Response #2

Sophie’s World Response:

Having read through “The Baroque Era”, I don’t really know what to think. On one hand, the philosophy parts of the book have been informative. It was interesting seeing how the major religions have similar philosophical ideas (on that note, it seems a little strange that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been constantly fighting even though all the religions share Semitic cultural ideas). It was also cool to read about the scientists from the Renaissance, like Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. I recently learned about them in physics, so it was nice to see their ideas in a different, philosophical context.

On the other hand, the narrative of Sophie’s World has gotten stranger and stranger (like the officiating of the Lions-Cowboys playoff game, sigh). Some of the events are just plain bizarre. For example, when Sophie sees Hilde in the mirror and all the postcards from Hilde’s father. Some of the events make me wonder if they are no longer coincidence and instead part of something bigger, (like Sophie finding the cross under her pillow, or the money on the street, or the officiating of the Lions-Cowboys playoff game, double sigh). I mentioned in my last post how Sophie, Alberto, and her mother are symbolic of early philosophers. At this point in the book, Sophie’s mom is less involved, but could Hilde’s father have something to do with it. Could those three be like river mentioned in “Two Worlds”, “The Middle Ages” and “The Renaissance” where they “are together, split apart, and come together”? If so, why is Alberto trying to hide from Hilde’s dad? Will the three converge at some point? If they do, could it all just be a big, happy learning experience? Could Alberto be slipping by calling Sophie “Hilde”? I have no idea. Strange indeed.

Real World Response:

            Over break I saw the Coen Brothers’ movie No Country for Old Men. It was dark, violent, but also slightly funny. It was also an excellent movie. Being the budding philosopher I am, I noticed some interesting parallels between the main characters and the four Hellenistic Philosophies we learned about. The simplified version of the plot is this. In West Texas, a man named Llewelyn is out hunting deer when he comes across a drug deal and shootout. He finds no survivors but a briefcase with money. He takes the money and runs. Unfortunately, a cold-blooded, ruthless hitman named Anton learns about this and pursues Llewelyn. While this game of cat and mouse develops, sheriff Ed, tries to pursue the both of them, but is always a step behind.

            More than anything else, this movie was about the clashing styles and philosophies of the main characters. Llewelyn was an Epicurian, he was carpe diem, he took the money and ran. Epicureans believed in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, which was what he tried to do. As it became apparent that it would be nearly impossible to escape from Anton with the money, he focused on simply making sure he survived each hour. Anton was more of a skeptic. We don’t know any of his motives except to get the money. Like Skeptics, he was materialistic, what you saw was what you got. He only killed the people he had to, and the others, he left to pure chance, flipping a coin at some points, “This is the best I can do…The coin got here the same way I did.” Lastly, Ed the sheriff was a Stoic. As much as he wanted order and control of the area, he realized that it was impossible to get. He wanted to stop Anton and save Llewelyn, but he realized that he was always one step behind and getting too old, so he just had to get out of the way and let things happen.