The Atkins Diet and Philosophy

            

            I was actually looking for a car adapter when I came across a book titled “The Atkins Diet and Philosophy Chewing the Fat with Kant and Nietzsche” which caught my eye on Amazon. This book not only talks about how to loose weight but majors philosophers such as Marx, Kant, Rousseau and many others that have a very secure standpoint on some of these related issues. Discussions such as Atkins advertising a negative body image, how it fits into Kant’s perception of the moral life, or theories about a kinder, and gentler human society are talked about. This book will be kind of like how we use “Sophie’s World”. It will be an interesting topic that will intertwine certain, valuable philosophical lessons. The real purpose of this book is to actually un-teach diet in general and turn on the light for some people, and show them that there are things that are more important in life. I am personally kind of interested in the book, just to see how it compares (in regards to the lessons) to “Sophie’s World”

reality becomes a story and the mystery becomes reality

All of the mystery and suspense had all come down to one chapter. This chapter would be the answer to all of my questions thus far. Before I read Bjerkely I was super excited to finally unfold the mystery of Sophie’s World. Though as I started to read it, and began to comprehend what the mystery was I was kind of disappointed. I was kind of hoping that it was more complicated than it really was. Sophie has really evolved as a person, and I have felt many connections with her/her character. Because of the connections I felt with her as a character, I am sad to now know that she isn’t real. My hypothesis on the mystery of the book was much more complicated.

             I hypothesized that Sophie was the real one and Hilde was more like a character. Though as we found out in this chapter, it is the exact opposite. The fact that Hilde is still so foreign to the reader makes me wonder how the author will develop her character enough, in order for the audience to accept her as the new main character. I’m also very curious about how us now knowing the secret will play out within the book. For me, because we know that the first half of the book was pretty much fake, makes me feel like it was kind of pointless because Hildes father was just telling and setting up a fake story for his daughter. Finally, we are only half way through the book, what other mysteries have Hilde and Sophie been hiding from us?

If a tree falls and no one is around, does it still make a noise?

                        The more that I learn about all of the empiricists, the more interested I become. Though at the beginning of the novel the philosophy lessons from Alberto were boring and difficult to understand, I am not starting to appreciate the lessons. Even thought the philosophers and their ideas are becoming more complex, Alberto has started teaching lessons on people who have very radical ideas that really make me think about life as a whole and is helping me weed out and debunk philosophies I think are false, or no way could be true. I think it is very interesting the views and thoughts of Hume. We are taught in school in physics and probably referenced in a plethora of different class about laws. Things that are always true, for example in physics we learn the law of gravity and inertia. Though Hume was convinced that we, as humans couldn’t be certain of anything. Just because of cause and effect, and that something always seems to happen doesn’t mean that is will always happen, or always be true. Hume also had ideas about psychology. He concludes that people act of feelings rather than reason. He suspects that though people take reason into account when deciding something, more often than not, the final decision will be deducted using more feelings than reason. 

Slinger Tries to Save the World

            As I was googleing a connection to make to the book for my connection I decided to instead on taking some advice that had come to me in a discussion in class today. I clicked on my news tab on my toolbar and it said that there were 1,652 new articles. Of them I search philosophy and believe it or not an article popped up about Peter Singer. I read it and found it to be very interesting. The Australian philosopher explains an idea that I am now very interested in. His explained, in more words, that all of the people in the world could be saved by money or services we could help them with. And to be abrupt about it, all of us buying another house or car for the summer are essentially murderers. He uses a very powerful extended metaphor to help explain his theory. He explains that one wouldn’t walk by a toddler drowning in a pond, so why should we ignore the people and children who are suffering in other countries? Just because they are not dying right in front of our faces? As a result he is proposing a  progressive tax system that would “force” people to pledge between 1% and 2% of their total income to a NGO’s of their choice. I think that in a perfect world this would be a great idea and help many people in the best ways possible though to get something like this passed and approved is much easier said than done. 

O Pablo.

"It was not you, grave death, raptor or iron plumage,

that the drab tenant of such lodgings carried

mixes with his gobbled rations under hollow skin-

rather: a trodden tendril of old rope,

the atom of courage that gave way

or some harsh dew never distilled to sweat.

This could not be reborn, a particle

of death without a requiem,

bare bone or fading church bell dying from within."

-Pablo Neruda

In honor Hispanic Perspectives we are learning about a very famous Chilean poet named Pablo Neruda. In this poem that he wrote (which is part of a book titled “The Heights of Macchu Picchu) he explains people being made up of atoms and also being reborn. Democritus was one of the first philosophers to talk about this type of thinking, in which everything is made up of very tiny particles, the he decided to call atoms. He made a point to discuss how everything is made of up these “atoms” and that each substance is merely a re-combination of the same type of particles. This is what Neruda is trying to say in this excerpt as well. Neruda as explains in an extended metaphor not to be afraid of death. This reasoning connects to the Epicureans belief of not worrying about death because of how much pleasure there is in the world and not to worry about something that cannot be controlled. Even though Nerudas poems are difficult to understand they do have a deeper meaning that can relate to many reality-like, and ethical problems that are present in philosophy. 

Reflection #3

There are many possibilities about what the real missing piece is of this Sophie’s World puzzle, if you will. With all of the information that has been directly and indirectly given to us through the context of the book, I have come to one conclusion. Though, even with my theory there are still some questions in which I cannot explain. I believe that Hilde’s father is in some kind of alternate universe. This is the only way in which he would be able to so all of the so call “magic” that just seems like an incredible coincidence to Sophie.  For example the money, red scarf, the golden cross necklace and also all of the postcard are all evidence of this. We know for a fact that Hilde’s father is behind it all because Alberto has said so many times. Though I am still questioning Albertos’ position in all of this, how does he have the knowledge of a person who can manipulate “reality”? He could be like Norris from the Adjustment Bureau and know the secrets of the universe, but also try to go against them for some reason. At this point I am just very interested to read on and see how the story continues to evolve and eventually shed some light on the real mysteries within the plot.