This movie still gave everyone an increase in knowledge, and I particularly like the saying that "philosophy is to reality, just like masturbation is to sex". Of course, you will see in this movie, in which sense this sentence is valid, and in which sense it is criticized.
Before doing this thought experiment, the classmates made a few more famous examples in the history of philosophy, such as the utilitarian choice to maximize the benefits (on the train track), the heroine showed very clear from the beginning The intention of thinking-this kind of topic is problematic, because no matter what choice is made, it is murder in the practical sense. But you will soon see that the following two philosophical experiments are more based on the meaning of "utilitarianism". Of course, this is a clue, but we need to talk about some more important ones first.
1. The thinking method of this kind of thought experiment itself is epistemological. If you are familiar with philosophy, you will see that the so-called epistemological method is to incorporate all topics into thinking as objects of thought. This is the overall background of the film: a group of thinking people-a route planned out in accordance with the intellect.
Furthermore, if we think of thinking in an epistemological way, the first requirement is that a thing can become as clear as possible an object. But I don’t know if everyone feels weird about this thought experiment. As a normal person, we would say, don’t people who get a seemingly useless career and background have no future? (Useful and useless are actually explained, I will explain further later), for example, is it impossible for a bartender to become a farmer by learning agronomy by himself? This assumption itself does not conform to the intellectual way of thinking. Intellectuality first restricts a thing to a completed object, because only in this restriction can we obtain a clear and clear boundary of things, and if We put the proposition "man is free" in epistemology (pure rationality), then any of our epistemological thinking cannot be developed, because we can say that because "man is free" "everything is possible" , Then we can't get anything with specific regulations.
It can be said that this is the basic thinking structure of thought experiments, and it is also the primary explanation of "philosophy is to reality as masturbation is to sex", because reality has always been richer, and the power of intellectual logic is not so great.
2. Intellectual-logical thinking has its own limits. This limitation itself is not just about its premise: for example, it is necessary to look at the object as a completed being. And it can be said that its limit is "human existence".
Maybe you still don't know why I say this. In the second thought experiment, because one of the female students objected to the teacher’s reproductive match plan out of an emotional need, she was almost expelled (shooted) by the teacher. I don’t know if you have ever thought about it. -Logical thinking. The best solution at the moment is indeed to reproduce and match. So what forces people to not accept this solution? As a normal person, it is obvious that our emotions cannot stand, but is this emotion purely "impulsive"? No, this emotion is "explained". The explanation given by the female student at the time was, "I can't make love to someone I don't agree with". This explanation caters to his emotions, rather than this explanation. In this, she is free-this freedom is not just a choice of knowledge, rather it is the emergence of her posture of existence.
We might say that in a free and relaxed living environment, we can of course freely exert our spirit and seek the life we want, but when the conditions are as harsh as thought experiments, should we give up our existence? What about posture (spiritual)? ——I think this problem is the first time that I have hit certain realistic things (something that caters to our current realities), but this problem is not my first consideration.
3. What I want to ask is: Are the so-called harsh thought experiment conditions really absolute? Absolute in what sense? In the second thought experiment, the teacher occupied the moral high ground (this point was set up because of harsh conditions) and shot and killed female students, but the establishment of this moral high ground was also based on an explanation of the current conditions. Up. This explanation was actually guided by the teacher from the beginning-or in other words, the emergence of his way of living. The poet cannot survive, because he does not have any productive forces. The same way he stays away from all the superfluous people of basic production and the people who will build the country in the future should also be eliminated (it is a bit of "ideal country"). This kind of planning is in our view. It is certainly desirable to come, but first of all we always feel that "something is missing", and in this kind of planning we will interpret the "missing" as: weak human touch, moral emotionalism, volition, this kind of explanation Just cut off the things that we think "is missing something" abruptly, because under such harsh conditions, aren't these things like "embroidered pillows"?
But this is not the case. Let’s see that the teacher’s guidance (planning) itself is not just about everyone’s career and positioning, but also the setting of their usefulness to the current group-these are rather such things. Derived from the explanation: how human existence is. The survival of human beings can only be explained as the preservation of the body and the preservation of races (this is simply a modern thing: Spinoza: self-preservation). Human existence means everything comes out of the self-preserving body. In this explanation We can see that we must eat and drink for the necessary nutrition at the beginning, then we need the corresponding food, and for the continuation of the body, we need housing, medical care and other things to maintain, and all these activities are human beings. In operation, people are sensible. If anyone has conflicts, they need to have mediators: lawyers. The activities of the entire group also need to be distributed in a plan, because politicians need to plan the overall situation. Of course, if you want to Plato also considers war, so we need to have a soldier as a profession.
The logical premise of all this is such a "reality": human beings are self-preserved animals, and we must preserve ourselves with the greatest possible possibility. We cannot entrust ourselves to slogans such as those promoted by poets (in self-preservationism). So, of course, poets are just spreaders of ideology) and cannot be entrusted to priests and the like, because beliefs are so unreliable (this movie does not have this profession yet, it may be that he wants to be too close to Plato).
Well, if we follow this logic, we can string together the above facts: why the background is a philosophical thought experiment, because if people are interpreted as "self-preserved animals", the epistemological approach is the most reliable Because this way of thinking provides an object created by a person (absolutely clear objects, Descartes, Kant), people can be absolutely sure; why the teacher shoots female students, because her principle is no longer "self-preservation."
4. In Heidegger’s words, the teacher’s posture of existence is only one of the basic forms of life. Of course, this posture has a long history. In Nietzsche’s words, it started from the bastard of Socrates. Two evil spirits are in Plato's book, and one evil spirit is in Xenophon's book. This gesture is also a "will to power", and for Heidegger it is modern technology.
But the point of this movie: It may also be the importance of postmodernism: what is the survival of human beings. What I want to say is that it is not that we change to another kind of existence, but that human existence itself is free. The last thought experiment operated by the heroine may not be unexpected. There was a cannon fodder counterattack. What does the "counterattack" itself mean here? It just means, oh, I can change my survival posture. Of course this is correct.
But from my point of view, at the beginning, the heroine, perhaps as the best philosophy student, actually saw this. In reality, people are free, and people can rely on their own decisions, even a little bit. Unfounded decision to witness one’s own freedom——The teacher’s “self-preservation” plan is also a decision itself, and the choice to live with the poet in everything, and to spend the rest of his life with the loved one is also based on the decision; in front of the decision, human freedom blossoms It is revealed, and good and evil are generated in this way-if "self-preservation" becomes a will, then of course those who violate the optimal plan should be excluded. But what if I just want to live this life beautifully?
I don’t know if I elevated the personality of this movie, haha, maybe this movie is like many anime, such as "Psycho-Measurer" is asking: What is a better way for people to survive. But I saw that the final heroine's choice was guarding the choice. Because any decision itself means guarding the decision.
5 "Philosophy is to reality as masturbation is to sex." The powerlessness of philosophy may have long been because he was still an experiment.
6. In the end, since it is philosophy, we still have to talk about related philosopher thoughts: Plato, Mill, Spinoza, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Heidegger ( ? Don’t add this big cow~~~ He is too much trouble).
View more about After the Dark reviews
