Blog #112 - The Truman Show

I recently re-watched The Truman Show this week, and I thought, wow!  The ethical dilemmas; the allegory of the cave comparisons; Christof as the Evil Genius; a prediction of how far Reality TV could go; the blurring of the lines between reality and fiction.  

According to the website, The Take, it breaks down one of the film's biggest philosophical influences: 

"The most significant influence behind The Truman Show is the work of Jean Baudrillard, the famous French sociologist, philosopher and postmodern theorist. His most famous work, the 1981 philosophical treatise Simulation and Simulacra, focuses on the relationship between reality, symbols and society — not unlike the topics explored in The Truman Show. From this work emerged Baudrillard’s theory of hyperreality, which Baudrillard defines as the “inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, especially in technologically advanced postmodern societies.” Truman’s world is a concrete example of a hyperreality, as it’s a simulation of a world that is seemingly real but does not actually exist. The key to the hyperreality of The Truman Show is its apparent authenticity, as every element within Truman’s world is designed to copy the appearance of the real one. It’s this replication of the appearances of reality that continuously tricks Truman, preventing him from learning the truth for decades and blurring the line between reality and fiction." 

https://the-take.com/read/how-does-the-truman-show-relate-to-the-works-of-jean-baudrillard#:~:text=Quick%20Answer%3A%20The%20Truman%20Show,but%20does%20not%20actually%20exist.

Apparently, with the spread of Reality TV, most of which happened AFTER this movie, a new mental disorder was actually named after Truman Burbank,The Truman Show delusion, in which someone thinks that their entire life is being staged for a TV show or that they're being watched on camera.  

Casting Jim Carrey in this role was also a huge risk in 1998, given that he was almost exclusively known as an over-the-top comedic actor, famous for roles in Ace Ventura, The Mask, Dumb and Dumber, The Cable Guy, and Liar, Liar.    I think that he had done an amazing job of giving Truman humanity and rebellion.  

There's also the allegory of the cave aspect of the film - after learning about it and watching this film, Truman's soundstage is literally a cave that simulates reality.  In fact, Plato envisioned the prisoners in the cave as not really seeing reality but shadows on the wall.  Is this much different than The Truman Show?   

Questions to answer (Pick 3 to do, you must include #6): 

1. How close to the allegory of the cave was The Truman Show?  Is it truer to the allegory than the Matrix or Free Guy?  Where is The Truman Show the closest to the allegory?  Where does it fall short the most?  Explain why.  

2. How did the Truman Show anticipate what Reality TV would become in the next 25 years?  Explain.  

3. What are your thoughts about the ethics of Truman being the first human being owned by a corporation?  In some weird way, are employees "owned" by their employers with the salary / wages that they pay their employees?  Is this metaphorical slavery?  Explain.  

4. How much does Christof act as Descartes' Evil Genius?  And of course,how is Christof NOT like the Evil Genius? 

5. Throughout the film, you see the audiences are extremely invested in the show, which would explain why the show had run for almost 30 years, complete with the sale of props and products from the show.  Right as the film (and the show) ended, though, the security guards were already asking about what was next.  What is the filmmaker saying with that final scene?  

6.  If there is any film that screams for a sequel, this is one.  What do you think happens next once Truman leaves the set (and, in essence, his whole life) behind?  

300 minimum words total for all three answers.  Due Tuesday night, June 6, by 11:59 p.m. 

An essay on The Truman Show and philosophy - https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/The_Truman_Show 

Blog #111 - Groundhog Day and the Eternal Return

Phil Connors, the cynical TV reporter (played by Bill Murray) and central character of Groundhog Day, is tasked with doing a lame assignment to report on the annual Groundhog Day tradition.  What he finds out is that he is forced to relive this day over and over again, much to his horror.  Then he finds ways to take advantage of his circumstances, but after he's exhausted all of those ideas, he falls into despondency and attempts suicide.  It seems that the universe is sending Phil a message, and he is just not getting it.  

This article sums up the philosophical underpinnings of this classic 1993 comedy: 

"It’s Groundhog Day, again! The popular film explored an idea that religion and philosophy had previously grappled with: What if time isn’t linear, but cyclical? What if we are condemned to relive our lives again and again, to eternity? Groundhog Day presents this possibility as a challenge but also an opportunity: to imagine what the best versions of ourselves could be, even if the world around us remained the same. Nietzsche, on the other hand, imagined an eternal recurrence in which nothing changed, every little detail of our lives was relived in exactly the same way, for eternity. He recognized the idea was terrifying, but he also saw it as an exercise in affirming our existence, even the most horrible aspects of it." 

https://iai.tv/articles/groundhog-day-vs-nietzsche-reliving-your-life-auid-2040#:~:text=In%20this%20way%20Groundhog%20Day,life%20without%20consequence%20with%20meaning.

Questions after watching Groundhog Day: 

1. Compared to Edge of Tomorrow, which movie best exemplifies Nietzsche's intention about the eternal return (highlighted in red above)?  Why?  

2. What is the filmmaker's message concerning Phil and his behavior?  Explain using specific examples from the film.  

3. Why do you think movies that use the time loop like Groundhog Day are so popular and keep getting made?  See the list of movies doing this here - https://collider.com/palm-springs-best-time-loop-movies-to-binge-over-groundhog-day/#39-the-final-girls-39-2015 

300 minimum words for all three of your answers.  Due by Friday night, June 2 at 11:59 p.m.   

Blog #110 - Red Pill or Blue Pill?

 Which pill would you have taken and why?

Neo is offered the red pill and the blue pill by Morpheus in the opening act of the Matrix. The blue pill allows Neo to remain in the Matrix, in essence to go back to sleep and to remember this little encounter w/ Morpheus as a dream or "believe whatever you want to believe". The red pill allows Neo to stay in the "wonderland" and discover the truth.

I like this sentence from an essay about the Matrix b/c it captures the essence of the choice: 

"The question then is not about pills, but what they stand for in these circumstances. The question is asking us whether reality, truth, is worth pursuing."

I think since most if not all of you who are taking this class are taking this class b/c you want to dig deeper into life, you are highly curious and intelligent and want to find out what is out there, I think there's very very few who will NOT take the red pill.

So, when answering this question, consider the possible ramifications/consequences of choosing your pill.

• Are you content with knowing that you could die at any moment from those machines that are trying to kill you?
• What if Neo is NOT the One and you've sacrificed yourself for nothing?
• Obviously, if you choose the blue pill and you go back into the Matrix, would you be able to live w/ yourself w/ the knowledge that you had the answers at your fingertips and you let them go (for whatever reasons - fear, apathy, etc.)?

So, when choosing, choose wisely and consider the consequences of your actions.

350 words minimum.  Post your answers here below (Comments).  Due Wednesday, May 31 by 11:59 p.m.  

Please read this article and make some references to it in your answer: https://www.wired.com/story/matrix-red-pill-vs-blue-pill/  

Also, in the past few years, the term, red pill, has taken on a whole new meaning in masculinity circles.  Here's an article about that - https://hypebae.com/2022/10/tiktok-video-red-pill-blue-pill-matrix-andrew-tate-lil-nas-x  

Blog #109 - Some thoughts about 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..." 

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 plot holes 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.  400 words minimum for your total comment.   Due Wednesday, May 10 by 11:59 p.m.  

Blog #108 - Hellenism in 2023

 I kept wondering how Hellenistic philosophy applied to today's world as we briefly discussed it this week.  I didn't have a lot of time to really go in depth with it, so I included summaries and bumper sticker slogans that could apply, but I still didn't feel like it was enough.  So, I thought, why not dig into these different schools of thought on the blog?

First, Epicureans - as we explore most philosophy (and most likely religions as well), there seems to be a denial of pleasure or the association that pleasure is at best, a necessary evil. The philosopher, Epicurus, said that the "best sort of life...is one that is free from pain in the body and from disturbance in the mind."  That sounds a rather interesting take for a 21st-century devotee of the good life.  There are so many pleasures out there in life that we have been told to stay away from or "wait until you're older."  But as we become adults, there are fewer restrictions on indulging your every whim (besides your personal limits of money and time and maintaining a job that gives you that money!).  What's to stop you from partying every night?  And, in fact, Epicurus "condemned all forms of over-indulgence, and recommended a simple diet."  But, as you become an adult and temptations increase, where do you draw the line?  Was Epicurus right to withdraw into his garden with friends and live a simple life of pleasure, friendship, and discussion of ideas?  How can that work in today's fast-paced, interconnected society?  Do you pull a Henry David Thoreau on everyone and go to live in the woods, simply?  Or is there some spot in between completing dropping out and total hedonism? 

Stoicism - When I think of this, I thought of the British palace guards who tourists like to mess with and try to get them to smile.  But stoicism is much more than that, especially when dealing with such an uncertain, unpredictable, and violent world.  This particular quote from Marcus Aurelius, one of the last great Roman emperors, could fit perfectly in our time period:

“I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill… I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman…” - Marcus Aurelius

 

Stoicism doesn't mean standing idly by while crazy stuff happens.  I think, in many ways, it has to do with the ways in which you react (or don't react) to all the sensationalist news, Chicken-Littles, and Boys-Who-Cried-Wolf out there in the media.  If we believed everything we saw and heard about our world that's dangerous, we'd never get our kids immunized for fear of them getting autism, we'd never buy certain brands of products b/c of an email circulating the globe about the product's danger, and we'd certainly never leave the house for fear of being gunned down by an incel with an AR-15 that he purchased legally once he turned 18. 

This article, "The Modern Wimp's Introduction to Stoicism", is rather crude but funny and tries to dispel the notion that being stoic means not flinching when boys get punched in the groin: http://www.primermagazine.com/2010/live/introduction-to-stoicism 

Here is a great website that delves deeply into stoicism with 5 recommendations to help you "be more calm and wise": https://www.bfi.co.id/en/blog/stoikisme-aliran-filsafat-yang-membuat-hidup-lebih-tenang-dan-bijak 

 - However, as Stoics, do we ignore all of the warnings out there about impending doom?  Too many people ignored the oncoming freight train of death that was attached to the subprime mortgage bubble, and you see where that got us in 2008 - The Great Recession.  Too many people were busy making too much money between 1999-2007 to listen to the Pollyannas saying, "hold on a minute!  This isn't a good idea."  And sometimes, sifting through the town crier's messages, aren't their messages just a call for moderation?  Or to bring it up to the modern day - were the people who refused to wear masks or get a vaccine during the height of the COVID pandemic being stoic?  Or were they letting fear get the best of them?  Or was there something else motivating them to resist things that could literally keep them safe and prevent their death?  

On another subject, if global warming isn't happening exactly as Al Gore said it would, what's wrong with cutting back on our dependence on foreign oil and driving more fuel-efficient cars?  What's wrong with getting involved more with the 3 Rs - recycle, reuse, and reduce?  I don't know who is correct in the global warming debate (I am utterly convinced that some people are arguing in bad faith on this topic), but there can't be anything wrong w/ America reducing its carbon footprint. 

Cynics - the ancient Greeks who followed this school of thought often rejcted materialism and strove to live life simply. Cynics today, however, at least the word cynic, generally dismiss peoples' good intentions as having ulterior motives. There is a strain of persistent disbelief and irrational thought that is embedded in the cynical outlook today. With the number of politicians and celebrities that have lied to us while embracing contradictory beliefs or actions, or with corporations saying one thing and doing the other, and our government failing to follow through with its promises, it's no wonder many Americans have become full blown cynics (using the modern sense of the word) and lost faith in American traditions and institutions.

 - Has cynicism led to an unhealthy belief in conspiracy theories?  When common sense or persistent, reasoned questioing can poke holes in most of the conspiracies almost immediately, why do the conspiracy theories still continue to remain alive?  Should we believe in our politicians and leaders and their promises, or just expect them to let us down again?  

 

Some comments in this paragraph come from: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-cynicism.htm

Skeptics - this school is probably the most easily applicable to today's world because of our almost religious belief and confidence in modern science, which practically demands a minimally and healthy skeptical viewpoint of the world.  And in many ways, having a healthy skepticism is helpful for a scientist, philosopher, and in general, being an intelligent human being with all the flood of bogus news out there. 

Where skepticism differs from cynics is that with cynics, you've already lost before the battle has begun.  You will not be able to convince your cynical opponent, rhetorical or otherwise, of any good intentions, etc.  If you win, the cynic will probably claim that the game was rigged, and if they win, you weren't a worthy opponent (can you tell that I argue with trolls on the internet?)

I believe that a healthy skepticism in today's life means many things, but I find it hard to explain it w/o resorting to cliches.  "I'll see it when I believe it."   "Proof is in the pudding." 

Craig Damrauer's print from "Modern Art" which
I think sums up the art cynic in all of us.

However, I always leave room for belief if something has been proven correct.  This can extend to just about anything in my life. And to be honest, if I am skeptical about something and my skepticism is proven wrong or unfounded, I will admit that I was wrong (and that I should be allowed to change my mind).  I just wish more people had the confidence to do this.  

Your job: Pick one of the four Hellenist schools of thought and explain in 300 words or more how it applies to your life.  If you're having trouble just sticking to one school of thought, or you take issue with something I've said here, then by all means, jump into the fray! 

Due Saturday night, April 22 by 11:59 p.m. 

Blog #107 - How well does Guy fit the prisoner in Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

 

So we discussed a llittle bit of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, which he used in The Republic (his most famous philosophical work and a book I had to read as a freshman in college - which I was not ready for and should reread when I get some time this summer).  The Allegory fits for so many things, as seen in the illustrated handout on Plato's ideas that I gave to you - it can be about how mankind learns, and it can be about how humans perceive the material world (in the cave) vs. in the idealistic world (the realm of the Forms). But today, it can be used or wielded as a criticism of the dramatic tendency of people to live in the worlds they choose to see on their screeens.  The video above is a different one than the one we saw in class (that is located in Schoology if you need a refresher) and also how the Allegory has been used in popular culture recently (feel free to reference the stuff in this video for Connection to the Real World Discussion #2 due next Thursday night).  

So I was initially drawn to Free Guy because I am a huge fan of Ryan Reynolds and his work, but as I initially watched the movie, I started thinking that the movie could be the screenwriter's and director's takes on the Allegory of the Cave (and truthfully, I wanted to find an alternative to the two movies that I have been rotating for the past ten years to illustrate the Allegory - The Matrix and Source Code).  Yes, it is a subversive satire about our online world that many of us dabble in or visit on a regular basis and all of the people who profit or comment on it.    Is it a critique of corporate capitalism and the fawning belief in our tech wonder bois as represented by Antwan?  Absolutely.  Does the movie use the stereotype of the Black Best Friend as shown in Buddy, the bank security guard?  Unfortunately.  Is the film a celebration or warning about the potentials of AI?  Debatable.  Is it a perfect fit for the Allegory?  Yes, but maybe no too.  

So, after we finish watching the movie, I would like you to analyze the following with specific references to the movie AND the Allegory: 

1. In what ways (minimum of 2) does any aspect of Free Guy fit the Allegory of the Cave?  How close of a fit are your examples and why?  Provide specifics.  

2. In what ways (minimum of 2) does any aspect of Free Guy NOT fit the Allegory of the Cave?  Why do your examples not fit the Allegory?  Provide specifics.  

Minimum 400 words total for your answers.  Due Monday night, April 10th by midnight.  

(If you missed Free Guy or a portion of it, the film is available on Disney+ and HBO Max).  

Articles: 

Every Philosophical Construct Free Guy Tackles With Video Games - https://www.cbr.com/free-guy-philosophy-explained/ 

The Philosophy of Free Guy: https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2021/11/25/the-philosophy-of-free-guy-film-2021/

The Irony of Movies About Taking Charge of Your Life: https://www.vox.com/22617231/free-guy-review-reynolds-truman-show 

Are We Living in a Simulation?  Look to Free Guy, not the Matrix:  https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/are-we-living-in-a-simulation-look-to-free-guy-not-the-matrix-for-answers-says-david-chalmers-1.6393525

Free Guy Wants to Help You Escape the Simulation: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/08/ryan-reynolds-shawn-levy-free-guy-simulation 

#106 - All Vibes with the Natural Philosophers

Please make sure you read the chapters, "Natural Philosophers" and "Democritus", pgs. 30-48 in order to do a great job answering the blog question.  Feel free to use the NP grid sheet and the NP handout as well.  

The natural philosophers discussed in these two chapters sought the answers as to what substance makes up our world and how to account for perceptible changes in life.

What was the substance of life?

- Was everything made of water as Thales stated? Or air in different combinations like Anaximenes commented? Or something called the"boundless"? Empedocles went further and felt that everything in life was a combo of 4 roots - earth, air, wind and fire (Avatar, the Last Airbender anyone?) - and that all things that have ever been and will ever be come from infinte variations of those roots. Anaxagoras was ahead of his time by envisioning material items being made up of tiny particles called "seeds."

- Or, as Democritus hypothesized, is life made up of immutable, tiny particles that are much like Lego pieces? The pieces are not all uniform in size and shape, and so that's what accounts for the infinite possibilities of these pieces he called "atoms".

What makes things change (or how do we explain he changes we experience w/ our senses)?

- Parmenides believed like all Greeks that nothing could come from nothing, and so things really didn't change. If he saw that the leaves were changing colors but his reason told him that nothing could really change, so what gives? Parmenides says that you can't trust your senses.

- Well, Heraclitus says Baloney! Everything's in flux, he says, but the thing that keeps everything whole is the logos or universal reason.

- Empedocles blended both permanence and change together with his 4 roots theory. Things change, but the roots are immutable and you can trust your senses.

One thing to keep in mind before you answer the following questions: These natural philosophers did all of this thinking and hypothesizing without the benefit of our current technology and theories.

Please answer these questions: 

1. Which of these natural philosophers do you most vibe with? Why?

2. Which of these natural philosophers is the most opposite of your personal views of life / universe? Why?

250 words minimum total for both answers - Due Wednesday, March 22 by the beginning of class.