Posts
I was looking through Youtube videos and I lingered at one of an apologist defending the faith. In the comments area, there were a number of people who kept mocking the teacher on the video and also mocked Jesus. There were only a few who tried to defend the teacher and rose up to challenge the mockers. For the most part, the Christians responded with reasoning that the unbelievers definitely did not understand. The more intellectually inclined unbelievers waved them off as ignorant, religious indoctrinated sheep.
Only one or two Christians responded with good step by step reasoning to help the unbelievers, or outsiders, understand. But the mockery continued. I started to make comments of my own. After submitting a few, I soon realized that it's a waste of time debating with mockers and outsiders on Youtube. The verse, "there will be mockers in the last days who will walk after their own lust" rang loudly in my head. I simply stopped making any more comments. It's better to speak with an outsider on a more personal level, anyway.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
July 30, 2008
December 12, 2007
The Murray Question
This is the background story on Matthew Murray.
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
October 22, 2007
Heroes welcome
I finally got to watch the first few episodes of Heroes. My sisters promoted it so much to me that I finally took the time to rent it. It's like a superhero comic book without the cheese. From what I see so far, it's a good combination of X-Files and X-Men, both being top-notch in their respective areas of sci-fi. My sibs and I are big sci-fi fans and we also read comic books growing up. Not only that but we're into good literature and we're quite familiar with world myths. Heroes is now another great addition to our stockpile of addictive stories that color our conversations.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
March 30, 2007
The Dating Lessons, Part 1
Historical Context
From the very beginning, Satan wanted us to do our own thing apart from God.
In the 1700s, Kant developed his categorical imperative, the first part being "act only on that maxim that you would will to be a universal law." So even though Kant tried to make a universal law to his theory on morals, he unfortunately paved the way for the rationalizing of relativism. He was one of many enlightenment philosophers who attributed moral development to reason alone and not on absolutes by the revelation of God intuitively known by all human beings. Kant, along with others during that time period, thought humans could set the standard.
In the 1850s, Darwin proposed the idea that humans did not come about the way the Bible described. He believed that we are a more developed animal and that some races of the human species are better than others. He allowed for the idea that God's word is not reliable. Not long after that, Neitzche claimed that God is dead and that man is all there is. His philosophies helped to spawn Communism and the brutality that ensued.
By the 1950s, the existentialists, popularized by the Beatniks, believed that you are what you do, think, and believe. This concept influenced the hippies of the 1960s and 70s. They thrived on their relativism and the belief in "free love."
From the very beginning, Satan wanted us to do our own thing apart from God.
In the 1700s, Kant developed his categorical imperative, the first part being "act only on that maxim that you would will to be a universal law." So even though Kant tried to make a universal law to his theory on morals, he unfortunately paved the way for the rationalizing of relativism. He was one of many enlightenment philosophers who attributed moral development to reason alone and not on absolutes by the revelation of God intuitively known by all human beings. Kant, along with others during that time period, thought humans could set the standard.
In the 1850s, Darwin proposed the idea that humans did not come about the way the Bible described. He believed that we are a more developed animal and that some races of the human species are better than others. He allowed for the idea that God's word is not reliable. Not long after that, Neitzche claimed that God is dead and that man is all there is. His philosophies helped to spawn Communism and the brutality that ensued.
By the 1950s, the existentialists, popularized by the Beatniks, believed that you are what you do, think, and believe. This concept influenced the hippies of the 1960s and 70s. They thrived on their relativism and the belief in "free love."
November 22, 2005
One Of The Greatest Philosophers?
Whenever I talk about philosophy in the martial arts, I always refer to Bruce Lee and Jeet Kune Do (JKD). I usually say that Lee was one of the greatest modern philosophers but that his brilliance was overshadowed by his entertainment career. Any knowledgeable martial artist or martial arts enthusiast would know that JKD is not a system of fighting but rather a philosophy for self-development. A major portion of that self-development, of course, would be in martial arts training, but training in the most efficient and functional way.
I give Lee a lot of credit for revolutionizing the martial arts for the 20th century. He understood the need for a practical approach to the martial arts and questioned the orthodoxy inherent in the more traditional styles. But as I progress in my training, I've come to question whether I'm correct in labeling Bruce Lee with the title "one of the greatest philosophers." Indeed, this may be blasphemous to say around the hardcore Jun Fan JKD practitioner, but then again, I've never been one to be part of a personality cult. Besides, Lee himself advocated a teaching methodology that focuses on individual instruction rather than mass instruction. He espoused an individualist mindset in the martial arts and opposed the idea of a cult around a person, or system, including himself. Likewise he lived what he believed by creating an approach to self-development that set him apart from the martial artists of his day.
The first 25 pages and the last 8 pages of Tao of JKD (Lee's collection of notes turned into book form), gives the essential treatment of Lee's philosophy. He was influenced by both Eastern and Western thought, but JKD is predominantly Eastern. The philosophical underpinnings of JKD is a mixture of Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Indian mysticism as expressed in Krishnamurti. The Big Three, as I'll call them here, can be debated over for a very long time, but inevitably, when taken to their logical end, they all come up short. They are unlivable as a spiritual foundation, especially Zen Buddhism, with its nonsensical disregard for the Law of Contradiction (which states that something can't concurrently be non-something). Lee was a philosophy major in college so he should have been fully aware of the Law of Contradiction, as taught in Philosophy 101. But his background and the counterculture mileu of his day emphasized the relativistic post-modernist views that relate well to the Big Three.
In his attempt to explain JKD in Eastern mysticist terms, he overcomplicated JKD for what it is - his own personal development in the martial arts. That's it! Nothing else. Lee acknowledged this simplicity, but it was clouded by the mysticism that was part of his thought process. He intended to create a philosophy that incorporated both martial arts and life and was still in the process of doing so when he died. In fact, he was only beginning to develop as a martial artist. Like any good philosoper, he sought correspondence between thought and reality. Because his cultural and philosophical background was steeped in the Big Three, it only made sense that he expressed it in his martial arts.
Should I label Bruce Lee as "one of the greatest" ? Yes, but to be precise, he's a great philosopher in the sense that Ayn Rand or Lao-tzu are great philosophers. They were not necessarily correct in their thinking, but they earned the title because of their honest struggle for coherence and because of the following that resulted from their teachings. In my book, a truly great philosopher earns the title only if he has reached a sensible, livable, holistic, and logical end to his thoughts, and that includes having a following as well. (And to clarify, it's not an exhuastive end to that person's thoughts, but rather acknowledging absolute propositional revelation and to grow in thought and behavior based on that revelation.) Even though Lee used nonsensical philosophies to undergird his message, he was still able to explain truths about the search for martial arts efficacy and that the individual should always be in a state of learning and growing.
My article JKD vs. PMABM (coming soon) summarizes the comparison between the two approaches to the martial arts.
I give Lee a lot of credit for revolutionizing the martial arts for the 20th century. He understood the need for a practical approach to the martial arts and questioned the orthodoxy inherent in the more traditional styles. But as I progress in my training, I've come to question whether I'm correct in labeling Bruce Lee with the title "one of the greatest philosophers." Indeed, this may be blasphemous to say around the hardcore Jun Fan JKD practitioner, but then again, I've never been one to be part of a personality cult. Besides, Lee himself advocated a teaching methodology that focuses on individual instruction rather than mass instruction. He espoused an individualist mindset in the martial arts and opposed the idea of a cult around a person, or system, including himself. Likewise he lived what he believed by creating an approach to self-development that set him apart from the martial artists of his day.
The first 25 pages and the last 8 pages of Tao of JKD (Lee's collection of notes turned into book form), gives the essential treatment of Lee's philosophy. He was influenced by both Eastern and Western thought, but JKD is predominantly Eastern. The philosophical underpinnings of JKD is a mixture of Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Indian mysticism as expressed in Krishnamurti. The Big Three, as I'll call them here, can be debated over for a very long time, but inevitably, when taken to their logical end, they all come up short. They are unlivable as a spiritual foundation, especially Zen Buddhism, with its nonsensical disregard for the Law of Contradiction (which states that something can't concurrently be non-something). Lee was a philosophy major in college so he should have been fully aware of the Law of Contradiction, as taught in Philosophy 101. But his background and the counterculture mileu of his day emphasized the relativistic post-modernist views that relate well to the Big Three.
In his attempt to explain JKD in Eastern mysticist terms, he overcomplicated JKD for what it is - his own personal development in the martial arts. That's it! Nothing else. Lee acknowledged this simplicity, but it was clouded by the mysticism that was part of his thought process. He intended to create a philosophy that incorporated both martial arts and life and was still in the process of doing so when he died. In fact, he was only beginning to develop as a martial artist. Like any good philosoper, he sought correspondence between thought and reality. Because his cultural and philosophical background was steeped in the Big Three, it only made sense that he expressed it in his martial arts.
Should I label Bruce Lee as "one of the greatest" ? Yes, but to be precise, he's a great philosopher in the sense that Ayn Rand or Lao-tzu are great philosophers. They were not necessarily correct in their thinking, but they earned the title because of their honest struggle for coherence and because of the following that resulted from their teachings. In my book, a truly great philosopher earns the title only if he has reached a sensible, livable, holistic, and logical end to his thoughts, and that includes having a following as well. (And to clarify, it's not an exhuastive end to that person's thoughts, but rather acknowledging absolute propositional revelation and to grow in thought and behavior based on that revelation.) Even though Lee used nonsensical philosophies to undergird his message, he was still able to explain truths about the search for martial arts efficacy and that the individual should always be in a state of learning and growing.
My article JKD vs. PMABM (coming soon) summarizes the comparison between the two approaches to the martial arts.
September 21, 2005
Meaninglessness
"I am in existential depression."
- Garrison Hoffman, using an Arnold accent watching the end of Predator where Arnold sits in the helicopter expressionless after the final fight.
I heart Huckabees is a movie Camus would've loved and hated. I read Ebert's film review and he didn't get it. He had to watch it twice to get an idea of the plot. Of course he wouldn't get it, he's a film critic, not a philosopher. He isn't familiar with existentialism and all its different fractures. The main character in the movie, Albert, was looking for meaning. For about two hours, he goes to and fro finding meaning in life, whether it is in the cause he champions (not allowing a company to destroy a nearby wooded area making way for a mini-mall) or the love he seeks. This was demonstrated in the very first scene when he started to chase someone who looked like himself; he was trying to find himself. The movie was cute and interesting, but wouldn't be something I'd endorse. Way too much cursing and unnecessary scenes; makes something that could've been decent very unappealing. Other than that, I understand the message of the film, which are a series of questions itself, questions any thoughtful person would ask.
When people are unaware of God, or worse, deny His existence, they end up trying to figure out the answers the harder way. There's the hard way and the harder way. Most people live on the surface, as Dustin Hoffman's character says, which is true. They don't want to take the time to answer the hard questions. They live life in ignorance, enjoying it every now and then, working for most of it, then die. Those who do take the time to search for meaning beyond work-play-die cycle will usually have difficulty figuring things out but inevitably, in their struggle, come across God. Then, to deny God will make the questions even harder to answer. They get this muddied thought-pattern/belief-system that even they can't follow. Or those who are brave enough will follow it to its rational end – nothingness. Life becomes a theatre of the absurd (or in this case a movie of the absurd) when man becomes the center of the story. Sadly, our society is heading in that direction in full speed.
Throughout the movie, he didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of God. There wasn't much space in the movie to acknowledge it at all. Albert began his journey and search for meaning through coincidence. There were a few times when Albert randomly came across "the African guy." Because of those chance encounters, he thought there was something that tied them to each other. In the real world, God would've used that thought pattern to lead a guy like Albert to learn more about Him. The sequence would go like this: Albert meets the African guy; Albert thinks his "coincidence" idea; Albert meets up with the African guy and African guy invites him to dinner with his family, who we find are Christians. At least the director makes a brief visit to the Christian experience, even if it wasn't the best example. In the commentary, the director talks about the irony of Christians (and he included most other religions) that they have big, open hearts, but closed minds. How unfortunate that he considered Christians closed-minded. (The different definitions of open-mindedness I explained in "Straight Talk".)
If something like the Christian family dinner scene happened in real life, the idea of coincidence would've been a perfect way to introduce Albert to the subject of God. The director unfortunately portrayed the family as closed-minded in the sense that they were uninformed of the rest of the world's suffering, intellectual and otherwise. Not only that, but he made the father unloving, which caused Albert to run away from a perfect opportunity to meet more accepting, open-minded, and knowledgeable Christians. The director must have had a similar negative experience with the few Christians he's met in real life. I would've loved to have a discussion with Albert and allow him to see for himself the dearth in existentialism. I guess the belief in the ignorant Christian, both intellectually and socially, is still pervasive in this society. H. L. Mencken, the most popular American journalist during the Scopes trial, described fundamentalist Christians as "peasants and ignoramuses" and it seemed to have stuck over a hundred years later. In my experience, when I was younger, I've always seen Christians as highly intellectual and cosmopolitan as any secular person. My dad and my uncles are scholars with intellect and wit that can run circles around anybody. All the pastors I've ever known were very knowledgeable and aware of the world system. It wasn't until I was in my late teens when I met a broader range of adult Christians, from disappointingly dumb to obnoxiously unloving. Just like the rest of the population, some Christians "get it" about life in general and some don't. For those who are seeking the Truth, I only pray that they meet Christians who are aware. No, I don't expect every Christian to be an expert logician and apologist like C. S. Lewis. But it would be nice that they develop themselves. At least C. S. Lewis wrote great books so that we of lesser degree may share with those who are seriously seeking. Those who are truly open-minded will investigate the claims of Christianity and not just regard it as some hokey religion. Some may consider themselves open-minded but are too lazy to follow through with that claim. Then there are those who, when someone says "Christian," get irritated or uncomfortable and it only shows their prejudice and are themselves closed-minded.
In the end, the director dealt with two major approaches to existentialism: looking for meaning through disconnected deconstruction (nihilistic existentialism) or through interconnectedness (Buddhist existentialism). Whether or not I have the correct terms, it's at least a general description of the conflict between Vaubon and the detectives. No matter how much you synthesize (both/and), the human brain will always express its fundamental binary function, seeing antithesis (either/or). By the end of the movie, given the choice between Vaubon and the detectives, Albert synthesizes the two differing viewpoints, as any good existentialist will do. In principle, he created his own new senseless philosophy and Sisyphus is back where he started. Following the synthesis will lead to meaninglessness once again. Take God out and it will lead to nothingness. Start and end with man and life will be absurd.
- Garrison Hoffman, using an Arnold accent watching the end of Predator where Arnold sits in the helicopter expressionless after the final fight.
I heart Huckabees is a movie Camus would've loved and hated. I read Ebert's film review and he didn't get it. He had to watch it twice to get an idea of the plot. Of course he wouldn't get it, he's a film critic, not a philosopher. He isn't familiar with existentialism and all its different fractures. The main character in the movie, Albert, was looking for meaning. For about two hours, he goes to and fro finding meaning in life, whether it is in the cause he champions (not allowing a company to destroy a nearby wooded area making way for a mini-mall) or the love he seeks. This was demonstrated in the very first scene when he started to chase someone who looked like himself; he was trying to find himself. The movie was cute and interesting, but wouldn't be something I'd endorse. Way too much cursing and unnecessary scenes; makes something that could've been decent very unappealing. Other than that, I understand the message of the film, which are a series of questions itself, questions any thoughtful person would ask.
When people are unaware of God, or worse, deny His existence, they end up trying to figure out the answers the harder way. There's the hard way and the harder way. Most people live on the surface, as Dustin Hoffman's character says, which is true. They don't want to take the time to answer the hard questions. They live life in ignorance, enjoying it every now and then, working for most of it, then die. Those who do take the time to search for meaning beyond work-play-die cycle will usually have difficulty figuring things out but inevitably, in their struggle, come across God. Then, to deny God will make the questions even harder to answer. They get this muddied thought-pattern/belief-system that even they can't follow. Or those who are brave enough will follow it to its rational end – nothingness. Life becomes a theatre of the absurd (or in this case a movie of the absurd) when man becomes the center of the story. Sadly, our society is heading in that direction in full speed.
Throughout the movie, he didn't seem to acknowledge the existence of God. There wasn't much space in the movie to acknowledge it at all. Albert began his journey and search for meaning through coincidence. There were a few times when Albert randomly came across "the African guy." Because of those chance encounters, he thought there was something that tied them to each other. In the real world, God would've used that thought pattern to lead a guy like Albert to learn more about Him. The sequence would go like this: Albert meets the African guy; Albert thinks his "coincidence" idea; Albert meets up with the African guy and African guy invites him to dinner with his family, who we find are Christians. At least the director makes a brief visit to the Christian experience, even if it wasn't the best example. In the commentary, the director talks about the irony of Christians (and he included most other religions) that they have big, open hearts, but closed minds. How unfortunate that he considered Christians closed-minded. (The different definitions of open-mindedness I explained in "Straight Talk".)
If something like the Christian family dinner scene happened in real life, the idea of coincidence would've been a perfect way to introduce Albert to the subject of God. The director unfortunately portrayed the family as closed-minded in the sense that they were uninformed of the rest of the world's suffering, intellectual and otherwise. Not only that, but he made the father unloving, which caused Albert to run away from a perfect opportunity to meet more accepting, open-minded, and knowledgeable Christians. The director must have had a similar negative experience with the few Christians he's met in real life. I would've loved to have a discussion with Albert and allow him to see for himself the dearth in existentialism. I guess the belief in the ignorant Christian, both intellectually and socially, is still pervasive in this society. H. L. Mencken, the most popular American journalist during the Scopes trial, described fundamentalist Christians as "peasants and ignoramuses" and it seemed to have stuck over a hundred years later. In my experience, when I was younger, I've always seen Christians as highly intellectual and cosmopolitan as any secular person. My dad and my uncles are scholars with intellect and wit that can run circles around anybody. All the pastors I've ever known were very knowledgeable and aware of the world system. It wasn't until I was in my late teens when I met a broader range of adult Christians, from disappointingly dumb to obnoxiously unloving. Just like the rest of the population, some Christians "get it" about life in general and some don't. For those who are seeking the Truth, I only pray that they meet Christians who are aware. No, I don't expect every Christian to be an expert logician and apologist like C. S. Lewis. But it would be nice that they develop themselves. At least C. S. Lewis wrote great books so that we of lesser degree may share with those who are seriously seeking. Those who are truly open-minded will investigate the claims of Christianity and not just regard it as some hokey religion. Some may consider themselves open-minded but are too lazy to follow through with that claim. Then there are those who, when someone says "Christian," get irritated or uncomfortable and it only shows their prejudice and are themselves closed-minded.
In the end, the director dealt with two major approaches to existentialism: looking for meaning through disconnected deconstruction (nihilistic existentialism) or through interconnectedness (Buddhist existentialism). Whether or not I have the correct terms, it's at least a general description of the conflict between Vaubon and the detectives. No matter how much you synthesize (both/and), the human brain will always express its fundamental binary function, seeing antithesis (either/or). By the end of the movie, given the choice between Vaubon and the detectives, Albert synthesizes the two differing viewpoints, as any good existentialist will do. In principle, he created his own new senseless philosophy and Sisyphus is back where he started. Following the synthesis will lead to meaninglessness once again. Take God out and it will lead to nothingness. Start and end with man and life will be absurd.
June 01, 2005
Come on, Lucas!
George Lucas's greatest blunder to date is not Howard the Duck. No, it is in one of the last scenes in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Obi Wan and Anakin are fighting in the lava world. Obi Wan, in an emotional fit, cries out to Anakin, "Only Sith lords deal in absolutes!" Whoa, the respect meter went down considerably on that instance. Either Obi Wan made a verbal fumble with his Force philosophy (since he was an emotional wreck at that point, not very becoming of a Jedi) or Lucas made a dialogue error (one of many or should I say the entire movie was filled with bad dialogue) and made a fumble in his Force philosophy. In fact it was quite the strange line for Star Wars. The very idea of having the Good side of the Force and the Dark side of the Force is based on absolutes. There is never the Gray side of the Force. From what I gather in the movies, the Gray side is the slippery hill where you slide down one side or the other. It's the "lop off Count Dooku's head" area or "toss the Emperor over" area. That's if there is the "Gray side." Lucas most likely confused the word "absolutes" with "extremes." There's quite a big difference. Simply put, an absolute is complete and unconditional while an extreme is fringe and outermost. Yes, extremism may need absolutes, but absolutes do not necessitate extremism. Extremism just needs one idea to go on, whether or not it's absolute. I'm sure Lucas thought that a person with absolutes qualifies him to develop into an extremist. And I'm sure he knows the difference, but he didn't seem to clarify it in that one instance. And yet there is that phrase in Empire Strikes Back where Obi Wan pretty much says truths are different for each person, or, to quote Bruce, your truth is not my truth. Hog-freaking-wash! Even some secularists agree on the inconsistency of relativism. There is only yes or no, true or false. Of course there is a "depends on the circumstance" but even then those decisions are based on working within the framework of absolutes, otherwise you'll be inconsistent. It's not just Aristotilean dichotomy, our minds are naturally binary. As Schaeffer puts it, it's either thesis or antithesis. Synthesis is sloppy when it comes to dealing with absolutes because it leads to contradiction and dissonance, a result of relativism.
Lucas, you either do or do not, there is no gray.
Lucas, you either do or do not, there is no gray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)