Bu kez yazımız biraz ilginç olacak. Voltaire tekniğine benzer teknik kullanarak önce ki yazılarımızın da okunduğunu düşünerek belli atıflarla İnsan olmak ne demek sorusuna 'Blade Runner' üzerinden bir sorgulama yapacağız. Bu sorgulama da önce bir sav atıp sonra bunun geçersiz olduğunu iddia ederek (Voltaire tekniği derken ki kastımız) en son 'Descartes' ve tüm a sentetic priori proposition (önerme)'lerin anlamsız olduğunu iddia edeceğiz-ki zaten öyle!
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION
Three key questions
contribute to the core of Blade Runner:
Who am I? Why am I here? What does it mean to be human? These are the same
basic questions that humanity has faced since the dawn of time. The eternal
problems in the film are, thus, essentially existential ones. In addition, we should not ignore a very basic philosophical
question as what is 'fact' ?
Like the film, I will answer these question
ambiguously. If we
want to define what human is, firstly, we should define what s/he is not!
Therefore, I will try to clarify points, properties which people are different
from android. However, I will fail because we cannot discriminate between them
without any boundary! We
know that the reason why there is a difference between two things is the boundary or distinctness.
My first claim is about subject of memory transfer. People think that their memories are confidential characteristic. But, what is the memory? For example, what is difference it from data of computers? Even if it has a definition and difference, it does not become any boundary between androids and people. If we look the film, Rachael was transferred memories of the other person and she is not aware of this situation. Rachael worries, becomes happy and gets angry because of their reflections. Moreover, when Rachael is in love with Rick, she killed an android to save the life of Rick. Now, we should ask a question in here! Which is the motive which causes this event? Is it the motive of a new characteristic or is it a kind of reflection previous memories?
My second claim is physically diversity. Almost all alive have confidential physical properties. People find strange when they see a four-legged person but if they see a four-legged animal, they are not surprised. Is this a humanly sense? If we come back to the film, there is an interesting scene about Pris. When she went the house of Sebastian, she met simple and short robots. However, she was never interest them. She was interested with Sebastian so with a person although she is a kind of robot. In short, Androids are not different from people in terms of physical. We have already known this by seeing them. But, it is an important point to understand the difference between an android and a robot. Even, I can quote from Descartes : He ''in Passions of the Soul and The Description of the Human Body suggested that the body works like a machine, that it has material properties''. Consequently, we did not find a distinction.
My last claim is desire of immortality. It is a well-known fact that the immortality is only fantasy (at the moment!). But nobody lives by thinking death. People want to live more and hence, they research immortality. Maybe, we can say that the death fear is a part of humanity because almost all people covet it. I do not exactly know! But there is a fact that androids have the same sense. If the desire of immortality is humanitarian, this is not the boundary between people and androids again when we take into account the desire of life of androids in the film.
We may continue in this way our claims. But I do not think finding any boundary. Moreover, even if there is a boundary, we cannot rely on it. For example: We can try to obtain some information our experience. But, all information which we know may only become from dreams. Who can convince contrary us? Maybe, we only know that we are dreaming or are being dreamed! Even worse! ''We have long had fixed in our mind the belief that an all-powerful God existed by whom we have been created such as we are. But how do we know that He has not brought it to pass that there is no earth, no extended body. They seem to us to exist just exactly as we now see them?'' * I think, If we say that we may be a kind of androids, it is not quite false. In addition, we can do matching in the film as Tyrell: God and Rachael: People. Maybe, all people are ''Rachael'' in the presence of God.
While I mention Descartes, I can present a powerful argument which Descartes claimed about the being of human.
He said that 'Cogito ergo sum' so I think; therefore, I exist. But ironically, an androit said this sentence in the film .
In fact, this argumat could not draw a boundary between androids and people too. Already, even if we know that, as Descartes said that we will not yet know clearly what we are, we who are certain that we are. On the other hand, while I define an important concept like 'human' , I use sentetic a priori proposition i.e. '' if a person exists, s/he exists and if s/he thinks, s/he thinks at that time.''**
In short, even if we find more powerful propositions, we will not reach exact fact like the film. In fact, in my opinion, this is more attractive such because the fact may not be the thing which we want to know. For illustrate, Is rick an android, is not? I think, it is not a necessary question. Even if he is not a human, who was human? We cannot know this! I do not say that we do not know, I say that we cannot!
*Descartes: Meditation I (23 kasımdaki yazıda türkçesini görebilirsiniz.
)My first claim is about subject of memory transfer. People think that their memories are confidential characteristic. But, what is the memory? For example, what is difference it from data of computers? Even if it has a definition and difference, it does not become any boundary between androids and people. If we look the film, Rachael was transferred memories of the other person and she is not aware of this situation. Rachael worries, becomes happy and gets angry because of their reflections. Moreover, when Rachael is in love with Rick, she killed an android to save the life of Rick. Now, we should ask a question in here! Which is the motive which causes this event? Is it the motive of a new characteristic or is it a kind of reflection previous memories?
My second claim is physically diversity. Almost all alive have confidential physical properties. People find strange when they see a four-legged person but if they see a four-legged animal, they are not surprised. Is this a humanly sense? If we come back to the film, there is an interesting scene about Pris. When she went the house of Sebastian, she met simple and short robots. However, she was never interest them. She was interested with Sebastian so with a person although she is a kind of robot. In short, Androids are not different from people in terms of physical. We have already known this by seeing them. But, it is an important point to understand the difference between an android and a robot. Even, I can quote from Descartes : He ''in Passions of the Soul and The Description of the Human Body suggested that the body works like a machine, that it has material properties''. Consequently, we did not find a distinction.
My last claim is desire of immortality. It is a well-known fact that the immortality is only fantasy (at the moment!). But nobody lives by thinking death. People want to live more and hence, they research immortality. Maybe, we can say that the death fear is a part of humanity because almost all people covet it. I do not exactly know! But there is a fact that androids have the same sense. If the desire of immortality is humanitarian, this is not the boundary between people and androids again when we take into account the desire of life of androids in the film.
We may continue in this way our claims. But I do not think finding any boundary. Moreover, even if there is a boundary, we cannot rely on it. For example: We can try to obtain some information our experience. But, all information which we know may only become from dreams. Who can convince contrary us? Maybe, we only know that we are dreaming or are being dreamed! Even worse! ''We have long had fixed in our mind the belief that an all-powerful God existed by whom we have been created such as we are. But how do we know that He has not brought it to pass that there is no earth, no extended body. They seem to us to exist just exactly as we now see them?'' * I think, If we say that we may be a kind of androids, it is not quite false. In addition, we can do matching in the film as Tyrell: God and Rachael: People. Maybe, all people are ''Rachael'' in the presence of God.
While I mention Descartes, I can present a powerful argument which Descartes claimed about the being of human.
He said that 'Cogito ergo sum' so I think; therefore, I exist. But ironically, an androit said this sentence in the film .
In fact, this argumat could not draw a boundary between androids and people too. Already, even if we know that, as Descartes said that we will not yet know clearly what we are, we who are certain that we are. On the other hand, while I define an important concept like 'human' , I use sentetic a priori proposition i.e. '' if a person exists, s/he exists and if s/he thinks, s/he thinks at that time.''**
In short, even if we find more powerful propositions, we will not reach exact fact like the film. In fact, in my opinion, this is more attractive such because the fact may not be the thing which we want to know. For illustrate, Is rick an android, is not? I think, it is not a necessary question. Even if he is not a human, who was human? We cannot know this! I do not say that we do not know, I say that we cannot!
*Descartes: Meditation I (23 kasımdaki yazıda türkçesini görebilirsiniz.
** Alfred ayer
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder