Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

andre_sanchez

Regulars
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by andre_sanchez

  1. The problem being against taxes is that, so far, nothing else has worked. "Voluntary" contributions along the lines of "private defense agencies" or anything of the sort are clearly not able to stamp out organized crime in the form of organized "government" (like say, the government of Iran). Only other tax-gathering corporations are able to fight and defeat tax-gathering corporations, on a long term basis. You could colapse a particular tax-gathering corporation without being one yourself, but another -will- pop up again, it's like bankrupting a company in a thriving market, it won't make any difference in the end. As I see it, the best alternative would be a focus on a land-tax, as the value of land is directly related to its protection, along with the freedom granted to those using it, and aggressive imperalism by said corporation.

  2. If no matter how you behave, you die, then ethics is invalidated. The primary value is not "quality of life" but -existance- of life. It's not about lenght, but the fundamental matter of yes or no, of existance or non-existance. You don't look back at your life after death to judge how good it was, compare it's lenght to it's qualitye and get a prize if you get the most points. You either live, or you die.

  3. That isn't what "immortal" means.

    im·mor·tal

    6. (of a laboratory-cultured cell line) capable of dividing indefinitely.

    The nature of life is to keep living. It can fail, but it does not have to fail. The fact that we all (well, almost all) can create offspring is a clear proof that there is nothing inherent in our nature as living beings to prevent us from living forever. I do not at all deny that there is a built-in system of death, and that this system is not easy to crack, but every person (couple anyway) can create multiple completely new and healthy bodies, which can create even more bodies, ad infinitum. There is even a sickness that results from our cell's ability to divide indefinitely, cancer. So our bodies are -capable- of extending life indefinitely.

  4. Do you think any kind of life on Earth will survive the death of the Sun? In about five billion years, the Sun will become a Red Giant. It will expand and engulf the Earth which will be vaporized. What can survive that?

    Bob Kolker

    I think it's pretty safe to say that men can figure out a way to get out of the sun's way (or perhaps even something more ingenious) within five billion years.

  5. Yes, you have to accept it. It's the truth. One important additional point is that without the life/death option Objectivist ethics would cease to be. It's this option that provides the objective foundation for morality.

    Exactly, it's the option. Any man that accepts that there is no actual option, that man must simply accept that he will die, has renounced the basic premise of objectivist ethics.

  6. Faye,The husband/conquistador/astronaut is an objectivist hero up until the point where he gives up. If not for his heroic defiance, I wouldn't have been able to stand through the whole movie. His refusal to go take a walk with her is a beautiful act of love and demonstration of the need to have perspective. Her behaviour throughout the movie can best be described as fear-induced evasion. After having done more thought on why I felt like that, I think I understand the matter pretty clearly now. If the movie had the last few scenes replaced, it would be ranked among the best I have seen. Even Izzy's death could have been used properly, as a demonstration that human being as not omnipotent, a reminder of the tragedy of death and the importance of the husband's devotion to his work. How would the "indestructible" robot analogy change, if instead of the robot being inevitably tied to life, the robot was inevitably tied to death? The answer is, it wouldn't change at all. Acceptance of death as a "metaphysical fact" is a denial of core objectivist principles and invalidates the whole of objectivist ethics. Objectivist ethics is grounded in the realization that in order to live, there is a way to act. If I tied your hands and feet, placed a gun to your head and said "You have 30 seconds, enjoy your life", how would you go about enjoying your life? What would your highest value be? This post has been edited by andre_sanchez: Aug 19 2007, 11:53 PM
    Of course we -can- die. We are not invincible. That is not the same as accepting death as a metaphysical fact.
    I would require some definite evidence from the medical sciences before holding that indefinite lifespans are possible. The principle is that the particularity of the evidence must match the particularity of the claim it is intended to support. So, for instance, the fact that man learned to fly doesn't supply the specific evidence needed to hypothesize about lifespan extension. Unless such specific evidence is supplied, I would hold such claims to be arbitrary and unworthy of consideration. For example, I could assume that with the right technology, I could teleport to distant galaxies. Unfortunately, since there is no evidence that such technology might exist, working towards it would be irrational. I guess I'm holding out for some citation of something that would at least hint in some significant way that indefinite lifespans are, in fact, possible before I commit to a lifetime of working towards that end (you know, something about stem cells or DNA repair techniques or extending telomeres, which I know next to nothing about).
    The first living organism was in effect, immortal. That is why we exist, because it never stopped living. Every living being is simply the biological extension of a previous living being, so it is clear that immortality is within the real of nature.
    I'm having trouble understanding this distinction. "Working towards it" would be the means to achieve the goal in either case. What would be the joy of solving a puzzle if one was not "working towards" it's solution? Likewise, how does one hope to implement their ideas without "working towards" their realization? In either case, "working towards it" would be the means to satisfy either of those two goals.
    It seems they do not understand -why- rationality is good. They have fallen prey to intrinsicalism.
  7. You mean that aggressive and despotic Islam is aggressive and despotic. Islam, like any other religion, can be twisted into anything you want it to mean. It is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful.

    That is not true. Yes, you can take islamic symbols and isolated facts to turn it into something respectable, absolutely. You can build a new objectivist civilization based on soviet symbols and a gross distortion of communist writings, if you wish. There are also certainly many communists who are "peaceful". Communism remains an inherently violent and despotic ideology.

    Uh...nothing in that quote says that he isn't a Muslim. As far as I know, he is.

    I have no idea why you are making such a reply. I was merely pointing out the irony of you using a former member of the iranian thought police as an example of a peaceful muslim.

    Right, and the same was true of Christianity for most of its lifetime. In fact...when Christianity was as old as Islam is today, it was still true of Christianity.

    If you want to make such sily examples, I can play that game too. When christianity was 30 years old, it was a deeply peaceful religion, despite it's moral corruption. When Islam was 30 years old, it was already a deeply criminal ideology.

    Nevertheless, they are Muslims. They are peaceful Muslims. By your childish and simplistic reasoning, they are living oxymorons

    My reasoning is neither childish nor simplistic. Your equating islam with christianity on the other hand, is.

    Uh...Japan didn't surrender because it was occupied. It surrendered because we blew 2 of its cities off the face of the earth.

    It's funny how you complain about me accepting the possibility of genocide, yet have no problem with "blowing cities off the face of the earth". Japan issued a surrender because of the bombs and ceased hostilities. Without occupation it would have used the peace as a means to prepare for a new war.

    Yes, I have heard of Hizballah and probably know more about them than you do. The fact that there are violent Shiites and Sunnis doesn't prove that Islam is violent, anymore than you can prove that Christianity is violent by pointing to the IRA (Catholic) and the Ulster Defence League (Protestant).

    You are right, it doesn't. The fundamentals of Islam do. The fundamentals of christianity do not. It is not the behaviour of any particular adherent to a faith that concerns me. There are fucked up objectivists even. I do not condemn Islam because there are a few islamic terrorists.

    No I'm not. I know your type all too well. I don't deny that radical Islam is, currently, the greatest threat to Western civilization.

    I don't think it is the greatest threat.

    No, I think you're a racist because you call for genocide against a religion that is adhered to primarily by brown people but will not call for the same against a religion that has done far more damage to civilization (Christianity).

    The religion under which western civilization rose has done far more damage to civilization than the one which still refuses to accept it?

    And I am convinced that you are absolutely ignorant about the actual content of Islam. And, no, reading books by Robert Spencer does not mean you know what you're talking about. If you want to understand an ideology, read books by people for and against it.

    I have read many books on Islam, including but not limited to Spencer's. Before actualy studying the matter I had a fairly positive view of Islam.

    Right, and I think you're a racist for not ruling it out altogether. There is no situation imaginable in which genocide, as popularly defined, is justified.

    Why? What is the popular definition of genocide?

  8. Let's look at some examples from history. Here are some instances where ideological and military enemies were defeated by total war:[*] The United States and Allied Forces eradicating Japanese Imperialism during World War II.
    Occupied.
    [*] Nazi Germany being smashed during World War II.
    Occupied
    [*] The rebel spirit of the Confederacy during the United States Civil War.
    Occupied.
    [*] Romes victory over and subsequent eradication of Carthage during the Second and Third Punic Wars.
    Are you serious? They were defeated time after time, and they rebelled time after time, until the Romans lost all patience and engaged in what can only be described as genocide. Taking the carthagenian example into the scale of modern day states, you are proposing that we destroy every building in and banish the people from Iraq, to die through starvation or be assimilated into neighboring countries. Well, that would certainly take care of the insurgents. That is, if you are only concerned with Iraq, which I am sure you are not. The practical implementation of this would be giving everyone within dar al Islam (or whatever countries you believe are the "bad ones") a month or so to leave, then carpet bombing the whole region every few months for a decade or two.
    Clearly, occupation is not sufficient to defeat an ideology.
    That would depent on the nature of occupation. The mere presence of soldiers is obviously not enough.
    Nevertheless, claiming that the "occupation and not the bombardment" stopped the enemies of the civilized world during World War II misses the point. Both elements were essential.
    I'm not sure I can agree with that, but it would change nothing. If both elements are essential, then occupation and nation-building remain necessary.
    I think you need to articulate your position clearer. From your previous post, you claim that DavidOdden's ultimatium is a sufficient condition to call for genocide.
    His principles lead inevitably to genocide. That is what I was saying. Any nation that refuses to engage in nation-building, will inevitably have to engage in genocide or die. At best there is perpetual war. I suppose it may sometimes rely on others to spare them from this effort, in a parasitical manner and with the same safety as parasites. The same applies to individuals. No, you don't have a "duty" to spread good ideas and crush bad ones, but not doing so is suicide. You don't have a duty to fight criminals, specialy those not attacking you, but not doing so is suicide. Iraq needs to be pacified through ground troops for the exact same reason L.A. and New Orleans needed to be pacified with ground troops. This should be funded by Iraq, immediately through the oil wealth and so forth, and/or in time through national debt.
    The South did not need to. They wanted to preserve chattel slavery. The South had no right to form its own nation on this premise. If you wish to dispute this, there is already a thread on this topic.
    I have no interest in disputing this and in fact agree with it. They still posed no danger to the north.
  9. A couple of fallacies in this article:

    (I'm dealing only with it's first part here.

    "We can see how the end of state support for a movement can destroy the threat it poses in the cases of Communism and Nazism, two militant movements with world-conquering, totalitarian ambitions."

    Nazism, rooted as it was on the person of Hitler, is perhaps an abolished threat. Communism is not. To say that without state support a movement ceases to be a threat is to ignore that before state support can be granted (or conquered), the movement by definition has no state support. It is to view the world as nothing but the playground of state leaders, a gross evasion of reality.

    "In both World War II and the Civil War, once massive defeats were handed to the enemy, the causes that drove the military threats were thoroughly defeated as political forces. There are no threatening Nazis or Japanese Imperialists today, nor was there any significant political force agitating for the reemergence of the Slave South after the Civil War."

    All defeated nations after World War II were occupied and went, as necessary, through a process of nation-buidling. These ideologies were in fact, stopped not by the bombardment, but by the subsequent occupation. People were arrested in Japan for crimes such as flying the japanese flag or singing the national anthem. The south was occupied, and went through a similar process of "nation-building" after the Civil War.

  10. And why should it be our goal to eliminate Islam, if we're not going to go after Hinduism and Christianity.

    Because Islam is inherently aggressive and despotic. I know next to nothing about hinduism, but christianity through all it's flaws is compatible with the best of western civilization, or at the very least, poses no danger to it.

    Avicenna and Akbar Ganji would like a word with you.

    Not knowing Ganji, I looked him up.

    "Growing up in a poor district of southern Tehran, Ganji was initially enthused by the 1979 Revolution. He became a member of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and worked at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. But after becoming disillusioned with the regime, he took to journalism, becoming increasingly critical of the regime's suppression of human rights."

    Classic! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me about peaceful communists and nazis who worked in concentration camps! The matter of Avicena is less clear, but I would like to remind you that if a great mind is born within the muslim world, he cannot help but be a peaceful muslim because leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death. Millions even today, and much more so before, carry the "muslim" label simply out of fear and social convention, without any clue or interest into what it means to be a muslim.

    As would the nations of Jordan, Turkey, and Dubai.

    Turkey, thanks to Ataturk's efforts to abolish islamic influence (by force, in effect, nation-building) in it is a fairly peaceful and free place, but a country sliping dangerously back into submission to Allah and all that entails. I have to admit I was fooled by Dubai too, before studying Islam and contemporary islamic politics more fuly. I have zero doubt that Dubai's wealth helps fund islamic jihad, one way or the other.

    Japan.

    Thanks for giving me the neo-cons favourite example. Perhaps you are not aware that the country was occupied? It is certainly possible to extract surrender from an enemy by a show of force. However, unless the enemy changes his mentality, this is nothing but a truce, a cease-fire, and often a meaningless one. Your strategy amounts to seeing a murder, pointing a gun to the murderer's head and shouting "Surrender!", then allowing him to leave once he promises to stop murdering. It is irrational.

    It's not hard. Try watching the news. Learn a bit about the demographics of the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Learn their forms of government. Learn which parts of the world are actually centers for Wahhabist ideology/activity. Then get back to me on why would should exterminate the populations of Abu Dhabi, Cairo, and Amman.

    Wahabism is certainly a factor. It is -not- the problem. Perhaps you have heard of Hezbollah? The problem is that due to Islam's inherently violent and despotic nature, things such as "wahabism" are inevitable. Oil wealth (not to mention posession of the holy cities) have placed this particular ideology on the vanguard of islamic jihad, but it's hardly it's root.

    Are you a reincarnation of Robert Kolker? When people express views like these, I usually conclude that there is an element of racism about them.

    You are wrong.

    I see no other explanation than racism. And, yes, I am accusing you of being a racist.

    I'm a racist because I wish to destroy an ideology? Do you know the difference between the contents of one's mind and contents of one's genes? Because I do.

    Your call for genocide against the Muslim world, ignoring the difference between peaceful Muslims (yes, they exist) and Wahhabists, leaves me no choice but to conclude that outright bigotry plays a large part in your views.

    I do not call for the genocide of dar al Islam, unless absolutely necessary. I believe in sparing the children and other innocent people from the slaughter, by nation-building. I am -not- happy with the current process of nation building.

  11. The Barbary Pirates. Would you like that hat with salt? :P

    Try harder.

    "After the general pacification of 1815, the suppression of African piracy was universally felt to be a necessity. The insolence of Tunisian squadron which sacked Palma in the island of Sardinia and carried off 158 of its inhabitants, roused widespread indignation. Other influences were at work to bring about their extinction. The United Kingdom had acquired Malta and the Ionian Islands and now had many Mediterranean subjects. She was also engaged in pressing the other European powers to join with her in the suppression of the slave trade which the Barbary states practised on a large scale and at the expense of Europe. The suppression of the trade was one of the objects of the Congress of Vienna. The United Kingdom was called on to act for Europe, and in 1816 Lord Exmouth was sent to obtain treaties from Tunis and Algiers. His first visit produced diplomatic documents and promises and he sailed for England. While he was negotiating, a number of British subjects had been brutally ill-treated at Bona, without his knowledge. The British government sent him back to secure reparation, and on the 17th of August, in combination with a Dutch squadron under Admiral Van de Capellen, he administered a smashing bombardment to Algiers. The lesson terrified the pirates both of that city and of Tunis into giving up over 3,000 prisoners and making fresh promises. Within a short time, however, Algiers renewed its piracies and slave-taking, though on a smaller scale, and the measures to be taken with it were discussed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. In 1824 another British fleet under Admiral Sir Harry Neal had again to bombard Algiers. The great pirate city was not in fact thoroughly tamed till its conquest by France in 1830."[4]

  12. Dar al Islam refers to all of the lands that are currently under Muslim rule. You physically cannot commit genocide against land.

    What a pathetic excuse for an argument.

    Incorrectness aside, advocating the systematic extermination of all those currently residing in predominately Muslim countries is hideously immoral.

    1. Why?

    2. It is the only way to eliminate the threat of Islam through air power. If you wish to spare the lives of innocent people on the ground, you have to be within sight of them.

    In a foreign policy of self-interest against an evil ideology such as Islamic Totalitarianism,

    There is no other kind of Islam. Therefore, I would recommend you stick to the short version.

    you must make life so unbearable for those who support it that for them to continue fighting would become unthinkable.

    Can you give me one example in history of this happening?

    However, there is absolutely no necessity to committing genocide against a broad group of individuals (such as Muslims) because you are too lazy or too ignorant to identify the political, financial, military and intellectual supporters of the enemy movement. Such an act would be evil.

    Oh goody! Please forgive my ignorance and lazyness. Enlighten me so that I may know the truth about the situation we face.

    Bad analogy. Conducting domestic security is radically different from preserving national security abroad, especially when strategic arms is an option. Furthermore, I think you need to read the literature on how the War in Iraq is presently a war of self-sacrifice.

    It is not different at all. The scales change, the fundamentals do not. The childish imaginary line that separates nations and turns good into bad and bad into good is not something objectivists should embrace.

  13. It's their loss. If ultimatums like that don't work, it is only because we have been showing for 30 years that we are not serious. The logical solution is to become serious, and then demonstrate with action that we are in fact serious. That will likely mean we will have to inflict a lot of destruction. But once we have demonstrated we are serious, and will follow through, that should be that.

    Agents of western civilization have fought religious fanatics before, and "showing that we are serious" has never been an effective tool. Ever. If you can point me to a single example, I will eat my hat. Only genocide and hands-on policing work, policing not working on the long term unless a nation building effort is engaged in.

  14. According to a video on CNN.com, for the first time since the War in Iraq has began, U.S. Military deaths have been 80 or more for three consecutive months. Specifically:

    83 in January

    80 in February

    83 in March

    According to the video, the project number of deaths for April is over 100. Of course, April is only 1/3rd over.

    I fail to see the relevance of people who volunteered to fight a war being killed fighting such a war. When criminals start killing police officers, nobody goes screaming around that we must withdraw. Quite the contrary, rational people would recommend an increase in policing in such areas.

  15. Faye,

    The husband/conquistador/astronaut is an objectivist hero up until the point where he gives up. If not for his heroic defiance, I wouldn't have been able to stand through the whole movie. His refusal to go take a walk with her is a beautiful act of love and demonstration of the need to have perspective. Her behaviour throughout the movie can best be described as fear-induced evasion. After having done more thought on why I felt like that, I think I understand the matter pretty clearly now. If the movie had the last few scenes replaced, it would be ranked among the best I have seen. Even Izzy's death could have been used properly, as a demonstration that human being as not omnipotent, a reminder of the tragedy of death and the importance of the husband's devotion to his work.

    How would the "indestructible" robot analogy change, if instead of the robot being inevitably tied to life, the robot was inevitably tied to death? The answer is, it wouldn't change at all. Acceptance of death as a "metaphysical fact" is a denial of core objectivist principles and invalidates the whole of objectivist ethics. Objectivist ethics is grounded in the realization that in order to live, there is a way to act. If I tied your hands and feet, placed a gun to your head and said "You have 30 seconds, enjoy your life", how would you go about enjoying your life? What would your highest value be?

  16. Are you referring to when Hell freeze over. What I do not understand is the basis for your firm belief. I firmly believe that we should implement Odden's 6 point plan. What is "the good fight" -- does that mean "courageously committing suicide under orders"? If so, I agree that the military is fighing fighthing the good fight. But I would also argue that they should be fighting the best fight. Which, in this case, is a strategic withdrawal followed by serious whup-ass on Baghdad if they do not get their house in order. The term "parking lot" comes to mind.

    If you believe Iraq cannot become a peaceful and (somewhat) rational nation, then genocide becomes a moral imperative, and withdrawal unnecessary as there won't be anybody there to bother the new soldier-settlers.

  17. Korthor, the disarming of militias is possible if it is taken seriously as an objective. Your gripe seems to be about whether or not people in leadership will take that objective seriously. Those people won't take any ideas on this forum seriously. They certainly aren't going to carpet-bomb central and southern Iraq.
    The militias don't need to be "disarmed". Most of these "militias" need to be outlawed, under penalty of death, or at least a long enough prison sentence to give the country a chance to think about their situation. Al Sadr should have been hanged years ago and the longer he remains alive, the longer it will take to achieve peace in Iraq. If killing him and destroying his group means completely leveling holy islamic sites, well, that is a just a bonus.
    My opinion on the war has changed. I no longer support our goal in Iraq, because it has shifted from the goal of self-defense to the futile goal of bringing democracy to a barbarian culture with no respect for human life or the rule of law, sacrificing our soldiers in the process.
    Civilizing barbarians is a vital aspect of defense.
    1: Send a photocopy of the map of the Turkish-Iraqi border, and inform Turkey that it is inviolable. 2: Inform the Kurdish government that we will defend their right to exist as long as they remain civilized. 3: Inform the Baghdad government that military incursions across the Kurdistan border will not be tolerated. 4: Inform the Baghdad government that we will not tolerate Iraq becoming a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the civilized world. 5: Remove all US troops from Iraq. 6: Mean it.
    Is that a joke? How do you intend to enforce these rules without troops?
  18. Maybe you disagree with the fact that "we will all die" is something you should accept?

    Yes, I do disagree with that. The cult of death starts with accepting it's inevitability. There is nothing inevitable about death. Death is nothing more than the cessation of life, and the nature of life is not to cease. When life ceases, it has failed.

  19. I agree with everyone who said the movie has potential. The main plot could have been great, had it ended differently, was different stylistically, and had a completely different message.

    *******SPOILERS

    I liked the idea that Tommy was trying to cure death, and the impending death of his wife made the story all the more interesting. I didn't know what was happening with the flashes into the past and future. I didn't know whether he was remembering, or simply imagining it. The director should have made it clearer just what was happening. It was incredibly confusing in that respect. I really didn't get why the tree had hair, and why he kept kissing it. Did he plant his wife like she wanted him to? I also didn't understand why it kept flashing back to the "Lets take a walk" scene.

    The ending was confusing. I didn't know whether Tommy was indeed in the future, or whether it was some bizarre metaphor. Assuming it was in the future, it seemed like he really hadn't done much since his wife died, other than mourn and try to kill himself. He didn't end up being the rational man I had hoped. It should have ended with him curing his wife, instead of her and consequently his death. It gives an incredibly bad message that he just missed saving her.

    The only good thing in the movie was the passion protrayed between Tommy and Izzy. That was really well done, the rest sucked.

    Overall I give the film a D. It would have been an F if Hugh Jackman wasn't so dang good looking. :wub:

    The past is clearly her book. There is a close-up of the text and it describes the following scene "in the past". She is telling him that death is endangering her (idealized by the Inquisitor), and that he is a brave knight trying to save her, who would do anything for her, and goes far away on a quest so they can continue to live side by side. The Conquistador's quest is the idealization of her husband's quest. The Queen's non-resistance of the Inquisitor (and active steps to stop the Conquistador from killing him) is her acceptance of death. You could say the scene where he has the Gran Inquisitor in his sights and is pulled back by one of her servants is representative of the key "will you take a walk with me?" scene. The part where he has to fight the rebelling soldiers is representative of having to face the opposition of others to trying to save her. The future scenes are not quite as clearly imaginary, but it makes little to no difference if they are.

    I don't think this movie has "potential" which was wasted with cliches. I think the author knew exactly what he was doing.

  20. --------------------------

    Spoilers

    ---------------------------

    Let's assume for a second that the movie is not about death worship. I have three quick questions then:

    - How do you integrate the death of the Conquistador?

    - How do you integrate the suicide of the mayan priest, so that his blood can "feed the plants"? Isn't the whole mayan myth that is peddled throughout the movie a (particularly disgusting) form of altruism?

    - What is the purpose of finding a cure for Izzy's ilness right after she dies?

    So that I don't get stuck in the socratic method, I'll go ahead and give my interpretation that answers all these questions. The movie is centered by the idea of "death as an act of creation". That means, you die in order to feed the life of others, as part of the "cycle of life". You are a sacrificial animal, pure and simple. The reason Izzy had to die and a cure had to be found, is because her death was her act of creation (it pushed her husband to find the medicine), her way to "feed" the life of others. The Conquistador has to die in order to feed the plants (it's the idealization of the concept), just like the father in the mayan myth and, as concretized by the planting of a tree at Izzy's burial place, just like Izzy. All this seems abundantly clear to me from watching the movie, and as such, I cannot regard it as anything other than completely at odds with objectivist values.

  21. If we assume such a thing, the question remains. Why did he imagine the Conquistador turning into a plant? Considering that in the final scenes he goes out, but is actualy alone and burries (plants?) a plant in the place she was supposedly burried, makes this interpretation impossible to fit into the actual movie. I'm all for finding the silver lining in things such as bad art, and I actualy recommended the movie to others purely due to it's style and subject (immortality/mortality), but I don't think this movie deserves any credit for it's philosophical theme. At best it's a rationalization of death.

  22. --------------------------

    Spoilers

    ---------------------------

    Let's assume for a second that the movie is not about death worship. I have three quick questions then:

    - How do you integrate the death of the Conquistador?

    - How do you integrate the suicide of the mayan priest, so that his blood can "feed the plants"? Isn't the whole mayan myth that is peddled throughout the movie a (particularly disgusting) form of altruism?

    - What is the purpose of finding a cure for Izzy's ilness right after she dies?

×
×
  • Create New...