Dubstepforum.com

the film isn't trying to be merely thought provoking or philiosophical. the film is approaching the universe from the perspective of it being a dream. calling it basic just means you aren't getting it.

i didnt say the film was basic i said some of the philosophy was basic

i have been hearing that since the day it came out and still disagree. i think it's a knee-jerk pseudo intellectual response to being confronted with something moderately academic. it's suddenly held up to ridiculous standards so the pseudo can seem smarter than what he's threatened by and doesn't even get.

jesus man, not at all

im just saying the philosophy is basic - how advanced do you think you can go when each scene is about 2minutes long??

they're basically short theses dealing with vast subjects and summarising very particular viewpoints - whether those viewpoints are basic ideas or not is a different matter; what i mean more directly is that you get a one-sided snapshot view of subjects which are debated en masse by academics and scholars

you get the fundamentals, then it switches

its barely even a criticism, its simply what happens in the film

for example the physicist who talks about determinism - that just DESCRIBES the basics of determinist and non-determinist views... its basic philosophy. its not a bad thing, its rare those idea's even make it into films as directly as that (normally its some Minority Report-style thing), but thats not to say it really goes into detail about it

same with the Existentialist professor's monologue about the negative qualities of Post-Modernism, it just sketches out a viewpoint

the idea of viewing the universe as a dream or from the perspective of one persons dream is the vehicle used to carry across these idea's, you could make a film about everything being a dream and have Inception, or you could have Waking Life - the subject matter is philosophical for a reason, because he wants to provoke discussion about those idea's.

calling it basic is missing the point entirely. i stand by my statements.

what the fuck is basic about the discussion about philip k dick? that's not even shit that's covered in advanced philosophy courses.

which bit's that man??

still haven't seen this- been meaning to for ages.

a scanner darkly is one of my favorite films

noam wrote:which bit's that man??

at the pin ball thing, near the end of it

christophera wrote:calling it basic is missing the point entirely. i stand by my statements.

it's because academic philosophy takes it way too far and exaggerates,i think, so that's why noam maybe thinks this stuff is 'basic' while in fact it is (might) spot on

2manynoobs wrote:

christophera wrote:calling it basic is missing the point entirely. i stand by my statements.

it's because academic philosophy takes it way too far and exaggerates,i think, so that's why noam maybe thinks this stuff is 'basic' while in fact it is (might) spot on

i dont think its spot on at all, but i think it raises good area's of discussion from which to grow from - it covers views that at points diametrically oppose each other when expanded so it was never intended to be a polemic or even (i think) entirely coherent/cohesive (like a dream)

i agree that academic Philosophy can be seen as 'exaggerating' points raised in this, but only so far as Plato and Aristotle 'exaggerated' these points thousands of years ago, and more closely Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Kiekegaard, Sartre, Derrida, Chomsky etc. have all 'exaggerated' idea's... there is a level at which i believe over-analysis becomes detrimental but stopping at the level raised in Waking Life is just as ridiculous

its a GREAT film, i love it, its one of my favourite films ever - that doesn't stop me seeing it for what it is though

its a film thats basically ABOUT philosophy, thats why Linklater made it!

he doesn't ascribe to any view in particular, just lets them play out, and once you've tucked into the idea's presented you're able to expand through thought and discussion

I'm excited at the prospect of watching Slacker now

Had never heard of it and really enjoyed Waking Life so have high hopes

noam wrote:

2manynoobs wrote:

christophera wrote:calling it basic is missing the point entirely. i stand by my statements.

it's because academic philosophy takes it way too far and exaggerates,i think, so that's why noam maybe thinks this stuff is 'basic' while in fact it is (might) spot on

i dont think its spot on at all, but i think it raises good area's of discussion from which to grow from - it covers views that at points diametrically oppose each other when expanded so it was never intended to be a polemic or even (i think) entirely coherent/cohesive (like a dream)

i agree that academic Philosophy can be seen as 'exaggerating' points raised in this, but only so far as Plato and Aristotle 'exaggerated' these points thousands of years ago, and more closely Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Kiekegaard, Sartre, Derrida, Chomsky etc. have all 'exaggerated' idea's... there is a level at which i believe over-analysis becomes detrimental but stopping at the level raised in Waking Life is just as ridiculous

its a GREAT film, i love it, its one of my favourite films ever - that doesn't stop me seeing it for what it is though

its a film thats basically ABOUT philosophy, thats why Linklater made it!

he doesn't ascribe to any view in particular, just lets them play out, and once you've tucked into the idea's presented you're able to expand through thought and discussion

However I think your point of view about it being a film about philosophy is a good one, I think everything they say in the film is interwoven and connected. Together they form something (theory) that is very close to how it actually is. I could be mistaking though! What do you think about that?

the more i think about it, the more i think calling stuff like telescoping evolution and awareness of life as a dream basic, is not just missing the point but is sorely sorely lost.

you've just misunderstood what i was saying

@ 2manynoobs - i think its the opposite to a whole piece designed to draw you to one conclusion, i think you have to skip over certain scenes and really tenuously link others together to find a unified conclusive philosophy behind the film's philosophical content (outside of the dream context anyway)

i think it just aims to showcase a load of snippets of really interesting idea's that will make you think, the dream thing is a plot device as much as a theme, it ties the idea's together but the idea's aren't all ABOUT dreams, the dream is a showcase for the idea's

linklater is a gnostic. it's a gnostic belief that we're dreaming. it's not just a narrative device. it's the whole point. it's the title. it's the animation style. it's the topic.

also the calling it basic reminds me of this place called Super Burrito that i love. several of my friends who have never been there like to look down on it because they think it's inferior mexican food, and they're quick to list off the places that meet their high standards. as they eat mac and cheese, or mcdonald's.



waking life? pffft! plato was way smarter. now back to top gear.

christophera wrote:linklater is a gnostic. it's a gnostic belief that we're dreaming. it's not just a narrative device. it's the whole point. it's the title. it's the animation style. it's the topic.

he's also a skeptic

he's also a film maker

he's also interested in philosophy and crackpot theories because they're interesting not necessarily true

its not a one-dimensional film

christophera wrote: waking life? pffft! plato was way smarter. now back to top gear.

you're so far from know what i think because you are incapable of listening

im not the one arguing with you, its the other way around - you cant get over the very WORD 'basic' to understand what it is im calling 'basic'

you bore me

i've been bored with everything you said in this thread. and i quit reading whole posts a long time ago.