Hi all– Trigger warning for this blog, I talk about personal experiences with suicide. Thank you!

The passages I chose from the McIntyre reading that describes a particular aspect of persons as the subject of a narrative was the passage concerning our responsibility in our own lives to live a life worth telling.

McIntyre believes that “to be a subject of a narrative that runs from one’s birth to one’s death is… to be accountable for the actions and experiences which compose a narratable life.” He also says, “When someone complains–as do some of those who attempt to or commit suicide–that his or her life is meaningless, he or she is often and perhaps characteristically complaining that the narrative of their life has become unintelligible to them…” This passage essentially means that we have an obligation to be able to tell the story of our lives, and have that story be intelligible and show unity between the events of our life. Our duty as “the subject of a narrative” is to hold ourselves accountable for the events and choices that we make in our lives. Without this sense of unity and accountability for our narrative, we can start to believe that “the narrative of [our lives] has become unintelligible”. I have had personal experience with this concept that he brings up. When my grandparents passed away in my freshman year of high school, I began to feel that my life had become unfamiliar, that I had no goals to work towards. I didn’t know why I felt this way, why I felt so lost, and this led to attempts to take my own life, as well as self harm. I didn’t know that I was someone who could struggle with depression and anxiety, because I had not remained accountable for events in my life. I had shut out parts of myself and experiences that were darker, because I wanted a version of my life and my identity that I felt was worth telling. However, as McIntyre puts it, I had to hold myself accountable for every event in my life, in order to make an intelligible narrative. I had to understand that I was more than just one version of myself. This idea is well summarized in another quote from this passage: “it makes sense to ask him to give us an intelligible narrative account enabling us to understand how he could at different times and different places be one and the same person and yet be so differently characterize. Thus personal identity is just the identity presupposed by the unity of the character which the unity of the narrative requires.” My narrative require unity, and that would reflect in my identity. Once I was able to realize that, I was able to balance the different sides of myself, and come to terms with what my narrative, and my identity is.

483 words

I believe he is right to a certain extent. Memories are certainly unreliable; we can come up with alternate endings and ideas in our mind that never existed in the first place. I have often thought I remember something exactly, when in truth, there are moments that I have fabricated. Leonard himself thinks that he has to find John G, when he fabricates clues for himself even after finding out he is the one who killed his wife, and Sammy Jenkins is in fact just himself. His guilt causes him to fabricate these memories of his wife, so he can’t remember what happened. However, I do think that the feelings that memories leave us with are not entirely unreliable. The details, or even the event itself may be inaccurate, but I believe the feeling or impression we have from those memories can be accurate, moreso than the actual memory itself. Hume would agree with this point– he believes that the mind is merely a succession of perceptions; perceptions that rely more strongly on feeling rather than accuracy.

In a similar vein, our memories are not more reliable than Leonard’s notes. Our memories are not perfect preservations of a moment in time, rather, they are impressions and feelings we got from that moment that are subject to change. Leonard’s notes are exactly that– just a way to capture a moment, but can change based on the context and are not necessarily reliable. Take his note about Teddy’s lies. He writes this note so he will perpetually chase after John G, but the note itself is inaccurate and his interpretation of the note once he forgets is also inaccurate. Our memories can never be accurate, but the moment still exists. Leonard’s notes may be accurate, but no more than our memories, because Leonard will never be able to recall that exact moment in time and what the true meaning behind the note was. His notes are just as susceptible to inaccuracy as our memories are. As Hume puts it: “for what is the memory but a faculty, by which we raise up the images of past perceptions”. For our memories, and Leonard’s notes, we use these tools to recall our past impressions, rather than the accurate moment in time.

I believe Hume would not see Leonard’s condition as any different from our own. Hume believes that who we are is made up of the exact moment in time in which we exist. Our identity is an illusion, and is instead a “succession of impressions, ideas, and memories”. Hume believes that the identity we feel comes about as a result of resemblance and causation. Resemblance concerns the idea that “memory…produces the relation of resemblance among the perceptions.” We can see this with Leonard, in that his notes, or his “memory” produces a sense of connection between events because of what he wrote down. He believes that Jimmy G is John G because he wrote it down, and therefore he believes Jimmy killed his wife. This is incorrect, and proves that Leonard’s reliance on these “memories” or his notes gives him a false sense of connection, and a false idea of who John G. is. Causation is that “the memory…discovers personal identity, by showing us the relation of cause and effect among our different perceptions.” Leonard creates an identity outside of who he believes he is, but cannot comprehend this. When Teddy asks him who he is, and Leonard responds with his name and where he lives, Teddy tells him that’s who he was, but not who he is now. Leonard’s notes cause him to create the cause and effect of his wife’s death, and connect perceptions that have no connection. He creates his identity differently in every moment based on what he is told, but believes he is still himself because of his established identity. Hume believes the only true form of ourselves is who we are in the present moment. This holds true for Leonard– Leonard is himself in the present moment because he can’t remember what he did the moment before. The most accurate version of himself is in the present, not Leonard from San Francisco. Hume therefore would not consider Leonard’s condition different from our own– we are all who we are in the present moment, and our identity is an illusion that cannot be relied upon. The inaccuracy of our memory causes us to string together different perceptions and come up with an idea of who we are, but it is not true. The only authentic version of ourselves is who we are in the present moment, much like how the only accurate version of Leonard and the only person/memories he can trust is the person he is in the present.

792 words

Hume believes the self is an illusion because he believes it impossible for there to be a single unified “self”. He argues that all we are made up of is a series of moments and occurrences, and it is impossible to string all of those moments into a version of our identity that is accurate. He says that we are merely a “bundle of different perceptions which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity” and that “identity is nothing really belonging to these different perceptions…merely a quality, which we attribute to them”. The bond that we feel between the separate perceptions in our lives is merely felt, it doesn’t actually exist. He believes that memory, specifically resemblance and causation, are the cause of why we feel that bond. Our memory causes us to believe that we have a unified sense between each moment in our lives, and therefore a continued identity. However, Hume believes the truest form of ourselves is only the version that exists in this exact moment in time, and there is no identity before or after this moment.

I can’t say I find his argument entirely convincing. I believe that although the truest version of ourselves is indeed who we are in the present, the person I am in this present moment came about as a result of the experiences I have had in the past. It’s pretty difficult to deny someone’s entire sense of identity because there is no tangible bond between the experiences they have lived. There is nothing constant in this world, and that in and of itself just isn’t a good enough reason to deny my sense of self. I believe that someone is shaped and molded by the experiences that change them. Identity is indeed a quality, it is something that we attribute to ourselves. It is impossible to understand, and yet everyone has a pretty good idea of who they are, whether or not that is accurate.

325

Descartes demonstrates the idea that an object is an object due to its characteristics, because we can still distinguish an object even if our senses sense a change in that object. Descartes observes a piece of wax, and notices its properties. Then, he lights it on fire, and “the taste is
exhaled, the smell evaporates, the colour alters, the figure is destroyed,
the size increases, it becomes liquid, it heats, scarcely can one handle it,
and when one strikes it, no sound is emitted.” Descartes point is that the wax has lost the physical properties that makes it wax— however, we can still clearly distinguish and understand that it is still wax. Therefore, the object is not defined by its physical properties, but rather the fact that we have distinguished it as such in our mind. It connects to the concept of dualism because it further establishes the idea that the mind and the body are independent of one another. The mind distinguishes the wax, without its physical properties of the body.

We know the mind is separate from the body because we can doubt our body, but we cannot doubt our mind. It is possible to doubt our body and our senses, but our mind can survive the radical doubt of illusions, dreams, and demons. The concept boils down to “I think therefore I am,” the idea that the mind is what gives us our identity. Because we know ourselves, and we cannot deny our existence, we can know that somehow we exist. And the only thing that cannot be doubted is our mind because our body can be doubted in a number of ways, as established in the first meditation. I half agree. I believe that the mind/spirit lives on past our body, and our body is simply a vessel that we use in this lifetime. However, I believe the body is still important and still communicates important feelings to our spirit, that can shape how we look at the world. The body and the mind are separate, but also intricately connected. Modern science proves that the body and mind are connected– if our mind is healthy, so is our body, and vice versa. Therefore, though on a spiritual level they are separate, on a physical, science level, they are deeply connected.

The problem that Princess Elizabeth asks Descartes to explain is how if the mind and body are separate, how the separate mind can control the physical body. She believes that movement has to requires contact, and therefore the immaterial mind that he describes would not be able to affect the physical body. I do not think Descartes even comes close to answering her efficiently. In a very confusing and drawn out answer he eventually says that the relationship between the mind and the body is impossible to explain, therefore avoiding the issue of having to address what she brings up.

484

“#28. If a man is infected by the author’s condition of soul, if he feels this emotion and this union with others, then the object which has effected this is art; but if there be no such infection, if there be not this union with the author and with others who are moved by the same work – then it is not art. And not only is infection a sure sign of art, but the degree of infectiousness is also the sole measure of excellence in art.”

Background:

I remember seeing a news story about an artist taping a banana to a wall in a very expensive art gallery. The banana taped to the wall was then sold for some insane sum of money. And as if they story wasn’t already hilarious enough, someone took a bite out of the now sold banana art. I found the story ridiculous. How far has art come that a banana taped to a wall can be considered art? I was baffled, but then I remembered that art, is in fact subjective. And if this was a news story, it certainly wasn’t just me that wondered how this could be considered art. However, my bafflement is certainly supported by Tolstoy’s measure for good art, but also not, because the viewer who spent this much on art may have felt this infection of emotion that Tolstoy outlines while looking at that banana.

The standard of infectiousness is essentially the degree to which the viewer of the art is affected or taken by the art they see. It is a communal feeling that everyone who views the piece of art receives, and the stronger this feeling is, the better the art is. He outlines three standards:

1. On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted;
2. on the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is transmitted;
3. on the sincerity of the artist, i.e., on the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he transmits.

This feeling of unity is certainly something I can see in art. Art can convey emotion and feeling, a sense of empathy for the human condition, that certain other things cannot. I find his last condition, #32, to be quite interesting. He states that “he receiver, who mingles in consciousness with the author, is the better satisfied the more clearly the feeling is transmitted, which, as it seems to him, he has long known and felt, and for which he has only now found expression.” I feel that is almost mistaking a feeling for something deeper than it is, but it is certainly a feeling we have all felt– the feeling of familiarity, of understanding, even though we may not relate directly to the art piece or the story that the author is trying to convey. It is a feeling we cannot put into words, but a feeling we know nonetheless, and the art we see perfectly encapsulates this feeling. That just seems quite incredible to me. How can we never feel a feeling, and then feel it so strongly is captured by this art piece by someone we have never met before? It seems baffling, but also it seems to hold true. It seems to relate to the base human capacity for empathy, a capacity that is often beyond understanding.

I believe this is a useful proposal for evaluating art. Art is certainly subjective, but this does make it a bit more objective. It aligns pretty well with what Aristotle believes as well– art must provide some kind of emotional reaction in the viewer to be “good art”. I believe that the emotion can also just be sheer admiration as well, of the artist’s talent, rather than being plunged into a deep emotional vat of reawakening long lost feelings we never knew. I think the extent of the emotion doesn’t necessarily matter, because obviously some people think some art provides them a deep emotional reaction while others look at the same piece and wonder how anyone could consider that art. Therefore, it is difficult to have one rule by which to judge what “good art” is. However, I believe this speaks more to humans themselves, and how differently we think and experience things, rather than the quality of the art itself.

Revision: Upon further thought and discussion, Tolstoy’s standard of infectiousness and what he considers good art does not align with Aristotle’s view of art. Tolstoy focuses on the artist, while Aristotle focuses on the viewer. The artist does not need to feel catharsis but the viewer must, according to Aristotle. There doesn’t need to be an overall sense of unity like Tolstoy outlines. Tolstoy has standards for the artist, while Aristotle has standards for what the art must invoke in the viewer.

Banana wall story: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/performance-artist-eats-120-000-banana-duct-taped-wall-calls-n1097696

744 words

The difference in imitation of poetry and tragedy can be narrowed down to three aspects according to Aristotle: “the medium, the objects, the manner or mode of imitation”. He describes one form of imitation as being actions, where there is conscious effort behind the form of imitation, for example dance, music, where various objects are being represented. Prose or verse is another form of imitation that imitates just by language alone. In addition, the act of imitation imitates either a person who is above us or lower than us; they outline the good and bad of our morality and serve as examples, different from real life.

For poetry specifically, Aristotle believes that the instinct of imitation comes from a base instinct we have as children. We learn our very first lessons from imitation, and this gives us pleasure. I find his point about our fascination with the more undesirable and ill parts of life that we may dislike when in direct connection with them, like death or illness. He states that we are fascinated with these ideas because we learn from them; they are unfamiliar are therefore we feel we can gain knowledge from what we may infer. I agree with this statement and I feel it answers my own questioning as to why people enjoy true crime or why I sometimes find myself fascinated by murder and abuse even while I feel disgusted at myself for doing so. It is the longing to know more, to know why, that gives us this desire and this fixation. The other aspect of imitation in poetry is rhythm.

For Tragedy, Aristotle goes more in depth. He states that plot, is of the first importance, then character, and there are many different forms of plot that are essential. Aristotle believes that fear and pity are what captures us regarding art, and the plot must tell the story so that our fear and thrill gives way to pity. For Character, the character must be good, have propriety, remain true to life, and be consistent, according to Aristotle. Though I agree that for the most part this holds true, I also wonder why we look for characters that are ordinary, so much like us, and their stories still seem extraordinary to us in some way.

Aristotle’s positive take on imitation in art definitely helps one to understand what art is and why we are so fascinated by art. Art is part of our humanity, and always has been, but it is difficult to understand with our rational mind why we love art. Aristotle breaks this down quite simply: art is a form of imitation, and imitation is a base human instinct that we must have in order to learn. I do feel that this approach answers a lot of questions, but some remain unanswered in my mind. Must we always look for something meaningful in art, something that stirs emotion, for it to be art? I still struggle to understand where the line between art and reality remains, or if they are even separate entities at all.

512 words

Read: William James, “The Will To Believe” (Excerpts)

Blog Prompt : Explain the characteristics of a belief that is live, forced, and momentous. Give examples for each. What kind of belief fits all three? Has James found an exception to Clifford’s standard for belief? Do you agree more with Clifford or James?

A belief that is live is a belief that is relevant to who you are, and directly matters to you. For example, I wouldn’t mind if someone asked me if I like playing the piccolo or the flute, because I play neither, but it would matter if someone asked me if I like playing violin or clarinet, because I play both.

A forced belief is a belief where you are forced to choose, and there is no alternative. If I were to ask someone, “Either be my friend or never see me again”, I offer them no alternative. If I were to ask someone, “Go see the concert with Julia or go see the concert without her”, it is not a forced option as they could just not attend the concert.

A momentous belief is a belief that has risks associated with it. For example, if I offered you the chance to go to Mars. A belief is trivial when “the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise”. If a belief fulfills these options, it is not monumental.

A belief that fits all three is the example that Clifford used– religion. Religion is a live belief because it matters to you, as it tells you that it will determine your fate. This matters to you. It is also a forced belief. You are forced to choose whether or not you believe in it, as there is a high threshold. If you believe in anything less than God, you are not a worthy believer. It tells you that there is no way out of the consequence of religion. It also is a momentous belief because

I don’t believe he has truly found an exception to Clifford’s ethics of belief. Clifford’s argument holds true, and the exception that James tries to argue is that the cost of not believing can be too great, and this cost can discourage us from consistently being skeptical. While this may hold true, I don’t think the two have to contradict each other. A person can believe they are upholding skepticism, and still believe something that others find illogical. This is what I think is an exception to Clifford’s rule– we all have different standards of skepticism and belief.

I agree more with Clifford. Though I agree with the beliefs James sets forward, I think Clifford is right in his belief of our skepticism. It is a standard we must hold ourselves to; it is not a complete solution, and interpreting it as such will cause there to be flaws as James points out.

512 words

How does Existenz, the film, fit into Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality? How does the game, Trancendenz fit?

The hard to follow and mind warping film, Existenz, serves to fit as a sufficient example of both a critique and support of Plato’s hierarchal scheme of reality. Plato believes that the purpose of all art is to warp the true reality of one’s existence, and that we always must strive to reach the divine forms of things, and their true core, rather than give into the worldly pleasures that art offers us. We are distracted by our emotions and our physical needs, and unable to reach the level of sight that Plato believes is the ultimate goal. In the context of Existenz, it certainly goes against what Plato wanted for his ideal utopian society. Existenz, in its efforts to create a convoluted allegory for many aspects of society, fulfills Plato’s belief that art only causes us to stray further from reality as it is. Existenz has many fantastical scenarios that never are explained, up until the very end. This would serve as further insult to Plato, as this is no longer imitation, but active distortion, as the main characters seem to rail against at the end of the movie.

However, depending on the interpretation of the movie, there are some aspects that Plato may agree with. If he could look past the fact that the movie is a form of media and that it has many layers to send a message he may interpret the movie’s message as any form of media that warps our reality is inherently immoral. For example, the sensual imagery and sound around the pods and the insertion of the game, Transcendz, and the subsequent critique of the mind warping aspect of the game, could serve as something Plato may agree with, in that the sexual and physical aspects of each person only serves to warp our reality and prevent us from seeing truth. In addition, the spores of Christianity may also be something he would enjoy, but the fact that this is another art form and also relates to previous art forms of the birth of Jesus would not be something he would enjoy.

As far as the game itself, Plato would most certainly condemn such VR games as these. To my previous point, the warping of reality through media is exactly what VR does, and appeals to one’s senses rather than the true reality around them. This would certainly be an abhorrent offense to Plato’s idea of utopia, as this is one of the most extensive ways one can manipulate their reality. The creation of VR would certainly cause Plato to weep and grieve over the loss of forms if he were here today.

462 words

The concept of art has long been contested throughout history. Where does art end and reality begin? What constitutes as art and what does not? Is art beneficial? These are questions that Plato addresses, and his conclusion is that all art serves little to no purpose. To him, the beds of the world are insufficient reflections of the ultimate and pure idea of a bed. The idea of an object, in its essence, is the purest and highest form, while the physical manifestation of this idea falls far short of ever reaching that goal. I can’t say I entirely agree with this concept. If all ideas are the pure essence of things, then how can they ever be conveyed? Can art not give an idea a place in reality and perhaps add more to the idea than that which was first imagined? In addition, how can something be determined as the true essence or the untouched idea? What is the line between that which is ordinary and that which is exceptional and pure in the world of essences? These are questions that I feel Plato fails to answer.

Plato believes that art is a poor form of imitation. It is a manipulation of reality as is, and serves to skew the perception of the viewer, preventing them from ever reaching the highest level of his scheme of reality, the essences. As Plato states about artists: “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearances only.” Essentially, the artist can never understand the true meaning of something or the essence behind anything, they only portray the surface level and therefore can never capture anything beyond that. In that, an artist also fails to capture reality and therefore manipulates people into believing that their art is reality, when it only deals with surfaces and not truth. This is where he argues that art is deceptive; it never is able to capture reality as it is beyond the surface, and makes someone think that life is as art is when it is something beyond that. For example, he takes Homer: Homer doesn’t know of government and politics, and yet he writes on them– Plato interprets this as a grave offense that warps the common person’s idea of government and politics and offers no substantive meaning.

I agree somewhat with Plato’s criticism. Art can be a manipulative reflection of real life. Sometimes we can become caught up in the media around us and fool ourselves into thinking that we must live that way, or the things we see is what we should expect in our day to day lives. Art can cause us to form expectations for ourselves and others without stopping to think about the repercussions of those expectations. However, I believe that art can be good as well. Art allows us to become in touch with our base human instincts and emotions (something Plato discourages) but something I believe is essential to the human condition. We cannot be human if we are not emotional, and it isn’t a bad thing, in my opinion. Being unemotional and unfeeling is not a pursuit of a higher path, in my opinion. If you are, you lose sight of what life really is at its core, and the ability to understand the world around you. Both emotion and logic are core components of who every person is, and without both, we cannot call ourselves human.

(639 words)