Tuesday, November 22, 2011

In Time Extra Credit Blog

1. apply a philosopher or philosophic concept to any part or parts of this movie that you find apply to this movie

In the movie, the main charecter is gifted with time, but did he ask for the time? No, he just recieved it without his consent and his life was flung into utter chaos from that moment on.  But instead of just sitting around and mulling over what to spend his time on, he decided that he was going to get up, go out, and act!  This type of attitude much resembles the attitude of existentialists.  Just like the main charecter in the movie existentialist's try to get up and do somthing with their life because they know if they waste it it will be over in a heartbeat.  Following this attitude the main charecter Lance Uppercut (I forgot his name so I will use a generic bad-ass name to replace it) goes on a rampage freeing time from the rich and giving it to the poor (Lance Uppercut acts like Robin Hood drank some prison wine and thought that he was father time).  In this journy Lance Uppercut then kidnaps Derpina McMoneybags, a daughter of a rich time mogul and relises that the rich act almost stoic.  With all the greenbacks and time that they have the rich do not truly understand happiness and emotions, because they have nothing to strive for, no rush to get things accomplished, and no need for emotions, if  they play it safe they live forever feeling indiffrently the whole time.

2. Find a weakness in the movie, whether it be in the plot, concept, etc. and explain why.

There were many many plotholes in this movie, and normally I am not one to complain about a movie, so I will not go into that much detail about the problems they had in this movie.  First they never explained how time became the currency.  This movie supposedly takes plase in the not so distant future, but how did they find the time (heh) and the rescources to lay down the infrastructure to make the time currency work?  Also I am a tad confused on who runs the governments, are there still diffrent countrys or are the time mogul's the central authority for the whole entire world?  All in all it was not a bad movie, but I would not consider it a good movie either.  I could go into all of the political undertones that take place or the other various plot holes in the movie but feel like what I wrote is enough (if I wrote about everything this blog would be thousands of words), SO im going to end this blog post here, TO THE MAX!

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Real World Connection 7

Im going to make this blog post about the movie In Time, because we never ended up using it as an extra credit blog post topic.  Its been a while sense I watched this movie, but its still pretty fresh in my mind because I have not seen any other movies sense then (except Sharktopus and Mega Piranha for sci- fi class).  After learning about existentialism in class I feel like this movie is based around it.  In the movie everyone has a timer that is counting down to their death, and unlike real life they are all aware that their life is going to end causing allot angst.  But the main character receives more time and realizes that he needs to act and spread the time around so everyone can be happy.  This is just like existentialism because he is getting up and acting, not just sitting around, and he is trying to get rid of the class differences, so everyone can have equal time and live long and happily.

Sophies World Number 7

As the trimester comes to a close, I finally finished reading the book Sophies World.  But after reading this book I feel like it was overly complicated and some of the book took away from the topics it was trying to convey.   Though this method did make the book a little bit more interesting to read and most of the shenanigans corresponded with the philosophers being taught in that section of the book, I feel like it should have been left out.  I think the book would have been much better as a teaching tool districts if in each section it talked about a philosopher and then had a short story explaining his beliefs instead of a long twisted story with short breaks to teach about different philosophers.   All in all I did not really enjoy reading this book, and I learned more from the in class notes than I did in this book.  But that is just my opinion, and other people probably enjoyed the book and learned alot more from it compared to the note taking.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Real World connection 5?

The other day in class we learned about how a philosopher named Jeremy Bentham who invented a new type of prison named Panopticon.  After hearing Patrick talk about those alot and learning about it in class I felt inclined to write about how Panopticon reminds me of how every day life is monitored.  Cameras are everywhere, some places they are watching you at all times and some places have fake camera domes, but you can never know if you are beeing watched or not.  This was the point of the Panopticon prison, to lower costs and lower crime in prisons.  And just like Panopticon I feel like CCTV is leading up to a sort of all seeing power.  In the US we do not have cameras everywhere but we do have intersection cameras ment to record people who run red lights.  I understand that, but what happens when cameras start to get added on all major streets and buildings and the regular world we are living in is effectively a Panopticon, where we can never truly feel safe and have privacy 

Sophies World connection #5?

In the book Sophies World we have learned about many great philosophers including Baruch Spinoza and Charles Darwin.  They both have different views on philosophy, one believes that god is in everything nature, there is a spark of divinity in everything, and we are all born devine/good.  But unlike Spinoza, Darwin went on a giant quest around the world to find many new species of plants and animals and research them.  Then using this research he came up with natural selection, evolution, and Darwinism.  I feel like if Spinoza and Darwin had a way to talk to each other they would get into a huge argument at first.  Each one would be trying to prove the other one wrong, but after arguing for a while they might believe both.  I think that Spinoza would come to terms with Darwin and decide that, evolution is a real thing and everything still has a spark of divinity.  I think that if this happened Spinoza would also be able to convince Darwin that everything has a spark of divinity in it to.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Sohpies World Connection Five

The further that I get in the book Sophies World, by Jostein Gaarder, the more that things are getting intense to the max!  (I felt the need to say intense to the max and I did not want to wait to say it).  While readingthe chapter Kierkegaard, the section where Alice showed up really caught my attention.  She offered Sophie a red bottle and a blue bottle that said "drink me".  The first one she drinks warps her peception and makes it seem like everything is one, this represents idealism, then she drinks the other bottle and once again everything warps and it seems like every object is a universe in itself, this represents individualism.  Idealism deals with the "world spirit" and the big picture, how everything works and fits together and how everything reacts to eachother.  Individualism deals with the small picture, and about each small part which creates the big one.  The way Sophies world warps which each one represents how you need a balance between the two to perceive everything normally, and how you cant just have one or the other because they both are closely related.

Real World Connection 5

About a week ago, in Sci Fi class, we were assigned "The Time Machine" by: H.G. Wells.  So, like every book that I get I started to read it immidiatly.  I ended up finishing it in two days, but I was very dissipointed with how dry of a story it was, also the plot seemed so familiar because over the years so much media has been produced that has been based off of this book.  The Time Traveler's story that he tells reminded me alot of a fairy tale and the types of media created during the Romanticism Era.  The way he tells it just makes it seem fake, like he is in controll, and he created the universe in which the story takes place.  I think it's partially because he did not expect anyone to believe him that he went on this journy.  This seems alot like how in sophies world where the book Alberto writes seems real, but very unreal at the same time.  All in all this was a boring book, and it could have been made to be much longer and interisting, but it seems to me that even in this dry boring book, tones of romantisiscm surface in it.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Hanna and Genetic Research Blog

Today we finished watching the movie in class, I missed the first half of it but I think I still got what was going on in the movie.  Basically Hanna is a genetically engineered human made to fight, which ties in with the question's we were assigned in this blog.

Question 1: what if you really loved your dog or cat and wanted one exactly like it?

If I was in this situation I would probably just accept that my animal is not going to live forever and I have to cherish the time that I have with it.  I do have to say that I love my dog and I would be devastated if I ever lost her, but I would not want another dog exactly like it.  Even if I got a clone of my dog that managed to look the same, even act the same and have the same personality, I still would know that it was not the same dog, its just a copy of it.  None of its memories, or the tricks that I thought it would be in this new dog, it would basically be an empty shell of my dog that I loved.

Question 2:Would you be willing to be part of a genetic experiment that not only strengthened your                            muscles but prevented them from deteriorating with age?

I definitely would take part in this experiment and I do not have any problem with it if it was implemented in to the current system and became widely available.  It would be great to never have to worry about deteriorating muscles with old age, I would be just as strong now, as I would when im 90, if not even stronger then.  But would you also live longer because your heart would never deteriorate either?  If that was the case then I would just consider that and added bonus, along with having stronger muscles.  I am in no way against this and I would be more than willing to have this done to me.

Question 3:if you had the chance (and it were possible), would you pick certain traits for your child before he/she was born?

No, I do not think that I would do that.  If I learned anything from the movie Gattaca I think it was that I do not want to fuel a geneticcly engineered society.  I would leave the traits for nature to decide, I think that having a geneticly modified  child I would be judged and ridiculed and so would the kid.

Question 3.5: Is this kind of genetic selection ethical?

(I seem to be stuck in italics in this font after copy pasting the ethic question and blogger refuses to change it)

No I do not think that this is ethical.  Just like in the movie Gattaca, the genetically modified people would have an unfair advantage over the natural born humans.  This may lead to them being discriminated and not even given the same rights (just like in gattaca).  If the only trait being changed though is disease prevention, then I would think that that may be ethical, but if you can pick all the traits, it is not ethical in my opinion at all.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Blank Slate Blog Post (V.2 because blogger is not the champ of all champs)

For the third time today I am re-writing a blog post that decided it was going to vanish.

Here is the chunk from our discussion

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

For this question I went to the undecided section in the classroom.  I had mixed feelings because I believed that the statement was only half true.  I do not agree that mankind is basically good, because good is just what we percieve it to be, and it is diffrent to every person.  The crazy person down the street building a bomb may think that he is doing "good" because he will cause chaos and destruction, while to many others that is considered evil.  But I do agree that society corrupts people.  Eveery day people strive to reach social norms and fit in with the crowd, thus corrupting them and making them do things that they might not normally do.  So as you can see I have mixed views foe the statement.

Now on to the second part of the questions|

I do not think that our actions make us bad, because "bad" just depends on the interpritation, and everyone does things without thinking about them at some point in time.  I do not think though that selfishness is bad.  Is it frowned upon, yes, but we are built to protect ourselves not others, so we always strive to have the most of everything, and be the best at everything.

Sophies World Connection 4 (V.2 because blogger decided it would erase it -_-)

Well, this is the second blog that I have to rewrite because blogger was acting very strangely, but this time I am writing it in word so I will have a backup if blogger does not like what I write.  (I am hoping this will work when pasted into blogger because the last one had color issues)

Once again its time for me to write a blog about the “wonderfully interesting” book called Sophie’s World.  I will admit that I have been mostly skimming through this book and jotting down a couple of notes but I have not been absorbing all of its information, because I usually read it in other classes.  

After reading over half of this book I want to know why “Sophie” did not think that the events of the first part of the book were as strange as they were.  I get that it was a book, but still I did not feel like Sophie reacted in a convincing way.  If a strange man started contacting me through envelopes with no postage I would probably alert the cops.  Then as it goes on she finds it perfectly normal that Alberto is creeping/stalking her and knows everything that she is doing.  I understand how this whole section fits in the book (within a book)  but I just feel like it was not written in the correct manner and could have been written to be allot more convincing and interesting.

Real World Connection Number 4 (V.2 rewritten because blogger does not like me)

This is the second time that I have had to write this blog besides blogger deleted all my recent entries when my Internet was being shotty.  
In this real world connection I will be talking about the book Ender’s Game by: Orson Scott Card
We started reading this book in Sci Fi, but I had already read it when I was much younger.  But as we started learning about the Blank Slate idea in philosophy I started to relate it to relate that to Ender’s Game.  In the book the main character Ender has a brother and sister.  But both the brother and the sister are personality extremes.  The government in the book only allows each family to have two children to control the population, but because Ender’s family genes are perfect to raise a great tactician, they let the family have a third child.  This ties in with the blank slate theory because all three of the children were raised with the same methods by the same parents.  Peter, Ender’s brother is much to violent and unstable , and Ender’s sister Valentine is much two timid and shy.  Ender is perfect though because he is a mixture of these traits, and he can relate to people, while being strong but not crazy and  violent.  If people truly were blank slates those raised under the same conditions would have the same personality's, and just like in real life, it is the same in this book and  everyone, even siblings have different personality's.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The Best Inception Blog Post Of All Time!

** SPOILER ALERT ** (maybe, read it and find out)

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?

(part 1) This movie made me relise that you cant really trust what is going on and you cant truley cant know if the things going on around you are real or not.  Maybe, we are still in a dream and when we go to bed at night we are just going into a deeper layer of dreams.  Or maybe even, what we think is reality is actually a dream and when we fall asleep we are actually waking up.  But, unlike in incption, we do not all carry around totems (maybe some of us do if they practice lucid dreaming and do reality checks) and we cant just check if the world is real or not, and it is impossible for us to ever find out.

(Part 2) Like I said in the first section, in inception the dreamers carry around totems.  They do this because to them they can use them as sort of a reality check and they can find out wether or not they are in a dream, no matter how realistic it is.  But people who practice lucid dreaming preform reality checks, such as looking in a mirror to make sure everything is the same, or breathing, (can you shut your mouth and nose and still breath).  With out these you cant really tell that you are dreaming, unless somthing unexpected happens.  But this movie also made my think, is our reeality actually real or not?

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Sophie's World Blog Numero Tres

In the book Sophies World, Sophie's starts to lose her grip on reality and starts to question everything around her, what is real and what is not.  Once again, like in our in class discussions, the movies Fight Club, the Matrix, Source Code Ect.  this is another piece of media that asks this question.  At first when reading this book I thought that Sophie was perfectly sane and the philosopher was just a stalker.  But as I reading I began to think that Sohpie's World is not actually the real world, she just thinks its reality.  I am beginning to think that she is somehow in a world (almost like a dream) that is run by the philosopher, where he controls everything and has the power to change everything.  But I feel like Sophie is real, just trapped inside someone else's fantasy.  The only way that I can be sure of what is happening is to finish reading the book itself!

Real World Connection 3 (aka I watched fight club for the first time)


After hearing so much about the movie Fight Club and how great it was I finally decided to watch it and see why everyone thought it was the bees knees.  During the first half of the movie, I was not impressed (I had extremely high expectations for this movie because I had heard how great it was), but as Tyler Durdan entered the picture it got allot more interesting.  Soon the narrators life was replaced with Tylers shenanigans and it seemed like as Tyler's world grew the narrators was being squeezed out of existence.  But then about 3/4 through the movie when you find out that the main character is Tyler, it gets extremely interisting.  This movie really got me thinking about reality.  Just like in Source Code, is your reality different from everybody else  and does that make it any less real?

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The Adjustment Bureau

For this blog post I will answer two questions about the adjustment bureau,  Is Harry the Chairman?  Why or why not? And 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? 

Is Harry the Chairman?

No, I do not think that harry is the chairman.  In the movie the chairman seems to be some mysterious entity that controls the whole bureau and directs all the plans that are going on.  Yet at the same time that these plans are being developed Harry is working on trying to get David back onto his path.  Also the way Harry acts makes me think that he is not the chairman.  He is trying to help David but he has to be very secretive about it, almost like he will get in trouble if someone found out.  Also near the end of the movie, Harry gets a message that the chairman would like to speak with him.  This also leads me to believe that Harry is not the chairman.

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? 

I think that means that the Chairman gave Norris and Elise control over their own plan, and there plan would be contentiously written as they lived their life's.  Earlier in the move the bureau is talking about two times when humans got their own free will with no plan.  They both backfired and horrible things happned such as the world wars.  But I think after the chairman saw how determined Norris was he decided to give out a third time of free will (only for Norris and Elise).  Thus they can write their own paths in life.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Sophies World Connection 2

In the book Sophies World, sophie is told an analogy by the philosopher about how we are like a rabbit beeing pulled out of a magicians hat.  he then talked about, how we can not see the changes and what was actually going on around us because we are nestled deep down in the rabbits fur and do not want to come out.  We have made our home down there in this false reality and refuse to try to find what actually is going on.  He then talks about how philosophers climb up to the top of the hair and truely see the real world around them, but the others refuse to see and believe because they are to comfotable where they are.  I thought that this analogy was excelent and really simplified a complex topic.  After reading this I feel like people need to get up out of the rabbits fur and start to wonder at everything going on around them.

Philosophy Connection 2

After years of hearing about this movie, not so much what it was about but how good it was, I finally watched it.  I was completely blown away by this movie and next to inception, has to be one of my favorite movies of all time.  I found the topic that our reality might actually be fake to be very intersiting.  This reminded me of Source Code, in the fact that when the main charecter is not in the real world, it becomes his reality because he thinks that it is real.  In the Matrix, Neo thinks that the world around him is completely  real and that he is just a small programer for a large company.  He accepts everything around him but in his time off spends time on the computer trying to find out about "The Matrix".  But when Neo gets pulled out of the matrix and into the real world he does not know what to make of it.  He still thinks of the matrix world as reality even though it is unreal.  It takes him awhile to adjust to this new reality and relise what's real and what's not, just liek the main charecter from the movie source code.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Philosophy Connection 1

The first connection to popular culture that I am writing on will be about a book. (aka extreme topic birdwalking TO THE MAX)

The week before school started I started to read "The Road" by: Cormac McCarthy.  I ended up finishing it in a day because I could not put it down.  At first when I read it and went back and reflected upon it, and it seemed like a normal book about surviving in a post appocolyptic world where food was scarse and there were few survivors.  I forgot about the book the first week of school, and it slowly faded to a distant memory, that was, untill I started to take this class in philosophy.  I started to think to myself, what if that actually happned, how could it happen, and would we ever be able to recover from it?  I now think that the human race's intelligence will be its own demise and some unstopable force will be created that will crumble civizilation and maybe even kill every organism on earth.  Maybe this has alredy happned on a small scale such as when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But then after thinking for a while I started to think back to the question the philosopher asked Sophie in Sophies world.  Is everything made out of one substance?  When somthing such as a bomb goes off, nothing is destroyed, its state is only changed not created or destroyed.  But if we are also made of that substance do we truly die in an appocolyptic event, or is our state only changed.  We would still be here on earth, at least our bodys, just in a diffrent form.  So do we truly die or, like our body, do our thoughts and mind continue to exist, just in a diffrent form than they once were.

Sophies World 1

In the book Sophies World by Jostein Gaarder, the mistirious philosopher talking to Sophie asks her three simple questions which turn her world upside down and completely shift all of her veiws on reality.  These three simple questions were, Is there a basic substance that everything else is made of?, Can water turn into wine?, How can earth and water produce a live frog?

These may seem like simple questions at first but like Sophie, the more you think about them the more complicated they become.

Is there a basic substance that everything else is made of?-

This is a very interisting philosophy question that makes you think about the world around you and what composes it.  The general rule of thumb that people now believe is that everything is made up of molocules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons nuetrons and electrons, which are made up of quarks.  But you have to think to yourself, do these small particles really make up everything around us?  This got me thinking, what if there was more to everything than just that.  What composes quarks and how are they created?  Then this got me thinking, what if we are just giants and the quarks each contain a new incredibly tiny universe which may contain life, and they also are wondering if there is a basic substance everything is made of?

Can water turn into wine?-

Thinking about this question brought me right back to thinking about if there is one basic substance that everything is made of.  If there is one basic substance it could be rearanged to make naything, including transform water into wine.  But if there is not one basic substance can water still turn into wine?  So I now think the awnser is Yes if everything is made out of one single substance, and No if it is not.

How can earth and water produce a live frog? -

This question gets me thinking about, not only frogs, but all life in general and where did it come from?  We think right now that all life comes from life but what came before? Life could not have just apeered, and has to have come from somewhere, is the earth and water just one substance rearanging itself so it becomes somthing living and can take in that substance, grow and survive?