At least someone will get it

A friend of mine that used to work at the Friendly Local Gaming Shop until he left for better employment told me this story, and it's one of the best stories I have ever heard.

He's sitting on nine mana, looking for one more land so he can cast and crack Mindslaver in the same turn, hence not letting his opponent get a chance to obliterate the Slaver before it goes online. His opponent casts Fireball, gets him down to 8, and then casts Eternal Witness and returns Fireball with nine mana up next turn. My friend frowns at this situation, but draws his card hoping to hit a land or some other solution. His Draw was Tooth and Nail and he had the mana to cast and entwine it. However, the question was What to get? Darksteel Colossus wouldn't work and he didn't have a Platinum Angel in the deck to fetch, let alone have it stick long enough to find a solution to the Fireball. However, he remembered that he had a pair of Bottle Gnomes stashed away in the deck somewhere, so he decides to put his chips down. He taps his mana, and declares in the loudest voice he could make while being within tournament standards, "Tooth and Nail, Entwined for Bottle Gnomes." EVERYBODY, including the head judge, rushed for the table to see if they heard right. They did, and my friend drops a pair of Beverages on the field.

The opponent draws, and then starts to look flustered. No matter how he figured the math, he could not kill him this turn. So he drops a creature (I forgot what it was!) and passes turn. My friend's turn, draws a Forest (which he still has framed in his house) and lays it down and cracks slaver. He takes his opponent's turn, swings into his bottle gnomes, wipes field, and burns himself with the Fireball. It's then a complete swing for my friend, concluding the match in my friend's favor.

After the match, my friend picks up his cards and heads to his next match, or at least to wait for it. The opponent sits there, cards still laid out on the table, untouched, unmoving. Five minutes later, a friend of the opponent walks up and says "Hey man, what happened?" The opponent, without even blinking or moving just mumbles:

"Bottle Gnomes."

The Question of Universals

“It is said that the students of medieval Paris came to blows in the streets over the existence of universals…[the] issue is our whole conception of our ability to describe the world truly or falsely and the objectivity of any opinion we frame to ourselves.[1]” What is it about universals that causes all of this conflict? What exactly is a universal?

Universals are intended to explain features shared by individuals.[2] This can simply be explained as qualities that multiple things have. The idea that they are universal stems from the fact that multiple things can have the same quality. When you see an object that is red, you know that is not the only object in the world that is red. Many objects have the quality of red, or show the quality of redness. Universals can be best explained as abstract generals. They are things that have no location in space-time and apply to more than one thing.[3]

In reality, universals do not explain features shared by individuals. The first problem arises with attribute agreement.[4] Many different things can possess the same attributes. Many walls are white, many shirts are black and many cars are red. To say that these objects possess the quality of whiteness, blackness and redness is wrong on the idea of predicate. You cannot attach an abstract attribute to a particular or general term.[5] You can’t have a general term be describing a specific term. What that does is makes the general description specific which makes the universal pointless. The mere idea of a universal is what makes it impossible to exist in the first place. You can’t have a concrete idea be described in a general fashion.

This denouncement of universals is the reasoning for nominalism. Nominalism is the ideal that you don’t assume that language gives ontological commitment to anything.[6] In simpler terms, nominalism is the belief that only particulars exist and there is no need for anything that refers to an independently existing universal.[7] The motivation for nominalism is that universals are illogical and do not actually explain anything. An object having the quality of redness does not explain what the difference is between a red car and a red shirt.

Another reason for nominalism is that they can explain the features of the world that universals are set to explain. First off, according to Morean facts, things have properties, but properties exist only in the things that they are properties of.[8] What this means is things have certain properties simple because they have certain properties. This seems like it means nothing, but what it does is calls forth the regress of instantiation. X is a property of A. X is an instance of A because it is an instance of being an instance of A and so on forever.[9] Every sentence explains the previous, but it has no end. This is how a property is simply a property of what it is a property of.

Another aspect of universals that nominalism does a better job of explaining is instance of shared properties. Where universals do no explain why they can use general terms to be specific, nominalism simply explains it as two or more things having the same property is a simple fact about things. It is philosophically primitive as it simply does not need further explanation.[10] It is just simply true. The fire truck and the tomato are both considered to be red. That is the end of the discussion. We simply accept the primitive nature and the fact that they are both considered to be red, opposed to having redness.

To summarize, universals are supposed to explain features shared by individuals. Where it is wrong is on the subject of attribute agreement. Multiple things can share the same attributes. What nominalism does is actually explains the properties that universals are trying to explain but though the idea of the instance of shared properties. Nominalism succeeds where universals fail simply because nominalism can explain how multiple things can have the same properties while universals cannot.

---

[1] Platonism Quotes Handout /Simon Blackburn, Think, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 268

[2] http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/u.htm#uni

[3] Class notes 9/20

[4] Class notes 9/20

[5] Class notes 9/20

[6] Class notes 9/27

[7] http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n9.htm#nomi

[8] Class notes 9/27

[9] Class notes 9/27

[10] Class notes 9/27

Suchness and Thisness

Metaphysics

Can there be suchness without thisness? Can there be thisness without suchness? These two questions were brought up by Aristotle’s theory of substances. According to Aristotle, suchness can be defined as the qualities of a substance and thisness can be defined as the substance itself. For the two questions at the start of this paragraph, they are simply asking about the existence of a bare suchness or thisness. This causes the question to be raised: if bare suchness or thisness exists, does it imply the existence of said suchness and thisness? According to Aristotle, bare suchness or thisness cannot exist. A quality cannot exist without a substance to give a quality to and substances are nothing without their qualities. With this in mind, there are others that disagree with Aristotle’s theory.

The answers to these questions vary depending on who you ask. To the bundle theorist, the idea of a substance is not necessary as all objects are simply made up of their qualities (they believe that everything is a bundle of qualities) and to remove certain qualities will change the object. There exists no substrata and to remove all the qualities of an object will leave you with nothing left. Therefore, according to the bundle theorist, what makes a thing the thing it is, is its suchness. At what point can you have the same qualities of a substance and not have the exact same substance? Here comes in the identity of indiscernibles. If two things have the exact same qualities, can they be different things? Their placement in space-time can also be a factor in defining their possibility in difference, but to the bundle theorist, they cannot be different things as if their qualities are exactly the same; their placement in space-time is not a factor. To the bundle theorist, only suchness exists so therefore, there can be suchness without thisness but because of their belief of the nonexistence of thisness, there cannot be bare thisness.

To the substratum theorist, there can exist substance without any qualities. They cannot define the object that is left when all of the qualities are removed, but they theorize that something does indeed exist. They state that what makes a thing what it is, is its thisness. This is because removing the qualities does not affect the initial substance and the bare substance that would exist would still be the initial thing. They disagree with the bundle theorist as they believe in the existence of bare substances.

Myself, I feel there is validity in both theories of thisness and suchness. Taken at values not far beyond the metaphysical realm, the bundle theorist’s view makes perfect sense. Take a favored Kochian[5] example of a trash can in a classroom. If you take qualities away from the trash can, be its hollowness, its ability to keep trash inside of it, does it still remain a trash can? Most people would agree that it would no longer be able to fulfill its duties as a trash can so therefore no longer is a trash can, but it would become whatever removing certain qualities would make it. Go on an extreme and flatten out the trash can into a circular piece of metal. It can no longer hold trash, so is it still a trash can? It is at this point where I disagree with the bundle theorists. Sure, the trash can is no longer useful in containing trash, but it still carries the label trash can. If someone were to enter the room, they would probably exclaim “what happened to this trash can?” According to the bundle theorist, it is no longer a trash can, but because of what it used to be, it retained its trash can qualities. Who is right? On the surface, it is easy to simply say that the passerby is just wrong, but to a room with a bundle theorist and substratum theorist arguing it might tilt the favor in the substratum theorist’s direction. The only problem is that there cannot be a definite right answer as either side cannot fully prove their theory to its fullest extent. All they can do is debate into their perpetual stalemate.

It is after all of this where one tries to place him or herself into these theories. This creates more problems with the bundle theorists. A quality a person can have is having hair. If one were to shave off all hair on their body, they lose the quality of having hair. Are they the same person? I would think yes. A bundle theorist that dislikes being proven wrong might say that they changes and went from person with hair to the hairless. This can be debated but what about qualities of personality that are not concrete? A person is in love and then falls out of it, did they lose the quality of being in love, or are they the same person? As more and more layers are added, the more complex it becomes. Relating this to you is even harder.

Am I an individual? Depends on how you look at it. From the grandest perspective, we are dust specks of dust specks to dust specks. We are simply yet another chain of carbon in the immensity that is the universe. On the most personal scale, we are all our own person. We have memories, feelings, wants, desires and dreams. So, when you go beyond your own consciousness, you cease to be an individual. As soon as you look around the world around you, you become another nameless face that makes up the world. So, when I think about it, I am an individual. There will never be another person exactly like me with my thought processes and my body, but in the grand scale of things, do I matter? In reality every animal simply exists to reproduce and make sure my genetic material passes along and nothing else. Whatever we do is simply extra things that we put value on.

---

[5]Of relating to the teachings of one Michael Koch

Intelligence: What does it Truly Mean?

This is a final paper I wrote for my Psychology 101 class.

What is intelligence? David G. Myers defines intelligence as the mental quality consisting of the ability to learn from experience, solve problems and use knowledge to adapt to new situations (Myers 310.) This is a very broad definition and therefore is the best one to define a subject that has as large gray area as theories of intelligence does.

A large factor that affects whether or not society deems someone to be intelligent is the college bias. This is the mindset that anyone that went to college and/or graduate school in entitled to be considered more intelligent than someone that didn’t go to college at all. This is because people value book smarts and the knowing of facts more than the ability to use those facts and general knowledge to solve problems. People would be quick to say that Albert Einstein is more intelligent than your average electrician. In reality, they are of equal intelligence as they excel in their own fields. You wouldn’t expect the electrician to be able to explain what a black hole is composed of in the same way you should not expect Einstein to be able to know how to rewire an entire house. They excel in their own areas, and therefore have intelligence in those areas. Human beings, being the competitive animals that they are, strive find a way to measure intelligence. The problem that arises when humans try to test intelligence is when they run into the testing bias.

The testing bias is an unavoidable factor of intelligence tests that causes them to favor one group over another. For example, a person who is a visual learner is asked to listen to a reading and answer questions accordingly. Because of they way their brain works, they would probably do poorly on the test than if they were allowed to read the passage. This is an example of a bias. As it stands, there is no way to create a perfect and unbiased intelligence test. This is why intelligence tests should be taken with a grain of salt. What intelligence tests, more specifically ones that measure IQ, really measure is a person’s mental capacity. IQ reflects a person’s ability and speed of understanding more than actual knowledge. Ability to understand and what a person knows are both aspects of intelligence that come from different directions. This idea is represented well in the phenomenon of the child prodigy.

Child prodigies are children that at very young age show signs of accelerated understanding of the world around them. They have very high IQ’s and usually treasure their time in school more than other children. Most of them skip grades and go on to higher learning at a much earlier time than other children their age. Worldwide there are about ninety of these prodigies and many of them are latent to their abilities as their brilliance can go unnoticed for many years if the right stimulus is not given to them (Summers.)

Sho Yano is a child prodigy that can almost be considered the stereotype for all other prodigies. His gift was noticed early by his mother who started Sho off with teaching him piano at the age of three. From there, Sho’s abilities began to blossom. At age four Sho was playing the complex works of Mozart with great ease. From there, Sho was home schooled by his mother and went off to pass the SAT’s with an astounding score of 1500 out of 1600 at the mere age of eight years old. From there, Sho was accepted into college at nine and graduated at age twelve, needing only three years to complete his curriculum. The thought of a child going into college when at the same time his peers are toiling away with fractions and decimals is an amazing sight to behold. Currently, Sho is in medical school, going for is doctorate and Ph.D. at the same time. He estimates that he will be done with medical school when he is about nineteen, having completed seven years of medical school. He estimates his IQ to be in excess of two hundred (Prodigies ...on 60 Minutes.)

Greg Smith is another prodigy who isn’t as advanced as Sho but is advanced enough to be graduating high school at age nine. His parents also discovered his gift early when he was only fourteen months old. They said that he was able to repeat verbatim books read to him by his parents. At eighteen months, Greg was already able to do addition and subtraction. His IQ has yet to have a number put to it, but it is in the top ¼-1/2 percentile. In 2006, Greg graduated college with a masters in mathematics and is not sure where his future is going to take him (Prodigies ...on 60 Minutes.)

Jay Greenberg is a prodigy that excels in music theory rather than math and science. He has been described as a master composer on par with Mozart. His brain understands complex music theory as second nature. He says that his music is all being written in his head and what he composes is just writing down his thoughts as they come by. When he was eleven, he received a full scholarship for music school and took classes at ages eleven through twelve that most third year college students were taking. At the age of twelve he had written a multi-faceted orchestral piece for a full orchestra in just a few hours (Prodigies ...on 60 Minutes.)

What makes these three children different than the rest of us? You can say that they are simply smarter than us, but it isn’t as cut and dry as that. The way that their brains are wired allows them to understand complex ideas with more ease than the rest of us. But, does that mean that they are more intelligent? Maybe; but maybe not. When put into perspective, these children have it easier than the rest of us, but it does not mean that they are above us. Everyone is capable of achieving what these boys have but those people cannot do it in the same time frame as the prodigies can. Their brains allow them to understand something that would take an average person about a week to learn in about an hour. Both parties learn the same information but one is able to do more in the time frame it takes the other to learn the same thing. Given an infinite amount of time and perseverance, anyone of any IQ should be able to graduate medical school. How long it takes them depends on the person’s IQ. As IQ increases, so does a person’s ability and speed to understand information and vice versa. So, in one light these prodigies are smarter than us and in another, they are just getting a head start on us but we are able to catch up in due time.

One interesting theory about child prodigies is if they go into more difficult fields of expertise because they think that is what is expected of them by society. The mainstream media seems to concentrate on prodigies that excel in fields that society has deemed difficult like math, science and music theory. Prodigies that excel in literature and art seem to be out of the limelight. It is an interesting theory that has yet to have explored but history has shown us that the prodigies that excel in literature and art are not praised until they become adults. One example of this is H.G Lovecraft. He was able to recite poetry at age two, was reading by age three and was writing stories by age seven. He then became famous during his adulthood when his works were starting to be noticed and published (Penguin Classics.)

On the other spectrum of brilliance we have Savant Syndrome. This is a condition where a person with an overall limited mental ability excels in a certain skill (Myers 310.) Most people with savant syndrome are autistic which scientists think is one of the keys to people having savant syndrome. Autism sufferers usually have poor social skills, narrow interests and a love of repetition. The fact that people with savant syndrome usually excel in one very specific field further supports this theory.

Kim Peek is the most famous person with savant syndrome on earth. Kim became widely know after the move Rain Man starring Dustin Hoffman was released and the world became aware that savant syndrome existed. Kim possesses a memory that is unmatched by any other person on earth. His brain contains an exorbitant amount of information that Kim can access at a moment’s notice. He has memorized over seventy-six hundred books, knows all United States zip and area codes and posses the ability to instantly know the day of the week of any date in history. He is described as a super savant as he does not have one area of expertise; he is spread about many subjects. His father says that he has fifteen subjects of expertise and the only thing he cannot do is logic out math equations. Kim has all this expertise but because of his condition and his poor coordination, he is unable to do simple tasks like brushing his teeth, combing his hair and getting dressed. He is forced to rely on his father for all of his daily needs. Kim’s gift was noticed at an early age as he was diagnosed with severe mental retardation. His parents were advised to drop him off in a mental institution and to forget about him for good. Luckily for Kim, his parents thought against this and raised him at their home, where his gift was made apparent. According to his father, Kim was reading at the age of two and he knew the alphabet at the age of three. Through brain scans, it has been found that Kim is completely missing his corpus callosum, which means that Kim posses a split brain. The fibers that make up his corpus callosum have traveled else ware in odd directions. This might be the secret to Kim’s amazing memory. What we know for sure is that Kim’s split brain is the reason why he can read at such an alarming pace. According to his father, Kim can read a page that would take the average person three minutes to read in about ten seconds. The way he reads is peculiar as well. He is able to read both pages of a book at once and retain about ninety-eight percent of the data. Kim has this amazing memory, but the ability to apply it is where the argument of whether or not the he is truly intelligent comes up. Because of his condition, it is very hard for Kim to follow directions and any task where new thinking is involved (one where he can’t call upon facts to solve) gives him incredible problems. As it stands, Kim would be able to get a perfect score on a multiple-choice test but if the test called for his own opinion or abstract application of what he has learned; he would be hard-pressed to successfully pass the test (Kim Peek - The Real Rain Man.)

Another savant that is starting to get world-wide recognition is Daniel Tammet. His savantdom is in mathematics. He is able to do complex calculations in his head and go to more decimal places than the average computer can. How Daniel differs from Kim is that his autism is not as strong so he is able to explain what is happening in his head. According to Daniel, he sees numbers as small sparks that go off in his brain. Every number all the way up to ten thousand has its own unique color, texture, shape and form. This means that Daniel shows signs of synesthesia but his thought process is unlike anything that has ever been documented. When Daniel sees a large figure, he sees it as a long landscape that forms the number. Each number has its own shape and size so what Daniel does in his head is simply read the landscape that appears and interprets what number is passing by in his brain. His memory is also very impressive as well. He has become a master of language with learning ten languages, including Icelandic; which he was able to learn in a week’s time. He has even gotten to the point where he is working on creating his own language. Even though Daniel is able to express himself; he is still autistic and therefore has an autistic brain. This explains the problems he had during his infancy and childhood. One day when he was a small child, Daniel suffered from terrible seizure that caused him significant brain damage. After that, Daniel would experience incidents where he would be screaming non-stop and wouldn’t stop unless his parents wrapped him up in a sheet and rocked him to sleep. Behavioral scientists attest his liking of being rocked to autism’s need for repetition. His childhood was also different as Daniel would easily become fixated upon numbers as he was trying to understand what his brain was showing him. He would just watch children play hopscotch and count their steps as his affinity for numbers grew. This caused him to become alienated and introverted in school; something that he still deals with to this day. Daniel’s explanation of his thought process has helped scientists further understand what goes on in a savant’s brain. He is living proof that a person with autism thinks in pictures rather than words. Daniel’s explanations of his thoughts have given scientists a better idea of what happens in the savants’ brains that are unable to explain what their though process is like. (Daniel Tammet - The Boy With The Incredible Brain.)

Alonzo Clemons is a savant that is unlike Kim and Daniel. His skill lies in his sculpting ability. He is able to perfectly sculpt any animal he has seen for just a few seconds without having to reference the subject a second time. Most of his references that he sculpts from are pictures he has seen in books. Like other savants, Alonzo thinks in pictures and can transform a two dimensional picture into a three dimensional image. It is almost like Alonzo is just copying the image he sees in his head rather than sculpting from mere thoughts. One of his caretakers has attested that Alonzo is compelled to sculpt rather than do it for pleasure. She recalled an incident where Alonzo was in a mental institution and has his clay taken away. He was instructed that when he learned to tie his shoes and comb his hair that he would be able to get his clay back. Alonzo figured out that if he broke the window in his room that a maintenance worker would replace the window and administer putty around the window. Alonzo would proceed to pick that putty out of the window frame and sculpt with it. Alonzo has left brain hemisphere damage which prevents him from being able to easily form sentences, makes him unable to learn how to read and he cannot understand mathematics (Savant syndrome, Beautiful minds.)

The findings from Daniel applied to Alonzo and Kim gives a better idea of savantdom. It also supports the theory that there are latent savants out there that are unable to show their skills to the world. This is easily seen when you theorize what would happen if Kim and Alonzo switched abilities. Kim, with his poor motor skills would be hard-pressed to sculpt as Alonzo with his inability to read would be unable to fully harness his amazing memory.

What I have been leaving off on these paragraphs is a deeper look on whether or not these savants are really intelligent. In one light, they are. They are able to do things on par with computers and in such a way that no one else is capable of. In another light, they are simply nothing but computers, spitting back stored information or recreating imagines they see in their heads. The lack of the ability to apply their knowledge is what makes one consider whether or not it is intelligence.

On a personal note, I feel that intelligence applies to anyone with a skill. As stated above, given the right situation, anyone is capable of anything. Therefore, everyone is capable of intelligence and they already possess the potential for greatness.

The Proverb

There once was two brothers who always spent their days together. One brother, named Kofi, was older and told the younger brother, who was named Kwasi, everything he had already learned. The only problem was that Kwasi was very selfish and anything that Kofi told him he dismissed unless it affected him personally. When Kofi told Kwasi of wars long ago, Kwasi dismissed them as being unnecessary to know.

“Why should I worry about things that have already happened?” Kwasi would mutter.

When Kofi taught him how to deal with a lion attack, Kwasi would not listen to this as well. “I have never even seen a lion in his life, so why should I worry about one attacking me?” Kwasi would again complain.

After a while, Kofi got fed up with Kwasi’s attitude and decided to teach him a lesson. Kofi took Kwasi on a trip to their grandparent’s house were they had never been before. With his plan in mind, Kofi decided to take the most dangerous path to prove how everything that he taught Kwasi was important at some point.

The first leg of their journey led them into the jungle. Rather than go on about all that Kwasi should look out for, Kofi simply stayed silent and walked ahead as Kwasi tagged behind. Kwasi was tripping over vines and small plants and called out to Kofi as he fell and cut himself on a thorn bush. The bush was poisonous and when he was cut, Kwasi cried out in pain and called for his brother to help. Kofi simply looked down and said that he had already told him what one should do when they receive a cut in the jungle and what to do when that plant is poisonous. Kwasi tried to remember and decided that he was just going to keep going. Although it hurt Kofi to do this, he kept going through the jungle as his brother started to limp in pain.

Halfway through the jungle Kwasi once again got himself into trouble as he fell into a pit of quicksand and started to sink fast. Kwasi once again called out to his brother to help him to which Kofi once again looked at his brother and said that he already told him what one should do when they fall in quicksand. Kwasi manage to remember what his brother had told him and grabbed a nearby tree branch and slowly pulled himself out of the quicksand.

Eventually, they both found their way out of the jungle and into the savannah. After a few hours of walking, Kofi noticed the signs that there was a lion in this area and kept a sharp eye out for signs that the lion was near. It got to the point where Kofi was certain that the lion was in very close proximity to them so he told his brother that they would take up camp here.

Kofi went off to gather firewood and he told Kwasi to stay and guard their belongings. While Kofi was collecting the wood, it became dark very fast and Kwasi became scared. He started to hear growls in the distance and saw the lion as it jumped towards him and began to chase him. Kofi noticed this and started to chase after the both of them. It wasn’t long before Kwasi was cornered by the lion and called out for his brother. His brother once again told him that he had already taught him what to do when a lion attacks. After this, Kwasi became irritated and yelled out at his brother: “How come you won’t even help me now? My life is at risk! What kind of brother are you?”

Kofi looked at him and said: “I pointed out the stars and the moon to you and all you saw was my finger. This is a lesson that you will have to learn, dear brother.”

After Kofi finished his statement, the lion lunged out at Kwasi as he cringed in fear, wondering if he will be able to survive a lion’s attack.

At that point, Kofi dropped down from his hiding spot on top of the lion and grabbed him by the neck, subduing it, which allowed Kwasi to escape. From there, Kofi dragged the lion by the neck and dumped him into the nearby river which gave ample time for the both of them to escape. From that day, Kwasi listened to everything his brother taught him, always remembering what could happen if he didn’t.

The story above is the best way that I could apply the following proverb:

“I pointed out the starts and moon to you,

but all you saw was my finger.”

What the proverb means to me is someone, like Kwasi in the above story, is not seeing the big picture of a situation. Just like Kwasi, this proverb is talking about a person that is shortsighted and clueless and doesn’t understand that a situation can have more to it than what is on the surface.

Return to Paradise

How much is a human life worth? Most of the time when the idea of self-sacrifice or just sacrifices in general are concerned, the question posed usually involves a family member, friend or just any loved one. The dilemma posed by the film Return to Paradise is very different. Even though Sherriff and Tony became friends with Louis, they were far from being close to him. All they really know about him was just the two or so weeks that they spent with him in Malaysia. The problem posed to Sheriff and Tony was that unless one or both of them return to Malaysia and serve jail time, Louis would be executed. If one of them returns, he serves six years in jail, if both of them return; they each serve three years. So, it is their best bet for both of them to return. It seems simple on the surface, but the real problem lies in the fact that that Malaysian jails are of terrible quality and that they both be putting their lives on hold and on the line to save a person they barley know. At what point does humanity impede everything else? Would you be willing to give up part of your life for a total stranger? That is the real question that this movie poses.

Of the two that are to return, Sheriff seems to be the one with the least to lose. He works a terrible job as a limo driver, has no future prospects, no girlfriend and lives in a squalid apartment. The ironic thing is that for most of the film, he cannot bring himself to go. The real moral dilemma faced by Sheriff is how he is full responsible for Louis being arrested in the first place. Trashing the bike that Louis was fine walking back to the city and the brick of hashish that was found in the trash were all actions by Sheriff that caused Louis to be arrested. All of this really should mean that Sheriff should have been volunteering as soon as he could to go to prevent Louis from being executed but this was not the case. The real form of bravery that was shown by him was after Tony and he find out that Beth is Louis’ sister and decide to leave, Sheriff comes back and tries to save Louis’ life again after all seemed lost. In the end, Louis still ended up dying thanks to the actions of MJ, but the mere fact that he did it when he was about five steps away from the plane out of there says an incredible amount about his character.

Tony, on the other hand, had so much more to live for. First off, he had a great job as an engineer and he had a fiancée which he planned to marry within the year. Even with all of this, Tony decided almost immediately after he talked to Sheriff that he was going. In the beginning, it seems like Sheriff, who has less to lose, should be the one gung-ho about going back and saving Louis while Tony should be the one that is unsure how much a sacrifice for someone he barley knows he can make. It is almost fitting when they both find out that Beth is Louis’ sister that Tony jumps on this opportunity to leave as they were lied to and were subject to someone’s bested interests. This action almost completely rescinds all of Tony’s previous good deeds as he seemed to care more about being lied to than saving a human life. All in all, Tony probably wasn’t going to go though with going to jail in the first place. It is interesting how both of them flip as soon as they get to Malaysia. In the United States, Tony is ready to go on his own and it takes so much in order for Sheriff to go. When they get to Malaysia, one of the first thing that Tony says to Sheriff as soon as they get to the hotel room is something along the lines of “are you sure you can go through with this?” to which Sheriff says something like “I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t.” When it really mattered and when it was beyond being lied to by Louis’ sister, Tony bailed out where Sheriff stayed and tried to help his friend. This says a tremendous amount about Tony’s character. He really should not have let Beth’s vested interests cause him to abandon Louis when he needed him the most.

Of the three friends, Louis was the one who protected his friends in an incredible way. Over the two years of his captivity, he didn’t mention either Sheriff or Tony until it was the last resort to save his own life. At any time he could have brought up Sheriff and Tony and reduced his sentence but he did it after everything else was lost. The dilemma that came up was can you bring yourself to ask people you barley know to serve jail time on your behalf. It is true that Louis tried everything he could not to get to this point, but his true character shows in a less then stellar way when he is visited by Sheriff. Louis is ecstatic to see him, but he starts to lose it when he reveals that he would not return if he was in Sheriff’s place. This seems like an almost spit in the face on Sheriff’s part, but the idea of hindsight comes into play. Sheriff and Tony have no idea what it is like in a Malaysian prison while Louis does. If the tables were turned, I feel that Louis would have come back on the simple notion that he would not know what the prisons were like. So, even though that scene seemed to count against Louis’ character, it was influenced by actually being in the prison so it would most likely be different if it was either Tony or Sheriff in Louis’ position.

Beth’s dilemma was one of twofold; first off, she has to ask two people she has never met before to sacrifice upwards of six years of their lives in order to save someone that Sheriff and Tony barley know. Second of all, she has to do all of this in a way that her vested interests do not overly influence her decisions. How can she ask these people to do so much for her brother and how can she keep being Louis being her brother a secret from Tony and Sheriff? When that secret is revealed, it sends Tony off but Sheriff still comes back. The only problem that comes up is when MJ causes everything to be for nothing.

In all honesty, I don’t feel like MJ should have had a dilemma at all. She was asked multiple times by Beth not to take any action and she was going to get her story after the trial was finished. She just decided that her own career was more important than taking Beth’s word about how the story would end up killing Louis. It is kind of pathetic that her dilemma was on whether or not she was going to be selfish in order to save her own career. As I am sure it was written in this way, when the judge received the newspaper, ever viewer knew exactly what was written and how it was probably was going to doom Louis’ life. It is also kind of unfair that MJ was solely responsible for Louis’ death and there can be nothing done in order to prosecute her.

Overall, of the five characters listed above only one of them made and unselfish decision on his dilemma while the other four of them made selfish decisions. Sheriff came back to save Louis’ life and serve six years in a Malaysian prison while Tony just abandoned Louis because of the action of his sister. Louis made a selfish decision but it was needed to save his own life as the same with the actions of Beth, his sister, in order to save his life as well. Even though they both acted in thoughtful ways leading up to the decision to ask Sheriff and Tony, they still did it just to save Louis. MJ simply made a gigantic selfish decision and it cost Louis his life. Of all the characters, MJ made me the maddest as she essentially killed Louis just for a single newspaper articled that did nothing of use at all.