This will be the last posting I will ask you to do for SW. We will start the year off in EHAP with 50-question CPS MC test over the book so you'd better read it if you haven't!
Answer the following questions by July 20:
1. Are you a rationalist or an empiricist? Use examples from Alberto's lessons and Sophie's reactions to them in your response.
2. Why does Alberto tell Sophie several times that Berkeley will be a particularly important philosopher for them? (Hint: What is the solution to the mysteries in the first half of the novel, i.e., how can Hermes talk? How can Sophie have found the gold crucifix from her dream under her bed? Etc.)
3. What is the purpose of the chapter entitled “The Garden Party”?
4. Which of the philosophers that Sophie learns about do you find the most compelling? (In other words, which one do you think was/is right?)
5. Is Sophie real? Explain why you think she is or is not.
10 comments:
1) I am a rationalist. In my mind, reason is the only way to knowledge. Knowledge is more than just what is perceived and we cannot truly learn from something sensual without simplifying sensory input. Descartes “set out to prove philosophical truths in the way one proves a mathematical theorem.” Being a rationalist, I would simplify a problem to its basic constituents much like a mathematical proof justifies an equation’s functionality by proving that the steps taken to reach the end product were mathematically sound. Empiricism suggests that all knowledge is derived directly from sensory input, whether simple or complex, but in my mind, seeing the number two scrawled on a piece of paper does not tell me that it represents the compilation of two single entities (ones), but reason and learning has taught me that this symbol represents 1+1 of something. Empiricism is every man’s journey and experiences boiled down to personal truths, but empirical data ages with the man if it is of that man’s senses, so as Alberto suggests “reason doesn’t become bowed and weak. It is the body that ages.” “Two and two will go on being four as long as there is reason left in us.” Empiricism directly criticizes the idea of innate ability with Locke’s proposal of the “tabula rasa” and the idea that “we have absolutely nothing in the mind that we have not experienced through the senses.” To me, there is an obvious flaw in this notion because infants display innate/instinctive behaviors immediately after birth. A “simple sensation” may eventually form a “complex idea”, but rarely does that immediately produce knowledge. Knowledge must be found with reason, not the senses, and that is why I am a rationalist.
2) Berkeley “ thought all our ideas have a cause beyond our consciousness, but that this cause is not of a material nature.” When Sophie thumps her hand on the table she says “Doesn’t that prove that this table is really a table, both of material and matter?” but Alberto makes her realize that what she felt was not a table, but something hard and not the actual matter in the table. This thus proved that there is an underlying substance that gives the impression of what is experienced. Berkeley’s claim that there is a cause behind consciousness thus serves to prove the existence of a higher power (to him: God). Berkeley’s philosophy is particularly important to the plot of Sophie’s world because it explains how the many strange events have come to be. Albert Knag is obviously the higher power (the author of a book about Sophie and Alberto) and is thus able to control every aspect of the story and manipulate reality (make possible the impossible, such as Hermes’ speech) to entertain his daughter. Berkeley’s philosophy explains Sophie and Alberto’s existence with the notion of a higher power.
3) The chapter entitled “Garden Party” is included in this book because it definitively proves to Sophie and Alberto that the Major is completely in control and they are part of a book, as if they didn’t already realize this. It is also almost as though the Major wants Alberto and Sophie to escape, because he provides such great chaos for them to escape his oversight. I think the major also includes this chapter because it gives him the opportunity to be the almighty ruler of Sophie’s world and he can show his superiority. It is for this same reason that he includes Disney and fairytale characters throughout the book. More importantly, this chapter is thematically important to the real Sophie’s World because it gives Sophie and Alberto the means to escape and continue their story outside of the Major’s story. Were it not for this jumbled mess of a party, how could Jostein Gaarder justify their escape from a book?
4) I find Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel the most compelling of the philosophers discussed in this book. Hegel’s idea that timeless human knowledge was an impossibility is highly logical and gripping because his argument supports the notion well and it’s a probable solution to “set up eternal criteria for what man can know about the world. Hegel relates history to a running river. “Every tiny movement in the water at a given spot in the river is determined by the falls and eddies in the water higher upstream. But these movements are determined, too, by the rocks and bends in the river at the point where you are observing it… You can therefore never claim that any particular thought is correct for ever and ever. But the thought can be correct from where you stand.” Essentially, Hegel claims that knowledge is derived from its causes and its context. This is a very probable explanation for knowledge’s derivation. Human knowledge is only as correct as the time under which it is applied. For example, “if you advocated slavery today, you would at best be thought foolish. But you wouldn’t have been considered foolish 2,500 years ago, even though there were already progressive voices in favor of slavery’s abolition.” (All quotes for #4 are from the chapter entitled “Hegel”) I agree with the idea that one’s level of attained knowledge depends on the context in which it is applied, gained, or advocated.
5) Sophie is real. Sophie exists in the same way that Mickey Mouse exists for us. There may not be an actual mouse anywhere on this planet that gets along with a duck and a dog as best friends, but each and every one of us knows who he is and to each of us he is as real as our pet. In the same way, merely being created in the mind of one man makes Sophie’s existence a reality. Just because something is intangible does not mean that it does not exist. We can’t see love but we know that it is real. It exists in some form. Sophie’s existence is further proved in that her story continues outside of the Major’s own writing. Her story is told past “The Garden Party” despite its being the last chapter in the Major’s book following her life/existence. If Sophie emerges from a book, then she is a reality in the sense that she is a person with free-will like any other person. Unless Hilde has severe schizophrenia only when Sophie calls out to her, she hears Sophie yelling to her within her own reality. Hilde hears Sophie, further proving Sophie’s existence in the “real-world”.
Eric Here
1. I am an empiricist. There are certain things in the world that we cannot understand until we actually experience them. I would not know the basic “shadow” of an elephant if I had never seen one in my life. No matter how well I imagine the parts, a trunk, big ears, giant poo, chances are I would stray far far away from the typical archetype. I will agree that there is innate knowledge within each individual, however I would not be able to communicate my thoughts and learn language through reason alone. If I was born blind, how could I possibly understand that red is the greatest color on the face of the earth?
2. Berkeley's concepts and ideas are the basis of the book. Although Sophie perceives and feels bumping the table, “there is no spoon”. Everything was up to the major. Because her entire existence is only a fleeting thought in the Major's mind, he can manipulate reality so that anything can happen.
3. The chapter reflects on the chaos of life and how anything can happen within the confines of a few moments. However there is no telling whether or not the events are predetermined or anarchy. It is an intriguing read because present are all stages of life, conception, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and death (the disappearance of Sophie Amundsen). It also shows how each individual's fleeting existence; how our sense of reality can change in an instant.
4. I find that the most compelling philosophers were the natural ones. A popular saying is “We stand on the shoulders of giants.” These philosophers were the first writers with no such support from humanity. They were forced to formulate their own concepts and present them to an obstinate world. Humanity is not a fan of anything different from itself, generally converting revolutionaries into martyrs. However, I refuse to agree with the outdated ideas of the naturalists. Instead I turn to the workings of John Locke. I can attest to his theories of simple and complex ideas. What I perceive as a slight tingly sensation on my tongue can be perceived as excruciatingly spicy to another person's tastebuds. However, even Mr. Dalton is unable to deny simple geometry and find an excuse to perceive the square as anything else. The idea square is something taught to young minds, but the concept is undeniable. He is the creator of our governmental system, which has prevented dictatorial rule (excluding Richard Nixon).
5. Sophie is real in her and Hilde's world. Because she is a “shadow of a shadow” to the shadow she is real. Sophie is able to interact with Hilde to an extent, however Hilde is unaware of her existence. Outside the pages of the book, Sophie does not exist except in concept and thought. I would like to believe a book is like a portal into another world, that humanity is only a paragraph on the plane of existence. We think and live out our lives, but there is no telling whether or not some higher force is deciding our actions. I suddenly pause for a minute to figure out the syntax of this current particular sentence, “Do I exist?” It is impossible to tell whether a Major will now ruin my answer with something unnecessary and out of context, or if he made Mr. Dalton purposely misspell Assignment. Yes, Sophie is real within the context of her dimension.
Madeline
1) I am a rationalist. I do not believe that when we are born we are a "tabula rasa". The idea of a blank slate that we fill with our experiences is a nice thought, but it is well, irrational. I heard a fable when I was younger about five blind men in India. When they came upon an elephant one day each man formed his own idea of the animal based on where he stood. If they had used reason instead of senses and talked about the different parts they felt, they would know it's true form. I believe that man is just the same. We can use our senses to tell us about the object but reason brings it all together. If we were a "tabula rasa" we would each see the world differently, which in a way we do, but we all have come to the same conclusions about what we sense by using reason.
2) Berkeley is basically the view of philosophy that Gaarder sides with in the novel. Berkeley believed that there is a "cause beyond our consciousness, but that this cause...is spiritual"(280) Albero Knag played the spiritual cause manipulating Sophie and Alberto in the novel. HIs ideas were so important because impossible things could happen because the "spiritual cause" could make or do whatever he wanted.
3) The garden party's primary purpose serves to allow Sophie and Alberto to escape from Knag's imaginary world to Knag's reality. The Garden Party also makes the reader question who is really in control. Is Knag still writing these events because it seems highly unlikely. If he isn't then Gaarder is suggesting that we each need to find our own meaning to living life. Joanna lives through love, her parents live by material fulfillment and power, and perhaps Sophie's mom lives by helping others find their own way by providing unconditional support.
More coming...
4) I find Kierkegaard to be the most compelling. He is not totally right or wrong, none of the philosophers in the novel are in my opinion. Kierkegaard provides the most compelling argument for how I feel about life. I know that people see the world from their own perspective and each person has a different perspective. Therefore each person has to search for their own truth in life. One of my personal philosophies is not to judge people on how they live their life. I don't always succeed but it is how I feel. When I read about Kierkegaard, immediately agreed. His levels of achievement are also something I agree with. I don't think that those levels are true though. I believe in Abraham Maslow's theory of self-fulfillment and self actualization. This, like Kierkegaard has levels that we reach. In conclusion, my personal philosophy in life is very much like Kierkegaard and I agree with his ideas.
5) Sophie's World is a novel in the novel "Sophie's World". This implies that we could be in the same world as Sophie and are being written and manipulated by Albert Knag. However, reason tells me that the novel "Sophie's World" is in fact written by Gaarder. This raises even more questions though, as answers to philosophical questions often do. Is Gaarder writing us? Are we in a world created by Gaarder like Sophie is in a world created by another author?
Sophie isn't real though. Not in my personal reality. "Sophie's World" is just a book and Sophie, Alberto, Knag, and Hilde are all characters in a novel I read for summer vacation. I think. It is easy to let my mind run away and imagine that maybe we are somehow another level of reality being manipulated, but I won't. I don't feel like it is necessary to ponder this question because of my answer to the above question, the reality I am living in is not important to me, it is not a truth I am seeking.
1. I am a rationalist. I believe that we can’t always trust our senses. For example, “magic tricks” are sleight of hand and deception. Just because I see a person get cut in half doesn’t mean that she was actually split in two. Alberto states that “It is far from certain that we can rely on our senses” when discussing Descartes, who, along with Plato, “observed that mathematics and numerical ratio give us more certainty than the evidence of our senses.” Spinoza’s belief that “God or the laws of nature” were “the inner cause of everything that happens” lends to the idea of humans having innate behaviors. Therefore, we are not “blank slates,” born without knowledge or thoughts.
2. Berkeley believed that “everything we see and feel is ‘an effect of God’s power…For God is intimately present in our consciousness, causing to exist for us the profusion of ideas and perceptions that we are constantly subject to.” Alberto then goes on to tell Sophie that “this ‘will or spirit’ that is the ‘cause of everything in everything’ could be Hilde’s father.” Alberto believes this to be the “only feasible explanation for everything that has happened” to Sophie and him.
3. This chapter is included to prove Alberto and Sophie’s belief that Albert Knag has been in control of their world the whole time. It allows the Major to display his omnipotence as many unexpected and absurd things occur at the party such as Joanna having sex under one of the tables and one of Sophie’s classmates crashing the Ingebrigtsens’ white Mercedes. It also gives Sophie and Alberto the opportunity to escape the confines of their fictitious world and enter Hilde and Major Knag’s slightly less fictitious world.
4. I find Hegel the most compelling. His river theory is very interesting to me. “The current of past tradition” washes away older, obsolete beliefs, giving way to newer ideas. No ideas can remain correct for ever and ever as a result of this ebb and flow of knowledge and thought. The concept of dynamic reason and truth is absolutely correct. “Some things can be right or wrong in relation to a certain historical context” exactly as Alberto states. Advocating slavery today is considered foolish but 2500 years ago, one wouldn’t be considered foolish for holding such an opinion. We “stand on the shoulders of giants”, with different and better bases for such judgments. Hegel’s dialectic process is pretty fascinating as “history is one long chain of reflections.” Two opposing ways of thinking do conflict with one another but they are often melded into one view with a compromising third way of thinking. Hegel’s use of history to formulate his viewpoint is what I find most compelling about his whole philosophy.
5. Sophie is real in Hilde’s world. She is able to escape from the Major’s novel and interact with Hilde in the “real world.” Sophie is not real in our world. She is just a character in a piece of literature. I can’t interact with her and she is unable to interact with me. She will only exist within the pages of Jostein Gaarder’s book as a figment of imagination.
Katherine Neal--
1. I consider myself a rationalist, as all of my decision-making processes revolve around logic and reason. I do not however see empiricism and rationalism as two different things, but rather that they are connected to provide knowledge. Alberto’s definition of empiricism is that “we have absolutely nothing in the mind that we have not experienced through the senses.” I like to agree with Locke that our mind is a tabula rasa to an extent, but I do think all humans and animals are born with a certain amount of instinct, or as the rationalists would put it: certain innate ideas that exist in the mind prior to all experience. These may seem like contradictory ideas, but to me I see it being both. For example, I believe that basic survival elements are innate (such as an infant’s rooting complex, or a duckling imprinting) but that everything else is learned through the senses. I think innate knowledge will only take you so far, but the rest is learned. I do believe we need sensory input to achieve knowledge, but I believe reason is the underlying cause to fully simplifying ideas and understanding them. I think reason is learned. My mathematics courses throughout my life have taught me how to reason, and when I was a child, I am fully aware that I did not have the strongest ability to reason—I only cared about me getting what I wanted. In my mind, there is an underlining ‘algorithm’ to solve every problem. Reason and logic help me get from one step to another in a planned manner. Even my decisions that seem more sensual and emotional—seeming to be void of reason—I weave through the problem as if looking at it from a mathematical standpoint. Hume, even though an empiricist, pointed out “that there are clear limits regarding which conclusions we could reach through our sense perceptions.” I believe our perceptions can trick us, and disillusion our thoughts, and that without true reason, the perceptions would be useless, but that they do help aid in the rationalizing process. Kant is my idol philosopher, as he agrees that both perception and reason come into play in our conception of the world. “Reason determines how we perceive the world around us.” When Alberto made Sophie wear the red glasses, her perceptions were off and “there are certain conditions governing the mind’s operation which influence the way we experience the world.” When Alberto did this, I think he was siding with the rationalists, as he proved that perception can change with time and place, but that reason is the basis for knowledge that keeps us grounded and will always be with us, even as the outside conditions change.
2. Berkeley believed that “the only things that exist are those we perceive. But we d not perceive ‘material’ or ‘matter. We do not perceive things as tangible objects.” “He thought all our ideas have a cause beyond our consciousness, but that this cause is not of a material nature. It is spiritual.” Berkeley is referring to a higher power, such as God, who in Sophie’s world is portrayed by Albert, Hilde’s dad. He is the spirit that is the cause behind all the events in Sophie’s world, and this cause is beyond Sophie’s consciousness. Albert controls the people, their actions, and the plot of the story. He demonstrates this by introducing Disney characters, and employing elements from Hilde’s life into the story. Also Berkeley coincides with Hilde’s house Bjerkely. Alberto says that “Everything we see and feel is ‘an effect of God’s power.’” “For God is ‘intimately present in our consciousness, causing to exist for us the profusion of ideas and perceptions that we are constantly subject to.’” Albert Knag is the hidden clue and the cause for all the mysterious things happening in Sophie’s world, as he controls them and decided what Sophie does and perceives, because even though not tangible, he exists outside of her consciousness. Herme’s talked because Albert made it so, in order to create an interesting story for Hilde.
Katherine Neal--
3. “The Garden Party” is the big finale to the story. The story of Sophie revolved around her birthday, the day of when the major would return home, and putting all of the pieces together. This is also evidence to the reader and Sophie that there is a higher power controlling their lives, as unusual events take place. As the story has progressed crazier, and wilder events have taken place, and the party was the last big shebang. From a sign in Sophie’s yard referring to the major, to Joanna and Jeremy ‘going at it’ with her parents calmly sitting right there and then spontaneously becoming pregnant, the whole chapter was a fiasco in order to entertain Hilde. In the previous chapters, Alberto has mentioned that they need to distract the major and not let him know of their plan to escape. Alberto would be happy when Sophie met an unusual creature in the woods, because that meant that Albert was focused on something else besides their plan. The party itself was a great big distraction, as the plot was everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The ‘author’ needed a finale to justify Albert getting distracted and Sophie and Albert escaping.
4. As previously mentioned, Immanuel Kant is the most compelling of the philosophers. He took the best of both worlds of empiricism and rationalism. In a sense I can relate to him, as I feel like we parallel in our inability to choose/decide between things and choose the best of both worlds. All of his ideas agreed with mine, and he demonstrated in words what my philosophy is. “Kant thought that both ‘sensing’ and ‘reason’ come into play in our conception of the world. But he thought the rationalists went too far in their claims as to how much reason can contribute, and he also thought the empiricists placed too much emphasis on sensory experience.” He thought our knowledge comes from our sensations, but that in our reason there are also decisive factors that determine how we perceive those sensations. “There are certain conditions governing the mind’s operation which influence the way we experience the world.” Kant’s thoughts on time and space as forms of intuition and perception, not attributes of the physical world, also struck me. These forms precede every experience in our mind before we actually experience events. “…we can know before we experience things that we will perceive them as phenomena in time and space. For we are not able to take off the ‘glasses’ of reason.” What we see depends on context, but wherever we are, and whenever we experience them, we experience the world as a series of processes in time and space. He believed the mind conforms to things and ideas, but that things also conform to the mind, as he created the Copernican Revolution. Kant showed how rationalist and empiricists needed each other to complete their ideas, and how even things like cause and effect (law of causality) is eternal and is perceived by human reason. Kant’s idea that the world is different for every person, and that we only know what it is like ‘for me’ is also compelling (as I am always a strong believer in the phrase “you don’t know what someone else’s life is like until you walk in their shoes, because each person’s context and circumstance is different, as they perceive different), as he is known for the ‘dividing line’ between things in themselves and things as they appear. Kant found a balance between material of knowledge and the form of knowledge, which was new to the philosophical world. To oversimplify a final statement: I liked him because he couldn’t make a decision and felt the need to please everyone (like me), and ended up making a kick-butt philosophy that is reasonable to all.
Katherine Neal--
5. Sophie isn’t real. She was real in her world, and even real in Hilde’s world, but not in our world. She is real in our thoughts, ideas, and lives through the words of the book, but she is not tangible. I could not find this “Sophie.” Yes, at the end Hilde could feel her presence as she could sense something was touching her as Sophie hit her in the head, and then as Sophie moved the boat, which proved she was ‘real’ in Hilde’s world. The idea of her is real, but she only lives within the book, as I do not believe that an actual world of Disney characters popping up left and right, and different dimensions of reality actually exists. I cannot personally see, or interrelate with her. Taking a quote from a Disney movie: “seeing is believing, and believing is seeing”, and I am unable to see her or her world, so I do not believe in her existence.
1.I am a rationalist. We cannot always put our trust in our senses. For example, when we drive we cannot make a rational decision on crossing two lanes of traffic unless we use both our senses and reason. If we were to just use our senses rather than both sense and reason then the right judgment might not be made, causing an accident. The idea of “tabula rasa” isn't such a bad idea at all, but then again all animals are born with some sort of instinct. How would a newborn know to breath without some kind of instinct? But in order to create an understanding of the world and to gather knowledge we need both reason and our senses. “It is far from certain that we can rely on our senses.”, the same may go for just relying on reason. I believe we need both to understand what we know now, but I'm more on the side of rationalism.
2.Berkeley believed that there is a cause beyond consciousness, which explains some of the strange events that have occurred. It explains that there is a higher power in control, that can manipulate anything in reality. Albert is the higher power in this case, controlling and manipulating Sophie and Alberto's story.
3.“The Garden Party” purpose to prove that Sophie and Alberto's world is being controlled by Albert Knag. They are allowed to escape into his reality, which makes the ready question who is really in control, and if Knag is causing these events as well. It allows him to show his complete control over Sophie's world, and how hes been in control the entire time.
4.Many of the philosophers in the novel are not right or wrong, but I find Hegel's philosophy to be the most compelling. Right and wrong do change throughout time due to human judgment, but human knowledge is always increasing. I can easily wrap my mind around Hegel's idea that history is progressive and that the world spirit is created by reflecting on itself. Right and wrong are created by reflecting on the opposite of an idea. His thinking, to me, is the most realistic. For example, one people cannot be joined without language, therefore, language forms people.
5.Sophie is only real in her own world and in Knag/Hilde's world. She is able to escape her own reality and be a part of Knag's, showing her can be real in his world aswell. In our own reality Sophie does not exist as a person, she only exists as a fictional character in Sophie's World.
~Sarah Chahin~
Post a Comment