Mr. Schmidt's '09 Philosophy Class

My philosophy teacher told me to answer a metaphysics question for this assignment.
"There are no right or wrong answers"
How many times have you heard that? Time and time again this phrase has been beaten into our heads to preserve as sense of individuality and political correctness in society. This same phrase inspires statements that comically challenge whether there can be a wrong answer by taking the route of the inappropriate, it may also cloud over a belief that one may feel strongly about. To be brief, whenever one utters this phrase of having no right or wrong answers they can create any number of different circumstances and thoughts that cannot possibly be tabulated. In a sense, I completely agree with this phrase. I do not believe that there are right answers, and I also don't believe there are wrong answers; but i disagree with the phrase because my belief is that there are no answers, period. There is no meaning to life, there is no definition to reality, and there is no point trying to construct an answer so perfect that it cant be challenged.
The first argument against this remark will inevitably come, and will most likely ask that by saying there are no answers aren't you yourself answering something? My response is no. My "answer" is not a response to the question, it is a product of what knowledge has been given to me and is by no means to be considered the truthful response. In turn, the statement I gave is should only be interpreted as an opinion and nothing more. Our world is created by opinions and not by answers, but the trouble behind this is that people take one of two routes at interpreting this. The first of which being that people neither want, nor have the sufficient amount of knowledge to find the answers they so dearly desire. The second being that today's man wants the authority of being right, even if it is only to himself, which leads the mind to simplify an idea and generate answers which realistically hold no value. Sadly, this is the cause of so much conflict in the world today, because the combination of refusing to understand opinion as just that and having an undeveloped knowledge push people to find comfort in sharing the same belief as others. Having a large backing of support is a very primitive way of accepting "the truth", but simply put: it works. Completing the full circle this link, it is seen that those beliefs that are most backed are also of the more simple, giving way for the fundamentalist thinking to dramatically minimize or distort the individualist nature that everyone prizes beforehand. When people take on fundamental or strict beliefs, it is impossible for them to find a true answer unless it is one which can be found in the narrow corridor which they have bestowed upon themselves, and if your belief is based on anything other than your own genuine thought, how is it that your opinion is the truth? Even if the people who partake in this believe that their opinion is the righteous one, there is nothing wrong with that; but, it is impossible to avoid the fact that this is a problem because it has lead to so many conflicts throughout history. Religion, politics, sports, or you-name-it have all lead the individual opinion to mutate into the uncontested truth, and they all have lead to conflict because of the second point of desire for an answer: being right, and all of us know the terrible feeling of being told that we are wrong. By taking the mentality of the herd, the enforcing nature of "answers" have escalated to a point where it is seemingly impossible to stop because it is much easier to say "I am not wrong" than it is to say "We are not wrong." I do not intend to lecture you on how -ism's are bad and wrong, but surely if one were to realize that not only can there not be an answer, and even more-so that there doesn't have to be one, perhaps one could find more depth in that.
Depth. There is a problem with that word when it comes to finding an answer, and most believe that the truth should have some association with it. But, it is plain to see that this goes against everything that the truth should be. The truth should represent the truth 100%, but this in itself is impossible, which explains how there can not be such a thing as an answer. For example: if I were to say the sky is blue most would agree with me, but at the moment of writing this the sky is black, on a day with overcast the sky is grey, and even when the sky is mostly blue there are white clouds obstructing the blue so it is plain to see that this absolute statement is not absolute at all. Instead of working against the system, to deconstruct it we should work with it, and so lets suppose that the sky is blue. Even under this new thought to find the truth we must acknowledge the fact that the sky is not blue, but has a blue gradient showing an immense amount of colors. If then then the truth becomes a dismissal of differences, how is it that we can provide an answer with absolute truth if our definition of the truth in most cases is so 'loosely based'? An answer can not be found if you gauge it, because the truth can not be put on a gauge, much like it cant be put on a scale. Frequently people try to distinguish one event or object from another by judging it on a scale with 'a' at one end and 'b' on the other. Although we have already determined that 'a' and 'b' can not exist by showing that there is no absolute, a variable 'c' could not possibly be put on this scale seeing as there are too many external things that push and pull the variable in different directions, and to assume that all the possible push/pull factors present are known that would be nothing short of ignorance. An answer of 'c' in relation to 'a' and 'b' is impossible, and the only thing we can ever know is that 'c' is an independent thing no matter how great the influences are, even if it is dependent on a 'd'. The thing we must accept is that even if there it is a truth, we can not define it as the 'd' will always have a link, whether it be an 'e' or a 'j' and this will go on for infinity. The reason why we can never define these things as infinity is because infinity is constantly re-definining itself, and your 'answer' will never be the answer again.
When we think of 'a' or 'b', what do we really think of? Letters? Math? Elephants? No. No matter what we think of, we firstly think of the idea of 'a', the idea that fits in the context under which it is presented. Upon this realization, we stumble upon the last true frontier of having an answer, or the truth. The most reassuring thing that we can have is the constant answers that the laws of mathematics provide us with. Everyone knows that 2+2=4, as its what we've been taught to us for as long as we can remember. What we fail to grasp though, is that 2+2 does not equal 4, the idea of adding two 2s equals the idea of having a resulting 4. The initial example that we were given to understand these ideas was the thought of counting these ideas on our hands; two fingers and another two fingers equal four fingers. Since then, the foundations of math have been drilled in our heads by the educational system in an attempt to make us come up with the next example to provide the next generation with, but again it seems as though we have settled with the simpler of routes. We accepted that it is possible to add four fingers to each other without ever doing so, and yet when we grow up to be rational human beings and we realize that this is not actually possible we don't go back and reassess all the other ideas we have based on this foundation of a thought. Sadly, this is not only applicable to math; language, technology, and science all carry this very same trait of conducting through ideas. In fact, you are reading these words and having analytical thoughts when little do you realize that these words are not really here, their ideas are. What you are reading though, are simply collections of ink that resemble symbols to which you have attached specific ideas to. If we were ever to seemingly acquire all the infinite amount of knowledge to truly create an answer, who's to say that all of the idea-based facts you have acquired could even create a new, absolute idea in the first place?
We all look for answers in life. How will I get out of this? How do I get that? Why? I believe that even though there are no answers, these questions are necessary even if you never formulate your opinion on them. In fact, I believe that these questions are more important than the answers because these questions are a direct reflection of who we are in life and what we seek. These questions give purpose to oneself in one way or the other, and so instead of answering these questions and completing them, I believe it is better to question our questions and add depth to them. By doing so, we are finding the inspiration that was behind them and the ideas that have resulted as a consequence. The truth is relative, and even if reality is the same for all, the truth you know is your truth through your own eyes and perception. From this, you create the world around you simply by observing it and building on the ideas and opinions you have created for yourself. The only answer which can hold any weight is yourself, because you are the only one in your own world at any given point. To go back to the questions of "How will I get out of this?"," How do I get that?" and "why?"; the only answer for these questions is your existence, and how your world will unfold to get you through the question, possibly without ever providing an answer for it.

“Any man who knows all the answers most likely misunderstood the questions”

The goal of philosophy is to dissect truth by means of logic, in hopes of finding answers to questions of varying scale. The most prominent, and somewhat avoided topic however, is the purpose of life. In fact, all philosophical questions and answers posed by the great thinkers of the world try, perhaps subconsciously, to shed light on the purpose of life. In hopes of understanding the purpose of life, I am writing this article with a focus on some topics that I feel may be closely linked to finding the purpose of life. This essay will chain together most of my main ideas, and as such is a good summary of my thoughts throughout the years, coupled with my analysis of other philosophies regarding my topic.

To find the purpose of life, I first ask myself the question – What is a purpose? Purpose is a reason, and implies the presence of will- a willful reason. For an action to have a purpose, the entity choosing, and in turn performing the action, must have will. The entity must believe that the action will cause some particular, desired effect. Once there is a goal behind a choice, purpose is born. Now, to say that life has a purpose is to say that life causes, or is meant to cause, a desired effect. So then, what entity gives purpose to life? At first, it may be tempting to conclude that the one who is living creates a purpose to his/her life by setting goals. These goals can be seen as a purpose. On the other hand however, it is fair to say that some “living” creatures, such as tapeworms or flowers, lack the capacity to set conscious goals in life. Furthermore, one can argue that because the living entity did not spawn itself into existence, it has no way of knowing its own original cause. In other words, the entity which creates life is the only entity that knows why it created life, because it is the only entity which possessed will at the time of its action (creating life). The created living beings may in turn, given enough mental capacity, create goals for themselves. However, these goals are only a side effect of life, but not necessarily the purpose of it. In one exception however, the goals set by the living beings may coincide with the purpose of their existence, as willed by the creator. In other words, the creator may have willed for the living beings to set goals for themselves. In this case, the living beings are fulfilling their purpose without even knowing it. But to know for certain the reason for which it was created, the living being has to ask its creator for the reason, because the creator is the only one that intentionally created the being (and remember, intent must be present for an action to have purpose). So far we’ve talked about the meaning of purpose, and concluded that only the creator of life can know the purpose of it. According to this logic, I have to ask my creator why he/she created me.

If the above paragraph sounded a lot like religion, it’s no surprise. Religion has been using the same logic as me to conclude that the purpose of life is to follow the will of god (the creator). In fact, some religions, such as Catholicism, have sacred texts in which God explains how to live according to his will. The most prevalent of these texts include the Bible, the Torah, and the Qur’an. My idea can be looked at from a different approach though, one that does not rely on gods will to dictate the purpose of life. Instead, one could ask his/her mother for the reason why she created a child. The most logical answer one would get is that the mother simply wanted a child. So for instance, if my mother created me because she wanted a child, then I have automatically fulfilled the purpose of my life. In fact, my very existence is the only purpose to my life. However, what if my mother created me in hopes of having a child that is 10 feet tall, or in hopes of having child of the opposite sex? In either of these two cases, I have automatically failed the purpose of my life. However, there is a MAJOR flaw in logic involved with simply asking my direct creator (mother), for the purpose of my life. This is because by asking my mother, I am forgetting about my father, who also took part in my creation. This is because there is no “One Creator” or “One Cause for anything. We live in a world where there isn’t only one reason for anything- a world of circumstances. I was created as a result of a series of circumstances, not just one. If I was born as a result of many circumstances, then which one of them is really responsible for my existence? If there is no one reason for my existence, is there a way to take into consideration all of the reasons for my existence? Initially, I’d say no, there is no way to inquire ALL the reasons for my existence or to know WHY I was born, and therefore impossible to find the purpose of my life. However, there are a number of reasons that compel me to think otherwise; primarily, my belief in a unified consciousness, or god. The next set of paragraphs will be dedicated to explaining how it may be possible to harness all the knowledge in the world to find the purpose of all things, including life.

Consciousness is a thing. There is only one of it. We say “I want a book”, but we do not say “I want a consciousness”. The latter phrase seems wrong because we know that consciousness is one thing, there aren’t many of it. There is a possibility that our individual selves are only temporary subjective experiences. I believe that consciousness is one single thing that is naturally distributed into all matter. However, some compositions of matter, such as brains, possess more consciousness than others, due to phenomenon yet unknown to science. In other words, there is something about matter that attracts consciousness to it. Due to their complexity, some clusters of matter can do this better than others. To better understand my view, consider the following analogy. In some new videogames, the player is thrown into a fictional world that serves as a home for many video game characters that are controlled by the computer’s artificial intelligence. In these games, the player is free to do whatever he/she wants, and the world needs to react in a realistic fashion. Imagine a digital city containing hundreds of characters; these characters have needs, such as food and sleep, and are able to go about their own business, react to environmental changes (namely those caused by the player), and seem aware and separate form one another. Although the game characters seem separate from each other, each and every one of them is controlled by one thing- The computer itself (more specifically the CPU). The processing power of the whole computer is what gives game characters their own artificial intelligence- it is simply distributed as needed into the characters. So in that sense, though the characters are all separate and have their own AI, they are all a part of the same thing! The computer is just separating its computational power temporarily, until the game is closed. Theoretically, because the AI of the characters belongs to the computer, the computer should be able to access all the information gathered by the characters, thus making the computer all knowing (in terms of the game world). Now think of the characters as real people in the “real” world, and consider the computer’s processor to be consciousness. In this view, it is very possible that god, the creator, is just an accumulation of all the knowledge, and experiences gained by every conscious thing in the world. Perhaps the “holy spirit” is all the free floating consciousness, and souls are chunks of the Holy Spirit that animate those who possess them.

By being close to each other, humans are able to reach heightened levels of consciousness. For example, when I am with my friends, or at a party, or at school, I feel much more conscious than when I am walking home alone. Another example of collaborative consciousness between humans is the ascension of fear. Oftentimes, humans are simply scared of what they don’t know, even if there is no logical reason to be scared. For example, I feel much better walking into a dark room with my younger sister, than doing so by myself, even though my sister obviously cannot defend me against any danger. In fact, having my sister around in the face of a real danger would only make things more difficult, as I would have to protect her as well as myself. Being with another person however, no matter whom, keeps people in check, and away from insanity. Why do you think people scared of the dark? It is because darkness attacks not simply the person, but the sanity of the person. Why are ghosts scarier than tigers? Because when a person sees a tiger, his/her reactions are almost purely governed by the stimulus responses- fight or flight. In the face of a real danger, there isn’t much room in the mind for fear- only survival instincts kick in. However, a surreal event such as seeing a ghost will not trigger stimulus response, because the mind cannot recognize whether the danger is real or not. The mind is left with fear. Once there is another person to confirm or dismiss the danger, fear declines. This is why people need each other in dark places and times.

We are all the same consciousness. With that in mind, it may be possible to find the purpose of my life by gaining a higher level of consciousness. Because I don’t think that anything can truly die, I assume that upon death, each and every one of us rejoins the “Holy Spirit” (free floating consciousness), and becomes all knowing. However, the idea that the purpose of life is in fact its opposite (death), is not appealing or logical. The Holographic Universe is a somewhat popular theory started by David Bohm and Karl Pribram and later expanded by Michael Talbot. It describes the universe to be somewhat holographic. If you take a holographic film with a hologram of a tree encoded in it, the tree is not visible to the naked eye. Instead, a laser must be shone through the holographic film, which results in the projection of a three dimensional picture of a tree on the other side of the film. The interesting property of the holographic film is that if it were cut in half, each half of the film would still produce a full tree if a laser were to be shone through it. If the hologram were to be cut in 15 pieces, then 15 full trees would be produced from each 1/15^th section of the hologram. This is obviously a very unusual characteristic; this means that each section of the hologram contains the entirety of the image, rather than parts of the image.

If the universe is anything like the holographic film, this would imply that like in the holographic film, the entire universe is contained in every tiny part of itself. This view of the universe can easily explain supernatural phenomena such as telepathy, while most other views of the universe simply ignore supernatural phenomena altogether. For instance, conventional physics cannot yet explain instantaneous signaling between subatomic particles or people. It is shown that in some instances, if one particle is affected, it will always affect another particle instantaneously. However, it is impossible to send instantaneous signals, since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Another such phenomenon is when a twin is hurt and the other twin feels the pain. Instead of viewing this as an instantaneous signal however, the phenomenon can be viewed in another way. If the entire universe, including knowledge, is contained in every part of the universe, then it is no longer difficult to suppose a situation in which people can access information stored in each other’s heads, with no need to signal each other, because all knowledge of the world is actually inside each of our heads.

In further support for the holographic model of the universe, scientists and doctors have known for a long time that different bits of information are not stored in separate parts of the brain. A famous experiment was conducted in which rats were taught how to run a maze, after which portions of the rats brains were removed. The scientists thought that if the rat could no longer remember how to run the maze, they would have discovered which part of the rat’s brain the memory of how to run the maze was stored in. However, they found that even upon disassembling the entire brain, the rat’s memory of how to run the maze could not be removed. This experiment supports the holographic Universe model because it shows that every part of the rat’s brain contained the whole memory of how to run the maze. So if the holographic model of the universe is true, and people are all the same consciousness, what implications does this have to finding the purpose of life? I discussed before that only the creator knows why it is the he created. However, I concluded that there is no single creator, and that more than one circumstance is responsible for all things (including life). If there is a connection between all of the consciousness in the world (as exemplified by the video game analogy, the ascension of fear, and the Hologram theory), then all the will (or “circumstances”) that caused my life is actually contained within me, so I do not have to inquire outside sources for an answer. Therefore, by “praying to god” (seeking a heightened consciousness) one is actually looking within him/her self to find the purpose of life. I do honestly believe that finding the purpose of life is very possible, if not inevitable for me.

Now, I would like to point out that the purpose for the existence of a living being may or may not appeal to the living being. For example, chickens in a farm are raised only for their meat and eggs. By dying and giving away their meat and eggs, the chickens are fulfilling their purpose. However, who is to say that the will of the creator is supreme to the will of the living being? Why do we even look to inquire the will of our creator to govern our lives? Perhaps people are scared that if they do not fulfill their purpose, they will be punished, or discarded (hell?). So then if our “purpose” does not matter, by what guidelines should we live our lives? I took a different approach on my second attempt to unearth the purpose of life. I looked at trees. Now trees, if left unharmed, can live for a very long time. But what exactly causes a tree to die? Surprisingly, the primary factor to a trees death is its own growth. Trees, like humans, have necessities for life; nutrients from soil, sunlight, and carbon dioxide. Only in the presence of all of these requirements can the tree begin the process of photosynthesis, which is the very process that keeps trees and other plants, alive. When a tree grows, it requires more and more nutrients, water, and sunlight to support itself. Unlike humans who can shrink (lose weight) in times of low energy consumption, trees cannot reverse their growth. Normally, trees die when the available amount of water and nutrients is not adequate for the size of the tree. Theoretically, if a tree were to stay small, it would be able to live for a much, much longer amount of time, as smaller trees deplete the nutrients in their soil at a much slower rate. Now don’t get me wrong, in some cases it may help to have a stronger overall structure, to defend against nature (eg. wind). But in general, smaller trees can live longer. So why then why do trees grow despite the ill effects of growth to survival? This tree analogy is a good way of looking at how people should lead their lives. In short, live as big as possible, and fill life with pleasure. In the end, it matters not how long we live. For example, a person could live for three-hundred years but be kept in a closet his entire life. This tells me that time is not an accurate measure of accomplishment.

The last point I’d like to make is that not everything MUST have purpose. In fact, if there was a purpose to everything (including life), then the final goal would never be reached. For example, if the purpose of complex molecular systems is to produce life, one can ask- what is the purpose of life then? If there is a purpose to life, one can simply ask what the purpose of the next purpose is. In other words, an alternate way of looking at life is that it is the final goal. The purpose of our consciousness, our brain and our bodies, is to create life. Therefore, one does not need to ask what the purpose of life is; we’ve already reached the purpose. I find this interesting because most people today seem to believe that EVERYTHING has a purpose. This is because people mix up the words reason a purpose. Sure, there is a reason for everything, as all events are caused by previous events/circumstances. However, reason is not the same as purpose. Something can have a reason to exist, but no purpose. For example, a chunk of wood lying on the ground may exist because it fell from a tree which was struck by lightning. However, there is not PURPOSE for its existence. As I stated before, there is a flaw in logic in thinking that everything has a purpose, seeing as no “final” purpose would ever be achieved this way. Finally, the “purpose” of life (or the best thing to do with it, since it does not have a real purpose) is simply to LIVE!

-Hayk Amirbekyan

With body swap movies being the norm since the 1980’s, deep philosophical issues can be found in some of the most surprising of places.

Whether we are aware of it or not, the men and women churning out Hollywood movies at such an alarmingly rapid pace are doing a service for the world, and it goes beyond just entertainment. Movies with a social conscience frequently get the nod from the Academy year after year, and it is hard to deny the educational value of countless historical films. Movies can be a powerful tool to get a point across and its easy accessibility makes it one of the greatest forms of media of all time.

But there is another aspect of life writers and filmmakers alike seem to drool at the idea of. Philosophy has been a driving force behind movies for a long time, even though it might not get the credit it deserves. Writers frequently borrow from their philosophical favourites without even the slightest piece of recognition to the men and women that are the foundations for their stories. Only a savvy viewer can see the parallels without having it spelt out nice and simple. But aside from the more artsy films that can be hit or miss, there is a more clichéd [or ‘time tested’ if we’re being kind] sort of movie that is usually campy and/or involve learning ‘profound’ life lessons, but they also bring up a weighty philosophical issue at the same time. Movies a la Big, Freaky Friday and 13 Going on 30 are among the many of such films that inadvertently plays with the concept of personal identity and its ability to transcend the physical self.

What is most notable about this collection of movies is the characters ability to change physically while still maintaining their ‘non-physical self’. That is, although Tom Hank’s character was plucked from his own body and placed in that of an adult, he still maintained all his youthful quirks and naivety. He was still himself, even if he wasn’t. Same goes for the copy-cat movie, 13 Going on 30. Sure, it’s easy to point out if they made the switch and were no longer ‘themselves’ it wouldn’t make a very interesting movie. But this slant towards this Cartesian dualism notion is interesting, because there are a many philosophers who would argue that the two aspects of self are one in the same or completely inseparable. So, as a result, these films can be seen the pop culture ground zero for a debate that has been conducted over decades. What does self identity really boil down to? Just the body or the soul? The ability to maintain your memories? Looking at various movies I’ve seen I planned to sort out what is what and see what the overall consensus in the films are, as well as use them as a starting point to addressing an issue that truly effects all humanity.

A lot of these rely on what is known as psychological continuity rather than spatiotemporal, being in the physical body you were born in and continuing in it over time. All this means is that a person is still the ‘same’ if they are able to keep their memories, character traits, and so on. This can be exemplified by the 1995 film Fluke in which after being in a terrible car accident and man’s psyche is transported in to that of a golden retriever. In essence he is one and the same person. He remembers his wife and child, his opinions on things and basically every memory of his previous life. Although he is now a completely different species, on the inside he is the same. If psychological continuity is all it takes to still be the same, than the dog is clearly the same person. But even within this sub-genre of movies involving reincarnation there are examples that contradict this belief. Chris Rock’s film Down To Earth has a character who initially remembers every detail of his former life. However, by the end he is placed in a new body and his memory is wiped clean and reverts to the psyche of his host’s body. Does this show that even without the same body and mind a person can be the same? The way the end plays out is that while this new body is completely different and calls himself by a new name, some of the characteristics are the very same. [Most memorably was when the new body says ‘Let me feed you’, the pickup line repeatedly used by the former character.] Does this suggest there is a tertiary aspect to human identity? I think that because of all the heaven, angel references throughout that what this film shows is the concept best known as a soul. Just what the soul is is extremely subjective but from my own experience gathering opinions from people is that it is something eternal and perhaps a piece of God within ourselves. Once again, it seems to fit in with the general motif of the movie and drags up a whole host of other issues in philosophy, namely the nature and/or existence of the soul.

The one movie that might throw off everything is Being John Malkovich which doesn’t deal with incarnation exactly, and is not the conventional body swap movie at all. Perhaps it’s also worth mentioning that it is one of the most bizarre movies I’ve ever sat down and watched in its entirety. Malkovich takes that traditional approach to such movies and throws it out the window. Freaky Friday, for instance, involves a mother daughter team switching bodies but keeping their respective psychological continuity. It’s straightforward and easily dealt with. Although physically different, one would be hard pressed to argue that with such altered mentality that Jamie Lee’s character was still the ‘same’ with the obvious difference of an ordinarily very prim and proper executive acting like the sixteen year old inside her. Malvovich on the other hand, dealt more with possession and self identity. The main characters discover a secret portal in to the head of the famous actor and can become him for ten minutes before being spat out on to the New Jersey turnpike. Unless you possess a keen ability to hold on to and control Malvovich’s mind, the guest becomes absorbed in to his mentality, see what he does, feel what he does and are generally at his mercy. However, as a working puppeteer the man character slowly becomes able to actually control John Malkovich’s every move and permanently reside in his body while John’s ‘real’ mentality is suppressed.

It probably sounds complicated for anyone who hasn’t yet to view it, and I’ll be the first to admit it isn’t exactly that cut and dry. But it opens the proverbial can of worms when it comes to self identity. When a person becomes John, what happens to their physical body? Are they still themselves or are they just one part of John’s subconscious? Can two people reside in one body? And, if so, is one dominant and the other repressed? An interesting question that was addressed in a very brief but extremely bizarre moment was what would happen if John himself jumped through the portal in to his own brain. He ended up in what I could only call Malkovich land, in which everything was him, wrapped up in his own subconscious. In short, it was about as screwed up as it gets but an important consideration when tackling these kinds of movies.

I would have to say, including the last garish example all of these films rely on the psychological continuity theory, which we can accredit to John Locke. If we possess the same thoughts, memories and mannerism, we are the ‘same’ as we used to be. It is in our history and memories that we define who we are and so that’s why all these characters, despite being thrust in to unknown territory maintain their sense of who they are. I’m quite sure they will continue to release out these kinds of films even if they follow the same predictable plot namely because they show something I think we’d all like to believe in. Of course this is nothing but my own opinion, but to think even for the most fleeting of moments that there is something distinctively ‘us’ aside from our body, a mentality and history unseen but ever present in our busy minds. As the great Alfred Hitchcock said, “Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.” We go to movies to experience a piece of ourselves in greater than life proportions. Perhaps this is exactly what philosophers need to really analyze what the basis of humanity truly is.

-Lindsey Erickson

Albert Einstein was named the man of the century in the millennium edition of TIME magazine, 1999. Einstein re-defined the term gravity, proved one of the greatest scientists of all time to be dumbfounded, and still maintains a strong influence over the world of modern science to this day; though all these feats are present, it is also Einstein’s most famed formula from the theory of special relativity that says everything, including Einstein himself is nothing. E=mc² is the equation spoken of, and it is also the equation that changed the world, and marked the beginning of seemingly limitless progress of the 20^th century. To break down the formula itself, it is seen that E represents energy, m represents mass, and c represents the speed of light. Though pure mass to energy conversion is nearly impossible and has never happened, this theory has practically proven itself with the creation of the atomic bomb, by demonstrating that atomic release of mass is not in the realm of mythology.

To string together the thesis of this paper’s argument, it is appropriate to logically set it up. All matter in the universe down to the most insignificant specks of dust in space in one form or another have mass. Since human beings’ perceptions and ideas are based on the information given to them by the physical world, then they also see the worth in everything around them. Einstein proposed that everything could be converted, or for lack of a better word simplified down into raw energy. Everything down to the hormones which cause the emotions on one’s face, can be counted ass mass and in turn energy. Although people are constantly immersed in a world of energy, there is nothing associated with it. Energy has no definition, no value, no taste, or color; there is also no intrinsic or emotional value associated with it. This sparks the terrifying thought Therefore, the question must be asked whether there is any point to nothingness, and what kind of questions would one ask if the universe is something made of nothing.

What kind of value can be associated to nothingness, and does mattermatter?

The philosophy of nothingness, nihilism, is often associated with suffering, pain, and chaotic action. If these principles were to be true, it would be found that nothing is likewise suffering. Since this suffering can not be attributed to the micro level of being attributed to all mass, as one cannot associate the nothingness of a rock to an emotion, it is necessary to look for a different approach. Existential nihilism is the study of the primary question of “why is there something rather than nothing?”, which is most appropriate to examine the question of value behind nothing, as perhaps the examination of both nothingness and being will diverge into a separation and thus revealing the truth through difference.

Freidrich Nietzsche once addressed the question of being in his passage named ‘Eternal Recurrence’. To summarize this text, Nietzsche proclaimed the following statement: “Everything becomes and recurs eternally—escape is impossible!” [Nietzsche, i]. Essentially, Nietzsche proclaimed that instead of the ever-evolving and progressive energy that one is accustomed to hearing in the modern way of thought, there is a cyclical nature of all things, events and occurrences. This particular view is one that explains nothingness is a very particular manner as it states that there is a nature to the nothingness around us, and it is a very predictable and overall eternal one. If one were to accept this claim, this would mean that nothingness is more than just a nothingness of time; it is evidence for the question of free will to be destroyed. Based on the interpretation of this claim, it is actually not as far-fetched as it seems at first glance as one could simply factor in technological progress that would alter the consequences of events, not the actions themselves. Nietzsche made a claim that ultimately lead back to Einstein in the same writing when he stated “I seek an eternity for everything: ought one to pour the most precious salves and wines into the sea?—My consolation is that everything that has been is eternal: the sea will cast it up again.” [Nietzsche, ii]. This quotation offers the same as the first, but brings up the point of eternity and perhaps what the philosopher means when everything will repeat itself; the conservation of physicality and (going back to Einstein) the energy behind it. The repetitive, and eternal nature of the universe has indeed been proven, from simple nuances such as spinning of the earth which results in a sunrise everyday. Perhaps what Nietzsche means by his definition of nihilism is not sorrow and grief, but rather the instance of the sorrow and grief that comes from not being able to escape from the repetitive nature of the universe and all that has essentially become innate in us. What is most striking about both these points, is that Nietzsche constantly speaks of the ubermensche, and the power to overcome that which the norm has become. Though this is contradictory, Nietzsche also believes that all progress comes from the superman of society, and that is the hope of man. By assuming that all these points are interconnected, it could be said that the only point of nothing is to lead all things in nature including humanity to its original place by progress and counter-progress in a cyclical nature, and that the sorrow comes from the knowledge that there is nothing that can escape nothingness. After all, origin and end place of all things is nothingness itself in death. “Existence really is an imperfect tense that never becomes a present.” [Nietzsche, iii].

Jean Paul Sartre is another philosopher that is highly regarded as an explorer of the question behind existence, his notable work ‘Being and Nothingness’ addressed the question of what is nothingness and is there such a thing in the first place. Throughout the book, Sartre uses many terms and delves into what they mean to one another, and to their individual theories in themselves; but, one of these terms stands out as the part of the pack that defines the pack itself: Affirmation. "Affirmation is always affirmation of something" [Sartre, i], by this one quote Sartre believes that being is existent, but there is much more that the topic of nothing can move to from this. Growing from the point that Sartre set up, George Smoot once lectured the world about the design of the universe, and how technology has helped us find that when there is something there is nothing, and vice versa. Smoot theorized that matter is everywhere, even when its gravitational pull is much weaker in the reaches of the universe rather than what we ourselves know it to be. Since the matter extends, and comes in different forms, it is all part of the same essential fabric, and that the cumulative energy that it produces plays a bigger role in the shape of the universe than what any human can fathom. The integration of seemingly simple ideas in order to create a multi-layer and complex universe is something that the nothingness of energy can create. This then begs the question of how the universe expands with all of these layers and where does it extend to? If the universe does expand, it accordingly does so in a manner when all of the layers of the universe are being dispersed in a series of processes that carry on the complexity of the complete product, and keep the simple fabrics moving. These fabrics of course, are the energies that construct the universe in the first place. But where does the universe extend to? The initial thought is that which was not there before, and thus extending the energy and infinity, that would be logical, except if the place the universe extended to was not the definition of nothing: that which does not exist. If we use the concept of affirmation, we see that by acknowledging that this nothing is there, it is not nothing, it is at least energy, meaning that the universe could be an energy which has already been there, which boggles the mind as the idea of expansion is exactly that: expansion. If the universe expands to a place where it has already been, perhaps it is a place where it has already been, thus returning to an argument of repetition of nature, in literally a universal form [Smoot]. Sartre also stated that everything that exists, exists within itself, therefore this may provide an explanation as to the universe expanding everywhere it has already been by proposing that the universe is everything, but it does not address how there can be no nothing.

For the final dissection of theory, it is only appropriate to address the theory of how the universe came to be everything it is, and everything it isn’t. For the sake of argumentation, this dissection will not include the various religion-based creation stories as the question at hand is derived from scientific findings. The big bang theory, which suggests that the universe was created by a mass explode-and-expand effect of a colliding electron and its anti-matter is one which is accepted by most scientists as the most reasonable and backed theories to date. This theory is one which raises the most important question related to this topic: if the universe was produced by matter and its counterpart, and matter is nothing, what is its counterpart? This question is one that holds the capacity that could change the way humanity looks at everything. In a recent study, scientists have discovered that the universe is for the most part made of dark matter, meaning that in the infinity we know, there is also a separate infinity which swallows our reality, yet all of this is allowed under the principles of Einstein’s general theory of relativity [Brown]. One theory that surprisingly fits into this scheme is that of Plato’s cave theory. Much like Plato stated that humans are only shown what others decide to show, in this instance the universe has until now only presented what lead to the belief of a + universe and a – universe, but since the integration of both can be proven, the + and – essentially create a synthesis of 0, or nothing. Since this nothing is essentially everything, it is safe to assume that the universe is growing in, and was created in balance. Although the big bang could never be explained completely, or the limits of the universe be reached, the change and evolution of its state is what the core what it exists as today.

The universe is nothing through being everything, and therefore it is undefined, and will be indefinable forever. Though this is true, all points stated in the arguments lead to the belief that the universe is alive. It’s life comes from its constant evolution and progress, whether its cyclical like Nietzsche theorized, or ever expanding such as scientists believe. If the universe is comprised of energy, and the universe is alive, then the answer for the value behind nothingness is the most valuable thing of all in the egoistical mind of the human: life. From the arguments and points presented, there is a trend of agreement with the activity within the universe. Perhaps it is unfair to assume that energy is nothing, because even if the mass that could be converted from energy is utterly useless in the universe, that uselessness could have a name such as Plato, or any other philosopher mentioned for that matter. Energy in any definition of the term is a demonstration of activity, even the energy that created a rock did so because of activity, and if humanity recognizes this, perhaps they will also see that everything else in the universe is connected through the same mesh of nothingness, and interdependency is essential. Energy is both everything and nothing, which is a beautiful thing because it gives both humility and worth to everything that one sees. Energy does indeed have worth, and it is life. Life that is not limited to humans, but a literal demonstration of a universal life through activity. Though this everything is a somewhat depressing nothing, this worth will always stay here, because just as Einstein said: “energy can not be created of destroyed”.

Energy never dies.

Mysticism comes from the Greek word “to conceal,” which conveys a spiritual connotation as it involves the communication with a divinity that gives us guidance and a spiritual foundation. Philosophers conduct a logical analysis of the truths and principles of being and knowledge to gain insight into ourselves. Philosophy assumes everything is explicable in naturalistic terms and yet there is a tendency to reject any supernatural explanation of the mystical experience. The philosophy of mysticism is an important element concerning human understanding because it provides knowledge about the human spirit, which is of great significance as it takes on the relationship between a Supreme Being and the soul that influences our actions. When philosophers discuss God and religion, the human spirit is not examined yet this is pivotal to the understanding of our human nature. While mysticism is perceived as a non-traditional belief system, it exists with a profound underlying influence throughout society.

For centuries, mysticism has played a significant role throughout history, cultures and religions. Mysticism commenced with attempts to explain natural phenomenon such as thunder, lightening as omens and would make offerings to the gods to appease them with the hope to establish harmony and good fortune. For a symbol to become mystical it must got through these stages: awakening in which one begins to have some consciousness of a divine reality, cleansing which is characterized by an awareness of ones own imperfection, illumination which is marked by consciousness with a vision of heaven and earth and a union and worshiping of a Supreme Being. Enlightenment and union with God are made possible via mystical paths, which are available to everyone who is willing to follow the practice of a given mystical system. Mysticism looks at the reality of nature, knowledge and phenomenon and then relates these aspects to a mystical experience. This is an attempt to describe the cause and effect between one’s internal state and the miraculous hints with the connection between the mysterious realm of nature and religion and for humankind to be able to explain these events.

Religions use mysticism to enhance the perception of an omnipotent Supreme Being, which goes onto, reinforce the belief in the faith that this is the divine truth and knowledge. Theistic metaphysical systems most often understand mystical experience as individual communication with God. These very subjective experiences are portrayed as visions, miracles, dreams, revelations or prophecies. The person who experiences these supernatural occurrences usually tend to be described as being virtuous and of good moral standing which is used to add to the validity of the event which also keeps the mystic encounter as part of a traditional belief system. Their direct experience with a Supreme Being usually tends to give the individual a divine goal or task. All religions have a concept of a human spirit or soul that lies within each individual. The soul is of great spiritual significance. The soul takes on a relationship with God and is a symbol of our purity and nature. Mysticism seeks this unity of the soul while in the body and it is through prayer and meditation that people can improve their soul. This refers to the beliefs and practices which go beyond the liturgical and devotional forms of worship. One seeks inner meanings of the religious doctrine by engaging in spiritual practices that are designed to heighten spiritual awareness. In mysticism, the soul plays an important part in the after life. Depending upon one’s good or bad behaviour throughout one natural life will determine one’s place in the afterlife for eternity. The concept of heaven and hell influence peoples decisions and actions. Heaven is perceived to be a place of purity and tranquility while hell is perceived to be a place of torment where one is punished for one’s wrongdoings during their natural life. From a philosophical standpoint, people may have a requirement to believe in life after death as a means of helping to explain their life on earth, hope and further sense of purpose. By influencing the person’s behavioural decisions, it has a direct correlation of how we interact with each other in society. Baruch Spinoza discussed the freedom of understanding of God, which gives us the importance of ethics, which gives people the knowledge and intellect to make rational decisions. Our belief in the human spirit ensures ethical decisions are taken so that we adhere to the religious and social laws that govern our behaviour. Religions maintain a belief system that continually reinforces the idea of the soul and its ability to live on after death.

We believe that some selected individuals have the unique ability to communicate with the spirits in the afterlife to provide knowledge and foresight into past and future events. David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding mentions that imagination provides us with unlimited power to examine ideas that are furnished by internal and external senses. Since the mind has authority over all of its ideas, our feelings are directly connected to our perceptions as well as our belief in the existence of the human spirit. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that astronomy was born of superstition, eloquence of ambition, hatred, falsehood, and flattery; physics of an idle curiosity; and moral philosophy like all the rest, of human pride. Thus, the arts and science owe their birth to our vices [Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts]. We maintain a connection to the afterlife by celebrating holidays such as Halloween and Dia De Los Muertos (Day of the Dead) which involves the senses distinct perception which reinforces the ideas and the imaginary experience. For generations the stories are retold until it becomes rooted in our society as a mystical experience celebration.

Immanuel Kant discusses metaphysics and views of nature as the existence of things, which are complex and based on objective reality giving cognitive experiences. Philosophers assume everything is explicable in naturalistic terms and we should reject any supernatural explanation of a mystical experience. Yet various philosophers have discussed God, religion, and their role with human understanding. Mysticism is not as discussed because it is seen as a non-traditional belief system and not supported by religion and society. However, it exists with a profound underlying influence throughout society. Mysticism centers on a set of practices which is intended to nurture the spiritual experience. A person who believes in the possibility of attaining insight into mysteries of spiritual intuition that transcend ordinary human knowledge or a direct union of the soul with God through contemplation. It conveys an aura of a mystery in which a mystical power surrounding it has a particular force. It can be a traditional or legendary story concerned with deities that help explain the creation of the world and its inhabitants in an attempt to explain a basic truth. Philosophers use the nature of reality and mysticism plays an important role because it influences human behaviour. The soul acts as a moral compass to guide our conscience to help determine right from wrong.

The philosophy of mysticism is part of a non-traditional belief system and is an important element when examining human understanding. Mysticism is used to rationalize uncontrollable events and can give us comfort. It allows us to bridge the gap of space and time giving us the perceived idea that the human spirit lives on after death. The laws of nature are objective, finite and based on our perception and knowledge yet the soul’s existence is subjective, infinite, and perceived through our intuition. Philosophy’s systematic examination of the concepts of truth, existence and reality are fundamental elements in understanding ourselves however, we also need to incorporate the indelible human spirit.

-Ashley Elek

Between McDreamy and McSteamy, most girls, without a blink of the eye, will choose McDreamy; the kind, sweet, successful, tall, dark and handsome male who (if you could not tell by the title that has been rightfully given to him) is dreamy; a true prince charming. He’s the one. He gives you that look with his steel, brown eyes that scream ‘keeper’. He makes you feel like you’re the only one in the room; nobody else exists; and no other woman for that matter. He gives you the butterflies, holds your coat for you while you slip your arms through the sleeves and delivers you a dozen red roses to your office. You become the object of his affection and the envy of all your friends, enemies and random women walking down the street glaring as they watch you link fingers. He, in your book of books, has aced the art of romance.

And soon, within a month or two of dating McDreamy, you’ll be planning the fairytale dream wedding, buying creamy paint for the white picket-fence of your dream home and buying a ten-pound book of baby names for the four to five dreamy children you’ll be having.

Yet the truth of the matter is that McDreamy, although seeming ‘all that’ on paper, never wins. Girls may try to deny this undeniable fact, but men, clever and observant as they are, have caught onto this irony. In movies, the good guy always wins. He wins against the villain, he wins recognition within his community and, in most circumstances, and he wins the girl. As for the girls watching, tears rolling down their cheeks and stuffing their cheeks with popcorn as they watch this happy ending unfold? Well, they couldn’t see the ending go any other way.

Moreover, we constantly remind ourselves that the movies aren’t reality and that same fact goes for the good guy. In reality, McDreamy never wins. He never wins against his villain, he may gain recognition within his community, but most importantly, the good guy never gets the girl. Before you get defensive and start making references to Grey’s Anatomy, I’d like to make my own reference to the same show. We know that McDreamy and McSteamy used to be best friends, and are now well on their way to repairing that relationship. McSteamy, who is completely the opposite of McDreamy, is a real McAsshole. His ridiculous good looks allow him to sleep with more women in a single month than we have fingers. He sexually harasses women in the hospital and enslaves you into retrieving his blueberry scone and cappuccino. This man has not mastered the art of romance, he constantly irritates you, and for the most part, you and your friends agree, he’s a real jerk.

Yet, we cannot possibly forget, that more women seem to fall into his bed than McDreamy’s. Women, despite knowing his relationship inconsistencies, hope with all their might, that they might be the one to tame the beast.

In reality, women only want McDreamy on paper. Thus what women say they go for and what women actually go for are two completely different things and rarely coincide. Women, whether or not we want to face it, fall head over heels in love with McSteamy. The truth is McAsshole always wins. Mcjerk always ends up on top, and the villain; sexy, arrogant and egotistical as he can be, conquers over our Prince Charming. Trust me ladies, he won’t be romantically saving you from the tallest building at the tallest tower on the highest mountain. He’ll seduce and snatch you away and then chain you to the walls of his own castle. This time, you won’t be able to get out, not because you can’t, but because you don’t want to. Instead of the sweet, loving kiss you’ve been dreaming about all your life, he gives you the hard, sultry, demanding one. Instead of picking up the phone to chat for two hours, he won’t be answering at all; he’ll probably at the bar, picking up another girl. All the while, you won’t be able to shake him off. Not for the life of you. If at this moment Simone De Beauvoir was alive and was reading this, she would most definitely object and bring up the fact that women are man dependent, they can never stand up for themselves and will never have the quality that a man would in the everyday society. She would also go on to say that a man would never want to be under a woman’s orders, despite all of these facts, this will only make a woman want a man more; crave his kisses more; desperate to make him fall in love with you more. Desperate to make him change into the man you know him to be. That man may not be any good at the art of romance, but he has definitely Phd’ed in the art of seduction. For now, that’s all he’ll give you, and as you lay in your bed crying for more than just his empty kisses, you know you can never leave him.

For some reason or another, women DON’T want McDreamy. They don’t WANT nice and kind, despite their insistence that they do. They don’t WANT prince charming to save them from that heaven-reaching tower. They want McJerk. They want McSteamy. Stats have shown that women are more likely to enter into the field of humanities than males. They need to know that they can save and also be saved. However, they still need to find the one. They need to feel special. So why on earth would a woman go after a guy who treats them like every other girl?

Only because knowing that they tamed the untameable beast makes them feel even more special than getting involved with the already tamed and potentially harmless cub. Knowing that they were the one who whipped them into boyfriend shape gives them more of a satisfaction than a man who is already boyfriend material. There is something excessively appealing in the knowledge that he only treats you with that kind of respect; looks at you with those eyes. However, dating McDreamy, as dreamy and perfect as he may seem, has probably been McDreamy all of his life. He has probably given that respect to all women and has probably looked at other women with those same eyes.

The illusion that we, women, are using our instincts as a humanitarian and saving a fallen angel from his potential downfall into hell gives us a sense of excitement not easily recognized by men. Pushing us away, makes us want to push harder to reach deep down inside and touch the heart made of steel we believe can eventually beat again. A friend recently mentioned that women, more than anything, feel special when a man reveals his fears, his weaknesses and his deepest darkest secrets. Especially if said man has a reputation for being stone cold on the outside. Knowing she’s the only one he felt comfortable enough to open up to makes her feel like the humanitarian most of us are yearning to be. However, the truth of the matter is men will never change. WE can never change them and as much as we wish we could, lying on our beds at night thinking about him and what we could do to change his terrible yet very attractive flaws that bring women to their knees, women need to accept the fact that a man will change for no one. He will always be a man. An existentialist would say that we must choose for ourselves how we act and through these choices and decisions a person becomes who they really are. maybe, just maybe, it is not our job to play the role of a caring humanitarian, trying desperately to cut open their chest with a scalpel and make their hearts beat again, but rather to accept that their flaws are what make them the men that they are.

If you still insist to tame the beast then maybe the beast isn’t what you need. Maybe what you need is, in fact, the cub that cares for you and allows you to care for him back.

What women generally want may not be the nice guy, the prince charming, the hero carrying her handkerchief in his breast pocket. That would be too easy. When it comes to life, we have constantly been reminded, is not that easy at all. We try to find the hard way, the difficult route to the land of happily ever after. What we really want is a beast we can tame. What we really want is to be a humanitarian and reform the infamous McSteamy into the dreamy McDreamy. We want to be Belle and her Beast who turns into the charming Prince after being bound by a sinful spell. We want to carry that burden of lifting the spell even if it risks our own sanity and the development of insomnia by his terrible habits.

It can therefore be concluded that, although ironic, a woman does not want a prince charming but rather to be the prince charming saving, not a damsel in distress, but a man who has fallen from the path of righteousness.

The time right now is 5:36 PM. For most people, the concept that a number can symbolize time is common knowledge. That is probably because society has built a regulated system to measure time all over the world. Although it is not 5:36 PM everywhere on this planet at the same moment, the number symbolizes times that it has been 5:36PM in the past and in the future simultaneously. But can time mean more than just a number? Actually, time is much more complex than how we can measure it. It is important to know if it really exists, and if so what it consists of. These questions extend into three different branches we call: the past, the present, and the future.

The past is what we identify with as events and thoughts that have occurred to us or others previously in life. If the past exists, then we think that it cannot exist at the same time as the present or future. However, this is a huge misconception that many people make. In reality, the past can only exist if the present and the future also exist at the same time. In a way, the past is the present and the future all at once. This is because before it turned into the past, it was once a future and once the present. After the moment in which it existed passed, the moment did not die; it exists in a different category. It gets grouped as memory in your brain, which will always exist at all times. This means that the past is a memory which can influence you in the present, and therefore can change your future. This shows that the past, present, and future all depend on each other and allow each other to exist. It also shows some sort of cycle that time goes through. This agrees with the theory of Monism which means that every part of life is really part of one large entity. The past, present, and future are really all just one thing that only gets categorized into different things in our brains. Like everything else in life, it is all just part of one all-encompassing thing that only gets separated and categorized in our minds.

The present is composed of the instantaneous actions or thoughts that occur at each moment that make up the past and the future. Commonly we think of the present as a moment of time that is independent of the past and future, and only exists in itself. However, the present does not really exist at all. Imagine time as a line that stretches from left to right infinitely on both sides. Where would the centre of the line be? Everything to the left of the centre (zero) would be negative, and everything to the right would be positive. The negatives represent the past and the positives represent the future. Zero then represents the present, but where would it be? Well if there is no zero, then there can’t be a positive and negative because it won’t be relative to anything. Therefore, zero is actually everywhere. This means that the present does not really exist as a moment in time, because that moment will always be the past or the future only. The present is actually a combination of the past and the future happening at once and creating more of itself infinitely. Imagine a point and name it zero, then imagine a line stretching infinitely to the left and a line stretching infinitely to the right from zero. Then fold the line on itself at point zero. Every positive value will be cancelled out by its equally negative value, creating zero infinitely. That is what it means to combine the past and the future at once to create the present infinitely. This shows that time is cyclical and the present only exists as a reaction between the past and the future.

The future is an expectation of certain events or thoughts to occur. Some believe that a person’s future is predetermined and that external forces control their everyday lives. This would imply that the future exists outside the past and present. But how can the future exist if we haven’t created it yet? It can’t because it only activates in combination with the past and only then does it exist. The future can only exist as an expectation of something to occur or as an idea. This agrees with the theory of Idealism which means that reality consists of ideas. The future is not really a physical thing but it still exists to each one of us as an idea. This means that things always exist as ideas and we give meaning to them by remembering certain physical attributes to relate what it actually is to us. However not all ideas can be related with physical attributes like time for example. This shows that everything around us is really only an idea and that it only exists after we become conscious of it.

The past, present, and future make up a certain concept of time that we are all familiar with. The concept that time is always changing states, and that all of its states are really only part of one because they depend on each other’s existence. The past exists as a memory and the future exists as an expectation; in combination creating the present infinitely in a cycle. This is just an idea however, since time has no physical attributes. It only exists to us because we are able to think about it, and in a grander scale everything exists because we are able to think about it.

-Reem Kamal-Al-Deen