What Sophie experienced in this chapter sounds much like lucid dreaming. I can say that I have lucid dreamed before and in this case it has mad me feel and be different, especially right after that dream is over. The main reason I believe, like me, Sophie feels different and has changed even to her mother is that you experience things in which the outside world cannot supply. This causes a person always going through these hazy, realistic situations to think further than just about that dream, but also about other things such as what it could have meant, who are the people in the dream, and even why me? Why out of every one in my house did I have to dream this? I’ve even experienced daydreaming about what happened in my dream. Replaying thoughts of everything that was funny, scary, tormenting, and even realistic. Sometimes in my dreams like in chapter nine specific things and words will get stuck in my mind as a way of maybe telling me to look deeper, research, or watch out. So when Sophie begins to research on Plato and Aristotle and think back on question asked in her notes I don’t blame her! Unreal situations can be scary / confusing. Is there something trying to be communicated in those unreal yet real worlds?
The last few chapters were hard to connect to but from what I read nothing seems real anymore. A ironic piece of this story I believe is the fact that at the beginning and then again at the end Sophie still wondered who she was almost as if she was in two different worlds. Especially in the end of the book where the Garden party took place chaos seemed to fuel even more confusion of what Sophie now believes and has learned. I can definitely say a strange part of the book is when Joanna and the guy Jeremy start making out. I think that overall Sophie is a super well rounded person and she tries to retain information super easy. I connected that to the average student and how information is literally shoved down our throats. Sophie was literally learning a new lesson every single day and I could barely do it in the two-three day span we would learn stuff in class. For example when Sophie learns a new lesson in the middle of her part just like if we were to learn new equipment in the middle of a lesson. One reflection I wanted to make is I wish that Sophie’s mom was more into the whole note and philosophy story of Sophie’s life. To me this would have enhanced the story and made Sophie stronger in her beliefs and moral grounds. One thing that caught my attention was Alberto’s quote of trying to find a way back to ourselves. I also find this ironic being Sophie changed so much because of Alberto in this book; only for him to basically say to Sophie go back to how you were in chapter 1. Lastly I find it miserable to be in such deep connection with one you will never really end up bonding and “hanging out” with. Sophie and Hilde grew a bond through their similarities and experiences. When the book is open on both ends of the characters with “restrictions’ we not only see the yearn to reconnect but also the Passover from student to teacher as the two main characters use their teachings to satisfy themselves in their two separate worlds.
I believe that when it comes to the id of the mind many more things are uncontrolled than controllable through the ego and super ego. This is mainly because like many things that overtake our body –for instance when we crave food to a point where we had to go out and get to fulfill that desire. I am not saying that one can’t deprive themselves from desires, but when looking at the id state of mind it is our majority thinking/ build up. To me this build up is what leads to dream, and openness in communication. Personally I have witnessed myself dream a lot or randomly blurt things and what I often recognize I that majority of the things come from buildup even in emotion or frustration. What then happens to me at the least tis that I unconsciously talk during my sleep or blurt without any control from the superego or ego to balance out the overwhelming id? Also as Sophie experiences in chapter 32. Her being overwhelmed is what causes her social flow to stop. So in some ways I feel Freud was off with his theories. Lastly relating to existentialism takes me back on a lesson I learned which shows if I think on something to too long my actions then rely on my long thought of what should could and would. Science also shows that most people end up doing the things they constantly think about rather they started off really wanting to do this particular thing or not. Also such as Sophie’s party in which reality is confused with imaginary things Sophie’s thoughts just become overwhelmed chaos. I cannot yet put my hand on the women nature part of this although I strongly believe women’s thought vary from men drastically. But is this a nature or is it all based on maturity?
I respect and agree with the Romantics who say “every individual had the freedom to interpret the world in his own way” because the different ways that people interpret the world is what makes that person distinct and gives them their characteristics which i am familiar with the term being individualism. Schelling seems to back up the point I am trying to make by using culture as a factor of individualism. This accounts for the real romanticism we see in fairy tales which shows us the individualism f the author and their fictional nature. This kind of related to many points brought up in the movie “In Time” . Based off of time different characters in the movie got to individualize them self based on the amount of time they had. To me, in this movie time was the people’s culture and they chose to interpret the world based on the time that was left in one’s arm. This made time everything and in the movie, gave individuals a certain name. This leads me to believe that there’s a bigger story than the one described which is why the book leads to so much confusion on who is watching who and causing consequences Hilde suggests. The potion Alice gives help introduce Kierkegaard who also comes from a different point of individualism that states aesthetic, ethic, and religion are all stages that determine the perception of life and how a person will live also. In all we see different view points in which one is created to have, how they may get them, and where they may come from. If I were a philosopher would tie Kierkegaard, Schelling and Romantics beliefs together to create a final definition of individualism/ ones character etc.
Descartes philosophy to me doesn’t make since maybe because his reasoning’s could be based off of many things. By this I mean that if one does not thing of a higher power- being God then does God not exist? Or if you are paralyzed and your mind can not connect to your actions then things would change causing Descartes theory to be false. I believe solely in Spinoza being that- God is the world and if he is the world then he has full determination on what goes and what doesn’t go in the world. This brings us back to determinism which I explained that God states in the Bible that he predestined us before the world meaning- he knows all before all even happens. Spinoza states in humans believing to choose their nature which goes back to the book of Genesis with God creating all things and having Adam name them also giving them domain over their areas of living. This goes to prove what I believe as correct and back up Spinoza when he says that freedom is just a fragment of our imagination. I don’t believe that Locke contrasts at all with Descartes because of the fact that experiences filling the mind would be controlled by God which would tie right into what Descartes believes. In conclusion God is the one thing over us (to me) that allows us to do, move and be who we are.
I believe hard in soft determinism and in what St. Augustine has to say about free will within God’s plan. Since I am Christian I don’t believe in anything being truly free of will to anyone. This goes back to the definition of determinism which stated “every action that we take has something that came before it that triggered that action, whether external (out of our control) or internal (feelings, thoughts, experiences).” What I believe is that yes, I have the right to do whatever whenever because I am my own person, but there are rules in which have consequences if you go against them (better known as a sin). I then further believe based on what the Bible says that God has predestined us before he world which means he knows what we are going to do before we even do it; this leads to the question of… “Do we really have free will then?” I ask this because if God has planned our lives before we are even born then he has the say so on what flies and what doesn’t based on how he wants you to grow up, learn, and portray on Earth. For example when Locus was predestined to kill Oedipus even though he was supposed to be dead parents were led to adopt him. Later Locus was predestined to learn of his prophecy and go about killing his real father then marrying his mother. Yes, he did have the choices to do such things but I believe coincidences are obvious examples of soft determinism.
I believe in all that Aristotle has to say about perfection coming from potential and involving reality. This is what I believe and not just that everything either comes perfect or not at all. One thing I don’t agree with is the fact that Aristotle is basically calling out animals for being dumb creatures with no brain in comparison to humans. I disagree with this concept only because various animals show intelligence above some people in this world including monkeys who are supposed to be closest to humans in thinking and physical characteristics. I understand Aristotle’s theory of cause but I don’t believe it creates a story for which things exist because many things including rain have multiple purposes even if it’s just to clean dirt off the roof after a long cold winter. I believe in the cynics’ believe solely because it is how I live my life almost every day- sort of like believing in fate. At this point in the book I am intrigued to know who Hilde is as much as the main character. Saint Augustine picks up the belief the many people often get stuck in which is the free will of God – God created man with freewill with the expectancy to do the “right” thing so people wouldn’t end up in hell. Martin Luther is spoke about in the last chapter summing up Christianity in a way that is not radical but able to question the world which makes me wonder what was considered radical and if you were radical were you considered a Protestantism.
In this chapter I can’t relate to Sophie seeming that she is anticipating a clear answer from whoever has been writing her. She has bits and pieces and has experienced things she can’t explain yet she is just put in a place of wonder. Like Sophie I would not only be a little anxious but also a little freaked out just because most of the things that seem to be going on can be related to paranormal viewings, ghosts, or imaginary friends. I believe just like the mother thinks her daughter is a little crazy many other people would too if the word got out. Also like me Sophie has to tell that one friend. The one friend pretty much believes her and the story saying she knows and in fact seems to have experienced the house of Alberto. This house and the fact that things pop up more than just coincidentally makes me wonder why Sophie is not freaking out yet and also takes me back to in class and also in the beginning of the book where it has been stated that different ages of people will look at an experience different. Specifically we talked about younger children thinking everything is cool because they experience new things every day, yet they don’t know what is real and what is not. On the other hand older people such as Sophie’s mom become positive that Sophie is going insane because to the mother there is no way what Sophie is explaining is real