World Views and Gattaca Reflection

Within Gattaca, I noted that the movie was especially naturalistic in its themes, though sometimes it did breach some of the ideals of naturalism. For example, the fact that the entire plot revolves around and actually supports Vincent in his effort to achieve his dreams by breaching the law. However, despite his criminal activities, the film presents Jerome as a noble figure, who is chasing his desires, which suggests the naturalistic in which you must take action regardless of consequences. This idea is even placed more obviously when Vincent states that he won the game of chicken by not thinking about the swim back to the shore, further demonstrating the concept of gaining success without thinking about the action's repercussions. In terms of meaning, the film suggests the theme of living life accordingly to what you want and what your desires are regardless of its effects to other people and any external consequences.

In terms of the movie itself, I found it fairly entertaining. The story was a very creative concept in sci-fi which isn't as over the top as a movie like star wars and a fun adaptation on our near future. I also found the conventions of the movie fairly good. Of course, it wasn't a masterpiece in my opinion, as in some points it felt fairly dull and I feel like the character of Anton wasn't very deep as he rarely showed much emotion. However, there were also good parts, specifically in the character of Jerome/Eugene who was the comedic relief of Gattaca.

Departing from the film, the two world-views of naturalism and transcendentalism are widely different. Concerning origin, naturalism does not contain anything specific but it does have the concept of there being a beginning and among naturalists many have a believe in the big bang and evolution. In morality naturalism is based on the idea that humanity defines their own morals as nature and the universe provides none though a popular ideal from this is the idea of doing whatever you want as long as you don't affect anybody and in transcendentalism morality is relative to finding meaning in nature and the universe. On meaning naturalism also has the concept of man defining their own meaning, though many subscribe to ideas involving a happy life. Transcendentalism on the other hand, defines meaning as a pursuit to reconnect with the spiritual entity that is the universe, for example, in nirvana. Naturalism doesn't really have a main view on destiny, though most naturalists tend to believe that death involves a transition from life into non-existence, or simply, nothing. Transcendentalism though, primarily believes that depending on your life's actions death will result in either reincarnation or a union with the godliness of nature through giving up one's individuality, which is also very similar to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. In order to sum this up though, I would say that naturalism is the idea that the physical world is all there is and that transcendentalism revolves around the concept that all the universe is one being and that man has a part to play within that being.

In personal experiences, I'd say that I've been heavily exposed to naturalistic views but less so with transcendentalism. Our popular culture is dominated with naturalistic views, which tend to be expressed in more adult works that promote drinking and debauchery. There's also naturalism in school in which we study the natural world through science, which typically excludes a spiritual side of the universe, if any. I also personally consider myself to have many naturalistic views, I do believe in evolution and the big bang as the best concepts on the origins of the universe and I also believe that man's morality and meaning are those we give to ourselves. Regarding transcendentalism, there isn't much that I've experienced. There is of course, the world religions class in which we studied Buddhism, and the fact that some transcendentalist ideas are found in culture, such as these new age spiritual movements, but other than that, I find that I don't believe in many transcendentalist ideas and haven't really had experiences with them.

In media, I feel like the strongest piece that has influenced my world view would have to involve varying nature documentaries such as Life or Planet Earth. These works helped me realize the beauty of the universe and nature and helped me identify myself with more naturalistic views in my realization in the importance of the natural world. Other than this though, I can't pinpoint any other specifics on media that has changed my worldview, though I'm sure many others have discreetly influenced me.

2 Corinthians 4:18's main message is meant to emphasize the importance of the spiritual realm and its eternal nature in contrast to the temporary nature of the physical world. This world view is practically a polar opposite to naturalism, which states that nature and the physical world is all there is, yet this aligns with transcendentalism, which also stresses spirituality.

Word Count: 834

Opinions on Genetic Modification

Regarding the idea that some knowledge is best left untouched, I disagree with this assertion. My belief is that when presented with the opportunity to further human knowledge and human understanding, there should be an obligation for people to pursue this, as I also believe that all knowledge is good. My main reason for this is that the only alternative to the pursuit of knowledge is ignorance and that while it can sometimes provide comfort, should not be ideal in a progressive society due to the fact that a great society has to adapt and discover new things. Narrow this down to the morality of genetic modification, I strongly believe that this science should not be suppressed but rather encouraged. First of all, there is genetic modification in our farms which have reduced crop failure, increased resistance to pests and diseases, and has also increased the amount of yield per crop. So why shouldn't this be banned? After all, it is one of the leading contributors to the fight against world hunger. Of course, this isn't the point of contention. Human modification should be advanced further. Why shouldn't we give babies resistance to disease or give them increased physicality? It would be one of the best ways to reduce mortality rates and greatly increase human lifespan. Of course I do disagree with some things regarding this. There is the modification of personality, which, if possible, should not be used as this is comparable to mind control. There is also the concept that genetic modification would be a sign of wealth and discrimination which is certainly credible. That's why I believe that the most suitable way to access this science within society would be to have genetic success in babies be seen as a universal right or utility so that people of all classes would have access to healthier children. However, this is a very hard task which is why pioneers of this field should advance this science of genetics but should also be careful in the integration of commercial usage within this.

Chapter 3 Reflection Questions

1. Think of one of your favorite movies and consider: Who is the protagonist? How are you supposed to identify with him or her? Who or what is the antagonist? Is the protagonist morally good? Is the antagonist morally bad?

Star Wars

Protagonist: Luke Skywalker, this is shown due to the fact that Luke is the most powerful and most focused on in the movie and the film revolves primarily on his fight against the Sith and his inner self through his resistance against the dark side. He is also suggested to be morally good considering that he represents the light side, a very literal metaphor, and fights for the rebels against an extremely tyrannical empire.

Antagonist: Darth Vader and or Darth Sidious, the two represent the most powerful and most iconic members of the empire and dark side. The two are morally bad due to their association with the dark side and the oppressive empire.

2. Watch a familiar scene from a film and focus on everything except the main actors. How does the background contribute to what is being communicated?

Scene: Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader reveals he is Luke's father

The main environment of the scene is in a massive tube that provides an ominous and empty feeling, this is further embellished with the fact that the audio in the beginning light saber duel is silent, no music is given to show the emptiness of the scenery. Furthermore, upon the moment where Luke's arm is sliced, you suddenly hear music being played, a quick, sharp, tone, to emphasize the surprise of the scene and the disparity of Luke's defeat. Finally, upon Darth Vader's reveal, the dark side theme is played, which shows the idea that Luke has a connection with the dark side and to further show the idea that the dark side has one this battle.

3. Watch a familiar scene from a film with no sound and only subtitles. How does this differ with the same scene with audio?

Scene: Same above

Obviously, it isn't the same. While it does contain some of the shock with the reveal as it did with audio, it simply is not the same without the music and Luke's audible reaction. This creates a very unnatural, boring, and stiff tone throughout the scene.

Song Reflections

YOLO- Lonely Island

As the song's title suggests, it regards the usage of the phrase YOLO (You only live once) in popular culture, in which people often use it to justify irresponsible actions or those that overlook the future in favor of enjoying oneself in the present. Throughout the song, the band constantly interprets YOLO in the exact opposite of its common usage, using it to justify actions of paranoia and extreme safety due to the preciousness of life. The song is obviously satirical in nature and a comedic parody in response to the way people use the saying. Despite its theme of caution, the lyrics address the the questions regarding morality, in which it suggests that you should go through life with a sense of comedy as well as with another sense of lightheartedness as it stresses a mid ground between the seriousness of the song's lyrics and the stupidity of those who follow YOLO. Not only that, but it also suggests ways in which we should address popular culture, in which we should be skeptical and avoid becoming slaves to its influence as it can make you affected by the sheer idiocy of the term YOLO. In terms of the other ultimate questions and worldviews, the song does slightly give off an answer to destiny, or life after death, in which it only suggest it as negative, as the group sings entirely about an evasion of death. 

The One that Got Away- Katy Perry

As opposed to YOLO, this song has many stronger messages and worldviews. It regards a young couple living happily as the man pursues a career as an artists, but eventually the two fall apart in various fights and the man dies in a car accident shortly after separating. The song is about the woman (Katy Perry) lamenting about the man being "The one that got away", or the one she should have been with as opposed to her current wealthy husband of whom she is unhappy with. The worldviews of this song primarily tackle relationships of which this fits into the question of morality. It stresses the fact that having a perfect relationship is always more valuable than material wealth or riches as well as the idea that in a relationship, the two involved need to be loving and truthful with each other. Also, the song also addresses the question of meaning in which it implies that people are meant to live happily with their spouse and live a life of coexistence. In another perspective, the song also gives a suggestion regarding pre-marital relationships and sex, where it shows that such actions are morally acceptable as the couple in the music video are involved in a sexual relationship.

Chapter 2 Reflection

Does the inclusion of a religious message in a film make it propaganda?
Absolutely not, first of all, propaganda is not exclusive to propaganda. Any message that is fairly direct and clear could be interpreted as propaganda regardless of what its message is about. The same idea works with religion, while it definitely can be a subject for propaganda, it all depends on the way it is presented and how strongly it is shown that decides whether it is a piece of propaganda or not.

The Bible describes a lot of bad things. Why isn't this considered bad by most people?
In the Bible, there are certainly many scenes of violence, sin, and sex, however the Bible often justifies such acts, such as in the Israelite re-entrance into Canaan, which involved many deaths but was still presented in a positive light in this portion of the Bible because of the inherent cause of God's promised land to the Israelites. In terms of societal influences, there is also the fact that Christianity is the most practiced religion in the world and it does have a huge influence over the world's beliefs and ethics. Because of this, it may be seen as insulting and insensitive to criticize these scenes in the Bible.

If someone did not mean for a message to come through in a film, or meant for a different message to be communicated, does that change what message the film actually sends?
I think that it comes down to what the majority of viewers believe. For example, if a certain unintended message was perceived by a minority of the viewers, many would probably see this as a conspiracy-type notion with little proof but a message with many viewers backing it would definitely have traction and would certainly change the way people would see the movie or show.

Chapter 1 Questions

1. What are the benefits and pitfalls of approaching movies like Plato or Aristotle would?
Plato saw media/art as entirely harmful and useless, so such an anti-media approach would provide very little benefit. Of course, you wouldn't be affected by any art that is harmful, but you'd also never experience forms of media with good morals. On top of that, you'd most likely be cut off from society in a way that would affect the way you interact with people. Aristotle on the other hand, saw art as an expression of humanity and that it contained many educational values. This view is far more beneficial as it would allow a viewer to contain analytically thoughts as they watch or consume media and possibly learn from such pieces of media.

2. How did the apostle Paul adapt his evangelism style when he spoke with Jewish people or Gentiles?
He would often adjust his material in order to find a sort of common ground between him and those he preached to. For example, he would cite the Old Testament for preaching towards the Jews and then create a philosophical argument when preaching towards the Greek Gentiles.

3. When might it be best to avoid watching a "good" movie?
Whenever the film contains horrific and explicit scenes despite good morals. For example, if a movie contains the noble theme of good triumphing over evil, it would be a fairly "good" movie. However, if the movie contains excessive language or sexual content, then it would be best to avoid it.

Cider House Rules or Moral Absolutes?

Would you rather live in a world characterized by 'The Cider House Rules' or one characterized by 'moral absolutes'.

I'd much rather live in a world characterized by moral absolutes. First of all, it is predictable that if a society were to use the ideals of Cider House Rules, in which people should be able to decide how they wish to live, it would lead to chaos and anarchy as people won't be able to live along a same rules and will obviously come into predicaments as a result. In contrast, a society with moral absolutes, which is similar to our western society, people would live with the same code of laws, and so, anybody could point out breaches to rules as well as establish order among people. Some people might argue that those who create the rules wouldn't know the struggle of those their rules affect, a central point of Cider House rules. However, if this is so, then what would happen if this concept extended farther than apple orchard workers? Should everybody create their own rules because politicians can't connect with everybody's personal lives. If this would happen, then there would be no point in forming society just because no person is the same as another. Secondly, why should people make their own rules? Can they be trusted to be just and fair to those around them? What is stopping a person from making rules for themselves that only benefit themselves. Obviously, this shows a negative outlook on humanity despite the fact that many humans can have a positive moral outlook towards benefit for many. However, eventually there will be immoral humans that come and attempt to establish rules for themselves and become a detriment to society. Because of this, it should be evident that the use of moral absolutes in society should be more useful than that by the Cider House Rules because of the improvements to order and society that moral absolutes give.

2 Scenarios

Scenario 1
This event involves being invited to watch a rated R movie at a friend's house while their parents at home. Personally, I would accept since I often watch R movies. First of all, if my friend really enjoys it and watched it a lot, then it is probably entertaining, so I wouldn't really have to worry about looking it up to see how good it is. Also, I just don't mind obscenity in movies since I don't find it to be too serious. However, if I know this movie is extremely obscene (Possibly pornographic) I would not go since I just don't feel comfortable watching that kind of media.

Scenario 2
This scenario presents a dilemma where you are asked to go to a concert involving partial nudity and overall obscenity. Without thinking too much, I already no I would say no. To begin with, I don't like concerts because they're expensive and it really serves no point to see a musical performance live to me. Secondly, I'm just not very comfortable watching sexual content/nudity with friends around me. In terms of offensiveness though, I don't feel any sense of anger or anything, though while it certainly can be offensive, people should be able to censor content they watch by themselves.

Redemption

Movie: Star Wars

While not actually a movie but rather a series of movies, Star Wars presents the character Darth Vader as an evil mastermind and leader of the Empire, of which they are aligned with the dark side. However, a prophecy states that eventually, he will be the one to bring balance to the Force (Basically, the moral balance of the world) by destroying the dark, which he eventually does by sacrificing himself to kill his master, Darth Sidious. The redemption is seen through him killing Sidious because he brought balance to the force as the prophecy stated as well as atone for his previous actions of nearly destroying the Jedi (Organization that was affiliated with the light side) and ruling over the galaxy with an iron fist.