Jonathan Livingston Seagull

 

It is often challenging to assert a sense of individualism in life. Despite our biological makeup what emphasizes a notion of physiological and psychological individuality, culture has dictated that humans, like many other species of the animal world, have to survive in a communal setting. While one feels the demand of meeting up to one’s potential, is that often consistent with the expectations from the group one finds himself in? In 1970, Richard Bach has written a novella which would eventually become the classic of self-help literature in the 20th century. ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’ is an allegory of one’s striving towards self-actualization. Though the protagonist of the novella is merely a seagull, many readers can easily identify with this ‘outsider’ of the flock. The bird’s unique experience has proved to be inspiring for many and the novella has become a bestseller. In 1973, the film version of ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’ was released. The film’s style is very representative of its era – with the daring spirit, and much of the film focused only on the protagonist – remember that is a seagull - and the natural world it has travelled through. Maybe due to the lack of human characters and the austere style, the film received mixed review, unlike the overwhelming positive response to the novella. Nevertheless, the film has received 2 Oscar nominations in the technical categories and it was also memorable for the song ‘Be’, performed by Neil Diamond.

Jonathan is no ordinary seagull. While most seagulls’ purpose of life is to be well-fed and be an early bird for the next meal deal, Jonathan wished to go further with his own ambitions. Having such an idiosyncratic worldview certainly made him a bit of a loner and a pain-in-the-ass in his group. Jonathan really enjoyed flying – and in particular he felt a ‘need for the speed’, and always tried hard to improve his flying speed. When he has finally reached a speed of 100 km / hour, he was elated by his achievement. His peers were not that impressed, though – and found his actions rather heretical. The leader of the clan advised Jonathan to conform to being a normal seagull, as his antics suggested that he did not belong. Jonathan stood firm on his beliefs, and was soon expelled from the group. Now an outsider, Jonathan was free to pursue his interest and explore the world. It turned out that being an outcast might not be the worst thing in life – throughout his journey he would find other seagulls who also enjoyed the pleasure of flight, and would learn from them to improve himself. The seagull would eventually inspire the other similar-minded birds, who needed a reason to motivate themselves to achieve their own aims…

Does my life end here?

I can't believe that.

I wasn't born to drown in this ocean.

I can die here or I can force myself to fly.

It's in me.

I've got to try.

I've got to get back home.

At last I can stop thinking, for once in my life.

Just stop thinking and fly towards the lights in the dark.

-Jonathan, 'Dear Father'

We can often find someone with a character like Jonathan the seagull around us. They often take a non-conformist attitude to the things around them (which is why the film addresses the spirit of the New Hollywood Cinema of the 1970s), and they love to challenge the status quo of the day. They are born to be misfits, and the peer pressure will often be exerted to force them back in the line. Yet it is often the maverick that can lead the other members to new frontiers they have never been able to conceive of. These are the very individuals who reveal new possibilities of existence. Throughout the story, Jonathan strived very hard to realize his dream of being a speedy flyer. He would rather end up in a state of solitude to perfect his craft. He has encountered numerous obstacles, and even was stranded and wounded at some point. When he was about to be swept away into oblivion in a broken raft, his insatiable drive towards his dream got the better of him, and motivated him to get through the hardship to a higher state. While Jonathan was a unique and intelligent member of his species, he has not let his hubris to divert his focus. He was willing to be humble and learnt from the other seagulls who could fly higher and faster than him, in order to develop his skills. That was the instance when Jonathan found true company, and no longer be alone.

Be

As a page that aches for a word

Which speaks on a theme that is timeless

While the one God will make for your day

Sing

As a song in search of a voice that is silent

And the one God will make for your way

-Neil Diamond, 'Be'

The allegorical narrative of Jonathan’s experience is very humanistic and that reminds us of Maslow’s psychological theories. The American psychologist has proposed a hierarchy of needs of human existence, from the lowest, elemental needs such as food and warmth; to the higher ultimate purpose of self-actualization. When Jonathan was with the members of his clans, it was quite certain that the basic survival needs have already been fulfilled – that was why Jonathan was bored with the mundane life in the first place. His peers, satisfied by the sensual and physical pleasure of abundant food, were willing to conform to that comfort zone. That serve as a metaphor for the laymen who are willing to stick to a regular pattern in their lives and are not willing to look for alternatives to define themselves. Jonathan, by contrast, has discovered an aim for self-actualization through his love of flying. By having a strong commitment to his interest, he has found a purpose of his existence. Indeed, this perspective also finds resonance with Neil Diamond’s theme song, ‘Be’. The poetic lyrics of this great song explore the theme of being in the world. As Jonathan has been able to counteract against herd behavior and crowd psychology, he found himself closer to the nature of things, finally achieving a sense of transcendence.

by Ed Law 

Film Analysis

Seeding the Universe with Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras was a Pre-Socratic thinker who was literally related to Socrates. Elder than Socrates by about 30 years, it was probable that one of Anaxagoras’ student, Archelaus, might have been a teacher for the young Socrates. Socrates has certainly been influenced by the teachings of Anaxagoras’ school of thought, yet he has since departed from his teacher’s approach for more original directions. Like Democritus of the Atomist school, Anaxagoras was a natural philosopher with a strong scientific mind, contributing not only to ontology but also empirical fields like astronomy and meteorology. The natural philosopher was also a close associate of Pericles, and the Athenian politician has learnt a lot from the wise philosopher. Presumably due to his mind-blowing philosophy (we will see how later) and the fact that he was acquainted with Pericles, Anaxagoras was soon charged with impiety – an offence that could apparently forced onto anyone who diverted from a traditional outlook of Greek religion, and he was exiled as a result. The philosopher’s reputation might be conflicted in his lifetime, yet his subsequent influence to later thinkers is profound, from theoretical science to Hegelian studies.

Anaxagoras has developed a complete system for this philosophy, and some of his key ideas are still insightful by today’s standard. Yet the interpretation of his philosophy has proved to be challenging because certain of his doctrines were expressed in rather obscure or ambiguous ways, and that resulted in drastically different interpretations from later academics, which often depended on how they defined some of the more ambiguous terms in the Pre-Socratic thinker’s work. Some of his more abstract ideas may also sound strange if we view them from the standard of modern empirical science. My aim here is to spell out the consensus of Anaxagoras’ key doctrines and hopefully provide some starting points for philosophizing his interesting ideas.

Like many of his fellow Pre-Socratic thinkers, Anaxagoras wished to find out the origin of the universe and where it was heading to. Thus he placed a lot of concerns on the issues of both cosmogony and cosmology. For the Greek thinker, every thing in the world had a tendency to be developed into its final form. Yet the attributes (or properties, a more straight-forward term to address Anaxagoras’ complex wordings) present in the final form of that thing was already latent in the original form of the thing in question. So we can say that at the start, a thing has already possessed the properties that would allow it to map out its trajectory to develop into the final form. 

The reason why this could happen was because of a property asserted by Anaxagoras. While he has used a number of different ways to describe that particular idea, including the word ‘seeds’ (which the meaning was supposed to be metaphorical rather than literal), that has been known as ‘homoeomeries’ since Aristotle. ‘Homoeomeries’ are defined as things that remain in the same form after they are divided. Intuitively the notion sounds impossible, and this concept has been the most controversial of Anaxagoras’s system. While the idea may be theoretically possible in an abstract manner, say, if one has a bar of pure gold and it is cut into half, we can argue the resulting halves are the same as the original because the gold atoms are homogeneous and there are no ways to distinguish between the before and after. Yet in this case we are assuming the particulate notion of matter, and that was probably not Anaxagoras’s intention because he was never attracted to any particulate theories of matter to start with.

Anaxagoras proposed that at the beginning of the universe, its state was an original mixture with infinite substances in it. All the substances would eventually be developed to all things in the world. Thus, these substances could be seen as the ‘seeds’ for the eventual world formation. Through the mixing of specific proportions of mixing the various substances, things are transformed into their respective final forms throughout the evolution of the universe. Before we move on we can notice an implication of Anaxagoras’s doctrine: even if the components of the ‘seeds’ are the same, if the proportions have changed, the outcome will also be very different. From this reasoning many researchers of the field have suggested that the Greek thinker has proposed the possibility of innumerable worlds, though they did not reach a consensus on whether these worlds were co-existent or successive.

So, what is the string-puller behind the whole system? Anticipating theological or even psychological perspectives in the modern sense of the term, Anaxagoras proposed ‘Mind’ (Greek: nous) as the organizing principle of the universe. Many commentators have since questioned the scope of the word, whether the philosopher intended to mean as a divine substance or merely the psychological capacities of animate things (like humans and animals) in the world. Vague as it may seem, Anaxagoras’s notion of ‘Mind’ did suggest it as a universal force of nature that facilitated the development of the universe. Thus for the Pre-Socratic thinker, Mind was infinite, pure and independent from the original mixture. The Mind initiated the transformation of the universe through a first rotatory movement, and the ‘seeds’ in the original mixture would divide and separate to start their transformations. It was also omniscient and possessed the ‘know how’ (a buzz word for our era?!) to transform the world towards its very end.  I would argue that the notion of Nous is possibly the philosopher’s most important influence to the later generations, as many will easily equate ‘Mind’ with ‘God’ through a similar line of reasoning.

Anaxagoras’s philosophy is therefore a teleological one, of which many later philosophical systems have shared similarities. An example is in Socrates’s discussion of Homeric epic, where he placed a focus on the role of military leader, having the obligation to ensure his soldiers’ survival. Socrates was teleological in the sense that he concentrated on the purpose of the leader’s action – to ensure his men were safe. In a later era, Aristotle would similarly designate the individual action of the ruler to a teleological purpose of offering advantage to the group he was governing. Aristotle pursued the concept of teleology even further. In his work on zoology, he went as far to propose his generally teleological view of nature.  The philosopher offered teleological explanations as the understanding of goals and final causes present in life. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Fitzcarraldo

 

‘Fitzcarraldo’, the 1982 epic-adventure film by the German filmmaker Werner Herzog, is the kind of film that can claim few peers. Focusing on a favorite theme of the filmmaker – egomaniac characters doing unbelievable feats and pushing the very limits of humanity – the film certainly reflects Herzog’s rigorous approach to his art. Filming the masterpiece in an unfamiliar part of nature and without resort to any CGI, Herzog has managed to move through so many obstacles that could simply put the project to a definite full-stop. Notwithstanding the daunting special effect the team had to devise, the leading man, originally starred by Jason Robards, had to be changed abruptly when the actor succumbed to illness. Calling in Herzog's many-time partner – and in a sense nemesis – Klaus Kinski to the set, the legendary actor replaced Robards and delivered another brilliant performance of a lifetime, comparable to the memorable Aguirre. The outcome may be unintentional, yet we can all anticipate that when we put Kinski into the equation: who in this universe can be as convincing as an egotistical mad genius other than the great actor from ‘Aguirre, Wrath of God’?

The film, which is based on a true story, is just as extreme as ‘Aguirre’. Brian ‘Fitzcarraldo’ Fitzgerald (who was influenced by the real Peruvian Carlos Fitzgerald) was a rubber baron who wished to explore development in the natural landscapes of Peru. With a great taste in opera, he pitched the idea of building an opera house in the middle of the forest. His ideas certainly raised eyebrows from the locals and his employees. Undaunted by any doubts out of a sound and rational mind, Fitzcarraldo pushed forward with his visions, at one point hauling a steam boat – intact – over a steep hill. Would our protagonist realize his dream, or was he just going too far?

Herzog often adopts unique approaches to his filmmaking, and he can often employ the various filmic elements to his advantage. Not relying on any ‘cheats’ from the possibility of special visual effects, he decided to drag a real boat in the iconic scene. The feat appeared to be insurmountable, and unfortunately led to a few injuries for the cast, yet the final result has demonstrated such a realism that no audience would doubt if that could happen in real life. The pitfalls of Fitzcarraldo’s mission were brilliantly played out, not through a hyped way of portraying action in many modern films, but through a slow-burn approach, banging slowly through a solemn cinematic rhythm. Even when the action did not appear to be fast paced or ‘exciting’ in any modern sense of these terms, the audience could appreciate that something would inevitably go wrong in the plan. 

Klaus Kinski, whose combative and mercurial personality has been legendary on film sets, was again cleverly channeled by Herzog for the effects of the film. Certainly not being very friendly towards others in the project, Kinski’s temperament has been transposed onto the relationships between Fitzcarraldo and his workers, and that is often the case when one has to work for a charismatic, yet egoistical leader. The archetype of charismatic leader, with the mega can-do attitude and insatiable drive, strives hard to achieve the dreams and visions no matter the cost. It is indeed quite chilling to see that these characters are often manipulative and convincing in a sense that their followers are willing to submit to their power and commit sacrifice for them. Thinking of historical figures like Napoleon Bonaparte, one can see that if the leader does not have charisma, or possesses an eloquent rhetoric that can convince the mass that their bigger-than-life dreams are possible to come true, there may never have any of these significant feats in history. Herzog, like what he has done in many of his other films, was not trying to judge if Fitzcarraldo’s obsession was right or not. He shared with us such an impossible achievement just to allow us to make up our own minds. Be it reality or fiction, the ambivalence demonstrated by the troubled geniuses was what has pushed humanity forward.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Reality Check with Parmenides

 

In Plato's 'Phaedrus', there was a famous allegory about a charioteer controlling a pair of winged horses with very different characters. One of them, a mortal black horse, symbolized the impulses and appetites common to all of humanity. That was paired with an immortal and eternal white horse, that symbolized the positive spirit cherished by humans. As the two horses showed very different temperaments, it was up to the charioteer – who symbolized the rational mind – to control them and led their ways to a life of enlightenment. The chariot story is an allegory of Plato's theory of the soul. It is also interesting because the pair of contrasting horses points to an intellectual influence from a number of Presocratic philosophers collectively known as the Eleatic School. That included Parmenides of Elea, and his followers Melissus and Zeno.

The members of the Eleatic school were staunch rationalists. The ontology advocated by these thinkers were all speculative and rational, and their ideas were more abstract than the perceptions most people had regarding the universe in their times.

The remaining fragments of the poem by Parmenides can be considered the locus classicus of Western Metaphysics. The Presocratic philosopher was probably the first ever to propose a consistent account of the nature of reality. Parmenides wrote his poem in Homeric hexameter, chronicling the journey of a young man to meet a goddess, who the latter promised that she would tell about 'all things' to him. What she has shared with him, however, was an approach to arrive at the real knowledge of things.

The poem suggests that humanity can choose between 2 approaches to understand about themselves. The Way of Opinion (Greek: doxa) is to acquire knowledge by the action of seeming, and to know the world merely through the senses. In contrast, the Way to Truth (Greek : aletheia) is to acquire knowledge by the exercise of reason. The dialectal aspect of the 2 choices was evident: Parmenides was among the first thinker to distinguish rationally between appearances and reality, and proposed that what ‘appears to us’ is not necessarily equate what ‘is’.

Parmenides designated the metaphysical substance of his philosophy as ‘Being’. It was an unity, and some sources even stated that Parmenides proposed a spherical shape for that, which was indeed a good analogy for the idea of unity. Contrary to the human perceptions that there were motion and changes around us, the metaphysical substance for Parmenides was static, unchangeable and timeless. Parmenides’ metaphysics was revolutionary because the reality he has speculated was very different to the way humans perceived the world, through the application of the common sense. The speculative aspect of the Eleatic school, by the rigorous exercise of reason and logical deduction, would influence the future philosophers who took a rationalist approach to metaphysical issues. 

Thus Parmenides’ system was a philosophical monism, which proposed only one type of metaphysical substance. His ideas denied the notion of plurality and void (vacuum). Parmenides asserted that his metaphysical substance of ‘Being’ was indivisible and continuous. These beliefs were in the starkest conflict to the later atomists, who accepted the presence of void and divisibility of matter. More important, the Eleatic philosopher denied the possibility of ‘non-being’, which he argued as logically impossible.

The teachings by the Eleatic school were important in Greek Philosophy because many subsequent thinkers would response to the questions posed by this school of thought. That included the development of various pluralist schools and challenges from the sophists of Classical Athens. Gorgias, an acclaimed sophist, wrote 'On What is Not', spoofing the Eleatic system. He challenged the metaphysical possibility of ‘Being’, and laterally denied the possibility of Divine or a first cause. The sentiment was not dissimilar from the agnostic or atheistic views by many other fellow sophists. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Xenophanes : Presocratic Slasher

Xenophanes was a slasher in ancient Greece. He was a poet, a philosopher, a theologian and also an avid traveler. He has lived a long life and has travelled to a number of places. If Xenophanes is a person of today, he is certainly a key opinion leader, writing travel blogs and poems and doing Facebook live. But when you look up for his username, take care and don't mix it up with 'Xenophon', who was born in later era than Xenophanes and he was one of Socrates' students.

Xenophanes was against 2 things in life – human-looking gods and jocks. Through his understanding of poetry and satirical wit, he has written a lot of poems to satirize, criticize and think about issues in the culture of his days. His critique on theological issues has led to a rational inquiry of religious and spiritual themes evident in later philosophy, like Parmenides and his successors. For his problems with the jock culture, we will deal with that in the end.

Xenophanes was original because he was one of the first Western thinkers to have a string commitment in rationalism. Through his exercise of reason as evident in his writings, he was an original architect of rationalist theology, using reason and valid speculations, rather than mythological sources, to explore the concepts of the Divine. Xenophanes was well-versed in a number of different style of poetry, yet his poems always exhibited a satirical tone and impressive witticism.

The conception of gods has already been described in the epic poems of Homer and Hesiod. Xenophanes, who was alive centuries after the two epic poets, had issues with their ideas of the Divine. First, Xenophanes was very against the notion that the Greek gods and goddesses were anthropomorphic. In his poems, the pre-Socratic philosopher mocked the idea of human-looking gods, and stated that if an ox could conceive of a ‘god’, that god would likely look like an ox too. In a satirical comment that would be considered a nasty racial slur for today, Xenophanes believed that the Ethiopian gods would resemble Ethiopians with their own facial features, which he was not particularly fond of.

Why did Xenophanes think that humans would believe their gods to be mega-versions of themselves? With an explanation that had a lot of resonance to the science of today, he believed that the images of human-looking gods were merely the psychological projections of humans. Humans made their attempts to shift the center from the Divine back to themselves, and projected their own opinions on the attributes of gods. It is as if the ancient humans were saying: ‘The gods, after all, are just like us.’ Ironically, this opinion has shared similarities in the views of some future philosophers, who embraced atheist or materialist doctrines, yet that is in no way true that Xenophanes would have denied the existence of the Divine.

Other than the issue of human looks, what concerned Xenophanes even more with regard to the Homeric conception of the gods was that they were often immoral. Indeed, the divine family on Mount Olympus has often been compared to a dysfunctional family, and every member was more than capable to claim their fair share of moral transgressions. The immorality of the Homeric gods is often overlooked by many, yet to Xenophanes that was an important issue.  Because the thinker opined that the behavior of these divine figures, who were expected as ‘role models’ for humanity, were morally inconsistent. The lack of objectivity in these antics paralleled human’s own projections of the Divine. What Xenophanes was looking for all the time was a theological outlook that was rational, objective, and could serve as an ethical guide to humanity.

‘One god, greatest among gods and men, in no way similar to mortals either in body or in thought.’

-Xenophanes

‘All of him sees, all thinks, and all hears.’

-Xenophanes

Hence for Xenophanes’ rational theology, there was a single, non-anthropomorphic God, which he often termed ‘The One’. Xenophanes’ God, to start with, is timeless. Just that all the other Pre-Socratic thinkers’ ideas of First Cause, it exists outside of time and had no beginning or end. The Divine is also rational and omniscient – it knows everything in the world. It is omnipotent, meaning that it is so powerful that it has the ability to do anything possible. We may find these attributes similar to what we think about God, and indeed it is, because the philosopher’s revolutionary way of understanding God has shaped the way how later generations would have approaches the issues of religion.

There is a caveat to Xenophanes’ assessment. From a philological perspective, many commentators have questioned the implications of the word regarding the divine in Xenophanes’ original version. As we may not be aware there are some careless duplication errors, the commentators are unsettled by the fact that ancient thinker has used a plural form for the words ‘Greatest among gods and men'.’ That appears to be contradictory to the theological views he has been expressing throughout his poems, namely that there is only one God in the universe. Most commentators have agreed that the specific issue of wording should not impact our understanding of Xenophanes’ ‘One-God assumption’, for which he has maintained firmly and consistently throughout all his surviving work.  Many scholars in the classical studies have advised the readers not to take the word too literally, saying that maybe the word ‘gods’ was just representative of Xenophanes’ often satirical tone. These ‘gods’ can just be the deputies and underbosses of the Big Boss, and no matter one wants to designate them as ‘gods’, ‘angels’ or ‘spirits’, the idea does not change. Xenophanes’ philosophical system is strictly rational and monotheistic.

Xenophanes’ opinions regarding the Divine has two important implications for later understanding of religion and spirituality. First, by abandoning the polytheistic system of Homeric gods, he introduced a monotheistic conception of the divine. Not only this has influenced much of the philosophical systems of the Presocratic thinkers, almost all these thinkers searched for and proposed a first cause of things, the theological outlook would influence many other religions that still existed today.

Second, by asserting a non-anthropomorphic divine figure , Xenophanes has provided the readers a more abstract conception of the greatest being. Ancient beliefs in gods tend to rely on some concrete conceptions, that the gods resemble humans, only are way more powerful and immortal. Early people may easily think that the gods resembled King Triton of Little Mermaid, without the little brat Ariel - an old gentleman with white beard, holder of a crane that symbolized power, and talked in a commanding yet fatherly tone. That makes sense as that would lead to an easier identification with the divine though this might be unintentional. That took the evolution of human mind to have the capacity to believe in an abstract idea, and thus Xenophanes conception could be seen as a revolutionary one.

Xenophanes’s divine foreshadowed the Parmenidian Being, but there was a difference in terms of both philosophers’ focus. Xenophanes had a more religious motivation and tried a provide a justified and rational picture of divinity, while Parmenides and his successors was concerned to postulate a metaphysical reality.

Xenophanes apparently did not share the ancient view of metempsychosis, the reincarnation of souls, with thinkers like Pherecydes and the Pythagoreans. In a satirical tone, he mocked at the notion that one should not harm a dog because the animal might be a reincarnation of one’s family in a previous life. Given this rather caustic-toned example, many would have proposed that the philosopher was not into this theory.

Xenophanes was a very special type of nerd. Believing in the power of reason, he despised the values of athleticism and festivity of his days. He certainly felt that a sound and rational mind was more preferred to physical prowess. In fact, his inclinations had a lot of influences on later Greek philosophy, as people turned their aspirations from Homeric warriors to orators with eloquence and intelligence. This slasher of the ancient times, who has contributed to so diverse fields and possessed such a dynamic stream of thoughts, was certainly no basketcase for current standard!

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

 

How The West Was Won

 

I have a deep fascination with history. When I write about cinema, I always place a lot of emphasis on the historical perspectives of the film in question. In particular, I have a strong interest in the cultural and historical aspects of the late 19th and early 20th century. ‘How The West was Won’, a Western directed by John Ford, Henry Hathaway and George Marshall, is an epic film about America in the 19th century.

The 19th century is an interesting era for human history. It is very relevant for our era because many things in our culture today have their origins and foundations from this particular century. From the modernization of our lives since the Industrial Revolution, to the imperialism and colonialism that would eventually shape our current geopolitics, we can always find the origins from this century if we want to. And don't forget the stunning intellectual development of this era. Thinkers like Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud and Marx have influenced the thoughts and opinions of the modern consciousness. The late 19th century, abound with the presence of brilliant novelists, poets and playwrights, also harbored a happy surprise - the birth of cinema. When the Lumiere brothers showed their first work to an audience – a film showing a train moving forward – the viewers were overwhelmed. Having no previous concepts of anything about motion pictures, the members of the audience were so frightened by the scene that they attempted to escape the theatre, lest the image of the ‘train’ would crash into the showing room. This incident may sound silly for today's audience, who are so well acquainted with motion pictures and television, yet it testified the excitement and fascination of a new art, and served as an anecdote for the future audience to look for the origin of the arts they love. 

John Ford was the grand master of the Western genre. With films like ‘Stagecoach’, ‘My Darling Clementine’, ‘The Searchers’, he defined the way of the traditional Western film. Ford was the master of horizontal composition, and he has adopted the painterly approach to the beautiful landscape of the American West. His classicism also included his preferred use of deep focus cinematography. He has also created the archetypal Western hero, known for his self-sufficiency and high moral standard. Ford has influenced many subsequent filmmakers: Akira Kurosawa, Orson Welles, Kenji Mizoguchi and many more. Henry Hathaway and George Marshall, while being lesser-known filmmakers, were also skilful craftsmen of the art and experienced Western directors. ‘How The West was Won’ was a very successfully film. Not only it performed well financially, it received 3 Academy Awards. An interesting side story is that the success of this film has inspired the idea of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. Originally, MGM has planned an epic taken in space, and they wanted to call it ‘How The Solar System was Won’. The project would eventually become the Stanley Kubrick masterpiece in 1968.

The story is epic in scope. It was centred around the few generations of a single family, chronicling the most salient historical events in America from the mid-19th to the late 19th century – the Gold Rush, the Civil War, the Railway and the Wild West. The film is divided into 5 segments and the three filmmakers directed different parts of the film. Since the earliest films of D. W. Griffith, the issue of family has always been a focus in American cinema, and this motif is often placed in a larger social or historical context. The approach is quite reminiscent of the Epic Cycles from ancient Greece poems, where the myth of individual families was placed in a grander historical background. 

The history of the American West has not only left a lasting impression in people’s minds, but also exerted a huge influence on the art of cinema. The cultural significance and dramatic potential of the American West has led to the ‘Western genre’ of cinema, giving the audience some of the true masters of the craft: John Ford, Howard Hawks, Sam Peckinpah, Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood, just to name a few. One can easily observe that the classic Westerns tend to be more simplistic in terms of worldview, though not necessarily inferior in terms of quality – no one would doubt John Ford’s mastery of his art form, for instance. Later revisionist Westerns are often more confronting and they explore complex issues that have been polished away by the simpler outlook. For ‘How the West was Won’, it can be considered as a culmination of the classic Western, with the trio of directors giving their best shots in the creation of an American epic.  

Rivers have been associated with human lives since the earliest civilizations. In the ancient times, the concept of a co-operative community commenced with the formation of river valley civilizations. While the fluvial environment provided conditions for the development of communal and life-sustainable activities such as agriculture, that also posed problems as humans have not fully grasped nature itself. In ‘How The West was Won’ and many more films, nature is often perceived as a formidable opponent to humans. The fact that the characters had to brave themselves through the river signified the impact of the force of nature on humanity. Having an attempt to control nature was a testament of not only of the courage of the adventurers, but also the confirmation of the curiosity of humans towards their world.

The differing perspectives of the people regarding human rights and slavery would eventually lead to the Civil War, a crisis for America in the mid-19th century. The segment was directed by Ford himself and it was of course masterful. The filmmaker was not afraid to show the contradictory perspectives inherent in the war, and the disillusionment the violence would most certainly lead to. The young son of the family wanted to escape from his mundane life as a farmer, so he joined the army for the sake of patriotism. It was when he was in the combat that he appreciated that no one really won in a war, and the illusion of ideology and beliefs have often masked the individuals behind the war, and that was so especially when the young son befriended another soldier on the enemy side. True, in a historical context President Lincoln had not much choices to engage in the Civil War, and at the end a lot of slaves were liberated, yet anyone would ask for an alternative approach to resolve conflicts rather than recourse to violence. After the Civil War the country was concentrated on setting up the telegraph lines and the building of railways. Yet the conflicts in corporate interests have led to a complex web of problems, including the threats of outlaws and exploitations of the weak.

The notion of the American West has led to the important yet controversial ‘Frontier Thesis’ by Turner, which proposed that many national values of America – like individualism, democracy, and egalitarianism – were facilitated by the people’s exploration of the Frontier through their westward movement. The thesis has been very instrumental in the formation of the orthodox American values of the 20th century, and it has achieved an idealistic and almost mythical status for the later generations, where people would view these people from the past as role models of how to lead an ethical and committed life. Yet, the thesis has led to a lot of criticism in later 20th century with a more progressive academic atmosphere. The key limitation of the Turner thesis, though it was certainly a reflection of the era it originated, is that it has undermined many complex issues, such as gender and racial inequalities, bureaucratic issues and corporate greed. Life in the West might not be as idealized and fair as it might appear: exploitation and injustice towards immigrants and certain racial groups were very noticeable issues. These issues were addressed in later Westerns films like ‘The West Bunch’, ‘McCabe and Mrs. Miller’ and ‘Heaven’s Gate’, and they often took a cynical anti-Western tone. 

These issues provide us an opportunity to appreciate the purpose of historical inquiry. One should not merely listen to one single version of history and be misled by someone’s indoctrination. An objective frame of mind has to be cast in the analysis of any historical data. There is no such thing as a perfect system in this world. Be it a concept, an opinion, or a theory, they will always be limited by their design, their circumstances, and the limits of the human mind. Every issue has its pros and cons, and mere faith in a single, authoritative version of history will undermine the critical stance humans are gifted in. To be critical is not only important for studying history in an academic setting - it is just as important for inquiries of all subjects in Humanities. 

by Ed Law 

Film Analysis

Conatus Classics 2020

 

Ancient Greek Thinkers

Mythos, Logos, and the Presocratics

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/05/mythos-logos-and-presocratics.html

 

Nomos / Physis

Part 1  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/nomos-physis-part-1.html

Part 2  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/nomos-physis-part-2.html

 

The Physis of Things

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-physis-of-things.html

Pherecydes

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/pherecydes-thinking-caveman.html

 

Miletus

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/getting-ionic-at-miletus.html

Thales

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/2-or-3-things-i-know-about-thales.html

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans

Part 1 : Pythagoras and Philolaus

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/nailing-maths-with-pythagoras.html

Part 2 : Pythagoras and Plato – Encountering Metempsychosis

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/passing-souls-with-pythagoras.html

 

Sophocles : Antigone

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/p/classical-greek-antigone.html

Solon

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/solon-law-and-order.html

 

Homer’s People

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/11/homer-peoples-poet.html

Democritus

Part 1  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/democritus-part-1.html

Part 2  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/democritus-part-2.html

The ‘Greek Dramatists vs. Filmmakers’ Series

Introduction

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers-prelude.html

 

Homer

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/homer-first-man-of-literature.html

 

Homer and Aeschylus

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/from-time-to-time-homer-x-aeschylus.html

 

Aeschylus and David W. Griffith

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers.html

Sophocles and Akira Kurosawa

Part 1  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers_27.html

Part 2  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/sophocles-x-kurosawa-riddle-of-man.html

 

Euripides and Sam Peckinpah

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers.html

 

Thank you very much for your support!

 

by Ed Law

Conatus Classics

2020以戲服人集合

 

Persona : Bergman, Ibsen, Strindberg

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/02/persona-20-bergman-x-ibsen-x-strindberg.html

冬日之光 Winter Light (director: Ingmar Bergman)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/02/winter-light.html

紅塵百劫 The Color of Pomegranates (director: Sergei Parajanov)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-color-of-pomegranates.html

銀翼殺手 Blade Runner and Postmodernism (director: Ridley Scott)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/04/blade-runner-and-postmodernism.html

獵鹿者 The Deer Hunter (director: Michael Cimino)

Part 1  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/deer-hunter-part-1.html

Part 2  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/deer-hunter-part-2.html

納粹狂魔 The Damned (director: Luchino Visconti)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/damned.html

情懷九月天 September (director: Woody Allen)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/september.html

 

豁達的天空 Sling Blade (director: Billy Bob Thornton)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/sling-blade.html

綫人 Le Doulos (director: Jean-Pierre Melville)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/10/blog-post.html

天國與地獄 High and Low (director: Akira Kurosawa)

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/blog-post.html

by Ed Law

以戲服人 Film Analysis

Democritus, Part 2

‘Everywhere man blames nature and fate yet his fate is mostly but the echo of 

his character and passion, his mistakes and his weaknesses.’

- Democritus 

Democritus is the natural philosopher par excellence. Through his commitment to atomism, the ancient Greek thinker has provided us a fully naturalistic view regarding humanity. Though some subsequent thinkers might find his ideas dangerous – for Plato that was too materialistic; for Aristotle that was not continuous – classical atomism stood the test of time and it experienced an exciting revival in the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. A brief digression would be appropriate, because what happened at the later era has found a few parallels with the antiquity.

While the Pre-Socratic philosophers inquired into natural phenomena by giving up mythical explanations and divine intervention, the mechanical philosophers of 17th century interrogated nature by distancing themselves from the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy prevalent in medieval Europe. The mechanical philosophers were the practitioners of natural philosophy, and they were often scientifically-minded and placed their trust in empirical methods for the acquisition of knowledge. Philosophers like Gassendi, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Boyle and Newton were advocates of corpuscularianism – a theory that proposed corpuscles – groups of particles (rather than individual atoms) as the origin of all things. Like atoms, corpuscles could aggregate to form more complex structures. The resulting properties of the corpuscular structure, as perceived by our senses, would lead to different observable properties we could experience. In particular, John Locke was a philosopher who endorsed corpuscularianism. His epistemology took a lot of influence from this theory, and his idea was indeed very similar to the way how modern Chemistry works. 

In Locke’s epistemology, ‘real essence’ and ‘nominal essence’ was distinguished. The ‘real essence’ of a thing was its corpuscular structure, which corresponded to its primary properties (like the ‘molecular structure’ of Chemistry). In contrast the ‘nominal essence’ of a thing was its properties that resulted from sense perceptions, corresponding to the secondary qualities (like how the chemical compound looked or smelt, for example). So in Locke’s theory the key of acquiring true knowledge was to start from an understanding of the real essence – the structure of corpuscular structure, the arrangement of the particles – and then moved up from the explanation of primary qualities to secondary qualities. The approach was not very different from an extrapolation of microscopic properties to macroscopic qualities commonplace in natural science.

It is important to note that, unlike modern physical sciences, philosophical atomism and corpuscularianism are not empirical per se, because there are no instrumentations that can verify the presence of atoms and particles. Many natural philosophers and scientists from the 17th century have attempted to use different empirical approaches to demonstrate the presence of atoms and corpuscles, yet they were mostly met with failure, either due to epistemological issues (for example, an attempt to extrapolate macroscale observations into micro-/atomic scale observations) or due to poor design of experiments (e.g. primitive microscopy and transport phenomena), resulting in invalid conclusions. It was only in later centuries that a conclusive demonstration of atomic theory for physical science would become possible.

Returning to Democritus. What did the ancient atomist tell us the nature of soul? Though described rather vaguely, Democritus believed humans possessed 2 kinds of atoms: soul atoms and body atoms. One soul atom corresponded with one body atom, and the atoms were all energetic in a sense that they travelled through the human body. Democritus also had other theories regarding various issues from vision to dreams, yet they were rather unbelievable by today’s standard. What is more important is a vision offered by both Leucippus and Democritus – that atoms were governed by necessity. The atomism from these thinkers was deterministic in nature, and it was very unfortunate that they have failed to specify what role chance might play in their worldviews. 

The atomism I have described so far has a few implications for us to bear. Thus, for Democritus there was no Aeschylean cosmic justice, as in ‘The Oresteia’. There was not a notion that the Divine would eventually come to exert justice, just because the time has not yet come. Democritus’ atomist view was distinct, and caused some controversy, because that was not teleological (and that certainly troubled Aristotle in particular). In Democritus’ system that was not a wise and all-knowing spirit to guide us, nor did we have any final purposes for our existence. Atoms were moving through the void, yet they did not know what they were going to and what they would eventually become in the final stage. That made the contentious ideas of atomism even more nihilistic: if reality is all about a bunch of atoms shooting around the universe aimlessly, that what is the point of life? What do we need to guide ourselves to lead a moral and fulfilling existence? How the doctrines of atomism could be correlated to ethical considerations have always been a challenge for the thinkers from the school of atomism. Philosophers from later era, such as Epicurus and Lucretius, have tried very hard to compile a systematic worldview that accounted for the materialistic perspective and its potential moral implications. Democritus also has stated some implications of his metaphysics for ethics, and they were mostly organized as maxims. 

Democritus, through his denial of teleological purposes and cosmic justice, took a more naturalistic view for human lives. In a view not very different from B. F. Skinner, the ancient philosopher believed our actions were the responses that originated from our interactions with the environment, rather than other spiritual factors. The behaviourist view would influence many materialists for the years to come. Democritus also advised his audience that the fear of gods was pointless. When humans did not use reason and observations to understand natural phenomena, like a thunderstorm, they would attribute these mysterious phenomena to superstitious explanations – like ‘Zeus is angry’ or ‘Hera is jealous’, and resulted in an unnecessary fear and worry. Democritus, among other fellow natural philosophers, might not be considered atheists in a strong sense, yet they all encouraged the people to focus on the real reason why the phenomena happened – the scientific reasons.  Future generations of atomist like Epicurus and Lucretius would further elaborate this line of thought in their work.

‘A life without a feast is a long road without an inn.’

-Democritus

Democritus has told us a lot about atoms, yet he also had a real lot to say about ethics. Given the large amounts of ethical statement from him, and the doubt of completeness, it is very difficult to say if he has got a consistent moral philosophy. Nevertheless, by reading many of these thoughts of wisdom, one can easily picture Democritus to be a great personality, with sparks of humor and witticism throughout his writings. While the philosopher might have devoted his life to the study of nature, Democritean ethics were full of humanistic concerns. One should not be surprised by the aim of human life endorsed by the Laughing Philosopher - to have an optimistic outlook and to achieve a peace of mind. For Democritus, happiness for life was not merely about sensual pleasure and material wealth, it was acquired from a spiritual peace and freedom from perturbation of lives. Why not let Democritus speak for himself?

 ‘For joy and absence of joy is the boundary of advantage and disadvantage.’

Democritus maintained that prior to a life of joyfulness, one should exercise reason.

‘Reason is a powerful persuader.’

Democritus believed in education. He believed an opportunity to learn could counteract against misfortune. 

‘Education is an ornament for the fortunate, a refuge for the unfortunate.’

‘The hopes of the educated are stronger than the wealth of the ignorant.’

‘Nature and teaching are similar, for teaching changes a man’s shape 

and nature acts by changing shape.’

Thus he stressed the importance of avoiding bad influences in life.

‘Frequent association with the wicked increases a disposition to vice.’

‘When wealth comes from wicked deeds it makes the disgrace more conspicuous.’

Democritus cherished values like nobility, courage and self-confidence. He felt that these were the very qualities towards a fulfilling existence.

‘Great joys come from contemplating noble deeds.’

‘Courage makes disaster small.’

‘A good man takes no account of the censures of the bad.’

Yet he might have occasional charges of sexism, like many of the ancient thinkers.

‘To be ruled by a woman is the final insult of a man.’

Nevertheless, he thoughtfully advised us not to laugh at other’s misfortunes, lest that one day, that would be our turn to suffer. 

‘Those who take pleasure in the disasters of their neighbors do not understand 

how the affairs of fortune are complex to all, and they lack appropriate delight.’

Finally, a statement strangely suitable for the current situation in our world.

‘Do not suspect everyone – but be cautious and safe.’

(End of Part 2)

Concluding Remarks

Thus we arrive at the end of Conatus Classics 2020. I feel great to have started my first article on the history of thoughts in May, and have the motivation to write a number of articles about Pre-Socratic and Classical Greece, who I have always fascinated with and yet did not have a chance to talk about that in my previous articles. I will keep up the work and continue to share with you the ideas from these great minds who have ever graced human history!

by Ed Law

Conatus Classics

Thank you for your support! 

Conatus Classics will see you again in 2021!