Because seriously, I've seen a lot people here who have no clue what philosophy is.


Existential clips from the movie: Waking Life.

Richard Linklater returned to the semi-improvised approach and philosophical themes of his debut feature Slacker while embracing a new and groundbreaking visual technology in his sixth feature film, Waking Life. Linklater and cameraman Tommy Pallotta shot the film on location in Austin, TX, using digital video equipment. Linklater and digital animator Bob Sabiston then used newly developed computer software to transform the images through a process called "interpolated rotoscoping"; the result merges the naturalism of live action with a stylized look that resembles a cartoon or a painting in motion. Waking Life's flexible, non-narrative approach follows a young man (Wiley Wiggins) who arrives in Austin and hitches a ride with a stranger, who engages him in a conversation about rarely considered facets of existentialism. As the visitor drifts through the city, he encounters a variety of people and finds himself absorbing their views on art, philosophy, society, and numerous other issues of contemporary life. Linklater's cast is dotted with well-known actors (Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy, Adam Goldberg, Nicky Katt) and pop-culture notables (filmmaker Steven Soderbergh, Martin Scorsese associate Steven Prince, comic Louis Black), alongside a large number of relatively little-known players. Waking Life received its world premiere at the 2001 Sundance Film Festival; Linklater's next film, Tape, was also screened at the same festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide



- Excuse me. - Excuse me.
Hey. Could we do that again?
I know we haven't met, but I don't want to be an ant. You know?
I mean, it's like we go through life...
with our antennas bouncing off one other,
continuously on ant autopilot,
with nothing really human required of us.
Stop. Go. Walk here. Drive there.
All action basically for survival.
All communication simply to keep this ant colony buzzing along...
in an efficient, polite manner.
" Here's your change." " Paper or plastic?" "Credit or debit?"
"You want ketchup with that?"
I don't want a straw. I want real human moments.
I want to see you. I want you to see me.
I don't want to give that up. I don't want to be an ant, you know?
Yeah. Yeah, I know.
I don't want to be an ant, either.
Yeah, thanks for kind of, like, jostling me there.
I've been kind of on zombie autopilot lately.
I don't feel like an ant in my head, but I guess I probably look like one.
It's kind of like D.H. Lawrence had this idea of two people meeting on a road...
And instead of just passing and glancing away,
they decided to accept what he calls "the confrontation between their souls."
It's like, um-- like freeing the brave reckless gods within us all.
Then it's like we have met.



The reason why I refuse to take existentialism...
as just another French fashion or historical curiosity...
is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century.
I 'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately,
the sense of taking responsibility for who you are,
the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life.
Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair.
But I think the truth is just the opposite.
Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life.
But one thing that comes out from reading these guys...
is not a sense of anguish about life so much as...
a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it.
It's like your life is yours to create.
I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration.
But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling...
that something absolutely essential is getting left out.
The more that you talk about a person as a social construction...
or as a confluence of forces...
or as fragmented or marginalized,
what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses.
And when Sartre talks about responsibility,
he's not talking about something abstract.
He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about.
It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking.
Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences.
It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting.
Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference.
It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms.
Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example.
In short, I think the message here is...
that we should never simply write ourselves off...
and see ourselves as the victim of various forces.
It's always our decision who we are.



Creation seems to come out of imperfection.
I t seems to come out of a striving and a frustration.
And this is where I think language came from.
I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation...
and have some sort of connection with one another.
And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival.
Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that.
Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that.
But when it gets really interesting, I think,
is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate...
all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing.
What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love?
When I say "love,"
the sound comes out of my mouth...
and it hits the other person's ear,
travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,
you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,
and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand.
But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert.
They're just symbols. They're dead, you know?
And so much of our experience is intangible.
So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable.
And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another,
and we--
we feel that we have connected,
and we think that we're understood,
I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.


This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 9 2010, 12:19 AM

When I read the middle part of your post, the one below the 2nd video clip, I thought it sounded familiar. Some excerpts:

I 'm afraid we're losing... the sense of taking responsibility for who you are
It's like your life is yours to create.
And when Sartre talks about responsibility,
he's not talking about something abstract.
It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking.
Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences.
In short, I think the message here is...
that we should never simply write ourselves off...
and see ourselves as the victim of various forces.
It's always our decision who we are.

And then I realized it. It was what the Buddha taught.

It simply means that you are never a victim to your surroundings. And if there's anyone to blame for anything, that's yourself.

Yes, that is one of the central teachings of the Buddha. I'm not a Buddhist btw, just happened to read the stuff.

Bravo

Good movie btw.

I'm not as philosophical/"existential" as I would like to be... but yes, I do want such conversations with any sound person who is equally intense and brooding.

Yes, some even termed it as "mental orgasm", lol. But the PhD School forums are seriously lacking philosophical substance. Instead, all I see are UFOs and superstitions nonsense.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 18 2010, 03:45 AM

A couple of road blocks to that: 1) Some find superstitions and conspiracies philosophical, others don't, 2) Some will tell you "dun think too much lar...", 3) some come to the forum to seek approval for their beliefs and not neutral discussion.

You need objectivity to prevent philosophy discussions from degenerating into a childish exchange of "you're stupid" and "no, you're stupid." You need people who will attack the issue, not the person raising the issue. You need the courage to admit there may be flaws in your arguments no matter how convinced you are with it, and resist the temptation to whack others because you think you're right. You need maturity.

Try contributing to a real doctrate seminar with smart alec one-liners and insistent chest beating and see how far one can go.

Superstitions and conspiracy theories being philosophical? I'm doubtful. They appear more of a SENSATIONALIZED issue than anything to do with the love of wisdom itself.

It depends on how the person expresses his/her thoughts on such issues. If his/her argument is articulated reasonably well, I suppose it can be *philosophical*. But then again, if such interests/topics didn't interest you in the first place, there wouldn't be any point for you to listen intently... unless you're open-minded enough to accept the things what the speaker would have to say.

---

Added on May 20, 2010, 9:11 amme likes that very mux

This post has been edited by flore: May 20 2010, 09:11 AM

very enlightening videos

well, philosophy is the way humans see life, in different perspectives.

nah, it is just a way people think about the matters surrounding us deeply

Yeah, that's why we all must discover what vivienne's perspective is, LOL.

True, but curse me inability to be "open-minded", i.e. to be not able to see the transcendence of some notable mobs here who are easily confused philosophy for religion.

Please lar, the first time when I was looking for anything philosophical in this thread, all I see are "UFOs, Big Foot, and all other assortments of conspiracy theories", which are, if not by most, appear to be more sensationalized in the sense that they are overly imaginative due to their human nature, that is, the nature to reject all things that are ordinary and enjoy all things that are mysterious (well, who doesn;t like mystery?).

In short, I was looking for something to explain xenophobia, or rather, to kick the asses of people who think xenophobia is actually a cool thing.

True, we like them, but like all pleasures in life, they are with costs. And nothing costs so much to a philosopher than his ability to be happy.

Yes, I personally think that our great figures of philosophy are all enveloped in clouds of melancholy, than happiness.

Hmm, do you have one that you liked the best from the videos you watched from my first post?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 30 2010, 12:41 PM

What we lack in this thread... for me its the quantity of serious PhD-type enquiries. I've been to doctrate-level seminars in college where the seniors are the most active but here, its the noobs who start most of the threads while the seniors come out once a while to put the noobs in their place, often with smart-alec one-line answers. I guess one-upmanship happens everywhere so lets not get discouraged by that.

But bro, isn't there a philosophical side to that? You ask who doesn't like mystery, a question that has launched a thousand career novelists, filmists and gossip columnists who collectively helped shape our current perspective of 'reality.' I have no doubt of the effect of the Star Trek series on real-life projects like NASA's SETI which begs the question: do we create reality or does reality create us?

Xenophobia as in the fear of anything foreign and unfamiliar? Got anything specific in mind?

Personally I don't see philosophy as a particularly emo thing. Its more like an engineering puzzle, to understand how things work, but that's just me.

That's because the real PhD holders are too busy with their work to care about anything else...

there's one or two real phd holders in this board right?

So I reckon you're not a real PhD holder then... That's ok coz neither am I.

Not...yet. I'm actually supposed to be working on my own thesis at the moment.

Unfortunately for me, philosophy is only at a mere nodding-acquaintance to me. I know I'm not up to par to any of the real philosophers at all, but that didn't stop me from being interested about it.

True. But you see, I'm also somewhat prejudiced person. You see, I always harbor a lil' animosity towards forum posters who does not use capitals for initials and they even used too many ellipses most of the time. Now that may sound ridiculous of course, being ad-hominem and all, but I suppose I fell in love with my instincts to determine who might sound nothing than a shrewd. Not that I'm trying to deny my own hypocrisy here of course, but hey, you asked, I answered.

Yeap, the fear of the unfamiliar. And not just any fear. The paranoid kinds.

Say, perhaps Asians, maybe.

By its definition, it's not. It's just that as much as people who loves philosophy, there are apparently a number of good, cynics (who are pretty much philosophers themselves) who loves making satire of people who tend to philosophize too much. Serious.