Why Are We So Fascinated With Nature?

        Our discussion of nature and the non-human animals has been interesting and has raised important questions. The question that I’ve posed about humanity being so fascinated with nature is one that makes the assumption that all people are fascinated with it. I would argue that while everyone wouldn’t claim to be nature lovers on the surface, our lifestyles point towards some strong interest and connection with nature. What is nature?  Why are we so fascinated? Do we have responsibility to stewardship of nature? According to Emerson’s writings, nature is beyond the ‘things that cannot be changed’ like rivers, leaves, clouds, and so on, he implies that humans are nature. George’s writings go far enough to explicitly open the essay by noting that humans are animals.   Baraka, a striking 1992 film, is a clear illustration of all that constitutes nature. This film is over an hour long collection of footage of various people, places, and things from around the world with no narration. The inspiration, production, and success of this Baraka are evidence of our fascination, or at least my fascination, with the beauty, oddity, and  mystery of nature. (Even if not the entire documentary, I would encourage all to sit and observe some of the captivating footage in this film.)

       It wasn’t difficult for me to watch different scenes of movement or stillness of nature, from people walking, meditating, or staring into the distance, to waves crashing or the footage of the aftermath of volcanic eruptions. Although there was no main story, I had many thoughts and stories in my mind throughout my time watching Baraka. I’m obviously fascinated with people, places, and things. Why? The activity of the waters are the same yet it’s so unpredictable – the looks in the eyes of different people are so familiar, yet is full of meaning other than what I have access to. People, places, and things that make up nature are intriguing because it’s ordinary in the sense that some things become quite familiar, but none of these things are usually completely figured out. “If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile…The stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are inaccessible;” Emerson’s words resonate with me. I think that we admire the stars, trees, and oceans because they just are constant at survival and  they are beautiful (to some). I think we uplift them because we can’t quite know or access them completely. The same is true for how some humans may see other humans.  Other humans are intriguing to us because, in some ways, they are inaccessible and not completely understood by us despite our familiarity.

           If one agrees that we are nature, then determining whether we are stewards of the earth (and therefore nature) is more obvious. Yes, in more ways than one. Following the Christian tradition leads one to adopt the idea that we have power and are to take care of and sustain the earth. The acceptance that we are nature might lead anyone, despite their beliefs, to assume that we have some responsibility of it, since that responsibility would include taking care of our own selves.

   While watching Baraka, I noticed that: (1) Nature's beauty is one that speaks for itself. (2)People are naturally stewards of nature. I noticed this when viewing a shot of a woman sweeping dust off the side of the road. This was not a forced action.  (3)Nature is a part of (our) spirituality, from using incense during meditation, to praying on the ground, to performing certain rituals in community with others. (4) Routine, responsibility, and relationship is nature. People and even the natural elements like water have routine activity. People assume responsibility to care for earth’s natural elements and earth natural elements fulfill the responsibility of serving as some resource for people. People are in connection with one another and to the non-made made earth elements.
                                                               

    Baraka, the title of this film, is defined as a blessing that is regarded in various Eastern religions as an indwelling spiritual force and divine gift inhering in saints, charismatic leaders, and natural objects.  The people, places, and things in this film evoked emotion and needed no narrator to bring it meaning – they possess a silent captivating force. Why was I was so captivated by Baraka? Even if we don’t consider ourselves nature people (which I usually don’t), we still might find ourselves fascinated , at some point and in some way, with the existence, activity, and influence of people, places, and things. In my opinion, we are fascinated because we are nature. We have responsibility to nature because we have responsibility to ourselves. And we are so familiar with people, places, and things, yet the inaccessibility of them make them intriguing.  

Are we nature? Does that make us stewards of the earth?  

Nature from near and far

     For this week's topic, the difference between nature and man was questioned. In class, we discussed the distance or barrier that we create between us and them. However, with further research, we're learning more and more about the creatures we share this planet with, and are finding more similarities than differences. However, this is the problem in itself. As we are discovering our similarities, the barrier between us becomes shorter and shorter to the point that there are those that are convinced there is no need for it at all.
     In the Life of Pi, Pi talks about how the tiger's original name, and the owner's name became mixed up. While this is a minor detail, it shows the thinness of the barrier, and it's existance. We give names to animals in a playful manner, but we don't give them last names. This is something that is typically specific to humans, but by switching the names and keeping it, the tiger is no longer a tiger, but Richard Parker. He now has  an identity. And to Pi, he has a soul. This belief is seen in Pi when he tries to feed him meat, and believes that he shares this connection with him. To Pi he sees a soul in his eyes, but his father sees a predator acting only on instinct. His father even says to him that there is no soul in the tiger and that what he sees in Richard Parker's eyes are only a reflection of what he feels. In comparison to the video we watched last week, Pi's father sees things in the same perspective as Herzog, and Pi sees things from a similar perspective as Timothy Treadwell.
      With both instances, we see Emerson's point that there is a dividing line between nature and man, but that the gap must not become too wide. My interpretation of his words is that nature has  a soul, that is beautiful and wonderful, but that it is not something we can comprehend. We have a tendency like most to see things Herzog and Pi's father would. We are kept behind and distant because we do not understand how they think or feel. However, from this distance we cannot appreciate it enough. We do not treat it with the proper respect. We do not protect what we cannot see. From where we stand, we don't see the same grace and beauty of nature that Emerson, Pi, and Treadwell do. The connection that they feel with these animals, the way that they dissociate from their beings and gravitate toward their simplistic lifestyles. We see primitive where they see simplicity. However, Emerson is the only one to note that there is still that divide. That as alluring and mystical nature is, there is no way for us to be nature, only to become at peace with it.

Capture of the Past

This week, the topic of discussion was nature and non-humans; at first, I had a hard time trying to realize what that was going to have to do with philosophy. But then as we watched Grizzly Man it became more clear. Is there really a massive distinction between nature, animals, and human, or are we a part of it? If there is a distinction should we deem ourselves protectors over it.



The film I watched, though, was The Cave of Forgotten Dreams which was a perfectly capsuled archaeological site of cave paintings depicting animals. In Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, he accounts for his love and feelings about Nature: "In the wilderness I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages. In the tranquil landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as beautiful as his own nature."

The cave paintings were from close to thirty thousand years ago when there is no evidence of "streets" or "villages." And the depictions of these animals make me believe that the people of that time put animals way more up on a pedestal than our society does. It almost seemed like their were sacred and completely one with their people. Why do we create such a divide between us and nature? We have started to worship the manmade and not the natural.

I also take an archaeology class this semester, and was charmed by the experimental archaeologists that showed up on this documentary. Experimental archaeologists try to imitate the past in order to try and understand culture. In this film, they tried to understand hunting and the relationship with their food. I believe this worship-like thing they have with animals is due to them giving them life. If our lives did not consist of technology and its development to what it is now and leisure activities and depending on nature for survival, our relationship would be much more like those of the past.

In our other reading George comments that humans are not really more than smart apes according to Darwinism. In class this week we are discussing ancestry of humanity and when culture really started. It makes me wonder what in particular happened in the evolution process to start art, and why? For philosophy is something we believe to be impossible for animals to comprehend, so at what point in the past did we gain a "love of knowledge."

Mankind and Nature are One

Throughout much of human existence, mankind has tried to dominate nature by imposing human-created-value. Humans have developed measurements to calculate the value of nature; whether that is trees, rivers, mountains, ponds, oceans, and/or strategic locations (to name a few). We have become fascinated with acquiring a grip on nature and it even extends to the point of going to war in order to acquire those natural resources.  However, nature is more than an arbitrated value; nature was before us and will inevitably remain after us. So, then why are we fixated on dominating nature when it is obvious that nature is above mankind? I think mankind struggles with accepting that something such as nature can actually be above the human rational being. If anything, we should humble ourselves and submit to nature's awesomeness and try to preserve it. Director and writer, Werner Herzog, shows a glimpse of this humbling effect in his documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010). In this documentary, Werner brings raw nature, way before what we consider civilization, to the viewer by showing what I call primitive synchronization of mankind and nature.

Herzog captures primitive synchronization of mankind and nature in the the oldest known cave paintings, some 32,000 years ago. In this cave, paintings of animals and hunters were drawn by primitive humans. Though the reasons for drawing these paintings are unofficial, one can speculate reasons why humans would want to leave basic drawings of animals and hunters. I think Ralph Waldo Emerson, brings valuable insight into the reasons for why man would want to leave their footprint on earth. In his essay Nature, Emerson says:

"The stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are inaccessible; but all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence. Nature never wears a mean appearance. Neither does the
wisest man extort her secret, and lose his curiosity by finding out all her perfection. Nature never became a toy to a wise spirit."

Emerson is pointing out that nature is mysterious and always present but inaccessible to the human rationale. Like nature, the cave paintings show how these primitive humans are mysterious and so similar to us but inaccessible to our understanding and this is what I mean about synchronization. In this documentary, the modern man is observing ancient mankind as nature. This synchronization is difficult to grasp for the modern intellect because we seek to separate and place ourselves above nature. But as seen in the paintings, mankind and nature have lived together for so long that they are one. Humans need nature to survive just as much as nature needs mankind to survive. How so you might think? If humans were not around to admire the awesomeness of nature, then would nature exist? How would one know that nature existed? Nature requires someone to perceive it because without it then nature does not exist.

This synchronization is worth explaining because it puts into focus the need for mankind to preserve the very thing that is keeping it alive. Emerson says, "not the sun or the summer alone, but every hour and season yields its tribute of delight; for every hour and change corresponds to and authorizes a different state of the mind, from breathless noon to grimmest midnight." Here Emerson is celebrating the necessity of nature. Mankind requires all of nature to work in order to survive. Nature is more than the sun that brings forth light and the nutrients required for plants and trees and other organisms to survive, nature is a system with naturally occurring parts that each work for everything to continue to function.

As seen, nature and mankind have a special bond that requires both to exist in order for each to exist. Not only is man dependent of nature but nature dependent of man. Werner ultimately shows humans displaying their synchronization by painting animals and hunters together, showing that mankind and nature are one.

When The Lines Of Human & Non-Human Blur

This week's topic was Human and Non-Human cinema and in class we watched the movie Grizzly Man. I didn't know what to expect before watching the movie but I did have a weird thought of some man living with bears for so long that he completely behaved like one as well as grow his hair to resemble one too. The movie began and my experience of the understanding human and non-human began to merge.

The movie started and we watched this young man spend thirteen summers with the bears up until their hibernation period begins. Instantly I was hoping that he wasn't doing that for the hell of it, however, he was doing it to support awareness for the safety of the bears but also to satisfy an odd personal fetish of living vicariously through the bears. Throughout the film we saw different accounts of the young man cohabiting with the bears, in a dangerous fashion. In the film they brought people like his ex-girlfriend, family, and loved ones to talk about him and his adventures with the bears.

There were times in the film where we got a chance to see nature at it's finest; seeing the foxes play, the bears play and tussle, as well as light interactions between him and the bears. On the other hand, we also did witness the other side of nature; the wild-side. We observed the young man interact with the bears very closely, which is dangerous, knowing that they are wild grizzly bears and not contained in a zoo. We witnessed a vicious bear fight and the death of the young man and his girlfriend. The other people in the film described how the bear that ate them and the attack within itself. I didn't have much remorse for them because when you live in those conditions, you concede with the possible circumstances you'll encounter. But it was rather interesting seeing how from the beginning to the end of the movie we saw him transform from slightly human to an inhumane human.

In the reading Emerson had some interesting arguments that really stood out from both the movies, Grizzly Man and The Life of Pi. He said,

"Nature never wears a mean appearance. Neither does the wisest man extort her secret, and lose his
curiosity by finding out all her perfection. Nature never became a toy to a wise spirit... I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty. In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages. In the tranquil landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as beautiful as his own nature."

In the first couple of sentences, Emerson talks about how the wisest man doesn't extort her secret and lose his curiosity by finding out all her perfection. He really highlights what we watched in Grizzly Man. I feel as if he touched on how the young man wasn't being wise in becoming so intimate with mother nature. When he brought up that nature never became a toy to a wise spirit; Emerson was touching on how mankind should give mother nature her respect and space while admiring her beauty by preserving her.

In the Life of Pi, which is one of my favorite books and the movie was done beautifully, Pi was stranded on a life boat and had an encounter with God in three different ways. The way Pi felt about the animals in the Zoo and the relationship with them; he shared a moment that Emerson describes himself very well. He said he loved nature and its uncontained and immortal beauty, as well as, man beholding somewhat as beautiful as his own nature. Pi loved animals and while being stranded on the life boat he took in many experiences that would have anyone at awe, feeling as you've had an encounter with God himself. What I find interesting in both movies, both main characters see themselves as animals. Pi was Richard Parker, the tiger, and the young man in Grizzly Man saw himself as one of the bears. Which leads to the question I'll pose to my visitors; How is it so easy for some of mankind to loose touch with civilization and be raptured up into the wildlife? As civilized beings, do we yearn to tap into our primal side and hunt? reproduce? mark our territory? or it is just something weird in people? Something to think about....

Life is a Sport

Sports or competitions are a large part of American culture. People bond by participating in sports related activities and by supporting the same teams. The ideology behind sports is -or rather was- that sports “promote arete or human excellence”  (Reid). Sports were about the skills, experience, and character that were developed while participating in the sport, but in today’s society winning has become more important than the battle or sport itself. In fact, competition is extends beyond the simple sports like the NFL or the NBA. Competition or sport is so ingrained into today’s society that children as young as five are pitted against each other in school. Who’s the smartest, the quickest? Even in school, educators encourage students to see each other as opponents and to out compete one another, and the same is true for getting jobs. It is important to acknowledge the type of stigma and pressure that is also placed upon just everyday people for everyday that is lived is like another day of competition or sport. As Reid pointed out, winning as become more important than the effort that one puts forth to get to where they are or have accomplished. It is this constant competitive nature in addition to the “winning is everything” mindset that contribute to the aggression or moral-less acts that one may witness in American society.

In an individualistic culture such as America, the emphasis is solely in the individual. People are told that they can make it to the top of the economic if they pull themselves up by their boot scraps. In a way, living in a capitalist society in of itself is a sport, constant competition not just in a physical sense. As Schwartz points out that even sports require “intellectual complexity or  intellectual sport”. Afterall, would Michael Jordan be able to play basketball if he couldn’t comprehend the whatever the coach was saying or if he was brain dead? The idea that competition enhances “self-knowledge, discipline,courage, and justice” (Reid) also manifests in intellectual competitions. Chess, for example, requires much more strategy and more variables to account for (Schwartz) it is a sport where one must be self-knowledgeable as well as “knowledgeable of the opposition”. One must have the discipline to wait for the right time to make move and to have control of his or emotions such as eagerness during the game to prevent from jumping the gun.  Moreover, we sit in the classrooms, attend classes, and complete assignments in hopes of being able to better “compete” in society, to stand out from those who may not have a degree. The growing number of competitors motivate some to do all that they’re mentally capable of doing in older to succeed.

However, competition is not always as evenly split as one would hope. Usually people are going against others on uneven playing fields. For instance, private school education versus inner city education in Memphis are not equivalent. Those who are given a private education are given a significant advantage over those who attend regular public school. This is where you may see those who could not defeat the competition congratulate those who were able to overcome that “challenge” and attend college. Let’s explore what happens to those who “lose”. In The Longest Yard, when the coach saw that the guards were losing against the convicts, he threaten Paul with more time and a murder charge. The aggression was very clearly demonstrated in his language and face. Similarly, when people are not able to acquire the skills and experience they need to be able to compete in the job market, they become aggressive and frustrated and in some cases criminal. People who are not fit for competition start to do whatever is takes to be the “winner” such as athletes who take steroids or those who cheat during competitions. Some people are so enthralled with coming out on top that they forget the “virtues” or morals (Reid) that a winner is supposed to uphold and instead perform loser actions such as lying on their resume or during an interview in order to get a job. Some people start to harbor anger and aggression after losing so many times: not being able to get the job they applied for, not passing the tests in school, never being recognized for the effort they put forth only for losing.

Victory; Is it a Team Goal or My Goal

Sports has always been something close to my heart. All through my life I've been involved in some form of active sport/activity. I thoroughly enjoy cheerleading, bowling, skating, throwing the shock-putt and discus, football, and baseball. I randomly chose to watch "Eight Men Out" after reading the article "Sport, Education, and the Meaning of Victory" by H.L. Reid and I didn't realize till half way through the movie that there were many parallel concepts within the reading and the movie. Reid brings up very strong arguments around the topic of victory is and the movie prompted me to pose a more deeper question of how we process and want victory as well as the means of attaining it.

Reid's argument of Victory goes all the way back to Socrates and Plato's theory and concept of arete, excellence. Sports were an outlet that people would participate in to help make better people in the long run; or more well rounded. The overall goal of sports is to reach a winner at some point and time through gaining points, crossing a finish line, or going a distance. As a human society we lift people who engage in sports highly because we make them children's role models as well as place a huge responsibility on athletes heads to conduct themselves in the highest form of arete. Think about the outrage and uproar over Colin Kaepernick and the personal stance he is taking in the athletic arena. We place athletes on a pedestal because we innately relate the meaning of being an athlete and winning with some sort of moral ethical code of some sort. When players in games like football or basketball, players can be fined large amounts of money or even loose endorsements for "immoral" or behaviors that are not high in standard.

Reid brings to the front that the since of excellence, or arete, is known as a virtue and people take their virtues seriously. She goes into some different types of victories; a true victory, a tainted win/win-on-paper, moral victory and personal victory. In the movie "Eight Men Out" that we set back in 1919 which was the rise and prime of "American Leisure and Entertainment". There were eight men that were sought out on the Black Sox team to lose the games on purpose for a payout. Granted as athletes, they innately want to win and achieve their highest form of success however when you aren't being paid (taken care of) properly, losing a couple of games to "win big" in the bets to make a fortune. Such nature of conspiring to lose purposely for fixed bets and to cash in plays with the moral compass especially with the innocent players that are just caught up in the foolishness via association. The scandal was blown up to the point of being brought to the courts and all the players were tried in court. To actually see the intent of all the players or judge them separately.

Reid talks about how in the evolution of sports the famous inscriptions that read "know thyself" and "nothing in excess" are key to truly achieving arete in victory. She connects the phrase "Know thyself"  with understanding ones own weakness being able to overcome them. The second phrase, "nothing in excess" brings about  subject of temperance/self-control which is centered around the discipline of an athlete. Together these promote the bases of how we view our athletes currently, they must have self-knowledge (self awareness) and discipline. 

The Lesson In Sports, The Praise of Winning

“Self-knowledge, discipline, courage, and justice are four forms of human excellence explicitly associated with sport and implicitly associated with winning.” In the article Sport, Education, and the Meaning of Victory, Heather Reid explains how the original intention of sport as education that leads to human excellence has not been replaced by the obsession with winning, but that winning a sport is the manifestation of human excellence gained through the lessons and values associated with the commitment to a sport, especially a team sport. 

      Basketball is a great example of a team sport in which discipline, courage, justice and some other values can be quite obvious in players’ willpower, treatment of opponents, interaction with their team, and reaction to wins and losses. In Hoop Dreams, a documentary about the reality of two African American young guys in the inner-city of Chicago who excelled in basketball, I observed the presence of values of human excellence within Arthur Agee and William Gates and the absence thereof as well. Both of these young men were not living in ideal situations. I would say that their mental toughness, courage, and other excellent characteristics were already present within these athletes as a result of their lifestyle of surviving in difficult, unprivileged situations. The absence of other forms of human excellence within these two athletes could have also been influenced by the limitations and negative aspects of their lifestyle, but also because they were just young guys who, like no other, had achieved human excellence in its completeness. Agee and Gates learned many lessons from being on the basketball team, but were still focused on winning, not to have bragging rights, but as the sign of the next step into a reality they’d never seen, but dreamed of. Basketball served as a release for these two guys as well as, as a ticket out of their crime and drug infested environment and basketball is also what they were just naturally very good at.

      A question that I thought of while watching “Hoop Dreams” and that was raised in the Sport, Education, and the Meaning of Victory reading was “Why do we love winning athletes so much?” I thought and then ask: Is it because we get to admire some of the process of their hard work and see the payoffs, instantly? And because the success is not calculated like “winning” in other areas of life are? “We view winning as the manifestation of certain virtues inherent in the athlete in a given performance,” Reid confirms. She goes on the point out the following:  “Winning athletes must be more than tough, they must overcome their fears and desires to quit but they must also realize when more will be lost than gained by staying the course. We should admire athletes who have heart, not those who are simply bold, brazen, brutal . . . heartless. Victors should be revered for combining strength and endurance with the wisdom necessary to use those tools effectively.” Though fun and entertaining, basketball games and any sports are examples of what we want achieved in our own lives, which is hard work and payback, with countless other forms of excellence in between.

We the audience, the spectators, the supporters, the onlookers are the ones who praise winning so naturally and passionately. We become as amazed, excited, or frustrated as the actual athletes and we look at them with reverence. Therefore, one can say without hesitation that spectators have a religious experience when watching  the dynamics of a sport or when seeing the “impossible victories”, like what is often seen in top Tennis star, Rodger Federer, which was mentioned in the New York Times article. We praise athletes who are winning on the surface because it’s good to win, but we also praise winning because we obviously realize the real , deeper meaning of it, and get to experience the athletes overcome and endure struggles to get to the end.

        On the surface, winning and being on top just feels good or boosts the ego of the winner, but the deeper meaning of winning is what seemingly excites the spectators. This might be a different experience for the athletes or perhaps it is the same. Agee and Gates in Hoop Dreams did not like to lose, but it was usually because they lost for something that seemed small and easily fixable. The two athletes wanted to win because it meant they were that much closer to achieving their Hoop Dreams. Also, I’m sure it’s true for every athlete that they like to see their hard work pay off whether in a win (by score) or in long term win (by excellence).  Agee and Gates had many wins in their young basketball career, but did not “win” at achieving their initial Hoop Dreams of playing in the NBA, but this did not mean that they lost. Their lives (interests and motivations) changed through the process of trying to get a professional basketball career and they have become role models with many forms of human excellence that are proof they have won so much at life. Basketball was the lesson and medium to get to greater and because of it they won so much more than games or a professional career. Those who are successful with many wins in the NBA are also no less of winners in comparison to those like Agee and Gates. Basketball is still the lesson; it , along with many other sports, serves as an allegory to situations, commitments, and challenges of life, all for a greater purpose. When successful NBA stars talk to younger upcoming players, the content is likely not bragging on their success, but motivating the younger ones to push through and become excellent. Sport is an obvious lesson, therefore, very important part of education and is one institution that makes winning worthy of praise.

Sportness: What Constitutes a Sport

Sports are embedded in our daily lives; whether we like it or not and almost everyone has played a sport in his or her life. To some, watching or playing sports is a pastime; however, to others sports is what makes the person what he or she is. This supports the notion that different people receive different pleasure from watching and playing sports. So, what really is sports? Can we really say that sports is only achieving the highest score or is it the way someone plays or is it something personal? I think that scholarship has been too caught up in defining what constitutes sports that they forget that sports is subjective. One cannot define it with a couple of words because it means a lot of things to a lot of people. Director Steve James, however, shows us what sports really is, in Hoop Dreams, without the constraints of scholarship.

Hoop Dreams is a documentary about two inner-city Chicago high school kids, William Gates and Arthur Agee, that are pursuing their dreams of playing professional basketball. The reason this film shows what constitutes sports, is because it puts sports centerstage with everything that it is. So what really is sports? As seen in Hoop Dreams, it is the combination of dreams, beauty, tradition, rivalry, opinion, anger, love, sadness, happiness, athleticism, intelligence, grace, discipline, and good and bad luck; to name a few.  Scholarship tends to objective sports by trying to define it but it is made up of people with dreams and personalities that add flavor to the mix. To say that an athlete came out of poverty and violence makes the athlete even better because he or she conquered those obstacles. Scholarship does not include this aspect of sports because it tries to put together a universal category that encompass everyone but fails.  

David T. Schwartz's essay, John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Sport, shows a critique of the type of scholarship that has been caught up trying to objectively define what sports is. Schwartz's critique of Mill's theory brings some valuable work because it proves that sports cannot be easily compared to another activity, in this case art, to define it. According to Schwartz, there is a difference between aesthetic value in sport and art. His essay helps support the idea that sports is unique and cannot be defined as easily as scholarship assume. Some scholarship tries to claim that sports can be seen as producing the most aesthetic value. However, that does not constitute what sports is, as Schwartz points out because there are factors, for instance that are in basketball, as improvisation, that are not found in art. So, to assume that what defines sports is a difference of higher and lower pleasures is wrong because comparing something that gives higher pleasure as art to sports would not do any justice to sports. 

David Foster Wallace's essay, Roger Federer as Religious Experience, is an interpretation of sports that is somewhat similar to what sports really is," [a] bloody near-religious experience." Though, some would argue that this really does not define what sports is, it is a good start because it shows that something as sports cannot be simply defined by precise language. Sports has many meanings and is it depends on the person perceiving the sport. For instance, the pleasure one feels when one watches two random soccer teams play a match is different from when one watches their favorite soccer team play their rival. There is a sense of a personal relationship between each sport that cannot be described by anyone else. So, to have a clear definition is complicated.

The best part of Hoop Dreams is that it also describes sports as not only pleasure but as an ends to survival. Gates and Agee desire to play in the NBA because that would provide a way out of the "ghetto." If one adds this idea to describe sports, then one transcends the definition of sports because it is no longer pleasure but survival. These kids want to provide for their families and they believe that they can do so by making it to the NBA. Their dreams are to play professional basketball to provide the basic necessities for their families. To them, the sport of basketball is not a hobby but the tool for their survival. 

What is Winning?

I'm currently a college tennis player. I've played tennis competitively for about 12 years now and have lived at a tennis academy as well as traveled all over the country during that time. That being said, I've played and watched a whole lot of tennis matches. Reading through Heather Reid's Sport, Education, and the Meaning of Victory, I realized that the moments I remember the most from competitive play are not what one would perceive at first glance as good moments. In fact, most of them are really bad losses. Reid claims that this can easily be examined by asking the question: "What is Winning?" She goes on to make the point that despite the confines and rules set out by a particular sport that determine an inevitable winner, winning itself can take on a completely different meaning. 

Watching the film Hoosiers (1986) this week, a film about a basketball team in a small Indiana town, I couldn't help but wonder if the movie would have had the same impact if the team had lost the State Championship game instead. This contemplation made me think of a similar film called Coach Carter (2005), in which the basketball team loses in the final seconds of their final game. Coach Carter, just like Hoosiers, experienced critical acclaim despite the fact that the team lost their final game. This makes it obvious to me that it is the pursuit of aretê, or excellence as Reid explains, that makes this possible. It also proves Reid's point. The audiences of both of these films recognize this pursuit and the pursuit itself is relevant whether it be a 'win' or a 'loss' on paper.

All my life I have been told by numerous coaches that the only way to approach a loss is to learn from it. To take that even further, I have won a multitude of tennis matches by suffering from one specific loss, multiple times. Let me explain. When I was 12 years old, I was playing in the biggest State tournament of the year in Murfreesboro, TN, on the campus of MTSU. I was up in the match 6-0, 5-0. For those of you who aren't savvy with the rules of tennis, this is basically the most you can be up in in a tennis match other than actually winning it. I won every game of the first set and the second set, and was one more game away from winning the match. It was the first round of the tournament, and the tournament was on a bigger scale than anything I had played up until that point. It would have been my biggest win ever. I was nervous. Much to my devastation, I lost the match because of these nerves. Let me put this in perspective - to this very day, I have never heard of someone being that far up in a tennis match and eventually losing. It's like being up by 20 points in the final minute of a basketball game, but still finding a way to lose. Yet, because of that loss, I learned something very valuable. I was able to recognize what happened and learned how to battle those nerves and overcome them. I went on a tear after that, winning more matches than I ever imagined. Looking back on that moment, I now categorize what was then devastating as a Win. It wasn't a win on paper, but it was a "moral win" in Reid's terms. There are "moral wins" scattered throughout my tennis 'career', if you will, that were losses on paper. While those are losses on paper, they cultivated many more wins down the road.

To get back to Hoosiers, there was a specific scene that stuck me the hardest. It is right before the State Championship game and Coach Norman Dale brings his team out on the court that they will be competing their final game. He instructs them to measure the court from the free-throw line to the baseline and then from the floor to the rim of the goal. After, he points out that they are the same exact dimensions of the court that they practice on back home. Whether or not my father got the idea from Hoosiers or simply thought of it on his own, I had a similar conversation with him before a match I played out of town when I was 16. Like Coach Norman Dale, he also pointed out that the dimensions of the court were the exact same as every other tennis court that I have ever played. My point is that I agree with Heather Reid's text, that "the real goal of sport in education hasn't changed in 2.500 years". 

"In examining the philosophical question 'What is winning?' we learn that winning may be everything, but every victory is not not necessarily winning."

By applying the logic that my father instilled in me with the dimensions of a tennis court, I have been able to apply that to all kinds of facets of my life. When giving a speech (something I dislike very much), I often think of the fact that the room is the same as any other room that I've previously given a speech. By doing this, I am able to realize that I made it through those speeches and that I'll make it through the next one. By applying the knowledge that I obtained by losing that seemingly devastating tennis match when I was 12, I have been able to overcome my nerves more often than not ever since. It is the pursuit of aretê that is the real victory and it is films like Hoosiers that make this pursuit obvious. Tennis, for me, was always about education. It was always about getting a college scholarship so that I could obtain higher education. My father made that clear to me from the beginning. Once I made it to college I realized that it was not only about achieving scholarship, but also about learning many life lessons along the way. 

"Schools are in the business of educating their students and athletics can be an integral part of that mission - so long as they retain a considered perspective on sport, education, and the meaning of victory." - Heather Reid

"What is Winning"

In the film Eight Men Out, the idea of winning is put to the test. The players of the White Sox are discontented with their current pay for their awesome season, so entering the World Series, some gamblers catch wind of their unhappiness and try to capitalize on it by offering them money to throw the series altogether. While some of the team remains true to the sport, others play a crooked game and cause the Sox to lose the series ultimately leading them to a conspiracy trial.

As I watched this movie I tried to think about the meaning of winning in the realm of sports. In Reid's "Sport, Education, and the meaning of Victory," the author questions what winning is: "One reason this question is seldom asked may be that, on the face of it, the answer is absurdly obvious. Sports, after all, are essentially sets of rules constructed by human beings, and winning is clearly defined within each of these sets of rules." Even though the morality of some of the Sox players was very skewed, did the crooked players really think they were "losing" off the field? They felt as though they had been wronged by the owner of the team, so winning was not something that needed to happen on the field for them.

On the other hand, one of the characters, Bucky, refuses to blow the game just for money. Once the scandal is out in the open, the neighborhood kid's that admire the players come to Bucky and ask him if it is true. He replies "when you grow up things get complicated." And they ask him if he was involved and he said "I guess I just never really grew up." The correlation between honest playing and still being a child is an interesting way to look at it. But it makes me think of the way those kids  and the city looked up to the players, and how they could still turn their idea of winning around in order to get the pay day they thought they deserved. Bucky knew that they were not treated correctly from the owner of the team, but his morals and love of an honest game trumped the pay. 

The reading says that the reason sports are held so highly is the admiration of human excellence, and that is why spectators come. When people are not playing honest the sport itself is not honest; the idea of human excellence is not shown and sports lose the ethics that they once held.

The Eyes That Refuse to See

What is it that allows one to ignore what is blatantly staring him or her in the eyes? Some say they will only believe what their eyes can see while some of that very group denies what lies before them. Neurologist may blame it on an underdeveloped frontal lobe but that stops being the case after the age of 25 or so. What is the reasoning then? The explanation of the phenomenon in the movie Super Size Me can simply be explained that people refuse to acknowledge and act upon the truth of the matter. Some suffer from voluntarily blindness so that they do not have to acknowledge or put in the effort to evoke change. People get in a bad habit of “settling” opposed to fighting. Thus, the problem becomes that people deny or manipulate the truth if acknowledging the truth means having to change their way of life.

Herzog and Plato address the sensitive topic of truth. Plato talks about it as one who has been caved  in and doesn’t know what to make of the truth now free. Let us think about the argument in terms of modern day societal issues. Global warming, for example, is a truth but people are being blind to the truth of global warming because acknowledging the existence of the issue would cause people to have to change their way of living. More specifically, the truth and wide acceptance of the truth would create major problems for the large corporations. Think of as a domino effect. The large corporations and that 1% that holds over half of the nation’s wealth and power are in the front; the truth reaches them sometimes before it reaches the general public. If that truth is not harmful to them in anyway then it is passed along the public; however, if the fact of the matter harms the big businesses or that uber rich 1% then they do whatever they can to prevent the public from knowing about the situation. For instance, the media hasn’t been covering or mentioning global warming or the harmful effects of global warming since the protest for the government to set a limitation on how much chemical toxins they are allowed to put into the atmosphere. The truth is that global warming is still a growing problem as we can see it’s still hot outside, but it’s supposedly “fall”. As long as, the truth is kept out of public eye the public will not acknowledge what is self evident. Instead, a large portion of the public continues to stay blind unless “told” to worry. The public also fear the changes they would have to make to their daily lives by acknowledging the truth. Will they be mandated to drive electric cars? Will there be a cut off for household electricity usage? In short, how much would the truth cost them monetarily and freedomly versus how much can be gained? That is everyone’s question.

In Super Size Me, the documenter wanted to uncover the truth about the effects of fast food most specifically, McDonald’s, on the body. The truth of the matter is that fast food is a serious health threat according to most nutritionists and the doctors involved. The argument is that the fast food lifestyle is not the only options that people have, and there is a lot of victim blaming; after all, McDonald’s can’t say “oh yeah, guys. Our food is really bad for your health” or expose the processes their food undergoes for that would kill the business. They can’t pay out of pocket to people who sue them for their health issues for paying is an admission of guilt and fault which is why both people who were suing McDonald’s lost their cases. Even though companies are told to make nutrition information available to customers, they food companies don’t have warning signs posted around like cigarette packs like warning “what you are about to consume can cause cancer, high blood pressure, and low libido”. Even the calorie information is half truthed because the vagueness doesn’t specify for what serving size the calorie information applies to. Yet the problem is greater than fast food companies. The problem stems from the government allowing companies such as Monsanto perform actions that jeopardize the health of Americans just because it saves the company money and the pay off it good for the corrupt parties involved. However, all relates again to people being unwilling to pay the price for truth especially when one is in a poorer economic class and the cost of a lie is cheaper.

My Allegory Of Obesity

Dear Journal,

With this week being Documentary Film Week, I set out to reread the Allegory of the Cave; which is my favorite philosophical piece. It was thrilling envisioning how the slave that faced the wall and felt chained down by his shackles. Then one day, his chains are undone and the journey began. My journey began back when I spent my first summer here with my mom.

Back in my adolescent years I was overweight and I knew it. As a country boy from Helena, Arkansas being overweight was nothing foreign nor taboo. My favorite quote was, "Baby you just big-boned". That was the defense for that summer. I spent the summer with my moms because she was busy with working and school, my grangran raised me back home till she completed school. Living with grangran was the best because there was always food around and she believed that a child should never be hungry. I can hear her now, "You better feed my baby"!

My mom drove up to the summer camp at hosted at a church. I thought it was going to be a thrilling experience but little did I know my chains were about to be undone. I walked through the door with my sack lunch of an apple, banana, pizza rolls, a cereal bar, and two of the four for a dollar chips. Some kids where playing near the front door and I heard some wear noise in another room. Some kids were chanting,

"There's a fat man at my door,
fat man at my door.
I have no cookies for you.
I have no cakes for you.
Cause your a M.W.T.
A Man With Titties!
A Man With Titties!"

I laughed and walked towards the main office to go sign in so I could enjoy this day. I met with the counselors, they got me signed in, grave me a light breakfast and said make friends til we start in 30 mins. I walked around and notice the kids; they were smaller and taller yet I was rather pudgy. Everyone played well until after camp officially starting with prayer and then doing some math drills. Well everything was fine till I got on the swings. I got on and they started to sqweek. No one else but the adults made the swing-set sqweek. Some of the girl playing in the dandelions started to poke fun and laugh. That was when I started to look down at my guy boobs and think about the chant. Maybe it wasn't acceptable being overweight.

I felt like the slave back in the cave fresh from his shackles, chasing towards the "light" because of its mystery. The closer he got to the light the more the started to realize that this light was the light from a fire casting shadows that seemed to be one thing but really was something else. The slave saw that the people casting and making the shadows were called puppet masters and the cast off were called images or shadows. In my childhood, finding out about how it wasn't really a positive sight seeing someone overweight but I was plastered with images of what "we should look like" but I started to actually like me despite what anyone had to say about me. Seeing the reality of things and how it was important for me to like myself first and then decide how I wanted my outward appearance to be.

In the movie Super Size Me it was rather interesting to see the people so caught up in their love for the food that it is still oblivious to them that they are killing themselves until they do something about it......   what will we do? Will we continue to stare at the wall or will we walk into the truth and the light.

Finding Ecstatic Truth

The Thin Blue Line (1988), a documentary concerning the wrongful conviction of an innocent man for the murder of a police officer, relies on the concept of reality. The film is solely based on interviews, in which each person interviewed believes their story as factual. My question, however, is what if the entire film was fictional? A mockumentary, if you will. Would this alter our perception as an audience? Would there still be truth to be found?

Werner Herzog discusses the value of facts in his text On the Absolute, the Sublime, and Ecstatic Truth: "sometimes facts so exceed our expectations - have such an unusual, bizarre power that they seem unbelievable". Herzog's text reminds me of a particular scene in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film when the Black Pearl attacks Port Royal and Jack Sparrow has a conversation with a fellow prisoner. The prisoner, responding to Sparrow's claim that he recognizes the sounds of the cannons as belonging to the Black Pearl, that the Black Pearl leaves no survivors. Sparrow's response is one of the more memorable quotes in recent film history: "No survivors? Then where do the stories come from, I wonder?". 

Herzog makes the point that in art (music, literature, cinema), a deeper truth (ecstatic truth as he calls it) can be found. The claim that the Black Pearl leaves no survivors is unbelievable, but it is the visual destruction of Port Royal that allows the audience to see the real truth of the matter. The cinematic effects involved create an ecstatic truth. The same could be said of The Thin Blue Line, as the interviews captured by the camera creates an inexplicable ecstatic truth. The audience's imaginations fly wild in hope of finding that ultimate truth under the influence of visual effects. 

Plato's precious Allegory of the Cave claims that the prisoners only know the shadow or physical appearance of a book and are incapable of comprehending the actual concept of a book or its contents. In other words, Plato claims that perception and reality (or truth) are very different indeed.  The Thin Blue Line is a wonderful example of perception becoming reality, or art becoming truth. Back to my original question of a fictional Thin Blue Line, would truth not still be uncovered? It is my contention that regardless of the film's accuracy, an ecstatic truth can be found. It is also my contention that Plato is mistaken in believing that truth cannot be formed from the shadows, or perceptions. Then again, do all audience members believe the same truth? Some might say that Randall Adams was rightfully convicted. The beauty of art is that not only can a truth be uncovered, but they can also vary in form. 

Mullroy: I think he's telling the truth.

Murtogg: If he were telling the truth, he wouldn't have told us.

Jack Sparrow: Unless, of course, he knew you wouldn't believe the truth even if he told it to you.

The NEVerending quest to find out the truth about Megan Faccio!

In Herzog's account of the exchange between the missionary and Fitzcarraldo, the missionary reports that they couldn't cure the older Indians of their idea that "ordinary life is only an illusion, behind which lies the reality of their dreams." Immediately, I knew that this was a significant quote, but what I later realized was he specified that the Indians suffering were older. Which then reminded me of how Plato warns in the Allegory of the Cave, that while knowledge is meant to ignite our souls and lead us to the Form of Good, sometimes it doesn't turn out that way. This is exactly what I saw in the documentary Catfish.
With Nev, I was able to follow his journey to understanding, and how he encounters many of Herzog's concepts in the Absolute, Sublime, Ecstatic Truth. After which, as Plato would claim, Nev fulfills his responsibility to those confined within the cave by releasing the film and sharing his knowledge. However, the journey did prove to be far more complex and daunting than that of the freed prisoner who only needed adjust his eyes to the new world after which he was able to explore on towards the Form of the Good. However, in our reality, separate from the cave, we have to adjust more than our eyes, but our minds. After all, Plato's strives to show us throughout the Allegory of the cave the way that our eyes and minds can deceive us. As we move throughout the stages of the cave, most of us are unaware that we are satisfied at the thought level, and don't dare to move. However, that is us being confined in a cave, in darkness, where we become dependent on our senses to determine truth. Yet, as Herzog points out, truth is only limited by that which we know, yet don't fully understand. Like puppets we talk masterfully about things we claim to know for a fact, plaster reality tv and true story tags to events and experiences that are nothing more than shadows and statutes we have created. The internet and magazines all claiming to give us the truth first, and images to prove it.

So how does Nev's experience relate to this? It goes back to Plato's vision that to reach understanding we must adjust our thinking and go against our nature. We must, as Herzog explains, experience sublimity, and go above our nature and away from ourselves and the views that we chain ourselves to allow knowledge to mold what we once believed to be true, into a whole new deeper truth just as Nev does. Afterall in Catfish, Nev begins begins in the cave, looking at shadows of things he knew to be out there, such as love and friendship. It is in this cave, that he sees Megan Faccio's shadow. With this in mind, it  is important that the audience realize that Nev's cave is virtual reality and facebook. He is confined within the darkness of technology. Then as he develops a friendship with Megan, is it possible for us to understand the way that virtual reality can blur the lines between what is and isn't real. As things between Megan and Nev heat up, they begin wandering into dangerous territory, where they want to know more and more about each other. Their souls desire's need more to survive. However, like Herzog discusses, the danger that lies behind virtual reality is that people are not limited to facts like they are in everyday life. They are no longer bound to nature, creating a sublime experience that allows them to escape reality and step into another's reality that they themselves have created. With this in mind, we also see the power of human nature and how regardless of the strength of our emotions, we still crave the most basic levels of intimacy. In the end, we still rely on our senses to a degree. This is why Nev gets stuck at the the thought level. His confinement to technology and his senses, leave him unable to understand the concept of love that he so desperately wanted to believe was real attainable. Yet, stops himself from starting anything because he wants physical proof, beyond what technology can provide him. He wants to see her in person, and prove that there is a physical connection between them, and not just emotional. With this he gets only so far in his journey.

However, Nev embarks on a separate journey and reaches understanding when he realizes that Angela, and her family are all fake. It is in his derailment and new discovery to a different understanding that captures the way mankind views knowledge. Able to compound upon truths one after another, spread over time, it highlights the connectedness and the idea from which the internet was born. Anyways, again we follow Nev, who is now trying to understand the truth about Megan. In this we see the same pattern, where he sees the shadows, which are her songs. Forms the belief that maybe she isn't exactly telling him the truth about the songs. Then again looks for tangible evidence to support his hypothesis, and finds the same videos and covers, revealing the truth. At which he point he says, "I can't believe this."  As Herzog points out, sometimes we look for truths and uncover hidden lies and what we find surpasses our expectation. We find ourselves at a state of disbelief, at which point makes you question whether you are willing to know more. This burden is what stopped him previously, the possibility of getting hurt if it was real, and it it did not live up to expectations. Could Nev handle the truth that if he met her, and there was no physical connection, he wasted all that time. However, it's only after we discover these truths do we look back on ourselves in a state of disbelief. When Nev reads back his text messages with "Megan" he says again, I can't believe I said this and laughs as he reads them. He says this expression again and again, and at one point tries to convince his friends that they (the family and Megan) had fooled him, but just told him things that he wouldn't care to question, and how that's not fooling. Once again saying he can't believe this, and finding himself unaware of how to feel. Nev, undergoes this journey many times, going back to the cave and adjusting his mind with each new concept of fact thrown to him, until he finally comes to everything. He learns all that he can from that particular experience, and keeps adding on. Like Herzog says about technology and the curvature of the water, it is always an uneven surface. There is no way for us to ever come to an absolute truth. However,  we can come to an understanding, and do the best of our ability to share this knowledge to those that need it. However, keeping in mind that although not exact, a precise representation can be enough to lead to others to understanding, and hopefully leave them to want more of this light.

Knowledge of the Truth is Power

The truth is not always what it appears to be because it is bended, pushed around, and hidden by the one who holds it. Manipulating the truth is not new to humans, and in fact it is used arbitrarily. This does not mean that one is capable of changing the truth. The truth can never change, it just is what it is. What I am saying is that the "Knowledge [of the truth] is Power." Through time there has been attempts to present the truth without distorting it in the form of story telling, reenactments, and more recently documentaries. Regardless of the format, the use of a media has been crucial to our understanding of reality. Documentaries tries to capture the facts and presents them in a way that is unbiased and least distorted through editing. If well executed, a documentary can help bring to light what really is going on, reality. Errol Morris' film, The Thin Blue Line, is an example of documentary film capturing reality by giving us an unbiased recollection of the facts, allowing all sides to be heard, and by revealing the truth.


Morris' documentary is following a murder investigation of a police officer. Harris (a teenager) killed the police officer but blames Adams for the murder. Harris helps the Dallas Police Department retrieve the revolver and stolen car. This helps the Police Department sentence Adams to prison and possibly the death penalty.

In the documentary, there are several versions of what is considered the truth. There is Harris' version, declaring Adams as the killer. There is also Adams' truth, claiming he did not kill the police officer. The Police Department also has their own version of the truth floating around as well; that Adams killed the police officer per Harris and that because Harris is a teenager, he did not kill the officer. Harris manipulated the truth in order to get Adams in trouble; despite the evidence pointing to Harris. This shows that the truth appears to be different according to the person one asks. However, as I said before, truth cannot be changed. There is only one truth.

In the documentary Adams' lawyers attempts to present evidence supporting the theory that Harris was on a "crime spree" and that it was actually him whom killed the police officer. However, the judge and the law enforcement agents did not believe that a teenager could be capable of organizing and carrying out multiple crimes. This is crucial to point out because it shows how the judge and law enforcement agents were blinded or maybe did not want to see the truth. Plato talks about this in Book VII of The Republic.  Plato says:

"In the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed."

If one applies this idea of truth as the guiding hand of rationality, then one can see how the judge and law enforcement's rationality was distorted by what appeared to be the truth. They did not see the truth because they were so fixated in Harris' testimony and one could even go a bit further by saying that they were not open to the idea that kids could kill a police officer in cold blood and commit the following crimes in Vidor, Texas. On top of that, the pressure of capturing the killer of one of their own pushed the judge and law enforcement agents to quickly jump to the conclusion that only an adult could commit such crimes and that was Adams. Adams' lawyers presented proof that Harris should be the one investigated because of his crimes and since he knew precisely where the stolen car he drove when pulled over by the police was located and where the firearm was located used to kill the police officer. As the lawyers claimed, all of this put together points to Harris.

However, as one of Adams' lawyer points out, the judge wanted to prosecute Adams because of his age. Adams was 28 years old and could be given the death penalty. To the judge, the death penalty was justice and a prominent motive to find Adams guilty. As in the picture, it took hard work and convincing on the lawyers behalf to show that that Harris was not as innocent as they thought (the truth).

Not only is the truth difficult to discover but it is also difficult to present to others. For those that are not used to seeing the truth, it can be blinding when one sees it. In the documentary, different versions of what was considered the truth were shown. Morris does this to stick to the closest interpretation of reality. Morris has to provide an unbiased film that does not depict one side more good than the other. This is important to maintain, so the viewer can accept the truth for what it is. The documentary is only a means to an ends and should be used to present the truth.

The capability to see the truth is possible. Plato finds it possible to learn the truth because the "power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already." As seen in the documentary, The Thin Blue Line, documentaries help bring the truth out of the darkness. Adams is eventually found innocent and released from prison. It is up to the viewer to accept the truth and take it as it is.

It Will Set You Free

As I chose to watch The Thin Blue Line I was not sure what to expect. When it comes to documentaries I am always a skeptic; I have seen too many with extreme biases. I noticed in this film in particular the makers aimed to uncover truth and not set up some entertainment for the viewers. This film was trying to be objective and factual, and overall this film was to make viewers think about truth and how our justice system aims to get there.

It is impossible to not discuss human error in this and the way truth can be shaped by those around you. When I hear a story from a friend I just automatically assume that it is the truth because I would feel like their would be no reason for them to lie, but when it comes to the courtroom there is an opposition and the jury has to figure out who is the "trusted friend." And it just gets messed up sometimes.

In Herzog's article he discusses the ocean and the horizon and how it is a truth that we just simply cannot "view," but that does not make it any less true. And in the same token Plato's allegory kind of says the same thing. The shadows are the only thing they could view and so it became their reality–their truth. The thing to learn is that what seems as reality is not always the truth. I believe the way the case was set up in this film is that those looking for "justice" were not looking for the truth at all. But instead they were looking for a quick fix to give a certain reality to their community. They wanted to construct that the reality was the murderer was locked up for good, and that the citizens should rest well at night.

It is impossible to argue that this 1998 film does not directly correlate with what is going on now with the police force. People are having the hardest time identifying truths, and all sides tend to use what it is presented on media outlets just as they were from trusted friends. It is important for us as a nation to seek the truth and not just what we see with our eyes. If we seek the truth, there is no doubt in my mind that this major hovering problem can be bettered and improved. Like they say, "the truth it'll set you free."

The Districts of Labor

Within the districts of Panem in which The Hunger Games takes place, each district represents a certain way of life. Some lifestyles vary from lascivious to desolate. Where in this society the amount of work does not equate to what district one is put into. In this story we have a twist on the ever popular Robin Hood story. Our new protagonist is named Katniss Everdeen. She lives in District 12, the lowest of all the districts. Katniss becomes our protagonist when she volunteers as tribute to the 74^th Annual Hunger Games. In relation to Marx’s, “Alienated Labor” the society in which Katniss grows up in indicates many of the signs of a declining society. One of these signs being that the divide between the first district and the twelfth district is growing smaller, and smaller. This means that the difficult of going up the ranks in districts is nearly impossible, that is, unless you win The Hunger Games. Winners are also called the Victors.

           

According to Marx, another key factor of a declining society is its association with greed, private property, division of labor, capital, and land ownership, and the connection of exchange with competition of value with the devaluation of men, of monopoly with competition. This system is perpetuated because the system is a money-system. This is also illustrated within the Panem society. In fact, it is very plainly emphasized. It is illustrated by The Hunger Games in that the only way one can climb among the districts is to put their life on the line. This competition further demonstrates the devaluation of men, the monopoly of competition, and most overwhelmingly, greed.

There is a seen in which Katniss is going through the tunnels of the different districts. This is where Katniss begins to understand just how powerful private property, capital division of labor, and land ownership. The capital division of labor is signified by the labor that her own district, District 12, is assigned. Her district is assigned the most intensive labor and yet receives the least amount of compensation. She also notices how difficult it physically is to change from one district to the next. The travelling from on district to the next requires a lot of confirmation and paperwork to add to the insurance of this division, which also plays into land ownership.