joshhansen.net

Category: thought and analysis

  • Choice and Belief: A Deliberately Credulous Introduction

    It’s been a little while since posting, and there’s a reason: I’ve been sitting on a stool somewhere in a smoke-filled room (Note: It wasn’t tobacco smoke—somebody just burned something in the oven, of course!) slaving away over a series of new articles on the topic of Choice and Belief. If after reading through all the articles in the series you start to feel a bit ill from the fruitless and often circular cogitations, then be grateful that you don’t have to spend very much time inside of my brain, because it’s like that all the time in here!

    Now for the topic, choice and belief. I’m very interested in what is knowable and what is not, and these essays or articles are a group of loosely-related though not necessarily coherent ruminations on the subject. We’ll jump from architecture to computation, from Shakespeare spoofs to statistics. But essentially the questions approached are Who is man? Where does reason necessarily end and something else begin? How does mankind do the best he can with incomplete information? You know, classics of theophilosociographidemologicus argument. Amidst all of the rambling, I think I have some interesting views to offer. But good luck — this isn’t going to be pretty.

    The remaining articles (there are at least five others, perhaps more) will be released in regularish succession over the next week, so come back for the rest!

  • Dark-ness

    SPOILER WARNING! Don’t read the second part of this post if you haven’t seen The Dark Knight yet! It will spoil things for you.

    I base this post on two recent thoughts or notes:

    1. Being out of the pop culture loop has almost no down side.
    2. I wonder how dark is too dark.

    1. Pop Culture Stinks

    Sitting in the theater before and during the previews ahead of “The Dark Knight” today reminded me of why I don’t miss having a television. I think I remember seeing just one preview for something that looked at least interesting, though only potentially so. Everything else seemed like a waste of time. The trend amongst the films coming out these days seems to be acting more “European”, if you’ll permit a rash generalization. By “European” I mean covering topics and using a viewpoint that previously I had only really seen in material for some foreign films. I suppose the domestic “independent” film scene also has some of those qualities, so perhaps it’s just a mainstreaming of that. But it just seems really negative, and simultaneously celebrates and trivializes some of the worst aspects of our society.

    One concrete example: I remember a preview for a movie that I think was called “The Women” which made it seem like somebody’s husband having an affair was just some juicy piece of gossip, most significant not for being and symbolizing the death of trust in a marriage, but rather significant because it can be talked about amongst “the women.” The implications are really lame: a) adultery’s no big deal, everyone does it (I even thought that their reference to “the other woman” in the preview seemed reminiscent of Latin American usage of the term la otra—and if relations between men and women in this country become more like those in countries twisted by el machismo then we have stepped backward indeed.) and b) all women worth paying attention to have nothing better to do than gossip with each other and treat the lives of their fellow suburbanites as mere spectacle: entertainment, nothing more. Oh wait, I think I’ve seen that idea somewhere before….

    So, popular culture is dumb. Next on the agenda…

    2. The Dark Knight’s Darkness

    I liked Batman Begins better than The Dark Knight. Of course, part of that is to be expected, for, as the Alfred observes in the film itself, things are darkest right before the dawn, and The Dark Knight is mighty dark indeed.

    It is probably no accident that this film, like many others in recent years, has a lot to say about the West’s confrontation with terrorism. It’s a movie about fighting evil without becoming evil. In a blatant reference to the Bush administration’s domestic, warrantless wiretapping, Lucius expresses serious reservations at using hijacked cellphone networks to spy on essentially all of Gotham city. The Joker, because he isn’t motivated by what’s expected to motivate him (money) but rather by a macabre sense of art or fun, is in a way himself an embodiment of Islamic terrorism, which is a set of people not motivated by the usual forces of capitalist-globalization, but who are rather driven by something dark and twisted (extremist Islam) that we have difficulty understanding. The Joker even approximated jihadism by using human beings as a delivery vehicle for explosives. Could it have been intended metaphor that the bombs’ positions were inside rather than outside the bombers’ bodies?

    I was fascinated by the parts dealing with the idea of the “noble lie.” (Other not so noble deceptions included dressing hostages as goons and impersonating police as a means of assassination.) Alfred burns Rachel’s letter telling Bruce that she’s going to marry Harvey; Jim Gordon fakes his death in an attempt to protect his family; Harvey turns himself in as “the bat man”; Batman takes the blame for Harvey. This last deception emphasizes the importance of an ideal or a symbol of good to motivate coherent efforts against evil, whereas if would-be do-gooders become overly convinced the wickedness of their fellow-citizens, they may resign themselves to being engulfed by the evil around them. The film also emphasizes, on the other side of the coin (pun intended?), the immeasurable damage that can be caused by the corruption of a leader in a fight against evil.

    As for darkness—or should that be dark-ness? not the lack of light, but a persistent dark mood—the Joker, and Batman, and Gotham, and practically everything in the movie is dark, almost to the point of being black. The Joker’s personality is believable enough to be disturbing, with stories of an evil alcoholic father carving a smiley face in scars into his son. I find much of this upsetting because it points in the direction of true, rather than cinematic, evil. Has the Joker ever actually hurt anybody? No. But have people been abused in vicious ways that could almost be described as creatively cruel? Yes. There are people who are twisted to the point of applying their creative energies to seeking ways to cause suffering; this, at least as much as if not more than terrorism, is an evil that must fought with vigor.

    The gruesome disfiguration of Harvey Dent reminded me of that of Anakin Skywalker—both physically and also morally/thematically. I can certainly accept such events as part of a story (Johnny Tremain, anyone?), but I have a hard time seeing those things portrayed on the screen. I guess I’m just sensitive to maimings and disfigurations! Anyway, those things generally reduce my desire to see the film again.

    Overall, The Dark Knight was more violent than it needed to be, and it was more unhappy than it needed to be; but in a way that gives me a great appreciation for a film that’s willing to confront the fact that the world is violent and unhappy in many ways. The murderous escapades of psychotic serial killers and the strategies of mysterious extralegal vigilantes might not be part of my everyday life experience… but the need to overcome fear, to do right in opposition to wrong, and to be vigilant against corruption of the self while fighting against external evil most definitely are. The Vigilant Vigilante: fighting evil without, and within!

  • Communism

    Question: Does insistence that communism not be part of [American] society unduly infringe on people’s rights of political expression and thus become the thing it is seeking to avoid?

    Proposition #1: Communism is not evil.

    Proposition #2: Solidarity against the evils of communism deprives people of rights.

    Proposition #2.1: Citizens have a right to seek the overthrow of constitutional government notwithstanding that the government is not consistently, uncorrectably depriving its citizens of their rights.

    I would argue that all of the above propositions are false. People can say whatever they wish short of planning or encouraging the overthrow of the government; however, they must not be permitted to engraft into the system of our government principles entirely contrary to its existence. As Abraham Lincoln applied it to slavery, so does “this nation cannot long endure half slave and half free” apply to any attempt to accommodate a system of thought and of government that inherently devalues and endangers liberty. Thus the preservation of liberty for all, while it may occur some restriction upon the desires of some, is naturally not contradictory to liberty itself, for liberty is not equal to the ability to act without any restriction. Rather, it is perhaps the ability to have the actions of the greatest number of individuals be meaningful by virtue of being their own.

    We could of course ask similar questions with regards to the philosophies undergirding terrorism around the world. Must we permit people to establish terrorist training camps under the guise of their liberty or rights to organize? Clearly not, for the greater crime to liberty would be that which endangers the liberty of all. A pessimistic view could come to see liberty for the masses as being built upon the oppressed minority. This mischaracterizes the issue. Those who insist on seeking the overthrow of freedom are clearly trying to become the premiere oppressors and in so doing end up voluntarily oppressing themselves. The actions of the free majority are a justified defense.