The Truman show

The Truman show was a wonderful movie made in the 1998. Now if you don't want to walk into spoilers please do go read the other wonderful posts or watch the movie in this link here: http://vodly.to/watch-1509-The-Truman-Show; and if you want to check out the review before you watch the movie then check the review here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/?ref_=nv_sr_1.  Now that you are fully loaded we can address the more TOK part of the movie. 

The movie showed the life insurance salesman/adjuster who discovers his entire life is actually a TV show. That the gist of the movie, the person realises that his life is a sequence of patterns and everything in his life is staged and set to make the show interesting. He realises certain things that make him question his life and that makes him want to travel to find the girl of his life. He eventually finds the way out of his world and possibly made it to the girl of his dream. Well thats all the retell, you could either have watched that or stayed here long enough for that short retell. 

When it comes to the the emotional reaction a viewer has to the movie, it was sort of based on that idea of control, of what you do in your life is controlled by someone. This idea has be shown in many movies such as "The adjustment bureau", "The hunger games",  "Death race", "Oblivion" and "Gamer"; these are some really good movies (review links below) that plays on the idea of control and this is really a factor that really causes a sense of uneasiness. We all have a feeling of freedom and we are proud to feel that way and the thought of you being controlled by someone causes a revolting feeling wanting you to gain that freedom of being a true individual. We as individuals have the right to freedom and the idea of being controlled or played with causes this sense of inferiority. The idea of people being controlled is a rather angering one and cause that need to be free.

The camera angles of the movie played an essential role in the plot of the story. In fact the whole plot structure of the movie was well thought out. The idea of spoon-feeding information about the story bit by bit and having the course of the story takes its path along that is a splendid way to keep the audience hooked and also to keep the movie more entertaining and to let the people who have no clue whats happening, whats happening. The camera angle essentially contributed to the idea that the protagonist of the show was actually in a tv show. It shows that the whole thing is a tv show and it shows the idea of the protagonist being watched all the time where ever he goes. 

There is that beautiful irony where the reporter says.“Thank you for coming today Christof, I know how much you value your privacy.”; and whats ironic is the fact that the director Christof isn't really there with the reporter and in fact the interview is happening over video call. This is really interesting and brings a sense of an introverted personality but also a sense of secretiveness. In terms of the real world this is probably seen in the case of top secret stuff where nothing is spoken of but a movie director taking that sense of privacy and secrecy is rather unusual. 

Taking another look at the end of the movie, although Christof was portrayed as the bad guy controlling the life of an individual Truman in order to make a profitable television show still stands, the probable other aspect could be that Christof was indeed a visionary who wanted the best for Truman in the reality that he was presented in. Christof realised that the world we live in is a world full of lies, deceit and with no more truth than the world Christof created for Truman (although Truman's whole world was a lie) but the idea is that Christof was indeed looking out for Truman and seeked what was best for Truman which also got around making him more profitable. We learn through our failures and that is what makes us succeed; Christof nullified that idea of failure for Truman and all actions that were made by truman where made to keep him in the path of success. Christof strayed Truman away from failure which makes him weak as only in our failures can we be truly strong. However Christof helped inspire and give hope to millions of people around the world by the means of his television show. He helped inspire people and helped them aspire for a better life. He used the life of Truman to help give hope to people and show that life can be worth living. An example of this can be seen when Truman was escaping, Christof challenged Truman and made his voyage a difficult one but Truman persisted and maintainted his will-sprit to succed and this showed the people that a person "will" to do something can never be crushed and if there is a will there is a way. Christof tried to show people an ideal world, a world which all the people could strive towards too. Christof indeed took more action in Truman's life to make it more meaningful, to make it better and to make him enjoy himself a lot more and this makes him more responsible that the people who ignorantly watch the show for their own entertainment and pleasure. Yes, Christof took active responsibility in making Truman's life a sort of Ethiopia where everything is good and green but that doesn't mean he is not in the wrong for controlling the life of Truman and deciding aspects of his life. 

There was an ethical issue the movie was trying to convey and it was probably the idea of controlling someones life. It is seen in the movie where truman's every decision were indirectly controlled through his friend or wife. As mentioned before, the idea of of controlling someones life is taking their freedom away from them. You rob them from the freedom of living their lives when they can travel, live and do whatever they want. The idea of controlling someones life to make money of is ethically wrong. Freedom of life is one of the fundamental things that should be given to man and one of the critical things a man can be robbed off. Robbing someone from the right to live their life with their freedom is blinding him from true reality. 

The Truman Show shockingly reveals to us the depths to which our society has sunk.  In realizing this, we are forced to examine ourselves as individuals to see if we are part of this declining mentality. As we go deeper, we are awakened to realize that it makes a scathing commentary on us as a society and our obsession with money, entertainment, and the lives of the rich and famous.  Going even deeper, at the core of The Truman Show, there is a message aimed at you, the individual.  We cannot help but examine ourselves as an individual contributor to our declining culture. The Truman Show not only questions the morals and of our society and media, but it also forces a face to face encounter with the fundamentals of our own ethics.  The media’s role in today's society has been has expanded to have a gigantic influence on us and has greatly affected our values.  The Truman Show questions these values of society: our disregard for privacy, the sacrifice of morals for money, the paparazzi, our obsession with celebrities’ lives, and the extent to which we will go for entertainment. The Truman Show is just such an example of this exploitation of lives exhibited for entertainment.

“We accept the reality which we are presented.”

It is indeed a true quote and people in connection to the real world do accept the reality which we are presented in. We live our lives as if it were our lives and we have no doubt that we might all be played on a tv show by some aliens. I always thought that my life was a story book that god read and i am just re-enacting it. Its a thought that came to me when I was young but the reason to believe that this world is not reality is hard to believe although it might not be. Its similar to the truman show where he thought his life was his life but his life was actually a tv show. We humans can't comprehend the extraordinary and tend to accept reality as it is. It is a rather interesting thought that we subconsciously accept the reality that we are in and do nothing to question it. As Albert Einstein said "Reality is just an illusion" and is mearly what we humans make it, although the reality we have made and set before us can indeed be a persistent reality that we have assumed to be reality. 

“Television, with insatiable hunger for material, has made celebrities into content.”-Roger Ebert, 1998, Chicago Sun-Times. Indeed one of the things that was shown towards the end of the movie is that people don't actually care about the protagonist, they just watched to show to see what happened. Television has made people want to watch it just to see what happens to the persons. People watch tv shows just to know what happens to the celebrities acting in it. Television is that idea of wanting to know about people's lives but in actual fact if something happened to the character people wouldn't actually kill their lives over it. Similar to the truman show the hunger games is a movie where the lives of people are played with in order to make views satisfied. Why do reality TV shows makes us viewers content and happy? 

Appendix 

The adjustment bureau : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/

The hunger game : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

Death race : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452608/

Oblivion : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483013/

Gamer : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034032/

Misdirection and Deception

TED talks always get you to think about a certain idea which always has a good point of view and gets me writing yet another post about but the two videos are quite relative to TOK and thats great cause thats more to write about.

The world is full of wonders, there is so much to see, hear understand, recollect and reminisce. Well our  brain being such a complex organ, that lets you perceive vision, audio and pain is apparently is bad at multi-tasking which rises the question how are we such great multi-taskers if our brains is not. Apparently we aren't great multi-taskers as switching between tasks isn't multi-tasking and that makes more sense to be honest. Well our sensory organs however great they are have some limitations and watching the TED talk will probably explain it far better.

That was a mind boggling TED talk, well to be honest it was more show and tell than a talk alone. But it was impressive nonetheless. This arises the question how far can we trust our senses? Senses are something we use everyday and something you invest a lot of your time using and the fact that these sense are probably at times unreliable brings about the idea of uncertainty. Our brain being so complex, yet it cant cope up with multiple things, this is a loop that can be exploited and is a fantastic way to probably pick up some cash on the way to school (and return it obviously cause then it would be steeling and thats just a no). Our sense are dependent on many factors, who you are,where you are, and so on and such great influence on senses greatly affects are senses which brings us to two things, one how can we trust our senses despite them being so unreliable? and two another TED talk :) .

So not only are our sense unreliable at times but our decisions are also based on external factors. Its wonderful how the world around us can have such great influence on out sensory aspects and also our logic aspect of life. As seen in the video different external factors play a huge role in our lives and is essential in making decisions.

To conclude our logical reasoning and our sensory organs both have there limitations, so that brings up the question, what can we trust? Well despite the limitations of both logical reasoning and also sensory organs, these are essential in our way of life and in our path of know how we know and what we know. Senses are essential and are the colours that paint the world around you.  It is the means by which we perceive facts, data and other aspects of life and our logical reasoning is essential in making decisions in this painted world. However influential our senses and our reasoning are doesn't change the fact that both of these are solely essential for us human beings for our way of life. 

Speaking of life and painting, there is an amazing inspirational quote that really stood out and truly gives an appreciation for life, your senses and your logical reasoning.

"Everyday is a brushstroke on the canvas which is life, and in the end only you can see the mistakes"

- Rebecca Hitchman

Sense perception a changing variable?

Below is a discussion with me and my friend to some of the question that were posed to us during TOK. We seeked to identify how reliable our senses can be and how being who you are can affect what you see or feel. We exploited the fact that sense perception is always right and brought about a few new ideas. 

 1.    What might some of the problems be if we rely primarily on Sense Perception?

Sana –

Well for starters our senses are not reliable, they can be influenced by various factors and damaged in many ways. By relying primarily on them we are hindering our own ability to gain knowledge. Furthermore, not everyone literally sees something the same way, so there will be a variety of information and no one will know what is correct. For example a person can argue that the color of the bag is blue but his friend can say that no, it is the color turquoise. How do we know who is right and who is wrong? Is there a right or wrong? Sense perception does not provide you with concrete data.

Akhil-     

      Sense perception is the gateway to which one perceives the world however sense perception can be unreliable. What we see is always influenced by things we know and our senses have limitations or focus which limits what we can do without sense perception. Like seen in the video sense perception can be a limiting factor when a person is recollection information to and can be exploited with the idea of a directing the senses. Researches have shows that our brain changes the time when perceiving things such as sound. In the experiment conducted the result was concluded that people when hit a button they heard a positive sound they knew they pressed the button but apparently when the button was pressed and there was a negative sound, the brain extended the time it took for them to comprehend the sound making them feel that the sound wasn't by them pressing the button(a video of the research is below). Hence the argument can be made that sense perception is not entirely reliable but it is the only means by which man can comprehend the world and make sense of it.

2.    Take one of the below situations and describe how it might be seen differently by each of the following people (be sure to include what affects their differing views):

·     A child lying dying in poverty as seen by a doctor, an economist, a social worker, the child’s father.

Person	Effect
Doctor	Sana- A doctor would see a child suffering from numerous diseases such as malnutrition and would think about the effects on the child’s health due to living in unhygienic conditions. He’d take all of these factors in consideration and figure out a way to save the child’s life with the resources that are available in the situation. The reason a doctor would take this perspective is because they are taught to focus on making a patient feel better, even if their methods are initially unwelcomed. They are meant to have good bedside manner but at the same time they are meant to focus on the problem not be overwhelmed by emotions such as pain, love, disgust and fear. Thus the doctor would take a more clinical approach to seeing a boy lying dying in poverty. Akhil- The primary goals for doctors are to save or improve the lives of people. That being said not all doctors act following this principle. Money eventually becomes an incentive for doctors and therefore there are two possible reactions to such a situation. A good doctor who does his job of saving a persons life would try all his efforts to save the child who is sick and is dying. This goal of saving a persons life is an incentive that makes doctors want to help people regardless of the money. However doctors who look at money as an incentive to work would not much want to help as they wouldn't have much money to offer to save the kids life.
Economist	Sana- An economist would think about the money involved and relate it to a bigger picture. They’d see this child dying as insignificant because it does not have much of an impact on the economy of the country. They’d lose someone that would  grow up and contribute to the economy but since it was a poor child he is more likely to be illiterate thus his contributions to the economy would be far less than an important businessman. Furthermore, this kid dying means there is one less person health care must be provided for. It may seem quite cold and calculating but this is the way when it’s related to money and it has to be this shrewd to allow countries to develop into more economically developed countries (MEDCs). While the perspective of the doctor’s was specific and focused on the child’s health condition, the economist takes more broader and general point of view. Akhil- The economy is a money driven ball game. An economist would consider the fact that a single child is dying to poverty quite less significant as a child dying due to poverty does not have real significance in the market or in the economy of the country. A kid dying due to poverty is not really a bad thing cause if the kid dies then the state no longer has to provide any state provided medical facilities in order to keep the kid alive. This is a more contradictory thinking in comparison to a doctor's point of view, however it is the most likely situation an economist would think. Probably a country full of middle age educated men suffering from a killer disease would worry the economist more as middle age educated men are beneficial for a working economy. But one person on his own makes a less significant impact on the economy and a child dying from poverty is hardly something to worry about.
Social Worker	Sana- The social worker would think about the child’s parents and how irresponsible they were. They’d wonder if the parents forced the child into working, abused him or did not provide for him being too lazy to work. They’d think about the child having a parent with some sort of addiction at home (alcoholic dad, mother ran away.) They’d also wonder if whether or not the child was living alone and where are the rest of his family members as he dies alone. The reason they’d go through this thought process is because their job is to make sure children are happy and living in a stable home with parents who are doing their duties thus as providing for the child in their care. Akhil- A social worker would likely be concerned about the fact that a kid is dying from poverty. It is likely they will try and ensure a better future for the kid if he does not die and they will try to make sure the same does not happen again and will ensure that people live a certain standard of life. A social worker will be concerned on how well the child is doing and will seek to improve the quality of life of the kid.
Child’s Father	Sana- The perspective of the father would contain the most emotion and focus specifically on the child. He’d first be hit by a lot of emotion, as he’d see his child lying there in pain. He’d want to find a way to reverse the situation, to stop the pain and to help his child. But this is from the perspective of a usual parent, not one with issues and one who didn’t care much for his child. A father who genuinely cared a great deal for his child would be desperate to find a solution for his child in this condition and would go great lengths to do so. He’d also think about the effect this would have on the rest of his family, how his wife would take the news and if they have any other children, how would they react to the news of their sibling dying. Losing a child is one of the greatest fears of a parent and in this condition the father would be devastated. Akhil- The father’s point of view can be one of the most varying. A father who told his kid to get out of the house or a father who didn’t have the money to pay for his education or even a irresponsible father all though they are still the father of the kid may act differently to the death of his son due to poverty. But i feel given a bottom line every father would have some about of sorrow for the death of the son or for the suffering of a his son. As human beings we are all made to inherently help, love and understand each other and a father would even though he might have hated his son to the bone would feel sympathy for the passing away of his son or his son being in a tragic situation. A father would try to help his son out and save him from the claws of death by doing everything he can possible .

3.    Choose ONE of the following statements to agree or disagree with. Explain your thinking with reference to our class discussion(s)!

·     The human brain craves understanding. It cannot understand without simplifying; that is without reducing things to a common element. However, all simplifications are arbitrary and leads us to drift insensibly away from reality.” Lecomte du Nouy

Sana-

I agree with this statement, it is human nature to want to know. When we don’t know, we are afraid (ie. fear of darkness) therefore, we are always trying to figure out the unknown (however unnecessary it may seem in a some cases ie. tables dancing after we leave the room, do we really need to know that?) Anyway back to the point, when human’s want to figure out something they have to break it down, just like we break a math problem down to solve it. Doing this makes the question simpler to solve as small steps are often easier to work with. Now to address the second part of the question, referring back to the example in one of the Ted Talks video’s by the speaker John Lloyd, “the closer you look at anything the more it disappears”. So when you look closely at an object and break it down all the way to the atom and it’s sub structure, you realize there isn’t anything there besides some fuzz and energy. So what are we made up of then? Now some may say, “What if you look closely at a complex painting? The closer you look the more intricate it seems”. Well it depends, what type of closer is being thought of here? If you think about it literally you’d see the paint then you’d think of the elements forming the paint and then go back down to the atom and it’s sub structure.

Akhil-

It is within human instinct to want to know how something works and what functions what. Curiosity is an instinct that has made man know more about the world around us and also led us to question things and know more about something. To understand something humans break it more simpler, more understandable and more comprehensive terms and what Lecomte du Nouy suggests is that humans make these simpler facts more of random choice or personal whim. John Llyod discusses the similar fact with human DNA, it was initially thought that human genome contains about a 100,000 genes and every year since it has been revised to 20,000 whereas rice has 38,000 genes. The estimation of humans having about 100,000 genes was probably made on the bases of on how much more complicated humans are in comparison to rice but in actuality rice has more genes that humans. Lecomte du Nouy says that it is when we make things simpler the simpler facts tend to be arbitrary and therefore straying away from reality. This flaw in our understanding of everything around us is what creates opinions and factual errors. Is what you know what I know? How can we be certain?