A Film As Good As He Is: Chaplin and the Inability to Create

Let's talk about art.

Specifically, let's talk about the suffering that is required to create art (less of a dialectical philosophical question and more of a rumination about...well, about creation, I suppose). See, I just finished a very good book (Sunnyside, by Glen David Gold. I didn't like it quite as much as his debut novel, Carter Beats the Devil, but still, it's a fascinating read), which featured Charlie Chaplin going through an artistic dry spot.

Chaplin's goal throughout the whole book is to make a film that's “as good as he is;” he has been coasting on the successes of his silent comedies, never really stretching to his fullest potential. Try as he might, he can't quite dig down deep enough into himself to tap that well of genius buried under his skin.

What does this have to do with philosophy? Simple: is art, or any creative endeavor, a finite resource? I mean, that sounds silly. Of course not. But think about it—what if a person only has so many good ideas in their life, and once those ideas are gone, that's it? I don't think Socrates or Aristotle would agree with that. I can see them saying that the mind is an infinite resource. Even Descartes said that our wills were infinite, even if our intellects were not. Surely we could muscle some good idea down on paper, or on celluloid, as was the case with Chaplin.

Again, though: what if you can't? That was the question that tortured Chaplin throughout the book, and one that has haunted me for a very long time. What if I've peaked, Chaplin thinks. If I can't create, what does that make me? Am I still a person if I am not putting my stamp on the world?

Temple Grandin and Ethics

I recently went and watched Temple Grandin in the Engineering Building as an event that the Psychology club was hosting. Temple Grandin is a movie about an autistic woman who managed to overcome the typical limitations of her disorder and become a renowned scientist, specifically in the study of animal behavior. For those who do not know about autism it is a developmental disorder that is affecting roughly 1 out of every 100 children born in the US. This is a huge deal because the numbers used to be more like 1 out of every 10,000 less than 40 years ago. So how this is going to affect the educational system in our country and how we are going to care for these people as they age are big questions that I think are partially philosophical in nature. Do we as a country think that we should invest our money in helping the caregivers of these children, many of whom will never be able to independently function in society?

I personally think that we as a country should help the caregivers of individuals with autism, and more broadly the caregivers of any who are severely disabled, because if we do not it will come back to haunt us. When they closed down most of the mental institutions there became immediate problems like the lack of care these people were receiving and many ended up on the street as they had no one who could care for them. With the rising rates of the severely disabled we should no longer just ignore this issue and pretend that if we don’t look at it that it will just disappear. While those with autism are primarily still school aged that will soon change and we need to be ready to cope with the changes that will bring.

Aristotle and Art

In Dr. Thomas' History of Philosophy class, we just finished reading about Aristotle's idea of the "being-at-work" (to use the Sachs translation) of an object. According to Aristotle, a house is not truly a house unless there are people living under its roof; indeed, if there is no one there, the house is simply a collection of bricks, lumber, and mortar.

The idea of "being-at-work," specifically how an object is not TRULY the object unless it is filling its function, is a fascinating idea to me, and I think it has possible applications in a variety of other fields. In particular, I think it can prompt some interesting discussions in the art world.

First of all, let's not get into a discussion about the nature of art or the qualities that something has to possess before it is "art." That's a much longer debate for another day. Instead, let's talk about functional art, or how putting something in a museum might be the worst thing you could do.

If I was to create a painting, the "being-at-work" of the painting would be hang on a wall; maybe there's something about observation or interpretation, but, at the core, I painted it so it would hang on a wall in a gallery or a museum. Now, if I was to create a chair, then isn't it the case that the "being-at-work" of the chair is to have someone sit on it? In other words, the "being-at-work" of the chair is to be used. If it was put in a gallery or museum--perhaps in an exhibit featuring Chairs from Around the World--then not a one of those chairs would be art. Right?

I don't know the implications of this, save that if Aristotle's right, we'll have to start renaming exhibits, or at the very least, take off those "Don't Sit on the Chair" signs.

Connection between Mathematics and Philosophy

So I just recently realized that mathematics plays a huge role in the world of philosophy. Why I am just now realizing this, well maybe somebody needs to slap me next time they see me.

Plato wrote on the door of his academy, "Let no one enter here that is ignorant of geometry". Aristotle is known for studying the sciences and even putting them into categories and giving them names. Other famous philosophers were also known for their work in mathematics such as Descartes, Leibnitz, and Pascal. A lot of philosophers came into philosophy through mathematics.

Mathematics was back then, and even now, still one of the most important means of gaining knowledge and understanding in this world. What is it about mathematics that makes it so reliable? Why do we think that we can trust mathematics in so many areas of study and everyday life? I don't know what a professor, mathematician, or a scientist would say but my answer is that mathematics makes the world go round. Without mathematics we would still be living like cavemen. So, I guess mathematics was the beginning of civilization, or the beginning of "thinking".

I think what mathematics represents is a kind of truth. Through deductive reasoning you get to an answer based on facts that you have. We get to the truth based on what there is and the way things are. Then there is another factor, the human mind. How the mind takes facts and interprets everything is also important.

I think I'm going to stop at this point because after throwing the human mind in the situation I feel that I'm not sure of anything else beyond that point.

The Philosophy of Class Registration

So, I had advising today. I like the advising process—it's sort of a plan for your future, yes, but beyond that, it's a statement of what you're interested in (yes, I suppose those two often intersect, but not always). It made me consider a few philosophical questions: for example, in planning for our future, we necessarily must limit ourselves. To that end, should we accept the limitations and focus on one particular field, in which (I would assume) one would excel? Or should one diversify, attempting to experience everything, and perhaps be less talented in all other areas?

On a side note, I know what Socrates would say—diversification is, if not the height of folly, at least the upper-middle. For him, it's necessary to focus so one can devote all energies to one task.

Or another idea—registration is a plan for the future. But to what extent is that future set? I don't really mean this to be a religious, destiny-type argument—instead, look at it educationally. In theory, registration states that you'll pay attention to that area of study, learn it all, and then apply it. Does that mean that one will stop learning other fields?

The easiest answer is no, of course not, but the easy answer is not always the correct one. To be honest, this is the mindset I see quite often: “I'll learn what I need to do, and then I'm done,” as if learning was something that could be turned off, like water from a hose. Certainly learning must never stop—this being the case, is the registration process as philosophically sound as it could/should be?

the hamster wheel

I have had some serious health problems in the last few weeks. I don't want to get too personal here, but the reality is that I have something wrong with my brain. I am waiting on the results as to whether I have a brain tumor or just epilepsy or some other disease that one can take medication for and simply live with. This has made me really think about things recently and re-evaluate my life. My next few blog posts will be about the issues that I have come upon, including the issues of death and the good life I present here. In these posts, I don't really want reactions about me or how I'm feeling, only on the philosophical debates that such issues bring up. I honestly don't need any more "Are you ok?"s or "I'm so sorry"s.

That being said, I find myself wondering what it was all for. This may seem like very despondent or depressed sort of thinking, but it's actually positive. I want to live. I just can't help but feel that I've put my nose to the grindstone all my life to achieve something, make something of myself, to be x type of person with y type of life one day. The reality is that many people never get there. I understand we have to act as though things in the world mattered, otherwise we would never do anything, but honestly, if I were to die now or even in a few years, my life would have been a complete waste. I would have suffered all my life so that I could reap benefits later, hated what I was doing, and putting life on hold, and that end result would never have happened. It would all have been for nothing. Like I said, these words sound like they should come from a depressed or possibly suicidal person, but the truth is that people who are dying or think they might be dying have the same thoughts, but think about it from the opposite side. I need to live in order to make my life worth it. I can't die now or even soon, because my life would have been meaningless.

I was always scared of this, though I thought that it would be one day when I am very old; I would look back on my life and realize that I haven't lived. I knew this, and somehow I still couldn't see a way out of it if I wanted to get where I was going. There would always be more ladders that I would feel compelled to climb. There is always the raise, the promotion, and soon you're dead and regretting not spending time with your family or friends and not doing that irresponsible thing. Then at least you would have some memories to smile on when you look back.

The thing I want to talk about is, that we often know where our lives are headed based on the personalities combined with the drive and the dreams that we know we have. We also often know the price of chasing those dreams, and the sacrifices that must be made to "make it happen" for ourselves. We even know that in chasing our dreams, we often give up our lives. We know, but we still do it. Is it that we think that there is nothing else to do? Is it that we prize our ideal future life so much? Is it that we think that we might actually get there one day, and we try to pretend that one day we will stop running in our hamster wheels? Do we think that one day we will make the decision that we are where we want to be, and we can finally "buck the system"? In any case, we never think that if we try as hard as we can that it won't happen. We always think that one day we will get there, through our hard work and perseverance; just that it may not really be what we wanted. I want to ask the readers here: Why do you go to work, to school? Why do things you hate doing? Why suffer people you can't stand? Why put off seeing the people you love? Is there something more important than that?