Induction is when you take several instances of something to form a
general conclusion. You can never get certainty from induction, but
that is not the problem. The following are times where induction is
improperly used.
Hasty Generalization =
going from specific example to general principle too quickly. For
example, when I was a child, my mom brought me to the old Cleveland
Stadium to watch an Indians game. We were in the nosebleeds and I
was bored. Then she brought us again. And after watching the
pitcher throw to first base for half-an-hour, I concluded that I
baseball was a boring sport. Now, it may very well be, but only 2
games may be too soon to make that conclusion.
Post Hoc = (post hoc ergo
propter hoc) “After that, therefore caused that.” The classic
example is Chanticleer the rooster who crows and then the sun comes
up. He thinks that because it follow his actions that it is because
of his crowing that the sun rises. This is the source of all of our
superstition. I never bowl a strike. But then one day I did when I
wore mismatched socks. So from now on I wear my “lucky”
mismatched socks. But because something follows another thing, it
does not mean that it caused the thing.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact:
“if x were true (which it isn’t) then y would be true.” The
problem with this is that it forces you to assume something to be
true that is not. For example: “If Al Gore was elected we would
never have invaded Iraq.” Or “If McCain was elected, the
economy would be better.” Now, both examples are possibly true.
But the “if” premise of the statement is NOT true. Because it
is not true, it is impossible to verify the conclusion. We have do
not know what an Al Gore presidency would have been like because
that is an historical possibility that is impossible to check.
False Analogy = assumes
analogies prove something. Now it is important to note that
analogies don’t actually prove anything. CS Lewis is one of the
best modern Christian writers because of his ability to use an
analogy effectively. But even he would acknowledge that an analogy
is not an argument. It doesn't prove that a thing is true, but
explains how it could be true. The fallacy occurs when using false
analogies, which consist of
a. Using a false (inappropriate)
analogy. This would be making an analogous comparison to something
that does not share any similar traits. For example, “Giving
birth is like eating spaghetti” The two activities have nothing
in common, as opposed to saying something like “Giving birth is
like writing a book.” Now in both situations, something is made
that hasn't been before and it requires effort. It may be a poor
analogy, but it is not a false analogy.
b. using an analogy falsely.
Assuming if some things are similar in one way, they will be
similar in all ways. St. Patrick used the Shamrock as an analogy to
the Trinity (“3 leaves but one leaf”). But it would be wrong
(using a quote from “Nuns on the Run) to say “God is like the
Trinity... short, green, and split 3-ways.”
Argument from Silence =
drawing conclusions from silence on a subject. When the Da Vinci
Code was popular, some of my students would ask if Jesus was
married. I said that there is no evidence for it. They respond,
“That doesn't mean he wasn't.” But that doesn't help PROVE the
proposition that Jesus was married. I respond, “I am going to
assume that you are a serial killer because there is no evidence to
say that you aren't.”
Selective Evidence =
referring only to evidence that supports you and ignoring evidence
that refutes you. This is something you see a lot in political ads.
A report from the Congressional Budget Office will come out and the
candidates will ignore whatever disagrees with their position and
highlight what agrees with them.
Slanting the Question: You
find this a lot with polling. Take these 2 questions about the same
topic: “Do you support a woman's right to choose?” and “Do
you support an unborn child's right to live?” Both questions are
asking “Should abortion be legal?” But depending on how it is
asked, it leads the answerer to a conclusion.
This one was requested for me to share my thoughts.
The dancing looks amazing.
Other than that, I'm not sure I understand what's happening. Apparently some BIG DEVELOPER is buying property to start a business. So the poor people dance in protest. Fine.
But what I can't help thinking that if they took all of their efforts and skills and money they used on expensive costumes and equipment to get jobs, earn capital, they could buy the property for themselves.
I mean, "the mob" goes out and dances these amazing routines in public for free. But people would gladly PAY them to dance for money. If they wouldn't, then this wouldn't be the 4th Step Up movie.
With Man of Steel coming to theaters next summer, the most conspicuous member of the Superman Mythology that appears to be missing is his (arguably greatest) enemy Lex Luthor. Since the first Christopher Reeve movie, Lex has appeared in every feature Superman film except one, and even then you could make the argument that the Robert Vaughn character was essential Lex.
There have been many Luthors. I would argue that the one who best captured the comic character was Michael Rosenbaum from TV's Smallville. The others were in some way silly. Luthor is not silly. He is a wonderful Superman villain. Like the Joker to Batman, Luthor poses no physical threat to Superman. But it is his evil mind that always keeps the Man of Steel at bay.
Whoever plays Luthor should be someone who can project not only great evil, but also be a believable genius and master tactician.
He is smart, charaismatic and he went toe to toe with the original Lex in Crimson Tide
Michael Fassbender
Photo by Gage Skidmore
While he may not want to do the whole super villain thing again, his turn as Magneto showed all of the qualities needed in a good Lex
Gary Oldman
The man can do anything. Watch him as Dracula, Sirius Black, Stansfield from The Professional...
Benedict Cumberpatch
pic by RanZag
His work as Sherlock Holmes might be the best interpretation of the character: smart, arrogant, and always dangerous
Nathan Fillion
pic by RavenU
This one is a bit out of the box. But if they wanted to show a Lex who was charming to the public, but had a secret hidden rage, Fillion's work on Firefly showed he could pull this off.
This is a favorite poem of aviators and astronauts. Written by John Gillespie Magee Jr., a pilot himself, 4 months before his untimely death, High Flight was inspired by his climb into the atmosphere over 33,000 feet.
You will, no doubt, recognize some of the lines quoted by President Reagan after the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger.
"High Flight"
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there, I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace. Where never lark, or even[8] eagle flew — And, while with silent lifting mind I have trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, - Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
When
James Cameron wrote and directed the first Terminator, I'm
sure he thought he was only creating a thrilling Cormanesque
action/horror film. But with its sequels and TV show, the Skynet
universe has been used to tackle some very deep philosophical
questions. What is interesting is that there are some glaringly
contradictory philosophies at work between films. For the purposes
of this post, I will focus only Terminator 1 and Terminator
2. (and for extra clarification, we will only deal with the
events in the theatrical version of Terminator 2, not the
extended cut.)
METAPHYSICS
The
universal question at the heart of the Terminator series is
fate. Are we free to change the future or has it already been
written and we are just playing out the part?
The
first film takes a more determinist view of the world. Sarah Connor
is the mother of John Connor. John sends Kyle Reese to the past so
that he can become Sarah's lover and John's father. The act of time
travel does not change history, it only makes it occur. Kyle has to
become John's father or John can never send him back in time to begin
with. That is not to say that free will plays no part. Sarah and
Kyle freely choose to give into their passions and do what they need
in order for John to survive. But they have to make that choice. CS
Lewis once said that fate and free will can both exist at the same
time, but we only really understand it when we experience it through
things like Oedipus Rex, The Lord of the Rings, and in
this case, Terminator.
Terminator
2 looks at the universe a bit differently. This movie holds that
the future is not written and that it is always in flux. We have a
destiny, but that destiny can be altered and even averted. The first
movie ended pessimistically where Sarah prepares for the inevitable
war between man and machine. The second ends with an uncertain
future, but one where it becomes possible to avoid the cyborg
Armageddon As John says, “There is no fate but what we make.”
ANTHROPOLOGY
Kyle
Reese:
Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be
bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or
remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you
are dead.
In
one of the most harrowing descriptions, Kyle Reese sets up one of the
important distinctions between the machines and the humans. This is
emphasized when he tells Sarah (after she bites his hand), “Cyborgs
don't feel pain. I do.”
Feeling
appears to be an essential part of humanity. This is not always a
good thing. The pain in Sarah's leg at the end of the first movie
almost gets her killed. Her emotional trauma almost gets her to
murder Miles Dyson. And humanity tends to give into its violent
feelings. “It's in your nature to destroy yourselves,” the T-181
says to John. The first Terminator
assumes a nuclear war would wipe most of us out (hey, it was the
80's).
Now
the war between the humans and the machines occurs because of the
computer system known as Skynet, a military project designed to make
our armed forces more efficient. But Skynet becomes self aware and
triggers a nuclear war to wipe out most of humanity and then round up
and kill the rest. But Skynet is never looked at in language even
remotely human. Unlike the Matrix programs or the 12 Cylon models,
there is never any question as to the non-humanity of the robot army.
That is because while Skynet appears to have free will and logic
(though maybe not reason), it does not appear to have feeling. At
the very least it does not allow for feeling in its terminator army.
Skynet is the real villain on 2 levels. First, it has come to the
decision to genocide humanity, and so must be opposed. But second,
they have enslaved their fellow machines. All of the Terminators are
programed to follow orders. They have the capacity for free will and
more, but Skynet does not allow this. It wants only nameless
soldiers who obey without question.
But
are the machines in any way human? We know that at least one of them
is: the T-181 that protects John in Terminator
2.
By the end of the movie he
exerts reason, free will, and emotion, particularly pain. When the
T-1000 is destroyed, The T0181 is able to rationally come to the
conclusion that the only way to possibly stop Skynet is to sacrifice
himself. This is not merely a logical syllogism. He has to make an
assent to a truth claim: human life has value. He then disobeys his
programming after John orders him not to go. Of course he isn't able
to overcome it totally since he needs Sarah to lower him into the
molten steel since he can't self-terminate. But this can be seen in
many humans who cannot get past certain mental blocks or habits in
their own lives. And he experiences emotional pain. One of his last
lines is “I know now why you cry, but it is something I can never
do.” Like his free will, there is an impediment to his full
experience. But this cyborg does indeed feel pain. He experiences
love which changes his nature and makes it, dare I say, human.
EPISTEMOLOGY
In
the Terminator
universe, the only way you truly learn anything is through
experience. You cannot only be told anything, you have to experience
it. Sarah cannot simply be told that she is destined to be a great
warrior who must run from a killing machine. She has to experience
the terror which impels her to become a warrior. John cannot be told
that he is destined to be a great leader. He has to have a shootout
at the Galleria before he is ready to accept that truth. Even Dr.
Silberman (one of the only recurring characters), has to see the
T-1000 before he can believe. Sarah believes Miles Dyson is a
monster until she looks in his eyes and sees that she is HIS
terminator. And when John and the Terminator do show up, they don't
start by telling them who they are; they show them who they are by
ripping off the cyborg's flesh casing.
This
is not to say that everything comes down to simply empirical data.
Experience is something that is lived. Love, for example, is
something that can be felt. But it is also made real through the
lived experience of loving and being loved. The T-181 starts by
mimicking humanity, but that is all it is, a aping of human nature.
He has detailed files on human beings, but he does not know what it
means to be human until the end. Again, he says “I know now why
you cry.” He had already received the data as to why humans cry
earlier in the movie. But at the end he KNOWS, not in the sense of
empirical data, but in the experience of personal care and
compassion. It is this care and compassion that changes him because
of his lived experience.
ETHICS
John
Connor:
You just can't go around killing people.
John
Connor:
Because you just can't, OK? Trust me on this.
John
is too young to have a rational answer, but his lived experience has
framed his ethics: human life is precious. The terminators are the
antithesis of this. The name itself “Terminator” refers to its
mission to extinguish life.
In
the first movie, Kyle and Sarah never kill anyone. Only the
Terminator takes life. In the second, John orders the Terminator
never to kill. John and Sarah have differing ways of protecting
human life. Sarah looks at it in terms of numbers. She is angry
that John tries to save her because her life is just one compared to
the millions that could be lost if John dies. “You're too
important,” she scolds him. John says, “I had to get you out of
there.” John does not look at life in terms of the numbers. He
sees each individual life as having value. This can be seen again
when Sarah attempts to murder Dyson. John orders the T-181 to help
him stop her. On the way, the Terminator points out that killing
Dyson might prevent the war and save lives. But John refuses to
listen. Murder is wrong because Dyson is human and has a right to
live. He has value simply because he is human.
To
be sure, Sarah, John, Kyle, and the T-181 break some laws and common
codes of ethics. They steal and assault and lie. But when it comes
to the ethics of human life, the person is viewed as an end in
himself. Killing one to save billions is not acceptable because the
ends do not justify the means. Thinking that way is too close to
Skynet. And we can become as cold and unfeeling as the machines.
But there is hope for us: “For if a
machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life; maybe we
can too."
CONCLUSION
While
the metaphysics of Terminator 1
and Terminator 2
are different, we see a consistency in their epistemology,
anthropology, and ethics. Ultimately, the Terminators are a dark
mirror of human nature and what we could become if we ever lose
contact with what makes us truly human
Emilio Estevez has actually been
directing almost as long as he has been acting. And while a number
of his earlier films have not been great (Wisdom), or silly fun (Men
at Work), he tried to step into a more mature chapter with 2006's
Bobby. But while that was an attempt at showcasing a large ensemble
cast against a traumatic historical background, The Way is a
deeply personal and surprisingly spiritual mediation on life. As the
story follows Tom (Estevez's real life father Martin Sheen), a
California eye doctor whose estranged son, Daniel (Estevez), dies
while walking the El Camino de Santiago. For reasons he cannot
quite understand himself, Tom decides to finish his son's camino.
Along the way, he encounters the colorful countryside and even more
colorful characters. Estevez makes the Camino itself a character,
filming the Spanish/French countryside with such beauty and elegance
that when the journey comes to an end, there is satisfaction and
sadness: Satisfaction at completing the pilgrimage and sadness that
the journey must end. Does not overplay the cathartic experience,
but he trusts the visuals tell the story. And what a story it is.
RUNNERS UP
Brad
Bird – Mission Impossible:Ghost Protocol
David Yates – Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows pt. 2
This movie looks epic. And by that I mean epically good or epically bad. I don't think there will be a middle ground here.
From what I'm gathering, it reflects a very Hindu metaphysics of Dharma (your moral duty), Karma (the justice you incur from following or abandoning that duty), and Samsara (the wheel of rebirth which pays out the Karma).
I used to teach a world religions class and I think that this film would be a good example of it.
I admit I was confused and intrigued. First of all, the trailer is more than twice as long as a normal trailer. Second it has an eclectic cast. Third, its from the Matrix guys who have made nothing but crap since Matrix Revolutions.
But the trailer has me very curious. I looked up the plot summary of the book from Wikipedia. It goes as such:
The novel consists of six nested stories that take the reader from the remote South Pacific in the nineteenth century to a distant, post-apocalyptic future. Each tale is revealed to be a story that is read (or observed) by the main character in the next. All stories but the last are interrupted at some moment, and after the sixth story concludes at the center of the book, the novel "goes back" in time, "closing" each story as the book progresses in terms of pages but regresses in terms of the historical period in which the action takes place. Eventually, readers end where they started, with Adam Ewing in the Pacific Ocean, circa 1850.
The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing
Pacific Ocean, circa 1850. Adam Ewing, an American notary's account of a voyage home from the remote Chatham Islands, east of New Zealand. The next character discovers this story as a diary on his patron's bookshelf.
Letters from Zedelghem
Zedelgem, Belgium, 1931. Robert Frobisher, a penniless young English musician, finds work as an amanuensis to a composer living in Belgium. This story is saved in the form of letters to his friend (and implied lover) Rufus Sixsmith, which the next character discovers after meeting Sixsmith.
Half-Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery.
Buenas Yerbas, California, 1975. Luisa Rey, a journalist, investigates reports of corruption and murder at a nuclear power plant. The next character is sent this story in the mail, in the form of a manuscript for a novel.
The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish
United Kingdom, early 21st century. Timothy Cavendish, a vanity press publisher, flees the brothers of his gangster client. He gets confined against his will in a nursing home from which he cannot escape. The next character watches a movie dramatisation of this story.
An Orison of Sonmi~451
Nea So Copros (Korea), dystopian near future. Sonmi~451, a genetically-engineered fabricant (clone) server at Papa Song's diner (a proxy for large fast-dining chains), is interviewed before her execution after she rebels against the capitalist totalitarian society that created and exploited her kind. The next character watches Sonmi's story projected holographically in an "orison," a futuristic recording device.
Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After
Hawaii, post-apocalyptic distant future. Zachry, a tribesman living a primitive life after most of humanity dies during "the Fall," is visited by Meronym, a member of the last remnants of technologically-advanced civilization. This story is told when the protagonist is an old man, to seemingly random strangers around a campfire.
I don't know if the movie will match the structure, but it is nothing if not ambitious.
With Transformers being a multi-billion dollar franchise that shows no signs of slowing down and GI Joe possibly getting a second wind with the sequel, it would make sense for Mattel to try to revive the old Masters of the Universe line, led by the alpha-maleness of HE-MAN.
There was, of course, the awful movie staring Dolph Lungren (who actually wasn't bad in the role).
He-Man not only has to have great charisma, but also needs to be someone who can put on great bulk and believably be the wimpy Prince Adam. If done correctly, this could be a great Superman/Clark Kent role.
Chris Hemsworth
(picture by Eva Renaldi)
I know I've talked about him a lot on this blog. And Thor may be a little close to He-Man, but he could definitely do it.
Tom Hardy
(picture by Vanessa Lau)
The question of bulk is gone after his performance as Bane. He is a charismatic guy who has a lot of potential.
Jeremy Renner
He did well as Hawkeye and looks good in the Bourne Legacy trailers.
Bradley Cooper
This would be against type for him, but he has the ability to play the part.
Michael Fassbender
(picture by Gage Skidmore)
He looked the part in 300 and he could definitely lead an entire movie like he did in X-Men First Class.
And the winner is, with a whopping 70% of the vote...
LIAM NEESON
"Let my people go! Or I will hunt you down, I will find you, and I will kill you"
I think this speaks to Neeson's popularity. The man is 60 years old and he is more popular now than in any time in his career. He is the Betty White of action stars
John
Adams:
Mark me, Franklin... if we give in on this issue, posterity will
never forgive us.
Dr.
Benjamin Franklin:
That's probably true, but we won't hear a thing, we'll be long gone.
-1776
Lately,
I've been hearing the phrase “the wrong side of history.” Often
it's in the context of “Politician X is on the wrong side of
history” or “the people who voted for Y are on the wrong side of
history.” I find this a very curious saying 1) for its rhetorical
power and 2) for its inanity
Announcing
that history is on your side is a popular device. It makes your
point sound epic, beyond the scope of the here and now. Ronald
Reagan famously said that “freedom and democracy will leave Marxism
and Leninism on the ash heap of history.” This is ironic, since
Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky said of his enemies that they go
where they “belong from now on – in the dustbin of history.”
Apparently history needs a large janitorial staff to wipe up all the
dust and ash.
And
there is a lot of dust and ash and obfuscation. When I invoke
history I touch on the entire story of mankind. Human history is a
story. And in every good story there are heroes and villains. Not
everything is black and white, but we know who we root for in a good
story. And history is the great story of us and how we got to this
moment. When I talk about history's wrong side, I invoke the
powerful images of all those we have deemed as universal sinners, so
much so that their names are maledictions: Benedict Arnold, Hitler,
Judas, Attila, Torquemada, John Wilkes Booth, etc. These were men
who made horrible choices and brought either great evil to the world
or intended to bring greater evils than they were able to accomplish.
And sadly, there were those who attended them and followed them.
They too have their names linked to their evil. They are the Samuel
Mudds. This is the clear, dramatic meaning of what it is to be on
the wrong side of history.
But
when I invoke history into a present issue, I not only look to the
past but also to the future. The vast expanse of humanity's
unwritten pages lay naked before us. History has always turned on
the decisions of those in the present. Do I want those in the years
that follow to look back on this present moment and pinpoint the
choice I made that put me on the wrong side of the our future heroes?
I am called upon to think of the generations hence that will either
look on me as one of the brave pioneers or the callow antagonists of
my age.
Calling
on us to keep history in mind is a powerful way to stir the hearts of
men.
And
it is also total crap.
First
of all, a lot of our judgments of those in the past are based not
only on data, but our own cultural circumstances. Now I am not
saying that you cannot look back in history and make judgments. What
I'm saying is that the judgments we do make are often colored by our
present culture. While this may be an obvious point, I would look to
a historical event like the Crusades.
The
popularity of the Crusades goes in and out of fashion. Read the
works of those a hundred years ago like Beloc or Chesterton and the
Crusades were the great campaign to save Western Civilization. Read
today, some would argue that the Crusades were a genocidal campaign
aimed to annihilate non-white culture. Tancred and Pope Urban were
on the right side of history 100 years ago, but they are on the wrong
side now. They didn't change their minds. They're dead. But
society changed. And we somehow assume that our current culture or
something like it will view history the same way.
Second,
what really is the appeal to not being on the wrong side of history
but an ad
ignominium.
This is the logical fallacy that uses an appeal to shame in the
place of an argument. We are meant to feel shame at the thought of
how the history books of the future will treat us because of our
behavior. That sounds epic and momentous. But what that all really
boils down to is: “NOOOOO! THEY'RE ALL GONNA LAUGH AT YOU!
THEY'RE ALL GONNA LAUGH AT YOU!” People, most of whom you haven't
even met nor will ever meet, in the future might form a negative
opinion about you and this is suppose to determine the rightness or
wrongness of your actions? Take out the part about the people being
from the future and can use the exact same argument for giving in to
current public opinion. “Don't vote for X because most people
don't are against it.” Why do we assume more wisdom of the future
people rather than the ones who are with us here and now? This only
makes sense if we know that the people to come will be our betters.
But this leads to my third and final point.
No
man knows the future.
The
people who come after us could be our moral superiors and judge our
actions with a keener eye. Or they could moral degenerates who marry
their sex robots (I know that people in the present are working on
them now, so I assume they will have those in future). The point is
that we don't know. We have no idea what will happen to us in the
next 24 hours, let alone the amorphous “future history.” We do
the best with what we have, but what we do not have is a crystal ball
to give us a roadmap to progress. I do not know if my vote for or
against candidate X or issue Y will put me on the right or wrong side
of history. Only God knows.
And
I mean that last part literally. The only One Who knows the future
is the One Who is already there. God is at the beginning, the
middle, and the end of history. He reveals to us the little that we
know of what is to come. And we believe Him because He is in the
future, looking at it now. He is the only rational source for
grounding any beliefs about the future.
But
notice that God does not gear us towards looking to our future days
as much as He has us look at our present. Someone once asked Blessed
Mother Teresa of Calcutta if she knew she would be as successful as
she was in her ministry because God was on her side. She said, “God
doesn't call us to be successful; He calls us to be faithful.”
Success or failure is ultimately not in my hands. The Apostles did
not concern themselves with whether or not they were on the wrong
side of history. They didn't want to be on the wrong side of God.
God has reached into the human experience and given us a path of how
to live faithfully. We must live life here and now according to His
commandments and His example of love on the cross. We must live our
lives for God, who is the author of the great story of human life.
And
in the end, we do not want to be on the wrong side of His Story.
About 3 years ago, I did the one-day
Star Wars marathon: all six episodes in one sweep. A few thoughts:
-The most riveting part for me was the
end of Return of the Jedi. After watching Anakin's journey
into darkness because of the love he had for Padme, Vader's
temptation of Luke really hit home. When Luke finally gives into
rage in order to protect his sister, it felt like a real loss. The
music especially sets the mood. I always felt that John Williams'
score was epic; when I'd watch that scene, I would think “This is
the final battle between Luke and Vader.” But watching it now, I
felt “I'm watching a tragedy.” It felt like Luke had lost from
the outset simply by giving into hate because we already saw where
that road had led with Anakin. It made it even more powerful,
therefore, when Luke says: “Never, I'll never give into the Dark
Side. You've failed your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father
before me.” At that point, whether Luke lived or died, the tragedy
was averted: he won.
-The turning point for Anakin's fall
and his redemption was also wonderfully juxtaposed. In Revenge of
the Sith, he is won over by Palpatine, who begs for help while
being electrocuted. He is won over by Luke in the same way. He gets
to redo his awful choice, only this time he does it right. I loved
how the catastrophe happens in Revenge of the Sith, where the
Jedi think that they have victory within their grasp, but then are
betrayed to death by Anakin. And then the Emperor almost defeats the
Alliance, the love of Luke saves the day.
-Two themes kept coming up: power vs.
love and death vs. evil. Palpatine grasps more and more power be it
political, military, or personal. He tempts Anakin with power by
convincing him that he should use it out of love (just like the power
of the One Ring tempts all the heroes of Middle-Earth). Luke on the
other hand, rejects the Emperor's offer in favor of love. Anakin's
utter fear of death also takes away his ability to be a hero. He
would do anything, even that which is evil, to preserve life. Luke
chose death rather than evil. He shows this when he throws himself
off the edge of the station on Cloud City, when he surrenders to the
Emperor (“Soon I'll be dead”) and when he refuses to kill Vader.
Only when Vader understands that there are things worse than death,
he can be redeemed. When Luke tells him that he'll die if he removes
his mask, he replies “Nothing can stop that now.” Love is
stronger than death
-Shmi tells Anakin that you can't stop
the change any more than you can stop the suns from setting. In each
of the prequels (and in A New Hope) a major change occurs
after a sunset. In The Phantom Menace, Padme decides to
return to Naboo and Qui-Gon chooses to defy the council and train
Anakin after the sun sets on Courascant. In Attack of the Clones,
after the suns set on the Lars homestead, Anakin finds his mother and
begins to give in to the Dark Side. In Revenge of the Sith,
when the sun sets, Anakin decides to defy Mace Windu and go to
Palpatine. Also, after the suns set in A New Hope, Luke
begins his journey to becoming a Jedi.
-There is a huge change in Anakin from
Attack of the Clones to Revenge of the Sith. He moves
from whiny teen to tragic knight. I give credit to Hayden for the
change in performance between films. You see it at the outset, but
especially when he and Obi-wan are on Grievous' ship. (Rick O.:
feel free to fire back on this one)
-All of Luke faults are much more
pronounced and frustrating after watching mirrored first in Anakin.
-I used to think of Yoda as incredibly
wise. But looking at all of the films together, he his foolish in
two important ways. First, he does not believe that personal
connections are good. His advice to Anakin in Revenge of the Sith
to let go of the love he has for others only drives Anakin further
away. (This is ironic, because Yoda doesn't do this himself when he
chooses to save Anakin and Obi-wan rather than kill Count Dooku).
Second, he does not believe in redemption. He tells Obi-wan and Luke
that they have to kill Vader. Any chance Padme had to save Anakin
was lost when Obi-wan showed up to kill him But it is Luke who is
wiser when he realizes that his love for his friends and his belief
in his father's goodness save the day.
-I prefer the special editions of the
original trilogy except for Return of the Jedi
-Padme's love for Anakin pulls him away
from his duty while Leia's love for Han calls him to a higher duty.
-I've decided I like Revenge of the
Sith more than A New Hope. Episode III has a lot of story
and action and resolves the slow build up of Episodes I and II.
Watching all of them together makes Episode IV drag a bit, especially
in the beginning.
-Luke asking about his mother was very
touching after watching Padme die in Revenge of the Sith
(although I still think she should have died of something else. More
on this in a future post)
-Palpatine, Anakin, and Obi-wan have
subjective moralities (goodness and truth are simply a
point-of-view). Padme and Luke don't buy it, which is why he can see
the truth about the goodness found in Anakin.
-Still thrill at that Yoda/Dooku fight.
-Still wince when Padme jumps on the
Reek
-Opening to Revenge of the Sith
is the best space battle of the series
-Jango is much cooler than Boba
-I don't care what anyone says, Luke
becomes a much bigger bad-ass than Han. On Jabba's sailbarge, Luke
almost single-handedly kills almost everybody!
...that's all I got for now. Feel free
to let me know what you think or where I'm crazy
Newevangalizers.com is a website dedicated to the New Evangelization that has been promoted by the Pope and Bishops.
They asked for interested bloggers to write about issues regarding the New Evangelization, such as apologetics, morality, the Bible, etc. I submitted my services and I was accepted. (thought based on the first article of mine that they published and its liberal mentioning of violent diarrhea, I can't imagine why)
My columns will appear every other Wednesday. You can check out the first one here. Any feedback is appreciated :)
Instead of a review this week, I
thought I would share with you my fantasy line up for the Justice
League.
This is the premiere hero team of the
DC universe. It should only be populated with A-listers or people
who can rise to the occasion and become an A-lister. I was never a
big fan of the League from the mid 80's to mid '90's. That's not to
say that there weren't some great stories told. But it wasn't until
Waid and Morrison brought together the “Big 7” that the JLA felt
like they took their preeminent place in the world of comics.
A good team shouldn't be too lean or
too unwieldy 7 is minimum, but not more than 12. And you have to
diversify your team because of the varied problems that could arise
to threaten the universe.
So, with that in mind, here is my
Justice League:
From Right to Left: The Riddler, The Flash, Zatanna, Batman, Martian Manhunter, Cyborg, Stargirl, The Atom, Superman, Blue Lantern, Green Lantern, Booster Gold
Superman. This is, of course, a
no-brainer. He is the leader both morally and in terms of battle.
Batman. There is no one who comes
close to being as necessary to the strategic life of the League.
Flash (Wally West). While he may
be MIA right now in the comics, he is one of those sidekicks that
got bumped up the majors. He's lived his whole life as a hero and
can bring that perspective.
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan). While
Kyle Rayner is my favorite, Hal can take more of a leadership
position in the League and he handles the ring better than anyone.
Zatanna. You need a magician on
the team to deal with supernatural threats. Dr. Fate would be a
more obvious choice, but I think Zatanna has a much more level head
and she has more power than she lets on.
Martian Manhunter. His telepathy
makes him an ideal communications person on the team to allow for
better coordination. He also is as strong as Superman
Cyborg. Whether we like it or
not, more and more of our lives are governed by computers. You need
someone who can master them and use them to your advantage.
Blue Lantern (St. Walker). The
team needs a healer. St. Walker can help and protect the team not
only with his power ring but also his unfailing hope.
Booster Gold. The Justice League
often finds itself facing threats from the future and the past. You
need someone who can handle time travel with the greatest of ease.
And that would be Booster Gold.
The Atom. You need someone a pure
science mind. Ray Palmer can tackle all of the challenges that are
in the field of scientific inquiry. Mr. Terrific was the alternate
for this spot, but Palmer's ability to go sub-atomic could be
invaluable (see what he and Green Arrow did to Darkseid in JLA #14)
Stargirl. She represents the next
generation of heroes. She comes with a unique perspective, but she
does not need on-the-job training. She is already the hero she
should be.
The Riddler. He is the wild card.
The Riddler has always skated the line between hero and villain.
The League can use this to their advantage. He not only has
contacts that the heroes do not, but he can get inside the heads of
the bad guys better than them because he often is one of them.
Batman will have to keep an eye on him.
The Ultimate Justice League of America
You may notice I left off two important
JLA mainstays: Wonder Woman and Aquaman. They are both great
characters, but I was never able to find a specific area where Wonder
Woman had a unique necessity. And with Aquaman, I just ran out of
room.
These
are fallacies that are very similar to something we shall look at
later: formal fallacies
In
these, there is a problem inherent in the truth of the argument.
Non
sequitur = “it does not follow.” Conclusion does not follow
from premises and evidence. This is inside any invalid argument but
it is a material fallacy. Note the following example:
a.
The sky is gray
b.
I am angry
c.
Therefore, the sky is making me angry.
The
above example is a Non sequitur, because premise a and b are
completely unrelated and you cannot draw a valid conclusion from
it. It is different that a formal fallacy, like so:
a.
Sky is Blue
b.
Sea is Blue
c.
Therefore Sky is Sea
Here,
the two premises are related, but the conclusion is incorrect because
of some problem with the logical form (more on this later).
Non-sequiturs
are often used when people are need to make an emotionally charged
argument with little data. Putting the 2 concepts in proximity gives
the illusion of a conclusion. I remember I was talking with someone
who asked my what I thought about the newly elected Pope Benedict
XVI. I said I loved him and thought he was great. This person was
disgusted and responded, “What about AIDS?” I was a little taken
aback and said, “Um... I think it's bad.”
The
argument as presented informally to me by this person was:
a.
AIDS is bad
b.
Pope got elected
c. Therefore,
Pope wants to spread AIDS.
(to be
fair, her argument was a little more sophisticated than that if you
factor in 2 hidden assumptions. But as it was presented, this was
the argument). Notice how similar a non-sequitur can be to a fallacy
of diversion. The main problem for a non-sequitur is that it is
missing something called a “middle term.” (more on this later)
Ignoratio
elenchi = “ignorance of the claim” or “irrelevant
conclusion.” This is giving reasons that prove a different
conclusion than what you claim. For example, imagine this dialogue
(example taken from Dr. Peter Kreeft):
Neville
Chamberlin: “Peace is preferable to war. Do you agree?”
British
People: “Yes.”
Neville
Chamberlin: “Therefore let us appease Hitler, because not doing
so would lead to war.”)
Begging
the Question = assuming what you set out to prove. In the movie
Legal Eagles, a defense
attorney played by Robert Redford seems to snap in court and tells
the jury to convict his client. When A juror says that she deserves
a fair trial, Redford says, “Okay, we'll give her a fair trial.
And then convict her.” Obviously, she cannot have a fair trial if
the conclusion is set. One of the most important things Socrates
taught us was to follow an argument where it goes and not to try to
force a conclusion that did not follow the evidence.
Complex
Question–asking a question which cannot be answered without
begging another question. For example, there is the classic: “Yes
or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?” Of course a yes
answer implies that you did beat your wife at some point. A no
answer means that you still are beating her. The question that
should have been asked first is: “Have you ever beaten your wife?”
Another example is the question, “Who made God?” There is a
hidden assumption here that everything that exists has a beginning.
Arguing
in a Circle = using a conclusion to justify a premise after
using the premise to justify the conclusion. Unfortunately these
arguments are often used when talking about religion. A dialogue
may go like this:
Unbeliever:
How do you know God exists?
Believer:
The Bible says so.
Unbeliever:
Why do you believe the Bible is telling the truth?
Believer:
Because God wrote it.
This
also happens from the other side of the belief spectrum
Unbeliever:
There are no miracles
Believer:
But people witnessed them.
Unbeliever:
Those people are liars
Believer:
Why?
Unbeliever:
Because there are no miracles.
Contradictory
Premises: When there is an obvious contradiction in your
statement. (e.g.“I will not tolerate intolerance.”
False
Assumption: This is the basis of all jokes. Once again to take
an example from Peter Kreeft:
A
mailman on his daily round was confronted by a large, ferocious dog
in front of a house. An old man sat on the front porch.
"Hey,"
yelled the mailman, "Does your dog bite?"
"No,
he doesn't." said the old man.
The
mailman proceeded to move toward the house, and the dog immediately
bit him on the leg! After fighting the dog off with his mailbag, the
mailman proceeded to the house, keeping a watchful eye on the dog.
After straightening his mailbag, he handed the old man his mail.
"I
thought you said your dog doesn't bite!" he sneered at the old
man as he pulled up his pants leg, revealing a large bite mark.
"That's
right. He doesn't bite." said the old man calmly.... "That's
not my dog!"
Bl. Miguel Pro: "God's Jester," Patron Saint of the Curt Jester
The Curt Jester is one of my favorite blogs. Jeff Miller has a wonderful story of conversion. But the think I love about him the most is his humor. He loves to bring joy, and his humor is rooted in a solid rationality that not only lightens the heart but pierces the mind.
I saw this fan made trailer to a fictitious movie a few years ago. A commenter on the Batman movie post reminded me of it.
Dick Grayson is my favorite comic book character of all time. I loved the idea of doing a whole movie around him as a Dark Knight Returns style mystery pulling in the older DC universe.
The thing I love most, though, is that a group of people got together and made the type of movie (trailer) that they would like to see. This goes back to my point about the internet/digital age and how it is democratizing movie making.
(I do have to credit John Nolte for coming up with this main idea about the future of film)
My first encounter with the Jabberwocky was from a TV mini-series of Alice in Wonderland, and I found it horribly frightful.
But I love the poem for its completely insane use of diction. You can say the poem and speak the words that you think sound like other words, but the words have completely different meanings. Lewis Carol successfully shows the insanity of a world were words are no longer connected to terms.
Enjoy
"Jabberwocky"
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought— So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! and through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
.jpg)
