Final Project on story of Edward Zwick's 'The Last Samurai'

     In 1876 Captain Nathan Algren, an American war hero, is sent to Japan. Japan wishes to modernize their country, and under Emperor Meiji, he will ensure that German Engineers, Italian Lawyers, American Warriors, all make their way to Japan. There is a group that believe Japan should keep its identity, and not lose its culture, and these are the remaining Samurais.
     Captain Algren is later captured and taken deep into the mountains in Samurai territory. He sees how they have passion and honor in who they are. He then sees that their cause is much more important than losing their culture and 'modernizing' their country. He joins the Samurai in an attack against the Western-Style Imperial Japanese Army. Algren's opponents use firearms and howitzers, while the Samurai fight with sword and bow, retaining their honor by charging into battle, rather than death from afar.
     With the death of all the Samurai, and Captain Nathan Algren being greatly injured, he presents Katsumoto's (The Leader of the Samurais) sword to the emperor, and proving his loyalty, that his war against the Emperor's army is actually a service to him, because they believe Japan must not lose its unique culture.
     Emperor Meiji realizes that, even with Katsumoto's death, those loyal to Katsumoto, such as Captain Nathan Algren, can still try so hard to serve the Emperor. This must mean that their cause is truly a good one, and so Emperor Meiji sees his mistake in trying to modernize his country, because as he did so, he also destroyed who his kin were. They simply just adopted another culture, and left their own beautifully unique culture in the dark.

     The philosophical question this poses is whether or not we have anything deeper than a biological composition of elements and chemical reactions. Because if we are only made of dust, then what is the point of keeping who we are to last through the ages, it won't matter anyways, since it is all just dust. But if we are not all dust, and there is something more, then we should leave our legacy.
     Philosophers have two answers to this question, and it falls down to Monism and Dualism. Or more specifically, Materialism, a type of Monism, and Dualism.
     Materialism says that there is no point in preserving your legacy, you're all going to die anyways. Everything is physical, after enough people have died, you will not matter in the confines of future people's daily lives.
     Dualism says that there is more than just the physical realm, but another realm in which things are spiritual. This means if we leave a legacy, those who still exist in the spiritual world can still be proud of us, and we can still look back in our physical life to see the trail we've left behind. This suggests that having a unique identity is good for even after we die.
     The Father of the writer of this essay had a very instilled opinion, and did not feel as if he had thought about it well, but rather it had been pounded into him by a figure he looks up to. He believes that we should keep our identity, and our legacy should be left behind, or at least we should try our best to leave a legacy. He believes that there is life after death.
     I personally believe that this is redundant. Life after death cannot be proven, and until it is proven, it is not relevant whether it exists or not. The only relevant things in life are those that we can prove, such as sciences. Some things are in dispute, but do not require proving, such as how beautiful a woman is. I believe that these things are not of the spiritual realm, but also do not require proving, and yet are relevant in life, so I take it into account as a non-spiritually-but-unprovable-issue. Apart from aesthetics, and other issues that are not spiritual and still unable to be proven, everything that cannot be proven is irrelevant to our lives. 

Choosing a World View Right for you

I disagree with his conjecture. The following demonstrates how and why, specifically, I disagree.

The main theistic package:
* An objective moral order - years of bureacracy and order has evolved us from primitive chaos
* Free will - Every single creature has free will, this is very much grey area, as it doesn't necessarily mean anything about
* A soul - Souls are not of existence, as of now. If we cannot prove it exists, it does not exist, until proven otherwise. As of everything in the realm of existence.
* Life after death - Again, no proof of that, and quite easy to disprove as it is very oxymoronic.
* God - No evidence for such a thing, as all events are traced back to causes
* Meaning - there is meaning in things that we give meaning, not from a theological and anthromorpic entity
* Bliss - there is bliss in what we make of things
________________________________________________________________________________

The main naturalistic package
* Quick description: None of the above - shows his bias, and dry humour
* No objective moral order - yes there is, just engineered by nature
* No free will - there is obviously free will, just not from a supernatural entity
* No soul - This is a completely true statement
* No meaning - as said before, it has meaning in what we make of it
* No hope - showing his presupposition again, depends on how you define hope, and for what
_________________________________________________________________________________

The 'package' that is the correct and logically truthful
* Everything is engineered by the laws of physics and nature
* The supernatural may or may not be there, but it is irrelevant until we find cogent proof for it
* Meaning is what we make of it
*Truth is found via pragmatic means
* Ethics is a weight on our journey to advancement. We are weakened by illogical thoughts. We should take the utilitarian view, no mercy to individuals, this isn't about your feelings, or the majority's world views, but the advancement of mankind.
* Pascal's wager shows how dumb faith sounds.
* My last and strongest argument. The Epicurean Paradox. All the 'evil' events that has happened in this world show how a God is logically impossible. If there is a God, is he not willing and not able to help us? Then he is, by definition, not God. Is he able but unwilling? Then he is not benevolent, and therefore making any God of any religion except Greek mythology nonexistent. Is he willing but unable? Then he is not all-powerful or having any power of any kind. This simple paradox disproves how any God could exist.

Obviously, I am a materialist, a type of monist. I do ask a question that science cannot answer, the metaphysical start of the universe. But a single unanswered question compared to the thousands of illogically answered questions theists serve makes atheism a lot more logical. We can see that many men who are uneducated are those who are theists, and those who are highly educated are atheists. Over "93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject the concept of God." - "The Nation" June 2007. That should show enough of how a wiser, more educated man who can understand the physical world better than any uneducated man has truth. In short, statistically, an atheist is right, simply looking at those numbers, but in addition, even the logical arguments for atheism is sound.

Materialism Ramachandran Brain Chemistry

Materialism is a subcategory of Monism that says that everything is physical, there is nothing that is spiritual or of the non-physical world. There are many arguments supporting this claim, and one big one is the Brain Chemistry argument. This argument says that even though we think things like love, hatred, anger, and any emotions or something that would seem supernatural is actually just our powerful brains at work. Everything is composed of the elements, and they form in some specific way to appear to us in this way.
Ramachandran's three examples of brain disorders appear to have took this argument to a new level. These three brain disorders that he talks about are Capgras Syndrome, Phantom Limb Pain, and Synesthesia. Capgras Syndrome is where one thinks that a friend or family-member has been replaced by an imposter that looks exactly like your friend or family-member. Phantom Limb Pain is when sensation is still felt in a missing body part, even after it has been treated completely, and usually these sensations are painful. Synesthesia is when stimuli in one sensory goes automatically to a different part of the brain, thereby causing other involuntary sensations.
So these three disorders help further the argument of Brain Chemistry. Because Synesthesia could be leading pain to the limbic system which gives you dopamine, which is the same rush as love. So Pain lets you feel loved. That doesn't sound very spiritual, and quite contradictory to what most Idealists would say about love. Phantom Limb Pain might actually slow this argument down, because it then supports the fact that pain is in the mind, but still, it could be badly used as that pain is simply brain chemistry interacting with your nervous system. Capgras Syndrome also reveals that ones you love definitely do not have some spiritual interaction with you, because something so small and physical cuts off your love with them, by making you think they are someone else.
So these three support the Brain Chemistry argument for Materialism, because they show that such feelings are easily distorted by the chemistry and brain, simply because the brain is an assortment of biological chemicals and other chemical reactions to stimuli, not from spiritual or out-of-body stimuli.

Debate Between Dualist and Materialist

S: Hello, my name is Simon Riley and I am here to debate as a Dualist.

C: Greetings, my name is Craig Fairbass, and I am going to be the judge. 

J: Hi, I’m John Price and I’m here to debate as a Materialist. Let’s get right to it.

S: Coming from the position as a Dualist, I will be the one to make the opening statement. There are unexplainable phenomena that happen for no logical reasons, emotion being a big one of these.

J: Emotions are just a result of our evolutionary care for every individual, our democracy. Because we are so complex, we have come to defend every single human being we possibly can, and not allowing evolution to work its course, we are an anomaly in a chain of natural phenomena.

S: You are disproving yourself, for if we are off the logical path, then it is not an explained phenomenon. Why do we have emotions, even before democracy or our morals came to be? What evolutionary purpose do emotions serve?

J: Perhaps it’s not purely following the laws of nature. Science has been, and can be wrong. That doesn’t prove or disprove the fact that there is no such thing as a non-physical extent of this realm.

C: First round has ended; allow a moment for the judges to give a score.

-          5 minutes later

C: Judge’s ruling, gives it to the side of Materialism, on Mr. Price’s side. 

J: My opening statement will be this following: A man has dreams as a result of brain function, a man has emotions as a result of complexity in brains, our complexity is seen in our great empire on this earth, why is it so baffling that some things appear non-physical, if our minds are this complex, physically, is a non-physical explanation that essential to explain such a thing?

S: Touching on Monism is a good argument, but a used one nonetheless. You are saying that nothing is of the realm of mind; all this is a result of complexity and biological evolution. But this brings me back again to the theory of evolution. If everything is really all material, why would we have emotions, or—

C: Repetitive argument, please make a final statement.

S: The mind exists, as seen by contradicting scientific rules.

J: The mind exists, true, but only as a form of a brain, synapses going across each other, information in electric impulsese. Idealism goes very well against *all* scientific theories, as opposed to materialism which only goes against a few in very minor ways. What Idealism suggests is that there possibly is an entity that controls the workings of our everyday lives, now that suggests that the laws of physics don’t apply, because gravity doesn’t control how fast things fall anymore, an entity does. This also goes against genetics, because then children are born as a result of magic, and not due to fertilization of egg cells. You may not hold this specific argument, but if you support the broad argument of Idealism, you say that this *might* be possible, and we are certain it is not at all possible.

C: Second round has ended; the judges are ready to give a score to John Price as a materialist. This debate is over, as there are three rounds, and you have already won the ruling majority of them. It is settled, idealism is not considered an officially working theory, as of this debate.

Truman Show Analytically Presented with Terms from Chapter 10 - 12

I wrote a short essay on the Truman Show using terms from chapters 10 to 12.

               The Truman Show is a film that has been used in many studies whether it is theology, philosophy, or even in law. It is about a man whose life has been manipulated by a film producer in order to have a live stream show 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Many different philosophies have different views on how this is bad, wrong, or simply analytically fascinating, but nothing wrong or evil.

                Freedom is, by definition, having real options, and to a Libertarian, Truman did have real options. Truman was not free to do whatever he wanted, because any option he wish he had was quelled by the cast of the show. Although, this can be argued that he still had a choice in the cafeteria, he still had choices about who to like, who to hate, simply he was influenced to do things a certain way. So a Libertarian might say he was partially free, and partially a slave.

                On the other hand, a Determinist might just say it doesn’t matter if he’s free or not, because there is no such thing as freedom. We’re not really making choices, our brain chemistry is just reacting to an event before, therefore making your actions here just a result of that. Truman isn’t anymore a slave to that show than we are to nature. He is influenced, and his actions are a result of that, just as we are influenced by the illusion of freedom, and we act as a result of that.

                Although Scientific Determinism speaks of it that way, Simple Indeterminists might completely disagree. Indeterminists would only agree on the fact that it doesn’t matter that he’s not free. He isn’t the effect of a cause. He is simply a series of non-existent, but possible theories of statistical data and predictions, and the progression of that. For example, Event A Truman could’ve committed suicide, but he didn’t, 2 options, 50% each, and then for Event B, Truman could’ve committed homicide, but he didn’t, 2 options, 50% each. Possibility of both options happening, 25%, due to event A times event B. Simple Indeterminists simply say, it is all about chance, and not about events causing things to happen, and so Truman was simply a result of a certain amount of possibilities.

                While Freedom has opposites, some seek a middle ground; one of these theories is Compatibilism. Compatibilism might say Truman was not free until he tried to escape, because his actions were not a result of his own intentions until then. Before he escaped, his actions were not because of his own pure intention, not because of his own inner state or desire to do so. Only outside of his marriage, as he sought Sylvia, the ‘extra’ that he fell in love with, that would be considered a free action on his part. Many other things are not free to a Compatibilists, but that one desire of his to escape or to find Sylvia was his own free will.

                As for Agency Theorists, Truman was free most of the time, just not ultimately. The little things he does, like walking around, playing with the mirror, and possibly talking to Sylvia. His life, on the other hand, would all be considered a lie and he was not free, he was confined within a limited amount of causes to a limited amount of effects. This is arguable that even life we are confined within a limited amount of causes to a limited amount of effects, but in life that is all there is for us, even if it is limited. For Truman, it is limited to an even greater degree than us. Perhaps an Agency Theorist would say that Truman is limited by the causes that Christof has for him, and he is not free, because his responses are just effects of that.

                The Truman Show simply speaks of how many can view it as a limit of a man’s freedom, and how it is ethically wrong. Libertarians, Scientific Determinists, Simple Indeterminists, Compatibilists, and Agency Theorists all have their own views of such a scenario, and all serve different explanations.

Agency Theory Project

My understanding of the Agency Theory is in this video, where I put up three theories, Libertarianism, the thesis, Determinism, the antithesis, and The Agency Theory the synthesis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqR2FMQ1Gy4

The rest is explained in the video.

Milgram's Experiment

Milgram's Experiment is a perfect example of what Agency Theorists believe. It can probably be bent to be viewed both ways. To a believer of the Universal Causality theory, the one in authority is a cause, and his actions and words are the cause. To an Agency Theorist, the intellectual being that is in authority is the cause, and not his actions. It is his persona that makes the test subjects do those things, and not the actions or words.
This may be argued to both sides, but Milgram's experiment viewed by Agency Theorists is viewed that it is simply not the action, but the person that causes the test subjects to perform such actions. On the other hand, perhaps even the test subjects themselves were not an event, but ALSO an action of free will, simply influenced by another intellectual being. An intellectual being being influenced by another intellectual being, so it is not an example of the cause and effect, because Agency Theorists believe that first part to be true, but not ALL actions are from an event. An intellectual being that makes an action would be BOTH the ones in authority and the test subject. It is the subject's free will to SUBMIT to such authority.

Animation Liberty vs Utility

"my" animation on what happens when a libertarian meets a utilitarian.

GoAnimate.com: Twerp Utilitarianism meets hippy Libertarianism by BankSkunnawat

Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com

Utilitarians on Cost-Benefit Analysis

       Utilitarianism is a philosophy that basically is avoiding pain and seeking happiness. There are different variations of this, as Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill might see it, but it boils down to most happiness for the most amount of people, and least amount of pain for the least amount of people. Now, taking a look at MY cost-benefit analysis, a utilitarian might comment a few things.
       A utilitarian such as John Stuart Mill might agree completely with my cost-benefit analysis, because it focuses on MY own desires and suffering. On the other hand, Jeremy Bentham might not completely agree with some of the things I said. Because this cost-benefit analysis was based on my desires, Bentham will say that I'm not considering the whole, or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps me going to school upsets a few people, or my going to school wastes other people's time, and not just mine.

Cost Benefit Analysis

The cost of going to school versus the benefits of going to school, whether tangible or intangible are as follows:
Tangible Costs:
1. Tuition fee
2. Cost of travel
3. Extracurricular lessons to enhance in-school classes
4. Extra Testing Fee (AP or SAT)
5. Food at school (overly priced compared to the average meal)
Intangible costs:
1. Usage of time
2. Increase stress
3. Deduction of happiness
4. Influence of other classmates
5. Limited freedom
Tangible benefits:
1. Return on investment after getting a job
2. Unlimited drinking water
3. Unlimited usage of utilities
4. A shelter for roughly 6 hours every weekday
5. Peers to leech money off of
Intangible benefits:
1. Knowledge gained
2. Experience gained
3. Skills gained (problem solving, analyzing, etc)
4. Wisdom gained (through philosophy or chapel or interactions with a wise teacher)
5. Proof of credentials, of having completed school, and having intellect to graduate

Philiosophy Survey: In The Face of Death

I believe that they are wrong to think that I am simply a selfish person when saying that just because I did not allow my own death, but allowed others, does not mean that those moral decisions were incorrect. In my view, I believe that the first scenario, they would have been justified if there had been a doctor examination, but if the article said they were sure he wouldn't survive, then I can't really argue with them, it is only imaginary, after all.
In the second scenario, I believed that the Warsaw doctor is completely justified in what that person did. Euthanasia is never wrong, unless you are not absolutely sure they are dying or if the patient objects to dying peacefully.
In the third, and final, scenario, I believe the surgeon was NOT justified in what she did to me. She did it out of the intent to satisfy her own needs, not to satisfy mine. I was not going to die painfully, so what she did was not an act of kindness, but of selfishness. And it is also ALWAYS the patient's decision to do so. Similar to the euthanasia scenario, it should have been the patient's decision to die painlessly.

Do Now # 109 homework

This is the homework for Do Now # 109
Something that was pragmatic according to a certain person in time, and is now not pragmatic would be when Einstein said that nothing is faster than light. It is true, no one could even imagine anything faster than light in a vacuum and nothing that we can physically perform goes faster light. But then came Theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku who discovered that, in theory and in practice, a large hedron collidor could create particles that go faster than light, not seen with the naked eye, but can be seen through electromagnetic mapping. This was not the same as the Do Now I wrote to turn in, I thought of a different one, because I had forgotten the Do Now I turned in.

The Truman Show

Three things that were unusual in The Truman Show were the chatter on the radio that resembled a crew behind his life, the female that he had kissed in the beginning, and the elevator with a crew moving the walls out.
If these things happened in my life, it would definitely make me question its reality. Regarding the fact that it seems as if everyone is against Truman going to Fiji. I predict that in the end of the movie, he realizes that it was an act of an act against him. Like a plan that's un-unravelable. They acted as if they were acting, so when he 'escaped' he doesn't realize that they're all still as fake as a Rubik's Cube with 'Made In China' on the back.
Although I do not think he will truly escape such elaborate planning, he might realize that it is all a set because of what proof he's already had. As stated above, he will not escape due to them maybe having a very elaborate plan. A quote I once heard says 'All it takes to change the world is one good lie and a river full of blood.' Since they're not changing the world, but only one man's life, I believe it will be a might easier.
In contradictory, he might simply be dreaming it all or is a schizophrenic, and so it's fake anyways, but at least not ominously fake. At least not physically ominous.

This is the first post for my blog. The blog is designed to be an academic interactive internet tool that enhances learning that is not limited to classroom time. I have both hopes and inquiries as to this working. I look forward to future academic uses of the internet, too.