Dreams, Technology, and the incomplete idea of the mundane life

Camila Vela Barreiro

>+] _]C4 O4]4)E 4C4 C ]+] p]] C
]]-- C- )] C+] E4 E]4 p]] Cp
] 4E C]- -]O)4] OE 4)4E E]C E ]
]C] )4E 4] ]O))] E4- ) 1C4 -E]
C EOC C4> - e)_O4- ]4-


Chapter I
No one ever thought that men would be able to accomplish all the marvelous experiments and
discoveries they have mad, but are they really that marvelous? I question. Being that said, as we
can see the theory of singularity supports my prediction that mankind will eventually be control
or look to be controlled by technology. At the same time, I will like to travel a little bit in time,
the time were great minds arouse and gave birth to the most outstanding discoveries were made,
precisely one, the dreams. Sigmund Freud thought that the function of dreams was to allow the
release of repressed thoughts and impulses which cause excitation in neural activity. The force,
which causes dreams to occur, was, in all cases, an unconscious and instinctual wish. The only
way that the wish could be subdued is by the release of the nervous energy that was caused by
it. Also, Freud noted that though the number of symbols is large, the number of subjects
symbolized is not large. In dreams those pertaining to sexual life are the overwhelming
majority...They represent the most primitive ideas and interests imaginable. Therefore, the same
dream symbol meant that they both had the same repressed wish. (Grobstein, 1994). What is
it about dreams, are they real? Are they unreal or just a simple desire of a human mind that
wishes for that dream to be real? In the interpretation of dreams (1900) Freud explained That
all the material composing the content of a dream is somehow derived from experience that it is
reproduced or remembered in the dream -this at least may be accepted as an incontestable fact.
Yet it would be wrong to assume that such a connection between the dream-content and reality
will be easily obvious from a comparison between the two. On the contrary, the connection must
be carefully sought, and in quite a number of cases it may for a long while elude discovery. The
reason for this is to be found in a number of peculiarities evinced by the faculty of memory in
dreams; which peculiarities, though generally observed, have hitherto defied explanation. It will
be worth our while to examine these characteristics exhaustively. To begin with, it happens that

certain material appears in the dream-content which cannot be subsequently recognized, in the
waking state, as being part of one's knowledge and experience. One remembers clearly enough
having dreamed of the thing in question, but one cannot recall the actual experience or the time
of its occurrence. The dreamer is therefore in the dark as to the source which the dream has
tapped, and is even tempted to believe in an independent productive activity on the part of the
dream, until, often long afterwards, a fresh episode restores the memory of that former
experience, which had been given up for lost, and so reveals the source of the dream. One is
therefore forced to admit that in the dream something was known and remembered that cannot be
remembered in the waking state. I would like to agree with Freud, since it is common to hear
people say I dreamed with this person, or dreamed this but I cant quite remember it now in
my personal opinion I think that dreams can be interpreted in any way you want to, because they
are there for a reason, and it is most certain that probably the reason is that is based on an
experience you had, or in a desire you have that can only be real once you leave the walking
state. There are professionals and books that tell you how to interpreter your dreams, which I
find it useful but at the same time I think that as myths. For example when they tell you that if
you dream someone dies or you die it means they will have a long life. I do believe that some
dreams mean something, but at the end they come from your consciousness so it is something
you want. When you desire a past love, a person you have lost and is no longer with you, you
had a trauma (horrible experience), those kind of events or in this case desires, pop up when you
are asleep. How come? Because they are product of our daily lives, something that we have
experienced and later on dreamed about it. As you can see in here, Sigmund Freud was a
philosopher with a more open mind (more perspective) open to different interpretations.
At the same time recalling what we learned in class of the famous philosopher Friederich
Nietzsche he argues that God is dead arguing that in ancient times values belonged to the
people that created them. With the dead of God, Christianity created a mode of anti-strength
value-creation which collapsed something that Nietzsche called the multi-colored law.
Something that is evidenced with In The Antichrist, Curse on Christianity (Der Antichrist.
Fluch auf das Christentum, September 1888 [published 1895]), Nietzsche expresses his disgust
over the way noble values in Roman Society were corrupted by the rise of Christianity, and he
discusses specific aspects and personages in Christian culture the Gospels, Paul, the martyrs,

priests, the crusades with a view towards showing that Christianity is a religion for weak and
unhealthy people, whose general historical effect has been to undermine the healthy qualities of
the more noble cultures. The Antichrist was initially conceived of as the first part of a projected
four-part work for which Nietzsche had in mind the title, Revaluation of All Values (the second
part was to be entitled, The Free Spirit). As in most of his 1888 works, Nietzsche criticizes,
either implicity or explicitly, the anti-Semitic writers of his day. In this particular study, one of
his main targets is the French, anti-Semitic, Christian historian, Ernest Renan (1823-1892), who
was known for works such as The Life of Jesus (1863) and History of the Origins of Christianity
(18661881), the fourth book of which was entitled The Antichrist (1873). Some interpret
Nietzsche's title for his book as meaning, the Antichristian. It should be noted that in an 1883
letter to his friend, Peter Gast [Johann Heinrich Kselitz], Nietzsche does describe himself self-
entertainingly as the Antichrist, and also more seriously as the most terrible opponent of
Christianity. (Standfor Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2011) I go completely against what
Nietzsche is saying in here, I believe that Christianity is the base for our morals and values
(leaving aside religion and the morality religion has) I think that the most important, the ones
you should have from your parents and deliver to your children. It does not necessarily have to
be connected to religion with the thought that if you steal you will burn in hell just saying that
stealing is bad because it harms others around you and it is not right. It is very contemplative
and obvious that Friederich Nietzsche believed firmly that Christianity is the main cause for the
misinterpretations of the morality in the daily lives of human beings.
Going back in time even farther, we face the school of thoughts known as Epicureanism the
school of thought named after Epicurus in which the goal of life is to reach happiness, absence of
pain. In here the sensations are infallible, were there is a belief in evolution and atomic
materialism. Some guides used in Epicureanism involve that Pleasure is the freedom of the
body from pain and the soul from confusion--not a positive condition. Taught a moderate
asceticism, self-control, and independence. One should not undertake heavy responsibilities and
serious involvement. Pleasures which endure throughout a life-time are sought, not momentary
pleasures. Epicurus praised a life that escapes other peoples notice. Avoid pleasures which are
extreme: they have painful concomitants. Lasting pleasure is not a bodily sensation. Though he is
being tortured on the rack, the wise [person] is still happy. (Lander, 2009). A perfect world, full

of people that are only searching for happiness in their lives and not interfering in the happiness
of others that is what Epicureanism is about. I like this school of thought because it has the goal
that is precisely the most important one in my life, be happy and to expand it even more, win
what makes you happy and let it kill you.
Chapter two
So many controversial topics around the world, but one that will never be out of date is how,
why, and what, does a woman think. As Camila Vela I like to question sometimes myself and see
my life through different perspectives, something that this philosophy class has granted me.
Knowing philosophers that create theories from perspectives like it is the social, political,
economical, natural, medical, and more aspects. I stand for myself thinking that now in days we
no longer live in a philosophical world, rather we live in a more technological world and base
our ideas on old philosophies or philosophers.
The world we live in, full of war, hypocrisy, capitalism, and more. What a shame that in the
world we live we do not appreciate the people that surround us, and further more we dont
appreciate the world in which we live in. We are consuming our world with all this money
making ideas where all human beings search for money and search for a materialistic way of
living, only caring for material stuff rather than the stuff that truly matters. Never the less, for
example here is where I call into action singularity. Singularity is the theory that technology will
eventually overcome humanity. As the Times magazines suggests it But now, 46 years later,
Kurzweil believes that we're approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent,
and not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans. When that happens, humanity our
bodies, our minds, our civilization will be completely and irreversibly transformed. He
believes that this moment is not only inevitable but imminent. According to his calculations, the
end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away. (Magazine, 2011). Could that
eventually happen? Having technology control the human mind and the mundane becoming
robots? The answer is yes, but no. We are fanatics of the new, the world in which we live is
based primarily on innovation, competition, and freaking taxation at everything. The
technological era is now; you cannot have a conversation with someone without checking your
phone at least three times, and primarily just to check the social media (twitter, facebook,

instagram, etc). I dont believe that robots will eventually control humans and that humans will
permit that their own creation rules our lives, but I do think that the more technology oriented
this world becomes, the less mundane it is. I need to admit that technology is not that bad as it
seems, for example I quote the obvious It gets closer the ones that are the furthest, but it
separates the one that are the closest meaning that technology is good when we are trying to
communicate (if we talk about personal relationships) with the people that we love that are far
away from us. But what happens to the people that are close? We detach from them and attach to
our cybernetic relationships with whom it may concern. That is why I think that technology
has its advantages, and also it disadvantages, but it is not to blame for it. We human beings are
the ones that we chose what to do with our lifes (restating Epicureanism) and find what makes
us happy and enjoy that happiness. Or as Freud said, interpret our dream life, interpret our
dreams and decide on our destiny, because WE decide, not technology for us.
Works Cited
Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Freud/Dreams/dreams.pdf
Grobstein, D. P. (1994). The World of Dreams Reexamined. Retrieved january 17, 2014, from
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/berman/P5S2.htm
Lander, P. (2009). Epicureanism. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from
http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/epicurus.html
Magazine, T. (2011). 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2048299,00.html
Standfor Encyclopedia of philosophy. (2011). Retrieved January 19, 2014, from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#NieInfUpo20tCenTho