
*blinks*

Jonnymedic wrote:Gurnax and Pompej should write a book together
It's not distasteful, it's Nietzschean, so I thought you are going to appreciate it. Nietzsche is the only classical philosopher known for saying things such as: 'George Sand is a milch cow with fine style' or that 'Kant is a typical idiot'. To claim it is distasteful is to fall on a rather pre-Nietzschean, anti-Nietzschean, and in generally pre-modern conservative level.Pompej wrote:First, i would like to exlude Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials from F.Nietzsche cuz its distastefull
You are here confusing dialectics with sophism big time. Dialectics proper resolve thesis-antithesis dynamics in synthesis, while sophism is that which is 'defense weapon of those who are not right'.Pompej wrote:The thing is where we part ways is pretty simple : motion picture. I agree with what you said if i would think like you,there is no doubt about it.Your explanation as how you see cinema are very astute and valid. But lets think like me for a moment : i gave you lot of arguments why this movie would have a Nietzsche premise (if you dont like the sound of it, we can say this conan movie has similar ideas to one german philosopher) and i see all of them well thinked and argumented (to a point when nietzsches books were read ofc). Cuz let say this : for me motion picture is subjective experience.And even if it wasnt i still wouldnt care cuz you make you own rules,you have no choice. You will take other ideas or say " i want this,this is my ruling word".Im not interested in the absolute meaning of motion picture cuz i dont see it like you do.But im far from " all have a right to think what we want,all is true(or nothing is true)". Thats why we have dialetic ,the ultimate defense weapon to be right even if we arnt.
"It's not distasteful, it's Nietzschean, so I thought you are going to appreciate it". Im not Nietzschean nore Kants nore Marxs nore Hegels. Like this movie that is not Nietzschen, in some places conans movie sphere and nietzsche (or somehwere heraklits) philosophy sphere mingle together.Gurnax wrote:Jonnymedic wrote:Gurnax and Pompej should write a book together
It's not distasteful, it's Nietzschean, so I thought you are going to appreciate it. Nietzsche is the only classical philosopher known for saying things such as: 'George Sand is a milch cow with fine style' or that 'Kant is a typical idiot'. To claim it is distasteful is to fall on a rather pre-Nietzschean, anti-Nietzschean, and in generally pre-modern conservative level.Pompej wrote:First, i would like to exlude Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials from F.Nietzsche cuz its distastefull
You are here confusing dialectics with sophism big time. Dialectics proper resolve thesis-antithesis dynamics in synthesis, while sophism is that which is 'defense weapon of those who are not right'.Pompej wrote:The thing is where we part ways is pretty simple : motion picture. I agree with what you said if i would think like you,there is no doubt about it.Your explanation as how you see cinema are very astute and valid. But lets think like me for a moment : i gave you lot of arguments why this movie would have a Nietzsche premise (if you dont like the sound of it, we can say this conan movie has similar ideas to one german philosopher) and i see all of them well thinked and argumented (to a point when nietzsches books were read ofc). Cuz let say this : for me motion picture is subjective experience.And even if it wasnt i still wouldnt care cuz you make you own rules,you have no choice. You will take other ideas or say " i want this,this is my ruling word".Im not interested in the absolute meaning of motion picture cuz i dont see it like you do.But im far from " all have a right to think what we want,all is true(or nothing is true)". Thats why we have dialetic ,the ultimate defense weapon to be right even if we arnt.
Then, you are saying you have a 'different view' and are asking me to consider 'your point of view' - and yet you claim you are 'far from claiming all is true, all have right to think their own way' etc. These two do look mutually exclusive, you must admit.
Although the apparent contradiction can be resolved as followed: if we say that since 1.) you don't admit everyone's right to have equally valid opinions and 2.) you are asking your opinion to be taken into special consideration, then it has to be that 3.) what you are truly asking is to be treated as extraordinary, in opposition to everyone else whose opinion you'd like to be of less value then yours. But it's a wrong thing to ask for when having conversation about movies.
You cannot call elephant a chair just cause you feel like it. Those are two opposed concepts, and dialectics has a fixed meaning referring to a certain concept dating all the way from Plato till this day. In order to draw clear lines of demarcation Plato wrote his dialogue 'Sophists', and today we have clear two fronts in philosophy made by postmodern relativistic approach that inherits sophistry on one side, while having dialectics proper on the opposite side.Pompej wrote: Finally ,i misunderstand sophism and dialetics as the same intentionally. Knowing power of dialetics over a man who does not know them makes dialetics a weapon which can be used to be right even if a man isnt.Eristic dialetic(A.Shopenhauer, my forum picture) is that (maybe i should state that at start ).
We are in the 21st century where movies are made to cash in the cinemas as much as possible, this means making it as simple and visually impressive as possible. The references to other cultures or books must be made explicit as clearly as possible so people can get stunned by believing they actually view a high quality movie with "loads of stuff" in it. Last Conan movie must have felt so blunt that some corpses revolved in anger on their tombs.Gurnax wrote:@Pompej,
What bothers me with this approach, when stitching some philosopher or even some other work of art to a certain piece of cinema, is precisely the 'un-filmical' character of such an act (as in 'not-right-for-that-concrete-medium').
What I mean is, cinema is by definition collective (experience), it is inclusive and therefore it does not suffer exclusivity. Even if you watch a film at home, still it is intended for the masses. It is an industry, a mass medium, and by definition it treats everyone the same/as if everyone is same. And when someone says, like you did here 'Oh, it's actually Nietzsche!' you are trying to somehow bypass this particular cinema's dimension, it's essential characteristic, because you are trying to rise above others in a context that does not allow that kind of exclusion. And in that attempt, I would argue, you only manage to bypass the whole work of cinema and nothing else. And the only thing you gain is something akin to paranoid delusions, where you see 'hidden truths' and 'hidden masters' - whether they are F. Nietzsche, Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials, it amounts to same thing: you miss the film because you look at something else which even might not be there.
I think the first step in approaching film should be to see how it relates to masses, and then count that in as certain film's major achievement. So, if you, like you said, think Milius' Conan movie doesn't really emphasize Nietzsche enough, so that many people believe this quote is there almost by mistake, then that's it: it's not a Nietzschean film and it only flirts with Nietzsche! And, in truth, it might be doing that because it doesn't really need Nietzsche's words - it has it's own language and its own ways of achieving effects of meaning.
I rather like this part and if I didn't know you better I might even believe you. Reason that I don't is your initial all-too-fast readiness to simply discard the second Conan as well as the Momoa one and to classify them as 'cheep'. That's my main point here: opposition 'cheep-high culture' just isn't applicable here - neither to movies nor to video games for that matter.Pompej wrote:But i didnt and i wasnt serching for philosophical premise ,it found me when watching.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests