Film

Evaluation

I think in many respects the film produced did fulfil our aims, but also in some ways it didn’t. First and foremost the end result was a short film instead of a clip from a full length film as we had initially intended. We decided it would be better as a short film during the editing process.

Stylistically, I don’t think our aims were fully reached. However, I do think that the influence of The Third Man and film noir is pretty clear in the content of the film. The camera shots in particular a film noir feel. There is use of Dutch angles on the steps; we have included several shots of faces from statues in particular to give a sense of paranoia and of being watched, which I thought was fairly effective. The setting was in keeping with our aims too, we filmed a lot of architecture in the dockside area of Bristol city centre as establishing shots. It’s a very urban and industrial in accordance with the dark themes of film noir. We used a few silhouettes and shadows as intended; they helped to enhance the dark mood. A few of the shots in particular were intended to give a sense of paranoia; especially the large reflective globe in Millennium Square where you can see the two men running across the courtyard. Seeing the two characters from a reflection gives a sense that someone is watching them and a feeling of voyeurism. We also used a lot of film noir iconography such as the shot of the moon, of the faces, the gun and the old architecture.

However, I don’t feel that the editing was appropriate for the sort of style we were aiming for. The 80’s pop music used wasn’t suitable for film noir, but we intended to modernise the film so to attract a new and younger audience. The music did suite the adrenaline of the chase but I felt that the editing was too centred around the music. The music should act as an accompaniment to the film, but this film felt more like a music video than a film as a lot of the shots were edited in rhythm with the music. The editing was also too repetitive at times and very experimental. Several shots were repeated over and over often on purpose and at times it looked awkward, such as in the part where I come out from behind the tree with a gun. I felt the editing was influenced more by the French new wave than film noir and this Godard influence wasn’t altogether appropriate. There was use of jump cuts and the close up of the gun at the beginning reminded me very much of the scene in Breathless where Michel shoots a cop.

I had minimal influence during the editing process, beyond giving some input, but not enough to have an influence that would affect the final outcome. My creative influence was exerted in the actual filming process; I chose several locations and shots. I also gave some input in the early stages of idea development being a fan of The Third Man and film noir.

I think that even though the film fails to fully fulfil our stylistic aims, it still appeals to our target audience. I think that because of some of the experimental editing it would appeal even more to an independent and art house market though. The use of modern architecture, such as the large reflective globe, appeals to the younger trendy audience. Also the fast editing and interesting camera angles (such as the one which looks at one character’s face from below as he runs) would also appeal to this kind of audience. The circular narrative is a unique and interesting aspect to the film.

I was pleased with the final result of this film project, but I think that better editing and choice of music would have made a big difference to the end result.


Aims and Rationale

The aim of this film project is to create a short clip from a film based on film noir. It will be mainly influenced by The Third Man and other film noirs. The scene we plan to shoot is a chase scene, influenced by the famous chase in The Third Man.
The film is intended for audiences with some, however limited, knowledge and appreciation of film, and particularly film noir. They should also have an appreciation for the visual styles and the aesthetics of film, so we will try to make our film aesthetically pleasing.

Whilst the film is influenced by The Third Man, we aim to incorporate some modern stylistic features so that the film will appeal to a younger more modern audience. The film should appeal to both genders but more to males as it is a crime themed film. The audience intended will probably have an interest in independent and art house cinema; however the film should also appeal to a wider audience. I think that the 2005 film Brick is a good example of a neo-noir film that appeals to independent and art house cinema goers but also to a wider audience.

In keeping with our film noir influences we intend to incorporate several of the stylistic features associated with this genre and used in our focus film The Third Man. For example we could use Dutch angles to give an uneasy feeling; we will also use lots of shadows and silhouettes to create a sense of darkness and enigma. In The Third Man there are lots of close up shots of people’s faces, which gives a sense of paranoia. This is something we can consider including in our film and use of key lighting to give it more prominence. The film clip will be filmed in an urban setting in the inner city. We will include a few shots of old architecture but also some modern as an interesting contrast. We will try and use architecture to create a claustrophobic and paranoid atmosphere in the film.

In our film we intend to incorporate common themes in film noir such as paranoia, corruption, betrayal and crime. The short clip will begin with a gun to a man’s head and then a chase will ensue. We will use the ‘in media res’ technique and take the audience right into the action, gripping them from the start and also creating an enigma as the audience wonders what is happening.

As the film will be set in modern times we don’t want to make it look too old fashioned so we will incorporate modern elements, such as modern architecture, fast editing, perhaps some modern music and mise en scene. These more modern elements will appeal to younger audiences.

History

How far had war changed, progressed or worsened by WW1

World War I was like no other war ever fought in modern warfare, it was ‘the war to end all wars’. The war began July of 1914, 12 years after the end of the Boer War. The first of its kind, WW1 was fought on a massive scale between numerous different countries. Essentially it was fought between two sides; the allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Russia and USA) and the central powers (Germany, Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire).
World War 1 was fought like no other war, on a much larger scale and using different tactics. War had changed since the Crimean and Boer war, tactics used had changed, the conditions had changed, the role of people at home and of politicians had changed but perhaps most importantly the technology had changed and this affected everything.

The 20th Century was the age of new technology. Discoveries were being made that would change the way we live and the way we fought wars. Word War 1 saw the use of much faster and more powerful weaponry, compared to that used in the Crimean and Boer war. For the first time machine guns could be operated by one man and this had a direct effect on the types of tactics used, it put an end to company sized waves of attack. The machine gun was important in World War 1 as it caused a lot of damage to the enemy at a faster rate. New technology made defense much easier and attack much harder. But the introduction of high explosive shells, much more effective than their 19th century counterparts, made it easier to devastate the other side.
At the beginning of World War 1 Germany had the most advanced chemical industry in the world, using this technology they developed weapons which would devastate the other side. The use of chemical warfare was something new and unique to the First World War. It had little effect on the over all outcome of the war, especially after the British developed gas masks to protect themselves, but it did cause a huge amount of suffering, over 1,000,000 casualties. The Germans also developed new technology such as the flamethrower. This had little effect on the battle field, but it did install fear into the British.
Mass production played an important role in the First World War. The American Civil War saw the first use of mass production as an important tactic, but it played an even more important role in the First World War. All sides applied all the force they could to mass produce a large amount of weaponry and ammunition. Munitions factories and their workers, mostly women, played a vital role in producing the weaponry and ammunition needed to beat the other side. In both the Crimean and Boer war, Britain’s industrial strength played a part in their success over the enemy. However, these wars did not rely on mass production. In fact there were often shortages of vital things such as bandages in the Crimean war.
Britain’s Navy also played an important role in the First World War. It was the most powerful navy at the time. The British had many more ships than the Germans, and they were faster and more powerful. The navy wasn’t used as much as was anticipated, however it played a more important role than in both the Crimean and Boer war. In the end it helped to defeat Germany by blockading her sea ports, meaning that little food got through to Germany and so many of the people suffered causing low morale.
A lot of new technology was used during World War 1, but none of it all too effectively. As mentioned earlier, WW1 saw the first use of flame throwers and chemical warfare. But it also saw the use of new vehicle technology such as the tank. The tank proved ineffective because of its tendency to break down, but its use did give both sides a chance to develop it and it would soon prove useful in World War 2. Use of horses was abandoned in the First World War, they were used in the early stages but as most of the war was fought in trenches they were effectively useless. Transportation often involved trains which were able to carry thousands of men, weaponry, ammunitions and other supplies.
Other new technology involved the use of aircraft. The role of aircraft was small compared to that of World War 2, but it did play an important role in gaining information about the enemy lines much as observation balloons were used in the Crimean war. Aircraft could also be used to bomb the enemy.
World War 1 also saw the first use of submarines as a serious weapon of war. They were used by both the German and British to attack merchant ships. Sonar devices and anti-submarine weapons were developed which were used to protect these merchant ships from attack.

Technology did have a large effect on the tactics used during the First World War, much more emphasis was put on a war of attrition. Generals believed that the key to success was to bleed the enemy dry either through their resources or through their men. The battle of Verdun in particular proved to be this sort of a battle, where the Germans hoped to win by killing as many men as possible until they were defeated. Many battles were fought in this way, such as the battle of Somme. Generals hoped that the enemy would give up after days, weeks and months of attack.
But even with the large influence of technology, tactics still remained poor and old fashioned. Battles fought were an ineffectual mix of 20th century technology and 19th century tactics which caused a lot of unnecessary death. Generals failed to adapt their tactics to the technology they had available.
The First World War wasn’t the first to use trench warfare, but it was certainly the most notable for its usage. It was the first and possibly only war to use trench warfare as a major tactic. Conditions in the trenches were terrible and it was hard for either side to make any major advances. The role of attack was made especially difficult in trench warfare, particularly more difficult than defense. Attack involved sending thousands of troops across no mans land, which was littered with mines and barbed wire, to attack the enemy lines. But they often had little effect as they were shot to bits by German artillery. Most often men were ordered to walk across no mans land and not run, which made them even easier targets for the Germans. If any of them did make it across there was little they could do against the trench full of German enemies. But generals thought that the war could be won by numbers and that sending millions of men to their deaths was the best tactic. Similar sorts of tactics were used in the Crimean war, soldiers weren’t given much responsibility or independence until World War 2. Until then they followed strict orders and worked in large groups rather than smaller adaptable units.
The Germans played a largely defensive role in the war, however in the first stages of the war the Germans carried out a planned attack on the allies called the Schlieffen Plan. This involved attacking France from the north in a south-westerly direction, where they were not expecting, and destroying the French army forcing France to defeat. The plan failed due to resistance by the Belgians and Britain’s entry into the war, this delayed Germany and gave France time to send more troops to fight the Germans.

Much of the blame for the poor tactics used is placed on the generals who led the war. The role of general’s hadn’t changed much since the Crimean and Boer war. They still administered commands from a safe distance, from behind the line of action. By World War 1 the army was a slightly less class based organisation but generals were still usually highly educated men from the upper classes of society. It was still very difficult for men to rise through the ranks from private to general.
The term “lions led by donkeys” is a term used to describe the leadership during World War 1 but it was coined during the Crimean war. In both wars decisions were made by generals from a distance and little trust was place in the officers. In the generals defense it could be said that it is better for them to distance themselves from the action. From a distance they can get a better perspective of the battle, they can see the bigger picture. It can also be argued that the generals couldn’t have gotten too attached to their men otherwise they would find it too difficult to do what they must do and send them to their deaths. Also, they had good reason not to trust the officers. Officers were not highly trained and many of them were trained too quickly because they were needed fast to fill the gap caused by large causalities.
But the generals made many mistakes, most often because of their inability to adapt to the situation. They were stubborn and often stuck to a plan no matter what. The Battle of Somme was fought for 4 months using the same tactics. Thousands of men were sent over the top to their deaths in repeated attacks. When problems surfaced the generals failed to adapt, for example when it was discovered that 1/3 shells didn’t explode nothing was done. And there were no alternative plans for when the main plan failed.
Another problem was the poor communication. To be fair to the general’s communication technology was poor and made communication hard. But generals often failed to agree amongst themselves. General Haig and General Rawlinson had conflicting views on how the Battle of Somme should be fought. Haig wanted to go for an all or nothing smash through, but Rawlinson wanted to be more cautious. Haig had very bad people skills and he couldn’t take criticism well. He was often unrealistically optimistic and stubborn.



Leadership – Lions led by donkeys, terrible mistakes, understandable mistakes
Conditions – trench conditions, like public school, gas attacks, atrocities
Home Front – Women, civilian deaths, reaction, economy

Philosophy Essay: Describe and illustrate two reasons for holding mental states are brain states.

The Mind-Brain Identity theory is a materialist philosophy of mind. It argues that mental states are brain states, that all thoughts and feelings can be reduced to neurological activity in the brain. Advocates of this theory distinguish it into three sub-theories; type-type, type-token and token-token identity. A type is an instance of being and a token is a particular instance of type, for example a human being is a type of animal and a particular human being is a token of this type. Proponents of the type-type identity theory argue that certain thoughts (mental states) correspond precisely with certain brain activity (brain states). The type-token identity theory also argues that certain brain states are responsible for certain mental states, but only in the individual. So one person’s mental state does not have to correspond precisely with the same brain state as another person. Finally there is the token-token identity theory, which postulates the idea that each individual thought corresponds only with the individual brain state. The Mind-Brain Identity theory suffers many problems, but there are two main reasons why so many philosophers consider it a valid assertion.
One such reason is the development of technology which now allows us to monitor the brains activities. The MBI theory pre-dates this technology to as far back as the 17th century, but it was not until the arrival of such technology that people began to regard the MBI theory as a philosophically sound idea. It has been evidently clear since the beginning of mankind’s scientific exploration of the body, that any damage inflicted on the brain effects the mind. But up until the mid 20th century, scientists were not able to explain how exactly the brain functioned and how the mind was related to its activity. Now we have a better understanding of the brain than ever before, using technology such as MRI scans and functional magnetic resonance imaging, we can look inside the brain and observe how mental phenomenon correspond with brain activity. Through a series of tests using this technology, scientists are able to see how certain actions and thoughts correspond with certain neurological activity in the brain. For example, they can ask a subject to lift her arm and observe neurological activity in the same area of the brain each time she is asked to lift her arm. This clearly suggests a link between mental states and brain states and although our knowledge of the brain and how it works is very limited, these discoveries give the materialist a firm ground to stand on.
Another reason to suppose that mental states are brain states is that it provides a simplified solution to the problem of mind. The MBI theory strips the mind down to its bare essentials. It argues that there is the object, the sensual input of the object and the neural activity of the brain. All can be explained in terms of observable physical phenomenon. There is an apple, light is reflected from the apple and enters my eyes and my brain processes this information. The thought of the apple itself is the brain processing the information. There is no need to elaborate as there is with dualism, functionalism or behaviourism; the mind and brain are identical. The MBI theory removes the subjective experience of thought, thought is simply a physical mechanism of the brain. Many would disagree with this, arguing that it is self evident that we are subjectively experiencing thought. It seems so apparent that we experience our thoughts, often in a sort of inner monologue, but by removing the subjective experience of thought the MBI theory simplifies the problem of mind. By bringing the mind to a purely physical level we are able to easily explain mental causation and look at the mind in relevance to the physical world without the need for frivolous explanations required by some other theories of the mind.

Democrats save the day.

Marvelous news, the less conservative group of lying scum is taking charge of old Capitol Hill. Things will be different now, starvation and suffering will end, AIDS will disappear, a cure for cancer will be found, North Korea will disarm itself and the earth's atmosphere will miraculously revert to a healthy pre-industrial era. Hurrah for the Democrats!
Don't kid yourselves, this is America we are talking about. Don't get me wrong, any move to the left is a good one... but it really means very little, even if the democrats managed to maintain power, dumb yanks will soon forget about the war in Iraq and all that its costing them and revert back to conservative republican bullshit.
Humankind seems to have a propensity towards the illogical crap. People don't vote based on logic, they just vote for which ever one is promising to attend to their fears and angers. Not enough people are getting really angry about global warming to vote based on it, "Gay marriage?!? Not on my watch." There's a vote for which ever party doesnt agree with gay marriage. You wouldve thought people would be angry about the personal things, which effect them. But no, apparently the idea of homosexual people, who they have never met, who they will probably never meet and who they believe are sinners, getting married is something to get worked up about... rather than the state of our planet or that fact that the worlds most powerful country is run by a complete idiot.
Thats the problem with democracy, people are selfish ignorant bastards. Its not so much the selfish aspect, everyone is selfish, as it is the ignorance. The ignorance of religion, the ignorance of morality, the ignorance of what really matters.

Standing against poverty, the hypocrisy.

Apparently I took part in a world record attempt today. No amazing feat was performed; I simply stood up alongside my fellow philosophy students in what was supposed to be a worldwide stand against poverty. That minute silence of standing smelt so badly of hypocrisy. We, the capitalist nation, were standing against the very fuel of our lifestyle. For without poverty, without the disadvantaged, the poor and working class, we would have none of this which we hold so little value in. I can see the sentiment; people want to put an end to suffering. But the ignorance of the masses permits them to realise that without this suffering capitalism would not work and it is capitalism that they rely on and in most cases support.
Being anti-capitalist, I stood against poverty as I stand against capitalism and the struggle for power. And I was not alone, as I observed the most fitting t-shirt "Make Capitalism History". But the majority knew not of the hypocrisy. Stand against poverty, stand against capitalism.

Anarchy: What is justice?

Retribution, revenge, punishment, righteousness, law. What is justice? The term itself is ambiguous, it could refer to the system of law we currently adopt or the righteous actions of an individual, but the meaning most would equate with the word justice is a sense of retribution. When justice has been served the people are happy. I think we take the concept of justice for granted, when you consider the actual purpose of justice you will discover that it is little more than an appeaser to the public.
Our whole law system is based upon the concept of justice (among other things), when wrong is done we feel the need to punish who ever is responsible. But nobody actually considers why we feel this need; it’s just an innate feeling. Perhaps it is born out of social conventions or perhaps it is innate in the mind, but that is besides the point and an issue for sociologists and psychologists to discuss. The point is, there is no logical reasoning behind justice. I suppose you could argue that it serves an evolutionary purpose, that we instinctively feel the urge to punish those who do evil to prevent them from doing so. And you could argue that without justice we would just allow everyone to do evil because we wouldn’t care. This simply isn’t true; I think we would do better without this sense of justice that breeds hate of the worst kind. We would still be aware of the dangers people present and we would be able to prevent them without this sense of justice. Justice only leads to hatred and the unnecessary ending of life.
Think about the reasons we prison people, to some extent it does deter people from criminal acts but not enough to act as an excuse and their punishment does not in anyway reform them. Rehabilitation is usually a separate process and one that we should value as important, but I will discuss that later. The exclusive reason we prison people, why we have such crowded prisons, is so that the victims and all those effected by this persons actions can feel just a little bit better now that justice has been done. It seems ridiculous to me, to take away a mans liberties, to take away his life just to appease the public. Punishing this man won’t heal the scars that he caused, the victims might tell you that "his punishment has helped me get through the pain" but deep down inside they are still suffering from what he did. I can see you all now jumping out of your seats "but that’s why he deserves to be punished, because he caused them suffering!!" And there it is again, justice. No practicality at all. Taking justice as a kind of instinctive reaction and emotion, there are many emotions such as justice that are not practical. Anger, depression, frustration, impatience, we let these emotions pass without little effect and if they do begin to have an effect (as does anger) we rely on self control or those around us to prevent these emotions from getting out of control. This is how we should treat justice, but instead we base our whole society around the concept, around this useless instinct.
For those of you who are still unconvinced, who believe that justice does serve some kind of purpose, consider this; it doesn’t matter who is punished for which crime, just as long as those seeking justice believe that the man being punished is the one responsible. It does not actually matter whether or not he committed the crime, if justice served any other purpose other than to appease the public, then it would greatly matter whether or not this man had committed the crime. But it does not.
If you are still not satisfied, you have two choices;

1) Call on God, it’s a weak cop out but convenient if you already believe in the impossible being, although I personally wouldn’t really consider this a choice at all given Gods impossibility.
2) Convince me why appeasing the public, with justice, is important and practical.

I can understand why justice might help the victims and those effected, but I see no sense in taking away a mans freedom just for this one reason, and there aren’t many other reasons that can’t be supplemented by rehabilitation.
I suspect some of you have jumped to conclusions and assumed that I am without morals, that because I don’t believe a murderer or rapist should be locked away for years just for the sake of justice, I believe that murder and rape are neither good nor evil. WRONG. Justice is based on the effects of actions, if someone’s actions have a negative effect on someone else, justice is sought after. Morals are also based on effects of actions, incest is immoral because it causes psychological damage and damaged children (of pregnancy occurs). Would incest be immoral if no damage (physical, psychological or otherwise) was caused? It’s debatable, but I think not. It’s that it is damaging that makes it immoral; these negative effects are what make’s things immoral. Justice has no effect on morals, it is related to morals in that it is based on them, but morals are not dependent on justice.
So all said and done, there is no practical use for justice other than to appease the victim which, as I have argued, is not justification enough for the severe punishment of any individual. I suspect many of you will be inclined to disagree based on this innate feeling that when people do wrong they must be punished. I’m human too, I have that innate feeling and I sometimes act on it to get revenge. But its just an emotion, emotions play tricks on us, they are not a favourable thing to base our society on. We must prevent this emotion from being carried out in favour of taking a more practical route to dealing with criminals. We help them, rehabilitate them and do whatever we can so that they no longer pose a threat to society. Justice serves no purpose in this process.

Philosophy Essay: Assess how, if mind and body are taken to be different substances, mental events can cause physical events.

Earlier I looked at two problems facing substance dualism, a philosophy which purports the existence of two separate substances, mind and body. In this essay I will be focusing on the problem faced by substance dualism concerning the mind-body connection.
Descartes clearly argues for the existence of two separate substances, he explains in some detail the nature of the mind and body. He argues that there are three distinct differences between mind and body; mind is indivisible, it cannot be divided, whilst the body clearly can. The mind is un-extended, it does not assume any spatial existence, where as the body clearly does. Finally, the mind is a thinking substance whilst the body is not. Of course these are disputable differences that most materialists would have a problem with. But in context with the dualist concept of mind, these differences are agreeable.
Descartes arrived at his dualist beliefs through his search for the ultimate truth. As his most famous cogito argument goes: I think therefore I am. Because my senses often deceive me I can doubt that my body exists, but I cannot doubt that my mind exists since doubting is an action of the mind. From this Descartes concludes that the mind is all we can know exists, but his believes do not lead to idealism, he still supposes that the body exists but that mind and body must be two separate substances.
The most obvious question, posed on the lips of every sceptical recipient of Descartes’ theory, is; how exactly can the mental can have an effect on the physical and vice versa? Descartes replies in dismissal:

“These questions presuppose amongst other things an explanation of the union between the soul and the body, which I have not yet dealt with at all. But I will say, for your benefit at least, that the whole problem contained in such questions arises simply from a supposition that is false and cannot in any way be proved, namely that, if the soul and the body are two substances whose nature is different, this prevents them from being able to act on each other.”

He first dismisses this criticism as one that presupposes that there is indeed a direct connection between the mind and body and that it would be such an extraordinary event for one substance to affect a completely different one. In the study of science we are constantly dividing things in to different substances, energy and matter for example, and we see that each has an effect on the other. So why, Descartes argues, is it so hard for us to comprehend that mind and body (two separate substances) can so easily effect one another. But I am of the belief that there is only one true substance and that the diversity that we see around is a result of different arrangements of this one single substance, this substance could simply be energy and most scientists do believe that everything consists of energy. I don’t believe the union of the mind and body would be a particularly extraordinary event, if only there was an observable link. But clearly there isn’t so we cannot assume that there is a link, Descartes is wrong in doing so.
However, he did argue further from his principal of causation that the less real cannot cause the existence of something more real. Something more real cannot come from something less real. Infinite substances are the most real since they do not require anything more real to create them, followed by finite substances and then modes, which are the “particular appearance, form, or manner in which an underlying substance, or a permanent aspect or attribute of it, is manifested.” Descartes argued that the mind and body are both finite substances that cause modes to occur in other finite substances therefore no contact or motion is required for a connection. But it is unclear what he means by the terms infinite substance, finite substance and mode. He proposes God as an example of an infinite substance, but in my opinion there is only one substance and it is infinite. There is no such thing as a finite substance; things as we perceive them are always changing, coming in and out of existence. But substance never comes in our out of existence, it moves but it always exists.

Descartes eventually conceded to the idea that there must be a solid connection between mind and body; he attempted to explain this connection with a most unsatisfactory explanation of a causally interactive mechanism. He contended that ‘animal spirits’ received physical information and then stimulate the pineal gland in the brain (it being the most central component of the brain, neither left nor right) which then causes our thoughts, this is a two way interaction as the animal spirits are effected by the pineal gland. A most sophisticated explanation of the nervous system for Descartes’ time, but the problem with this theory, putting aside the ridiculous image of animal spirits stimulating the pineal gland, is that it unnecessarily reduces the mind-body connection without actually explaining it or how it happens. To be fair to Descartes, he probably did not literally mean animal spirits, these could represent something physical in the body (if not then we are faced with the very confusing preposition that these non-physical things, animal spirits, are effecting the physical to effect the mental which then effects these non-physical things which in turn effects the physical). If he did mean that they were physical, we are still faced with the same problem. He does not give any sort of explanation as to how this mind-body connection occurs. He has to resort to his earlier unfavourable argument, that such a connection is possible.
Considering only Descartes’ theories, it appears to me that there is no explanation for the mind-body connection and that there may not even be a connection. Successors to Descartes, Malbranche and Leibniz, have both formulated theories in reply to the criticism of the mind-body connection. Both attempt to misspell the belief that the mind and body are connected, but instead supply explanations as to how they co-exist.
Malbranche supposed that God represented the connection, that he caused the thought and then the action. Despite the obvious flaw that comes with any argument supported by the unstable belief in God, Malbranche’s occasionalism means that we have no free will, it also acts as an example of Gods divine intervention and poses the question “why does he allow evil?” Occasionalism ultimately supposes that we are all just an extension of God that we are God and God is us. A theory that relies on the existence of God and yet in doing so refutes it is one not to be considered valid in any way.
Leibniz argued that the body and mind were parallel, like two watches set at the same time running parallel. The actions of the mind and body are not related besides the fact that they appear to happen at the same time. Leibniz’s parallelism also relies on God, who he supposes was the one who as it were set the watches, in other words coordinated the mind and actions as to be parallel. But of course, as of occasionalism, parallelism relies on God and yet refutes his existence by denying free will. Both theories have little validity.
As for Descartes followers, they are still faced with explaining the connection between mind and body if they are to persuade anyone that they are indeed two separate substances.

Marked Grade: A

The impossible God, a slave to logic and morality.

There are a 101 reasons why the very concept of a Christian God is impossible. There is a mere chance that some sort of God like creature exists, but firstly we have no proof and secondly it would not be perfect, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent or any of the other qualities we give God. Im sure in context with our own miniscule minds it would seem perfect, omniscient and omnipotent but realisticaly such concepts cannot exist outside of the mind.
I want to focus on one specific impossibility of God, that he is indeed a slave of logic. Would this all powerful God be able to change how logic works? Would he be able to decide that 2+2=5 and not 4? I dont think theists quite consider the implications of an all powerful creator. Omnipotence allows the ability to change ANYTHING and yet most of us would agree that that would be quite a ludicrous thing to happen and if you dont feel this way consider that an omnipotent being could change the whole way logic works, for the better and yet he doesnt. He could make pain good, hate good, he could make it so that hypocrasy was a celebrated virtue. And talking of virtues that brings me to another issue, why can God not change what is good and evil? It seems to me that what is good and evil simply is and that God had no choice in what was or was not. Can we say that God decided what was and wasnt evil? What did he base these morals on? If God is able to create his own morals then I dont see why we cant create our own, therefore the theist claim that we need religion to base our morals on is clearly false. But obviously God cannot just create morals out of nowhere, we base our morals on the positive or negative effects of actions. We choose not to murder because murdering would have a bad effect on us and society. Logic and the nature of everything and its existence is determining what is good and what is bad and God obviously cannot change this logic, otherwise he would have... for the better.
There is of course an easy cop out: God is beyond our own minds. There is a greater reason for all that he does, we just dont understand it. Well what use is that? Why does he give us these logical reasoning minds and then damn us to eternal suffering when we actually use them? Why? Because this 'impossible being' does not exist.