Philip K. Dick, Sci-Fi Philosopher, Part 2

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/philip-k-dick-sci-fi-philosopher-part-2/

by dnetesn • 12 years ago

40 33 12 years ago

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

dvt4• 12 years ago

Christianity, lest it be forgotten, is a metaphysical monism where it is the obligation of every Christian to love every aspect of creation

This is fundamentally incorrect. As far as Judeo-Christian theology is concerned, there is a clear distinction between God and creation.

Incidentally, this is also why Spinoza (a Sephardic Jew and monist) was excommunicated.

ThomPete10• 12 years ago

What do you mean clear distinction?

theophrastus• 12 years ago

Monism is one philosophical end of a historically infamous set of beliefs declared as 'clearly distinct' Christian heresies for which people were executed in gruesome fashion. For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism

gknoy• 12 years ago

to love every aspect of creation

He means that Christianity canonically differentiates a Creator (God) and that which was created (universe, people, etc). So, this person or tree is not God, nor is it an aspect of God.

dvt4• 12 years ago

Monism (or at lest the version of it Spinoza deals with) claims that creation is part of God. So monism says that (universe ∈ God).

This is not, for the most part, what Christians philosophically believe. For example, evil, which is certainly a part of our universe is most definitely not a part of God; God is metaphysicsl whilst the universe is physical; the universe is temporal, God is not; etc.

This is what I mean by there is a "clear distinction" between the two. Monism, by definition, argues that "everything is one".

debacle• 12 years ago

Only slightly off topic, but anyone who hasn't should read Philip K Dick. Reading an anthology of his short stories is like reading the plot summary of almost every major Sci-Fi film in the last 30 years.

FlailFast2• 12 years ago

Quite true, and sometimes in a very literal[1] sense![2]

[1] Literal in the classic sense, not the contranymical nonsense that has been thrust upon it thanks to teenagers who "can't even"...read a dictionary.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adaptations_of_works_by...

cbd1984• 12 years ago

Wow. You know nothing about English. Dickens used "literally" in a figurative sense:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3007

Looks like you literally can't even read a dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

It's fun to take illiterate pedants down a peg. Everyone should try it for themselves.

brownbat• 12 years ago

Though I've often found if you want a sense of the original, mostly imagine a book based on the complete opposite message of the film.

Spoilers...

In Minority Report (film), the protagonist does everything to save one innocent abused by the state. In the book, well, let's just say if you want a perfect society you've got to break a few eggs.

In Paycheck (film), he sides with government regulators to stop a corrupt corporation. In Paycheck (book) he sides with a corrupt corporation to take down the government.

In The Golden Man, the government hunts a powerful and dangerous mutant. In Next, the powerful mutant sides with the government to stop terrorists.

I know Dick wasn't in favor of killing cops or corrupt corporations or hunting down people who are different, but the best thing about all of those stories is that they put the protagonists in these sort of awful lifeboat ethics dilemmas, dilemmas that are apparently far too interesting to waste on film audiences.

myth_buster• 12 years ago

I picked up my first Philip K Dick novel (Ubik) recently and it blew me away. I could see the plot elements which were later used in Matrix, Inception and a few other movies. Its fascinating to see how many of his novels got made into movies or were inspirations. I believe it was Keanu Reeves who said his favorite under rated movie is A Scanner Darkly.

He is a very interesting character and a lot of enigma?/controversy surrounds him. This was an interesting conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeVgEs4sOo

pmoriarty2• 12 years ago

Keanu Reeves probably said that because he starred in it.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scanner_Darkly_%28film%29#Ca...

jstelly• 12 years ago

I would definitely recommend his short stories. Most of them are excellent and it's a small investment of time so you can try several to get the feel of his work.

If you're reading novels, "Martian Time-Slip" is a good first Philip K Dick book. Although I really enjoy many of his books there are several that may put you off reading more if you read them before you have an appreciation for his work. Martian Time-Slip will give you the flavor of Philip K Dick and show you how innovative and interesting he was as a writer. If you don't enjoy that one I think you will probably not enjoy most of his other novels. If you started with "Confessions of a Crap artist" or even the acclaimed "The man in the high castle" for example you might not have the best first experience with his work. "Ubik" (also mentioned in this thread) is another good choice to start with.

pmoriarty2• 12 years ago

I'd start with "Ubik", then "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch", and finally "Martian Time-Slip". Those are Dick's greatest works.

jchrisa• 12 years ago

His Gnosticism reminds me of http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Philip K. Dick, Sci-Fi Philosopher, Part 2

Related Stories