I remember reading a story when I was a kid where a dog and a wolf chatted about their conditions. The dog was fat and healthy, but had a collar and could not go where it wanted, while the wolf was emaciated. The wolf called the dog a fool for accepting submission and went on his way. The wolf died a few days later.
I remember reading a story when I was a kid where a dog and a wolf chatted about their conditions. The dog was fat and healthy, but had a collar and could not go where it wanted, while the wolf was emaciated. The wolf called the dog a fool for accepting submission and went on his way. The wolf died a few days later.
Nowadays, I browse OYP.
Incorrect. The normal version never actually states or even implies that the wolf dies.
That said, your version is sad and twisted. Slavery and survival is better than freedom and death? OW.
People see Pet's as something close to adoption than slavery, hell, if you are treating your pet as a slave, you are pretty much doing it wrong.
And I think the story was more about stubborn and baseless pride vs mellow satisfaction. Disregarding which version is, the wolf mocked the dog out of arrogant pride, yet the dog seems to have a better life, let's assume that being fat and healthy is an obvious clue that the dog's owners are caring and love him, and let's take the wolf's famine as him not having a good life. All this disregarding which version is, and let's face it, fables like that can have more than 1 version.
And ironically slavery and survival are better than freedom and death, why? because slavery and survival can be changed to freedom and survival when you escape in the right ocassion or earn your freedom somehow.
In the end it's all about the scenario and perspective, and this case isn't slavery and survival vs freedom and death, but humble complacent life vs prideful non complacent life.
That said, the adapting story doesn't really work with yukkuris without some liberal artistic/writer's measures.
Gotta love how it doesn't mention the fact that there is a reason why humans in general have "dogs" and not "wolves" as pets, at least since the dogs evolved from the wolves, and that the Dog trying to have the wolf adopted would lead to some serious problems.
I still wonder if explosion did get the fable wrong or if there was a similar fable or a different version, because in his explanation it sounded more about humble complacent life vs prideful non complacent life.
More than once I had heard fables with the same construction but with different developments and morals.
JusticeItEasy said: Gotta love how it doesn't mention the fact that there is a reason why humans in general have "dogs" and not "wolves" as pets, at least since the dogs evolved from the wolves, and that the Dog trying to have the wolf adopted would lead to some serious problems.
I still wonder if explosion did get the fable wrong or if there was a similar fable or a different version, because in his explanation it sounded more about humble complacent life vs prideful non complacent life.
More than once I had heard fables with the same construction but with different developments and morals.
Except your forgetting the last part of his version.
ukshadow said: The wolf called the dog a fool for accepting submission and went on his way. The wolf died a few days later.
In other words: slavery is life, freedom is death.
yukiyuzen said: Except your forgetting the last part of his version. In other words: slavery is life, freedom is death.
That line can also be read as "complacent life isn't bad, blindly prideful life can go wrong." you are assuming that pet relationship = slavery when we all know that pets aren't slaves, slavery doesn't have the good treatments and affection that pethood have.
But again, it depends if it's really the same fable and explosion got it wrong, or if it's another fable, if it's the same fable, then yeah, "better die free than live in slavery." is the moral.
How right is that moral depends of your opinion, for me it would be wrong, since it disregards the chances of planning your escape in a better situation and actually survive AND have freedom, or actually surviving in your freedom through finding the mediums or a lucky find. Life isn't always "choose a path, A you live without freedom and B you die with freedom".
JusticeItEasy said: How right is that moral depends of your opinion, for me it would be wrong, since it disregards the chances of planning your escape in a better situation and actually survive AND have freedom, or actually surviving in your freedom through finding the mediums or a lucky find. Life isn't always "choose a path, A you live without freedom and B you die with freedom".
Slavery is a system of absolutes. Planning an escape is automatically refusing to accept the current situation. You're being hypocritical.
My point about the wrong of the moral is that it gives 2 absolute options, and 2 absolute characters, disregarding all the many "in the middle" options that would usually nullify the so called moral. Either the so called "acceptant" slave just accepting the present situation with the prospect of escaping in the future (don't mistake lack of defiance with liking the situation), or the famished wolf actually finding food through luck or skill and avoiding the so called "price" of his freedom.
But again it's all my opinion, you know you can disagree to it.
And I don't know how a slave, that is one but doesn't accept it and plots for his freedom while working, is being hypocritical.
There are a couple of things I would like to note: Slavery in this case refers to the common practice back in the day for indentured servitude. If you, as a free man, were unable to survive on your own, you could sell yourself to survive. Slavery back then was far more humane as the one "modern" civilization made people endure.
Mind you, Aesop was a slave himself. And as one who had to go through cold and hunger, bondage with a warm home and food does not sound so bad.