Julian Marias, a Spanish philosopher proves to be no exception to the numerous writers attempting to describe Californias 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.
Marias considers California to be a vision of paradise in respect to his diverse interpretations of the word paradise. In other words, Marias 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. Marias 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,kosmosthat is reminiscent of a garden, hen that is establishing Marias 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 authors part when viewing California as the Garden of Eden. While this summation serves to demonstrate how California is a garden, Marias critical meditation continues by claiming California to be “Paradise Lost. ” According to the article California is seen as “Paradise Lost. ”
In other words, Marias 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, hen that is unveiling another of Marias 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 Marias 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 authors applied logical concepts for California to be perceived as Paradise Lost, the word paradise functions also as the absence of limitation due to Marias further critical meditation of paradise. Marias acknowledges paradise as the absence of limitation. In other words, Marias 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 mans 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 Marias theory of knowledge seems to manifest paradise as limitless, however he furthers his critical meditation to have paradise serving as a mere fantasy. Marias asserts California as paradise. In other words, Marias 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 childs tale. There are many more examples across the pages that seem to reiterate Californias characterization as a fable on account of the authors 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 Marias 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 mans 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 mans 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 childs book,” then once again we can see how mans imagination serves to harvest a childs tale. These examples make it obvious of how mans imagination plays a major role into why they perceive California as paradise. Thus, because of Marias extensive critical meditation of why she considers California to be Paradise accredited the word paradise to serve as significant connotations.