Hmm, some good movies are coming - Limpkinw.Com

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hmm, some good movies are coming

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    the movie 2fast 2furious
    o o o
    /\/\/\
    COR

    Comment


    • #32
      i liked the fast and the furious better than 2fast 2furious
      o o o
      /\/\/\
      COR

      Comment


      • #33
        they made 2fast 2furious so confusing and kinda boring....
        o o o
        /\/\/\
        COR

        Comment


        • #34
          the fast and the furious wasnt that fantastic.... it was more realistic.... it was better.. more people acting better
          o o o
          /\/\/\
          COR

          Comment


          • #35
            well.. in 2fast 2furious there were hotter girls.... lol... im sure in 2fast 2furious there are more hot girls and in the movie the fast and the furious
            o o o
            /\/\/\
            COR

            Comment


            • #36
              go watch some old movies.
              none spring to mind but i enjoy watching some old ones from time to time

              Comment


              • #37
                Clerks go and get a copy of Clerks and watch that.

                Comment


                • #38
                  stalag 17 is possibly the best movie ever made

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    havent seen that whats it about

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      its about a WWII p.o.w. camp

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        bruce tout puissant is quite good
                        life is a fight

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          if youre into anime then Akira and Hotaru no Haka(Grave of the Fireflies) are really great movies

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            ok im gonna post alot of crap about the matrix relaoded that i read today

                            i just wanted to prove a point that people get way too involved with cinema and read way too much into it

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Freedom, Determinism, Teleology and Foreknowledge in Matrix: Reloaded
                              Contains Reloaded spoilers. Essay by The Old Oligarch (http://old-oligarch.blogspot.com, oldoligarch@yahoo.com)

                              Having seen others trash "boring, academic treatises" on the Matrix, I hope the first four words of the title and two Latin phrases don't turn off every reader.Teleology is the key
                              The pivotal question to the whole movie, I think, is revealed in the Merovingian's speech to Neo at Le Vrai (which means "The Truth" for non-Francophones). The Merovingian berates Neo for coming to him just because other people (Morpheus, the Oracle) have told him to do so. Like other pitiful human beings (the girl who eats the cake), Neo has failed to escape the ubiquitous dynamic of cause and effect. He does not act with his own innate sense of purpose, according to goals of his own design, like the free programmers do (such as the Architect, Merovingian, Agent Smith). If the third movie is going to solve anything important, it is this question, and with relation to Zion.

                              Heretofore, Neo has acted simply out of reaction to the amazing events of being drawn out of the Matrix, unplugged, and launched into a battle whose scope and purpose he has yet to fully comprehend. What will Neo's telos be? What positive goal will he end up adopting as his mission, rather than simply staving off evil? Moreover, until Neo makes sense of the purpose of life outside of the illusory world of the Matrix, it is hard to give a complete answer to Cypher's Dilemma at the end of the first movie, which is the major question of that film. (Cypher is willing to take the red pill, forget he was ever unplugged, and live happily ever after in the illusion of the Matrix -- a privilege he gets in exchange for betraying Neo.)Teleology is the key
                              The pivotal question to the whole movie, I think, is revealed in the Merovingian's speech to Neo at Le Vrai (which means "The Truth" for non-Francophones). The Merovingian berates Neo for coming to him just because other people (Morpheus, the Oracle) have told him to do so. Like other pitiful human beings (the girl who eats the cake), Neo has failed to escape the ubiquitous dynamic of cause and effect. He does not act with his own innate sense of purpose, according to goals of his own design, like the free programmers do (such as the Architect, Merovingian, Agent Smith). If the third movie is going to solve anything important, it is this question, and with relation to Zion.

                              Heretofore, Neo has acted simply out of reaction to the amazing events of being drawn out of the Matrix, unplugged, and launched into a battle whose scope and purpose he has yet to fully comprehend. What will Neo's telos be? What positive goal will he end up adopting as his mission, rather than simply staving off evil? Moreover, until Neo makes sense of the purpose of life outside of the illusory world of the Matrix, it is hard to give a complete answer to Cypher's Dilemma at the end of the first movie, which is the major question of that film. (Cypher is willing to take the red pill, forget he was ever unplugged, and live happily ever after in the illusion of the Matrix -- a privilege he gets in exchange for betraying Neo.)





                              On the metaphysical level, I think there's a classic question of philosophy going on here. The Merovingian is a determinist. Nothing is free. At the same time, Counselor Hamann's speech about the machines and the whole movie-long struggle to escape conditions forced on the protagonists make the opposite point just as clearly: Despite anyone's wishes -- even the Architect's -- no one is completely and utterly free. Even the Architect has to deal with conditions which he did not desire, and which ultimately thwart his designs. Is there a philosophy that can explain the interdependencies of existence in a way that avoids both the extremes of determinism and the impossible fantasy of utterly unconditioned freedom? How is choice reconcilable with, or related to, a world of entities whose nature does not make sense without reference to their ultimate goals?

                              Aristotelian teleology is just such a philosophy, and I think it's no accident that Neo's discovery of his purpose (telos) is bound up, hand-in-hand, with his quest to answer the determinist assertions of the Merovingian and to answer his own question to the Architect: "The problem is choice."

                              At this point, I have a choice to make. I'd either have to explain myself in great detail, or let it suffice with this: One German physicist has already had similar thoughts: Read Werner Heisenberg's essay on teleology vs. Leibnizian determinism in his Physics and Philosophy, specifically, chapter 5 "Development of Philosophical Ideas Since Descartes in Comparison with the New Situation in Quantum Theory" and chapter 9. "Quantum Theory and the Structure of Matter." I guess I chose the latter option.

                              Candy, anyone? Why The Oracle is Not a Determinist.
                              That's the other cool theme in the movie: the relationship between foreknowledge and determinism. Anyone who has studied classical theology of God in the Christian tradition will know that foreknowing does not imply forecausing -- i.e. in se they are different things. Yet the question is stickier with man, who usually only foreknows because he has established relationships of causality between things which allow him to predict the future based on the present. The Oracle's speech to Neo in the park raises this question, when she asks Neo whether he wants the piece of candy. She raised the same question for Neo in the first movie when she told him not to feel bad for breaking her lamp before he accidentally knocked it over, and then told him it would really "bend his noodle" later, when he asked himself whether he would have knocked it over had she not said anything. Neo grapples with whether he's really free to take the candy, and finally asks her why she has asked him if she already knows whether he will take it.

                              Against Neo's worry that all his choices are illusory, the Oracle explains that, on the contrary, the outcome of the present situation is merely a product of decisions Neo has already made. She says that his present perplexity results from the fact that he has not understood why he has made those choices which have led him to the present moment. Understanding, more than choice, is crux of the issue, she seems to say.

                              Some people really grimace at this, since the Oracle, ostensibly the good figure in the movie, seems to be endorsing determinism here, like the Merovingian. This is a mistake. It isn't necessary to come to this conclusion. The Oracle does not say Neo's present choice to take the candy is determined by something or someone else, but rather by what Neo himself has already chosen, unconsciously, in moments up to now. So what does this mean? I suggest the following: In contrast to a thin, 19th-century concept of will as the immediate deliberative power which exists only in the present moment, I think the Oracle presents a richer view of the will that one sees in early Christian and Middle Platonic writings. For example, cp. St. Augustine's De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis (often titled in English "On the Free Choice of the Will"). For Augustine, liberum arbitrium (free choice) is different from, but related to voluntas (the will). If you know this distinction, great. If not, sorry for losing you.

                              Voluntas is what enacts our actions, but voluntas, for the classical mind, includes habits, the motivations of nature, personal history and free choice. Rather than a completely plastic, ephemeral, moment-to-moment choosing faculty that creates itself anew at every moment, and does whatever it wants in untrammeled freedom with each new decision, voluntas and liberum arbitrium have a more complicated relationship. I like to compare the classical conception of voluntas and liberum arbitrium to a boulder-sized stone that is rolling on a playing field and a man who has sole charge of where it rolls. The stone has momentum. So, likewise, our will has its disposition. The environment can draw the stone in one direction more than the other, i.e. external circumstances partially determine appetites. The liberum arbitrium in this example, is the man, who can slow or accelerate the movement of the stone, and alter its course. But the stone is more massive than the man. Individual acts of exertion cannot completely alter the direction of voluntas and send it instantly careening in another direction regardless of past acts. If the stone is rolling in the wrong direction, a forceful push can avert it from its "inevitable" course, but the man cannot instantly stop it, pick it up, bring it back to its rightful place and trajectory, and send it on its correct path as if nothing had happened. He simply doesn't have the strength. Likewise our will when it gets accustomed to, or "disposed" to a certain way of behaving. Liberum arbitrium can prevent the necessity of running headlong into old behaviors, but it takes a long, concerted effort to undo the cumulative effects of the many half-witted, unconscious decisions we've made which created in us bad dispositions. End tangent.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I think the Oracle makes a similar observation about the will. What the will does -- especially in unconscious, unreflective people -- is 90% the product of decisions already made. This, too, is a common observation from psychoanalysis. People whose behavior has unwittingly worked up a neurosis within them need therapy to bring to light how past decisions have made present ones seem ineluctable, but really, they aren't. Psychological integrity, like philosophical self-awareness, restores the proper relationship between the runaway boulder and the man, simply because the man is paying attention now to what he is doing at every step along the way. Between total self-awareness and the life of unconscious drudgery comes the difficult task of recounting what one has been doing up to the point one when one realizes one needs self-awareness. Neo's at the stage of figuring out what he has been doing up to now, and more importantly, why, and then after that, what he should want instead, why he wants that, and how to get it.

                                In case there are people out there who think I'm off my nut or have used a bad metaphor (common problem with me), I'll give a simpler example. When I play Quake or Wolfenstein and enter my own Matrix, as it were, most newbies (new players) are fragbait (easy to kill). Although they are undoubtedly free beings, they are utterly predictable, for two reasons: 1) The conditions which limit them are known to me. These are the rules and workings and quirks of the game. 2) People learn in similar ways. Thus, when I jump down from an overhang and target the newbie with a sufficiently threatening weapon, he's dead because: a) He will turn to run out of surprise, in which case I shoot him in the back at my leisure, or b) He'll return fire like a spaz because he is nervous, and has been surprised, and is unsure about how quickly I can kill him. So he over-reacts and fires like a nutcase, without really thinking. I can move back and forth slowly, avoiding his wild shots (most miss anyway) and, shooting less frequently, kill him with a few, well-placed headshots. I seem omnipotent, and emerge unscathed. Until the newbie stops and reflects about why he behaved like that, he won't become a good player.

                                Likewise, the mediocre player, foresees his visceral unformed responses at work (He thinks: "If I get ambushed or surprised, I'll freak out, lose my focus, and be killed") and takes appropriate countermeasures ("so I must concentrate before entering this large room with many enemies, and stay low at all costs"), but still struggles to do well. His liberum arbitrium knows what to do, but hasn't managed to get the voluntas fully attuned to this way of playing. A veteran player has mastered all his skills. He's achieved complete integration between his strategizing liberum arbitrium and his voluntas which actually affects his actions in the game. Thus whatever he chooses is immediately willed and whatever he wills brings about an appropriate course of action. Just like Neo when he is kicking ass in the Matrix.

                                When the master player has mastered the game, we say that his responses come as second nature. In saying his combat skills are "second nature," one might think this implies determinism about the master player: his actions are not "free," i.e. matters of deliberate artifice, but rather they are "natural," i.e., "automatic." But this is not so, for this "second nature," while often pre-reflective, is a nature one has created for oneself. It is nothing but the product of previous choices, and therefore, nothing other than a manifestation of one's freedom when properly understood. There. Did that help? Can I add a philological twist of lemon? If one has remade oneself with a "second nature," one is, by definition, reborn. (Natural --> Natus --> "Born")

                                So I don't want anyone griping that the Oracle is a determinist too. Like the other allusions in the film, early Christian writing or Middle Platonism may better explain her philosophical position.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X