Life of Pi (2012) How do we know what is real and does the theory of simplicity cut it for you?

Some spectacular imagery: scenes from Life of Pi (2012) the “animal story”, Pi Patel’s version, and his so-convincing depiction of the truth.

https://ginamoran.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=62&action=edit&message=1

How do we know what is real? Is there anything we can know for sure?

Life of Pi (2012) Does the theory of simplicity (Chater et. al, 2003) cut it for you?

“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The words of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349)

Humans for much of history have been seeking and exploring the possibilities within the philosophical question, “is there anything we can know for sure?” We tend to be inconclusive, we disagree, and for good reason because how can we as fundamentally subjective human beings really know anything for sure? The relativity of truth is what fuels differing opinions about the success, and can result in a resonating response to this film. Our love for exploring possibilities within its mode presents us philosophical questions as an audience helps us to really think about how the original author and directors of the film choose to present us with and make us think about the plural stories and the truth behind them. So enhancing are the visual aesthetics that normalised constructions of reality can be thrown out the door and we can actually struggle at determining which story might be true.

The true one that lies somewhere within this film forces consumers and viewers to make up their own minds of which must be the true story that occurred. They aren’t hand fed a storyline to believe, in fact they are challenged to see truth in both and have to decide without aid of clues in the film. For some of us, the simplest explanation, the “human story”, we don’t want to believe, and struggle down a journey of acceptance that theories of simplicity can not always be the right answer, or truth.

William of Ockham declared that “plurality should not be posited without necessity”, and the originator of this story, the author of the book, Yann Martel asserted in his novel that “to choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.” Existentialism forces us to explore possibilities, and maybe even believe in more than one at different points. Life of Pi, which envelopes its audience with visual wonders and spiritual questions (Higgins, 2013) explores oppositional stories, the simplest one as likely not true, in my own opinion. However this claim could be disputed and sometimes I want to believe the simplest one as truth taking to heart the philosophy of Occam’s Razor. But could this be the justified, true belief? Or is one being conned, by an imaginative boy and his fantasies? This is a necessary dilemma to investigate: am I unable of opening up my mind to the other perspective?

For those who can not bring themselves to question, and theologically reflect on which story to believe in as Kendrick (2012) refers to as the ‘animal story’ as the first account and the ‘human story’ as the second account as what really happened he also highlights that Pi successfully helps skeptics overcome one of the largest hurdles to faith – believing in the unbelievable.Of course, it is completely fictional in construction, and unfortunately with knowledge of that makes the wonder of the film is somewhat diminished, but the production skills allow oneself to forget for a time that this could even be a possibility. It comes down to preferences, and which story you will prefer to take as the true story: the animal story or the human story. Each to his own must subjectively determine which is true to them and some viewers can’t handle not being told what to believe. The inconclusiveness of the relativity of truth accurately explores this philosophical conundrum as we have over our human history.

We learn this is a time he claims he would always remember that was filled with wonder urging us to consider it as possible, as true. The other must be the real account as by construction it is simpler albeit Freudian in construction as Pi Patel couldn’t cope with the “human story”, and two Ministry of Transport officials assist him to confront his “made up story”. This film makes us choose our own preference and unfortunately that is all we can really use to interpret this film and this existentialist’s conundrum that lies within it, if we care to indulge ourselves in thinking about truth and reality and furthermore, what we believe.

References

Lee, A. (Netter, G., Womark, D.). (2012). Life of Pi. United States: Rhythm & Hues and Fox 2000 Pictures.

Higgins, G. (2013, Top 10 of 2012. Sojourners Magazine, 42, 41-41. Retrieved 19/04/2012 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1327099844?accountid=13380

Alasuutari, Pertti (2004) Social Theory and Human Reality. SAGE Publications Ltd.: London

Kendrick, B. (2012) ‘Life of Pi Ending Explained’ accessed 19/04/2012 on http://screenrant.com/life-of-pi-movie-ending-spoilers/2/Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, cited in: Paul Newall (2005) “Ockham’s Razor” at www.galilean-library.org

Chater, N. & Vitányi, P. (2003). Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7 (1), 19-22.

Into the Wild (2007) – The meaning of life and death

The Meaning of Life and Death
Into the Wild (2007)

Humanity does not have an answer to the question, ‘does life have to have a meaning?’ Instead we have answers. We revel in things we do not understand and throughout history humanity explores this concept in the attempts of many introspective individuals who decide that a philosophical inquisition into this subject is worth pursuing exploring this existentialist concept subjectively and thus, some people may find the meaning of living as they experience moments through the duration of their lives. They might carry a popular perspective about its meaning or carry a personally informed construct to answer the question. They might have consulted a perspective with foundations of deism or finite godism (Smith, 2011), transcendentalism, destiny or fete, or some other socially constructed causes or to aide the reflections of their direct experience and take a higher meaning than the sewing together of random incidents by time. The seventeenth-century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes said that in its “natural condition” the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. The central protagonist of Into the Wild (2007), Christopher McCandless (1968-1992) explored the meaning of life question with an introverted stance of moral absolutism, attempting to find purpose by leaving his family and connections behind, taking the words of Jack London to heart, living the “natural” life as Hobbes described and conducting a philosophical inquiry into life with faith in God and life in it’s “purest form”, with short-term relationships and a stubborn ideology of travelling north to Canada was seemingly fallible choice from the perspective of patriarchy where meaning comes from having a family and creating the next generation. Not only did he not make it, he lived a lonely life, making tokenistic relationships that end on his own terms, something he learns was the wrong thing in the end.

This young man really existed; the choices of a real person were told and shared to an audience, in order to examine the meaning of life and death and look at our own choices. We get to consider the environment that created him, and his troubles as a young, powerless person in an unhappy family. We see him sacrifice his relationship with his sister along with his parents; she is the narrator, who tells his story from beyond the grave for him. We were allowed into nature to see Hobbes representation of life at the core, with everyday occurrences and tragedies or triumphs. The moose tragedy, with nature’s decay taking over too quickly for him confronts audiences with real life, pure life and other lessons along the way. He never stopped to question that his own hands could have benefited the assistance of another’s; sharing it wasn’t something he realised until the very end, as a slow and painful death presumably resulted in powerful meaning of life lessons from the dying body. We get to watch him succeed and fail. It makes us think.

The biographical drama of a real individual has allowed inquiry into the meaning of life and death and exploration of existentialist conundrums. Some of the most resonating scenes in the movie are arguably the social scenes, were we encounter special individuals hidden away across the American landscape who share briefly in Chris’ life for a time until he leaves. One could argue that I have lived a more successful life than Chris’ because I share it with others, and as he never reached Canada and solitary duped himself out of a meaningful existence because of some teenage angst, in needing to be absolutely self-reliant at the destruction of all other meaningful connections.

References:

Penn, S (2007) Into the Wild. United States: Square One C.I.H., Linson Film and River Road Entertainment.

Smith, B (2011) Finite Godism. Accessed: http://www.thoughtfulchristianity.net/?p=6390

Lloyd, S. (2008) Hobbes Moral and Political Philosophy Accessed: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/

The Film and the actual story are blurred in my mind. One cannot think of one without the other.