Transformers and Philosophy

by Shook, John, Swan, Liz

  This view has the added advantage that it recognizes the body’s importance. The bodily aspect of existence is a necessary component of being human. The bodily view maintains that both the living body and the corpse are the same person, since the person simply is equal to his or her body. This view works well with understanding Transformers because their identity is preserved through changes as long as they have the same body, although the parts of that body can be drastically re-arranged. However, although the bodily approach has some advantages over the psychological approach, it also has some problems of its own.

  Some Problems with These Approaches

  The psychological perspective suggests the body is either irrelevant or an accidental part of the human being or Transformer. And yet, the first thing we recognize about a person is their physical appearance, their body. So it must be a mistake to assume that the body is irrelevant, even if the body is not the only ingredient to personal identity. Furthermore, a person’s psychological existence, his or her mental life, is not continuous.

  It’s natural to assume that we began as embryos and then became fetuses. These phases of life have no conscious existence. So they can’t be psychologically continuous with a conscious human adult. Someone who holds the ‘psychological’ view of personal identity would have to conclude that once the fetus becomes a conscious infant, then an entirely new being has come into existence. This conclusion follows from the notion of personal identity being preserved solely through a psychological component.

  There’s another problem resulting from the psychological perspective. If a human being entered into a persistent vegetative state, then this person’s identity would no longer be preserved. Once again a new being would come into existence with the loss of consciousness or memory, depending on which psychological component preserves personal identity through time. Furthermore, if Megatron’s memory were transplanted into another Transformer’s body, then that other body would become Megatron, rendering his body as not essential to him as a person. In other words, it would not matter what body encased his consciousness and memory.

  The advantage of the bodily view is its ability to allow for a continuous existence of the human being, regardless of the human’s mental states. And yet, if we’re identical to our bodies, what happens to our identities when we die? If someone dies in a way that does not destroy their body, does that person still have personal identity since the body continues to exist? If so, then we would continue to exist until the body has fully decomposed or been cremated.

  Anyone who has been to a wake or funeral with an open casket can attest that the corpse is no longer identical to the person they knew; the corpse merely resembles the person they knew. What then changed about the human being at death, if the body is still present? Is it merely the fact that the body is no longer moving? We tend to assume that a substantial change has occurred in the human being. If so, then the human must have something beyond just a body to account for its personhood. Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) claimed that a corpse is more closely related to a statue than to a person, which jibes with our experience. However, the bodily view gives no reason to assume the identity of a person necessarily ceases at death. Suppose Bonecrusher died, and his body was actually crushed, as an ironic ending. Would the crushed body really still be him, provided all the pieces were there? It seems unlikely. Therefore, the bodily approach is insufficient to account for personal identity.

  Each one of these approaches has certain advantages over the other one. However, ultimately each one seems to be insufficient as the primary basis for preserving personal identity through time. Perhaps there’s an intermediate position that could encompass the advantages of these positions without their downfalls.

  Transformers change from robots to vehicles. Humans change from infants to adults. An acorn changes into an oak tree. Most people will not deny that something is constant in all of these changes, even though clearly something has changed.

  Based on human experience, the mind and body seem to have a reciprocal relationship, rather than one controlling or producing the other. If someone worries too much, then that person could develop a physical ailment from this mental or emotional state, such as high blood pressure. Moreover, if someone receives a blow to the head, which is certainly physical, then that person could suffer some mental impairment, such as loss of consciousness or even of memory. A combination of the psychological and bodily views could account for this reciprocal relationship.

  Substance as a Compound of Form and Matter

  In the Metaphysics, Aristotle attempts to unravel precisely what is meant by the term ‘substance’. Substances are those things which have independent existence. We know that people, plants, and other animals are considered substances. What makes something a substance?

  Aristotle sees substance as a composite, because it has two aspects: form and matter. Form can be defined as what a thing is. For example, what makes a tree be a tree is its form. Form should not be confused with shape because it is more of an internal drive toward actuality, rather than how a thing happens to look. Put another way, form organizes the matter in a particular way in order for that thing to be what it is. In living things, Aristotle equates the form with the thing’s soul. Soul, in this sense, should not be understood spiritually but metaphysically; it is the principle of configuration for the matter. The form causes the matter to develop in a particular way.

  Transformers have something comparable to a soul called the Spark. Each Transformer was created with a Spark, which is the source of life for the Transformer organism. The other component, matter, can be defined as what a thing could be. The matter of a thing is the physical aspect of its existence. It is what makes the thing exist in a particular way, while the form is the actuality of the matter. Matter is also the principle of individuation among things. It is matter that differentiates two people, even if they are identical twins. In my understanding of Aristotle, the two aspects, form and matter, are not two separate entities. They are simply two perspectives of the same substance. In this view, living things are neither solely material nor immaterial. Living things are composed of both aspects.

  Form Preserves the Identity of Things

  Following Aristotle’s metaphysical theory, the form of something is what preserves its identity. The form is the metaphysical principle that guides the development of something toward its end or fulfillment. This end refers to the fact that an acorn will develop, provided nothing external hinders it, into an oak tree. Living things develop a certain way toward a final state, unless an external force prevents them.

  What differentiates one thing from another is its matter. For example, two oak trees have the same form, even though they probably do not look identical. However, it is the matter that identifies them as separate entities. The form enables us to identify things in reality, since the form is what a thing is. Therefore, the form also preserves the identity of those things. We identify an oak tree as an oak tree because of its form. Suppose someone comes along and chops down the oak tree, makes some wooden planks, and then makes a chest out of the planks. Do we still want to call the chest an oak tree? No. The reason is that the form has been changed. The oak tree can no longer move its matter toward actualization. Hence, it has undergone a substantial change, not a mere accidental change. The principle of life has been removed from the oak tree. Without the form, or principle of life, the oak tree no longer has its identity as an oak tree. It becomes mere wood. Without the Spark, a Transformer would be a mere heap of parts.

  The Composite and Personal Identity

  I know a tree because of its form. I know a human by its form. And I know a Transformer by its form. But how does all this relate to personal identity? Human individuality is an important dimension in personal identity. The emphasis on individuality diminishes as biology becomes simpler. We tend to view human beings and dogs, for example, as possessing a greater individuality than slugs and roaches. However, there are more dimensions to individual
ity among human beings than even other complex animals like dogs. Humans have diverse personalities, beliefs, imaginations, and many other mental abilities. The form, in the generic sense, may preserve the identity of a human being as such, but it seems there needs to be something more in the case of personal identity through time and change.

  The psychological approach to identity emphasizes the role of the immaterial as the sole guiding force. On the other hand, the bodily approach contends that the material aspect is the persistence criterion of the human being. However, these two aspects, the immaterial and material, should not be viewed as wholly isolated from one another, but rather dependent on one another in a reciprocal relationship.

  Formal Causality as the Governing Principle

  Formal causality governs the way matter becomes configured toward a certain end state, or the thing’s actuality. The form causes the matter to develop toward its end or fulfillment. In the Aristotelian approach, there’s a direct relationship between the form and matter, between soul and body.

  Transformers also require a relationship between the Spark and their material component. As long as people insist on making the soul and body an either/or distinction, then difficulties will plague the discussion. However, if we consider the idea that soul and body—form and matter—might comprise a both/and unity, then it seems we are closer to dissolving this mystery. Form (actuality) and matter (potentiality) are two aspects of the same thing. Trying to uncover what unifies them is already assuming that they are two separate entities.

  For Aristotle, form and matter are separable only as concepts, not as actually entities. For Aquinas, the soul can survive the destruction of the body, but it is not complete without the body. The question concerning how two completely different types of things can influence each other dissolves, since there are not two entirely different types of things. Formal causality is merely the principle of configuration of the matter, guiding it towards actualization. The form will guide the matter provided that nothing external hinders its development. For example, an acorn will become a tree, unless someone cuts it down prematurely or a forest fire consumes it.

  Due to the principle of formal causality, there is a unique relationship between the soul and body that is necessary for the preservation of personal identity. The form and matter are one, and they cannot be separated. If this view is correct, then all the ideas about transferring minds from one body to another would become futile. There is a special way that the soul and body are intermingled that cannot be replaced by another body or soul or mind. This view seems to correspond to experience more fully, which I mentioned earlier: a bump on the head can affect one’s consciousness, or a person who worries too much could become physically ill.

  Personhood Naturally Develops in Human Beings

  Personhood is a natural development arising from the composite of form and matter, but it is not the most fundamental aspect of the human organism.3 If, for some reason, someone fails to develop into a person with consciousness, they still have identity as a human organism. It’s part of the normal development of a human organism to become a person. An acorn will become an oak tree, unless it’s hindered by external forces. Likewise, a human organism will become a person as long as nothing external prevents it. The form and matter develop in such a way that a conscious mind emerges in the process of the developing human.

  The mind emerges not as a separate entity, but as an aspect of the overall human organism. The mind cannot be reduced to the body nor can the body be reduced to the mind. Mind and body are two aspects of the same unified being, which is composed of a material and immaterial aspect. The composite view is able to get around the problem of how the two parts interact because there are not any parts, in that sense. The body and soul compose a unity. Body and soul perform different functions for the human being, but they are one entity, not two. By soul, I mainly wish to imply the immaterial aspect of humans, which could include mind, consciousness, and imagination. The soul and body compose a unity, not a heap. Likewise, Transformers have aspects of their existence that are like the body and soul of human beings.

  Are Transformers Composed of Body and Soul?

  Transformers have an immaterial aspect along with a material aspect, which we can see from the following facts. First, in Transformers: The Movie, both the Autobots and the Decepticons are searching for the All Spark. The All Spark is the source of their existence, which can be used to create more Transformers out of machines. Second, each Transformer has a Spark, which is basically the soul of the Transformer. The Spark ensures that each Transformer has personhood. If the Spark’s destroyed, then the Transformer’s dead, even though the Transformer’s body might still exist in the form of a corpse. Each Transformer is composed of a body and a soul. The unity of the material and the immaterial aspect of Transformers is what preserves their identity through changes in time, including but not limited to transformation. In the sense of existing as a composite, Transformers are similar to human beings. This similarity allows us to assume that the personal identity of a Transformer is preserved in the same way as that of a human being. As it turns out, when a Transformer transforms, it is only his appearance that changes, and not his identity.

  Spark and Machine Together

  Humans and Transformers both change with the passing of time, and there is something about them that stays the same despite changes, which may have occurred. What exactly stays the same?

  The psychological approach claims that something immaterial is what preserves personal identity. This approach is inadequate because it renders the body irrelevant. The bodily approach claims that a person is identical to his or her body. This approach is wrong because seems to equate human beings with machines; it ignores the principle of life in organisms.

  As an improvement on either of these approaches, I recommend a composite view. This view has its own set of difficulties, but it pushes the conversation further along by overcoming the problem of the interaction between the soul and body.

  In answer to the question of what transforms, identities or appearances, the answer must be that a Transformer only changes in appearance. The Spark and body unity, like the soul and body unity that compose humans, preserves the personal identity of Transformers.4

  _________

  1 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Penguin, 2004), pp. 296ff.

  2 Judith Jarvis Thomson, “People and their Bodies,” in Reading Parfit, edited by Jonathan Dancy (Blackwell, 1997).

  3 Eric Olson presents a version of this view in his book The Human Animal (Oxford University Press, 1997).

  4 I would like to thank Christopher Tollefsen for providing suggestions concerning the content of an earlier draft of this chapter. I would also like to thank Hannah Spicher for correcting many grammatical incongruities.

  5

  In the Eye of the Beholder

  JOSEF STEIFF

  Maybe it’s a guy thing. For years, my most meaningful relationship was with my car. I’d like to think that those were my teen years, but even into my 30s (oh, let’s be honest, even now), my vehicle has held a very special place in my life. If one day it had kicked some butt and talked to me, I might have had to marry it.

  Michael Bay’s Transformers movie (2007) awakened that adolescent guy in me all over again. Sitting there in the darkened theater awash in projected images, I wondered what would happen if after the movie I discovered my Jeep Wrangler standing up and beaming a bright light into the sky. Would I react any differently than Sam? How would I know the true nature of this four-wheeled vehicle that has been my companion on numerous road trips? Could I trust my perceptions? And if so, what happens when I have two sets of perceptions that seem to contradict each other—would I question the ones that show me a simple car or the ones that seem to suggest an intelligent machine?

  Like Sam, I want to believe—and tend to accept—that my perceptions are reliable, that what I see is not an illusion or a hallucination. But in Transformers, no
thing is as it seems. Perceptual errors abound. By turns, we learn that Mikaela is not just the school’s hot chick, but also a jock’s savvy disgruntled girlfriend, a skilled mechanic, and a former juvenile car thief. As Sam’s backyard is destroyed by the rather clumsy and not-so-adept-at-hiding Autobots, his parents perceive the rumbling vibrations and destruction as an earthquake. The eyeglasses that Sam is so desperate to sell—a keepsake of his grandfather’s Arctic expedition—are in fact the equivalent of a treasure map, secretly imprinted with the co-ordinates of the All Spark. And Sam’s old beat-up 1976 Camaro is actually a super-advanced intelligent robot who acts more like a big brother than a car and will help Sam navigate the pitfalls of adolescence.

  “Because Cars Don’t Do That, Because That Would Be Crazy.”

  When Mr. Witwicky takes Sam to help him buy his first car, Sam is himself a being in transformation, inhabiting that nebulous world between childhood and adulthood. Getting his first car is emblematic of this transition, and in fact, this first car will bring about changes that Sam cannot yet anticipate.

  On the way to buy the car, Sam’s father has a bit of fun with him by first driving into an upscale dealership. For a brief moment, Sam believes that his father is going to buy him a new expensive Porsche. He infers this from the past promise his father made, the fact that they’re driving into the Porsche dealership, and his father’s statement that he has a little surprise for him. Of course, Sam quickly finds out that the surprise is that his father is kidding.