Saturday morning cartoons and metaphysical reality

My wife and I have awoken the last few Saturdays with a mission: to prepare a breakfast, coffee, and relive our childhood through cartoons. In the process, it has occurred to me that my perception of reality has been somewhat influenced by the stories told to me as a child. I know this is a popular conception nowadays, but I would like to explore a trend in my beloved Saturday morning cartoons that conveys a specific metaphysical argument. Namely, the cartoons I so enjoyed as a child seem to communicate that a group of individuals have a reality which none of the individuals hold alone.

In some cases, the individuals express their own qualities which complement one another in ways that make the group much more powerful than the individual. For example, the heroes of Voltron express specific qualities which build upon one another throughout a 30 minute episode. The clear leader, Keith, generally guides and comforts the other characters in times of distress through apothegms. This is an archetype of other cartoon leaders, such as Leonardo (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), Optimus Prime (Transformers), and the Red Ranger (Power Rangers) and generally acts as a bastion for the group in tense times. Lance is more so a character of comic relief, lightening the mood of the group. One might look to Raphael (TMNT) or Wheeler (Captain Planet) as a similar character. Pidge is the buffoon, providing a human element to an otherwise superhuman group. Michelangelo (TMNT) plays this role in his group of superheroes. The point being that the sum of individual qualities prove stronger than the parts alone.

Yet, if we were to end our exploration here, the metaphysical reality would overemphasize the role of individuals. One further character exists in Voltron, as well as similar cartoons, which represents the metaphysic reality of the group itself. In Voltron specifically, we have the actual Voltron robot, which works as an agglomeration of the individual lion-bots. The bots coexist in this massive robot, which has a reality all its own surpassing any individual being or machine. The Power Rangers have a similar depiction of the metaphysical reality of their own group as they form the Megazord. In Captain Planet, we have the actual Captain Planet, who acts as a conglomerate of individual powers between the planeteers. Here, Captain Planet is represented as a character outside and above the individuals, no mere ancillary, but a depiction of the group. Captain Planet has his own metaphysical reality as the group of planeteers, even while the planeteers retain their individual qualities. In each case, the metaphysical reality of the group supersedes primacy of individualism, while retaining the role of individuals throughout the storyline. Both group and individual are heralded in each story.

We live in an age which recognizes, and at times overemphasizes, both individual and group reality. Individualism is easy to spot in a capitalist economy, where brands and personalization rule. However, we also live in an age which esteems exploration of systems and conglomerates; for example, ecology, Lovelock and gaia theory, systems theory, field theory, and even the legacy of Hegel. It seems that emphasis can go either way, and such exploration has trickled down into children's tales. At any rate, I believe these examples from my childhood depict the possibility of honoring the metaphysical reality of both the individual and the group, instead of necessarily falling on the side of either extreme. The overemphasis of either side destroys recognition of the strengths of each. On the one hand, anti-individualists tend to discount particular qualities that make the individual different than the group as a whole. On the other hand, individualists dismiss the reality of the group which can and does act outside and above the will of any sole individual. Causality and individual will seem to cooperate in tension when one is not blinded by their entrenchment in either side.

I have been riddled by the problem of the will of the group versus the will of the individual for some time now, and as I watch stories from my youth, I am able to see such issues depicted in both American and Japanese characters. I am excited that I have the possibility to stand between extremes as Aquinas and his philosopher-hero Aristotle did thousands of years ago. Aquinas could see the sovereign will of God acting amongst the wills of individuals in a system of causality which honored both God's primacy, as well as individual responsibility. I hope that with further study, I can leave behind pathological ideas and grow into this tension which recognizes both Creator and creation in healthy relation.

Science vs. science

Thommy asked:

I suppose what I'm indirectly asking is whether you feel that certain scientific facts may provide some amount of insight into more philosophical arguments (and vice versa)?

As Kierkegaardian as I would like to be, I'm afraid I still harbor modern, even borderline...gulp...Hegelian tendencies, which shall be reflected in the following discussion. However, I believe I can spin my modern tendencies in a MacIntyrean direction, so as to allay any betrayal of dear Kierkegaard...so, here goes.

I believe that a large part of your answer involves digging into your own assumptions about ontology/epistemology. "Scientific facts", and more specifically, "facts", assumes traditions from the late 17th-early 18th centuries, involving characters such as Locke and Hume. If you assume "facts" necessitate experimentation and experience, then yes, scientific method and philosophy intersect at the corners of Locke and Hume. In fact, one could easily argue (keeping in mind pre-Socratic philosophy) that "science" as we know it has always been in the realm of philosophy.

However, I would also issue a warning in assuming strong relationship between the two fields. The general public takes for granted the modern idea that "fact" denotes experience and experimentation, while also adopting modern tendencies to jettison any withstanding tradition in favor of experience and experimentation. Remember that philosophy offers a much wider perspective of reality (or "fact") than the narrow field of vision projected Locke and Hume. Your example of Quantum Mechanics brings to mind more abstract notions of viewing the world, as we have no immediate experience with quantum particles. Thus, to assume Quantum Mechanics intelligible, one ought at least give Aristotelean metaphysics a try. Both are abstract notions of reality based on observation, yet coming from two divergent worldviews. My point is that philosophy and science can easily dialogue, as long as both understand their assumptions and can maneuver in some common ground. Otherwise, you might be trying to comment on a Hindi riddle in Spanish, where both sides think the entire world speaks their native tongue.

Choice

It seems to me that choice is fundamental to the human essence. Assuming the omnipotent, omniscient God of the Judeo-Christian religion, moreso illuminated by Augustine in the Neo-Platonic tradition, choice would most certainly be atypical when describing this God. Specifically, the God/Good of Neo-Platonists cannot but act for the good, which would negate any necessity of choice. On the one hand, within choice, there is placed a possibility of choosing to not choose, which, in a less redundant sense, would be refusal of action. Thus, as God cannot but act, God could not not choose. Further, choice assumes various outcomes. Yet, as the omniscient Neo-Platonic/Augustinian God would only choose to act in favor of the good, only one outcome exists in the act of choosing and thus, a choice is not made.

I find this interesting in that, following the Augustinian tradition, which assumes creation's derivative posture towards the Creator, choice belongs to the fundamental essence of being a human, so long as we remain derivative of our Creator. Granted, as we strive to be like our Creator, we also long to leave behind some things that create distance between ourselves and our Creator. Yet, as choice was instituted and blessed in Eden, choice can be celebrated as a gift of our humble posture.

I believe that we must appreciate (in an active sense) the blessing of choice in a world that exploits choice for selfish gain. The excess of choice in a consumer culture can weary the spirit, as well as demean the true purpose of our duty as choosers. God never intended us to value our selection of which bread to buy in the same way we can esteem one choosing to invite a hungry person to dinner. God knew to give the Israelites one meal's worth of bread per day, which becomes apparent to me as I spend an hour sifting through so many brands, flavors, etc... trying to buy a loaf of bread in the grocery store. Choice can be a celebrated gift, as well as an exploited misappropriation. Rather than demean our exploitation of choice, I would exhort humanity to give it proper respect. We would be wise to attend to those things which make us human.

M.O.

Welcome to a world of philosophical fragments and charred ramblings of one who is consistently, if not constantly, excavating the fundamental qualities of existence. I do so not to invest value, or create essence, but to discover each in a world which has hidden both. I appreciate any open dialogue on this journey.