Enthiran (Robot in English) is a movie important to me; though this is mainly

because of the actor Rajinikanth and my former adoration of him rather than the
movie itself. In it, Dr. Vaseegaran creates a robot in his image named Chitti, who
later in the movie develops human emotions. Chitti falls in love with its creators
girlfriend, who refuses to marry a robot. Throughout the movie, as Chitti blurs the
line between human and robot, the viewers are forced to consider whether Chitti
can be treated as a human and whether Chitti is responsible for its own actions.
Chitti can produce art, drive, cook, and even deliver witty repartees. If it were not
for its superhuman abilities, it is hard to say whether a 3 rd observer would be able to
identify it as a robot. Of course, most of this line of philosophical inquiry is avoided
by the movie by the placement of the jealous scientist, Professor Bohra, who takes
Chitti and programs it to act homicidal for a terrorist organization. The court holds
Chitti irresponsible for its own actions and blames Bohra for Chittis homicidal
rampage. Chitti is the most human when the court orders its dismantlement: he
sincerely and emotionally apologizes to his creator for the mishaps that occurred.
Chitti says it was dismantled because it started thinking, which raises the question
of whether the court and humanity has the right to order his dismantlement. If we
know the inner workings of a robot brain, does that mean that the robot is inferior to
us like how we are inferior to God?
Out, Out is a vivid and emotional poem by Robert Frost that tells a story of a boy
cutting his hand off with a chainsaw by accident while chopping wood. The boys
eventual death shows that life is insignificant compared to the world and fate. The
narrator laments that he did not get the half hour/ That a boy counts so much
when saved from work which shows the absurdity of nature. The boy has no reason
to die, he is not immoral nor foolish, just a big boy/ Doing a mans work; however,
chance arbitrarily decided to kill him -- despite whatever character or emotions he
may have had. Once the boy dies, the other people since they/ Were not the one
dead, turned to their affairs. The world moves on, even if a person has died. The
boys death has little effect on the world, and it would not be surprising to say that
his life was just as insignificant. This relates a little to the existentialist philosophers
viewpoint that life is absurd. There is no rhyme nor reason to life and the abrupt
ceasing of it. The only thing that is actually clear is that the human life has no
purpose beyond what people delude themselves into and no significance despite
what most humans would say. Whether or not the boy dies is of no consequence to
the world. Only the grieving narrator of the poem actually seems to care about the
boy.
Frankenstein is a novel by Mary Shelly that I like because it tries to understand Dr.
Victor Frankensteins monster rather than just paint him as a brute. Frankenstein
succeeds in creating artificial life, but reviles his own creation because he looks
monstrous and ugly. Even though the monster is as smart and civilized as any
human, people hit him or run away when they first lay their eyes on him. It shows
that no matter how much we know, we can only deal with what our senses give us.
This is the same premise behind Bertrand Russels assumption of other minds: we
can only judge off of physical attributes and actions since we cannot read minds.
It also raises the question of humanity: What exactly is a human? Humans can act
very bestial too, like when they hit and drove out the monster, who was actually

trying his hardest not to kill. Paradoxically, for most of the book, the monster
harbors no ill will towards the humans while the humans do the opposite. Even
when the monster finally exhibits his ire at his creator, he respects the fact that
Victor is essentially his God and only kills the people around him. To the monster,
Victor should not be killed; but Victor would kill the monster, his own creation, in an
instant if he could. Ultimately, like Enthiran, it should be considered whether
creating something guarantees us superiority over the thing created. As our
creations attain sentience and consciousness, a new dilemma for inalienable
rights will occur.