1. In Chapter 32, Pi tells us that there are quite a number of interesting arrangements between animals such as when motherless lion cubs choose to believe that a dog is their mother. Similar to anthropomorphism where animals are described with human characteristics, zoomorphism, Pi notes, is an active choice of animals choosing to believe different animals as their own kind because it offers them the better story or it is in their mutual interest to do so. Pi says that the lion cubs, for example, choose to believe the dog is their mother or else they must face the harsh cruel reality that they are motherless. Choosing to believe that the dog is their mother allows them to cope and bear with an unforgiving reality.
Analyze the environment in and around the lifeboat and explain why Pi may have no choice but to anthropomorphize the animals on the boat. How does it help him cope with his situation? Also, explain why it might also be in the interest of the animals on the boat and to zoomorphosize Piscine, and vice versa, and in doing so, what may they achieve?
In Life of Pi, Pi’s father teaches Pi that anthropomorphism is very dangerous. Anthropomorphism is when a human treats an animal like a human. Zoomorphism is very similar to anthropomorphism, except it is animals that treat other animals as one of them, instead of humans. Despite the lesson Pi’s father taught him, Pi has no choice but to anthropomorphize the animals on the boat, since it helps him survive in the severe and harsh situation he is in. I disagree with Pi’s father and believe that anthropomorphism actually has more advantages than harms in this situation.
A reason why Pi has to anthropomorphize the animals is that he has to survive. Since animals cannot talk, most of them usually fight and attack when they think they are in danger, instead of communicating. As a solution, Pi has to try communicating with the animals to create peace and order in the boat. If he doesn’t, unfortunate events like the zebra and Orange Juice’s death will take place. In addition, Pi might get injured badly or even die if the animals attack him.
Another reason is that anthropomorphism makes him less lonely. Away from society, with no one to talk to, Pi will feel lonely, especially since humans are social animals. “According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, loneliness can lead to various psychiatric disorders like depression, alcohol abuse, child abuse, sleep problems, personality disorders, and Alzheimer's disease.” As this example shows, loneliness can have many disadvantages and consequences. In this case, anthropomorphism could work as a cure for many health problems on the lifeboat. If Pi socializes with the animals, he would be less lonely and would protect him from these disorders, too.
Finally, he needs to sustain sociability. If he stays with animals with no people around, he might lose his sociability. As a result, when he goes back to society, he might not be able to adapt well. In fact, he might be more comfortable with animals. Nonconformity to society can further lead to many problems such as mental disorders, poverty, and depression—the very problems mentioned earlier. To prevent that from happening, he must embrace anthropomorphism while at sea.
On the other hand, the animals could zoomorphisize Pi. It could be helpful for the animals, too. Since humans are animals, too, it would have the same advantages as Pi’s anthropomorphism of animals. The animals on the ship are all different. So, they will also be cautious of others, feel lonely and depressed, and have a hard time socializing when they are back in their society like humans.
Even though anthropomorphism may be considered a negative and dangerous thing, I believe that it is sometimes necessary to survive in severe conditions, like the one Pi is in, where he is in a lifeboat with 4 wild animals that could be dangerous. It will help one not only to survive but to socialize, make an orderly and peaceful atmosphere in a dangerous situation, and even cure disorders.
2. Pi presents us with two versions of his ordeals; one with animals and one without them. Pi asks the two Japanese investigators which version they prefer, noting that they cannot prove which story is true and which is not. Both answer the one with the animals. Pi returns an answer, “and so it goes with God”, making the point that religion is a matter of believing in the better story, to give our lives more meaning.
Early in the story, Pi also made the point that if we have to choose between the dry yeastless factuality and the better story, it is always better to opt for the better story. In other words, when confronted with a situation where one has to take a leap of faith for a better story, it is always better to choose the better story than the dry yeastless factuality. Discuss whether you agree or disagree with this statement. If your answer is yes, then discuss why it would be permissible to opt for the better story even if you would not have the scientific basis to make such a choice. If not, then explain why you are unwilling to draw unscientific conclusions even though it leads us to believe in an unappealing understanding of life. Try to use Pi’s two stories (the one with the animal and the one without them) when providing an answer.
In Life of Pi, Pi asks the Japanese investigators which story they prefer; the one with the animals or the one without them. Despite the fact that they wanted the dry, yeastless, factual story, they said that they preferred the story with the animals. Pi also mentioned that if we have to choose between the dry yeastless factuality and the better story, it is always better to choose the better story. I agree with Pi even though it leads to an unappealing understanding of life, and I have 3 reasons to support my opinion.
Firstly, the story with the animals is less violent. Even though the hyena killing the zebra and the orangutan might be considered brutal, it is not as violent as the story with humans . Also, it is natural for a predator to eat their prey. In this case, the predator is the hyena and the zebra and orangutan are the prey. In contrast, the french man killing the sailor and Pi’s mother is considered immoral and violent. In addition, since the story seems fictional and somewhat unrealistic, it also seems less violent because it is likely that people won’t believe in it.
Another reason is that the better story is reasonable. As mentioned in the first reason, animals killing other animals is considered natural rather than violent. Meanwhile, humans killing and eating their own kind is believed to be extremely immoral and violent. For example, animals are not arrested and sent to jail for killing other animals. However, humans killing other humans is considered a crime; they are also sent to jail and sometimes have to stay there for the rest of their lives.
Finally, the real story will lead to panic. Like the true story, if all the animals in the animal story were humans, this would be a serial murder incident. The citizens of the country, and even the whole world will panic and tremble in fear that they will be murdered. Compared to this story, the animal story is refined and less cruel. Like the investigators, people will find the story silly and unbelievable, not noticing that the animals were people.
In conclusion, there are more good sides to the better story than the true story in Life of Pi. It is less violent, reasonable, and doesn’t cause panic. Therefore, even though the story with the animals might not be the happiest and mildest story, it is still clearly better than the real story.
コメント