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.

Blog Reflection #3

This book keeps throwing me off left and right, and it seems as though one of the ways to help understand it better is through the work of re-reading certain parts. For example, I had to re-read the chapters of Spinoza and Locke a few times to grasp their meaning. Similar to the way Sophie noticed something new when she watched the Athens film again and noticed the postcard that read “Hilde” in one group. One of the parts I had to read more than once was when the novel stated that Hermes, the dog, actually spoke and said “‘Happy Birthday’” to Sophie when they were at the park on the bench. DOGS CAN’T TALK AND WE KNOW THIS. I think it's weird how Alberto continues to blame Hilde’s father for everything; such as this instance. There's no way a man all the way in Lebanon can make a dog talk all of a sudden. I'm really hoping Sophie is not buying that, and that she begins thinking outside the box. Another part I had to re-read was when Alberto called her Hilde yet again as she's leaving. They had just finished talking about the last time he called her Hilde and they both agreed that maybe it was Hilde’s father...but he says it again and it leads me to believe something's not right. I don't necessarily know how to explain it all with words, but I'm just getting some off vibes from Alberto now. It's like he's hiding something from Sophie, and she's getting pretty darn close to figuring it out.

Blog Connection #3

Well we have recently started the film Inception in class and of course it left me thinking about a few things. The entire concept of the movie, I think, is about what's real and what's not. More so as if to ask is it all a dream? What confuses me the most on all of this is the how the get into the dream state. I understand that they use some machine that makes a hissing noise and sends them into a dream state, but what exactly is it. Like how does it make them sleep? Is it a nerve type of thing? What happens if someone breaks it while they're in a dream? So many questions simply regarding the process, but more with how they wake up. What if, like normal people, they don't hear the alarm, therefore they don't wake up..how bad is that? Not to mention, is it bad to put yourself under by yourself..in case you don't wake up? I'm sure some of these questions will be answered throughout the movie, but they're just on the brain. My new question I began pondering is whether what's being said in the movie is true, such as how our subconscious acts and how they're represented. In the movie, our subconscious is represented as people; maybe even strangers. I once read something that said when we dream, we can't “make” a face we've never seen before. This means that every face in our subconscious is someone we've seen before at some point in time. Thus, could it be true that we dream of random strangers who are there to protect our mind?

Post Spring Break Chapters

Over these past few weeks of reading Sophie's World, many chapters have caught my attention and left me questioning a few things. For example, in The Renaissance when Sophie had her dream about a girl sitting next to her and then the girl's father called her in and they shared a huge embrace, but Sophie found her gold cross chain on the bench. Then when she woke up, she found the same necklace from her dream under her pillow. Now, as we all know, this isn't the first time she has found something that belongs to Hilde. What I ponder is how this keeps happening? Mind you, Sophie is practically pondering her entire life and doesn't understand how Hilde's father seems to know everything; and I agree. It seems like he's always in the loop with everything that's going on, and not just with Hilde, with Sophie and Alberto too. I like how Sophie has relaxed a bit with Alberto and is really trying to get to the bottom of things with him. I thought it was a bit risky when she "stayed with Joanna" and went to meet Alberto at the old, abandoned church early the next morning. Maybe it's just because the set-up is weird--young girl, grown man, eight a.m., alone in an abandoned church. Anyways, once she got back to Joanna's and they had their whole talk about philosophy I was relived! It's odd to say, I know, but it just felt right that someone would call out how weird this entire situation is! For example, Sophie just sort of accepts this philosophy class and her mom just barely scratches the surface on questioning the little notes. I enjoyed these few chapters over break.

God and Fate v Free Will

In class, we are currently talking about God and getting into the topic of fate and free will. Now, I understand that everyone doesn't believe in God, but for the record I want to state that I am, in fact, a Christian and I do believe in God. I have no issues with anyone who doesn't believe in what I believe or believe in my religion, however, I do have an issue when anyone disrespects my religion and tries to degrade my faith. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion, but I feel as though it should go without saying that everyone should respect what people believe whether they agree with it or not. 

Even though that's not what I wanted to talk about, it seems fair to mention it. Quite recently, Monday actually, we had a class discussion on God. It was here that I learned not many of my classmates believe in God. This doesn't offend me in any way, but it simply shocked me, and I can't quite explain why. I feel as though it's because all I've ever known is Christianity, and the vast majority of my friends are Christians as well. This was an eye opener to me--not saying that I didn't know there were people who didn't believe the same things I did--because I feel as though maybe I had become used to being in my "box" of comfortability. Our conversation showed me that sometimes you could be in a room full of people who just don't see eye to eye with you, and it's moments like these that tests who you are as a person: whether you stick to what you believe in or will you conform to those around you?