Name: Pilar Ann B.

Bucado Date: February 2012

Course: BA Political Science I Subject: Social Science II

Sophies World
Book Review
Summary

One day in early May, 14-year-old Sophie Amunsden, living in Norway, found a small

letter in her mailbox addressed to her without a stamp and containing but a question Who are

you?. This began her strange correspondence course in Philosophy. Each day, a letter came to

her mailbox containing a few questions and then later in the day a package kept coming with

some pages describing the ideas of a philosopher who dealt with the issues raised by the

questions. Her first letters told her that all that is needed to be a philosopher is the capacity of

wonder. The next letters brought her through history of Western Philosophy. It stated that before

the Greek philosophers people explained life through myths but the Greek philosophers started

to question the myths and began looking for explanation for why the world is the way it is.

Along with the beginning of Sophies philosophy course, she received a postcard sent to

Hilde Mller Knag, care of Sophie. It is from Hildes father wishing Hilde a happy birthday.

This confused Sophie and even more when she found a scarf with Hildes name on it. She had no

idea what was happening but was sure that Hilde and the philosophy course mist somehow be

connected.

Moving on with the course, the next letters told her about the natural philosophers who

believed that there was one substance that all things were made of. The next day, she received a

packet about Democritus who believed that everything was made up of indivisible atoms. She
also learned that ancient Greeks were fatalists believing that everything in life is predetermined.

Driven by curiosity of who her teacher was, Sophie decided to send her own note inviting the

person for coffee. A reply letter revealed to her the name of her philosopher teacher which was

Alberto Knox. He sent her packages through her dog messenger, a Labrador named Hermes.

In the next letters, Sophie learned about Socrates who was wise enough to know that e

knew nothing. She then received a video tape with Alberto in the present day Athens and

somehow he seemed to go back in time to ancient Athens. Next, she learned about Plato and his

world of ideas and then about Aristotle who critiqued Plato and was also the founder of logic and

the theory of concepts.

One Monday morning, Hildes situation got even more confusing. On her way to school,

Sophie found again postcards to Hilde and some were even dated on June 15, Sophies 15th

birthday. She discovered some of these with her best friend Joanna and one of those postcards

stated that Hilde will soon meet Sophie; Joanna was also mentioned. After school, she got

another package from Alberto on Hellenism where philosophy became concerned with the way

in which people can live a good life, and became intertwined with religion. Meanwhile Alberto

taught her about Jesus and the meeting of Indo-European and Semitic culture. She also learned

about St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and the Christianization of Greek philosophy.

The next morning, Hermes came to fetch and guide Sophie to Albertos house. She was

about to finally meet her teacher. In there, she learned about the Renaissance that focused on

humanity. Alberto also taught her of the Baroque which contained conflict between idealism and

materialism. They then moved on to some key philosophers. First off was Descartes who

doubted and knew at least that he could doubt. Next was about Spinoza where Alberto told
Sophie that Hildes father has some power over them. Then the teacher mentioned the

empiricists. Locke believed that everything we know is gained from experience. Hume, an

influence on Kant, showed that our actions are guided by feelings and warned against making

laws based in experience. Berkeley on the other hand suggested that our entire lives were indide

the mind of God. At that point, Alberto claimed that their lives were all in te mind of Albert

Knag.

Suddenly, everything switched to Hildes point of view. It was June 15th, Hildes 15th

birthday, she received a gift from her father entitled Sophies World. She was certain that Sophie

existed and not just a mere character in the book. On the other hand, Alberto had a plan to escape

from the mind of Albert Knag, and they should finish the philosophy course before that would

happen.

They continued with the course and Sophie learned about the Enlightenment and its

humane values and about Kant who fused the empiricist and the naturalist thought. Sophie then

returned to her house to prepare her philosophical garden party for her birthday together with

Joanna. After that, Alberto spoke of Romanticism which was filled with worship of individual

and freedom. He also mentioned Hegel who believed the world spirit was just the sum of human

interactions. On the other hand, Kierkegaard believed that the individuals existence is primary.

While Alberto and Sophie were continuing the course, Hilde planned to surprise her father on his

return. This made Alberto and Sophie rush the discussion through Marx, Darwin, Freud, and

Sartre.

When Hilde was reaching the end of Sophies World, at a party for Sophie on June 15,

Alberto and Sophie disappeared. Hildes father came home and they talked about the book.
Meanwhile, Sophie and Alberto had a new existence as spirits. Yes, they had escaped Alberts

mind but they had become invisible to others. Sophie got interested on interfering with Hilde and

her fathers world. In the end, she eventually learned to do so.

Points of Agreement and Disagreement

Saturated with various ideas, Sophies World has given me a lot of things to ponder,

reflect and decide on which to agree and which not. There were some I totally agree and some

totally disagree. But there were also some ideas that due to the equally presenting positive and

negative implications have placed my opinion into a neutral or in a state of uncertainty.

Here are the ideas in which I have laid my agreement on. First among was the very first

idea presented to Sophie. It states that what is most important in life is attempting to understand

ourselves and our role in the world. True. We dont just continuously live this life because we

exist. We just dont ride along with whatever comes in the way. In one way or another, we

should know our purpose of living and should reflect every once in a while who we really are

and what we are for. These are just a couple of very short questions but even I myself have not

found yet their exact answers. I do get some idea as I ask other people on their purpose of living

and how they determine who they are and what distinguishes them but there were a lot of times

when I repeatedly asked myself who I am and I always end up in a cloud of confusion. The only

certain answers I have at hand are the things that people see in me and how they see me as. But

putting all those aside, knowing oneself is not something I know I should rely on others

opinions but on how I see myself. Up until now the debates on my mind keep going on looking

for the exact answers to these questions. Though still in the middle of uncertainty, I am somehow
convinced I am doing well in philosophizing since if we just talk about attempting to get

answers? I always attempt and its like Im dealing with these questions every day of my life.

Another idea Id say yes to would be that there are not many philosophical questions, but

there are many ways to answer each one. I totally believe in this because if this isnt true, I

wouldnt have any confusion finding answers to the questions. Human nature being unique and

having different ideas have built this line as a truth. Philosophical questions are but basic

questions in life. Yes, basic and simple but always looked over, set aside, and even taken for

granted by most. A lot of people forget to ask these questions to oneself. Most of these questions

just come to realization on times of difficulty and extreme confusions in major life decision-

making.

Next, we cannot have true knowledge about the world. This idea I link with two others.

First is my belief on monotheism of a God who created the world, a single supernatural being

governing all things with natural laws. Of course, we as human beings can never have the same

knowledge as the one who created the world and thus we cannot obtain true knowledge of it.

Simply saying, our human knowledge wouldnt be considered at all times true and they continue

to evolve and change with time. This is all based on the fact that human knowledge can never

fathom all the truth and reasons contained in Gods knowledge on every single thing and life in

this world. Second, we cannot have true knowledge about things that change, so we cannot

actually know the real world, but we can have true knowledge about things that we perceive

through our reason. This is because change is constant and we really cannot bring back the past.

What was the original before the changes came through is something we can just wonder and try

to discover and cannot solidly put in reality as a truth in the present. But we can have views of

the future instead based on reasoning in the form of cause and effect relationship. But I admit I
am somehow also disagreeing with this idea since I also believe that no one can really tell the

future or what happens next. There are uncontrollable events in which we humans categorize as

accidents. They werent named accidents just because, but they were categorized as such because

they events that our human minds have not perceived and thus they are unexpected. This is

again, another basis that we really cannot have true knowledge about the world. We only know

what we experience in the present but even that sometimes come in vaguely. We can never see

clearly what past has left behind and what the future has yet to paint.

Linking to the idea of change, I also agree that truth is subjective and that human reason

changed each generation. If this is not true, then we would have stayed and lived the same as our

ancestors. But if we look back, humankind has been through a long run of changes and is

continuously changing. This could also be rooted up by the fact that it is our human nature not to

be satisfied of what we already have. In this case, we are talking about knowledge. Speaking of

change, indeed, the innovations have been both good and bad, but there is no way to return to the

days before such inventions. With the comfort, ease, productivity, and all other benefits that

inventions has given to our lives, going back to the simple living our ancestors had before would

be a tough thing to imagine. Even if we are given no choice but to go back to that state, man will

always find a way to discover and try to make living a lot easier.

I also agree with the perception that knowing that you dont know anything can make

anyone smarter than others. Due to the existing thing we call as pride of intellect, most people

think they know everything. Well maybe not really on all things but everything on a certain field.

Knowing that you know nothing gives very big room for improvements and endless space for

curiosity. With this, ones cup of knowledge will always be half-filled and will never seem to fill

up. As a result, more and more ideas come in and knowledge grows wider. People with this
perception are sure enough to be smarter than others who dont have it. Connecting this to

another idea, I also agree that doubting is a form of thinking. Doubts come in as series of

questioning and thus become a form of curiosity which in turn leads us back the statement that

man is not satisfied with his knowledge and continues to seek the truth among a variety of ideas.

This could also be connected to the thought that we could perceive simple sensations, and that

we build these up through reflection to form complex ideas. As I have mentioned earlier, we

encounter basic and simple questions, this goes the same with encountering simple sensations.

For instance, we see blue. Then we simply identify it as a color. The complex things come in

when we associate the implications, meanings, descriptions, and all other details regarding the

color. Many complex things can come from a single word perceived.

Moving on, I have also taken the side of the idea that pleasure should be sought in life.

Satisfaction in living mostly comes in when pleasure is there. A day can mostly be categorized as

good when one enjoyed it. And these are the moments that people would want more to last. But

these moments rarely stay long. Problems and stress, the exact opposite of pleasure on the hand

are way off easy to find. Actually you dont have to look for them because they come along the

way almost every day in a million forms. Thus the idea that pleasure has to be sought. A step

higher to pleasure, happiness was also stated in the idea that if someone knows what the right

thing to do is in a situation she will do it, because it will make her happy. I believe that one way

to obtain happiness is doing what is right. It gives total freedom, no insecurities, no fear of being

punished or discovered, and best of all, doing what is right brings you close to truth itself. But

speaking of freedom, what else could be more agreeable than this: Art is humanity's greatest

expression of freedom. Being able to see what you wish to see as wide as you can; being able to

create masterpieces you can call your own wrapped in a beauty the way you perceive it; being
able to present the unlimited ideas your mind could ever form in unlimited ways in your own

preference. Now, who wouldnt agree with this freedom that art can give?

Then heres my favorite part. The ideas I strongly agree, the ideas of the existence of

human superego. First is that we have unconscious drives that can affect our actions without us

knowing about them. A good example would be suicidal thoughts. Most people who have this

actually do not intend to think about it. These thoughts just come in and out. It is something no

matter how much one wish to set aside just cannot do so. They come unconsciously at times you

wouldnt even expect. Signs of these are shown in its effects ones daily activities. People with

suicidal thoughts or shall we say intense depression could expect activities to be postponed and

not completed. These thoughts that unconsciously barge in anytime of the day have great impacts

on a persons performance. Connected to this, are those times that we say things that we did not

intend to say but that might be what we really mean. Again, our unconscious does not only

present itself by affecting our actions but so as our words. This is what we often categorize as

slip of tongue. Mostly people categorize these words as such right after it is said. But with

reflection, one may realize soon that maybe the words said were not accidentally said and were

intended.

Another idea on superego is that it constantly comes into conflict with our desires and

this conflict is a source of unease. I totally agree with this. One example is speaking up ones

pains and emotions. I have known a few people who have very strong superego, so strong that it

can even hinder them from telling even their closest friend of their pains and whatever they are

going through. Just because the very rare conscience tells them not to add up to other peoples

problems, even though they want to share their problems so bad, they cannot. Speaking of the

unconscious and superego, I can connect another idea which is this. Dreams are a way of
fulfilling our wishes. True enough. Though dreams are not at all times good and and not as

always we want it to be, it has been known that most scenarios we get from our dreams are our

deepest wishes. This holds true whether we are conscious or unconscious that it is what we really

want. Anyway, who would want to have a bad dream? Of course, if to choose what dreams to

have, one would want something that would satisfy ones pleasure through fulfillment of what

one has been wishing for. A very famous example is daydreaming of ones crush or most

admired person.

Talking of the composition of human mind such as those mentioned earlier, let us move

on to ideas pointing out the composition of humans. I do believe to what was mentioned in the

book that people are made up of a body that is a part of the natural world but also an immortal

soul that is in contact with the world of ideas. In simple words, man is made up of a body and a

soul. A statement backed up by another idea presented in the book about materialism and

idealism. I believe that for man to exist, he has to have both. What is a body without a soul? And

what is a soul without a body? They should always come together to for man to be considered, a

living being.

Man has always been mentioned all throughout as a general term referring to humans.

This makes me remember another idea I can agree with. It states that women are just as capable

of reasoning as men. Of course, this is true. I do believe that there shouldnt be any gender

descrimination especially when speaking of intelligence. This is not because I am a woman but if

you look at it closely, most people conclude that women are not as rational as men since their

decisions are often affected by emotions. The point is that, we do have the same rational level as

human beings in general what makes the difference is the emotional side. The rationality of a

person does not have anything to do with it. But then again, yes, emotions can interfere
decisions. But this is something that holds true not just for women but also for men. Thus we

cannot really generalize and mark women as more emotional than men. This description depends

on how a person values feelings and not on gender.

So much for the points of agreement, let us now move on to the ideas I have settled to

disagree. First of which, is that everything in life is predetermined. I dont think so.This is just

like saying you believe in destiny and fate. Instead, I believe in choice. It is not destiny but it is

choice that has determined what we are right now. I am not a UP student just because I am

destined to be one but because it was my choice to be in this institution. A student does not fail

because he is destined to fail, but because it was his choice not to focus on his studies and thus

the consequence. A relationship does not last because it is destined to last, but because the couple

chose to hold on to each other. If one had chosen to let go even though they are said to be

destined, the relationship will really not last just because a choice opposing what is said to be

predetermined was made.

Another point I really disagree is that happiness has nothing to do with material goods.

For some who view values and other abstract things such as love and companion as the only

important things to have happiness, here is the catch. In todays setting, where money rules

everything, it is not possible to be happy without material goods. Take for instance mans most

basic need which is food. There is a famous thought that goes, as long as the family is together,

scarcity of food is not a hindrance to happiness. Think it twice. Hunger leads to death and death

brings no happiness at all. How can you keep your family together when each of your mere

existence is threatened by death from hunger?

Connecting to happiness, I also disagree that people are only happy when they act to their

reason. Not all happiness comes from what you do. Some happiness comes from what others do
for you. An instance are birthday surprises. It is not your will, it is not something you ask for,

and it is not something that you do but you get it because other people have decided to do it for

you. You are not expecting it but there is happiness when it happens.

Next idea is on gender descrimination where women are viewed as unfinished men. If

that is the case, then that should mean that women are but a part of a whole of what men are.

Which is totally not true. A womans intelligence, freedom, emotions, values are not just a part

of a mans. They could mean in here the physical features. But keep in mind that a womans

body is created and structured for its main function which is reproduction. But that does not

mean, women cant do what men can. And it is something clearly seen in our times today where

women are becoming more and more compettitive when it comes to the most sterotyped role of

men which is working.

Flipping to the next page, here are some ideas I am caught to be neutral. First is that, man

is at the top of nature followed by animals then plants. Somehow I agree to the point than man is

the highest being God has created with rationality and free will. But then I do not rest to totally

agree since man cannot really be on top of nature. If so, how do you explain that humanity is

being swept away when nature blasts its wrath through calamities?

Another thing is Daltons evolution theory. He said that all plants and animals had

evolved from earlier forms and that this process occurs through natural selection. I agree that

there is evolution. Those that survived has evolved, those that didnt became extinct. If you only

know how big horses were during the dinosaur era! But I cannot totally agree especially on his

claims that humans come from monkeys. If this is so, all monkeys should have become humans

by now. But no. They havent and they really wont. But this still a theory anyway. It is yet to be

proven. Unless someone makes an experiment and observe a certain sample of monkeys and
show the world that they have evolved to human beings, then that is somehow considerable. But

come to think of it, animals do not have intellect and free will. Darwins theory is giving me the

argument that human intellect and freewill is developed and not innate and by nature?

Conclusion

In general, though it was too saturated with ideas and philosophical information, the

novel is for me a masterpiece of human mind creativity. It is such a nice piece of art. It has

proven that philosophical ideas and heavy information can not only be presented through lectures

in classrooms and discussions in reference books, but they can also be magestically weaved

within a story. I was amazed on how the twist was well-planned. At first, the author had made

me think that Hilde and her father were mere characters in Sophies imagination. While heading

on to the middle of the story where the twist gets clearer and clearer, I was astounded by the way

the entire story was written. This was when I discovered that my first impression is the exact

opposite of the real scenario for it is Sophie and Alberto who were just the mere characters in

Hildes fathers mind. For me, this book is amazing. It has combined heavy information and the

art of writing. Despite the many points and ideas presented, I have root them all up in a single

point that the author wishes the readers to see. And that is the idea that what is important in life

is philosophizing ones own existence and why the world is as it is. This is the key to live life

with meaning, to live with purpose and clear self-identity.