"The Pain Scale" Summary

     Although "The Pain Scale" is written in a very strange almost jumbled style, Biss manages to convey her points to the reader. Some of these are the similarity between God and the number 0, the inefficiency of a scale for pain, and the nonexistence of absolutes. Even though we can go on and on discussing the many themes in the work, I feel there is still one main theme that brings the whole piece together. That theme is that all knowledge and fact is relative and subjective. There is an exception to every rule. Even concrete dogmas and laws that have been established in academia can be bent or broken. Take gravity for example: what goes up must come down, but what do we say about gravity when a balloon full of helium floats out of a young child's grasp? 

     I really like how Biss discussed hell in "The Pain Scale." According to scientists, we cannot prove that hell is an actual place. However, speak to a devout Christian, and you will realize that convincing them that hell is imaginary is nearly impossible. Biss even mentions that Galileo Galilei, one of the most brilliant scientific minds of the Renaissance, attempted to map out the exact dimensions of hell (178). He was not the only brilliant scientist to do so. There were actually debates over what were the correct dimensions of hell, what sections were located where, and where the entrance is of hell is. As you can see, a good deal of people society deemed as respected and brilliant believed that hell is a concrete place. However, many credible, contemporary scientists will argue that hell is imaginary. This debate Biss discusses perfectly illustrates how knowledge is relative. 

     The piece seems to be more of internal debate of several topics rather than something trying to convey a point. It seems everytime she brings up a new topic, she just brings up more questions than answers. In doing this, I believe that she is trying to say that there are no answers. She even mentions at one point, when talking about how even at absolute zero atoms still move, that the absolute is not absolute (172). So this goes back, again, to that main theme of there is no absolute truth.

     So basically, what I got from Eula Biss is that truth is essentially what you want it to be. Every individual has their own sets of truths, morals, values, etc. Even if one person's "truth" is considered delusional by most, I am almost certain that there are several people who believe the same delusion. It's not about who is right. It's about who can argue their point the best. Defense attorneys, some of the highest paid people in society, generally argue for a person who they know is guilty. Many times the defense attorney convinces the judge and jury that he is "right" and that his client did not commit the crime even though he knows every word he has spoken is false.