Thoughts on two Star Trek episodes
There's a strange difference in tone between two of my favourite The Next Generation episodes, Time's Arrow and The Survivors.
Time's Arrow is a take on the panther. There must be quite a few nonsensical TNG episodes seen through the lens of Darwinism, but Time's Arrow takes the cake. It is so obviously absurd that one has little choice but to understand it symbolically. So there are these creatures living in a cave feeding off of humans. They don't talk much, but when they finally open their mouth they point out the foolishness of humans who, without their wisdom, would destroy themselves.
Well, no reason not to get rid off them. But perhaps the symbolism ends there. Or does it? I'm not sure, after all TNG carries the rottenberrygene. But seriously, what is there to condemn? Choosing the wise course requires us to make sacrifices. Are we supposed to rebel against that?
Other than getting rid of the troglodytes this episode rebels very little against the view of the wise, that the course of history is carved in stone and that we all have to fulfil our fate, although pretty much any other episode on the subject tells us that that is not the case, but then again Star Trek has a lot of, often hilarious, inconsistencies, my favourite being the Norse dialect they speak on Vulcan in the Motion Picture from 1979.
Still, the troglodytes are creepy, monstrous. And their annihilation doesn't raise any moral questions on the plane of the uninterpreted parable. Somehow I feel that the episode is meant as a proclamation of emancipation from the old gods, watching over immutable necessities.
Well, let us consider the other episode, The Survivors. Kevin lets the Husnock kill to their hearts content, but once they've shown their true colours, he decides their race doesn't merit existence. Interestingly, Mr. Pickard, the great British actor, expresses tacit support of that approach, also known as the burning of the tares at the harvest.
Is this supposed to be a different way? The liberation from necessity? At least for the short-sighted?
Because it isn't. It is the exact same way: Letting bad people do bad deeds is the sacrifice that people have to pay for a free society built on trust, which, under the right circumstances, is the wise choice.
Still, on the one side monstrous and creepy, on the other dignified and feeling.
Time's Arrow is a take on the panther. There must be quite a few nonsensical TNG episodes seen through the lens of Darwinism, but Time's Arrow takes the cake. It is so obviously absurd that one has little choice but to understand it symbolically. So there are these creatures living in a cave feeding off of humans. They don't talk much, but when they finally open their mouth they point out the foolishness of humans who, without their wisdom, would destroy themselves.
Well, no reason not to get rid off them. But perhaps the symbolism ends there. Or does it? I'm not sure, after all TNG carries the rottenberrygene. But seriously, what is there to condemn? Choosing the wise course requires us to make sacrifices. Are we supposed to rebel against that?
Other than getting rid of the troglodytes this episode rebels very little against the view of the wise, that the course of history is carved in stone and that we all have to fulfil our fate, although pretty much any other episode on the subject tells us that that is not the case, but then again Star Trek has a lot of, often hilarious, inconsistencies, my favourite being the Norse dialect they speak on Vulcan in the Motion Picture from 1979.
Still, the troglodytes are creepy, monstrous. And their annihilation doesn't raise any moral questions on the plane of the uninterpreted parable. Somehow I feel that the episode is meant as a proclamation of emancipation from the old gods, watching over immutable necessities.
Well, let us consider the other episode, The Survivors. Kevin lets the Husnock kill to their hearts content, but once they've shown their true colours, he decides their race doesn't merit existence. Interestingly, Mr. Pickard, the great British actor, expresses tacit support of that approach, also known as the burning of the tares at the harvest.
Is this supposed to be a different way? The liberation from necessity? At least for the short-sighted?
Because it isn't. It is the exact same way: Letting bad people do bad deeds is the sacrifice that people have to pay for a free society built on trust, which, under the right circumstances, is the wise choice.
Still, on the one side monstrous and creepy, on the other dignified and feeling.
Labels: 26, formalisierung, geschichte, gesetze, institutionen, rezension, wahrnehmungen, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
19:18
