Welcome to the Philosophy Club!

Wednesday the 28th saw the first proper meeting of the Brunswick/GA Philosophy club and it was certainly interesting.

We started out with discussing whether the mind is separate from the body, which is an interesting idea from the perspective that it, unlike many philosophical questions, seems to have an easy answer.  Yes; the brain is connected to the rest of the body.  Our biological functions wouldn't work otherwise.  But that's the brain.  What about the mind?  That's the interesting question.  Of course you have to pose the question: what is the mind?  For our purposes, we defined the mind to be the sum of our perceptions and higher cognitive though.  Our emotions and what we see.  Descartes would posit that they are separate.  This speaks to the ideal that we have a soul which is not a physical part of our "biological" body.  He distinguished the soul as the seat of self awareness and consciousness and the brain as the seat of intelligence.  The Mechanist point of view posits that the mind and the body are one, contiguous thing with consciousness and intelligence existing together in the brain.  For the Mechanist position, one member of the club brought up a scientific experiment by which scientists connected a subject's brain to a neuroimaging device which allows them to see a rough outline of anything the subject looks at constantly in another room.  This experiment speaks to the idea that the brain and the mind are one; there must be electrical impulse to render for the image to be present.  This image of perception is not a concrete part of a person's intelligence, which indicates that perception, or the mind, coexists with the brain.  If you can create images of the "soul" from measuring the impulses of the brain, they must be in someway connected.

As our hour of discussion went on, our talk of perception and understanding led one of our number to bring up the idea of theodicy.  One of the more common metaphors for the theodicy idea is that of the stool.  I found this image which explains the idea pretty well:

Photo Credit: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2011/07/02/theodicy-and-the-three-legged-stool/

According to this idea, humanity is presented with three options regarding the nature of any conceivable god:

• Break the benevolence leg: God is kind of a dick
• Break the omnipotence leg: God can't control everything simply because He does not have the power to
• Break the omniscience leg: God has other things on his mind

This seems to be the only way to justify the existence of God in a world with suffering.  Central to the idea is: If there are atheists in the world, God must be imperfect; and if God is imperfect He can't really be "God" with the understanding that "God" is defined to be the most supreme, perfect being in all the universe.  This is not to say that a specific god can't be imperfect (look at the Greek Pantheon, that's about the most imperfect bunch of people out there), but the general idea of "God" implies a certain amount of perfection.  "God" really has to be benevolent because all of our morals are derived from Him, which really leaves us with the idea that god is either not all powerful or not all knowing.  Which would you rather it be?

Trying to Learn a British Accent...

...is way harder than I thought.  Or more boring.  I can't decide which.  Who knew that it was so tiring for your lip muscles?  David Allen Stern Ph.D. is teaching me and I have to say it's really jarring when he switches between an English and an American accent.  I honestly can't tell if he's American or British, he's that good at both.  Although I'm pretty sure he's British; but that assessment is based entirely on the fact that his American Accent sounds a little bit too generic and the fact that he started in a British accent.  So I might be a little bit biased on this one.

Anyway rehearsals are getting off to a great start.  I think we have the groping down (almost all of the stage directions tell us to "grope" our way across the stage) and our pacing is slowly working it's way to awesome.  According to the schedule, we need to be off book by then end of next week so that should help a lot.  The show is way raunchier than I thought it was from the sides.  As our director says "There's a lot of smooching".  Demonstrative of the craziness of this play: I play a middle-aged spinster and my chest gets grabbed at one point.  As I say, it's pretty crazy.  I seriously question what scene our director will see fit to preform for Preview, since he usually chooses one of the more suggestive scenes in order to attract the teenage boy demographic.

The set hasn't been begun quite yet (although apparently we'll be able to play around on it in the black box a week from monday) but it looks pretty interesting.  It's supposed to be an apartment with the bedroom on the higher level, an offstage studio/gallery, and a sitting room where most of the action takes place.  It'll be mostly my Stage Design class that builds most of this thing, so I'm really interested to find out how we'll be executing this crazy dream of our director.

All in all, the play is shaping up to be really interesting.  I will definitely keep y'all posted as the process develops!

Art Makes You Feel Smart

I thought "The Summer Look" was a dumb idea.  Boy was I wrong.  This summer my school sent out color photocopies of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife and Portrait of Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and his Wife for us to look at and ponder over the months we were not in school.  I thought this would be stupid, but the assembly in which we went over the significance of the paintings made me feel really cool.  

This is Arnolfini and his wife painted by Jan van Eyek, cool because they were painted in the early renaissance when it was still basically only the church that commissioned artwork.  Yeah, they had themselves painted before it was cool; the rest of you are just sheeple following the trend.  In any event there are some really cool little insets that you can see if you have a really high resolution version of the painting (or are looking at the original in The National Gallery), so for now you'll have to trust me on their existence.  For example the mirror in the back.  Not only is it a symbol of wealth but it also shows a perfect reflection of the characters we can see as well as the reflection of the painter and another man which really brings the viewer into the painting.  Just above that is the signature of the artist and some somewhat undetermined Latin.  It either says "Jan van Eyek was this man/one" or "Jan van Eyek was here" and it's really interesting to discuss the implications of both.  For a while art historians thought the work was a kind of self portrait, but now the popular opinion is swinging more toward the idea that the painter signed his work in the manner of bathroom wall graffiti.  
But of course I would be remiss if I were to exclude the fun with symbolism portion of art analysis.  Let's start from the top.  If you look closely at the chandelier you can see one lit candle.  It's clear that from a lighting perspective this room does not need any help; light floods through the window on the left.  If you look at the chandelier itself, it is a symbol of their wealth.  But there's more.  Some art historians have interpreted the single lit candle as signifying the presence of God (when I had to interpret it on the spot I suggested that it represented the Advent, which in retrospect is a bit of a stretch) meaning that God has approved of and blessed this event (what that event actually is I'll get to later).  The placement of the figures is also telling.  The woman, on the right, is closer to the bed and a broom, associating her with domestic duties.  The man, on the left, is closer to the window and his patten clogs (those crazy shoes in the bottom left would have gone on over his indoor shoes called poulaines whose tips were often so long they had to be held up by strings) indicating that he is a man of the world and has been outside.  Finally the little dog: adorable and a symbol of loyalty!  It's placement between the two figures indicates that there is loyalty between the man and wife.  
So what's going on in this painting?  For a while this was referred to as the "Arnolfini Wedding", indicating the idea that these two were in the process of getting married.  Now popular opinion is swinging away from that idea.  After all, why would they be getting married in a bedroom?  The most current idea is that this painting portrays Arnolfini granting his wife power of attorney.  Exciting, I know.

The second painting is a little closer to home (it's located in the Met) and is entitled Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and His Wife. As the title indicates, the painting depicts Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743–1794) and His Wife (Marie-Anne-Pierrette Paulze, 1758–1836).  Lavoisier is known as the founder of modern chemistry, not only is this a gorgeous painting but seriously significant to the history of science.     He is depicted here looking scientific in a room that is clearly not a lab.  It has been hypothesised that he is depicted penning one of his many scientific treatises, which is supported by the presence of his wife and his wife's folio on the right (she illustrated many of his publications).  This portrait, like Arnolfini up there, is a rarity for its time.  It was still uncommon for private citizens in France to commission full length portraits like this one; it was usually only royalty who commissioned such works.  Unfortunately, Lavoisier met an untimely demise at the guillotine during the French Revolution because he was a tax collector as well as a scientist and therefore a royalist.  This fact makes the painting all the more interesting to me.  Because, you see, David, the painter is very well known for this work:

His depiction of the Tennis Court Oath which created the French National Assembly after the members of the French Parliament of the Third Estate were locked out of the main Parliamentary room.  David was named a deputy of the National Convention in 1792.  So the same artist that painted the turning point in the French Revolution also painted one of the more famous royalists of the period.


Doesn't art make you feel smart!

Auditioning

This fall the Brunswick play is called "The Black Comedy" and I'm trying out.  It's been a while since I've done a school play, so this is a little weird, but I'm pretty excited about the whole thing.  I'm trying to keep things low key because I know I'll be involved in some capacity because of Stage Tech, but it would be really cool to get back on stage (I'm not going to jinx myself by expressing too much hope).   I have gotten a call back to read for the character of Miss Furnival, so I'm pretty excited about that.  I will most certainly keep you all updated on the cast and the show up until opening night.

The show looks really funny.  It's about British people and a black out with a reversed lighting scheme and.... just read the Wikipedia Article.  That's where the director got the character descriptions, so it's good enough for me.  I'll be sure to keep y'all apprised of the theatrical goings on in my life (and there will be many throughout the year) as the year picks up.

All in all it's been a pretty boring week for me.  I'll update as things get interesting as the year progresses, but right now there's not much going on.

I'll see you all around the Interweb!

Man and Boy

This Saturday my parents and I seized upon the opportunity to see Frank Langella in Man and Boy on Broadway. I know I'm blogging late, get used to it.

This play looks at the complex relationship between a corrupt financier and his estranged son who still worships him even though he won't admit it.  And man o man is the dad a jerk.  He actually uses his son as a lure to get a closeted rival to agree to a merger from which he plans to steal $6 million.  Yeah, he's a real nice guy.  But the thing is the play isn't really about that.  Which is remarkable for a play written in the early 1960s that features the casual acknowledgement of homosexuality.  It's really about what it means to grow up and the relationship between a son and a father.  Lets just say this isn't really the healthiest of father/son relationships.  At one point Gregor Antonescu (the father) tells his son's girlfriend that the most important words are about truth and falsehood and - at it's heart - his relationships with his son and to a lesser extent his bodyguard/right-hand-man revolve around the difference between sharing everything and nothing.  His relationships hinge not on love, he actually finds the love of a son dangerous to his way of life, but on his truthfulness.  All in all it was a really interesting and fantastically acted play that was remarkably topical for a play written in 1961 and set in 1930.  Stepping away from my more literary analysis, the plot is very reminiscent of the Bernie Madoff scandal.

It's worth saying that the set is really cool too.  It's set in a basement apartment in the Village and it is really realistically set.  It's built really well and it really enhances the theater-going experience.  One interesting choice the director made was to have some of the actors walk back and forth on a raised platform meant to simulate the sidewalk to create the impression that the actors were really in a city with people going about their business as a financial empire imploded beneath them.  I thought it was a really nice, subtle touch.

So all in all, I would really recommend the show to you. I think it's still in previews or at least hasn't been reviewed yet, otherwise I would share with you the views of the New York Times theater reviewers; but sadly that is not to be the case.  When the review comes out I'll post it in the comments.

An Epic Journey to Middletown CT

This afternoon GA took us on our "first college visit" to Wesleyan in Middletown CT.  I put quotes around "first college visit" because for many of my classmates it was at least their 10th.  I feel a little behind the group having only visited two so far.  For Dartmouth, it was love at first sight.  For Wesleyan, it was most certainly not.  Which is not to say it was a bad school, it's not; it's just definitely not for me.  To me the atmosphere seemed dead.  The buildings either looked like they were rotting or like they were tombs.  We had our information session in the main, formal auditorium, and the thing was a soaring, concrete casket.  It was legitimately unfinished concrete on the inside.  I honestly don't want to live in a decaying seventies inspired housing block, I don't want to learn in a wilting colonial house, and I don't feel creatively inspired in an enormous, concrete coffin.

I did like their study abroad programs (they told one anecdote about a student who successfully petitioned the administration to give them funding to study abroad in Antarctica) but it did seem a bit like they were trying a bit too hard.  They bragged about their interlibrary loan program with Middlebury and another similar school whose name escapes me which I couldn't help comparing to the Ivy League interlibrary loan program which has so many volumes in it that if you tell a professor that you couldn't find a book you're statistically wrong.  Wesleyan is very strong in the sciences and music departments and those are two facts they very much like to talk about.  I found it straight up strange that my tour guide barely mentioned the humanities in depth.  I'm used to having to ask about the Religious Studies Department but I'm not used to having to ask about the Humanities in general.  Maybe it was just my tour guide, but I really thought it was strange.  In all honesty I didn't think my tour guide was that great.  He didn't walk and talk to the group; he really just led us to different talking points and he really stuck to those talking points, barely straying for funny anecdotes to endear us to the school.  The whole experience felt very perfunctory and staged and the school made a less than positive impression on me.

I never thought I would be applying to Wesleyan, and that thought has certainly been solidified for me.  I'm sure it was great for some of my classmates, but it's just not me.  Put it to you this way: it has a Division III athletics department and the Division III spirit leaks out of the athletic complex and permeates the campus.  There's a lot to be said for the Division I spirit.  Even for a non-Athlete like myself.

American Jobs in a Global Market

I've just finished watching our President present to congress "The American Jobs Act" and it was certainly interesting. Towards the end I got the sense that President Obama was an exasperated father trying to tell his kids to stop fighting. Which is true, he is in a way Congress's dad. Overall, I thought it was really well structured as an appeal to the American in all of us and, as always, President Obama is an excellent speaker.

Anyway, out of his many messages (the one I think most often iterated being that congress should pass this bill now) the one I picked up on was his repeated stressing of the fact that this bill should be an amalgamation of programs supported by both Democrats and Republicans. But not, and this is in my words, by the crazy ones. The President supported cuts to superfluous spending, but not as the only way to solve our problems. He pitched his program as a balanced combination of spending cuts and tax reforms. What pains me is that he can't say outright that we need to raise taxes. Currently, our tax code is ridiculously favorable to the top tiers of citizens and corporations and that has to change. Jon Stewart does the math in this clip of the Daily Show and it really hits home for me. It genuinely angers me that any suggestion of raising taxes on the top 2% is perceived as class warfare, even if that suggestion comes from the top of the top 2%. But to return to the speech, I think the President handled the children of Congress very well. Even though he has to deal with some ridiculous partisanship, I think he clearly delivered his message without sounding too desperate (although his repetition of his plea to congress to "pass it now" seemed a bit sad). To the people that believe that we should just cut everything and give everyone their money back, he says "That's not the story of America" and he's right. It's not. And it shouldn't become the story either.

Another point he stressed was remaining competitive in the global market. It is the President's opinion (and mine) that we should remain competitive by making it easier for companies to hire Americans, by improving our infrastructure, by making our students more competitive in the global job market, and by making American goods more competitive as exports. If we drive Korean cars, why can't Koreans drive American cars? Of course the President says it better, but the point remains the same. He wants to see the three magic words "Made in America" on more goods in more countries. And we need to create jobs to do that. And to create jobs we need to get companies to start and stay in America. And to do that we can't become the new China. Obama spoke of aiming for the top not the bottom; we can't make ourselves competitive by reducing our environmental standards to nothing and our working conditions to those of the Gilded Age of Robber Barons. In my words, we can't become the new China.

Now I know for a fact that I can be a bit inflammatory when I start talking about politics, but I would welcome a debate in the comments. Get to it!