Enlightenment and Jack

There has been heaps of talk and really great discussion here on Enlightenment and its relevance to Lost. AES bought it up again recently. While reading bits and pieces for my previous theory I had a bit of a think back to the history of science and The Enlightenment. There are two different ways of looking at enlightenment — from a spiritual / faith perspective, but also from an historical perspective (which I’ll focus on here).
The Enlightenment or Age of Enlightenment was a time when people started to question faith, dogma and the church. When values of reason, freedom and the scientific method were seen as important. This was a period when the Academy of Science and The Royal Society became really prominent and influential. Some interesting names also appear during this time including David Hume and John Locke.

So how do these two ideas work together and relate to Lost?

Our lead protagonist (Jack) has struggled with Faith vs Science throughout the show, often swinging from one to the other. His character arc seems to be leading him to have to have a revelation which will be crucial to the final outcome for the losties. Talk has been of Jack needing to become enlightened (from a spiritual perspective) for him to reach this point. I’m thinking that maybe Jack needs to become enlightened completely and wholly, to accept and embrace the spiritual and the scientific. To reconcile these two seemingly disparate ideals, to come to a balanced view of himself and the world.

Is Jack important because he can stand in the middle, neither black nor white, good or bad, science or faith? Can Jack bring the island back into balance by being enlightened in both senses of the word?

Share with fellow Losties

Written by


6 thoughts on “Enlightenment and Jack

  1. thats interesting stuff, maybe the ‘age of enlightenment’ or reoccuring of it is what we’re seeing on the show now?

    and on Jack, i just don’t know about that fella, i still hope his tattoo will have some relevance, “He walks amongst us, but he is not one of us.”


  2. I hate that I think he’ll be so important because the character drives me bonkers. He could rip off his skin and be a green Martian ? Too much? 😉

  3. Why is everyone always hating on Jack… he’s got his flaws and could be completely frustrating at times but lets face it – “its not easy being the king”. He took on a job nobody wanted, and is constantly blamed for his decisions, but he did hold the group together for awhile and if there wasn’t a Dr. in the house, probably many more would have died… poor jack, he’s not really wack or a sad sack… and he’ll be back on track ready to attack, the man in black!

    Sorry for getting saucey… I thought I’d just rhyme it out at the end, for craps and giggles.

  4. I don’t hate the guy, he just grates on me. In the real world I just probably wouldn’t get along with him. Yes he’s done all the leader stuff but there’s something about him. But I can accept that he’ll probably be the key to it all, the one who’s actions will make the difference. What that difference is I’m not sure at the moment, still cant decide who’s side I’m on.

  5. You know in the beginning I really like Jack and the initiative he took, but now he just aways seems like he has the weight of the world on his shoulders, when he really doesn’t, and his personality has become so wishy washy..and unstable. Conversely, I didn’t like Sawyer in the beginning because he was such an ass, but I like his character now that he seems to be really solid and do his own thing.

Leave a Reply