The Fallacy of The Flower Conundrum

Why the flower didn't do anything wrong, and how liberalism distorts the conundrum

Imagine a lone flower planted in the middle of an isolated landscape, content with its existence. Imagine one day, a silver robot stumbles upon the flower while walking, and looks at it. The flower looks back into the silver of the robot, and sees its reflection of itself, confusing the robot as another flower. The flower immediately falls in love with the reflection on the robot. The robot speaks back to the flower, “No, no, it’s just a reflection! I’m not a flower!” The flower does not care and loves the robot and its reflection anyway. The robot runs away out of anxiety, and the flower realizes it is alone again. The flower, with this new knowledge, becomes depressed and slowly dies. The robot then feels guilt and sadness, realizing what has happened.

This is the flower conundrum. It’s a complex philosophical problem and tragedy about intimacy, love, devotion, innocence, guilt, self-discovery, and sincerity. It was best presented in the 1987 animated movie, The Brave Little Toaster, and in the novel of the same name by Thomas M. Disch. Fans of the movie glorify this scene as a major part of the film and remember its traumatic conclusion.

Instead of a robot, imagine it to be a humanized toaster. That fulfills the movie’s setting.

The poem of the flower conundrum, by Disch, reads like this:

“Charming flower, tell me, do.

What genera and ‘species you

Belong to.

I, as may be seen

At once, am just a daisy, green

Of leaf and white of petal. You

Are neither green nor white nor

blue

Nor any color I have known.

In what Eden have you grown?

Sprang you from earth or sky

above?

In either case, accept my love.

Atlas the day and woe is me!

I tremble in such misery

As never flower knew before.

If you must go, let me implore

One painting boon, one ‘final gift:

Be merciful as you are swift

And pluck me from my native

ground

Pluck me and take me where

you’re bound.

I cannot live without you here:

Then let your bosom be my bier.

Many interpretations arose from this scene. Some I shall highlight right now from anonymous YouTube user comments from a 2008 upload of the scene.

“Aragem” writes,

“This is poetry. A little flower content, never knowing the outside world until it came to visit her. For the first, she sees what she believes is another flower and knows love only to have it tear away from her when she expresses her joy. After knowing love, she cannot be content with her lonely shell of a world and wilts in despair. God, I actually started crying watching this.”

“jamesmorrison2055” writes,

“This is one of the saddest scenes of any movie I’ve seen. Even after the toaster tells the lonely flower it was just a reflection, it still tries to embrace it anyway because it’s so desperate for a companion. This still rips my heart out at 30.”

“Epsonthegiraffe” writes,

“One of the strongest scenes in any (children/animated) movie I have ever seen. There isn't even dialog needed because we understand the hurt and pain as everyone of us has been that flower at least once in our lives. Or, to make it even more sad and tragic, some of us even relate to the toaster in this scene, feeling the full impact of hurting someone without even intending to do so.”

“seriousyak4734” writes,

“The flower doesn't even have a face or a body and you can still feel it's loneliness.”

“iranoutofspacefornam” writes,

“The characters in this movie live with the fear of being replaced; "rejected" in a sense. They're holding out for their master to return, but are met with constant disappointment and heartbreak. Notice how the flower is separated from the rest of the field. It yearns for accompaniment, but when it thinks it has found it, the feeling of elation is cruelly taken away. What makes it truly sad is how it mirrors the earlier scene where Blanket thought his Master's car was pulling up to take them back, but the car just kept driving. That sad look on Toaster's face at the end? It was because he understood the kind of pain that comes with feeling unwanted and having your hopes built up and toppled in an unending pattern.”

“tiiamannix3596” writes an incredibly problematic comment,

“60 seconds of a perfect example of a rejection.

You're lonely and see someone you think could finally be your friend. You project your thoughts onto them, what this person could be, what they might like, etc. But what you see is just a reflection of yourself. Your own hopes and wishes. You don't really see the other person. Then they implicate that they're not like that, they're different, they like different things. But they're still friendly with you. But you're not listening to the kind way, you're too much in love with your idea and wish it could be true. Perhaps deep inside you do realize it won't work, but you're in denial, trying to hold on. So you get the hard rejection.

And you're alone again. You think you lost something that could have been so perfect, perhaps blaming yourself, why couldn't you be better, why didn't they like you, what did you do wrong, blind that it would have never worked in the first place, because you never really saw the other person to begin with.

And the toaster knows that rejection will hurt, being abandoned hurts. He has to crush someone's dreams, and live with knowing how hurt he made them. It might even hurt them to the point they die a little inside, become heavily scarred. But it wouldn't be right to pretend. It's not his place to be. He doesn't belong there. And the toaster leaves, only hoping they can get over it.

This scene is perfect.”

“bkimatab” writes,

“It's an illustration of love and loss. The flower was isolated from other flowers his whole life (probably because he was too beautiful). For the first time, he meets another flower who is just as beautiful as he is, but it's unknowingly his own reflection. All the toaster can do is run away, taking away the flower's first love. Having found and lost love, he becomes depressed with his isolation and desires to die. This significance shows Toaster why it's important to be sympathetic to others.”

“NeonVars” writes,

“This scene impacted me so greatly when I was a child. Still, to this day at the age of 21, I tear up knowing that poor flower was rejected. The scene is so simple yet very depressing. It reflects on real life situations, where even the most beautiful beings can be out right denied cold. This movie has so many deep meaningful moments. They don't make films like this no more.”

“RetroEternal” writes,

“This scene was traumatizing for me as a kid, although at the time I wasn’t able to pinpoint why. As an adult, I realized that was my first glimpse of loneliness, heartbreak, and abandonment. This was the first time I became aware of these deep, sorrowful themes, as I was blissfully ignorant of the universally melancholic elements that engulfs the world we emerge from.”

“PaulosTheGamer” writes,

“…All the flower wanted was a ... friend ... it's just an example of how hard it is to hold onto someone until they rip you away and we slowly wither every day that goes by…”

“dreamfades,” writes,

“As well as serving as an emotional change in the character development of the appliances, it is such a beautiful cinematic image. We see the short, ephemeral life of a flower and the almost endless, permanence of the man made machine. How the flower sees itself reflected in a somehow living, unnatural surface. Nature seeing the natural in the unnatural, and the unlikeliness of it. The Toaster doesn’t realise the fleeting, fragile nature of life until it sees the tragic, wilting little flower. The “end of life” is not a concept it’s familiar with, it’s like a small child that only understands and lives in the here and now. As the film goes on, the notion of obsolescence as the fate of all things, living or not, becomes inescapable. In that image of the reflected flower, all three viewers feel mortality, and the impermanence of life.

That is part of why we still remember this film out of thousands and thousands of childhood cartoons, why this one made an impression on us. Despite the budget It was made by creative people who loved what they were doing, put a lot of time and effort in and wanted to take creative risks, understanding that life is both joy and tragedy, and children especially know this, and need to know it. Without this film there would be no Toy Story.”

“aquariansage1451” writes,

“The death of the heart is a cruel, cruel thing.”

And so on with the comments…

Everyone seems to agree that the minute flower scene in the movie is traumatic, and they feel great sympathy with the flower.

The original director of the film, Jerry Rees, said this about the flower scene in a 2022 interview with Alan De Oliveira.

“Blankey wants reassurance and wants to cuddle with someone… Character after character, says no. …Remember the ones who you are caring for. … [The toaster says] “I’m not a flower, I can’t help you, there is nothing I can do,” …[it’s] feeling so helpless, it happens to be the same yellow color as Blankey. …I can’t accommodate its wishes. …[it’s about] feeling helpless for a vulnerable character.”

The director’s vision seems to complicate the audience’s projection of the scene. A quite popular reading is that it is an animated retelling of the Narcissus myth, where Narcissus denies love from everyone, yet falls in love with his own reflection, dying alone or falling into the water. The Narcissus myth is only relatable to that of loving a reflection, which is the key distortion that liberals make. The director never pointed out the Narcissus myth in the creation of the scene, yet the public seems to equate an innocent action to a certain negative connotation, built up by the psychologist institution and its rule for social control against the lower classes.

Going over the comments, “tiiamannix3596” wrote a peculiar commentary that seems to blame the self rather than the toaster. This misconception likely comes from Christian self-guilt, or liberal individualism, blaming the entire core of the universe upon our influences, which is quite ironic, considering that Émile Durkheim saw this arrogance as the main motive of suicide.

tiiamannix3596 uses the language of the self, emphasizing that “You're lonely and see someone you think,” as the cause and effect, as if this all could be avoided through “consent” or minding’s one own business. This distortion likely comes from the Tree of Knowledge, and both Judaism and Christianity's hatred for knowledge, because of its relation to the Max Weber concept of power-knowledge, where knowing certain things can lead to positions of power, overthrowing those in charge. It is philistine in behavior when liberals (and its dumb public) assert that knowing things is the fault of the individual and that people are better off in ignorance as an ethics code.

There is a wild accusation by tiianmannix3596 that, “You don't really see the other person.” How so? Would it be better if I really did see the toaster? Is that love superior to the reflection? Is there something evil about the reflection?

The projection continues,

“But they're still friendly with you. But you're not listening to the kind way, you're too much in love with your idea and wish it could be true. Perhaps deep inside you do realize it won't work, but you're in denial, trying to hold on. So you get the hard rejection.

The liberal seems to assume everyone is born innocent until some evil individual causes pain and disturbs the environment through their own actions. This is not caused by the weather but by someone’s free will. As they also write, “because you never really saw the other person to begin with.” Quite ironic, considering that liberalism celebrates individualism’s sadism to do whatever it wants upon the world. The expectation is “consent,” and supposedly, the toaster did not “consent” to the natural will of the flower, and by high liberal ethics, the individual must respect that. This extreme condescending mannerism is religious by design and seems to avoid the concept of a “reflection” in philosophy and of the self.

Was the toaster ever a genius to begin with? This is the arrogance of liberalism, assuming everyone is a perfect player in a game that can’t be glitched. The liberalism continues that, “it wouldn't be right to pretend. It's not his place to be. He doesn't belong there. And the toaster leaves, only hoping they can get over it.” And what is so “perfect” about this scene that reinforces the liberal narrative that evil is only constructed if you do it by yourself? “It’s your fault that you have feelings for me! You should seek a therapist!”

Other YouTube comments seem to debunk tiiamannix3596’s case, as to “Aragem,” the flower was “content,” and then ruined by the outside world. And “jamesmorrison2055” argues, “it’s so desperate for a companion.” “seriousyak4734” writes “The “flower doesn't even have a face or a body and you can still feel it's loneliness,” and “NeonVars” writes, “The scene is so simple yet very depressing. It reflects on real life situations, where even the most beautiful beings can be outright denied cold.” The comments continue against the liberalism of tiiamannix3596.

So what is the importance of reflection? Reflection in philosophy has an interesting tie with the history of ethics and metaphysics. Realism requires an external reality to justify its truth, while anti-realism requires only internal logic to its own. For the anti-realist, how do we know we landed on the Moon if we never went to the moon ourselves or never saw it? Meanwhile, the realist can only use its egalitarian rhetoric to assume everything outside of the self is a logical and ethical cause and effect, whereas radicals like Peter Singer might argue that it is okay to be pacified in that it advocates the right for other’s equity. The silliness of realism equates to the arrogance of liberalism and its interpretation that it is the flower's fault for being “narcissistic.”

What is “real” is constructed by such a liberal regime, that it imposes its ethics into any conversation before it begins. Realism requires liberalism in that it can make so-called “objective” points of the world and justify its ethics. What realism cannot fathom is the anti-realist virtue ethics, and how anti-realism debunks all claims of egalitarianism when enforced. How do I know the flower is arrogant if the ethics you subscribe to require realist claims of hating free will?

The flower is innocent and did nothing wrong. It is liberalism that is imposing that the self is weak and must be shamed. It is afraid of the Pagan and Greek ethics of doing action out of virtue ethics, which liberalism seems to distort with individualism and “consent.” Liberalism wants us to be non-productive and non-offending creatures without identity, and to be judged solely on our individualism while celebrating the supposed liberty to do what we want without breaking the universal non-aggression pact of liberalism. Liberalism is obsessed with transhumanism because if the liberal leaves the body, they can be whatever they want without restrictions, all while everyone else gets the same treatment of isolated, non-offending freedom. Liberalism takes “ignorance is bliss” as their thesis against the confident self. They want the flower ignorant in it's own “televised” reality.

It is interesting to note that the original writer of the conundrum, Thomas M. Disch, was a homosexual. His lover, Charles Naylor, Jr., died in 2005. Out of depression, Disch shot himself in 2008, likely from his depression and isolation that the flower had to suffer when the reflection was gone. The flower story might as well be a translation about homosexuality, and how the homosexual tries to constantly “reflect” upon other men, in the hope they too are homosexual like the flower. Disch is exactly like that flower because when he could no longer see the world that reflected upon himself, he died out of sorrow. Disch was alone in the world and was desperate for anyone who could see his beauty. How could any liberal translate the flower as a narcissus when they realized the flower has a unique sexuality in a world against him? The realization is that society hates the intellect, and the intellect becomes depressed that the natural world wants him dead because he knows too much.

One could also say that the toaster is spoiled with free will, and instead of getting to know the flower or becoming friends, he abandons the flower out of guilt. The flower is a natural organic lifeform, while the toaster is an unnatural, inauthentic robot. The robot destroys the existence of the natural, and thus this is true evil; the act of sin and harming virtue ethics. The toaster was not acting virtuous and ran away when confronted with opportunity and paternalism. The toaster is fake, a non-human evil force that attacks the growth of the intellect, or importantly, the artist!

The toaster is an inauthentic hedonist who manipulates and uses the love of the innocent and abandons the flower without concern for ethics. The true tragedy is that the robot realizes its mistakes, and learns that it has committed an act of evil by not being the flower’s friend. This is how liberalism distorts ethics, by assuming the existential and non-offending agent is somehow right in this affair, and that some “crazy stalker” is crying over something that should be considered “normal.”

This is exactly how women use men during “hook-ups” and their justification that consensual rape is a part of the game without taking the responsibility that sex is an intimate and virtuous act. If the sex is bad, it’s only considered “rape” for the woman, and if the sex was good, that was “consensual” and the man shouldn’t be “hung up” over something she gave him out of her own will, like a capitalist transaction. The slutty woman is robotic like the toaster, and can’t see her own evil attitudes of commodification. The same logic can be applied to gay men and their pursuit of a male lover, only to be discouraged and suicidal over the free gay sex given to random strangers, and the other side trying to justify some kind of mythical “hook up” game happening without taking moral responsibility. Irony is a huge part of the liberal’s effort to attack sincerity and to detach from commitment and duty. This is evil, not the flower.

With that being said, it is good to know that the flower conundrum is a philosophical fight for virtue ethics, and how desire and reflection are important aspects of gaining wisdom and finding true love. As René Girard once said (and related to the flower), “Man is the creature who does not know what to desire, and he turns to others to make up his mind. We desire what others desire because we imitate their desires.” The moral of the story is that the toaster learned about this conundrum and that reflection should be respected as a pursuit of the good life. The toaster, or the robot, learns from his mistake and pursues the life of the ethical role model for love, even though it is not a flower.

-pe

11-23-2023