The trap of this film is that, in fact, the original text of this classic experiment has already stated that you do not choose, and the tram that cannot be braked will eventually cause an accident, and your idly watching is itself a kind of murder.
I am not a philosophy major, nor do I have much philosophical knowledge and foundation, so there will inevitably be many flaws and limitations. This article does not intend to point out the absolute truth, but only represents my own opinion and speaks for an idea. If there is something wrong, or something that is incompatible with your thoughts, you can laugh it off.
The positive film is actually a variety of logical reasoning based on a thought experiment designed by the philosophy teacher. Many people feel that the teacher has been revising the rules and gaining excessive rights. Some explanation posts even define the teacher as the "God, parent" in the experiment, and control the experiment "willfully". For example, some people point out that the teacher's shooting of the poet is a kind of autocracy, etc. Wait. I think this is a pure misreading.
I am not denying that the teacher is controlling the direction of the experiment. On the contrary, I feel that the teacher is guiding the experiment. This is because in itself this is a thought experiment, fictional, set. For example, the soldier remembers the password. In fact, the password is just said casually by the students. The password entered in the film only exists in the imagination, and is only based on the setting that the soldier never forgets.
At the same time, it is also a lesson, for the students, but also for the audience. Even if the teacher controls the players of two professions, and the other professions are randomly selected, but in fact each profession and its background are carefully designed by the teacher. Therefore, the choice of the first and second trials is actually controlled. For example, doctors will definitely be selected, but after adding the life background setting, Ebola virus contacts will naturally be excluded. This kind of setting is actually predictable, so parents say God is not so accurate.
And it's all about guiding the students, why do you say that, an example is that the teacher has been murdering poets since the beginning. If the poet is unnecessary, then the teacher can actually not join this setting. In the film, the teacher not only added the poet setting, but also created the role of the mysterious person and the students from the actions of killing the poet twice. an antagonistic relationship. The first time to kill the poet, in fact, the teacher had expected that the poet would lose the election; the second time to kill the poet was based on the results of the students' vote in order, the poet's position was replaced by a mysterious card, or in the experiment, the poet was taken away by a mysterious person the right to exist.
There are many sayings that the teacher, the player, is confused with the mysterious person. Most of the games are voting, and the survival process is only based on the logical reasoning of the election results. Therefore, it is not the teacher who is modifying the rules, but the profession of the mysterious person. What killed the poet was actually the result of the vote, the choice of the crowd, the decision made by the people, the dirty hands of the mysterious man, which is what I call the third type of murder.
So who is the mysterious person, of course not God and parents or teachers, this profession makes it very clear, the person who builds the shelter, the owner of the means of production, the representative of power and government. In the first experiment, shooting the loser was actually to avoid rioting and resistance, but on the other hand lied that it was the request of the loser (of course, this is the reasoning in the game, in reality it is a fact stated by the teacher, players can see There is so-called deception), which is usually the performance of those in power. While maintaining their own rule, they also consider the survival of the entire group, and gain their own dominion from the process of serving the group (including dirty choices). win. In the second experiment, for the survival of the entire population, the population was forced to give birth, and laws and regulations were revised. In the end, the policy was not supported by the military (soldiers). During the process of banning and taking over the soldiers, the rule was overthrown by excellent civilians, and finally perished with the means of production. .
Whether a ruler is needed, whether to obey the rule or seize the means of production to reproduce by itself, is a hidden subject of the teacher. The second hidden topic is actually the third experiment. The answers given by the students and the heroine are not perfect answers, of course, but they are also human issues that the teacher wants students to reflect and understand from the arrogant philosophy students. Overthrowing the power, democracy chose a virtuous and talented representative (the heroine) to choose. At this time, everyone really tested the equality of everyone's value, not the level of occupation or the experience of life, calmly accept it As a result, accept the equality of everyone's life.
And other topics, such as not excluding or judging a person based on occupation and experience alone, not being afraid of the unknown, not losing reason because of fear, and the balance between rationality and emotion, are actually very obvious.
In fact, the heroine has already answered the answer about human nature that the teacher wants to hear most, but the teacher still wants to tell everyone that this alone is not enough, and the ending is always complete destruction. However, the heroine said that as long as she lived like this honestly, it was enough. Even if time went backwards, she was not afraid to detonate the bomb herself, and even if she died, she could happily accept it. But she couldn't answer, what about the future of mankind?
The film ends here, the final proposition, everyone has their own answer, but maybe no one can answer: to be or not to be? Sandwich or pistol? Or the most formulaic answer, love is the answer?
View more about After the Dark reviews
