Page 2 of 5

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:11 am
by Magritte
QuantumTroll wrote: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 very Nietzschean. It celebrates human creation and doesn't take away responsibility for what's been created. Also Rortyan, in its emphasis on the importance of literature (in the broadest sense).

Did you see Prometheus? Horrible movie in many ways, a total mess, but there were some great and similar ideas in there fighting to get out - like Elizabeth Shaw and her father's "that's what I choose to believe". This actually carries on a theme from Blade Runner, about perception creating reality - how we grant humanity to what we perceive to be human - which is why I see Prometheus as being more of a sequel to Blade Runner than a prequel to Alien.

But getting back to Life of Pi, just got a copy because of this thread, moving it to the top of my reading list. :D

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:16 am
by mdsimpson92
Magritte wrote:Did you see Prometheus? Horrible movie in many ways, a total mess, but there were some great and similar ideas in there fighting to get out - like Elizabeth Shaw and her father's "that's what I choose to believe". This actually carries on a theme from Blade Runner, about perception creating reality - how we grant humanity to what we perceive to be human - which is why I see Prometheus as being more of a sequel to Blade Runner than a prequel to Alien.
Interesting... I couldn't really get past 80% of the characters acting like complete tools. But there we go.

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:31 am
by Magritte
mdsimpson92 wrote:
Magritte wrote:Did you see Prometheus? Horrible movie in many ways, a total mess, but there were some great and similar ideas in there fighting to get out - like Elizabeth Shaw and her father's "that's what I choose to believe". This actually carries on a theme from Blade Runner, about perception creating reality - how we grant humanity to what we perceive to be human - which is why I see Prometheus as being more of a sequel to Blade Runner than a prequel to Alien.
Interesting... I couldn't really get past 80% of the characters acting like complete tools. But there we go.
Yes and sometimes painfully stupid dialogue. I have a real love hate relationship with the movie. I love some of the buried themes that emerge after a few viewings, but the flaws get more painful with every viewing too.

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:40 am
by mdsimpson92
Magritte wrote: Yes and sometimes painfully stupid dialogue. I have a real love hate relationship with the movie. I love some of the buried themes that emerge after a few viewings, but the flaws get more painful with every viewing too.
Fair enough. I don't think I have a movie that I have that kind of guilty pleasure feeling towards. Certainly a few flawed films that I enjoy, but not to that level.

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:54 am
by mdsimpson92
I guess a popular and relatively recent film that deals with faith would have to be Inception if were going into other films. I kind of like the leap of faith mixed with neo-noir that is put into it. Especially because the "leap" is made out of love for one's children.

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:51 am
by Metacrock
mdsimpson92 wrote:I guess a popular and relatively recent film that deals with faith would have to be Inception if were going into other films. I kind of like the leap of faith mixed with neo-noir that is put into it. Especially because the "leap" is made out of love for one's children.
My favorite film of all times is Ingmar Bergmann's The Seventh Seal. I don't if any of you have seen that. I see it as kind of a leap of faith movie. Although that aspect is not made that overt. The knight is warding off death (paying chess with him and trying to trick him to buy time--which is all anyone can do). He wants to guy time he's still waiting for faith. He's waiting for it to either strike or be proved. The witch girl who is burned at the steak is made a leap but it's not real. She realizes at the wrong time there's no one there (she had her faith in satan).

The acrobats are sort of the real survivors of the leap of faith. their acrobats right? their leaps are not big existential dramas but matters of course. The main acrobat is like a child, as the bible tells us one must be. He's just in the kingdom because he naturally believes it' all so easy because he's free and child like (he even sees virgin Mary trapsing around in the background).

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:14 am
by KR Wordgazer
QuantumTroll wrote: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?
What it reminded me of was the use of Occam's Razor as a tool to decide what to believe. The simplest explanation is probably the right one. Given that, it is the "nasty and brutish" (as you put it, QT) mundane and commonplace story that is supposed to be the most believable. But if there is no way to prove either story,which story we choose to believe says something about us. After all, Occam's Razor is really only a principle, not a law, and there are times when the more complex story is the one that actually happened.

I suppose you're right that an atheist could also choose the more beautiful and astonishing story-- but I don't think that's the point the movie is making. The point seems to be that it's faith that chooses the story with the tiger, even though it's not as surface-believable as the mundane, "realistic" story. As Metacrock likes to quote from Tillech, "being has depth." The Life of Pi is about whether or not to choose to believe that being has depth.

So does the kind of atheism that includes the tiger, include a belief that being has depth? And does this mean that atheism can include faith-- just not faith in a diety?

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:03 pm
by QuantumTroll
KR Wordgazer wrote:
QuantumTroll wrote: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?
What it reminded me of was the use of Occam's Razor as a tool to decide what to believe. The simplest explanation is probably the right one. Given that, it is the "nasty and brutish" (as you put it, QT) mundane and commonplace story that is supposed to be the most believable. But if there is no way to prove either story,which story we choose to believe says something about us. After all, Occam's Razor is really only a principle, not a law, and there are times when the more complex story is the one that actually happened.
I didn't consider this angle, an argument against Occam's Razor, as it were. It's a really good point! I think I felt this, which is why I probably was more inclined to choose the ugly story than you (I think, but can't know).
I suppose you're right that an atheist could also choose the more beautiful and astonishing story-- but I don't think that's the point the movie is making. The point seems to be that it's faith that chooses the story with the tiger, even though it's not as surface-believable as the mundane, "realistic" story. As Metacrock likes to quote from Tillech, "being has depth." The Life of Pi is about whether or not to choose to believe that being has depth.

So does the kind of atheism that includes the tiger, include a belief that being has depth? And does this mean that atheism can include faith-- just not faith in a diety?
I believe that being has depth, if that means what I think it means. This has been discussed before around here, but maybe we can revisit it briefly. What does that statement mean to you? There is more to the world than what meets the eye, I'd say.

A human being must have faith in something, even if only in the sanity of her own mind. It's not easy, even for a theist, to determine exactly what is assumed as a matter of faith.

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:28 pm
by KR Wordgazer
QT, I think that to me, "being has depth" does mean there's more than meets the eye, but also defines that something "more" as spiritual. I believe that more exists than matter and energy, and that reality includes spirit. I also believe the universe exists for a purpose, and that purpose results in a meaning that includes but transcends the individual, subjective meanings of human beings.

Re: Life of Pi

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:55 am
by QuantumTroll
KR Wordgazer wrote:QT, I think that to me, "being has depth" does mean there's more than meets the eye, but also defines that something "more" as spiritual. I believe that more exists than matter and energy, and that reality includes spirit. I also believe the universe exists for a purpose, and that purpose results in a meaning that includes but transcends the individual, subjective meanings of human beings.
Thanks for trying to answer, but now I have to ask what "spirit" is. I believe that meaning comes from within, it's something that arises in the space between human beings (or other things, actually, if you allow a more general conceptualization of "meaning"). I believe that only physical things like matter and energy exist, but that they can exist in configurations and patterns that have meaning and purpose*. If you wish, you can call that phenomenon "spirit". "Spirituality" is what I would call the quest for meaning, higher purpose, and inner peace.

If I understand you correctly, the only difference in our beliefs is that you believe in a God-given purpose for the universe and human beings, meaning and purpose handed down from above, whereas I believe that meaning and purpose just sort of "show up" naturally where possible.