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.
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.
