Out of the several philosophers that we saw in The Examined Life, which of them seemed:
1. To have the most appealing outlooks on life;
2. To have the least appealing (or comprehensible) views of life?
In summary, here they are in order of appearance in the film:
1. Cornel West - Harvard and Princeton educated, Dr. West has spent the majority of his studies examining race, gender, and class in American society. He is considered a "neopragmatist", similar to that of William James' pragmatism (something has value if it works), where language is the primary vehicle for understanding the world and trying to make meaning from it. He has called himself a "non-Marxist socialist" primarily because he's a religious person and cannot reconcile the fact that Marxism dismisses religion. He also tends to be suspicious of all forms of authority, because they can lead to tyranny and / or abuse. One of his latest books is called Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism.
2. Avital Ronell - her parents were Israeli diplomats and she was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia. She is a professor of German language in New York and has translated French philosopher Jacques Derrida in his earliest works introduced into America. She follows a school of philosophy called Deconstructionism where she tries to discover the underlying meanings of words and language. She feels that " language is a material that cannot not interrupt, suspend, resist, exceed, and otherwise trip up the very message it is charged to deliver," because "words can go AWOL (absent without leave" or in many instances, be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the listener / reader. In many respects, this problem with language has led her to believe that there are no guiding Truths. One of her latest books is called Stupidity.
3. Peter Singer - an Australian philosopher who has become very popular with his most well known for his strong moral beliefs about animals and eating meat. He is opposed to animal experimentation as well as eating meat. He follows in the school of Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) which tries to maximize the greatest good for the largest number of people. He also feels very strongly that the wealthy have an obligation to provide help for those in extreme poverty (remember the $200 pair of shoes ruined to save a drowning child). On his own website, he claims to give 25% of his income to non-profit groups that are devoted to the poor. His latest book is The Life You Can Save.
4. Kwame Anthony Appiah - as mentioned in the film, he's the product of a Ghanian father and an English mother, he studied at Cambridge and has taught at some of the top universities in the U.S. His studies have included examining the intellectual history of African Americans and he also deals with language and semantics - the underlying meanings of words. In the segment we watched, Appiah talked about our notion of identity in a multicultural world. He doesn't believe that race should form your identity, but that we should look for universalities between us to do that. Forbes Magazine named him one of the Top Seven Most Powerful Thinkers in the world - Judith Butler is also on this list as well. Appiah's latest book is called The Honor Code.
5. Martha Nussbaum - is a professor at the University of Chicago with an interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy along with concerns over feminism, political philosophy and morality. From ancient Greek and Roman philosophies, she has explored the idea of neo-Stoicism which acknowledges that things outside of our control have a great influence on us. She has also tried to draw attention to the political and gender inequality and the lack of opportunities for women. She's a strong believer in inclusion of other cultures and feels that those who promote Western culture (our culture) at the expense of others is paternalistic. In the field of moral psychology, she wrote that emotions like shame and disgust are legitimate emotions to use to make legal judgments. Her latest book is The New Religious Intolerance.
6. Michael Hardt - Hardt is a political philosopher from Duke University who was born in 1960. As he mentioned in the film, he spent time in Latin America during the 1980s learning from the Marxist political movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador. He has criticized globalization and sees it as a form of American imperialism. Nations' power to control their own destiny has declined as American (and European) companies have expanded to control various aspects of developing countries' resources. His major work, written with Antonio Negri, is called Empire. Globalization has spawned new forms of racism and cultural change, and that the focus of political power has shifted from governments to corporations. This shift is less democratic because there's very little if any recourse to stop / control these corporations.
7. Slavoj Zizek - Zizek is a neo-Marxist and has been considered the "hippest philosopher in Europe" by many and also called "the Elvis of philosophy." He hails from Slovenia and has written many books. He tends to provoke with his statements, like comparing Julian Assange to Mahatma Gandhi. He rarely gives straightforward answers to questions: "I like to complicate issues. I hate simple narratives. I suspect them. This is my automatic reaction." He is also an athiest and has written extensively on movies, violence, and other topics. He apparently wrote a review of Avatar first w/o having actually seen it first: "I'm a good Hegelian. If you have a good theory, forget about the reality." His primary influence is philosopher Jacques Lacan. One of his latest book is Living in the End Times.
8. Judith Butler - is currently a professor of rhetoric and literature at the University of Berkeley, California. One of her primary philosophical keys is gender studies and how sex and gender roles are flexible or shouldn't be as confining as we tend to see them in our society. Gender identity does not necessarily reflect who are in our "inner core" - meaning, that just because we are men or women does NOT mean that we should be bound by those male and female roles. Gender is supposed to be a secondary characteristic to who are, not a primary one. Also, her political philosophy has been influenced by her religion, Judaism, and she believes in a "Judaism that is not associated with state violence," and has said that Israel does not represent all Jews. As mentioned in the segment on Appiah, Forbes named her one of the top seven thinkers in the world and she has been called "a big-deal academic, ... and oft-cited academic superstar...the most famous feminist philosopher in the United States," "the queer theorist par excellence," and "the most brilliantly eclectic theorist of sexuality in recent years." Her most popular book has been Gender Trouble.
This blog will be due by Friday, June 14 by class. This blog is part of your final exam along with your answers to the questions on the film. You can turn them in on Friday, June 14.
Also, please read this article for Friday (after the exam) for an enlightening discussion on the ethics of punching a Nazi. https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/jan/31/the-punch-a-nazi-meme-what-are-the-ethics-of-punching-nazis
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Saturday, June 1, 2019
Blog #87 - Hanna and genetic engineering
The subject of genetic engineering / manipulation came up during Hanna, though in an unrealistic sci-fi scenario where the CIA tried making super soldiers through invitro - genetic enhancement. But while this sounds like sci-fi now, there are a lot of things today that can be done that are NOT science fiction that are pretty close to genetic manipulation.
1. What happens if you want a boy in your family since your family already three girls? What could you do to increase the odds? Picking the sex of your child can be done now w/ invitro fertilization (IVF) once fertilized eggs divided into eight cells, that mass can be tested for sex and then implanted in the mother's womb.
2. What if you really loved your dog or cat and wanted one exactly like it? Apparently, a company existed for 2 years called Genetics Savings and Clone and was able to clone a couple 
of cats. It shhut down in 2006 for reasons I can't quite fathom (besides my basic revulsion of the idea, other qualms), but here's an NPR link to a radio interview about the company when it opened in 2004 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4176651
of cats. It shhut down in 2006 for reasons I can't quite fathom (besides my basic revulsion of the idea, other qualms), but here's an NPR link to a radio interview about the company when it opened in 2004 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4176651
- Here's a more recent story from 2009 about a Korean company that cloned a Labrador Retriever for $155,000. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AmazingAnimals/story?id=6762235&page=1
3. What if your only child died or had was dying from an accident and making a clone to replace the missing or needed parts was the only way to replace or help that child? This would be a tough one for me to answer b/c I've never ever been in a situation like this, and I don't know how desperate I might get to save my daughter's life. If making a clone of my daughter to create stem cells could help her, I would be all for it. Chances are, scientists wouldn't have to go as far as cloning to help her since our body makes stem cells all of the time.
- But, South Korean scientists in 2004 were successful in cloning a human embryo using the same person's cells (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1672523&ps=rs). The idea was to aid the woman's health, not clone her. Even so, a recent poll in America states that 84% of Americans feel that cloning humans is morally wrong.
5. If you had the chance (and it were possible), would you pick certain traits for your child before he/she was born? Would you want a child that is more predisposed to music, athletics, math, or would you try to pick the hair and eye color and let fate take care of the rest?
6. Is this kind of genetic selection ethical?* Would it create a separate subspecies of humans like portrayed in the movie Gattaca - those who have been enhanced and those who haven't? If you haven't been enhanced, you're stuck in a 2nd class citizenry status much like African Americans were before the Civil Rights movement, while those who have been genetically enhanced (those with money, of course) get the best pick of jobs, lives, etc.
Pick at least three questions (one must include the last one about ethics*) and answer them by Friday, June 7 by class. 300 words minimum.
Sources:
Read up on the bioethics of cloning pets - http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/01/cloning-beloved-pets-is-the-least-of-our-problems/
Mighty Mice article - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/magazine/in-pursuit-of-doped-excellence-the-lab-animal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Gallup Poll on Cloning - http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=5736
Moral Obligation to be part of a medical research study - http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=5909
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Blog #86 - Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?
Having read the article on the ethics of killing the Joker, what do you think? (We're going to assume that this comic book world that we are inhabiting is real, so don't start going down that road).
It brings up a few good points:
1. The Joker will continue to kill (but does Batman murder him for future crimes - could be dangerous - or past crimes? Joker has killed Robin, Commissioner Gordon's wife, and crippled Batgirl, Gordon's stepdaugher).
2. Batman's honor code of not killing is just a way for Batman to feel superior to the men and women of crime whom he is fighting.
3. Is Batman responsible for all of the deaths / mayhem / destruction since Batman first apprehended the Joker? Is that chaos Batman's to own, or should it be the Joker?
So, questions to answer:
1. In which of the scenarios of the Trolley Problem do you think best applies to this situation w/ the Batman and Joker (assuming it was the Joker who is the trolley)?
2. Should the Batman kill the Joker? Why or why not? And if so, for what crimes - past or to prevent future crimes?
3. Should our superheroes have a no-killing code? Why or why not? Does it just lead to more crime?
4. Is the concept of utilitarianism useful in real life? Why or why not?
300 words total. Due by class on Thursday, May 30.
Articles to read and consider:
Why Doesn't the Batman Just Kill the Joker? by Jesse Richards. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/why-doesnt-batman-just-ki_b_3686003.html
It brings up a few good points:
1. The Joker will continue to kill (but does Batman murder him for future crimes - could be dangerous - or past crimes? Joker has killed Robin, Commissioner Gordon's wife, and crippled Batgirl, Gordon's stepdaugher).
2. Batman's honor code of not killing is just a way for Batman to feel superior to the men and women of crime whom he is fighting.
3. Is Batman responsible for all of the deaths / mayhem / destruction since Batman first apprehended the Joker? Is that chaos Batman's to own, or should it be the Joker?
So, questions to answer:
1. In which of the scenarios of the Trolley Problem do you think best applies to this situation w/ the Batman and Joker (assuming it was the Joker who is the trolley)?
2. Should the Batman kill the Joker? Why or why not? And if so, for what crimes - past or to prevent future crimes?
3. Should our superheroes have a no-killing code? Why or why not? Does it just lead to more crime?
4. Is the concept of utilitarianism useful in real life? Why or why not?
300 words total. Due by class on Thursday, May 30.
Why Doesn't the Batman Just Kill the Joker? by Jesse Richards. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/why-doesnt-batman-just-ki_b_3686003.html
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Blog #85 - In Time
"For a few immortals to live, many people must die."
We are presented with a future world in the movie, In Time, in which time has become so precious that it has now become currency. Somehow, our bodies are born (or implanted with a device) that begins ticking when we reach the age of 25 so that those who work get paid in time and have to buy their necessities like food and rent using the currency of time.
There are also time zones (don't think like what we have -Eastern, Central, etc., but different parts of a larger city), segregated communities that you must pay time to get into. Just think of gated cities within a much larger city - this is a way to keep the very poor out of (what can only be assumed to be) a middle class or upper class time zone, because the more Will pays as he heads towards the wealthiest part of town, the price continues to go up. So, in essence, there still is free passage among the city, but only if you can afford it. But since many can't afford it, the poor are stuck in their slums.
The movie focuses most of its time on poor characters who are working day-to-day and struggling to survive. When wages go up, the prices of goods go up, so there's no real way for the poor to get ahead. And of course, in such a dog-eat-dog world, there are also gangsters who try to steal peoples' time - the Minutemen. And when the clock runs out on someone, he/she is dead. Even the timekeepers, the police of this dystopian society, are barely paid decent wages in order to stay alive. Sadly ironic, the ones that are entrusted with enforcing the system don't get paid enough (sounds familiar). In addition, the police are interested in the suicide of one wealthy man yet there are tons of murders in the ghetto everyday. Where does this society's priorities truly lie? In the preservation of the monopoly of time by one particular class.
The rich, on the other hand, are trapped in a different kind of gilded prison (think of why Henry gve Will almost all of his time before he died and let his clock expire). Philipe Weis thinks that this time as currency thing is just the next step in evolution - that it is unfair, he says, but so is evolution. With decades, even centuries on their clocks, they continue to look the same as they did when they were 25 even though they might be 107. The one creepy Freudian thing is when Phillipe Weis introduced his mother, wife and daughter (Sylvia) who all looked very similar. Sylvia and Will hit it off and that's when Sylvia said that all the wealthy needed to do was stay out of trouble and they could live forever. Play it safe = live forever. So, unlike Will who lives by the phrase, "Carpe Diem", Sylvia never took chances until she met Will.
Your job for this blog is to 1. apply at least one philosopher or philosophic concept to any part or parts of this movie that you find apply to this movie. 2. Find a weakness in the movie, whether it be in the plot, concept, etc. and explain why. 3. Tie in the Through the Wormhole episode we saw w/ the movie and any of the concepts introduced in the episode. If you missed the episode, get some notes from one of your classmates.
Due Friday, May 17 by class. 350 words total for your response.
We are presented with a future world in the movie, In Time, in which time has become so precious that it has now become currency. Somehow, our bodies are born (or implanted with a device) that begins ticking when we reach the age of 25 so that those who work get paid in time and have to buy their necessities like food and rent using the currency of time.
There are also time zones (don't think like what we have -Eastern, Central, etc., but different parts of a larger city), segregated communities that you must pay time to get into. Just think of gated cities within a much larger city - this is a way to keep the very poor out of (what can only be assumed to be) a middle class or upper class time zone, because the more Will pays as he heads towards the wealthiest part of town, the price continues to go up. So, in essence, there still is free passage among the city, but only if you can afford it. But since many can't afford it, the poor are stuck in their slums.
The movie focuses most of its time on poor characters who are working day-to-day and struggling to survive. When wages go up, the prices of goods go up, so there's no real way for the poor to get ahead. And of course, in such a dog-eat-dog world, there are also gangsters who try to steal peoples' time - the Minutemen. And when the clock runs out on someone, he/she is dead. Even the timekeepers, the police of this dystopian society, are barely paid decent wages in order to stay alive. Sadly ironic, the ones that are entrusted with enforcing the system don't get paid enough (sounds familiar). In addition, the police are interested in the suicide of one wealthy man yet there are tons of murders in the ghetto everyday. Where does this society's priorities truly lie? In the preservation of the monopoly of time by one particular class.
The rich, on the other hand, are trapped in a different kind of gilded prison (think of why Henry gve Will almost all of his time before he died and let his clock expire). Philipe Weis thinks that this time as currency thing is just the next step in evolution - that it is unfair, he says, but so is evolution. With decades, even centuries on their clocks, they continue to look the same as they did when they were 25 even though they might be 107. The one creepy Freudian thing is when Phillipe Weis introduced his mother, wife and daughter (Sylvia) who all looked very similar. Sylvia and Will hit it off and that's when Sylvia said that all the wealthy needed to do was stay out of trouble and they could live forever. Play it safe = live forever. So, unlike Will who lives by the phrase, "Carpe Diem", Sylvia never took chances until she met Will.
Your job for this blog is to 1. apply at least one philosopher or philosophic concept to any part or parts of this movie that you find apply to this movie. 2. Find a weakness in the movie, whether it be in the plot, concept, etc. and explain why. 3. Tie in the Through the Wormhole episode we saw w/ the movie and any of the concepts introduced in the episode. If you missed the episode, get some notes from one of your classmates.
Due Friday, May 17 by class. 350 words total for your response.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Blog #84 - Some thoughts on Inception
Here are some thoughts I'd like you to respond to in your answer to this blog:
1. Philosopher Immanuel Kant would likely say that both inception and extraction are immoral, despite your intentions, because because you (as the extractor) are violating the autonomy of the individual. These actions disrespect humanity because your personal autonomy (or ability to control yourself, your thoughts, and actions) is a mark of your humanity, what makes you different than other animals in this world. If someone has implanted an idea in your head, how can you be responsible for it or the actions that come from it?
2. Ariadne acts like Cobb's therapist throughout the movie and helps him with the guilt that is sabotaging his dreams and memories. In the first dream (Yusuf's, in the scene in the warehouse), Cobb tells her why he feels so guilty - because, after 50 years in Limbo, he had planted the idea in Mal's head that this world (Limbo) wasn't real and that they needed to kill themselves to get back to reality (being awake). She brought this idea back with her into reality and flipped the idea around - her waking state was Limbo and that she needed to get back to reality (in her mind, Limbo). My question for you is: is Ariadne practicing her own version of inception w/ Cobb by placing the ideas in his head that he needs to confront Mal's projection and rid himself of the guilt of her suicide (which he eventually succeeds in doing)? Why or why not?
3. Catharsis -- a concept first introduced to us by Aristotle (a purging or purification of the self or the transformation as a result of the catharsis), Cobb, Arthur and Eames have all talked about Fischer reaching a state of catharsis with his father so that their inception idea can take hold. Reconciliation with positive emotion is much stronger, according to Cobb, than with a negative emotion. So we see that Fischer is reconciled with his father at the end and decides to break up his company when he awakes from the kidnapping scene. But, does Cobb reach his own catharsis when he finds that he's allowed into the United States and can finally see his children's faces again? Throughout the movie, that's all he's ever wanted is to get back home to his kids, and the ending scene shows that reunion (with his children a couple of years older - I checked the credits - there are two different pairs of child actors). But does this catharsis really happen because of the ending scene with the top? Did the scene turn off before the top fell over?
- Cobb also has another scene of catharsis near the end in limbo when he says goodbye to Mal "you're just a shade of my real wife..."
-- all of this is controlled by the master manipulator, the director, Christopher Nolan. Everything in this movie is done for a reason. Cobb is the director, Arthur is the producer who does the research, Ariadne the screenwriter when she acts as the architect, Eames is the actor and Yusuf is the technical guy that makes it all happen. Saito is the money guy (also a producer) who finances the whole operation and Fischer is the audience who is taken for an exciting adventure by the director, Cobb. Yet we are also the audience too, since this is a movie. Arthur mentions continuously that they cannot mess with the dream too much, otherwise the dreamer knows something is wrong. The same can be said for movies - when there's too much fakery or interference from the director, we as the audience snap out of the trance that the movie is weaving for us and see the movie for what it is. We lose ourselves in well-made movies b/c we're not paying attention to the poor acting or screenwriting or plotholes or ridiculous scenes. We care about the characters and want to see a satisfying resolution. And so Cobb, as the director, makes an amazing movie, but also brings part of himself into the movie (Mal) which can influence the audience (she shoots Fischer in the 3rd dream). Most of the jarring scenes in Inception include Mal. And it's Mal who questions Cobb and raises doubt as to his true purpose.
- And since the movie is like a dream, it has planted the idea of itself in the mind of the movie audience as well - is this a movie or was the whole thing a dream? This is where the movie becomes almost a meta-movie; it is Christopher Nolan dreaming about Cobb.
1. Philosopher Immanuel Kant would likely say that both inception and extraction are immoral, despite your intentions, because because you (as the extractor) are violating the autonomy of the individual. These actions disrespect humanity because your personal autonomy (or ability to control yourself, your thoughts, and actions) is a mark of your humanity, what makes you different than other animals in this world. If someone has implanted an idea in your head, how can you be responsible for it or the actions that come from it?
2. Ariadne acts like Cobb's therapist throughout the movie and helps him with the guilt that is sabotaging his dreams and memories. In the first dream (Yusuf's, in the scene in the warehouse), Cobb tells her why he feels so guilty - because, after 50 years in Limbo, he had planted the idea in Mal's head that this world (Limbo) wasn't real and that they needed to kill themselves to get back to reality (being awake). She brought this idea back with her into reality and flipped the idea around - her waking state was Limbo and that she needed to get back to reality (in her mind, Limbo). My question for you is: is Ariadne practicing her own version of inception w/ Cobb by placing the ideas in his head that he needs to confront Mal's projection and rid himself of the guilt of her suicide (which he eventually succeeds in doing)? Why or why not?
3. Catharsis -- a concept first introduced to us by Aristotle (a purging or purification of the self or the transformation as a result of the catharsis), Cobb, Arthur and Eames have all talked about Fischer reaching a state of catharsis with his father so that their inception idea can take hold. Reconciliation with positive emotion is much stronger, according to Cobb, than with a negative emotion. So we see that Fischer is reconciled with his father at the end and decides to break up his company when he awakes from the kidnapping scene. But, does Cobb reach his own catharsis when he finds that he's allowed into the United States and can finally see his children's faces again? Throughout the movie, that's all he's ever wanted is to get back home to his kids, and the ending scene shows that reunion (with his children a couple of years older - I checked the credits - there are two different pairs of child actors). But does this catharsis really happen because of the ending scene with the top? Did the scene turn off before the top fell over?
- Cobb also has another scene of catharsis near the end in limbo when he says goodbye to Mal "you're just a shade of my real wife..."
4. Movie - Making - Inception, as a film, is all a dream, but it's also an extended metaphor for filmmaker Christopher Nolan. Like a dream, the movie is a shared dream for the audience and has its own rules and functions along those lines. Some characters and scenes happen like dreams in which there seems to be no rhyme or reason: Mal comes out of a crowd and stabs Ariadne; the train in the first dream that blasts through downtown where there's no tracks; the elder Fischer's hospital bed in a huge vault inside of a mountain fortress; Cobb squeezing between an amazingly small gap of two buildings. Mal even makes the case to Cobb at the end that he is in fact still stuck in a dream, with feelings of persecution (the authorities or Cobol's security forces), creeping doubts, and little remembrance of how he got there. On another thought, the way the dream team works is similar to how a movie is made - they plan the scenes and the movie sets down to the smallest details, always conscious of the audience (the dreamer's projections) and its reaction. And, the way the movie ends with the cut scene of the top and then kicking into the music (Edith Piaf's haunting melody) as the credits roll is kind of like a dream because sometimes we are ripped out of a dream before its ending and we want to know how it ends. Yet we can't go back.
-- all of this is controlled by the master manipulator, the director, Christopher Nolan. Everything in this movie is done for a reason. Cobb is the director, Arthur is the producer who does the research, Ariadne the screenwriter when she acts as the architect, Eames is the actor and Yusuf is the technical guy that makes it all happen. Saito is the money guy (also a producer) who finances the whole operation and Fischer is the audience who is taken for an exciting adventure by the director, Cobb. Yet we are also the audience too, since this is a movie. Arthur mentions continuously that they cannot mess with the dream too much, otherwise the dreamer knows something is wrong. The same can be said for movies - when there's too much fakery or interference from the director, we as the audience snap out of the trance that the movie is weaving for us and see the movie for what it is. We lose ourselves in well-made movies b/c we're not paying attention to the poor acting or screenwriting or plotholes or ridiculous scenes. We care about the characters and want to see a satisfying resolution. And so Cobb, as the director, makes an amazing movie, but also brings part of himself into the movie (Mal) which can influence the audience (she shoots Fischer in the 3rd dream). Most of the jarring scenes in Inception include Mal. And it's Mal who questions Cobb and raises doubt as to his true purpose.
- And since the movie is like a dream, it has planted the idea of itself in the mind of the movie audience as well - is this a movie or was the whole thing a dream? This is where the movie becomes almost a meta-movie; it is Christopher Nolan dreaming about Cobb.
Please discuss your thoughts on 3 of 4 of these topics. 350 words minimum for your total comment.
Due Friday, May 3 by class.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Blog #83 - Adjustment Bureau and Fate vs. Free Will
While we watched the Adjustment Bureau, I had several questions as did many of you. Here were several of them:
1. Who was the Chairman in the film (I know that somebody found info that the director said that the Chairman was a female character in the film)? Did Norris and / or Elise see the Chairman during the film or was it earlier in their lifetimes before the film ever began? (Do you buy my idea that it was the guy that said hi to Norris on the street after the second time Norris and Elise meet?)
2. When Harry said to Elise and Norris that the Chairman rewrote the plan, the book showed a blank space ahead for the two of them. What do you think that meant? Does the blank space mean that David and Elise get to forge their own destiny? Or does it mean something else? Explain. And what does this say about the mind of the Chairman, that two humans can change the
3. Kids in past classes have asked why there weren't any female adjusters. I didn't have an answer for them as to that question. I have also criticized the film's Western / Euro - centered bias when it talked about giving mankind free will during the Roman times and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Assess the film in light of these flaws.
4. Why do you think the filmmaker decided never to show the Chairman in his/her/its true form? By leaving this question unanswered, what was the filmmaker's intent?
5. Think about Harry's crisis of conscience when Elise and David broke up for the 3rd time (when he left her at the hospital), and he asked Richardson about the rightness of the plan. Put yourself in one of the adjusters' shoes and try to make sense of it all when you're only given part of the picture. Does this limited view of the big picture reflect our own view on life in general? Why or why not?
6. Do you agree with Thompson when he says that "free will is an illusion"? Why or why not?
7. What is the filmmaker saying about order and chaos when Thompson tells us about the times when humans had free will and made a complete mess of the world?
8. Looking at Harry's statement at the end (see below), what do you think is the filmmaker's message? Why?
1. Who was the Chairman in the film (I know that somebody found info that the director said that the Chairman was a female character in the film)? Did Norris and / or Elise see the Chairman during the film or was it earlier in their lifetimes before the film ever began? (Do you buy my idea that it was the guy that said hi to Norris on the street after the second time Norris and Elise meet?)
2. When Harry said to Elise and Norris that the Chairman rewrote the plan, the book showed a blank space ahead for the two of them. What do you think that meant? Does the blank space mean that David and Elise get to forge their own destiny? Or does it mean something else? Explain. And what does this say about the mind of the Chairman, that two humans can change the
3. Kids in past classes have asked why there weren't any female adjusters. I didn't have an answer for them as to that question. I have also criticized the film's Western / Euro - centered bias when it talked about giving mankind free will during the Roman times and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Assess the film in light of these flaws.
4. Why do you think the filmmaker decided never to show the Chairman in his/her/its true form? By leaving this question unanswered, what was the filmmaker's intent?
5. Think about Harry's crisis of conscience when Elise and David broke up for the 3rd time (when he left her at the hospital), and he asked Richardson about the rightness of the plan. Put yourself in one of the adjusters' shoes and try to make sense of it all when you're only given part of the picture. Does this limited view of the big picture reflect our own view on life in general? Why or why not?
6. Do you agree with Thompson when he says that "free will is an illusion"? Why or why not?
7. What is the filmmaker saying about order and chaos when Thompson tells us about the times when humans had free will and made a complete mess of the world?
8. Looking at Harry's statement at the end (see below), what do you think is the filmmaker's message? Why?
“Most people live life on the path that we set for them to afraid to explore any other [path]/ Sometimes, someone like you comes along and knocks down the obstacles that we put in your way. People should realize that free will is a gift that you’ll never know how to use until you fight for it. I think that’s the Chairman’s real point. And maybe one day, we won’t write the plan, you will.”
Pick three of these questions and answer them for Monday, April 22 before class begins. 350 word minimum. Thanks.
Some articles on the inclusion of philosophy in Adjustment Bureau:
1. https://www.philosophynews.com/post/2011/09/05/The-Adjustment-Bureau-and-Free-Will.aspx
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/what-the-adjustment-bureau-tells-us-about-free-will
3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/how-the-adjustment-bureau-threatens-free-will
4. https://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-philosophy-behind-the-adjustment-bureau/
5. http://www1.cbn.com/movies/the-adjustment-bureau-fate-free-will
Some articles on the inclusion of philosophy in Adjustment Bureau:
1. https://www.philosophynews.com/post/2011/09/05/The-Adjustment-Bureau-and-Free-Will.aspx
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/what-the-adjustment-bureau-tells-us-about-free-will
3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201103/how-the-adjustment-bureau-threatens-free-will
4. https://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/the-philosophy-behind-the-adjustment-bureau/
5. http://www1.cbn.com/movies/the-adjustment-bureau-fate-free-will
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Blog #82 - Questions concerning The Source Code
We talked a bit about the film, Source Code, and how it relates to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. I don't know if it's a perfect fit, but what is? I think further research is needed for this topic and if you guys can find it pertaining to the film and Plato, that would be great (don't forget to read the illustrated handout on Plato, the cave, what it means, and his ideal society for more details).
The film opens up some questions about fate that I don't think it really answered or that we really touched upon too much. When Capt. Stevens kept being pulled out of the Source Code (SC) and back into his "capsule," he saw these glimpses - call them deja vu, precognition, whatever - of himself and Christina at Chicago's Millenium Park and the big chrome bean. These scenes occurred even before he felt like saving anybody on the train or understood his situation - as if he was headed towards that future "alternate universe" no matter happened. Could it be that every obstacle that Stevens ran into (or literally ran into him - see below!) kept him moving towards that unavoidable future?
What about the morality of using Capt. Stevens as a lab rat for the Source Code? It's obvious by the end of the movie that he's in a terrible state of physical trauma, and that only his mind is the most complete and functioning part of him. At points in the film, it appeared that Dr. Rutledge was "torturing" Stevens by sending him back into the memories of Sean Fentress only to be blown up again and again. We did mention that Capt. Stevens, as a member of the U.S. military, most likely, had signed away his rights to do with his remains as his parents wished. However, it is hard to imagine a father wishing this for his son. And by the end of the film, if it has reset and everything starts anew, Capt. Stevens will continue to be used further in the GWOT (global war on terror).
One question I kept having while first watching the movie (and occasionally in rewatching it with previous philosophy classes), is what happened to Sean Fentress's essence or soul or being? Captain Stevens takes over Sean's body, his likeness doesn't change, but his demeanor and actions do, as evidenced by Christina noticing how different he is acting on subsequent trips into the Source Code. Dr. Rutledge says that Sean Fentress exists in the Source Code as an electromagnetic field. But where did his essence go? Does Sean's essence / soul / being cease to exist as soon as Capt. Stevens enters Sean's body? Or did it cease to exist as soon as he died and this "Sean" is just a shadow of his former self? Does Sean's essence go somewhere else (maybe heading to heaven or hell or limbo, depending upon what you or even Sean believed)? Is his essence maybe going some place permenantly because he doesn't come back to his body after the end of eight minutes - the bomb goes off and Sean and Christina and dozens other people die? Or since we're watching a memory replay over and over again, is the whole point of where Sean is a moot point because at that point, Sean and many others are already dead and just live on in the memory? Plus at the end of the movie, we see Sean and Christina walking by Millenium Park enjoying a beautiful spring day playing hooky in some kind of memory(?) that couldn't have happened because the bomb didn't go off. Has the real Sean returned? Or is that still Capt. Stevens in his body?
One more question that I thought of while watching the movie again was this: are all of these trips into the Source Code with all of their different outcomes just part of a multiverse? Essentially, all of these trips have the same setting, the same laws of physics still apply, the same people in them, and essentially the same outcome (except for the last one) but the one wild card that changes every time is what Captain Stevens does within the eight minutes. Do all of these of these trips comprise different versions of a multiverse? And since the theory behind a multiverse states that almost all outcomes of an event are possible, that could leave room for one "reality" in which the bomb didn't go off.
Lastly, how do you explain the ending? Goodwin and Rutledge have no knowledge of the previous day's events (if those events even occurred - but they had to have existed somewhere, b/c Stevens sent her the email - it came from somewhere, sometime, right?). And at the end of the movie, it looked as if the whole day had been reset, Capt. Stevens was alive and in his previous "state of being," in addition to the bomber being caught and the initial train bombing never having occurred.
Questions to choose from:
1. How could the filmmakers have changed the film to make it more like Plato's cave? Explain your reasoning.
2. What role did fate play in this movie? Why? Or, did fate play no role at all and why not?
3. Did the military cross the line with the use of Capt. Stevens' body and mind for the Source Code? Why or why not?
4. Where did Sean Fentress's essence / soul / being go while Captain Stevens took over his body in the Source Code? Why?
5. Is the ending a new "movie reality" (for lack of a better term)? Why or why not? Is it possible that Stevens' determination somehow merged the alternate universe with the movie's original reality?
Pick three of the following questions and answer it as fully as you can. Stay in the nuances of the question as long as you can. Your response should be a minimum of 400 words and is due Friday, March 29 before class begins.
Here are a few interesting articles that explore some other issues brought up in the film:
"Who is Sean Fentress? A Completely Serious Exploration of What Happened After the Ending of Source Code" - https://filmschoolrejects.com/who-is-sean-fentress-e3ddff9993a/
"Here I Am: The Identity Philosophy behind Source Code" - https://filmschoolrejects.com/here-i-am-the-identity-philosophy-of-source-code-78cbe40abd2f/
"The Philosophy Behind The Source Code" - https://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-philosophy-behind-source-code/
The film opens up some questions about fate that I don't think it really answered or that we really touched upon too much. When Capt. Stevens kept being pulled out of the Source Code (SC) and back into his "capsule," he saw these glimpses - call them deja vu, precognition, whatever - of himself and Christina at Chicago's Millenium Park and the big chrome bean. These scenes occurred even before he felt like saving anybody on the train or understood his situation - as if he was headed towards that future "alternate universe" no matter happened. Could it be that every obstacle that Stevens ran into (or literally ran into him - see below!) kept him moving towards that unavoidable future?
What about the morality of using Capt. Stevens as a lab rat for the Source Code? It's obvious by the end of the movie that he's in a terrible state of physical trauma, and that only his mind is the most complete and functioning part of him. At points in the film, it appeared that Dr. Rutledge was "torturing" Stevens by sending him back into the memories of Sean Fentress only to be blown up again and again. We did mention that Capt. Stevens, as a member of the U.S. military, most likely, had signed away his rights to do with his remains as his parents wished. However, it is hard to imagine a father wishing this for his son. And by the end of the film, if it has reset and everything starts anew, Capt. Stevens will continue to be used further in the GWOT (global war on terror).
One question I kept having while first watching the movie (and occasionally in rewatching it with previous philosophy classes), is what happened to Sean Fentress's essence or soul or being? Captain Stevens takes over Sean's body, his likeness doesn't change, but his demeanor and actions do, as evidenced by Christina noticing how different he is acting on subsequent trips into the Source Code. Dr. Rutledge says that Sean Fentress exists in the Source Code as an electromagnetic field. But where did his essence go? Does Sean's essence / soul / being cease to exist as soon as Capt. Stevens enters Sean's body? Or did it cease to exist as soon as he died and this "Sean" is just a shadow of his former self? Does Sean's essence go somewhere else (maybe heading to heaven or hell or limbo, depending upon what you or even Sean believed)? Is his essence maybe going some place permenantly because he doesn't come back to his body after the end of eight minutes - the bomb goes off and Sean and Christina and dozens other people die? Or since we're watching a memory replay over and over again, is the whole point of where Sean is a moot point because at that point, Sean and many others are already dead and just live on in the memory? Plus at the end of the movie, we see Sean and Christina walking by Millenium Park enjoying a beautiful spring day playing hooky in some kind of memory(?) that couldn't have happened because the bomb didn't go off. Has the real Sean returned? Or is that still Capt. Stevens in his body?
One more question that I thought of while watching the movie again was this: are all of these trips into the Source Code with all of their different outcomes just part of a multiverse? Essentially, all of these trips have the same setting, the same laws of physics still apply, the same people in them, and essentially the same outcome (except for the last one) but the one wild card that changes every time is what Captain Stevens does within the eight minutes. Do all of these of these trips comprise different versions of a multiverse? And since the theory behind a multiverse states that almost all outcomes of an event are possible, that could leave room for one "reality" in which the bomb didn't go off.
Lastly, how do you explain the ending? Goodwin and Rutledge have no knowledge of the previous day's events (if those events even occurred - but they had to have existed somewhere, b/c Stevens sent her the email - it came from somewhere, sometime, right?). And at the end of the movie, it looked as if the whole day had been reset, Capt. Stevens was alive and in his previous "state of being," in addition to the bomber being caught and the initial train bombing never having occurred.
Questions to choose from:
1. How could the filmmakers have changed the film to make it more like Plato's cave? Explain your reasoning.
2. What role did fate play in this movie? Why? Or, did fate play no role at all and why not?
3. Did the military cross the line with the use of Capt. Stevens' body and mind for the Source Code? Why or why not?
4. Where did Sean Fentress's essence / soul / being go while Captain Stevens took over his body in the Source Code? Why?
5. Is the ending a new "movie reality" (for lack of a better term)? Why or why not? Is it possible that Stevens' determination somehow merged the alternate universe with the movie's original reality?
Pick three of the following questions and answer it as fully as you can. Stay in the nuances of the question as long as you can. Your response should be a minimum of 400 words and is due Friday, March 29 before class begins.
Here are a few interesting articles that explore some other issues brought up in the film:
"Who is Sean Fentress? A Completely Serious Exploration of What Happened After the Ending of Source Code" - https://filmschoolrejects.com/who-is-sean-fentress-e3ddff9993a/
"Here I Am: The Identity Philosophy behind Source Code" - https://filmschoolrejects.com/here-i-am-the-identity-philosophy-of-source-code-78cbe40abd2f/
"The Philosophy Behind The Source Code" - https://maxandrews.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-philosophy-behind-source-code/
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Blog #81 - Critique of Top Western Philosophers
In the article, "Philosophy 101," we surveyed six major philosophers and came up with some modern-day applications / examples of their ideas. What you should do with this blog is review their ideas and pick which one you think has the most problematic views, whether their philosophy can apply to today, or if you think it doesn't make sense. Explain why.
I. Ancient Greece
A. Plato - he believed in the idea of the perfect form, that there is a perfect concept for everything (person, horse, chair, etc.) and that everything manmade or natural on Earth is an imperfect copy of that perfect form (In the picture to the left, you have a photo of a chair, a definition of a chair printed out, and an actual chair - each one is a chair but they each have different degrees of reality to them - the farther away from the ideal form they are, the less perfect they are).
- Plato felt that achieving this perfection would be impossible but it would be important to live a good life by striving for perfection.
B. Aristotle - Some of his ideas included deductive reasoning (that we might see in cop/mystery movies or forensics TV shows), the Golden Mean (choosing between two extremes), and the feelings of catharsis or an emotional cleansing. Aristotle was also one of the first true scientists of the ancient era who had the means to study and catalogue numerous plants and animals.
- With the Golden Mean, Aristotle might feel today that a balance should be struck somewhere between being totally in touch with one's friends through social networking and cutting one's self off completely.
- Here's an interesting website about a concept called the Overton Window - the points along the scale (if you mapped out the spots between one extreme and another) at which the public is willing to accept an option.
II. Modern Philosophy
C. Rene Descartes - He is the father of modern philosophy and started many snowballs rolling downhill, but the one we focused on here was the idea of dualism, the mind and body are separate and not linked. An example the article gave was that if you died in a dream, you wouldn't die in actuality. Movies like The Matrix and Inception deal fully with this mind / body dualism. Descartes is also known for the statement "I think, therefore I am" in which in order to exist, you must first think. Quite a concept! (See link for a further elaboration on different types of dualism).
D. David Hume - This Scottish philosopher improved upon some of Descares' ideas like skepticism (that we cannot truly ever be sure of something b/c it might not reoccur - the article uses the example of a bottle breaking when knocked off of a table). Part of the reason that this type of skepticism exists is b/c of the randomness of life and the infinite number of variables that play into it (later to be called the chaos theory in Jurassic Park or the butterfly effect). Lastly, there's the post hoc fallacy, or to believe that because we see two things occur together, one must have caused the other. Let us say that one morning I get up and turn my coffee machine on, but at the same time, the dishwasher starts up. Does that mean that X (turning coffee machine on) causes Y (dishwasher turns on)? No, not necessarily.
E. Immanuel Kant - One of his biggest ideas was the categorical imperative, or in other words, putting yourself to a moral test for each of your actions. You should consider what would happen if everyone followed your course of actions and how that would impact society. Applying this standard to all of your actions would be the key to living a righteous life. If you cheat on taxes, then you are expecting everyone to cheat on their taxes.
- Also, perception matters, and it differs for everyone. We can never fully perceive what we perceive b/c we are not that object which we perceive.
F. Georg Hegel - Hegel had an idea that had been around for awhile but he refined it to something called absolute spirit - a network that connected every thing to ideas, people and other things around the universe. Hegel also came up with an idea called zeitgeist(German for time-spirit) where peoples' thoughts are guided by the political and cultural atmosphere of a specific time in history. For instance, our time period represented the angry Populist revolt, originally seen in the 1890s when farmers revolted against big business and economic inequality, is seen today in the Tea Party or Trump populism or the left-wing populism of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Your Job: Pick one of these philosophers and critique his major ideas. Make sure you include some details and explanation from the article (and Google Doc notes that we compiled) in your response.
I. Ancient Greece
A. Plato - he believed in the idea of the perfect form, that there is a perfect concept for everything (person, horse, chair, etc.) and that everything manmade or natural on Earth is an imperfect copy of that perfect form (In the picture to the left, you have a photo of a chair, a definition of a chair printed out, and an actual chair - each one is a chair but they each have different degrees of reality to them - the farther away from the ideal form they are, the less perfect they are).
- Plato felt that achieving this perfection would be impossible but it would be important to live a good life by striving for perfection.
B. Aristotle - Some of his ideas included deductive reasoning (that we might see in cop/mystery movies or forensics TV shows), the Golden Mean (choosing between two extremes), and the feelings of catharsis or an emotional cleansing. Aristotle was also one of the first true scientists of the ancient era who had the means to study and catalogue numerous plants and animals.
- With the Golden Mean, Aristotle might feel today that a balance should be struck somewhere between being totally in touch with one's friends through social networking and cutting one's self off completely.
- Here's an interesting website about a concept called the Overton Window - the points along the scale (if you mapped out the spots between one extreme and another) at which the public is willing to accept an option.
II. Modern Philosophy
C. Rene Descartes - He is the father of modern philosophy and started many snowballs rolling downhill, but the one we focused on here was the idea of dualism, the mind and body are separate and not linked. An example the article gave was that if you died in a dream, you wouldn't die in actuality. Movies like The Matrix and Inception deal fully with this mind / body dualism. Descartes is also known for the statement "I think, therefore I am" in which in order to exist, you must first think. Quite a concept! (See link for a further elaboration on different types of dualism).
D. David Hume - This Scottish philosopher improved upon some of Descares' ideas like skepticism (that we cannot truly ever be sure of something b/c it might not reoccur - the article uses the example of a bottle breaking when knocked off of a table). Part of the reason that this type of skepticism exists is b/c of the randomness of life and the infinite number of variables that play into it (later to be called the chaos theory in Jurassic Park or the butterfly effect). Lastly, there's the post hoc fallacy, or to believe that because we see two things occur together, one must have caused the other. Let us say that one morning I get up and turn my coffee machine on, but at the same time, the dishwasher starts up. Does that mean that X (turning coffee machine on) causes Y (dishwasher turns on)? No, not necessarily.
E. Immanuel Kant - One of his biggest ideas was the categorical imperative, or in other words, putting yourself to a moral test for each of your actions. You should consider what would happen if everyone followed your course of actions and how that would impact society. Applying this standard to all of your actions would be the key to living a righteous life. If you cheat on taxes, then you are expecting everyone to cheat on their taxes.
- Also, perception matters, and it differs for everyone. We can never fully perceive what we perceive b/c we are not that object which we perceive.
F. Georg Hegel - Hegel had an idea that had been around for awhile but he refined it to something called absolute spirit - a network that connected every thing to ideas, people and other things around the universe. Hegel also came up with an idea called zeitgeist(German for time-spirit) where peoples' thoughts are guided by the political and cultural atmosphere of a specific time in history. For instance, our time period represented the angry Populist revolt, originally seen in the 1890s when farmers revolted against big business and economic inequality, is seen today in the Tea Party or Trump populism or the left-wing populism of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Your Job: Pick one of these philosophers and critique his major ideas. Make sure you include some details and explanation from the article (and Google Doc notes that we compiled) in your response.
Minimum 300 words for your answer. Due Wednesday 3/20 by the beginning of class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)