Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your thoughts on "The Life of Pi?"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Did the story make you believe in God as the foreword suggests?

If I had chosen to believe in God after reading the story, I logically would have had to reject much of Objectivism, and therefore wouldn't be here in this forum. My presence here should indicate how much it made me believe in God :yarr:. In my opinion (I read it about a year ago I think) it wasn't very good in terms of theme or keeping my interest. There is much better literature available than this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DONT READ THIS POST IF YOU PLAN TO READ THE NOVEL AND HAVEN'T YET!

The main idea of the novel is that when it doesn't matter (and you cannot prove) either way what the truth is, then you should go with the best version possible. For most of the novel, the main character, Pi, spends months on a lifeboat in the pacific ocean. On board with him on the tiny lifeboat is a tiger, a zebra and a hyena (and a monkey I think as well). His journey is long and he suffers greatly, but he survives. At the end of the novel, when he is recounting his story to the authorities, he tells them the story we have been reading in the novel with the tiger, but the authorities do not believe him. He cannot prove his story as the tiger ran off into the Mexican jungle when the boat pulled into the beach.

So instead he tells a horrific story of how he survived involving cannibalism and his mum dieing, etc. We are left wondering whether the story we have been reading is true or whether the new story at the end is what happened. Pi says at the end which is the better story since it matters not to the authorities which story is true. The authorities agree that the story with the zebra and tiger is the better one. Anyway you can tell I liked the novel from this long post, but I'll now get straight to the point.

The reason the story is meant to make you believe in God is that it doesn't matter to you whether God exists or not. Which ever you believe you will still lead your life, just like which ever version of Pi's life you believe matters not to you. The question is, which is the better story. A universe in which there is a loving God whom you will meet one day and spend eternity with, or a universe in which you die and the whole concept of "you" ceases to exist.

What do you guys think of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the story is meant to make you believe in God is that it doesn't matter to you whether God exists or not. Which ever you believe you will still lead your life, just like which ever version of Pi's life you believe matters not to you. The question is, which is the better story. A universe in which there is a loving God whom you will meet one day and spend eternity with, or a universe in which you die and the whole concept of "you" ceases to exist.

I would agree with the claim that in the absence of all evidence the best belief to have would be the one which makes you happiest, but would disagree with the claim that the God hypothesis constitutes the best belief by this standard. I would imagine that a person who believed they had complete control over their existence would be happier than someone who always had their mind turned to what happens in the 'next life'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'if i died, and god didn't exist, what did i lose by being a good mormon?'

Just a quick off-topic reply to this. You lost your life - the only thing in the universe that you could have enjoyed. There is nothing before it and nothing after it - just these few decades which can be only yours to do with *as you please*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with the claim that in the absence of all evidence the best belief to have would be the one which makes you happiest

That's plain silly.

If there is no evidence to support an arbitrary belief, what gives you the right to embrace it? Are we justified in assuming there is life on Jupiter just because "it would be cool"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
My mom always goes on and on about how ' if i died, and god didn't exist, what did i lose by being a good mormon?'... it really bugs me... but i just smile and nod and let her go on her merry way...

You might enjoy reading George H. Smith's (the author of "Atheism: The Case Against God") challenge to "Pascal's wager." He calls it "Smith's wager." It's toward the end of the article, yet I'd recommend reading the entire article.

The article is "How to defend Atheism" - a transcript of a 1976 speach that he gave: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/geo.../defending.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's plain silly.

If there is no evidence to support an arbitrary belief, what gives you the right to embrace it? Are we justified in assuming there is life on Jupiter just because "it would be cool"?

Assuming there was life on Jupiter wouldnt really give the average person much of a psychological boost, so not really. If someone was trying to design a spaceplane to fly to jupiter or something then believing that there was life there may well increase his motivation. False beliefs can often inspire people to great feats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming there was life on Jupiter wouldnt really give the average person much of a psychological boost, so not really. If someone was trying to design a spaceplane to fly to jupiter or something then believing that there was life there may well increase his motivation. False beliefs can often inspire people to great feats.

But not because the belief was false. There are many wrong actions that can have short-term benefits, but the Objectivist ethics identifies the guiding principles that makes long-term happiness possible. The moral is the practical, and in the long run faking reality is always a losing proposition.

p.s. Welcome back, erandror. I was going to predict that, contrary to your stated intentions, that you would be so busy enjoying yourself in your visit to New York and the United States, that you would not give the regular "updates" that you expected to give. Seems I was right, and if so, I am glad, since it probably means that you were having a wonderful time. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not because the belief was false.

No, but because the belief was believed. Its actual truth value was irrelevant - what was important was the effects it had on the believer.

But not because the belief was false. There are many wrong actions that can have short-term benefits, but the Objectivist ethics identifies the guiding principles that makes long-term happiness possible. The moral is the practical, and in the long run faking reality is always a losing proposition.

Well of course. Truth isnt some platonic value to be pursued for its own sake - truth has value precisely because it is useful; "nature in order to be commanded must be obeyed". But we are not talking about faking reality here - we are talking about situations in which the truth is unavailable due to the absence of evidence. In these situations, it makes perfect sense to believe whatever is going to be most beneficial to your long term happyness - if you are faced with 2 alternatives with no rational reason to prefer one to the other, you might as well pick the one with the best consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course. Truth isnt some platonic value to be pursued for its own sake - truth has value precisely because it is useful; "nature in order to be commanded must be obeyed". But we are not talking about faking reality here - we are talking about situations in which the truth is unavailable due to the absence of evidence.

In these situations, it makes perfect sense to believe whatever is going to be most beneficial to your long term happyness - if you are faced with 2 alternatives with no rational reason to prefer one to the other, you might as well pick the one with the best consequences.

No. We are talking about the arbitrary, for which, according to Objectivist epistemology, the issue of truth does not apply. The issue arose in reference to belief in god, and you stated your principle as being "in the absence of all evidence the best belief to have would be the one which makes you happiest." But the arbitrary is neither true nor false, having no epistemological value at all. The proper response to the arbitrary is, as stated by Peikoff in OPAR, p. 164, "to dismiss it, without discussion, consideration, or argument."

Read that whole section surrounding the Peikoff quote I gave to get a better sense about how one deals with the arbitrary. Essentially, from an epistemological view, we treat the arbitrary exactly as if nothing at all had ever been said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mom always goes on and on about how ' if i died, and god didn't exist, what did i lose by being a good mormon?'...

Oh, she lost plenty...

You might enjoy reading George H. Smith's (the author of "Atheism: The Case Against God") challenge to "Pascal's wager." He calls it "Smith's wager." It's toward the end of the article, yet I'd recommend reading the entire article.

The article is "How to defend Atheism" - a transcript of a 1976 speach that he gave: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/geo.../defending.html

That's really amusing (at least the "Smith's wager" part--I haven't had time to read the rest of it yet). Thanks for posting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
That's really amusing (at least the "Smith's wager" part--I haven't had time to read the rest of it yet).  Thanks for posting it.

You're very welcome, Ash. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

His wager is an antidote to "Pascal's wager," but given the fallback of "the inability of the human mind to understand God or even God's justice," it won't have any effect on the truly faithful.

In Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case Against God," he has a section, "Part Four: God: The Practical Consequences," devoted to the harm that theism causes. It's a very well written book, logically structured, and a pleasure to read.

[With respect to the article I mentioned previously, there are obviously several typos, some making it a bit confusing, but if one reads with a bit of intelligence, one can grasp what should have been written.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming there was life on Jupiter wouldnt really give the average person much of a psychological boost, so not really. If someone was trying to design a spaceplane to fly to jupiter or something then believing that there was life there may well increase his motivation. False beliefs can often inspire people to great feats.

If the truth isn't enough to motivate him, shouldn't he question why he wants to go to Jupiter in the first place? False beliefs may sometimes inspire people to great feats, but they do so only accidentally. More often, they inspire people to great wastes of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mom always goes on and on about how ' if i died, and god didn't exist, what did i lose by being a good mormon?'... it really bugs me... but i just smile and nod and let her go on her merry way...

If you want to be annoying (I say leave your parents be), ask her what she would lose by being a good Islamic fundamentalist? After all, if we're to choose a religion "just in case", that is as good as any. And if you choose the wrong one... well you're going to hell depending on how nice the "real" god is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. We are talking about the arbitrary, for which, according to Objectivist epistemology, the issue of truth does not apply. The issue arose in reference to belief in god, and you stated your principle as being "in the absence of all evidence the best belief to have would be the one which makes you happiest." But the arbitrary is neither true nor false, having no epistemological value at all. The proper response to the arbitrary is, as stated by Peikoff in OPAR, p. 164, "to dismiss it, without discussion, consideration, or argument."

Read that whole section surrounding the Peikoff quote I gave to get a better sense about how one deals with the arbitrary. Essentially, from an epistemological view, we treat the arbitrary exactly as if nothing at all had ever been said.

It is also important to add that every moment you spend contemplating an arbitrarily asserted claim takes away from time and effort that you need in thinking about the achievement of the values that you do KNOW to exist. It is they who need to provide the EVIDENCE that your time is worth their NOISE (which is the status of any and all aritrary statements).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen:

Read that whole section surrounding the Peikoff quote I gave to get a better sense about how one deals with the arbitrary. Essentially, from an epistemological view, we treat the arbitrary exactly as if nothing at all had ever been said.

There are several occassions where it may be best to take an arbitrary statement as being true. I'm not even talking about actual truth here, I'm talking purely about what is useful to believe. If belief in God was likely to make a person in happy in the long term, then it would be a good thing for them to believe. I would dispute that this is actually the case however, as I mentioned in my original post.

On a sidenote, the classification of a statement as arbitrary is not always that simple, since what counts as evidence will vary from person to person. A Greek took an instance of thunder to be evidence for the existence of Zeus. Someone who survives a car crash may take this as being evidence for the existence of a God watching over them. The correct response here is not to simply label the statement as arbitrary and dismiss it, but to explain why the given facts are not sufficient to provide proper support for their theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a sidenote, the classification of a statement as arbitrary is not always that simple, since what counts as evidence will vary from person to person. A Greek took an instance of thunder to be evidence for the existence of Zeus. Someone who survives a car crash may take this as being evidence for the existence of a God watching over them. The correct response here is not to simply label the statement as arbitrary and dismiss it, but to explain why the given facts are not sufficient to provide proper support for their theory.

You're mixing two entirely issues here. What effort one might put toward and what method one might choose in explaining to someone why some conclusion they've reached is irrational is different from the actual rational basis for that conclusion.

That someone may attribute their surviving a car crash to "God" doesn't make it evidence, whether they consider it evidence or not. It is not evidence. There is no connection, whatever they might believe on the subject.

Whether you want to explain that to someone and how you go about it - which presumably will vary from person to person depending on your knowledge of their rationality (with some people it being a complete waste of time) - is a different question entirely.

As to the Ancients and their various superstitions, that is at least understandable, if not fully justified, since the scientific method was largely unknown to them and still in the distant future. The same applies to primitive cultures. However, there is really no excuse for people today to still hold on to similar superstitions - except for the fact that modern philosophy is so irrational with many scientists themselves embracing it, that people aren't being taught a clear alternative.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone read it?

I know nothing at all about the book, but I read that M. Night Shyamalan (of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, etc. fame) has bought the rights for a movie of the book. Shyamalan first plans to finish a movie project he has been thinking about for some time, and then perhaps make the movie of Life of Pi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

If anyone is still reading this forum, I would like to get back to The Life of Pi. I found this forum by doing a search on the book as I wanted to discuss the ending with people. I like the way one of you described the concept that, in the absence of all evidence, the belief that makes us happiest is the best.

My interpretation of this novel reached further than just questioning whether one shoud believe in God or not. (The truth is I don't believe in God but I thought it was the best argument I'd heard *for* believing).

Befoe Pi recounts the story which I assume we are to take a the 'true' story, he says a very interesting thing: "The world isn't just the what it is, it's how we understand it. And in understaning something we bring something to it. This is a Kantean idea, that all reality is framed by or own consciousness. Or that we add something to reality by our very perception of it.

If this concept is explored to its depths, it throws up all sorts of problems with pure objectivism. Of course, science has told us that there are certain universal laws that seem to be born out anywhere in the universe, but doesn't the natue of our consciousness mean that to us, there is not one truth, but many. That there is not one reality, but many subjective realities? Isn't the belief in a pure, universal truth, undistorted by our perceptions, similar to a belief in God? If we can never see the universe without it being framed by our perception of it, how do we know it exists in one true, unchanging state?

In this sense, I think the book helps us to realise this. Perhaps belief in God is not for everyone, but what about simply understanding your life and your experience of the world in a way that is best? It's more than just optimism. Peraps it is simply positive perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, Annalouise. Most of the people on this forum are quite familiar with Kant's philosophy, especially his epistemology and metaphysics. Dare I also say that most of us are diametrically opposed to Kant in that we hold that reality is knowable and we reject the distinction that he makes between the so-called "noumenal" and "phenomenal" realms.

Perhaps belief in God is not for everyone, but what about simply understanding your life and your experience of the world in a way that is best? It's more than just optimism. Peraps it is simply positive perception.

I haven't read the book that piqued your interest enough to bring you here to discuss such an important topic but I would like to see how you would answer the following question: when you say "in a way that is best," what do you mean? Best by what standard? Kant had a very disturbing answer to this question and I'm curious about what your standard is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Befoe Pi recounts the story which I assume we are to take a the 'true' story, he says a very interesting thing: "The world isn't just the what it is, it's how we understand it. And in understaning something we bring something to it. This is a Kantean idea, that all reality is framed by or own consciousness. Or that we add something to reality by our very perception of it.

If this concept is explored to its depths, it throws up all sorts of problems with pure objectivism. Of course, science has told us that there are certain universal laws that seem to be born out anywhere in the universe, but doesn't the natue of our consciousness mean that to us, there is not one truth, but many. That there is not one reality, but many subjective realities? Isn't the belief in a pure, universal truth, undistorted by our perceptions, similar to a belief in God? If we can never see the universe without it being framed by our perception of it, how do we know it exists in one true, unchanging state?

This is the old philosophical issue of form/object distinction, one which Ayn Rand resolved most brilliantly in her philosophy of Objectivism. The form of our perception is not subjective, it is just as real as everything else in existence. There is only one reality, that which is, and there is nothing else to perceive. What you argue for is, in essence, a condemnation of man for his ability to perceive and to know that which exists.

We study the detailed nature of existence in our science, and we either infer or use specialized instruments to discover what we cannot directly perceive. The atomic structure of matter was conceived of long before our instruments revealed its nature. If some other creature were able to perceive atomic structure directly, his science would lead him to infer and discover the macroscopic world that we perceive directly. These are not two different "subjective realities," but rather two different means by which to discover the nature of that which exists.

In essence, the Kantian approach severs man from reality and condemns man for his very means of knowing what exists. The form in which we perceive is not something subjective within our brain, nor do the qualities of our perceptions lie as primaries in the entities we perceive. Objectivity implies a relationship between our perceptual apparatus and what we perceive, an interaction that produces an effect dependent on the nature of the ultimate constituents of reality. This is all metaphysically real, all out there in reality because reality is all that there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you argue for is, in essence, a condemnation of man for his ability to perceive and to know that which exists.

Hi,

Thank you for your very interesting repsonse to my posting. I hope you don't mind an imposter on your site - i.e. someone who is constantly questioning all absolutes, whether they be objectivism or anything. I find it interesting for my theoryies to be tested and hopefully you will too.

Firstly I must say I am no great follower of Kant, just as I am no great follower of Jesus, Marx, Mohammed or Bhudda, but I believe they all had something interesing to say.

Secondly - I must get to the quote. I am not arguing for this at all. On the contrary. I am saying that yes, human beings do have the power to percieve that which exists in the universe, and yes, we also have the grasp of reason and intelligence which we need to see patterns, develop laws, and ultimately continue to further our undersanding of it ad infinitum. BUT - and here is the rub - I also believe that the way we interact with each other as human beings, the different lives we lead and the different angles of perception that each of us has on this planet, as it spins its merry way though the universe, should be brought into the equation when discussing reality. I am not agains sciene of objectivism, but I believe it is not all that there is.

If you really think hard about what optical illusions are, you will realise that we are always perceiving things slightly differntly. And not just optically. This needs to be taken into account when discussing the world and understanding it. Ultimately, aren't human beings an the way we interact more important than rocks and gravity?

I haven't explained this very well as I'm having a conversation with a friend whilst typing now. But any response welcome..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...