Existentialism In Movies

Discussion in 'Existentialism' started by Mountain Valley Wolf, Dec 20, 2014.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Actually the subjectively would apply to any action we take. I don't know what an existentialist would say in regard to that, but it seems to me that existentialism is saying the same thing, only the subjectivity is not related to time but to individuals. So existentialists, it seems to me, to have an almost infinite variety of definitions of good and evil based on each individuals' tenuous understanding of the terms.

    I think I can agree with that. In the East, in my opinion, the question of good and evil does not really arise in the higher teachings because the higher teachings tell us that all is illusion anyway. Now, it is true that the Buddha and others teach about right action, good and bad, etc., but this is all confined to the lower understandings of human nature and aimed at those who have not fully understood the nature of Reality.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    Yah I think that's fair to say, this may be a grey area or dividing line between many existentialists and nihilism but since he's the most recent I've read, I'll go ahead and mention it. Nietzsche, through his character Zarathustra, even goes so far to suggest that ascribing to herd morality or perhaps we may say societal norms is a sign of weakness and that certain behavior's deemed evil are signs of strength and character. Nietzsche is kind of his own thing though :D Of the movies I've listed, I think Fight Club does a brilliant synthesis of some of these ideas.

    For something more practical, I think the pessimism can be reigned in slightly and more of a focus put on the individual striving towards personal authenticity, which might not always be found in group dynamics, however recognizing part of what constitutes being human is our relation to other people. There does seem like quite a bit of room open for interpretations and fluctuations in morality that might not sit well for many with a strict dichotomy of good and evil.
     
  3. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I think why it was wrong can easily be understood by all. At the time I was too focused on wanting to help the individual, and wanting it to be a great help---as in producing a quality paper (when I should've trusted him to be able to do at least as good of a job as everyone else, and that it should not have been about what I thought was a great paper.) In my zeal to want to help him, I did not think things through.

    At the time it didn't occur to me what the impact would be to other students. I thought the damage would be to him at not going through the process, but I thought that I could make up for that by teaching him how I did it. Back when I was in college, I guess I was fairly naive about such matters. I just assumed that everyone did their own work. I actually enjoyed writing the research papers because it was my chance to give my perspective on the subject, and to show off what I knew. Even on joint projects with other students, I tended to do the most work, and always did most if not all of the paper. In the case in question, it wasn't until my paper was the only one that even passed, and not only that, it passed as an A paper, that I realized what I had done to the class.

    That was a lesson learned over a stupid choice.


    Having said that----you are right----it is why I consider this the Age of Nihilism. Today everything is relative, which should not be surprising, because more and more, our understanding of reality is becoming shaped by relativity----the scientific side to Einstein's theories is only a part of this overall zeitgeist (spirit of the times) of relativism. But relativism is not an end game, for as we understand reality more on these terms, we are also replacing it with an understanding that is related to quantum reality, in other words, the next step that will define our world view—which, in many ways, is a return to the multiplicity of the hunter-gatherer.

    Regardless of where we are headed, today we live in a time when truth, value, and authenticity no longer have any meaning. A corporation is just as much a person as a person is. There is empirical evidence of evolution, yet it is no more of an accepted cultural truth than certain religious groups’ interpretation of a book written between 2,000 and 6,000 years ago. As you stated, what is right to one person, is wrong to another. The value of a person is determined by how much money they make, how much material wealth they have accumulated, and a credit history that may, or may not, be a fault of their own. They themselves, respond to the emptiness in their lives by buying more things, or immersing themselves in virtual unreal worlds. Some of them fall victim to addictions, many of them fall victim to depression. The unreal seems real, the real seems unreal, and everything is becoming abstract—for example, most of us view the world more through a TV screen, or computer monitor than actual presence, and texting is replacing conversation between living individuals.

    The Age of Nihilism, and the intellectual and moral decay of the world around us is not the intentional result of Western Philosophy. It seems to me that it was largely the inevitable result of Western Man’s dualism, his rationalism, and his objectivism. Once the Enlightenment happened, it was only a matter of time before man would become overly focused on physical reality, and the conscious mind that perceives it (as opposed to the subconscious mind), that God would be declared dead, and we would lose our culturally unifying truth. The unifying truth of today is a manufactured one, providing nothing more than shallow meaning: Consumerism. It does not provide true meaning to life, nor even to our culture.

    As far as existentialism is concerned, it was more of a reaction to Modern Man’s ongoing fall into the hole of Nihilism, than a cause. Existentialism pointed to the most critical problem---the alienation of the individual from itself. Granted, it too was a product of the Modern Age, and therefore was tilted heavily towards materialism over idealism, and thus struggled to provide the deeper meanings of life that Modern Man was rapidly losing. But it did stress the individual, and free will, and that is critical considering the dehumanizing forces at work in the modern age, namely, industrialization and political control.

    But what if this is the only way we can break through the dogmatic, reductionist, duality that our planter ancestors naturally found themselves evolving into as t hey tried to figure out how to live together in what we now label as civilization. After all, duality has always been at the philosophical core of civilization. The Cartesian mind-body duality was really no different than the good vs evil, male vs female, god vs devil, heaven vs hell, heaven vs earth, or physical vs non-physical that grew out of our early understandings of in-group vs out-group.

    Consider the problem you see with Western philosophy today—the understanding that there are no universals, and the relativism. Both of these understandings are key building blocks to the modern Nihilism we find ourselves in. On the other hand, if we were to accept that there is a universal concept of good and evil----whose concept of good or evil should we accept as universal? The Christian one? Christian duality is so reductionist that to believe in anything else condemns one to an eternal Hell. Consider also the all organized religions are today founded upon the ideals of a culture that underwent a masculine rebellion against the Goddess, hence they are all male chauvinist. Hindu duality, for example, equates the feminine with the physical, and karmic pain and suffering, and the masculine with heaven, and an enlightened reunification with the cosmos. Does an acceptance of a universal duality mean that women should be kept in their place, and that man should have total control over their reproductive rights? Because this is a key element of the ethics that our civilizations are founded upon (and it represented man’s taking control over his environment (the fecundity of the God) rather than merely living by the graces bestowed (or not bestowed) by nature herself (the fertility of the goddess)).

    Today we are gaining an understanding that women are people too---not chattels. We are no longer living within a culture that can find meaning in, and validate, its own unique understanding of ethics and morality, and the nature of the overall cosmos, which has been handed down from distant ancestors who were still so deeply attached to their whole selves, as to be able to understand the universe from a deeper non-physical perspective. Instead we find ourselves in a world where there are many such views, understandings, and philosophies, none more valid than another.

    So how do we gain a new understanding that frees us from the fetters of duality, rationalism, and objectivism---the philosophical understandings that have brought us to where we are today, but that are a bigger threat to our continuation as a species than ever before in our history? To remove such understandings, man has a tradition of purgation—a process of death-rebirth. It is part of this process that we are watching happen—almost before our very eyes: the death of value, meaning, authenticity, and truth. Consider also how relativism is changing our dualistic outlook.

    But is this death all that great? For the most part we are talking about dried out carcasses here anyway. For example, in a world of objects (the objective world) there is very little intrinsic value. Instead we have price tags, utility values, and abstract values that speak towards such things as prestige and bragging rights.

    The risk of death is whether or not you come out the other side. It is difficult to imagine what life would be like on the other side. For example, how could we ever escape duality---there has to be right and wrong, right? Wrong---well, not exactly. For example, I have yet to come across a hunter-gatherer culture that is based on a dualistic cosmology. They all have multiplistic cosmologies which is a better reflection of nature. Their universe is not built upon two opposing all powerful forces. It is based upon a myriad of forces, some benevolent, some malevolent, others neutral—good, bad, in between, it’s all there.

    An example of the ethics of a multiplistic culture would be that of traditional Taoist Chinese society. The aim to achieve a happy life is to achieve a balance. There is no chasing after an ego-ideal in order to be a perfectly good citizen---it is all a matter of achieving balance.
     
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    I must clarify what I mean by Western philosophy.

    There are many tenets of Eastern philosophy that I disagree with and some of Western philosophy that I agree with.

    What I find disturbing about what I am calling Western philosophy (as it is the one to usually fall to this level) is it's insistence on claiming that its own brand of understanding is the only one true understanding possible. It divides, categorizes, pigeon holes, and denounces. And it does this in a most convoluted matter so that it becomes more complicated the more you look at it.

    To be sure the East also does this, but only at certain levels. As you move up the levels it keeps getting simpler and simpler until, perhaps, a "master" will not speak at all.....yet be able to completely transmit his understanding.

    In the East, all the major schools end up saying the same thing, only in different ways.

    As in the example of doing someone else's homework. The west will debate over the rightness and wrongness forever.

    The east will simply point out that it's wrong and finally admit, in the end, that the question never should have been asked in the first place.
     
  5. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    There is an odd feeling I get reading both your guy's post above.

    Both of you come across as seeming to have a certain disdain for Western mindset and culture and appear to romanticize other cultures, but the irony is the platform you guys are using to speak (type) this on is one of the biggest triumphs and statements from Western Culture, saying what actually is.

    And with that grim picture of Western Philosophy and Culture in mind, I'm pondering as to why you would not opt for these respective preferable lifestyles?
     
  6. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Yes---I probably posted too quickly----it was a hastily written post---put together in between soaking in a hot springs, driving out to eat, wandering the shops of a small mountain town, swimming in the hotel pool... I was completely oblivious to the conversation going on in this thread over the past few days...

    I am not romanticist pining for a long gone pastoral life, or even suggesting that we should return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I much prefer my comfortable bed in my climate-controlled home; my wifi, and starbucks; being able to drive and fly long distances, and so forth----even my own toys that fill the empty spaces in my own life. I would much prefer this life to that of a traditional Taoist Chinese village, for example. (I simply used that as an example of life under a multiplistic world-view.)

    Western philosophy and culture has taken us to this point in human development. We must be thankful for that. But now those very things that have enabled such progress that I can even sit in my home, or a starbucks, or a hotel room and watch movies, videos, and TV shows at will on a handheld screen that is barely as thick as a pencil, are also now threatening my freedom, my future, my well-being and philosophy.

    I do not show as much disdain as,say, Nietzsche did----after all, this is the very age of Nihilism that he talked of, yet now, the way out is a bit more clear.

    No, I say that we are facing a philosophical crisis, and that it is time for a change. Rather than feeling disdain for Western Philosophy, my own philosophy is grounded upon Cartesian skepticism, the Phenomenalism of Berkeley and Kant, amd I am very heavily influencd by Husserl's phenomenology, Nietzsche, and even existentialism. My philosophy grabs hold of the philosophical implications of Einstein's theories of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

    But we do need to change before we destroy ourselves. And I am very optimistic that such change is occuring all around us.
     
    2 people like this.
  7. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
    I'm not that disdainful about western philosophy and culture either, not in general at least. I just dislike Starbucks :-D

    So, what I am wondering after above post: if we are going to destroy ourselves why do we need to change first? If we're not going to destroy ourselves I see more use in changing (all depends on WHAT we are supposed to change of course and HOW ;) And why :p)


    Sounds to me like you couldn't have a better excuse :cheers2:
     
  8. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Yeah, we came back into town late lastnight, I hated to leave the hot springs, as I always do, but I hate the Labor Day traffic even more. However it was worth it---I went up to Boulder this morning with my son and his girlfriend and joined in the Free The Nipples protest.


    I love Starbucks-----except in Japan where they are crowding out very, very, good family-owned coffee shops.

    Hopefully we are not going to destroy ourselves. As I said, I am optimisitic on our future. But the kind of change I am talking about does not happen right away. For example, the bulk of what happened in existentialism took place over the first half of the twentieth century. The end of World War II left Europe in its existential crisis. Sartre's, Being & Nothingness was written in the 1950's. America did not have its own existential crisis until the end of the most recent decade (though I would say that 1968 marked the beginning of the early symptoms of this crisis, as did the Watergate years and the Energy crisis of the 1970's). Einstein's began publishing his theories at the beginning of the twentieth century, and while it shaped our cosmology and understanding of the atom quickly, the theories' deeper cultural implications did not really take hold for close to a hundred years later. (Yes I am making a connection between Einstein and the modern day relativism of truth and meaning-----and I do this because as our zeitgeist changes (and this includes the zeitgeist as it refers to our scientific understanding of reality and cosmology) it has deeper cultural changes that appear in a culture's collective psychology.) These changes appear in academic circles, artisitic circles, literary circles, and those of the general public at different times and rates.

    As we continue to grow increasingly global, and as traditional values, meanings and truths break down, we need to break away from the divisive worldviews of our ancestors----group ethic, duality, rationalist-objectivism, and so forth. We need to rediscover value in the subjective---the individual. We need a new essentialism----one that is based on consciousness, because quantum mechanics already demonstrates how we each play a hand in our own reality----in other words, that we do have existential freedom/free will. The rise of the feminine will change our zeitgeist as well, and help break down the overly inflated ego-shadow complex that has so far been a part of civilized man's reality.

    But we must also be careful not to fall into the traps of reductionism and utopianism.
     
  9. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    I disagree in regards to the rise of the feminine leading to a breakdown in the overly inflated ego part, perhaps there is a generation divide here.

    I think it's pretty much common knowledge amongst my generation that Females can display every bit as overly inflated ego as males and IMO some of the emphasis on security and surveillance, which some think is bordering on police states in certain areas, is influenced by feminine ideals.
     
  10. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I come from a generation where, if you put on Hai Karate after shave, sexy women will be all over you... (Oh wait, I guess Axe does the same thing today...).

    Of course this is only theoretical, or my real name is not Lucifer (Whoops, did I say that out loud?). Seriously, my position is that of many Jungian psychologists.

    Yes, you are right, women today can be just as intimidating, demanding, micro-managing, as any guy can. I lived overseas for a good decade and a half, and when I came back, I did have to adjust to being politically correct in a work place that was as much female as it was male. (I wasn’t a Will Ferrell in Anchorman, mind you----but I certainly noticed how things had changed.)

    But you have to consider that in a masculine dominated society, which is what we still live in, women have just as large of an ego-shadow complex as men do. This is to say that there are just as many traits that they have repressed into their shadow---their own ego denying that such a trait is a part of their personality---and they then project that trait onto everyone else, with an angry passion.

    Psychologists and sociologists have identified certain traits that they label as masculine and others as feminine. Empathy, for example, is a feminine trait. But this did not mean that men did not have empathy or even that women have more empathy. There are women that have strong empathy, and there are men that do, but there are also both women and men who are not empathetic at all.

    But there is a conclusion with this, which I agree with, that a masculine dominated society is more focused on the conscious mind, physical reality, and the objective world. This seems very obvious to me from the history of religion, myth, civilization, and even my own experiences of being with indigenous people on both sides of the Pacific, who follow a less masculine dominated tradition (i.e. we would label them as being uncivilized). Jungian traditions hold that the ego is a key part of the conscious mind and conscious reality. Jung stated that it was a filter, whose purpose was to maintain a consistent personality by filtering out all the non-essential stimuli, both internal and external, and relegating it to the subconscious----for example, most of the time we are not conscious of our own heart beat. Most of the time you are not conscious of the sound of an airplane when you fly---but suddenly when there is a change in that sound—especially one that you are not expecting, all of a sudden you notice it.

    The greater focus we place on objective physical reality, the larger our ego becomes. To borrow from Freud, the greater our ego-ideal also becomes. Overemphasis of objective physical reality weakens our own ties to our own subconscious mind, and the reality it presents. The shadow begins forming at very early childhood, and is part of our own process of trying to fit into, and gain acceptance of our family, our peers, and our community. It is part of the psychological impact of our own socialization and cultural programming.

    All people have a shadow. But I think you can see that civilized man, with his over-emphasis of the objective physical world will have a more inflated ego, which would equate to a more inflated shadow. This is especially true of societies with stronger and more rigid rules, and orders of conduct. As one Jungian psychologist wrote (and I am paraphrasing from memory), under the God, everything shown from the brightness of the sun, and there was a stark black and white. Under the Goddess, it was the softer light of the moon, and everything was bathed in tones of grey and off-white. This makes sense if you consider that the goddess cultures were a transition stage from the multiplisitic hunter-gatherer cultures to the dualistic civilized societies of the male god.

    The rise of the feminine does not mean that we are going to start following the Goddess again. (However there has been a resurgence of the goddess beliefs.) But I feel that it is a transition stage back to a perception of gender equality. My own research in languages and the language of the feminine suggests to me that our older ancestors did not place emphasis on gender equality---that they simply saw gender as two halves to a whole in the sacred creative process of the universe. This is why you find more gender equality among hunter-gatherer groups and indigenous people than you do among civilized people. The deeper into a planter culture a group becomes, the greater gender equality weakens. This is the real goal of the rise of the feminine---gender equality. I mean, sure there will be that point where men are all locked in chains and placed in sexual dungeons to be repeatedly raped, but… (…Oops, I wasn’t going to mention that, I mean, don’t worry, I’m joking!!)

    Today, the rise of the feminine is understood as a fight for equal pay and equal rights. People don’t stop to realize that in a culture where that has been truly achieved and women have achieved unquestionable equality, that our very cultural programming and the way it impacts our own psyche will be significantly altered. Maybe not greatly altered, but enough to be significant. A woman today may very well find that a future culture where women have long since achieved equality to be as alien and foreign to her, as a culture where women are still largely second class citizens----for example, Japan, as recently as the 1980’s, or even Saudi Arabia, for example, today. Just imagine for a moment, if an American young lady, living in the 1950’s, suddenly found herself living today. I grant you that she would have a major cultural shock as she tried to fit in.
     
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    I do not disdain Western Philosophy....I just can't quite get a handle on it. It is much to complicated compared to some Eastern thought.

    Complicated is not the right word, I would probably say misdirected, over blown, and pretentious.

    Try reading Gurdjieff's "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" and then compare it to "The Tao Te Ching".

    As far as romanticizing other cultures, I am aware of the limits of different cultures. Historical China, or Tibet, or India were not much better off, if at all, than ancient Greece, or Rome, or where ever.

    We live in extraordinary times, one of the most exciting in the history of the world, and although I'd love to time travel back to visit the ancient seats of learning, I don't believe I'd want to live there.

    The advances of the West are mainly due to technology, the study of philosophy was not the only thing that influenced that development. It was also related to language, alphabet, climate, biological and mineral resources, geography, etc.
     
  12. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    [SIZE=medium][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=medium]is there anything that cannot be called existentialism? [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=medium]how did existence itself become a cult?[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=medium]these movies, to me all they are saying, is that everything we think we know, could be an illusion.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=medium]to me, this goes without saying.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=medium]not that existence is an illusion, or that everything that does is, but everything we think we know about it.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=medium][/SIZE]


    [SIZE=medium]In a very broad sense, existentialism refers to the experience of being human, i.e. existing as a human; so one could probably construct the argument that every narrative we create is inescapably existentialist because it is a description of, or it is from the perspective of, the human experience of existence.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=medium]But then every narrative does not present a story that reflects the philosophy of existentialism. The movies listed or discussed in this thread are movies that reflect just that. A common element between all these movies is therefore the emphasis on the individual and the realization that the individual has a choice, an existential freedom, and that what happens to that individual is a result of those choices. Another theme would be that our essence does not determine who we are. For example, in the children's movie, Megamind, the superhero goes through an existential crisis, and fakes his death so he can run off and become a musician, while the evil villain, thinking he killed the superhero, has his own existential crisis and realizes that his life has no meaning without a superhero arch-nemesis. But then despite the fact that he always believed that he was evil, actually becomes the hero. In fact the hero, who believed himself as good, shows his own evil character in the way he deals with the villain. He in fact created the evil in the villain--contrary to the villains own belief that he was meant to be evil.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=medium]While everyone will have their own interpretations of the movies, illusion to an existentialist is the beliefs that we use to limit ourselves. It could be the illusion that we have no choice, or the illusion of divine intervention, for example. (Existentialists tend to be atheist and agnostic, but even Christian and other religious existentialists argue that our lives are in our own hands.) The Matrix movies are very interesting in this regard, because they present the life that we are living as illusion, but not physical life/existence itself. Once they break through the illusion of their computer generated fake lives, they still have a physical existence, and it is then that they must face the true realities of life and existence----the struggle to survive by oneself.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=medium]In the Matrix we can see that life, and physical existence, itself is not an illusion. To an existentialist, there is no hidden reality, no thing-in-itself. There is no essence that makes us who we are, or that serves as a metaphysical ideal from which an existent is derived. Existence itself provides everything, including the essence. For example, in the movie Metro Manila, life is presented just how it really is in the real Metro Manila---with the beauty of the sunsets, for example, but the grimy dirty pollution of the barrios---the ghettos that make up the bulk of the city. There is no hidden goodness---no all-powerful god---that will make everything right, and pull these pitiful souls out of the quagmire that is their situation. It is up to themselves. (I don't wholly agree with existentialists on this matter---but it is certainly a reality in a nation that is filled with people who pray continuously for a better existence, and yet continue to live in the hopeless poverty that surrounds their lives in this unforgiving city.)[/SIZE]
     
  13. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    bennifit and harm are both things that can actually exist, but i have to agree, dichotamy is an invented, arbitrary and completely unnatural way of looking at things.

    i don't quite buy, "what you see is all there is", simply because the closer and finer you look, or even further back you step to take more in, there is always more to see then what you yet have. but i also don't buy, that what you don't see, is what someone wrote in a book, thousands of years ago, for the simple reason humans invented bullshit, long before they invented writing.

    i also agree that what we experience, has more to do with the statistcal combined result, from what all of us each do, then anything to do with what we don't see.
    its also though, usually more from that combined result, than entirely our own individual actions, that much of what we experience comes.
    which is not to deny how much a role our own choices play as well. each of these things, both more directly and immediately affect us, then does anything moving unseen beyond them.

    none of this forbids the existence of unseen things, but neither does it support, all (or any) the fantasies people have written about them.

    but i also recognize, no part of existence is all about anything human. that's just where most of what we experience, if we surround ourselves primarily with each other, and think in terms of societies, more then environments that further surround and make possible our existence. nor is it for our own sake that they do so. that they just happen to be hospitable to our species, is an entirely random fortune, that makes our existence possible.

    one which very likely makes equally possible, sapient life, in physical forms, each unique to their own worlds. one or more such worlds, very likely among those, circling each every distant sun, we see in the night sky.

    nor can we count on nature's ability to continue supporting the existence of our species, if we don't learn to be more cautious of the effects of our behaviors and priorities, upon it.
     
  14. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I agree. Both quantum mechanics and the theories of relativity paint a world that is very different from what we take for granted. Philosophers have barely considered the implications here. In fact, both areas of physics have unresolved issues, however if we look at the universe as a hologram, the unresolved issues in Einstein's theories are resolved in quantum mechanics, and the unresolved issues of quantum mechanics are resolved in Einstein's theories. The problem of the position of a particle, vs the superposition of a probability wave indicates that reality is nothing like we perceive it, and again points to the possibility of the universe as a hologram, but in any event, certainly points to an existent as having a perceived reality (through its phenomena) and a seperate hidden reality or noumena as the thing-in-itself.


    I see this in an existentialist manner---basically that there is the collective activities of the crowd, and what we today would call, the establishment. It is easier to go along with it, and many people have a fear of striking out on their own, or going against the crowd---being a true individual. This is why religion is so powerful. In this way, most people are not authentic individuals---they are not true to themselves.

    But I also understand this from a Jungian perspective----that becoming authentic includes a process of individuation, which involves reconnecting with our true selves, including the difficult and fearful process of facing our true selves and accepting who we are wholly, including those faults and 'evils' that we, as individuals, have repressed.

    But I do believe that we have true existential freedom, and it is all a question of whether we choose to use it or not. In fact, I would argue that each of us have a power to change reality that is much greater than any of us realize. This is the wisdom of the faith of a mustard seed moving a mountain. It is all about belief---in other words, the caveat is that we can only change reality to the extent that we truly believe we can change it. And most of the time we cannot fake this belief. Here again, quantum mechanics demonstrates this with the double slit experiment. No matter how many times they redo or alter the experiment, it still comes down to the fact that how we observe light changes how it manifests.

    An existentialist would generally not go so far---for example, Sartre would have argued that a single individual in World War II France would not have suddenly removed the Nazi's from France, or put an end to the Vichy Government. But an individual did have the choice of following the Vichy Government and the German directives, or resisting with the French Underground.



    The existentialist point here is that even though there are many different life forms and perspectives---we could never understand them in any way other than the human way. Because, we are, after all, human, and even though as a human, we can rationalize how a dog, for example, perceives and understands reality, and sees itself fitting into that reality----we can never escape the fact that, we are still seeing it from a human perspective, and our rationalizations are, at best, no more than a guess about that dog's world. Likewise, if there is a God, we would never be able to understand life from its perspective, only from our own.
     
  15. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I have been wanting to see this for quite some time----well... at least since they started running advertisements for it a few months ago. I want to see it to see how it handles the very issue you disucss.

    I recently wrote something elsewhere in response to the issue of whether or not computers and robots will ever attain sentience. My own feeling is that they won't. But this is what I wrote about the problem of differentiating man from machine:


    The problem today is that not only are we faced with the problem of, 'what it means to be human, and are we really that special that a machine cannot achieve the same thing?' But that we are also being dehumanized in all kinds of ways, shapes, and forms. In other words, we are being molded into a state of being that is no different from a mere tool or machine. The less the machine exists as the 'other,' the more sinister this objectification of our humanity becomes.

    This too, I believe, is part of the modern American existential crisis. This is why popular culture is crying out for a superhero, and a return to the individual and the subjective.
     
  16. MyExistentialism

    MyExistentialism Members

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hello! I'm new at The Hip Forums. This is my third post, I think. I like that there is this beginning of a list of Existential movies. Thank you.

    I wonder how many of people here have seen the great movie "Port Djema"? You can get a scratchy film on YouTube, with English subtitles. (I bought a DVD from France, but it does not have subtitles. The picture quality of the French DVD is excellent, but too bad about no subtitles!)

    When I first saw t his movie nearly 20 years ago, I was surprised -- almost shocked -- that it really made me feel and experience what I would consider existentialism to be. There is a lot of "potential action," with things and scenes going on that lead nowhere. It was filmed in Eritrea -- stunning and rather shockng photography of experiences in that country. I think that the "location" called Port Djema is fictional, but the movie is very realistic.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. Pete's Draggin'

    Pete's Draggin' Visitor

    I think I understand Existentialism In a Movie.

    Would the Arnold movie Total Recall ~1990 be an example of the OP?

    Arnold plays a normal guy who might be in his dream as an good agent trying to signal handedly save people on the planet Mars. He's actually using the body of a villain and gets tricked in the end. Is the good and evil, and choices in a "real" or "unreal" world he makes defined as Existentialism?

    Have I totally missed the mark in this thread with this movie?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DwNb-ZGVjE
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. MyExistentialism

    MyExistentialism Members

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hmmm. I posted a comment on this thread yesterday, about the movie Port Djema. I don't see my comment here -- yet????
     
  19. MyExistentialism

    MyExistentialism Members

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    A few movies I've seen have caused me to have what I would consider "an existential experience." This experience heightens my own outlook on whatever it is that's going on in life. The movies I am referring to are
    [SIZE=12pt]many of the films by Francois Truffaut; Wild Strawberries, The Virgin Spring, and The Magician by Ingmar Bergman; Port Djema, Eric Heumann, 1997. Probably also The Bicycle Thief, a sad, sad movie that I wish I had never seen, but which has stayed in my mind for over 40 years.[/SIZE]
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. MyExistentialism

    MyExistentialism Members

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Mountain Valley Wolf, thank you for your fascinating comments and interpretation on Metro Manila. The movie sounds grim, and would probably depress me. I looked at the trailer and that confirmed my apprehension about this movie. When I was younger, I saw movies that were tragic (in theaters, before home videos had been invented). but now I can't do them anymore. I think that as a young person in the 1950s and 1960s, I could see how fake so the overall viewpoint/culture in the US was/is and was seeking to know what reality really is. Whatever it is...I spent some time in Tanzania, East Africa, in my attempt to escape from the fake stuff here. But I found out what reality is, all right. I realized there, as I put it then, that "the line between civilization and chaos is very thin."
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice