Jonathan Livingston Seagull

 

It is often challenging to assert a sense of individualism in life. Despite our biological makeup what emphasizes a notion of physiological and psychological individuality, culture has dictated that humans, like many other species of the animal world, have to survive in a communal setting. While one feels the demand of meeting up to one’s potential, is that often consistent with the expectations from the group one finds himself in? In 1970, Richard Bach has written a novella which would eventually become the classic of self-help literature in the 20th century. ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’ is an allegory of one’s striving towards self-actualization. Though the protagonist of the novella is merely a seagull, many readers can easily identify with this ‘outsider’ of the flock. The bird’s unique experience has proved to be inspiring for many and the novella has become a bestseller. In 1973, the film version of ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’ was released. The film’s style is very representative of its era – with the daring spirit, and much of the film focused only on the protagonist – remember that is a seagull - and the natural world it has travelled through. Maybe due to the lack of human characters and the austere style, the film received mixed review, unlike the overwhelming positive response to the novella. Nevertheless, the film has received 2 Oscar nominations in the technical categories and it was also memorable for the song ‘Be’, performed by Neil Diamond.

Jonathan is no ordinary seagull. While most seagulls’ purpose of life is to be well-fed and be an early bird for the next meal deal, Jonathan wished to go further with his own ambitions. Having such an idiosyncratic worldview certainly made him a bit of a loner and a pain-in-the-ass in his group. Jonathan really enjoyed flying – and in particular he felt a ‘need for the speed’, and always tried hard to improve his flying speed. When he has finally reached a speed of 100 km / hour, he was elated by his achievement. His peers were not that impressed, though – and found his actions rather heretical. The leader of the clan advised Jonathan to conform to being a normal seagull, as his antics suggested that he did not belong. Jonathan stood firm on his beliefs, and was soon expelled from the group. Now an outsider, Jonathan was free to pursue his interest and explore the world. It turned out that being an outcast might not be the worst thing in life – throughout his journey he would find other seagulls who also enjoyed the pleasure of flight, and would learn from them to improve himself. The seagull would eventually inspire the other similar-minded birds, who needed a reason to motivate themselves to achieve their own aims…

Does my life end here?

I can't believe that.

I wasn't born to drown in this ocean.

I can die here or I can force myself to fly.

It's in me.

I've got to try.

I've got to get back home.

At last I can stop thinking, for once in my life.

Just stop thinking and fly towards the lights in the dark.

-Jonathan, 'Dear Father'

We can often find someone with a character like Jonathan the seagull around us. They often take a non-conformist attitude to the things around them (which is why the film addresses the spirit of the New Hollywood Cinema of the 1970s), and they love to challenge the status quo of the day. They are born to be misfits, and the peer pressure will often be exerted to force them back in the line. Yet it is often the maverick that can lead the other members to new frontiers they have never been able to conceive of. These are the very individuals who reveal new possibilities of existence. Throughout the story, Jonathan strived very hard to realize his dream of being a speedy flyer. He would rather end up in a state of solitude to perfect his craft. He has encountered numerous obstacles, and even was stranded and wounded at some point. When he was about to be swept away into oblivion in a broken raft, his insatiable drive towards his dream got the better of him, and motivated him to get through the hardship to a higher state. While Jonathan was a unique and intelligent member of his species, he has not let his hubris to divert his focus. He was willing to be humble and learnt from the other seagulls who could fly higher and faster than him, in order to develop his skills. That was the instance when Jonathan found true company, and no longer be alone.

Be

As a page that aches for a word

Which speaks on a theme that is timeless

While the one God will make for your day

Sing

As a song in search of a voice that is silent

And the one God will make for your way

-Neil Diamond, 'Be'

The allegorical narrative of Jonathan’s experience is very humanistic and that reminds us of Maslow’s psychological theories. The American psychologist has proposed a hierarchy of needs of human existence, from the lowest, elemental needs such as food and warmth; to the higher ultimate purpose of self-actualization. When Jonathan was with the members of his clans, it was quite certain that the basic survival needs have already been fulfilled – that was why Jonathan was bored with the mundane life in the first place. His peers, satisfied by the sensual and physical pleasure of abundant food, were willing to conform to that comfort zone. That serve as a metaphor for the laymen who are willing to stick to a regular pattern in their lives and are not willing to look for alternatives to define themselves. Jonathan, by contrast, has discovered an aim for self-actualization through his love of flying. By having a strong commitment to his interest, he has found a purpose of his existence. Indeed, this perspective also finds resonance with Neil Diamond’s theme song, ‘Be’. The poetic lyrics of this great song explore the theme of being in the world. As Jonathan has been able to counteract against herd behavior and crowd psychology, he found himself closer to the nature of things, finally achieving a sense of transcendence.

by Ed Law 

Film Analysis

Seeding the Universe with Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras was a Pre-Socratic thinker who was literally related to Socrates. Elder than Socrates by about 30 years, it was probable that one of Anaxagoras’ student, Archelaus, might have been a teacher for the young Socrates. Socrates has certainly been influenced by the teachings of Anaxagoras’ school of thought, yet he has since departed from his teacher’s approach for more original directions. Like Democritus of the Atomist school, Anaxagoras was a natural philosopher with a strong scientific mind, contributing not only to ontology but also empirical fields like astronomy and meteorology. The natural philosopher was also a close associate of Pericles, and the Athenian politician has learnt a lot from the wise philosopher. Presumably due to his mind-blowing philosophy (we will see how later) and the fact that he was acquainted with Pericles, Anaxagoras was soon charged with impiety – an offence that could apparently forced onto anyone who diverted from a traditional outlook of Greek religion, and he was exiled as a result. The philosopher’s reputation might be conflicted in his lifetime, yet his subsequent influence to later thinkers is profound, from theoretical science to Hegelian studies.

Anaxagoras has developed a complete system for this philosophy, and some of his key ideas are still insightful by today’s standard. Yet the interpretation of his philosophy has proved to be challenging because certain of his doctrines were expressed in rather obscure or ambiguous ways, and that resulted in drastically different interpretations from later academics, which often depended on how they defined some of the more ambiguous terms in the Pre-Socratic thinker’s work. Some of his more abstract ideas may also sound strange if we view them from the standard of modern empirical science. My aim here is to spell out the consensus of Anaxagoras’ key doctrines and hopefully provide some starting points for philosophizing his interesting ideas.

Like many of his fellow Pre-Socratic thinkers, Anaxagoras wished to find out the origin of the universe and where it was heading to. Thus he placed a lot of concerns on the issues of both cosmogony and cosmology. For the Greek thinker, every thing in the world had a tendency to be developed into its final form. Yet the attributes (or properties, a more straight-forward term to address Anaxagoras’ complex wordings) present in the final form of that thing was already latent in the original form of the thing in question. So we can say that at the start, a thing has already possessed the properties that would allow it to map out its trajectory to develop into the final form. 

The reason why this could happen was because of a property asserted by Anaxagoras. While he has used a number of different ways to describe that particular idea, including the word ‘seeds’ (which the meaning was supposed to be metaphorical rather than literal), that has been known as ‘homoeomeries’ since Aristotle. ‘Homoeomeries’ are defined as things that remain in the same form after they are divided. Intuitively the notion sounds impossible, and this concept has been the most controversial of Anaxagoras’s system. While the idea may be theoretically possible in an abstract manner, say, if one has a bar of pure gold and it is cut into half, we can argue the resulting halves are the same as the original because the gold atoms are homogeneous and there are no ways to distinguish between the before and after. Yet in this case we are assuming the particulate notion of matter, and that was probably not Anaxagoras’s intention because he was never attracted to any particulate theories of matter to start with.

Anaxagoras proposed that at the beginning of the universe, its state was an original mixture with infinite substances in it. All the substances would eventually be developed to all things in the world. Thus, these substances could be seen as the ‘seeds’ for the eventual world formation. Through the mixing of specific proportions of mixing the various substances, things are transformed into their respective final forms throughout the evolution of the universe. Before we move on we can notice an implication of Anaxagoras’s doctrine: even if the components of the ‘seeds’ are the same, if the proportions have changed, the outcome will also be very different. From this reasoning many researchers of the field have suggested that the Greek thinker has proposed the possibility of innumerable worlds, though they did not reach a consensus on whether these worlds were co-existent or successive.

So, what is the string-puller behind the whole system? Anticipating theological or even psychological perspectives in the modern sense of the term, Anaxagoras proposed ‘Mind’ (Greek: nous) as the organizing principle of the universe. Many commentators have since questioned the scope of the word, whether the philosopher intended to mean as a divine substance or merely the psychological capacities of animate things (like humans and animals) in the world. Vague as it may seem, Anaxagoras’s notion of ‘Mind’ did suggest it as a universal force of nature that facilitated the development of the universe. Thus for the Pre-Socratic thinker, Mind was infinite, pure and independent from the original mixture. The Mind initiated the transformation of the universe through a first rotatory movement, and the ‘seeds’ in the original mixture would divide and separate to start their transformations. It was also omniscient and possessed the ‘know how’ (a buzz word for our era?!) to transform the world towards its very end.  I would argue that the notion of Nous is possibly the philosopher’s most important influence to the later generations, as many will easily equate ‘Mind’ with ‘God’ through a similar line of reasoning.

Anaxagoras’s philosophy is therefore a teleological one, of which many later philosophical systems have shared similarities. An example is in Socrates’s discussion of Homeric epic, where he placed a focus on the role of military leader, having the obligation to ensure his soldiers’ survival. Socrates was teleological in the sense that he concentrated on the purpose of the leader’s action – to ensure his men were safe. In a later era, Aristotle would similarly designate the individual action of the ruler to a teleological purpose of offering advantage to the group he was governing. Aristotle pursued the concept of teleology even further. In his work on zoology, he went as far to propose his generally teleological view of nature.  The philosopher offered teleological explanations as the understanding of goals and final causes present in life. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics