McIntyre The Story Telling Animal

Choose a passage from the McIntyre reading that describes a particular aspect of persons as the subject of a narrative. Quote the passage, explain it, and tell a specific, personal, life experience that illustrates its significance with respect to identity (your identity).

McIntyre argues that we are all just “story telling animals”. He believes in order for human beings to keep going, we have to associate ourselves with a certain narrative. “I am the subject of a history that is my own and no one elses, that has its on peculiar meaning” (McIntyre last page) He goes on to explain, if there is no meaning in ones life then they will become depressed and in some cases commit suicide. If we do not associate our lives with a certain narrative or story then there will be no point to keep going. If there is no climax and build up to a certain event then we will not be happy.

I agree with McIntyre in the sense that the vast majority of people have to see there lives as a story. From birth we are subject to different media that tells us we have to embark on a journey to become something. Most movies follow a plot that describes a hero’s journey. This plot, that is followed by a lot of movies today, involves a main character that overcomes adversity and eventually resolves it through hard work. I think that we have to associate ourselves with a hero that overcomes adversity in order to accomplish our goals. For me, my successes and failures and everything I try to accomplish begins with a goal. Once I have that goal, I try to imagine how I am going to get there, what its going to be like if I succeed and from there what I am going to do next. One example for me is college. I am in the process of  trying to get my degree so I can use it to then get a job and so on and so on. I imagine myself getting a degree and I imagine what it will be like once I have it. It is a narrative that I have spelled out in my head. Through this outcome I give myself a new identity. I can then say I am a college graduate.

Momento

• Do you agree with Leonard’s statement that we all need mirrors to remind us who we are? In the movie the mirrors were his notes, the photographs, and tattoos. What has he become by relying upon them? What would you become without your own mirrors?

In this movie, Leonard the main character, has a condition where he cant remember anything prior to an accident that happened some time in the past. Every time he falls asleep he wakes up with no recollection of anything that happened to him in the last twenty four hours. He tries to remind himself of events by carrying around notes, getting tattoos and looking at pictures. Although Leonard has a condition, do we not all use this method with our memories?

Our memories can be deceitful. If you ask me what happened yesterday in absolute detail my memories may not be all the way accurate. It his hard to see something and be able to remember it down to the exact detail. When we think back on past events we are just remembering the last time we remembered that event. Are we much different than Leonard? Even though he has a condition, are we able to even trust our memories if they are not always accurate to the tee? In a way we can relate to Leonard. Every day he writes down the most important details of what happened. When we wake up and reflect on what happened the day before we only remember what we think is important and the rest is mostly forgotten.

In the movie, we come to find out a clue Leonard was believing the whole time ended up being a complete lie. Leonard purposely wrote himself a faulty note because he did not want to realize the truth about the death of his wife. I know from personal experience that I myself find myself remembering things that did not actually happen or I remember details that were never there. When I reflect on this, I realize that I should not do that but for some reason I will do it anyway. People are flawed and nobody is perfect. Sometimes it is hard to face the fact that you were wrong in a certain situation and we have to keep telling ourselves that we are right in order to protect ourselves from the truth. This is what Leonard did in the movie. In other words, the truth hurts and our memories are not always going to serve our wants.

 

Hume, Of Personal Identity

Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? 

Hume believes that the self is an illusion. Whenever he thinks on his self image he has some kind of preconceived notion of what he is. He can not just think of himself as an entity without having a perception he says. He has to attribute himself to being something based on his past experience.

Hume attributes this to a person’s memory. Without memorys one does not have any perception of who they are or should be. “The mind is a kind of a theatre where several perceptions make their appearance.” (Hume paragraph 1) The two different principles are resemblance and causation.

I agree with Hume. All we know is what our memorys let us believe. Since birth we have constantly been told what to do and how to be and it is all an illusion.

“What Is Art” by Leo Tolstoy part 2

Chalk It up is an event that brings the midtown community together and showcases a lot of talented artists in the Sacramento area. Chalk it up is a once a year event at Fremont park downtown. Local artists rent out side walk squares so they can showcase their work to the public. There is also live music, food and different vendors selling clothes jewelry and various other goods. Chalk it up started off in the 90s and has grown larger every year since.

This event is unique since it has something for everyone. It is sincere and true because its message is to bring the community together and it does. Chalk it up is also clear. I saw at least fifteen different art pieces that reminded me of childhood. Tolstoy would have considered chalk it up to be art since it establishes a sense of community.

“What Is Art?” (excerpts) by Leo Tolstoy

Tolstoy believes that art should convey the same feeling to all who receive it. If a man makes a piece to convey a sad emotion and the general public feel sad when they look at it then that is true art. Tolstoy had three qualifications in order for something to be called art. “On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted. On the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is transmitted. On the sincerity of the artist, i.e., on the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he transmits.” (Tolstoy Paragraph 30)

With these three qualifications, the quality of art can be judged. If an art piece only meets two of the qualifications then that piece is less then that of a piece that is sincere, unique and clear. The feelings that the art conveys do not matter since they can be both good and bad feelings.

Tolstoy sets a good outline and has a good argument as to why his method of judging art is correct. I believe that every person who judges art has there own way of looking at it. Tolstoy sets a general outline of what to look at when judging art and I think it is brilliant. I do not however believe it is the only way art can be viewed. Since we all have different experiences that make us become who we are. then we all look at art based on those experiences.

Aristotale

The Allegory of the Cave By Plato

In The Allegory of the Cave by Plato he describes a group of individuals that have only lived in a cave and have been brain washed about what reality truly is. In the cave, they sit tied up, staring at silhouettes of images portrayed on the wall. Much like viewers at a cinema, they sit and are consumed about what is being put in front of them. The people tied up are not in touch with what is actually reality, but is anybody?

While reading this writing by Plato, I tried to think of how I relate to the people in the cave. Am I too being brain washed about everything around me? Is there a light of knowledge that is right at my fingertips and only a stones throw away that I choose to ignore? Do I let the manifestations that we glorify in our culture let me think that that is the only true meaning for living?  Like most people in our society today, I am subject to a lot of different media. It is hard to go through life and not be influenced by advertisements, shows, movies and the news. The hard part is being able to take a step away from all of those things and think critically about situations without having all of those distractions in your head. A job can be miserable but the fact that it pays you a decent wage can keep you coming back. Money is constantly distilled in our heads as the most important thing to us and we often overlook what is best for us in the pursuit of money.

The question that was posed was Is there a parallel between the status of the prisoners in Plato’s cave and the spectators in a cinema? To me, the prisoners are just as brain washed as the people keeping them there.  “There is a perfection which all knowledge ought to reach, and which our pupils ought also to attain, and not to fall short of” (Plato The Allegory of the Cave) The amount of knowledge that is out there is unfathomable so knowing that we know nothing and that we will never have all of the answers is the only true knowledge. Our bodies and minds will only show and tell us a fraction of the universe around us, so how much more enlightened are we then the prisoners in the cave?

The Republic-Book X by Plato

The Republic-Book X by Plato is writing that dates back more than 400 years B.C. What is most fascinating to me about these writings by Plato, is that they are still relevant and align with concepts we have today.

The overall meaning of these writings is to convey to the reader that mankind is blinded by art and it cripples us from seeing truth in things. “Then he will no more have true opinion than he will have knowledge about the goodness or badness of his imitations?” (Sentence 129 Plato) What he is saying is that Art in any form is not truth but only a fragment of the imagination. The “imitator”, whether it be a sculpture, painter or artist, has no prior knowledge about how the thing they are making works but they are only tricking its viewer into believing that what they are making is real.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you can apply this way of thinking to a lot of things we see today. Advertisements trick us into believing that the products they promote will work in ways that are not possible. Commercials show us glamorous shots of women and men that are happy and healthy and the only way to achieve it is to buy the product they are selling. People post pictures of themselves on social media that only show half of their features and cover up the rest with a filter that does not portray a true image.

I believe that Plato’s writings are true given that they are still able to be applied to things Two thousand five hundred years later. I believe that we can learn a lot about his way of thinking. But do we need to give up on art, cast it out and never have art in society? I do not think so because there is a lot to be learned about art as well.

John Stuart Mill, “Utilitarianism”

Mills principal of utilitarianism is choosing pleasures that benefit the entire population as opposed to those that only benefit a single individual or a few people. “The greatest happiness principle” (Mill paragraph 1) as he explains. The idea is that pleasure equals happiness and if everyone experiences happiness then our society will be better off. I question this idea very much and I am going to explain what I think utility means.

To me, utilitarianism is a good idea, who does not want pleasure and happiness? Though,when I delve deeper into this question I ask myself what is happiness? I think that answer is different for everyone. And without sadness or hardship we can not understand pleasure. If I am in a constant state of euphoria then I am not going to ever appreciate it because that is all I will ever know.  What makes me happy can really upset or hurt somebody else. I like roller coasters and anything that gives me an adrenaline rush, where as somebody else might hate roller coasters and be very frightened by them. I like having sex and laying around all day with my girlfriend where as somebody else may be asexual.

I do not believe that utilitarianism is a viable thing to stride for in our society because it is unclear as to what makes us all experience pleasure and what makes us all happy. If we all believe that living in total utilitarianism is best then there is still going to be arguments about how that is going to be achieved.

When thinking philosophically about what is right and what is wrong it is hard to hold strong opinions about anything. Knowledge is gained based on understanding everyone’s point of view and Ideas. I understand what Mill means by pleasure being the absence of pain but I do not agree.

William Clifford, “The Ethics of Belief”

In “The Ethics of Belief” by William Clifford, Clifford tries to convey a general belief that mankind should question in there harsh beliefs. He stats examples as to why men should do this and gives the reader a look into another perspective. The first example of a man not questioning his belief, when it would have been the morally right thing to do, was the shipowner. The shipowner used a persuasive argument based on induction in order to tell himself everything will be fine with his ship. In standard form this argument would look like this.

1) “He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms 2) that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also.” (Page 1)

C) Therefore the ship must come home safely now.

This argument was not sound since the ship ended up sinking. Although, it was a valid argument to have, that

I felt that the reason of this writing was to tell the audience to question everything that they believe in and know. This means question everything thing that you read as well. Which means question everything that even Clifford wrote too. For a man that is telling his audience to not have strong opinions about things he sure has a strong opinion about his writings, but regardless he makes good points. This might be a fallacy.

“It is the sense of power attached to a sense of knowledge that makes men desirous of believing, and afraid of doubting” (page 5) This sentence really stuck with me. In today’s society, if you for one second question your argument or your own point of view then you just lost the argument all together. You have to be very opinionated in order to get your point across.