Contents tagged with Philosophy
Let me preface this rant by first saying that I have no children at the moment. I am a Christian, and as such, subscribe to the beliefs of wanting to treat each human being as I'd want to be treated. I also realize that faith and rationality aren't necessarily to be used in the same sentence. In my experience, rarely the twain shall meet. Thus, I start my criticism.
I came across a conversation this morning from someone who happened to also belong to a Christian sect, talking to one of my co-workers who'd seen the premiere of "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" last night. She was inquiring as to the child-safe nature of the film, and how violent and sexually graphic the film might be. If the picture displayed any trace instances of either, she'd consider completely forbiding her kids from going anywhere near the theater. Sound familiar?
She probed my colleague's assessment of the movie, asking specifically about any love scenes. He replied by saying the film would be, in his opinion, completely OK for today's kids. "There's swordplay, some fights, gunfire," he recapped, "and a quick beheading, but that's minor. That's about it." Her reply? "That's fine...but there's no sex, right? A fight is OK with me, but I won't let them watch a movie with people making flippy-flop."
This I have a problem with. Not necessarily religious zealots, not moral elitists - but people that let what they think is piety create a system of misaligned morals.
This being an application of a thing that really irks me, I joined the conversation by asking why her morally-rooted parenting practice restricted her offspring from receiving sensory input of the act of intimacy, yet permitted her kids witnessing an act of violence. I prodded, asking why she wouldn't allow her kids to see a love scene, because inline with one of the major tenets of her faith, they'll themselves someday engage in the act of bumping uglies. Man was not meant to be alone, you know, and as such it's assumed that they will someday themselves fall in love...and eventually have sex.
And futher building on this concept - and perhaps more disturbing - she was perfectly alright with letting her kids witness what essentially are fabricated acts of murder. Which obviously isn't a Christian thing to do.
Come on now - it's Star Wars. If any "sex" scenes do exist, they'll be relegated to being tame, brief makeouts or a scene depicting intimate love...not a full-on, 200 MPH, jackhammer porno. What did you expect? Briana Banks getting buck wild with Anakin Skywalker, saying, "Yeah, baby...gimme that lightsaber..."? Use some common sense.
I find it interesting, and certainly not unique, how often this happens. People reject the face value of intimacy caputred on film and grossly underestimate the impacts of violence.
But recalling a bigger predication of my faith, I fall back on Luke 6:37 ("judge not, lest ye be judged"). So who am I to say who's right?
Earlier this month I blogged after having an epiphany of sorts about The Matrix saga, about the apparently undiscovered dual nature of Agent Smith, specifically his name. After getting a great response, I thought I'd give it a shot and submit it for consideration to THEMATRIX101.COM, which has lots of cool articles from people analyzing the movie.
It's unfortunate that most of the fairweather people (and I would assume many who fancy themselves hardcore) don't get the whole picture of the Wachoski Brothers' "The Matrix" saga, meaning they've only watched the three films. Or perhaps it's more preferable that the deepest philosophical concepts lie within the series of animated shorts "The Animatrix" and in the video game "Enter The Matrix".
In considering the numerous references made by the pop culture phenomenon that continues to the Wachowski Brothers' "The Matrix" saga, I've recently developed a theory about one character - a main one - that has curiously gotten overlooked in the dissection of his name, one that may carry more meaning that at face value.
I've been reading several volumes of Open Court's series on popular culture and philosophy. Among the titles already in print:
Appropriately, I've got a new "philosophy" when it comes to teaching new programmers about object-oriented programming (OOP). Not being a schooled computer scientist myself, I had a tough time when I was first learning OOP concepts and practices when I took up .NET, and many people learning the ropes of current-day coding apparently share the same frustrations. Fortunately, I've found a cool way of making the tough concepts easier to grasp, through the teachings of Plato.
Specifically in his work with his theory about Forms, there are lots of cool analogies directly applicable to OOP one can ascertain from Plato's writing. Rooted in abstraction, the concept of Forms, in trying to justify existence, effectively demonstrates the relationship between base classes and subclassed types, I find (i.e., my wife is beautiful, my daughter is beautiful, my mother is beautiful, as all are applications of and conform to the Form of Beauty, but none "are" Beauty explicitly, as such carries a higher definition). The application of Forms in the philosophy of the mind also involves an amount of inheritance and polymorphism - both of which are foundations in which any serious programmer doing modern-day development needs to be well-versed. Plato also used Forms to evolve the concept of the relationship between the One and the many, likened in OOP to static (shared) instances of types.
You may agree with it, use it, or dismiss it. I've found it to help make more clear what can often be a tough roadblock in learning programming. :)