QUESTION
WR2: ABDUCTION AND SKEPTICISM
|
Is there any a true skeptical scenario in the film the Lorax? Remember that skepticism has varying degrees, from very localized skepticism (‘you can’t know at this very moment if your car has been stolen’) to very radical (‘we cannot know anything’) to forms in between. It’s also important to keep in mind the difference between true skepticism and a skeptical (doubtful) attitude in the everyday sense of the word. As always, you should have a clearly stated guiding question that’s related to the prompt. You should then explore the evidence in order to infer an answer. I should add that you don’t need to get a right answer; insofar as we’re trying to explain a strange or unclear phenomenon (the film the Lorax), we are ourselves relying on abduction rather than deduction or induction, and so we’re looking for the best answer. And even then, your answer in the short response needn’t be the best; you simply need to show that you’ve been introduced to the questions, concepts, distinctions, and moves of one or both philosophy units. I’m thus looking at whether you lay out your thinking clearly using the tools of the philosophy readings and the evidence of the film. Make sure you cite the film the Lorax. |
| Subject | Literature | Pages | 3 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
-
Abduction and Skepticism in the Film Lorax
In Dr. Seuss' film, The Lorax, the characters have claimed that respecting the environment and all the creatures within it assists people to conserve the planet for themselves and for the future generations. Seuss claims that once people pollute the environment, it is almost impossible for them to turn back and make the environment habitable. Instead of examining whether this argument is true or wrong, the present paper explores how Seuss arrived at that conclusion using a true skeptical scenario in the film. To achieve this, the paper uses a guiding question; “What did Seuss use to claim that the life on earth is no longer inhabitable due to pollution and environmental destruction?” Thus, the paper examines instances of induction, abduction, and deduction to describe true skepticism in the film.
To formulate an answer to the above asked question, there is need to first understand abduction, deduction, and induction. Deduction refers to a sound argument comprising of a valid form and true premise, abduction is the formulation of a hypothesis while induction refers to an inference based on the observed relationships and patterns (Ahmad 20). In the entire movie, Mr. O’Hare is marketing air to benefit those living in Thneedville. The marketing advisors design ideas that would attract the interests of consumers. For instance, O’Hare’s marketing advisors designed a commercial for bottled air in which two males purchased air and everyone principally intends to join their party (Ahmad 20). The kind of advertisements relatively resembles those used in the contemporary society. Several ways to attract consumers to purchase the product is through adopting bandwagon persuasion. Numerous advertisements across the world are indeed for automobiles. Skeptically, these advertisements inspire the consumers or rather viewers to believe that when they graduate, they will make new friends, get a new car or rather make the world ultimately better. This is a true skepticism because in the entire film, misleading advertisement was conducted especially by O’Hare and his air, as well as, with the Once-ler when marketing his thneed (Ahmad 20). Clearly, these advertisements indicate a true skepticism because the information provided by the marketers is intended to benefit only their company and not the society.
Essentially, misleading advertisement is essentially what made characters to claim that respecting the environment and living creatures on it helps people conserve the environment for themselves and future generations. The evidence that support their claim is that false advertisement fulfils the interests of the marketers and not the larger members of the society. In fact, such advertisements cause pollution that consequently degrades the environment and makes it inhabitable for humans and other living creatures. This implies that their deduction is demonstrative because it validates the conclusion’s truth. Based on this alone, it is worth noting that the answer to the question raised above would be that the characters in the film used demonstrative reasoning to make their claim. Nonetheless, that cannot be exclusively true because towards the end of the movie, there is evidence indicating that life is possible to the planet when humans try to conserve the environment. It is mentioned in the film that Once-ler understood the magnitude of environmental, as well as, the risks involved. This is induction. This claim is based on an observed pattern and he crafted a relationship based of this pattern. Intuitively, this is non-demonstrative reasoning. As such, the reasoning to such a claim is likely but it is indicated in the later sections of the film that it is false since humans have managed to devise ways of making the environment habitable.
In conclusion, the characters in the film adopted demonstrative reasoning because despite having clear evidences that was indeed true, they used non-demonstrative and inductive reasoning to explain the true skepticism to conclude that it was no longer practical for people to continue staying on earth because they had established a relationship between pollution and staying on the environment.
References
Ahmad, Fajar Amrulloh. Analysis Marxism Alienation in the Lorax Movie." (2014).