Philosophy?

1. State your name and provide a link to your blog.

Ashlyn Grunwald

link: https://philosophie.design.blog

2. What is your TOTAL word count?

7329

3. Did you do everything on the blog checklist, on every blog? Quotes? Original examples? Personal application?

Yes

4. Have your revised since our midterm meeting? How many revisions did you do?

I didn’t have a midterm meeting due to personal reasons that week, however I have put significant effort into ensuring my blogs are correct and of quality, and have revised everything states in our final meeting.

5. Did you give a presentation?

Yes

6. How was your participation in general? How was your attendance?

Once I was able to figure out zoom, and how to get into our class, I attended every zoom meeting and I believe I missed one or two days in class. I answered questions whenever called on (internet permitted) and added to the discussion whenever I felt it was appropriate and had something to say.

7. How many blogs did you submit prior to class discussion of the topic?

I submitted five before the class discussion (before school closed) but I have been uploading whenever I feel I have a quality and ready blog ever since it was stated these time constraints don’t matter.

8. How many comments did you make?

15, but on my page there is 14, this is due to the software deleting it off my comments page when a key was accidentally hit, and the comment not being approved in time for final review.

9. How many glossary words do you have? Have you indicated the lecture or reading from which they originated?

30, no but they are in chronological order with what we learned for almost every class.

10. Given the course requirements, what grade have you earned?

I believe I deserve an A because I have not only made the effort to show up and be present in class, but do all online assignments with clarity and accuracy.

11. What will you remember most about the course as a whole?

I will always debate if I have free will or not, and I have also learned some philosophy is too heavy for me and I’d rather just enjoy the time I’m given.

I believe that art is any skill an individual uses to create something meaningful. I see art as a broad spectrum with classical mediums such as paint, tempura, and lead pencils, as well as unrecognized forms of art such as cooking and gardening. However today I would like to bring light to a remarkable powerful modern painting that is a remake, or parody, of a classic painting. This painting is Napolean Leading the Army Over the Alps by Kehinde Wiley.

Kahinde Wiley is an artist well known for taking a few steps back from the norms and criticizing them. He takes classical portraits, mind you portraits are a symbol of power, wealth, and influence, and replaces them with young African Americans he meets. He also tweeks the imagery of these paintings to demonstrate the point he is trying to make. Wiley is also well known for President Obamas presidential portrait, which stands out in contrast when compared to every other presidential portrait. This is because in the portrait Obama is sitting on a chair, surrounded by lush greenery and flowers, while other presidential portraits stick with neutral tones. Wiley makes remarkable, unique, and powerful works of art and I’ve even gone out of my way to view his art.

Napoleon Leading the Army over the Alps is a powerful painting because it is mimicking the original from 1803 which depicts Napoleon on a large white horse, a symbol of power and wealth, leading his arm on an uphill battle that appears to be successful due to his fingers pointing onward in determination, his red cloak another power cue. However, in Wileys painting a young African American powerfully pointing onward in a beautiful gold cloak, also headed uphill in battle. In the original from 1803, a cloudy sky is depicted in the background and you can see his army slightly in the background taking a different path. In Wileys version there is a red backdrop with a white type of crest pattern, however, if you zoom in and look oh so carefully you can make out many small sperm cells in the background.

What Wiley has accomplished in this remake of a famous portrait is that he has put an African American in a position of power in a painting, which has been scarcely done. Historically, if Africans were in any painting, it was usually in the background or obviously showing them as weaker, for example, most paintings that include Africans depict them as slaves. However Kahinde throws this racist art norm out the window and has given a young African American a symbol of power and wealth. Kahinde is also making fun of Napoleon and his intention from the painting by adding the sperm cells in the background. Personally it is almost like he is saying “I’m Napoleon look how manly I am” in a mocking deep voice, by including this hilarious Easter egg.

I feel as if this painting ties in perfectly with Tolstoys idea of art, which is, an expression of a feeling that can be felt and understood by the intended audience. Napolean Leading the Army over the Alps falls right under this catagory, by understanding the historical importance and roll of the original painting, and seeing Kahindes version his message can easily be gathered, essentially, his art is parody. He is throwing out unjust social norms and given African Americans, who have been devastatingly left out of western art, a status of power and recognition. In addition he is calling out the issue of only white people being portrayed powerfully in art. He is also mocking a powerful historical figures portrait in such a kooky and hilarious manner. Because of this involvement in the current issues of our world, I feel like this piece especially fits under “#2. Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression,” because of the meaning and depth this art creates for a lot of people. For all these reasons, this painting is a work of art in Tolstoys eyes as well as mine.

In the obviousness of the truth of determinism by David Hume, he states we have no free will, because everything is based off of cause and effect. What he means by this is everything we do is an effect of a previous cause, for example, when I get home from work, I always shower, this isn’t because I am choosing to shower, this is because I just got off work and I smell like French fries. In this scenario, the cause is me returning home from work, and feeling gross from it, so the effect is now me taking a shower. I’m not taking the shower for the fun of it, it’s because something that happened previously has affected the my future actions. 

His main reasons are based on a concept taught to even the younger schoolchildren, cause and effect. David Hume explains it as “…a susperstition, that one object or event has followed another; not one that was produced by the other”. Cause and effect, simplified, means that if I throw the bouncy ball at the ground, it’ll bounce back up. The cause is throwing the ball and the effect is it bouncing back up. He goes even further to explain that it has been accepted universally that all men have a uniformity of actions, despite timeframe and culture, as this is human nature. As we all have the same nature, we all respond to cause and effect similarly. However this doesn’t mean everyone will act exactly the same. He even acknowledges that this theory, has exceptions, because of the diversity of the human body and mind. 

A child in the wrong place at the wrong time, who is unfortunately molested, may grow up differently than other children. They will grow up more anxious, more fearful, and in adolescence, they will be more prone to drug abuse, and more sexual encounters. This is because healthy coping mechanisms are rarely learned, and specifically not with issues like molestation, this means they will turn to more unhealthier coping mechanisms because they know no better. This is an effect of the original cause, the trauma. If down the line, in adulthood, they fatally overdose, would it really be their fault? It wasn’t their fault they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that is one of the many outcomes that could stem from such an event, and without learning healthy coping mechanisms from society did they really stand a chance? It wasn’t free will to live through that event and it wasn’t free will to have a normal, human reaction to such a cause. Therefore, I believe we don’t have free will, sometimes. Hume has convinced me to some degree of determinism, however even he himself noted that there are exceptions, many exceptions, therefore I believe we have no choice but to succumb to human nature, however this does not mean determinism is completely right or wrong, but somewhere on an abstract spectrum. 

If determinism was completely true, I probably would not put much effort into my daily life, or life at all. Without some degree of free will, life to me would be meaningless and really nothing different from the life of an ant, just mindlessly completing the tasks necessary for me, and my families survival. My current “que Sera, Sera” (whatever will be will be) mindset would be darkly turned. This is my current mindset so that I do not stress myself out so much, it helps me remember that no matter what happens, the world will keep turning with me on it. However this could also be interpreted as whatever will happen will happen and nothing I can do will change that because each and every action is a branch off of a past event. After juggling these two interpretations mentally, it reinforces my belief that it is somewhere in the middle on a spectrum. 

“It is through hearing stories about wicked stepmothers, lost children, good but misguided kings, wolves that suckle twin boys, youngest sons who receive no inheritance but must make their own way in the world and eldest sons who waste their inheritance on riotous living and go into exile to live with the swine, that children learn or mislearn both what a child and what a parent is, what the cast of characters may be in the drama into which they have been born and what the ways of the world are. Deprive children of stories and you leave them unscripted, anxious stutters in their actions as in their words. Hence there is no way to give us an understanding of any society, including our own, except through the stock of stories which constitute its initial dramatic resources.” 

In my own words this passage is essentially saying stories are what give us our general ideas and some kind of understanding about the world around us from a very young age. In recent years, it has become common knowledge that the first five years of life are when the mind is soaking up information, exactly like a sponge, and the stories they hear are how they shape their view of society, and really everything the earthly world has to offer. McIntyre even talks about the eldest son wasting a large inheritance, which showcases “the fool” character that is present in many stories, this teaches children what not to do so they won’t end up the fool; or even lost children, which boldly highlights that the world is a dangerous place, especially for children, the most common example today in America would be the story of Hansel and Gretel. This is the story of two young siblings who get lost in the woods and end up lured into a wicked witches home by candy. When I was a child this terrified me, teaching me not to run off. 

McIntryle explains that you take these stories away from a child, they will not understand the world around them and become anxious and scared. Going back to how the first five years of life are when a child soaks up the most information about their surroundings, and if they aren’t given enough information about the world they will not be familiar and comfortable with the world around them, thus you end with a child who is terrified of what they don’t understand, which is the world around them, and becomes anxious and frightened while in it. 

Another point brought to life in this passage is that stories are imperative for individuals to understand the world. Stories are what teach us right from wrong and what’s what from our earliest years, but all of this is part of a culture that can’t be understood without stories. 

However, where do these culturally embedded stories come from? Well they come from the world around us, almost every culture, from ancient times to present day, had a classic story showcasing “the fool”, and this is so embedded in human culture because we see things like this firsthand, repeating over and over again since the ancient times. We learn the stories as we grow and once grown, we relive the same stories over and over again. 

When I was a child, I loved stories and I was the kid who was always reading. I submerged myself into cheesy stories about teenage girls in high school and college, and as I grew older I grew out of those stories and eventually I grew into my own narrative. Since I lived in a middle class neighborhood, I had an average high school experience, thus I went from hearing those stories to living my own. I don’t remember the title but I remember a book I read when I was younger about a girl in college who had always dreamed of college with starry eyes, but when she showed up she faced a series of personal issues such as a loved one becoming painfully distant, almost a stranger, and other emotional hardships that make her recluse to her dorm in a depressed funk for the majority of her first year, however, of course, it ended happily. However the way this book explained college was how I perceived college to be up until this recent year. However now I feel as if I’m in my own, similar story, running parallel to hers. 

In the end we either become the stories we read as children to learn about the world, or we see examples of them in our lives. Therefore making us story telling animals. 

In the film momento, the main character, Leonardo suffers from a very rare disorder. He has an untreatable form of memory loss where he cannot form new memories. Essentially this means every 15 minutes or so he forgets everything. However he still remembers before the incident, and especially his wife, who was raped and murdered. Filled with rage about this, he sets out to find her killer, but he can’t form new memories. His solution is to take pictures and even tattoo reminders on his body. 

This means that when Leonardo wakes up each and every moment he is clueless as to what has been going on in the previous years of his life. To remember who he is and what he is doing he uses a mirror to read off his body the things he believes to be true about his life. Each day he remembers he’s after his wife’s killer, and sets out for answers. However Leonardo does not believe eyewitness testimony to be a credible source, expressing, “Memory can change the shape of a room..” By this he is referring to the weak memory of the human mind. Each time we recall information from the past, we are distorting it, and we aren’t even remembering the actual event! We are remembering the last time we remembered it. Because of this memories get extremely modified over time, deeming eyewitness testimonies not credible sources of information. 

So arises the question how reliable really is our memory? The sad truth is that our own memories are just as reliable as the words tattooed on Leonardo. They both have as much credibility, and both have just as much proof to back them up. 

Philosopher David Hume says our personal sense of identity comes from our memories. He discusses our memory’s two principles of association, those being resemblance and causation. When referring to resemblance, Hume states, “memory not only discovers the identity, but also contributes to its production, by producing the relation of resemblance among the perceptions.” And for causation he wrote “memory does not so much produce as discover personal identity, by shewing us the relation of cause and effect among our different perspectives”. Hume also states that identity is just a habit that we have.

I personally do not think Hume would see Leonardo’s condition as any different from the standard human condition. Leonardo’s writings and pictures have the same amount of proof and credibility as our memories, which make up who we are. Both indicate everything about our present, thus they each explain why we are where we are, doing what we are doing. Therefore we really aren’t all that different from Leonardo’s state. 

It can be seen throughout the film Momento that when Leonardo wakes up, he sees everything that makes him, himself. Who’s to say we each don’t do this on a softer, smaller scale? Every morning when we wake up, we wake up in our room, surrounded by our belongings. These items can give us a sense of identity, in many ways. Some of our belongings have memories tied to them, as a personal example I have Coca Cola lamp next to my bed that was my grandfathers. So every time I look at that lamp, my mind is flooded with memories of my late grandpa. It’s memories like that that make me who I am, and almost each item I own reminds me of a loved one or a good time. Because of this, every day we get these little reminders of who we are and where we come from, which is really no different from Leonardo reading his tattoos. 

Have you ever forgotten where you parked your car? Imagine you finally found a parking spot in a parking garage and as you head to the elevator you take note of what floor you’re on, and what section the car is in. After a long day you return to the parking garage to get your car and head home, except there’s only one problem, you don’t remember where you parked your car, or even what floor. When you try your hardest to remember you pull a blank, even though you remember looking at the signs, taking note of the signs, and repeating it in your head, you can’t quite remember anything other than the sign was blue. This is an example of how weak the human memory is. Our memories are all actually distorted, either from it not being possible to recall every single detail, or from being recalled. Each time we recall a memory, we are just remembering the last time we remembered that memory. This means the mood we are in and the stimulus around us can affect how we recall our memory, and when we remember it next time it’ll have that lens on it. A neutral childhood memory, recalled when upset, or after a bad day, will be thought of negatively and when you remember it next, it’ll have that negative association with it, even though it was a neutral memory before it was recalled. This means all our memories are warped in one way or another, making them an illusion. 

When it comes down to how precise the human memory is, Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern university, conducted an experiment. She had the subjects memorize the placement of objects on a grid. She had them recall the placements over a span of 3 days. Her results showed that on the third day, the placements were closer to the placements from the second day instead of the first. In addition no one was able to perfectly place the objects on the third day. This enforces the idea that every time we recall something we recall the last time we remembered it, instead of remembering the original, true experience. 

David Hume, a philosopher who believes that the self is an illusion, or fictional, states, “memory not only discovers the identity, but also contributes to its production, by producing the relation of resemblance among the perceptions.” This is essentially saying that our memory is what constructs our identity and how we see ourselves, and it does this by stringing together memories, and the disillusions those memories turn into. 

Thinking to myself, I realize that the way I see myself, comes from an assortment of memories that come to mind, that I can only assume have been clouded due to being recalled. So if our identity is constructed from our memories, which our false, we live a false reality, that is, almost fictional. Since the foundation of our selves is built on false memories and disillusions, it is safe to say we each live far from reality, unable to see the world around us unbiased, but instead in a fictional worldview. 

In Descartes second meditation he uses fresh beeswax melting as a metaphor to get his point across. He demonstrates how we use our mind to determine what an object is, not entirely our senses since an object can change properties. To be specific, if you are holding beeswax it tastes, smells, and feels like beeswax, but if it melts, it feels different. However just because it now has a different property, our mind can still detect the primary essence of an object. 

This example supports Decrates dualism argument because what we can perceive from the senses with our body then has to be formulated into thoughts in our head. We don’t notice this transition but it happens. Dualism is the argument that the mind is separate from the body, which rings true when you take into account that sensory information has to be translated into thoughts in our head, and even when this sensory information changes, we can still determine the primary essence of the object to know what it is. Take for example when you pour water into an ice cube tray and wait a few hours, when you check it again it will be hard, it will be ice, and even though the ice doesn’t look clear and feels different, we can still use our mind to determine it is water. That is how we know the mind is separate from the body. 

Princess Elizabeth asks Descartes to explain how since the human soul is a thinking being, how does it affect the body to create voluntary actions. He answers this by explaining sensations belong to both the body and the mind, so they are united in a sense however still distant and different from the other. He explains that you need your senses (the body) and the mind to make sense and get around the world we live in. And this all makes perfect sense to me, however I don’t feel as if he did an adequate job explaining how distant the mind and the body are, but he created a good understanding of their togetherness. “But I shall rather stop here to consider the thoughts which of themselves spring up in my mind, and which were not inspired by anything beyond my own nature alone when I applied myself to the consideration of my being. In the first place, then, I considered myself as having a face, hands, arms, and all that system of members composed on bones and flesh as seen in a corpse which I designated by the name of body. In addition to this I considered that I was nourished, that I walked, that I felt, and that I thought, and I referred all these actions to the soul: but I did not stop to
consider what the soul was, or if I did stop”

The film Existenz fits into Plato’s allegory of the cave as it has many levels or layers parallel to the idea of knowing and not knowing the truth about the cave. The film takes careful precaution as to not show the setting of reality in the movie. We have no idea if this movie is set in the future, or the past, what country it’s in, or what fictional country it’s in, or any characteristic of the normal daily life there. This is to keep us, the audience, in the cave as well. 

This film also takes place in a land and time where video games are much more advanced than now, like a distant cousin of virtual reality, but it seems as though it transports the conscious into the game, or as pertaining to this blog post, the cave. The first aspect of the cave is the prisoners being chained and forced to watch the shadows that echo life. In the case of the film existenz, this scenario is represented by the fictional game, Trancendenz. Trancendenz is the first step away from reality, and even symbolizes this aspect of writing directly with the foreign blue plastic binding the people playing the so called game. Trancendenz puts their consciousness into a fictional game world together. 

From Trancendenz we go deeper into the cave with the fictional game within a game, Existenz. Existenz is parallel to Trancendenz, the only difference is the “game pod”, to me is more advanced yet more barbaric as these fleshy pods are alive, and connect right into each human. From my perspective, Existenz is almost equal to the shadows, with Trancendenz forming the shadows. Both of these games echo reality, giving a sense of what the world is like when really it is merely a false reflection, and most important of all, not the truth. 

From Existenz we are pulled even farther with the mini fleshy game pods. This just yanks us further and further from reality. And throughout the movie, it can be told that many individuals are almost absorbed into these games, such as an addiction. These are the prisoners chained in the cave, living their life through a watered down echo of reality, with absolutely no desire to see reality and know the truth. 

Ted Pikul and Allegra Geller represent the philosopher in Plato’s writings. They have seen outside the cave, and lived in beautiful reality and learned the truth, that these games are indeed keeping people back. So their role in this story is parallel to Plato’s writings, they are the philosophers that go back into the cave to try to drag people out. However they don’t really try to get anyone out, instead they kill one of the world famous “game designers” responsible for these games ripping people away from reality. 

To sum all this up, the video game players are the prisoners chained in the cage, living their life without knowing the truth, and Allegra and Ted have been outside the cave and have returned to free everyone else by slaughtering the game designer. However the people playing these video games, or in the cave, have no desire to leave this lifestyle and see the so called truth. This film lines up perfectly with Plato and makes me feel like Plato’s writings were an extreme prophesy that fits into every time era, but especially one in the future similar to this. 

We won’t talk about how even at the end when we break out of the cave back into reality it seems as though their is another layer of fog keeping them from reality, as it seemed like they were still in the game buffering like the game characters. But that’s not part of the prompt.  

In the Ethics of Belief, William Clifford brings to attention that we need to have proof for everything before believing it is the truth and accepting that idea. He even goes as far to say that its wrong, and lying to do so. This is demonstrated when he says “it is wrong always, anywhere, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence”. By these standards we are all wrong, and all liars, so its hard to take this without a grain of salt, however he has a logical argument.

The argument made by Clifford is a sound argument. This argument is sound because if you know it’s not true (or can’t prove it), but you tell yourself it’s true, you are lying to yourself, therefore being dishonest and hurting society. This hurts society because if everyone were to do that there would be great distrust, evolving and snowballing until civilization is on the brink. Not only is that argument valid, it is also sound. 

The practical significance of Clifford’s theory is about how we can’t just take the easy way out as it is unhealthy not only for us, but society, to have anything but truth with proof in our minds and lives. He wants us to have an honest lifestyle, not taking shortcuts because of money or personal inconvenience, and to think with actual, concrete, provable, logic and reasoning. He believes this because this is what is best for society. Clifford opens his thesis talking about a man disregarding the safety of his ship, even convincing himself that it’s fine without any proof that the ship was in fact, still fine after its many journeys. His neglect leads to a shipwreck with no survivors. This means his neglect lead to multiple unnecessary deaths. With everyone acting as carelessly as this what will society turn into? 

I did not spot any fallacies, as all arguments are sound to me, everything makes sense and clicks, and random things weren’t strewn in. 

1. Cows are black and white

        My dog is black and white

Therefore my dog is black and white

2. All mammals have hair/fur

        I have hair

       So I am a mammal 

3. When I run stop signs, I never get caught. So next time I run a stop sign I won’t get caught 
4. Whenever you drink spoiled milk you get sick

Spoiled milk makes you sick

Then if you drink spoiled milk you will get sick