Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kirsten's avatar

I’m trying to understand the overarching philosophy that Shevek starts to really develop in Chapter 2, starting with the reference to how you can never step into the same river twice. If I’m understanding Shevek’s argument, it’s that all individual things change, but the relationship between them remains (or can remain) constant. He might change, and the waters of the river certainly change, but the way he relates to the river does not. “Home is a place you’ve never been” means that home is the relationship between you and another person, place, or thing. I think there’s also something here connecting to his dream where his parents showed him the “primal number” that represents both unity and plurality. You need distinct individuals in order to form a relationship (or to make up a collective), and neither have meaning without the other.

At the end of Chapter 2, Shevek argues that “brotherhood is shared suffering,” and I think what he means by this is that true brotherhood is recognizing that when one individual suffers, all suffer, because all individuals are ultimately one. Shared suffering doesn’t mean hurting yourself in solidarity when you see someone else hurting. It means seeing that the inescapable, shared suffering of existence is proof of our ultimate unity or oneness, which is experienced as relationship.

So, if relationship between individuals itself is prime (as opposed to specific arrangements of individuals in hierarchical or anarchist societies), then it’s immoral to maintain a divide between Urras and Anarres, and to villainize other people as both worlds have done to one another. Shevek is motivated to seek universal connection, relationship, or brotherhood, because prioritizing the material wellbeing of only individuals (Anarres) or of the collective (Urras) neglects the fundamental primacy of connection and relationship at all levels of and across societies.

Expand full comment
Lorraine's avatar

"Initiative" as a concept (and its relationship with desire and necessity) is what is sticking out for me the most on this read. I can't count how many times I've read this book, but in previous readings the political formations of the two worlds (obviously) and the romance (somewhat less obviously) are what really stood out for me.

I initially thought of initiative as a kind of authentic desire, constrained by necessity, but as I read further I began to think of initiative as more of a natural function of a "healthy" human society and the individuals those societies produce — initiative as something more akin to the way a bee gathers honey and builds hives, albeit with a conceptual element.

Expand full comment
33 more comments...

No posts