Sci Fi & The Meaning of Life

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Sci Fi & The Meaning of Life

Post by Philosophy Now »

Shai Tubali sees how non-human minds mirror our condition back to us. [CONTAINS SPOILERS!]

https://philosophynow.org/issues/143/Sci_Fi_and_The_Meaning_of_Life
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Sci Fi & The Meaning of Life

Post by iambiguous »

Films
Sci Fi & The Meaning of Life
Shai Tubali sees how non-human minds mirror our condition back to us
The Aliens: Gods Who Make Us Find Ourselves

“I often felt a sort of envy of humans of that thing they called spirit,” confesses one of the aliens who digs David out of the ruins of human civilization. “Human beings had created a million explanations of the meaning of life in art, poetry, mathematical formulas. Certainly human beings must be the key to the meaning of existence.” These aliens are depicted as perfect minds which hopelessly yearn for a taste of human emotion and passion. For all their intellect, as vast as it may be, there is no ‘point’; while humans somehow held meaning from the endless conflict between their aspiring spirit and their inherent limitation. That’s why David’s wish that his mother should live forever puzzles the aliens, but also touches them as yet another expression of the ungraspable human heart.
The Spock Syndrome let's call it. Although he was supposedly half-human you would never know it in most of the episodes. It was all logic, logic, logic.

Or, as I once encompassed it...

Whenever I come upon this sort of [brain/heart/spirit] quandary, I am reminded of a particular scene from the Star Trek IV movie.

One of the sub-plots in the film revolved around the perennial squabble between Kirk and Spock over the role of emotion in human interaction. I say human interaction because, again, as those who enjoy immersing themselves in the Star Trek universe know, Spock was half human and half Vulcan. The Vulcan half was basically bereft of emotional reactions. A Vulcan's reaction to the world was always logical, supremely rational. Thus the human half of Spock was, apparently, something he kept buried deep down in his psyche.

In the course of the movie, the Kirk [emotional], Spock [rational] conflict ebbed and flowed. But in a climactic scene near the end, the crew of the Enterprise are in a jam. One of their comrades, Chekov, is isolated from the rest of them. He is in a primitive 20th century hospital sure to die if not rescued. But if the crew goes after him they risk the possibility of not completing their mission. And if they don't complete their mission every man, woman and child on earth will die.

Spock's initial reaction is purely calculated: It is clearly more important -- more rational and thus more ethical? -- to save the lives of all planet earth's inhabitants than to risk these lives in the effort to save just one man.

But Kirk intervenes emotionally and reminds everyone that Chekov is one of them. So, naturally, this being a Hollywood movie, Spock ends up agreeing that saving Chekov is now the #1 priority. And, naturally, this being a Hollywood film, they still have time to rescue planet earth from the whale-probe. Barely.

But think about the ethical dilemma posed in the film. Is it more rational [ethical] to save Chekov, if it means possibly the destruction of all human life on earth?

What are the limits of ethical inquiry here in deciding this? Can it even be decided ethically?

Consider it in two ways:

In the first, we can rescue our beloved friend knowing there might still be time to rescue everyone else.

In the second, we can rescue our beloved friend knowing that, if we do, there is no time left to rescue everyone else.

Maybe someday we will actually come upon an intelligent species more along the lines of Vulcans. Until then though we're stuck being us: a subjunctive species ever forced to reconcile what we think and what we feel. And [as I see it] philosophy can never be "serious" until it acknowledges the implications and the consequences of that "out in the world" of actual human interactions in conflict.

So, the human heart. As with most things, it depends on the context. But with the heart comes that aspect of "I" more in sync with the primitive parts of the brain: instinct, drives, libido.

Are the logical aliens, perhaps, better off not going there? After all, the human "spirit" might find a "point" to life. But what happens when those points come into conflict?



FYI: If interested, here is the thread I created at ILP to explore my own small "d" rendition of dasein. Which includes other articles from Philosophy Now magazine.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Post Reply