Zeus
-
Posts
180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zeus
-
-
I think it's fair to suggest that this thread, at 25 pages now, be renamed "Sexuality."
-
[...]
This is my historical perspective on Christianity from a rational look at my knowledge of it. I am not attempting to preach Christianity, I am attempting to show how the authoritarianism of the Christian suppressed reason and that suppression began to unravel with the Renaissance and progressively decayed up until the founding of the United States.
[...]
Looking closer at Christianity, no one can definitively define what it truly is....
Throughout this time, occultists kept a semblance of the old rational knowledge alive. These occultists were heavily persecuted at times and kept much secret. However, from occultism came modern science
[...]
I also believe that psuedo occultists added to this by injecting into the discipline of science mumbo jumbo to make it appear, as they were magicians. One fascinating side bar to this story is Sir Isaac Newton, a brilliant rationalist who is credited to giving birth to modern science. Newton was a mad occultist and spent endless hours pursuing Alchemy. It was only after his pursuit of Alchemy that Newton made his most profound discoveries. Ironically, it was brilliant minds such as Newton that for the first time in many hundreds of years mysticism was de-emphasized and reason came to reign supreme. Part of occult knowledge is sacred geometry, which is a fascinating science that is based on math found throughout the natural world... If one studies these topics with a logical and rational approach, one realizes that as in all things nothing is as it first appears. Going back to the year 325AD, one will discover that many books were left out of the bible and many differing views on Christianity were suppressed the future followers of these views were persecuted, tortured and killed...Christ used to say that he was the son of the lord. What I believe the church disguised that he really meant it in a figurative sense and that he believed anyone could become like him. In a way it is quite Objectivist. You control your own destiny through free will.
Zen Buddhism is based on the belief that enlightenment can come through meditation and intuition rather than faith. In other words, each one of us is the only one who can bring happiness to ourselves. To quote Ayn Rand:
I wonder what Jerry Farwell would say to this post? I am a believer that true Christianity is about taking responsibility for one's own life and making something out of yourself on your own terms and out of your own self-interest. [...]
[Emphases added.]
Aha! This is precisely why I'll have no truck with these "fact-and-value" Christians. Ultimately, they are not loyal to structure, to logic, to ideas. They are not at all rational, no matter how nice they might sound on the radio or over a dinner table.
-
I saw it on Friday. It looks nice, and the beautiful Angelina Jolie made an impression, and that's about all I'm prepared to say.
"Cellular", however, was quite good.
-
Perhaps you should read my post again. I spoke of rapid technological advancements occuring before "the rise of the backward Confucian philosophy". Not before the birth of Confucius himself, who, in his time, was not well known. The rapid technological advancements I spoke of include the printing press and gunpowder.
I was aware of the printing press and gunpowder. The question I have for you is: When you say the "rise of...Confucian philosophy", what time period are you talking about?
Confucianism became state philosophy before the birth of Jesus Christ. The gunpowder and printing press came after the death of Jesus Christ. Please see the following [search for 'printing press' and 'gunpowder']:
http://www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2522
http://sln.fi.edu/tfi/info/current/inventions.html
http://www.cacbc.org/Culture/inventions.htm
Or perhaps you are talking about "modern" China? that Confucius' body of ideas (or some derivative of them) were re-introduced to the detriment of the country. Perhaps that is the case. But remember that some people would say that also about Aristotle and the scholastics.
Confucius' philosphy concentrated on the past of this world. Not the present, nor the future.I don't know enough to contest this claim. But, you haven't provided anything to corroborate it. I cannot disprove negatives.
From the source:This is simply not true.
Please see above.
-
Are you serious? The ideas of Confucius had devastatingly adverse effects on China. The rise of the backward Confucian philosophy coincided with a total halt to the rapid technological advancements that China had experienced in the centuries before the establishment of Confucianism. Confucius' assertion that the views of a wise man remained forever right totally destroyed the Chinese thirst for knowledge and innovation.
Confucius lived around 550 B.C., which is right about the time of Pythagoras. These were rather primitive times anywhere, so I don't know what "rapid technological advancements" could have been had before him.
Why do I think he was possibly the Aristotle of the East? Simply because of what function I know Aristotle's philosophy served in the West: the focus on this world.
Confucius' ethics could be described as "self-interested altruism," the first part of which saves it from being placed squarely in Kant's corner.
Am I certain he was the Aristotle of the East? No - because I don't know too much about Eastern philosophy. But, just from reading about Eastern history on the web, one is led in that direction. If you have more facts about that part of the world and who led it into any kind of enlightenment, please be sure to impart this knowledge. I await your thesis eagerly.
On this site, we are told:
A curious and noteworthy aspect of the teaching of Confucius is his arm's length attitude towards religion. There is considerably irony in this, not only because Confucianism later became one of the major religions of China, but in comparison to the life of Socrates, who was born just nine years after Confucius died. Socrates, although he talked about the gods all the time, and saw his own philosophical project as a divine mission, was condemned and put to death for presumably not believing in them. Confucius, although he later became a god, to whom temples were dedicated in every Chinese city, as the patron of students and scholars, nevertheless didn't talk about the gods at all:The topics the Master did not speak of were prodigies, force, disorder, and gods. [Analects translated by D.C. Lau, Penguin Books, 1979, VII:21, p. 88]The term for "god" here, shén (shin or kami in Japanese) is often translated "spirit" or even "spiritual beings." We see another term in this quote:
Chi-lu asked how the spirits of the dead and gods should be served. The Master said, "You are not able to serve to serve man. How can you serve the spirits?" [XI:12, p. 107]
"Spirits" or "spirits of the dead" here are guei3. This is a remarkable passage considering the attention given by Confucianism as a religion for one's ancestors and for the care of one's family grave plot. This seems comparable to an instruction from Jesus:
[Matthew 8:21] And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. [8:22] But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Few Christians are so unconcerned about burial of relatives, or Confucians about the service of spirits. What Confucius honored rather than pious ritual is implied here:
The Master was seriously ill. Tzu-lu asked permission to offer a prayer. The Master said, "Was such a thing ever done?" Tzu-lu said, "Yes it was. The prayer offered was as follows: pray thus to the gods above and below." The Master said, "In that case, I have long been offering my prayers." [VII:35, p. 91]
This is interpreted to mean that Confucius has been praying all that was necessary just by being good and polite. Further prayers are unnecessary.
While the practice of Confucianism was not entirely consistent with these principles of Confucius just expressed, his attitude did have a significant effect on the conduct of Chinese religion, where popular gods possessed less status in terms of politics and high culture than we see in most other civilizations. Thus, while most people have a least heard of major Indian gods, like Shiva and Krishna, I have frequently found entire classes of students who were unable to name even a single traditional Chinese god [3]. The government of Imperial China treated the gods rather like other subjects of the Empire, assigning them rank and promoting or demoting them depending on their popularity or moral wholesomeness. Confucian authorities thus never doubted their standing to judge the status and worth of the gods. The Imperial cult, like Confucius himself, was concerned with much more abstract and impersonal entities, like Heaven. Sometimes "Heaven" is therefore translated "God," but it is a principle, not a personal deity. Its reality, however, does refute attempts to characterize Confucius as the sort of sceptical and positivistic "secular humanist" who has become familiar in modern society.
-
-
That's true, but observe that just about all Objectivists were formerly Old Left (pre-1980) or New Right (post-1980) with very few from the Old Right or the New Left.
Actually, neither of these applies to me, perhaps because I'm a foreigner. I was a "weak" atheist with a subjectivist ethics and a capitalist politics when I read my first paragraphs of Miss Rand's work. My brother first sent me excerpts from "The Fountainhead" but since I preferred reading essays to novels, I went to my school library and borrowed "For the New Intellectual." OPAR was next. Then "The Fountainhead" and "Voice of Reason" simultaneously; and history was written.
My family background? Father, an agnostic with a mixed politics; mother, a liberal Christian.
-
All points well-stated and taken, NS.
This is irrelevant. Even if we've had more success with conservatives as individuals, that has nothing to do with the question of which movement poses more danger to us in the long run. See my answers to Betsy up above.Oops, I didn't see that post. I flew right by it and began typing mine. My mistake.
Well, now we're at this point, does anyone else have any reason(s) why this couple (Objectivists and the ballot-box marked "Kerry") oughtn't be joined in holy matrimony?
-
I take it then that you disagree with what I say in my last essay about how neither the right nor the left can be expected to defend America from radical Islam any better, and so the question of the short term is moot. I wonder what you object to in my argument for that point?
While sympathetic to your conscientious attempt to integrate your knowledge of Objectivism with Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis, I want to point out the objection that will be raised here: Bush has, at least, gone after one major state sponsor of terrorism (Iraq) and seems poised to do more if necessary while Kerry will definitelyappease the enemy on all counts going forward. Especially if he is elected - a clear signal that Bush's foreign policy has been rejected by the American people.
No Democrat president has taken up arms in defence of America - for any reason - in about 50 years. We might not get what we want from Bush, but at least we don't get what we don't deserve, if I may be permitted to use those words.
There is another factor that needs integrating here. With which side has Objectivism been more successful? What I mean is, how many Objectivists are former liberals, as opposed to former conservatives?
If success is higher with conservatives (or their children) then one can hedge one's bets with a conservative nation. Yes, we'll be trying to move people from one Identity type to another but, remember, man has free-will and time is a crucial factor. People are not born D, M or I.
If success is lower with conservatives, then it may be prudent to take Dr. Peikoff's advice.
Whichever decision is taken, one thing is certain. It would be immensely helpful were Dr. P to actually hold some kind of open forum where we could actually present our questions to him and have him answer them. His statement is not enough for an epistemologically- thorough decision - and might even be unfair in the full context. Many people have not taken the DIM Hypothesis courses and do not have the contextual breadth available to him at this time.
Now, please bear in mind that Dr. Peikoff is my top living hero as I write this, so I do not mean any disrespect whatsoever.
-
Spoiler (highlight the text below in order to read it):
The values here are contextual. In the context of historical environment the movie suggests, where fragmentation, tribalism, and balkanization abound, a value of unity is very high indeed.
And unity need not mean Communist unity; instead other alternatives exist, such as American Federal unity (very important to the Founding Fathers), lack of ancient Greek unity which proved to be their downfall, and ancient Roman unity which created what the Greeks could not, a total greater than the sum of its parts.
That's why, by the end of the movie one realizes that the plot is far more than just a simple revenge scheme. At first we think that the Nameless Hero is a hero because of his martial arts prowess, but by the end we are explained that he is a hero not because of his skills, but *despite* them. In the end what is most important is not his ability to kill, but his ability to refrain from killing; his greatest value is his help in establishing a united land where tribalism and balkanization at least will not exist. The movie does not say what kind of unity will be created instead, but whatever it will be, it will be better than the balkanized fragmentation and "chain" wars that have no beginning and no end.
So the moral theme we are left with, when the credits start to roll, is that true heroes do not follow their own petty passions but loftiest ideals and highest values. We are shown that the what matters most in life is not a slash of the sword or dash with a spear, but contemplative, moral, action guided by highest values. In a movie like this, that is pretty remarkable, and today in general very rare.
Btw, the "invisible" color is "color=#F5F9FD".
************* SPOILER-ESQUE ***************************
I agree with the general thrust of FreeCapitalist's post. His review is in line with my overall assessment. The "unity" thread running through "Hero" is contextual, and the details of the context aren't explicit.
Soon after I saw "Hero," I also watched another take on the "same" story of the King of Qin's desire to unite the seven kingdoms under a One China banner. This is Chen Kaige's "The Emperor and the Assassin," which is - or should be - available at your local video store. I got it from "Movie Gallery."
******* SPOILERS FOR "EMPEROR" ***************
Now, the "unity" thread in "Hero" is fleshed out into a complete theme in this story and the results are way different. If "Hero" reminds one of Hugo, "Emperor" reminds one, ultimately, of Shakespeare. In the latter case, the context left vague and undefined in "Hero" is fully circumscribed. Maggie Cheung's [whom I now have a mild crush on
] superheroic character gives way to another type of woman, played by Gong Li. Still, it's an engrossing film. -
Just for the record, I thought it was pretty obvious that Zeus was joking. At least, I hoped he was joking.
Aww, c'mon Ash, you mean even after reading my other posts, you hoped I wasn't one of these "tommyedison"-type guys?
In any case, good looking out...
-
If you are really serious about what you say, then you are spouting sheer nonsense.
Dr. Speicher,
I believe my sarcasm is obvious...but even it weren't, there is no need to attempt to police me. Not on this board; not ever. You don't know me, and I don't know you. I think we can keep it civil.
I know enough about the basic principles of Objectivism (just to mention one subject of study), and the facts of reality which support them, to take on anyone on this board; of that I am certain. I just don't go around trying to prove that this is the case.
I told what I think is a well-integrated joke. Let's just leave it at that.
Have a good evening.
P.S. For anyone who would like to have the background to my last post, please see G.E.R. Lloyd's "Greek Science After Aristotle," pgs. 21-24.
-
So the electrical signals now have free will?
Absolutely! The philosopher Epicurus solved this problem way back in history. Only, sadly, many of us don't read history, so we don't know better.
In fact, if you watch the recently-released movie, I, Robot, you'll notice that free-will is fully explained there. For the robots in the movie, free-will arose from the random collision of protocols. But, in man, it's caused by the random collision of electric signals. Which is really saying the same thing.
Any questions?
-
In my opinion, "Understanding Objectivism" is not only the best course Peikoff has ever given, but it is the most immediately useful to someone seeking to understand and apply Objectivism to his own life.
I know so many young Objectivists who have used the realistic and down-to-earth insights in that course to save themselves YEARS of errors in the process of becoming a well-integrated Objectivist.
Thank you very much for this recommendation. I'll get to work immediately.
-
** NO SPOILERS **
Some of the things in your list, like #1, didn't happen in the movie and, all in all, I think you missed the most essential conflict. None of these relate to the REAL theme which is -- The clash between those who are motivated by love and values (heroes Lucius and Ivy) versus those who are motivated by fear (everybody else).
My evidence for #1: Most of the village lads pulling sentry work (in the high-up guard post) were alternately curious and fearful [psychological conflict] of what lay beyond the village with some of them even pulling pranks (like when three boys once had one of them stand on a tree stump to taunt TWDSO) in this connection. Another instance is the time when TWDSO was on night patrol and Lucius was outside Ivy's house and she dared the circumstances, insisting on waiting for him to come in. He grabs her hand at the last minute and they both run into the house and into the underground trap-door with some of the other children. Shyamalan makes a big show, with rapturous music, of how terrified everyone is of TWDSO here. This conflict is political because the TWDSO were more like the Catholic Church than God, i.e., they were real.
Are you saying that these incidents did not take place?
All of these "conflicts" in the story involve a feeble-minded minor character who has no real choice. He only serves to set up situations in which the main characters have to make a choice. By focusing on the minor character and his problems, you completely miss the real conflict.This is precisely my point: why is such a feeble-minded character the fulcrum of action? Lucius wants to leave the village. Why? Ostensibly to get medicine for the feeble-minded character. Why isn't he able to go? Because the feeble-minded character stabs him. Why does Ivy go into the forest? Because the feeble-minded character has stabbed her Lucius. Aside of one naturally-occuring pit in the forest, what else stands in Ivy's way and threatens to kill her? This feeble-minded character.
So, with all this major, life-altering action by and for the feeble-minded character, how then can he be minor? And how, in the idyllic circumstances of the village did he figure out the nature of TWDSO and also know where to get the costume, to kill the village animals, etc?
A writer cannot insert such a glaring anomaly into a story and expect not to face the fire.
As Dr. Michael Hurd has pointed out, a person may have a mental illness but this does not make him incapable of choice. A mentally-ill person is not necessarily a psychopath. Adrian Brody's character made the choice to stab Lucius, and seeing that Ivy was in love with Lucius and not him, decided that no-one would have her, hence his decision to kill her.
Q.E.D.
-
Is "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" a follow-up of "Objectivism Through Induction", because Peikoff mentions a follow-up course in OTI?
His statements gave me the impression that he was intending to use OTI as the substance for inducing the broader pinciples of induction.
Or, did he realize that he first needed a broader understanding of Induction in practice, and thus chose to investigate and incorporate the Physics perspective into his course?
I wouldn't exactly call it a follow-up, but yes, I think the OTI lectures were the basis for the material he uses in the IPP lectures. He first demonstrates induction in physics, using particular examples; then, he demonstrates induction in philosophy (i.e., Objectivism) using a few examples; then, he makes the case for induction being common to both fields.
That's why I bought the IPP course first, thinking that it would be a cost-effective way of getting some elements of OTI in one package.
However, if the OTI lectures help illuminate Objectivism significantly - even for above-average, non-ARI students - I might buy it.
-
Absolutely ground-breaking lectures. When he first gave this course, it totally changed my views on philosophy. The course that is for sale is of very high quality.
I have many courses and there isn't a single one that wasn't worth the money. If it's a topic that interests you, I'll bet that you will get new insights and that you will benefit from the course.
Bowzer,
In what specific way did those particular lectures change your views on philosophy?
I'm thinking of getting either the "Objectivism by Induction" lectures or the "Understanding Objectivism" lectures. I am also toying with the idea of buying "The Art of Thinking." It's got to be one of those three for right now. Which, in your opinion, is the most valuable?
I already have a good number of courses: both histories of philosophy; the introduction to logic; "Induction in Physics and Philosophy"; "Integration as the Essence of Personal Identity"; and quite a few others.
Thanks.
-
I saw this movie yesterday night, and I want to say that it is tightly integrated.
Yes, there is altruism; yes, there is mysticism; yes, there is malevolence; and yes, it is reminiscent of other films in its genre; but, overall, it is a very good example of the integration of art and philosophy. The fact that concepts are the basis of any objective view of the use of force is competently dramatized but open to ambiguous interpretation. As such, this is not the movie's strongest point.
Its strongest point is its portrayal of the importance of fighting for values.
"Hero" might remind you in places of "Crouching Tiger" and in other places, might be just too "cultural," i.e., expecting the viewer to be able to project the meaning of certain scenes, not in English but in Chinese. An implicit understanding of Confucius (possibly the Aristotle of the East) is advised.
Notwithstanding, this seasoned and hard-to-impress viewer recommends this as a movie worth your hard-earned dollar. I guessed the first twist but was riveted the rest of the time.
See it when you can. In the cultural desert, one oasis is worth celebrating.
-
That is a good example of one of the little touches in the film underscoring the theme. What makes this a very good film esthetically is that EVERYTHING in it integrates to, and underscores, the essential theme.
What makes it a good film, philosophically, is that it deals with an important moral theme -- The clash between those who are motivated by love and values (heroes Lucius and Ivy) versus those who are motivated by fear (everybody else) -- and the heroes take the right side.
By Comcast! I am restored!!
***** SPOILERS GALORE **************
Mrs. Speicher,
I hope you had a nice week.
I have, of course, given the film and your evaluation some thought over the past week of "downtime."
At one point, I even considered re-reading Miss Rand's "Art of Fiction" just to be sure I knew what I was saying. But I decided against that and so, might commit errors in this post.
Instead of a re-reading, I thought to rather first list all instances of conflict in the movie in order to establish which conflict qualifies as a "clash."
1. The psychological and political conflict that all the non-elder villagers had arising from "Those we don't speak of." [TWDSO] I say 'psychological' because their fear of the forest owed to a justifiably malevolent view of TWDSO and 'political' because the TWDSO were real.
2. The political conflict between Lucius and the psychopath who turned TWDSO.
3. The political conflict between Ivy and the psychopath who turned TWDSO.
4. The political conflict between the elders and Lucius, who wanted to go beyond the village.
5. The psychological conflict in the psychopath who was purportedly "in love" with Ivy.
Now, if I remember correctly, all psychological conflicts are dramatic (conflicts occurring in consciousness) while all political conflicts are melodramatic (conflicts occurring in the physical world).
The most intense conflicts in "Village" are the psychopath vs. Lucius (the stabbing), the psychopath vs. Ivy (his end), and the psychopath's supposed (although we're not really supposed to understand him) motivation by some warped love of Ivy - or, if you like, a fear of losing her to Lucius.
Ivy does not show any real indignation when she's told that TWDSO are a hoax, so that conflict is inessential.
The conflict between Lucius and the elders is also inconsequential as Lucius is out of action for a good chunk of the film.
So, I hold that the real clash is not between those conscious actors motivated by political and/or psychological fear versus those motivated by love per se, but a clash between one actor motivated by a psychological fear and the heroes who are motivated by love. Lucius and Ivy are never really in conflict with the elders; their beef is with the psychopath, the only person who was able to discover what TWDSO were, the one who broke out of the village boundaries early on.
In other words, the clash you speak of is between the active seeker who went mad or was mad and who let fear blind him into attempted murder of other active seekers on one hand; and between the active seeker who went mad or was mad and the politically-passive, blind lover who braved the unknown (only because of love) on the other.
The message here, I submit, is that man's reason will drive him fearfully mad (as it had done in the city outside the village and with the psychopath) while man's blind faith (thiswordly or otherwordly) would engender brotherly and romantic love in the fullest. In other words, what you don't know won't kill you - ignorance is bliss.
After all, isn't love blind?
-
I don't, nor should anyone else. Most arguments get to the point where each side has stated their opinions and reason and there isn't much to add even though they still disagree.
Even when there is still more to say, people have busy lives and responding on OO.net may not always be a high priority. (I know because I am facing my end-of-month CyberNet deadline and may cut out for a few days.)
Also, brilliant counter-arguments may take some time to formulate. Whether it takes an hour or a day or a month, a poster should feel free to add thoughts to any open topic at any time he chooses.
I'm glad you understand. However, in this case, it's not for lack of interest or money or ready supporting arguments that I'm being delayed. The COMCAST service in my county is experiencing problems. There's even a recorded message on their helpline to that effect.
Thanks.
-
That is a good example of one of the little touches in the film underscoring the theme. What makes this a very good film esthetically is that EVERYTHING in it integrates to, and underscores, the essential theme.
What makes it a good film, philosophically, is that it deals with an important moral theme -- The clash between those who are motivated by love and values (heroes Lucius and Ivy) versus those who are motivated by fear (everybody else) -- and the heroes take the right side.
Mrs. Speicher,
Please do not take my late response as agreement with your position. I'm experiencing some problems with my internet connection at home, and it's not comfortable to respond from work.
All in good time.
-
I read Misterswig's review and I would say that his points are valid. I read Betsy's reply and I can also see why she thinks this. Its interesting here that MisterSwig is profoundly anti-Bush and Betsy is much more forgiving of the President. Betsy is stressing the positive and MisterSwig is using a much stricter standard of rational/Objectivist perfection and virtue.
I have to say that at my present level on the "Objectivist Learning Curve" I am torn between both approaches. I saw The Village and I hated it for all the reasons that MisterSwig gave *but* I did see the reasons why a person of Betsy's predisposition would like it. I wasn't able to see this 4 or 5 years ago.
And this is the problem I have in making evaluations; from everything to movies to political candidates to historical figures; ie how to properly weigh all the various elements to come to a rational evaluation. I have no peace with this subject. I tend to be more forgiving of Bush and the Republicans and an absolute 'hardass' when it comes to movies and art. If it doesn't have a "Galt-like or Roark-like" element to it, I blast away. And heaven forbid there is some explicit philosophical errors; no mercy. But at least I am able to see a different way of evaluation.
Hopefully with more maturity and study I'll have less problems with this, but for now I really suffer.
Argive99:
I want to add to what Mrs. Speicher wrote and advise that you get a copy of Leonard Peikoff's "Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic." I had avoided getting this set for years now, thinking that I was more an empiricistic Objectivist, as opposed to the rationalistic Objectivist, which is more commonly the case. I've found though that many mistakes I've made in my fours years in Objectivism could've been avoided had I bought this set much earlier.
-
There ARE two different versions of "The Village"! The events in the one I saw were quite different than reported here.
**** SPOILERS ********************
In "The Village" I saw, the heroine is desperately in love with the hero (Phoenix) and he will die unless she leaves the village to get him medicine and brings it back to him. It is her loyalty to him that brings her back with the medicine. After that, they will have the option of leaving or staying.
True, this is a possibility. But I don't think it's the intention of the filmmaker. You might be projecting your own view of what should happen onto Shyamalan's work.
In fact, in Shyamalan's cameo, the newspaper he was reading had nothing but bad news on the page we could see. Is that truly how the real world is? In America? Gimme a break.
Having lived under dictatorships where you are so oppressed that you begin to believe that freedom is an aspect of the afterlife or exists only in an alternate reality, it is really disheartening to see people like Shyamalan who should know better - I've read that his parents are immigrants from India and he himself was born there - salute this mystic-altruist view of life.
I mean, what was the village if not a communist-environmentalist enclave?
And, in that respect, we have Shyamalan to thank for one thing: he's shown us where the today's philosophy professors will take us if we listen to them.
-
***** SPOILER POST *****************
I thought the dialogue was great. It certainly wasn't "naturalistic." Some of the best dialogue was between Lucius and Ivy in the scene on her porch.The lines on the porch weren't special, and I'm talking about those I could make out. They gave each other meaningful looks and it was an emotional scene, but the dialogue made execution much more difficult for the actors.
That's ridiculous. She doesn't want a life outside of the village without him. But now that she's saved him, the two of them are clearly not going to remain in the village forever. How is it supposed to be a betrayal of him to save his life, so that they can leave together at a future time?In the final scene with his fellow elders, William Hurt's character (who, if I remember correctly, was a university professor in the real world) summarizes Shyamalan's philosophy with his observation that, if Ivy returns, it'll mean the village was worth protecting and preserving. If not, not. She returns; ergo, the terrible village is worth preserving.
I don't understand how anyone can fail to see the malevolence of the universe Shyamalan painted. These village adults were aware of the full context, knowing that any of them could have gone to the city to get medicine for the dying Phoenix (and still retained the secret of the village if that was the big concern). Yet, knowing fully well the physical danger of the forest and that there was a psychopath on the loose, they let a blind girl risk her life.
Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
There's a longer review on NoumenalSelf.