Reflection Blog #6

One of the trippiest parts, as if the novel hasn't been messing with my mind before, is when Alberto hands Sophie a copy of Sophie’s World off the shelf. It's like a painter painting a painting of that painting painting; a tad bit confusing but once you broaden the view, a little better to understand. Anywho, this part is kind of funny because it's almost as if we’re collectively coming to a realization that maybe we’re just a figment of the major’s imagination. Doesn't this amaze you? Characters that supposedly don't exist, who are now aware of their “non existence”, have just picked up a novel--which happens to be the same novel we’re currently reading about their life--that's about themselves, the major, and Hilde; pure chaos right? Even Hilde begins to question a few things before coming to a semi conclusion that Sophie and Alberto are just characters in the novel. Another piece I find comical is the non-related characters that continue to pop up in the novel. For example, in the Darwin chapter, Noah- from the classical Bible story with the Ark- appears for a brief moment to give Sophie a picture of all the animals he saved. ¡Next section! Another trippy part in the novel is this mischievous plan that Sophie and Alberto are cooking up. I’M EXCITED TO SEE HOW THINGS PLAY OUT!! Ever since Alberto mentioned it a few chapters ago, I've been looking forward to it. I think it's cute how Sophie is trying to distract the major...even though he's the one writing the novel. So technically is this where the major’s mind is just dozing off and it's his unconscious mind writing this piece of the novel?

Connection Blog #6

We were talking about Freud earlier this week and the whole “Freudian slips of the tongue” concept. It’s funny because I’ve never heard it called that before, but I completely understand the concept; saying how you really feel, but not meaning to say it out loud. But after what we talked about today, Utilitarianism, I feel like these go hand in hand..maybe. Utilitarianism is about picking the choice that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So in a sense, would me telling the truth be the better thing to do at all times? What I mean is, if I had a Freudian slip of the tongue and tell my friend that her dress isn't cute and she doesn't look good (maybe not that bluntly) then I’m doing good to her and possibly further on in her life. Let’s say later that night she had a date, and she was looking a mess, thus the guy doesn't give her a second date. Then she gets upset and finds out that he's dating someone else. In turn, she gets up and goes on a killing spree out of spite. Now, all of this would have never happened if I would have told her from the get-go that her outfit wasn't that cute. That example is a bit extreme, but I feel Utilitarianism is a bit too black and white; either you're doing the right thing or you aren't. What confuses me is who decides what you do is morally good or not? An action that you commit could feel like it's the correct thing to do in your mind, but on the flip side may seem like the wrong choice for society to others. I feel like you can never win with Utilitarianism.

Connection #5

With this whole concept of the lives’ of Alberto and Sophie being practically ran by the major made me revisit my thoughts of mankind not really existing…
I do believe in God, so yes I believe that He writes our destiny but I've always wondered if we were simply, I don't know, a snow globe on an alien’s shelf somewhere. What if our entire existence is a lie? This reminds me of when we spoke on Kierkegaard and how one of the most important concepts to him was existing. I wonder how would he feel and answer to questions like mine about questioning mankind’s existence. Now we also talked about Kant, and how he believed that time and space are innate concepts. Is this true? I would like to think so because if we think about it, we technically created time..I'm not so sure about space. If we think about it, humans have a different time setup than animals, right? We have the whole 365 days a year, 52 weeks a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, etc. I feel as though animals just live from sunrise to sunset without getting all detailed like. We run on a strict, day by day lifestyle that we constructed with time--which seems to have a strong grip on us. Even from the very instance of birth, we see and feel the effects of time, which is why I feel they are innate. Time is a quality/quantity that we created for ourselves, and ever since it has trickled down generations and has formed a hold on humanity.

Relegation #5

This book is getting surreal. The major is really playing games with Alberto and Sophie! First I like how the entire book is set up; finding out that Sophie and Alberto may not exist and that their entire “story” or “life” has been written in this book for Hilde. Not to mention that Alberto knows this and repeatedly tells Sophie that it's the major controlling everything. On a side note, I don't know why I found it amusing when these fictional characters, such as Alice, the rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, Aladdin, and Scrooge showed up in the novel. It's almost like a blast from the past simply because here are these characters in the wrong story. I like what they represent though. For example, the red and blue bottles represent pantheism and individualism. It's a cute little symbol I can refer to when it comes to remembering the two. Then when Aladdin shows up, which shows romantic irony, and informs both Sophie and Alberto that the major is in control. I feel as though Sophie didn't fully believe this concept until she was leaving Alberto’s place and met Winnie the Pooh who then gave her a letter in a looking glass. The message was from the major, of course, which touched on how Kant was practically the starter of the League of Nations. What made this an eye opener for Sophie was the fact that she and Alberto had just finished speaking on Kant, and now this teddy bear appears out of nowhere speaking about not only Kant, but Sophie and Alberto as well.

Blog Connection #4

Recently, we've been talking about Rationalists and Empiricists, and a tad bit about Kant. At this point I’ve learned that empiricists believe in the senses while rationalists believe in reason. I've actually been trying to figure out where I fall on that spectrum, but in the course of doing that, I've been asking friends and family a simple question: “Do you trust your senses?”. Typically, they respond with a yes, and then I ask them or give them different scenarios in which their senses have mislead them such as smelling vanilla extract and believing it to taste good, only to find out that it's quite disgusting. Or I’ll ask them about a time where they thought they saw or heard something, but it turns out that they were way off, such as maybe thinking a satellite was a star, or thinking a stranger was someone they knew, or maybe even thinking they heard their phone vibrate or ding! only to realize they were wrong. My follow up question then was, “Do you/Can you still trust your senses even after they've tricked or deceived you once? Who's to say it hasn't happened multiple times?” similar to the way one of the philosophers we learned about did...was it Socrates? I stumbled a few people until it got to my mom--of course. She flipped the script and asked me a question instead. She asked that if it wasn't for my senses what else would I used to believe what I believe or help aid my experiences. I replied with that reason would be the only other way, but again, she threw me a curveball and asked me to explain. But before I could, she said questioned whether my reasoning was correct simply because everyone's reasoning for certain vary greatly, so what makes my reasoning right versus hers? Who knew my mom was a philosopher??? Anyways, this left me stumped all over again because she had a point. If rationalists base their beliefs off of reasoning, technically wouldn't there always be “another side” to look at?

Blog Reflection #4

Man oh man, this Bjerkely chapter really messed with my head. In this chapter we find out that the Sophie that we've been reading about since the very beginning...doesn't actually exist. She's a part or character of Hilde's birthday present; which just so happens to be this novel itself. This was a major plot twist simply because all we've known is Sophie and her world, but now we learn that that has been a figment of Hilde's dad's imagination. I mean this explains why every 5 pages there was a “Happy Birthday Hilde” or a message from her father. In a sense, the novel as a birthday present is really cute considering that her (Hilde’s) dad isn't there and he put some thought into it. Funny thing is, I began questioning Sophie's world when she kept having some of Hilde's REAL objects. I understand that it may be just a story...but why does it seem as though Sophie actually has Hilde's items such as her crucifix, scarf, etc.? Also, if Hilde's dad is the writer, technically doesn't that make him a "god" of Sophie and Alberto's lives? Lastly, why is he giving Alberto so many ideas about what's actually going on? What I mean is why is he "making" Alberto "think" that their lives are being controlled by him? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of making a novel if the characters in the novel that's being created knew that they weren't real? Better yet, they knew who the writer was? This chapter has really thrown my mind in the spin cycle and I'm still a bit lost with plenty of questions.