Monkeys are sick

Tolstoy uses the test of infectiousness, not only as a descriptive measure for what should count as art, but also as a standard for good art (#28-32). What does he mean by this standard? How does he suggest we apply this test to evaluate art? Is this a useful proposal for evaluating the quality of art? If you disagree with this proposal, how would you challenge it?

What Tolstoy means with that standard is the artist was able to convey what feeling or emotion the piece of art was meant to express. For example, when a musician makes a piece of music that is supposed to make people feel sad it would be considered art. If it successfully made people sad then it would be considered good art.

The way to apply the test makes the interpreter think about a few things. One thing is how well the piece of art actually conveyed its message. In the text it was “on the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is transmitted” (#30). In other words, the strength of the emotional message is a factor to see if it is art and if it is good art. We can look back at the sad song and ask if it was meant to make people cry did it succeed?

Another condition from the text is: “On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted” (#30). I’m a bit unsure how to word this one, but I think it has something to do with the piece being unique in trying to show its message. There are many ways to convey the feeling of sadness in music, but how did it do it? Did it have lyrics, or just rely on the instrumentation? Thing like that.

The last condition: “on the sincerity of the artist, i.e., on the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he transmits.”(#30). Basically, how much did the the artist themselves feel the emotion they wanted their art to convey? When the artist made the sad song, were they sad? This one is simple to explain, but is hard to gauge.

I can agree with this proposal. I tend to rely on how I feel when it comes to watching anime for instance. My favorite shows are ones that made me feel emotions I don’t feel much. The way it’s animated could make a show with a simple theme, a new and exciting viewing experience that can only be done with that animation style. The directors and animators always do interviews talking about how much they want to convey these emotional messages since Anime is able to create worlds humans could only dream of. Most show I like are ones that the director has experienced exactly what the characters were feeling in the show.

However, I can also disagree. I feel as if art can be enjoyed just for the spectacle. There are many anime that look gorgeous, but lack any emotional depth to them. However, I would enjoy just looking at the the world someones mind created. People can enjoy things without the need of emotions sometimes and it’s fine.

(461)

Blog Prompt 6 (Due after the movie)

How does Existenz, the film, fit into Plato’s hierarchical scheme of reality? How does the game, Trancendenz fit? (Due Saturday after class)

The film itself is an image of the real world. Since it’s a movie, an art form, we can say that Plato would not like the idea of this movie. Movies are art and to Plato that is far removed from his idea of reality.

In the movie we discover at the end that the there are four layers, possibly more, of realities. We have outside the game Trancendenz, then the reality of Allegra, and Pikul escaping the focus group, then inside existenze, and finally inside the gamer within existnez. The “real” reality being outside of the game Trancendenz, where most of the movie takes place. Trancendez is so deep in that cave no living being would tread there.

There was a particular scene where Allegra was wandering around outside the gas station as if she was appreciating the world around her almost as if she was thinking to her self “wow this looks and feels so real!”. I got a bit excited when I first saw that, because I initially thought she entered her games a bit too much so her mind couldn’t really distinguish what was real or not, especially when that weird creature came up. This scene however gives a hint to the ending twist that everything was a game form the start. You can see that the names of the establishments were very generic,such as the motel was called motel, and the old country gas station was called old country gas station. That one made me laugh. I think the movie itself actually conveys how Plato feels of copying from the ideal a bit. As the two protagonists Allegra and Pikul, entered existenz for the first time the world became a bit more gloomy. The area felt dirty, with the lighting making it feel that it had a more artificial touch to it. Then when they put in the miniature game pods, we were immediately introduced to a disgusting looking barn with Pikul gutting a frog like creature and showing the organs spewed out. The practical effects of this movie were great. As the movie progressed it got more ridiculous. Pretty much everyone was a double agent and began backstabbing each other. We can see that the movie has a theme of: nothing is ever as it really seems. We can see that the movie became such a joke at the end, it’s feels like it did it on purpose to show that if you stray too far from reality everything gets convoluted and confusing.

Words: 419

Blog Prompt 5:

What is the difference between “beds in the world” and “the idea of a bed?” Where does “art” fit into his hierarchical scheme of reality? Plato criticizes art for being “deceptive.” How does art deceive us, according to Plato? Do you agree with this criticism?

In this conversation the “beds in the world” refer to the actual form of a bed in reality be it created by god or a carpenter. The idea of a bed refers to the fact that god, maker of all things, made the ideal bed and only one. Where in turn created the idea of the bed. The carpenter can create many beds with the idea of the bed, but it will never be an ideal bed. We can relate this idea to how technology is used. For example, Alexander Graham Bell created the telephone. He made it possible for people to communicate by voice over long distances. He made a telephone that he used, and that phone is looked at as the very first of its kind. That physical object then became an idea that many other people took and improved upon it. the idea of that first phone still remains even after the physical object itself will eventually be gone.

Art would be categorized as imitation of the ideal bed. Artists would use physical means such as words or paint to show a different reality, but one we can see in this current one. Painters have paint, while poets have words. This holds true to modern day as well. Directors use still frames shown in succession to show people movies, where different kinds of worlds created by one or more person can be seen in this reality. Music creates tones that elicit emotion, and have lyrics that form a story or convey messages. These mediums can use the physical aspects of this world to mimic realities of the past or ones that do not even exist.

This is where art can become deceptive. Plato believes that if a simple minded person can believe that, say a painting of a wolf, was the real thing then art is deceitful. I agree with this notion, and people don’t even have to be simple minded. A great modern example I love is the movie The Blair Witch project. The marketing was genius when they advertised the movie, because it made everyone believe it was a real story of some college students getting lost in a forest. The people who made it had a great opportunity since the genre of “found footage” wasn’t really established yet. They used that to their advantage and were able to trick people into believing the film, that was fiction, was a real event.

(407)

1 If you believe in something that can impact many people you must support it with sufficient evidence.

2 All beliefs are always able to influence actions in someway.

3 Actions done by believing in something with insufficient evidence will lead to negative impact to others and on society.

C So it’s always wrong to believe in something that does not have sufficient evidence.

Looking at the argument, it is logically valid. If we believe these premises to be true then the conclusion must be true. It is not a sound argument, since these premises and conclusion could be argued to be false. However the argument he makes is not perfect, I can agree with the fact that it is wise to have evidence when believing something, and when it’s something that has impact on many people it’s safe to have the evidence to back up those beliefs. I feel that he goes a bit far when it comes to personal beliefs no matter how small having impact on society as a whole.

The third premise in Clifford’s argument where he argues that believing in something with insufficient evidence negatively impact others and society. That’s not true when it comes to love. There are instances where parents believe the best of their children. When parents believe that their child is a good kid that child sees that positive reinforcement and could either, become a good child and improve. Romantic partners try their best to believe the best of their partners to keep the relationship healthy. Now there is a thing as too much praise and it’s not a good idea to turn a blind eye to everything a romantic partner does, but if limited, these small justifications don’t really do harm, but help in these situations. The second premise is the weakest part of his argument. Clifford is basically saying that any belief people have can affect their actions which in turn affect others. He just says that every belief will affect actions, but there is no clear reason as to how or why he thinks this. He just says it to be true. If I believe I have five dollars in my wallet because I remembered I put that money in my wallet a couple days ago, there is no real impact on anything if I believe it. If I think I’m the sexiest man in the universe and keep it to myself, what makes it true that it would affect my actions. If it did did it could make me vain, but it could boost my self esteem. There shouldn’t be a focus on personal beliefs that are trivial.

Clifford’s argument has sense to it. I just feel he is a bit too harsh. Despite that, there is a practical significance of this thesis. It is trying to keep society safe from people who lead others with beliefs that don’t have evidence that support it, which could cause harm to people. In Clifford’s case it seems to be religion.

As for fallacies, he uses anecdotal evidence for his arguments with both stories he presents. If he is trying to convince people that insufficient evidence in a belief can harm people he must have data to prove it, not just stories that happen to fit the bill. That’s some insufficient evidence to his own belief there. False Dichotomy is prominent as well. Clifford give us two choices of either believe with sufficient evidence or your belief will cause people and even society some form of pain.

(587)

Begging the Question : Japanese animation is better than american animation because it’s made in Japan.

Ad Hominem: Human: You don’t know anything since your just a duck. Duck: Why don’t you question why I’m talking first?

Equivocation: Bleach is healthy. It’s mostly water,and Humans are mostly water therefore we are bleach.

Slippery Slope: If you litter someone has to clean it. That person will get angry since they finally had enough of this and in their fit of rage end up bumping into a child and cause the kid to go towards a car. Then someone sacrifices themselves to save the child, then the kid starts crying because they dropped their ice cream. You littering will kill someone and waste a perfectly good ice cream.

Straw Man: A: We should stop harassing those ducks that can talk. They have intelligence, we must treat them as equals!

B: Yeah, but ducks have tendencies to rape! They even have sex with dead bodies with their weird spiral genitalia.

Tu Quoque: Why are you angry about that person is spending money on the newest phone? You spend money all the time on video games that just came out.

Non-Sequiter: You know that murderers hate animals. Billy hates animals so he must be a murderer!

False Dichotomy:

A: Look the only options we have are we either kill the talking ducks or get killed ourselves.

B: Wait, we haven’t even had proper discussion with them.

A: Those are the only options

Argument from Ignorance: How were those pyramids constructed in a time where modern tools were not available? It has to be aliens!

Red Herring:

A: People are mad that talking ducks don’t have to pay taxes.

B: If I tell people it’s because of illegal talking beaver immigrants that’ll change their minds.

Extra Examples

Slippery Slope: Stop cracking your knuckles! You’ll get arthritis early then you can’t hold a baby which will then fall. You’ll kill a baby if you keep cracking your knuckles.

Equivocation: Since cartoons are animated and anime is animated that means anime are cartoons!

Valid Argument with false Conclusion:

1. Humans can breath in water.

2. Fish can also breath in water.

C. Therefore, humans are fish.

Sound Argument:

1 Carnivorous animals eat primarily flesh of other animals.

2 Wolfs eat the flesh of animals they hunt.

C. Wolfs are carnivores.

Weak Inductive Argument:

1 I don’t follow the speed limit and haven’t gotten caught.

C Next time I do it I won’t get caught.

Strong Inductive Argument:

1 Every time that siren rings there is a tornado.

C When people hear that siren they will take shelter from a tornado.

Lack of empathy creates unnecessary discomfort and/or problems.

Power imbalance gives benefits to those who do not deserve it.

Power imbalance and lack of empathy are an injustice that cause unnecessary problems for those who don’t benefit from them.

This was back in high school. My story involves an individual, who we will address as Steve. Steve was a relatively quiet person. A bit on the eccentric side, but that’s what made him a cool person to be around. However, he was bullied a lot, but he never really cared. People didn’t like him, even though to me he was one of the nicest people. Whenever anyone talked about the people who picked on him he always said “I hope they are doing okay at home.” Not once did he ever badmouth anybody. He was very mature for his age, that’s for sure. There was one day the bullies got fed up with Steve. They decided to plant someones Ipod in his bag to have him get in trouble and suspended. It worked. A whole scene played out where the supposed victim was crying that she couldn’t find her Ipod, quite the actress I say. Everyone’s bags were checked, and poor Steve was found guilty for a crime he did not commit. Due to the plan of the bullies never being found out, due to threats from the bullies to not say anything, there was no further investigation on the matter. I never saw Steve afterwards. I still wonder why he just disappeared. There’s no way he would let that get to him.

In the end, we can see that there was a lack of empathy from the bullies, despite Steve being the one who had the most. The bullies held a lot of power in those classrooms. The teachers gave up on trying to control them causing a power imbalance in the school. I’m still a bit bitter about this situation, but I found it to be a learning experience. With a power imbalance, it’s best to act and try, no matter how hard it may be, to get a proper balance of power that could keep people in a safe environment. If there is someone abusing power for only their own benefit it’s not a bad idea to try and stop them. It may cause pain for the one going against power, but the end result will give others a chance to live a better life. In regards to empathy, Steve understood those bullies had issues in their lives. Steve had problems of his own too I’m sure, but cared so much for others he never spoke about them. Maybe if those bullies knew Steve never saw them as enemies, it could have been different. Empathy is a trait I don’t see a lot these days, unfortunately I don’t see it a lot among younger people. Empathy is key to living peacefully with other humans.

(487)