Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Faye

  • Birthday 10/21/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
  • Occupation
    Project Manager

Faye's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. I actually have an undergraduate degree in Computer Science, and ended up coming to the conclusion that it really isn't my passion and that being a good programmer isn't something I even want to continue to pursue. I've always secretly wanted to do something more artistic, but was always encouraged to hone my skills in science or "practical" pursuits, so I pushed the thought of having such a career to the back of my mind. Don't get me wrong, I still greatly admire scientists and people that have a passion for such things, but it's not what I want. Film in particular has definitely been something that greatly impressed me, although I want to make sure that I'm not like a lot of people that just enjoy watching films. This is especially true since I've never been a part of the film-making process. I'm fortunate enough that I have a job where I can do something that keeps me happy (I was able to change roles so I don't program), but I'm starting to take film courses at a local college to see if it's something that really interests me. I've already taken Introduction to Film Studies, and I really enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to my next class, which is on History of Film. I say go for it! Just start out with a couple of classes, or do what Tenure said, and get a camera and start filming. If I decide on turning this into a career, I plan on transferring my credits to a better school (I live in California, and the credits can be transferred to any UC school). At the very least, I've taken some really fun courses that will raise the sophistication of my film knowledge, and in the best case, I've embarked on a new career.
  2. So, I don't mean to say that I fully support Betty Friedan (especially since she was Marxist), but I'm not sure why some people are agreeing that The Feminine Mystique should be on a "10 Most Harmful Books" list. Looking at the description on the website, it says that the book: I'm reading it now (I'm not finished with it; I just started "The Comfortable Concentration Camp" chapter), and what it disparages is when a woman's *only* goal in life is to become a wife and mother. It doesn't even seem to say that the role of housewife is degrading, only that it is degrading for it to be a person's only purpose. Friedan actually lists examples of women that are stay-at-home mothers, but fill their lives with other meaningful intellectual pursuits, and these women are shown as balanced and fulfilled human beings. It seems perfectly valid to me to say a major theme of the book is that a woman, or any other person for that matter, should not center their life around someone else. The Feminine Mysitque is by no means a perfect work and since I haven't finished it, maybe I haven't gotten to the worst part yet. I think it gives too much credit to societal pressures and not enough credit to women to make their own choices. Even so, I still think that it could be a helpful book to get someone to think about their choices in life, and whether or not the reason they made them was in order to refuse personal responsibility for their own happiness. Do people judge this book as harmful because of the book itself or the movement it started?
  3. So, I thought that was what the movie was saying, personally. I definitely thought that her death was shown as a tragedy. The importance of her husband's devotion to work wasn't slighted. I saw that, in the context of the film, there were times when he should have spent more time with his wife. It doesn't seem that this was an endorsement for him not to be as dedicated to his research. This doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean by inevitably tied to death? I don't see how you could make the analogy any other way. I didn't say that acceptance of death was a metaphysical fact. I said that mortality was. From your responses in the thread about mortality, I believe you're talking about human beings having an option to live or die, is that correct? I'll reiterate some of what I said there. I think that it's not only how long you live, but the quality of your life that is important in Objectivism. I could see that there would be particular situations where someone doesn't have the option to prolong their life any longer, and at this point, I don't see there being a problem with accepting death. I think that Izzi was in this situation. Did you posit the situation above as someone who still must try to act to preserve their life? Edit: As someone said in another thread, "The Objectivist ethics come into play, given the choice to live life". What you stated would be an emergency situation, so it's somewhat arbitrary what you decide to do. -Faye Edit: Oh, in case anyone else is curious about the mortality thread I'm talking about, this is it: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=10258
  4. So, I'm not necessarily saying that there isn't an option in every single case. I think you may be confusing what exactly the options are. The length of your life isn't the ultimate value in Objectivism. The quality of your life is just as important. If you have a terminal disease, and have tried every treatment available, does it go against Objectivist ethics to accept that you're going to die at this point? If you decide that you'd rather live a shorter period of time, but be happy and not in a hospital for the rest of your life, I don't really think that flies in the face of Objectivism. I also think that context is important here too. This sort of acceptance of death wouldn't be the correct choice in every situation; not even in every situation where someone has a terminal disease. -Faye
  5. Sorry for not responding earlier, I've been quite busy. Oh boy, this thread has run away without me So, when I made the statement about whether or not we should "accept" death, what I meant was I think we should be at peace with the fact that we are mortal, that we can die. And also, at this point in time, it's quite likely that even if someone is able to fight off disease and avoid accidents, there body will give out after aging to a certain point. Perhaps "accept" isn't the right vocabulary for this, but I really can't think of a better way to say what I mean. I accept that I am going to die one day, and I choose to live my life to the fullest until this happens. I also make decisions to further this life as long as possible, and to make it as happy as possible. Death isn't something I really dwell on or think about too often; I see mortality as something I came to terms with a while ago. So this is why I posted my question. I wasn't quite sure why this view would necessarily be at odds with Objectivism. Again, I also might not be stating this the best way. -Faye
  6. By the power of Greyskull, this was a funny movie For anyone that hasn't seen Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz is quite gory in few places, but it's still funny to watch. The editing is great too, as someone already mentioned. That alone was enough to crack me up.
  7. This question came up for me in another thread. Does it go against Objectivist principles to accept that we will all die someday? It seems to me that our mortality is a metaphysical fact. I want to stress that this doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for indefinite life spans or to cure diseases. I'm merely asking about the fact that we all can die. -Faye
  8. There are the Golden Gate Objectivists: http://goldengateobjectivists.com/index.htm I don't know if they really meet up though. I'm in the South Bay, in Santa Clara. Hi Where are you in SF? -Faye
  9. ******************* Spoilers ************************ I think I'll briefly answer your last question, since the first two clearly support the mysticism in the movie, which I don't agree with (and this really isn't the part I want to discuss or defend). I did mention in the topic that I didn't think it endorses this mysticism, and I'll concede that it does support it more than I previously thought. Maybe that's what you were trying to get out of me. But again, that's not really the part I'd like to discuss You and many people have asked why Izzi had to die, especially right as the cure was found. This movie is primarily about mortality. I believe that mortality is a metaphysical fact. The film poses questions about how we should deal with mortality. Should we be afraid of it (I think that the Conquistador story represents a primal fear of death)? Should we try to wipe it out (as Tommy wants to do)? Or should we accept it (as Izzi does)? In my opinion, the film is about Tommy going through all three of these phases. When Izzi dies, it was to show that Tommy can't necessarily control when his wife will die. It was to push him to accept mortality. If he's able to save her, it defeats the whole purpose of this. But this seems to be were everyone else disagrees with me. Do you disagree that death is a metaphysical fact? Or maybe you're trying to say that only some people will die? I also want to reiterate from my last post that I think there's a difference between prolonging life span and death not existing. -Faye
  10. Also, I think there is a difference between having an indefinite life span, and becoming indestructible. Even if humans were to reach a point where we have this indefinite life span, I don't think it would be possible to wipe out death completely. This is what I think of when Tommy mentions "curing" death. This is one of the reasons I've chosen to accept it. But again, if you wanted to discuss that further, it should probably be outside of this particular thread.
  11. I think this is the source of our disagreement about this movie. I believe that you can come to terms with death without being fatalistic about it. I also think that you can accept mortality, and still look for ways to extend life spans as much as possible. This, to me, isn't so much about valuing death as coming to the realization that it exists and that you should deal with it somehow. As things stand now, there really is no way to live indefinitely. What should people do in the meantime before we reach these things? Shouldn't we find some way to cope with mortality? That last question is why I personally liked the movie. It asks these questions and says that death isn't something we should be afraid of. I've accepted the fact that I will die someday, but to debate you on this topic gets away from the movie itself and would have to go into a different thread. -Faye
  12. ******************************************* I've given up on blocking out the spoilers, since they will show up anyways in the quotes. Read at your own risk. ******************************************* I also had the robot example in mind when I wrote my post, but I would disagree that life is what gives death meaning. Values may help you choose life, but they don't "protect" you from death. Looking at what I said ("death is what gives our lives so much meaning") it does not make my point. Perhaps I should be more clear and say, because we can die, that is what gives us the ability to have values and your values are what gives your life meaning and purpose. So, I wasn't trying to say you should value death (and you are correct in saying this is in opposition to Objectivism), but that it's a part of life. It's not necessarily something that should be feared or obsessed over. I think this is what the movie was trying to convey as well. This film is also a response to how our society deals with death. We often do not discuss it, or if we do, people have irrational beliefs about it. Many times, people are faced with a decision of living their lives out in a hospital bed, or living a shorter period of time, but having an actual life. There is nothing wrong with trying to prolong your life, say, through exercise or finding new drugs that will help your body stay young or cure diseases. However, I think there really are some people where death is a finality that cannot be changed, and at this point, you have to cherish what you have left. This is what I thought Tommy's problem was, and why he was being irrational. Izzi has been given a very short time to live, and he has to choose between spending time with her or spending time researching. As one of the other characters tells him "new drugs aren't created overnight". He is trying to control death, which is simply something we cannot do (not completely). He is not irrational because he wants to find a way for his wife to live, but because he refuses to realize that he might not be able to achieve this in the short time she has left. Many of the characters die, not as a form of punishment from Aronofsky, but to show that you can't always control mortality. I think the film is trying to say that by letting go of fear or obsession with death, you can lead a much richer life. I agree with what Qwertz said about the abstractions in the movie. Aronofsky is not always completely clear in regards to what values he is trying to present with his abstractions, and I couldn't defend it if someone said the movie's ideas about life and death are vague. Aronofsky has said that the film is "very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end". This vagueness is something that bothers me, however, I'm still not convinced that the film is saying "Death is your master" or that death is something you should worship. I believe the central theme of this movie is that we will all die, that death is a part of life, and the best way to deal with this is to live a full life until you die. I think one other theme is that we should cherish life while we have it. Maybe you disagree with the fact that "we will all die" is something you should accept? Perhaps my opinion is also colored by the fact that I've listened to interviews with the creators of the film and read literature about it (not that I'm an expert), and death worship is never mentioned. They don't mention the Grand Inquisitor being the main point of the film; if anything, Izzi's acceptance of death is. I also don't take "death as and act of creation" or "death is the road to awe" literally. Nor do I agree that there is some "greater form of life". There are definitely some collectivist or mystic interpretations of the film, but I choose to watch it for the themes about valuing and cherishing life. These are some of the interviews I listened to (the second and third videos talk the most about the themes I mentioned): http://youtube.com/watch?v=c5Mry8RhBJM http://youtube.com/watch?v=rRm0TKTRwHQ http://youtube.com/watch?v=g1pESZpTxg0 -Faye
  13. ********************* There are possible spoilers throughout this post ********************* I don't think that this movie was worshiped death. I think it explored why we fear death and why we shouldn't fight death simply for the sake of preserving life. And when I use the word "preserving", I mean keeping our lives static, and keeping everything as it is in one moment. Preserving might not be the best word, but it's the closest thing I can think of to what I mean. It seemed to me that the point of this movie was to enjoy your life while you have it, and to accept the fact that it will change and that it may end at some point, though not to worship it. If you look at the character of Izzi, she certainly doesn't worship death; what she does is explore it. She's scared of it at first, and doesn't want to die. This is in stark contrast to her husband Tommy, who is obsessed with curing the disease of death. I think it's important to notice that his character must change, not because he wants to cure mortality, but because he lets his obsession interfere with how he lives his life. He begins to act irrationally, because he values his wife more than this cure, but has chosen to spend time on creating the cure and not on spending time with his wife. I suppose you could point to the fact that the quote "death is the road to awe" is repeated many times as a sort of death worship. However, they also make the point that "death is an act of creation" quite a bit as well. Looking at the way both of these are used, though, I believe it makes the point that life will continue even after a particular individual dies. When you do see death worship, it is embodied in the evil character of the Grand Inquisitor. He is not shown as a good example of how to live. I think "death is the road to awe" is less to demonstrate that death is the ultimate goal, and more to show that death is what gives our lives so much meaning. Because we are mortal, we have to choose to live. The ideal in this movie is the character of Izzi.
  14. I'm surprised no one on the forum has recommended The Fountain (2006, Darren Aronofsky). The themes about life and death were really well done and beautiful. I thought Hugh Jackman and Rachel Wiesz were quite touching as a couple as well. This was definitely nothing like Requiem for a Dream, in case anyone was scared off because of that. It has some mysticism in it, but I don't think it was there as an endorsement. I believe this was mainly used to illustrate the themes about accepting mortality. Either way, I really loved it and thought it was a powerful film. Has anyone else seen it and care to comment on it? -Faye
  15. So, I'm trying to get people together to go see a movie and hang out afterwards. I just want to see if anyone is interested, and then we can get to the nitty gritty of what move/where/when, etc. I think it might be cool to go to the Stanford theatre, but I'm not sure what's playing there presently. Anyways, respond if you're interested! -Faye
  • Create New...