Final Reflection Blog

Wow the last few chapters are wonky. There is one aspect I absolutely love, and one that I absolutely hate. I love what the author did with the Major. This was fantastic irony. Each of the characters has been manipulated in this way now, and they all served as a foil for each other. However, my absolute favorite part was how Hilde literally stated that this was irony. I really like that kind of next-level references and meta comedy. This all seemed believable too, and the last chapters really illustrated the beautiful relationship between Hilde and her father. They play games like that and love each other. I am fairly confident that I could play that same trick on my father, and I appreciate that amount of believability after this whirlwind of a book. However much I liked the Major, I really hate how Sophie and Alberto are still being referenced. I was frustrated by the dumb fairy-tale things this entire book, and these last chapters were the culmination of everything I despised. I hate the narration of the spirit-Hilde and spirit-Alberto, and I wish they had simply ceased to exist when the story ended. However, I saw what the author was trying to do. I noticed his efforts for next-leveling the reader by having Sophie and Alberto switch roles with Hilde and the Major. Before, Sophie was always watched by Hilde, but couldn’t see Hilde in return. Now, Sophie watches Hilde, without Hilde knowing in return. Furthermore, the callback to the rowboat is nice. However smart those lines are, the setup is so bad that I don’t think it’s worth it. I think the author worked way too hard with the whole fairyland to set up that one scene. This is completely tangential, but I really don’t like the abrupt romance in the garden party. Maybe it’s just me, but the book seemed to imply some level of sexual contact, which I’m not a fan of. First of all, it didn’t add anything to the plot other than showing the sheer absurdity of the scene. Secondly, this is a book about thinking about the world and questioning everything and thought above all else. That action was pure impulse without any thought as to the consequences. Also, I’m not cool with how chill the parents were with their 15-year old children having intercorse.

Final Connection Blog

I know that we haven’t talked about this in class yet, but I’ve been looking forwards to this. Is it okay to punch a nazi? I will argue that punching nazis is not okay by any stretch of the imagination. First of all, when, if ever, is it okay to punch anyone? I would argue that punching is never the preferred option, but it is acceptable in two scenarios. First, when you have already been attacked, and it is in self defense. Second, when somebody else has already been attacked and cannot defend themselves. This phrasing is crucial. It is not okay to attack somebody before they attack you, even if you see it coming. If you can see somebody aiming their gun at you, you are not allowed to shoot them first. What you can do, however, is get out of the way and avoid getting shot. When you utilize “pre-emptive self-defense”, which just sounds orwellian, you are actually the aggressor. There is a chance, no matter how small, that no violence or harm would come from the situation. By pre-emptively attacking, you are ensuring that there will be violence. Next, if somebody else is attacked, and they are able to defend themselves, you should not intervene. This simply causes an arms race where more and more people will get involved, maximizing the casualties and injuries. So let’s relate this back to Richard Spencer. In the video clip, Spencer was answering a question from a reporter when he is punched in the face. Spencer was not attacking anybody, especially not the man who assaulted him. There are some who argue that Spencer was peddling dangerous rhetoric, which will ultimately harm somebody. This fails my first condition, as Spencer has not committed any harm yet. Furthermore, it’s difficult to say what constitutes dangerous rhetoric, as it is the person who acts upon it rather than the rhetoric itself. Despite this entire blog, I still have way more to say in class. I can’t wait!

Connection Blog #6

I’d like to preface this by saying that I was not here for the in-class discussion on Freud, and I might be wrong on many things, but I am so confused. I don’t really understand the concept of a freudian slip. I don’t think I’ve ever Freudian slipped in my life, it seems unrealistic. It seems that a person would need to be barely functioning to allow for a slip of the tongue. You’d need to be really sleep-deprived or under the influence of some kind of mind-altering substance to allow your mind to lax enough to give up like that. The example mentioned in the book was a little girl asking if a person takes sugar in their nose, given that she was not supposed to mention the nose. This seems implausible, as that I’m guessing that the little girl in question is thinking about what she is saying and planning out her sentences. I do a lot of extemporaneous and impromptu speaking, and I’ll often slip up, but I’ll never do a Freudian slip. For example, I’ll accidentally say President Obama instead of President Trump, but that doesn’t say anything about my unconscious. Before walking into the round, I remind myself to not say the word “racist” or “racism”, but I don’t blurt those words out. However, when I was little, and I went out for ice cream with my aunt, she told me not to tell my mother. As soon as I got home, I told my mom that “we definitely didn’t go out for ice cream!” Even though I brought up ice cream when I was not supposed to, this seems less like a freudian slip and more like simple ignorance that stems from youth. I just don’t really understand how a grown adult could make a mistake enough to cuss out their boss or insult someone. It seems like they should have more of a filter and know what they are going to say.

Response Blog #6

The story is very nice and all, but there is one thing that keeps tripping me up. Alberto has one key phrase that he uses to dismiss all the outrageous ongoings: “A bagatelle”. This really caught my attention because it is used so many times, and I feel that there is an underlying message here. A bagatelle has many definitions, so we can go through them one by one. First, a bagatelle is a game in which small balls are hit and then allowed to roll down a sloping board on which there are holes, each numbered with the score achieved if a ball goes into it, with pins acting as obstructions. I’m imagining that this game is something similar to a cross between bowling and shuffleboard. In this case, Sophie and Alberto are the balls, and the Major is throwing them. All the chaos and random events are the pins that obstruct the ball. Next, a bagatelle is also a thing of little importance or a very easy task. This is probably what Alberto actually means, as these distractions are an easy task for the Major. They take very little effort on his behalf. Most commonly, a bagatelle means a trifle. This is almost the same as the last definition, as these actions are a mere trifle for the Major. Finally, there is the definition that my mind immediately jumped to. I play piano, so I recognized the word bagatelle as a musical piece. A bagatelle is a short literary or musical piece in light style. I’ve played a handful of bagatelles, and they have very unique characteristics. I hope this is what the author intended, as Sophie’s World can be described as a bagatelle, and the way the characters act is similar to that of an actual bagatelle. At any rate, this whole blog is but a bagatelle.

Connection Blog #5

I really want to like capitalism. I really want to. It’s so hard though. I have a job, I contribute to society. I take great pride in that, and those are the aspects of capitalism I love. I noticed how Target had gay-friendly ads, and I liked that, so I shopped at Target. I love that I, as the consumer, have the power. I noticed that Chick-fil-a was very anti-gay, so I opted to not give them my money. Once again, capitalism allows me, the consumer, to use my power to influence corporations and companies. These are the strengths of capitalism, and I love that aspect. However, I go to a public school. I would not be here without unions. Those are not capitalistic. They are the opposite of that. I want a society where everyone starts on an equal field, and then can work harder to achieve more. That is my dream. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Because of my region, my parents, my race, my sexuality, my gender, anything really, I am not on an equal level. In a capitalist society, you need money to make money. Because I can afford a laptop, I can do better in school than someone who cannot. Because I can afford to go to college, I will earn more than someone who couldn’t. I don’t necessarily advocate giving all the money to the poor, rather I advocate giving them a fair and proper chance, for the successful should be where they are as a result of their own success, not riding on the coattails of their parents or surroundings. I want free education for everyone, because that is the best way to ensure that you get a fair chance at success. Furthermore, more education leads to a better society, as we’d have the best of the best, not just the best of the privileged.

Response Blog #5

This book used to be clever, but now it’s kind of dull. I loved the first time Alberto referenced the fact that they were in a book, as it was very clever, but it has diminishing returns. When subtly referenced, it was extremely witty, and it allowed for fanciful mind games. However, it insults my intelligence by making it obvious. When Alberto literally says “next chapter”, I don’t like that. I really like subtle hints or easter eggs, so I can read into the book more and more and ponder whether there’s actually something there. I like little subtle hints, not overt flashing neons signs blaring “irony”. I acknowledge that this book may be written for younger audiences, but I still don’t like its simplicity. I can handle more vague references, I am willing to work harder to understand the whole that the book is saying. I like that kind of book. I don’t want the author to literally hand it to me. In a similar vein, I don’t like the way that the fictional characters are portrayed and handled. There is so much potential here, yet I feel like this was a misplay on the author’s behalf. The author’s attempt comes off as a sort of force-feeding, as he is shoving Winnie the Pooh or Scrooge down my throat. I feel as though a fleeting allusion would be more effective, make the reader wonder what the author meant. I don’t know the proper way to do that would be, but I feel that there was so much wasted potential here. Finally, I’ll end on a positive note. I really like the fact that Hilde goes to the encyclopedia and references what she just read. That is fantastic character building and also supplies the reader with more information.

Connection Blog #4

As we began covering the Enlightenment means of thinking, our class began speaking of mathematics. It upset me that people thought math was only 2+2=4 and simple stuff like that. In reality, math is so much more. Since I am going to do math for the rest of my life, I’m going to go ahead on a rant and prove how math models our reality, and I will argue that higher understanding of math will improve morals and outlook on society. First of all, we will examine the ability to understand reality through math. We know that the earth, through gravity, has an inherent pull on on all objects, with an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared. Through calculus, we can integrate that and find that the velocity is equal to 9.8 times time, all that in meters per second. Integrating again, we can find that the position of the velocity is equal to 9.8 multiplied by the time squared, with other variables tossed in. This is obviously quite simplistic, but the general idea is there. We can model quite literally anything in the real world with math, so it does not seem like that much a leap to model things in the subjective world. Say, for example, emotions. There are ups and downs, so we could model them with a sin function, which is a trigonometric wave. This does make sense, as the time between highs and lows can be adjusted graphically. We could also use mathematical functions to determine one’s values, with variables such as role models and upbringing. In fact, we already have a similar function with determining one’s political ideology. We can determine ideology with variables like age, family, race, gender, class, education, and the like.

Response Blog #4

In every book I read, I always like to have a little thought experiment with the reality of the book. When I was younger, I always liked to read at least two books at a time and see how the characters would interact with each other. For example, I would read Artemis Fowl and Harry Potter at the same time, and see how they would interact. Despite imagining Harry Potter committing massive heists, and having Jack and Annie cast spells, I never imagined that those characters would be reading about each other. This is so eloquent, and I admire the way that the author managed this situation. This is the best way to tie together so many loose strands. The author is like a god to the characters, and that really fits together with the philosophy being discussed and the question of whether a deity exists. Throughout the book, there are so many impossible occurrences. Futuristic letters, talking dogs, messages inside a banana, and the sheer improbability of everything in the book, all of these are objectively impossible. Up until this point I thought that the book was just childish, and that I was not the target audience of the book, as Sophie is just thirteen or fourteen. I just turned seventeen. I wasn’t particularly interested in all the silly hijinks or that kind of humor, I just wanted the philosophy. Now, I really enjoy this story, and everything makes sense. Hilde’s father is extremely witty and intelligent, and is able to entertain Hilde with inside jokes and references. This story is just so meta!!

Connection Blog #3

SPOILER ALERT!!!!! In class, we are discussing Inception, so I am going to take this opportunity to discuss The Matrix, Inception, and all forms of non-reality. When I first watched those movies, I was paranoid that this was not real life. I felt every day that things worked out too well, or too orchestrated for this to be real life. I tried so hard to detect what reality was, and it really took a toll on me. Ultimately, I reached one conclusion: reality does not matter. When I rewatch The Matrix, now I root for the Agents, and actively discourage Neo and the rebels. I have decided that life is meaningless, and it is the same amount of meaningless whether you are asleep, awake, in a simulation, or in real life. The only purpose is to enjoy your existence. The people in the Matrix enjoy their meaningless day to day lives, and that is their purpose for living. Under the robot control, they are still enjoying existence. Neo wants to take that away from them. In Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio ultimately ends with his kids, but we are unsure of whether or not it is a dream. It does not matter at all! Cobbes found happiness, and that is all that he is meant to do. I feel that happiness in fiction is far better than unhappiness in reality. That is the reason why books, movies, songs, stories, and all forms of fantasies exist. And the worst part in all of those is the end. We enjoy fiction, alternate scenarios, anything to escape cold brutal reality. And I, for one, would gladly choose a good un-reality than a dreary reality. In a similar vein of Descartes, the only thing that I know is true is that I exist. I do not know if anyone else exists. I could very easily be in a simulation, or dream, or coma, or mind control. It does not matter. I make the most out of my everyday life, regardless of whether it is real or not.

SIDE NOTE: I can't remember whether connection is with book and reflection is with the class, or if it is the other way around. Sorry.

Reflection Blog #3

I’m really tripped up in the story. Hilde’s father wrote his daughter a message INSIDE a banana. My last response was also about the absurdity of Hilde’s father, and this seems to be rather continuous theme. I ruled out the possibility of Hilde’s father being a god, because that would ruin any philosophical doubt regarding a divine spirit. Another possibility I thought of would be the simple fact that Hilde and her father could not exist. This seems increasingly unlikely, as that would mean that Alberto has the ability to write messages on the inside of a banana, which I doubt. Since we have started watching Inception in class, I am wondering whether you, the nefarious Mr. Wickersham, are plotting all this to work out together. I believe that this entire book is not reality. This leads us to many potential outcomes. The first, and most sinister implication is that Alberto Knox is real, and is giving Sophie mind-altering drugs. I don’t think this is probable, as if it were, we would not be reading this in a public high school. I don’t think you, as a teacher, would encourage us to read a story about an old man getting a 13-year-old girl addicted to drugs. Although Sophie’s mom did already reference drugs…

Nevertheless, we can move past that. There is a possibility that Sophie is taking these drugs herself, and is imagining Alberto Knox. Once again, I think that as a teacher and parent, you would not give us this book. Finally, what I think is the most realistic, is that Sophie is just dreaming the whole thing. The last few lines will be “Sophie woke up with a start. It felt like she had been asleep for years. She raced downstairs and saw her mom making breakfast. Her mom asked if she was ready for school, and she said that she doubted it like Descartes. Her mom just chuckled and said that Sophie had been reading her textbook into the ungodly hours of the morning, and that she’d expect Sophie to know more than Descartes by now.”

SIDE NOTE: I can't remember whether connection is with book and reflection is with the class, or if it is the other way around. Sorry. 

Connection Blog #2

I do recall that Mr. Wickersham said we can write this about anything that we spoke about in class, so I will expand upon something that I said in a discussion monday regarding the existence of a god. Let me begin by stating that these views are not applicable to everyone, and this is only applicable to the information I have, which is mostly Christianity. This discussion revolves around this one sentence: I know there is no God, but I strongly believe in Him. There is a lot to unpack here. First of all I know that there is no God, and this is due to modern day science. The Bible, which is supposed to be the literal word of God, is inaccurate. While it still has morals to live life by (which I will address later), the fact that it states that the world was created in seven days and that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans are factually wrong. While it is certainly understandable that a century-old writing has flaws, it means that either the book is either not the exact word of God, or that God does not exist. It is much harder to prove that God does not exist, but it is just as hard to prove that He does. Religious people say that they intrinsically have a sense that there is a God. I have the same kind of intuition that there is no God. Moving onto the next part of the sentence, I believe in Him. This is where the discussion actually becomes philosophical. Above all else, belief in God justifies my external locus of control. I feel out of control, and that something else dictates my life. A God is a perfect justification, as if good things happen, I can say that it is divine will, and if things go wrong, I can still feel that this is all going along with a deity's plan. I think that religion could still have a positive impact on society, regardless of whether there is a God or not. I’ve seen people who donate their time and money to various charitable causes, in the name of God. In that case, it doesn’t matter whether there actually is a God or not, as long as the concept exists.

Response Blog #2

I think Hilde and her father are not real. In the book, her father is sending letters from the future, on Hilde’s birthday. This is quite implausible. He sends a postcard offering his condolences for Hilde losing several things, all of which are miraculously found by Sophie. That is impossible. All throughout the book, Hilde’s father has tremendous power and seems to have control over everything. There are only two potential explanations: Hilde’s father is a God, or he is not real. I don’t think Hilde’s father is a God, simply because of the nature of the book. The book is about philosophy, and a key pillar of philosophy is whether or not a god even exists. By including a God in his book, the author eliminates a key portion of philosophy from even being discussed. Also, if Hilde’s father is a God, that means Hilde isn’t real or she is a divine figure. If Hilde is real, that means that the author is taking a stance on religion, and would most likely endorse Christianity. Once again, that is not good philosophical discussion. That would leave us with Hilde not existing, which is plausible. If he were a God, Hilde’s father could be using Hilde as a foil for Sophie, or to encourage her somehow. However, one does not have to be a deity in order to create a foil for Sophie, so this by no means proves Hilde’s father’s divinity. I think Hilde’s father is a projection of Alberto Knox, either knowingly or unknowingly. A potential explanation could be something Fight Club-esque. There is a possibility that Alberto could have a split personality of Hilde’s father or Hilde, and assume their identity to write the postcards. This is quite unrealistic, as this is a very heavy subject for the author to attempt to address in this book. I think a more likely scenario is if Alberto knowingly created the two fictional characters all to entertain and educate Sophie. The two characters provide a sense of intrigue and urgency for Sophie. I can say for certain that if I had a mysterious soldier sending me future postcards about Chemistry, I’d pay way more attention in that class.

Blog Post #2

I love all aspects of society, but there was one thing that we discussed in class that really piqued my interest. I love government and politics, as well as philosophy. My two interests merged with Plato’s ideal society. This is so fascinating, and I am still trying to make sense of it. First of all, Plato loved the number three. This seemingly trivial statement is extremely important. Even in modern day society, power is distributed into triads. Obviously the most direct correlation would the three branches of the United States Government, but in America we also split our primary education into three: elementary, middle, and high. Plato has three different classes, which seems quite stable. Beginning with the upper class of Plato’s city are the philosopher kings, or the rulers. There are a few key aspects of the ruling class, they are all philosophers, they do not have family ties, and they cannot own material possessions. The fact that they are philosophers suggests that the rulers have some baseline level of intelligence, which is needed in order to run any kind of society. The fact that the rulers have no family ties goes hand in hand with the fact that they cannot own material possessions. These two stipulations prevent corruption or favoritism/nepotism. With these limitations, Plato ensures that the rulers will act in the interest of their country, and that they will not act in their own self-interest. Next, we move on to the soldiers. Obviously, every society needs some form of police and protection, and it is good to have limitations on them, which is exactly what Plato organized. Plato prevented the soldiers from having family ties, which prevents favoritism, and promotes equal protection under the law. Plato also allowed the soldiers to have some material possessions, to compensate for the fact that they do not have as much power as the rulers. The workers, as the lower class, run the city. These people are allowed to have material possessions, as there would be many rebellions if they could not possess things. Overall, I think this is a good way to rule, and I especially subscribe to the ideology that the rulers should not have material possessions, or at least not while they are in power. The one complaint I have is that people should not be born into their class. The best of the best, no matter where they were born, should be able to be a philosopher king.

Blog Post #1

I am currently reading the book Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder. In this novel, Sophie is a young teenager beginning to dabble in philosophy. The story is very entertaining and all, but there was one section that I really latched onto: Democritus. Democritus was the first philosopher that I had extreme respect for. He believed that the entire world was made up of little blocks, all arranged differently to make different things. This was a man who saw the world, and was able to mentally break things down into smaller and smaller chunks. He did not have access to a microscope or any scientific instrument that we take for granted today. He looked at a piece of wood and somehow was able to determine that that twig was made up of tiny things that, when arranged in a certain order, create a twig. He called these little things “atoms,” which is potentially the part of this story that I find most intriguing. Atom literally means “uncuttable.” I love this concept. He mentally cut the thing in half, then in half again, and again and again and again until he reached something that he could not cut in half, thus uncuttable. Democritus then took this thought process a step further to connect it to the earlier greek philosophers. He stated that these building blocks of nature have to be recycled, since nothing can come from nothing. Yet there is one aspect of Democritus’s ideas that I still find confusing, the aspect of a soul. Democritus believed that there were smooth, soul atoms. These soul atoms make all life. I do not understand how someone could be so scientific as to be the first to conceptualize atoms, yet still believe in a soul, much less a soul being material.

Welcome

What is the meaning of life? What should I strive for? What determines who I am?
These are all very confusing questions with no real answer, the process is the only thing that matters. On this blog, we'll ponder these questions and discover more about ourselves. Feel free to join me on this journey of discovery.