Scan barcode
A review by dyno8426
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
4.0
Robinson Crusoe is a meditation on the relationship of Man and Nature, through a sailor marooned in a desolate island for around 28 years. It is bound to evoke reader's thoughts with respect to defining Man's position among the Nature that he inhabits. Interestingly, this brought home the realisation that right from the early times when theology was used to understand the world around us, to the modern era when science enlightened humanity about its origins and its destinies, Man has always been at the centre of Nature and it is natural for Man to depend upon Nature's elements for its consumption and survival. Our collective consciousness has unanimously agreed upon using nature's resources for its disposal and has always found it acceptable. It is intuitive to reason it out as a necessity for the continuation of our species. And even sustainable consumption whose awareness is becoming more prominent with the emerging problems, it is undoubtedly aligned with a belief to prolong mankind's sustenance in the environment provided to us. This idea separates Man from Nature and disjoints his empathy from the Nature. He is allowed to create, change and destroy according to his wish because Nature is not a part of him in this perspective.
Right from the imperial times when this book was written, when Man had become curious and capable enough to explore what other parts of Nature has to offer him, Robinson Crusoe's Christian beliefs, appropriate enough for his times, reflect the same perspective of Man being endowed with Nature's gifts and to utilise them as it pleases him. But this belief system is questioned indirectly through his mental discourses and solitary adventures when he encounters cannibals plaguing his solitude and safety. It is challenged by understanding who all are entitled to exploit this relationship between Nature and Man and more importantly, who decides this membership? Why is cannibalism unnatural when consuming other living beings belonging to Nature is? Is it because of a natural empathy aroused by a mirroring of consciousness that makes killing other human beings for food despicable, or is it because of an underlying perversion which threatens humans' sustenance as a specie motivated by evolution theories? While Robinson Crusoe uses theology to resolve this conflict (by identifying Man in the same cannibals and Providence as a guiding factor in putting different people in different stations of life which defines their behaviour), the modern reader can evaluate his/her own belief system to understand the unnatural-ness of these acts.
Another part which I identified as being thought provoking was the contrast with the book "Lord of the Flies", where we see the innocence of a bunch of kids (stranded in an island in the same manner) slowly receding in a struggle for survival and how survival instinct surfaces among them with time, revealing the inherent primitiveness of Man's nature. Compared to the shocking narrative of Man dissolving into Nature's brutality and indifference, Robinson Crusoe instead becomes more aware of his human-ness than before. His philosophical rumination about Man's place in Nature defines his purpose not just as survival, but as retaining his consciousness of the world that he belongs to. One could question whether the only difference in these two cases was the factor where Robinson Crusoe was able to salvage important things necessities for daily survival (like tools, arms and ammunition, and even food to begin with) from the shipwreck. If human contact and empathy with another human was any factor in reinforcing Man's position with Nature, then those boys from Lord of the Flies would have never undergone their evolution back in time and Robinson Crusoe would have been the only caveman alive. But it turns out that the stuff from his past "civilised" life instead served as a constant reminder of the collective consciousness of Man and were physical evidences of Man's accumulated evolution in controlling Nature. This maybe reinforced the belief that he was supposed to remain the Man in this equation. He was an entity whose victory in this battle for survival lied in symbiosis with Nature - surviving along with it, but without losing its own character of Man. Looking beyond the adventures that it contains, it thus becomes more than a survival guide for sailors stranded after shipwrecks, or a 28-year long episode of Man v/s Wild.
Right from the imperial times when this book was written, when Man had become curious and capable enough to explore what other parts of Nature has to offer him, Robinson Crusoe's Christian beliefs, appropriate enough for his times, reflect the same perspective of Man being endowed with Nature's gifts and to utilise them as it pleases him. But this belief system is questioned indirectly through his mental discourses and solitary adventures when he encounters cannibals plaguing his solitude and safety. It is challenged by understanding who all are entitled to exploit this relationship between Nature and Man and more importantly, who decides this membership? Why is cannibalism unnatural when consuming other living beings belonging to Nature is? Is it because of a natural empathy aroused by a mirroring of consciousness that makes killing other human beings for food despicable, or is it because of an underlying perversion which threatens humans' sustenance as a specie motivated by evolution theories? While Robinson Crusoe uses theology to resolve this conflict (by identifying Man in the same cannibals and Providence as a guiding factor in putting different people in different stations of life which defines their behaviour), the modern reader can evaluate his/her own belief system to understand the unnatural-ness of these acts.
Another part which I identified as being thought provoking was the contrast with the book "Lord of the Flies", where we see the innocence of a bunch of kids (stranded in an island in the same manner) slowly receding in a struggle for survival and how survival instinct surfaces among them with time, revealing the inherent primitiveness of Man's nature. Compared to the shocking narrative of Man dissolving into Nature's brutality and indifference, Robinson Crusoe instead becomes more aware of his human-ness than before. His philosophical rumination about Man's place in Nature defines his purpose not just as survival, but as retaining his consciousness of the world that he belongs to. One could question whether the only difference in these two cases was the factor where Robinson Crusoe was able to salvage important things necessities for daily survival (like tools, arms and ammunition, and even food to begin with) from the shipwreck. If human contact and empathy with another human was any factor in reinforcing Man's position with Nature, then those boys from Lord of the Flies would have never undergone their evolution back in time and Robinson Crusoe would have been the only caveman alive. But it turns out that the stuff from his past "civilised" life instead served as a constant reminder of the collective consciousness of Man and were physical evidences of Man's accumulated evolution in controlling Nature. This maybe reinforced the belief that he was supposed to remain the Man in this equation. He was an entity whose victory in this battle for survival lied in symbiosis with Nature - surviving along with it, but without losing its own character of Man. Looking beyond the adventures that it contains, it thus becomes more than a survival guide for sailors stranded after shipwrecks, or a 28-year long episode of Man v/s Wild.