Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Indiana Jones 4

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow...didn't realize my ad lib defense of Harry Potter would have such an effect.

Yes, it certainly has in my case! I would also add many more things in support of the series...but I only want to mention one right now, for I just have to get back to reading book 3!! When listening to a conversation with J. K. Rowling on the second DVD you can hear her mentioning how Dumbledore "speaks for her", but more importantly she says that "racism" is "deeply entrenched in the plot"...she mentions the bad side advocating a sort of "genocide" against Mudbloods, Half-bloods, etc...she clearily says that she hasn't set out to teach anyone anything (read: write didactically) but that she is out to express her views and feelings, that they "grow organically" (like the aforementioned examples) in her stories and thinks that children respond more to writing such as that rather than a more didactic method of approach to writing, like "thought for the day". I would have to say that there is much such organic growth in her stories. Much reason for me to put on gardening gloves to a go abstracting from these novels when I read them. Much reason to watch these characters and stories jump right out of the novels and onto the movie screen...the acting...the action...the music...oh, Moose, it's been so worth it! Thank you!

What J. K. Rowling had said about how her views are grown organically in the stories themselves...is such a perfect way to translate...a perfect way to continue to bewitch me...

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wait until you get to book 4. That's where the main plot comes into focus. The end of 3 sets the stage, 4 gets deeper into it, then it goes into overdrive in 5 and 6.

Okay, a Mod seriously needs to split this topic. It needs to be split into 3 threads: the original one about the new Indy movie, a thread discussing the pros/cons of supernaturalism in movies, and a Harry Potter thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wait until you get to book 4. That's where the main plot comes into focus. The end of 3 sets the stage, 4 gets deeper into it, then it goes into overdrive in 5 and 6.

I plan on finishing book 3 in a few hours, then watching the movie to it, and then opening book 4! Well, you haven't been wrong yet with this series, so I can't wait till my eyes go into overdrive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A much needed comment on the plot:

It is as if J. K. Rowling holds a wand in each of her hands and knits and weaves for us a plot that is so skillfully and so brilliantly woven, not only in the individual novels themselves, but throughout the entire series itself...so much knitting, so much weaving...adding layer upon layer with each new book...it is sure to warm every readers literary heart.

That is if they actually open a novel of hers...but then again...maybe some people may still prefer some sort of bizarre masochistic manicure over the novels as they certainly do with the movies...gross, huh? The things that can happen, when one loses their literary senses...yuk!

I think that Dianne L. Durante does a wonderful job in her articles on the ARI site, explaining a bit more about the series:

This quote fits in so well with what I had Rowlings commenting on before:

Durante:

"A child needs to learn concrete facts, of course, but that is not enough. In order to organize and utilize such facts, a child urgently needs as a framework a basic, abstract view of life--and he needs it in the form, not of an abstruse treatise, but of a concise, easily graspable presentation.

This is what literature provides. By means of the theme, plot and characterization--particularly as they involve the hero--"

Here's what Yaron Brook has said in regards to the series:

"Brook said that Harry Potter critics focus on the supernaturalism aspects of the stories is completely non-essential. What is fundamental is the abstract meaning being conveyed during the course of Harry's magical adventures."

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Actually, you have "heard" otherwise as well. You simply choose what to hear based on a preconceived notion still without examination of any real evidence.

I'd be curious to know how you know what I've heard--especially considering your strict standards for "knowledge", since I should assume you learned it by some means other than what I've said.

In any case, I don't accept other people's judgement, only their corroborated reports on facts. So no, I have not heard anything about Harry Potter which sounds significantly valuable.

Wrong. It is not a safe bet.
1) Simply stating "Wrong." only shows your stubbornness and disrespect. I'll let it slide for now, but I do not engage in conversations where rudeness is taken to substitute rational argument.

2) Are you telling me that you either do not believe in the existence of atoms, or that you have examined and understand Einstein's proof? I find it absurd to say that you must do the later to have reason to believe in their existence. As another example, what of an court case in where there are several eye-witnesses to a public murder. Should the jury let the man go free because they did not themselves witness the murder? Or that people should convict a man of murder when they don't know if he did it--convict him on "faith"?

We know, but you don't. I have no idea what the last sentence means. Are you saying that these stories could not be translated thematically or even in plot into real world stories? Could not LOTR be placed in WWII, and still have most of its structure in tact? Could not Harry Potter take place in college in the real world with much of the plot in tact? I say yes, it could, and you could keep the theme, a lot of the story structure, and the meaning of the story. What say you on this? And tell me how you came to your conclusion. Did someone else tell that this is false, and I am to take this on faith? Why don't I just talk to this other person since that is the person with the actual knowledge.

No, I find it a stretch that the search for a magical ring--an essential part of the plot in LotR--could be placed in WWII. Nor could the discovery of magical powers take place in any college I've heard of.

You cannot talk to "this other person" because, as I've said before, it's not one other person. It is talk show hosts, news anchors, friends, family, and a hundred others. If you care to interview them, however, you're more than welcome to try. I'll provide e-mail addresses where possible.

Talking about your last sentence...would this exclude all fairy tales, Bugs Bunny, science fiction. How is it an assumption of a non-human life?
Fairy tales can be fun, but they're not art.

And this common element is...? And it is essential why? Again you bring up things you know nothing about. Why don't I just talk to these other people whose opinions you pass to me without effort of exposing yourself to them?

I have indicated the common element with a colon--I cannot do more than this. It is essential because our whole conversation concerns things we judge, of which we do not have first-hand knowledge.

Wrong again. While I would say that you know there is magic in the movies is a pretty safe bet, that is all you know.
Wait, why would you concede this much as knowledge, when your standard seems to be first-hand experience (of which, as far as you know, I have none at all)?

...As someone who has read LOTR and Sartre, I can say that LOTR, as well at The Hobbit, are at least ten thousand, but possibly as much as several million times better than Nausea and anything else by Sartre, both from a literary standpoint, and in the quality of the ideas.

As I said, Sartre at least has the advantage of being useful in philosophical conversations.

Hermann Hesse?

Entire plot of Siddartha:

Guy wanders around, has allegedly deep conversations; the end.

See above.

Although, now that I'm half-way through, I'm quite enjoying his psychological and philosophical progress.

Now Victor Hugo I agree with.. I don't think there's any question that Hugo is better than LOTR or HP. But Von Mises.. Did he ever even write any fiction? If not, you could hardly say his books had better plots than LOTR or HP.. They didn't have any plots at all, being non-fiction books.

No, von Mises did not write any fiction--the essential point is that he wrote things which I had not read, but which I judged in lieu of reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can be basing your opinions on anything other than "what you've heard," since you have not seen the movies. I'd also wager that "what you've heard" includes something about what incredible movies LotR are and what terrific books make up the Harry Potter series. You state that you have not heard anything about Harry Potter which sounds valuable, yet you have completely ignored my post that was dedicate to explaining the many valuable things that it contains.

And you still have yet to give a reason why magic somehow disqualifies Harry Potter/LotR from being quality art. And you still have yet to explain why the moderate use of CGI, in contexts where it is absolutely necessary, makes LotR "an empty husk of a movie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to know how you know what I've heard--especially considering your strict standards for "knowledge", since I should assume you learned it by some means other than what I've said.

I'm sorry, I made two assumptions here. 1. That you were reading the posts in this thread where countering views have been offered (I also assumed you had been reading my posts as well). Actually, I don't apologize for the first one. If you are responding to my posts, then you have read them (right?), I have a countering view, therefore you have heard otherwise. 2. That those you know didn't compose such a homogenous voice.

Simply stating "Wrong." only shows your stubbornness and disrespect.
Don't be bizarre. There was a whole paragraph following and supporting that word, "wrong". The context of which you replied to! Else why do you think the word "wrong" was not given its own paragraph? And on top of that my reply to your quote in my post (#41) was three paragraphs long!

2) Are you telling me that you either do not believe in the existence of atoms, or that you have examined and understand Einstein's proof? I find it absurd to say that you must do the later to have reason to believe in their existence.

Having pursued electronics engineering in college, I can firmly say that I believe and know in the existence of atoms, even and especially electrons. Although I don't think Einstein ever came up. But, I am saying that more is necessary to "believe" in atoms than merely someone telling you so, as I believe I made clear.

As for your court case examples. If eye witnesses is all the prosecution has got, then the man is probably getting off. And no, if the jury doesn't know that a man committed a crime, they should not convict him on faith or any other motive. But the burden of proving that the man is guilty rests on the accuser (the state).

No, I find it a stretch that the search for a magical ring--an essential part of the plot in LotR--could be placed in WWII. Nor could the discovery of magical powers take place in any college I've heard of.
You seem to be unable to extricate yourself from the concretes on the story. Translation of the story would take away the magical ring, and the discovery of magical powers. Based on your non-knowledge of the stories, you claim there is nothing else but this. Take away the discovery of magical powers from Harry Potter for instance, and you would have the story of a gifted young boy using his own mind and judgement against those who wish to destroy him and an entrenched establishment that is blind to and unable to help him in fighting them. Man, there's a thousand stories right there and they could all be romantic realism.

You cannot talk to "this other person" because, as I've said before, it's not one other person. It is talk show hosts, news anchors, friends, family, and a hundred others. If you care to interview them, however, you're more than welcome to try. I'll provide e-mail addresses where possible.

I don't care if it is 50 million other people or the entirety of the human race and several alien cultures besides. Since when does numeracy mean anything in proof? By this method Dagny Taggert should never have bought Readen Metal because nobody had tried it (or supported it) before. And I have a very good other source, try Dianne L. Durante's writing on the Potter series at ARI (Ayn Rand Institute).

Fairy tales can be fun, but they're not art.
Really? Provide your proof. I will need your definition of art as a starter.

I have indicated the common element with a colon--I cannot do more than this. It is essential because our whole conversation concerns things we judge, of which we do not have first-hand knowledge.

This conversation concerns judging things of which one has no knowledge at all.

Wait, why would you concede this much as knowledge, when your standard seems to be first-hand experience (of which, as far as you know, I have none at all)?
I called it a "pretty safe bet", akin to a guess. You could say no more than: "I have been told story X has elements of magic in it." So I guess I have to take that away as knowledge as well. On the other hand, I could at least assume you caught a preview of one of these movies on television or in the theater, pretty hard to escape. Of course you would have to assume that the movies were a faithful enough adaptation from the books. And, since you work in a bookstore, you know these are categorized under Fantasy. When I consider all of this context, I consider it a safe bet that you know at least this much.

As I said, Sartre at least has the advantage of being useful in philosophical conversations.

I know this was your reply to Bold Standard, but I can't help but say that I would much rather bring in Harry Potter or LOTR to a philosophical conversation than Nausea! And of what use if Satre anyway?

Edited by Thoyd Loki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...