http://www.readourpapers.com/index.php Free School Papers - Posting and sharing en ReadOurpapers.com http://www.readourpapers.com/philosophy/perpetual-motion-machines-and-the-laws-of-thermodynamics.html Newman’s claims go against what we understand to be the components of physical reality. The initial reason is revealed in the law of conservation, which states that energy cannot be either created or destroyed. Simply stated, the amount of energy produced from anything cannot exceed the amount consumed by it. Regardless of making an appeal to knowledge, Einstein’s equation in this instance, the claim cannot be concurrent with our standards of science and technology, or the laws of the universe for that matter. These claims are logically founded, yet not physically possible.
The second law of thermodynamics; The law of Entropy leads us to once again grasp at the contents of our scientific understanding of physical reality. The law of Entropy explains that when energy is used there is also a loss of energy that takes place in the process. In consideration of this law, not only will Newman’s machine (or any machine) fail to output more energy that it requires to operate, but will actually produce less energy than is processed. Thus, the claim, though logically founded, is not physically possible.
To entertain Joe Newman’s claim further and take Einstein’s equation into consideration, we are beckoned to explore the solution. The E=mc2 equation, or “The theory of special relativity” rather, unified the law of conservation of energy and the conservation of mass, thus explaining the eternal conversions from mass to energy and energy to mass. The law of conservation still applies. In order for the appeal to knowledge to be credible in this instance, the association derived from this equation would have to change the law of conservation of energy. It clearly does not, in contrast, it reinforces the law with more proof of its reality in conjunction with certain applications.
Newman’s argument claimed also that according to the Special Theory of Relativity his machine could operate within these guidelines of converting energy into mass and mass into energy by multiplying mass by the speed of light squared. The problem here being that in order for this transformation to be successful the machine would be forced to rely on its own mass to produce energy. However, according to the law of Entropy there would be an undeniable loss, or consumption. Thus, the machine would be forced to feed on its mass, which would, in turn, devour the machine and the components that make it functional, resulting in eventual or immediate failure.
The dream of free energy is appealing and our sophisticated world could greatly benefit from it, yet I’m afraid obtaining this wonder from a perpetual motion device is not physically possible. The laws of Thermodynamics clearly state there will always be a price to pay.]]> Philosophy]]> Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:47:01 -0400 http://www.readourpapers.com/philosophy/boundaries-of-life-and-grey-areas-of-individual-existence.html
It seems mind boggling... but, it all comes down to this set of questions and observations, which is as far as I have been able to reach...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~BEGIN PRE-AMBLE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- All life as we know it today is made up of the same basic things.... on the most understood level today we are made of water mostly, with carbon holding us together, various metals and common elements of the periodic table intermix within this container of water forming the electro-chemical circuitry that define everything from our DNA (blueprint, schematic & recipe book) to our brainwaves.

- In the same way that we are all made of the same smaller building blocks as every other living thing; those blocks (those molecules and even the electricity they conduct) are themselves made up of even smaller building blocks such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and various quanta of energy.

- On this level, our understanding is limited to the facts rather than the implications. Essentially, every living thing is made out of the same stuff... and, that is made up of the same thing as every other NON living thing which we are likely to encounter while anywhere near earth.

-*Even the entirely theoretical exotic matter and energy that is literally out of our reach and can only be studied mathematically or artifically (inside supercoliders, or extrapolated from observed atronomical readings) has astoundingly been mathematically (though not empiracally tested, and still lacking a cencensus academically) been explained, and described WITHIN THE SAME general paradigm of common BUILDING blocks, on an even lower level (called strings, or nodes, or even "remnants of the big bang" to people who aren't entirely sold on the idea of "strings" theory but accept the math at the heart of the debate.

- So, now on this level we have come to accept, though usually with some comfort taken in knowing that this is all "just theory" (although it is unlikely further study will ever disprove the existance of molecules or sub-atomic particles considering that nuclear power hinges on reactions of those particles... and the radiation emmited from a single atom can be predicted to over 100 decimal places)... even the most perseverant skeptic of science must now agree that in all likelyhood the science is right and we are not as unique as we like to think.

- Life is made up of the same stuff as comets, or toxins, or radioactive waste. The difference between me (or you), and an equal volume of water, carbon, and everything else that makes us "alive, and unique" is nothing but the way in which those things are arranged.

-ARE we more than the sum of our parts? and if so, how much more... and why, and in what ways?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END PREAMBLE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, that we are "on the same page".... from this point on, the discussion gets MUCH more interesting.

What if we were able to somehow extract a single molecule of something from anywhere it happend to be, and move it about freely. Imagine a transporter beam from startreck, or even a nano-robotic machince which can manouver between the vast empty space between the atoms of even dense metals like lead. How you imagine it is irrelevant... as you will soon see, so long as for arguments sake you can imagine a single molecule being extracted carefully and put somewhere else, of our choosing.

Suppose you were to extract a single water molecule from the ocean, or a lake, or even an asteroid... and you could put it anywhere you like. Now, suppose that while you were doing that someone else decided to take an identical water molecule from your body... and, placed it in exactly the same place which you took a molecule of water from, moments after you finished taking it. Now, that water molecule is part of something else... lets say a lake. And, you could (if you were fast enough) replace it with the molecule you took from that same lake.... so that (if this happened fast enough) it would be as if neither you or the lake had traded anything... since the trade leaves both body's unchanged.

Now.... imagine someone wanted to secretely repeat this experiment on you while you were sleeping... and swapped one molecule at a time from your body with an identical molecule from somewhere else... or even someone else... but, only one at a time, and so quickly that every molecule was switched before the molecular structure around that molecule even had time to chage... like taking the leg off a chair while someone is sitting on it... so that during the switch, the chair is momentarily left with three legs, which can hold the persons weight but would be unbalanced and fall very quickly... but then, replacing that leg at the speed of sound or faster (like superman might) so that the balance is restored before the person sitting on that chair falls to the ground... switching a chair leg like that would never happen... and switching molecules that quickly and precisely would be impossible obviously....
BUT.... imagine if it happening, to your own body while you sleep... one molecule at a time, replaced... so that in the end... even if every molecule of every kind in your entire body, as well as your clothing, bed, and the air you were breathing that nights were replaced.... but arranged exactly as they would have been (or even almost exactly) for both you and whatever body (or body's... it could be a different source for every trade) that now has your original molecules in its makeup, where the ones you are now made of used to be.

NOW... he's question number one.... WOULD YOU BE THE SAME PERSON? If No... then the next question is obvious... at what point do you cease being you? 50% changed... 30%, 99%? Would you ever notice the difference? Say the person doing this to you stopped at 50% would you wake up and feel any less yourself? I believe you wouldn't.... but, its really hard to say... on an indivual basis... I couldn't notice a single molecule missing from ANYWHERE in my body... hell, I could lose a whole cell... which is as big as thousands of molecules from anywhere... and i wouldn't know any thing had changed... even from the brain... we kill more cells than that by holding our breath for 2 minutes.... or using a felt marker and inadvertantly inhaling the fumes while we write something...

So... if you think NO, you wouldn't be the same... the questions are intrigueing and profound enough to be challenging... BUT... those questions end at the admission that if replacing the parts of your body, means replacing you... then you are NO MORE THAN THE SUM OF YOUR PARTS.

BUT... the real mind-fuck (for lack of a more accurate description) arrises from the other possibility... that we wouldn't no the difference if 50% or a 100% of our parts were replaced one insignificant piece at a time.... and that we would go on being the same person at any point before, during, and after every molecule (or proton, or "string") were replaced as well as everything we touched and breathed while it happened.... and therefore we are indeed MORE than the sum of our parts...

BUT... now, lets get deeper... what if instead of taking the molecules from somewhere and switching them with yours... they were taken from another person... who happened to have just the right amount of everything... and close enough to swap 99% of your molecules with theirs... same your twin.... and the 1% difference between you was simply left unchanged.... would you wake up in their bed, and them in yours? Or, would it be like the first example where neither of you notice a thing.... what about if only 50% of you were changed?

How about this... what if your twin, was a clone instead of a brother.... and 99% of you were swapped that way... would you then be the clone, or would he?

What if your twin was dead.... and the experimenteer decided to do the experiment anyway... but, after replacing each of your molecules with one from your dead twin or clone... they took yours, and aranged it in the other body the same way it was arranged in yours.... so that, when they are done... not only have you been completely replaced one un-noticable piece at a time... but, you are 99% of your DEAD twin/clone... is that resurection? And, the final twist.... if he was 99.9% replaced with 99.9% of the molecules you went to sleep with in your bed, and arranged in the same way they were when they were taken... he would probably be alive... or would he? If he were.... would he be you? Since you would now be 99.9% made of your molecules, in your unique arrangement... you'd obviously be you... and if we did it all at once, that would be apparant... so.... what would that make the person who woke up in your bed, made of 99.9% dead body... but, transitioned through your body one molecule at a time, while you laid there sleeping.

The answer to these questions are profound... and confronting them, will (in my opinion) bring us one (or many) steps closer to the questions I started with, including the meaning of life... and, for the first time... I believe that this very comprehensible example makes such incomprehensible questions like that tangible... without watering down much the question so much that applying the answers becomes equally incomprehensible to our corporial faculty's, as man.]]> Philosophy]]> Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:12:13 -0500 http://www.readourpapers.com/philosophy/who-killed-god.html
Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher who coined the phrase “God is Dead” (first published in his book “The Gay Science” in 1882), is regarded in the philosophical community as one of the greatest contributors of all time. Nietzsche is described as the “most brilliant, most challenging, and most demanding philosopher of the modern period”. The majority of Nietzsche’s work is intertwined, his ideas and theories building off of one another with time.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born in Germany on October 15th 1884. Nietzsche’s father was a Lutheran pastor who passed away when Nietzsche was just a young man. This would be the first death in his family that he experienced; the second being his brother Joseph. The tragedy of his father’s death had a heavy impact on Nietzsche, a weight that he carried throughout his life. The writer David Krell writes in Good European that Nietzsche purchased a tombstone for his father’s grave, thirty-six years after the occurrence of his death.
When Nietzsche was fifteen, he claimed that he was ‘seized’ with an urgent and overwhelming desire for knowledge. Nietzsche attended Bonn University and studied theology and philology, the study of religion and the interpretation of classical biblical texts, respectively. When Nietzsche was twenty-one he accidentally came across a book of Arthur Schopenhauer in a bookstore, and quickly became intrigued with attaining a higher level of thinking. Nietzsche was later brought on by the University of Basel in 1869 to fulfill a teaching position when he was only twenty-four years old. Though he did not have a doctorate, his education from a first-rate boarding school in his youth had helped to foster his brilliance, and this combined with the recommendation of his personal friend Ritschl got him the job with no conflict. This same year, he was recognized as an Extraordinary Professor of Classical Philology. Ironically, despite this positive recognition, Nietzsche was not a very successful professor. His lectures were much too complicated for his pupils to follow, and his lack of sociability led his colleagues to believe that he was indifferent to them. While Nietzsche was in fact extremely intelligent, he was much more interested in his own thoughts and ideas than those of his students. In spite of these issues with his teaching style and personality, Nietzsche remained at Basel, teaching for ten years before health issues forced his resignation in 1879.
Several years before starting at the University, Nietzsche served in the military during the Franco-Prussian War to fulfill the duty that was required of him. He served under Otto Von Bizmarck, a man whom he admired for his power, and who he hoped to emulate. His belief that Bizmarck had a “higher morality” is what motivated him to serve under his command. His service was cut short due to a serious chest injury sustained while climbing onto a horse, and he left because he was too hurt to carry on. This unfortunate experience returned to plague him numerous times throughout the course of his life, he was constantly coming down with serious illnesses, presenting him with difficult obstacles that most people did not have to worry about or deal with. While serving in the military, for example, also contracted dysentery and diphtheria, which led to him suffering insomnia. Not only this, but throughout the rest of his life he continued to have severe migraine headaches as a result of these sicknesses.
Nietzsche began publishing his works in the early 1870s, with his first book, The Birth of Tragedy, Out of the Spirit of Music being published in 1872. Other key writings of his include the Human, All too human series, Unfashionable Observations, and The Old and the New Faith: A Confession. Nietzsche often praised or ostracized his peers, either directly or indirectly poking fun at their person or their theories. An interesting topic to note is that of German culture, discussed in the four studies found in Unfashionable Observations. Nietzsche could be brutal at times, mercilessly attacking the views of his colleagues. His desire for knowledge is reflected in his words: “Nietzsche claimed that the principle of ‘life’ is a more pressing and higher concern than that of ‘knowledge’, and that the quest for knowledge should serve the interests of life”.
Perhaps one of his most well-known works, The Gay Science was published in 1882, and contains his coined phrase, “God is dead.” Two thousand years later and this theory is still discussed in philosophical classes today, the phrase referring to the idea that anyone who believes in God believes in something that has long been gone. The idea behind God is gone, its force lost. There is no creativity left, and Nietzsche felt that creativity is extremely important in one’s life, for without it the world would be routine. Religious followers who desired having and believing in a god of their own did so just to fit in with others. These followers were referred to as the “Herd” in Nietzsche’s writing, not only playing off of the idea of God as a shepherd and his children the flock, but to a sheep’s common practice of following a crowd without thinking for itself.
Nietzsche writes that it is humans who have killed God, killed the idea of it and stripped it of all meaning it once held. Religious followed think they believe in God, but do not see beyond themselves. Nietzsche ponders which is worse; the death of God, or knowing there is no God. This led to his Overman theory, which is essentially, the idea that we must overcome all. Nietzsche sets people’s worth by their values and how and what they can contribute to the society. The contributions one can make the value of the person, the only logical measurement that will ring true. Nietzsche ties this idea in with his ideas on Nihilism, the diminishment of values and the meaning of all things. With the death of God, everyone would be in a state of transformation, where they will not know themselves, as everything they had believed in was not the reality of life. The decline of Christianity and society in general would come about with all haste. The world would basically lose moral, social and political thought and restrictions, causing an unbalanced place where people focus on their personal desires and nothing else. The death of God threatens human worth, therefore our existence, giving our life a “complete loss of significance”.
Because of the great calamity caused from the death of God, the strong men, the people who have overcome the death of God remain standing. These people have overcome themselves. Nietzsche introduced this idea of an “overman,” also referred to “Super-man” in some translations, essentially one who overcomes. This higher type of man has overcome the herd of society that he was once a part of. The Overman’s life will continue on because he has overcome the struggle, whereas those who are unable to will fall to the wayside. Conquering struggle is the main quality of the overman, there can be no overman without his emergence from struggle. The overman has no idols, or “false idols,” and is the outcome of what Nietzsche believes is coming to the world. The overman is a symbol of atheism, and possibly of Nietzsche himself.
Those people who have found that God is dead and are unable to overcome are considered Underman by Nietzsche, unsure of themselves after their eye-opening. These Undermen are alone in the world, their God is no longer in their faith, and they are lost without anything to believe in. These people are mere mortals, whereas the Overmen are able to rise above this level, they are trapped by their uncertainties.
Nietzsche’s main ideas about God are that if we were created by God, and after his image, that with his death we will loose our meaning, being his children we were given identity and purpose through Him. These ideas regarding the overman can be viewed as an evolutionary theory, it being a mental evolution as opposed to a physical one. Darwin’s ideas may have helped bring this idea to Nietzsche’s foresight. The overman theory was briefly mentioned in his book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-5). With the idea that the overman is above regular men, one can conclude that while it is possible to reach this level, we cannot comprehend it. Nietzsche’s brief mention of the overman leads one to believe that he did not see himself as an overman of his time.
In his book The Gay Science, Nietzsche describes a madman in a market who is speaking to a crowd of atheists. The madman seems to be acting strange, shouting to the crowd that he seeks God, later saying that “God is Dead.” After the crowd has had their laugh, the madman continues, saying, “and we have killed him.” The madman continues by saying “How could we drink up the sea?,” questioning human’s infallible ability to use up our available resources and exploit them until nothing remains.
THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves."
Nietzsche slightly resembles the madman in his parable with his outlook on the world and his interpreted understanding of values. The idea of losing God means Madness, this madman has lost God, whether he ever truly believed in God is irrelevant, the fact remaining that in the present day and time in his life he does not know God. Despite his thoughts on God, Nietzsche believed that if the world was without faith then nothing would have significance, and as a result, more poverty, murder, greed and a loss of respect, would surely ensue.
A few decades before this work of Nietzsche’s was published, Darwin’s infamous, On The Origin of Species, was released. A book with such a profound influence on society certainly played a role in Nietzsche’s subsequent writings, Darwin looked on my many as a sinner and a blasphemer, but by others as a genius before his time. The Christian religion is founded on the idea that they are Gods creations, each specially made for a specific purpose, and to love certain things. Darwin’s theories, however, state otherwise, introducing the idea of evolution and survival of the species, life adapted over million of years until it reached the point that they were living in the present world. Going so far as to suggest that God did not create the world in seven days, did not create Man in His image, Darwin was taking an incredibly risk, particularly because his audience was so unwilling to hear these things.
Similar to the ideas of Darwin, Nietzsche’s ideas went against the common grain of society, and raised concern from his peers who were not readily accepting of his theories. Nietzsche claimed that if we would dig deep into our psyches we would see that our true faith is not in God, but in science. Nietzsche declared that no man can have true faith in God; supporting this by claiming it is not possible to have authentic faith in God in the world he lived in, criticizing its endless distractions, temptations, and developing technology to alter the course of our paths.
After publishing his life’s work, the end of Nietzsche’s life drew near. Nietzsche lost his mind after witnessing a horse getting brutally beaten by a coachman in 1889, and he would never be the same. He spent the rest of his life in a villa; his mother taking care of him until her death. Nietzsche’s sister than took the role of caring for Nietzsche until his passed away at age 56, a broken man. Nietzsche was buried next to his mother and sister beside a church in Rocken Bei Lutzen.
Nietzsche’s ideas were groundbreaking for his time, not only his theories but his brashness and disregard for others’ reactions. Nietzsche’s ideas on the culture of the past are still resembled in our culture of today. Although he lived an irregularly short life, his contributions to the world have been vast. Nietzsche’s writings are connected by a rope which has been only strengthened over the years since his death from enforcement and increase of will to power.





Bibliography



Kagan, Ozment, and Frank M. Turner. The Western Heritage. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc, 2006
Keith Ansell Pearson and Duncan Large. The Nietzsche Reader. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006
Nietzsche Friedrich, Trns Walter Kaufmann. Beyond Good and Evil. New York: Vintage Books, 1966
Perry, Peden, Theodore H. Von Laue. Sources of the Western Tradition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006
Peter Gay and Walter Kaufmann. Basic Writings of Nietzsche. New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 2000
Soccio, Douglas j. Archetypes of Wisdom: An introduction to Philosophy. New York: Wadsworth, 2004
Walter Kaufmann. Nietzsche: Philosohper Psychologoist, Antichrist. London: Princeton university Press, 1968
Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
.]]> Philosophy]]> Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:55:12 -0500 http://www.readourpapers.com/philosophy/the-choice-is-yours-2.html I have chosen to write on two films that I enjoyed for their philosophical elements and the drastic differences between the cultures that produced them. Charlie Kaufman and Michel Gondry's film, "Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind", is an American-made film released in 2004 and has quickly become a modern-day "cult classic". The Russian film I will be comparing this to is titled "Day Watch," the second installment of the recently-released trilogy "Night Watch". This film has not yet been released in the United States, and is tentatively scheduled for release later this year. On a side note, I was very interested in the respective budgets of these two films. The American film industry is well-known for the immense sums of money that are spent on a single film, and Eternal Sunshine is now different, the grand total being around twenty million dollars. Day Watch, in comparison, totals a mere 4.2 million, whereas both films include a comparable amount of special effects such as extensive use of various lighting techniques and the use of computer-aided effects where camera magic simply could not pull through on its own. The main similarity I saw between these two films were the themes of broken relationships between the characters and the desire to change or fix the past through the use of peculiar tools and techniques, both that are not exactly of this world.
"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" is currently rated #36 on IMDB.com, with it being the more recent of the two releases. Like many philosophical films, critics either hated or loved Eternal Sunshine, those who did not like it were most frequently the ones who became confused while trying to keep the story's issues straight and simply gave up. This film deals with a technique, that will erase a memory of an object, or in this case, a relationship. The main issue that is focused on is the idea of memory erasure, the female character, Clementine, played by Kate Winslet erases her then boyfriend, Joel, played by Jim Carrey on a whim, convincing herself that she would be happier and better off. The movie focuses more on Joel's thoughts and feelings, following his mind as he goes through the procedure himself. The heavy influence of lighting – particularly of darkness and shadow, is a key element to this film. The darkness of his painful memories is contrasted by the lightness of the happy, and reflects his change of heart when he decides he does not want to forget Clementine after all. His desire to hold on to the happy memories is played up, the regret and pain he feels upon realizing that it's all or nothing, as theorized by Immanuel Kant. It would be against the moral law set forth, Clementine would be misrepresented in his mind because the truth would be not genuine.
The realization that Joel and Clementine's relationship is bound to come to an inevitable end is one that many people can relate to. Their personalities clash, one becomes bored with the other, and one will feel trapped in the relationship against their will. Near the end of the film, they come to a crossroads whether to go their separate ways or try the relationship over from the beginning, even after they have both erased each other from their memories. Despite knowing that their relationship may come to the same tragic end, the same fights and the same anger, they agree with a simple spoken "Okay", a scene that is relatively similar to one that occurs in "Day Watch".
Not yet released in American theaters "Day Watch" is a typical struggle of "Good vs, Evil," a struggle that is echoed in Eternal Sunshine as the characters struggle with the evils of their own human nature. While an obvious difference between these two films is that "Day Watch" is in Russian and must be watched in English subtitles, the relationships between two characters resemble that of Eternal Sunshine. The key relationship here is that between the main character, Anton Gorodetsky, and his son Yegor. The struggles between these two result when Anton is unknowingly reunited with a son he never knew he had. Anton had thought that Yegor was killed, because Anton made an agreement with a supernatural being to get rid of the kid. In the first film, "Night Watch", Anton finds that his son is still alive, and in the hands of the Dark side of the world. This film uses new CG effects, but still contains aspects to make it a gothic/fantasy/action/horror film. The lighting was rather dark throughout the film, although the name was "Day Watch"; most of the film took play at night. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" also contains many dark scenes which are blurred and altered, very similar to "Day Watch". "Day Watch" had many more characters than Eternal Sunshine, however, each character had a purpose which was fulfilled then seemed to vanish from the film.

"Day Watch" uses many themes throughout the film; however the theme I'll be discussing is related to Eternal Sunshine's memory loss procedure. In "Day watch", there is an item called "the chalk of destiny", this piece of chalk can rewrite the past. Once in the possession of the chalk of destiny, you may rewrite the past by simply using the chalk and writing on a surface. This piece of chalk is similar to Eternal Sunshine's memory procedure because both are used to try to fix a problem, or in these cases, a relationship. In "Day Watch", Anton Gorodetsky is on the good side, called the "light", in first film "Night Watch", Anton meets with a witch to have his son, Yegor to be killed, because he cannot handle a kid. Yegor was not killed; he survived and was adopted to the "Dark". Throughout the film, Anton is trying to reach his son and fix the relationship. However, this is something he cannot stop, just as in the memory procedure, it's unstoppable. His son is the ender of the world, and Anton must use the chalk of destiny to change his mind on killing his son at before he was born. Only this way, will he be able to save the world. There was a catch, during the time Anton was fighting the Dark, he fell in love with a woman, that woman would be lost if Yegor was already in Anton's life. In the end of the film, Anton and Svetlana meet up, both never seeing each other, because their relationship never existed in their mind. It seems there is a force that brings us together, as in "Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind", and in "Day Watch", the characters meet up for a last time and then, they are left with a choice.

I believe it is important for Americans to view foreign films for a variety of reasons, the most obvious and important in my view is that Americans need to be exposed to the wide variety of cultural and ethnic differences of the world and of the films that are produced in various parts of the world. The biases or prejudices that many of us hold about one culture or nation are often questioned after viewing a film of that culture or nation, something we may firmly believe to be true can be completely reversed in the amount of time it takes to watch a movie. Crash is a perfect example of the racisms and prejudices that fill much of our American society, even among our own people we see violence, hatred, and most of all, misunderstanding and misconceptions. By exposing ourselves to the many different worldviews held by different people across the globe, we are broadening our horizons and are less likely to fall prey to stereotypes and biases. The way a film is made, the writer, their cultural background, how they were raised, cultural influences, all of these things differ widely from one area, and one film, to another. By simply watching American-made films, we are shortchanging ourselves of the huge diversity that the film industry, and the world at large, has to offer.

Useful links
Day Watch IMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409904/
Wiki on Immanuel Kant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
Eternal Sunshine IMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/]]> Philosophy]]> Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:28:27 -0400 http://www.readourpapers.com/philosophy/buddhism-nietzsche-kierkegaard-notes.html 4 noble truths
8 fold path
Bamboo, flexible but very strong.
Surrendering, resisting is bad, giving is is the right way

Kierkegaard
Subjective truth over objective
Rejected secular thinking
Abstraction
Story of Abraham
Inauthentic and authentic
Once a choice is made, it rules out all other choices.
Truth as subjectivity – How am I to exist
Denied the value of objective knowledge, which he referrs to as an imperative of understanding – cannot account for its existential quality
The difference between Christian man and regular man objectivily is nothing, however subjectively there is difference.
Objective understanding cannot reveal truth; it cannot give Kierkegaard or any existing individual reasons to live; it cannot answer the most importantant question; what am I to do?
The idea for which I can live and die- cannot be provided by objective, scientific, or philosophical or theologian arguments.


Nietzsche –
God is dead
Underman / overman
resentment / master morality
Attacted to Schopenhauer ‘will to power' rejection of his intellectual father.
Perspectivism]]> Philosophy]]> Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:23:22 -0400 http://www.readourpapers.com/philosophy/you-winslet-you-loselet.html The memory erasure technology that is available in the film is something that may not be too far off in reality, but the havoc that it reeks on those who undergo it is made clear by the experiences of the two main characters; Clementine (Kate Winslet), and Joel (Jim Carrey). Clementine springs for the procedure on a whim, her 'impulsive nature' to blame, after she decides it is the best way out of her downhill relationship with Joel. Having the procedure pushes Clementine into Nietzsche's theory of eternal reoccurrence, peculiar that without any recollection of these past events she falls victim to committing almost all of them over again. While all memories of the ended relationship are gone, she repeats nearly everything, and experiences an almost constant sense of d�j� vu. The idea of an eternal reoccurrence holds that the universe is infinite, and has been moving and acting forever, but that our own actions are finite, what we do being limited to only so many different variations. What the audience sees with Clementine is that with these memories now gone she loops back to the beginning of them, rather than moving forward or moving on. The ability to learn from experience has been stripped of her in regards to the experiences with Joel, thereby leaving her to make the same mistakes all over again, the dilemma that the two come to realize in the final scene of the film.
One questions Nietzsche's eternal recurrence based on the concept of learning, that a person's conscious recollection and knowledge of past events will prevent them from committing the same mistakes or making the same decisions in the future. If Clementine were to recognize the reoccurrence, that she has already experienced these things in the past, the challenge is presented that she might not fall victim to repetition of her behaviors and experiences. Would she be able to thereby avert eternal reoccurrence, moving forward and in a different direction because she is consciously aware of the past? With the presentation of Clementine and Joel's relationship in the film, even after he undergoes the procedure out of spite, the two meet again, a factor that also adds weight to Nietzsche's idea. It is as if an invisible force has brought them back together, a force that can be explained as eternal recurrence. The two are drawn together once more, eventually discovering exactly what had happened between them in the past, which is where they come to a crossroads. They now have the choice of giving it one more go despite the knowledge that the possibility of failure might be inevitable, in the final scene saying 'But you will (find something you don't like about me), and I'll get bored with you and feel trapped, because that's what happens with me,' or to go their separate ways now and forever. Their decision that a life with one another is worth the fighting and the possibility of failure leads he viewer to question their futures, if the same end will result or if the knowledge of their pasts is able to change their paths.
The fact that they both Clementine and Joel undergo the procedure hoping to improve their lives, to find happiness and well being, brings into view Kant's ideas and the
theories of utilitarianism. The empiricist and rationalist ideas of Kant state that a person has certain moral duties to themselves, that one should act in such a way as to respect his- or herself and be averse to things such as suicide and self-mutilation. With the memory erasure procedure, it is made clear that it is self-mutilation in some regard, both Clementine and Joel experience enormous harm as a direct result of it. While Clementine's actual experiences during the procedure are not seen by the viewer, Joel's suffering is loud and clear as he doggedly tries to hold onto his positive memories, a discrimination that the procedure does not make. If having one's memory erased did in fact increase their future happiness, if they had come psychological harm as a result of something that had occurred in their past then having these memories erased would be beneficial, but not if the same problems and kinks in Clementine's and Joel's experiences had occurred. This case is only for the better if any lessons learned from these memories would be able to be learned elsewhere in the future, so as not to fall into a spiral of eternal reoccurrence. If there were a 'safe' way to conduct such a treatment, then Kant's ideas would theoretically be in support of it.
In a similar manner, utilitarian teachings proclaim that a person is to act so as to obtain the greatest level of happiness, that whichever actions he or she chooses should be done so only in consideration of this fact, and that their actions and achieved happiness are morally right. Falling in line with the high importance that Kant places on self-respect, the individual acts out of their own interests, for the sake of their personal happiness. One significant difference however is that utilitarian ideas may actually support things such as suicide and self-mutilation that Kant is so opposed to, because in certain cases this may be what produces the greatest happiness in an individual.
The concepts presented in this movie, while confusing to some, nevertheless illustrate philosophical concepts filling the lives of the characters. The purpose of the memory erasure procedure was, in theory, aligned with Kant's concept of self-respect and of utilitarian teachings, the intent being to better their lives and increase their happiness. The harm that came to each as a result of undergoing the procedure was phenomenal, essentially boiled down to as self-mutilation. If the technology to make the procedure safe had been available, the case would have been different, allowing both Clementine and Joel to continue on with their lives with no recollection of the past but a much happier future in reach. Even with this fairy tale ending however, Nietzsche's concepts still creep into one's thoughts, for even with the results going according to what one wants, without knowledge of the past we are prey to falling victims of the future. A memory without certain experiences could cause tremendous damage to the future, a person committing the same mistakes over and over for the first time, with no way to protect themselves or prevent it from happening once more. The picture that the film's ending presents is hopeful and hopeless all at once, while Clementine and Joel choose to love one another all over again, the audience wonders if the dismal picture of their past will soon be all too familiar to them, the 'eternal sunshine' of the title being unattainable in reality.






Works Cited


Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Screenplay by Michel Gondry, Charlie
Kaufman. Director Michel Gondry. Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet. Focus
Features., Copyright 200

Grau, Christopher. 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the Morality of Memory.'
Thinking Through Cinema: Film as Philosophy. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Volume 64 Issue 1. Winter 2006.]]> Philosophy]]> Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:05:33 -0400