You want to go to the Island. You will wear a cool white jump suit. You will eat the selected menu for you. You will strive to be selected in the lottery. You will not question any of this.
In the 2005 Michael Bay film The Island that is the reality. The survivors of society live in a quarantined area waiting to be selected through lottery to travel to the last remaining utopia, the island. This reality lies unquestioned until the very curious Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) decides there is something wrong. Lincoln discovers that he is nothing more than a clone after following fellow “survivor” Starkweather after he got chosen in the lottery to go to the island. Lincoln observes the doctors retrieving Starkweather’s organs for a professional football player who purchased him. Everyone he knows is simply a clone awaiting their purpose for their purchasers such as delivering a baby, spare limbs, or fresh organs.
When Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson) gets chosen for the lottery, Lincoln knows what will happen to her and the two escape into the real world. Having spent their existence in such a controlled environment, both Lincoln and Jordan have little in terms of personal identity. Where better to start understanding who you are than the person you are cloned after? Unfortunately Lincoln’s purchaser (Tom Lincoln) is a jerk who eventually reports their whereabouts to the cloning agency, while Jordan’s purchaser (Sarah Jordan) is in a coma from a car crash. Even though they have discovered the identities of their purchasers, it has little help in giving them anymore of a sense of identity. Base on the principle of identity two things are only identical when they coincide in every aspect ( Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.147).
It is not as simple as Lincoln taking on the identity of Tom, because they are not the same person. One theory as to what creates an identity is the memory theory. The memory theory explains that individuals unique memories are what differentiate us form one another (Rowlands, 2003, p.96). In the film the clones come alive as fully matured adults, so all of the valuable experiences and memories obtained throughout childhood and adolescents that typically help to define a person would be missing. This does not mean that the memories that they have from their time in the clone facility are invalid. They in fact shape the identity of these two people. Locke’s idea that the ability to be aware of one’s own mind is in itself identity (Upton, 2005, p.78)
Lincoln and Jordan, while identical biologically to their clone, like and identical twin would have different memories and therefore a completely different identity. While the level of cloning completed in The Island is not a current reality, it is one that seems more and more probable. Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding cloning, what would that mean for personal identity? Identical twins commonly struggle to create their own separate identities. What would happen if there were 14 clones each struggling to assert themselves into society. Personal identity is the essence of one’s self, giving guidance to morals, religion, opinions, clothing, without which we become sheep like.
Word Count: 533
References
Rowlands, M. (2003). The philosopher at the end of the universe: Philosophy explained through science fiction films. London: Ebury Press.
Upton, H. (2005). Nursing Philosophy, 6, 77-79.
Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P. (1990). Collins dictionary of philosophy. Great Britain: Collins.
Bay, M. (Producer & Director). (22nd of July, 2005). The Island [Motion picture]. United States: Dreamworks & Warner Bros.
Christopher Nolan’s 2010 film Inception artfully achieves the creation of alternative realities through dreams. More specifically the movie is based on the skills of Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCapprio) and his team who can retrieve information from a person’s subconscious while they dream. This is a highly valued skill that can change the decisions of powerful men mainly in the corporate world. In order to be pulled out of a level, there must be a person on the level before who can trigger a kick that will bring you back up a level.
An important law of going into the subconscious is that dream time is longer than real time so you could feel like you were in a place for days when only a few hours have passed in reality. In order to assure that he is in reality, Cobb carries a token, a top. If the top eventually falls he knows he is in reality, but if the top does not cease spinning he knows he is still in a subconscious level. Because in the subconscious what most people use to establish reality, their perception and what Plato calls sense-impression, can easily be fooled (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990,p.225).
“If you can steal an idea, why can’t you plant one there instead?”
The movie is centered a around a challenging job from a client, Mr. Saito, who wants a memory planted into a competitors mind to break up their business. In the subconscious there are multiple levels, the deeper you go in levels the more powerful the planted memory will be. Cobb and his wife traveled so deep into their subconscious realms that the lines between reality and the subconscious became blurred. Cobbs wife eventually killed herself in reality thinking she was still in the subconscious and needed to wake up. Mal died leaving behind Cobb and two children. Mr.Saito promises to return Cobb to his children in the United States where he is currently at large.
“They say we only use a fraction of our brain’s true potential. Now that’s when we’re awake. When we’re asleep, we can do almost anything.”
Is there something wrong with living in a virtual reality? There is a part of the film where Cobb goes into buy strong sedatives needed for his current job. He walks through what is reminiscent of an opium den, where people are laying on beds all hooked up to deep sedatives. The chemist Yusuf explains that the virtual reality is what they prefer. Is that wrong? What does that mean for society?
“Dreams feel real while we’re in them. It’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.”
Some say that the current generation of teenagers will not be able to effectively communicate because a majority of their interactions are in a virtual world of texting, MySpace, and video simulations. Is killing more socially acceptable because of the virtual reality of violent video games? Miller (2008) says that there are dangers n the virtual world just like that in the real world, but that because a person is less guarded in the virtual world they are more at risk. (p.6) Yet, according to Rowlands (2003), there is really no way of ever being sure that what we currently consider reality is actually the real world (p.55-56). Then making people abandon their virtual realities would just be bullying by the majority opinion that this world is real, when in actuality no one can ever be certain.
Word Count: 523
References
Miller, C. (2008). Virtual worlds, real exploits. Network Security, 4, 4-6.
Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P. (1990). Collins dictionary of philosophy. Great Britain: Collins.
Rowlands, M. (2003). The philosopher at the end of the universe: Philosophy explained through science fiction films. London: Ebury Press.
Nolan, C. (Producer & Director). ( 16th of July, 2010). Inception [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros. Pictures.
The 1993 motion picture, Schindler’s List is a biographical film about the transformation of a man during the horrors of the Nazi régime. Within the next five hundred words this monumental moral transformation that saved thousands of lives will try to be explained.
The man that is seen in the beginning of the film is not the same at the end of the film. I do not mean there are two different actors, but that the man Oskar Schindler has gone through such a complete transformation of his emotions, morals, motives, and knowledge that the man in the beginning of the film would not recognize himself at the end.
In the beginning of the film it appears that Schindler does not have much of an opinion regarding the Jewish people or the situation they are put in. Morals and ethics were something to be disregarded. He was purely concerned with his ability to build a fortune and gain recognition. Having strategically made himself known among powerful people within the Nazi party, Schindler gladly takes over the apartment of a wealthy Jewish family moments after their forced eviction. Yet, realizing the potential to use the cash flow of the Jewish community to support his business he employs accountant Itzhak Stern. While recognizing the current and probable future conditions of the Jewish community he is also able to shamelessly exploit them as well. It was not a matter of right or wrong, it was a matter of money. Schindler was simply accomplishing what he wanted to do, Rowlands (2003) refers to this as the prudential reasons (p.159).
“I have got 350, 350 workers on the factory floor with one purpose…to make money for me.”
We begin to see the first change in Schindler as he sits on a horse atop a hill overlooking the mass killings and sorting of the Jewish Krakow ghetto as they are prepared to be taken into camps. While visiting the camps for social reasons Schindler continues to meet his old accountant Stern and after each visit gives him something of value; food, a watch, a lighter. Yet, Schindler is still struggling with his desire to become a successful businessman. This can be seen when a woman looking to save her parents tells him of his factory’s reputation of being a haven for the Jewish. Eventually Schindler makes a complete transformation as he composes a list of people to be saved from Auschwitz to work in his factory that does not produce anything useable in the war. Eventually he is risking not only his company and fortune but his life to save others. This sort of ethical reasoning Rowlands (2003) calls moral reasons, and often contradicts with prudential reasons for acting (p.159).
“This list… is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf.”
The causation for this extreme change is hard to define, most likely because it could be attributed to a multitude of things. Schindler’s lack of ethics in the beginning of the movie earned him wealth, social standing, and security for his own well-being. Whereas, the more Schindler became morally conscious the more wealth and security he risked, and eventually lost. Hobbes would say all humans are egotistical creatures, looking out for themselves, which Schindler was doing in the beginning (Rowlands, 2003, p. 162). Many moral ideas are based on that of Christian ideology (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.105-106); while there is a massive religious struggle going on around him, Schindler appears to display little interest or concern for God. Perhaps, the constant exposure to the severe treatment of human life, combined with the growing relationships with the Jewish community helped to evolve Schindler from that egotistical Nazi.
“Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don’t.”
Does it mean that in order for someone to change their ways from right to wrong they need a massacre to wake them up? Or as humans does our evolution from self-centered child to socially conscious adult simply occur at different times for different people? Maybe Schindler would have eventually gained his moral compass even without the tragedy of war.
Word Count: 620
References
Rowlands, M. (2003). The philosopher at the end of the universe: Philosophy explained through science fiction films. London: Ebury Press.
Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P. (1990). Collins dictionary of philosophy. Great Britain: Collins. 47
Spielberg, S. (Producer & Director). (30th of November, 1993). Schindler’s List [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures
Suggested Readings
Meet Sonny, he can cook, clean, and read a bedtime story; but he is not a father. He can fix the car engine, rewire a computer, and program the TiVo; but he is not an engineer. He can give advice, express emotions, and even show reasoning; but he is not alive, or is he? Sonny is one of hundreds of NS-5 robots that provide services to the human race in the 2004 film I, Robot. As detective Spooner (Will Smith) investigates the murder of the Dr. Lanning, scientist and creator of these complex humanoid robots, he finds that Sonny appears to be less robotic and more humanistic.
What does it mean to be human? Biologically humans are made up of stuff; flesh, blood, and DNA or what can also be called natural life (Keller, 2007, p.2). Perhaps humans can be better defined by their intelligence. According to a dualism point of view intelligence first needs a mind to facilitate it, and a mind is a non physical entity that only humans can obtain (Rowlands, 2003, p.65). So while Sonny can replicate human traits thanks to his programming (by a human), he cannot, by these definitions, be considered a human.
Sonny, “They all look like me. But none of them are me.”
Calvin, “That’s right. You are unique.”
Therefore Sonny is nothing more than artificial intelligence. What does that mean? Litch (2002) describes it as a simulation of real intelligence (p.93-92). Could we then say that they are an artificial life form, thus they are a form of life, artificial as it may be. Just because robots are not classified as humans do they not deserve rights? Whitby would say so (Thimbleby, 2008,p. 339). Thimbleby describes his view that robots require laws of ethics similar to that of animals. Then Sonny and his Ns-5 companions can be classified as a sub-human group whose only purpose is to serve humans. This is not a new concept, slavery is based on this same idea. Many people in America during the 1600s regarded African slaves to be of a lesser species than that of the white man. This notion today seems barbaric and downright ridiculous. Maybe the future will consider us ignorant for not considering the rights and treatment of robots.
Detective Spooner, “I thought you were dead.”
Sonny, ” Technically I was never alive, but I appreciate your concern. “
Could creating a super species of robots so similar to human life prove detrimental? Rowlands (2003) explains that if robot intelligence continues to advance, “and significant differences in technological development between two races are, in human history at least, usually marked by the obliteration or near obliteration, of the less technologically developed.” (p.84). Perhaps this is not a current reality, but it could be one for the future. Similarly to the destruction of our environment, the advancement of robotics must also be considered when assessing our responsibility for future generations (Litch, 2003, p.115-116). It seems then unnecessary to continue to advance the realm of artificial intelligence. Perhaps humans are so lazy that they need robots to do their laundry or dishes. Currently artificial life is being seriously advanced for the such fields as health and warfare ( Sparrow, 2007; Babbar & Hemal, 2011). Or perhaps it is not that humans are lazy or looking purely to advance technology, but instead simply fulfilling a God complex.
Word Count: 524
References
Keller, E. (2007). Once again, ‘What is life?’. MIT and REHSEIS. Retrieved from http://vuibert.com/IMG/doc/9782711748655-Keller.doc
Litch, M. (2002). Philosophy through film. New York: Routledge
Rowlands, M. (2003). The philosopher at the end of the universe: Philosophy explained through science fiction films. London: Ebury Press.
Thimbleby, H. (2008). Robot ethics? Not yet: A reflection on Whitby’s “Sometimes it’s hard to be a robot”. Interacting with Computers, 20, 338-341.
Laurence, M. (Producer) & Proyas, A. (Director). (24th of May 2005). I, Robot [Motion picture]. United States: Fox.
Suggested Readings
Babbar P, & Hemal, A.K. (2011). Robot-assisted urologic surgery in 2010 – Advancements and future outlook. Urology Annals, 3(1), 1-7.
Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62-77.
Every society has rules. It can be in the form of written laws or something more subtle like a social norm that is not challenged. These rules can be there for a variety of reasons; safety, fairness, regulation. Within these rules each person has an innate place in society where they will be the most useful according to Plato (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.225). The rulers of a society should rule in the best interest of the community as a whole, But what happens when the wrong people are in charge? What happens if the society’s rules begin to suppress and regulate the masses in a most extreme way? When the rules of society are not seen so clearly as being for the good of the people, what will it take to change them? Or should I say who?
“People should not fear their government. Government should fear their people.”
In the 2006 film, V for Vendetta, a futuristic England has become a powerhouse neo-fascist society. High Chancellor Sutler rules the people by fear as his secret police hunt out anybody who does not conform, reminiscent of Hitler. Religion, sexuality, film, TV, books, music, and even art are all regulated by Sutler’s blacklist. People are controlled by curfews and busses that patrol the streets eavesdropping on anyone and everyone’s conversations.
“But regardless of what weapons they try to use to effect silence, words will always retain their power.”
Enter V. He is the hero, sort of. Having spent his past being tortured as a guinea pig by the government for medical progress he now is seeking revenge on those who were the main players in his past. Yet V’s personal agenda also coincides with the bigger picture that is the disruption of a corrupt government. In attempt to shake the people of London out of fear he blows up buildings, broadcasts himself on national television, and commits various murders. In the broadcast to the nation he provokes the people by engaging them in a series of thoughtful questions and issues about their government. With a history of uprising and protests towards this government, V knew that with a little of his help the people could once again form a successful uprising.
“Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.”
People strive for freedom, but complete freedom is something that can never be achieved according to Rowlands (2003, p.154). Daily, there are news stories having to do with a person’s rights. But what are rights? Who even decided we get rights? According to Short (2007) “Such studies show that ‘rights’ are not simply givens, but products of social and political creation and manipulation.” (p.858). The society in this film is one that most people would agree was in some need of a change. Should V implement a new idealistic form of government, perhaps one of Plato’s perfect Republic? Or is it ridiculous to strive for a perfection that can never be reached? What about those societies where it is not so clear cut? The film was said to be an exaggeration on the censorship and fear in the U.S.A and Brittan following the bombing of Twin Towers and the London subway bombings (Keller, 2008, p. 46). Stated constitutional rights of privacy, due process, and humane treatment were and are being violated. However, this is for our safety. Where do we step in and say no more? Or perhaps we become content with the situation until our lone hero comes along to wake us out of our slumber.
Word Count: 550
References
Keller, J. (2008). V for Vendetta as a cultural pastiche: A critical study of the graphic novel and film. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Rowlands, M. (2003). The philosopher at the end of the universe: Philosophy explained through science fiction films. London: Ebury Press.
Short, D. (2007). The social construction of indigenous ‘Native Title’ land rights in Australia. Current Sociology, 55 (6), 857-876.
Silver, J. (Producer), & McTeigue, J. (Director),. (1st of August, 2006). V for Vendetta [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Home Video.
Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P. (1990). Collins dictionary of philosophy. Great Britain: Collins. 47
Hello,
This will be a blog about philosophy and film. Enjoy!
MOVIES 