Existentialism

What are some of the existential themes in the movie?

The film has concepts of being-in-itself vs being-for-others, pour-soi, facticity vs transcendence, and individualism.
Friends June and Waverly, who are both friends and rivals, both displayed the concept of being-for-others in their experiences of being raised by their mothers. According to Sartre, we acquire a limitless freedom once we realize that we have an immense responsibility over our very own shoulders and all of our actions would affect the world. Every person innately has this freedom and it is every man’s ultimate goal to acquire it. However, this freedom can overlap with the other’s freedom. This consequently forms a situation of being-for-others. In June’s story, she initially had parallel dreams with her mother, which was being a great pianist. After an embarrassing fiasco, however, she did not even want to touch the piano anymore. Still, her mother insisted that she play the piano. The mother is overshadowing the freedom of her daughter. June’s sense of individualism is therefore trampled because of the ongoing conflict. She is now a victim of being-for-others. The same could be said for her friend Waverly, who was experiencing something very similar with her mother. Unlike June, Waverly was very talented. Her mother was so proud of her achievements that she bragged about her everywhere she want. Waverly, however, felt that she was being used like an object for her mother to show.
Another example would be Waverly’s mother Lindo, who was forced to marry someone she had never met. Since her childhood, her mother treated her as if she was owned by another family. Her mother seemed to be preparing her for that family for so long as she could remember. In this case, her fate was predetermined by people unknown to her. She was fully deprived of her freedom to choose how to live her life. This, in someway, created a facticity. Lindo, in a desperate attempt to save herself from the atrocious treatment of her in-laws, managed to formulate a deceptive scheme, which in the end, was successful. She was able to transcend into a life that allowed her to define herself through her own actions and deeds. She ultimately became a “pour-soi”.

One of the major Criticisms of existentialism is pessimism. How does the film negate that criticism?

The film exhibits implicitly how concepts of existentialism could actually improve how one looks at his own life. People normally think that existentialism is all about how life is meaningless and how burdened we are with the innate responsibility we have to carry. I firmly disagree with this notion because I believe existentialism can somehow provide us a deeper understanding of reality. We could realize that we have that limitless responsibility over our shoulders and lament over it, instead, I suggest using this realization as the foundation of how we could act as better, more moral human beings.
Also, the film shows how the members of the joy luck club, the parents as well as their daughters triumphed over great deals of tragic events. It uses a story-telling technique on all of the main characters. There is always a conflict that involves someone being deprived of their freedom to act or live in some way. Following it is always a resolution that symbolizes transcendence. Having that said, by critically analyzing the exchange of ideas within the boundaries of the film, we could learn how existentialism could in fact be the opposite of pessimism.



As a Chinese man/woman, how similar is your situation with the main character?

Since I am not Chinese, I can only refer to stories shared with me by my Chinese friends. As far as I can remember, all of them had families who followed strictly the rule that they cannot be in any way intimately related with those who are not of pure Chinese origin. I have heard countless stories of relationships being ended due to the disapproval of Chinese parents. Furthermore, some families still even follow the tradition of having fixed marriages. Surprisingly, most of them did not like what they’re parents wanted them to follow. They want to be free to do what they want and choose whom to marry. They feel that we are in a generation where we should not be bound by ancient traditions. Having that said, I can say that the Chinese these days still have similar situations to that of the main characters of the film.

References:

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/joyluck/section1.html
http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses2.html
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/existentialism.htm
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ756589&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ756589

Being for others..

My experience with the concept of being-for-others is not exactly a brief one. It had been with me since I have realized something very important, and still is continuing to this day.
I have three brothers and a sister. My sister and my two brothers are significantly older than me. My father, who is quite successful, expects a lot from each of us. As I was taking primary school, my brothers and sister were already taking their respective courses in college. They, however, did not exactly live up to my father’s expectations. My two brothers got kicked out of their colleges due to extremely low grades. They were very preoccupied on many things but academics is not one of them. My sister, on the other hand, finished college promptly but without any academically commendable achievements because she too was preoccupied on different things. My eldest brother went to different colleges and got kicked out after a common span of time. This happened too many times and I had lost count. My other brother went to another college and did a little better than the eldest since he stayed there for good. By good, I mean an additional four years. This seemingly endless series of failures and disappointments was too much for my father. He became less kind to my siblings. Though, I know it was mostly their fault.
I graduated high school and was now ready for the empty slate that is college. Knowing what had gone on within my family though, my heart was far from light. An immense pressure involuntarily laid upon me was there. I cannot let what had happened to my brothers happen again, I said to myself. I never did put a lot of effort to my studies during my high school days but being in college was largely different. Even when I was at the worst of my moods, I would study hard. I knew this was the very last chance. After several trimesters in college, results of my academic efforts materialized. I had acquired grades that surpass even my father’s expectations. I did it, I thought.
To this day, I am somewhat coerced to perform “well”.

Levels of being-for-others:
a.) Love or Masochism
b.) Hate or Sadism

Conclusion:
I refute Sartre’s argument that hell is other people. Indeed, conflict arises when the definition of our selves that stem from our subjectivity is distorted through the perspective of others. Because of this we become sort of alienated from our true selves and therefore act in accordance to how others see us. Thus emerges the phenomenon of being-for-others. However, this concept may not be viewed so pessimistically. One could say that the hellish trait of the other is somewhat offset by the latter’s indirect propensity to positively benefit who he or she is affecting.
In my particular case, my behavior was affected by my father’s expectations. A conflict emerged from the discrepancy between my definition of my self and my father’s definition of who I am. Somehow, the latter ruled and I was at its mercy. Having that said, I am glad to be in this seemingly pessimistic situation. Because of the overarching authority towering over me, I had unknowingly improved my self as a whole. I was able to avoid the wrongs of my brothers.
I can confidently say that other people are not necessary hell. On the contrary, they could be the exact opposite.

References:

http://www.lclark.edu/~clayton/commentaries/hell.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Being-for-others
http://www.theatrehistory.com/french/sartre002.html

The Matrix

How do we know that what we see is real?

There are several conflicting views regarding the way we accept certain things or events as truth. One of them is the way of thinking proposed by Rene Descartes, which is rationalism. He argues that we can only conclude, or at least consider, that an object is real if the doubting of that same object is present. This is in line with his central ideological statement “Cognito, ergo sum”. On the other hand, John Locke suggests that we can only gather knowledge through empiricism, meaning, the experiences recorder by the brain serve as the greatest pieces of evidence we can use for considering something as real. This proposition gives greater emphasis on the sensory aspect of gathering truth in comparison to Descartes’ rationalism. Another form of criticizing truth is Berkeleys’ idealism. There exist only entities that think and the objects, places, or events perceived by those entities.

I believe that those main doctrines of philosophy mentioned best serve as guides for our own perceptions of truth – none is necessarily true. I, however, firmly believe that we are not “brains in vats” as proposed by the Matrix. It is argued that we can never really know if we are not “brains in vats” since everything we conceptualize and therefore believe as real, is a preselected stimulus by some evil scientist that maintains us in our vats. This idea is too far fetched in my opinion and is only a result of our over analysis of deceptively simple things. It, therefore, should be dismissed in my humblest opinion.

What I think is real is anything I can perceive using my senses or anything I can conceptualize or put under scrutiny using my reasoning. I am more inclined to empiricism and rationalizing, both being extremely contrasting to one another however. Furthermore, I believe that if a certain thing or phenomenon can be sensed, experienced, or reasoned by another being besides myself, then it is real. I believe in the veracity of the collective thoughts, regarding the existence of something, conjured by multitudes of thinking entities.

We can infinitely argue about the truthfulness of things but one concept always stays – We can only argue about things that we have some knowledge of, and those, I think, should already be considered real.








Why is it better to live in the real world despite its inability to make us always happy, instead of an illusory, dream like world where everyone can experience what he or she wants?

In the movie, Neo took the red pill with hopes getting answers for the questions and feelings that have been haunting him for most of his life since he feels that his life seems like a dream and, more intriguingly so, he feels more awake as he dreams in his sleep. He then had received all the answers he ever needed and seemed to have fallen on his face with the inconceivable reality he learned. Now we ask our selves, should we or should we take the red pill instead of the blue pill?

Agent Smith said that the matrix was originally a perfect world where every single human being, powering the matrix, is happy. That first matrix, however, failed and many people died. He was implying that man simply cannot be absolutely happy – there must be some sort of suffering in order for him to avoid decay. Having that said, I think it is better to live in the real world even if it is void of all the luxuries of the illusory world.

The freedom of man to think and act for themselves can never be achieved if every single one of them is to be placed in a human-powered energy generator. Furthermore, if every man or woman were to have what he or she wants, then there would not exist an equilibrium between satisfaction and dissatisfaction, which would ultimately cause the permanent prevailing absence of the desire to evolve intellectually and emotionally. Thus, society will fall.

The purpose of the mind is to think freely and create ideas for whatever purpose its possessor deems necessary. To be situated in a world that is controlled by a novel set of rules beyond man’s capacity to comprehend, is outright atrocious. It defeats the purpose of the mind.

If we had taken either the red pill or the blue pill, we could always wonder what could have happened if we had done the contrary, which means that we are thinking, doubting beings that absolutely exist.

References:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm
http://skepdic.com/empiricism.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/brainvat.htm

If I were a philosopher..

I have always wondered what lies beyond the ceasing of life. What does it feel like? Should we see it as something bad? Is it the ultimate end? I remember asking myself these questions when I was a kid. It probably stemmed from my fear of losing those whom I love. In the news, I would see reports of various random people who die from accidents, murder, or natural causes. I then believed that people die at an epidemic rate, thus escalating my self-manufactured fear.

Why do people have to die then? Is it the failure of the human body to regenerate itself beyond a century? Or is it “His” plan that in the end would “reveal” itself? Does it make life richer by making the privilege of living more attractive to cherish? Death, as it seems, is almost as unchanging or as constant as change itself.

Death is so much a part of life that different cultures have had differing views on its meaning. Some see it as the catalyst for the transition to eternal life. Others believe that death is preordained to those who have lived lives that do not conform to perceived proper human behavior. Furthermore, death, in Japanese culture, is a means of preserving one’s honor. They believe that if one had failed epically, to the extent that to extend one’s time on earth is futile, then self initiated death is the only available honorific act. More recently, death has become more popular as an escape from realities too great to comprehend, as reflected by the great number of suicide related deaths, usually involving the youth. Having that said, we can somehow vaguely conclude that death is something diverse.

What exactly constitutes death? And what does it feel like? Death can be summed up by the absence of consciousness, just like sleep, only that it is permanent in a very grim sense. If that is the case, however, why do we fear it? If we assume that nothing essentially occurs after the dismal transition, because it is the ultimate end, then there is no reason to fear it. Yet, a normal man would be shaken by the very sound of it as it is spoken by another. As a vain attempt to arrive at a satisfying yet still incomplete answer, we can turn our heads toward the biological aspect of our fear of death. The body does everything, even involuntarily, within its capacity to keep itself the furthest from death; thus, we innately see death as something bad. Is this then the absolute answer? Do we dismiss all the nooks and crannies of the answers that are of metaphysical nature? I believe that the scrutiny of all established knowledge is the stepping stone to man’s intellectual impeccability. To continue to philosophize, then, is acutely mandatory.