Discussion 3 of 5
Strange but True
These chapters contain several examples of paradoxical situations, which are situations containing apparently but not actually incompatible elements. From a Christian standpoint, a paradoxical situation is that Christ was born of a virgin and is both God and man (apparently impossible but true).
There are both religious and general paradoxical situations throughout Catch-22. Focus on the specific chapters listed in this discussion post, and point out a paradoxical situation and explain what it means to you. How do you personally relate to that paradoxical situation? To what can you compare that situation? Why is that specific paradoxical situation relevant to you personally?
Your responses should be approximately 50-words in length. Be sure to use textual evidence when appropriate. Going over the suggested word count or under that word count is acceptable as long as your response is detailed and direct. Be sure to read the “Scoring Rubric” before posting your response. Also, review your responses for correctness before posting.
Respond often and in a timely manner. It is okay to post a response and then check back days later to see if anyone has responded to you or asked you a question. You will be able to (and expected to) respond to this post throughout the course of the summer.
Simply click on "Comments" below to post your comment. Be sure to type your full name by clicking on the "Name/URL" option or login to your Google account and post your comment.
Chapter 23 had a paradox that stood out to me specifically. When Nately is arguing with the old man in the apartment, the old man claims that America will lose the war and Italy will win. Nately rejects this, saying that American is "the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth" and that the American soldier is "second to none." (242) The old man agrees, and says, "Italy, on the other hand, is one of the least prosperous nations on earth. And the Italian fighting man is probably second to all. And that's exactly why my country is doing so well in this war while your country is doing so poorly." (243) The two continue arguing when the old man states that the only way to win a war is to lose it, introducing the paradox of the chapter. I feel as if this paradox relates to me because of the American attitude towards war. They believe that patriotism and dying for your country is the key. However, if you're on the "losing" end and your country is being occupied by another nation, no soldiers or individuals are dying, so they're actually winning because no lives are being lost.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I found a paradox in chapter 22 on page 231. Although I believe it is a paradox, the section was very hard to comprehend, which I feel most paradoxes are very complex. It is a discussion between Milo and Yossarian about Milo's confusing way of buying and selling eggs and making a profit. 'Yossarian-"Why don't you sell the eggs directly to you and eliminate the people you buy them from?" Milo- "because I'm the people I buy them from. I make a profit of three and a quarter cents apiece when I sell them to me and a profit of two and three quarter cents when I buy them back from me. That's a total profit of six cents an egg. I loose only two cents an egg when I sell them to the mess halls at five cents a piece, and that's how I can make a profit buying eggs for seven cents a piece and selling them for five cents a piece." ' This is a paradox because it seems impossible that Milo can make a profit of buying eggs and selling them cheaper than what he paid for them. It was very confusing and I had trouble relating this back to my life. The only way it can really relate to me is when my family has farmed and has paid more for a piece of equipment or cattle than we got back out of it.
ReplyDeleteThere was a part when you Arian was questioning a lot of biblical paradoxes like did Adam and eve have a daughter or why create something so powerful you have to put a mark on it protecting it (cain) it stood out to. Me because people don't seem to question the bible even though many of its stories are rather confusing. The military is just another one of the places to shove their religion down your throat and not be afraid to push you out on the front lines
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 19 Colonel Cathcart is trying to get the Chaplain to pray about something not related to god at all. This is a paradox because the whole purpose of praying is to get God to aid you in something you are about to do or just ask God for help or guidance in general. Colonel Cathcart kept stressing the fact that he didn't want anything to do with God or the Bible in his prayer which completely removes the necessity of a prayer since prayers are talking to God, thus making the prayer not even a prayer anymore. Cathcart wishing to pray for tighter bomb patterns but not wanting to pray to God is useless because who else will provide the hope of tighter bomb patterns than the God the Chaplain is suppose to be praying to? This stood out a lot to me just because of the uselessness of it and the way it continues to suggest war was a joke. Basically you can't pray without relating to God in some way.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with Cat. During this part of the novel when Colonel Cathcart carried on to the Chaplain about how much he wanted to incorporate prayer into his squadrons' lives because he heard about someone else doing it, I generally started to like him for just a second because maybe he was beginning to care about the soldiers. Then he brought up not praying "religiously" which is ridiculous because that is the whole point of prayer. When he got to the bit about praying for the "tighter bomb patterns", I literally laughed out loud. This part again, as Cat said, portrays war as a joke even farther and tells me that the commanding officers are even more inadequate then I had previously thought... Which is impressive. I guess this could relate to me because inadequate figures of authority really anger me; but the author did a really good job of making the Colonel less likeable in this scene as well.
ReplyDeleteThe paradox I've chosen was in chapter 20 page 205. "I don't care whether you're lying or not. They're going to get you for intercepting Major Major's correspondence, too" (pg.205) shows that regardless if the chaplain was guilt of his convictions or not, he was still going to get in trouble because a higher power needed someone to pick on. The paradox is in the way the chaplain is forced to go about responding to this situation. If he succumbs to his convictions he'll be found guilty and tried harshly, yet if he denies them like he's been doing, he'll be found guilty and tried harshly. This is a type of situation that I'm fairly familiar with. I've been grounded many times due to an "authoritative" figure accusing me of doing something outlandish even though I did nothing of the sort. I couldn't say that they were lying because adults in my area are "always right" and I couldn't admit to the lie because I didn't actually do anything. I feel the chaplain's pain.
ReplyDeletePersonally, the paradox that stuck out the most to me was what Hayley said as well. The paradox that occurred when Milo sold products (such as eggs) for less than what he bought them for and then bought them back and managed to make a decent profit out of it. This whole process really confused me, even after reading it a few more times, but seeing as it's a paradox it is kind of meant to be slightly confusing. It is a paradox because when you buy something and you sell it for less than you payed for it there should be a loss of money, not a gain. Milo, however, was able to play his cards just right and squeeze out money to keep, even though he was both buying and selling to himself. It still is confusing to me. I am not particularly sure how I can connect to it other than the fact that I sort of do this when I shop online. For instance, when I recently bought my college text book I bought a used one because the new textbooks are ridiculously expensive. By buying the book used the seller had it listed at a lower price, therefore losing them the money they originally payed for the book, and gaining me a good deal. I personally do stuff like this often, yet cannot even fathom how to make money like Milo does. Because, in reality, it's likely either impossible or going to take a lot of knowledge and expertise to pull off.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Hannah has said. We as Americans do believe that the ultimate act of patriotism is the ultimate sacrifice, which is death, and we believe that if we have men you will do that we will win. But as the old man in the book stated, if no lives are lost isn't that the biggest win? This paradox made me think about how us, America, fighting and "winning" wars we aren't actually winning. We lose more than we gain and we ultimately are putting a bigger target on ourselves. Unlike how the old man described Italy, they never chose a side and no Italians were killed. They won and survived the war.
ReplyDeleteThe paradox I've chosen was in chapter 20 page 205. "I don't care whether you're lying or not. They're going to get you for intercepting Major Major's correspondence, too" (pg.205) shows that regardless if the chaplain was guilt of his convictions or not, he was still going to get in trouble because a higher power needed someone to pick on. The paradox is in the way the chaplain is forced to go about responding to this situation. If he succumbs to his convictions he'll be found guilty and tried harshly, yet if he denies them like he's been doing, he'll be found guilty and tried harshly. This is a type of situation that I'm fairly familiar with. I've been grounded many times due to an "authoritative" figure accusing me of doing something outlandish even though I did nothing of the sort. I couldn't say that they were lying because adults in my area are "always right" and I couldn't admit to the lie because I didn't actually do anything. I feel the chaplain's pain.
ReplyDelete