1. I dont think it's Claire in the coffin...when Jack pulls the clipping from the newspaper obituary out of his pocket, you can see a portion of a name which looks like "Jeremy Bentham", which is the name of an old philosopher. This would fit in with Lost's history of naming characters based on past writers/philosophers (John Locke, Desmond David Hume, C.S. Lewis, etc.).
From Wikipedia:
Bentham's ambition in life was to create a "Pannomion", a complete Utilitarian code of law. Bentham not only proposed many legal and social reforms, but also expounded an underlying moral principle on which they should be based. This philosophy,
utilitarianism, argued that the right act or policy was that which would cause "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" — a phrase of which he is generally, though erroneously, regarded as the author — though he later dropped the second qualification and embraced what he called "the
greatest happiness principle," often referred to as the principle of utility. He wrote in
The Principles of Morals and Legislation:
<TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think...<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-14>
[15]</SUP></TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
He attributed his theory to
Joseph Priestley: "Priestley was the first (unless it was
Beccaria) who taught my lips to pronounce this sacred truth:- That the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-15>
[16]</SUP>
He also suggested a procedure for estimating the moral status of any action, which he called the Hedonistic or
felicific calculus. Utilitarianism was revised and expanded by Bentham's student,
John Stuart Mill. In Mill's hands, "Benthamism" became a major element in the
liberal conception of state policy objectives.
People are often impressed by Bentham's classification of 12 pains and 14 pleasures and 'felicific calculus' by which we might test the 'happiness factor' of any action. Nonetheless, it is should not be overlooked that Bentham's 'hedonistic' theory (a term from
J.J.C Smart), unlike Mill's, is often said to lack a principle of fairness embodied in a conception of
justice. In "Bentham and the Common Law Tradition", Gerald J. Postema states, "No moral concept suffers more at Bentham's hand than the concept of justice. There is no sustained, mature analysis of the notion ..." <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-16>
[17]</SUP> Thus, some critics object, it would be acceptable to
torture one person if this would produce an amount of happiness in other people outweighing the unhappiness of the tortured individual -
cf. "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas". However, as P. J. Kelly argued in his book,
Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law, Bentham had a theory of justice that prevented such consequences. According to Kelly, for Bentham the law "provides the basic framework of social interaction by delimiting spheres of personal inviolability within which individuals can form and pursue their own conceptions of well-being."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-17>
[18]</SUP> They provide security, a precondition for the formation of expectations. As the hedonic calculus shows "
expectation utilities" to be much higher than natural ones, it follows that Bentham does not favour the sacrifice of a few to the benefit of the many.
In contrast,
J.J.C Smart and
Bernard Williams's
Utilitarianism: For and Against provides a more complete picture with both sides of the argument in relation to the theory.
Jeremy Bentham's
Principles of Legislation focuses on the principle of utility and how this view of morality ties into legislative practices. His principle of utility regards "good" as that which produces the greatest amount of pleasure, and the minimum amount of pain; and "evil" as that which produces the most pain without the pleasure. This concept of pleasure and pain is defined by Bentham as physical as well as spiritual. Bentham writes about this principle as it manifests itself within the legislation of a society. Bentham lays down a set of criteria for measuring the extent of pain or pleasure that a certain decision will create. The criteria are divided into the categories of intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, productiveness, purity, and extent. Using these measurements, he reviews the concept of punishment and when it should be used as far as whether a punishment will create more pleasure or more pain for a society. He calls for legislators to determine whether punishment creates an even more evil offense. Instead of suppressing the evil acts, Bentham is arguing that certain unnecessary laws and punishments could ultimately lead to new and more dangerous vices than those being punished to begin with. Bentham follows these statements with explanations on how antiquity, religion, reproach of innovation, metaphor, fiction, fancy, antipathy and sympathy, begging the question, and imaginary law are not justification for the creation of legislature. Instead, Bentham is calling upon legislators to measure the pleasures and pains associated with any legislature and to form laws in order to create the greatest good for the greatest number. He argues that the concept of the individual pursuing his or her own happiness cannot be necessarily declared "right," because often these individual pursuits can lead to greater pain and less pleasure for the society as a whole. Therefore, the legislation of a society is vital to maintaining a society with optimum pleasure and the minimum degree of pain for the greatest amount of people.
----------------------
Maybe Jeremy Bentham is one of Ben's aliases (the last name does, after all, have the name "Ben" in it), and the island was Bentham's utilitarian paradise
So, if the person in the coffin really goes by "Jeremy Bentham", that would imply that it was a man.
Also, I've heard that the flashforwards are going in reverse chronological order. Basically, the one where Jack is all fucked up is the last one, and they are working backwards, until we get to the point where they actually get off the island. Thus, that would have to mean that Claire made it off the island, lived in hiding for several years, and then finally died.
2. I'm pretty sure you're right that Ben can time travel, judging by him asking the question to the hotel clerk.
3. I didnt see that (I'm ashamed I didnt look for it, actually. What good is my DVR if I dont use it for things like this?), but I read about it this morning. Could just be coincidence, could have deeper meaning. Maybe that was one of the suits that Ben had in his little hideout room. Maybe they are just relics fromt he Dharma initiative.
Also, if Ben can time travel, it would explain how he knows EVERYTHING about everybody who comes on the island. Like how he rattled off all those facts about Keamy, the soldier. Then again, he could have just gotten that info from Michael.
4. I guess so. I guess the bigger question is: Is Ben the one who sent the smoke monster to kill Eko? If so, why? (Besides the fact that the real-life actor got arrested for DUI and resisting arrest). Did he send it after Locke in season 1, when it tried to pull Locke into a hole in the ground? Did he send it to chase Juliet and Kate through the woods when they were handcuffed.
Or does the monster act on its own, but Ben can control it, if need be.
And, a few questions I wouldnt mind having answered:
1. Does the red-haired chick that came on the island with Miles and Farraday serve ANY purpose whatsoever? Seriously, she's an awful actress and her character hasnt done shit
2. Did anyone think that the soldiers killing off all those extras was simply a convenient excuse to lower the survivor count? After all, there were 48 survivors and only like 15 main characters, so there's like 30 survivors that we never see or hear from. Plus, only 6 of them get off the island.
3. Do you think Ben was the one who really killed Sayid's wife, in order to get Sayid to work for him? It wouldnt surprise me at all
Linear Mode
