The movie Cold Mountain, while brilliantly done, can be a really sad movie. (Warning I may put a spoiler at some point in this blog about the movie.) Watching Jude Law and Nicole Kidman makes it, at the very least, worth seeing. At one point Jude Law's character asks a blind man, blind from birth, what he would give for 10 minutes of sight. Without hesitation, the blind man replies nothing. He says to have it for such a short period and then to loose it wouldn't make it worth it, it'd just be a short tease. I think I can get through the rest of this without mentioning the spoiler, as if this doesn't allude to it. So I wonder is that a true and valid point? Does the phrase, "Ignorance is bliss," apply to this situation? If he has never seen anything then he doesn't know what he is missing, right? How about love? There is the common phrase, "It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all." Is that the same thing as the ten minutes of sight? Would ten minutes of sight be better than no sight at all? If you have loved and lost, you then have those "blissful" times to reflect back upon, experiences that can warm your heart and make for peaceful meditations. Similarly ten minutes of sight gives you images that you could reflect upon and identify with instead of relying on other senses to visualize things. So are such events brilliant lamps that light up otherwise dark paths? If so, is it better to have had such experiences, or is it better never to have seen the light and to continue in the dark that we have always known?
To keep the records straight, before I get into it, Michael Phelps is the man. Watching him swim is phenomenal and makes me proud to have him competing and representing America. Once when I was watching and he was about to race for the gold again, the news did a quick blurb about his height and arm span and how he is perfect for swimming. They also went in to how his heart pumps twice as much blood and stuff like that over the "average" man and made a remark of how he is genetically "superior." Now I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that at all, just to be clear. I even joke that he isn't racing against the other Olympians he's racing against the time and world records, which he still is awesome at doing and great to watch. I'm just wondering about the future and how competitions and sports teams will go from here. In an age of DNA testing how soon will it be just like the movie Gattaca? I foresee that it will start slow some major league teams will pre-screen potentials testing there DNA to see how healthy they are and if they are "naturally" better than the next guy. By this I mean that you have two guys with the same abilities and train them exactly the same the genetically superior will always be better. So teams will have their "all-star" players that continue to shine and out perform others. Pretty soon, an "average" guy won't be able to play for a sports team and watching such events will simply be like the ancient Greek Olympics the sort of gods versus the gods. Not that that is all that bad or wouldn't be entertaining, but is it fair or ethical? At what point are we going to start genetically engineering babies for such goals and segregating and training from birth? Are we going to end up like communist China, where what's good for the state is what's good for the people even if it really isn't good for "that" person or family? Already our sports teams are probably filled with the "natural" athletes and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with Michael Phelps being on our Olympic team. I just worry about when the pre-screening to be on the team is going to start or the engineering to do such. Is it truly a competition then? Would the world be so bad if we were all engineered to be smart and healthy? Everyone should watch the movie Gattaca with Ethan Hawke and Jude Law these days, as it might not be that much of a "sci-fi" movie anymore
To question or not to question, is that a question? With my stunning shortcoming on a great many philosophy classes (English too if you hadn't observed) I basically came to realize the point of philosophy is to question. It seemed to me that all the famous philosophers with all the wondrous text and even the barstool philosophers had at least one thing common and one common goal; that was to question the world and reality around them and to help others join in such an elusive quest. So to me the point of taking a philosophy class is not to read about the answer of the meaning of life, but rather to learn how to search for the answer yourself and maybe do it with a little style. What I've lightly been doing for about a year or so is writing personal thoughts or reflections that a movie, book, or series of events have caused me to toss around my head, in an effort to clear up the little space I have up there. I tend to write it in a form less of stating my opinions and more of guiding you towards yours and asking you what you think. So in essence read on if you possibly want to jump on the mind whirl that randomly captivates me and whether it's above or beneath you feel free to give me your two cents or dollars (I'm not picky or rich) and lets all have some fun!
Add Comments
But who knows, maybe the future holds lots of clones (a clone army hehe), and soul or soulless is it ethical to enslave them to make money for us the none clones? Are we non-clones? Have a good one!
Read More
