Blog #58 - Take one thing away from our world...

After watching The Invention of Lying on Thurs. and Fri., we discussed what the true intentions of the movie were.

• Was it trying to show us that lying has its good points (little white lies, brutal honesty that numbs us to those in trouble around us, insults that should be better left unsaid)?;
• Was it a critique of religion as false hope? When Mark was on a TV interview show for a brief second at Anna's house, he looked and sounded like just another televangelist;
• Or did it show, even if religion may be a false hope (in the moviemakers' eyes), that hope is worth believing in b/c it gives the people in this world that their lives weren't for nothing (you're a loser on Earth and now you'll be rotting in the ground - geez, what's the point of life then? Look at Jonah Hill's character and his insistent research into suicide);
• Did the filmmakers add deliberate philosophical tie-ins with Nietzsche (bending reality to fit to one's will and lying creatively) or Christianity w/ Mark acting as a stand-in for God when he gave Anna the chance to love him on her own accord a few times (much like the Christian scholars have said that God gave mankind free will so that we can love Him on our own accord)? Though, I'm not sure what Mark sees in Anna...

So, your job is to think about something, just one single thing, that you would remove from our world in order to create a parallel world like the one in the movie so that this parallel world would somehow be better than our world.

Explain how your new world would be different, and try to be imaginative by thinking of both the positives and negatives. Don't be discouraged if someone has already taken your idea. Build on what they've already written or go off in a different direction or rethink your approach.

Try to stick to one thing - I know it will be difficult, but please try. 

250 words by Monday, March 4 by class. 

Sources:

Negative review of Invention: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/9910/weekend-box-office-anti-religion-invention-of-lying-awesome-zombieland-butch-feminist-whip-it-mikey-moore-agit-prop/

Another review of Invention from the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/10/12/091012crci_cinema_lane

Another one from the L.A. Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/02/entertainment/et-lying2

Blog #57 - Nietzsche's Philosophy

According to French philosopher, Luc Ferry, the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche is the zenith or pinnacle of Postmodern thought.  By this, Ferry means that Nietzsche tried to destroy two modernist convictions: 1. the belief that mankind is at the center of our moral and political world; 2. reason is the "irresistible force for emancipation and progress...we are going to become ever freer and happier (Ferry)."

"Improve mankind?  That is the last thing that I of all people will promise to do.  Don't expect new idols from me; let the old idols learn what it costs to have feet of clay.  To overthrow idols - my world for "ideals" - that rather is my business" - Nietzsche

Before the Enlightenment, modern science (by modern, I mean heliocentric world, Copernicus and onward) had taken away a lot of the mystery of the cosmos and also weakened religious authority by giving us explanations for why things occurred.  During the Enlightenment, we read that some of the leading thinkers became deists (belief in the clockmaker God) because they had a difficult time believing in God who intervened in human affairs.  Democracy and freedom were the ways of the future and considered signs of progress. 

"God is dead" - religion
Nietzsche, on the other hand, was ready to destroy.  he felt that all ideals, religious or other-wise, insisted on assuming a here-after that is better than what we have now.  Conservatives would be skewered by Nietzsche because they believe that we can learn from the past to improve tomorrow.  Liberals would also fall under Nietzsche's hammer because they tend to foster progress as a goal for a better, future society.   For FN, nothing exists outside our reality, no heaven or hell, and all of our ideals - he feels - of politics, ethics, and religion are "fables that turn their back on life prior to turning against life (Ferry)."  He is famous for stating "God is dead" because he felt that we can't learn anything from religion.  He is not a systems builder like Plato, Descartes, or Berkeley.  He is a systems destroyer for the sake of making a stronger society that doesn't coddle the weak or follow the herd mentality. 

Behind every value and every ideal, Nietzsche found hidden judgements.  There is no objective or disinterested view point b/c everything, everyone has a bias from which they judge life.  All of our "judgements, all our utterances, all the sentences we employ, all our ideas, are expressions of our vital energies, emanations of our inner life and in no sense abstract entities, autonomous and independent of the forces within (Ferry)."  And since philosophers want to examine what's behind the curtain, what they will find, in FN's opinion, is a void. 

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche

Art and the Meaning of Life
Since there's a void or an abyss that Nietzsche talks of, trying to impose reason on this chaos of varying opinions and values is a waste of time.  One of the only ways to make sense of the world is to be creative, to construct your life as a piece of art.  For him, self-expression was the meaning of life.  More important than reason were passion, love of adventure, artistic creativity, and an effort to go beyond rational principles.  If a creative individual rejects the disintegration and decadence of modern society, the rules of that society should no longer apply.  There's no need to justify an artist's principles, because he / she is attempting to refute the works of art that came before him/her. 

Morality

Lastly, Nietzsche's philosophy includes something called a master - slave morality.  Published in The Genealogy of Morality, he says that we've forgotten the morality of the past, where things used to be judged by the consequences of an action, and not the utilitarian idea of whether or not an action is useful.  Master morality is determined by what is noble, courageous, truthfulness and creativity - that is good.  What is bad in the Master Morality is weak, cowardly, timid, and petty.  The noble man knows morals as "what is harmful to me is harmful to society." 

Slave morality, on the other hand, is a reaction to oppression, it villanizes the oppressors and in many ways is the opposite of master morality. Slave morality is pessimistic and cynical and tries to subvert master morality.  What is best for the society is "good," not what is good for the strong.  Christianity and democracy are part of this slave morality -- turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity.  Since the strong and noble are few in numbers, according to Nietzsche, the slaves / weak convince them that slavery is wrong.  Democracy is the high point of slave morality b/c of its "obsession" with equality and freedom. 


Pick one of the three areas that Nietzsche expounds upon (religion, art/meaning of life, and morality) and discuss whether or not you agree with him and why.  Some of these positions have pitfalls if they're applied today, but maybe that's what he wanted. 

Due Friday night by 11:59 p.m. (February 15th).
250 words minimum. 

Blog #56 - Interpretations of Inception

Here are several interepretations of the movie.  Your job is to read over the blog and pick two to talk about.  You don't have to agree with them: you can pick them apart with evidence from the movie. 

Questions to choose from (pick two):

1. Near the end, Mal (or her projection) in limbo makes a pretty good case that Cobb is lost in his own dream and can't tell one reality from another. Do you think that this is a plausible alternative?  Why or why not? 

2. This blog from Moviefone.com outlines six different interpretations of the film (and also five plot holes - see next question). Read it for more details on each of the six interpretations, but I'll just list each of them below. We have talked about some of them in class.

** If you decide to tackle more than one interpretation of Inception, this will count as your two questions.

a. All of Inception is a dream - are we ever really shown reality? Whose dream is it, anyway?

b. Everything after the test sedation is a dream - after Yusuf's chemical test, do we see Cobb spin his totem and see it fall properly?

c. Saito is the architect and pulls a Mr. Charles gambit on Cobb - instead of a job audition like Saito said, maybe Saito is trying to extract something from Cobb?

d. Ariadne is Cobb's therapist trying to help him get over Mal's death - This is an interesting and plausible take on the movie - found here http://halphillips.tumblr.com/post/822919795/inception

e. We do see reality in the movie (first train ride in Japan, Paris, Mombasa), but Cobb is in a dream at the end - could this explain why the totem never falls at the end of the movie? This interpretation apparently hinges on the idea that the children don't appear to have aged. Plus, we don't see how Saito and Cobb get out of limbo.

f. What we see is what we get - that we are presented with a reality at the beginning of the movie (train ride in Japan) and that Cobb is back in the U.S. at the end of the movie.


3. What do you think were the movie's biggest plot holes? We had discussed a few, and I wasn't satisfied with a couple of the answers - which sounded like filmmakers' excuses instead of decent rationales. Provide one or two examples (you might want to read the blog link mentioned at the beginning of question #2 to help you out if you forgot) and explain how these holes do or don't affect the movie.


4. Evil genius theory - we had discussed this in class and it didn't get much traction, but I wonder if it's possible to show that either Saito, Mal or Cobb could be the evil genius manipulating everything we're seeing. Or could it be the film maker Christopher Nolan?



5. Is Inception really just an extended metaphor for films? In a previous blog from last semester, I posted a link from Wired, and I traced it back to its source, so I'll quote the author's take on Nolan's film:

"The film is a metaphor for the way that Nolan as a director works, and what he’s ultimately saying is that the catharsis found in a dream is as real as the catharsis found in a movie is as real as the catharsis found in life. Inception is about making movies, and cinema is the shared dream that truly interests the director."

Here's a link to the whole post: http://www.chud.com/24477/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/


My question is, do you buy this interpretation of the movie? Why or why not? What kind of implication does it have for us as film watchers - this shared "dream space" of watching a movie together? Did Christopher Nolan just perform inception on all of us because it's now an idea, like a parasite that won't go away? :)



6. Comparing the dream/reality rules in Inception and (if you've seen) The Matrix, why do you think they're vastly different? How does Descartes' dualistic theory about the mind and body being separated work for one movie but not the other?

7. When Saito asks Cobb to take a leap of faith, he's asking Cobb to believe in him and Saito's ability to fix Cobb's problems. In some ways, Saito almost acts like a deity in this movie because through him, almost everything is engineered to work. He is the Prime Mover or causal agent - Cobb and his team are sent on their mission because they failed to extract vital info from Saito for Cobol Engineering. They are tasked to help destroy Saito's biggest competitor (Fischer), and when it's all said and done, Saito returns from limbo after many many years (remember, Mal and Cobb didn't look like they had aged when the train ran them over after just 50 yrs together, but Saito was wrinkled and withered) and supposedly sweeps away Cobb's murder warrant. What is Saito, really? Is he just a very powerful man or is he something else? Why?

8. Those of you with AP Psych experience, help us out on some of the brain / dream logistics. The way that they explain the dream rules in the movie sound plausible, but what is realistic w/ regards to dreams? Shared dream space isn't possible, is it? Any other psych insights would be greatly appreciated here.

9. Arthur mentioned it briefly on how the technology for the shared dreaming was created - by the military so that soldiers could fight/kill each other without truly maiming themselves in reality. Plus, the character played by Michael Caine, Mal's father, seems to have been the one who taught Cobb how to do what he could do. In many ways, I sense the hints of a "prequel," not a sequel for this movie. Unlike the Matrix (which probably should have been left alone instead of having 2 sequels), it might be interesting to explore how the technology for this type of thing was developed and most likely stolen. If it takes 10 years in between movies like it did with Toy Story or Tron, then so be it. What kinds of possibilities do you see in a prequel or, even if you don't agree with me, a sequel?

Some additional points and counterpoints to theories in the movie - http://inceptiontheories.com/inception-theories-points-counterpoints/

Due Friday, January 18, 2013 by class.  300 words minimum total for both interpretations.

Blog #55 - Which Hellenist philosophy works for you?

I kept wondering how Hellenistic philosophy applied to today's world as we briefly discussed it on Wednesday.  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 this school 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 negative credo 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."  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?  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 something in between completing dropping out and total hedonism?

I found an interesting article online: "Epicurus Exonerated": http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/epicurus-exonerated  All the quotes above are from this article. 

Stoicism - When I think of this, I mentioned 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, 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. 

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 

This article talks about how to be stoic: http://www.stoics.fsnet.co.uk/#BeStoical 

 - However, 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.  Too many people were busy making too much money to listen to the Pollyannas saying, "hold on a minute!"  And sometimes, sifting through the town crier's messages, isn't there just the call for moderation?  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, nor do I care, 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 can lie in the cynical outlook today. With the number of politicians and celebrities that have lied to us while embracing the opposite of what they hold dear, while corporations say one thing and do the other, and our government fails to follow through on its promises, it's no wonder Americans didn't become full blown cynics before the Vietnam War and Watergate in the 1960s and 70s.

 - 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 they still continue to stay 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 in modern science, which practically demands a 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 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.

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.  I sometimes fear that skeptics have been cast as those who don't believe in anything, and maybe that is where the confusion lies w/ cynicism. 


Your job: Pick one of the four Hellenist schools of thought and explain in 250 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!

Blog #54 - Plato's Ideal State - Would it work today?

We've spent a little more time on Plato's ideal society this semester than I have in past semesters; maybe b/c this time around the world seems to be crumbling around us with roiling stock markets and the Big 3 impending collapse. Where better to look than the past when the future looks so bleak, right? Well, maybe we can learn something.

Several criticisms were brought up of this ideal society:

1. Where would the innovation come from if everyone be content? Doesn't innovation come from competition and competition come from peoples' desire to be better?

2. Why do they need soldiers if everyone is content? Is it just for protection from other city-states? Or, did Plato ever intend for this city to exist? If that is the case, why are the soldiers really there?

3. What kind of guarantee is there that the philosophers will rule in everyone's best interests? Is there an impeachment process? Can the peasants overthrow the rulers?

4. In the interests of specialization, what if you get bored with your job? What if you don't want that job? What if that job that you do best is NOT something you love doing? To use an example from 4th hour, I might do math really well, but that doesn't mean I want to be an accountant.

5. Is there no social mobility? What if we don't like the class that we're born into?

This link http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2g.htm gives a good, brief synopsis of the first four books of the Republic in which this society is described. I have countered many of these arguments in a devil's advocate style by appealing to one of Socrates' universal questions - courage, justice, virtue, wisdom, moderation, beauty.

The question before you is: Can Plato's society be fixed to make it more ideal to fit a 21st century American audience? Why or why not?

Things to ponder while answering this question: Is Plato's society so incompatible with American ideals and tastes and traditions that it cannot be fixed?  Can Plato's society work for people of another country? What would you have to fix in order for it to work in America? Could it work on a national or state level or could it only work on a small scale? If it only works on a small scale, what's the use?

 - Also, are Americans too individualistic to give up some of our freedoms or luxuries for the greater good of society.  This will be a topic - the greater good vs. the desires of the individual - as we go on through the semester.  

250 word minimum response.  Due Thursday, Dec. 13 by class time.

Also, new philosophy books in our school media center:
      
       

     

Enjoy!

INCOMING!!! - Asteroids, and what to do about them

I thought to myself, what if there was an asteroid / extinction event barreling down on us, what would we do as a people in our last few days, months, years? Phil Plait from TED has an interesting look at that scenario below:

In Time - Extra Credit

"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 in 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.



The rich, on the other hand, are trapped in a different kind of gilded prison.  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, if you choose to accept it, is to 1. apply a 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.

+10 max extra credit.   
Due by Sunday, November 27.   

Blog #53 - 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. 

 - 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. 

- 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

  - 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

 - 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.

 - Would you be willing to be part of a genetic experiment that not only strengthened your muscles but prevented them from deteriorating with age?  Gene therapy can allow us to repair damaged cells but apparently scientists at the University of Penn have done such a thing with mice in 2004 - called "Mighty Mice."  This kind of therapy could help people with muscular dystrophy or ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease).  But could it also be abused by athletes and others looking for an edge, especially if they aren't injured?  Gene therapy doesn't usually show up on drug tests since it's supposed to be part of your natural body chemistry, so how do you know who's doping and who's not? 

 - 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? 

 - 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 tomorrow before class.  Thanks.  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

Michael Sandel and Justice

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Harvard ethics professor, Michael Sandel, on the Colbert Show.

Also, here's a link to the lecture on Kant (#6) that we watched in class. http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-06/#watch

Blog #52 - Blank Slate

The three statements we discussed revolved around the same issue (which I borrowed from Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature) - when we're born, how do we learn?

Statement #1 - The Blank Slate concept is still influential today - fairly divided the classes.  The BS idea influenced policies in education and politics today as students mentioned regardless of whether the concept was valid, but in 3rd hour wondered how DNA fit into the whole scheme.  Some of you asked - to knock the concept down - how do babies know how to roll over or lift their heads?  How do they know how to suck right away?   How could they have learned those skills if they've never had any interaction w/ other babies?   Babies are constant learning machines, but are they truly blank slates?

 - in Pinker's book, he discussed how the civil rights and women's equality movements cemented the BS concept further in the public's mind, because these movements showed that once treated equally, women and minorities would flourish like white men (hence, we're all equal). 

Statement #2 - Mankind is basically good but society corrupts him/her - this one was a lot tougher to decide upon b/c students could agree w/ part of the statement but disagree with another part.  It seemed that a group of people ended up in the "I Don't Know" category.  This concept has been influenced by the discovery of the New World and the comparison of the Native Americans to Europeans.  The Europeans, in their conceit, couldn't understand how the Native Americans seemed to live in relative peace and harmony (compared to the Europeans and their religious wars), and many philosophers and writers felt that it was a lack of civilization, society or religion that kept the Native Americans conflict-free.  Pinker states that this concept is called the Noble Savage.  Mankind is good, but that society or complex structures and forms, according to Jean Jacques Rousseau, are what finally corrupt mankind. 

 - However, many of you were focused on the romanticized version of sociopaths (Dexter, Hannibal Lector) when discussing good or bad.  Do our actions make us bad or are there just bad people?  Is selfishness bad?  What about self preservation?  In many ways, the phrase, "the apple doesn't fall from the tree" could apply - we follow our parents' lead when we're young until we actually forge our own value unique system.

Statement #3 - When we die, our essence or soul leaves our body - this divided the class like the 2nd statement, because some weren't sure whether or not we had a soul and wanted proof.  Also, we discussed what was someone's essence?  A memory held after the person was gone?  His/her impact on others?  Are we just renting our skin and bones while we're here (thanks, Switchfoot!)?  Some classmates mentioned the impact of ghost-like experiences as well as religion that have helped them through this difficult question.  Are we just worm food when we die or is there something more?

 - Pinker's concept here is called "ghost in the machine" after Gilbert Ryle's ideas about the mind and how Descartes approached mind / body dualism.

Pick one or more of these statements to add to the discussion.  Your answer is due by Thursday, October 27th before class begins.  Minimum of 250 words. 

Steven Pinker's website: http://stevenpinker.com/ 

How Babies Learn by Alison Gopnik

Blog #51 - Philosophical Interpretations of Inception

After reading a few chapters of the latest book that examines the intersection of pop culture and philosophy, Inception and Philosophy: Ideas to Die For, I thought to present a few of the interpretations of the movie.  Take a moment to look at each of these and pick one that you think fits the movie best.

1. Since the movie depends upon technology, the dreams aren't actually dreams but a computer simulated environment ("shared dreaming was created by the military so that soldiers could fight each other and not die") designed by an architect like Cobb or Ariadne. The biggest problem with these simulations is that there is a virus in it named Mal (mal-ware), and she has obviously screwed things up.  However, since such a machine / computer is so rare, it's hard to find or obtain a new one.  So, it's not like Cobb or Arthur can get a new one at Target. 

2. Rene Descartes' question - How - if at all - can we know whether the world we experience while we're awake is real or not? - really fries your noodle if you think about it too much.  So I am asking you to apply this question not only to yourself (part 1) but to the movie (part 2).  In the movie, the characters have totems to know whether or not they're dreaming.  But we don't have them to help us out, so how do we truly know?

3. In 1974, philosophy professor Robert Nozick came up with the thought experiment, "the experience machine" from his book,  Anarchy, State and Utopia.  Nozick asks us to think about a machine that would give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences that we could imagine (by plugging our brains into it - Matrix?) in a way that we could not distinguish between reality and this machine life.   Nozick asks, if given a choice, which would we prefer, the machine or real life? 

4. How is the movie a metaphor for skepticism / doubt / Socrates?  Socrates has stated that the only thing that he truly knows is that he knows nothing.  One of the consistent things about Inception is that the movie keeps its audience guessing as to what is the true level of reality - whose dream is real or is the movie's reality truly real?  If the movie keeps us guessing or making us doubt, can the movie/director act as a philosopher?

5. This tangent should truly be called an addendum to question #2 because it asks you to answer the unanswerable, but what if we were all just brains stuck in a jar full of nutrients that kept us alive, and much like the Matrix, that we are in some shared dreaming space or computer simulation?  In the album art below for Pearl Jam's BackSpacer by Tom Tomorrow, the band members are controlled by a vat in a jar. 

However, if the brain had ALWAYS been in the jar, according to Hilary Putnam's 1981 book, Reason, Truth, and History, would it have had any experiences like walking or eating an ice cream cone or playing in a sandbox?  No, Putnam claims, b/c the only things the brain could experience would be that of its vat-existence.  Or in essence, if you've never had any interaction or experience w/ the real world, then you can't really think thoughts about that world and tell whether or not those thoughts are real.  This is called the causal theory of reference. 

 - Do you agree with Putnam's dismissal of the brain in the vat theory?  Why or why not?  Or are you unsatisfied w/ this explanation?  Why?

Due Wednesday, October 19.  250 words minimum. 

Brain in a vat discussions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
Nozick's experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

Who's Your Philosopher? Teams

The teams are locked!  Let's get ready to rumble.......

1. Descartes - Asia, Patrick, Rebecca and Bria. 
2. Karl Marx - Leah S., Emily A., Charlie and Patrice. 
3. Ayn Rand - Emily N., Jake R., Rachel and Ryan S.
4. Immanuel Kant - Ryan W., Alan, Wes, Oran, Ari and Jack

5. Cicero - Amber, Leah D., Alexis T., Kiara, Philip, Courtney and Khadijah.
6. Galileo - Crystal, Angelina, Alexis B., Brittney, Cheyenne, Melissa and Ellie
7. John Locke - Sydnee, Jasmine, Alyssa, Simay, and Harry
8. Slavoj Zizek - Nick, Alex P., Nona, Claire, Elyse, and Simon.
9. Jean Paul Sartre - Will, David, Sam, Chelsee, Katie, and Jacob S.

Details and roles for this project will be coming by Monday.  Thanks.

The winners of your votes are....

29 votes cast in Pt. 1
1. St. Thomas Aquinas - 19 votes
2. Rene Descartes - 16 votes
3. John Locke - 21 votes
4. Karl Marx and Immanuel Kant - 9 votes each

31 votes cast in Pt. 2

5. Ayn Rand - 11 votes
6. Jean Paul Sartre - 9 votes
7. Slavoj Zizek - 11 votes.

Now we need to add a Natural Philosopher / Greek / Hellenist philosopher and Middle Ages scientist. 
Ancient dudes:
 - Plato
 - Aristotle
 - Democritus
 - Epicurus
 - Cicero
Middle Ages
 - Galileo
 - Newton
 
Please pick one for each. 

Blog #50 - The Adjustment Bureau

***DANGER - SPOILER ALERT - If you haven't seen The Adjustment Bureau but still want to, do not read any further. 

While we watched the Adjustment Bureau, I had several questions as did many of you. Here were a few of them:
1. Who was the Chairman? Did Norris and / or Elise see the Chairman during the film or was it earlier in their lifetimes before the film ever began?
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? 
3. Alexis and Cheyenne asked why there weren't any female adjusters.  I didn't have an answer for them as to that question.  I 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. Is Harry the Chairman?  Why or why not? 
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. 
6. 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 two of these questions and answer them for tomorrow, Wednesday, Oct. 5 before class begins. 

250 word minimum.  Thanks.