Mist
Right, so so few people actually read this, page but it doesn't bother me... more room to rant. Anywho, the following was my reaction to the "nivola" (basically a novel of philosophical constructs) by Miguel de Unamuno. While I did not particularly enjoy this reading, (as I didn't really read it in it's entirety,but merely skimmed it for important paragraphs), I beleive this work speaks mountains about the world we live in. Here is my take on one such issue presented.
While I find it interesting that Unamuno would place himself not only as narrator, but as an omniscient narrator who takes part in the actual plot of this “nivola,” I find little thought that stands out as new within the text. When ever we are to bring our own existence into question in this day and age, we tend to use Descarte's “I think, therefore I am,” nonsense to save ourselves the hassle that Augusto puts himself through. The whole concept of this work being to delve deeper into the question of existence, that has driven men madder than a haberdasher in a poorly ventilated closet, I suppose it is worth noting that throughout the entire tale the nivola is half sentient. That is to say, the author, operates on the level that the work is a satire of the common Romantic literature, and constantly calls into recognition that the story on the page must exist only on the page for the sake of sanity. The only character who cannot come to terms with the fact that he exists only on the page, is the one who acts as one would expect any character to act in a Romanticism.
Though this character is quite frankly and simply juxtaposed with a semi-realistic society. It is troubling to think that a man who only a short time before had conceptualized that all life (himself included) was nothing more than a dream in the mind of God, and that all religion as he knew it was an attempt to stave off the waking of God, was not able to deal with the fact that he himself was a construct of a being that existed within reality, and his world was a fiction. This second level is where I wish to focus. The author seems to imply that if even if we are the fiction of a greater “reality” we still exist, and have free will. Even if it cannot be said truthfully that we have free will, it would appear to us that we did. This point is best illustrated through Augusto's reaction to the possibility that he is a figment of Unamuno's imagination. When Augusto, retorts or decides to commit suicide against Unamuno's will, he exercises his “free will.” However, the fact that the reader knows that Unamuno would not have penned Augusto's suicide or retort were it not to prove a point... does just that. Though, he was not aware of it, the conversation with his author suggests that the very concept of free will could never exist, because there must always be someone on a higher tier to pull the strings.
This concept holds water with other portions of the story as well. When we see Augusto attempt his experiments, it becomes evident to us that he is being played by someone more aware than himself. He is only allowed the illusion of free-will. Like any good chess player knows, in order to best one's opponent, one must know what one's opponent will do in the event of a certain move, so far in advanced that the match is nearly over. In this way, one must allow the opponent to believe himself the scientist, when he is in reality the frog.
That is why also, this dark-comedic inspection of life must incorporate so many jabs at anarchy. For as anyone knows, true anarchy would mean even familial systems would be null and void, so for anyone to believe in anarchy, they must in turn also not believe in any higher power, as it would serve to oppress (meaning religion is out the window). If religion is out the window, then it stands that chaos reigns in the form of quantum probability. This would then, provide for the existence of free will as a sham. In turn, this only strengthens the authors message that free will must necessarily exist as a facade, lorded over us by either chaos, or God (in any of His forms). Everything, is contrived, regardless.