Showing posts with label 12 monkeys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 12 monkeys. Show all posts

Monday, December 4, 2017

Final Exam: The Most Human Human

Brian Christian in his book The Most Human Human takes his reader audience along his journey of his quest to become the 'Most Human Human'. This quest involves him conquering the Turing Test.  During this quest, Christian studies and consults with people in various fields ranging from philosophy to dating experts. He ultimately discovers that AI machines aren't becoming better at acting human, but instead human beings are becoming worse at being human. Consequently, this leads him in a journey to discover what makes us human. During his exploration, he crosses a few paths that correspond to a few films we have watched this semester. The first view I will examine is his statements in reference to human identity and how they correlate to the film 12 Monkeys. 
The second insight espoused by Christian that I will explore is his views and comments on love and how they correlate to the film When Harry Met Sally and The Big Lebowski.

 Christian's insights and investigation as to what make us human is fascinating. A specific insight of his that especially intrigued me occurs when he receives advice from an organizer of the Turing Test. Christian who is striving to understand what makes us human and to become the 'Most Human Human" is told to just "be himself" (26). This advice immediately caused him to think about how philosophers have agonized over this idea of how one can truly just 'be' themselves. He mentions Jean-Paul Sartre, who emphasizes authenticity, originality and freedom from outside influence. He also cites Friedrich Nietzsche who stressed that the most important factor in being 'one's self' is "being one self, any self." He correlates Nietzsche's view on human identity to Jaron Lanier who proposes the idea of 'central personal vision'. Christian uses both Nietzsche's and Lanier's views on identity to state that, "The kind of unity or coherence of identity is something that most humans, of course -- being the products of a single and continuous life history --have. But given the extreme brevity of a five minute conversation, displaying that kind of congruence was something I tried to be aware of" (28).

Christian's thoughts about 'being oneself' and human identity caused me to think of the film 12 Monkeys and the film's main character Cole. Cole is a time traveling prisoner whom's task is to uncover the source of a deadly virus. His mission is to go back in time and uncover the source of this deadly virus. He does not understand much else besides this specific mission. This mission is central to his identity. Furthermore, it defines his identity.  We see throughout the film that Cole admits his inner turmoil.  He even convinces himself towards the end of the film that he is insane, because "He wants to be a whole person." However, he has a central vision, and in the end he seeks to accomplish his mission. This all he truly knows. Everything else that happens in his life is in relation to his central vision. Cole's human identity is solely dependent on his life-history and mission, which is what Christian is alluding to in his discussion of identity.

On pages 213-14, Brian Christian states, "Out of an ancient need to return to that pre-lightening state of wholeness, we fall in love. All trying to get back to that original whole. The tangle of hugging, kissing, and sex being the closest we came come to 'reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man.'"

He says that when human beings often talk about the context of love, we typically mean it as a euphemism for sex. He correlates his view on sex to Aristotelean thought. He views it as a kind of triumphant, tragic attempt to combine two bodies, smushing them together like clay. He uses the word 'triumphant' because its as close as you ever get.

It seems to me his outlook on love is similar to what Harry espouses in the film When Harry Met Sally . This is evidenced when Harry and Sally get into an argument over the validity of friendships between men and women. Harry believes "the sex part gets in the way". He asserts that men only want to be friends with attractive women, because they want to have sex with them. Sally disagrees. This also reminds me of the Diane Jeske's essay on Family, Friends, and Special Obligations. Jeske talks about that in order to have a sustained, true friendship, it involves both parties making an effort to cultivate that friendship. Jeske also says genuine intimacy demands mutuality and reciprocity.

Henceforth, Harry and Brian Christian's view on love are cut from the same cloth. They seemingly both harbor a hedonist and almost nihilistic view on love. This is exemplified by how Christian states, "Sex never quite seems, in the Aristophanic sense, to work -- the two never quite manage to become one, and in fact sometimes end up creating a third in the process. Maybe the undoing of Zeus's separation, is simply impossible" (214).

To Brian Christian, sex is seemingly only meant for pleasure, not procreation. He doesn't see marriage as unitive either by stating how a married couple is only 'one' in the 'legal sense'. Furthermore, The physical mashing, hugging, and kissing in sex in his eyes is fruitless, yet as he says, "But there's hope."

His shallow statement of "But there's hope" reminds me of the type of nihilistic humor, which permeates throughout the film The Big Lebowski. An example of this type of humor is when Walter and 'the Dude' are pouring out Donnie's ashes on the banks of the ocean. As they are pouring out the ashes, the cremated remains of Donnie blow back in both of their faces. Walter and 'the Dude' get in a heated exchange over this, which ends with Walt saying, "Let's go bowling dude." I believe Christian's closing statement of "But there's hope" after attempting to understand the immensity and innate desire human being's have for love can be equated to Walter's statement of "Let's go bowling dude", since both are attempting to bring relief by a reaction to the incongruous or absurd.
 This is an example of humor Tomas Kulka describes in his essay on the Incongruity of Incongruity Theories of Humor. 

Ultimately, Brian Christian's book The Most Human Human is a thought-provoking read. His journey to discover the answers behind humanity causes him to investigate multiple fields of thought ranging from modern day philosophy to ancient philosophy. His elaborate commentary on his journey and discoveries brush upon many readings and films we watched this semester, while also him seeking to answer questions that have been sought by humans for centuries.


Friday, September 8, 2017

Is Cole always Cole? Or is Cole sometimes not Cole? Who is Cole???

 John Locke in Of Identity and Diversity provides interesting insights seeking to tackle the questions of personal identity. He strives to answer questions like who are we? And what exactly makes us who we are?

After watching the movie 12 Monkeys, it left me wondering what the heck did I just watch! It left me pondering what was the purpose behind the movie (besides fantastic entertainment), and it also made me think of the main character James Cole (Bruce Willis) in relation to John Locke’s Of Identity and Diversity.

From the readings, I learned that personal identity correlates with consciousness (or at least according to Locke), or in other-words us being conscious helps us know our identity. This assertion that Locke makes is similar to the Cogito argument that Descartes makes, “I am, I exist”. Locke also believes that personal identity is simply a matter of psychological continuity.

Sooo after doing the reading, I have a plethora of questions about the protagonist Cole in 12 Monkeys. These questions stem from one basic question. This question is: Who is Cole? All we know about him really is that he was plucked out of a cage in a underground retro yet futuristic looking base, and was ordered to time-travel by his superiors. These superiors order him to accomplish a certain mission, which is to discover who created the deadly virus that wiped out billions of people in the late 90s.  He is also led to believe by his superiors, that it is the 12 Monkeys who unleashed this bio-chemical weapon.

So all we know about Cole is that he is on a mission to find out about the 12 Monkeys and discover the source of the virus. And we also know that he is being pretty much forced to accomplish this mission, and if he does accomplish the mission he will obtain a pardon.

We don’t know anything about his past, besides what he tells us. Yet, funnily, the really only thing he says about his past is that he is from the future!  So what would Locke think of the time-travelling, prisoner Cole? Like would Locke argue that the Cole we originally see getting plucked out of a cage in the first five minutes of the movie be the same (spoiler) Cole that gets shot in the end of the movie?

This is an important question to ask ourselves, because if our personal identity is determined by psychological continuity/consciousness then it would seem the first Cole we see is not the same person as the last Cole we see.

For instance, Cole’s superiors, who have him imprisoned, clamor about how great his memory is. They say that he is their best time-traveler, because he does not completely lose his memory like the others. Yet, we know that Cole does in fact lose his memory. At one point, he is completely tranquilized and drugged up to the point where is just a mindless, wheelchair bound person. He also cannot properly remember one of the most important events of his life (the final scene in the airport), as it is playing out.
So did Cole’s superiors lie to him about how great his memory was? Did they lie to him about everything? Because it seems that in the closing scene of the movie, we are led to believe that they knew about the source of the deadly virus all along. I could be wrong, though, but that’s just the feel I got.

He seems to only remember distinct sounds, certain faces/images, and his mission, which isn’t really too much. Specific noises, faces, and images are usually the only things that babies can really remember.

Ultimately, I believe Locke would say that the first Cole we originally see (getting plucked out of his cage) is different from the last Cole we see. How about yall?


The movie kind of blew my mind, so there is a decent possibility I am wrong.