A DARKER

LOOKinto the

HUMANPSYCHE

FIRST ISSUE

On Domestic Helpers in Hong Kong

Elysia Li ‘18

What is Memento?

Cal Kromelow ‘17

Religion to the Third Power

Elaine Chen ‘17

Birds

Tina Guo ‘19

How Genuine Is “Sorry”?

Alan Wong ‘17

From the Editors

Elaine Chen ‘17, Chris Park ‘18

6

8

1011

Contents

Annihilism

Isabel Tyree ‘17

Anxiety Loop

Wan Lin Qin ‘17

Why We Panick to Think We Could Be Fake

Daniel Kim ‘18

Time Travel Ruins Everything

Chris Park ‘18

The Prison Effect

Isabel Conti ‘18

The Greed That Took over Greece

Michelle Na ‘18

171920222426

From

the E

ditors

I originally became interested in philosophy during Prep hu-manities. When I first heard of the Philosophy Club’s plan to discuss various topics that delve in contemporary and classical ideas, I decided to assist this project. I believe that the club has the potential to develop into a salon (a party for artists and scholars to gather and discuss ideas); as a matter of fact, the club’s alternate name is “The Blue Salon”.

The philosophers of Ancient Greece were able to share their (extensively long) ideas with others because they had a lot of free time. Sadly, Hotchkiss students do not share the same lei-sure. As such, gaining interest in philosophical meetings was difficult for the founding members, as students do not have the time to research and discuss about a specific branch of philosophy. As an alternative solution, the Blue Salon wanted to take advantage of the fact that any topic has the potential for logical analysis and chose to publish our own magazine, Brainstorm. Thus, Brainstorm is the opportunity for anyone who wants to provide an opinion about their personal interests and preserve those ideas.

This first issue of Brainstorm was an adventure for all of our members, and I can recall how many surprises I had during this process. I was originally a writer and an editor for articles. Due to my tendency to analyze anything that interests me, I thought the position of an editor was good enough for me. So, when Elaine offered me the job of editor in chief, I had a lot to learn throughout the process. While I commented and managed ar-ticles, I watched my co-editor in chief contact designers and potential members for the magazine. When all is said and done, Brainstorm is a learning experience. You learn to think about ideas, to write, and how to improve on your product day by day.

Chris Park ‘18Co-editor in Chief

The crisp winter wind, the moist scent of rain, the ephemeral youth of the morning star, and the rolling clouds spreading like ink feathering under a spilt drop of tea… every observation spawns wonder. It’s the small things in life that continuously provoke human sentiment, that continuously provoke thought. And just like that, philosophy becomes timeless.

Our journey began with a congregation of different people bearing their own ideas. Shortly after, our club exuded with ideas to the extent where we feared that we would lose them forever. To satisfy the building din of ideas, our club settled on the idea of compiling a magazine to shelter these fleet-ing thoughts; it’s no exaggeration to say that Brainstorm is the offspring of our imagination. Personally, flipping through the pages of this magazine, I can feel my mind slowly plunging into the ocean of inspiration that is philosophy, striking the fine balance between my world and the world.

Human existence lives in two dimensions: imagination and re-ality. But the rift where these two dimensions overlap crude-ly packages into one single term - philosophy. Our magazine Brainstorm attempts to capture this term in ways more than the classroom definition. Enlightenment beings with the faculty of wonder: there’s still a whole lot out there to admire, but for now enjoy this issue!

Special thanks to:Ms. Wynn, for sparking passion in what we do

Mr. Reed, for supporting me and the magazine’s process

Sumin Goh ‘18, for making the magazine possible

Elaine Chen ‘17Co-editor in Chief

A few weeks ago, I explained the domestic helper system to a friend of mine. Surprisingly, she remarked that the system sounded similar to indentured servitude. She ex-plained that, not unlike indentured servitude, domestic help-ers live with their employers and perform domestic duties. My first reaction upon hearing this was to vehemently deny her claim. Indentured servitude was abolished in the Unit-ed States during the 19th century due to its infringement of natural rights. How could a system so prevalent in modern society resemble indentured servitude? After giving the question more thought, I decided that Hong Kong’s domestic helper system is different from indentured servitude for a few reasons. Firstly, domestic helpers are not considered personal property; domestic helpers cannot be sold or inherited as indentured servants were. Secondly, do-mestic helpers are not obligated to work for a particular em-ployer, for they are permitted to terminate their employment contracts. Thirdly, domestic helpers are paid monthly wages in addition to being provided with food, or a food allowance and living accommodations. The salient difference between indentured servitude and the domestic helper system is that domestic helpers are not in compulsory service. However, similarly to indentured servants, domestic helpers’ rights are often not protected. As a result, domestic helpers work under conditions similar to bonded labourers and are often discriminated against.

Domestic helpers often become bonded labourers due to debt. It has been noted that many domestic help-ers are in debt when they arrive in Hong Kong to work.

This is partially credited to corruption among domestic helper agencies. Many domestic helpers rely on agencies for job opportunities in Hong Kong. Although the law only per-mits agencies to charge domestic helpers HK$401, approxi-mately 10% of the minimum domestic helper monthly sala-ry, domestic helpers have spoken of an illegal agency fee that is twice as much as their annual salary. These agencies often require domestic helpers to pay them upfront in cash, for the purpose of not leaving any evidence of the illegal trans-actions. Many domestic helpers take out loans to pay their agencies and may be forced to become bonded labourers in order to pay off debts.

Domestic helpers are often subjected to discrimi-nation as indentured servants were. They are treated worse than other foreign workers. They are denied the right to ap-ply for permanent residency in Hong Kong, despite fulfilling the prerequisite of residing in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years. Domestic helpers may not live in Hong Kong without an employment visa and are not eligible for social benefits. There is also evidence that some domestic helpers have been abused by their employers (Erwiana Sulistyaningsih’s case, in which she was physically abused by her employer for six months, being the most well-known).

Many people have argued that domestic helpers are not compensated fairly. They argue that the Statutory Minimum Wage should apply to domestic helpers, but the Statutory Minimum Wage cannot apply to domestic helpers because

On Domestic Helpers in Hong Kong

As somebody who has lived in both Hong Kong and America, the first dif-ference that comes to mind is the domestic helper system in Hong Kong.

6

of their unusual terms of employment. The Minimum Wage Ordinance states that “if an employee while being on-call orstandby is in attendance at a place of employment in accor-dance with the contract of employment or with the agree-ment or at the direction of the employer, such on-call or standby time is hours worked for computing minimum wage”. Since domestic helpers live with their employers, their employers would be charged for 24 hours of work every day. This does not mean that domestic helpers should receive less compensation for their work. Domestic helpers work for 6 days per week from before breakfast until after dinner, which is around 12 hours a day. In a month with 30 days, they will have had 26 working days. With the same hour-ly working wage as the Statutory Minimum Wage provides, they should get HK$32.5*12*26 = HK$10,140 per month. Domestic helpers currently receive a monthly minimum sal-ary of HK$4,110, which they are not taxed on by the Hong Kong government. It might seem like domestic helpers re-ceive significantly less than they should. However, domestic helpers are also provided with a food allowance of HK$964 (if food is not provided), and living accommodations. Housing in Hong Kong is extremely expensive. According

to numbeo.com, the average rent for an apartment with one bedroom outside of the city centre is HK$12,258.62.Adding their current salary to the cost of providing food and housing, HK$4,110 + HK$964(food allowance, which should be the same as what providing food costs) + HK$12,258.62 = HK$17,332.62. The price of food and housing make up for their lower minimum salary.

According to the law in Hong Kong, domestic helpers should not work under conditions similar to that of indentured ser-vants. Domestic helpers are not indentured servants because they are technically allowed to terminate their employment contracts and they receive salaries. However, since laws that protect the rights of domestic helpers have not been enforced, the similarities between indentured servants and domestic helpers include discrimination and abuse in some cases. It is the responsibility of the Hong Kong government to enforce its laws more closely to ensure that Hong Kong is a safe working environment for everyone.

Elysia Li ‘18

7

What is

Memento?

Would you prefer truth, meaning, or something to entertain yourself with? Memento has a non-linear storyline which forces the audience to question what in the movie is truth, and what is not. In the film the main character Leonard (Lenny) has an “an-terograde memory dysfunction” (AMD) which is a memory disorder that makes it impossible for him to gain new memories. Leonard can’t re-member anything past what he believes to be his wife’s murder. He decides to avenge his wife by tracking down her escaped attacker and to kill him. In addition, Leonard is obsessed with a side story in which a man named Sammy has the psychological version of his own illness. Un-like Leonard’s wife’s death, in Sammy’s story, his diabetic wife tested whether Sammy would

recover from his mental illness if his failure to do so meant her death. She fails as Sammy unknowingly kills her with an overdose of insulin shots. This story causes the audience to ques-tion whether Leonard had the memory disorder, or if he psychologically thought that he had the disorder and made up the Sammy story to hide the fact from himself that he had unintention-ally killed his diabetic wife. An audience mem-ber could go on for hours debating whether the main character’s condition was psychological, or physical: If Lenny killed his wife and was mur-dering innocent men, or if his wife was killed and Lenny was on a journey to avenge her. This is a rather fun game to play, but futile since IMDB released the truth.

A spoiler filled analysis of the movie Memento (2000) by Cristopher Nolan

Design: Josephine Li8

The truth is that Leonard was both Sammy and not. Leon-ard was a detective of insurance fraud cases and was assigned to Sammy’s case. Sammy existed as an unmarried man who faked the condition of AMD. Leonard report-ed that Sammy faked his condi-tion for the fraud, because Sam-my could not be reconditioned like people with AMD. Then Leonard’s wife was raped by two home in-vaders. Leonard killed the first, and was knocked out by the sec-ond. When he woke up, Leonard was diagnosed with AMD. His di-abetic wife was tired of caring for her husband and had him kill her through an insulin overdose that could only have been avoided if Leonard had miraculously recov-ered from his condition. The cop Teddy was assigned Leonard’s

murder case. Leonard was found innocent in his spousal murder case due to his condition of AMD. The court system placed Leon-ard into an institution. Leonard escaped the institution with the notion that the second attacker, who the police did not catch, had murdered his wife. Leonard found Teddy, and the cop helped him track down his wife’s second at-tacker so that Leonard could kill the rapist. Leonard then asked for the police report from Teddy and removed certain files in order to make the “second attacker case” seem an unsolvable puzzle for Lenny to play with for the rest of his life. Teddy entertained Leonard by helping Lenny on his repeated quest while Teddy made money from it. The movie begins a year after the second attacker is killed.

From the beginning, the movie is told from the distorted vision of the character with AMD. The first thing both the main character and the audience trusts is a photo with Teddy on it, which says not to trust his lies. This note is written in the main character’s hand-writing, and as Leonard remembers it, he only tells the truth through his notes. The note’s message is in the viewer’s mind from the beginning. So, the audience doesn’t trust Teddy. Because of this: neither the audience members, nor Lenny believe that Teddy tells the truth in the end of the film. This puts the audience members at the same spot as the main character. In case you haven’t seen the movie yet (spoilers above) I will put you into the perspective of a person who has. Like Lenny, you can choose the easy way out and take the truth, or you can make an impossible problem for yourself to fathom. Do you believe the sequence of events, or do you want to entertain yourself with a puzzle? This idea of conflict between accepting truth and finding meaning is strewn throughout the film. What do you think is more important? Are you fine with accepting this storyline as truth, or would you prefer to tantalize your psyche with a rousing movie mystery?

California Kromelow '17

9

The word “sorry” can have various meanings for various purposes at various levels. We use it on a daily basis with friends and family, employees use it at work, diplomats and politicians consid-er it a crucial word in negotiations. Why is “sorry” so powerful? How genuine is “sorry”, and how often is it actually apologetic?

The most genuine use of the word probably occurs at the personal level: “Sorry, I was late” or “Sorry, I forgot to bring the book.”

The speaker genuinely shows regret for what he has done in these situations and the use of “sorry” expresses a sense of apology. However, more often than not, “sorry” is used merely as a tool to alleviate uncomfortable situations.

Consider “Sorry, we can’t offer you this job.”

Does the employer believe that he has done something wrong? Does he need to apologize? What he really thought was: “We can’t offer you this job because you are not competent.” The word “sorry” comes into place only to comfort the listener and allow the speaker to express himself more easily.

At the diplomatic level, when communications are crucial and the choice of words is careful-ly thought over, the word “sorry” is immeasurably useful precisely because of its ambiguity.

Consider the genuinity of “sorry” in Benigno Aquino III’s speech as President of the Philip-pines in 2010. After a gunman killed several Hong Kong citizens in the Philippines, Aquino III said that he was “sorry for their loss”. The word “sorry” showed his regret for the tragedy without direct-ly expressing apology. The wise use of this word hence allowed Aquino to avoid admitting Manila’s alleged incompetence in dealing with the incident. If he had apologized directly, it would mean he was admitting Manila’s fault, which would possibly lead to Hong Kong’s demands for further explanation and compensation. Politicians, therefore, frequently use “sorry” ambiguously to avoid taking a clear stance on issues that could hinder their actions in the future.

The way that “sorry” has developed from a word of apology to a word of regret in our per-sonal lives is not only important in every-day conversations and difficult situations, but has also become a diplomatic tool that conceals the true views of politicians. If the meaning of this word continues to alter in the future, it might serve even more purposes and further complicate conver-sations.

Alan Wong ‘17

How Genuine is Sorry ?

10

Philosophy, considered a sacrosanct study by many, involves the exchange of ideas. When a philosopher proposes an argument, another would reply with a counter argument denoting the errors in the previous argument. Although the argument and counterargument rally may imply a continuous cycle of innovation, some thinkers in their refutals would always revert to the broad response of God’s desire. All such arguments, called theistic arguments, share a common fallacy: the issue of God’s existence. Theistic arguments involve proving the existence of God by using logic, reason, and observations. Although there are a plethora of arguments relating to God, what will be explored are three distinct categories of theistic arguments: ontological, cosmological, and teleological.

Fundamentally, the ontological argument states that the idea of God is sufficient enough to prove God’s existence; the cosmological argument asserts God’s existence with the title of ‘Great Creator’, and the teleological argument explains that the world’s intricate design ascertains the existence of God. Before engaging with these three arguments, let us first es-tablish the definition of God that would be employed in the following arguments. God will be defined as a supreme being in which nothing greater than God can be imagined.

Religion to the Third Power

The three paths to proving God’s existance... which one would you take?

11

The Ontological Argument

When Saint Anselm of the Eleventh Century first pro-posed his ideas, he probably did not expect to become the father of the ontological argument. Using the defi-nition of a supreme being in which nothing greater could be thought, Anselm recognises that the God one thinks about must be great. In fact, the God dwelling in one’s thoughts must be with the best possible attributes. However, Anselm segues, a God existing in reality is greater than a God formed in one’s mind, for a God in existence possesses a positive element that a God who is merely the offspring of one’s imagination lacks: exis-tence. Ultimately, Anselm has improved his definition of God from a perfect being to a perfect being that must exist not only in the mind, but also in reality. This su-preme being must enjoy all of the perfections nature has to offer, including the quality of existence.

Though seemingly coherent, Anselm erred in his as-sumption that existence is a quality or characteristic. Existence is not an attribute: an imaginary item would be exactly the same as an exciting one. For example, an imaginary teacup would have the same properties, at-tributes, or qualities as an existing one. To say that the teacup was made of porcelain is to describe its charac-teristics, but to say the the teacup exists does not give any information on what the teacup is like. Similarly, to say God exists does not actually contribute to the de-scription of God Himself; existence is not a predicate. Anselm’s ontological argument revolves around the

property that God must be the greatest conceivable being in which nothing greater than God could be imagined. Extending upon this definition, Anselm then concludes that a God that possess all positive at-tributes and exists in reality is greater than a God that possess all positive attributes and is only a mere idea. But existence cannot be an attribute. Using the defini-tion of a supreme being, God must be the greatest of all things possible, but can God really be the greatest in existing? God may be the greatest in strength or intelli-gence, but existing is not a quality in which one can be the best at. One either exists or does not - there is no way to determine how great one’s ability to exist is. But then… wouldn’t a God who can disprove the ontolog-ical argument be ge greater than one who could not?

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is perhaps the most intu-itive, and the one with which most people are famil-iar. The cosmological argument can be summarized by a single cause and effect relationship; there must be something, or rather someone, that caused the uni-verse to exist. Science dictates that for every effect, there must be a cause, and that every cause also has a cause. By imagining an infinite regress or chain of causes and effects, one may come to the conclusion that some su-preme being, having enough power to do so, must have created the universe. This supreme being, namely God, must be something that does not depend on a cause for its own existence. Like most, if not all, metaphysical arguments, the cos-

Ontological Argument

“A God existing in reality is great-er than a God formed in one’s mind, for a God in existence pos-sesses a positive element that a God who is merely the offspring of one’s imagination lacks: exis-

tence.”

Cosmological Argument

“By imagining an infinite regress or chain of causes and effects, one may come to the conclusion that some supreme being, having enough power to do so, must have created

the universe.”

Teleological Argument

“If one were to reflect upon the human existence, so complex in its structure, so variegated in its culture, one might reach the con-clusion that humanity must have been designed by some potent

being.”

12

mological argument is invalid. Though the cosmologi-cal argument supports the possibility of God’s existence, it does not prove it. The argument itself lacks the log-ic and evidence to conclude that it is indeed God who created the universe. What if it was some other great being who had the power to create the universe, but is lesser than God in every other aspect. The creation of the universe does not explicitly state the existence of God himself. It may have been a realm of minor gods working together to build the universe, but through the cosmological argument, one would never know.

The cosmological argument argues that the intrica-cies in the universe implies the existence of God. A being, such as God, must be so potent that he should be able to exist without a cause. Apparently some Christians out there are not only concerned about the universe ending in an apocalypse, but are also wor-ried that God, the supreme being that exists without a preceding cause, would be the one to unleash said apocalypse. But in that case, what would cause God, the supreme being immune to antecedents, to do so?

The Teleological Argument

If, by a street, one were to accidentally stumble across a watch and pick it up, he/she might conclude that the watch was made to serve a purpose. Noticing an array of intricate mechanisms that by far exceeds the defini-tion of ‘simple’, he/she might think that the watch has an intelligent creator. Similarly, if one were to reflect upon the human existence, so complex in its structure, so variegated in its culture, one might reach the same conclusion that humanity must have been designed by some potent being. William Paley would call this being God. Paley asserts that living nature, being so intricate in function, must have a divine creator, concluding the teleological argument with a neat analogy.

Although tenable, there was quite a bit of sophistry in-volved in the teleological argument as shown by David Hume. One of David Hume’s major criticisms against the teleological argument is his skepticism concerning the machine to living nature analogy. Hume held the be-lief that machines and living organisms are radically dif-ferent. He argues that machines, such as the watch men tioned previously, are purposely assembled from a myriad of different components such as gears, screws, nails, etc.

Living beings, on the other hand, are not assembled, but grow by means of multiplication. Not only are the two different in forms of construction, but also in regards to existence. While machines would forever remain in a state of stasis after being created, life forms would in-finitely grow and multiply to preserve its species’ exis-tence.

The analogy Paley makes is clear; he compares the cre-ation of a complex machine to the creation of an intri-cate life form. But it would do living beings injustice (and not to mention great offence) to conclude that life is derived from the process of manufacturing. Con-comitantly, Charles Darwin was of great influence in the realm of the teleological argument. Extending upon Hume’s refutal against the argument was his now widely accepted theory of evolution. Unlike machines, living organisms adapt to their surroundings in an effort to stay alive. While marveling at nature’s accomplishments, one may stumble across the teleological argument, but the least one can do is avoid comparing him/herself to the status of a soulless machine.

Elaine Chen, Class of ‘17

Elaine Chen, from Hong Kong, developed a huge fascination for philosophy during her Hotchkiss career. As one of the co-founders of The Philosophy Club, Elaine strives to stitch together the differ-ent ideas people bear into a single entity -- Brainstorm.

“If God were to unleash the Apoc-alypse on the hu-man race, what would cause God, the supreme be-ing immune to antecedents, to do

so? ”

13

BirdsTina Guo

If I was gifted with a supernatural pow-er, I would choose the ability to fly: Soar-ing through the clouds, hiding behind a rose-colored patch, watching a flock of Canada geese passing by, being wary not to break up the birds’ formations as I tagged along… imagine the infinite pos-sibilities and the freedom flying would grant me! It is not about conquering a new world; it’s about curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge. There are city tales, scientific reports, and thrilling Hol-lywood productions of this seemingly disconnected meadow of space above us. Maybe I could fly up and take samples of the air oblivious to human touch. Maybe I could jot down the migrant birds’ routes to avoid the interference of our activi-ties with theirs. Maybe I could observe the thin lining of clouds where the skies meet the sea with a slight tilt of my head. Maybe I could watch the whole world change around me as the sun clings to the brink of day and sends the sky into flames. Maybe I could perch above a rain-ing city, suddenly realizing how small yet powerful we are in survival, despite all those disagreements and conflicts. May-be I could actually get to know the world.

I am still looking for the answer:

Dobirdsrealizetheyhavesuchaninvaluablegift?

The birds are nowhere and everywhere. They can hide in the bushes chirping a second earlier, but be deadly silent when you pass by; they can also glide across the sapphire sky with all the freedom and swiftness of nature and hop along the stern branches of a flaming tree at the height of the fall, bristling their delicate and colorful feathers for you to behold.

14

The birds are nowhere and everywhere. They can hide in the bushes chirping a second earlier, but be deadly silent when you pass by; they can also glide across the sapphire sky with all the freedom and swiftness of nature and hop along the stern branches of a flaming tree at the height of the fall, bristling their delicate and colorful feathers for you to behold.

However, whenever I mention bird watching to a friend for the first time, their reaction is always: “Bird-what?” Perhaps in their mind, now there is a bald old man standing alone on the sidewalk, desperately staring at the sky for one or two birds occasionally pass-ing by. Was that your impression?

They are such amazing feathered creatures.

Let me put it in another way. Imagine yourself stepping, softly but deftly, deeper and deeper into the woods. After trudging up and down the mountain the whole day trying to catch a glimpse of the highly endangered Yellow-bellied Tragopan, you ultimately fail in your mission. So, you start on a night time expedition into one of the best mountain conservation ar-eas in Guangdong province. After some scream-filled moments when your flashlight unexpectedly illuminated some equally startled frogs and lizards, you manage to stagger into this clearing in the middle of the forest; and that was when five or more nightingales broke the silence and glided across the starlit sky. You realized it was a fruitful journey after all. That was the anticipation and excitement of bird watching.

I fell in love with bird watching two years ago when I laid on the grass and watched the swallows ripple the stillness of the sky. Bird watching became my favorite outdoor activity, and has brought me much beyond joy and knowledge. I remember once wait-ing an hour for a Greater Coucal, which never ar-rived; but like fishing, it’s the hope and curiosity of encountering a target bird, or fish, and that is in it-self its own reward. The purpose of bird watching is not only to learn about birds and their beauty, but also to have an immediate sense of the danger they are in. Take the black-faced Spoonbill for example.

15

One mustn’t let overwhelmingness stop one from trying. Even the tiniest realization helps with the overall protection of birds: Try not to pick up dropped chicks after storms because their par-ents are perfectly capable of taking care of them; don’t throw plastic bags into mangrove areas be-cause Little Egrets like to peck near the shore and might choke themselves on any artificial object.

I have once been fortunate enough to take in their beau-ty. A dozen or so Black-faced Spoonbills, flapping their snow-white wings under the rose-dipped sky as water trickled down their slender necks; and now, there are only 2700 of them on the planet, the number is still declining.I learnt a lot from my fellow birders, especially the notion that bird watching does not only mean watching birds and taking photos of them, but also evokes an enjoyment for the heart and a gateway towards the beauty of nature.

I could never dare to imaginea star-filled sky

without the graceful shadows of owlets,or a dew-soaked meadow

without the darting forms of house sparrows.

Though the birds might not be loved byeveryone, if gone, they are sure to be missed.

16

Why We Panic to Think

W e C o u l d B e F a k e .

17

An interesting argument goes that, mathematically speaking, we have a higher possibility of living in a simulated world. The accelerating progress of science drives a lot of scientists to believe that, a simulated world can be more than a fictitious dream. If a civilization succeeds in creating an identical simulated world, the probability for a creature to be living in the “real world” decreases by half. Because of the huge effort required for simulation technology research, a civilization will likely fully utilize the technology by running more simulated worlds--which also could be ca-pable of creating own virtual worlds--meaning our chances of living in reality further decreases.

This possibility of living in a sim-ulated society has spurred several questions—how do we know if this world is real, and why should we care? In The Matrix, we see humans hitched up to a giant system that renders it impossible to differentiate between reality and simulated reality because the brains directly receive electric signals indicating that certain stimuli have occurred. Ini-tially even the main characters in the Matrix can-not escape from the system without others’ help. Because those people cannot physically think without the brain, they could never purely doubt whether their perceptions of the world are noth-ing but electric signals. Likewise, no matter how we speculate whether or not this world is real, what we think and how we think can always be a product of external interference. There is no way to know whether this world is a forced memory, simulation, or a dream unless we are physically capable of thinking without our susceptible brain.

But does discerning the fake and reality really matter? In The Ma-trix, we see main characters striving against the Matrix because of their their faith that humans, not machines, should decide their own fates. They reject the simulated world be-cause they want to control their own fates.

And whilst they fight for truth, some people like Cypher, the traitor in The Matrix, enjoy the bene-fits of the simulated world and prefer to live in it. But even they value the reality, as Cypher demon-strated when he asked to have his memory wiped before being reinstalled in the Matrix. Discern-ing the fake and reality does matter to people.

In theory, the truth should not af-fect whatever those people enjoy in the simulated world, for emotions and memories don’t get directly affected by the knowledge that the world is false. However, our desires to bring meaning to our lives change the meaning of these emotions and memories. The thought that we are nothing more than electric signals leaves us won-dering, “why do we exist at all?” The possibility of ourselves being nothing but brains with wires con-nected to an experience machine shocks us because that isn’t how we would like to define ourselves. We want to view ourselves as self-achieving, meaning-ful beings, and to condense all that in mere electric signals undermines the very purpose of our lives.

Daniel Kim, Class of 2018

“If a civilization succeeds in creatingan identical simulated world,the probability for a creature to be living in the “real world” decreases by half.”

18

For all of the horror, for all of the raw acceptance of the nature of humans, this movie was released and accepted at face-value for being another story. No major news article was released, nor was there any major discussion of the movie outside of the film industry. Normally, entertaining movies with philo-sophical and psychological elements become very popular. The movie Memento, for instance, has not only gained critical acclaim for the film itself, but has also been recognized for the complicated phil-osophical and psychological issues that it explores. However the SPE movie was rarely discussed.

There is one key element that caused the two mov-ies to have such different responses from the viewing public. The SPE movie circles around the idea that prisoners and guards are humans who have become a product of their environments, while Memento suggests that a man has formed a dark environment for himself. It is difficult to accept that the partic-ipators in the experiment were real people that, had they not volunteered, would be healthy college students. The fear factor that the media so often utilizes is all too real in this situation. The idea that these twenty-four students changed into aggressive oppressors and oppressed prisoners from success-ful, healthy students is something that the viewing public has chosen to turn a blind eye on. Especially in the United States, where it is easy to demonize prisoners because they were caught breaking a law while you were not. They are depicted as harsh, brut-ish people, who have been put away to serve their time. Perhaps, it is not their fault for their attitudes; it is not their fault that they exit the prison system as different people. Have we, as a society, created a system which skews the key parts of someone’s character? Are these people’s attitudes their own, or imposed on them by a prison system that creates emotionally skewed citizens? Is this a problem we can fix? Merely recognizing the issue may not solve all of the problems, as the SPE drew conclusions which suggest that the violence that is expressed by the guards towards the prisoners is unavoidable.

On August seventeenth, 1971, what is now known as the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) began. Out of more than seventy applicants who re-sponded to the advertisement in the newspaper, twenty-four male undergraduate students at Stanford were accepted to spend fourteen days in a monitored prison environment created by the leader of the SPE, Philip Zimbardo, and his colleagues. Twelve of the par-ticipants were to act as prisoners, another twelve to act as guards, and six alternates from the applicant pool were selected so that should one of the partic-ipants have to leave the experiment, a replacement would be present to keep the guard to prisoner ratio equal. The goals of this experiment were to exam-ine the prison environment, and to view the actions of physically fit and mentally sound people when placed in a prison. While the project began peace-fully, merely twenty-four hours later tensions began to rise as prisoners refused to cooperate with the guards. As the days went on, the once harmless ex-periment morphed into a disturbing environment. The guards became aggressive and abused their power, spraying the prisoners with fire extinguish-ers. The first prisoner was released thirty-six hours into the experiment as he began to experience from various mental issues, from fits of rage to uncon-trollable sobbing. The increasing frustration of the prisoners at their unfair treatment resulted in more aggression from the guards. By August twentieth, the experiment ended. The experiment is used to find shocking parallels in prisons around the world today, and is well known in the psychological world.

Despite the popularity of experiments re-lating to authority, the SPE remains mostly un-mentioned. It is not clear if that lack of discussion about this project is due to a lack of education and dissemination of the findings, or a fear to speak of the actions of humans when given power or a lack thereof. On July seventeenth, 2015, that changed. The movie The Stanford Prison Experiment was re-leased. The film reenacts the experiment, and re-ceived a mostly positive reaction from the public, with a eighty-four percent rating on the movie-re-viewing website Rotten Tomatoes.

Design: Jazzi Rhodes19

T H E G R E E D T H A T T O O K O V E R G R E E C E

When asking people what may have been the biggest and most influential financial crisis of 2014 and 2015, most people will answer: the Greek economic crisis. There are numerous theories and methods suggested to save Greece from bankruptcy and stop the damage of the European economy, there has been little analysis from a philosophical viewpoint. The origin of the crisis, the extreme debt Greece currently owns to countries in the European Union (EU), and the

reason behind the continuous cycle of corruption, debt, and international help all leads to one conclusion; Greece will not be able to recover unless it overhauls the corruption, and receive proper advice of retrieving its economy, rather than funding.

Economists view the main reason for Greece’s extreme national as the low collection rate of taxes. The extreme corruption by government officials and the wealthy led to a poor gathering of taxes for crucial welfare support, including aid for the unemployed. Tax evasion rates in 2012 were the second highest out of OECD countries, rising up to 24.3% of personal GDP. Such high tax evasion rates resulted in a low collection of taxes, thus going into continuous debt. However, despite of the low funding and the billions of euros in debt from other European countries, Greece kept on pushing their welfare system. This is what the economists view as the ‘beginning’ of the Greece economic crisis.

There is also another view on where this country with 303.92 billion Euros of debt first went wrong. When Greece first joined the EU in 1981, it already had a substantial amount of debt. By joining the European Union motivated by the ‘boasted encouragement’ of surrounding countries, Greece gained another burden by changing their currency. Although European nations have supported Greece financially, countries such as Germany, France, and Italy, Greece has not constructed an effective method to mend its tax policies and retrieve its economy. In 2010, Greece already faced a near-bankruptcy situation, settling with a bailout plan worth 110 billion euros supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the EU. In 2014, the numbers have doubled into 220 billion dollars, owing Greece, France, Italy, and Spain each 56 billion euros, 42 billion euros, 37 billion

An Introduction to the Greek Economic Crisis The Brainstorm Staff

The Greek Economic Crisis, also known as the Greek government-debt crisis, or even the Greek Depression, began in late 2009. In late 2009, Europe began to question Greece’s ability to meet its debt obligations, as Greece has previously failed to report accurate data regarding its debt levels.

In 2012, Greece’s government devlopoed the world’s largest sovereign debt default (the failure to repay a debt in full) , and in 2015, Greece became the first developed nation to fail an IMF (International Monetary Fund) loan repayment.

Before the crisis, Greece enjoyed a decade of overspending, rendering it poorly prepared for the crisis when it struck. To further the situation, Greece’s unorthodoxly early reitirement age of only forty and the high unemplyment rate of 25.6% frustrated the economic climate of Greece.

Though people have often analysed the Greek Economic crisis from a financial and historical viewpoint, rarely do people every approach a well-known issue from a philosophical lens. In this article, Michelle Na breaks that stigma and approaches the crisis from a philosophical standpoint.

“The low collection of tax can be explained by the most simple and fundamental answer, that people all have a natural instinct of pursuing their own interest.”

20

T H E G R E E D T H A T T O O K O V E R G R E E C Eeuros, and 25 billion euros. Now, after Germany spending millions of euros to help a failing financial system, the pressure that Germany puts on Greece is strong as ever, including suggestions of leaving the European Union.

“The problem occurs when everyone starts focusing only on his or her benefits... The self-destructive circulation kept going on for years until the social system collapsed, and the ones that were really hurt by it were the middle and

lower class in the financial ladder.”

From a philosophical perspective, the low collection of tax can be explained by the most simple and fundamental answer, that people all have a natural instinct of pursuing their own interest, a claim made by the British economist, Adam Smith. Wealthy Greeks covering up their private pools with grass to avoid paying the ‘pool tax’, or the corruption in election and voting in the Greek government can all be explained by this theory on human nature: everyone wants to pursue his or her own interest. However, when everyone starts focusing only on his or her benefits, the problem occurs. There is no threshold to retain the illegal actions. The tiny amount of tax that is collected from the middle and lower class has to be used for welfare for the politicians to gain votes. In order to continue being in power, the government had to prove that their system was beneficial. The self-destructive circulation kept going on for years until it collapsed, and the ones that were really hurt by it were the middle and lower class in the financial ladder.

The human nature continued after the crisis. The wealthy class that predicted the collapse of banks and financial agencies withdrew their money beforehand and placed

them in overseas bank accounts. The people who lacked information now can only withdraw sixty euros a day per person. There have been reports of families who cannot pay for surgery for loved ones just because they cannot withdraw the amount, although they have the financial capacity to do so. From an international perspective, the voices encouraging Greece’s exit from the European Union are growing stronger. The Germans, especially, who are contributing large amount of taxes of saving another country are frustrated with the situation. They question, ‘why try to save a ship that has already sunk?’ The answer to that may be in the founding reasons of the European Union. It is obvious that the group was created to utilize the geographic characteristics of Europe and maximize each country’s benefit through it, but it was also created to help one another. Holding hands when the ship is sailing and letting go when it starts to sink was not, and is not reaching the European Union’s ideals. As a result, Greece now has 1.5 million people who are unemployed, where 90% of the 1.5 million people do not receive funding from the country.

Michelle Na Class of ‘18

21

Design: Elaine Chen

Design: Elaine Chen

“Maybe things would be better if we demolished everything

on the planet”

“There will be no more misery when the world is a rotisserie” (Tom Lehrer, We Will All Go Together When We Go, 1959).

Similar phrases about the planet’s total de-struction are abundant in Tom Lehrer’s song ‘We Will All Go Together When We Go’, a lighthearted look on nuclear fallout (I highly recommend it, along with the rest of his dis-cography). Tom Lehrer suggests that a nuclear end isn’t something we should fear, but actu-ally something we should look forward to. His words are in jest, but I looked at the sentiment and found some sense in it. Maybe things would be better if we demolished everything on the planet. This sparked my concept of annihilism: the idea that the best possible outcome in our situation would result from destroying everything on the planet in one glorious nuclear bout.

The term ‘annihilism’ combines the concept of annihilation with the philosophy of nihilism, but is mostly unrelated to it. Moral nihilists, after all, believe that there is no moral truth to the world. Such people would think that destroying everything on the planet would not make any difference in the state of the earth: since there’s no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, one outcome is no worse or better.Annihilism has a different approach than nihil-ism, and follows as such:

1. The world is in a negative state2. If there is no other way to bring the world

to a positive state, then the best option is the true neutral state that is achieved only by total obliteration of the planet and its life. In other words the best outcome would be to nuke the planet.

3. There is no way to bring the world to a per-manent positive state

4. The best outcome would be to nuke the planet.

AnnihilismBy Isabel Tyree

22

*The biggest issue with annihilism is, of course, logistics. At this point, it is not

entirely plausible as I would like to imag-ine it. Ideally, there could be a complete, immediate obliteration. The issue is that current nuclear technology (at least that we are aware of) is not quite capable of

this type of destruction.

“Imagine a world with no war, no poverty, no sickness, and no grief.”

A few of these points need to be true in order for this argument to work. The first is that the world is in a negative state (meaning that the elements of bad in the world outweigh the elements of good), and the second is that a positive state is not achievable. Furthermore, the theory assumes that death is the end of consciousness and that there would be no afterlife or after-death situations of any kind. If any of these points are not as I present them, the theory would need to be reevaluated.

In this article, instead of delving into the moral state of the planet, I am simply going to exam-ine exactly why annihilism could be plausible. A roadblock that many people face with an-nihilism is that they fear the death and de-struction it promises. But what exactly is there to fear in this case? When somebody dies, not only are they unable to experience their death’s effect on the world (their loved ones, future events, et cetera), but since everyone would die at the same time in this theory, no one would be left to mourn the deaths of any-one else. In short, the end of consciousness for all (death) would mean that no one would be affected by the deaths of billions.*A similar fate would affect the deaths of the flora and fauna. Most of us would agree that losing all of the non-human life on the planet would be a great tragedy, but not if there’s no-body there to experience a world without it.

Imagine a world with no war, no poverty, no sickness, and no grief. True, that world also contains no peace, no joy, and no health, but perhaps that neutrality is the best we, as a planet, can aim for. And maybe I’m wrong in assuming that the world is already in a neg-ative state, but if it is, then annihilism could certainly hold true against any other option for the future of the planet.

Isabel Tyree ‘17

23

TIME TRAVEL! Time is fleeting; or so the aphorism goes. Thus, it is not surprising to see so many people with the desire to go against the natural flow of time. The result: time travel, an element used in many forms of multimedia to either tell a fascinating science fiction adventure or simply rewrite the entire plot within five minutes. Regardless of various presentations in art, the idea of using some sort of apparatus to arrive at a specific point in time has fascinated people for generations. The thought of such a temporal itinerary begs the question: could we distort the fabric of time to either return to the past or advance to the future at will? Currently, science has formulated a theory of time travel requiring two black holes and anti-gravity, neither of which are feasible to manipulate. However, at a logical perspective, time travelling is simply pointless since one cannot return to his/her original present, making time travel a permanent one-way trip. Time travel is a one way trip between two separate points in time. This journey is essentially teleporting from one point in time to another, not

rewinding time backwards like a clock. Hugh Everett’s Many-worlds interpretation explains the greatest consequence of going to the past, stating that during the present, every possible future already exists and we simply choose a future with our actions. Granted, if someone did go back in time, as soon as he arrives, that past contains futures that the original past could not have had before. So even if you travel forward in time, the future, or possibly the traveler’s present, would have been changed beforehand due to the initial time jump. Therefore, simply by travelling through time, you would inevitably create either a completely changed future as your original present or a parallel universe you have now trapped yourself in. Moreover, in June 29, 2009, Stephen Hawking hosted a private party for time-travelers by sending out invitations after the actual date. Not a single person arrived. This event can either confirm that time travellers just happened to always miss our specific universe, or time travel itself doesn’t exist. Thus, attempting to go back in time would accomplish nothing and ascertain your inability to return home.

. . .Ruins Everything

24

TIME TRAVEL! To make matters worse, traveling to the future has equally, if not more, severe consequences, as travelling into the past. If you travel into the future, you would still be in the same timeline because you would travel to a pre-existing potential future. However, you cannot go back in time within the same timeline because as soon as you return to your original present, you will corrupt the timestream as previously stated when traveling to the past. So in order to prevent changing your own timeline or landing in a parallel universe, you would have to permanently stay in the future you have traveled to. The inability to return to one’s original timestream would render time travel almost pointless unless one would want to live in the future for the rest of his life.

Moreover, if the traveler does go back to his present, there is a possibility that the traveler will meet the past traveler who has traveled into the future in the future. Although there is no definitive theory of the consequences from the contact of two same beings from different times, Dr. Brown from Back to the Future suggests “Coming face to face

with [your] older [self] will put [you] into shock… or the encounter could create a time paradox, the results of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum destroying the entire universe.” Despite the uncertain possibilities, travelling forward in time would most likely either result in a permanent one-way trip or the end of the universe. While no scientific study provides definitive proof that time travel cannot exist, the consequences of such technology must be considered before a test trial. The world as we know it will be unaffected when traveled to the past or completely obliterated when traveled to and returned from the future. Multimedia has engrossed us with the fascination of travelling through different periods in time and somehow making a difference like heroes, when logic portrays it to be a trap for all travelers. In any case, we are better off leaving the TARDIS in the basement and simply waiting for time to pass by; nothing else guarantees your life.

Chris Park ‘18

25

Anxiety LoopWan Lin Qin

Note: Images in each page of the comic should be viewed from left to right and top to bottom; start from the upper right corner and end at the lower left corner.

This story was inspired by the common ten-dency to overthink, which creates many imagi-nary fears and worries.

There are many types of fear, ranging from rather harmless and fictitious thrillers to real life ca-tastrophes that stain to memories. Between the two is an anxiety that clings and creeps about the mind, raising suspicion and worry about unchangeable factors in life.

With extra care, you will soon notice that things are not always as they seem...

Design: Elaine Chen26

Wan Lin Qin

27

28

29

30

Soon after the magazine’s establishment, the philosophy club assembled Brainstorm’s crew of editors, writers, artists, managers, and more.

I t ’ s s o e a s y t o g e t i n v o l v e d !

The Philosophy Club meets every Monday in the English wing, room 119. Find us at 7:00pm, and we’ll see you there!

Alternatively, you can e-mail

Elaine Chen echen@hotchkiss.orgChris Park spark1@hotchkiss.org

Editors in Chief Elaine Chen Chris Park

Editorial Board Daniel Kim Elysia Li Isabel Tyree Alan Wong Angela Xiao

Contributing Writers Tina Guo California Kromelow Michelle Na

Director of Art/Design Sumin Goh

Designers Josephine Li Jazzi Rhodes

Artists Tina Guo Wan Lin Qin

Communications Manager Angela Xiao

Faculty Advisor Ms. Wynn