 Day Two: Fear and Loathing in South Africa On Monday, we explored some initial thoughts about why humans feel the need to create something other than us. It could be due to our own need for significance, or perhaps because we need to know whether or not our decisions matter, or possibly it stems from mere loneliness, but no matter what reasoning stands behind it- we all ask that question: “are we alone, or is there someone else out there?” Alien films, of course are an exploration of this issue and others. Of course, the answer to what “someone” else is like is up for debate, too. The aliens in ET: The Extraterrestrial and Close Encounters of the Third Kind look and act a whole lot different than the ones in Alien, Independence Day, or the recent District 9. Of course there are the Predator films which feature aliens who hunt humans for sport. And there’s War of the Worlds and the rest of the alien invader movies that presents grim hostiles from Mars who operate huge tripods and are bent on destroying human life to make room for their own kind. And then of course, there are films like ET where the alien is a sort of cute little brown guy who hangs out with kids. Something that really stuck out to me about District 9 is that the film is really about apartheid and the monstrosity of humanity’s actions against those we don’t understand. On a lesser level, ET and Flight of the Navigator echo the same meme. They’re both about the fact that man has a need to dissect what we discover in order to control it and understand it. But no matter what the film is, almost all Alien Films center on fear. Aliens represent something unknown and foreign. They represent something to be afraid of because they’re different, more powerful, problematic, violent, or such a mystery that we feel like we need to shoot first and ask questions later. But isn’t this pretty much what we do anytime we’re in a new situation or around people that seem different or strange to us. I don’t mean to suggest that we always kill other people or dissect them when they seem different to us- but isn’t there something curious about racism and prejudice? Both of these are prime examples of how we tend to treat other people like something alien. Something different. Something Other. Even the more subtle approaches like writing off another nationality because of a language barrier or mannerisms that don’t line up with social norms are a form of what I’m talking about here. When humans are confronted with something different than what we’re used to, we automatically assume the worst and look for ways to make ourselves more comfortable. This often means isolating ourselves from those who are different than us or deconstructing and “figuring out” their actions so that we can cut them down to size and make ourselves more powerful. Alien films are a way for us to key in on some of these issues that we have with other human beings. And if you haven’t taken the time to check out District 9 yet- it’s a perfect film to begin thinking through our actions and how they relate to other people. Check out A True Review for more info. 3 Comments  After watching District 9 last week, I was struck by the allegorical nature of aliens in pop culture. After this realization, I thought of all the “alien” films I’ve seen over the past few decades and began to wonder if each of these movies were actually existential explorations of human issues that need philosophical or theological resolution. Thus, I decided to take a week to look at limited selections of concepts and ideas that aliens can represent in film and literature. What follows is a collection of those ideas… * * * Day One: Is There Anybody Out There? Even before the telescope recast our planet as merely one of many specks of dust flying around in a vast universe of worlds, earth’s thinkers and religious leaders have speculated that there may be life on other planets. But since the moment when geocentricity was dislodged and a more accurate picture of the universe took its place, theories regarding life on other planets have been increasingly common in science, philosophy, religion, and pop culture. So this week, I specifically want to look at some of these pop culture references to see if there are any philosophical ideas being expressed though the use of extraterrestrial life forms. One of the earliest stories to include extraterrestrials is a 10th century Japanese Folk Tale called “The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter.” In it, a girl from the moon brings wealth to a family who shelters her. Through a series of misadventures, the Emperor of Japan falls in love with her, but is rejected over and over again. And when the girl’s people return for her from them moon and she leaves an immortality elixir behind, the Emperor refuses to drink it; for life without his love- the girl from the moon- would be worthless to him. Instead, he has his guards set the elixir on fire at the top of Mt. Fuji, thus giving Fuji a name (Fuji means immortality) and also providing an origin story for why Fuji, smokes from time to time. But whether we’re talking about a fairy tales, H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds or films like District 9, ET, and The Day The Earth Stood Still, each of these pop culture references asks the question “…is there anybody out there?” I think we want to know the answer for a couple of reasons: 1. Our Own Sense of Self Importance Are we the only ones like us? Given the fact that our universe is as big as it appears to be, it seems unlikely that we’d be the only planet where life abounds. But as we look into the heavens, there’s a tendency to feel both small and huge at the same time. We see the vast array of planets and star systems and we feel small in the wake of the enormous amounts of stuff out there. How could anything we do or anything we say amount to significance when faced with the reality of our size in comparison with the rest of creation. At the same time, however the fact that we seem to be the only planet and species that’s capable of interplanetary communication and travel beyond the confines of our own atmosphere leads us toward a sense of pride. It we are truly the top dogs in a universe of fungi and bacterium, then our problems are the most important and significant. Our seemingly insignificant debates about where to eat or what to do with our lives are the pivotal decisions of the universe if we are truly the only highly intelligent beings in the Universe. 2. Our Own Choices as a Species In The Day The Earth Stood Still, alien invaders come to earth as emissaries from the rest of the galaxy to assess whether or not humans should be allowed to interact with the rest of the universe or be quarantined off into our own solar system. The reason? Our planet cannot escape warring with each other and the universe wants to protect themselves from our violence and our inherent selfishness. If others exist- aliens in this case can be representational of other human beings- it follows that my actions cannot proceed purely from an individual perspective. When something or someone other than me is affected by my decisions, I must take this into consideration when I act. I cannot act as though I am the center of the universe when I am not, in fact, the center of the universe. The Church had a hard time letting go of their own geocentric paradigm during the decades surrounding the Inquisition. Many scientists paid the price through exile, excommunication, and even death. Aliens often represent the fact that something or someone “other” than us needs to be taken into consideration when we are making decisions. 3. Our Own Loneliness Probably the most obvious, but understated metaphor that aliens represent, is an answer to our own loneliness. Loneliness is one of the sentiments that all of us share- we live in the reality that we were made for relationship and we hurt deeply when we are cut off from other people. So taken on a macro-level, is it any wonder that humanity longs for companionship just as individuals do? Perhaps extraterrestrial creatures represent nothing more than an attempt to reach out to the world around us and know that we’re not alone. We want someone else there along with us so that we can fill the void of emptiness with something meaningful. Even when that something turns out to be terrible- every alien invasion film ever written- it could be argued these references are still an attempt to engage with something or someone beyond ourselves. A Preview of Coming Events 08/18/2009
I went to see District 9 last weekend and it got me thinking about aliens. And politics. And philosophy. And religion. That’s why I’m dedicating a week to exploring Aliens & Philosophy. This week, I’ve got a couple other thoughts to share about music & marijuana, but I wanted to give you a sneak preview of next week’s agenda… I’m really excited about it and I hope you’ll join in the discussion and conversation. Day One: Is There Anybody Out There? Day Two: Fear & Loathing in South Africa Day Three: Victims and Victimizers Day Four: The Man of Steel and Other Alien Christ Figures Day Five: Aliens & Philosophy- Additional Questions That Need Answers I hope you can join me!  Ethics For Everyone 08/12/2009
One of the things I've been pondering (mostly due to my research on Heidegger) is primal ethics. What this means is that I’m considering the sort of ethics that emerge without education, power, or critical thinking. Heidegger was concerned with the state of being that Dasein inhabits- one that is universal to all people whether they are scholars of world renown or mere peasants living in the rural areas of Germany, post World War 1. So along the same line of thinking, I'm wondering about the sort of ethics that transcend to all people, whether they are giving a lot of thought to ethics and philosophy or not. This is one of the problems that I have with both Consequentialists like Mills and Deontological philosophers like Kant. Utilitarian ethics (Consequentialist or Outcome-based ethics) require actions to be magnified under the lens of universal good. This requires a certain critical thinking ability to consider ALL people, not just yourself or those close by. I don't know that all people in all cultures truly have the ability to consider "everyone" and whether their actions will truly cause the "greatest good." This seems to me to be the “thinking man’s” ethics. Each decision must be carefully thought over to make sure that the eventual outcome achieves the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Most of us don’t have the time or ability to think that much about our actions and so I can’t fully buy into the notion that this is rudimentary enough to use as a standard we should apply to everyone. Likewise, the problem with Kant and other Deontological ethicists is that merely obeying the "rules" means that we have to be aware of what the "rules" are. Since there isn't universal agreement on what's right and wrong, it's really hard to apply a rule-following ethic to all people. I suppose that at the base of this theory lies a disinterest in self, and so one could argue that disinterested obedience (obedience that springs from following the rules because they are right rather than because it profits me, personally, to do so) is something that we could apply to all people, even if they aren’t disinterestedly following the same rules- except for the fact that this particular notion seems to be a reaction from Kant and other Western philosophers against the innate selfishness of man. If selfishness is truly innate, it’s hard for me to rationalize that we’d be able to come up with a Universal ethic that rebels against human nature. So, I can’t apply this to everyone, either. That said, I'm wondering what the universal ethics are? What are the things that are innate to all people whether they be poor or rich, strong or weak, native or alien, smart or ignorant, and whether they live under a dictatorship or democracy? If it doesn't truly express the human experience, is it truly an ethical philosophy that will transcend cultures and time, or is it specific to a particular people? Are 'Pay Per Post' Deals Morally Sound? 08/03/2009
My wife sent me a link today from a site that talks about making money blogging. A bunch of the sites that were suggested were these "pay per post" deals where a company contacts you and asks you to do a positive review of their website or business and in return they pay you some lump sum. I'm guessing that a setup like that would completely knock away any neutrality or objective eye that the blogger had which means that it's a little misleading to do something like that (unless there were a clear disclaimer, or if the blogger TRULY liked the site, movie, or merchandise before being contacted about it). Then again, if you're going to make money on the blogosphere, you've gotta have advertising, or a product to sell, or some sort of setup like this. Otherwise, you're just a "Free"lancer like me who blogs in his free time and doesn't actually have as much time to research and write as I'd like. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
About a year ago I ran across Micah Tillman's website, http://www.micahtillman.com, which espouses a very similar topic range as my own and after reading through a few of his posts, I discovered that he is indeed a most formidible scholar and a valuable voice regarding politics, religion, and philosophy. I immediately subcribed to his blog feed and I've been reading his posts ever since. Micah is a Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America and is currently writing a dissertation on Edmund Husserl’s theory of empty and filled intentions. He's also been kind enough to answer a number of my own personal questions through his blog and also by e-mail. The other day I asked if he's be willing to answer a few questions for my readers and he was kind enough to share his insights on life and his ideas on philosophy in the form of a casual interview. I'm really pleased that I'm able to post it here on my blog, today, and I'd encourage you to check out his website and his other writing if you enjoy what you read here. * * * Nathan Key: First question, you're teaching philosophy, which totally puts you in a different class than say, myself (I'm looking into grad schools for the future), but whenever I tell people about my own interest in philosophy, they always counter with some sort of "what are you going to do with a philosophy degree?" statement. So, let's go ahead and entertain that question for a moment. Other than just teach philosophy, what's the big goal of yours? What do you hope to accomplish with your PhD? Earlier this week, I posted a blog about Universal Rights. I wanted to continue this idea today, especially since we're heading into the Independence Day celebrations here in the United States. It's always relevant to talk about rights, but it's especially relevant around holidays where we specifically celebrate them! * * * So what are rights anyway? When the founding fathers of the United States were drafting our Declaration of Independence, they had been grappling with this question quite a bit. It was even more important to them because they had been living under the boot of oppression. They were colonists who were being taken advantage of in order for the "homeland" to finance wars, debt, and extravagances. Feeling the burden of injustice, they didn't merely fight back- they thought through their situation and came to a rational conclusion about why they felt slighted. Most of them didn't want to be a free and independent State. They merely wanted to be treated fairly and equally. From their writings and the writings of contemporary philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and others, we've now got a rather nice framework from which we can address Universal Human Rights. I'm going to write about them a little differently than these men did, but this blog is entirely based on the principles they laid out- just so you know where I'm getting my ideas. In order to fully understand Human Rights, it's important to distinguish between three sets. We'll call the first Goods & Services. These are things that people are able to produce or enact. The second category is Legislated Rights. These are entitlements that a particular government or community has given to its citizens. The final category is Universal Rights. These are rights and freedoms that are common to all humans on the basis of their existence rather than their citizenship, beliefs, or purchasing power. Universal Rights. In order for something to qualify as a legitimate Universal Right, it must fit within the following two criteria: 1. It must be accessible/inherent to all people, in at all times, in all places in the world. In regard to number one, we must qualify Universal as ALL people. In the future, as technology changes, humanity might come across something that's good and beneficial for the folks living in that time period. But since those of us living today, and everyone who's lived before us were unable to benefit from that advancement, it cannot be a Universal Right. It doesn't meet the qualification of ALL people. So language, computers, cell phones, and the like cannot be rights because they are not common to all people in all time periods. The same can be true of anything that is contingent upon living in a certain area of the world. We cannot say that anyone has the right to swim. Swimming is something that one can do only if they have access to water. In some areas of the world, there isn't any water readily available for swimming, and so this could not be classified as a Universal Right. 2. It must not be reliant upon another human being's existence, property, or will. This criteria is a little more tricky, but it's true nonetheless. Basically, it says that we cannot claim as a Universal Right anything that is reliant upon someone else. For example, I cannot claim a Universal Right to Mutual Love. Mutual Love requires that another person exists and that they have the ability and desire to love us back. In the same way, I can't ever say that I have a Universal Right to someone else's work or their food. This is because a Universal Right wouldn't just mean that I have a right to it, but that all people, in all places, and in all times have a right to this person's work or food. Even if that person agrees that everyone at all times can partake, we cannot say that this is a true Universal Right because it's still contingent upon that person's will- not to mention the fact that food and work are limited resources and therefore CANNOT ever be given to all people. So, what are some Universal Rights? Our founding father's decided that Life, Liberty, and Property were some. Life- each man and woman is entitled to their life. No one should be allowed to take it from them needlessly. Liberty- each man and woman is entitled to make their own decisions. Although we agree to give up some of our personal liberty in order to respect the "lifes and property" of others, all men are free (yes, was completely hypocritical for the men who owned slaves to write such a thing, but I believe it's true of all time, even if some people throughout history were denied this right) Property- each man and woman is entitled to the work of their hands. If they make it, grow it, or construct it, they can claim it as their own and should not be required to surrender it against their will. Legislated Rights. These are rights that are given to us because we live under a certain time period or a certain government or community. Voting is a good example of a legislated right. It cannot be Universal because it requires a Democracy or some other representative form of government, and let's face it, not all people live under a Democracy. Some other examples could include a Trial by Jury, Miranda Rights (the right to remain silent), and Marriage. Legislated Rights can also entail the rights that a person might have to another person's Universal Rights based on fulfillment or violation of contracts- for instance, I might be entitled to another person's property if they have agreed to give it to me for a sum of money or service and I provide that money or service. It could also be said that if an individual violates the Universal Rights of an individual- takes their life, liberty, or property without their consent, the individual who violates those rights may have abandoned their own and be required to give up their life, liberty, or property as a result. Goods & Services. The are things that are created, designed, grown, or provided by other humans for the benefit of others. These include food, clothing, homes, land, manicures, cell phones, medical care, education, and anything else that is given to us or provided by us. This is where I'm probably going to get a lot of arguments, but I'm going to say VERY STRONGLY that we cannot EVER claim as a Universal Right anything that requires another person to provide it. Goods and Services cannot EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be Universal Rights. Simply stated, if I cannot have a Universal Right to food because that would mean that the farmer who produces it has no property rights or liberty rights. If I have a right to it, I can take it without his consent. In fact, I could force him to grow it for me if it were truly a Universal Right. Same thing for Education. I cannot say that all humans are entitled to education because such a claim would first require that there be teachers and professors. Then, it would also mean that my claim to their services trumps any rights they have as to what their services are worth or who they'd like to give their services to. Same thing for Healthcare. I cannot say that all humans are entitled to medical care because such a claim would first require that there be doctors, nurses and medicine. But secondly, it would also mean that my right to their services trumps their right to give their services and their right to choose who to give their services to. The conundrum: Both education (and soon Healthcare if we're not careful) are actually Legislated Rights in a lot of countries (including here in the US). This means that the government has taken the Universal Rights of Liberty and Property away from the individuals in the Education and Heathcare industries and given it to the rest of the citizens. It may not seem like such a big deal- after all- it seems to benefit everyone, right? But the problem is this- if you forcibly take away rights from some individuals, you take it away from ALL individuals. This means that claiming a right to Healthcare and Education actually dehumanizes all of us in the process. We all suffer the loss of our Universal Rights when we choose to take them forcibly from someone else. This isn't to say that Education and Healthcare are unimportant. They are vital. They are almost as vital as food- which is another thing we're not "entitled to." So we need to look for ways to make sure that all people have access to Education, Healthcare, and food. But the answer isn't redefining these things as Universal Rights or Legislating them. Because when we do, we all lose. The quality of life, liberty, property (and therefore education and Healthcare) all decrease when we try to manipulate the system into something that it's not. Interview Thursday: Christopher Cocca 07/02/2009
This week, I decided to do a quick interview with our good friend Christopher Cocca. He wrote a guest blog here a few months back and he's beginning a Master’s of Fine Arts in Creative Writing at The New School. This week we talked about school, postmodernism, and technology. He's posting his side of the interview with me over on his blog sometime this week, too. * * * Nathan Key: Thanks for agree to let me interview you, Chris. Now, from what I’ve read on your blog, you've recently decided to head back to school for an MFA? Can you tell us more about that and what prompted you back into education? Christopher Cocca: There's no shortage of opinions on the utility of the MFA on the web and in general. For me, it's about being around other people who are trying to do the same thing I'm trying to do: push myself to producing the best possible texts. Doing this with other writers (students and teachers) appeals to me. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't major in creative writing or English instead of political philosophy as an undergrad. And I'd still get the MDiv. I'd do it all the same as I did, including eventually going back and exploring/improving this part of what I do in a more formal, educational setting. I'm glad to be going back now, in my extremely late 20s, with a very clear focus. NK: You know, sometimes I wish I could head back to high school and college with that clear focus you just mentioned- knowing then what I do now. Ah well… On your blog you've mentioned Postmodernism quite a bit, lately. One meme I've been exploring here on this site is the postmodern idea of "death of the author" and how media, art, and literature have been affected. As a guy who's writing a novel and working toward publishing your own ideas and stories, how is your role as a writer and storyteller changing? CC: The death of the author is another way of saying everyone's an author. In the postmodern literary sense where reader-response sometimes is taken to trump everything, I get what some people mean, but on the other hand, with all of us social networking, tweeting, meme-ing, song-quoting, whatever...everyone is some kind of passer-on of content. Some people are creating, authoring. Some people are receiving and retransmitting. Many, actually. RT hashtag cliche. The interesting thing to me is that our references are so ubiquitous but people still think that repeating them makes them clever or interesting, that somehow repeating this line or lyric or saying this punch-line or snarky thing --- the punch-line everyone's expecting because you've heard it a million times --- makes us authors. I'm talking about general conversation here, not just the passive-aggressive what I had for lunch today Facebook status updates. And then you've got what's going on in Iran, which should really make all of us feel pretty shameful about most of the things we use social media and social networking for. Nothing in the world to say and all the freedom to say it. Here I'm going to do it myself: we're like the Junkions from the original Transformers movie (the cartoon). Using catch phrases from television shows to navigate our lives and determine how we speak to one another. In art, this is interesting: it's open source, it's sampling, it's remixing. It's the good things about the death or redefinition or authorship. In conversation, it's the worst. It's free time x cheap entertainment x laziness. I tend to feel this way about cliche in writing, too. So, as an author or a writer or a blogger or whatever, I try to edit all of those placeholders out. The challenge is finding new ways to say things, and I think this goes for speech and relationships, too. No one can ever play "In Your Eyes" for Ione Skye again. Think of all the tender little phrased you'd love to say to your wife if you weren't so embarrassed by them because people in movies said them first. Maybe the problem is using other people’s art to express yourself in the first place. Sometimes it's amazing (the Grey Album, for example), or the open source art projects that are coming up. But in real life it's sort of cheesy. So I think we need to learn to make our own art for our own purposes, which is why people started making art in the first place. NK: Speaking of Open Source- which makes me think of all sorts of free downloadable content- you've been posting some bits and pieces of your novel, Milton County Power & Light up on your blog lately. I've seen a few other authors post their books online, too- Monster Island is a great example- and I'm wondering if the future of authors is similar to the future of musicians- it doesn't really seem like musicians really need record labels, and it doesn't seem like writers need publishers. Where do you think we're heading with all this? CC: This is something people are talking a lot about, especially with things like LuLu making publishing and delivery so easy. It seems very similar to the success we’ve seen among indie bands and unsigned artists through platforms and communities like MySpace, YouTube etc. But while I agree that musicians don't really need record labels anymore, and while writers might not need publishing houses, they still need editors. I think that's the disconnect in the analogy. A musician can throw up a demo or a crummy song on MySpace and when no one likes it they can take it down, make it better, whatever. But if you self-publish a novel before it's really ready, that's out there forever. I think we sort of understand music as more of a work in progress in the sense that demos and alternate cuts and completely unfinished songs are interesting. Boxsets and anthology albums are full of these things and people collect the bootlegs. It's not the same with writing. That said, just like writers need editors, most musicians need producers. But then you've got this whole crop of one-man virtual bands that do it all in their bedroom on a Mac and it's amazing. Chad Van Gaalen is like that. I guess what I'm saying is that it depends on the maturity of your talent. I know that I'm not about to self-publish a novel because I know how much work I still have to do. If I wrote a perfect pop song, maybe, I'd know it. At present, my book isn't that. So that's the practical side of it. But there's also another difference. Releasing your own album is almost a badge of honor. When your band gets big you can reminiscence about how you put out the first EP yourself and sold it out of your car and even for people who never make it past that, I think it's all very romantic. It's cool. Maybe I only think that because I haven't done it. But there's not the same kind of vibe when it comes to self-publishing. I think most writers aren't ready to say the self-publishing has the same kind of punk ethos. Even small presses who's mission is to publish new voices or avant guard stuff have editors and gatekeepers and for good reason. Someone has to go to bat for your work. Reading an experimental novel doesn't have the same built-in viral opportunities that listening to a 4 minute alt.country track does. It's just not a viral medium. This is probably why flash fiction is so popular on the web. Six-sentence stories or one-sentence stories can become memes. That's what tweets are, and people are using Twitter and Tumblr and Facebook for this kind of viral lit, mircostories, koans, whatever. NK: Of course, none of those writing forums pay really well, either. I know from past experience that a band might be able to make money from live music shows or T-shirts. But writers don’t really have that sort of thing… CC: As far as a paycheck, at the moment, I think it's more about building social and artistic capital than actual capital. But publishers will find a way to make more money than they currently are off of the kinds of things you're talking about. Writers will too and a few already are. Present company excluded. NK: OK, last question. Who'd you bet on if Stephen King and John Grissom were up against each other in a cage match? CC: Neil Gaiman. NK: Nice. * * * Universal Human Rights vs. Regular Rights 07/01/2009
I think we need to pause and make a distinction between Universal Human Rights and the other kind of rights that we get because we live in a certain country or under a certain government. The reason is this- I've been hearing and reading lately that Healthcare is a Universal Human Right. I don't think it qualifies as such for the following reason:  What do Terminator and Matrix have in common with Hotel Rwanda? Namely, they all deal with power struggles. OK, it may seem rather strange that I’m drawing a correlation between these films, but bear with me for a moment while I explain my position. It seems to me that most conflicts eventually rest on one of the following two areas: Values and Resources | Follow Me Nathan Recommends
Micah Tillman |
