Editor’s Notes: The Blue Pill Dilemma

Editor’s Notes: The Blue Pill Dilemma

Common sense does not seem to have made up its mind as to whether truth is worth pursuing in every instance. The common saying, “Ignorance is bliss,” was to my understanding born in irony, but its ironic edge seems to have grown duller lately. Nor is philosophy of one mind about it: Plato brilliantly sets up the tragic contrast between the one enlightened cave dweller and his still-chained, ignorant folks, but he seems to propose in earnest the utilitarian advantages of a few “noble lies” for the greater good of his ideal republic.

Nor is science fiction, for that matter: on one hand the great dystopian epics extol the bravery of the hero that dares to seek beyond the culturally- and governmentally-endorsed falsehoods, while on the other, tales of catastrophic ruin raise continuous objections against the hubris of scientific projects that risk raining destruction upon humanity.

This tension is so frequently explored in science fiction stories that it can be found already in the source narratives of many contributions in previous volumes: as blissful ignorance in Greg Egan’s “Reasons to Be Cheerful” (Taylor W. Cyr), political myths in Plato and Asimov (Nathaniel Goldberg), or questioning the hubris of scientists in Frankenstein (Jerold J. Abrams), Doctor Moreau (Dan Dal Monte) and the Westworld movies (Stefano Bigliardi). It was hardly a surprise that, as we asked our contributors and readers to vote for the theme our third volume should explore, “Is Knowledge a Blessing or a Curse?” came up first.

And so we begin our exploration with two articles. Christopher Ketcham (University of Houston Downtown) has tackled one of the most richly textured examinations of the complex dangers of scientific progress that SF has produced, Walter M. Miller, Jr.’s A Canticle for Leibowitz, the centuries-long saga of a small abbey were scientific knowledge has been lovingly preserved from ravaging post-apocalyptic hordes. Ketcham’s “Towards a Biological Explanation of Sin in Walter M. Miller, Jr.’s A Canticle for Leibowitz” examines the possibility of applying the rising science of epigenetics to an analysis of original sin—the underlying explanation, in Miller’s story, of the recurrent cycles of massive self-destruction. Ketcham’s article marks our first directly theological entry, showing that SF can also provide a rich source of reflection for what has been since its origins a sister discipline to Philosophy.

The temptation of blissful ignorance has rarely been explored in such poignant terms as in Charlie Kaufman’s 2004 movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, depicting the dramatic, partly self-inflicted struggle of an everyday man who has requested, following a painful breakup, the targeted erasure of the painful memories of this past love affair, and too late discovering how those experiences have shaped the person he has become. Giorgina Paiella’s (UC Santa Barbara) “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Memory Erasure, and the Problem of Personal Identity” carefully examines the implications that such a possibility presents to competing views of personal identity and personal continuity, and how such richly crafted SF narratives can raise questions of deep interest to a wide variety of interdisciplinary studies on memory, personality and selfhood.

“Don’t look for it, Taylor,” tells Dr. Zaius to Charlton Heston’s character close to the end of the original Planet of the Apes. “You may not like what you find.” And to the scientists who ask him “Why must knowledge stand still? What about the future?” the wise orangutan replies “I may just have saved it for you,” before ordering the destruction of a cave with invaluable archaeological material. This story and its many sequels are brimming with foundational myths and noble lies, and so it is very fortunate that we can also include in this volume Stefano Bigliardi’s (Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco) thoughtful review of Planet of the Apes and Philosophy: Great Apes Think Alike (Open Court).

And there is more to come. For now, enjoy, and thank you for reading!

aDDENDUM

As the year went by, Volume 3 became significantly populated, and so this addendum is necessary—as much as introducing these articles can be called “necessary”; the wise reader may opt to just jump into the articles themselves.

Continuing with our Yearly Theme, “Is Knowledge a Blessing or a Curse?” Thomas Vinci examines, in “Solving the Contact Paradox: Rational Belief in the Teeth of the Evidence,” the paradoxical situation in which Ellie, the protagonist of Contact, finds herself. After the costly and controversial experimental capsule launches, Ellie encounters a being claiming to be from an advanced civilization but externally looking like her father, who sends her back after a short conversation. When Ellie returns to Earth (if this is what has happened), she finds that no time has passed, and she is in possession of no empirical evidence from her travels. Unlike in the original novel, the problem is compounded by the fact that Ellie has traveled alone, with no companions to share experiences. Is Ellie’s belief in the reality of her encounter with an alien species “rational,” and if so, what does this say about Evidentialism—the view that rational belief should be proportioned to one’s evidence? And about belief in God?

Can Koparan takes up another important epistemological quandary, that of the relationship between language, thought and reality, in this case focusing on the importance of language in political resistance. In “Subversion and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in Contemporary Science Fiction,” Koparan examines how resistance can be enacted in various forms of language-construction, in not one but three important works of science fiction (Suzette Haden Elgin’s Native Tongue, 1984, Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash 1992, and China Miéville’s 2011 Embassytown). It is an article bound to make one’s reading list even longer.

This volume’s General Articles section continues exploring the philosophy of the extremely influential Ursula K. Le Guin, with Ethan Mills’s “Ursula K. Le Guin Science Fictional Feminist Daoism.” Mills’s article, spanning many of Le Guin’s most renowned works, endeavors to frame an important aspect of her underlying philosophy, her Daoist ideas. Le Guin (who produced a translation of the Dao De Jing), has been sometimes criticized for misappropriating or misrepresenting Daoist philosophy; but this criticism, argues Mills, comes from a misunderstanding: Le Guin is not trying to accurately present Daoism in the manner of a scholar; rather, her works express her own philosophical development of these ideas, particularly in the context of modern feminism and modern anarchism, reimagining Daoism as an artist and philosopher in her own right.

Volume 3 ends with a series of thoughtful book reviews. The prolific Stefano Bigliardi has surveyed Open Court’s Planet of the Apes and Philosophy: Great Apes Think Alike, and the first and second editions of Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence, a rich collection of essays edited by Susan Schneider, while Brittany Caroline Speller reviews Dune and Philosophy: Weirding the Way of the Mentat, a timely entry, as a new cinematic version of Dune is now in the works.

We hope you have a few articles worth reading and mind-opening. Enjoy!

About the Author

Dr. Alfredo Mac Laughlin is Associate Professor of Philosophy at St. Ambrose University’s Department of Philosophy. He teaches applied ethics, philosophy of knowledge, history of ancient and medieval philosophy, and a course dedicated to philosophy in science fiction.

Published: 2020-03-31