Thanks, Heather. I just love those movies, I always bring them up in conversations about philosophy or religion, much to the chagrin of my friends!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Freedom Philosophy
- Thread starter Buttons*
- Start date
Thanks, Heather. I just love those movies, I always bring them up in conversations about philosophy or religion, much to the chagrin of my friends!
Yeah, just saw it the other day. It's amazing and based on a true story.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
Freedom in a Saw
“Most people are so ungrateful to be alive. Not you. Not anymore.” – Saw
Everyone is familiar with the story of Saw - a complex and intense tragedy about what it takes to appreciate life. It can be argued that the murderous “Jigsaw” actually “frees” people from their inhibitions in order to discover the value of their own lives. The theme of freedom is present in every scenario that comes from the hand of the man who allows people to “choose” their deaths. But should one actually see the film, the realization comes that coercion is actually the motivating factor, and not freedom. In order for anyone to arrive at a change in his or her life even a coercion to murder another man is not enough to keep someone from reverting back to old habits. Thus, the entire series of films are coercive and do not achieve the intended goals. Coercion is masked as an idea of freedom – so though choices can be had, they are not choices without heavy consequences.
Putting the disturbing nature of the film aside - is it possible that freedom exists in a scenario where the only options to remain alive are either: a. cut off ones own leg in order to escape, though bleeding to death is almost certain. b. kill the other man in the room by poison or gunshot and have another’s blood on ones hands. c. have paid enough attention to the details in order to escape unscathed? These are one character’s difficult options. When one is in a situation where the motivation to do any of these things is that ones family is going to be killed in a short amount of time, one is not paying enough attention to detail to escape. The last thing that people do in time of crisis is staying calm enough to follow logic. It then becomes one of two choices: cut of your leg or murder the other man in the room.
When people hear the word “choice” they generally believe they have some sort of freedom when it comes to making a decision. Freedom becomes which option is chosen in any given scenario. Some of these decisions, however, are not made without some kind of coercion, but (according to some liberty theorists) coercion is not freedom. It is obvious that the options given to the characters in Saw were not made in the spirit of freedom, but of coercing people to make incredibly difficult decisions.
The point of forcing people to make these choices, claimed Jigsaw, is to decide how much their lives were worth to them. In the past, all the people he chose had wronged themselves or others. They chose to commit what Jigsaw defined as a heinous act. Because he is dying of cancer, he comes to the realization that everyone in this world needs to become grateful for life. If they are willing to make nearly impossible decisions, such as killing another person to retrieve a key from his stomach, then they have the joy of living that they could not have otherwise experienced. Yes, if anyone lives through that kind of torture, one has no choice but to accept their lives and begin to control them. But though the choice is made to begin appreciating life, it comes at the hands of coercive action. It is a change that is forced upon the people who must play the sick games, and is thus not freely made.
In the film, one woman was able to live through one of these sick games played by Jigsaw. Because of her junkie habits, she was forced to cut open a man to retrieve a key in order to open the lock on her jaw that would have otherwise ripped her head in two. For her sin, she had to make the choice whether her own life, which she was wasting, was truly that valuable to her. When the policemen at the station question her, she claims, “He helped me.” It does take a very different frame of mind to actually feel that the characters were at liberty to choose life or death, but it is an argument made in the film.
The “gun to the head” scenario is one that parallels Saw almost exactly. The question posed is: If someone were to hold a gun to another man’s head, would the man on the barrel side of the gun be responsible for any choice made while in this circumstance? Most, if not all, philosophers will argue that, no, the person in question is not responsible for their actions. People who come under that situation generally recant their promises or things done while under such coercive actions. Whether the goal is to teach a lesson, have “dirty work” done, or simply to amuse the person holding the weapon, the victim will do what is required to stay alive and no more. In the story of Saw, it is proven that although one can live through one of the sick and torturous games, the lesson learned is hardly ever remembered. In Saw II, another pop-culture hit, the woman who originally lived through the game in the first movie did not remember to appreciate life, and again decided to become a junkie again. The lesson, “appreciate life” cannot be taught through coercion – or at least, remembered.
In the end, coercive action is taken in a bloody mess that connects many characters in a bizarre situation. Every character put under “the barrel” of Jigsaw’s gun finds death for their former evil deeds. Insanity incurs out of the will to live. The tragic ending of the film is only one of the coercive actions that are seen in every day life. Though not everyone has a Jigsaw watching and waiting in the shadows, ready to test their sincerity for life, miniature coercions are made that influence everyone. In this way, the movie speaks to everyone on the topic of freedom, and still asks the audience to inquire about what kinds of freedom they are taking for granted, when they are not appreciating their own lives.
“Most people are so ungrateful to be alive. Not you. Not anymore.” – Saw
Everyone is familiar with the story of Saw - a complex and intense tragedy about what it takes to appreciate life. It can be argued that the murderous “Jigsaw” actually “frees” people from their inhibitions in order to discover the value of their own lives. The theme of freedom is present in every scenario that comes from the hand of the man who allows people to “choose” their deaths. But should one actually see the film, the realization comes that coercion is actually the motivating factor, and not freedom. In order for anyone to arrive at a change in his or her life even a coercion to murder another man is not enough to keep someone from reverting back to old habits. Thus, the entire series of films are coercive and do not achieve the intended goals. Coercion is masked as an idea of freedom – so though choices can be had, they are not choices without heavy consequences.
Putting the disturbing nature of the film aside - is it possible that freedom exists in a scenario where the only options to remain alive are either: a. cut off ones own leg in order to escape, though bleeding to death is almost certain. b. kill the other man in the room by poison or gunshot and have another’s blood on ones hands. c. have paid enough attention to the details in order to escape unscathed? These are one character’s difficult options. When one is in a situation where the motivation to do any of these things is that ones family is going to be killed in a short amount of time, one is not paying enough attention to detail to escape. The last thing that people do in time of crisis is staying calm enough to follow logic. It then becomes one of two choices: cut of your leg or murder the other man in the room.
When people hear the word “choice” they generally believe they have some sort of freedom when it comes to making a decision. Freedom becomes which option is chosen in any given scenario. Some of these decisions, however, are not made without some kind of coercion, but (according to some liberty theorists) coercion is not freedom. It is obvious that the options given to the characters in Saw were not made in the spirit of freedom, but of coercing people to make incredibly difficult decisions.
The point of forcing people to make these choices, claimed Jigsaw, is to decide how much their lives were worth to them. In the past, all the people he chose had wronged themselves or others. They chose to commit what Jigsaw defined as a heinous act. Because he is dying of cancer, he comes to the realization that everyone in this world needs to become grateful for life. If they are willing to make nearly impossible decisions, such as killing another person to retrieve a key from his stomach, then they have the joy of living that they could not have otherwise experienced. Yes, if anyone lives through that kind of torture, one has no choice but to accept their lives and begin to control them. But though the choice is made to begin appreciating life, it comes at the hands of coercive action. It is a change that is forced upon the people who must play the sick games, and is thus not freely made.
In the film, one woman was able to live through one of these sick games played by Jigsaw. Because of her junkie habits, she was forced to cut open a man to retrieve a key in order to open the lock on her jaw that would have otherwise ripped her head in two. For her sin, she had to make the choice whether her own life, which she was wasting, was truly that valuable to her. When the policemen at the station question her, she claims, “He helped me.” It does take a very different frame of mind to actually feel that the characters were at liberty to choose life or death, but it is an argument made in the film.
The “gun to the head” scenario is one that parallels Saw almost exactly. The question posed is: If someone were to hold a gun to another man’s head, would the man on the barrel side of the gun be responsible for any choice made while in this circumstance? Most, if not all, philosophers will argue that, no, the person in question is not responsible for their actions. People who come under that situation generally recant their promises or things done while under such coercive actions. Whether the goal is to teach a lesson, have “dirty work” done, or simply to amuse the person holding the weapon, the victim will do what is required to stay alive and no more. In the story of Saw, it is proven that although one can live through one of the sick and torturous games, the lesson learned is hardly ever remembered. In Saw II, another pop-culture hit, the woman who originally lived through the game in the first movie did not remember to appreciate life, and again decided to become a junkie again. The lesson, “appreciate life” cannot be taught through coercion – or at least, remembered.
In the end, coercive action is taken in a bloody mess that connects many characters in a bizarre situation. Every character put under “the barrel” of Jigsaw’s gun finds death for their former evil deeds. Insanity incurs out of the will to live. The tragic ending of the film is only one of the coercive actions that are seen in every day life. Though not everyone has a Jigsaw watching and waiting in the shadows, ready to test their sincerity for life, miniature coercions are made that influence everyone. In this way, the movie speaks to everyone on the topic of freedom, and still asks the audience to inquire about what kinds of freedom they are taking for granted, when they are not appreciating their own lives.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Excellent essay, Ash. You made a good film choice for the subject, too.
:clap
:clap