Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Dec 15th, 2017)

[Spazz]

The point is, if you actually did what Post Modernists tell you in trying to understand the world, you'd never learn anything. You'd never learn to play guitar, never cure disease, never learn to speak a different language, never learn to cook... You'd be dumb. No one is that dumb. Post Modernists aren't that dumb; they just don't know how to explain the way they, and we think. Still, it's a problem when dealing with arguments about what you should, or should not do.

If someone tells you, "Do this because I say so!" That's authoritarian. Post Modernism leads to authoritarianism, because they don't think they have a burden of proof, appealing to evidence. For them, evidence is irrelevant. Truth is a construct.

In the Last Jedi, Rey doesn't need to be taught. She doesn't need to falsify or question her own ideas. She doesn't need experience. Burn the library. Shove your teacher down the stairs. Ignore the experiences of others... and prove nothing to them. Just express yourself. If you follow the example of The Last Jedi, you'll end up being unskilled in life. This way of thinking sets people up for failure, because they don't embrace negative results as part of the learning process.

 

[Asta]

I'll use small words. People should use logic and reason to challenge bad ideas, because that's what logic and reason does. That's how you learn. People learn by trying to disprove their own ideas, through trial and error. When you experiment to find a cure for cancer, learn how to play guitar, sculpt, learn a new sport, learn to drive... You alter your course based on your results, learning from what doesn't work.

You create a picture in your head, where each bit of knowledge fits together like puzzle pieces. When a puzzle piece doesn't fit into the picture, that's logic. When the picture doesn't look like what you're seeing, that's reason. You change your understanding based on pieces that don't fit, and perceptions that aren't like the picture in your head. You make adjustments, and move forward.

The ideology in the film says this is wrong. You learn about the world by looking inside yourself, because all of the answers are, somehow, rattling around inside you. Do you believe in Voodoo? Then it's true! Who am I to tell you that you can't put a hex on someone? That lightening won't strike them, just because you fondled a goat's testicles while sitting on a mountain top?

I think the term 'post modernism' is being assigned to, or adopted by people under false circumstances.

The way I always used it was in terms of empiricism. Skepticism means that things must be put to the test in order for them to be verified - and this is the work of science, or the act of checking evidence and sources to formulate the most likely answer.

The attack from science is placing postmodernism in the opposing camp of rationalism. Descartes with his belief that God must exist because he can be conceived by human thought. Yet, as it explains the universe, science replaces the need for the existence of God to explain the things that early people had no other way of understanding.

 

[Spazz]

One last example, to prove my point.

If you attempt to prove that all Doves are white, you won't accomplish that by running around the planet, counting the number of white doves you see. If you say, "I've counted 1,335,809 white doves", that doesn't prove anything. If you say, "I've walked all over North America, seen countless white doves but have never seen a single black dove," then your best theory is that there are no black doves. Are you certain? Never. That's the point of science. All conclusions are tentative, pending further evidence. Things change, and people make mistakes, so every claim to knowledge is up for debate, and requires evidence.

What if you travel to Indonesia, where you actually see a black dove? Well then, you've "falsified" the theory that all doves are white. Now your best theory includes black doves, as an accurate picture of the world. Then you publish an article, saying "Hey guys! There are black doves in Indonesia! I call them, "Black Cuckoo-Doves!"

When you burn down the library, you take away the road map leading to black doves. Can other people find them? Sure, but to lose that knowledge so that people are expected to be self-sufficient is a massive waste of time, and possibly leads to lost knowledge.

The irony, is that feminists claim self-sufficiency is part of Toxic Masculinity, yet when you do away with science you are essentially being self-sufficient. You isolate yourself, in not have the common standard, evidence, as the basis for communicating ideas.

 

[Spazz]

I think the term 'post modernism' is being assigned to, or adopted by people under false circumstances.

The way I always used it was in terms of empiricism. Skepticism means that things must be put to the test in order tfor them to be verified - and this is the work of science, or the act of checking evidence and sources to forumlate the most likely answer.

The attack from science is placing postmodernism in the opposing camp of rationalism. Descartes with his belief that God must exist because he can be conceived by human thought. Yet, as it explains the universe, science replaces the need for the existence of God to explain the things that early people had no other way of understanding.

You were mislead. I'm not condescending you, you were literally told bs. Empiricism can't be reconciled with Post Modernism. Just look at Derrida. You're a "brickaleur" constructing meaning. The entire tradition of Post Modernism goes back to a Russian named Bahktin, I believe, who wasn't fully post modern in the same way Hobbes was proto-liberal. PoMo stems from the idea that communication breaks down because of the failure of our senses.

 

[Spazz]

Skepticism means that things must be put to the test in order for them to be verified - and this is the work of science, or the act of checking evidence and sources to formulate the most likely answer.

What you're describing here is Critical Rationalism. It's how Science has been perceived since the 70's thanks to Karl Popper. Welcome to the club, my friend.

 

[Spazz]

For those interested in how knowledge works, watch this:

 

[Asta]

You were mislead. I'm not condescending you, you were literally told bs. Empiricism can't be reconciled with Post Modernism. Just look at Derrida. You're a "brickaleur" constructing meaning. The entire tradition of Post Modernism goes back to a Russian named Bahktin, I believe, who wasn't fully post modern in the same way Hobbes was proto-liberal. PoMo stems from the idea that communication breaks down because of the failure of our senses.

Not mislead, but how I chose to employ the theory as opposed to employing a single ideology.

Descartes' rationalism wasn't skeptical about the existence of God. Everything needs to be put to the test, and empiricism is defined as verifying by observation of experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Post modernism sees the world as a mass of signs, the things people say and purport to be true; propaganda and spin; lies and half-truths. Sorting through them is no different than the correct way to approach history. You don't assume something happened because it was the most logical option, or because somebody said that it happened. You have to look for as many sources as you can to forumulate the most probable answer. And even then, sometimes writing history is still a matter of stating that something may have happened, rather than something did happen. Because history is often open to interpretation.

You arm yourself against the potential falsehoods with skepticism and constant vigilance.

As I wrote before, I gave up approaching texts from a single ideological perspective. I didn't attempt to attack or explain them in the terms defined by the ideologies that were put forward (as the methods you were supposed to pick from). There seemed little purpose in taking a Marxist or a feminist approach to every text, to describe each one in those terms, because not only does it limit your view to certain parameters, it also fails to pull the text apart on other levels.

But all this was a long time ago!

 

[Spazz]

Not mislead, but how I chose to employ the theory as opposed to employing a single ideology.

Descartes' rationalism wasn't skeptical about the existence of God. Everything needs to be put to the test, and empiricism is defined as verifying by observation of experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Post modernism sees the world as a mass of signs, the things people say and purport to be true; propaganda and spin; lies and half-truths. Sorting through them is no different than the correct way to approach history. You don't assume something happened because it was the most logical option, or because someboy said that it happened. You have to look for as many sources as you can to forumulate the most probable answer. And even then, sometimes writing history is still a matter of stating that something may have happened, rather than something did happen. Because history is often open to interpretation.

You arm yourself against the potential falsehoods with skepticism and constant vigilance.

Supposing you have accurately described Post Modernism, it would still be wrong in describing how knowledge works. We only know anything by trying to disprove our own theory. If you want confirmation, you'll find it everywhere.

Meanwhile, Post Modernism is about more than just skepticism and vigilance. It's a denial of perception. I could give ample evidence, but I think citing Derrida and showing you the result (the voodoo advocates) is sufficient.

 

[ironwez20]

Omg it’s just a ****ing movie! We’ve had bad Star Wars movies before. Holy ****. People thinking this is some sort of world ending event.

 

[ironwez20]

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

For the longest time I thought this was Zach galifinackis

 

[jye4ever]

Omg it’s just a ****ing movie! We’ve had bad Star Wars movies before. Holy ****. People thinking this is some sort of world ending event.

 

[Spazz]

Omg it’s just a ****ing movie! We’ve had bad Star Wars movies before. Holy ****. People thinking this is some sort of world ending event.

The Birth of a Nation was just a movie. I don't know what all the fuss was about...



And yes, I am comparing The Last Jedi to The Birth of a Nation. It's arguably worse. The Birth of a Nation intermingled bigotry with political ideology to legitimize prejudice toward black people. The Last Jedi intermingled bigotry and political ideology to legitimize prejudice toward men. The difference? TLJ gives us the added bonus of undermining logic and reason, under the guise of impartiality. It's the kind of nonsense that leads to a new Dark Ages. Will this movie alone cause the abandonment of reason? Obviously not, just as The Birth of a Nation didn't cause all racism. It's a symptom, that needs to be addressed and annihilated.

 

[ironwez20]

The Birth of a Nation was just a movie. I don't know what all the fuss was about...



And yes, I am comparing The Last Jedi to The Birth of a Nation. It's arguably worse.

Yes but it’s a movie about laser swords and ****ing wizard people and aliens. The birth of a nation is a movie about..... the real world and what went on. Star Wars is a great franchise but holy **** it’s not a sign of the times if we get a bad movie.

I’m picturing the Vatican panicking at the last Jedi numbers and people gathering at Times Square waiting for the end.

 

[Caped Baldy]

Omg it’s just a ****ing movie! We’ve had bad Star Wars movies before. Holy ****. People thinking this is some sort of world ending event.

But you're not an auteur, so you don't understand!

 

[ironwez20]

But you're not an auteur, so you don't understand!

It’s funny how his auteur crap went straight out the window with this movie. He kept saying how the director is such a visionary and doesn’t bend to Disney corporate nonsense.

Months later and look where we are. Can’t wait for that venom film tho

 

[Spazz]

Yes but it’s a movie about laser swords and ****ing wizard people and aliens. The birth of a nation is a movie about..... the real world and what went on. Star Wars is a great franchise but holy **** it’s not a sign of the times if we get a bad movie.

I’m picturing the Vatican panicking at the last Jedi numbers and people gathering at Times Square waiting for the end.

Are you American? If so, your leader is a reality television star who likely has dementia, while your academic institutions are combating him with a form of ideology that, in many ways conducts itself similarly to Maoism. You have billionaires openly and unashamed in telling the general population that soon, employment will be unnecessary and that they plan to put all of you on corporate welfare. And you have people on both ends of the ideological spectrum denying science, one in the name of faith, the other in the name of "alternative narratives".

Things are bleak. I'm not a snob. Frankly, I hate all of the polysyllabic nonsense coming out from academia. THAT'S THE POINT. If someone is messing with you and you hate them, do you ignore them? Bullies don't leave people alone, that way. You have to be scarier than you are, or it's only going to get worse.

 

[Adolfo]

Invasion of the body snatchers=TLJ=zombies=Borg=Red=Fructose,corn syrup,cigarettes,Meth,poppy seeds,the bomb=Khev, the josh,Zach,Every Mod

 

[Adolfo]

Star Wars was Murdered in Dec 2017 ...it was caught on video...NWO..

 

[Asta]

Supposing you have accurately described Post Modernism, it would still be wrong in describing how knowledge works. We only know anything by trying to disprove our own theory. If you want confirmation, you'll find it everywhere.

Meanwhile, Post Modernism is about more than just skepticism and vigilance. It's a denial of perception. I could give ample evidence, but I think citing Derrida and showing you the result (the voodoo advocates) is sufficient.

Post modernism was my starting point, the premise that the world is not always as it appears on the surface. That it could not be defined or explored in precise terms as laid down by Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, etc. That not everything can be seen as a class war or a gender war. It's more complex than that. There are multiple opposing conflicts that create events.

Hence the method became very useful in peeling texts apart layer by layer.

It could be applied to Conrad's Heart of Darkness in Baudrillard's terminology of the hyperreal. Marlow only became aware that civilization was a simulation by entering the darkness of Africa, which was the real world stripped bare of the illusions constructed by civilization. So on his return to London he now feels the disconnect. He's an outcast because he has experienced for himself a dark reality lying beneath the surface, as it were, of the blinding light of civilization. And in the darkness Kurtz is also creating his own illusions out of the insanity from being unable to deal with the loss of he structure he once relied upon.

(And if this is situation where they put Luke in TLJ, then Luke is averse to leaving his wild island and returning because he can no longer relate to the petty lives of those who haven't shared his experiences).

 

[Adolfo]

Star Wars was Cigarettes, booze,narcotics,passed around....Disney through ahem cough negotiations took over....they laced their old product and now .....to be continued....