Povert

I came across this the other day. It’s a good list of bad things people do in discussions & arguments.

I know I’m guilty of some of them. Specifically:

• “We need to define just exactly what you mean by _________.”
• “So you think we ought to just throw out the whole system, then?”
• “How is that different from classic fascism?”
• “Why, that’s Calvinism!”

What I really hate is what the page calls “Question As Opportunity”. Politicians do this all the time and it drives me nuts. The 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates were full of them. It certainly undermines the ostensible purpose of the debates.

Ok, I’m a geek. I watched it again.

Slightly different take on it now.

I still think that Isabelle Huppert’s character embodies a sort of continental philosophy, though I’m not so sure about the analytic part now. They seem to embody more of just classical western philosophy, which is more in line with analytical philosophy than with continental. I’m talking about Platonic/Socratic thought, and perhaps some pre-Socratics as well.

The interconnected and oneness thing, in particular, reminds me of some ancient Greek philosophy, though nowadays that sort of angle is seen as more of an eastern thing.

But, I will say that this movie is totally in line with my whole joke about how philosophy ruined my life. It’s not exactly a joke — it’s actually pretty accurate. The deeper you delve into these questions, the more unsettling things get. It’s particularly scary when you start to see yourself more objectively.

On the other hand, it is eventually beneficial, even for pragmatic reasons. Kind of hard to explain, though. But I’m certainly a different person having studied philosophy. Well, maybe. I don’t know how much some friends would agree with that. Hmm.

One more thing about Chris’s take on it. As far as lack of resolution… I still think there was resolution, but any remaining threads are there for a reason. I mean, I don’t think anyone achieves true understanding of reality. You might think you do, but as time goes on, you’ll start to see holes in whatever theory you’ve embraced. If you don’t see those holes, then you’re probably not being intellectually rigorous.

Ok — I saw it, I loved it.

I’ll have to watch it again, but on one level it seems to be about a long-standing rift in philosophy — Anglo-American (analytic) philosophy and Continental (European; excluding the UK) philosophy. These are two very different takes on reality, and the split goes back as far as Kant. Hegel and Nietzsche are even more distinguishable from the analytic philosophers. In the 20th century, the two biggest names in Continental philosophy that occur to me are Sartre and Derrida.

Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman embody the more American, analytic philosophy, whereas Isabelle Huppert obviously embodies Continental philosophy. I mean, hell, the character is even from Europe.

I can see why some people would hate this movie. I mean, this sort of philosophy either goes down well or it doesn’t, and presenting it so explicitly and in dramatic form is a challenge. But I think they did an excellent job.

I seriously laughed hard at some parts. I had to pause it a few times to compose myself. The scene at the dinner table in particular killed me.

I can see why Chris hated it, but I think he misinterpreted the movie’s intent. So, I’ll address his points. Nothing personal, Money. Here’s the relevant commentary:

… Huckabees was awful, almost painfully bad. I always thought presenting philosophical ideas through literature or entertainment was a great way to present those ideas so everyone can understand and probably help the writer understand then as he has to present them in a way he isn’t use to. I H Huckabees failed at this using philosophy buzz words and practically preaching to the audience. It wanted to be a college course starting with Dustin Hoffman explaining the universe with a blanket and ending with no resolution or understanding. I came to the conclusion the the theme of the movie is that philosophy makes you miserable because whenever any of the characters hire the existenial detectives they make them miserable.

First, I really didn’t pick up on the buzzwords thing. I’ll watch it again. And I didn’t find it to be too preachy. In fact, I’m not sure how it is being preachy, unless it’s telling the audience that the unexamined life is not worth living. In that case, it’s just echoing Socrates. Who was killed for being preachy, agreed. So I suppose it could be seen as preachy, but that’s what philosophy is. So relative to normal philosophy, it wasn’t particularly preachy. Have I used that word enough? Preachy. My point is that with the exception of, say, logic and maybe epistemology and metaphysics (though I’m not so sure about those two…), philosophy concerns itself first and foremost with how one ought to live.

As far as the college course… Eh, didn’t get that either. They were actually very sparse on the history of these ideas. In fact, I was unnerved by the stubbornness with which the characters clung to their beliefs, which is no way to teach philosophy. Of course, I think that was the point.

Finally, the most important point and mistake in Chris’s comments is the last point. Both Albert and Tom were miserable before they hired the existential detectives. In the end, they had reached a sort of understanding of reality and they were considerably less miserable. Moreover, they taught their teachers the error of their own beliefs.

But, as I said, I understand why Chris didn’t like it. It’s certainly not for everyone. In fact, I’m sure plenty of philosophy types hate it. I’m sure they think it’s pretty watered down, etc. But I loved it.

Like I said, I laughed pretty hard.

I’m starting to think that the biggest barrier to productive conversation is that people have a tendency to just assert crap. You know how on shows like Jerry Springer, people repeat the same sentence over and over?

I don’t know why people bother. Repeating the same thing doesn’t somehow justify it. It may work as propoganda, I guess. Good for shouting people down. But it makes you look dumb.

I’ve known people like this. I’ve known them better than I’d like to admit. It’s irritating to have someone seriously repeat the same damn sentence over and over. If you believe X, don’t just say X! X! X! Say x (lowercase, please don’t shout), because y and z. It’s simple. It’s friendly.

That’s not to say that problems can always be solved with rational, reasonable discussion. But it’s a lot more enjoyable that way.