Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your thoughts on "The Life of Pi?"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.
I fail too see the point of questioning every absolute (that's putting it lightly). When you are driving your car down the highway, do you question whether or not the oncoming traffic exists? Do you doubt that it is your volitional action that is driving your car down the correct lane so as to avoid a head-on collision? Those are just two examples of things that I hold to be absolutes (i.e., sense perception and free will) and if you question such things, I hope to never meet you on the highway.

I have no problem with fundamental questions; in fact, I quite enjoy them. If you do, however, ceaselessy evade points that I make in an argument and continue to ask what become silly and downright absurd questions "just for the heck of it," do not expect a response from me.

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?

Your last sentence is quite confusing (perhaps that's because you were busy talking while typing) but I do not at all agree with your argument from "optical illusions." Now, you say that optical illusions show that we all perceive things "slightly differently"...that can mean many things but it seems that you want to take these phenomena as proof that no one really perceives the same reality. Objectivism--the philosophy that we study on this BBS--holds that the exact opposite is true. Rather than invalidating our perception, these events are testament to the power of our sensory faculties. To quote Leonard Peikoff,
A so-called sensory illusion, such as a stick in water appearing bent, is not a perceptual error. In Ayn Rand's view, it is a testament to the reliability of the senses. The senses do not censor their response; they do not react to a single attribute (such as shape) in a vacuum, as though it were unconnected to anything else; they cannot decide to ignore part of the stimulus. Within the range of their capacity, the senses give us evidence of everything physically operative, they respond to the full context of the facts—including, in the present instance, the fact that light travels through water at a different rate than through air, which is what causes the stick to appear bent. It is the task not of the senses but of the mind to analyze the evidence and identify the causes at work (which may require the discovery of complex scientific knowledge). If a casual observer were to conclude that the stick actually bends in water, such a snap judgment would be a failure on the conceptual level, a failure of thought, not of perception. To criticize the senses for it is tantamount to criticizing them for their power, for their ability to give us evidence not of isolated fragments, but of a total.

Feel free to take your time to formulate posts that are clear, concise, and representative of your ideas. No one is rushing you for a response and I, for one, would appreciate a poster who gives their full attention to their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody here seen the movie Pi, which came out about six years ago? I am not sure it is related to this "Life of Pi" book, but I am very intrested in hearing what objectivists thought of the philosophy behind the movie.

I loved the movie (as you can probably tell by looking at my profile), but I'm not sure that its ultimate message is compatible with objectivism. I can adduce one argument that it is, and one that it isn't, and I think the latter is stronger. But here goes.

First, the argument against:

Max Cohen, the hero of the story, was a genius who poured his *life* into his work, working himself to the brink of insanity, and finally triumphed, finding an amazing pattern that connected natural processes. But, in the end, he had to give up his work and destroy his results, as the knowledge that he had found was too great to be beheld by a "mere" human. Hence, the message of the movie is incompatible with objectivism, as it says that some knowledge is not meant for men to know, i.e. the truth may be too much for you to handle, it may destroy you, so ignorance is bliss (as can be seen in the look on Max's face in the last scene.)

Now, another interpretation of the movie, one that is more pro-objectivist:

Max Cohen's nature and fate can be more or less summed up in two words: Robert Stadler. Like Dr. Stadler, Max was the greatest genius in his field at the time, but he worked under the premise that there is a realm of "pure" knowledge that is somehow above the "petty materialism" (as he put it) of those working on Wall Street.

In the end, he shared the same fate as Dr. Stadler: he was ultimately destroyed by his own work.

Now, the second intepretation would be not at all obvious to a non-objectivist (or, at least, to anyone who hadn't read Atlas Shrugged.) In fact, it only came to me *just now*, as I was writing this post. The former interpratation seems to be the one most people would take away from the movie, so it is probably does more harm than good as a work of art.

Comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both your arguments. And even though the philosophy of the movie was poor, I thought it was a very well done (and I love the black and white). During the movie, I was so pleased with the idea that man had the ability to discover and manipulate such an aspect of nature that Max’s downfall didn’t ruin it for me. Though, to be frank, his discovery seems rather unreasonable. I don't know anything about chaos theory, so I'll steer of that.

I am not sure what it is, but it seems that I am finding more and more independent films (even the really far out ones) to be better than the usual drivel Hollywood now churns out. They don't leave an unpleasent taste in your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If you do, however, ceaselessy evade points that I make in an argument and continue to ask what become silly and downright absurd questions "just for the heck of it," do not expect a response from me.”

Well well. I am quite affronted by this bullish display of male agression. Perhaps then, I was wrong, that you would enjoy being tested by someone with different views. I and many others would simply see this as the true essence of debate and discussion. Debating things with people who hold the same views as yourself is far less benificial and only serves to reinforce excuses for weaknesses in those views.

“When you are driving your car down the highway, do you question whether or not the oncoming traffic exists?”

Thank you for this little nugget too. I will resist the sarcasm of telling you that every day that I drive my car I have head on collisions and die. When I siad absolutes, I was referring to doctirns, to philosophies, to laws, to rules. I would like to refer you to Virginia Woolf but I am also going to reisist quoting at you like an evangelical.

“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.”

I am terribly sorry if this is the question that I so rudely ignored. I mean best for the individual. Pi's story - which is the story that we read in the book - was best for him. It helped him live his life and deal with his past after watching his own mother butchered by a canibal. Read it.

“A so-called sensory illusion, such as a stick in water appearing bent, is not a perceptual error.”

I would like to point out that this is not a true optical illusion, as the text goes on to explain. It is a perceptual aid. I am talking about powerful illsion were the mind sees one two dimentional line on page as being longer than the one next to it, due to the shapes that are around it, but on inspection, the line is exactly the same length.

I was originally fining this interesting but I do not believe in aggressive, patronising debate. And by the way the movie is not the book.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well well. I am quite affronted by this bullish display of male agression. Perhaps then, I was wrong, that you would enjoy being tested by someone with different views.

Seems you didn't notice that I had stated a hypothetical...I was merely pointing out that I don't engage in pointless debate as an end in itself so it's too bad that you took that personally. On that note, a pointless debate is apparently all that I will get from you (now you can call me "bullish" if you like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps then, I was wrong, that you would enjoy being tested by someone with different views. I and many others would simply see this as the true essence of debate and discussion. Debating things with people who hold the same views as yourself is far less benificial and only serves to reinforce excuses for weaknesses in those views.

To exapnd on Bowzer's point, debating, if it is to be productive, must assume at least some basic shared premises on the part of those participating. The identity of the question under debate, for instance, as well as rules of logic and what constitutes a proved statement versus an unproved assertion. There is no point in an Objectivist attempting to "debate" someone who declares that A is non-A, since that position rules out all possibility of debate. What possible benefit can there be to entertaining arbitrary objections to the validity of principles of which most on this board have long since satisfied themselves? Particularly when those objections have been dealt with time and time again here and elsewhere. If you're interested in learning something about Objectivism, then you'll be welcome here. If all you care to do is "question absolutes" for the sake of questioning, debate for the sake of debating, you'll continnue to encounter hostility. I dare say you're already treading dangerously close to the textbook definition of a "troll".

I mean best for the individual. Pi's story - which is the story that we read in the book - was best for him. It helped him live his life and deal with his past after watching his own mother butchered by a canibal.
Since "questioning" seems to be an end in itself for you, you probably won't be interested in actually getting answers, but I'll try anyway. Living requires dealing with reality. Perpetuating a self-delusion is the evasion of reality. Deliberately undercutting one's own consciousness, one's awareness of reality, destroys one's ability to deal with reality and consequently destroys one's self-esteem. If Pi truly believed the delusion, was it really "his life" that he was living, or was it a fairy tale life with no more reality than the delusion? If he truly believed the delusion, does that not in itself constitute insanity, being out-of-touch with reality?

I would like to point out that this is not a true optical illusion, as the text goes on to explain. It is a perceptual aid.  I am talking about powerful illsion were the mind sees one two dimentional line on page as being longer than the one next to it, due to the shapes that are around it, but on inspection, the line is exactly the same length.

If the lines appear to be different lengths, how do you know it's an optical illusion? How is it that you know that they are, in fact, the same length? The answer is reason. Perception tells us that something is; our reason, the use of which requires an act of will, must discover what it is. You correctly point out that our perceptions are affected by the context of what we perceive. If you see a car dealer with a whole line of gray sedans with one red sports car in the middle, you'll notice the sports car. That does not alter the identity of the sedans, or the knowability of such identity. If, on the following day, the same sports car is in a line of similar red sports cars, you won't notice that particular car. Again, this alters neither the identity of that car nor its "knowability". None of these scenarios, by any means, invalidates one's perceptions. They are what they are. Our sensory apparati, including the automatic integration of sensations in to perceptions, are of a particular nature and thus interact with reality in a particular way. Kant's ideal "objective" consciousness, i.e. a consciousness without a particular nature which perceives by no particular means, would be totally unreliable since its behavior would be unpredictable. What may be valid or invalid is the interpretation of those perceptions, the "what" behind the "something", the identity of the object of perception. That interpretation cannot be declared invalid arbitrarily, and certainly not merely on the grounds that it is based on perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps then, I was wrong, that you would enjoy being tested by someone with different views.

Annalouise, I know that Bowzer and many others here, myself included, welcome a challenge to our ideas. Speaking frankly, I rather hunger for a serious challenge on a level that would require me to dig deeper than I have. Alas, most challenges to Objectivism are made by those who simply do not understand the ideas which they attempt to challenge, and therefore most "testing" done by others are by straw man arguments.

If indeed you can offer a challenge I encourage you to do so. However, I must say, when you openly admit, as you did in one of your posts, that what you presented may not be very clear because you are busily engaged in another discussion as you type, that does not bode well for one who takes ideas seriously. So, perhaps you would like to try again, this time with your full attention. And, if you do so (and I hope you will), I would suggest confining yourself to one or two essential ideas, presented succinctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Stephen. Unfortunately the rude hostility (perhaps this is cultural? I sense you are all Americans?) has already put me off.

"Perpetuating a self-delusion is the evasion of reality. Deliberately undercutting one's own consciousness, one's awareness of reality, destroys one's ability to deal with reality and consequently destroys one's self-esteem."

So you don't like art then? Or imaination? It doesnt stop us from knowing what is real.

On a parting note, I would like to say that I have studied objectivism in my university reading and know full well what it is. I just believe it does not answer everything. There is more to life than objectivism. There is also more to life than forums, which is why I was talking to a friend who came to talk to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the rude hostility (perhaps this is cultural? I sense you are all Americans?) has already put me off.

Annalouise, I pointed out that my comment about evading arguments and asking absurd questions was not directed at you. Other than that, I have only offered you reasons and facts. If this offends you then you will definitely be "put off" by this forum.

I thought that I was being quite accommodating and I would apologize had I done something wrong. Maybe you are being quick to judge me considering the "American" comment... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Annalouise -- Just to make sure, are you referring to Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand (as expounded in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), or were you thinking of the "objectivism" of W.V.O. Quine and other such analytic philosophers? Also, where is it that you are from, where you seem to have such a strong cultural bias against Americans? I'll be sure to keep on my best behavior if I ever visit there :D

IAMNAPIV -- I am going to start a new thread so that we can continue our discussion of Pi the Movie without intruding on the rest of the folks here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Annalouise, I pointed out that my comment about evading arguments and asking absurd questions was not directed at you. Other than that, I have only offered you reasons and facts. If this offends you then you will definitely be "put off" by this forum.

I thought that I was being quite accomodating and I would apologize had I done something wrong. Maybe you are being quick to judge me considering the "American" comment... :D

OK, so it was a penultimate rather than a parting note. I appreciate your attempt at being accommodating but I think again, we must have very different ideas as to what this might constitue.

I don't mean to judge or cast aspersions about Americans. I currently have a transatlantic working relationship with people in New York. It has made me realise that what may be seen as ordinary interaction across the pond, can often be perceived as abject rudeness by us Brits. By the same token we may seem over polite to Americans. No one is at fault. It is, as I said, a cultural difference.

Nonetheless, I felt insulted by your posting and moreover feel that my philosophical ideas are so vastly different from all of yours, that participation in this forum will not to me nor any of you any good.

Thanks though. It was interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna have to enter an apology to Annalouise. Whatever rudeness was in my post above (namely the "troll" comment) was based on the fact that I misread one of your earlier posts. I skipped the sentence, "I find it interesting for my theoryies to be tested and hopefully you will too." Without that it sounded like you were questioning for its own sake, as I implied above. I was wrong to say that. I apologize.

That said, I stand by the rest of the substance of my earlier post.

"Perpetuating a self-delusion is the evasion of reality. Deliberately undercutting one's own consciousness, one's awareness of reality, destroys one's ability to deal with reality and consequently destroys one's self-esteem."

So you don't like art then? Or imaination? It doesnt stop us from knowing what is real.

On a parting note, I would like to say that I have studied objectivism in my university reading and know full well what it is.

I was going to respond to this, but since she's not reading this anymore, what's the point?

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...