Home Alone - with the Truman Show
Home Alone
This weekend my housemates have all headed off to Edinburgh, so the house is very quiet. It's made me realise how much I dislike living alone, and how much I appreciate the Bulls of Bashan.
Today I have been watching the Truman Show, which is undoubtedly one of my favourite films, and it got me thinking (along 1984 lines). For me, the best part of the film comes in the interview on Trutalk, where the interviewer asks Christof (the show's creator) "Why do you think that Truman has never come close to discovering the true nature of his world, until now?". Christof replies "We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented. It's as simple as that."
Whether you agree with it or not, it is a strong statement. And in the Truman Show the problems for Christof begin when Truman begins to question the reality of the world with which he is presented. When he is no longer content to accept that this is simply the way that things are he begins to discover the truth.
In 1984 the problem that the Thought Police have with Winston is that he isn't able to simply accept as truth the pronouncements of Big Brother, but realises that the world does not necessarily correspond to the descriptions of authority.
What's the point? Well the temptation of any body in authority is to present their truth as absolute, and to resist any questioning of that truth. A recent example of that might be the war in Iraq, the Government made bold statements about the threat that Iraq posed, and the public were not supposed to question their conclusions. The Church has to put it's hand up and admit that we have not always encouraged people to question the truth that is presented in the Bible, particularly historically where people were not supposed to study the Bible individually, but rather to accept the pronouncements of those in authority, even to the extent of actively suppressing any other view.
And another case? Well perhaps the contemporary discussion of evolution. I have yet to read Richard Dawkins advocating any search for real absolute truth, I have only heard him requiring that people accept evolution as absolute truth, and that any who question that are simply wrong. Now this has nothing to do with the scientific merit of evolution, but rather an attitude that suggests that there is truth that cannot be questioned.
In other news ... I now have a timetable for which lessons I will be teaching in school, which has been fantastic as I can now get to grips with the reality of actually planning and teaching lessons. Slightly less fun is the fact that I will be teaching Reproduction to Year 7 (oh, the giggles!
posted by Andy @ 4:35 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Interesting stuff, re Truman Show/1984 Mr Moll. Nice.
And the last bit is highly amusing.
Oh and I hope you've noticed how much you resemble Macauly Culkin these days.
Look up "ontology" in the dictionary. Then look up "epistemology". Notice the difference, now maybe the idea of absolute certainty vis absolute truth makes some sense to your UCCF brainwashed mind. Honestly they are like a cult, once they've got you then they never let go.
Not enough daydreams about otters for my liking but overall not a bad effort. love David.
ontology: the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
epistemology: the theory of knowledge, esp. with regards to its methods and validation.
Mr Weaver, it's a pleasure to hear from you, but all i'm hearing is lots of long words, and I'm struggling to understand how they relate to what I wrote. Maybe you could explain more.
I do admit that there is a lack of otters, but I hope that you will accept the conkers as some small substitute, as conker is also a pleasing word.
Otters as shakespeare put it in king henry 1V (part one) "ARE NEITHER FISH NORE FLESH"
Keeping this in mind, i think that the esteemed Mr. Weaver is trying to give an opinion that it is possible to have a foot in both camps, without either opinion being wrong. (post-modern otter theory). Therefore being neither one thing or the other (fish or flesh) like an otter.
Also as an aside otters are hairy.
My point was that confusion occurs when you try and apply your epistemology onto some one else otter (ontology). Or when you mistake an epistemology (e.g. the western scientific method or indeed creation theory if you're that way inclined) for an ontology (the abstract and concrete notions and things that make up the human world).
example:
I believe (epistemology) that you said earlier this year that "Writing a blog is very geeky" (ontology).
Post a Comment
<< Home