Jenny+Choi+Lee

media type="file" key="HistoryP_3.mp3" Host1: Good day, everyone! It’s September 11th, 2008, and we’re at it with our newest topic. Today’s debate will focus on Descartes’ well-known saying, “I think therefore I am.” Two of our guests will argue against each other about this intriguing topic.

Host 2: That sure sounds interesting. But shouldn’t we explain to our audience exactly what Descartes was trying to say?

Host1: If you have seen Matrix or Truman Show, I guess you will better understand the concept. Many philosophers of our time argue Descartes wanted to say that perhaps a superior being constantly tricks our mind, causing us to believe what is false.

Host 2: I see. But do you think it is possible?

C: I think there’s the issue of capability. I don’t believe that there can be a system sophisticated enough to control every aspect of my perception and that of all the other beings.

N: I think it’s plenty possible, if there were multiple beings or a machine controlling us.

C: No matter how sophisticated the system is, wouldn’t it be impossible to control not only separate lives of people but also interaction between them? Ways people interact with each other can be infinite.

N: Sure, the possibilities of human interaction are infinite, in theory. But in reality, people’s interactions and experiences are limited by several factors such as their age, location, or economic and social ability.

C: I don’t think people’s scope of life is limited as you said. With development of transportation and telecommunication we can now go virtually anywhere and interact with anyone. How can this complexity be possibly controlled?

N: If all the people a controlled person meets in his or her lifetime are actually subjects of the controller, as in the movie Truman Show, it means that every controlled person is living in his own separate world. Then, there’s not much complexity to trouble the controller.

C: Even if the capability issue is resolved, there is still the question of why the controller would even bother to create the system. What can be the possible purpose?

N: If the controller was evil in nature, wouldn’t he enjoy watching us put in various dilemma and painful situations?

C: If that was true, why did he give us this power to think to the point that we can doubt our reality? Wouldn’t he fear us defying against him?

N: Now, there remains the possibility that the controller is in fact benevolent. He might be trying to shield us from grim reality and create a false but brighter world in which we can live happily.

C: Then is it not so different from the society of the book Brave New World, where citizens are forced to take happiness pills? Humans desire freedom. Taking away that freedom, no matter how good the intentions might be, is not something that can be justified. I believe that people have right to choose between the controlled and real world.

N: Then I guess the bottom line of this problem is the issue of freewill versus happiness. If one values free will more than happiness, actions of the controller cannot be justified.

Host1: In summary, it would be impossible to determine the justifiability of a controlled world. It will only depend on whether each controlled values happiness over freewill or vice versa.

Host2: That was a delightful discussion! See you next week, everyone!