Sophie's World
Here's the spot for you philosophers to discuss the ways in which we understand the world...and who is sending those letters?
Due Dates:
Blog #1: 12/16
Blog #2: 12/23
Blog #3: 1/6
If you are not the first to post, be sure you've read all previous blogs before you contribute.
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 9:46 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
My first impression on the book, it seems to be a light read...at first but then at times it also seems a little childish? Or maybe another word. I feel like I cant' seem to find it all that interesting. What bothers me the most is that this main character Sophie, is suppose to be so young and I guess her innocence or how naive she is to the world makes me a little mad. She seems too young to be pondering and actually thinking about these questions, yet she spends so much time and it seems as if she is on a journey towards self discovery. At the very beginning when the letters first started to arrive, I had a feeling that it might have been her father, or her mother trying to encourage her to become more. At lease we know it has to be someone close, she receives the letters one after another, sometimes just moments after. But later we realize that it cannot be the mother, since she finds the letters and at one point, Sophie thinks she sees a man, "Hilde." At this point, I feel like I'm summarizing now. So what are your reactions to the story so far and how do you feel about the book in general? What predictions and such do you have? One question and I'm not really sure, I got the sense that Sophie is a preteen? or a young 14-15 year old that seems to be a little..abandoned from the rest of the world? Correct me if I'm wrong.
To jump into my reaction, I suppose I’ll use Belinda’s post as a starting point. To answer the last question she phrased, I do not think that Sophie is all that recluse and solitary, because the first time she finds one of the letters in general, she is hanging out with one of her friends. I think that the situation becomes different as the story begins to pick up, however, and that she does sort of grow apart from the world slightly, withdrawing into herself and the philosophy she is pondering.
To sort of put the whole thing in perspective, I try to think what it is I would have done in her situation. Would I have even been as smart as she was to consider the first question in the way she did? As much faith as I have in my thinking, I do not think that I would have been able to figure it out to the extent she did. Clearly the author makes her out to be a very astute girl, because not just anyone would think extensively about the question “who are you” before going about answering it. Sure, maybe I would have felt a slight bit of confusion regarding just how I was going to answer the question, but I would not give my hesitation a second glance like she did. Even early on in the story, Sophie displays an exceptional affinity for philosophical topics, so I absolutely believe that whoever the person who is leaving her all these letters (I do not think that they are all actually mailed, because I think at one point she gets multiple letters in one day) both knows their material, and has chosen an ideal pupil.
I especially enjoy the sort of underlying mystery which is accompanying all of the story, because, whenever we are introduced to a new character, the possibility flashes in my mind that it could very well be the person who is sending her the letters. Thus far it is at the very least clear that it is not the mother, because Sophie tries to have a philosophical conversation with her at one point, only to have aroused the suspicion from her mother that she has been doing drugs. (Because clearly the only plausible reason for higher thinking is some sort of mind-altering substance.) When her mother actually finds the letters, she just assumes they are love letters, which Sophie goes along with. I hope that this whole philosophical odyssey does not end up making Sophie into some sort of awkward, overly-pensive, and utterly solitary bookworm who locks herself up in a library refusing to participate in life, because I think I have had just about enough of that theme after reading 100 Years of Solitude. It is quite possible that the book could go in that direction, however, as Sophie has already, even at the beginning of the “lessons,” stopped seeing her friend Joanna as much.
In terms of tone of the story, I agree with Belinda entirely, it is very easy to read, which is a breath of fresh air considering all of the bizarre things we have been reading lately. I also enjoy how the lessons in the enigmatic letters are actually simplified philosophy. Because Sophie is such a young girl, it is quite possible that she would not exactly understand philosophy, say, described by a college professor, so the fact that these notes are entirely comprehendible attests to the fact that whomever is writing them is very knowledgeable about the subject matter and can therefore comfortably simplify the content to an easy-to-read level.
My main focus so far in the reading, however, has been Sophie herself. Although I touched on this earlier above, I still cannot imagine just what kind of girl Sophie must be to thrust herself so willfully and compellingly into the questions being posed by some mysterious writer/teacher. Not only does she appear entirely oblivious to the utter creepiness evoked by the fact that she is receiving letters from some unknown person, but she plunges into these studies ravenously and with great zeal. I am absolutely able to relate with involving myself feverishly in some project, because sometimes it feels really good to lose myself in work, but Sophie even transcends this, as she begins to take these philosophical teachings to the very core of her moral beliefs.
The overall message of the story thus far as I have viewed it, at least the message thus far to Sophie has been “never lose your sense of wonder about the world” and to “always ask questions.” Though I may be a little reluctant to perpetually ask questions, I certainly haven’t lost my sense of wonder about the world yet, although I have plenty of years to go about losing it.
First off I want to agree with you guys about the syntax of the novel. The sentence structure is comprised of simple of sentences particularly in the beginning. However, as the novel continues and Gaarder elaborates on his philisophical topics the sentences become increasingly longer and complex. This may be attributed to Sophie's transition as a character as the novel continues as she becomes complex and ceases to think on a single track and begins to think alot more about the physical as well as the meta physical which is an aspect of philosophy.
I was actually surprised with the structure of the novel. I thought that the novel would have lead us through the life of a young girl and the themes regarding philisophy would be implied instead of explicitly stated through the letters that are sent to her through the mail. Its structure makes seems like philisophy for dummies where the narrator carefully takes us through the the creation of man and our most primitive states through the hellistinic era and delves into the formation of religions as well as several prominent centers of philisophy such as Athens and Sparta. Additionally the narrator takes through the mind of ancient philisopher's such as Socrates and how his ideas have transformed and fail to present the same meaning during this day and age. Several of ideas seems so basic to us when they are first presented such as the idea that nothing happens accidentally but with a purpose. I thought these basic principals that often elude the common man tie back to author's previous claim and how philisophers act like babies and treat the most minimalistic idea with the utmost interest and curiousity and constantly question it until they shed newfound light about it. .
Also I feel like alot of the questions that the author poses are completely open-ended. For example the narrator at one point asks "imagine if there were only vegetables and animals. Then there wouldn't have been anybody to tell the difference between 'cat' and 'dog,' or 'lily' and 'gooseberry (120)." This question sparks so many more different question such, what does that mean to science and our ability to classify different objects, and how would we be able to defferentiate between species. Also it suggests a different lifestyle for humans where we wouldn't be the most intelligent human beings. Also, would that mean that all living beings would live equally? But we all know from world history that utopia never suceed.
The narrator also states that "a philosopher never gets quite used to the world (18)." This suggests that philosophy seems like one big question after another. How would you guys define philosophy and how do you believe it affects our society?
As you guys have clearly stated, I agree with the novel being a light read. In fact, it is one of the elements which I am quickly enjoying as Sophie’s life unfolds throughout the pages. I found the beginning to be very weird but familiar! The introduction seems to match that of Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. Kafka does not emphasize his entire short story on the cause of Gregor’s transformation, but rather its effect on him and his peers. Although many questions like WHO sent the letters and WHY they were addressed to her have been pondered by Sophie, her main focus is geared towards the actual answers to those philosophical questions.
Something else that also struck me, was, like David had mentioned, the state of solitude in which Sophie was declining towards. At some point, the audience could sense the change between the Sophias before and after the letters in the mail. It states “that she [Sophia] had suddenly become so engrossed in who she was and what she was and where the world came from that she had no time to play badminton.” (11) This idea leads me to believe that Sophia will live a life unlike many of her peers. Rather than being preoccupied with unnecessary distractions like sports and social interaction, she will carry on the Buendia habit of isolating herself with these philosophical questions until she discovers what the true answers to life’s questions. Whether this will be possible, we know that too much knowledge is harmful to man from instances of Gabriel Marquez’s 100 Years of Solitude. The whole civilization of Macondo is wiped out as Aureliano II finishes deciphering Melquiades parchment. Since Sophie is expressing more and more interest in pursuing these philosophical inquiries, should we be concerned for her safety?
Again, another interesting point that you have come across is the “never lose your sense of wonder about the world” and to “always ask questions” part. It reminded me of how babies often embody the peak of curiosity of man. Struggling to reach for the tangibles, babies have nothing restricting them from acting freely and what could be considered naturally in their unfamiliar surroundings. Perhaps this is probably why I doubt that Sophie is an adult. Sophie must be at a young age group. It was obvious that these letters caught the interest of Sophia. After all, the first question that asked “Who are you” really made Sophia wonder as she looked at her reflection in the mirror. The fact that Sophie was unable to immediately answer this question is something I find significant. I am not sure, but when it comes to symbolic mirrors, aren’t they supposed to reveal some sort of truth or deep attribute of a character? Sophie might be the less experienced and more innocent character in the novel and the mirror could have foreshadowed the imminent change that she will undergo after receiving these philosophical questions. Maybe as more questions fill in her mailbox, the process of her maturing and being able to define herself to answer the question will take place. Her perspective of life is expected become more narrow and she will probably make a gradual transition into an adult throughout the novel.
Finally, like Joe Perez’s Soulfully Gay: How Harvard, Sex, Drugs, and Integral Philosophy Drove Crazy and Brought Me Back to God, the use of the epigraphs in the beginning of each chapter prep embodied the overall tone of that chapter. For example, the epigraph of the first chapter mentioned that “at some point something must have come from nothing”. One the surface the statement might make sense, but as one delves into deeper questioning of this statement, its difficulty is revealed. A dichotomy is established between “something” and “nothing”. If both terms mean two completely different things how is it possible that something is able to come from nothing when nothing is simply nothing? The epigraph in this instance represent the frustration of Sophie as she dives into philosophical thinking, where sometimes the answers are simply too ambiguous or questionable.
Well to answer Ayoub’s question, philosophy to me is the study of
I think that the life of a philosopher a strenuous one. They are always either proving or disproving theories, whether about the human condition or the relevancy/relationships that link different ideas together. Whenever I imagine a philosopher, the picture of a man buried under all his books quickly appears. This sense of isolation is almost completely parralled through Marquez’s 100 Years of Solitude, but I wouldn’t expect a large wind to wipe me out of existence when I finish deciphering the meaning of life. The answer to that is because I do not think it is possible for the common man to gain full and complete knowledge of life. Some say that obtaining complete knowledge is a never-ending journey and who am I to disagree with them. After all, think about the number of books and others references that are required to serve as evidence for the foundation of strong arguments. Man are not immortal. Elements like time limit their capabilities in activities like pursuing knowledge.
In terms of its effect in society, there are many free-thinkers out there in the world. Many people view life in totally different ways. For example the Sunni and Shia are two factions that believe in two entirely different philosophies. Their contrasting philosophies are even so significant that they have become molded into one of history’s most renown conflictual relations between bodies of different people. In some places, free thinking is tolerated but in other places, society lives under only one philosophy. It is in these places there is considered to be only one set of answers for everything. Take for example, Sophie’s first question in the mail was “Who are you”. One of the expected answers that society has expected from its people in terms of the norms may be that “You are a pious man dedicated to serving Allah by following the Qur’an”. Philosophy doesn’t have to just be about religion, but the whole one-sidedness and restrictions on philosophy is predominant available in some parts of the world. Sorry if this misses your question completely, Ayoub.
********Philosophy is the study of "facts" that are meant to comprise a system that supposedly guides a person throughout his/her life.
oops I forgot to include this in the above post.
Basically what I meant in the above post is that one person's meaning of life may differ from another person's meaning of life. We are lucky that we live in a society that tolerates clashing philosophies rather than a society that forces its philosophies on its people.
Answering Ayoub's question, I think that philosophy is how we think the world works. It is finding purpose and meaning. It is related to knowledge, but I feel that it isn't just the cram everything in your brain kind of way, but more so of thinking logic, but in a much greater field and much more to cover. In a way, when I think of philosophy, I think of wise quotes, and advice on life. I believe it is almost learning to, not necessarily accept, but to realize that there is more out there in the world. It is being able to openly think about all the relationships in the world.It is then, the study of ideas/thoughts.
I think that it affects society because I feel that the majority of society is afraid of change, and because of that, they are do not accepting to philosophy since the study of ideas can create change, ideas can change.
What I found interesting was how much of a role religion plays on philosophy. It just never occurred to me before that it is the basis of it. Which makes me feel a little dumb since our last independent reading book was also linked, pretty heavily with religion.
Going on with the idea of isolation, I completely agree with David and Danny that in pursuing philosophy, it is almost going away from society. Hilde is also going away from society. It seems as if she lives a very sheltered life, and she feels and for characters in books rather than to hang out with friends on her fifteenth birthday.
One thing I don't really understand in the novel: If Sophie and Alberto are "made up characters" from Albert Kang's mind, how are they able to think outside, how are they able to act on their will if Kang did not wright the next stop. Are they not just ideas themselves?
I really enjoy the book in a book in a book idea =]. I never expected it, even with the introduction of Hilde's things
I totally agree with Belinda! I think the book inside of a book made the novel extremely interesting and weird; particularly because of how Sophie and Alberto were established by Albert Knag, who lived in an alternate world with his daughter Hilde while Sophie and Alberto managed to find out what he was doing. The story within a story, and the fact that Sophie went out to buy Sophie’s world (which made it a story within, a story within a story) emphasized the paradoxical and infinitely continuous elements of philosophy in the novel. This idea particularly emphasized the power of questions and how they were the basis of philosophy. We should constantly question different aspects of our lives and as a result additional questions should arise. Ultimately, this way philosophy becomes an inherent quality, much like how Albert explored the idea that babies are natural born philosophers.
I thought that their form of isolation did the exact opposite where it wasn’t Sophie becoming increasingly distant from society but becoming more immersed into the world. I guess as a result she arrived at a deeper understanding of the world that everyone else was unable to understand.
The introduction of Albert Knag was particularly interesting because it contradicted the free moving idea of philosophy. Knag in the novel was able to manipulate Alberto and Sophie, and he did it with ease. What do you think that Gaarder was suggesting about higher powers in society? In a sense he wasn’t an illustration of higher power because his daughter, Hilde, was able to make him run around town performing tasks.
Ultimately I found philosophy to be excessively confusing. Albert introduces several philosophers such as Marx, and multiple religions, however they bear both different practical as well as mental approaches. I think it only stretches the theory of philosophy to the point where it pretty much includes everything. However, how do we know which idea, which religion and which way of life is right? Plus what was the deal with meeting Scrooge, and Alice in Wonderland??
To go along with Ayoubs post, I feel that the idea behind philosophy is to explore all the different religions and ways of thinking and in a sense, it all ends with no right religion or right path that we should do. Philosophy is trying to make sense of why we do things and why we think that way? I don't really think it is trying to tell us what to believe in, or what is right.
Also, I have no idea why these fairy tales came into play either. But they seem to be like Alberto and Sophie, they aren't real but "spirits" that are more "solid." I guess in this case, their definition of "solid" is being able to be true, to think?
What really struck me was when Albert Kang mentioned that the big bang created the universe, so to understand the universe we must also understand ourselves, yet philosophy is the study of how the world works, not how we work.
This book has been fairly confusing. As Ayoub mentioned, there were so many instances where the story was a story, within a story, within a story, and I felt that although it definitely helped to reflect different aspects of the philosophy that the book discussed, it also made the book a little bit unnecessarily difficult to parse. True, the picture-in-picture effect was an unexpected turn of events, but I do not quite understand what additional message that provides for the story in terms of overall meaning. The fact that Kang’s mind created Sophie and Alberto does not really make much sense to me. Did Kang use them and their development in a sort of vicarious-schizophrenic way of learning about philosophy for himself? The structure as a whole prompts a lot of questions about the book and its meaning that I am not entirely sure I am equipped to answer.
As for what Belinda mentioned previously about Sophie and Alberto technically being made up characters in Kang’s mind, I felt that they could act in a manner that was seemingly independent of their creator simply because that was Kang’s own design in making them. I thought that they were exploratory tools for him, and even though they are, in and of themselves ideas, that they were helping him to understand things by “understanding” things.
I have to admit that the part where Kang calls babies “natural-born philosophers” was so exquisitely adorable! Moreover, it is extremely true, because a philosopher, according to this book, is supposed to be someone who continuously questions the world and their place in it, and babies, probably more than any other person, does just that all the time. Babies do not know anything about the world and as such they are required to constantly be taking in new information and try to draw conclusions about the world based on their very limited scope. Thinking about it, babies are really heroic, picking up this massive undertaking that is learning about the world. Does anyone ever really find out what their place in the world is? Maybe, maybe not, that is something I guess can only be determined on the individual level.
Like Belinda, I also found that quote about the big bang stick out to me above most others over the course of the story. Although I do not exactly agree with her conclusion about the perspective of philosophy. Sure, the idea of the big bang is directed at humans understanding the universe, but what one must understand is that, in learning about the world and all of its processes and systems, we are in fact learning about the deepest parts of ourselves that might be otherwise inaccessible to existentialism. I oftentimes wonder how deep someone can actually probe when reflecting about themselves. Introspective meditation is great, I’ll be the first one to agree with it, but sometimes, for me at least, I’ve found my eyes to be open most when they aren’t turned around looking in, but when they’re taking in the world around me. Considering my own microscopic meaning in the universe is daunting, so I am not really going about looking at the world with that in mind, but there will be times when I just stop and stare at the world around me and just feel somehow like something that is going on outside is going on inside too. I think that in conjunction to all the questions that make up philosophy, considering those instances when there is a complete equilibrium is of the utmost importance. In a way, that is what Kang was really going for with his creation of Sophie and Alberto, because he sought different perspectives through which to view and understand the world.
Overall? A sub-satisfactory book, but I think that is just because I am becoming thoroughly disillusioned with philosophy after this and Soulfully Gay.
I was, rather, perplexed at some points within the novel like David. The whole idea of having a book containing another book just made things unclear to me. During times, I was in constant frustration over which characters were “legit”/real and which ones were merely thoughts, characters in a book essentially. This was something that dangled in my mind because once a story ends, the fate of the characters are sealed. Possibly like Aureliano II of 100 Years of Solitude, once the pages run out, the whole town, people, everything ceases to exist.
To continue on with the isolation/solitude remark, I noticed yet another instance where the strive for intellectual (in this case philosophical) insight had an individual compromise their ties to society. Socrates, as described, was a thinker who was unafraid to tackle the many unanswered questions about life. In his pursuit, he knowingly defied the social norm in Greece(?) at the time and did what everyone else was afraid to do… ask questions! Sadly, his fate was sealed as he dedicated his whole life to philosophy, as it occupies the majority, if not the whole lifespan of an entire being. However, I wish to delve into the topic of society.
It is a tendency for society to reject any new forms of ideas which combat already existing norms or institutions. As we were able to see, Socrates was simply one victim out of a countless pile who was succumbed by philosophy and ended up leading himself to an irrevocable fate where his death was driven by society. I just think that society, in general, need to open themselves for new theories and paths of intellectual thinking too. Something that I noticed was Sophie’s interaction with her school. As a product of the consistent bulk of letters pertaining to her “philosophy course”, Sophie’s contact with school has been limited. She no longer follows the conventional methods of solving her test problems, yet she is still able to find the answer but in a different sense. This was simply something that stuck out to me.
Alas, the continuous reaction from the mother is hysterical. Going from “Are you on drugs?” to the whole boy-friend suspicion is something that is funny, yet somehow I feel as though Gaarder is playing with us. Could he be using the mother as a formidable character for portraying an aspect or idea? The rejection of Sophie’s insistence of philosophy to her mother seems to relate to what I described about society above. Since these radical new ideas combated the already existing, already accepted as the knowledge to wield coherently, they were sometimes either mocked or straight out rejected.
I thought the whole “Alice in the Wonderland” extra was pretty random too. Yet, it was somewhat unique in that I did not expect it to happen. Maybe that is what Gaardner was prescribing—my surprised reaction? So far, there has been a shift in point of views. From Sophie to Hilde, it seems as though everything is related to one another. Sophie’s fascination with philosophy could merely be part of her characterization in “Sophie’s World” as Hilde reads it, but yeah…
Finally, one of the many things about philosophy, that I myself enjoy, is the fact that there are many interpretations. From the age of Greek mythology to the age of science and reason, philosophical ideas have been passed down, whether for ratification or changing. Such transgressions of ideas simply became modified to fit the social stratum at times. In Sophie’s World, we are introduced to a variety of free thinkers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc who have boldly defended their views. Such admirable quality is something I think Alberto was attempting to teach Sophie in a more indirect level.
The ending was pleasing. What I thought Gaardner was highlighting was the necessity of new insights, ideas, whatever without confining oneself to a single faction at any given time. Philosophy brings up the most ambiguous questions that sometimes there isn’t a single answer to any of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home