The Giver Questions:

1. Why are there two color schemes in the movie (grayscale and colored)? What does it entail?

The grayscale color scheme symbolizes the lack of individuality and free will in their society. Since their
freedom to make choices for themselves was forbidden, there is no color in their lives, because it is in
the differences that we have from each other that makes us unique. In short, the grayscale color
represents conformity and the lack of deviation from the norm.

Meanwhile, the colored world represents the vibrancy that comes from individuality and free will since
their choices are allowed to shape and influence society into something strange and wonderful.

2. The post- apocalyptic world presented in the movie “The Giver” prohibits any kinds of
deviation from the norm. Would you prefer this world over the one we have now? What is
the difference between treating everybody as the one and the same and everybody as a
different/unique being? What dangers does the second option pose?

I would not prefer such a world since each person is fundamentally different and it is from these
differences that we are able to build upon our identities. What makes us different from others is what
makes us special. And though these differences may clash, they can also complement each other and
help each other contribute to the good of the world. For example, in a store, those with good people
skills are in charge of the counter and customer assistance, while those with math skills are tasked with
computations of profits and expenses. We depend on each other and what we have to offer. If we treat
each other the same, we fail to recognize each other’s strengths and weaknesses, to respect each others
opinions and preferences and to appreciate each other for who we are. If we fail to do these, we will not
be able to realize our worth and what we have to offer to the world.

3. Relate the “everybody is the same/ everybody is different” mentality with Russell’s concept
on the enlargement of the Self. What is the basic foundation of human cliques? Do you
think we should do away with them? Why?

According to Russell, the enlargement of Self can be achieved by gaining knowledge through widening
your perspective through contemplation on matters you may be unfamiliar with. To achieve a deeper
understanding on things outside of our narrow perspective, we must first acknowledge that we are
lacking in knowledge and allow ourselves to ask questions on these matters. If we force to fit the
universe into our own limits, we only stray further from the truth. So we must aim to open our minds
and ask questions, and even if we don’t get answers just the act of contemplation brings us closer to the
truth of the universe. The “everybody is the same / everybody is different” mentality is influenced by
the state of the mind and whether it aims to achieve the enlargement of Self. Closed minds that force
the world to fit their own perspective are prone to generalizations and inaccurate conclusions. For
example, women who dress in revealing clothes are judged by misogynists as sluts. But for those with
more open minds who recognize that it’s impossible for them to know the reason behind someone’s
personal clothing choice, they wouldn’t jump to such inaccurate conclusions. Because some women
dress themselves provocatively as a way of loving their bodies and to rebel against the strict beauty
standards imposed on them. Showing off skin means showing off more of their flaws proudly. Some
women dress provocatively because of the warm weather. Some women dress like that because they
forgot to do laundry and had nothing left in their wardrobe. To misogynists, they’re all the same slutty
women. When in reality they all carry their own individual reasons for making their own choices, none
of which deserve judgment from strangers who don’t know them.

The basic foundation of human cliques are similar interests and the need for belonging. Birds of a
feather flock together. And they stay together, because they’re familiar with each other and therefore
easier to deal with. This comfort zone may deter clique members from meeting new people, because
the feeling of familiarity is preferred over the inherent risks of new people. Like in the enlargement of
the Self, the perspective of a person may become limited to their group because they refuse to meet
people from different social groups and different walks of life. Since cliques are likely to be based on
similar interests, the members are unlikely to gain more interests and to learn from dissenting opinions,
thus preventing them from growth and enlargement of the Self.

However I do not believe cliques should be entirely eliminated. Life should be a balance between
challenge and comfort. Cliques can provide respite and support after a tough period of taking risks and
discovering new perspectives, both light and dark. They can also provide a foundation for your own
identity, reminding yourself of who you were and who you might still be now. The things you take
comfort in can shape your identity just as much as the things that challenge you. As long as a person
doesn’t allow their comfort zone to limit them, they can use it to their advantage by drawing strength
upon them. But when they realize after a period of growth that their old ideals and interests are actually
harmful, then it’s best to do away with them. It depends on the person whether or not cliques would
prove to be advantageous.

4. What is “true knowledge” according to Russell? How does it relate to the idea of an
emancipatory outlook on things and relationships?

True knowledge is the knowledge of something without being distorted by personal thoughts and bias. It
is knowing something out of the context of your own existing knowledge and out of your own context in
general. Your emotions, your beliefs, your past, your senses, your body and everything else about you
must not factor into the meaning you assign to something nor the understanding you have about
something. By removing yourself completely from the subject, you eliminate a flawed and biased
outlook and achieve true knowledge instead. An emancipatory outlook on things and relationships can
be achieved by aiming for true knowledge in these things. To do this, one must eliminate all personal
bias and possible influence on your perception. For example, a victim of child abuse may be conditioned
into believing that they deserve such abuse and that they’re inherently a bad person. But if they remove
themselves from the situation, disregard the feeling of receiving anger from their parents while
watching their peers receive love instead, ignore the internalized self-blame they acquired throughout
the years, they will escape this warped point of view and look at the situation in its true colors. Parents,
who have years of physical, mental and emotional maturity, have immense power over a child, who is
defenseless, and it is never the fault of the child for being abused for they are the ones without any
power in the situation.
5. Prepare a list of what you believe to be the value of Philosophy in bullet form. Please write
your answers as succinct and as many as possible.
 Widening our perspective
 Recognizing our gaps in knowledge
 Valuing questions not just for direct answers but for the implications they pose
 Freedom from anxieties but as well as hopes and dreams
 Closeness to the truth of the universe despite not fully understanding it
 Achieving the greatness of the mind not through acquiring knowledge but
through contemplation
 Eliminating biases when examining an object, a fact, an event or a situation