/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22922285]

>"I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that one way or another."
>the alleged quote was self translated from sanskrit
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.22922313]

Why isn't it "I have become death"? Did he misspeak or was there perhaps a word that meant "being" in there that translates better as "I am become death"?

[Anonymous No.22922327]

>>22922285
>Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red - The Scottish Play, Act II Scene 2
The meaning of Oppenheimer's quote is rather straightforward, which is that he saw himself as responsible for the death of many people due to his actions. I believe it is not necessary to say he was one of the leading scientists working on the Manhattan Project. Anybody who's watched the movie based on his life that came out this year, or that has read even a summary of key events of his life, will know what happened and how it all ended. What matters is that he wanted to convey the weight of the massive destruction and loss of life he personally felt responsible for by the means of a quote from a great Indian epic.
He could have chosen one from the Bible, from the works of William Shakespeare, from the works of Virgil or Ovid, from any of the Chinese classics, but I guess he settled upon one from the Mahabharata because ancient Indian culture was greatly admired by Western "intellectuals", much like Japanese culture is admired by chronic masturbators in the contemporary West (and Southeast Asia and Latin America).

[Anonymous No.22922341]

>>22922285
If we're assuming he actually understood the Bhagavad Gita correctly and was quoting it in an intellectually honest way, then the only possible explanation is that he believed his role in the bombing was his duty, much like it was Arjuna's duty to kill his enemies, and that he set aside any moral qualms he might have had in service to that duty. The alternative explanation is that he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about
>>22922313
He was imposing an antiquated English poetic device on the Sanskrit in a way that didn't really make sense. It's a bad translation.

[Anonymous No.22922347]

>>22922327
>He could have chosen one from the Bible, from the works of William Shakespeare, from the works of Virgil or Ovid, from any of the Chinese classics
quotes such as

[Anonymous No.22922404]

>>22922285
Why is it legal for the gubmint to murder millions with bombs but when Uncle Ted does it he goes to Supermax?

[Anonymous No.22922433]

>>22922327
Oppenheimer and his brother apparently both loved the Bhagavad Vita. Supposedly Oppenheimer spent a great deal of his free time self translating it. He felt it held a great deal of wisdom

[Anonymous No.22922473]

>>22922341
>He was imposing an antiquated English poetic device on the Sanskrit in a way that didn't really make sense. It's a bad translation.
I thought it was the actual antiquated translation he'd read that he was quoting? I haven't read any that old but to better answer >>22922313, early modern English inherited a split between the past tense from French.
If you translate word-for-word from French, most verbs put into the perfect past tense are written as "I have [participle]" just like in English, but a small number (kinda "existential" verbs, including ones like become or be) are written as "I am [participle]." I couldn't say for sure whether the split was ever common in spoken English but anybody writing in early modern English would've been fluent enough in French for it to make perfect sense to write in the past tense that way. At some point it disappeared from the language as we drifted farther from French and perfect past coalesced into all our verbs using "have," but the frogs still use both.

[Anonymous No.22922477]

>>22922327
>>22922347
he doesnt know because hes a pseud

oppy hit the nail on the head quoting bg for nukes. nothing from the others comes close

[Anonymous No.22922480]

>>22922477
Macbeth is chock full of quotes for this, it's basically the same thing

[Anonymous No.22922483]

>>22922480
quote them. what compares to the majesty of destroyer of worlds? dont tell me you think muh period smudged sea comes close

[Anonymous No.22922501]

Why the BG though when the BG is entirely about justifying violence? Arjuna doesn't want to fight but Krishna goes on this huge monologue about why he must fight to fulfill his destiny even though he doesn't want to.

[Anonymous No.22922506]

>>22922501
Because Oppenheimer, despite popular belief, didn't believe that dropping the bomb was a pure evil. He hought it was a complicated question and in later interviews said it's easy for people to look back with hindsight and say that bombing japan was a mistake when at the time there were so many factors at play
What he was really against was the continued proliferation of the bombs due to the potential it had to end man as a species, which is why the US government sacked him and dragged him through a public trial where they slandered him as a commie pussy tree hugger

[Anonymous No.22922518]

>>22922327
>>22922480
no quotes despite this pseuds claims.

its obvious you havent read these works and your orientalist claim is retarded. bg was the right work to quote. i think oppy is a phony but a no one like you is beneath him.

[Anonymous No.22922548]

>Oppenheimer's diverse interests sometimes interrupted his focus on science. He liked things that were difficult and since much of the scientific work appeared easy for him, he developed an interest in the mystical and the cryptic.[97] After leaving Harvard, he began to acquaint himself with the classical Hindu texts through their English translations.[98] He also had an interest in learning languages and learned Sanskrit,[note 4] under Arthur W. Ryder at Berkeley in 1933.[100][101] He eventually read literary works such as the Bhagavad Gita and Meghaduta in the original Sanskrit, and deeply pondered them. He later cited the Gita as one of the books that most shaped his philosophy of life.[102][103] He wrote to his brother that the Gita was "very easy and quite marvelous", and called it "the most beautiful philosophical song existing in any known tongue". He later gave copies of it as presents to his friends and kept a personal, worn-out copy on the bookshelf by his desk.[101] He nicknamed his car Garuda, the mount bird of the Hindu god Vishnu.[104]
>Oppenheimer never became a Hindu in the traditional sense; he did not join any temple nor pray to any god.[105][106] He "was really taken by the charm and the general wisdom of the Bhagavad-Gita", his brother said.[105] It is speculated that Oppenheimer's interest in Hindu thought started during his earlier association with Niels Bohr. Both Bohr and Oppenheimer had been very analytical and critical about the ancient Hindu mythological stories and the metaphysics embedded in them. In one conversation with David Hawkins before the war, while talking about the literature of ancient Greece, Oppenheimer remarked, "I have read the Greeks; I find the Hindus deeper."[107]
He simply liked the book. He related everything in his life to it

[Anonymous No.22922558]

>>22922285
"Don't bring that whining faggot back here."

- President Harry "Chad" Truman

[Anonymous No.22922646]

>>22922548
>He nicknamed his car Garuda, the mount bird of the Hindu god Vishnu
Was this nigga autistic

[Anonymous No.22922975]

>>22922473
Thank you for the explanation.

[Anonymous No.22923059]

>my le bomb... le blew up?
what a fucking pseud

[Anonymous No.22923079]

>>22922483
Life's but... a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Obviously that's not how that retard Oppenheimer felt about shit but he'd be better off if it was.

[Anonymous No.22923082]

>>22922341
>It's a bad translation.
So what's the correct translation

[Anonymous No.22923087]

>>22923079
That entire monologue is amazing.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[Anonymous No.22923097]

>>22923082
There's nearly 300 translations in English alone, I don't fucking know man. I do know that the use of "am become" is just a gay flourish that doesn't make linguistic of historical sense in this context.

[Anonymous No.22923115]

>>22922285
>trustie
>tried to poison professor with a tainted apple
>classmates - including Werner Heisenberg - sign petition to remove his disruptive sperg ass from lectures
>got a gf killed with his habitual reckless driving
>comitted felony perjury covering for a Soviet spy
>through his antics, made way for a handful more Soviet spies to inaugurate nuclear proliferation as we know it and its consequences in the Cold War through to present day Ukraine, Taiwan, and Norks' geopolitical blackmail
>mathfag desk jockey caught out when it came to do proper lab work; publish hardly anything of note post war

He most likely dipped acid after the war, the spazz wouldn't shut up about that fucking book.

[Anonymous No.22923130]

>>22923079
>Obviously that's not how that retard Oppenheimer felt about shit but he'd be better off if it was.
he felt this way about his career because he knew he was a fraud stealing credit for smarter peoples work

[Anonymous No.22923137]

>>22922285
>I am become
This will never not trigger my autism. What the actual fuck.

[Anonymous No.22923259]

>>22923137
why is it incontrovertibly against all interpretation of the sanskrit
do you actually know what youre talking about or am i going to have to carve your ass like the muh world lit i didnt read pseud

[Anonymous No.22923264]

>>22923097
It's a biblically inspired phrasing.

[Anonymous No.22923299]

>>22922646
Shoulda named it Caruda

[Anonymous No.22923301]

>>22923264
>It's a biblically inspired phrasing.
oh. checks out. nice catch.

[Anonymous No.22923392]

>>22923137
This was normal in early modern English. Gibbon uses it all the time.

[Anonymous No.22923449]

>>22922646
He was based