Life of Pi

[QuantumTroll]

Has anyone here seen this movie, Life of Pi? It's really quite good and it's relevant to the discussions here. Catch a showing if you can!

[Metacrock]

Has anyone here seen this movie, Life of Pi? It's really quite good and it's relevant to the discussions here. Catch a showing if you can!

seems like I've heard of it but i can't place what it's about.

[met]

It's based on a Booker prize-winning book by a Canadian author. "After a shipwreck, a man is left stuck on a raft on the open ocean, with a tiger. . . ."


(Haven't seen the movie, but Betta loves the book...)

[QuantumTroll]

Met, go read that book

[KR Wordgazer]

Yes, I saw it and thought it excellent. It's pretty much an exploration of the nature of faith.

[QuantumTroll]

Indeed, if I may summarize the message (poorly), it suggests that faith is choosing to believe a better story than a rather nasty andf brutish alternative. Oddly enough, I find that the film actually supports atheism, if you're a person who believes that the atheist narrative has a tiger in it

Is that a reasonable idea to take away, do you think?

[Metacrock]

Indeed, if I may summarize the message (poorly), it suggests that faith is choosing to believe a better story than a rather nasty andf brutish alternative. Oddly enough, I find that the film actually supports atheism, if you're a person who believes that the atheist narrative has a tiger in it

Is that a reasonable idea to take away, do you think?

atheism is pessimistic and atheist do mistake cynicism for insight. Like the quote from Jospeh Campbell "cynicism is taken as insight by the cowardly mind." not that you have a cowardly mind.

[mdsimpson92]

Indeed, if I may summarize the message (poorly), it suggests that faith is choosing to believe a better story than a rather nasty andf brutish alternative. Oddly enough, I find that the film actually supports atheism, if you're a person who believes that the atheist narrative has a tiger in it

Is that a reasonable idea to take away, do you think?

That's actually part of the problem that I had with the film. Though I found the film well told and the visuals quite stunning. Taking an explanation "because I like it better." Just came across to me as shallow thinking. I guess if you have no way of knowing which way (which is what the movie puts up.) it makes some sense, but it still comes across as shallow and relativistic in that respect. ...Still enjoyed it.

[Metacrock]

Indeed, if I may summarize the message (poorly), it suggests that faith is choosing to believe a better story than a rather nasty andf brutish alternative. Oddly enough, I find that the film actually supports atheism, if you're a person who believes that the atheist narrative has a tiger in it

Is that a reasonable idea to take away, do you think?

That's actually part of the problem that I had with the film. Though I found the film well told and the visuals quite stunning. Taking an explanation "because I like it better." Just came across to me as shallow thinking. I guess if you have no way of knowing which way (which is what the movie puts up.) it makes some sense, but it still comes across as shallow and relativistic in that respect. ...Still enjoyed it.

wouldn't there be reasons why you like it better? might those reasons not be "because it's right/true?" My point is if all other things are equal and it's just a matter "O that isn't valid becuase it has to be the bad thing that's true" then why choose that? In other words why choose the glass as half empty just becuase you think the cynical approach has to be more realistic?

[QuantumTroll]

That's actually part of the problem that I had with the film. Though I found the film well told and the visuals quite stunning. Taking an explanation "because I like it better." Just came across to me as shallow thinking. I guess if you have no way of knowing which way (which is what the movie puts up.) it makes some sense, but it still comes across as shallow and relativistic in that respect. ...Still enjoyed it.

Not trying to be defensive, but I don't think it's shallow thinking unless you let it be so. It's a philosophical question akin to asking "when a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to heat it, does it make a sound?", but tied to the human need for meaning. The answer it suggests isn't supposed to be pat, there is always going to be doubt and tension between the two stories. To me, it also brings up something about the nature of communication and spiritual revelation: Pi relates his message by sharing with his listener an experience rather than just telling him, which would have been pointless (but much more Western). Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha brings up very similar ideas... I wonder now where they originated...