Why do we have to be the same?

Antz and the Liberalist Individual (Individual vs. Society)

Figure 5: Z creates his own movements as opposed to the ‘Mindless zombies capitulating to an oppressive system.’
Alcott, T. et al. (Writers), Darnell, E. & Johnson, T. (Directors) & Finkelman Cox, P. (Producer). (1998). Antz [DVD]. USA: DreamWorks.

The individual does not matter at all, what matters is the well-being of the colony (Litch, 2002). This is the philosophy and way of life for the ants in the film, Antz, who eat together, dance together, go to battle together and die together. But what if one ant were to defy this process?

Antz (1998) a DreamWorks animation film directed by Eric Darnell and Tim Johnson tells the story of the misfit ant, Z and his attempts to break free of the totalitarian society of his colony to win the affections of the princess. The film gives an insight look into the underground workings of an ant colony that displays the perfect example of how an authoritarian society is constructed.

In the beginning of the film, we see Z questioning his place as a worker ant in the colony, and the ant society’s regime to constrain his freedom and not allow him to see if he is happier in another role within the society. In thinking this, Z holds a liberalist perspective to what the colony should be like, that individuals should be free to pursue their own thoughts, desires and wishes without interference from the society (Falzon, 2007). Z describes his fellow ants as ‘mindless zombies capitulating to an oppressive system’ referring to the way they act exactly the same without knowing any different or the freedom to act as individuals. An example of this is shown in the scene where the ants are notified it is ‘6:15, time to dance’ and dance in lines using the exact same stiff and dull movements, whereas Z comes in and complains that the dance is ‘completely boring’ and starts to create his own movements.  However, if the entire colony was a liberalist thinker like Z, the state may fall apart and each individual would be at the mercy of others.

Philosophers theorise that if a social authority was taken away and each individual was free to do whatever they pleased, the society would end in chaos. Hobbes and Locke calls this society a ‘state of nature’ where no laws or authoritative figures exist and individuals would constantly interfere with one another in the pursuit of their wants, resulting in a chaotic situation (Falzon, 2007). If this philosophical theory was applied to Antz, the colony would not work together as a just state to live and to battle the termites. Instead, the ants would be living as individuals at the mercy of others, with the strong satisfying themselves at the expense of the weak and most importantly, not working together to defend their colony and win the war against the termites.

The film, Antz poses the question of what is an ideal state; a state in which the colony acts as an authoritarian state where each ant has a clear role and purpose in the society, or a state in which all ants live as individuals at the mercy of others and may create a chaotic situation.

References

Alcott, T. et al. (Writers), Darnell, E. & Johnson, T. (Directors) & Finkelman Cox, P. (Producer). (1998). Antz [DVD]. USA: DreamWorks.

Falzon, C. (2007). Philosophy goes to the movies. (p.82). New York, NY: Routledge.

Litch, M. (2002). Ethics. In M. Litch (Ed.), Film and philosophy. (pp.68-80). New York, NY: Routledge.

“In case I don’t see you, good afternoon, good evening and good night.”

The Truman Show and Scepticism (What is real?)

Figure 4: Live broadcast of Truman on The Truman Show
Niccol, A. (Writer), Weir, P. (Director) & Pleshette, L. (Producer). (1998). The Truman Show [DVD]. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Imagine you live in a world where your entire life is planned out for you and broadcasted to millions of people. For Truman in The Truman Show (1998), this is his reality, where Christof the TV producer attempts to deceive Truman in his daily life by broadcasting his every move on television, posing the philosophical problem of scepticism.

The Truman Show is a comedy-drama by Peter Weir where Truman Burbank discovers his entire life is actually a reality TV show and the show’s producer, Christof, tries everything, from creating traffic jams to forcing Truman to have a phobia of the sea, to prevent Truman from leaving the studio that is his world.

The problem of scepticism is one of the main philosophical significances in The Truman Show. Truman leads a seemingly normal life until he starts to become sceptical about his knowledge of the world he lives in, he starts to notice small, obvious illusions that he had not seen before, including a camera that falls from the sky, when he sees his presumably ‘dead’ father as a homeless man in the street and how his ‘wife’ starts to promote brands of foods before they eat them. Truman’s scepticism of his knowledge of the world is described by Descartes as questioning what our experience tells us about the world and suggest that we might be wrong even about things which are right before us (Falzon, 2007). This is evident in the scene where Lauren, a girl who wishes for Truman’s freedom from the studio, desperately tells Truman, “Everybody knows everything you do. Everybody is pretending. This is all fake, everything is fake,” that he starts to become sceptical about the surroundings of the world he lives in. It is from this sceptical reasoning that Truman starts to disbelieve his experiences in a world perceived in his mind and starting to actively believe in a external world outside of his mind (Litch, 2002).

As Truman begins to doubt the world that surrounds him, his scepticism aligns with Descartes’ theory that his sense experience might radically mislead him about the world and that there may be a force behind the reason for his scepticism; a force that deceives him through his sense experiences (Falzon, 2007). In his Meditations, Descartes invoked the idea of an evil genius-an omnipotent whose sole purpose was to deceive individuals in all of their perceptual experiences and beliefs (McGuire, 2001). Christof is clearly equivalent  to the evil genius that Descartes described in the way he deceives Truman through manipulating his actions and his thoughts. This is shown in the scene where Christof prevents Truman from sailing to the end of the studio and away from the world he has created, by creating an ‘accident’ in which Truman’s actor ‘father’ dies and results in Truman developing a phobia of the sea.

The Truman show emphasises the philosophical significance of scepticism and distinguishing the difference between the illusory and the real in what Truman believes is his ordinary experience.

References

Falzon, C. (2007). Philosophy goes to the movies. (p.82). New York, NY: Routledge.

Litch, M. (2002). Ethics. In M. Litch (Ed.), Film and philosophy. (pp.68-80). New York, NY: Routledge.

McGuire, J. (2001). The Truman Show. Philosophy Now, 32(1), 1-3.

Niccol, A. (Writer), Weir, P. (Director) & Pleshette, L. (Producer). (1998). The Truman Show [DVD]. USA: Paramount Pictures.

The future is determined

Back to the Future, Determination and Free Will (Free Will vs. Destiny)

Figure 3: Marty McFly blasts to change the past.
Gale, B. & Zemeckis, R. (Writers), Zemeckis, R. (Director) & Canton, N. (Producer). (1985). Back to the Future [DVD]. USA: Universal Pictures.

Does what happen in the past stay in the past? We are led to believe that the past is fixed and the future is up to our choices, but what if you had the power to alter the past and therefore create a possibility for the future to be fixed. When Marty McFly from Back to the Future (1985) travels to the past and interferes with past events, he proves that the past can be altered and future can be fixed.

Back To The Future (1985) a science fiction film directed by Robert Zemeckis, tells the story of Marty McFly, a typical eighties teenager, who is accidentally sent back in time to 1955 in a time machine. On his quest to return home, Marty must make his own parents meet and fall in love to ensure his existence and return home.

Back to the Future explores the  asymmetrical  difference between the past and the future and questions the notion of determinism, in that every event has a cause that determines it (Litch,2002). Events in the past appear to be determined and fixed and we cannot choose that it did not happen (Litch, 2002). Whereas, the terms choice, options and alternatives make it appear as though the future is not fixed in the same way (Litch, 2002). The idea that the past is fixed and the future is not develops the philosophical concern of universal determinism. However, Back to the Future explores universal determinism by reversing the way in which it works, making events in the past flexible and the future fixed and determined as a result of these changed events in the past. When travelling to the past, Marty accidentally alters the events leading to his parents’ first meeting and incidentally changing the fixed future in which his existence is fading as a result of the changes he made to the past. The whole point of the Back to the Future movies is that what time-travellers do can change the course of future history (Weatherson, 2003).

Within the context of the world in which universal determinism is true, does the individual have the power of free will to make their own choices, or is the future fixed in a way that the results of the choices the individual makes are predetermined? Litch, 2002, believes that all human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and calls this human determinism. It is evident that Back to the Future may therefore be structured through a human determinist perspective.  The film questions the free will and choices of Marty and questions his ability to alter the past and still return to the future in the same circumstances. When applied to Back to the Future, it means Marty can travel to the past and witness the same events that his parents witnessed when they lived in that time frame, as the events precede the ‘future’ or the present world Marty lives in. This is seen in the scene where Marty’s parents first meet and Marty is seen witnessing the beginning of their meeting, but makes the choice to interfere in the scene by saving his father from the car crash instead of witnessing the event he knows will make them fall in love and result in his existence. This choice he makes from his free will and shows how human choices are fully determined by preceding events.

Back to the Future explores determinism from a new perspective and adds a human determinism view to the way the audience perceives time travel to the past. Above all, Back to the Future questions the possibility that the past is not fixed and that the future may be fixed.

References

Gale, B. & Zemeckis, R. (Writers), Zemeckis, R. (Director) & Canton, N. (Producer). (1985). Back to the Future [DVD]. USA: Universal Pictures.

Litch, M. (2002). Free will, determinism and moral responsibility. In M. Litch (Ed.), Film and philosophy. (pp.68-80). New York, NY: Routledge.

Weatherson, B. (2003). Time travel movies. Retrieved from: http://crookedtimber.org/2003/08/29/time-travel-movies/

Remember this?

Memento and Personal Identity

Figure 1: Leonard’s Mementos
Nolan, C. & Nolan. J. (Writer), Nolan, C. (Director) & Ball, C. (Producer). (2000). Memento [DVD]. USA: Summit Entertainment.

If you had no memory of your past self, would you still be the same person? For Leonard Shelby, the protagonist in Christopher Nolan’s Memento (2000), the continuity of his personal identity is questioned when his ‘condition’ prevents him from making new memories.

Memento is a psychological thriller that follows the two separate stories of Leonard, an ex-insurance investigator who can no longer create new memories and attempts to avenge the murderer who killed his wife, the last thing he remembers. One story line moves forward in time, while the other moves backwards in time revealing pieces of scenes at a time.

The philosophy of the film ties closely with a missing personal identity due to his memory loss and inability to create new memories. Philosopher John Locke’s theory of personal identity criteria depends on sameness of consciousness or memory (Falzon, 2007). Locke believes as long has a continuity of memory and can remember being the same person, doing, thinking and feeling certain things one can still be the same person despite bodily changes (Falzon, 2007). When compared to Memento, Locke’s criteria for personal identity sees Leonard being the same person before the accident as he remembers thinking, feeling and doing certain things from his past. Leonard says in a conversation with a hotel attendant, “I know who I am, I know all about myself, I just, since my injury, I can’t make new memories.” However Litch, 2002, contests this by saying ‘the original Leonard does not exist anymore, that his body is occupied by a series of different persons who only last a few minutes each; the maximum time span he can remember.’ It is evident that Leonard’s current self is not the same person as his past self in the way he sets up his future self to kill Teddy, writing ‘He’s the one. Kill him. on the back of Teddy’s Polaroid photo.” Therefore, it is proven that Leonard is not the same person as his pre-trauma self in the origins of his mementos and as a result of his faulty memory being the criteria for his personal identity.

Leonard’s personal identity seems to be tied closely to memory, but as the audience experiences the same memory lapses that Leonard experiences it is clear that Leonard relies on physical identity to confirm his place in the world. He relies on his tattoos and the Polaroid photos he takes to act as the link between his current self and his past self. Leonard says in relation to the mementos providing facts for his life, “Memories can be distorted. They’re just an interpretation, they’re not a record, and they’re irrelevant if you have the facts.” This shows that Leonard relies on the facts, his mementos, to define his personal identity and completely disregards his memory. Litch, 2002, believes that Leonard knows his present self is isolated from his future self, in the messages he writes for some future person and not for himself and his identity.

In summary, this film reflects the isolation of the past, present and future selves of Leonard as being three separate persons disconnected by memory and joined by physical memory aids. Leonard’s body is now occupied by a freakish succession of persons who are isolated from the original Leonard and from each other (Litch, 2002).

References

Falzon, C. (2007). Philosophy goes to the movies. (p.82). New York, NY: Routledge.

Litch, M. (2002). Personal identity. In M. Litch (Ed.), Film and philosophy. (pp.68-80). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nolan, C. & Nolan. J. (Writer), Nolan, C. (Director) & Ball, C. (Producer). (2000). Memento [DVD]. USA: Summit Entertainment.

What is right and wrong?

Sherlock Holmes and Moral Relativism (Morality and Ethics)

 

Figure 2: “How did you see that? Because I was looking for it.”
Johnson, M.R. et al. (Writers), Ritchie, G. (Director) & Berman, B. (Producer). (2009). Sherlock Holmes [DVD]. USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.

What is right and wrong? Do we construct our own definitions for these terms or is there a rulebook that we must follow? For Sherlock Holmes, the answer is that knowing what is right and wrong comes from his own rational conscience.

Sherlock Holmes (2009), a psychological mystery by Guy Ritchie tells the story of Sherlock Holmes, a legendary sleuth and his right-hand man, Dr Watson, who use logically reasoning to catch the serial killer and occult sorcerer, Lord Blackwood.

The film shows Sherlock Holmes as the true essence of a character who is primarily a rational being; following his own rules and developing his own moral laws. Kant believes that through rationality, individuals legislate moral laws for themselves (Falzon, 2007). This theory links closely to moral relativism where there are no objective moral facts, but the truth of all moral evaluations is relative to individual moral standards (Litch, 2002). This theory is evident in the way Holmes goes against the Church and the society’s perceived views of the dark magic rituals performed by Lord Blackwood. The Church and its followers are lead to believe that these acts are real and blasphemy is committed from these acts. However, when Lord Blackwood appears to be forcing a girl to stab herself on an altar in a black magic ritual, Holmes sees this act and stops Watson from crossing a glass knife used in the ritual, to which Watson asks, “How did you see that?” which Holmes answers with, “I was looking for it.” This example shows that Holmes does not follow the moral laws or a belief constructed by the society, but is a separate rational being who has constructed his own moral laws and conscience.

Sherlock Holmes, however, defies Kant’s theory in the way of putting his personal interests and desires in front of the voice of duty. Kant sees that the matter of an individual’s ordinary moral experience should be that they distinguish between duty and personal desire, where the voice of duty and what is right takes precedence over merely personal interest, desire and inclinations (Falzon, 2007). Holmes does not display evidence of this morality in the movie, where every mystery he solves and action he takes to solve it is of his own choosing and in his best interest. This defiance of Kant’s idea of morality is showed in the film when Holmes continuously performs various experiments on his dog, Gladstone, giving him numerous diseases. It is clear from these experiments that Holmes does not care for the animal’s welfare but merely uses the dog as a tool to aid his curiosity and personal interest in different diseases and drugs. Therefore, Holmes does only appear to do the right thing for his personal interest and does not pay attention to what is right or wrong in his duty to society.

Throughout the film, Sherlock Holmes shows his character as a rational being who develops and follows his own moral laws and ethics but does not contribute to the rightful morality of duty in the society, prioritising his own personal interest about the stern voice of duty.

References

Falzon, C. (2007). Philosophy goes to the movies. (p.82). New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, M.R. et al. (Writers), Ritchie, G. (Director) & Berman, B. (Producer). (2009). Sherlock Holmes [DVD]. USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.

Litch, M. (2002). Ethics. In M. Litch (Ed.), Film and philosophy. (pp.68-80). New York, NY: Routledge.