The Host Part III

In the last post on The Host with Saoirse Ronan, the concept of the soul was introduced. In this post, I would like to look at another aspect of the soul, freewill.



***Spoilers Alert!*** There was a whole bunch of will assertion in this movie, especially in Saoirse Ronan's characters (two persons together for most of the movie).

But first, backing up further to see the larger view, the alien race that took over Earth was pushing their agenda to keep the native people from destroying themselves and their environment (as was mentioned in the first post). Unlike the Ender's Game movie, the reason for the takeover was not for land or resources, but to essentially save the planet by inserting an alien world government and populace (that sure sounds familiar).

This scenario of the movie seems forced. Why would a peaceful alien species who values non-violence forcefully take over people against their own will? Do they see themselves as the doing the right thing (good means and ends) or simply the necessary thing (good ends matter only, not means)? Do they really believe in free will?

This last question seemed to be a shock to the aliens. There was never reported to be a human that still asserted his or her (free) will after becoming a host. This is why Saoirse Ronan's alien character was alarmed and kept secret (for most of the movie) the fact that her host was asserting herself.

Perhaps the aliens did not believe in free will. I've argued before that if there is no free will (no God), there is no morality. If they did not believe, the alien actions would not have to be justified, since it's just those whom blind processes (nature) determine are stronger who get to decide (determinism). However, the hosts did assert their freewill, therefore, there are good and bad means (means matter).

The aliens who became friends with the humans realized that there was a right-and-wrong that the humans had at least a grasp of. This realization was attractive to them.

This attractiveness seemed to be ultimately an attractiveness towards God.

The Host Part II

***Spoilers Alert*** Other than the demonic-like parallels in The Host, it's magnificently surprising that the movie writers got the concept of the human host soul right (notice that I didn't write "human host's soul").



It's been said very often that people have a right to their body, specifying a type of ownership of one's body by the self. This is a modern concept called Cartisian dualism. Someone's body and concept of self are said to be two separate entities. (This is very evident in the abortion and same-sex "marriage" debates.)

The Christian concept of self is the integration of body and soul. Pope John Paul the Great summarized this concept best by referring to a person as an embodied soul.

In The Host, the alien "soul" who was really an embodied soul, not just spirit, seemed to be in competition with the hosting embodied soul. This was evident by the way that the main character host was able to physically overrun the alien symbiont by force of will.

Fr. Barron further explains the relationship of the soul to the body ("Faith Seeks Understanding Pt. 12: What is the relationship of the soul to the body?"):



Here's The Host Part I.

The Host Part I

The Host is a relatively new movie with Saoirse Ronan that was written by the same person as the Twilight series (I found this out just now). I never watched any of Twilight, but this Host movie was creepy.

It was creepy because it reminded me of a reverse demon possession.



Usually, in the Bible and in movies, when people are possessed by a demon, they try to destroy their host. For example, "Lord [Jesus], have pity on my son, for he is a [possessed] lunatic and suffers severely; often he falls into fire, and often into water." (Here's another example (Legion).)



There was a reversal of this tendency in The Host. The alien "souls" who were possessing the humans were stopping them from being violent to other humans and the Earth.

Why is this a bad thing? (Why don't you tell me in the comments below?) Perhaps it is because taking away someone's freewill is against God's prime directive (God's will).

(Speaking of prime directive, the Trill on Star Trek (Dax et al.; Dr. Beverly's Trill) had hosts who freely submitted to being used as hosts. So, the same objection can't really be raised in that case.)