The Hustle Is A Lie

When Karl Marx describes the condition of workers under capitalism-- a truly miserable existence, shot through with estrangement and alienation-- he notes a startling paradox at the heart of that condition: the worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces. Because the ideology of capitalism assumes that human beings are fundamentally self-interested by nature and that their world is primarily characterized by scarcity, capitalist political economy requires workers to compete with one another for resources, for the chance to sell their labor for wages and, ultimately, for survival. Workers have no time to question the legitimacy of these requirements, each of which is supported by a series of myths, because all of their energy and time is devoted to producing. The fact that workers never become wealthy, that they are never rewarded for their production, that they cannot "win" the competition into which they have been involuntarily entered, that they never can (or will) pull themselves out of their miserable station, that individuals workers only ever become poorer and the working class only ever becomes more numerous, even as their production of goods and wealth increases-- all of these together coalesce to form the mind-numbing paradox elucidated by Marx.

Confronted with the paradox that Marx describes, the obvious question is: why does the worker consent to his or her own alienation?  Why compete in a "fixed" game that cannot be won? Every day, millions of workers-- in fact, billions of workers-- continue to sell their labor like any other commodity on the market, only they sell their labor at a price that, at best, can only sustain mere subsistence.  Any surplus value workers produce is taken (stolen) from them by their employers, who own not only the products, the means of production, and the profits, but also in a very real sense own their workers, too.

The worker's life is a never-ending hustle to survive. If you asked the worker-- let's call him "Marcus Miserable"-- why he continues to play in these hunger games, Marcus would say he works for wages. Marcus believes wages (money) is necessary to purchase goods (clothing, shelter, food, etc), which cannot be acquired in any way other than on an market of "free" exchanges.  Money is not directly necessary for survival, but it is indirectly necessary. No one dies from a lack of money alone, Mr. Miserable would tell us.  One dies from hunger, or sickness, or violence, or any other number of ails that may or may not be averted with enough wealth, but one does not die from poverty.

The brilliance of the film In Time (2011) is that it removes the indirect links between money, power, and survival. In doing so, we are able to see how the worker's hustle is directly linked to his or her life-time. When Marcus Miserable watches the dollars in his bank account diminish day by day, he does not fear that he will actually die if the balance reaches zero. ("I'll work an extra shift. I'll get a second job. I'll sell my car, or pawn my wedding ring, or indebt myself to a predatory lender. I'll steal, or sell drugs, or find some other side-hustle," Marcus says to his wife, his children, and himself.) The film In Time presents us with a world in which these sorts of self-assuring stories are clearly shown to be fairy tales, because the film gives us workers who literally see their time of death creeping up on them at all times.

In Time is an excellent example of how film can sometimes communicate an idea (in this case, Marx's idea of workers' alienation and the exploitative nature of capitalism) more effectively and more convincingly than speech or text can. I wonder if the Marcuses of our world would be so committed to the hustle if they wore their life-times on their arm, if they saw how insignificant their deaths were on every payday, and if each purchase they made or bill they paid was directly linked to their survival. I wonder if the Marcuses of our world would take to the streets, revolt, refuse to compete with each other and instead join together to liberate workers from their miserable lives.

And, most importantly, I wonder: if Marcus could see that money is time and time is life, would he be willing to finally admit that one can die of poverty?

The Grain: Deception and Lies...

In class we viewed a very interesting film from the Black Mirror series on Netflix. Most of the class was really concerned about things like the technology at play; while others were concerned about their own personal obsessions with the use of the new technology. I, on the other hand, saw something else; the struggle between deception and reality.

 As a philosophy major, one interesting thing I've encountered was the philosophy behind truth and lies. Granted, in the film it was rather unsettling to see how much the grain has integrated into their live however, the one constant thing that hasn't change since the beginning of time has been the "need" or "desire" to lie. As the film started and progressed we observed the grain being introduced via commercial. They showed how the grain is implanted into the brain to promote the idea of a perfect memory. Having a perfect memory would be a big step for the human race however it would also be removing the boundary of repression and forgetting certain things that as a person I may not want to remember and relive over and over in my head.

Coming from the perspective of Fi, time and time again she felt the need to lie of how, where, and when she encountered Jonas to Liam. Several times, Liam caught her in a lie with the grain. Whether she was lying to protect herself or she was lying to save her relationship; there lies the unconscious battle. On one hand, we could perceive that she was was victim of the untruthful condition but we could also see that she was having a battle of deception or non deception. Re-watching the film, I came to the conclusion that she wasn't a victim of the untruthful condition, which means that she believes the lie within itself but she was pushing for Deception.

She lied to cover up when, where, and how she met Jonas to avoid the truth of hurting and putting in jeopardy what she built with Liam. Little did she understand the more lying she does, the futher down the rabbit hole she goes and looses her love.

 Sources: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#UntCon http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#DecVsNonDecAboLyi http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefDec

Technology: A Burden on Human Interaction and Experience

Black Mirror, Episode 3, “The Entire History of You”: Total Redo, is a provocative film designed to give the viewer a glimpse of a possible scenario in the future that is not too distant from the present and in actuality we are capable of producing a similar outcome with the current technologies (though not in real time and with some complication as wires and hard drives, etc.). Total Redo is fascinating and frightening because it takes the familiar technologies readily available to us and combines them into one memory chip “the grain” to record and store everything that has been seen. This concept can be seen as an advancement in technology but it can also be seen as another way of how humans are becoming less human by distorting human interaction and experience.

The grain can be seen as an advantage, capable of recording everything that the user witnesses with minimal effort and in doing so the grain has endless functions. In addition, the grain has the very handy feature of projecting the videotape for review by the user through his/her eyes or for the public through an external screen. This recall feature has endless advantages because the user could recall anything he/she witnessed. This could help law enforcement agencies apprehend suspects, find lost items, recall a paragraph from a book during a test, or even recall the list of groceries your mom told you but you forgot; the list goes on and on. Another important purpose that Total Redo shows is that the world is more connected (with the use of the grain) by having the ability to recall the daily lives of one another. It creates a sense of connectivity because instead of just trying to describe an event, one can view it together and sort of experience it, at least view what the user witnessed.

However, this very same feature of “endless functions” can turn the grain into a tool and instead of supplementing the human capacity it can become a burden. Human interaction and experience is supposed to be unique and finite. Total Recall shows a near distant life where the grain is part of lifestyle and where it is normal to record and be recorded by others. The grain allows everyone to record everything you say and do, which can be seen as an invasion of privacy, in addition to it being scary because the user can over analysis every single step one makes. This drastically effects human interaction because for instance embarrassing or disturbing moments can be viewed over and over. Lastly, the grain effects human interaction because human interaction is supposed to be spontaneous and if one is constantly preoccupied with how one sees oneself then how will someone feel when they know they are forever recorded? People would not want to interact out of fear of messing up or being too critical of oneself and prefer to plan their interactions.

The second disturbing part of the grain is that recalling a video is not the same thing as experiencing.  Sure, I can recall the time I escalated the Aztec pyramids in Mexico and show it to my friends but it is not the same thing as actually being there. My friends will not be able to feel the exhaustion that I felt after reaching the top of the pyramid and raising my arms in an upward motion signaling my conquest! My friends would, instead view the clip and say, “wow what an impressive climb, let me show you my neighbor’s dog taking a shit on my yard.” Did my friends actually experience what I experienced? Or were we playing, “let the best video win?” The grain takes from experience by claiming that it can share an experience when it actually cannot.

As seen technology has its advantages; however, are we ready to fully embrace a connected lifestyle that distorts human interaction and experience? I think not. Regardless of the technology one cannot fully experience another one’s experience. Experience is subjective not objective. Therefore, a new technology, as the grain, cannot bring us close to being a human because being a human means being imperfect.

Technology is cool, super surveillance is not!

How Ethical Is Surveillance & Data Collection?

Thanks to a researching middle and high school best friend, I entered the world of paranoia at a young age. I, however, just saw myself as becoming aware and concerned and sometimes a bit helpless and wondered why many others weren't as concerned. I remember always saying, "How could  they do that? Is it right?"  While it's easy to just ignore the issues that would make me paranoid, I realize that it's so important to at least put thought into such issues because of the strong  likelihood that certain plans and theories and technologies are closer to being a reality than we realize. Watching "The Entire History of You" caused me to think more about some of the implications associated with advanced technology like The Grain. In many ways, I think that such technology is so efficient. The "Total Redo" response article argues about how a single piece of technology ruined a marriage, but was it the technology? I'd like to suggest that the technology mainly extends and exalts who we are. It's not the technology that necessarily ruined the marriage. It was the resource that extended Liam's (the husband) own persistent search for truth. Also, the Grain, for example, is not what would necessarily make me paranoid, although I'm no cheerleader for implants. It's the exploitation of information that makes me paranoid. In this film, we see that perfect memory implants cause everyone to end up being a surveillance camera on those around them. In everyday life, we may become privy to certain information about others if we happened to be informed or happened to be around at the time of an event. Other than that, if certain knowledge isn't recorded, we must rely on our natural memory to aid in our decision making in moving forward in everyday life. Is a perfect memory implant that keeps an uninvited track record of others ethical? Is it ethical to have ones personal information collected at random and in secret?  The "If You're Not Paranoid, You're Crazy" article vividly depicts the discomfort a data center stirs up. It's surveillance beyond limits. If one entity has or will one day have full uninvited access to the majority of my personal information, that's when I think things have gone too far. Why does one entity need to know so much about me? Is it ethical for an entity to collect and use my personal information for reasons beyond my knowledge? Since more information about a person can eventually be used to influence a person's action, can we assume that surveillance and exploitation of personal information is for control purposes? "Once you know how very little you know about those who wish to know everything about you, daily experience starts to lose its innocence and little things begin to feel like the tentacles of big things." Not only does extreme surveillance frustrate those who may be surveilled, but it also creates an overall robotic, unauthentic, and seemingly controlled behavior for all who are aware of this surveillance and information collection. "There are so many ghosts in our machines—their locations so hidden, their methods so ingenious, their motives so inscrutable—that not to feel haunted is not to be awake. That’s why paranoia, even in its extreme forms, no longer seems to me so much a disorder as mode of cognition with an impressive track record of prescience." I'm not sure that I'd subscribe to the grain,but I know that technology is not the "bad guy". However, if technology is being used for the purposes of control (in the supposed land of the free), is such use of non-private use of technology ethical?

Too Much Technology?

My main take away from the film entitled “The Entire History of You” was about the cheating portrayed in the film that the enhanced technology revealed to the viewer piece by piece. The deception of our own reality and the naivety of own experiences completely changes our view of the world. There is an entire spectrum of how things in our day to day life can be translated, understood, and reacted. For instance, Liam admits to feeling that something has been amiss in his and Fi’s relationship for a very long time and later on goes to find out that he was right. However, this is very biased. We are witnessing only one small fragment of their relationship. We have very little understanding of their relationship and at first judgement would classify Liam as the protagonist. This is because of the viewpoint in which we are watching the situation unfold. There is very little information given on Fi’s recount of the events that led to their current situation. And in my opinion, that is the danger of the grain. It takes away from the entire viewership of people. Yes, in our everyday lives today we can only know for sure how we feel, what we mean, and our own intentions, but the grain seems to make this an even less of an introspective experience. But it is not even just the grain that makes humans less aware of the events and situations going on around us, we have cell phones. It seems that these technologies are distractions and cause delays and possibly even dangerous. According to the article, “If You’re Not Paranoid, You’re Crazy”, there are several hints to the fact that technology is advancing so much, that there is not really even a cap on that advancement. And advancement that is deeply unsettling and burrowing into our own personal lives. There is a moment within the article where it says, “The girlfriend in 1993 who forbade me to rent a dirty video on the grounds that ‘they keep lists of everything’”. This especially run a bell with me. Kashmir Hill of Forbes wrote an article called, “How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did”. Basically the article tells the story detailing the datamining tactics Target implemented to offer specific products that the typical pregnant woman would need. It seems whether we’re ready or not, there is an entirely new wave of technology that is going to be sweep the homes of every family that will no longer seem like a novelty, but a necessity with possibly even more invasive consequences than the secret slip of a teenage pregnancy or even an affair.  

WE'RE ALL ADDICTS JUST ADMIT IT

After reading Kirn's article, "If You're Not Paranoid, You're Crazy" Something that stood out to me was Kirn's sudden realization about the possibility that us younger generations have adapted, and sort of evolved into a different breed that is fine with this lack of privacy. In it he states that, "perhaps the rush toward self-disclosure precipitated by social media was a preemptive defense against intruders: What’s freely given can’t be stolen." To which Kirn confesses is uncomfortable to him because he is "too old to embrace this nakedness." And it was this description of nakedness that reminded me of a spoken word poem titled "Resentment" by Levi the poet, and he has a powerful line where he confesses: But this all used to be for nothing and no one, and now I shout transparency, but I miss every one of my secrets. but as for me: for every time I give my testimony to a crowd, I'll lie awake at night and wonder about whether or not I've told the truth." And it was this same poem that made me think of Bo Burnham's Make Happy Monologue where he brings about the point that our attachment to social media was cultivated as an answer for our generation's need for to perform and be heard, the satisfaction we get from watching our lives, and the merging of audience and performers with social media (attached below). Which both of these also support Kirn's point when he talks about the firestone workers acting a certain way due to them being monitored. Which is why, I think Kirn's explanation is valid in the way he talks about how we rushed to social media and for what reasons. Some did it out of the desire to perform and express themselves, others, such as people with mental illness, trauma, the LGBT community, or even feminists have used it as a way to dispel the negative stigmas and the shame, and necessity to conceal their true identities and share their stories. However, as we saw in the show, and in the two examples it's come the the point that it is now more of an addiction and a crippling responsibility rather than a way to connect. This is because its uses and purposes, like Kirk points out in his article, aren't definitive. Which is what we see happen in Black Mirror, something that was developed to supply one demand but can also serve other purposes. As Kirn explains, "Paranoia is an infernal affliction, difficult to arrest once it takes hold," and it is the same thing for addictions and obsessions. If given certain tools like cellphones and Grains, people can become slaves to their devices at which point, they begin to develop a love hate relationship with whatever it is to the extent that they feel disadvantaged without it. So much so that it becomes something they need, use, and rely on to get by their daily lives and become dependent upon to the point that they are willing to sacrifice their privacy in return. 

The film Black Mirror and the article “If You’re Not Paranoid You’re Crazy” shared the common belief of the idea of privacy or more so the “idea” of private or secret information. Both highlighted the willingness people have to have their privacy violated if given the option to do so because one might believe that choice is not a violation. Moreover, as with the example of having the tracking monitors put into the car gave people a discount on car insurance, people believed that they “have nothing to hide” but often do not take into consideration the smallest private act such as picking in their noses while driving. People also tend to believe that unless they are famous they have no reason to be “paranoid” or under watchful eye. However, as mentioned in the article, people often do not consider the other things that can be done with such a simple device. Just like the computer I am typing on in the Buckman computer lab has a camera in it. Before reading the article, I thought, “Oh, that’s cool CBU got an upgrade” not thinking that the cameras could be used to monitor this computer lab, prevent thefts but nonetheless secreting violating my privacy just like the “guy who admitted to spying on his girlfriend through her camera”. Furthermore, we have a tendency to trust that our government or people of authority would not violate our privacy without telling us as it violates our right to privacy. As Americans, the word “right” holds an unforeseen power to us. We think because it is our “right” the government will not dare to violate such sacredness. Nonetheless, we see such violations when you get a new phone number but receive calls from telemarketers or when we agree to have a device placed on us to receive a discount. In such times, money is more sacred than privacy or protecting someone’s privacy.

In addition, Black Mirror illustrated people’s willingness to air their “dirty laundry” just as people do on social media. People will often post their most embarrassing moments for attention. As sharing becomes the norm, people value privacy less just as the main character was required to show his most private moments with a stranger at the airport security.  The movie and article make one wonder what the future has in store for us. Will the government one day require us to be injected with tracking devices? What happens to babies when they are taken to the nursery after birth? Why would people want a device implanted that records and broadcasts their memories? People value their special moments in life and don’t want to forget them. In the case of Black Mirror, people illustrated a willingness to violate their privacy if they felt that they were doing so for a good reason or personal gain. However, the film also illustrated the idea of conformity and consequences for not conforming. For instance, the young lady without a recording device could not help Jason because she had no brain chip to dial the police. They were not willing to offer assistance to her because she did not fit into society. Lastly, at the end, we saw how conformity also is painful when the main character could vividly see and remember every detail that was not present.

Thanks, Now I Am REALLY Paranoid

I remember years and years ago sitting in the $2.00 movie theatre with my mom watching the movie Eagle Eye, which was a Big Brother type government device that spied on everyone doing everything. At such a young age I really viewed this movie as a thing that would never really happen. But the older and older I get the more I realize that this nightmare has become a reality.

Being paranoid could be called silly for law-abiding, run-of-the-mill citizens, but here we are paranoid. Paranoid to Google something that could put us on a watch-list, paranoid to say the wrong thing over the phone, and paranoid just to be. In Kirn's article he said something that really stood out to me: "Lose your privacy, lose your free will–a chilling though." I had never really equated my privacy to my free will, but there is no denying they go hand and hand.

As we watched the short film about "The Grain" and I read these pieces, I thought about my digital marketing internship this summer and began to wonder if my coding methods that I used were, in fact, invading the privacy of others. I tried to find ways to justify it to myself: "well Facebook did it for me, I just chose what I wanted or Google already does it anyways, I am just taking advantage of it. But now the more and more I think about it I wonder if I am trying to act as this Eagle Eye and watch over everyone on the internet so I can help my boss sell some insurance.

On the note of the Grain and the dangers are not just to the people and giving them a perfect memory, but it would also scare me to know where all the data is stored. No one would even have a lick of privacy.

Welcome to Class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Fall 2016 Philosophy and Film course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will will post a short essay (minimum 400 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm and also will comment on at least two of their classmates' posts before the beginning of our Monday evening seminar. Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, you will notice that there are already posts on this site.  Those are from students who took this same course last year.  I leave them up so that you can see what others have written about Philosophy and Film.  You can also read some of my blogposts about Philosophy and Film in the sidebar to your right under "Dr. J's Film Reviews."

It's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the commentary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.
• Every post must have a title! And please do not use the title of your film as the title for your blogpost!

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• NO flaming allowed!:  Engage your classmates on the blog with the same consideration and respect that you would in class. 

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to members of the PHIL350 class only. This means that only students enrolled in your class this semester at CBU can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J