(no subject)
Jan. 11th, 2020 05:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. I stayed up too late last night and didn't sleep well, so lay about and didn't do anything today. Just felt tired and lazy. Also Parasite is not playing anywhere close by -- it's left BAM. The closest is Nite Hawk and the ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE -- and I am not paying to see thriller with subtitles in a dinner theater with waitresses walking up and down the aisles taking orders throughout the film. It's bad enough when I don't have to focus on subtitles. I also think my lack of sleep of late is wearing me down. I'm tired most of the time. And have a persistent cough that doesn't go away.
That's for films you've seen already or don't have to concentrate too closely on. CJL and I saw VICE at the Nite Hawk Theater in Brooklyn and mutually agreed, never again. It's pricey and impossible to focus on the movie. We were both distracted by the waitress going up and down the aisles throughout. Honestly, I'd rather just watch at home.
Did, see The Farewell -- which is the Chinese-American film about a family that travels to China to say Farewell to a beloved grandmother diagnosed with lung cancer and given a mere two weeks to live. They choose not to tell her -- and instead orchestrate a Farewell visit under the guise of a wedding celebration, letting her plan the wedding. It's based and adapted from a memoir.
This is a beautiful little film - about an hour and 40 minutes, so maybe not that little, which touched me deeply. I adored it. The critic didn't. But I don't tend to agree with most critics, the critic gave it three stars. It's mainly in Chinese with English subtitles. And I found it touching on multiple levels -- it also discusses various differences between the two cultures -- such as the "Big Lie" regarding the grandmother's health and why this lie is perpetuated. And how the two culture's perspectives vary in regards to the lie and how people are viewed in their culture at large. The Chinese or Eastern Philosophy does not see a person as belonging to themselves as Western culture appears to, but as belonging to family and society and the earth. And that telling the lie, is a way of carrying the burden of the diagnosis, the pain, the worry, the grief and the guilt of it for the sick relative.
It's an interesting notion.
The film was beautifully done. Highly recommend. It's important, I think, to watch films and read books by cultures outside our own -- it helps us learn to be empathetic.
2. The Good Place - this week's episode. - wherein we discuss the philosophy of the metaphysical reboot and the fallacy of putting cruelty first.
I've read two reviews...and I'm wondering if we all saw the same episode?
(We didn't of course, people watch everything through the haze of their own experience. Also I think the writers muddled it.)
Anyhow, the metaphysical moral philosophy was interesting and topical. But I'm not sure the writers understood the philosophy -- because some of the jokes didn't quite land, and I got a bit confused and rewound more than once. (Although in S3 they seemed to get it.)
What Chidi is discussing on the chalk-board, while skating about on roller-skates, is Judith Shklar's "Putting Cruelty First". It's hard to follow Chidi's thought process on it and his ideas get a bit lost due to Jason interrupting every five minutes with Jasonisms. Honestly watching this episode of The Good Place felt a bit like watching a movie in the Nite Hawk Cinema.
Shklar's thought centered on two main ideas: cruelty as the worst evil and the “liberalism of fear.” She discusses the first idea in her essay “Putting Cruelty First,” published in Ordinary Vices (1984). Her second main idea, expounded in her essay “The Liberalism of Fear,” is founded on the first idea and focuses on how governments are prone to abuse the “inevitable inequalities in power” that result from political organization.
Based on these core ideas, Shklar advocated for constitutional democracy, which she saw as flawed but still the best form of government possible. A constitutional democracy, in Shklar's view, protects people from the abuses of the more powerful by restricting government and by dispersing power among a "multiplicity of politically active groups"
Shklar believed that "the original and only defensible meaning of liberalism" is that "every adult should be able to make as many effective decisions without fear or favor about as many aspects of his or her life as is compatible with the like freedom of every adult." Shklar described rights less as absolute moral liberties and more as licenses which citizens must have in order to protect themselves against abuse.
Shklar was deeply interested in injustice and political evils, claiming that "philosophy fails to give injustice its due"; that is, most past philosophers have ignored injustice and talked only about justice, likewise ignoring vice and talking only about virtue. Ordinary Vices and The Faces of Injustice articulate Shklar's attempts to fill this gap in philosophical thought, drawing heavily on literature as well as philosophy to argue that injustice and the "sense of injustice" are historically and culturally universal and are critical concepts for modern political and philosophical theory.
The writers attempted, and failed (as evidenced by the two reviews I read on my correspondence list), to explain the philosophy through a series of jokes, and isolated character moments. But instead of showing that Shklar was stating punishment is a zero end game and that making decisions with fear attached -- does not result in betterment or evolution but is just well sadism, it sounds like they were saying it's better to be punished than erased or lets just make fun of it all with cruel jokes showing that punishment and cruelty is better than no life at all -- which furthers the argument that punishment works - the exact opposite of Shkylar's philosophical view and/well TeamCockroach.
This was not their intent at -- which is made much clearer, if you did what I did, which is ignore the dumb jokes, distractions, etc, and just pay attention to the philosophical statements by Chidi. Where, Chidi states that the whole punishment bit doesn't work -- that it works better if you are permitted to make mistakes and learn from them. Being cruel as end in of itself doesn't change a person, wiping their minds and having them relive it over and over, or sentencing them to an eternity of mindless torture is meaningless. No one can evolve. It makes far more sense to reboot with a little voice in their heads who remembers or has an inkling of what had previously occurred.
The criticism of the ethical moral principal of fear of punishment = betterment of the soul or becoming a good person is actually better explained in S3, with the man who is so terrified of punishment, he tries not to hurt anything. He's not motivated to help or not hurt things because of any other reason but fear of being punished for doing so. As a result -- he can barely move. There's no love. No kindness. Just fear in this character.
Here? The explanation gets a bit muddled. That's the problem I have with S4 The Good Place -- the writers have grown too found of their inappropriate jokes, and not working on characters or the whimisical philosophy. There was a way they could have explained it -- which would have been funny, but alas, they didn't do that.
If they had, they wouldn't have lost half the viewership.
3. Also finally watched Stumptown -- which I've mixed feelings about.
On the one hand it's becoming more noir. And the focus on brother relationships worked for me.
On the other...I have mixed feelings about the Grey/Hoffman storyline. I don't like under-cover cop storylines in television series like this one. I find them to be predictable and cliche. There's a reason I don't watch criminal procedurals.
I'm hanging in there for now...but this episode was not as appealing as previous ones.
That's for films you've seen already or don't have to concentrate too closely on. CJL and I saw VICE at the Nite Hawk Theater in Brooklyn and mutually agreed, never again. It's pricey and impossible to focus on the movie. We were both distracted by the waitress going up and down the aisles throughout. Honestly, I'd rather just watch at home.
Did, see The Farewell -- which is the Chinese-American film about a family that travels to China to say Farewell to a beloved grandmother diagnosed with lung cancer and given a mere two weeks to live. They choose not to tell her -- and instead orchestrate a Farewell visit under the guise of a wedding celebration, letting her plan the wedding. It's based and adapted from a memoir.
This is a beautiful little film - about an hour and 40 minutes, so maybe not that little, which touched me deeply. I adored it. The critic didn't. But I don't tend to agree with most critics, the critic gave it three stars. It's mainly in Chinese with English subtitles. And I found it touching on multiple levels -- it also discusses various differences between the two cultures -- such as the "Big Lie" regarding the grandmother's health and why this lie is perpetuated. And how the two culture's perspectives vary in regards to the lie and how people are viewed in their culture at large. The Chinese or Eastern Philosophy does not see a person as belonging to themselves as Western culture appears to, but as belonging to family and society and the earth. And that telling the lie, is a way of carrying the burden of the diagnosis, the pain, the worry, the grief and the guilt of it for the sick relative.
It's an interesting notion.
The film was beautifully done. Highly recommend. It's important, I think, to watch films and read books by cultures outside our own -- it helps us learn to be empathetic.
2. The Good Place - this week's episode. - wherein we discuss the philosophy of the metaphysical reboot and the fallacy of putting cruelty first.
I've read two reviews...and I'm wondering if we all saw the same episode?
(We didn't of course, people watch everything through the haze of their own experience. Also I think the writers muddled it.)
Anyhow, the metaphysical moral philosophy was interesting and topical. But I'm not sure the writers understood the philosophy -- because some of the jokes didn't quite land, and I got a bit confused and rewound more than once. (Although in S3 they seemed to get it.)
What Chidi is discussing on the chalk-board, while skating about on roller-skates, is Judith Shklar's "Putting Cruelty First". It's hard to follow Chidi's thought process on it and his ideas get a bit lost due to Jason interrupting every five minutes with Jasonisms. Honestly watching this episode of The Good Place felt a bit like watching a movie in the Nite Hawk Cinema.
Shklar's thought centered on two main ideas: cruelty as the worst evil and the “liberalism of fear.” She discusses the first idea in her essay “Putting Cruelty First,” published in Ordinary Vices (1984). Her second main idea, expounded in her essay “The Liberalism of Fear,” is founded on the first idea and focuses on how governments are prone to abuse the “inevitable inequalities in power” that result from political organization.
Based on these core ideas, Shklar advocated for constitutional democracy, which she saw as flawed but still the best form of government possible. A constitutional democracy, in Shklar's view, protects people from the abuses of the more powerful by restricting government and by dispersing power among a "multiplicity of politically active groups"
Shklar believed that "the original and only defensible meaning of liberalism" is that "every adult should be able to make as many effective decisions without fear or favor about as many aspects of his or her life as is compatible with the like freedom of every adult." Shklar described rights less as absolute moral liberties and more as licenses which citizens must have in order to protect themselves against abuse.
Shklar was deeply interested in injustice and political evils, claiming that "philosophy fails to give injustice its due"; that is, most past philosophers have ignored injustice and talked only about justice, likewise ignoring vice and talking only about virtue. Ordinary Vices and The Faces of Injustice articulate Shklar's attempts to fill this gap in philosophical thought, drawing heavily on literature as well as philosophy to argue that injustice and the "sense of injustice" are historically and culturally universal and are critical concepts for modern political and philosophical theory.
The writers attempted, and failed (as evidenced by the two reviews I read on my correspondence list), to explain the philosophy through a series of jokes, and isolated character moments. But instead of showing that Shklar was stating punishment is a zero end game and that making decisions with fear attached -- does not result in betterment or evolution but is just well sadism, it sounds like they were saying it's better to be punished than erased or lets just make fun of it all with cruel jokes showing that punishment and cruelty is better than no life at all -- which furthers the argument that punishment works - the exact opposite of Shkylar's philosophical view and/well TeamCockroach.
This was not their intent at -- which is made much clearer, if you did what I did, which is ignore the dumb jokes, distractions, etc, and just pay attention to the philosophical statements by Chidi. Where, Chidi states that the whole punishment bit doesn't work -- that it works better if you are permitted to make mistakes and learn from them. Being cruel as end in of itself doesn't change a person, wiping their minds and having them relive it over and over, or sentencing them to an eternity of mindless torture is meaningless. No one can evolve. It makes far more sense to reboot with a little voice in their heads who remembers or has an inkling of what had previously occurred.
The criticism of the ethical moral principal of fear of punishment = betterment of the soul or becoming a good person is actually better explained in S3, with the man who is so terrified of punishment, he tries not to hurt anything. He's not motivated to help or not hurt things because of any other reason but fear of being punished for doing so. As a result -- he can barely move. There's no love. No kindness. Just fear in this character.
Here? The explanation gets a bit muddled. That's the problem I have with S4 The Good Place -- the writers have grown too found of their inappropriate jokes, and not working on characters or the whimisical philosophy. There was a way they could have explained it -- which would have been funny, but alas, they didn't do that.
If they had, they wouldn't have lost half the viewership.
3. Also finally watched Stumptown -- which I've mixed feelings about.
On the one hand it's becoming more noir. And the focus on brother relationships worked for me.
On the other...I have mixed feelings about the Grey/Hoffman storyline. I don't like under-cover cop storylines in television series like this one. I find them to be predictable and cliche. There's a reason I don't watch criminal procedurals.
I'm hanging in there for now...but this episode was not as appealing as previous ones.
The Good Place ("You've Changed, Man"): Counterpoint
Date: 2020-01-12 05:19 pm (UTC)(rubs hands together)
Now let's dig in, because there's a lot to chew on here....
Here's how I see the events of this episode, and why I think it worked. Taking it from the top:
Chidi's back! And he's still got all the charm of Awkward Dork Chidi, minus the indecisiveness. He's had 800 lives downloaded into his soul, and he has fully comprehended his atman, or true self. ("You've seen the Time Knife." "Yeah. It was....neat." Very Spike answer there, Chidi.) Matt Murray (credited writer) gives us the ultimate solution to the central problem of the episode in the first minute. But we've got detours to navigate through first...
Chidi (rocking his new pair of roller skates) outlines Shklar pretty much the way you did above. But rather than immediately commit to a comprehensive adoption of Shklar's principles, the gang wavers a bit, putting together a half-measures proposal that would be palatable to Judge Gen and the Bad Place. They compromise, water down. It's still the same system, with a little more flexibility.
And Shawn still rejects it. Why shouldn't he? The current arrangement works just fine for him. Even torturing Michael and the others for eternity doesn't interest him. (The real reason for that is coming up....)
The Heavenly Architects, ever cheerful, suggest the gang continue compromising "until the demon is satisfied." At which point, Michael says, oh fuck that: "If we're going to lose, let's lose on our own terms." Michael gives his lengthy inspirational speech (Eleanor: "Now it's nine minutes.") and Chidi comes up with a plan that takes Shklar's principles to a cosmic level: eliminate the Bad Place. Make everyone's path through eternity just like our heroes' journey.
Judge Gen (with Timothy Olyphant perched at her side) is in. But, of course, Shawn shoots that one down, too. He revels in teasing the Soul Squad, mocking their idealism, giving them a hope of victory, then snatching it away. That's when Michael realizes that what Shawn really wants is to play the game. Because without the game, he is nothing.
This, to me, is the hidden core of the episode, and why it's named after Jason's brutal (but accurate) description of Shawn. The episode asks, what is the nature of evil? What is its purpose?
Let's assume, a priori, that humankind has free will--we can choose between good and evil--and that free will has a purpose. (C.S. Lewis has a lot to say about the purpose of free will in God's universe, but let's stick to our TV show.) That's why Chidi doesn't simply say, "Make everybody good all the time!" and end the series right there.
But even though evil is a possible choice, The Good Place seems to echo other philosophers by defining evil as (essentially) reactive. It does not create; it cannot evolve; it can only tear down or destroy the works of Good. (Shawn smashing the glass figurines from the "Joanie Loves Tchotckes" cart, for example.)
So when Michael calls Shawn's bluff and tells him the game is over ("see you in a billion years"), Shawn is forced to admit that endless torture in itself is meaningless to him. Even the chief bureaucrat of Evil acknowledges that the constant battle of Good and Evil within each person is what gives our choices substance.
A powerful philosophical lesson, and a great way to end the series...
*
*
*
What? We've still got three weeks to go?
Oh.
They're not finished screwing with us, then...
Re: The Good Place ("You've Changed, Man"): Counterpoint
Date: 2020-01-12 09:47 pm (UTC)Still dislike the episode. Sorry. Doesn't work for me at all. It's kind of like what I tried to explain about humor? The episode, I think, only works for people who appreciate Michael Schurr's specific brand of humor. If his brand of humor doesn't work for you -- the message of the episode will be lost. Why? Eh, operating on two different wavelengths.
I think the point was made in previous episodes better. So much of the episode's philosophical bits were lost. Blink and you'd have missed the whole Shklar philosophy discussion. Blink and you've have missed the whole bit about the reboot. But hey, you'd certainly have gotten all of the bit about Shawn wanting to play a rather juvenile game of one-up-manship with Michael, and torture is better than death. For some, who didn't have the ability to rewind, that's all they got. That's bad execution.
Good execution is when you can get your point across to people on various wavelengths...it's difficult to do, very few have accomplished it. And even then, everyone will interpret it differently.