Movies: Woody Allen's -Match Point-
Chris Cathcart
**** SPOILERS!!! ******
**** SPOILERS!!! ******
So, how didyall like the philosophical issues raised by this film? The
story itself is rather misleading: you have a guy who "gets away" with
murder. Many find this a letdown; the loose end is supposed to be
unraveled and the bad guy is supposed to get his comeuppance. But
Woody takes this in a different, and more subtle, direction. His main
idea is not really a plot-development one at all, but a thematic one.
It *so happens* in the course of the plot that the SOB does "get away
with" murder. By sufficient advance planning, and by some of what we
in common parlance refer to as "dumb luck," the guy gets away with it.
And it so happens that Woody somewhat blatantly throws in some
Ring-of-Gyges symbolism.
On first reaction, there's the response, quite true and understandable,
that the SOB will be haunted for the rest of his days by his own
conscience, so there is some minor consolation in that, even though
this doesn't really alleviate the injustice of the whole thing. But I
think that the actual message has to do with what is more explicitly
stated: the role of "luck" in our lives. Again, it only so happens
that the SOB "gets away" with murder but isn't acting like an egoist in
the sense that Rand speaks of the term, purely at the level of how his
conscience will haunt him. Also keep in mind the response that maybe
he hasn't a conscience at all -- that he's an amoral thug. That's a
little tougher to handle, because after all, can't you have a
supposedly amoral egoist who gets away with stuff that's in his
non-morally-defined interests?
So we now approach this from the angle that was more explicitly
addressed, and where the movie easily ends up being among the more
philosophically challenging ones yet made: the role of "luck." And
while it happens that there are things that we might attribute to
"luck" that affect the course of our lives (really, it means, more
broadly: things that are not altogether within our own control, like
whether, e.g., the cross-traffic truck will stop at the intersection on
red while you're proceeding on green), the movie clearly identifies the
fact that while "dumb luck" works, in hindsight, in the SOB's favor,
it's so improbable that it would work that no rational calculating
person would hope to rely on it ex ante. And it's just for that reason
that we require principles upon which to act, i.e., that we require
virtue.
I think the term "dumb luck" or simply "luck" tends to be used rather
inexactly to describe a real thing that goes on in our lives, in the
sense referred to above -- namely, the things outside of our direct
control. And those are quite a lot of things. Which is, again, why we
need something specific about how *we* ought to act in the face of that
fact. Not how we might try to manipulate circumstances in the hopes
that something will go our way for once; rather, the focus of moral
guidance is on the actions of the agent, not on the contingent
circumstances. (This is part of why consequentialism in ethics is not
so great.)
As it happens, my favorite movie is based on a book titled -The Luck of
Barry Lyndon-. And the movie most adeptly portrays a man whose course
is affected by "luck," and while some commentators take from the movie
a fatalist or social-determinist interpretation (and sloppily so, much
in contrast to the message of the director's previous film, -A
Clockwork Orange-), the movie actually also demonstrates the role of
the title character's own choices in shaping his destiny. The great
thing about both movies (-Match Point- and -Barry Lyndon-) is that they
provide all the necessary content upon which the discerning viewer can
draw his own objective judgment.
I'd like to note also the title terminology: when it comes to match
point, you've gone through so many iterations of play that you are much
less inclined objectively to attribute the end result to "dumb luck."
The "game" played in the film was tightly played despite the odds
against the bad guy, and so you have to raise the question: how did the
other characters in the film fall so short so as to permit the "game"
to be so tightly played? The bad guy acted in ways plenty sufficient
to raise all the right supsicions to at least a few parties, and yet
those parties managed not to act on the opportunities available to
corner him. In sports, I those are called "blown opportunities."
(Much like with my Seahawks in their disappointing Super Bowl outing,
whatever the cruddy officiating.) This points perhaps not so much to
blameworthiness of the parties, as to the reason for why we shouldn't
be so surprised that "the game" ended up being so tight.
David Buchner
> **** SPOILERS!!! ******
Damn. You've just informed me that there's another Woody Allen movie out
for me to see. Now I can't read or reply to your post until it comes out
on DVD and I go get it and see it.
Ken Gardner
>Damn. You've just informed me that there's another Woody Allen movie out
>for me to see. Now I can't read or reply to your post until it comes out
>on DVD and I go get it and see it.
I have never seen a Woody Allen movie. And as long as there are sock
drawers to re-arrange, Olympic curling on television, or smoke alarm
batteries to change, that fact won't change.
Ken
Atlas Bugged
news:1hb40mz.j3tswhghk2tvN%buc...@wcta.net...
Ditto. I'll simply have to return to the post, which I stopped reading two
sentences in. There were likely fewer than ten great living filmmakers in
the world, including Woody, until Kubrick had to go and make it nine.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Ditto. I'll simply have to return to the post, which I stopped reading two
> sentences in. There were likely fewer than ten great living filmmakers in
> the world, including Woody, until Kubrick had to go and make it nine.
I which movie did Kubrick jump the shark. I thought it was AI. Or was
it -Eyes Wide Shut- (what a piece of crap!).
Bob Kolker
Chris Cathcart
Yeah . . . I never really did think much of your film literacy levels.
BTW, are you color blind in addition to tone deaf?
n
n
n
n
n
n
Robert J. Kolker
I see color just fine, particularly in the infra red range.
Did you find -Eyes Wide Shit- to be a good film? If so, it just goes to
prove that in matters of taste there is no point arguing. As to -AI-, it
is hard to figure out who to blame: Kubrick or Spielberg. It was
dreadful, none the less. I am sorry I saw it. I left the theatre quite
depressed. I got more yuks from Chechov's -Three Sisters-.
Bob Kolker
David Buchner
> I which movie did Kubrick jump the shark. I thought it was AI. Or was
> it -Eyes Wide Shut- (what a piece of crap!).
Alright, now.
Who just recently gave Bob the term "jump the shark"? 'Cuz it seems like
his new favorite thing to say. About everything.
I thought Kubrick didn't make _AI_. On account of being dead and stuff.
And that's why Spielberg made it. No?
To be honest, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what makes
Kubrick so super-duper. Not saying he's not, necessarily -- just that
I'm not so sure anymore. I mean, I love the space stuff in _2001_, and
back at one time, I raved about _Clockwork Orange_ and _Full Metal
Jacket_. But there's tons and tons of movies I'm much fonder of and I
don't feel compelled to go and re-watch his (except the space scenes in
_2001_, obviously).
Atlasbugged
news:dthfkh$eu9$2...@victor.killfile.org...
> I which movie did Kubrick jump the shark. I thought it was AI. Or was
> it -Eyes Wide Shut- (what a piece of crap!).
AI jumped shark because some braniac decided to take one of the planet's
most mature and adult filmmaker's material and hand it over (posthumously)
to one of the planet's most juvenile filmmakers to realize.
Eyes Wide Shut was brilliant, you might want to look at it again as multiple
viewings helped me.
Otherwise I am sorry that the photons emitted from this particular
arrangement of molecules interacted badly with your meat-machine.
There have been significant problems preserving film in recent years, but
meat preservation has been a far more challenging problem. You might want
to consider your own deterioration in judging the film.
--
"Dave...Dave...I think my mind is going."
Robert J. Kolker
> Robert J. Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I which movie did Kubrick jump the shark. I thought it was AI. Or was
>>it -Eyes Wide Shut- (what a piece of crap!).
>
>
> Alright, now.
> Who just recently gave Bob the term "jump the shark"? 'Cuz it seems like
> his new favorite thing to say. About everything.
>
> I thought Kubrick didn't make _AI_. On account of being dead and stuff.
> And that's why Spielberg made it. No?
He Kubrick set up production for the movie and approved the script. Then
he died. I don't blame him. If I read the script I might have died too.
Spielberg rightly bears the blame for the final product.
Bob Kolker
Atlasbugged
> To be honest, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what makes
> Kubrick so super-duper. Not saying he's not, necessarily -- just that
> I'm not so sure anymore. I mean, I love the space stuff in _2001_, and
> back at one time, I raved about _Clockwork Orange_ and _Full Metal
> Jacket_. But there's tons and tons of movies I'm much fonder of and I
> don't feel compelled to go and re-watch his (except the space scenes in
> _2001_, obviously).
I understand your point, but let me try to help you understand why Kubrick
merits such consideration.
When you look at 2001, as a whole, what sci-fi movie was better? Some
people think "Aliens" is impressive sci-fi (I do), but looked at as a whole
it included some cardboard characters, some obvious cliche stuff, even
though the payoff(s) were just spectacular.
Put your list of sci-fi best-evers together, and see what goes above 2001.
Even the current state-of-the-art (i.e., FIREFLY) has weaknesses and is
somewhat compromising in the sense that it seeks to be entertaining and use
fairly standard techniques (mixed with the brilliant stuff.) Ask yourself
what 2001 did that was "standard" in any sense of the word.
FMJ can be considered in the same way. Watch it side-by-side with the
acclaimed "Platoon," and you will see that the latter was junk.
If you've not yet seen Kubrick's swan song, "Eyes Wide Shut," it too is
riveting and utterly original. And Nicole Kidman gets naked, a considerable
fringe benefit.
This is my list of top sci-fi's which you can use to assemble at least part
of yours:
http://www.ymdb.com/atlasbugged/l22830_ukuk.html
Chris Cathcart
Atlasbugged wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:dthfkh$eu9$2...@victor.killfile.org...
> > I which movie did Kubrick jump the shark. I thought it was AI. Or was
> > it -Eyes Wide Shut- (what a piece of crap!).
>
> AI jumped shark because some braniac decided to take one of the planet's
> most mature and adult filmmaker's material
Titillating as his films may have been, Kubrick didn't make adult
films.
> and hand it over (posthumously)
> to one of the planet's most juvenile filmmakers to realize.
>
> Eyes Wide Shut was brilliant, you might want to look at it again as multiple
> viewings helped me.
Anyone trying to view the movie they would your standard
straight-storytelling movie, is going to be sorely disappointed. Your
standard movie-goer won't even sit up and take note of the movie's
next-level visual craft.
> "Dave...Dave...I think my mind is going."
He's jumped the shark.
Chris Cathcart
Atlasbugged wrote:
> Put your list of sci-fi best-evers together, and see what goes above 2001.
You may have noticed, Kubrick ventured into various genres. And
arguably, in each genre, he conquered. The horror genre, for instance,
has some inherent limitations (the fact that you can't take the
supernatural seriously is the chief one), and Kubrick pushed it about
as far as it could go (and he deliberately left that part ambiguous,
BTW; the only others seriously in league with it as horror are either
psychological horror like Roeg's -Don't Look Now- or Lyne's -Jacob's
Ladder-, or cross-genre sci-fi pics like -Alien- or -Terminator- [which
carries with it its own inherent limitations, qua time-travel movie]).
For period films, none that I've seen tops -Barry Lyndon-. Comedy?
Besides all the dark humor throughout tons of his works, -Dr.
Strangelove- is strictly in the genre, and is right up there with, I
dunno, -The Big Lebowski-. -Paths of Glory- and -Full Metal Jacket-
are war-movie classics. -The Killing- is a standard-setter amongst
heist films. -Eyes Wide Shut- is perhaps a genre unto itself; nothing
I know of compares to it, not even really in a superficial way. (For
instance, what other movie presents as a dream-story and, in keeping
with the logic of many folks' dream-experience, never anywhere
explicitly reveals itself as such? Or what other movie has a visual
feel anything like EWS's?)
My own favorite is -Barry Lyndon-, which not a small number of folks
regards as one of his three finest movies (-2001- and either -EWS- or
-Dr. Stranglove- being the others). Probably more than any other movie
I know, it brings together the whole package of what you'd look for in
a film -- storyline with intellectual and moral substance, elements
from all kinds of genres, perfection in visual presentation and
filmmaking technique.
While some may not love Kubrick's films I see that more as a matter of
taste than whether he can truly be respected and admired as a
grandmaster of moviemaking, which isn't really disputable at all. (I
could say personally that I don't especially enjoy watching -2001-
especially relative to his other works, but that and not -Barry Lyndon-
might well be the best film ever made, at least high up in the running
with 3 or 4 other usual suspects.) I'm sure you've noticed, BTW, that
all those nice space scenes in -2001- still look better and more
realistic than all the computer-generated stuff to come since.
Kubrick had such consistently superb visual craft in addition to
everything else, that just to *look at* them is a pleasure in its own
right. Some people's tastes may lead them towards a Hitchcock or a
Kurosawa or ... but I've thought of Kubrick as one whose appeal needn't
really depend on a particular viewing taste. The visual appeal is too
apparent, the stories are too entertaining, etc. This isn't to say
that only Kubrick films top my list of favorites -- there are plenty of
others, it's just that his films show up with a significantly greater
frequency than anyone else's.
( http://geocities.com/cathcacr/top50movies.html )
As Bugged would say, now all you have to do is figure out the 50% of
the films on the list that are bad picks....
> If you've not yet seen Kubrick's swan song, "Eyes Wide Shut," it too is
> riveting and utterly original. And Nicole Kidman gets naked, a considerable
> fringe benefit.
Unfortunately, there aren't any lezbo scenes with her in it. (And
somehow -The Hours- just doesn't quite meet expectations in that
department....)
Robert J. Kolker
> While some may not love Kubrick's films I see that more as a matter of
> taste than whether he can truly be respected and admired as a
> grandmaster of moviemaking, which isn't really disputable at all. (I
> could say personally that I don't especially enjoy watching -2001-
> especially relative to his other works, but that and not -Barry Lyndon-
> might well be the best film ever made, at least high up in the running
> with 3 or 4 other usual suspects.) I'm sure you've noticed, BTW, that
> all those nice space scenes in -2001- still look better and more
> realistic than all the computer-generated stuff to come since.
Kubric showed action in the vacuum of space faithfully. No sound! In
just about every other move you hear souncs, particularly explosions. It
turns out that the silence of space lacks dramatic pzazz.
Also the quality of Kubric's FX was outstanding. He was able to produce
without computer graphics effects that have not been exceed in quality
even with CGI.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
news:1140752095....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Titillating as his films may have been, Kubrick didn't make adult
> films.
You are misunderstanding the word as I am using it. It's a bit Randian - I
make my own claim to the word "adult" and I disclaim the general world's
bastardization of it to mean XXX rated.
>
>> Eyes Wide Shut was brilliant, you might want to look at it again as
>> multiple
>> viewings helped me.
>
> Anyone trying to view the movie they would your standard
> straight-storytelling movie, is going to be sorely disappointed.
I disagree; it couldn't be more different than your beloved "Mulholland
Disjointed Dreamsequence" if it tried. EWS absolutely has story structure.
As with most Kubrick films, it hands you something very fucking oddball here
and there, but we *all* (i.e., any average viewer) know the basic story
structure after leaving EWS. No one has a clue at the end of "Mulholland
Lesbos." And just because I may have watched selections from "Mulholland"
about seventy times doesn't change this evaluation.
>Your
> standard movie-goer won't even sit up and take note of the movie's
> next-level visual craft.
The viewer needn't be aware of all the aspects of multi-layered,
collaborative art, as film is. Hundreds of people work on a film, adding
numerous aspects. (One died making 2001.) But it obviously matters who's
at the top of the food chain, who's the , uhh, fountainhead.
David Buchner
> I understand your point, but let me try to help you understand why Kubrick
> merits such consideration.
>
> When you look at 2001, as a whole, what sci-fi movie was better? Some
> people think "Aliens" is impressive sci-fi (I do), but looked at as a whole
> it included some cardboard characters, some obvious cliche stuff, even
> though the payoff(s) were just spectacular.
But aren't the _2001_ characters cardboard? Or rather, wooden?
Deliberately, I mean. It's really not a thrill ride. It's really, really
not inspiring. And that's what I look to science fiction FOR: "...could
be and should be," and all that.
It's very pretty, though. I'm starting to think of it as more a sci-fi
documentary, if that makes any sense. Sort of like your example of "A
complete day on board Serenity."
I love science fiction; I also am fanatical about space travel. I'll
leave the NASA channel on all day long during a shuttle flight. I tear
up watching Apollo launches. So I love the technological world _2001_
shows me. But in a certain sense, it doesn't resonate with me beyond
what live spacewalk video does.
I dunno. It's been a while since I watched it. Rewinding VHS is such a
drag.
> Put your list of sci-fi best-evers together, and see what goes above 2001.
There'd be something.
Whatever it would be, I'd put something there that engendered some sort
of fondness.
_2001_ is a technically brilliant piece of work, science and
effects-wise, but I'm drifting away from thinking of it as great SF.
> If you've not yet seen Kubrick's swan song, "Eyes Wide Shut," it too is
> riveting and utterly original. And Nicole Kidman gets naked, a considerable
> fringe benefit.
Can I just buy that part of the movie?
> This is my list of top sci-fi's which you can use to assemble at least part
> of yours:
> http://www.ymdb.com/atlasbugged/l22830_ukuk.html
Yes, I've looked at your list before, and I find much to agree with
there. Also, some weird stuff. Looking over that list, one is reminded
of just how slim the pickins' have been, in 70 or so years.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I love science fiction; I also am fanatical about space travel. I'll
> leave the NASA channel on all day long during a shuttle flight. I tear
> up watching Apollo launches. So I love the technological world _2001_
> shows me. But in a certain sense, it doesn't resonate with me beyond
> what live spacewalk video does.
If Apollo launches make you sob, then the fact that NASA destroyed the
blue prints and specs for Apollo should make you scream and tear your
hair out. It turns out the that non-reusible Apollo vehicle is way more
cost-effective than the Shuttle. The Shuttle is an Abomination. Do you
know why ISS Alpha Shithole One is in a low orbit? Because we do not
have a man rated lifter at this stage for going higher. The energy
budget is out of reach of the Shittle. We have to rely on the Russian
vehicles to get there now that are Shittles have been grounded. NASA is
such a corrupt and miserable organization, just thinking about it makes
me spit.
I hate NASA more than the IRS. The IRS just robs us. NASA management
exhale lies along with carbon dioxide gas. It was NASA management that
kill the Challenger and Columbias crews, sure as shit. NASA lied to the
public about the real costs of Shittle missions. They -lied to pilots-
about the safety of the ship. That is an unthinkable sin. You never,
never, ever lie to the test pilots. People who do that will burn in Hell
for a trillion years.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
[...]
> Yes, I've looked at your list before, and I find much to agree with
> there. Also, some weird stuff. Looking over that list, one is reminded
> of just how slim the pickins' have been, in 70 or so years.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you still haven't answered the question. What sci-fi film
do you think tops 2001 and why?
Robert J. Kolker
> A couple of the choices seem a little on the weaker side, but I love
> all these films. I would probably exclude things that are more
> horror-ish, though that may lead to some classification problems.
> Because if I include them, then a whole ton of Cronenberg gets in, esp.
> _Videodrome_ and _The Fly_.
Heeellllppp meeee. Heeellllllpppp meee! To this day the ending of the
original -The Fly- makes my skin crawl.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
>To be honest, I'm having a difficult time understanding just what makes
>Kubrick so super-duper. Not saying he's not, necessarily -- just that
>I'm not so sure anymore. I mean, I love the space stuff in _2001_, and
>back at one time, I raved about _Clockwork Orange_ and _Full Metal
>Jacket_. But there's tons and tons of movies I'm much fonder of and I
>don't feel compelled to go and re-watch his (except the space scenes in
>_2001_, obviously).
I don't know about super-duper either, but Kubrick is original and
interesting in a way that no one else is. When you see his movies,
you experience things that you never see in any other movie. You
don't get that boring feeling that you have seen a particular movie a
million times even when watching it the first time.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>This is my list of top sci-fi's which you can use to assemble at least part
>of yours:
>http://www.ymdb.com/atlasbugged/l22830_ukuk.html
Wow. That is a very lean list. There is only one movie worth
watching on this entire list. At least it was ranked correctly.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>> Put your list of sci-fi best-evers together, and see what goes above 2001.
>
>There'd be something.
Total Recall? Blade Runner?
Ken
Ken Gardner
>The Man Who Fell To Earth_ (which has an
>interesting, Shruggy subplot) and _Zardoz_.
I hated Zardoz, but it did have one of the all-time best music
soundtracks. :)
Ken
Atlas Bugged
>>This is my list of top sci-fi's which you can use to assemble at least
>>part
>>of yours:
>
>>http://www.ymdb.com/atlasbugged/l22830_ukuk.html
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:v91102dn452en3jii...@4ax.com...
> Wow. That is a very lean list. There is only one movie worth
> watching on this entire list. At least it was ranked correctly.
You live in - and identify with - a state that still sees horses as a
senisble mode of transportation. I'm not sure you're exactly a road map for
sci-fi.
My list excluded all but sci-fi. Name *one* sci-fi film that was rightly
excluded from my list - and why.
Ken Gardner
>> Wow. That is a very lean list. There is only one movie worth
>> watching on this entire list. At least it was ranked correctly.
>You live in - and identify with - a state that still sees horses as a
>senisble mode of transportation. I'm not sure you're exactly a road map for
>sci-fi.
>My list excluded all but sci-fi. Name *one* sci-fi film that was rightly
>excluded from my list - and why.
Huh? I wasn't arguing with you. I was commenting on how few
genuinely good science fiction movies there are. I'm talking about my
preferences, not yours. Then again, I hate about 99 percent of all
movies.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
-Total Recall- was an entertaining Schwartzenneger action flick. Blade
Runner had a but more to it. It raised some interesting questions.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
>>My list excluded all but sci-fi. Name *one* sci-fi film that was rightly
>>excluded from my list - and why.
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:g071021o88fosm1do...@4ax.com...
> Huh? I wasn't arguing with you. I was commenting on how few
> genuinely good science fiction movies there are.
Yes, that's correct. I had to scramble quite a bit just to assemble that
many for the list.
>I'm talking about my
> preferences, not yours. Then again, I hate about 99 percent of all
> movies.
Sturgeon's Law. You're only a few percent off.
There was a movie guide - I think it was Halliwell's - that had no stars
after most of the movies. I thought it was a misprinting of some kind, but
later I learned that was simply his position.
John Alway
2001 had two things going for it. The visuals at the beginning, and
the HAL part in the middle. The end was a disaster. I *hated* that
part. HAL made the movie a hit, and for that reason I'd place it
among my favorite science fiction movies. David mentioned the acting.
Funny, I never thought much about that part, but he's right. The
acting was wooden. Still, it seemed to work in the film.
However, I preferred The Forbidden Planet, Star Wars (the whole
saga), Blade Runner, The Day the Earth Stood Still (despite its left
wing message), Silent Running, Logan's Run. I'd say Star Trek, but all
of the movies were pretty lame, with the exception of the Wrath of
Khan.
Btw, since this is a Woody Allen thread, the movie "Sleeper" is a
must see sci-fi/comedy. Please pass the salt.
For sci-fi television series:
Star Trek 2nd gen is easily the best.
Star Trek the original
Dr. Who
Blake's Seven
Battle Star,
Despite the frenetic pace of FarScape, I thought it was pretty
good.
I place the Star Trek TV series (both mentioned), as the best
sci-fi, period. Better than any of the movies.
For comedies, Red Dwarf is one of the best all time comedy series,
sci-fi or otherwise.
...John
David Buchner
> never, ever lie to the test pilots. People who do that will burn in Hell
> for a trillion years.
A special Hell.
David Buchner
> You live in - and identify with - a state that still sees horses as a
> senisble mode of transportation. I'm not sure you're exactly a road map for
> sci-fi.
Ahem.
_filler_
)filler(
Chris Cathcart
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> > Atlas Bugged wrote:
> >>My list excluded all but sci-fi. Name *one* sci-fi film that was rightly
> >>excluded from my list - and why.
>
> "Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:g071021o88fosm1do...@4ax.com...
> > Huh? I wasn't arguing with you. I was commenting on how few
> > genuinely good science fiction movies there are.
>
> Yes, that's correct. I had to scramble quite a bit just to assemble that
> many for the list.
The only sci-fi that provides serious competition to -2001- is
Tarkovksy's -Solaris-. And you really have to be able to put up with
Tarkovksy's languid pacing, heavy dialoguing, etc. Many movie-viewers
just wouldn't be able to stand it, and it's the main reason that few
movie-lovers mention him (if they even know him, that is) in the same
light as Kubrick, Bergman, Hitch, Welles, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc.
(It's even more the case with the likes of Bresson and Dreyer. As for
Tark, I've gotten impatient enough with the bad stuff that he's got to
overwhelm that by the good stuff to keep my interest, as he does in
-Nostalghia-: dialoguing to a minimum, visual mastery and poetry at its
best, for the most part. -Mirror- would be his best were it not for
the aggravation from the bad stuff.) But you were asking for a Truly
Serious Sci-Fi list, and it's got 2, maybe 3 movies, depending on what
you think of -Blade Runner-. I note that they both were made ('68;
'72) smack dab in the middle of my favorite era for movies.
> >I'm talking about my
> > preferences, not yours. Then again, I hate about 99 percent of all
> > movies.
>
> Sturgeon's Law. You're only a few percent off.
>
> There was a movie guide - I think it was Halliwell's - that had no stars
> after most of the movies. I thought it was a misprinting of some kind, but
> later I learned that was simply his position.
I think the single best movie resource available right now is the book
-1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die-. Mainly because it's got the
bulk of greatest movies in there (arranged by year of release) and
useful indices by genre, director and title. I've listed a number of
other great weeding-out resources at
http://geocities.com/cathcacr/moviebuff.html
BTW, perhaps I could kindly persuade you to a reconsideration of -Barry
Lyndon-. With Coop and me both giving it the highest praise, the
chances of it not being great is now down to only 25%. Of course,
we're both wrong about -Lebowski-. Seeing as we each both love -EWS-
and the early -Godfather- movies, -Lebowski- may have been that quotal
1 of 4 in this admittedly small sample.
Chris Cathcart
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> > Atlas Bugged wrote:
> >>My list excluded all but sci-fi. Name *one* sci-fi film that was rightly
> >>excluded from my list - and why.
>
> "Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:g071021o88fosm1do...@4ax.com...
> > Huh? I wasn't arguing with you. I was commenting on how few
> > genuinely good science fiction movies there are.
>
> Yes, that's correct. I had to scramble quite a bit just to assemble that
> many for the list.
Speaking of the 1001 Movies... book, here are the ones they list for
sci-fi, with my personal 4-star rating by each (1001 may be too many
for strict quality purposes, considering what's included).
2001; 4/4
Abre Los Ojos; 3/4 (see also Vanilla Sky for its American remake)
Akira; N/R
Alien; 3.5/4
Aliens; 3/4
Alphaville; 2.5/4 (you have to like Godard)
AI; 3.5/4 (Kubrick gets 4, Spielberg his standard 2.5; I averaged it
up)
Back to the Future; 3/4
Blade Runner; 3/4
Brazil; 3/4 (you have to like Gilliam)
Bride of Frankenstein; seen it but N/R
A Clockwork Orange; 4/4
Close Encounters of the Third Kind; 2.5/4
Dawn of the Dead; 1.5/4
The Day the Earth Stood Still; 3/4
Delicatessen; 2.5/4
Dernier Combat, Le [The Last Battle]; N/R
Dr. Strangelove; 4/4
E.T.; 3/4
Empire Strikes Back; 3/4
Fantastic Planet; 3/4
The Fly ('86); 3/4
Forbidden Planet; 3/4
Frankenstein; seen it but N/R
Ghostbusters; 2.5/4
Incredible Shrinking Man; N/R
Independence Day; 1/4
Invasion of the Body Snatchers; seen it but N/R
La Jetee; 3.5/4
Jurassic Park; 2/4
Mad Max; 2.5/4
The Man Who Fell to Earth; 3, maybe 3.5/4
The Matrix; 2/4
Metropolis; seen it but N/R
Naked Lunch; 2.5/4 (you have to like Cronenberg)
Night of the Living Dead; 2.5/4
Pi; 3/4
Planet of the Apes; 3/4
The Quiet Earth; N/R
Return of the Jedi; 2.5/4
Rocky Horror Picture Show; (I can barely stand it - 1.5/4)
Seconds; 3.5, maybe 4/4 (Frankenheimer's best along with Manchurian
Candidate)
Sleeper; 3/4
Solaris; 4/4
Stalker; 4/4 (Tarkovsky; calling this genre-sci-fi is a stretch)
Star Wars; 3/4
Strange Days; (solid sleeper - 3/4)
The Terminator; 3.5/4
Terminator 2; 3/4
Tetsuo; somewhere between 1.5 and 3/4
The Thing; 3/4 but need to re-watch
Things to Come; N/R
Total Recall; 3/4
A Trip to the Moon; N/R
Videodrome; 3/4
The War Game; N/R
Skimming through the book, I re-noticed John Waters' -Pink Flamingos-.
As a movie, it's zero stars; as a deliberate piece of shit, it's 4. A
split opinion not too unlike that for another that I skimmed to: -Salo:
120 Days of Sodom-, a thoroughly repugnant film to watch but effective
as a statement on fascism, with the feel akin to watching concentration
camp footage to boot. Be forewarned: as it happens, these may be the
only 2 movies in the book where characters eat shit.
Chris Cathcart
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "Chris Cathcart" <cath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140752095....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Titillating as his films may have been, Kubrick didn't make adult
> > films.
>
> You are misunderstanding the word as I am using it. It's a bit Randian - I
> make my own claim to the word "adult" and I disclaim the general world's
> bastardization of it to mean XXX rated.
Lame attempt at humor; my apologies.
> >> Eyes Wide Shut was brilliant, you might want to look at it again as
> >> multiple
> >> viewings helped me.
> >
> > Anyone trying to view the movie they would your standard
> > straight-storytelling movie, is going to be sorely disappointed.
>
> I disagree; it couldn't be more different than your beloved "Mulholland
> Disjointed Dreamsequence" if it tried. EWS absolutely has story structure.
As far as story structure goes, it is indeed a whole lot different than
-MD-. Kubrick is tons more subtle about the story he's telling as a
dream-story. There's no need to take everything in it literally, and
there's at least one part that's virtually a dead-giveaway that it
isn't literal (when the man in the upper balcony at the masked orgy
turns to him and nods). Kubrick's aim isn't really much of a
what's-real-and-what-isn't question-raiser or whodunit kind of thing
anyway, so much as a psychological exploration or journey. But it
certainly has an unorthodox storytelling structure, and for that
reason. Kubrick's playing around too much with the traditional
narrative structure; the fact that a lot of it doesn't tie together
well is just a result. The "what's real and what isn't" stuff really
isn't important at all; more important is that some of it may be, and
some of it may not be. That it's almost always ambiguous (and subtly
so) as to which is which, is why it's more importantly a psychological
experience. Of course, this is all just plain and straightforward
factual background about the story behind the movie (-Traumnovelle-
[-Dream Story-] by Schniztler, a Freudian) and its appeal to Kubrick
that's readily available.
> As with most Kubrick films, it hands you something very fucking oddball here
> and there, but we *all* (i.e., any average viewer) know the basic story
> structure after leaving EWS.
No, I think most people want to view it as a literal story rather than
an inner psychological one, and that's why so many are disappointed by
it. The basic gist goes over a lot of folks' heads. Just think of the
way it was marketed, vs. what movie-goers actually got, and they're
going to be disappointed.
That said, it's one of a number of pinnacles of Kubrick's filmmaking
career. You get the standard engrossing storyline (despite or perhaps
because of its deliberate messiness as narrative), and as cinematic
art, it's first-rate.
> No one has a clue at the end of "Mulholland
> Lesbos." And just because I may have watched selections from "Mulholland"
> about seventy times doesn't change this evaluation.
-MD- just has a different kind of aim than -EWS-, so it's doing it
differently. You either go for Lynch's approach to "storytelling" or
you don't, and you don't, so that's all well and cleared up. What does
make -EWS- something special compared to pretty much any other "dream
movie" I've seen is its sublety; it isn't obviously dream-logical and
so doesn't blatantly invite the viewer to think that some dream story
is going on and then start wondering what is what. For -EWS- it isn't
important what is what, for one thing. For another, it's true to
dream-experience, at least for that of most folks; most folks in their
dream accept what they're experiencing as real. -MD- is too fucked-up
narratively for that, and/though doesn't have the dis/advantage of most
other dream-movies of giving away specifically which is which.
As to -MD-, the which-is-which part isn't really all that important,
either; I've given up in boredom trying to figure it out anyway; Lynch
himself could really care less and probably doesn't know anyway
himself. What does emerge from it, and I think standard analyses have
come to agree on this, is an indictment of the Hollywood movie-making
system and culture, with an hommage to -Sunset Blvd-, which is known to
be one of Lynch's most favorite movies. Doesn't it make more sense in
that context? You have the main character telling his story from
beyond the grave, having been killed by another main character. The
similarity in titles. Only one of the movies has a Wilderian
storytelling format, another a Lynchian one.
>
> >Your
> > standard movie-goer won't even sit up and take note of the movie's
> > next-level visual craft.
>
> The viewer needn't be aware of all the aspects of multi-layered,
> collaborative art, as film is. Hundreds of people work on a film, adding
> numerous aspects. (One died making 2001.) But it obviously matters who's
> at the top of the food chain, who's the , uhh, fountainhead.
Well, see, the form of presentation in film is a visual and aural one.
We already know the ways in which Kubrick is master of the soundtrack,
and how a Morricone score can enhance a film. Kubrick knew what he was
doing as far as presenting a unity between content and form. And so
you get subtle but deliberate effects like the slight graininess of
image in -EWS-. Visually it's a totally unique film - not just the
lavish sets but the way that they're lit and filmed. It goes beyond
any of Kubrick's previous films, as great as -Barry Lyndon- is in its
own way. In purely visual terms, you have to go to someone like
Tarkovksy to get something near or on that level. (There are plenty of
visually beautiful films out there, and beautiful in different ways,
but before discovering Tark I thought it couldn't get any better than
in -EWS-. But I'm telling you, your average movie-goer doesn't
appreciate this kind of thing. Your average movie-goer is also your
average music-listener, remember. Only a few appreciate classical
music or beauty in music, period.)
BTW, a really nice challenge, one I haven't even really tackled yet, is
what movies are beautiful, period, not just beautiful visually. But
I'll throw out there a few ideas of movies with great expressive
beauty-truth and leave explanations for some other time:
Barry Lyndon
EWS
Nostalghia
Mirror
Andrei Rublev
Persona
Hour of the Wolf
Shame
Wild Strawberries
Fanny and Alexander
Vertigo
Day of Wrath
Gertrud
[some would say Dreyer's -Ordet-]
McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Woman in the Dunes
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Once Upon a Time in America
Manhattan
[a number of Bresson films, according to his fans]
Tristana
Harold and Maude :-)
[-In the Mood for Love-, according to some]
Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter . . . and Spring
Come and See
Aguirre, Wrath of God
Taxi Driver
Gangs of New York
Godfather 1+2
Apocalypse Now
Ikiru
Dersu Uzala
Cyclo
Three Colors: Blue
Citizen Kane
Mulholland Dr. :-)
The Straight Story
The Elephant Man
American Beauty?
Chinatown?
Casablanca?
All of Terrence Malick's films?
Of course, this is very much personal perspective; I see these lists
people make of most beautiful pieces of music, and often times I just
don't see (hear) it.
Atlas Bugged
> Speaking of the 1001 Movies... book, here are the ones they list for
> sci-fi, with my personal 4-star rating by each (1001 may be too many
> for strict quality purposes, considering what's included).
Cathcart never fails to be right about half the time - and never tells you
which half. That said, let's try to nudge him into a higher hit-rate. Your
Bugged host will add stars from 1 to 4 and clean Chris up. "n/a" means it's
something I didn't see.
>
> 2001; 4/4****
> Abre Los Ojos; 3/4 (see also Vanilla Sky for its American remake)*
> Akira; N/Rn/a
> Alien; 3.5/4***
> Aliens; 3/4****
> Alphaville; 2.5/4 (you have to like Godard)*
> AI; 3.5/4 (Kubrick gets 4, Spielberg his standard 2.5; I averaged it
> up)
It's one movie, please, and it's an unmitigated mess.
> Back to the Future; 3/4*
> Blade Runner; 3/4**
> Brazil; 3/4 (you have to like Gilliam)*
> Bride of Frankenstein; seen it but N/R
There are many versions of this, most get around *.
> A Clockwork Orange; 4/4**
> Close Encounters of the Third Kind; 2.5/4*
> Dawn of the Dead; 1.5/4
Two versions exist, but both are ***
> The Day the Earth Stood Still; 3/4***
> Delicatessen; 2.5/4n/a
> Dernier Combat, Le [The Last Battle]; N/Rn/a
> Dr. Strangelove; 4/4
This isn't sci-fi.
> E.T.; 3/4*
> Empire Strikes Back; 3/4*
> Fantastic Planet; 3/4**
> The Fly ('86); 3/4*
> Forbidden Planet; 3/4***
A tough call because it really deserves four, but it was literally made to
be a "B" movie. But for 2001, it is the most "classic" of classic sci-fi,
partly because it is essentially primordial Star Trek.
> Frankenstein; seen it but N/R*
> Ghostbusters; 2.5/4*
> Incredible Shrinking Man; N/R***
> Independence Day; 1/4*
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers; seen it but N/R
Two versions, earlier *** but later drops to **
> La Jetee; 3.5/4n/a
> Jurassic Park; 2/4***
> Mad Max; 2.5/4*
> The Man Who Fell to Earth; 3, maybe 3.5/4*
> The Matrix; 2/4*
> Metropolis; seen it but N/R*
> Naked Lunch; 2.5/4 (you have to like Cronenberg)*
> Night of the Living Dead; 2.5/4***
> Pi; 3/4n/a
> Planet of the Apes; 3/4***
> The Quiet Earth; N/R***
This gem is almost impossible to obtain, no one really even knows of it.
> Return of the Jedi; 2.5/4*
> Rocky Horror Picture Show; (I can barely stand it - 1.5/4)0
> Seconds; 3.5, maybe 4/4 (Frankenheimer's best along with Manchurian
> Candidate)***
> Sleeper; 3/4 Not really sci-fi.
> Solaris; 4/4, the new one? Are you joking? Terrible.
> Stalker; 4/4 (Tarkovsky; calling this genre-sci-fi is a stretch) Right.
> N/R
> Star Wars; 3/4*
> Strange Days; (solid sleeper - 3/4)**
> The Terminator; 3.5/4****
> Terminator 2; 3/4***
> Tetsuo; somewhere between 1.5 and 3/4n/a
> The Thing; 3/4 but need to re-watch
Two versions, plus many re-cuts of the later version, but all versions just
miss tops***
> Things to Come; N/R**
> Total Recall; 3/4**
> A Trip to the Moon; N/R*
> Videodrome; 3/4*, and the one star is for naked Debby Harry.
> The War Game; N/R*
LEFT OUT: Many top sci-fi's:
TERMINATOR 3***
THE ABYSS***
HOLLOW MAN***, a remake of THE INVISIBLE MAN***
FINAL FANTASY**, a breakthrough in animation.
THE BEAST/20,000 FATHOMS*** remade as THE GIANT BEHEMOTH**
IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE***, the clear source for ALIEN.
KING KONG****, its sequels SON OF and MIGHTY JOE YOUNG***, and the new Peter
Jackson one gets***
FANTASTIC VOYAGE***
THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR***, a non-stupid version of THE MATRIX*
2010***
CONTACT***
I, ROBOT***
SERENITY***
In the end, I don't doubt that there are fewer than 25 really watchable
sci-fi's ever made.
Many of the films on Chris's list are only very marginally sci-fi, such as
the remarkable SECONDS, which is great as horror and as psychodrama, but
little real sci-fi. Everything I've listed is extremely explicit sci-fi.
Finally, if you like Twilight Zone, which was only occasionally sci-fi, its
clear starting point is the excellent 1945 DEAD OF NIGHT.
David Buchner
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, you still haven't answered the question. What sci-fi film
> do you think tops 2001 and why?
Oh dear, here I go...
Well, Ken mentions _Blade Runner_. That certainly *feels* more science
fictiony when I'm watching it.
By the way, the SF word I should have used before, that I feel like
_2001_ is somehow lacking in, is *wonder*.
(I'd sure love to see a movie made of RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA)
Almost all of my focus has been on TV for the last few years, so I don't
have a clear perspective here. And I don't pay too much attention to the
"movie vs. TV show" distinction -- so I have more material to pick from.
But as far as "what I go to sci-fi for"-wise, if I limit artificially to
released-in-the-theaters movies... I'm thinking I'd put _Close
Encounters_ or even one of the Star Trek movies up there. I think your
criteria and mine are just... different.
(Go ahead: tell me I'm a hopeless geek. Tell me I'm a sappy
sentimentalist with unrefined tastes. Call me a backwoods hick. Perhaps
you will use the word, "phillistine." I can take it. ;-)
That, and I also have a tendency to find redeeming stuff in otherwise
quirky or deeply flawed movies (thanks to my cousin Kevin for seeding
this perspective with PHANTASM when I must have been 15 or so). I'm
probably alone in finding some sci-fi fan satisfaction in SOLAR CRISIS,
CHERRY 2000, DEMOLITION MAN, EVENT HORIZON, and many others.
Oh, and of course: SERENITY's going to have to knock most of the list
down one place too. I haven't pondered that part of it yet, because I'm
not used to evaluating it as a sci-fi movie rather than a religious
event...
Chris Cathcart
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> "Chris Cathcart" <cath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140995528....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> the new one? Are you joking? Terrible.
The Tarkovsky one.
Duh.
> LEFT OUT: Many top sci-fi's:
> TERMINATOR 3***
Oh my goodness. I thought you were all about good taste. Didn't the
movie even explicitly give up on even trying to explain away the
time-travel paradox? It was nothing more than an action-laden,
over-the-top special-effects fest, which may have been fun for some but
it's entirely forgettable save for a couple (tops) Arnie one-liners. I
thought it the very epitome of the caricture Hollywood action flick.
The Terminator saga was already tapped out in terms of believability
and pretty much anything else, by the end of T2. There was nowhere
else to go but down, way down. Minus Arnold in the lead, it's a bomb,
a total bomb. Kristanna Loken is PFH, though.
("This, folks, is why Cathcart is right only 50% of the time. Never
mind him. T3 is a 3-star movie.")
> THE ABYSS***
An accurate rating. BTW, it's directed by James Cameron, who was
noticeably *absent* from the T3 project, after directing the first 2.
(His only credit on IMDb is a writing credit, for "characters.") Maybe
he realized that the saga had, um, jumped the shark?
> HOLLOW MAN***, a remake of THE INVISIBLE MAN***
N/R
> FINAL FANTASY**, a breakthrough in animation.
I'd give it more stars, as both beautiful animation as well as
substantive sci-fi.
> THE BEAST/20,000 FATHOMS*** remade as THE GIANT BEHEMOTH**
> IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE***, the clear source for ALIEN.
> KING KONG****, its sequels SON OF and MIGHTY JOE YOUNG***, and the new Peter
> Jackson one gets***
I haven't seen any of these, but I know that the new -Kong- stars Naomi
Watts. As Playboy comments, Naomi Watts had us at hello. And by
hello, we mean lengthy lesbian sex scenes with Laura Elena Harring in
-Mulholland Drive-.
> FANTASTIC VOYAGE***
Terribly dated, no?
> THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR***, a non-stupid version of THE MATRIX*
N/R
> 2010***
Yes.
> CONTACT***
Yep.
> I, ROBOT***
> SERENITY***
N/R
> Many of the films on Chris's list
To be clear, it's not my list, it's the -1001 Movies...- one.
Atlas Bugged
> Well, Ken mentions _Blade Runner_. That certainly *feels* more science
> fictiony when I'm watching it.
Ken mentions cowboy hats, horses, hockey, an virtually unlimited executive
power when his guy is in the White House. 'Nuff said.
>
> By the way, the SF word I should have used before, that I feel like
> _2001_ is somehow lacking in, is *wonder*.
This is why I often wonder about you....
>
> (I'd sure love to see a movie made of RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA)
OMG, the very thought blows my mind, but you are aware, are you not, that
the film project has been in development for years now? It has Morgan
Freeman's name associated with it, and Clarke, naturally, but it just seems
not to progress.
http://www.rendezvouswithrama.com/
>
> Almost all of my focus has been on TV for the last few years, so I don't
> have a clear perspective here. And I don't pay too much attention to the
> "movie vs. TV show" distinction -- so I have more material to pick from.
I think a fair case can be made that in the history of visual sci-fi, it may
just be that TV has the edge over cinema. This is rarely true for most
other genres. But Ken is right, cowboy hat and all, that sci-fi films are
slim picken's.
>
> But as far as "what I go to sci-fi for"-wise, if I limit artificially to
> released-in-the-theaters movies... I'm thinking I'd put _Close
> Encounters_ or even one of the Star Trek movies up there. I think your
> criteria and mine are just... different.
Close Encounters blows, but the systematic exclusion of ST flicks is clearly
error. Movies 2,4, and 7, at minimum, are really, really good sci-fi
flicks. I love #1, too, though I realize that's weird. Less weird, I dig
everything after #7 pretty much, too.
>
> (Go ahead: tell me I'm a hopeless geek. Tell me I'm a sappy
> sentimentalist with unrefined tastes. Call me a backwoods hick. Perhaps
> you will use the word, "phillistine." I can take it. ;-)
None of it captures your total devastation, so I'm going to call you
"married." Forgive me.
>
> That, and I also have a tendency to find redeeming stuff in otherwise
> quirky or deeply flawed movies (thanks to my cousin Kevin for seeding
> this perspective with PHANTASM when I must have been 15 or so). I'm
> probably alone in finding some sci-fi fan satisfaction in SOLAR CRISIS,
> CHERRY 2000, DEMOLITION MAN, EVENT HORIZON, and many others.
I do hate all those, but I have a library of favorites, particularly '50's
B&W sci-fi, that I love to death, but wouldn't dare defend. Examples: THE
MONOLITH MONSTERS, KRONOS.
>
> Oh, and of course: SERENITY's going to have to knock most of the list
> down one place too. I haven't pondered that part of it yet, because I'm
> not used to evaluating it as a sci-fi movie rather than a religious
> event...
This is partly the ST thing mentioned above. How do you separate TREK or
SERENITY from their TV heritages? Of course, you cannot, and this is why
cinema lists cause those films problems.
Atlas Bugged
>> LEFT OUT: Many top sci-fi's:
>> TERMINATOR 3***
> Oh my goodness. I thought you were all about good taste.
I am most certainly not, and I hope you will not reiterate this slight in
future posts.
>Didn't the
> movie even explicitly give up on even trying to explain away the
> time-travel paradox?
The others did? I think you are missing the point; the TERMINATOR series is
about electrifying action sequences that dominate in an industry that pumps
out action sequences ten times a second. It is also sci-fi, which is nice,
but no one ever claimed it was hard (i.e., well-explained extrapolations)
sci-fi from the get go. T3 managed to electrify. And note the fight scene
with the terminators where no one grimaces or yells or responds in any way
except in a mechanistic, need-of-repair way. That was phenomenally cool, as
well as other scenes.
>It was nothing more than an action-laden,
> over-the-top
No. *To* the top, dude, *at* the top.
>special-effects fest, which may have been fun for some but
> it's entirely forgettable save for a couple (tops) Arnie one-liners. I
> thought it the very epitome of the caricture Hollywood action flick.
> The Terminator saga was already tapped out in terms of believability
> and pretty much anything else, by the end of T2. There was nowhere
> else to go but down, way down. Minus Arnold in the lead, it's a bomb,
> a total bomb. Kristanna Loken is PFH, though.
In fact, the TERMINATOR trilogy was among the few in film history to have
three good films. I was shocked that T3 was any good.
There was no way to make a "bigger, better" chase scene after the zillions
Hollywood has pumped out. Then T3 did it, check the truck-chase scene early
in the film.
>
> ("This, folks, is why Cathcart is right only 50% of the time. Never
> mind him. T3 is a 3-star movie.")
>
>> THE ABYSS***
> An accurate rating. BTW, it's directed by James Cameron, who was
> noticeably *absent* from the T3 project, after directing the first 2.
> (His only credit on IMDb is a writing credit, for "characters.") Maybe
> he realized that the saga had, um, jumped the shark?
Let's move on to the half where you're right....
> I haven't seen any of these, but I know that the new -Kong- stars Naomi
> Watts.
You think I'm going to disagree? She's beyond hot, even a decade after
MULHOLLAND DROOL.
What I was noting, however, is that Jackson's KONG has real quality. He
couldn't give us a new story, so he tried to upgrade the visuals and he had
a ton of money to throw at it. He's talented, too, and his KONG looks
really remarkable. That said, the 1933 film still looks remarkable in its
own way.
>
>> FANTASTIC VOYAGE***
>
> Terribly dated, no?
That's fair. But it's classic, and extremely well-crafted. its sole
predecessor was the INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, an important film, but it
wasn't sci-fi, it was sci-fantasy, so FV was the first and still the best.
>> 2010***
> Yes.
>
>> CONTACT***
> Yep.
The point was simply that they were unforgivable omissions from the book's
list. Trust me, so was...
>> I, ROBOT***
>> SERENITY***
Ken Gardner
>The Terminator saga was already tapped out in terms of believability
>and pretty much anything else, by the end of T2.
For what it's worth, I couldn't make it past the first 15 minutes of
T3. Oddly, I liked T2 the most of the three movies. I couldn't sit
through T1 more than once or twice.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>That, and I also have a tendency to find redeeming stuff in otherwise
>quirky or deeply flawed movies (thanks to my cousin Kevin for seeding
>this perspective with PHANTASM when I must have been 15 or so). I'm
>probably alone in finding some sci-fi fan satisfaction in SOLAR CRISIS,
>CHERRY 2000, DEMOLITION MAN, EVENT HORIZON, and many others.
This reminds me. Two oddball sci-fi movies that I like are Demolition
Man and The Fifth Element. To be sure, the babe factor in both movies
is off the scale. That helps alot.
On the other hand, skip Wing Commander. The game was much better than
the movie. :)
Ken
John Alway
I think the whole point of those movies was to watch killing machines
fight each other and humans in life and death, hair-raising scenes. I
think T1 and T2 pulled that off. I haven't seen T3.
Of the Schwartznegger movies I've seen (I've seen all but T3, I
believe), my favorites are "Conan The Barbarian" and "Predator". The
later could be considered sci-fi, I suppose.
Conan had philosophy in it, and a character who lived by that
philosophy. The philosophy was bad, but it had great self-assertive
elements to it, such as when he prays to his god, Crom.
Predator, well, it was the hunt. Wit against wit. Man against
creature.
...John
David Buchner
to pick and choose what to bother reading ... I almost cut some stuff
out but then I saw the list Chris posted and figured what the hell...]
Atlas Bugged <atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken mentions cowboy hats, horses, hockey, an virtually unlimited executive
> power when his guy is in the White House. 'Nuff said.
I was only crediting him with reminding me of that example. Wasn't
suggesting that his mention carried some kind of critical authority.
;-P
> > By the way, the SF word I should have used before, that I feel like
> > _2001_ is somehow lacking in, is *wonder*.
>
> This is why I often wonder about you....
Really? I mean, don't you see what I mean -- that there's an acute,
seemingly intentional lack of humans having human reactions to what
they're seeing. "Damn! This is SO COOL! Whooee we're exploring!" That's
what I've come to feel is missing. It's kinda cold. I guess this is the
intention -- that it's "saying something" -- saying it really really
well, even. It's just not the "something" I go to Science Fiction for.
The book has way more going for it in this department -- especially many
of the parts that got cut out.
Contrast with _2010_.
> > (I'd sure love to see a movie made of RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA)
> OMG, the very thought blows my mind, but you are aware, are you not, that
> the film project has been in development for years now?
Yes, I do recall that. Thing is, I would want to see it done as
literally as possible. There's probably be lots of bits translated to
make them "less weird" and "more accessible." Things I want to see:
building a makeshift boat to get to the other side of a giant lake
inside an apparently abandoned spaceship. The moment when the entire
place starts blinking on and off to warn of an upcoming course change.
You know what I want? I want science fiction movies of these old books
done in a "period" style that reflects the time they were written. It's
not that farfetched: audiences accept both standard stuff set in a
period, like in THE AVIATOR or Westerns -- and there've been these sort
of randomly quasi-retro looks, like BATMAN or EDWARD SCISSORHANDS had.
The one I was thinking about this morning was Heinlein's RED PLANET: do
it straight up, as a plucky-kids story, complete with skating on the
canals and outwitting the evil headmaster. With guns! A Martian teenager
with a carry permit! More libertarian than SERENITY, even.
> I think a fair case can be made that in the history of visual sci-fi, it may
> just be that TV has the edge over cinema. This is rarely true for most
> other genres. But Ken is right, cowboy hat and all, that sci-fi films are
> slim picken's.
Until I tried thinking of rebuttals to your list, I hadn't realized just
HOW slim.
> Close Encounters blows,
Does not.
> but the systematic exclusion of ST flicks is clearly
> error. Movies 2,4, and 7, at minimum, are really, really good sci-fi
_7_!!? GENERATIONS? Are you kidding? Apart from the Kirk bits, that's
the one that bugs me the most. No, wait: the Hacky-Sack Hippie Planet
one. No, wait: the Romulan Clone one. Grrrrr.
> flicks. I love #1, too, though I realize that's weird.
Not at all. I love it too. The way I really pick fights, though, is to
stick up for Shatner's: #5.
> This is partly the ST thing mentioned above. How do you separate TREK or
> SERENITY from their TV heritages?
Why bother? Isn't it an arbitrary distinction?
There's loads of real-deal science fiction story material in more than a
dozen of the best STARGATE episodes -- that eclipses lots of the movies
in your (or anybody's) list.
For that matter, I'm tempted to court even more ridicule and throw in
the original STARGATE movie in my top 20 or even 10. And THE FIFTH
ELEMENT too. I'm also throwing in DEEP IMPACT.
More about your list... What do you think of the Heinlein-involved
adaptation of ROCKETSHIP GALILEO, DESTINATION MOON? I suppose something
like APOLLO 13 or HBO's FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON series can't count as
SF, because it actually happened (what *will* they do for science
fiction in the future?) I see that SERENITY's in your list now. Did you
update it, or did I not read carefully before?
David Buchner
Atlas Bugged <atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote:
[about FORBIDDEN PLANET]
> primordial Star Trek
Great term! That's exactly what I think, every time I see it.
And SLEEPER is too, sci-fi. Obviously, even. What the hell?
Atlas Bugged
> Really? I mean, don't you see what I mean -- that there's an acute,
> seemingly intentional lack of humans having human reactions to what
> they're seeing. "Damn! This is SO COOL! Whooee we're exploring!"
Yes, but this was part of Kubrick's innovation. He showed it deadpan, but
expertly, new state-of-art, making *you* freak out with sense-of-awe.
> The book has way more going for it in this department -- especially many
> of the parts that got cut out.
>
> Contrast with _2010_.
I am angry about cuts from the book 2010 *much* more than Kubrick's
deletions (from the novel, BTW, that he co-wrote.) The 2010 novel was
extraordinary. Whole substories were deleted for the film.
> You know what I want? I want science fiction movies of these old books
> done in a "period" style that reflects the time they were written.
This is a superior suggestion, albeit in limited use.
>
> The one I was thinking about this morning was Heinlein's RED PLANET: do
> it straight up, as a plucky-kids story, complete with skating on the
> canals and outwitting the evil headmaster.
I read RED PLANET, for the first time, just last year. You are exactly
correct. The canal skating, and other bits, could be spectacular.
>> Close Encounters blows,
>
> Does not.
Blows. Get over it.
>
> Not at all. I love it too. The way I really pick fights, though, is to
> stick up for Shatner's: #5.
I have killed men for saying that.
>
>> This is partly the ST thing mentioned above. How do you separate TREK or
>> SERENITY from their TV heritages?
>
> Why bother? Isn't it an arbitrary distinction?
I think not, because you cannot separate the films from the far-wider
contexts established by the TV shows. That, to me, is a valid argument for
the impossibility of fairly judging them as pure cinema.
>
> There's loads of real-deal science fiction story material in more than a
> dozen of the best STARGATE episodes -- that eclipses lots of the movies
> in your (or anybody's) list.
Yep. But not so significant. All visual sci-fi ever produced wouldn't
equal 1% of the sci-fi literature. It matters that SG1 is a very, very
budget and investor-motivated production. Its saving grace is its frequent
use of real sci-fi stories. It would be junk but for that.
>
> For that matter, I'm tempted to court even more ridicule and throw in
> the original STARGATE movie in my top 20 or even 10. And THE FIFTH
> ELEMENT too. I'm also throwing in DEEP IMPACT.
They blow. Get over it.
>
> More about your list... What do you think of the Heinlein-involved
> adaptation of ROCKETSHIP GALILEO, DESTINATION MOON?
I definitely love it and the companion WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE and other George
Pal, but they were hopelessly dated, frequently unfaithful to the source,
and included three-stooges level comedy. Too much for me to forgive.
>I see that SERENITY's in your list now. Did you
> update it, or did I not read carefully before?
Yep, just updated. Anyone looking that closely at my rantings is clearly a
friend.
Mark N
> "David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
> news:1hbgnuo.1htr0ul135tg74N%buc...@wcta.net...
>
>> I see that SERENITY's in your list now. Did you
>> update it, or did I not read carefully before?
>
> Yep, just updated. Anyone looking that closely at my rantings is clearly a
> friend.
FWIW, I had noticed that too! Pretty much the first thing I did was scan
down to the S's!
Mark
x
x
Ken Gardner
>> For that matter, I'm tempted to court even more ridicule and throw in
>> the original STARGATE movie in my top 20 or even 10. And THE FIFTH
>> ELEMENT too. I'm also throwing in DEEP IMPACT.
>They blow. Get over it.
Now, I agree about Stargate and Deep Impact. But I disagree about The
Fifth Element. The babe factor alone makes this a very good movie.
You of all people should know this.
Ken
John Alway
and is not sci-fi.
Sci-fi is a story that involves futuristic technology as major part of
the story. This could be technology created by humans or technology
created by aliens.
Some would take it a step further and say the true sci-fi is a logical
extrapolation of future technology based on scientific knowledge.
This would differentiate pure fantasy from science fiction.
Based on this, I would object to lumping in such movies as King Kong
and The Planet of The Apes as science fiction. Both are good films,
but neither are sci-fi. You could make a weak case for Planet of the
Apes, since they traveled to the desination by space ship, but that was
only a means for setting the environment, not essential to the story.
Also, Star Wars may seem to be sci-fi, but it's more like fantasy,
since the technology is not meant to be logically extrapolated from
science. It's more akin to Lord of The Rings.
Jurassic Park, otoh, may not appear to be sci-fi, but is. It's the
result of the application of futuristic technology to primitive life
forms. The Island of Dr. Moreau may be in the same mold. And,
perhaps surprisingly, Frankenstein is science fiction, whereas the
Wolfman is not.
The very best sci-fi is that which most assiduously extrapolates what
technology could bring, a virtually impossible task. The quality of
the story is a completely separate issue here, although I would argue
the better you extrapolate science, the more you will appreciate the
story.
...John
David Buchner
> For comedies, Red Dwarf is one of the best all time comedy series,
> sci-fi or otherwise.
Recommendation seconded. I recently remembered that there's a whole 7th
season we didn't see, checked for it on Netflix, and now it's sitting
next to the TV waiting for us to get through the last couple weeks of
Sci-Fi Fridays.
David Buchner
> >> {Me:} I'm tempted to court even more ridicule and throw in
> >> the original STARGATE movie in my top 20 or even 10.
Atlas:
> >They blow. Get over it.
> Now, I agree about Stargate and Deep Impact. But I disagree about The
> Fifth Element.
STARGATE simply does it for me, on the "wonder" front. It didn't the
first time I saw it -- just more crappy "Ancient Astronauts" crap. But I
think because the TV show made that element so mundane and stripped it
of its newageyness, I can look at the movie now as straight sci-fi, "we
found an alien artifact that opens up the Universe to humanity"
scenario. Same goosebumps as when we first hear the Signal in CONTACT,
or when the Space Guys show up at the end of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Or for
that matter when we're introduced to the TMA-1 monolith in _2001_ and
learn it was buried there long ago.
And FIFTH ELEMENT, hey: I just got a real kick out of Besson's
visualization of wacky alien stuff. And the girl.
David Buchner
> .... Sci-fi is a story that involves futuristic technology as major part of
> the story. This could be technology created by humans or technology
> created by aliens.
> ....Based on this, I would object to lumping in such movies as King Kong
> and The Planet of The Apes as science fiction. Both are good films, but
> neither are sci-fi. You could make a weak case for Planet of the Apes,
> since they traveled to the desination by space ship, but that was only a
> means for setting the environment, not essential to the story.
Where is this definition coming from? Because I think you'd get an
argument even from some of the authors of classic "hard" science
fiction. Take Asimov's story "Nightfall," or the movie based on it. As
far as I recall, no particular technology plays a major part in it --
but it's an alien world and the science of their local astronomy is what
drives the whole story.
(it's about a planet in a multiple-star system, with complicated orbits
that mean noplace on the planet EVER sees night... EXCEPT when a rare
lining up of cycles suddenly plunges them into a few (hours? days?) of
darkness -- and their civilization falls apart every time)
I remember a story in some collection I have around here, about an
intelligent creature living on Pluto -- whose neuron-tendril-things are
spread wispily across the entire surface gathering the faint sunlight.
It things veeeeery slooooowly, and human visitors have come and gone by
the time it is aware of them -- and they never notice there's anything
there but ice.
Science fiction? I think so.
John Alway
> > .... Sci-fi is a story that involves futuristic technology as major pa
> > rt of
> > the story. This could be technology created by humans or technology
> > created by aliens.
> > ....Based on this, I would object to lumping in such movies as King Kong
> > and The Planet of The Apes as science fiction. Both are good films, but
> > neither are sci-fi. You could make a weak case for Planet of the Apes,
> > since they traveled to the desination by space ship, but that was only a
> > means for setting the environment, not essential to the story.
> Where is this definition coming from? Because I think you'd get an
> argument even from some of the authors of classic "hard" science
> fiction. Take Asimov's story "Nightfall," or the movie based on it. As
> far as I recall, no particular technology plays a major part in it --
> but it's an alien world and the science of their local astronomy is what
> drives the whole story.
Ironically, I think I got it from Asimov years ago. He was writing
about how few genuine science fiction authors there are. He included
Heinlein among them.
> (it's about a planet in a multiple-star system, with complicated orbits
> that mean noplace on the planet EVER sees night... EXCEPT when a rare
> lining up of cycles suddenly plunges them into a few (hours? days?) of
> darkness -- and their civilization falls apart every time)
> I remember a story in some collection I have around here, about an
> intelligent creature living on Pluto -- whose neuron-tendril-things are
> spread wispily across the entire surface gathering the faint sunlight.
> It things veeeeery slooooowly, and human visitors have come and gone by
> the time it is aware of them -- and they never notice there's anything
> there but ice.
> Science fiction? I think so.
The word "science" has to be meaningful. Otherwise, why not call it
simply fiction? I suppose I was too narrow by referring to
technology. Perhaps a scientific extrapolation is required, such as
positing the idea of a creature with the slow cognitivie processes, or
a planet where orbits make possible continuous day light.
For the record, here is mw.com's defintion
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science%20fiction
[quote]
Main Entry: science fiction
Function: noun
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined
science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an
essential orienting component
[/quote]
Perhaps the phrase "imagined science" broadens to include things
like Star Wars. However, I would object to it on the grounds that the
term science should be taken more seriously. Extrapolating fiction
based on science has value that pure fantasy doesn't have. It has a
tangability, or plausability that makes it more thrilling and
meaningful.
An example is Jules Verne. From what I gather, he is considered to
be the first every science fiction author. Lots of his ideas became a
reality.
...John
David Buchner
> Ironically, I think I got it from Asimov years ago. He was writing
> about how few genuine science fiction authors there are. He included
> Heinlein among them.
> The word "science" has to be meaningful. Otherwise, why not call it
> simply fiction?
Yeah. Or "Technology Fiction." Certainly, that's a sub-category... but I
think there's lots of other varieties.
> I suppose I was too narrow by referring to
> technology. Perhaps a scientific extrapolation is required, such as
> positing the idea of a creature with the slow cognitivie processes, or
> a planet where orbits make possible continuous day light.
I think so. Science Fiction asks "What if?" All by itself, that's too
broad, because it shouldn't be just *any* "what if?" -- like "what if
dragons and magic were real and the whole world looked like a
romanticized version of medieval Europe?"
But this is why I think a lot of "Alternate History" fiction counts in
the realm of SF, along with lots of stuff that's not necessarily
futuristic or technological.
"What if?" -- Posit a changed situation: new gizmo, exotic locale, or
whatever. Put recognizable characters in it, and see how they act in
response. How does it change how they think or what they have to do to
survive or whatever?
This, by the way, is why I'm heartily in the camp that thinks ATLAS
SHRUGGED counts as science fiction. In fact, I wouldn't like it so much
if it wasn't. So out of four novels, Rand worked 50% in science fiction.
> For the record, here is mw.com's defintion
> .... fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined
> science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an
> essential orienting component
Works for me.
> Perhaps the phrase "imagined science" broadens to include things
> like Star Wars. However, I would object to it on the grounds that the
> term science should be taken more seriously.
Isn't there room for such a thing as "bad science fiction"? Or at least,
"not-as-good science fiction"?
> .... An example is Jules Verne. From what I gather, he is considered to
> be the first every science fiction author. Lots of his ideas became a
> reality.
Yes, he and Wells really are the ones to measure everything else by.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But this is why I think a lot of "Alternate History" fiction counts in
> the realm of SF, along with lots of stuff that's not necessarily
> futuristic or technological.
>
> "What if?" -- Posit a changed situation: new gizmo, exotic locale, or
> whatever. Put recognizable characters in it, and see how they act in
> response. How does it change how they think or what they have to do to
> survive or whatever?
>
> This, by the way, is why I'm heartily in the camp that thinks ATLAS
> SHRUGGED counts as science fiction. In fact, I wouldn't like it so much
> if it wasn't. So out of four novels, Rand worked 50% in science fiction.
I consider it alternate history or alternate timeline fiction. I am not
sure what the point of departure is, though. Ayn Rand describes a
-possible world- that operates under the same physical laws as the real
world. (well almost. Galt's static electricity machine violates a few
thermodynamic principle, but we shall let that pass).
Bob Kolker
cbe...@bellsouth.net
than good" The movie craftily slides the meaning of "good" from being
competent (in tennis) to being moral. The character is realistic and
(certainly by any egoist) deserving of sympathy, even admiration, right
up to the point of committing murder, when he makes a conscious
decision to do evil. As for the Objectivist assertion that being
immoral means having to pay the price for working against man's nature,
the randomness of the universe intercedes to contradict the
Objectivist.
This is what Rand had to say about chance:
" "
This what Peikoff has had to say about chance: "Nothing in reality can
occur causelessly or by chance." He sounds like a Creationist.
Objectivism is incomplete until it can incorporate in a meaningful way
the fact of nature called chance, randomness and just plain good or bad
luck. Thinking people recognize that science is incomplete without
disciplines exploring elemental randomness (in quantum mechanics),
random mutations (in biology/evolution) and unpredictable happenings
(chaos).
Why should an all-encompassing philosophy be any different? Immoral
people profit by their evil, from time to time, and without some
punishing supernatural Judge who's to say their way is really so bad
for them? Like Dostoyevsky, Woody Allen utlimately acts as an apologist
for Judeo-Christianity.
Robert J. Kolker
> punishing supernatural Judge who's to say their way is really so bad
> for them? Like Dostoyevsky, Woody Allen utlimately acts as an apologist
> for Judeo-Christianity.
That is the least that Dirty Old Man can do.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
cbe...@bellsouth.net wrote:
[...]
> This what Peikoff has had to say about chance: "Nothing in reality can
> occur causelessly or by chance." He sounds like a Creationist.
No, he's right.
> Objectivism is incomplete until it can incorporate in a meaningful way
> the fact of nature called chance, randomness and just plain good or bad
> luck.
Thinking people recognize that science is incomplete without
> disciplines exploring elemental randomness (in quantum mechanics),
> random mutations (in biology/evolution) and unpredictable happenings
> (chaos).
You're confused on the issue.
Nobody has ever been able to create a random signal generator that is
purely random. There are always patterns that can be found.
Randomness simple means that we don't know what is going on in the
noise, not that something uncaused is going on in that noise. In
fact, the only reason probability in statistics works is because there
is some causality at work, but we haven't yet figured out what it is.
Random mutations in nature simply refers to the fact that odd
interactions in nature happen and we can't predict what they will be.
It certainly doesn't mean that they aren't caused.
As to QM, the idea that there isn't cauality at work underneath the
hood would mean that science of the subject would be impossible.
Science requires that things behave according to their nature, and that
certainly is applicable to QM.
...John
Charles Bell
> cbe...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > This what Peikoff has had to say about chance: "Nothing in reality can
> > occur causelessly or by chance." He sounds like a Creationist.
>
> No, he's right.
No, he sounds like an idiotic Creationist. [BTW I an not a knee-jerk
anti-Peikoff.] In any case, because something can occur by chance does
not mean it is also causeless, nor that a "cause" is determinate.
>
> > Objectivism is incomplete until it can incorporate in a meaningful way
> > the fact of nature called chance, randomness and just plain good or bad
> > luck.
> Thinking people recognize that science is incomplete without
> > disciplines exploring elemental randomness (in quantum mechanics),
> > random mutations (in biology/evolution) and unpredictable happenings
> > (chaos).
>
> You're confused on the issue.
>
> Nobody has ever been able to create a random signal generator that is
> purely random. There are always patterns that can be found.
However, no one has explained the cause of the pattern, and thereby
predict (deterministically) that if A causes B then pattern C will
result. If anything, it is that in Time(1) A -> B, pattern C, or
perhaps, T(2) A -> B, pattern D and so on, and we cannot know this
beforehand in T(0). Think: snowflakes.
>
> Randomness simple means that we don't know what is going on in the
> noise, not that something uncaused is going on in that noise.
You are the classical physicist waving his hands saying: if I can't
explain it according to what I believe to be true then I can ignore it.
The same is true with the Creationist-Peikoff assertion.
> In fact, the only reason probability in statistics works is because there
> is some causality at work, but we haven't yet figured out what it is.
>
> Random mutations in nature simply refers to the fact that odd
> interactions in nature happen and we can't predict what they will be.
> It certainly doesn't mean that they aren't caused.
I did not say that I thought random events are uncaused --- although,
quite frankly, the issue is open --- I let the statement that there
are events which are random suffice. In a universe where Bill Gate's
mother did not know the IBM chief (possibly) we wouldn't have
Microsoft. It's as simple as that. I am not saying that anything
leading up to the final result was uncaused, but many components are a
priori unpredictable, and forever and always so. You cannot wave away
the indeterminacy as "we haven't yet figured it out." The O'ist
insistence that people like Gates are where they are =only= because of
hard work and intelligence is bogus. Luck is the "random noise" of
human activity and why people are like snowflakes and not frictionless
billiard balls.
John Alway
Charles Bell wrote:
> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > cbe...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > This what Peikoff has had to say about chance: "Nothing in reality can
> > > occur causelessly or by chance." He sounds like a Creationist.
> >
> > No, he's right.
>
> No, he sounds like an idiotic Creationist. [BTW I an not a knee-jerk
> anti-Peikoff.] In any case, because something can occur by chance does
> not mean it is also causeless, nor that a "cause" is determinate.
Chance is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one. It's
a way for us to come to grips with something we don't yet fully
understand the underlying causes of. This is why probability is used
in medicine all the time, because medicine is so complex, we don't yet
understanding the underlying causal mechanism, which are doing
something in particular according to the way entities causally
interact.
If you take a deck of cards, you know that there is a 1/52 chance of
dealing an ace of spades off the top of the deck, but the fact is, that
is that chance only gives us a ball park understanding of what will be
dealt off the top, because there is a 100% chance that the card dealt
off the top of the deck is what it is, due to previous understandable
and causal events, such as shuffling and the like.
> > > Objectivism is incomplete until it can incorporate in a
meaningful way
> > > the fact of nature called chance, randomness and just plain good or bad
> > > luck.
> > Thinking people recognize that science is incomplete without
> > > disciplines exploring elemental randomness (in quantum mechanics),
> > > random mutations (in biology/evolution) and unpredictable happenings
> > > (chaos).
> > You're confused on the issue.
> > Nobody has ever been able to create a random signal generator that is
> > purely random. There are always patterns that can be found.
> However, no one has explained the cause of the pattern, and thereby
> predict (deterministically) that if A causes B then pattern C will
> result.
Psuedo-random number generators, of which there are many kinds,
have directly knowable explanations. Computer algorithms often use
the system clock, and some fancy algorithms to generate a "random"
number. All of this is explainable, although a waste of time to go
through the process of figuring out, because of the sheer work and
energy involved.
If anything, it is that in Time(1) A -> B, pattern C, or
> perhaps, T(2) A -> B, pattern D and so on, and we cannot know this
> beforehand in T(0). Think: snowflakes.
> > Randomness simple means that we don't know what is going on in the
> > noise, not that something uncaused is going on in that noise.
> You are the classical physicist waving his hands saying: if I can't
> explain it according to what I believe to be true then I can ignore it.
> The same is true with the Creationist-Peikoff assertion.
No, what I know is that there has never been observed a random
event. Every event occurs within a context that can explain it. QM
is no different. The wave/particle duality, for instance, is simply
the result of observations under a certain set of conditions where you
observe light as a wave, and under different conditions where you
observe light as a particle. Under the conditions where you expect
to see the particle nature of light, you won't see the wave nature, and
vice versa.
> > In fact, the only reason probability in statistics works is because there
> > is some causality at work, but we haven't yet figured out what it is.
>
> > Random mutations in nature simply refers to the fact that odd
> > interactions in nature happen and we can't predict what they will be.
> > It certainly doesn't mean that they aren't caused.
> I did not say that I thought random events are uncaused --- although,
> quite frankly, the issue is open --- I let the statement that there
> are events which are random suffice. In a universe where Bill Gate's
> mother did not know the IBM chief (possibly) we wouldn't have
> Microsoft. It's as simple as that. I am not saying that anything
> leading up to the final result was uncaused, but many components are a
> priori unpredictable, and forever and always so.
All of these things are causal, and explanable by causes. If you
eschew cause, then you might as well eschew science, because science
depends on it.
I for one stake my life on the law of causality every day, and I
don't intend on doing otherwise.
>...You cannot wave away
> the indeterminacy as "we haven't yet figured it out." The O'ist
> insistence that people like Gates are where they are =only= because of
> hard work and intelligence is bogus.
Gates has been lucky in that things have happened to him that he
had no say so in. He was born in America. That's lucky. He's
healthy. That's lucky, assuming he was afflicted with a disease
through no fault of his own. He's naturally intelligent. That's
lucky. However, once he had these things, he put in hard work and
thought to achieve at a very high level. That's not lucky, and that is
something for which he should be admired, just as we should admire
Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire for their efforts to become great baseball
players.
The point wrt to people who are positive achievers, is to admire
them for their achievements, because it's a great thing to emulate.
> Luck is the "random noise" of
> human activity and why people are like snowflakes and not frictionless
> billiard balls.
It just means that we don't know the causes, nothing more.
Peikoff's basic point (with which you largerly agree), is that nothing
is uncaused.
...John
Charles Bell
John Alway wrote:
>
> Chance is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one. It's
> a way for us to come to grips with something we don't yet fully
> understand the underlying causes of. This is why probability is used
> in medicine all the time, because medicine is so complex, we don't yet
> understanding the underlying causal mechanism, which are doing
> something in particular according to the way entities causally
> interact.
>
You may wish to treat chance as an epistemological concept, at least
that is more than Peikoff or Rand have done. Be that as it may, what we
call "chance" or "random occurrences" are a part of the basic fabric of
existence and not catch-all words for "that which we do not
understand." Probability is used in medicine because biologic systems
are bundles of random events about which we know only a little. The
reason Rand and O'ists do not subject Man to reductionism is the very
fact that Man is not simply a mechanistic system --- about which we do
not happen to know the underlying causal mechanism. Yet, when it comes
to include that part of Man's existence and his very nature, which is
not merely mechanistic, owing to chance, O'ists merely say nothing in
reality occurs by chance. If that were the case, then Man ought to be
subject to reductionism.
How I mean that chance is part of the basic fabric of existence is as
explained by Prigogine, the brilliant scientist, Nobel laureate, etc.,
when he says: "Chance nudges what remains of the system down a new path
of development. And once that path is chosen (from among many),
determinism takes over again until the next bifurcation point is
reached. Here, in short, we see chance and necessity not as
irreconcilable opposites, but each playing its role as a partner in
destiny." [Forward, Order from Chaos by Prigogine and Stengers]. For a
more complete relevant excerpt read:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~cbell58/order_from_chaos_1.htm .
> No, what I know is that there has never been observed a random
> event. Every event occurs within a context that can explain it. QM
> is no different. The wave/particle duality, for instance, is simply
> the result of observations under a certain set of conditions where you
> observe light as a wave, and under different conditions where you
> observe light as a particle. Under the conditions where you expect
> to see the particle nature of light, you won't see the wave nature, and
> vice versa.
>
Light as a particle or as a wave and the QM vs Relativity as
cosmological factors are contradictions that point out that we do not
have it right, and the question of determinism vs chance is just such
underlying misunderstanding.
>
> > > In fact, the only reason probability in statistics works is because there
> > > is some causality at work, but we haven't yet figured out what it is.
> >
> > > Random mutations in nature simply refers to the fact that odd
> > > interactions in nature happen and we can't predict what they will be.
> > > It certainly doesn't mean that they aren't caused.
>
> > I did not say that I thought random events are uncaused --- although,
> > quite frankly, the issue is open --- I let the statement that there
> > are events which are random suffice. In a universe where Bill Gate's
> > mother did not know the IBM chief (possibly) we wouldn't have
> > Microsoft. It's as simple as that. I am not saying that anything
> > leading up to the final result was uncaused, but many components are a
> > priori unpredictable, and forever and always so.
>
> All of these things are causal, and explanable by causes. If you
> eschew cause, then you might as well eschew science, because science
> depends on it.
>
What I am referring to is the slight of hand that happens when one
rejects chance as a cause itself (or part of a cause). Defenders of
evolution themselves find they have to resort to saying that Darwin did
not refer to chance, placating the Creationist's demand that living
organism cannot come into being by chance. The fact is Darwinian
evolution, the process of natural selection, as the only process of
evolution is wrong. For an advantageous characteristic to be
appropriate for a particular use, the bearer must already have that
characteristic, brought into existence by chance mutation. It is not as
though the bearer could will the characteristic into existence, as
needed. The characteristic has already come into existence randomly,
without purpose, usually as a detriment or simply useless. A statement
that nothing in reality happens by chance is simply wrong, because the
bearer of an advantageous characteristic did not cause the
characteristic to come into being, nor did some necessity cause it to
come into being. The necessity may be what keeps the characteristic
continuing, but it is not the cause [as in Lamarckism]. There may be
actual physical chemical causes to create the mutation, but that does
not negate the fact that the mutation is by chance occurrences of a
number of correlating and noncorrelating events and processes.
> I for one stake my life on the law of causality every day, and I
> don't intend on doing otherwise.
>
>
As a part of the universe, you have no choice but to be a part of its
randomness, as well.
Returning to the movie, Match Point, the Rhys Meyers character, Chris,
is a prudent predator. Pretty much everything that can be said about
the movie from an O'ist POV has to do with sticky topic. The O'ist will
assert that he may get away with the crime but he won't be happy. The
theist will assert that he may get away with the crime but the Ultimate
Judge will punish him. I think most people have a visceral preference
for the latter, and that is one reason religion continues to have its
sway over people.
> >...You cannot wave away
> > the indeterminacy as "we haven't yet figured it out." The O'ist
> > insistence that people like Gates are where they are =only= because of
> > hard work and intelligence is bogus.
>
> Gates has been lucky in that things have happened to him that he
> had no say so in. He was born in America. That's lucky. He's
> healthy. That's lucky, assuming he was afflicted with a disease
> through no fault of his own. He's naturally intelligent. That's
> lucky. However, once he had these things, he put in hard work and
> thought to achieve at a very high level. That's not lucky, and that is
> something for which he should be admired, just as we should admire
> Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire for their efforts to become great baseball
> players.
>
> The point wrt to people who are positive achievers, is to admire
> them for their achievements, because it's a great thing to emulate.
>
Well, as it happens, you picked two notorious users of steroids. Are
they O'ists refusing to believe in chance or of another persuasion that
chance is not in their favor (to accomplish what they wish)?
I would like there to be philosophical moral code out there that would
tell Gates to give MSFT stock to the servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan
as an acknowledgement of his luck to be an American, instead of funding
those bloated, useless charities for the people of the world. Or how
about giving money to create alternate, private schooling for the
victims of the American public education too poor (families earning
less than 100K or so), unlike himself and his children, to escape? That
would be in the tradition, at least, of the 19th century
industrialists. O'ism says that he can, but not that he ought.
Charles Bell
"John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141867320....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> cbe...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> [...]
> > This what Peikoff has had to say about chance: "Nothing in reality can
> > occur causelessly or by chance." He sounds like a Creationist.
>
> No, he's right.
No, he sounds like an idiot Creationist. [BTW I am not a knee-jerk
anti-Peikoff.]
>
> > Objectivism is incomplete until it can incorporate in a meaningful way
> > the fact of nature called chance, randomness and just plain good or bad
> > luck.
> Thinking people recognize that science is incomplete without
> > disciplines exploring elemental randomness (in quantum mechanics),
> > random mutations (in biology/evolution) and unpredictable happenings
> > (chaos).
>
> You're confused on the issue.
>
> Nobody has ever been able to create a random signal generator that is
> purely random. There are always patterns that can be found.
But no has ever been able to explain the cause of the pattern, and thereby
predict (deterministically) that if A causes B then pattern C will result.
If anything is becoming more apparent, it is that in Time(1) A -> B, pattern
C; in T(2) A -> B, pattern D and so on, and we cannot know this beforehand
in T(0). The same events, but in different timeframes, cause different
patterns. Think snowflakes. Think hurricane Katrina.
>
> Randomness simple means that we don't know what is going on in the
> noise, not that something uncaused is going on in that noise.
You are the classical physicist waving his hands saying: if I can't explain
it according to what I believe to be true then I can ignore it. The same is
true with the Creationist-Peikoff assertion.
>In fact, the only reason probability in statistics works is because there
> is some causality at work, but we haven't yet figured out what it is.
>
> Random mutations in nature simply refers to the fact that odd
> interactions in nature happen and we can't predict what they will be.
> It certainly doesn't mean that they aren't caused.
I did not say that I thought all random events are uncaused --- although,
quite frankly, the issue is open --- I let the statement that there are
events which are random suffice. In a universe where Bill Gates' mother did
not know the IBM chief (possibly) we wouldn't have Microsoft. It's as simple
as that. I am not saying that anything leading up to final result was
uncaused, but many components are a priori unpredictable, and forever and
always so. This O'ist insistence that people like Gates are where they are
=only= because of hard work and intelligence is bogus. Luck is the "random
fred...@papertig.com
> "John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141867320....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > cbe...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > This what Peikoff has had to say about chance: "Nothing in reality can
> > > occur causelessly or by chance." He sounds like a Creationist.
>
> > No, he's right>
>
> anti-Peikoff.]
No, you're just a jerk.
First of all, Peikoff never said "nothing in reality can occur
causelessly".
As regards the universe he says, "The concept of "cause" is
inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside
the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an
irreducible primary." So much for his views being comparable to
Creationism.
>,,,Think snowflakes. Think hurricane Katrina.
Yeah, so? This is a total non-sequitur. That there are things we can't
(yet) explain doesn't mean they are inexplicable. How many phenomena
were considered inexplicable just a couple of hundred years ago.
> I did not say that I thought all random events are uncaused --- although,
> quite frankly, the issue is open ---...
No, it's not open. An event cannot "just happen", spring up out of
nowhere from nothing. That's an impossibility. Furthermore, it is far
more irrational than Creationism. At least the religionist is trying to
make sense of the universe.
Fred Weiss
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I did not say that I thought all random events are uncaused --- although,
>> quite frankly, the issue is open ---...
>
> No, it's not open. An event cannot "just happen", spring up out of
> nowhere from nothing. That's an impossibility.
Assume that no events just happen.
Therefor every event has a precursor event that happens before it
chronologically.
This chain of chronologically ordered events has no beginning because
that would violate the condition that there are no events with out a
precursor.
This in turn implies that the universe has always been in existence.
However this runs country to the facts supporting the big bang model
of the universe.
Therefor our orginial assumtion is incorrect. There is at least one
event that just happened.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes. Will set followups on crossposts of 3 of more
Charles Bell
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> First of all, Peikoff never said "nothing in reality can occur
> causelessly".
According to the AR Lexicon, he did in "The Analytic-Synthetic
Dichotomy" ITOE 147
>
> As regards the universe he says, "The concept of "cause" is
> inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside
> the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an
> irreducible primary." So much for his views being comparable to
> Creationism.
. . . Just like the (Thomist) Christian will claim that the laws of
reason are inapplicabale to God. God Just Is. For the time being, as a
practical matter, we can pronounce our ignorance and not posit a cause
for the Universe, but to claim the Universe is the Uncaused Cause is no
different than Creationism.
Charles Bell
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:39:14 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com
> <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> >> <Charles Bell> wrote:
> >> I did not say that I thought all random events are uncaused --- although,
> >> quite frankly, the issue is open ---...
> >
> > No, it's not open. An event cannot "just happen", spring up out of
> > nowhere from nothing. That's an impossibility.
>
[...]
>
> This in turn implies that the universe has always been in existence.
>
> However this runs country to the facts supporting the big bang model
> of the universe.
>
> Therefor our orginial assumtion is incorrect. There is at least one
> event that just happened.
Yes, that is my primary objection to the Peikoff-Rand axiom: Nothing is
uncaused except the universe (=) God is the Uncaused Cause. Peikoff
further denies the existence of Chance, which science and common sense
denotes a primary mover in the universe. Rand was and Peikoff
apparently is ignorant of 20th century science.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Yes, that is my primary objection to the Peikoff-Rand axiom: Nothing is
> uncaused except the universe (=) God is the Uncaused Cause. Peikoff
> further denies the existence of Chance, which science and common sense
> denotes a primary mover in the universe. Rand was and Peikoff
> apparently is ignorant of 20th century science.
Not just ignorant, but willfully and invincibly ignorant. It is one
thing not to know, it is another thing to deny and reject in the face of
strong evidence to the contrary.
When carefully gather facts collide with one's philosophy, it is time to
modify or chuck out the philosophy.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
"Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Yes, that is my primary objection to the Peikoff-Rand axiom: Nothing is
> uncaused except the universe (=) God is the Uncaused Cause.
Non sequitur.
Ken
Charles Bell
You can babble all the Latin you want, but Rand-Peikoff do no more than
replace God with an always existing, uncaused universe.
Ken Gardner
"Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Yes, that is my primary objection to the Peikoff-Rand axiom: Nothing is
>> > uncaused except the universe (=) God is the Uncaused Cause.
>> Non sequitur.
> You can babble all the Latin you want, but Rand-Peikoff do no more than
> replace God with an always existing, uncaused universe.
And do you have a problem with that?
Ken
Matt Barrow
"Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1150558491....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, you can babble in English, too, but Ken is dead on right.
You apparently read the material and grasped NOTHING...ZERO.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
Matt Barrow
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:e71c6k$d3b$1...@victor.killfile.org...
Apparently so. I suspect his nice, preconceived notions, held since
childhood, would otherwise be dashed.
(Let's see if I turn out to be right)
Charles Bell
> "Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > You can babble all the Latin you want, but Rand-Peikoff do no more than
> > replace God with an always existing, uncaused universe.
>
> And do you have a problem with that?
>
> Ken
Absolutely! At best, I have always thought it was the weakest argument
for atheism and against some sort of Deism. The evidence is to the
contrary: the universe as we know it is not as some static, infinite
uncaused thing, and Chance is not some set of mathematical expressions
derived in order to play better at the roulette wheel but metaphysical
and part of how the universe came into existence and how it now
operates and how we as individuals run our lives.
Ken Gardner
"Matt Barrow" <matt....@sitefill.com> wrote:
>>> You can babble all the Latin you want, but Rand-Peikoff do no more than
>>> replace God with an always existing, uncaused universe.
>> And do you have a problem with that?
> Apparently so. I suspect his nice, preconceived notions, held since
> childhood, would otherwise be dashed.
> (Let's see if I turn out to be right)
I bet he hates it when that happens. :)
Ken
Ken Gardner
"Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > You can babble all the Latin you want, but Rand-Peikoff do no more than
>> > replace God with an always existing, uncaused universe.
>> And do you have a problem with that?
> Absolutely! At best, I have always thought it was the weakest argument
> for atheism and against some sort of Deism. The evidence is to the
> contrary: the universe as we know it is not as some static, infinite
> uncaused thing, and Chance is not some set of mathematical expressions
> derived in order to play better at the roulette wheel but metaphysical
> and part of how the universe came into existence and how it now
> operates and how we as individuals run our lives.
Matt, you nailed it. Good job.
Ken
"Sometimes you eat the bot, and sometimes the bot eats you." Barry Switzer
(paraphrasing)
Charles Bell
> > contrary: the universe as we know it is not as some static, infinite
> > uncaused thing, and Chance is not some set of mathematical expressions
> > derived in order to play better at the roulette wheel but metaphysical
> > and part of how the universe came into existence and how it now
> > operates and how we as individuals run our lives.
>
> Matt, you nailed it. Good job.
>
> Ken
You can't address your argument for a static, uncaused, always-existing
universe directly to me? And support Peikoff's claim that nothing in
reality can occur by chance?
Ken Gardner
"Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> You can't address your argument for a static, uncaused, always-existing
> universe directly to me? And support Peikoff's claim that nothing in
> reality can occur by chance?
No, not directly to you. Life is too short. Besides, this is really about
basic axioms. Either you accept them or you don't. And it is pointless to
argue with people who don't.
Ken
Charles Bell
Yes, indeed, making reasoned arguments for a position takes a bit of
time; it's quicker just to have faith and stay put in sanctimonious
ignorance. By the way, Peikoff was not referring to an axiom with
respect to Chance, but making a declarative statement consistent with
Objectivism, shining a light on one of its flaws - - claiming to be
consistent with science while almost never actually being so.
Matt Barrow
> Ken Gardner wrote:
>> "Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> > You can babble all the Latin you want, but Rand-Peikoff do no more than
>> > replace God with an always existing, uncaused universe.
>>
>> And do you have a problem with that?
>>
>> Ken
>
> Absolutely! At best, I have always thought it was the weakest argument
> for atheism and against some sort of Deism. The evidence is to the
> contrary
Unmitigated bulls&#@t.
>: the universe as we know it is not as some static, infinite
> uncaused thing,
Prove your point.
Matt Barrow
>
> Ken Gardner wrote:
>> "Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > You can't address your argument for a static, uncaused, always-existing
>> > universe directly to me? And support Peikoff's claim that nothing in
>> > reality can occur by chance?
>>
>> No, not directly to you. Life is too short. Besides, this is really
>> about
>> basic axioms. Either you accept them or you don't. And it is pointless
>> to
>> argue with people who don't.
>>
>> Ken
>
> Yes, indeed, making reasoned arguments for a position takes a bit of
> time; it's quicker just to have faith and stay put in sanctimonious
> ignorance.
WooHoo!!! Oh, ManOhMan,ManOhMan,ManOhMan,ManOhMan,ManOhMan!!
>By the way, Peikoff was not referring to an axiom with
> respect to Chance,
Original cite, please!
> but making a declarative statement consistent with
> Objectivism, shining a light on one of its flaws - - claiming to be
> consistent with science while almost never actually being so.
For about the third or fourth time; support your claim rather than just make
claims (that are more looney than the preceding one). So far, all you're
doing is upchucking some old slop.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> Therefor our orginial assumtion is incorrect. There is at least one
>> event that just happened.
>
> Yes, that is my primary objection to the Peikoff-Rand axiom: Nothing is
> uncaused except the universe (=) God is the Uncaused Cause.
I have no problem with the idea that the creation of the universe is
an Uncaused Cause, I don't even think that it implies in anyway
devinity to the universe.
To thouse that still cling to the idea that everything has a cause.
What of radioactive decay? And don't say the cause of the atom's
decay was because it was radioactive. The true question is "What was
the cause of it decaying at the time it decayed, why not some other
point in time". Radioactive decay is a quantum event and we know from
the bell inequalities [1] that quantum events are random without any
hidden cause.
> Peikoff
> further denies the existence of Chance, which science and common sense
> denotes a primary mover in the universe. Rand was and Peikoff
> apparently is ignorant of 20th century science.
I wonder if this is the cause? It is clear that Rand built her
philosophy as a platform to attack communisim. Much of her work is
dedicated to creating what she saw as a belif system that it was
inpossable for a rational person not to aggry with. However if
uncertainty was added into her system, then there was a possability
that communisim was right.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
Ken Gardner
"Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> No, not directly to you. Life is too short. Besides, this is really about
>> basic axioms. Either you accept them or you don't. And it is pointless to
>> argue with people who don't.
> Yes, indeed, making reasoned arguments for a position takes a bit of
> time; it's quicker just to have faith and stay put in sanctimonious
> ignorance.
Get lost, moron.
Ken
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
[...]
> When carefully gather facts collide with one's philosophy, it is time to
> modify or chuck out the philosophy.
Given in "Introduction to OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY" we are told that
"A philosopher can tell you without ever entering a laboratory that
that is not possible". Its clear that when an experiment crushes a
cherished notion of the objectivists they will reject the science
rather then the philosophy.
Charles Bell
> "Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Absolutely! At best, I have always thought it was the weakest argument
> > for atheism and against some sort of Deism. The evidence is to the
> > contrary
>
> Unmitigated bulls&#@t.
>
> >: the universe as we know it is not as some static, infinite
> > uncaused thing,
>
> Prove your point.
>
In your static, inifinite, uncaused universe why are the galaxies
moving away from each other, at an increasing rate? And the farther
away from us a galaxy is, the faster it is moving. And, for that
matter, why does time go in one direction? What does entropy mean?
"Cosmology has to be thrown out of philosophy . . ." - Ayn Rand, 1958
Charles Bell
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:24:18 +0000 (UTC), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> Therefor our orginial assumtion is incorrect. There is at least one
> >> event that just happened.
> >
> > Yes, that is my primary objection to the Peikoff-Rand axiom: Nothing is
> > uncaused except the universe (=) God is the Uncaused Cause.
>
> I have no problem with the idea that the creation of the universe is
> an Uncaused Cause, I don't even think that it implies in anyway
> devinity to the universe.
That happens to be why Simple Big Bang Theory (deemed by the RCC as
in accordance with the Bible) is unacceptable. There is some point (the
initial singularity) at the beginning of time for which there can be no
scientific explanation; it is a minor leap of faith to explain the
existence of the singularity and the subsequent Big Bang as Divine
Creation.
To come into existence spontaneously and randomly is not exactly the
same as creation, which is to say, a caused event. If you describe
what we know as the universe as coming into existence spontaneously and
randomly as an Uncaused Cause, then you and I are on the same playing
field, but to say that everything has a cause except this one thing, or
to actually state that a random event is "uncaused" is intellectually
sloppy, if not always dishonest. Peikoff is being one or the other
when he states that nothing is by chance.
> I wonder if this is the cause? It is clear that Rand built her
> philosophy as a platform to attack communisim. Much of her work is
> dedicated to creating what she saw as a belif system that it was
> inpossable for a rational person not to aggry with. However if
> uncertainty was added into her system, then there was a possability
> that communisim was right.
I accept Objectivism to the extent that it can run, as a rational
philosophy within the scope of every day experience. It was not truly
built from first principles (evolution, psychology, genetics,
cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, et al.). Rand was ignorant of these.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Given in "Introduction to OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY" we are told that
> "A philosopher can tell you without ever entering a laboratory that
> that is not possible". Its clear that when an experiment crushes a
> cherished notion of the objectivists they will reject the science
> rather then the philosophy.
That is what makes Objectivism something like a religion.
Bob Kolker
Charles Bell
>
> >By the way, Peikoff was not referring to an axiom with
> > respect to Chance,
>
> Original cite, please!
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
> For about the third or fourth time; support your claim rather than just make
> claims (that are more looney than the preceding one). So far, all you're
> doing is upchucking some old slop.
Have you heard of, like, man, like, you know, Physics? Like, you know,
them cool dudes, like, you know, S Hawking and B Greene and hundreds of
others, like, that's a whole bunch hurling slop!
Matt Barrow
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Charles Bell" <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Absolutely! At best, I have always thought it was the weakest argument
>> > for atheism and against some sort of Deism. The evidence is to the
>> > contrary
>
>>
>> Unmitigated bulls&#@t.
>>
>> >: the universe as we know it is not as some static, infinite
>> > uncaused thing,
>>
>> Prove your point.
>>
>
>
> In your static,
Who said it was static?
> inifinite, uncaused universe why are the galaxies
> moving away from each other, at an increasing rate?
Non-sequitur.
>And the farther
> away from us a galaxy is, the faster it is moving.
Non-sequitur.
>And, for that
> matter, why does time go in one direction? What does entropy mean?
Non-sequitur.
What the hell does non-sequitur mean to you? You're the master of it.
>
> "Cosmology has to be thrown out of philosophy . . ." - Ayn Rand, 1958
Come back when you get something of a clue.
Ken Gardner
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Given in "Introduction to OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY" we are told that
>> "A philosopher can tell you without ever entering a laboratory that
>> that is not possible". Its clear that when an experiment crushes a
>> cherished notion of the objectivists they will reject the science
>> rather then the philosophy.
> That is what makes Objectivism something like a religion.
But what is the "that" in the quoted sentence? As I remember it, the person
being quoted was referring to any "scientific" claim that would violate the
law of identity or one of its corollaries. Do scientists claim that
contradictions are possible, or that something is other than what it is?
[Insert "context is everything" here.]
Ken
Gordon Sollars
says...
Let's put aside the mysteries of quantum mechanics for the moment. A
philosopher can indeed tell us that A & ~A is not possible - but the
challenge is to discover if the law is being properly applied. For
that, entering a laboratory is just the start. The notion that, e.g.,
radioactive decay is precluded from being nondeterministic by the Law of
Identity is jejune. If decay is random, then that is the way it /is/.
--
Gordon
Ken Gardner
"Gordon Sollars" <gsol...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> But what is the "that" in the quoted sentence? As I remember it, the
>> person
>> being quoted was referring to any "scientific" claim that would violate the
>> law of identity or one of its corollaries. Do scientists claim that
>> contradictions are possible, or that something is other than what it is?
> Let's put aside the mysteries of quantum mechanics for the moment. A
> philosopher can indeed tell us that A & ~A is not possible - but the
> challenge is to discover if the law is being properly applied. For
> that, entering a laboratory is just the start. The notion that, e.g.,
> radioactive decay is precluded from being nondeterministic by the Law of
> Identity is jejune. If decay is random, then that is the way it /is/.
None of this addresses my point. If anything, it reinforces it. The
scientist, not the philosopher, works to discover the identities of specific
existents. The philosopher lays down the rules for doing this correctly. One
of the cardinal rules is the law of identity (including its corollaries). A
scientist is not competent to deny the law of contradiction or the law of
causality (properly stated).
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
No. Science is based on the principle of non-contradiction. If a
factually established experimental result collides with philosophy, then
the philosophy is wrong somewhere. The results of experiments (properly
designed and instrumented) can be taken as factual. If a philosophy
contradicts a fact, the philosophy is wrong. It is that simple.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> None of this addresses my point. If anything, it reinforces it. The
> scientist, not the philosopher, works to discover the identities of specific
> existents. The philosopher lays down the rules for doing this correctly.
Which philosophers? Aristotle? That is a laugh and a half! You should
read what Richard Feynman (of of the ten greatest physicists of the 20th
century) has to say about philosophy and philosophers.
Bob Kolker
Gordon Sollars
says...
>
> "Gordon Sollars" <gsol...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's put aside the mysteries of quantum mechanics for the moment. A
> > philosopher can indeed tell us that A & ~A is not possible - but the
> > challenge is to discover if the law is being properly applied. For
> > that, entering a laboratory is just the start. The notion that, e.g.,
> > radioactive decay is precluded from being nondeterministic by the Law of
> > Identity is jejune. If decay is random, then that is the way it /is/.
>
> None of this addresses my point. If anything, it reinforces it.
It reenforces the irrelevance of your point. Objectivists are not
content to simply state the Law of Identity - they want to draw
conclusions from it in particular cases about the physical world.
> The
> scientist, not the philosopher, works to discover the identities of specific
> existents. The philosopher lays down the rules for doing this correctly.
> One
> of the cardinal rules is the law of identity (including its corollaries). A
> scientist is not competent to deny the law of contradiction or the law of
> causality (properly stated).
And philosophers are competent to do so? ;-) In any event, I'll go out
on a limb here and claim that Einstein had nothing to learn from Peikoff
about the law of contradiction.
--
Gordon
Ken Gardner
>> But what is the "that" in the quoted sentence? As I remember it, the
>> person being quoted was referring to any "scientific" claim that would
>> violate the law of identity or one of its corollaries. Do scientists claim
>> that contradictions are possible, or that something is other than what it
>> is?
> No. Science is based on the principle of non-contradiction. If a factually
> established experimental result collides with philosophy, then the
> philosophy is wrong somewhere.
And if a scientist argues with the philosopher that contradictions do exist or
that some actions are uncaused, the scientist is wrong. It works both ways.
>The results of experiments (properly designed and instrumented) can be taken
>as factual. If a philosophy contradicts a fact, the philosophy is wrong. It
>is that simple.
Or the science. But it is philosophy, not science, that establishes the law
of contradiction in the first place.
Ken
Ken Gardner
"Gordon Sollars" <gsol...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> None of this addresses my point. If anything, it reinforces it.
> It reenforces the irrelevance of your point. Objectivists are not
> content to simply state the Law of Identity - they want to draw
> conclusions from it in particular cases about the physical world.
Bullshit.
[...]
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Or the science. But it is philosophy, not science, that establishes the law
> of contradiction in the first place.
Long before there were philosophers, people knew that contradictions
could not be true.
Bob Kolker
Charles Bell
Ken Gardner wrote:
> Or the science. But it is philosophy, not science, that establishes the law
> of contradiction in the first place.
>
And yet you are willing to accept that the contradiction (to your
philosophy) that there is an uncaused cause (the universe) as not only
true, but axiomatic.
Charles Bell
Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Non-sequitur.
How old are you? 12?
Gordon Sollars
says...
I agree that it is bullshit - now tell that to Fred. He argues that the
Law of Identity disproves indeterminism here:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/msg/af5
7983e7d39971b?hl=en&
--
Gordon