The Validity of Henry Millers Radical Pacifism in Tropic of Cancer Es

It is hardly reasonable to expect a man who will forgo employment that allows such benefits like the necessity of food to attend to the needs of a war. Yet some people criticized Henry Miller because he did not take action; he hardly discussed the war in Tropic of Cancer; and, in their opinion, it is his moral obligation as a citizen-writer to address it. However, Miller is defensible only because his â€Å"mind is on the peace treaty all the time† (Miller, 143). The silence about the war in the novel suggests a stance of â€Å"extreme pacifism,† which is defensible because of his autobiographical honesty about his radical individualism and the artistic intent to describe the beauty of keeping in touch with humanity in spite of eventual annihilation (Orwell, 1 ). Miller’s passive attitude toward the war has been described by Orwell as â€Å"a declaration of irresponsibility† because Miller acts in a way to of â€Å"extreme pacifism, an individual refusal to fight, with no apparent wish to convert others to the same opinion† (Orwell, 1). Orwell shows he senses irresponsibility in Miller’s point of view because Miller exclaimed it was â€Å"sheer stupidity† to â€Å"mix oneself up in such things from a sense of obligation† if there were no â€Å"purely selfish motives† in a conversation he had with him (Orwell, 1). The endorsement of â€Å"selfish† demonstrates Miller’s â€Å"individualism,† because he’s not expecting anyone to be anything more than a rational egoist, or someone who has acts to â€Å"maximize one’s self-interest† [1]. Furthermore, his refusal to â€Å"mix oneself up† shows the passivity in his stance; it shows how he â€Å"hardly wishes to control† the â€Å"world-process† (Orwell, 1). The war is also a force that is outside one man’s control. Orwell also gets the impressi... ...tributions’ to society like work, engages in carnal acts with little remorse; he is constantly moving from place to place in search of food and shelter; and has a focus on the physical. In Tropic of Cancer it has even been suggested that he lives on a â€Å"higher plane† of existence (Miller, 191). Perhaps he doesn’t really belong to society. Therefore, it makes little sense for him to fight in something he doesn’t have control over in a society to which he doesn’t belong in or to fight for or against an abstract idea like a nation that he doesn’t believe in. The concept of a nation is particularly foreign because â€Å"ideas have to be wedded to action;† they are â€Å"related to living† (242). He describes a physical world in which abstract ideas aren’t really abstract. Perhaps there’s value in an account of a primal, non-abstract world that exists on the fringe of society. The Validity of Henry Miller's Radical Pacifism in Tropic of Cancer Es It is hardly reasonable to expect a man who will forgo employment that allows such benefits like the necessity of food to attend to the needs of a war. Yet some people criticized Henry Miller because he did not take action; he hardly discussed the war in Tropic of Cancer; and, in their opinion, it is his moral obligation as a citizen-writer to address it. However, Miller is defensible only because his â€Å"mind is on the peace treaty all the time† (Miller, 143). The silence about the war in the novel suggests a stance of â€Å"extreme pacifism,† which is defensible because of his autobiographical honesty about his radical individualism and the artistic intent to describe the beauty of keeping in touch with humanity in spite of eventual annihilation (Orwell, 1 ). Miller’s passive attitude toward the war has been described by Orwell as â€Å"a declaration of irresponsibility† because Miller acts in a way to of â€Å"extreme pacifism, an individual refusal to fight, with no apparent wish to convert others to the same opinion† (Orwell, 1). Orwell shows he senses irresponsibility in Miller’s point of view because Miller exclaimed it was â€Å"sheer stupidity† to â€Å"mix oneself up in such things from a sense of obligation† if there were no â€Å"purely selfish motives† in a conversation he had with him (Orwell, 1). The endorsement of â€Å"selfish† demonstrates Miller’s â€Å"individualism,† because he’s not expecting anyone to be anything more than a rational egoist, or someone who has acts to â€Å"maximize one’s self-interest† [1]. Furthermore, his refusal to â€Å"mix oneself up† shows the passivity in his stance; it shows how he â€Å"hardly wishes to control† the â€Å"world-process† (Orwell, 1). The war is also a force that is outside one man’s control. Orwell also gets the impressi... ...tributions’ to society like work, engages in carnal acts with little remorse; he is constantly moving from place to place in search of food and shelter; and has a focus on the physical. In Tropic of Cancer it has even been suggested that he lives on a â€Å"higher plane† of existence (Miller, 191). Perhaps he doesn’t really belong to society. Therefore, it makes little sense for him to fight in something he doesn’t have control over in a society to which he doesn’t belong in or to fight for or against an abstract idea like a nation that he doesn’t believe in. The concept of a nation is particularly foreign because â€Å"ideas have to be wedded to action;† they are â€Å"related to living† (242). He describes a physical world in which abstract ideas aren’t really abstract. Perhaps there’s value in an account of a primal, non-abstract world that exists on the fringe of society.