Opinion Article

HED: Ethical Subjectivism and Open-mindedness

DEK: Is Everything Correct, or is Nothing Correct?

BYLINE: Jonathan Vogt

WORDCOUNT: 635

COPY: From an early age, we’re told to be open-minded and tolerant of others’ beliefs. What does this really mean? Well, the concept of open-mindedness seems to imply that everything is true, that every individual creates their own distinct and equally valuable truth. At the same time, this tolerance shows us that nothing is true, for every worldview, no matter how arbitrary, is equal to the next. The only unacceptable action in this relativistic system is forcing your beliefs on someone else. Aside from this taboo, everything goes.

In the last century, we’ve abandoned rigid, strict, “universal” codes of conduct in favor of this relativistic system. This isn’t to say that there weren’t any problems in the past, nor does this statement imply that we were any better off before relativism started to dominate. There were major disadvantages to living under, for example, a strict religious rule. Additionally, there are certain safeguards set in a relativistic system. Any violent or forceful actions towards others are always condemned; legal repercussions also occur when you deceive others or steal their resources. However, is the fear of punishment enough to stop people from behaving unjustly towards one another?

In times past, there were definite, heavenly punishments for disobeying basic moral laws. Who set these laws? From a contemporary, atheistic view, these moral laws were almost certainly set by the priestly class whose main goal was controlling the general populace.

The reasoning behind lawmaking is certainly important. If the only justification for a law is that it makes the citizenry easier to control, is it a just law? Or should these laws, which have no universal backdrop to reference, merely be concerned with protecting people from each other? In this case, the government should be ensuring individual autonomy first. In other words, the government would be concerned with granting each person as much freedom as possible to pursue their own lifestyle, regardless of how self-destructive it is to them. Is an alcoholic living the wrong lifestyle, if he has chosen it himself? Is a drug addict or suicidal person in the wrong, if others are not hurt by their actions? Where do we draw the line, and how can we justify that line? If we stand by relativism, it seems difficult to draw a line at all. Can we appeal to society’s well-being, or is even that belief that we should be careful not to force upon others?

The last point involves our youth. At what age is it appropriate to introduce such an idea as ethical subjectivism (where everyone makes their own meaning)? At certain ages, particularly in the teenage years, a person’s worldview is skewed and incomplete. Should they be allowed to create an early “meaning” for themselves that very easily could be ill-informed and cause them serious problems throughout life?

Perhaps it is a matter of holding a more moderate view on open-mindedness and the place that it holds in modern society. Instead of adopting a view that everything is equally true or valid, perhaps there should be a hierarchy of values. While it is nearly impossible to make any sort of claim about universal values, it might be good to set distinctions about what is acceptable and what isn’t. We certainly have already implemented this in society; we have laws saying that certain things are wrong and immoral. However, in the minds of many people there are no such guidelines, or far less of them than are mentioned in our country’s laws. If people have stricter guidelines that they use to moderate their interactions with other, the world will be a better place. Perhaps the place to draw these guidelines from is the well-being of society as a whole; at the very least, this is a far better place to start than each individual’s unique interests.

League of Legends, Walden, and "Jungling."

Disclaimer at the start: this post reeks of the absurd. League of Legends, a game that I play on a fairly regular basis, is basically a World of Warcraft spinoff with no monetary obligation. It's also far less intense and takes up considerably less time depending on your level of dedication. The game itself is typically 5v5 player format, in which you can either play with your friends or random people from across the world. Mostly Russia, from what I've seen. Russians, by the way, are very difficult to communicate with when they don't know English; I've seen really good foreigners that type with awkward, indecipherable symbols but they are usually quite bad. It's annoying to not be able to thank/rage at partners that are either really good or really bad, respectably.

At any rate, "jungling" is a style of play that many pre-made teams resort to. The match-making system assumes that a group of five people that know each other will be a stronger team than five random strangers; they will pit you and your friends against stronger teams according to that assumption. If all five of you were somehow randomly paired up you would have weaker opponents. The map for League of Legends is made up of three lanes and an extensive jungle with creatures that can be killed for money and experience. Teams that are comfortable with each other will often have one of their players gain their experience and money through killing in the jungle, leaving one of the lanes as a "solo" lane (one ally against two enemies). The ally left in the solo lane will gain bonus experience and gold from the extra minion kills they are able to get; the ally in the jungle will, if they are skilled, level up at a faster pace as well. This gives the team a decisive advantage in teamfights and can often lead to victory.

One skilled jungler that would basically win the game for the team:

Henry David Thoreau, 19th century thinker and writer, also went to the woods. His book Walden gives us his experiences and thoughts on the matter. Here's a quote:

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." -Thoreau, Walden

I think I see a very strong parallel. When you jungle in LOL, you only have to deal with the intricacies of killing monsters. This remains largely the same regardless of what game you are in (unless the other team decides to go hunting for you). You have to be deliberate, learn from your mistakes, and know your strengths and weaknesses enough to be able to judge which monsters you can kill by yourself.

However, you have to be careful; being lazy in the jungle can make you an object of derision for your team:

If a man walks in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer. But if he spends his days as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making the earth bald before her time, he is deemed an industrious and enterprising citizen. -Thoreau, Walden

In LOL, the same thing is true. If you spend a majority of your time wandering the jungles and admiring the beauty of the creatures found therein, you are a slacker. However, if you spend all of your time killing these monsters, you are a valuable asset to your team.

I could go on, but I'll spare my readers. This has been a really fun blog to keep; I'm really proud of several of these posts, although the majority (including this one) are kinda... well, I'd like to think that to people with a background in these subjects at least find them a bit humorous and a little helpful. Thanks for reading, I really appreciate it.

Brothers Karamazov

To be honest, I'm starting to run out of movies to talk about. So, since I've been reading "The Brothers Karamazov," by Fyodor Dostoevsky, I figured I'd talk a bit about the interesting parts. He's also wrote "Crime and Punishment," by the way. Oh, and there IS a movie called "The Brothers Karamazov," although between being in Russian and being 40 years old I can't imagine anyone is interested. In all fairness, the clips that I watched were pretty good, but it's not something I would spend much time on.

(Disclaimer: I haven't finished the last 100 pages, which means I've only gotten through roughly 90% of the book. I wish that was a joke. Anyway, apologies to anyone who has actually gotten through this whole thing)

The three brothers are named Mitya, Alyosha, and Ivan. The represent the sensual, the idealistic, and the intellectual, respectively. Their conversations are often fascinating; both Mitya and Ivan think that God is fading away in the minds of the people, and that this could very well disrupt the foundations of morality that rest underneath society. That question is interesting enough: what gives people the inclination to act morally without some kind of eternal judgment at the end of their lives?

At some points, Ivan advocates a rather existential mindset. He thinks that humans can live together in harmony, even without God, by embracing their common humanity and looking for united happiness in this world, instead of the next. However, he doubts that this sort of era can come about. It's not a difficult thing to be skeptical of; such a system would have to be well thought out, and most people, upon being freed from the chains of a god, would not look towards long term desires.

Alyosha is the idealistic monk; he believes in God still, even though his brother Mitya insists that God must move aside so that science can progress. He prays for both of this brothers throughout the book; I'll be vague on the details, but they both get into serious trouble. Anyway, the question of whether God exists is key to this book, but even more important is the implications if he doesn't. Will everything be lawful, as many minor characters contend, or is there some sort of morality written into humanity itself? It seems that all of the brothers find something unappealing about "everything being lawful," regardless of their feelings about God. Even Mitya, the sensual brother who excels at getting extremely drunk, cheating, and stealing money, tells his brother Alyosha that he is sorry to see God go.

Anyways, sorry to expose you all to a book review on a blog that should be portraying epic movies. What are your thoughts on these theological questions? This book was written about 100 years ago. Are the questions still relevant today?

Black Ops Zombies: Absurdity and a Realization of Death Combined

Well, faithful readers, several new zombie maps have been released with Call of Duty: Black Ops. These new maps feature some pretty interesting surroundings. One of the maps, which I'm going to focus on, is actually in the Pentagon.

Some existentialists focus on "the absurd," as my last post pointed out. Absurdity is an integral part of the zombie map "Five." The four characters that are forced to work together against the zombies are John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Fidel Castro and Robert McNamara (I don't know who he is, either). The first three in this list were notorious political enemies; however, they seem to have no problem banding together and helping each other survive. If nothing else about a zombie game captures you as absurd, this certainly will.

There's other absurd things in this game that might make you scratch your head. A "Pentagon Thief" that steals your weapons as well as new guns that encase zombies in ice are rather odd things for the Nazi Zombie genre. (Here's the video that points some of these cool things out.)

I've tried out "Five" a couple of times. It's quite a bit harder than the original zombie maps; I've only made it to round eight, which is depressing to someone who consistently gets to round 20 or so without trying on the first maps. The main problem, as I see it, is that there are so many confusing pathways that you can take. A decent amount of the guns on the walls are either not labeled or are unknown to me. The random box apparently starts in a different place every game. Additionally, the guns in the random box are even more confusing than the ones on the wall. I haven't played the campaign, so I have no clue what each weapon does; more often than not, I'll pass up an extremely good weapon, or trade out a decent gun for a useless one.

The limited lifespan also emphasizes your inevitable death. Most players can't make it past level ten or so. That gives you roughly half an hour of gameplay, tops. On the original maps, games could go on for hours. Of course, it's far more exciting to play in the Pentagon than the original maps; I doubt very much that I'll be going back to Call of Duty: World at War anytime soon.

The Absurdity of "Apocalypse Now!"

Hopefully this blog post will make a bit more sense than the last one. Anyways, we're back to Existentialism. This post will focus on "the absurd" operating in an old Vietnam movie.

Apocalypse Now! is a film that tries to show the outrageousness of war, much like Existential thinkers often try to outline the ridiculous things in everyday life. Here's one of the scenes that fits this theme best: the soldiers in this clip are bombing the living hell out of a Vietnamese village, all while playing one of Wagner's symphonies.

There are a few more worthy quotes, such as an exchange between the officer in command and the main character, Willard. They are talking about the general's idea of surfing in Vietnamese waters.

Willard asks, "Are you crazy, Goddammit? Don't you think it's a little risky for some R&R?

The officer replies, "If I say it's safe to surf this beach, Captain, then it's safe to surf this beach! I mean, I'm not afraid to surf this place, I'll surf this whole fucking place!"

Many existentialists portray life as being irrational and impossible to understand. Camus, Sartre, and others held views centering around the absurd. The world doesn't give us any meaning to latch onto, according to these thinkers; however, we are able to create it for ourselves. Rewarding, right?

One of the main problems with creating our own "meaning" or purpose for living is that there is no way of stopping people from forcing their beliefs on others or just using others for their own purposes. To be a bit more clear, there is no universal morality for people to look at, realize, and then all agree to abide by. Existentialists, when asked about this contradiction, might respond that as a society we need to create a morality system that will allow us to all exist in harmony. I'm not going to disagree that this course of action is best when confronted with a problem of nonexistent moral truths, but it certainly doesn't seem to satisfy the human need for justice and truth that everyone can recognize individually.

But if it's not there, it's not there, right? Nothing we can do about it. Still, just because it's hard to find a "purpose" or meaning of life doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Maybe it's hiding, just out of reach? My prejudice against ethical subjectivism kinda shows through here. Still, there's a lot to be seen when we recognize "the absurd." It jolts (throws) us out of our everyday existence, as

Heidegger would say.

And now to end with some awesome quotes.

"One through nine, no maybes, no supposes, no fractions. You can't travel in space, you can't go out into space, you know, without, like, you know, uh, with fractions - what are you going to land on - one-quarter, three-eighths? What are you going to do when you go from here to Venus or something? That's dialectic physics."

"Hey, man, you don't talk to the Colonel. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll... uh... well, you'll say "hello" to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you. He won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say, "Do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you"... I mean I'm... no, I can't... I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's... he's a great man! I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas... "

-----Photojournalist from Apocalypse Now!

Gamer, Free Will and Freedom of Action

In the movie "Gamer," the main character Kable (Gerard Butler) is completely controlled by a teenager named Simon (Logan Lerman) thanks to a new nanotechnology. The movie pits death-row inmates against each other in "real life" video games (i.e. people like Simon pay to control their living human character in a COD-like environment. Players shoot and compete to be the last man standing; however, only the controllers have any influence in the battle. Their characters, the inmates, can observe the things around them but are unable to take any action of their own.

This sort of control has implications on freedom. The inmates don't have the freedom to move their hands by their own volition, for example. But what would we label this as? Is it an invasion of their free will, or is merely an absence of freedom of action? Losing freedom of action can be likened to putting handcuffs on someone; they can still "will" to move their hands, but nothing will happen. Free will is more metaphysical; it deals with the volitions themselves, and the degree of choice and control pertaining to one's inner workings. A "hard determinist" might call an escaped prisoner devoid of free will, but perfectly capable of exercising freedom of action. A "libertarian" might say that a prisoner with his hands tied is entitled to free will (in that you can "will" to do otherwise), but not freedom of action (not that free will does much good if you can't actualize your volitions).

Which one is more important? Both seem necessary. I don't think that anyone would prize freedom of the will if it couldn't affect the physical world (i.e. you're tied up the whole time).

And which one does Kable lack? He can still make his own choices; in one scene, he desperately tries to turn around when he spots an enemy that Simon didn't notice (check out the trailer). I'd say that he merely lacks freedom of action, but it's far more disturbing than merely being in a prison cell. Someone else is actually controlling your body, even if your mind is being left alone. That brings up the question of what separates the "volitions" that the controller forces your body to make from your own internal mental processes. After all, the nanotechnology is implanted in the mind. So how much of Kable does Simon really control?

Anyways, I feel like all these posts on free will have been butchered. Feel free to critique or leave your impressions on the subject.

X-men Origins (Wolverine)+ Personal Identity/ Moral Culpability

For this blog, I'm going to talk about X-men. What could X-men possibly have to do with philosophy? I'm not quite sure myself, but the authors of X-men and Philosophy certainly do. While the book seems to draw upon quite a bit of BS, I'm willing to trust it in order to get this blog post in the air.

In the movies, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) loses his memory and has to deal with issues of personal identity. Who is he, if he is unable to remember his past? This has implications in ethics; if someone is unable to remember committing a crime, are they morally responsible for it? Or was it "someone else" that did it?

A couple of people I've referenced before, Locke and Hume, had opinions on personal identity and "selfhood." Locke thought that the self was based off of memory. In other words, if you can remember being that past self, you are morally responsible for what you did. This gets a little tricky when you think about mental diseases like Alzheimer's that might allow you to remember your childhood and yet nothing else. To borrow from Wikipedia:

"According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions."

Hume, on the other hand, thought that the self doesn't really exist. Since Wikipedia kinda fails at explaining this (which is kinda odd) here's a Yahoo Answers link. Basically, Hume couldn't see any reason that an eternal self existed. If this is the case, however, it's really tough to get moral culpability up and running.

So can we hold Wolverine responsible for his actions before his amnesia? If we do, are we following through merely for appearance's sake (i.e. to make sure no one else shanks their enemies with metal claws, deterring them when they realize the punishment)? And is our "selfhood" only held together by memories, or is it something beyond that? Perhaps there's nothing to selfhood at all (damn Buddhists!)

Here's an amusing review of X-men Origins. That is all.

Hume and Empiricism In Naruto

I ran into a few more interesting lines from an anime, and I think they play into this blog nicely. At the very least, they might help facilitate a casual conversation about topics that have been in debate for hundreds of years. In this selection, two characters from "Naruto" talk about the nature of reality and human perception:

Itachi, the guy who's sitting down, tells his younger brother about the flawed view most people have of the world. They perceive things around them, and immediately assume that reality exists in the way that they have seen it. However, there are some issues with this; what about optical illusions, for one thing? For another, there are times when we assume some truth that we later find is false.

Descartes, a French philosopher, brought optical illusions up in his writings, but never really addressed them properly. The last part, about "living in their own little worlds" seems to draw a parallel to Descartes; he establishes "I think, therefore I am" but never goes onto claims about the reality of others without appealing to unsound reasoning. We can know that our reality is true for us, but can we speculate about the reality of others?

Following thinkers, such as John Locke and David Hume, proposed that these optical illusions occur because our senses don't convey reality as it is; rather, our idea of reality comes to us through our sense perceptions, which are flawed and incomplete. Even in this view, there is still the trouble of relating each individual's perceptions to everyone else's and making sure that they line up (i.e. is my conception of the color white the same as your conception of white? And how would we know if they were different?).

For example, colors apparently don't exist in the world; they are a result of our retinas reflecting light or something along those lines. To say that red exists in "reality" outside our senses isn't a fair statement.

Hume took this concept a bit further, proposing that any idea that claimed to explain anything beyond the immediate realm of human experience is nothing but "sophistry and illusion" and that we should "commit it then to the flames."

And here's the obligatory quote in its entirety:

"If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics let us ask this question, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion."

-An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

(Ah, the classic debate between the original and Sparknotes.)

So what parallels are there between Hume and a trippy statement by an anime character? Well, Itachi's point was fairly in line with Hume; he thinks that sure knowledge regarding reality is impossible. We think that we know someone, or something, but it could all easily be an illusion, especially given the fact that our senses are inherently flawed and that our judgments rarely reflect absolute truth.

Well, that's it. Not that anime references often leave people in Humean doubt, but feel free to leave your impressions/questions/WTF comments.

The God Part of the Brain in Bleach (Anime)

So I thought I would jump around a bit, especially since this blog is entitled "Psychology and Philosophy in Film and Gaming" and I've mostly focused on philosophy so far. Having Psych majors/minors angry at me would be a horrible thing, right?

Modern psychological theories are reflected in media as well. In fact, it seems (to me) that current writers and directors are far more apt to use psychological ideas than purely philosophical. In the past (Matrix, Fight Club...) it might have been more popular to rip an idea off of Nietzsche or Plato for a cool concept.

According to some psychologists, there's a part of the brain linked to our belief in a higher being. It fuels our desire to search for a being that is stronger than us, to follow (i.e. God). The details are still a bit sketchy, from what I found, but there's a fairly popular book out on the subject, The "God" Part of the Brain (which, unfortunately, I haven't read). The link explains the concept a but more in depth, which isn't necessary to my purposes here but might be fairly interesting for you nonetheless. There are also some well written reviews on the book, which I thought I would throw in given our current assignment.

The tragic villain/hero that's so overpowered that they can't find anyone stronger than them is a pretty common occurrence in movies, anime and even some video games. Hearing about this "God part of the brain" made me think of some scenes from Bleach, a fairly popular anime in America and Japan. (As an interesting sidenote, the author of the series is constantly throwing things from psychology and philosophy into his work, now that he's become an established writer.) At any rate, several characters are portrayed as being so powerful that they can't find an equal, and this lack of companionship is a major issue in their character development and/or emo level.

So this leads to my question: is this dissatisfaction at not having a worthy rival (a common theme) linked to this God section of the brain? Some examples are in order, although I guess I should provide spoiler disclaimers.

These are all from the end of Bleach, so bear that in mind. Actually, they're mostly from the manga (which gets written before the anime airs), so even if you keep up with the show in America they're still spoilers.

Stark, one of the bad guys, was basically so strong that his mere presence killed most other beings off.

And here's the actual scene from the anime, starting around 7:11

Aizen (and this is the major spoiler for the entire series) was also ungodly strong, but to an even greater extent.

And the most obvious one is a line that Aizen, the main villain, said. It's worth checking out just because it is the strongest connection to this concept of a God part of the brain, plus the dramatic shading and coloring is awesome.

It's kinda cool to see these themes get picked up so quickly by an entertainment medium. What are your thoughts on this? Is it all a bunch of BS?

Groundhog Day and Fatalism/Free Will

I figured that I would get the cliche topics out of the way, and talk about the movie Groundhog Day. In this film, the main character relives one day from his life over and over again. This brings forth ideas about determinism, free will, etc. Phil tries different things each day, since he pretty much doesn't have to deal with consequences. He seems kinda nihilistic at times.

By the way, I'm reading over this and I feel like I didn't do a great job of explaining, if you are bored then here's a Wikipedia article that does a decent job outlining the whole "free will" thing.

Ok, back to the blog.

The questions about free will that this movie brings up are interesting, although in some ways confusing. For example, the fact that Phil is able to make different decisions in the same situations almost seems to bring him "freedom." However, if we really dig down and think about it, are the situations he is in really the same? His surroundings are different, but he himself has changed due to his added experiences. If Phil were to relive the same day as the "same person" (without additional experiences) would he really have the capacity to change his behavior?

I assume that most theorists would believe that our actions wouldn't change if we were run though our experiences time after time (without the benefit of knowing what is happening to us, or having gained additional knowledge). Basically, it's a question of whether or not we would WANT to have our actions change in such a scenario.

Would you want to have your actions change if, for example, you went through the last hour of your life ten more times (without knowing you were repeating anything)? It certainly breaks down some of the major issues people have with free will, or the lack thereof: we want the ability to do otherwise. But what does that really mean? To say "in the past, I COULD HAVE behaved differently, or done better on that test" doesn't really mean that it could have been different. To some prominent modern psychologists, to say that I COULD have done otherwise really only means that in a similar scenario in the future I have the potential to not repeat my mistake. It doesn't mean that I had a real choice in the past (at least, not in a way that would allow my volition to change arbitrarily).

It's occurred to me that I didn't really give much of a background for this topic. Free will is tricky, and so I'll include a couple of quotes that might help out.

From Wikipedia (although most of it is a quote from Van Inwagen, who explains the problem with free will and "determinism" or the thought that the entirety of history can be inferred at the Big Bang through the knowledge of all matter in the universe and an understanding of all laws in the universe):

Van Inwagen's central argument (the Consequence Argument) for this (incompatibilist) view says that "If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of those things (including our present acts) are not up to us."

So from this, it seems like we have no choice in our actions, since the determining factors in those actions came before we were even born. There is a pretty huge debate on whether or not this is true, and the favored position on free will, compatibilism, denies Van Inwagen's claim. It does echo similar concerns within religion (i.e. what is our amount of freedom if God knows the entirety of the future, and knew what we would do before he even created us?). What would Phil from Groundhog Day say to this? When he says "I could have done otherwise" he proves it, by doing something else within the same circumstances. But, just like we have already said, it is not quite the same. He has new experiences to think about when he is acting, even if it is in an identical situation.

Really, though, would we want to be able to say that given the absolute same situation, state of mind, surroundings, that we would have different results each time we ran through it? I'm not sure how satisfying that would feel. It would almost make our actions random, something that we as "selves" have no real control over. In the end, that might be more dissatisfying than saying that we are determined, or only have one pathway to go down when making decisions.

And it's not like we aren't deliberating and weighing choices carefully when we decide on our actions, right? At any rate, that's enough randomness. I'm sure I've slaughtered the debate, or at least made it more confusing than it needs to be. Plus, I've left out some pretty important parts, so feel free to ask questions or force me to clarify.

Nazi Zombies... Existential? Sure, why not...

I'm not going to lie to all of you and say that I don't have an obsession with Call of Duty's "Nazi Zombie" game-mode. It's very addicting, and nothing is better than killing zombies online with angry 12 year old stereotypes. (Just FYI, not everyone with a high voice on Nazi Zombies is a 12 year old boy. It seems that girls also like to play, and both groups get offended when mistaken for each other...)

At any rate, I feel the need to legitimize my fascination with such a repetitive and ultimately unbeatable game. It's a stretch, like many of these posts, but Nazi Zombies helps us deal with a basic truth: we are all going to die. Inevitably.

To give a quick summary of the game, Nazi Zombies is about surviving waves of progressively stronger undead soldiers. There is an infinite number of zombies, which means that you WILL die eventually. You might get to round 5, or you might survive to round 40; you're still not going to live forever.

Most players don't even consider the possibility of dying on, for example, round 3. However, the more you advance in the game, the likelier it is that you will get your face chewed off by one of the living dead. It seems to me that life is a bit like that; in other words, the longer we have been alive, the more aware of death we become. It's certainly the case that young people are usually under the impression that they will live forever.

Well, I'm sure you are waiting for an obligatory clip that isn't fail. This shows a pretty badass player getting to level 45. You'll notice, of course, that he still dies in the end...

Also, disregard this clip! Freaking cheaters....

To recycle some people from my last post, Heidegger talks about the realization of death and its effects on humans (Dasein, if you care enough to click the link) in his writings. The subject also comes up in literary masterpieces like The Death of Ivan Ilyich, written by Leo Tolstoy, and a myriad of other works. The realization of death isn't necessarily a bad thing, although it is unpleasant; it can make our lives richer, and prepare us for the challenges we face in killing zombies and leaving a reputation for pwnage. Or deep personal fulfillment. One of those things.

Existentialism in Ikiru; Sudden Realization of Impermenence

The movie Ikiru follows the last days of a rather uptight man named Watanabe who spent most of his adult life working at a boring desk job. His realization that he has less than a year to live shakes him out of the stupor of everyday life; at first he despairs over his cancer, then he tries to forget it by living a carefree life off of his savings. Both of these options turn out poorly for him; neither in despair nor pleasure can he find an escape. The "absurdity" of life mentioned by Sartre and other existential thinkers still strikes him, filling him with anxiety and emptiness.

Most existential writers subscribe to the notion that the world has no underlying meaning; from this seemingly empty world (devoid of objective truth, etc.) we are forced to either flee into "The They" (which basically means society as a whole, although it is not something that is separate even from the individual, however confusing that seems) as Heidegger says, or acknowledge the apparent meaninglessness and grasp onto a purpose for ourselves, which is what Watanabe eventually does.

Some of the most interesting scenes are from Watanabe's attempted escapes. As he wanders throughout stores and bars trying to grasp some sort of comfort, he sings in one of the most famous scenes of the movie. Ikiru deals heavily with the idea of impermanence, which shows ties to Buddhism as well as Existentialism. Nothing seems to have worth or substance; everything fades away, as he makes clear in his song. In the end, Watanabe finds meaning in a project that seemingly has no chance of happening; he helps a group of concerned community women build a park that is safe for their children to play in. While this doesn't seem like a lot, the bureaucracy in Watanabe's office was such that only a determined individual could have helped the women (and his associates had no intention of going out of their way to create a safe area for children.

Overall, Ikiru is a very thought-provoking film; it was produced in 1952, and is dubbed in Japanese with English subtitles. The quality of the video, while decent for the time, is quite outdated; still, I would recommend checking it out if you have any interest in this post. Feel free to comment... since none of us have a choice...

Mission Statement

Think about some of your favorite films and what makes them so interesting. Many films and video games have themes derived from philosophy, psychology and various world religions. Some of these themes are hard to pick up on; others are fairly easy to locate. Ethical questions often come up even in action and adventure movies; why does the "good guy" not resort (typically) to the methods of his evil counterpart, even if it would save the day with less risk to himself? Movies such as Fight Club and Ikiru deal with issues found in the psychological and philosophical movement of Existentialism, and The Matrix is based partially off of ancient writings from Plato. These are just a few examples of media that draws upon religion, philosophy and psychology to tell a story and convey a message, and I hope that by the end of this semester I will have helped to shed light on the themes of some of our favorite films (and other entertainment mediums).