|
【哲学】柏拉图
Jan 19, 2019 1:39:29 GMT -5
Post by 溪山 on Jan 19, 2019 1:39:29 GMT -5
Gattaca - Trailer
|
|
|
【哲学】柏拉图
Jan 19, 2019 1:40:54 GMT -5
Post by 溪山 on Jan 19, 2019 1:40:54 GMT -5
Gattaca is a 1997 American science fiction film written and directed by Andrew Niccol. It stars Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, with Jude Law, Loren Dean, Ernest Borgnine, Gore Vidal, and Alan Arkin appearing in supporting roles.[2] The film presents a biopunk vision of a future society driven by eugenics where potential children are conceived through genetic selection to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.[3] The film centers on Vincent Freeman, played by Hawke, who was conceived outside the eugenics program and struggles to overcome genetic discrimination to realize his dream of going into space. The film draws on concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the possible consequences of such technological developments for society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with society and with themselves to find their place in the world and who they are destined to be according to their genes. The film's title is based on the letters G, A, T, and C, which stand for guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, the four nucleobases of DNA.[4] It was a 1997 nominee for the Academy Award for Best Art Direction and the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score. The film flopped at the box office, but it received generally positive reviews and has since gained a cult following. In 2011, NASA named it as the most scientifically plausible science fiction film. ---- from wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
|
|
|
【哲学】柏拉图
Jan 20, 2019 19:06:03 GMT -5
Post by 溪山 on Jan 20, 2019 19:06:03 GMT -5
不少文学作品和电影都从柏拉图的Republic(中文译作 《理想国》,《国家篇》、《共和国》等)得到了灵感。 电影 “Gattaca ” 即为其一。
Ethan Hawke 主演的Vincent 一出生就被打入另册--- the Invalid,只能做清洁工。后来借他人之血才得以进入Gattaca Aerospace Corporation。
电影中的eugenics 优生论,起源于古希腊哲学家柏拉图的Republic: “主張對孩子進行系統化的教育,不允许體格羸弱、低智能、缺乏品德的人口結婚生育,社會精英階層的婚姻都經過嚴密的安排,以此確保國民素質的優秀” (wiki).
基因编辑婴儿在未来是否会成为趋势还很难说。根据心理学理论,nature and nurture interact in one's development.
生而平等在很大程度上还只是美丽的表述。每个人身上都贴着各色隐形标签。
Gattaca quotes:
Vincent Freeman: There's no gene for fate. Vincent Freeman: You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton: I never saved anything for the swim back.
Jerome Morrow: I got the better end of the deal. I only lent you my body - you lent me your dream.
Vincent Freeman: For someone who was never meant for this world, I must confess I'm suddenly having a hard time leaving it. Of course, they say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I'm not leaving... maybe I'm going home.
|
|
|
【哲学】柏拉图
Jan 20, 2019 19:15:13 GMT -5
Post by 溪山 on Jan 20, 2019 19:15:13 GMT -5
理想国 (柏拉图) www.99lib.net/book/1755/index.htm理想国A History of Western Philosophy by philosopher Bertrand Russell www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/History%20of%20Western%20Philosophy.pdf西方哲学史 (罗素) www.99lib.net/book/1000/29554.htm new.qq.com/omn/20180218/20180218G0CCUM.html理想国:柏拉图的乌托邦 《理想国》是柏拉图最著名的作品之一。一旦提到苏格拉底或柏拉图,许多尚未接触过哲学的人脑海中冒出的就是无法抵达的思想高度,然而事实恰好相反,苏格拉底与柏拉图的根本目的在于向人们普及哲学。柏拉i图所著的《理想国》其实是一本哲学入门书,对于尚未受过哲学教育的人来说,是非常浅显易懂的。《理想国》是西方政治思想传统的最具代表性的作品,通过苏格拉底与他人的对话,给后人展现了一个完美优越的城邦。 柏拉图把国家分为三个阶层:受过严格哲学教育的统治阶层、保卫国家的武士阶层、平民阶层。他鄙视个人幸福,无限地强调城邦整体、强调他一己以为的“正义”。在柏拉图眼中,第三阶层的人民是低下的,可以欺骗的。他赋予了统治者无上的权力,甚至统治者“为了国家利益可以用撒谎来对付敌人或者公民”。 罗素先生评价柏拉图的《理想国》时说,这篇作品有一个蓝本,是斯巴达和它的立法者莱库格斯。假如《理想国》没有蓝本,起码柏拉图的想象力值得佩服。小编曾经写过一篇关于斯巴达政体与莱库格斯的论文;莱库格斯作为斯巴达的立法者,的确以一种“乌托邦”形式的集权政治使斯巴达走向强大,可最后这个强大的“理想国”却还是走向了暴政与覆灭。莱库格斯统治下的斯巴达,可以看作是历史上第一次对理想社会的尝试。罗素又说,无数青年读了这类著作,燃烧起雄心,要做一个莱库格斯或者哲人王。只可惜,对权力的欲望,使人一再误入歧途。换句话来说,倘若理想国是巫师来治国,那些青年就要想做巫师王了。 自柏拉图之后,即便不提哲人王,起码也有不少西方知识分子想当莱库格斯。想要设计一整套制度、价值观、生活方式,让大家在其中幸福地生活,通俗上来说,就是要创造一个“理想社会”。其中最有名的设计,大概要算摩尔爵士的《乌托邦》,和马克思的《共产党宣言》,后者在本文不做论述。柏拉图的《理想国》和托马斯摩尔的《乌托邦》有很多异曲同工之妙,又或者说摩尔爵士本身就是受《理想国》的启示才完成了《乌托邦》。在柏拉图构想的这个理想社会里,统治者是最有智慧的人——也就是哲学家。哲人王,不可拥有私人财产,不能拥有欲望,也不能拥有极端情绪;哲人王的身份不是城邦的主人,而是城邦的守护者。 在民主政治占主导的雅典,柏拉图却是一个民主政治的反对者;柏拉图试图摒弃人的欲望,通过哲人王的集权统治,共享财富,使城邦处于完美的秩序之下。我们可以把柏拉图看作历史上的第一个乌托邦主义者,又或者可以称作历史上第一个共产主义者。柏拉图甚至构思摒除婚姻,“所有女性应当由男性所共有,任何男人和女人都不能单独生活在一起,并且他们的孩子也是由城邦所共有”(第四卷),孩子由城邦统一抚养教育。 《理想国》的创作充满了理想主义的色彩。人的欲望会导向混乱。可是柏拉图却对欲望的研究有些片面与绝对,他以为人可以通过摒弃欲望,发展极致的理性来走向理想社会,可却低估了人类贪婪的本性,和人类认知的局限性。正如罗素先生所说,只要有“哲人王”这个统治者,就会有很多人受欲望趋势想当这个“哲人王”;何况就算“哲人王”真的存在,他的认知也是有局限性的,除非他不是人。 当然,本文的目的不是批判《理想国》,而是辩证地评价这本著作的思想。作为西方哲学的鼻祖之一,柏拉图思想的价值不在于“理想国”的可行性,而在于书中涵盖的内容对后世的思想,政治,文化上的巨大影响。这部书中涵盖了极大的信息量,涉及了伦理,正义,教育,阶级,法律,欲望,理性,政体和艺术等诸多领域,几乎涉及了所有的希腊文化。 法治和正义思想是柏拉图政治哲学内容的核心,《理想国》第一卷从个人的正义开始,逐渐讨论到城邦的正义与法律。柏拉图认为法律是实现正义的核心,只有法治得以实现,城邦才得以实现秩序。虽然柏拉图的正义观和伦理观过于片面和绝对:善就是善,恶就是恶;可是这种法治思想时至今日依然发挥巨大影响。 柏拉图思想中的理念论可以看作是后世唯心主义思想的鼻祖。理念世界和现实世界的关系,是柏拉图毕生探索的重要问题。相信很多人都在高中政治课本里面学过,唯心主义的定义就是意识先于物质:我看不见地上的石头,石头就不存在。这种思想叫做唯我论(solipsism),相信这种思想的人也很少。唯物主义者通过用唯我论曲解唯心主义,来烘托出唯物主义的正确性。唯心主义本身以二元论(dualism)的思想基础来研究精神与物质的关系,而康德和黑格尔更是以研究理性和精神作为毕生追求。 柏拉图在《理想国》的最后一段这样写道:让我们永远坚持向上的路,追求正义和智慧。无论“理想国”是否能实现,柏拉图的毕生追求都是在思考如何追求正义与光明。
|
|
|
【哲学】柏拉图
Jan 26, 2019 19:10:51 GMT -5
Post by 溪山 on Jan 26, 2019 19:10:51 GMT -5
Vincent Freeman: Of course, they say every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I'm not leaving... maybe I'm going home.
Moby 'We Are All Made of Stars' - Official video
|
|
|
【哲学】柏拉图
Jan 27, 2019 0:32:23 GMT -5
Post by 溪山 on Jan 27, 2019 0:32:23 GMT -5
crimes & misdemeanors
|
|
|
【哲学】柏拉图
Jan 27, 2019 0:58:30 GMT -5
Post by 溪山 on Jan 27, 2019 0:58:30 GMT -5
Movie quotes: Aunt May: Come on, Sol, open your eyes! Six million Jews and millions of others. - And they got off. - How could humans do such a thing? Because might makes right. - Until the Americans marched in... Remember, history is written by the winners. If the Nazis had won, future generations would see World War II quite differently. .............. Sol: I will always choose God over truth.
It's a very clever movie by Woody Allen. 电影中的Aunt May 就是Plato 《理想国》中Thrasymachus 的化身: praxeology.net/sqrepublic.htmThrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger; what he means is that injustice always involves acting so as to benefit whoever is in power. (His evidence for this is that things that benefit the majority are called “just” in a democracy, while things that benefit the elite are called “just” in an aristocracy.) His claim is easily misunderstood. Since he thinks that the ruled act justly whenever they benefit the rulers, one might suppose that he will also think that the rulers are acting justly when they benefit themselves -- if the standard of justice is “benefit to the rulers.” But in fact Thrasymachus thinks that rulers who benefit themselves are acting unjustly. The secret to understanding his view is this: there’s a reason he describes his view in comparative terms (“the stronger“) rather than absolute terms (“the strong”). To act justly is to benefit a stronger-than-oneself. In other words, justice is always a matter of subordinating your own interests to the interests of someone in authority over you. So when the ruled act to benefit the rulers, they are acting justly, but the rulers themselves are not subordinating their interests to anyone else, so they are acting unjustly. (If rulers were to act in the interest of the ruled, they would be subordinating their interests to those of the ruled, and so would in effect be putting the ruled in the position of authority and so would not themselvs be genuine rulers any more. Hence one cannot genuinely exercise the art of rulership without ipso facto behaving unjustly.) Like Callicles, Thrasymachus believes that only a fool would sacrifice his own interests to those of others, so Thrasymachus rejects justice as a con game for suckers.
|
|
|
Post by 溪山 on Feb 2, 2019 1:27:13 GMT -5
Ring of Gyges
The Ring of Gyges /ˈdʒaɪˌdʒiːz/ (Greek: Γύγου Δακτύλιος) is a mythical magical artifact mentioned by the philosopher Plato in Book 2 of his Republic (2:359a–2:360d).[1] It grants its owner the power to become invisible at will. Through the story of the ring, Republic considers whether an intelligent person would be just if they did not have to fear any bad reputation if they committed injustices.
The legends
Gyges of Lydia was a historical king, the founder of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings. Various ancient works—the most well-known being The Histories of Herodotus[2]—gave different accounts of the circumstances of his rise to power.[3] All, however, agree in asserting that he was originally a subordinate of King Candaules of Lydia, that he killed Candaules and seized the throne, and that he had either seduced Candaules' Queen before killing him, married her afterwards, or both.
In Glaucon's recounting of the myth, an unnamed ancestor of Gyges[4] was a shepherd in the service of the ruler of Lydia. After an earthquake, a cave was revealed in a mountainside where he was feeding his flock. Entering the cave, he discovered that it was in fact a tomb with a bronze horse containing a corpse, larger than that of a man, who wore a golden ring, which he pocketed. He discovered that the ring gave him the power to become invisible by adjusting it. He then arranged to be chosen as one of the messengers who reported to the king as to the status of the flocks. Arriving at the palace, he used his new power of invisibility to seduce the queen, and with her help he murdered the king, and became king of Lydia himself.
The role of the legend in Republic
In Republic, the tale of the ring of Gyges is described by the character of Glaucon who is the brother of Plato. Glaucon asks whether any man can be so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of killing, robbing, raping or generally doing injustice to whomever he pleased if he could do so without having to fear detection. Glaucon wants Socrates to argue that it's beneficial for us to be just apart from all considerations of our reputation.
Glaucon posits:
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.
Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.
For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
— Plato, Republic, 360b–d (Jowett trans.) Though his answer to Glaucon's challenge is delayed, Socrates ultimately argues that justice does not derive from this social construct: the man who abused the power of the Ring of Gyges has in fact enslaved himself to his appetites, while the man who chose not to use it remains rationally in control of himself and is therefore happy. (Republic 10:612b)
Cultural influences
H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man has as its basis a retelling of the tale of the Ring of Gyges.[5]
Alberich's Ring in the Richard Wagner's opera Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung)
The One Ring from J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings grants invisibility to its wearer but corrupts its owner. Although there is speculation[6] that Tolkien was influenced by Plato's story, a search on "Gyges" and "Plato" in his letters and biography provides no evidence for this. Unlike Plato's ring, Tolkien's exerts an active malevolent force that necessarily destroys the morality of the wearer.[7]
Cicero retells the story of Gyges in De Officiis to illustrate his thesis that a wise or good individual bases decisions on a fear of moral degradation as opposed to punishment or negative consequences. Cicero follows with a discussion of the role of thought experiments in philosophy. The hypothetical situation in question is complete immunity from punishment of the kind afforded to Gyges by his ring.[8]
Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz includes a modified subplot in his novel Arabian Nights and Days.
------ from wiki
|
|