Why I Loved Finding Dory Part 1A: Pixar and Kierkegaard

Author Foreword:

Thanks to you all for all your patience! We're finally getting onto the philosophical stuff! And what better way than to start with my one of my favorite movies of 2016: Finding Dory!! This will be a 2 part series: The first part being two segments about Soren Kierkegaard's "knight of faith" and how it ties into the movie, and the second part about the different types of love shown throughout the film. Although I started this particular post sometime in November shortly after I watched the film, I'm just now posting this on New Year's Eve, so I wish you all a happy New Year! Stay FREE everyone!

--

My Childhood

When Finding Nemo came out in 2003 (GOSH I FEEL OLD!!!!), I had to go see it in theaters. I remember, as a 2nd grader (you're welcome for telling you my age), I was just so mesmerized by the colors, the animation, the score, the story...it was all so wonderfully done that even a kid could tell that this was an A-grade movie--it has a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, by the way. I even got it on DVD--and no, my parents didn't buy me very many DVD's, so that's how good I thought it was! And then, of course, who could forget Dory?

I remember being so impacted by Dory that for the next week, I pretended I had short term memory loss (which we millennials all know now as anterograde amnesia #themoreyouknow). So when I found out two years that Finding Dory was going to be a thing, I was excited--actually, I was ecstatic! I was so ready to push little kids out of the way because this was the sequel I waited 13 years to see...THIRTEEN!! That's, like, the lifespan of a whole middle schooler who was "excited" to see this movie! And when I finally saw it....let's just say it should be a crime to bring a man to tears like that. (JUST LOOK AT THAT FACE!!! LOOK. AT. IT!!!)

I know I'm droning, but hear me out because Pixar actually has a lot to teach us through this film!

I mean, the main theme of Finding Nemo is obvious: Not even an ocean can stand in the way of parental love. (I'll be exploring the topic of love in Part 2!) First, let me thank all of my grade school English teachers who taught me why the author choosing the blue curtains mattered, because the devil in Finding Dory's theme is all in the details! These details reveal philosophers among Pixar's team--philosophers who must be Kierkegaard fans. Upon noticing this, Finding Dory, for me, was a kid friendly movie that reminded me that although rationality is important and against every philosophical intuition I have, having faith is essential as well, especially when it is apparent that not all of the answers or odds line up.

Søren Kierkegaard

Background Info

Let's quickly get into some philosophy before discussing the movie! Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher who is highly regarded as the first existentialist although the term wasn't coined until 90 years after his death. Unlike his contemporaries at the time, such as Hegel and Clifford, as well as earlier philosophers such as Descartes, Kierkegaard was not concerned with certainty; in fact, almost seemingly counter-intuitive to the stereotype of philosophers, Kierkegaard was skeptical of certainty and championed faith.

In his Fear and Trembling under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard explored the
story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac. (If you're unfamiliar with the story or need a refresher, it's Genesis 22:1-14. Otherwise, here's a summary on Kierkegaard's analysis.) When you think back at the story, remember how Abraham doesn't hesitate the whole way through--he looks at that mountain the whole journey, he (seemingly) responds calmly to Isaac's question, his hand isn't trembling when he grabs the knife, and he does not hesitate in bringing it down. It's a beautiful story for us who have heard it a million times because we all know how it ends: The angel comes to stop Abraham, and he coincidentally finds a young goat to sacrifice instead. However, according to Kierkegaard, if that's all you got from the story, you've missed the whole point.

PC: Wikimedia Commons
Artist: Caravaggio

In fact, this story should keep you up at night! But Johannes de Silentio can't just flat out give you the secret to the story, so instead, he changes up some detail in the story to show you what it would look like if Abraham hesitated in any way. But I'm not Johannes, so I'll just tell you: Just imagine if this was anyone else in the modern era. The story would be all over the news, and we'd think Abraham a freaking madman! But guess what: Abraham is praised among all three major monotheistic religions as the "father in faith." A FATHER!! This guy is revered! Not only that, but Isaac does not lose his faith in a God Who called for his death! Something must be special about this "faith" thing, and Kierkegaard wants to know what it is.

The Argument

For Kierkegaard, there are three different realms: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious, and each type is depicted by the frog, the knight of inifinite resignation, and the knight of faith, respectively. Each person in those specific types, in addition, is interested in something specific and shapes his/her life around that interest.

Aesthetic/Frog

The aesthetic is depicted by a frog in a swamp: All the frog really cares about is the swamp and his own business as to what would please him. Ultimately, the frog knows only its own swamp and really only cares for its own swamp.

Obviously, most people are aesthetics: These people really only care for their own businesses/advancements and make life decisions based on the likelihood for that advancement. Whether it is caused by a base, primal desire or a deeper appreciation for something, the aesthete attempts to connect the individual to that thing/experience.

Kierkegaard's example is of a peasant who falls in love with a princess. However, he gives up this love because it is impossible, thinking that a marriage to a rich man's daughter is just as good.

Ethical/Knight of Infinite Resignation

When a person has reached the realm of the ethical, she has broken the desire to connect to her individual perception; instead, there is the desire to express ideas and perform deeds based on morality or the universal. In other words, she will infinitely resign herself from what she wills for the greater good or, knowing that this world is not unjust, for the sake of being rewarded in another life--specifically for Kierkegaard who was a Christian, Heaven.

For Kierkegaard, the aesthetic realm and the ethical realm are two separate realms--for obvious reason. To juxtapose, while the aesthete connects the individual to something (as stated above), the Knight of Infinite Resignation (KOIR) detaches the individual and replaces the universal to connect with the thing/experience. In addition, the former is a lower realm than the latter. For these reasons, only one realm can be occupied at one time. To continue the love story example, the ethical peasant maintains his love for the princess but acknowledges that this love is futile in this life. The key is his expectation in another life.

So what makes the Knight of Faith (KOF) so special? If the aesthete connects the individual and the ethical the universal, then what is left for the religious person to connect?

Religious/Knight of Faith

God. That is who is left. A peasant who is a knight of faith, though he too recognizes the futility of his love for the princess in this life, he, unlike the other two, pursues his love, acknowledging that nothing is impossible for God.

Why is Johannes called "de Silentio?" It is because the person who inhabits the religious realm more accurately inhabits both the aesthetic and ethical realms; in other words, the knight of faith connects both himself (the individual) and the universal to his experiences; thus we have a paradox. Johannes, therefore, cannot describe this paradox head-on but, rather, must dance around it by describing what faith is not. 

So then why is the book called Fear and Trembling? Recall the story of Abraham and Isaac. I hinted at it earlier, but it is not enough to describe faith simply by saying Abraham did not fear and tremble; just saying that does not keep people up at night. Johannes, therefore, narrates four different scenarios in which Abraham does fear and tremble, each time placing Abraham in either the aesthetic or the universal realm. What this shows is that if God had asked an aesthetic person or ethical person to kill Isaac, the job would not have been done. For someone who has heard the story with the ending often, one might think that Abraham is doing it for the greater good...but he is not. 

A story of sacrificing a child for the greater good is the ancient Greek story of King Agamemnon: In order to defend Greece from Troy, Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter to the gods to ensure his fleet's arrival to Troy. Although Agamemnon had both aesthetic and ethical reasons to spare his daughter--aesthetic because he loves her and ethical because it is a father's duty to protect his child--he instead gives in to the greater ethical duty for a king to protect his people. This is the tragedy in this Greek tragedy. 

PC: Troy (2004 film)

But Abraham's story is not a tragedy--there is no conflict to save anyone. God commands Abraham to kill Isaac, and so Abraham takes his only son to be sacrificed. But "sacrifice" is only used because Abraham remained faithful. If someone else, such as Sarah, had known about Abraham's plot, it would have been considered murder, and he would never have been allowed on that mountain. Yet Abraham went and is celebrated. Johannes claims that Abraham is celebrated because he is one of the few people in human history to have remained in both the aesthetic and universal realms simultaneously...how?

Like Agamemnon, Abraham has the ethical duty of protecting his child. But he is commanded by God to kill his son, and, thus, he was fully willing to commit the deed. However, what makes him faithful is that he knew he would bring his son home. He walked for three days, fully trusting in God, knowing full well that he could not explain to neither Sarah nor Isaac about what it is he was about to do and why. He could only demonstrate it by raising the blade without hesitation. It was at that moment that he became a knight of faith. Thus, he became an example to his wife and son, his grandson, Israel, and, therefore, a whole nation.

So how does all of this relate to Finding Dory? Find out next time as I describe how some of the main characters fit perfectly into Kierkegaard's realms!

You're Not Me vs I'm Not You

Make America Great Again

This is the famous--or infamous--slogan for Donald Trump's campaign. But this slogan has been a favorite for GOP presidential candidates for as long as I've been out of diapers...at the very least. This begs the question: When exactly was America great? Or the better question: What exactly made America so great? (Before I continue, I'd like to disclaim that since the slogan has been used for at least as long as I've been alive, I do not claim that I've ever experienced or lived in a "great" America. I hope to at least attempt an answer at the latter question.) 

PC: IBTimes

One reason that I've heard is the absence of political correctness--or, more positively worded, "fearless speaking." People could speak and debate with one another using "offensive" terms--loosely used here--without the fear of offending their conversational partner. And I think that this lack of fear of offense was mainly due to a mutual understanding that each partner had of each other's unique life experiences, whether they were close friends, pen pals, or complete strangers. This is the kind of mutual understanding that comes from selfless thinking/acts that come from the recognition that everyone has unique experiences in life. This seems almost if not completely absent in our debates with other people, especially with strangers over the Internet. Specifically, part of the problem could be the rise of the Internet and the vast audience that it brings us in our debates, but I plan to focus more generically on two separate kinds of attitudes. People, when in any kind of conversation, need to recognize two distinct attitudes to have--"you're not me" and "I'm not you"--and the implications of both of these attitudes.

What is "You're Not Me?"

PC: toonclips.com

What exactly does it mean when someone says/thinks "you're not me?" I think that it is an attitude that somehow emphasizes one's own self experiences, especially as better or more significant than another person's, in order to elevate his/her own position in an argument. There are two common methods I could relay the "you're not me" message, the first being elevating myself and the second being belittling the other person.
An example of the first method: When the stereotypical working husband is busy watching football and his cliche housewife is doing all the cooking but needs the trash taken out, the husband will go on to complain (or explain, depending on your point of view) how difficult his day was; as a result, the husband has elevated his own experience over the wife's.
An example of the second: Anytime an Internet debate goes on, without exception, there will be that one guy (or gal) who brings up the words "ignorant" and/or "education/educated." In this popular case, one commenter assumes that those in the same thread are less educated in comparison, thus belittling them in an attempt to justify their (false?) expertise.

Why Does That Matter?

I personally see this attitude every day with the majority of people I encounter. This is normal: Everyone wants to feel special! And no, this isn't just exclusive to the Gen Y/Millennial kids; Baby Boomers/Gen X folks want to flaunt what they've worked for too. However, this attitude might be what's contributing to the death of our society. 

Essentially, it says "you are less than me." Obviously, breaking it down in this way, we can see the problems that this line of thinking brings. The problems that I want to focus on are our self experiences and the potential dialogue that it closes.

PC: jacksfilms

Firstly, saying "you're not me" is a negative comparison of our self experiences--it essentially says that one's experiences is better than another's. This is occasionally acceptable with people we know since we were actually part of their self experiences, but it's completely unacceptable with people we don't know, especially over the Internet because we can't just assume a whole life's story by looking at a profile picture or even part of a Facebook bio. Especially in debate/persuasion, this closes off any present dialogue as well as future. We see this all the time on the Internet: Once the name calling starts, there is no rational debate for the next 50 comments. 

Because of this attitude, NO ONE LISTENS to each other. We instead try to find everything wrong with the other person, or we only hear what we want just to refute any comment they make or elevate our own. And in an educational debate, as we've seen with this year's MTV-style presidential race, it doesn't work.

"I'm Not You"

The second attitude is "I'm not you." This attitude is a 2-part approach. Step 1 is Recognition: It's a recognition that the other person's self experiences are not our own, thus we can never fully understand where they're coming from. Step 2 is much more complicated: Listen. Often, we're so busy trying to think of our next rebuttal or ways to discredit others that we miss the whole argument.
So where do we see this? We see it in the humble, and we see it in the calm. We all love it when a person doesn't act like a know-it-all, and we seek counsel from those who can see the eye of the storm in the midst of our chaos.

It Matters

The effects of this attitude is clearly opposite from that of the first one. Mathematically, it says, "I'm less than or equal to you." Here, I don't mean "less than" as in "less than a human being." I just mean to acknowledge the more humble approach to this attitude. However, I want to emphasize the equality portion. Here, I mean that, though we recognize the difference in our experiences, no one person's is more special than another's.

PC: CBS News

This separates the good leaders from the bad. We like it when our bosses understand when we have bad days; we like it when our teachers realize our home life is different from our school life; we like it when our politicians connect with us. Why? Because it seems like they genuinely care! 

When someone appears to genuinely care about us, we have a desire to open up more. This opening up leads to more personal stories, which allows that person to know more about us. That knowledge, in turn, leads to conceptual understanding of our background. Better understanding brings about sympathy. And, with sympathy, comes mercy. And that just might be more of what the world needs.

Don't get me wrong...

...there's always a time and place to be a braggart: College/job applications, family reunions...heck, sometimes you need to remind your best friend that you worked your tail off to get into Wake Forest. But if we want to "make America great again," we need to cut back on arguing like 4-year-olds and being nitpicky trolls, and we need to start listening.

But hey, don't take it from me. Be FREE thinkers, everyone!

I apologize for how late this post was after my intro! Hopefully, being on summer break will give me time to publish a couple more frequent posts.

Dynamic Entry

Hello Interwebs!!

The name is Kevin Tran, and this is my first blog! I've been thinking about starting one for a long time, and for some reason I just never started. But, here I am with my intro to the first!

I'm sorry if this is really unorganized! As my intro, I'm thinking this is going to be more of a stream of conciousness post, but I promise future posts will be more organized!

Who I am

So, as I said, my name is Kevin, and I'm a 19-year-old student at Wake Forest University. In case you missed my bio on the front page:

That's me.

I play the trumpet for the marching band at Wake, so yes, undoubtedly, I am perfect (see picture above).
I'm also Asian (Vietnamese to be exact) and one of those "first generation" folk whose parents jumped on the boat to come to good ol' USofA from God knows where.

What I'm Blogging About

Speaking about God, I'm a Christian--Roman Catholic to be exact. And that's what I want to blog about: God. No no, I'm not one of those "Do you have a moment to speak about our Lord and Saviour" kind of guys...thank God....

But I do want to start a conversation--one that I feel like not very many people are having. We're taught from a young age that there are two topics that we should always avoid if we want to save a relationship: Politics and religion. And I really hate that because these two topics are my favorite things to talk about ever!! They really help me get to know a person and how they actually think; they help me figure out just how smart--or really, intellectual--a person is. 

I mean, I like talking about the latest Marvel movies (can't wait for the Infinity Wars arc!!) and football (gotta pull for those Panthers) and those other fun things just as much as the next guy, but I always love a good ol' fashioned conversation on something controversial.

So my goal is this: To educate those who have no idea why Christians believe what they believe in a way that is both philosophical and simple, but also to throw the viewpoints I have (which I think are some that tend to be overlooked) in some political issues, and to have intellectual conversations in both of these areas. 

I would love it if you guys would comment on my more serious posts and get the conversations flowing! It should be at the bottom....somewhere down there.

Also feel free to comment on this one to ask me to talk about some kind of topic. I'm open to anything from "Why Catholics do weird things" to "What do you think about the new Battlefront 3" and "What do you think about Kim Davis" to "Why don't you like Scarowinds". I'd love to talk about anything you all want to talk about!

"Faith, Reason, and Everything Else" is my spelled out form of the acronym FREE. So be FREE thinkers, everybody! 

Until next time, Interwebbers!!!!