Analysis #4

Just when I thought this book was getting weird, it really dropped me on my head. This whole thing with Hilde is just madness. I am curious to see how these two worlds are linked because if Sophie and Alberto really are just characters, how do Hilde's possessions wind up into a story? How come Sophie and Alberto at least appear to have the capability to think for themselves? Is this simply an illusion? If so, what implications does this have? That we are not independent beings with no free-will and instead are the toys of some over-watcher? That possibility simply doesn't seem fathomable to me. Then again, I suppose that's the basis of Kant's argument regarding the possible infinity of the universe. That we are simply too insignificant to really comprehend and grasp the magnitude of the universe. That really is a terrifying thought when you allow it to seize your attention. If Kant is indeed accurate in this assertion, then it heightens the absolute awe regarding this entire topic of reality. 

Also, how is Alberto Knag orchestrating all of this? It's all just very weird and it brings a completely new meaning to Descartes' idea of an evil genius and whether or not reality actually exists. It's really a melting pot of different philosophical ideas that are being discussed. For instance, Berkely's idea of the "Ultimate Perceiver" is coming into play as Sophie's world doesn't actually seem to exist except in the mind of this mysterious puppet-master Alberto Knag; the idea that nothing actually exist unless someone perceives it (In this case, Hilde and her father are the perceivers) is exemplified through this odd plot. 

Lastly, what is Alberto Knag's purpose in doing all of this? He continues to become more obscure and random in his mischief. It's one thing to send postcards, it's a completely different thing to have a sea serpent and a fable character appear out of nowhere. Hopefully there really is a point to these preposterous acts, otherwise it simply seems like none-sensible filler on the author's behalf. 

Modern-Day Connection #3

Alberto may be teaching philosophy, but I'm teaching you some psychology.

As I discussed in my analysis blog, Spinoza's take on monism is quite different from what I'd previously learned in AP Psych in that monism tends to be more favored by agnostics and atheists. Since many atheists hold the belief that there is no afterlife, it is reasonable to assume that we don't really have a soul or a part of us that carries on after death. Thus, if the mind and body are connected, once the body has died, the mind has died as well; and there's nothing else after that. It's simply lights out. Dualists, on the other hand, believe that the mind possesses the soul and that when our fleshy vessel expires, our greater energy carries onto whatever our next path may be in the universe. Since Dualists tend to believe in a soul, when we learned about dualists in AP Psych, they tend to talk about near-death experiences. Everyone knows the classic conversion tale of someone during a tragic incident in which they encounter the blinding light and the mysterious voice beckoning, "It's not your time yet", and that person soon recovers. Monist have discredited these near-death phenomenons as nothing more than an altered state of conscious. Because the body is in an unusual state of consciousness, some believe that the unconscious comes into play since the entire body is hyper-stimulated and doesn't know how to react. During this time when the subconscious is active, it produces a dream-like state in which we witness these reported fantastic events. Hence, this is why it is interesting to compare Spinoza's take on monism when I learned a very different approach to it in psychology; Spinoza's monism is spiritual, the monism that I personally interpreted was the antithesis.

I probably should've included this in my analysis, but I just found this. It's humorous to analyze one comment about Descartes' dualism. Alberto mentions that Descartes believed that the mind and body interacted between a part of the brain called the Pineal gland. This is just kind of funny to me because the Pineal gland helps produce melatonin, a natural compound that induces sleep. The only thing the Pineal gland connects our mind to is our unconscious, that is, of course, if you possess a Freudian view on dream analysis. That thought right there I thought was uncanny and oddly coincidental since Alberto discusses the ideas of life just being a dream or alternate reality, and we're currently watching Inception- a movie about alternate realities inside of dreams.

Analysis #3

Descartes and Spinoza are some interesting characters. The main struggle between the two of them is the relationship between mind and body. Descartes, who believed in dualism, believed that the mind and body were completely separate entities. Spinoza, on the other hand, is a monist, meaning he believes that the mind and body are connected. Spinoza establishes the rudiments for the transcendental philosophy that Thoreau and other famous literary artist exemplified in the early to mid-1800's. Spinoza proliferated this idea that the three most basic pillars of the universe are God, nature, and our Substance. Thus, in order to live a good life, in Spinoza's view, we must reconnect with God through nature since God is in every living thing (I will give my thoughts on this theory in my Modern-Day Connection post). Both Sophie and Spinoza also have somewhat of a practical approach to monism as well. It is quite simple to figure that our brain- the mind- controls our movement; If I want to lift my arm, my arm soon lifts. Plus, my body sends signals to my brain, resulting in our reflexes and other processes; If I touch a hot stove, my hand's sensory receptors relay the message to my central nervous system through to the brain-stem (the part of the brain responsible for reflexes) which then activates command neurons to dictate motor neurons in our arm to move away from the painful source. In other words, there has to be some sort of connection between the mind and body in order for anything to work. This is proven by basic anatomy and physiology (Plus psychology!). In conclusion, I concur with Spinoza in the idea of monism, but for different reasons.

Modern Day Connection #2

Yesterday in my analysis of the book I discussed the ontological arguments for faith. In this argument, we discussed the idea that the idea of god is simply too great to be just an idea. This idea of ideas made me think of Carl Jung's "Collective Unconscious" which has probably been discussed when talking about religion. Jung's theory (part of the psychoanalytic field of psychology) proposes that all humans have a shared consciousness that developed over thousands of years of evolution and societal development. It is because of these shared, subconscious values that many cultures have some similar traits, values, and traditions- such as belief in a higher power, or the schema that a mother should be nurturing, or maintaining traditionally patriarchal society, and other innate behaviors. Jung believes that all humans share these deep-seeded, traditional ideologies at birth and are exhibited through our behavior and our dreams. Anyways, the major emphasis with making the connection is the trend that in every ancient civilization, and even today, religion is a major influence in society. The argument here is that since its belief is so overwhelming and held by so many people, there must be some validity in the belief. Then again, this is an illogical fallacy as this appeals to the majority. Just because the majority of people share a similar opinion, and those opinions have lasted for thousands of years, doesn't make their opinion valid.
Take some of the biblical beliefs that have been proven wrong throughout history. For instance, Genesis claims that the earth was made 6,000 years ago. Though through carbon-dating and other undeniable evidence, we know that the earth is at least 4 billion years old; sorry, but we were still in the neolithic age 6,000 years ago. Or note the conflict with the geocentric belief that was held by the church for so long. Once Renaissance and Baroque scientist such as Galileo and Copernicus proposed the Heliocentric Theory, the church did everything in its power to attempt to expunge these blasphemous views; they jailed Galileo for refusing to retract his evidence. Though as we know today, we revolve around the sun. The list goes on of the more contemporary discoveries and beliefs that contradict the bible (Darwin's theory of evolution being another) that all go to show the point that the bible is not an infallible doctrine.

Analysis Post #2

First of all, to continue one with the Hilde phenomenon, I still don't really understand the point of it. I think that the author had a chance to do something interesting with the mystery, but once Alberto started to have direct communication with Sophie, it sort of ruined the whole Hilde thing. I think the fact that Alberto continues to just blatantly ignore Sophie's pursuits and leave her in the dark is just stupid.
"Why did you call me Hilde? What's your relationship with Hilde's father? What does all this stuff mean?" Alberto: "Oh, he certainly is a trickster; leaving those hints all over the place! Hush now, my child! Time for philosophy!"
I think that this whole arrangement that they have isn't very healthy either. The poor mother is left in the dark as Sophie just runs off to some stranger's house and thus has a completely new set of behaviors; whenever the mother tries to confront Sophie, she beats around the bush with a tantrum of some sort or tries to out-smart her mother.

Anyways, to make a more legitimate analysis of the book, I'd first like to address the Hellenistic philosophies. I know I talked about it in the class blog, but the Skeptic-form of the Hellenistic philosophies really resonated with me. Besides Democritus with his materialistic beliefs, this was sort of the first form of religious skepticism. For me, with my unabashed atheistic beliefs, I wholeheartedly support this school of thought. Similar to the religious ideas, the Middle Ages and Renaissance provide some very interesting outlooks on the question of religion. Do I agree with them? No, but they're interesting nonetheless. I find some of the arguments to be a bit far-fetched. For instance, Anselm's ontological argument is sort of an illogical fallacy. It's sort of some circular reasoning to argue that God exist because the thought exist in our head. This is very similar to the basic argument of faith: That though we cannot see or prove god's existence, we have faith that he exist. This is still a pretty weak argument because there is no evidence to back it up. We make the assumption that the idea of god is too great to not be real. However, the same claim could be said about anything: I could found a religion in which Richard Simmons created the world between high-kicks and jazzersize because the idea sounds too glorious to not be true. In essence, after hundreds of years of arguing against some of these elden rationales, they seem too antiquated to still exist in modern debate.

Blog #1- Am I doing this Right?

This is my first blog post, so bear with me here. I'm still figuring out how to use this new website.

I suppose the first thing I'd like to say about Sophie's World is that the writing seems very basic. The writing style of the author is very simplistic and a seven-year-old could keep up with the text and story line in between Sophie's lessons. Plus, the whole thing about Hilde and the weird gifts, and Sophie's odd relationship with "Alberto" is just obscure.
However, on a less superficial level, the information within the book is quite interesting, though it can also be confusing. I think the most difficult thing to understand, just in terms of reading and concept comprehension would be the whole debate about "forms". With the natural philosophers and Plato's Theory of Forms, it's sometimes confusing just what on earth they mean with all of their ideas. For example, I'm a bit confused as to what Heraclitus means when he says that stuff naturally "flows". What does that mean for something to flow? The only real part I understand about that is his iconic quote about never stepping into the same river twice. Or, just to be crystal clear, what exactly is a "form"? Also, with his Theory of Forms, Plato believes that every idea has already been thought of. What does he mean by that? If it's already been thought of, who thought of it first? Is he proposing that some sort of higher power or alternate universe contains these "ideal forms" or thought of these ideas first? Take the chapter regarding Aristotle: They talk more about Plato's Theory of Forms, and Plato claims that first there is an "idea" and then there is a form. How could that be though? The way Aristotle explains it makes much more sense. The idea that we observe something and as our brain begins to establish a relationship or title for that thing, it turns into an "form"; They use the example of horses in the book to explain this. That makes sense to me because it sounds like the rudimentary proposal of schemas (The unique, mental framework that we use to perceive the world)- as we acquire new information and have different experiences, we either assimilate the information into a pre-existing schema, accommodate the schema to make more sense with the new information and prevent cognitive dissonance, or we form a new schema entirely. Aristotle really did explore all fields of science, and that included psychology!

#Psychiseverywhere