Chronology of Ancient Philosophers

624-525 B.C. Thales, Greek philosopher and scientist

610-540 B.C. Anaximander, Greek philosopher

570-497 B.C. Pythagoras, Greek philosopher and mathematician

540-480 B.C. Heraclitus, Greek philosopher

515-445 B.C. Parmenides, Greek philosopher and poet

490-430 B.C. Zeno, Greek philosopher

490-420 B.C. Protagoras, Greek Sophist philosopher

469-399 B.C Socrates, Greek philosopher

470-360 B.C. Democritus, Greek philosopher

427-347 B.C. Plato, Greek philosopher

384-322 B.C. Aristotle, Greek philosopher

341-270 B.C. Epicurus, Greek philosopher

99-55 B.C. Lucretius, Roman philosopher and poet

55-135 A.D. Epictetus, Roman Stoic philosopher and poet

175-225 A.D.Sextus Empiricus, Roman philosopher

Euripides – Lars Von Trier and Medea

Euripides (c. 480 – 406 BC) was Greek and he mainly wrote Tragedies. One such was Medea based upon the myth of Jason and Medea, first produced in 431 BC.

Medea has been explored in Films (by Pier Paolo Pasolini in 1969, by Lars Von Trier in 1988, by Don Kent in 2001, my Tonino De Bernardi in 2007 and by Natalia Kuznetsova in 2009), Operas, Plays, Ballets, Musicals and Art.

I saw Lars Von Trier’s version of Medea. The original manuscript was written by Carl Theodor Dreyer though he never could film it. Lars Von Trier pays his homage and tribute to the great master.

The story centers around Medea as she finds herself threatened when her husband Jason marries a princess and the revenge that she takes against her husband by killing the princess and her father the King, followed by the raw and brutal killings of both her sons. {Notice the two kids hanging from the tree in the alphabet D in MEDEA!} It shows how far a disturbed mind can go in destroying the most precious things a person possesses.

William Wordsworth - I wandered Lonely as a cloud

"I WANDERED LONELY AS A CLOUD"

I WANDERED lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed--and gazed--but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

Michael Haneke - "71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls"

First and Foremost – though this movie is only his third, one would do well to watch his other works, viz., The Seventh Continent, Benny's Video ,Funny Games (1997),

Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys, The Piano Teacher, Time of the Wolf, Caché, Funny Games (2007), The White Ribbon and Amour, before even attempting to watch 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994)

This is not a happy, feel-good factor, fun movie. One must familiarize with Haneke’s work before even venturing out to see this work.

The entire exercise is a big puzzle and the pieces begin to come together towards the end. To an untrained mind that has not been exposed to the unexpected or shock, this is a big conundrum as the film appears to go in no clear direction for most of the running time. One would therefore do well to stay away from this movie, if one is dunce or looking for something straightforward and easy to while away the time.

The films takes you through the apparently haphazard, disparate and boring unpredictability of daily existence in an Austrian city. Haneke reminds us of the unpredictability of life and that at any moment we could peter out from this Earth.

He specializes in commodifying our everyday life (sleep, brushing, washing, dressing, eating, working, beliefs, thoughts, philosophy, death) and characterizing society where he explores the chaos, anarchy, loneliness and hostility of modern society.



Throughout the movie, the Television is constantly present in the background, reminding us that each events of the world are nothing but a piece of media sensation, regarded as "breaking news", focusing more on "what" rather than on "why" it occurred. The final startling episode thus becomes another portion of media entertainment, to be relished by mass consumers who always long for what is thrilling and contentious, devoid of ever thinking of any ramifications. The TV always figures out that most killings are the work of a typical psychopathic youngster without motive who after watching many violent films and playing belligerent video games have this pent up urge one day to suddenly kill a group of people. The TV feeds the mass with its own opinion and hence sees itself as an opinion-maker. The outlook of the TV thus metamorphosizes into the killer’s motive.

This project can be compared with Krzysztof Kieslowski's work, where he deals with chance events and fateful incidents and somewhere, apparent randomness ends up in meaningful systematic order. One can also compare this with Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994) where most of the isolated, unrelated characters meet at the restaurant in the final scene.

Krzysztof Kieślowski's A short film about killing {1988}

If you imagine you are alive, if you assume you exist, then you have to spend some time with Kieslowski. This means, since he no longer is accessible in the flesh, one should and would have to spend some time with his works – specifically all the ten Decalogue series.

Having said that and after watching A short film about killing {1988}, a denunciation for all types of killing drapes the mind – whether the killing is in the form of an act of senseless brutal murder or an organized and legal murder committed by the authorities to punish and perhaps restrain murder or any other form of horrendous crime. Killing is killing – in any form or act and this denunciation emerges as a bleak and depressing reality when faced with existence.

Kieslowski has succeeded in showing us how disgusting murder is. There is no explanation as to why the killer murdered the Taxi Driver. We are nevertheless forced to compare the murder inside the Taxi with the execution of the killer inside the prison. Both acts then look appalling.

The film which was an expanded version of Decalogue V was so powerful that Poland as a country suspended Capital Punishment after the release of the movie.


It haunts.

“La Grande Bouffe”

Do we live only to gratify ourselves with luxury, food and sex? Looking closely one might say that food, sex and luxury are the three most significant and magnificent diversions from the tediousness of life. Are we not a whole bundle of pleasure-seeking-society?

Well if this is so then here are four urbane characters - a chef, a pilot, a TV producer and a judge, who perhaps having come to realize the emptiness of life, meets at the judge’s inherited mansion with an assignment to gorge themselves to death with great pleasure (and to have sex) – all conceivably to escape the monotony of life.

Talk about ‘gorging oneself to death’ and one has LA GRANDE BOUFFE {1973} which is characteristically a French-Italian European film, directed by Marco Ferreri. It stars Marcello Mastroianni, Ugo Tognazzi, Michel Piccoli,Philippe Noiret and Andrea Ferreol

The film starts as a comedy and ends up tragically. Some may term this as a notorious film with disconcerting content, but the film does not suggest the audience what they should think, something very few films do. It explores isolation, worthlessness, purposelessness, detachedness, hedonism, yearning and escapism.

This film can be seen as an assault on the importance we give to food, sex and luxury as all the central characters attempts successfully to end their life with food, sex and luxury. We undeniably exist in a materialist society and there is no escape from it.

There is over-eating, orgies, living life luxuriously, without thinking of ethics and morals with one single objective – end life. These four characters gorge themselves to death, not metaphorically but literally, while around half the world dies in hunger.


This film may be treated as an exposure to consumerist society or it may be treated as an anti-capitalist endevour. Whatever it may be, but there may not be enough people in the Western World to afford, indulge or allow themselves to such wastefulness, lavishness and excessiveness.

After watching the film the perennial thought crosses the mind to find reasons for living this meaningless, absurd, empty life and to understand why those four characters gorged themselves to death.

Why do we continue supporting a social system which is based on Darwin’s theory of Survival of the Fittest?



Overall the mass audience would be in a state of shock if exposed to such films.


Who wants to die with an overdose of food, sex and high life in a palatial estate?


Either excited or exhausted - The eternal chase goes on …..

Dying at Grace

Dying at Grace

This is not only about dying at Grace, but also dying with Grace. This heavily laced with religious sentiments, 148 minutes documentary by Allan King documents 5 incurably ill patients in the ***Palliative Care Unit at Toronto Grace Hospital.

Some share their organs - they shared their last days of their lives on this planet with the film makers with a view that it might perhaps help the living in coping up with death.

This is a documentary which should be viewed compulsorily by all the doctors and nurses in all the hospitals in India.

The experience might change your views on euthanasia and why we find it horrendous on the issue of physician assisted right to die with dignity.

We instead put our loved ones under machines and allow fate to pass through the process of dying and suffering in pain and without dignity – and all this for a few weeks. {It was pleasant and charming to see one of the patients declining any form of Artificial Life Support}. And (oh!) yes, if you are not insured, woe to you!!! – Because they will take away ALL you have so that the patient can afford to die (in peace!).

It is indeed a cliché – but yes, start taking advantage of whatever is left of your life or whatever life has to offer you. Travel, Cook, Smoke, Drink, Read, Watch Movies, Write, Make friends or be alone – whatever your good health has to offer you – before you take to your walker or to your bed - permanently.

It leaves me wondering - how would I die?

***By the way : Palliative care (pronounced pal-lee-uh-tiv) is specialized medical care for people with serious illnesses. It focuses on providing patients with relief from the symptoms, pain, and stress of a serious illness—whatever the diagnosis. The goal is to improve quality of life for both the patient and the family.

Palliative care is provided by a team of doctors, nurses and other specialists who work together with a patient’s other doctors to provide an extra layer of support. It is appropriate at any age and at any stage in a serious illness and can be provided along with curative treatment.

Dekalog V by Krzysztof Kieślowski

Krzysztof Kieślowski was an influential Polish film director and screenwriter known internationally for The Decalogue, The Double Life of Véronique, and The Three Colors Trilogy.

Born: June 27, 1941, Warsaw, Poland
Died: March 13, 1996, Warsaw, Poland

Thou shalt not kill.

Decalog V {1988} by Krzysztof Kieślowski starts with three different characters.


First, a soulless, faceless and repulsive youth with no redeeming qualities wandering about aimlessly across the city unleashing a senseless act of violence.

Second, a would-be lawyer being questioned by a panel over the issue of capital punishment

Finally a loathsome, taxi driver with a sadistic personality and a depraved sense of humour.

There are two killings – The killing of the Taxi driver and the killing of the killer. Both killings are disturbing {are not all killings disturbing?}

Watching the movie, it is impossible to feel sympathetic towards the killer – it is equally difficult to feel sympathetic toward the death penalty. The horror of both these killings is inexorable.

Why ordinary people turns into killers. Why do we kill?



The hangman, the prison guards, the prosecutor, the doctor, the priest and others who carry out the court’s order of capital punishment to execute the killer – are they too not killers? If killing is wrong – then why do we kill those who kill others?

You see the film and witness the 1st murder and come to a conclusion that such killers should not be allowed to live. You watch the execution by hanging and understand that under no circumstances you would ever play the role of the hangman. So you pay your taxes and the state hires someone to do it for you.

Some dialogues from the film are quite memorable: "punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?".

Does it intimidate all potential criminals?

Death cannot be prevented – but can killing be averted? Killing both the killer’s victim and then the killer by the authorities?

Have capital punishment become revenge killings? Can this be compared to the Old west way of living – the gunslingers, the bounty hunters, the duels, the lynch mobs, the bushwhackers? Do we have respect for life?

Does capital punishment lead to justice? Or is it just the irony of murder and state-funded execution
Are we not as guilty as the man who committed the murder when we resort to capital punishment? One is murder in the name of hate and the other is murder in the name of law

Is one’s existence and one’s action one and the same? Do we have the ability of separate ourselves with our jobs and actions?

The film does not teach or preach. There is no intellectual aggression. It just demonstrates, stirs, disturbs and stimulates you

The Road Not Taken - ROBERT FROST

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,




And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Quotes : Ray Douglas Bradbury / Charles Mackay

Ray Douglas Bradbury (22 August 1920 – 5 June 2012) was an American fantasy, horror, science fiction, and mystery writer.

Quotes:

- Insanity is relative. It depends on who has who locked in what cage.

-If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you, and you'll never learn.

-There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.

-For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws.

-People are talking about the Internet as a creative tool for writers. I say, "B.S. Stay away from that. Stop talking to people around the world and get your work done."

-Computers are toys, and men like to mess around with smart dumb things. They feel creative


ΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦΦ

Charles Mackay (March 27 1814 – December 24 1889) was a Scottish poet, journalist, and song writer.

Quotes:

•The king can drink the best of wine —
So can I;
And has enough when he would dine —
So have I;
And can not order rain or shine —
Nor can I.
Then where’s the difference — let me see —
Betwixt my lord the king and me?

{"Differences" in The Collected Songs of Charles Mackay (1859)}.

• Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.