Problem of Change

The problem of change was argued by the ancient Greek Philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. Heraclitus believed that the fundamental character of reality is change, that nothing could remain the same; he said, "One cannot step twice into the same river." On the other hand, Parmenides believed that permanence is the fundamental character of reality, change is an illusion perceived by the sense, and truth is unchanging and know to reason.

Parmenides' belief that permanence is the fundamental character of reality is flawed; nothing can ultimately remain the same. The universe changed from several particles jumbling about to the universe we know today with solar systems and planets and life. Darwin's theory of evolution contradicts his belief stating that species have mutated throughout the ages to adapt to their environments, their changing environments. The world goes through periods of cold and hot; thus, the ice ages and global warming. Mutations in species develop an organism to become more adapt to living in certain environments. In addition to evolution, we as humans undergo processes of development every day. Most of the cells in your body, in fact, are typically around 7 to 10 years old even if you're middle aged; therefore, every 10 years, your body is actually almost brand new. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all) Changed has occurred throughout this human developmental process.

Paranoia

I was walking down a dark street, blinded by the utter blackness surrounding every inch of me and my sight. I felt my adrenaline pumping through my veins, expedited by my racing heart; the panic consumed by being. Overwhelmed, I began to see movements in the darkness, feel vibrations around me, and hear twigs snapping. The remnants of a logical human being had disappeared, I was a slave to this paranoia.
Paranoia is overwhelming and irrational fear of the unknown. We discussed what differentiated Hume and Descartes in their thoughts of paranoia. Personally, I connect with Hume, who argues that humans are slaves to the passions and will react when necessary in order to survive. Descartes believed doubt was the only possible way of reaching reality; rational thought was the only way to know. In the case of paranoia, Hume would have expected a human to accept the fear and react to it, while Descartes would have expected a human to doubt the fear and thus come to a rational conclusion about it.
I agree with Hume; when put into a situation of intense, perhaps irrational, fear the most sensible thing to do is put yourself into a situation where that fear no longer exists; thus, even if there is no basis for the fear, you feel safe and create your own safety. Perhaps though some people can create their own safety within their mind by rationalizing that there was never a basis for the fear; therefore, the fear should not exist.

Pure Chance

Teleology is defined as "the philosophical doctrine that final cause, design, and purpose exist in nature." (Dictionary.com) This definition unfortunately did not clarify the meaning of teleological thinking for me. Luckily, understanding finally struck me when Jordan said that teleological thinking is when "looking back, it is the only way it could have happened." Darwin believed that "evolution had a direction" (426), a teleological thought: humans have developed over the course of the universe to what we are today because that was the only way we could have developed, through the millions of mutations, survivals, and continued evolution.
I had a thought, that teleological thought is actually a limited way of viewing one's existence because it disregards all the possible forms humans could have taken. Imagine the sheer impossibility of our exact existence. In order for you to become you, each one of your ancestors had to meet with others generation after generation (several of these meetings were even the most random occurrence, such as your parents being at the same restaurant at the same time entirely per chance). You would, in fact, not exist had it not been for all of these chance meetings to occur the way they did. This is how the human race evolved; just think of all the chance mutations that occurred to even bring about the human race; the possibilities are endless for what we could have turned into.
Teleological thought limits the wonder one can gain from their existence because it accepts that their existence had to come about in the way that it did; I believe this to be an incorrect theory. There are so many possibilities for how we could have evolved, it is only pure chance we are who we are today.

Mental Captivity

“…A way out of the mental captivity that we have lived in for much too long.” (388) Although Alberto is referring to the captivity he and Sophie have been placed in by Knag, relevance of this quote extends far beyond the literal sense. Everyone is, in a sense, in some sort of mental captivity that prohibits a holistic and unbiased view of the world. People are indoctrinated at birth into a certain culture and environment that influences one’s thoughts about issues, many of which people cannot substantiate by logical thought processes. For example, if I ask a teenager whether they consider themselves a Republican or a Democrat, I can assure you that most, if not all, will respond with the same identification as their parents have chosen. Imposed values, such as political and religious values, thus deter an individual from thinking on their own, creating their own path. Philosophy is the key to this mental captivity; this is highlighted in Sophie’s World.

            Sophie, with Alberto’s help, immediately finds the wonder with life, the magic of philosophy, and thinks: “How tragic that most people had to get ill before they understood what a gift it was to be alive. Or else they had to find a mysterious letter in the mailbox!” (5) Most people take being alive for granted, never fully appreciating what a remarkable event their very existence is in terms of the universe and time throughout the ages. By this “mysterious letter” Sophie is given the gift of wonder and philosophical thought. Along the timeline of an individual’s life there is an unrecognizable moment when the childlike awe with surroundings shifts to acceptance and even weariness of similar perhaps boring sights and events. “To children, the world and everything in it is new, something that gives rise to astonishment. It is not like that for adults. Most adults accept the world as a matter of course.” (18) This acceptance of the world is a mental captivity that adults bear without the slightest notice or care because in place of awe, they are required to focus on practical needs. Blind acceptance of the world inhibits learning and discovery; this confinement of the mind must be broken in order to fully appreciate life.

            With this blind acceptance of the surrounding world, people become accustomed to things we are able to perceive and the concept that this world is the true reality. With this belief comes blissful ignorance by which people enable themselves to “work themselves ever deeper into the fur…becom[ing] so comfortable they never risk crawling back up the fragile hairs again.” (18) Free will and reality are comforts people indulge in in order to ignore and avoid the bigger questions and possibly difficult truths; this chosen ignorance is a mental captivity that imprisons the mind from transcending worldly perceptions and beliefs. “Does our world consist of real things—or are we encircled by the mind?” (284) Sophie’s question embodies the questioning of reality so many people avoid asking.  

Imagine Your World

Jostein Gaarder emphasizes the necessity of imagination in Sophie's World. Imagination, as we discussed in class, has the ability to create things that can take on reality. It is difficult to make distinctions about reality, and so whose to say that our imaginations are not reality, or just a separate reality; after all, thoughts in your mind always seem to be more distinct and clear before you express them to others.
Jordan made the reference to Plato's theory about the world of ideas that exists among us but it is up to us to perceive these perfect, flawless ideas. This world of ideas, if it contains more flawless ideas, can be its own reality and humanity can simply be the medium for perceiving and expressing these ideas in our flawed manner of conversing.
Perhaps an extension of Plato's world of ideas is perfect imaginations; clear and vivid imaginary worlds inside a mind gain their own life as do the ideas once they have been perceived and shared. When you read a "fictional" story, you create the characters' worlds and give life to the characters, who, in a way, are using you as a medium to live. If characters in books are using humanity as a medium for living, they are expressing their views and sharing their experiences with us; this is what humans do when they are writing books, express their views and share experiences. What if our imaginations are reality and what we believe to be reality is being controlled by the "imaginary" characters living in our minds?

Blindfolded

Yesterday, our philosophy class took a little field trip from the comfort of our classroom and from what we typically perceive. We were required to put on a blindfold and follow where our partners led us. Once the feeling of being unnerved and wary passed, I was able to experience my surroundings in an entirely new way. Instead of looking at my surroundings only so slightly, I focused intensely on attempting to picture where I was, calling up memories of places from the recesses of my mind. I was acutely aware of the sounds and the feel of my environment. I remember, when my teacher preposterously told us to be led up a steep grass hill, hearing the swishing of grass which entirely dominated my senses; I heard or focused on nothing else.
I have a theory that humans, focusing on one thing, block or dull all their other senses that aren't required for focusing on this one thing. For example, if I were solely focused on reaching my bus on time, I would walk as fast as I could, picking out the fastest route and weaving in and out of people gathering in the halls; however, I would perceive only the route through the people with my sense of sight. I would entirely miss the voices and conversations around me, which although loud and numerous, would blur into a hum of almost silence because I was not concerned with discerning them. I would not think twice about bumping into someone because it is such a ordinary occurrence that it means nothing to me. Ironically, people with sight are often blind to anything else. This is often an occurrence for most people during the course of a day, perhaps a month, and even years. They rarely care to wonder that which is beyond their routine schedule or take a break to think about their surroundings; thus, they are swept up and often cannot recall what they have long ago forgone - an awe with the senses.
Wonder overcame me once I was blindfolded: it allowed me to recognize the silence we give to our hearing, the numb given to our touch, and the limit given to our sight.