Wall-E Seminar Questions Part 3

6. Identify one item in the "avalanche of detritus" you feel is an important symbol. Why?

I loved the recording from Hello, Dolly!, especially since it was referenced throughout the movie. This is Wall-E's first knowledge of humans (unless if he remembers them from when he was first built), and ironically, it comes from a machine. The music seems anachronistic in comparison to the Axiom and desolate Earth, but it fits and helps tie the movie together.

7. The Axiom might be described as a "utopic" existence. Do you agree or disagree with that description?
There is no suffering on the Axiom. Everyone is at peace, and has all of their needs and want. So I would agree that it portrays a utopian society. The word "utopia" actually seems to have gained some negative connotations with books like 1984 and Brave New World. The Axiom reminds me a lot of the society in Brave New World. People had everything they needed and there was no bad feeling, but they weren't able to take care of themselves or experience true emotion or critical thoughts. They weren't living fulfilling lives, because they didn't really notice or interact with the world around them.

8. What is the impact of an almost complete lack of dialogue?
The lack of dialogue at the beginning of the movie was barely noticeable, surprisingly. The scenes did not need dialogue to convey emotion and hold the audience's interest. Pixar did a similar thing at the beginning of Up, although the time period without dialogue was much shorter.

9. How does the film depict the human condition and what contemporary references could you use as analogies?
Every film depicts the human condition. Everything depicts the human condition. Broad question! But like we were saying in class, what's interesting is the robots taking on human characteristics that humans themselves seem to have abandoned. It forces you to think about how much technology can change the act of being human. A lot of things that would have once taken long periods of work can now be accomplished with button clicks. Is that bad?

10. The Captain states, "I don't want to survive, I want to live." Interpret this statement.

Surviving on the Axiom is very easy; it means nothing. So the Captain wants to do something worthwhile with his life. Staying in space would have ensured the survival of everyone on the Axiom, but their lives would be monotonous and unfulfilled. By returning to Earth, the Captain is able to discover new things, work hard, and truly think about and experience the act of living.

Wall-E Seminar Questions Part 2

2. The genre of "Wall-E" is an allegorical romance. Why do you think that classification is appropriate?

I thought this was an odd way of looking at the romance between Wall-E and Eve, because I didn't initially see their romance as directly symbolizing any one thing in the way that an allegory does. They represent different aspects of love and romance, but I didn't really want to analyze it in that manner. However, after thinking about it, I do understand what could be seen as allegorical about the romance in this movie. As people have pointed out in class, the two characters most capable of human emotion are machines. As humans continue to give more aspects of lives to technology, from physical activity and labor, to entertainment, perhaps we are slowly eroding at our humanity. The lives of humans in Wall-E are completely dictated by machinery. After letting machines take over so many aspects of life, could we unintentionally sacrifice something as crucially human as emotion?
That seems a bit drastic, especially considering that even the people in Wall-E were capable of some level of emotion as soon as they became more aware. But I can see aspects of this even in present day. People live their lives though screens because they are unwilling to live through themselves. If you let Google research for you, if you let a computer think for you, and you let screens create entertainment for you, what is left for you to do? Of course, I'm not exempting myself from this, and I don't think technology is all bad. The computer and internet has helped to make great leaps in communication and accessing information, but we can't let an Auto-Pilot make our decisions for us!
I kind of side-tracked from the question here, but basically, I think it's a profound idea that the two individuals most capable of experiencing human life and emotions like love are not in fact human.

3. What environmental message does Wall-E send?

The first time I saw this movies in theaters, I found the opening scenes jarring, especially since they do not seem that far removed from reality. If we continue to abuse our planet and create more and more, we can not sustain it. And still we produce and produce irresponsibly. There needs to be a much greater effort to work towards sustainable development. Wall-E highlights the dire effects of not being careful- we can ruin the beautiful world we inhabit.

4. How does the movie relate to self-identity? (ontology)

Both Wall-E and Eve first tie their identity with their directive, yet as the movie progresses, they identify themselves with their relationship towards one another. Yet even at the beginning of the movie, Eve seems more self-aware than the people on the Axiom. Eve's directive is to find life. Humans have no directive, except to consume. There isn't critical thought in either instance, but Eve is more motivated and experiencing more. And when Wall-E and Eve meet each other, they continue to develop their self-identity by making decisions for themselves instead of doing what they are programmed to do. And it takes Wall-E and Eve to help others find their own identity (in the cases of the Captain and two people they run into).

5. What might be the significance of calling the corporate company "Buy 'n Large"?

Buy 'n Large recalls the likes of WalMart, Target, and IKEA. Out of these three, I've only been to Target, but it is easy to see the huge influence places like these hold in America. Go to one of these stores and you can spend hours buying...everything! Everything is one place, and you are constantly encouraged to buy bigger and buy more. In a way it creates a feeling of uniformity- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it means that we become more and more alienated from the product. We are also buying a ton of crap. Does anyone really need all of this stuff? Like in the movie, just about everything will be trash one day.

Wall-E Seminar Questions, Part 1

1. Quote from NY Times article, Walt Rich, "Wall-E for President": This movie seems more realistically in touch with what troubles America than either the substance or the players of the political food fight beyond the multiplex's wall. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why?

Wall-E touches upon many problems which are facing America today that are ignored or touched upon in a superficial way. The first time I watched this movie, the first thing I noticed was the jarring environmental message. We are consuming resources and producing at a rate at which the Earth can not keep up with. Our population has been growing rapidly since the industrial revolution, and as a group, we do not behave responsibly enough to handle everything we are doing to the world around us. I remember learning in Environmental Systems last year that some scientists see this as another wave of extinction- this is how severely we are harming the other species around us .

This movie also focused on corporatism and mass production, which contribute heavily to the irresponsibility in environmental matters. They also make consumers dependent on them- without these corporations and mega-stores, so many would be without a source of income or a place to buy products. I think that Wall-E demonstrated how becoming reliant on a company such as Buy n' Large and their products diminishes our individual autonomy and puts too much power in the hands of company owners. I especially liked Jordan's comment on how people in oligarchic-like states can turn to these cheaper, easier kind of stores, which then turn into tyrannies.

If one has been paying any attention to the GOP primaries, it is pretty easy to see that the political atmosphere is not centered around the big problems which are relevant to the country as a whole. We are taking up a massive amounts of debt, greatly hurting our environment, and having a lot of problems internationally. Yet, because some of these problems are difficult to face, politicians chose to ignore them outright.

Red Celia and Last Thoughts on Philosophy of Art

This is the piece I chose for the practice IA. After writing 3 pages on it, I still can't quite put into words why I like it so much. Throughout this unit, I've found that it really is difficult to write about any form of art. I'm sure that's partially do to the fact that I am no art expert by any stretch of the imagination, but there is another problem. It's trying to logically explain an emotional response. So many times during my paper, I was tempted to stop explaining and say "Well, just look at it! Don't you get it?" I felt similarly trying to write about why I liked certain songs. Sometimes a song will just hit me at the right time. I'll listen to it for hours on end for weeks on end, and then forget about it completely when something else comes along. If I try to listen to it again, I'll have no idea why I got so caught up in it the first place, but I'll still love it just as much because it reminds me of a way I felt at a certain time. So much of it is a gut feeling- some word or note or image just stuck.

I don't think any essay or paper on aesthetics can ever hold the same weight as a piece of art itself. Still, I definitely think this was a fascinating and worthwhile unit. It was very interesting to try and examine what makes something art, or good art. It's difficult to interpret the various reactions we have to art, but they say so much about who we are.


photo: http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artwork/?id=80010

Reflection on 2nd Quarter

Second quarter was, in many ways, much more difficult than the first. One good thing I can say is that this is one class where I feel very comfortable sharing my own thoughts, which is not usually true. I truly enjoy the dynamic of our class. It's a great community.

But I feel as though I lost a lot of motivation in second quarter, in this class, and frankly, in school in general. I felt very out-of-focus overall.

Getting through The Republic was tough. The only other book I have read from that point in time is The Odyssey, which I struggled with even more. I disagreed so frequently with Plato, and found his style of explaining ideas exasperating. I wished he would present his ideas in a clearer format. I understand that the purpose of explaining ideas through a dialogue was to show how to arrive at a conclusion, rather than being force-fed information to agree with. But it was frustrating! The wording was also difficult to get through, which I imagine had a lot to do with translating ancient Greek. So I'm sorry to admit that I don't think I got everything I could out of that book. I did the readings, but I did not enjoy them, or have any desire to delve further. I am regretful that I didn't put more into this. It was an interesting experience to read an older philosophical text, especially because this is the first thing we have read directly from that author, as opposed to someone else's interpretations. But I would've gained more from it if I was better focused.

I already wrote a bit about my regrets over writing the song, but I am at least happy that I finally pulled myself together and finished it. I think that my viewpoint in this class started to shift drastically during the debate on imperfect societies. I felt much more engaged. I was able to synthesize a lot of outside information on forms of government, and it made it much easier to relate The Republic to my own life. I am still somewhat surprised that I actually enjoyed debating. Being put on the spot and asked to defend an idea is not something I'm terribly good at it. In the past, I have been pretty awful at eliciting ideas verbally, but I think that I've improved a lot this year.

And the unit on art has been great, I think because it is something all of us can instantly relate to. I was irrationally nervous about playing two songs for the class. I actually had to stop myself from shaking while I was waiting, even though it was a very easy assignment. Natalie and I were talking about how it has something to do with sharing such a personal part of yourself with a group of people. The songs you like make up a part of who you are. I think everyone sharing songs with others actually made us closer as a class. I loved every song I heard, and hearing people explain their own experiences with them made them take on a much deeper meaning.

Anyways, I am looking forward to my last semester of high school, a time where I believe we all start to philosophize a bit more, whether we want to or not.

Siren Song

Siren Song, by Margaret Atwood

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:

the song that forces men
to leap overboard in squadrons
even though they see beached skulls

the song nobody knows
because anyone who had heard it
is dead, and the others can’t remember.
Shall I tell you the secret
and if I do, will you get me
out of this bird suit?
I don’t enjoy it here
squatting on this island
looking picturesque and mythical
with these two feathery maniacs,
I don’t enjoy singing
this trio, fatal and valuable.

I will tell the secret to you,
to you, only to you.
Come closer. This song

is a cry for help: Help me!
Only you, only you can,
you are unique

at last. Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time.

We read this poem in English class awhile ago, which prompted me to write a poem about my relationship with music in response to it. It's unfinished, but I think that because of this unit we've had in Philosophy class, I'll have to go back and finish it up. I'm very surprised to see just how Platonic some of my writing on music was! I disagree with Plato wholeheartedly on the idea that art, as a whole, is bad, but I am finally starting to understand what he was saying. We become so entranced with aesthetics, that we forget how they relate to their own life. We drift away into a fantasy world where we don't have to play by the rules of our own life. Do we attach false meanings to art, in order to justify our irrational enjoyment of it? I don't know.

Anyways, I know Plato is no fan of poetry, but I think he would certainly appreciate the idea Atwood has here. :)

Reflection on The Debate

I am sincerely proud of myself and my team in the government debate, and I feel like I learned a lot in the process. I am not the best at thinking and speaking on my feet, but I think I am improving a lot.

The format for the debate was much more structured than those before, and I think that was helpful. And because of the large number of groups, we couldn't dwell on one point for too long, and were able to come up with more specific attacks and examples. I also think I did a much better job of preparing for the debate. It's very interesting to have to think critically about democracy, because we have all been brought up with it. It forced me to evaluate a lot of assumptions I have about this system of government.

I believe Emma was the person who said after time, each team started to really take on the government they'd been assigned to as their own. It's true in my case. After this debate, I have a firmer belief in the democratic system. If we want people to be responsible citizens in a society, we have to trust them with a responsibility!

The United States was criticized multiple times during the debate, since the country does not always live up to it's democratic ideals, and as of late, the government seems somewhat incapable of making serious decisions. The US Government does not always seem like the government my group described in the debate. There are no direct elections on the national level. Even the president is decided by the electoral college, so if you are living in a state which votes for a different candidate than you, your vote is no longer counted. You can vote for one of two parties(yes, there's more- but they never have a serious impact), and the party politics take it from there. Madison argued that the creation of factions like these is unfortunate but inevitable, and in a large, diverse country such as the US, the several opposing factions will cancel each other out, so that none is too powerful. I am not sure whether or not this is true. I see a lot of factions cancelling each other out on either side, but I feel as though it is only creating an unnecessary deadlock, and people become distracted from the most important issues by random topics which are less significant to the country as a whole. This creates space for some individuals and lobbying groups to hold a larger amount of power behind the scenes. The two-party system feeds into this, and I think it is very flawed in it's current state.

In spite of this, the United States is still a functioning, powerful country. And it is not the only example we have, or even the best example if we are talking about direct democracy. The great thing about democracy is that it can fit a wide variety of populations, because the people can create and influence it so that it represents them best.