8-10 pages essay.

EA 140 Fi a Take-h e E a (30% f he C e G ade)

Dead i e: 5 P.M. Ma ch 19, 2020

A hardcopy of your essay should be submitted at the instructor’s office (HIB 472) before the deadline. If you prefer to submit your paper much earlier than the deadline, you can also drop it in the instructor’s mailbox in the main office of the East Asian Studies Department (HIB 443) [the department main office closes around 4:30 P.M].

The length of the essay should be eight to ten pages (Times New Roman 12, double-spaced). The title of the work you are referencing and the corresponding page number should be given in parentheses in the main text [example: (“On the Rationality of Sacrifice,” 16)]. You are expected to write a carefully reasoned, clearly argued essay that reflects a firm grasp of the reading materials. In the introduction of your essay, you should clearly state what your main argument is. Note that you are required not to simply summarize the reading materials but to discuss them in regard to the topic.

The course materials you are required to engage with in your final take-home exam include Søren Kierkegaard’s Fea a d T e bli g, Jean-Pierre Dupuy’s “On the Rationality of Sacrifice,” the third chapter of Jacques Derrida’s The Gif f Dea h, the movie M he , “Sonata Appasionata” and “The Red Hills” by Kim Tongin, “Seopyeonje” by Yi Ch’ ngjun, and “Pagoda” by Hwang Suk-young.

Paper Topic:

By drawing on the ideas of Kierkegaard, Dupy, and Derrida on sacrifice we have discussed in class, write an essay about the ways in which the theme of sacrifice is manifested in M he , “Sonata Appasionata,” “The Red Hills,” “Seopyeonje,” and “Pagoda.”

The movie M he and the four short stories pivot on the theme of sacrifice. M he deals with the intensity and perversion of a mother’s devotion to her son that leads her to sacrifice others for him. “Sonata Appasionata” and “Seopyeonje,” in a similar way, raise questions about the legitimacy of sacrifice that results from one’s devotion to art. On the other hand, “The Red Hills” interestingly shows how sacrifice for one’s community instantly redeems an individual from his despicable past and elevates him to the status of a martyr. In contrast, “Pagoda” portrays a sacrificial situation at war and exposes the futility of such sacrifice despite the cunning calculation behind strategic reasoning that demands sacrifice.

The works on sacrifice by Kierkeggard, Dupuy, and Derrida all address the issue of sacrifice in relation to the problem of decision-making and one’s commitment to her or his decision. Kierkegaard insists that we can make a genuine decision only on our own and nobody can make a decision for us if it is genuine. He furthermore suggests that once making a decision, we should unconditionally commit ourselves to it no matter how irrational it might look. On the other hand, Dupuy argues against the conventional criticism of utilitarianism by critiquing John Rawls’s theory of justice, which, in his view, denounces utilitarianism’s alleged condoning of sacrifice. Dupuy contends that John Rawls’s theory of justice is premised on an ideal society by excluding sacrificial situations which are abundantly found in the real world. He further argues that any rational decision in fact entails sacrifice because our rational calculation for the best outcome inevitably rules out conditions for different outcomes. Derrida agrees with Dupuy that we live in

a world full of sacrificial situations. In contrast to Dupuy, Derrida however argues that a decision is made on the basis of non-knowledge and thus irrationally. By building on Kierkegaard, he states that we should commit ourselves to the genuine decisions of ours in order to be responsible. He further reminds his readers that our decisions have consequences that impact others. In order to be absolutely responsible to one other, we cannot but be irresponsible to other others. Put differently, no matter how rationally we try to justify our decision to absolutely commit ourselves to the relationship with one other, we should not be in good conscience because we unavoidably end up being irresponsible to other others that our decision inevitably sacrifices in order to be responsible to one other. Therefore, by relating decision-making to the problem of responsibility, he suggests that whenever we make a decision and commit ourselves to it, we cannot help sacrificing other possibilities, which our decision leaves out, and we should be held responsible for irresponsibility implicated in our unconditional commitment to our decisions.

With the above overview in mind, you are required to address the following issues in your essay: faith, teleological suspension of the ethical, singular individual v.s. community, utilitarianism, the rationality of sacrifice, the sacrificial situation, absolute responsibility v.s. responsibility in general, the wholly other, the paradox of responsibility, “the every other (one) is every (bit) other,” the unavoidability of sacrifice.