Recently, I watched Mike Leigh’s film, Naked. It was an excellent demonstration of Sartre’s philosophy of living an authentic existence versus living in bad faith. Also, it illuminated our ability to make right or wrong choices.

Are we, as individuals, able to choose? Who, or what, is in control of you?

Who is in charge? You must decide that you do have a choice, you do have free will, if you fear this decision you will lose any free will that you had!

To begin, I think we need to define the two terms:

Authentic Living—one must take responsibility for the actions one chooses. One must not lean on preset rules and objective norms.

Living in Bad Faith—failing to recognize the many choices that are available. Bad faith is the habit people have of deceiving themselves into thinking that they do NOT have the freedom of choice. They fear the consequences of making a choice. So they fear choice, which is a choice in itself.

Naked is a raw movie, where people are stripped of their protective layer of civility and compassion. The three male characters refuse to face facts and make good choices. With pressure from society’s rules and norms, they adopt false values and disown their freedom. They don’t take responsibility for their actions.

The story is how these male characters interact with the women in the tale.

There is Johnny, the sociopath, Jeremy, the violent class conscious person and Brian, the night-watchman, who is a voyeur. They all live lives full of bad faith. They are all misogynists.

Johnny is a person with a personality disorder which manifests itself in antisocial attitudes and behaviors. He never tries to get himself out of being an educated derelict. He is naked in the sense that he has nothing of material value and he has lost his identity and security.

Jeremy believes his high social class gives him the right to be dominate over others. He is violent toward women and he takes but doesn’t give. He believes he is very masculine, which is his essential role. His personality is expressed through his massive consumption of objects, cars and luxuries.

Brian is a security guard, he guards the building at night for the daytime people. To him, he guards nothing. He has no sense of identity. He watches other people with no interaction with them. He feels he has no freedom of choice and denies any responsibility in his world.

The male characters in Naked, are all caught in bad faith, they deny their freedom of choice or try to avoid it.

In conclusion, we must choose to act and take responsibility for those actions. We must make sense of our lives. This is living authentically. We cannot feel that we are victims of fate, or mysterious forces within us, or of heredity, or pressure from society, for all this is to be living in bad faith.

The end result of your existence here on earth will be the total of the choices you made while you were here.

One of the problems concerning those who believe in an all powerful, good God, is reconciling that belief with the existence of so much pain and suffering in the world. The problem is known as the Problem of Evil.

We’ve all heard it before:

The theist says, “God exists.”

The atheist says, “God does not exist.”

The agnostic says, “I’m on the fence, undecided so I suspend judgment.”

As far as the vast amount of pain and suffering in the world—some of the thinking is:

If God exists and he is all powerful and all knowing, then he would get rid of all unnecessary pain and suffering in the world.

But, there is unnecessary pain and suffering in the world. So, does that mean God does NOT exist?

I watched a film recently that dealt with this subject. It was called, “The Seventh Seal”. The story goes:

In the 14^th century, in Sweden, when the Black Death was sweeping the continent. People wanted to know why God was inflicting on them so much pain and suffering.

A knight who returned from the Crusades has a game of chess with Death in hope of getting some answers to why God puts up with all this pain.

The knight tells Death he can’t grasp God with his senses. He calls out to Him but there is silence like no one is there!

Death answers: “Perhaps no one IS there!”

We humans have an inclination to rely on our senses:

“Seeing is believing.” But you can’t see God.

So, how do the theists counter the argument—why does God allow pain and suffering in the world?

The defense is: pain and suffering are necessary for the production of GOOD.

GOOD requires the existence of BAD. You couldn’t have compassion or courage if someone wasn’t suffering or threatened with harm. So, to get GOOD you have to have BAD. Do you agree?

The knight, in the Seventh Seal, seems to think that the enormous amount of pain God allows in the world turns religion into a farce.

Another defense that the theist uses is that suffering is necessary to be a CONTRAST to good, so we can see GOOD as GOOD!

It’s like we don’t appreciate health as good until we get sick.

But others would say they don’t need pain to appreciate health.

So, why do we have this suffering in the world? Or is there no God?

Another of the many philosophical questions to mull over.

On a lighter note: Philosophy is common sense in a dress suit!

NEWS FLASH!

Migrants are coming to Europe from many countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Guinea, Senegal, Sudan and others.

What to do? One scenario to stabilize the Middle East and Africa would take an army of ½ million men!

This is unlikely because there is no will for that in the West.

So, what do we do? Do we wait for war to break out within Europe because of over-population? Do we put a blockade of warships down the entire southern coast of Europe and force the migrant boats to go back?

It’s not just people coming from war-torn countries, many are coming from places where there is no war just poverty and sickness. They simply seek a better life!

Human rights law makes it almost impossible to return them to their countries.

These people have a great motivation to move to Europe. They see countries of wealth and security which is missing from their origins.

In the end this mass migration will destroy Europe’s stability.

Some people reading this article will ask: “Where is your compassion for millions of suffering people?”

The reply would be: “When should the compassion stop?”

After all our infrastructures collapse? Do we want Europe to be changed forever?

The Third World is coming to Europe and if it continues it will change society beyond recognition!

Maybe, the young people of tomorrow will be content to live in a world of transformation. But if it leads to war or social unrest, contentment will be short-lived!

Also, where are the leaders? They don’t seem to acknowledge the upheaval.

We are living in a “leaderless world”. No single country or alliance of countries seems to be capable of leading in a global world.

Lots of problems but the leaders have no solutions!

Are we sleepwalking toward Apocalypse?

The question popped into my mind after watching two films, “Artificial Intelligence” and “Bicentennial Man”.

Recently computers have been developed capable of performing tasks as good as humans, maybe better. What came to mind was the computer “Deep Blue” that defeated the chess champion, Garry Kasparov.

The film A.I. put forward a robot, David, a child, with the capacity to “love” that would bring him close to being human. It also shows what would happen when humans became dependent on robots. The humans developed a deep-seated hatred of them. The robot, “David” displays his analytic ability to figure out how to get his “mother’s” love back.

In “Bicentennial Man”, Andrew, the robot, starts out as a “slave” for the family, but as time goes on he wants more. He wants the freedom and equality of a human. The story explores many issues of what makes a human: Humanity, prejudice, intellectual freedom and love.

These two films are science-fiction but with the continuing research and development of A.I., could some disturbing scenarios become reality? In these movies it seemed to me that the robots were being wronged.

Many questions arise when thinking about the development of A. I. such as:

Can a robot become a moral person? In “Bicentennial Man”, Andrew was taught the humanities, which supposedly made him a moral robot. But can we design morality, good and bad, right and wrong, into a robot?

What distinguishes a robot from a human? The three main differences are:

Humans have emotions and feelings, robots don’t.

Humans are organic, flesh and bone, robots are made of metal, chips and wire.

Humans think, robots are programmed.

What will the world be like if and when robots surpass their human makers in intelligence and how will humans respond?

There would be a turn around in social structure: The robots would treat the humans the way that humans have treated some humans and animals for years, with disdain and prejudice. The worst scenario would be that the robots would want to get rid of the humans!

Maybe we should proceed with caution with the research into A.I. and seriously think about what role we would give a robot, with a mind, in society.

I will leave you with this:

Any man who pits his intelligence against a robot and loses, has it coming!

This article was posted by David Wise author of “Web of Guilt”, “24 Traumatic Hours, Twice”, “The Becoming” and “Life Story Terror”.

All available on Amazon in ebook and paperback.

The question in this article’s title came to mind after I read, Tolstoy’s “The Death of Ivan Ilych and watched the film, “Ikiru”. Both stories have a common theme of a man buried in bureaucracy, who has a terminal illness. He realizes he hasn’t lived at all! They both, through facing death, figured out their lives contained no meaning for them.

One of the quotes in “Ikiru” was; “Men are such fools, they only realize life’s beauty when they are faced with death.”

It makes you think: It’s man’s duty to enjoy life. Most of us, in our day-to-day routine, have artificial lives marked by shallow relationships, self-interest and materialism. This leaves us barren of meaning in our lives.

When the two protagonists face death it changes the way they see the world. Death forces them to give their life meaning that is their own.

If you look over your shoulder the Grim Reaper is right behind you. So, while you have life, enjoy it.

So much depression and neuroses happen in a person’s life because they feel life hasn’t any real significance. You and I live in the here and now. What will you do with the time that lies ahead of you? This time is unshaped and full of uncertainty. When you stand at this present point in life maybe you will take a completely different direction to the one which has made you who you are.

So, How Do You Live? You need to find something that is important to you. Some activity that you can throw yourself into, so you connect with the world in a way that you feel “things matter”.

Things happen in life (illness, lost of a loved one, etc.), but you can still find meaning in life if your attitude is positive.

I, personally, find meaning through writing. My writing ignites a spark in me so I am aware of the fact that I am alive and to make the most of it. There is so much to be written, it can keep you busy for a lifetime. So much to be explored through the written word. I have the freedom to write ANYTHING, but of course, it won’t be EVERYTHING!

That thought allows me to choose what I write about and those choices illuminate the meanings in my life. I write about what is meaningful to me.

Writing, to me, is what makes my life, in retirement, worthwhile.

That’s How I Live!

This article was posted by David Wise author of “Web of Guilt”, “24 Traumatic Hours, Twice”, and “The Becoming”.

All available on Amazon in ebook and paperback.

What constitutes a morally right action from a morally wrong action?

That question popped into my head after I watched the film, “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, with Woody Allen and Martin Landau.

I remembered there were two theories of moral philosophy, also known as ethics, one involving “consequences” and the other, “intentions”. So, what constitutes GOOD consequences and intentions, and BAD ones?

To add to the confusion, there is “moral relativism” which states there are NO moral facts. All moral evaluations are relative to the individual.

Plus, “moral objectivism” which states there ARE moral facts. The moral facts don’t depend on what anybody thinks.

In my mind, there are differences in people’s moral standards.

I wondered if the film could clear up some of these points. This movie has two stories and two protagonists. Judah Rosenthal, an eye doctor and pillar of the community, is one protagonist.

Cliff Stern, the second protagonist, is a film maker. His wife wants him to work on a documentary about her brother, a successful TV producer. While doing the film Cliff meets and falls in love with the documentary’s producer, Halley. In the end Cliff loses her to Lester, his wife’s brother. What links the two stories together is Ben, the rabbi, who is Cliff’s brother-law and Judah’s patient.

Now, Judah had a mistress, Delores, who threatened to spill the beans to Judah’s wife about the affair and some dodgy business dealings. Judah has his brother hire a hit man to kill Delores. In doing this, Judah is morally wrong, his action produced bad consequences and his intentions were suspect. He fell victim of moral egoism, his sole concern in making the decision was how it will affect him.

John Stuart Mill had a greatest happiness principle, which stated that the most important things in life are pleasure and freedom from pain.

So, according to this principle what has to be done to figure out what is the morally right decision?

List all the alternative actions the person has to choose from.

For each alternative figure out the total amount of happiness or unhappiness that would result from the decision.

The alternative with the greatest happiness is the morally right thing to do. Any alternative with less than maximum happiness is morally wrong.

Lets look at this with analyzing Judah’s decision to get a hit man to kill Delores.

What were his alternatives:

He could confess his infidelity to his wife. This would result in his wife’s unhappiness and his guilt. Maybe in the end would be forgiveness and adjustment.

He could decide to “do nothing”. Delores would be unhappy to continue living a lie. But everyone else would be happy if Judah could keep Delores quiet.

Or he could choose to hire the hit man, which he does. Delores suffers death and she has the right NOT to be killed. Judah suffers guilt, but his wife and family have the happiness of the status quo. Also, an innocent man was accused of the killing which wasn’t right.

In the last analysis Judah’s action was wrong because it produced the worst outcome than the other alternatives.

The end of the movie is chilling for a lot of people because there is no ultimate punishment for Judah, his guilt vanished in time and his life of wealth and privilege continued as if nothing happened.

So, why be moral in the first place?

Why do the right thing if we can do the wrong thing and get away with it?

Does conscience mean anything if everything (guilt,etc.) passes away with time?

In conclusion: We all face life decisions, moral choices, some big some small. We are defined by our choices. We hope we have the ability to keep trying to find joy and satisfaction from basic things, such as our family, our work and our passions.

This article was posted by David Wise author of “Web of Guilt”, “24 Traumatic Hours, Twice”, and “The Becoming”.

All available on Amazon in ebook and paperback.

The question of identity has always intrigued me. How to understand yourself and who and what are we as individuals.

After watching two films: “Being John Malkovich” and “Memento”, I became interested in the Psychological Continuity Theory of personal identity.

The theory states: what makes ME, me, are my psychological characteristics: personality, disposition, value system and worldview, all these change very slowly over time. Memory, also, achieves continuity.

In “Being John Malkovich”, the protagonist slips into Malkovich’s mind and sees the world through his eyes. But he doesn’t become him, or does he?

In “Memento”, the protagonist, Leonard, looses his short-term memory. Before the incident, the killing of his wife, Leonard is a bland law-abiding citizen, then he becomes a killer. Was this change the result of a changed personality or was it because circumstances changed and his personality adapted?

The film shown backwards in time disorientates the viewer. With memory loss does Leonard lose himself?

Many of Leonard’s “memories” were not genuine, they were distorted. For memory to be a link to psychological continuity it must be genuine.

Your personal identity in one sense can change. In my working life I was a time study, in my retirement I am a writer. So my idea of myself changed over time.

I often think: Am I the same person now as I was as a baby? My answer is NO, I am different. My DNA is the same, but that’s about it. I have changed physically and mentally through the years.

A better question would be: Am I the person NOW, who was here yesterday or a week ago? What evidence is there? Well, I rely on first-person memory: I remember doing something yesterday and it was done, so I am probably the same person I was yesterday.

How about the question: What am I?

I am a biological organism that is a collection of mental states and events. I am a bundle of all my perceptions; the world through my senses and the way I interpret what I am aware of.

Why am I concerned about my identity?

Because only I can be responsible for my actions and this gives me a reason to care about ME. I have a special, selfish interest in my own present and future. Identity matters to me practically. My identity is very important to me.

This post was written by David Wise, author of “Web of Guilt”, “24 Traumatic Hours, Twice”, and “The Becoming”.

All available on Amazon in ebook and paperback.

You can learn about existentialism, which is a theory of philosophy, through film. Movies can help you understand philosophical views of the world.

The other day I watched two films. The first was a 1992 movie called, “The Crying Game”. Putting the plot of the film next to Sartre’s existential philosophy helps to explain some basic points of the theory.

Both films are highly interesting on their own without thinking about philosophical themes. But the two together give you an insight into the philosophy of the films.

The first is a story about an IRA “soldier” and his cell who capture a British soldier. Fergus, the IRA man, guards Jody, the soldier, and eventually is supposed to kill him. But he can’t and the soldier runs away only to be run down by a British armored car. Before this happens, The Brit tries to convince Fergus he can change his cold-hearted killer nature.

Jody asked Fergus if, after he is killed, will he look after his girlfriend in England. Fergus promises he would. In the end his nature is changed.

The film shows the existential view of freedom to choose and take responsibility for the choice. Fergus gave up his foundational beliefs and becomes a caring human being.

The film shows that our lives are the product of our choices and there are possibilities for transformation of our characters, they are not fixed!

The second film was “Lost in Translation”. The story of a man and a woman who meet and are at loose ends in their lives. They communicate about their situations to try to figure them out.

They both are attempting to escape their troubled situations. The man wants to escape his unhappy marriage and the woman wants to escape the uncertainty of her future.

The conclusion is: Escape isn’t an option, in fact, it’s not possible! You have to accept the fact that change will come from your actions. They both must make a choice in response to their present situations and then they must take full responsibility for their choices.

Films, like fiction, can make the transition to philosophical thinking easier and fun.

Subtitle: “Better Surveillance and Less Immigration”

“You are being watched!” There are over 60,000 CCTV cameras in the UK. Walking around big cities like New York or London a person could be filmed 300 times a day!

These cameras were perceived to be a great help in stopping terrorism and crime. Now, we even have “face recognition” systems similar to number-plate recognition cameras.

I would hope this technology will help in the fight against terrorism and crime. But what bothers me is that only 15-20% of the cameras are monitored from a control room. I think more should be monitored.

***

Since 9/11, we recognized the need for better surveillance. The Americans and the British have become very good at collecting dots (data), but NOT very good at connecting them to find a target in advance.

With the advance in computer technology we have redefined our definitions of privacy and security. We need total information awareness, which hopefully, will help predict when and where terrorist attacks will come.

Today we can intercept a lot of cyber chatter. Phones can be cloned so data from one phone is transferred to another phone. Calls and texts can be received by both phones and tracker systems are better.

Now, we have arrived at a higher plateau of “better surveillance” because…

Now we have a “machine” in the form of the new NSA Utah Data Center. This machine is supposed to “connect the dots” to identify suspicious patterns.

This machine is a warehouse that contains information about every person in the United States. It monitors internet searches, websites visited, emails sent and received, social media activity, phone GPS location data, phone call records, facial recognition data from CCTV surveillance cameras, etc. The UK could use one of these machines.

The final thing is to share info between your allies and with other intelligence agencies. Before this machine, the intelligence agencies were amassing data on a scale no human or agency could keep up with. But now, with the Utah Data Center that problem will be rectified. Maybe, just maybe, we will have “better surveillance”.

***

The immigration crisis and the EU open border mandate has to be dealt with before our infrastructures are completely ruined by the increasing pressure of too many people coming into the country.

There is an uncontrollable wave of migrants marching across Europe. It’s uncontrolled because no one is doing anything to solve it! There are people that say we must be compassionate and charitable toward the migrants, but the reality is that we can’t cope with the numbers! Compassion and charity begin at home! The people in this country need to be taken care of first. In my opinion the only way we can control our borders is to exit the EU!

350,000 people signed a petition to stop immigration and close the borders. Closed borders means strict vetting of incoming people and turning back the ones that shouldn’t be in our country.

According to reports there probably were another 250,000 people that agreed with the petition but didn’t sign because they thought the powers that be would just kick it into the long grass!

So, that means 600,000 people are fed up with the situation. If we wait much longer to close the borders, the situation will get worse, and it is unsustainable now!

Every time people raise legitimate concerns about their country and express their anxieties, they are labeled as racist or bigots. The majority of the 350,000 people that signed the petition are NOT racist or bigots. They are people that are concerned about their country. It doesn’t matter what religion or ethnicity the migrants are, the bottom line is that this country can’t cope with any more people. We are OVERPOPUATED!

There are, in England, 450 people per sq. kilometer! We are the sixth most overcrowded country in the world!

Brussels allows us NO CONTROL over this migration. Several terrorists have entered Europe posing as refugees! Our borders are porous, the holes must be plugged!

We have to tackle mass uncontrolled immigration. It must be strictly measured and controlled and the way to do that is with closed borders and the way to get that is to exit the EU!

With mass immigration you get pockets of different cultures segregating themselves and with infrastructure breakdown, people get angry. Social cohesion breaks down and then the worst might happen – full scale social unrest on the streets. In some parts of the UK extremist groups have built no-go areas for white Brits. This is social unrest rearing it’s ugly head.

British citizens have three feelings about migrants:

1. People come here to claim benefits and live a lifetime on them.
2. People come here to get on in life, they want a job and look after their families.
3. People come here that have evil intentions and want to destroy our way of life.

The trouble is we get all three sets of people coming in!

We must check integration, so that people who come here are NOT setting up a new community, but want to become part of an existing one.

***

In conclusion: I hope the “Powers That Be” will take notice of the petition, “Stop Mass Immigration and Close the Borders”, that was signed by 350,000 people. The majority of these people are NOT racist or bigots, they are concerned citizens and permanent residents of this country that are frustrated and angry at the way government is handling these important issues and they want to be heard in the halls of Parliament!

The open borders are exposing us to the risk of terrorist “sleepers”. Now, we want to further fan the flames of terrorism by bombing Syria. We haven’t learned our lessons from past interventions. Lets hope we do before things get worse!

***Please reply right on the blog. Thank you.

Scroll down for more interesting posts

Writer Dave is an Existentialist. I have been one for the last fifty years! But back then I probably didn’t know that I was.

Subtitle of this blog: “Interview with an Elderly Existentialist”

Question: What does existentialism mean to you?

Answer: It’s always been a challenge for me to live an existential life. Since I’ve been an adult, I’ve created my own purpose and meaning in life. I’ve always tried to assert my will rather than allowing myself to be swept along by circumstances. I knew that I had to take responsibility for myself and what I do.

Question: What is your definition of Existentialism?

Answer: You are a free agent, responsible for making your own meaning and purpose in your life. In other words, YOU MAKE YOURSELF.

Question: We’re talking about Old Age and Existentialism. What does that mean to you?

Answer: Being elderly brings many existential challenges. You have to come to terms with the transitory character of life. Life is not permanent. You must find a way to cope with your approaching death, possible illness, loneliness and depression. You have to be ready to respond to the basic questions of existence.

Question: Wow! That’s quite a list to cope with. Can you elaborate on dealing with your mortality?

Answer: Well, with my time growing shorter, I’m confident I can and will adjust to the boundaries of human existence.

Question: Faced with life’s limits, as you get older, and the changing conditions of life, what questions arise?

Answer: For what do I still live? I live for my writing and to be a companion to my spouse. I am still productive and creative.

For what have I lived? It was good, I was productive in my work life and I contributed to society.

Question: The previous questions, do they lead to the question of meaning?

Answer: Yes, they do. The question is: What meaning does this life have which ends in death? I have created my own meaning through my work life and now through my retirement, and I’m happy with it!

Question: What is the question that MUST be answered to ward off old age depression?

Answer: The question is: Is there something beyond this life?

Without a PERSONAL answer to this question a seed of unrest will be with you and could lead to depression for the rest of your days.

Question: What is the final thing you need to face the “last straight”?

Answer: Personal maturity. This is the ability to “let go”, which is possible if you have done what you wanted and lived for what you wanted. Through my existentialism and my writing I am continually discovering my inner self, which helps me in the “letting go” process.

Question: What would you say in conclusion?

Answer: The old person, like myself, faces the basic questions of existence, regarding it’s limitations and transitory character and in doing so, has the responsibility to live as fully as they can until the “back nine” is finished! Growing old successfully allows a person to develop their inner self for a death that is THEIR death!

TO END ON A LIGHTER NOTE:

“A natural death is where you die by yourself without a doctor’s help!”

and another one:

“The nearer the time comes for our departure from life, the greater our regret for wasting so much of it!”