Adapted from a Macro Economics lecture.

Proving that Samuel L. Jackson is God by Means of an Adventure Through the Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes.

Most philosophers in the Western world have focused individual works on proving the existence of God, or a similar higher being, in the human mind. One of the most prominent men in modern thinking to accept this view was the affluent Frenchman, Rene Descartes. Descartes brought the idea that all that is perfect is divine. Also, he believes that God is the one being whose definition necessitates its existence. Therefore, because God is perfect, he exists as an essence in the human mind. In a modern world that prides itself on the materialistic idealism of Hollywood, California, only one being, one man, one powerful deity, stands above all others, demonstrating pure perfection. Thus, the one true God is Samuel L. Jackson.

By Descartes’ standards, a perfect God can only create things equal or lesser than himself. No movie that has starred Samuel L. Jackson has surpassed his own perfection. For example, the blockbuster hit, Jurassic Park, directed by Steven Spielberg and released in 1993, featured Samuel L. Jackson as engineer Ray Arnold. Of course, even this film, which many (myself included) believe to be a phenomenal picture, it is not, by any means, perfect. Every film has continuity errors and many, like the second release of Jurassic Park, have been digitally remastered for home viewing. A more recent example, however, is the cinematic flop, Snakes on a Plane. The movie was chock full of bad dialogue, clichéd character roles, excessively violent deaths, and a plane full of snakes. While the film did feature Samuel L. Jackson as the protagonist and hero, it was a terribly made picture. Both of these movies are of lesser standard to Samuel L. Jackson himself. However, his presence on the set, as well as on screen, undoubtedly adds an aspect of perfection to his performance, and thus, to his cinematic contributions.

Returning to Descartes’ proof that God exists, he believes that perfection is a part of existence. He writes, in his Meditations on First Philosophy, “…once I have made the supposition that [God] has all perfections (since existence is one of the perfections), nevertheless the original supposition was not necessary (Descartes 46). This, of course, proves that because Samuel L. Jackson is perfect, that he exists as nothing less than a deity.

On that note, we know that perfection is nothing more than a plane of existence. In this idealism, Samuel L. Jackson exists; therefore, since he is also a perfect being, he takes on a Godly aura. For this supposition to work, the idea of God must already be implanted in the human mind. Descartes writes, “…whenever I do choose to think of the first and supreme being and bring forth the idea of God from the treasure house of my mind, as it were, it is necessary that I attribute all perfections to him” (Descartes 46-47). If this is true, then my own personal idea of God must also be perfect. So, if I believe, with faith, that Samuel L. Jackson is the Supreme Being, the Alpha and the Omega, the Creator, then he must also be perfect.

In order to fully understand why Samuel L. Jackson is, in fact, God, I put forth the idea that, “what God has bestowed on me as a combination of mind and body” (Descartes 57). What combines the human “mind and body” more than a motion picture? Samuel L. Jackson, in every role he takes, looks for challenging roles that make the viewers embody and facilitate the symbolism, spirit, and pure power of his acting. Therefore, watching his performance on screen involved the combination of Descartes’ treasured “mind and body.”

For many today, the reason to have faith in a higher power can be defined by two things: a need for security, and religious diversity. Let me first address the idea of individual need for security in terms of one of Samuel L. Jackson’s recent and inspiring roles. As his character of Neville Flynn is thrust into a slithery situation transporting a witness in a federal case, he  has the calm, cool, and collected traits that made viewers, even in the panic of having poisonous snakes on a plane, feel safe when Jackson was on screen. This need for security and belief in a savior is shown precisely in that role, as well as numerous others. As for the concept based on religious diversity, in this day and age, such variation raises several questions. For example, why is it unlikely that God has disguised himself in a mortal form? Such an inquiry may never be answered, but one thing is for sure; that the perfection attributed to any Supreme Deity is a theoretical perfection that is limited to individual concepts of what real perfection and existence is. For me and seven-hundred people like me, Samuel L. Jackson embodies all that is, without question, perfection.

Yesterday, I got back a quiz in my Values class. My score was a negative ten. I got every question wrong. My favorite answer and probably the reason for a negative score was a response to this question:

What view did [Frederick Douglass] have towards religion in his book, and what does he have to say about it in the appendix?

Douglass believed that even though there was deep faith, God never helped any slaves free themselves.

To be honest, I didn’t read the last few chapters of this. But on the contrary, do I already have the knowledge? Can I just not conjure that knowledge up to write a significant answer to this question?
Aye, there’s the rub. But what is ‘reading?’ Is it the classic definition where our brains see words and process them as a form of communication, or is it taking that communicative medium and interpreting what we process? There’s obviously a difference. If that’s the case, then which ‘reading’ is it when we say, “oh, I read Hamlet?” Have we read Hamlet or have we read Hamlet?

I’m assuming that admitting I didn’t do the homework didn’t exactly help my score.

I remember last week that one of my professors said that we come to college to discuss deep, profound ideas.
In my two years, two weeks, and one day of higher education, I have actually learned something. We don’t come to college to discuss deep, profound ideas, we come to college to regurgitate someone else’s deep, profound ideas. Which usually aren’t very deep or profound.

Honestly, I don’t think either of those things will provide me the skills I need to get a job.

I just had to write on a prompt that went something like this.

My idea of the meaning and purpose of life is __________. It has been formed by __________. It seems right to me, or I justify it because __________.

Surprisingly, I had trouble getting started. I know, right? I decided it would be beneficial to everyone if I just…didn’t take this seriously.
My introduction is as follows:

As the late, great George Carlin once said, “There’s no present. There’s only the immediate future and the recent past.” In a way, living a moral life has a lot to do with living the way Carlin describes. Morality is based on our individual beliefs and our environments. My personal idea of the meaning and purpose of life is to live as well as you can and, every once and a while, do something that helps someone else. Briefly, the things that have formed this view include the way I was brought up and the things I have learned in my life so far. I can justify this because…well, to be honest, I can’t actually justify this, but I can always try.

My conclusion is even better. It’s where I just gave up completely on making a convincing argument.

I can’t justify why my views on morality are right. They’re just what I think. Revisiting the Carlin quote from above, there really is no present. There are things we have done and things we are about to do. As long as we balance our ‘recent past’ and ‘immediate future’ so our lives are not negatively affecting the lives of others, our morals are fine.

And that, kids, is your less on “Values and the Responsible Lifestyle” for tonight.