Wow. So that's what I sounded like in college.

Trollusa, it'd be a lot easier to talk about movies with you if you didn't make all your arguments around obscure philosopher's theories while using every SAT you know, misspelling every fourth word you type and failing at grammar to boot.

I think American Beauty is an amazing movie. But I don't think you need to be a philosophy student to appreciate it. I do think you have to be a philosophy student to have any idea what point or points you boys are trying to make. Maybe try talking about the movie itself instead of your favorite philosophers and how it fits in with their theories? Then maybe other people can be included in your conversation.

JR's Path to Enlightenment:
1 Ignorance: limited intelligence based on subjective experiences
2 University: learns a little and is pretentious about it
3 Post-Graduation: knows limitations and attacks those who don't
4 Middle Age: ?
5 Old Age: ?

Gui you suck. You are just jealous of J Russell's great writing ability and charming looks. You are probably unemployed and live at home with your parents still. You probably have a fat pizza face and can't kiss a girl without giving her money. Your life is probably so sad and pathetic and warlight is all you have, so you come here all negative. Get a life.

How do I know all this? I don't. But making assumptions about people I don't know anything about is what I do best.

Huhuhuhahaha!

Well about my grammar skills I apologize, but since I don't know English very good, I won't be ever able to write perfectly, but still I do my best to be as comprehensible as I can.

Besides of that I like to think of speaking with people that have a relatively high culture (not knowing who Heidegger is it is pretty bad, since he is considered by the majority of the experts the most complete phiolospher ever existed).

And I don't study philosophy at college and I had an horrible teacher in high school, so what I knew is what I've studied myself, so nothing could lead me to exclude that you didn't do the same.

Maybe I was wrong in thinking that his theories are well known, even if they should be so.

Anyway my mention to Heidegger were not for prooving my culture, but simply to explain myself faster and in order to try to make the conversation less superficial.

---

But what can I say? If people blamed William Blake for putting references that they didn't understand in his poems, I guess that you have all your rights to do it with me.

Movies I can’t stand:
Any musical, any movie with Jim Carrey, any movie with Jerry Lewis, Harry Potter 1,2,3,4,5, horror movies (almost everyone).

Movies I always like to view:
Kubrick’s ‘Barry Lyndon’ and ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, Monty Python's ‘Life of Brian’, Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction’, Madhouse’s ‘Summer Wars’, Pixar’s ‘Up’ and Studio 4° C’s ‘Mindgame’, Sean Penn’s ‘Into the wild’, Gillo Pontecorvo’s ‘Battle of Algeri’, Truffaut’s ‘The 400 blows’, Frank Miller’s ‘300’ and surely something else…

i hated 2001 a space oddessy its stupid three hour long murder

Maybe I'm wrong, and the movie is really stupid.
Nevertheless, I found something on Wiki:
"Today it is near-universally recognized by critics, filmmakers, and audiences as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. The 2002 Sight & Sound poll of critics ranked it among the top ten films of all time,[10] placing it #6 behind Tokyo Story. The film retained sixth place on the critics' list in 2012, and was named the second greatest film ever made by the directors' poll of the same magazine.[11] Two years before that, it was ranked the greatest film of all time by The Moving Arts Film Journal.[12] It was nominated for four Academy Awards, and received one for its visual effects. In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry.[13]"

*facepalm*

I didn't like 2000 A Space Odissey, it is absolutely overexstimated...

To me it seemed a poor mixture of The Planet of Apes, Star Trek and the first episode of Simpson's 13th season:/

Avatar visual effects are much better too, so I don't really understand why that movie is so well considered.

sorry i cant do that- hal

space odyssey is the fucking bomb. nice choices panda, although i can't stand into the wild, jimmy candlestick or whatever his name was is so, so pretentious. it feels to me that he was venerated because of his death, but if he was alive he would have been recognised for the selfish person he is.

but i enjoy a film that really fires up my hatred, got to admire it for that.

(i think "mounty python" is the canadian version of monty python.)

---

making assumptions about people I don't know anything about is what I do best.

I believe you mentioned previously that you are also adept at the targeted disposal of your own waste.

---

Hey, this thread got interesting.

Mono no aware is the sense I got from that ending, both when I watched it the first time and rewatching. However I found the film's use of it to be somewhat facile, resulting in a great deal of bathos when the boy played his recording of the plastic bag. Mono no aware isn't exactly relevant to an object that will last for millenia.

2:25 to 2:37 almost makes it explicit in your youtube clip. Note that he says he 'stop[s] trying to hold onto it' (I find this doesn't cohere with the boy's ceaseless recording of trivialities.)

I don't see any philosophy in this, only emotion. The quiddity of mono no aware is our own transience and mortality, which is reflected to us in nature. This results in acute sorrow, from which no self-aggrandising philosophy will liberate you.

I am familiar with your points 2 and 3 from absurdism, but not in particular from Heidegger. I am familiar with the first point from Nietzsche.

I'm not going to get into why I disagree with all 3 points but I will say that I am a nihilist and that I am continually disappointed in philosophers' lack of rigour.

(I also find that people like Heidegger subconsciously obscure the truth, because they are incapable of acknowledging it, and that if you fail to understand what they are saying, it is a failure on their part since they are poor writers. The only requirement to being a philosopher is to have lived; there is no need for jargon.

This isn't anti-intellectual but anti-academical. Your life is composed of very simple actions. If your philosophy is so far removed from reality that it requires its own language, it is merely masturbation.)

Lack of philosophical rigour is extant in this monologue, too (if we shall do it the indignity of subjecting it to philosophical analysis).

For 2 minutes he describes various moments of his life. (He talks about "beauty", which, like "good" and "evil", do not exist. If every single fucking moment of every single person's life is beautiful and significant ... well, as szeweningen, the economist, will tell you, such overabundance makes a thing worthless.)

Then he describes the nature of his experiencing of this "beauty". 2:16 - 2:36.

And finally, he says he is grateful for his life. Why is he grateful for it? Is it not made clear in the film that perhaps for decades, his life was joyless?

There's no philosophy in that (and if there is, he jumps straight from a description of nature to a conclusion, and is guilty of a naturalistic fallacy). I do not need to invoke Heidegger to explain it: it is nostalgia.

Things appear better in the memory, when they are extracted from the mundanity of life. The images we see are a highlight reel, all the gristle of existence excised. Imagine if he was talking about how grateful he was for life after we saw him washing dishes, watching television, at a cocktail party, commuting to his job. Let's not romanticise. I just spent an hour writing this fucking post. Call me an ingrate, but I wish I was dead.

I didn't hate this film, or even dislike it, but it's far from profound, though it desperately tries to be.

fuck it

Ahah x right now I am too tired to answer you about the film, probably I will do it tomorrow:(

(This isn't related to anything, but if you want to focus nihilism read Demons of Dostoevskij, if you didn't already, but only if you have read Crime and Punishment, or you won't be able to appreciate the best book ever -in my opinion-)

Anyway I'm sorry for your nihilism, because I had that fase too and it was when I wanted to kill myself and it wasn't funny, thanks God I'm over with that crap and now I am the happiest guy ever, so if you want to talk about that, feel free. (of course this is not a psychological tutor proposal, but since I'm very sensitive about that argument and you are an interesting guy, I won't be happy to see you wasting your life:) )

i read crime and punishment a year ago. i didn't glean anything from it philosophically. raskolnikov walks through that book in such delirium, there is little coherence to his actions. the most logical thing he did was the murder.

very entertaining though.

suicide doesn't follow logically from nihilism.

Meh then you are in the first fase of nihilism.

When you will understand that every kind of pleasure leads to boredom, and that despite your being nothing, people will generally bring you pain (in your opinion it doesn't exist, but even if you are right, you will feel it in any case), then what reasons should you have to live?

Anyway to nihilism there is pretty simple philosophical solution, but since you seem to be still equilibrate, I guess that you should understand it by yourselves:)

Wow, how this thread has changed since I last looked in. There is a enough negative energy here to make a worm hole.

Let's all lose ourselves in this void!

:P

I didn't like 2000 A Space Odissey, it is absolutely overexstimated...

To me it seemed a poor mixture of The Planet of Apes, Star Trek and the first episode of Simpson's 13th season:/

Avatar visual effects are much better too, so I don't really understand why that movie is so well considered.

You're joking, right? I have to assume you're joking. It's hard to tell. But it was made in the 60's and Stanley Kubrik (the director) is credited with creating the sci-fi movie genre. He did things with the camera in Space Oddyssey that previously weren't considered possible.

I can totally understand not liking the movie. But to say it wasn't original or that it stole from Planet of the Apes or Star Trek is kind of a joke. Just so you know, Kubrik and some sci-fi writer made the movie and it was based on a book the other guy wrote.

Arthur C Clarke is "some other guy" now?

I don't who asserts that Kubrick invented sci-fi in cinema, but whoever they, they must not be familiar with Voyage dans la lune.

And yeah, obviously he was joking.

Anyway Trollussa, you must be in the 77th phase of idiocy. I don't have any reason to live, but I don't have any reason to kill myself either, philosophically speaking. No conclusions can be drawn from nihilism, only the negation of other conclusions. If you think otherwise I'd thank you to explain yourself, rather than just patronise me.

Luckily for you, truth is also meaningless (ecclesiastes 2:15), so you aren't missing out on much.

Wow J Russ you are really sharp as everybody says!
I really tought that Kubrik has taken his ideas from Simpsons:( Now I will reconsider 2001 A Space Odissey!

Meh x I don't want to spam this thread, nor dominize you, so if you are an happy-dead-man , I'm just happier for you;)