Groundhog Day

[HalfoffSale]

For those who haven't seen it or need a refresher.
Groundhog Day (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




As a philosophical question, what did Phil Collins do on Feb 3rd?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Groundhog Day is one of my favorite films. I watch it once a year... on February 2nd, of course. I'll bet I'm not the only one.

As a philosophical question, what did Phil Collins do on Feb 3rd?

He couldn't predict anything, so he wouldn't have been able to turn up just at the right moment to do a good deed, but with his new moral character, I'm sure that he would still be able to function as a good person. I believe that he would have enjoyed the surprises of a new day, and would cultivate his new romance.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HalfoffSale]

I have a somewhat different belief. In the movie, the first "trick" he learned to do with the time loop was to have the perfect date with Rita. He learned to consistently do this as well, taking her from "he's a jerk" to full on infatuation in the 18 hours or so he had. After a brief stint with hedonism, he devotes his time to learning talents and helping people. On the final looped day he demonstrates dozens of talents that would take a lifetime to master as if they're effortless.

Early scripts say about 10,000 years, so that's the length of time I generally use for the thought experiment. I feel that on Feb 3rd. he would find himself completely unable to relate to anyone on any level. Of course things would be "new," but that does not mean they would be novel. In essence, I feel like he would have long since suffered existential depression to a greater extent than anyone could perceive, and meet the same fate as say, David Foster Wallace.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I feel that on Feb 3rd. he would find himself completely unable to relate to anyone on any level. Of course things would be "new," but that does not mean they would be novel. In essence, I feel like he would have long since suffered existential depression to a greater extent than anyone could perceive, and meet the same fate as say, David Foster Wallace.

Wow, that's such a negative view. I don't think that would be in Phil's character at all. He is a much, much stronger person for his character development.

He had already worked through his existential depression. That's precisely why he committed suicide hundreds of times. He got through it. He found his meaning of life in his love.

So, no existential depression. He even chose to live in the same town for the rest of his natural life. Why? Because while he hated it for the first 9000 years or so, he learned to love the people there, and to love himself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HalfoffSale]

Is it necessarily a question of Phil's character? Or anyone's for that matter?

Most people I've asked gave a similar answer to you. He either won the love of his life, or learned a lesson on selflessness/meaning/etc. It seems like they have a different fundamental question from the movie, but I can't see anything but "What could you do with infinite time and infinite do overs?" I can't help but view him using more human psychological lenses. I feel at the point Feb 3rd came along, it wasn't just the next day to him, it was the day after forever. Phil would have long since outpaced his potential for any sort of intimate companionship.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is it necessarily a question of Phil's character? Or anyone's for that matter?

By character, I'm not limiting that concept to moral character. I mean that he has learned how to deal with his existence.

I feel at the point Feb 3rd came along, it wasn't just the next day to him, it was the day after forever.

Yes, so? He had survived "forever". What's a few decades after that?

BTW, the original script author says "10,000 years", but he may have gotten that from the Zen way of using that number as a stand-in for "a very long time". But let's say that it was exactly 10,000 years. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't see any human psychological difficulty in living for 10,000 years.

Phil would have long since outpaced his potential for any sort of intimate companionship.

I'm not sure what you mean here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HalfoffSale]

By character, I'm not limiting that concept to moral character. I mean that he has learned how to deal with his existence.

I look at Phil from a more animalistic point of view I think. No matter his moral character, his talents, or his learnings, he's still just a monkey at the end of the day. And no matter how smart a monkey is, it won't be happy in the arctic.

Yes, so? He had survived "forever". What's a few decades after that?

That's the question I'm struggling with. What are the decades after "enough time?" I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but I'm a gifted individual. The actual type. I come from wealth and privilege, but beyond that have severe obsessive tendencies. Just like Phil, each day is one step better, but he can only change himself. That's why to me, it's a question of "what do you do after enough?

It's in the vein of existential depression. I don't feel he would be able to relate to anyone who hadn't also been given enough time to become that self actualized. He would have become so isolated from is peers that his Maslov's triangle would be irreparable.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I look at Phil from a more animalistic point of view I think. No matter his moral character, his talents, or his learnings, he's still just a monkey at the end of the day. And no matter how smart a monkey is, it won't be happy in the arctic.

Wow.

I see the story of Groundhog Day as a "monkey" who was unhappy with his life growing up to become a man who had learned to love his life and the people that were a part of it.

The original "monkey" would never have survived those 10,000 years, and in fact didn't. Only the man had survived.

Anyway, there's not much more to say. It's clear that we have two very different views of human nature. I see human potential as something great, especially if one has the time for actualization.

It's in the vein of existential depression. I don't feel he would be able to relate to anyone who hadn't also been given enough time to become that self actualized. He would have become so isolated from is peers that his Maslov's triangle would be irreparable.

A lesser man might fail, but I don't think that Phil had grown into a lesser man. He had learned to love other people, to love himself, and to love his life in general. He had become a "great souled" person. Perhaps he would feel set apart from others, but I don't see that holding him back because he still loves those others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

The important thing was that he learned to play the piano.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Come to his senses and dumped Rita hopefully. Man she was annoying.

 

[HalfoffSale]

Wow.

I see the story of Groundhog Day as a "monkey" who was unhappy with his life growing up to become a man who had learned to love his life and the people that were a part of it.

The original "monkey" would never have survived those 10,000 years, and in fact didn't. Only the man had survived.

Anyway, there's not much more to say. It's clear that we have two very different views of human nature. I see human potential as something great, especially if one has the time for actualization.

A lesser man might fail, but I don't think that Phil had grown into a lesser man. He had learned to love other people, to love himself, and to love his life in general. He had become a "great souled" person. Perhaps he would feel set apart from others, but I don't see that holding him back because he still loves those others.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think we're at a misunderstanding here. I don't mean he's a monkey in the sense of a pejorative. I mean it that no matter how much he progresses, he is still a human and will still be limited by human nature. Having 10,000 years isn't the point, it's that he's had "enough" time to max out his triangle.

That's the angle I feel like only I am considering. I disagree with things like him finding love or learning to be selfless as answers for Feb 3rd not because they're wrong, but because he's already crossed that bridge. He's solved that problem in his life already.

But that sort of self advancement comes at a cost, and having people who have not had that advancement understand the cost is a very hard thing to explain. But it's the problem I'm facing in my own life.

Phil piece by piece patched up his triangle with that time and no consequences, but with every new piece he adds, he takes one step farther from the "companionship" or "intimacy" parts of the triangle. I try to explain it like a vegan tiger. It doesn't matter how perfect his mind, body, and environment are, if he only has vegan food the tiger will never prosper.

I haven't hit Feb 3rd, but I've gone far enough to understand the cost too well, and it's starting to crack me up.