 |
| (−)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC (the principle psychoactive constituent of marijuana) |
In Chapter 1, when Rick Deckard and his wife Iran wake up in the morning, they discuss whether or not to use the 'mood organ,' a device which can instantly induce a specific state of mind (e.g. despair, wakefulness) in the user. This mood organ represents today's mind- and mood-altering drugs taken to their logical extreme. Superficially it seems like a liberating invention. After all, it can eliminate laziness, depression, anxiety, and unhappiness. But by making it easy to control emotion, it detaches emotions from their causes. Iran remarks, "I realized how unhealthy it as sensing the absence of life...and not reacting..." This "absence of affect" destroys the meaning of emotion. If emotions do not mean anything, how are they different from commodities; mere things to be sometimes avoided and sometimes sought after? In real life, when people take illegal drugs, they often do it for the euphoria of intoxication. This is nothing less than running away from the world. When feelings and reality are not in accord, is one not deluded?
The mood organ has another consequence. Along with moods, desires can also be induced, including the desire to use the mood organ. But this is problematic. As Iran states, "If I don't want to dial, I don't want to dial [#3] most of all because then I will want to dial, and wanting to dial is right now the most alien drive I can imagine..." Changing one's desires violates the integrity of the will. For when desires can be changed so easily, their significance and meaning is in danger. What should one change one's desires to? Are there 'better' desires that one ought to have? By acknowledging those better desires, doesn't one already desire them?
These questions are existentially threatening, if you're not using drugs or a mood organ. Therefore it isn't surprising that Deckard's wife Iran schedules despair for herself; even if the despair is artificially induced, it is in accord with reality and therefore (in a way) genuine.
Yes, this post is very opinionated, so feel free to deconstruct/refute/elaborate on what you see. Let's have a good discussion!
I think the very idea of the mood organ manifests from humanity’s desire to control (or rather, hide from) specific emotions. Although, as Chris said, the mood organ takes this to a logical extreme, we can relate to the idea of changing our emotions. From something as common as listening to certain types of music to engaging in certain activities that literally alter one’s mental state, people try to control or change their mood to a desirable one. Usually, this ‘desirable mood’ is one of content and tranquility, so when I first read about the mood organ, my first thoughts were, Wow! I wish my local pharmacy sold these. To live in a society where people could freely suppress anger and sorrow, or any other emotion that causes pain, initially seemed awesome. However, after observing Rick and, more specifically, Iran’s behavior, I realized how dangerous this machine would be in our society.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it’s dangerous because, like Chris said, it detaches emotions from their causes. People would live artificially, and by artificially, I mean they would never be able to truly experience their feelings because they would “pre-program” their mood at the start of each day. In addition, I realized that since the mood organ allows the deprivation of certain emotions, some people would experiment with the emotions they are not familiar with. This is exactly what Iran does, for when she sees “how unhealthy it was, sensing the absence of life…and not reacting,” she begins to experiment with the depression setting. The very notion of experimenting with a depression setting is extremely dangerous, especially to those who are not familiar with its repercussions. After reading the first chapter, I now understand that the mood organ is as much a threat to human society as it as a luxury.
The idea that by affecting your desires you undermine your free will is an interesting one. I understand it as you saying that since you no longer possess the desire you once had, the decision is not your own. However, did you not make the choice to adopt that desire in the first place, aware of what it would do to you?
ReplyDeleteThough the mood organ is obviously quite the extreme, I find myself likening this to the idea of antidepressants, as I mentioned in class. If I am depressed, I may find myself suicidal; however, I am also aware that by taking anti-depressants there is a good chance the desire to kill myself will leave me. I was aware of how my desire would be affected and the final result. Then one comes back to the question of free will? Did it always exist? Did it initially exist, and was it then eroded by taking anti-depressants (or the use of the mood organ)? Did it never exist? I would lean towards the first option, that it always existed (probably moreso because I dislike determinism --it's a bit of a cop out in my mind).
Liam, you said, "The idea that by affecting your desires you undermine your free will is an interesting one. I understand it as you saying that since you no longer possess the desire you once had, the decision is not your own. However, did you not make the choice to adopt that desire in the first place, aware of what it would do to you?"
DeleteFree will is not undermined. Rather, the person is stripped down to free will and free will only. Since one can overcome desires and feelings by means of the mood organ, everything except free will and memories is irrelevant when it comes to decision-making. Have an annoying habit you can't kick? Give your free will a boost with Penfield stimulation. Thinking about sex too much? No problem, just dial.
The scary thing is the degree of control over oneself which the mood organ allows. One is master of one's desires, thoughts, and feelings, but exerting this control destroys one's current self. After all, don't your thoughts, feelings, and (in particular) innermost desires make up an essential part of yourself? If you want to be a different person, then go ahead and use the mood organ, but Søren Kierkegaard tells us that not wanting to be oneself is precisely being in despair. Therefore I said in my post that the mood organ destroys the integrity of the will. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it destroys the integrity of the person.