Recent Viewing Part IV

I'm glad you never read any philosophy.

Only if all that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.

That said, Inside Out is really VERY clever, and in wry contrast to Big Snooze 6, a pretty darn original concept. A truly new and fresh Pixar after a disturbing slew of humdrum sequels.

Me too.

Well, if we look at this that way, we should put all Far Eastern thinkers into asylums as well.

The point doesn't deny the existence of objective reality. It's just that everyone perceives the world so differently that the subjective point of view becomes a world of its own. Buddhism (and if the meme cropping up on Facebook is any true, so did Stoicism... and I should check if that Marcus Aurelius thought is really true as I have the book at home) claims that perception is basically almost everything. (when it comes to similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism, I'd also claim that the Western version of nirvana is what they called apatheia, the ideal of non-suffering, in fact non-emotional sage. That's basically reaching nirvana!)

As I said, it doesn't deny the objective reality at all. But it's stating merely that there are infinite ways to perceive the objective world and that our existence is subjective and therefore our little microcosm (human as a little world representing the world at large, that's Plato actually) is a world of its own. If you take the point further (even beyond Schopenhauer who claimed that the world is Will and Representation, of course he referred to Far East quite a lot... I can't say I know about his work much though!), you could get as far as Heidegger and admit the ultimate equality between subject and object: we live in the world that we try to understand and based on that understanding (later philosophy includes works of art in particular as the way of understanding) we act. This is a very simplified and shortened history of modern hermeneutics, BTW.

Well, not so sure. While hermeneutics do claim that the subjectivity of the interpreter plays a big role in interpretation, they do NOT claim that every interpretation is valid. And there is of course idiosyncracy of the philosophers' thought that comes into play.

A couple of things, where many people will not agree with hermeneutics on that very basis. The main hermeneutic philosophers, except maybe Dilthey (whose biography I don't know well, sadly) and Heidegger (who toyed with theology but was never religious per se), were devout Christians (namely protestants). It makes a lot of sense because hermeneutics was... originally a tool used to interpret the Bible (codified by St. Augustine in De doctrina Christiana). In general though, I would venture to say that every philosophical system that looks for meaning is hermeneutic at heart. Because that's what it's about. It's about making sense of the world around us and acting on that meaningful aspect.

However, the existential hermeneutists, which go as far as to Heidegger (though Dilthey, the founder of modern hermeneutics, while coming from the late 19th century discussion on the difference between natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) and humanities (Geisteswissenschaften), makes some existential points) do not take some things into account. I don't know if Heidegger thought considering mental illness would be to complex or should we simply defer it to the relative lack of knowledge about how mental illness works in general. In other words, mental pathology does not come into play at all. Second thing is that there were so called hermeneutists of suspicion, which by no means were religious. The names mentioned by Paul Ricoeur (the great French hermeneutist) were Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. It was about the fact that there is underlying meaning but it's biased either on social issues (Marx), the Will to Power (Nietzsche) or sexuality (Freud). So while it was important in developing the very thought, it's too biased to take it into account in the existential sense.

I mentioned the idiosyncrasies. In case of Hans-Georg Gadamer, interpreting a work of art takes a form of conversation between the work, set in its time and in its own context, which has to be deciphered, to take the form of fusion of horizons, where the agreement is found. Ricoeur started with anthropology, which means that reading and understanding art leads us to a better understanding of our own humanity. In both cases however, the interpretation is of practical not theoretical use. In other words, our understanding helps us act. As Gadamer says, interpretation doesn't belong to the logos, the theoretical reason (the word, used in Greek philosophy of course connects reason with verbal reasoning, discouse; as opposed to the Latin ratio, which originally had purely mathematical meaning, still retained in English), but rather phronesis, which can be translated as the practical wisdom or prudence.

It's hard to say which interpretations are invalid, however our interpretation of the world (or a work of art, while hermeneutics, as described above, took an aesthetic turn, both Gadamer and Ricoeur constantly repeat that they do accept the existential hermeneutics of Heidegger) informs our action. And that understanding we have makes the subjective world we perceive our own (a caveat, Heidegger, Ricoeur or Gadamer, any of the hermeneutic philosophers in fact, never, in fact, refer to the Far Eastern thought).

Philosophy is the art of drumming one's fingers.

The Five-Man Army

There are five men. One of them is a samurai. Another is Captain Oveur from Airplane. What's the vector, victor? Great, great score by Morricone.

It was a pretty good show for its time, and I remember being bummed when it was cancelled -- ending on a cliffhanger. The music is fine (and I do have the 3CD set, as it was given to me), but lots of merely perfunctory cues. I've been meaning to offer it as a giveaway at some point.

Yes, I also think that this show gave some visual inspiration to the re-invisioned BSG. The same goes IMO for the ill fated WING COMMANDER film.

Not without its flaws, Jurassic World, but a very entertaining ride that seems to know for the most part what people want from a JP flick (which both previous sequels messed up to one degree or another...JP III, this is how you introduce a new major antagonist without shitting all over the true king of all lizards!).

I'm not a huge fan of the Giacchino score, though. Decent thematic material but the action/suspense seemed lackluster to me.

I'm drunk too. So disagree away... bitch.

how can you write so coherentely when you're dunkt?

indeed. one liver per person, pelase.

I agree with everything Steven said about Jurassic World, everything!

I saw EVEREST earlier todaty.

The reviews I read have been middling but I really liked it, I do wonder if I've filled in some gaps in the story telling as I know this story so well ( some of you here know that I was at Everest Base camp only four months after events portrayed in the film ), I felt a connection with the characters and loved the accuracy of the geography, everything other than shots on the peak ( never been there ) are absolutely spot on and it was good to know that there was a lot of location filming, so authentic I was right back there in many scenes. I found the final scenes of the film very moving.

I was mostly too engrossed to notice Marianelli's score except for when the group made the summit where the music really stood out, great piece.

p.s. I'm pissed too. Notice I've made no spelling mistakes you bunch of lightweights!

I was impressed. Great opener [spoiler]and I don't believe either of them are dead.[/spoiler]