Paradise Lost Essay, Research Paper
Where Connotations Serve to Clarify
Julían Marías, a Spanish philosopher proves to be no exception to the numerous writers attempting to describe California?s effect on both visitors and residents alike almost predictably invoking the idea of paradise in their evaluation. He confirms California as a paradise while at the same time exploring the reflective meaning of paradise itself in human consciousness. Marías considers California to be a vision of paradise in respect to his diverse interpretations of the word paradise. In other words, Marías attempts to generate a critical meditation allowed the word paradise to have various connotation from the Garden of Eden to Paradise Lost, which help to strengthen his reasons for California to be paradise.
Marías defines Paradise as a garden. In other words, the article attempts to illustrate Paradise as the Garden of Eden. If it is true, for instance, that
even in the wildest areas, where nature has taken charge of everything, there is a peculiar composition of forms,?kósmos?that is reminiscent of a garden,
then that is establishing Marías? systematic view on how California is not a mere paradise but also having a bearing to the Garden of Eden. Furthermore, since
there are wild, untrammeled, and rugged forest lands
in the North Atlantic states; deserts in Arizona and New Mexico.
California is another matter, truly an oasis,
then once again we can see an image of California as being a desert garden. There are numerous accounts of examples across the pages that seem to expose a penetrating contemplation on the author?s part when viewing California as the Garden of Eden. While this summation serves to demonstrate how California is a garden, Marías critical meditation continues by claiming California to be "Paradise Lost."
According to the article California is seen as "Paradise Lost." In other words, Marías differentiates East Los Angeles and the downtown center of Los Angeles as being quite the opposite description from Paradise: "Paradise Lost." If it is true, for example, that
even in the least prosperous or well-to-do sections which are, if one looks carefully, very sordid and depressingly ugly (East Los Angeles), lend to those shoddy remnants of Paradise,
then that is unveiling another of Marías? critical approaches to how California can be seen as Paradise Lost. Moreover, since "where there is no Paradise at all is in the old town because there the city is decaying under the sordidness that crept over it; it has ?fallen away,?" then once more Marías? critical examination implements a comparison between Paradise and Paradise Lost to further iterate his analysis of Paradise. In the time that this summation serves as another example of the author?s applied logical concepts for California to be perceived as Paradise Lost, the word paradise functions also as the absence of limitation due to Marías? further critical meditation of paradise.
Marías acknowledges paradise as the absence of limitation. In other words, Marías interprets paradise as having no limits only mere conditions by taking a more critical perspective. If it is true, in fact, that "it cannot obtain where nature is rugged, violent, or immoderate, where there is an everyday battle against inclemency," then that is saying something about the conditions that are set by man in order to have paradise. In addition, since California "is the place where a well-high miraculous technology, an unprecedented amount of wealth, and the perfect structuring of man?s cities have together achieved the height of pure implausibility," then it is evident of the outcomes of a paradise with no limits. During the time that this analysis acts as an example of how Marías? theory of knowledge seems to manifest paradise as limitless, however he furthers his critical meditation to have paradise serving as a mere fantasy.
Marías asserts California as paradise. In other words, Marías? critical meditation serves to have a more critical angle by submitting California as an illusionary place. If it is true, specifically, that "the first stage remains so ?natural,? so alive, and so powerful that perhaps the oil wells therefore spring up from a foreground of blazing flowers," then that is saying something of how California is deficient of the real world. Moreover, since "nearby is a cemetery for dogs, with small monuments and even a Conestoga wagon," then once again we get the impression that California being a plaything; a child?s tale. There are many more examples across the pages that seem to reiterate California?s characterization as a fable on account of the author?s further critical thinking on the matter of California as paradise. All the while this summation serves to illustrate how California is no more then a mere illusion, an illusion created by man corresponding to Marías? systematic view.
The author implies that California is where the hand of man is felt close by. In other words, the manifestation of California as paradise is the fabrication by man?s instruction and imagination. If it is true, for instance, that "White stucco houses, often capriciously incongruous, that look like toys or, better, like a stage setting," then that is saying something of man?s instruction to stage the setting in order to have a deceptive appearance. What’s more, since "a whole family of deer may start up from among them, and at dusk there is an air of mystery that descends; but it is a literary mystery, out of a child?s book," then once again we can see how man?s imagination serves to harvest a child?s tale. These examples make it obvious of how man?s imagination plays a major role into why they perceive California as paradise. Thus, because of Marías? extensive critical meditation of why she considers California to be Paradise accredited the word paradise to serve as significant connotations.