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?
I'm choosing this one because of the Switchfoot reference (BTW Geoff, I'm now listening to Switchfoot. Thanks for showing me a new band). The bit about renting our bodies is a good place to start (for my mental ramblings. The ramblings I write here will be filtered, organized, and at least slightly refined):
"But I'm not sentimental
This skin and bones is a rental
And no one makes it out alive"
There was also a part later on that got my attention:
"This body's not my own
This world is not my own"
I don't know if we have a soul that we leave behind (or that leaves us behind) when we die. But I do know that current science shows us that we as we think of ourselves is most likely an interaction of electricity and chemicals in our neural tissue.
I don't think that sort of reaction will continue once we die (dying sorta causes our bodies to stop most chemical reactions), and as a result, I don't see how our mind could carry on after death (at least, not until we can make computers that can handle and process a human brain in real-time. But we're quite far from that. Last I heard, scientists have managed to simulate part of a rat brain, at like, a hundredth the speed found in nature).
But I also think it's possible there is something beyond neuro-electrical firings (science use to tell use the Earth was flat and was the center of the entire Universe. Those ideas were wrong, so why not this one about how thought works?).
There was an idea brought up in Sci-Fi, panpsychism, which raises the question: if our thoughts are just the result of chemical interaction, what's to say that everything (the air, rocks, planets, etc.) don't have stray chemical reactions that cause a basic, proto-thought (basic as in the same result of one or two brain cells triggering, not basic as in "I want food")?
I think that idea is ridiculous (mostly because it is saying that non-sentient things are, in a way thinking), but that implies that I think there is something more to thought than chemical reactions. But as I brought up in class yesterday, the reason people end up different is that, even with the same building blocks, the slight build differences, magnified across thousands of thousands of thousands of cells, add up, making all of us different.
So yeah, I really don't know where I stand on this idea. I think the idea that once someone dies, their spirit stays around, leaving raspy-voiced messages on tape cassettes is crap. But I don't think there is anything to say there can't be a spirit. BUT, I don't think there is anything to say there CAN be a spirit.
I think I'm going to take the easy (well, easier) way out, and go with agnosticism (screw religious debates. The word means "without knowledge"). We'll never know if we have souls; every conclusion on the issue is speculation. The only way to know is to die and see what's there (too bad relaying what you find is a little difficult once you're dead).
I'm also not sure if I want to have an essence once I die. If there isn't some kind of afterlife, I'd just be floating in space (or stuck on Earth) until whatever it is that made my soul died (God knows what would happen then...). That would suck. Eternity would be madness inducing. I'm not saying I want to die, but I don't want to live forever either.
I'm not sure I want to know the answer to this question! If we don't have souls, I'm faced with the knowledge that one of these days, my heart will stop, and play it's final beat (Geoff, I can reference songs too!). If we do have souls, and there is Heaven/Hell/Whatever, I wouldn't be able to not spend the rest of my life trying to avoid the worst option (in which case, I don't think I'd really be living). If we have souls, but there isn't an afterlife, then I have an entirety to look forward to, most of which couldn't be spent on anything but my thoughts (once my body dies, where goes my ability to interact with the physical world?). None of these options sound good. At least with some mystery to it, I can pretend I look forward to the answer...
Side note, 'Where I Belong' became my soundtrack as I wrote most of this.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Real World Connection 4: DiCobbrio vs. Pontypool vs. Ash
I don't feel like going in depth on a single topic1. So instead I'ma talk about Inception, and some Canadian horror movie about English zombies. And then I'll wrap them together under an umbrella concept of infectious ideas.
First off, I think Inception is about DiCobbrio being insane, and Mal trying to pull him back into reality2. This goes off the fan-theory that Arlandria3(Ariadne) is DiCobbrio's therapist, trying to help him get over the suicide of Mal4 (or some other traumatic event5). My view on that theory is that regardless of what messed up DiCobbrio, Mal is his therapist (her, if it's really a she, name might not be Mal. But for simplicity, I will call this person either Therapist-Mal, or Real-Mal), and is trying to help him. She is trying to pull him back into reality, and out of his delusions. She sabotaged his jobs, because she didn't want him to settle down into a nice life in his lie (by making him fail, he remained on edge, and the presence of assassins made him want a more normal life. These laid the groundwork for dragging him out of his madness). But this plan failed, as over time DiCobbrio integrated Mal's presence into his fantasies. She became a personification of whatever trauma actually drove him into the dream world. She was, from his perspective, the only source of conflict in his world, so his mind pieced it together that she was a projection of his self-conflict. This created His-Mal (the one that was his wife, and killed herself after he accidentally destroyed her concept of reality). His-Mal was just how DiCobbrio viewed Real-Mal6.
DiCobbrio used catharsis to deal with his Mal problems. Other characters in the film mention that the best way for an inception to stick is by bundling the idea with positive emotions, and that catharsis was the best way to make positive emotions. By facing what he saw as his guilt, he convinced himself that His-Mal was gone. The catharsis of facing his "guilt" (confessing to, and apologizing for causing the madness inducing idea that His-Mal's world wasn't real) let him banish the unwanted idea. He got the idea that His-Mal was gone. This idea grew and took hold of his mind, like any idea implanted that deep in a subconscious. With this idea he had accidentally incepted into himself, he blocked all new evidence of her existence from his mind. After the confrontation in Limbo, Real-Mal was still trying to talk to DiCobbrio, trying to wake him up; he just didn't notice. By shutting out the only voice of truth in his world, he ended up with an all comsuming idea that his world wasn't fake. This idea that his world was true consumed him in the same way he thought His-Mal was consumed by the idea that their world was fake.
This scenario then raises the falling tree question: if DiCobbrio's world is fake, but there is absolutely no way for him to discover this, does it matter? His madness becomes his reality, and from his perspective, is the only reality. With Mal7 gone, how will Descartes' question ever be asked, let alone answered?
Now for something completely different: Pontypool. It's a zombie movie. But not in the living-dead variety. It's in the "horrible madness turns people into an endless hoard of killing machines" variety. But not in the madness-inducing bio-engineered super-plague variety (28 Whatevers Later, etc.). Or the madness-inducing gas variety either (Dead Air...). Oh no, this is of the madness-inducing lingually-spreading variety (Pontypool)! Somehow, the English language has come down with a sickness. It's spread by terms of endearment. It's Valentines Day8. It doesn't end well for the small Canadian town of Pontypool9. I find this movie fascinating, because it takes the idea of an infectious idea to the extreme, where saying an infected word causes the person to go into a madness mantra of infected words, which eventually drives them completely (and violently) mad10 11. I suppose a jibbering mess is what could happen to someone in the Inception universe if the wrong idea got planted. It was mentioned that an idea planted by inception would consume and become the person. When Cobb placed the idea of fake realities in Mal's head, she was never able to escape that feeling12. Imagine what an idea about recursive realizations of recursive realizations would do to a person. If it didn't turn them into a cannibalistic zombie, I think it could definitely destroy their grip on reality (imagine the fun philosophical ideas we'd get from someone like that, if they could still speak).
I think this post takes the cake for biggest ramble. It also possibly takes the award for most Facebook posts it inspired me to make. Inception is a mind virus that creates ideas about mind viruses that create ideas about mind viruses while shattering all steadiness in the reality of my reality...
---
1 I don't ever. But this time I'm mentioning it.
2 Out of boredom, I've started making a theory that most of DiCaprio's movies are a series about a man with a deeply troubled psyche. The differences in time periods and settings are the result of this dude viewing his life as separate, dramatic events1.
3 Once I noticed I was calling Cobb "DiCobbrio," I gave up on remembering the character names. Now I just write a name for them, and if I'm bothered, I look up the real name2.
4 Who I think deserves her actual name.
5 Such as almost drowning to death and washing up on the African coast during a blood diamond conflict.
6 I'm using Real- and His- like they're part of a name, not as titles. Real-Mal and His-Mal are different characters, but DiCobbrio thinks they're the same character.
7 In my theory, Mal is like Alberto. Except instead of showing DiCobbrio the true vastness of his world, she is ignored as DiCobbrio crawls into the Rabbit Hair3.
8 Or maybe, because it's Valentines Day, terms of endearment became the most common words, and the virus was able to latch on to them more easily.
9 Please note the facts that this town exists, and that they have the word 'typo' in their name.
10 The repetition in that sentence was meant to stir memories of the dream-within-a-dream repetition of Inception4.
11 To quote the book the movie is based on:
12 Yeah, I just abandoned my DiCobbrio theory for the sake of making my point easier to vocalize5.
---
1 I think I might get a giant tack board and some colored string. Just start weaving a web of convoluted bullshit1. I'd feel like such a detective.
2 On the bright side, I plan to be consistent with the names I give them. So it will, hopefully, only be a mild inconvenience2.
3 That metaphor makes Marion Cotillard a 50-year old man, and Leonardo DiCaprio a 15-year old girl. If this footnote wasn't somewhere between City- and Hotel- level depth, it would make my theory sound crazy.
4 As was that sentence3!
5 I'll take that as a sign that my labyrinthine theory was not incepted to me.
---
1 Err, web of convoluted "cinema analysis."
2 For other people. The only inconvenience for me is looking up the real names.
3 As we go deeper into my footnotes, less of the footnotes can carry on, as some must stay behind to keep the previous levels stable.
First off, I think Inception is about DiCobbrio being insane, and Mal trying to pull him back into reality2. This goes off the fan-theory that Arlandria3(Ariadne) is DiCobbrio's therapist, trying to help him get over the suicide of Mal4 (or some other traumatic event5). My view on that theory is that regardless of what messed up DiCobbrio, Mal is his therapist (her, if it's really a she, name might not be Mal. But for simplicity, I will call this person either Therapist-Mal, or Real-Mal), and is trying to help him. She is trying to pull him back into reality, and out of his delusions. She sabotaged his jobs, because she didn't want him to settle down into a nice life in his lie (by making him fail, he remained on edge, and the presence of assassins made him want a more normal life. These laid the groundwork for dragging him out of his madness). But this plan failed, as over time DiCobbrio integrated Mal's presence into his fantasies. She became a personification of whatever trauma actually drove him into the dream world. She was, from his perspective, the only source of conflict in his world, so his mind pieced it together that she was a projection of his self-conflict. This created His-Mal (the one that was his wife, and killed herself after he accidentally destroyed her concept of reality). His-Mal was just how DiCobbrio viewed Real-Mal6.
DiCobbrio used catharsis to deal with his Mal problems. Other characters in the film mention that the best way for an inception to stick is by bundling the idea with positive emotions, and that catharsis was the best way to make positive emotions. By facing what he saw as his guilt, he convinced himself that His-Mal was gone. The catharsis of facing his "guilt" (confessing to, and apologizing for causing the madness inducing idea that His-Mal's world wasn't real) let him banish the unwanted idea. He got the idea that His-Mal was gone. This idea grew and took hold of his mind, like any idea implanted that deep in a subconscious. With this idea he had accidentally incepted into himself, he blocked all new evidence of her existence from his mind. After the confrontation in Limbo, Real-Mal was still trying to talk to DiCobbrio, trying to wake him up; he just didn't notice. By shutting out the only voice of truth in his world, he ended up with an all comsuming idea that his world wasn't fake. This idea that his world was true consumed him in the same way he thought His-Mal was consumed by the idea that their world was fake.
This scenario then raises the falling tree question: if DiCobbrio's world is fake, but there is absolutely no way for him to discover this, does it matter? His madness becomes his reality, and from his perspective, is the only reality. With Mal7 gone, how will Descartes' question ever be asked, let alone answered?
Now for something completely different: Pontypool. It's a zombie movie. But not in the living-dead variety. It's in the "horrible madness turns people into an endless hoard of killing machines" variety. But not in the madness-inducing bio-engineered super-plague variety (28 Whatevers Later, etc.). Or the madness-inducing gas variety either (Dead Air...). Oh no, this is of the madness-inducing lingually-spreading variety (Pontypool)! Somehow, the English language has come down with a sickness. It's spread by terms of endearment. It's Valentines Day8. It doesn't end well for the small Canadian town of Pontypool9. I find this movie fascinating, because it takes the idea of an infectious idea to the extreme, where saying an infected word causes the person to go into a madness mantra of infected words, which eventually drives them completely (and violently) mad10 11. I suppose a jibbering mess is what could happen to someone in the Inception universe if the wrong idea got planted. It was mentioned that an idea planted by inception would consume and become the person. When Cobb placed the idea of fake realities in Mal's head, she was never able to escape that feeling12. Imagine what an idea about recursive realizations of recursive realizations would do to a person. If it didn't turn them into a cannibalistic zombie, I think it could definitely destroy their grip on reality (imagine the fun philosophical ideas we'd get from someone like that, if they could still speak).
I think this post takes the cake for biggest ramble. It also possibly takes the award for most Facebook posts it inspired me to make. Inception is a mind virus that creates ideas about mind viruses that create ideas about mind viruses while shattering all steadiness in the reality of my reality...
---
1 I don't ever. But this time I'm mentioning it.
2 Out of boredom, I've started making a theory that most of DiCaprio's movies are a series about a man with a deeply troubled psyche. The differences in time periods and settings are the result of this dude viewing his life as separate, dramatic events1.
3 Once I noticed I was calling Cobb "DiCobbrio," I gave up on remembering the character names. Now I just write a name for them, and if I'm bothered, I look up the real name2.
4 Who I think deserves her actual name.
5 Such as almost drowning to death and washing up on the African coast during a blood diamond conflict.
6 I'm using Real- and His- like they're part of a name, not as titles. Real-Mal and His-Mal are different characters, but DiCobbrio thinks they're the same character.
7 In my theory, Mal is like Alberto. Except instead of showing DiCobbrio the true vastness of his world, she is ignored as DiCobbrio crawls into the Rabbit Hair3.
8 Or maybe, because it's Valentines Day, terms of endearment became the most common words, and the virus was able to latch on to them more easily.
9 Please note the facts that this town exists, and that they have the word 'typo' in their name.
10 The repetition in that sentence was meant to stir memories of the dream-within-a-dream repetition of Inception4.
11 To quote the book the movie is based on:
"The plague first manifests itself in the infected person as a type of déjà vu, with an accompanying aphasia. Everything that happened presented itself as already happened. This infinitely complicated things. For as soon as the person adjusted, understanding that this sensation was merely a symptom of the plague, his or her understanding slipped backward into the already happened. Each realization had to be doubled against itself into becoming understood next: an impossible therapy to maintain. The present tense was a slippery slope to anyone in remission. The "now" became a deepening lesion, and from it rose the smell of this new sickness."
---
1 I think I might get a giant tack board and some colored string. Just start weaving a web of convoluted bullshit1. I'd feel like such a detective.
2 On the bright side, I plan to be consistent with the names I give them. So it will, hopefully, only be a mild inconvenience2.
3 That metaphor makes Marion Cotillard a 50-year old man, and Leonardo DiCaprio a 15-year old girl. If this footnote wasn't somewhere between City- and Hotel- level depth, it would make my theory sound crazy.
4 As was that sentence3!
5 I'll take that as a sign that my labyrinthine theory was not incepted to me.
---
1 Err, web of convoluted "cinema analysis."
2 For other people. The only inconvenience for me is looking up the real names.
3 As we go deeper into my footnotes, less of the footnotes can carry on, as some must stay behind to keep the previous levels stable.
Sophie's World 4: Things Fall Apart
So, the question of what kind of world Sophie lives in was promptly answered. She lives in a book. Within a book1.
Oops, spoiler alert, I guess2.
Sadly, the next couple of chapters after Sophie learns her life is a lie is nothing but recappings of the previous chapter (as Hilde reads through Sophie's World, up to the point we just ended at), and some insight into Hilde's life (she lives at the Bjerkely house, which is exactly like the painting called Bjerkely in the Major's Cabin; it is her birthday, and Sophie's life is her present; her dad can't be bothered to mail her postcards, so he works them into giant stories that he mails her; she quickly jumps to conclusions3).
After reading about Hilde reading about Sophie, we get the point that just as Berkeley said we're all part of God's mind, Sophie's World is all part of Albert's mind. I find this amusing, as that means that Sophie's World (by Albert) is a part of Hilde's World, which is what we're reading, and referring to as Sophie's World (by Gaarder). Let's pretend that raises the question of whether or not our world is the figment of some imagination4.
---
1 This, sadly, means she is only at the City level1.
2 Let's pretend my backspace key doesn't work. But really, I just can't be bothered to edit for spoiler-removal.
3 "My dad wrote a character I find interesting: this character must be real!"
4 Sophie's World seems like Inception and the Matrix. Layer upon layer of simulated reality.
---
1 Or arguable, the Apartment-with-the-fake-carpet level, because she is realizing her world is a lie, and in the City, no one know what was what unless they knew from the beginning.
Oops, spoiler alert, I guess2.
Sadly, the next couple of chapters after Sophie learns her life is a lie is nothing but recappings of the previous chapter (as Hilde reads through Sophie's World, up to the point we just ended at), and some insight into Hilde's life (she lives at the Bjerkely house, which is exactly like the painting called Bjerkely in the Major's Cabin; it is her birthday, and Sophie's life is her present; her dad can't be bothered to mail her postcards, so he works them into giant stories that he mails her; she quickly jumps to conclusions3).
After reading about Hilde reading about Sophie, we get the point that just as Berkeley said we're all part of God's mind, Sophie's World is all part of Albert's mind. I find this amusing, as that means that Sophie's World (by Albert) is a part of Hilde's World, which is what we're reading, and referring to as Sophie's World (by Gaarder). Let's pretend that raises the question of whether or not our world is the figment of some imagination4.
---
1 This, sadly, means she is only at the City level1.
2 Let's pretend my backspace key doesn't work. But really, I just can't be bothered to edit for spoiler-removal.
3 "My dad wrote a character I find interesting: this character must be real!"
4 Sophie's World seems like Inception and the Matrix. Layer upon layer of simulated reality.
---
1 Or arguable, the Apartment-with-the-fake-carpet level, because she is realizing her world is a lie, and in the City, no one know what was what unless they knew from the beginning.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Real World Connection 3: Humanism
Humanism is the idea that humans are awesome, and can pretty much do anything.
I think the Aperture Science fan page on Facebook has some quotes that really give an impression of human exceptionalism:
"How can you say that the 'sky is the limit?' The sky is most certainly NOT the limit. We've been to the sky. We've been PAST the sky. There are footprints on The Moon. Soon, we will have put footprints on more than just The Moon."
"The future of humanity is not on Earth. We've been here for the past 200,000 years. It about time we stop thinking about the "Why?" of our interplanetary future, but instead, the "Why not?" of our future, as a species. The moon; we were there from from 1961 to 1972. Why not establish permanence there? We've sent things to mars; nearly for 20 years. Why not people?"1
Now, there are examples of humanistic views besides the Facebook page of a fictional company, but tonight I'm incredibly tired, and have about 60 pages of reading to do for Sci-Fi2. So I figured I'd link to some pictures. Except then it turns out a Google Images search of "humanism" just gets you pictures of the "Happy Human" logo and stuff from Conservapedia3 and Christian sites warning about the End of Days. I decided I'd skip those.
I think humanism is pretty hard to dispute, except for that idea that people are inherently good4, 5. I side with Locke in that people are born blank slates. While our genes can guide what we might be good at or how we might generally react to things, who we are is mostly defined by our experiences. It isn't hard to teach someone to be good, but they do need to pick it up somewhere (it's like how even though our brains are made to use language, we still need to learn a language to use).
I'd think of someway to wrap this up, or tie all the above together, but I'd rather sleep. I also need to do my Sci-Fi reading.
So instead of a conclusion, here is a picture of a panda:
---
1 The Aperture Science page is quite the fan of space.
2 Technically, I also have 6 blogs and a paper to do for Sci-Fi. I have plenty of time to do those, so reading gets top-belly.
3 This and the Creation Wiki are hilarious. Excellent trolling tools.
4 Problematic, since that is a core part of humanism.
5 Beyond inherent good, you pretty much get into an argument of whether or not people can achieve greatness.
I think the Aperture Science fan page on Facebook has some quotes that really give an impression of human exceptionalism:
"How can you say that the 'sky is the limit?' The sky is most certainly NOT the limit. We've been to the sky. We've been PAST the sky. There are footprints on The Moon. Soon, we will have put footprints on more than just The Moon."
"The future of humanity is not on Earth. We've been here for the past 200,000 years. It about time we stop thinking about the "Why?" of our interplanetary future, but instead, the "Why not?" of our future, as a species. The moon; we were there from from 1961 to 1972. Why not establish permanence there? We've sent things to mars; nearly for 20 years. Why not people?"1
Now, there are examples of humanistic views besides the Facebook page of a fictional company, but tonight I'm incredibly tired, and have about 60 pages of reading to do for Sci-Fi2. So I figured I'd link to some pictures. Except then it turns out a Google Images search of "humanism" just gets you pictures of the "Happy Human" logo and stuff from Conservapedia3 and Christian sites warning about the End of Days. I decided I'd skip those.
I think humanism is pretty hard to dispute, except for that idea that people are inherently good4, 5. I side with Locke in that people are born blank slates. While our genes can guide what we might be good at or how we might generally react to things, who we are is mostly defined by our experiences. It isn't hard to teach someone to be good, but they do need to pick it up somewhere (it's like how even though our brains are made to use language, we still need to learn a language to use).
I'd think of someway to wrap this up, or tie all the above together, but I'd rather sleep. I also need to do my Sci-Fi reading.
So instead of a conclusion, here is a picture of a panda:
---
1 The Aperture Science page is quite the fan of space.
2 Technically, I also have 6 blogs and a paper to do for Sci-Fi. I have plenty of time to do those, so reading gets top-belly.
3 This and the Creation Wiki are hilarious. Excellent trolling tools.
4 Problematic, since that is a core part of humanism.
5 Beyond inherent good, you pretty much get into an argument of whether or not people can achieve greatness.
Sophie's World 3: The Search for Hilde
Before going anywhere with this, I should probably mention that I have no idea where I'm supposed to be in the book, but because I knew all the plot details we discussed in class the other day, I'm assuming I'm either in the right spot, or past it.
So, as I predicted, Alberto did not kidnap Sophie1.In other good news, someone finally showed signs of intelligence: Sophie's mom found out about Alberto, and insisted that she meet him2 if Sophie is to keep visiting him. This moment of crystalline beauty came to an end when she agreed that meeting him at Sophie's birthday party (which is weeks away) is good enough3...
On the matter of events I did not predict, I think two things stand out:
By combining the facts that Alberto (the Philosopher) has repeatedly grumbled about Albert (the Major) presenting himself as a god (leaving his postcards for Hilde everywhere4, making Alberto call Sophie Hilde, etc.), that Hildegard was a Christian and Hilde dropped her cross, and the similarities of the names Sophie and Hilde to Sophia and Hildegard, I think the comparison the author was going for is that Hilde is the Sophia of Sophie's World (she is along side Albert, who works as the masculine side of God) and that Sophie is the Hildegard of her own world (she receives visions from the feminine side of 'God')5.
The question now is what kind of world does Sophie live in? A computer simulation (like the chat-bot Alberto showed her)? A thought experiment (an example used to teach Hilde about philosophy6)? A story Albert is telling to Hilde? A delusional world (everything is normal, but Sophie is seeing things through a broken mind)? Hopefully the book explains this7.
---
1 Although, I did find another line that, without context, is very disturbing. I mostly noticed it because the person before me highlighted the odd part.
2 Something about how she doesn't feel safe having Sophie walk to the other side of town to meet an old man who lives in an attic.
3 Funny how she freaked out at the thought of Sophie doing drugs, but doesn't seem very concerned about her daughter walking the city streets just to see a strange old man.
4 On the street, in Sophie's homework, in the vocal cords of dogs, in bananas, etc.
5 Despite being called "Sophie's World," Sophie has no control over it. It's her world in the sense that she is the focus of it, not in the sense that she is the master of it.
6 Beyond covering the philosophy discussed between Sophie and Alberto, Albert could also use the fact that he is teaching his daughter about philosophy with a story of someone learning about philosophy to discuss meta concepts.
7 It's one thing to leave an ending open to interpretation. It's another to not bother making an ending.
So, as I predicted, Alberto did not kidnap Sophie1.In other good news, someone finally showed signs of intelligence: Sophie's mom found out about Alberto, and insisted that she meet him2 if Sophie is to keep visiting him. This moment of crystalline beauty came to an end when she agreed that meeting him at Sophie's birthday party (which is weeks away) is good enough3...
On the matter of events I did not predict, I think two things stand out:
- Alberto plays dress up.
- Alberto was randomly calling Sophie 'Hilde,' despite them not knowing just quite who she is.
By combining the facts that Alberto (the Philosopher) has repeatedly grumbled about Albert (the Major) presenting himself as a god (leaving his postcards for Hilde everywhere4, making Alberto call Sophie Hilde, etc.), that Hildegard was a Christian and Hilde dropped her cross, and the similarities of the names Sophie and Hilde to Sophia and Hildegard, I think the comparison the author was going for is that Hilde is the Sophia of Sophie's World (she is along side Albert, who works as the masculine side of God) and that Sophie is the Hildegard of her own world (she receives visions from the feminine side of 'God')5.
The question now is what kind of world does Sophie live in? A computer simulation (like the chat-bot Alberto showed her)? A thought experiment (an example used to teach Hilde about philosophy6)? A story Albert is telling to Hilde? A delusional world (everything is normal, but Sophie is seeing things through a broken mind)? Hopefully the book explains this7.
---
1 Although, I did find another line that, without context, is very disturbing. I mostly noticed it because the person before me highlighted the odd part.
2 Something about how she doesn't feel safe having Sophie walk to the other side of town to meet an old man who lives in an attic.
3 Funny how she freaked out at the thought of Sophie doing drugs, but doesn't seem very concerned about her daughter walking the city streets just to see a strange old man.
4 On the street, in Sophie's homework, in the vocal cords of dogs, in bananas, etc.
5 Despite being called "Sophie's World," Sophie has no control over it. It's her world in the sense that she is the focus of it, not in the sense that she is the master of it.
6 Beyond covering the philosophy discussed between Sophie and Alberto, Albert could also use the fact that he is teaching his daughter about philosophy with a story of someone learning about philosophy to discuss meta concepts.
7 It's one thing to leave an ending open to interpretation. It's another to not bother making an ending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)