Tyco
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Tyco
-
-
I took a computing related ethics course recently and observed a fundamental problem that seems to crop up in most similar settings for discussing ethics (aside from the fundamental 'emergency situation' problem which frames most such discussions)
- the introduction to these studies is always tautological
they'll say 'what is ethics?' to start off, then answer by saying ethics is morality, or ethics is right or wrong
and of course if you want to define morality they will say 'morality is ethics.' it becomes circular immediately.
you are right, right or wrong assumes a standard. this step seems to get skipped quite often
i concocted my own definition, i invite anyone to comment:
Ethics is the standards/rules which govern behavior according to the metaphysical values held by the individual.
-
I think it's a masterpiece.
-
I think I can answer by working backwards from one of your own assertions.
From what I've gathered, you claim determinism is compatible with consciousness because consciousness (and all its facets - choosing, believing, liking, feeling etc) is something we experience. For instance we experience making a judgement, regardless of whether we could possibly have made any alternative judgement.
(if you disagree with anything thus far, please explain, because although you may not have used these exact words, they are a sincere extrapolation)
Well, the problem with your position is this: consciousness cannot be experienced, for it is consciousness itself which experiences. Thus, we can re-instate the primacy of free-will, because attempting to reconcile determinism and consciousness yields a contradiction.
Now, as to the question of sensory perception and objectivity, let us consider the senses to be devices and compare them to mechanical devices. A video camera may malfunction and fail to record. It may partially record, or receive interference. The data stored may therefore be insufficient to relay the scene to viewers. But all these deficiencies will be explainable, and any surviving information will be valid insofar as the camera will not record something that did not happen. It will never show 5 people having a conversation in what was actually an empty room. As far as I recall, Objectivism emphasises the role of the mind (faculty of reason) applied to perception of nature to gain knowledge. Sensory perception + reason = knowledge. One might initially doubt sensory input (especially if it is relayed through some further external device), but once multiple observations are made you can find logical connections and establish the reliability of said input, or in other words you can establish objectivity.
Objectivism holds man's own life to be his standard of value. Therefore, if a man accepts death in order to save his daughter, whom he loves greatly, then the decision is ethical because it was made in reference to his love - part of his own life - and thus he still used his life as the standard, the point of reference. Compare this to sacrificing for the sake of something not part of one's life, or because some doctrine demands it - that is altruism, which Rand is trying to reject. Your suggestion that (painless) suicide would be an equally viable option is interesting but I think it ignores (at least) two selfish, human motivations: 1. the desire to achieve 2. the desire to be well remembered
-
In the book Objectively Speaking their is a transcript of the lecture in which Rand commented on Beethoven (and other 'Favourites in Art')
i don;t have the book with me, but she was asked about Wagner, Beethoven, and Rachmaninov (I think)
- Wagner she said was bad music, and bad philosophy
- Beethoven she said she had to admire as a technician, couldn't deny the degree of craft, but disliked the music on the basis of its (supposed) malevolent worldview
- Rachmaninov (I think it was he, maybe Tchaikovsky), she adored
personally I find Beethoven's work usually follows the pattern of a titanic struggle and eventual triumph, it's very stirring
but what i like about it is there's something so immediate and direct - like you are not enjoying the music because it is evoking something else, you're just enjoying its pure form, note for note
hard to explain really
-
i was thinking 'negligence'
maybe 'inanity' although in most contexts you probably wouldn't use that
i was going to say 'tolerance' but that pre-supposes judgement
-
You miss the obvious point that the artist may wish, at times, to abhor the audience with aesthetic effects. The question is what is the ultimate end of this decision.
Inglourious Basterds does not show cruelty/brutality/horror to abhor, it shows it to delight. That is bad enough - the ultimate end of this decision is yet more concerning.
You also miss the very obvious point that plot events are different from aesthetic depictions, whether by camera or by pen. Ford Maddox Ford's novel The Good Soldier features rape as a plot event - but no prose is expended depicting the act - and if the author had chosen to write long, reveling descriptions of the rapes one would have to question this decision.
I could be more pedantic and look for Rand quotes to back up my interpretation of Inglourious Basterds but it's of no especial consequence to me whether Rand said something or not - the core values of Objectivism are of especial consequence to me and I don't see how they justify anything in this film. Showing human suffering and cruelty for kicks... nope, can't think of much more anti-man than that.
I'm guessing you probably would probably enjoy watching a rape scene if it was a Nazi woman, huh. After all, what value is greater than justice?
-
I (obviously) don't consider the train wreck chapter in Atlas Shrugged to be sadistic or comparable to Inglourious Basterds. Rand did not portray an act of cruelty, and she did not dwell on the suffering (eg. describe horrible feelings of suffocation or laceration or burning), and the event was presented as a disaster not a triumph. She wrote about a bunch of people whose lack of care (disregard for reality) had reached the inevitable disaster and cost their own lives. There was a valuable lesson for the reader.
I don't see what's valuable about depicting gruesome death and presenting it as a triumph... unless you just enjoy watching gruesome cruelty. (it's not necessary for merely showing the defeat of Nazism)
Rand talks briefly in an lecture/interview 'Favourites in Art' about how the philosophy is one thing, and the successful aesthetic presentation of the philosophy is another thing, and she also praises Beethoven's aesthetic craftmanship while condemning his 'malevolent world view.' I admit this does not establish the separation of morality and aesthetics with perfect clarity, nor could I find any passage of hers condemning the depiction of suffering for positive entertainment. But personally I don't see why Objectivist principles would support this sort of art, as I cannot detect the good in what's being presented. And it just wreaks of finding an excuse (the Nazis) to show sadism, with no real admirable purpose.
-
The satire is about showing the animalistic tendencies in man when they war. How they kill arbitrarily and brutally for unsubstantial reasons, how they group together and become near-tribal instead of sticking to personal values and acting on those instead and protecting freedom.
But it's the Basterds who do all the brutality. So the film was showing the animalistic side of the Allied troops and satirizing them?
There were only a couple of scenes where the Nazis lived up to the 'animalistic' tag - the start, obviously, and then when the Jew Hunter leaps across the room and throttles the actress-spy.
-
I wasn't talking about the plot of the film I was fabricating examples to make a point.
Don't you see it's got nothing to do with who 'deserved' what it's to do with the aesthetic - ie. separate from the moral dimension - of showing human suffering. Other films might involve human suffering but usually they avoid making light of it, they avoid showing it, or if they do then it's to have a negative effect (make the viewer empathize with terrified characters for instance). This film just presents graphic, horrific suffering for amusement
And I don't really see your satire reading. I mean, the Basterds behave like savages, so is he satirizing their desire for revenge? It doesn't seem to make very much sense as a satire beyond making the Nazis look quite stupid (which was really just very basic, unremarkable humour)
No children were abused on screen so no idea where you are going with that.She was not raped, she was a translator doubling as a mistress for the animalistic, racist, offensive Goebbels
The closest thing to this was the Swastika thing and I would guess that was a temporary pain then embarrassment for the rest of their lives with choices they made to violate the rights of others.
Seeing as they sanctioned and likely ordered the killing of millions they deserved death, maybe not in that manner but I do think ti interesting that the theater was turned into an execution chamber where they were killed by fire and bullets as were most executed jews.
The defenseless enemy could have given up the position of Nazi soldiers who were subjugating the French and been spared easily. Instead he insulted the Basterds and wanted to see them die. The death was over-the-top but then again that is what makes it unrealistic and helps to target things via satire.
I am starting to get the impression that the people ridiculing this movie dismissed it from the first and did not actually pay attention. We use details and analysis and you sue the word sadism and distortions.
-
Is watching a scene of a child being abused aesthetically abhorrent? Even if the child is a young Hitler?
Is watching a scene of a woman being raped aesthetically abhorrent? Even if the woman is Magda Goebbels?
Is watching a scene of someone being mutilated aesthetically abhorrent? Even if the victim is a Nazi soldier?
Is watching a scene of a crowd of people undergoing extreme psychological horror before burning to death or being mowed down by indiscriminate machine gun fire abhorrent? Even if the crowd are members of the Nazi Party?
See a pattern emerging?
but this film invites the audience to revel in this type of aesthetic content. it is the aesthetic of sadism
how on earth is a scene where a bunch of men (the heroes) grin and laugh and cheer as a defenseless enemy is clubbed to death NOT an expression of sadism? if that isn't, what the heck is?
-
Don't you see? The context in this case is just a triviality, and an excuse
Context is everything in this instance. -
Well, I retort with the fact that the Nazi's 'ought' to have been killed in such a fitting manner.
Well what about this then
Director A makes a movie so he can show in graphic detail Army X torture and/or slaughter the people of Army Y
not very commendable, right?
Director B makes an identical movie, but at the beginning he inserts a scene of Army Y murdering the people of Army X, and he changes the Army Y insignia to a Swastika
Director B is, of course, Quentin Tarantino. And he's no more commendable than Director A
-
Well since this is an Objectivist forum, let's consider Rand's position on art (which I'm not saying I or anyone else here necessarily agrees with, but it's a good starting point)
'art shows life as it can and ought to be'
this film is depicting a situation where one set of people have been so brutalized by another, that they are so (understandably) filled with hatred that their quest for revenge becomes incredibly brutal in itself
so how does this circle of hatred and brutality represent life as it can and ought to be??
is anyone going to even attempt to reconcile this? - or do we reject Rand's theory of art in this case
-
You are thinking too much on Tarantinos intentions and not enough on the context. I thought it was fitting and Just that the Nazi's died as they did. Everyone at that show was complicit in the murdering of millions of Jews. It brought a smile to my face to see Justice occur in such a fitting manner.
The ending depressed me. The film had a fair number of excesses prior to that incident, but I thought it might redeem itself at the end. When I saw his big set piece death chamber, I realized that was what Tarantino desperately wanted to show/film all along. Fair enough I might appreciate the irony of Hitler and the Nazi commanding officers being assassinated at the premiere of their own propaganda film. But the film was determined to capture the full brutality and horror of the scene, for the audience's enjoyment.
The 'sense of life,' as Rand would say, of this art is truly appalling. The fact they try to make me the viewer complicit in this sadism by using a sensitive/loaded subject just pissed me off even more (although it was intended to make you accept it).
-
When all the Nazi's were being shot and locked in that cinema, I sat there with a very big grin on my face. I found that scene, well, just glorious. Does that disturb you?
Yes it does, I'm afraid. Especially how he evoked the gas chambers execution situation.
Someone on IMDB said it quite well: the Nazis were just an excuse for Tarantino's psychopathy. (i wouldn't word it like that but you get the point)
No other relationship except Jews vs Nazis would he ever get away with reveling in so much brutality. I mean that last scene he shows two of the Basterds opening fire on a defenceless crowd of people from a balcony above. When would he ever get a chance to show something like that, if it wasn't for the Nazis.
-
The theatre I was in, people were laughing at all the brutality. Like the clubbing to death, the carved swastikas. I was quite disturbed (by their reaction).
Let's set a couple of things straight. For one, the theatre I was in, no one was laughing at the violence. You can enjoy dark humor without laughing.Second, a snuff film is by definition a film showing an actual murder. A fake snuff film is a film that fools the audience into thinking they are watching a real snuff film.
A movie showing a fictional murder is not a fake snuff film. Someone enjoying a movie with fictional murder does not compare to someone watching a tape with fake murder.
-
So essentially the only difference is Hitler was laughing at death that was supposed to have really happened, whereas the audience are laughing at the death of fictional Nazis? So the person who enjoys watching a real snuff film has nothing in common with someone who enjoys watching a faked snuff film?
As to the racist jokes - it's not true that a joke can't be witty and racist. You can take a joke you consider funny and substitute some words to make it racist, yet it would be essentially the same joke. That doesn't mean I would laugh at it - the comedy would be outweighed by disgust. A bit like how sick, sadistic violence is still sick, sadistic violence no matter what victim you substitute into the scene. Edit:Or how it only works if enjoying brutality is the norm
I was surprised to hear this film called satire. That's why I'm asking about it. From what I could see there was some mocking going on - of English accents, of Nazi cartoonish villainy, of dimwitted American soldiers - but satire? Really? What was the satirical angle, exactly?
-
I actually think Pulp Fiction was not only very entertaining but quite profound. I've seen lots of people make the mistake of assuming the dialogue was simply 'cool' but substanceless.
Basically the film was about the role of evil in modern society and culture.
The characters were all criminals who inhabited their little comfort zone of evil, with their rationalized views brought out through extensive conversational dialogue (which usually touches directly or indirectly on moral relativism)
as the plot develops, the characters find themselves in new arenas of evil that they didn't bargain for, and in doing so realize some of the humanity they'd abandoned
and the dynamic between these moral attitudes and their presence in popular culture (aka pulp fiction) is also examined
needless to say, his later work completely abandons this sort of depth in favour of pure aestheticism - no matter how tasteless it gets
It is rather inspiring to see you defend this kind of provincial humor of which you seem terribly enamored, but the bottom line is that you're obviously trying to make something of Tarantino, something that he simply isn't. He's daring? So is a flasher. He writes witty dialogue? So did Groucho, and he at least did it better.What's so 'subtle' and 'witty' about Pulp Fiction? You spend two hours watching scum and criminals do their thing, then rocks fall, everyone dies. Considering there wasn't one single person who had any redeemable qualities, you essentially just spent two hours and eight bucks (or nine if you saw it on DVD) of your money watching a movie that was utterly pointless because, without the "OMG So Witty" dialogue, it would have simply been a naturalistic approach to documenting the lives of a group of criminals, not unlike some of the seedier movies of the 70s - and yes, they die, but the movie doesn't hold up anything as being better than the glorified lives of these criminals. If anything, the movie is less of the "Criminals are bad" approach than it is "Live Fast, Die Young And Leave A Beautiful Corpse." The dialogue may be witty (so was Mae West, so what?), but the movie is still what it is, and although you might consider the dialogue to be the mink stole of the whole thing, the rest of it is feces --- and I'm sorry, when you smear feces on a mink stole you no longer have a mink stole: you've got a dead rat covered in s***.
I thought the usual approach to judging a movie critically would be first to ask "What was the point behind all that?"
I guess I was wrong.
Oh, and do yourself a favor and read "Three uses of the knife" already, and then let's see if you can still pretend to defend Mamet on any intellectual grounds whatsoever. That book is all you need to read to see what kind of approach the man has.
-
To be honest I'm quite shocked and disappointed that people on this Objectivism forum are praising this film. But maybe so we can understand each other, someone could answer the following questions-
1. Could you please give an example of a (good) satire that used brutal violence against its subjects to ridicule them? And failing that, tell me how this film was good satire?
2. In the film the Nazis watch the Goebell's propoganda film 'National Pride' and they chuckle as allied soldiers get shot - because they are sadistic. So what exactly is the difference between Hitler and co. laughing at National Pride, and the real life audience laughing at the yet more brutal violence against the Nazi soldiers?
3. If I went to see a film composed mainly of racist jokes, would the fact of the jokes being clever/witty excuse the film and make it non-racist? And worthy of my praise?
-
I thought the movie was hilarious. The acting was great and the characters were memorable. I really don't think you can say the movie completely clashes with Objectivist values when one of the main characters makes sure that evil is punished.
Plus, I don't think that you are supposed to just think that all the gore he uses is cool. You kind of just laugh at it because he makes it into a joke scenario.
The part where "The Bear Jew" beats down the Nazi with a bat was certainly a joke. I don't even see how one could be against that anyways. The "take no prisoners attitude" is certainly how the US should be addressing war at the moment. Evil should be punished, and that is what all the gore was based around.
Objectivist aesthetic values are not exactly the same thing as just the standard Objectivist values. For comparison, imagine if at the end of AS Dagny had ordered the soldier posted at the door to be restrained so she could torture him to death, rather than just shooting him. Why would Rand write something like this; why would we enjoy reading it?
-
What did you pay 10 bucks expecting? Did you not watch the previews? Did you not see the director's name?
No, I didn't watch any previews because I find they often give too much away and spoil the film, and also because I hold some of his other work in very high regard. Previous work has been violent but not sadistic. Often the treatment of violence was not graphic at all but quite profound.
I was hoping this film would turn out a bit like Catch-22 - a witty, dialogue-driven satire that was an intelligent take on WW2. I read the first scene when the script leaked onto the internet a year or two ago and was impressed enough. Turns out the only reason he set it in WW2 (and wrote that opening scene) was so he could find human subjects universally loathed enough to be the victims of sadism for mass entertainment.
-
i have to say, praising this film is morally reprehensable
it was 2 and a half hours of sadism and i could hardly imagine a film that clashes more with the aesthetic values of Objectivism
-
I think the general feeling in Scotland (eg. among the legal profession) is that the trial/verdict was a sham and the man should never have been locked up, but the governments colluded to ensure that he was for some reason. So therefore, he's being released on compassionate grounds because they think his incarceration is unfair, or that the appeal (which he'll never live to know) would have cleared his name.
Of course, they can't SAY as much because it would undermine the reputation of the justice system, so they just give this vague 'country of values' answer.
-
Perhaps you should read the posts of those you're responding to before you make remarks like this. Is reading the thread too much to ask? I think not.
Now, I stated earlier that reviews are of no value to me. The judgments of others hold no value, even people I have more in common with than I have differences here on this forum. The only review that has any meaning to me is my review, because music is a personal experience and there is no possibility for another reviewer to walk into experiencing an album with my identity.
I'm confused. I read the entire thread before responding. I also re-read the thread after the above assertion. I still do not see where you mentioned your problem with reviews.
Anyway, no matter. Let's consider this: do you think a novelist should have no copyright control of how his/her work is distributed? Do you think you, not satisfied with the previews on amazon or the chance to browse at the book store or the recommendations from other readers, should have the right to read the ENTIRE work before deciding whether you want to pay for it or not?? Should you be able to try out a fairground ride that looks fun before paying for the ticket???
There are many reasons why torrents are different from radio, MySpace, previews etc. Most of them financial - playing on the radio is free for the listeners but the band still gets paid for it. Contracts have been arranged with MySpace or YouTube. Amazon have indicated that previews help them sell more copies. There are many good reasons like that, but the one ESSENTIAL reason why illegal downloading is different from those other sources is that you do not have PERMISSION from the copyright holder. Like someone else pointed out, 'borrowing' without permission is a contradiction in terms. Contributing to the marketplace by STEALING is a contradiction in terms also.
You mentioned how digital files are not property because they are not tangible objects like cars. Strictly speaking you have made an error here because 'property' is ALWAYS intangible. A car itself is not property. Property means the owner's right of disposal. You hold property in land, the land itself is not property. That may sound like more of a technicality here but the owner's right to disposal is the essential point in this whole discussion.
Fair use means exactly what it sounds like - the use of a product for what the licencor permitted. If a licence or a contract is involved in the purchase of a good then you have no right to violate it. Ferrari sell a special model of the Enzo range which costs £1 000 000 but once purchased remains at the Ferrari garage and can only be driven at the Ferrari test track. It doesn't matter how ridiculous you think that sounds, those are the terms of the sale. Those terms are PART of reality.
What is ethics and why do we need it
in Ethics
Posted
OK so we drop 'standards' from the definition
it is true the definition should not extend to non-voluntary behavior, although i think my wording implies this already - 'governs' 'according to' suggests its only referring to such behavior that IS consciously governed. But i take your point, for clarity it could be reworded as
'the rules that govern voluntary acts according to metaphysical values held by the individual'
how's that?
People can pick the correct values thus making their ethics externally objective (Objectivism even), but they can also pick values that lead to a religious or altruistic (for instance) system of ethics. To answer Castle's question: I was addressing the general definition of ethics, not trying to promote correct ethics. So I don't really see it as a problem that this definition seems to allow for individual whim and subjectivity
I will be back to answer the other (interesting) points later