Hey
@Dragonlordxxxxx: Why didn't I know that Vincent D'Onofrio was the villain in the Netflix
Daredevil? I'm eight episodes in and it's just a blatant ripoff of
Batman Begins but D'Onofrio is killing it. If you can answer this without spoilers: Will he be in any future Marvel movies? I haven't yet watched the other Netflix Marvel shows or
The Defenders, so I have no idea how any of this fits into the MCU, but I'd fucking love to see D'Onofrio mixing it up with the likes of RDJ and Samuel L. Jackson.
Also,
Sigh wanted me to ask you if you could link any
Daredevil threads...
I will.
they can understand us because we don't have an accent.
Yea. And just to maybe tie together the jargon for normal people, you can kind of see how each of these questions extend from Descartes' basic line of inquiry. From "can I know anything?" to "can I know myself?" to "can I know what is outside myself?" to "can I know others (distinct things like myself)?" These questions might seem like they can be easily dismissed, but it's also notable that they aren't obligated to have the same answer. One could know himself necessarily, for example, but only know the world provisionally, or others practically, and these answers could inform an ethical system in totally different ways.
Don't think we didn't notice the conspicuous articulation of your 3 little propositions
The responses were alright - maybe a little dismissive of the problem [...] BUT I understand you were under a time constraint and also generally in opposition to the (strength of the) problems
The latter more than anything. I worry about how common sense has become the enemy in so many "intellectual" movements. Contrariwise, I wanted to embrace it and convey that it's ok to rely on it.
And for the record, I watched both parts at 1.25x speed
I don't even want to imagine how crazy (or how much crazier) I sound sped up
I have not, but that source sounds legit and I plan on checking it out ASAP.
If you can get your hands on this copy (
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) I'm sure you'd enjoy rummaging through it.
My point about Neo is not that there's a right answer about his reality that he perceives when he's young and misperceives when he's old. It's that the answer literally changes for him as time passes [...] Actually, another useful example here could be Tarkovsky's Solaris. Remember how quickly Kris is willing to accept Hari as - if not authentic, then authentic enough. I think most of us are inclined to see this as weakness, or a betrayal of his *proper* reality and the mission that extends from it. But couldn't he also be partially correct that his realest life was when he was together with her, and that even an imitation could actually bring him back in touch with that reality?
I'm intrigued by that idea. There are others that are just as interesting that come from the same general sympathy towards what I may dare call subjectivism.
Does that make any sense?
Everything you said there makes sense. This portion in particular stands out as, in the best sense of the word, challenging. I get where you're coming from with the sympathy for subjectivism, but I could never be satisfied with authentic - or right, or good, or real -
enough. It feels too much like merely moving the goalpost. I may be able to steal a few moments of peace by considering something authentic or right or good or real
enough, but inevitably, I'd have to ask myself if it was just authentic or right or good or real enough
to me or if it was
really authentic or right or good or real. Playing games of self-deception like that, even if in the ostensible guise of peace/happiness, isn't a sustainable form of life for me. The angel on my shoulder would berate the devil on my other shoulder the way Kramer berates Jerry:
Regarding your
Solaris example, I'm inclined to consider Kris' acceptance of Hari as weakness. I'm also inclined to point out that Kris
first - and pretty much immediately - "kills" Hari before he accepts her, interestingly reversing the course of events in
Inception. More interesting still, in neither case does the husband actually "kill" the wife, since in
Solaris she essentially kills herself and in
Inception she's killed by someone else. I don't know what to do with any of that. Just interesting to note.
A fun exercise to really illustrate the question I'm asking could be to go through movies with a similar premise and ask what tools they use to convince you that a certain reality is the right one. Perception of origin seems to have a bunch of weight here, in Inception the story begins in the "actual" reality where in The Matrix we're told that we actually pre-existed the "false" reality by being physically born into the "real" one.
Do you have a name for this game? How about "
Caveat's Cinematic Reality Detector"?
What are some other criteria one should be on the lookout for in addition to "perception of origin"?
I watched It Follows twice this Halloween season, and though I like it more than I did on my initial viewing, I'm not sure if I'm ready to say I'm a fan overall.
That one was a massive disappointment.
Finally got around to watching Sicario and I must admit I was very disappointed
That's next on my list, wonder if I'll think the same.
My assessment from back when I watched it was "average if not above average with characterization trouble as the major problem weighing down what could've been an even better and more bad ass movie." My sense of the source of the problem was uncertainty on the screenwriting level of how to balance the Benicio/Blunt split, which resulted in what I think was accurately characterized by moreorless as a fractured plot.