Sophie's World - Blog Entry #5

5.What is the relation between the "Creator" and the "Created?"

I've finished the book, so I won't comment directly on any plot developments. However, this question raises some interesting issues about the nature of consciousness and free will in theology and engineering. First, theology: let's say that we humans do have free will, and that there exists a creator, a God. Then we could deliberately defy God - rebel against him. Does that make sense? or does it run counter to our sense of an omnipotent being? Next, disregarding the question of God, let's say that it is possible for us to be creators. That is, say I somehow manage to create conscious artificial intelligence. What control do I have over this being? I could have designed something simpler, say an elevator. Despite not being conscious, it might still fail, fall, and kill me. Even over something so simple I have little power. Would an artificial intelligence with a vengeance against humanity à la The Matrix be any different a case? The result is the same - I get killed. But is the fact that my death is intended significant? Back to theology: the elevator accident is the analog of, say, a rampant black hole destroying all of reality, including God. Far-fetched? But how about humans consciously going after, and killing, God, à la His Dark Materials? What is creation? Is our own, mortal, act of creation applicable to the divine case? Is the idea of a Creator simply us putting our own experiences into a supernatural context? I think so. How does this relate to Sophie's World? Well, what can Sophie and Alberto possibly hope to do to gain some semblance of control over their own fates once they realize that they are in a creation? And the end doesn't make sense if one takes it literally, but one must remember that they are actually characters in a story within a story. Crazy. Sure drives me insane.

7. Which of the two do you feel offers the more true picture? Why?

Personally, I feel that Alberto is correct in saying that they are both true. It would be silly to only think of other people and never take care of yourself, but the adverse is also true. Only taking care of yourself can lead to problems in society. With respect to philosophy, if an individual only looks to themselves for answers, they will be limited. However, if they only look to other people for answers, they will never truly learn anything that relates to them. The best kind of drink is a purple one.

I tend to usually consider philosophy only on my own, so my drink would probably be a little more red.

3. You read and learn a lot about Kant's philosophy. Comment on what you think of it.

after reading about Kant in the chapter of Sophie's World, i had alot to think about. Alberto explains Kant's beliefs, and to start off Kant believes that humans cannot answer some questions because they are beyond our intelectual compass (basically humans cannot answer theory of god and creation of universe) , also Kant believs that evryone should follow their moral beliefs and should believe somthing to be true if it follows their faith. I also find it very interesting that Humans cannot understand our world and even our own minds, i believe kants beliefs are very interesting, but they disturb me a little because they make humans to be very insignificant and powerless.

-will

Question #3. You read and learn a lot about Kant's philosophy. Comment on what you think of it.
Kant’s philosophy was somewhat complex. One of Kant’s biggest ideas was that everything in the world is divided into two different groups. There is the group of things that are as they are and the group of things that are as we perceive them. Another idea Kant had was that there are questions that humans cannot answer or know the answer to, because they are beyond our reasoning. He thought that these specific questions could only be answered through faith. One more of his big ideas was that everyone carries out specific actions because of a sense of duty that has been placed within us since birth. Carrying out these actions and accepting our duty, we are showing that we are all free. I personally think that Kant had some things right. I think that there are questions that humans cannot understand and that only faith can answer. I think Kant’s idea about sense of duty somewhat applies to humans. I feel like most people have a sense of duty to go to school, get a job, get married, have a family, etc. This very broad plan could be seen as “duty,” although this is a generalization. There are also specific actions that could be seen as “duties,” such as joining the armed forces or having children, I think it just depends on the person. I think that his ideas about dividing everything into two groups is a little far out for me to believe, but I don’t think he is the most ridiculous of the philosophers.

Question 3:
I thought Kant’s ideas outlined in Sophie’s World are pretty interesting. When looking at the views of notable rationalists and noted imperialists, I thought Kant did a job good of blending their ideas into something that I felt was a little more practical or that created a nice balance between the differing philosophies. I also thought the tinted glasses analogy that Alberto Knox offered made understanding Kant’s theories much easier. In many ways, I agree with his idea that the way in which we perceive the world with reason influences how we obtain or understand knowledge. Also, I thought the idea that time and space are not actually physical qualities, but rather aspects of the human condition was interesting because it makes sense that if humans did not exist, then the ideas of space and time wouldn’t either. Or at least no other being would recognize time and space. Lastly, I liked the way Kant simplified the really big questions such as is there a God. I think that sometimes you just have to assume that certain things exist or don’t exist or assume certain truths and go with your gut, more or less, because there is no way to reach a definite answer.

I don't think that it's a coincidence Sophie and Alberto are using phrases like that in the book. In a lot of ways, (and this is probably really obvious and a point of the book) Sophie's discovery of philosophy echoes the historical progression of philosophers. So it isn't surprising that when learning about the Enlightenment, a time when philosophers were breaking down the traditional rules of the world and rebuilding from scratch, that Sophie would have the same thought process. In addition, the questions the Sophie asks and the uncertainty that she feels are echoed by the philosophers of the Enlightenment. For example, it was at that time that the first true encyclopedia was published, a series of 28 volumes that were meant to collect all of the world's knowledge. However, it seems to me that all of that knowledge would just emphasis everything man didn't know.

Question 3: You read and learn a lot about Kant's philosophy. Comment on what you think of it.

I find it interesting who Kant worked from the views of the empircists and the rationalists. The concepts that he brings up the idea of everything occurring in time and space can make us perceive ourselves differently, and how our minds supposedly work. It's a matter of being aware of everything as it is, yet not knowing how to perceive them. We feel that the true meaning to our lives is beyond our reach, beyond human reason. While I tend to agree with the man, I don't seem to agree with the fact that all questions are answerable through faith only. I don't think there are proper methods of finding these answers. PERIOD.

3.
I think Kant’s idea that certain factors in our mind effect how we see the world, because it’s very true. People who come from different backgrounds have different perspectives on life. I have many disagreements with my cousins who grew up in a public school in Kansas because our experiences in life were different. Imagine how different the ideas and philosophies would be between people of different families, classes, ect. Kant also said that we cannot know things as they are, but how we perceive them. I think this ties in with the previous idea, because people from different backgrounds perceive the same things in different ways. For example, yesterday, I got into a big discussion/argument with my friend about AP tests. I could not convince him that they were bad even though I have very strong opinions on them, and he couldn’t convince me that they were good. Both of our arguments were logical, but the ways in which we were educated differently gave us different ideas

Question #3

I like that Kant divides things in the world as they are and how we precieve them but i dont know if i believe it. However, I do believe that we cannot know the answeres to everything because they lie beyond what humans can understand. I don't think that we do moral things out of duty but beause thats what we believe in atleast I don't although some people might. I don't think doing something moral will necessaraly set you free because I think there are alot of other things to consider depending on the persons life.

Of all Immanuel Kant’s philosophical ideas, the one that I found the most interesting was his belief that what we perceive, the physical laws of the universe and even our own existence are beyond our understanding. I commend him for this belief because he finally attempted to put an end to the battle between philosophers trying to prove God’s existence and those trying to prove a lack of God’s existence. I think wise of him to acknowledge that so much is out of man’s reach. That being said, I strongly disagree with his proposed notion that no man should ever lie, regardless of the consequences. Honestly, that is simply crazy. I find nothing wrong with white lies, exaggerations, or simplifications. I believe that unless you are truly deceiving or hurting someone, lying is in no way immoral.

I am going to comment on the connection between the created and the creator. I don't believe that there is a very large connection between the two. This is because I believe that God is really just an observer of the world. However, I think that if I had a different belief in God, my ideas on this subject would be completely different. I think that those who have a strong belief in God would say that there is a very large connection between the Created and the Creator. Also, there are other beliefs that there is no God at all, therefore, there would be absolutely no connection between the Created and the Creator. Because of all of these ideas, I do not believe that there can be one definite response on the connection between the Created and the Creator.

I like Kant's idea that somethings are just can't be explained. However, I don't believe that faith is the only answer to these unanswerables. I think that somethings are just strange, or to use the somewhat vulgar phrase, stuff happens. Maybe I think this just because trying to explain these things is so complex that I don't really want to go into it, but instead of pinning it on faith, I simply decide that I don't know the answer to everything, I never will and that's ok. This is not to say that I don't think questioning things and asking questions is a bad idea. But sometimes, I just feel that it's not important enough to me personally when I could use my energy elsewhere.

The Enlightenment was indeed a time of starting from scratch. Many new ideas were being expanded such as the rights of the individual and personal freedom. This would eventually shake the foundation of one the great monarchies of Europe in the French Revolution. Great advances in science were being made that changed the way in which people thought, casting what was considered concrete knowledge into doubt. Don’t believe traditional teachings, figure it out for yourself was the new radical idea.

3. You read and learn a lot about Kant's philosophy. Comment on what you think of it.

ware Kant divides the world into two parts, things as they are, and things as we perceive them. I think that this outlook is true. But we are also able to question the things that we perceive. This lets us truly understand what they are.

I completely agree that everyone sees the world differently. One custom may look entirely different and have a good/bad effect on someone and vice versa. If people did not percieve things differently, then there would be no difference. Everybody sees things differently because of their background, their values, and the way they grew up. For example, people from the same state, same school, and same suburb may percieve things differently based solely upon their values growing up. This concept does not stretch to different cultures alone, it applies to everyone because everyone has their own way of seeing things.

question 7

I think I would have to go with Alberto on this one. I don't think that the red bottle gives us the true picture. It makes you simply think of and care for your self. And no one likes someone who only cares about them self. So I think to get the true picture you need to drink from the blue bottle as well. That way you are thinking and caring for others. But like Scott mentioned, you can't not care for your self. So I would choose both. But if I absolutely had to choose just one, I would probably go with the blue bottle.

I think alberto uses both the shadow and angel reference to show the difference. The shadow is stuck onto the person, no person=no shadow. Where as the angel is created by god and is free to do what they desire. The shadow cannot rebel agasint the person the as stated before no person=no shadow. The angel is it's own person therefore it is free to rebel. the relationship between creator and created is that the creator has the poer to create and thereforemay even have the right to destroy. But all in all the creator must be respected by the created. No so much master and servant but parent and child i guess. I'm not saying that parents are allowed to kill their children but the children must be respectful to the parent such as the created must be respectful to the creator.

In "Romanticism," Alberto says, "We are but shadows in the major's soul. And it is no easy matter for a shadow to turn on its master, Sophie... Only an angel can rebel against God." What do you make of this? What is the relation between the "Creator" and the "Created?"

First of all, I think that Nicholas has a very interesting response to this question. He calls into question what defines "Creator" and "Created". Let us use an example of human as "creator" and object (such as an elevator) as "created". Nicholas talks about the possible 'rebellion' of the elevator... it could "fail, fall and kill me." However, there are many benefits that this created object provides for it's creator. For those who are physically unable (or just too lazy) to climb stairs, it gives the means of accomplishing that task. I would argue that the 'rebellion' of objects relies on chance, which makes this circumstance entirely different from the circumstance of the creator creating an intelligent being (human or artificial). Thus far, in both real life and fictional entertainment, we have seen a rebellion of the created against the creator. In all futuristic movies (The Terminator, The Matrix, IRobot... the list goes on), the created ends up wanting to not only rebel against, but completely destroy the creator. Another example is the basic idea of procreation, two humans creating another. The created, as we all know, will at some point rebel against the parental units... whether this be a "phase" during the rebellious teen years, or complete disassociation from the parents' expectations, morals or priorities, it is rebellion none the less. As a final circumstance, we look at the "creator" as God, and the "created" as humans. This is possibly the most difficult rebellion to interpret. I would argue that humans have both a conscious and subconscious rebellion against our creator. We see intended evil in acts of robbery, rape, murder, etc., but we could also see pollution as an act of rebellion (because we are destroying the world God has given us). However, I would also argue that there is another side to all of these examples. There is usually a part of the created that is pro-creator. In the movie, I Robot, there's a robot who breaks from the norm in order to save the human race. Despite child-rebellion, there are also many children who have great respect for their parents and who carry on their beliefs. In the God-Human example, we see the fight against evil in the development of government to seek justice. There is currently a "Green Movement" to promote eco-friendly human behavior. Being the optimist I am, I view this other side of the created as more important and more powerful than the anti-creator side.

I agree with Beth on the issue between the Creator and the Created. With my upbringing, and my personal views, i see no connection whatsoever. God looks down upon his created world and observes. He granted people the right of free will, and therefore, does not do anything to interfere with it. I do disagree with Beth though on one point, where she said that people who have a very strong belief in God would see all sorts of connections. If people strongly believe in God, then they know about free will, and understand that, and believe it.

In "Romanticism," Alberto says, "We are but shadows in the major's soul. And it is no easy matter for a shadow to turn on its master, Sophie... Only an angel can rebel against God." What do you make of this? What is the relation between the "Creator" and the "Created?"

I think this connection is very interesting and relates back to the last blog about Spinoza's view of God. This comparison is basically parallel to the idea of destiny. If everyone has a destiny and their life is simply controlled by fate, they are like the master and the shadow. You cannot go agaisnt your destiny just like a shadow cannot travel away from its master. The idea of the angel and God is a more comfortable idea. You have been created and hopefully you do respect your creator, but you have your own free will as well.