19th century philosophy

Author: SPENCER GRYNWAJC

Schopenhauer’s Knowing of “The Idea” and Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer”

Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer”, along with the mesmerizing cinematography and music (by Ludwig Göransson) is a pinnacle example of the individual being immersed into the perceiving of the object and knowing “The Idea” without any attentivity to one’s environment and surroundings.

Schopenhauer explains in The World as Will and Representation that when the individual comes to knowing the Idea, he “…gives the whole power of his mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree, a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be…” (WWR, v1, bk3, §§34) With this particular scene in “Oppenheimer”, Christopher Nolan purposely structures and fills it with breathtaking landscapes, microscopic particles, and instances of artistic contemplation as a means of immersing the audience into the film. The orchestral music contributing to this intention, as it rises in tempo and intensity (as if it gets faster and stronger to drag the viewer deeper into this contemplative mentality). Another important factor to take away from this clip is the person in it. You’ll see that throughout the clip, the individual looks up to admire the architecture, stares to admire the painting, and experiences moments of captivation. The very mentality that Schopenhauer explains should and will be when knowing “the Idea”, is exactly what the person is experiencing in this scene. Christopher Nolan is therefore communicating his intention, which is to say that one is meant to be completely lost in the components that make up this masterpiece.

My personal experience when having seen this film, particularly this scene, was memorable. The emotional soundtrack and beautiful picture work were such crucial factors in me being completely engulfed in the film. I had lost track of time, my environment…even forgot my father was sitting next to me at times. As Schopenhauer eloquently puts it, “…so that it is as if the object alone were there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception, but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture…” (WWR, v1, bk3, §§34) During the duration of this scene, I was merely a reflection of my perception. My sole focus and mind were in perfect unison with this transcendent unification between film and music. The experience was so unlike anything I’d ever experienced before, that I ended seeing it two additional times.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=841pjQpB_3w&ab_channel=Cinemain4k


Hegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic in HBO’s “Game of Thrones”

In Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”, in immediate self-consciousness, the “I” is the absolute object. It is “absolute mediation” and has self-sufficiency “as its essential moment”. It is through the “dissolution of that simple unity” that brings forth the experience by which we arrive at the two constructing shapes of consciousness. In this clip from HBO’s series “Game of Thrones”, we witness King Joffrey speak of his desire to server his future wife, Sansa, her father’s head at a wedding feast. When met with criticism, Joffrey validates his authority and makes threats. This is met by defense of the King by others who fear the reprisals if they were not to condemn any statements made against Joffrey’s desires. This clip does a great job at conveying Hegel’s dialectic.

To begin, King Joffrey embodies the master, whose consciousness existing “for-itself”. He mediates this by being completely dependent on another consciousness, in order to present himself as the “immediate relation of being-for-itself”. We see this when Joffrey stating “everyone is mine to torment”. Furthermore making threats to his uncle when faced with retaliation. As Hegel had explained, when it comes to the consciousness of the master, it is one of “mediation”, meaning that the consciousness is through itself only through its complete reliance on another whose self-sufficiency is conveyed by “thing hood”. The servile consciousness is subordinate to that of the master, in a manner that is negative and “sublates the thing”. The master takes advantage of this and uses the servant in order to consume it, rather than work for it.
In the case of the servant, the anxiety brought about its entire essence is what allows for “self-sufficient consciousness existing for itself” but only as though servitude. We can see this in the clip by the manner in which the “Grand Maester” (The old bearded man) reacts to the uncle’s statement. He goes on to condemn his actions and quickly sides with King Joffrey. This speaking out occurred AFTER the king made threats. This clearly brought about fear to the Grand Maester, leading him to express his thoughts in defense. It is through work (submission/submitting to the desires of the master) by which the servant comes to “an intuition of self-sufficient being as its own self”. Through the activity of the servant and the negative meaning of fear, he becomes an existent being who possesses pure being-for-itself.

I felt as though this clip was great in conveying the clear contrast in the consciousness of the master and servant. King Joffrey’s exhibiting of the traits in which he relies on his subordinates, embodies Hegel’s notion by which the master mediates through another consciousness; thinghood. We further see the fear playing a role in the Grand Maester’s submission to, and working to, fulfill the desires of King Joffrey and it is by this means he attains self-sufficient consciousness.