau right off the bat.

I think if there is parrallels to history, philosophy, etc., they explain where the writers found the ideas, not what the ideas mean. These elements are inspiration, not meaning.

MollyCocktail wrote:And while I love her dearly, I doubt Ian's Mother (my future mother-in-law) even made that connection. To her, its a show about people on an island...LOST.

Leave Mom out of this... although you are quite right.

MollyCocktail wrote:In the end, I think the hows, whats and whys will be explained in a manner that is so simple, none of us will ever see it coming.
I've always maintained that we get caught up in the minucia of the story and never see the forest through the trees.

I'm with you there, but for me, if they toss out a little science bone, I run with it, lick it, love it, bury it, and go back to it later. (Dang, why is there no Vincent emoticon? I so needed to use that right now.)

Caged_Faraday wrote:[I'm with you there, but for me, if they toss
out a little science bone, I run with it, lick it, love it, bury it,
and go back to it later. (Dang, why is there no Vincent emoticon? I so
needed to use that right now.)

::throws bone::
Fetch boy! Fetch!

And I will bring Mom into every argument I intend on winning, thank you. Muhuhahahhahahahaha!

<3
Love Love

Negative response. Got it loud and clear.

Thanks.

Meanwhile, I was just trying to point out parrallels. I am not trying to say that the show is all about the French revolution, or all about this or that. (That post is coming.)

I dont think that parallels can be denied though, and I dont understand the cold water.

I was just trying to share what I saw. I didnt mean to inspire rants.

I don't think anyone's ranting. A theory was posted, it was well-thought, it maes people think, and therefore, it gets challenged.

Personally, I'm amazed at the parallels you drew. I simply see them as ispiration to the writers, not the output of the writers.

I agree with the inspiration comment. I also think that the output does not betray this inspiration.

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you have as to where this inspiration is driving.

Personally, I think we are getting a critique of enlightenment.

Take a glance at this quote from Horkheimer and Adorno's Critique of Enlightenment:

"The abusrdity of a state of affairs in which the enforced power of the system over man grows with every step that takes it out of the power of nature, denounces the rationality of the rational society as obsolete. Its necessity is illusive, no less than the freedom of the entrepreneurs who ultimately reveal their compulsive nature in their inevitable wars and contracts. This illusion, in which a wholly enlightened mankind has lost itself, cannot be dissolved by a philosophy which, as the organ of domination, has to choose between command and obedience. Without being able to escape the confusion which still ensnares it in prehistory, it is nevertheless able to recognize the logic of either-or, of consequence and antimony, with which it radically emancipated itself from nature, as this very nature, unredeemed and self alienated."

Thus in the man of science, there is an inkling of prehistorical doubt eating him up from inside out.

Similarly for the man of faith, the faith is realized in separation between mind and object, and mind's domination of object.

The historical inspiration is drawing us step by step from that state of nature to the moment where nature is expoited.