Harvester on 5/4/2013 at 10:05
(
http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130404/MEMORY/130409989) Film critic Roger Ebert passes away at age 70.
Man, I'll miss reading his reviews and insightful blog posts... The last couple of years, I often checked his website for the latest reviews, and whenever I saw a movie I felt passionate about (or passionately hated), I made a habit of checking what Ebert had to say about it.
I also commend him for being open about his health condition, and for staying in public despite his changed appearance. What I also liked about him is that he kept in close touch with his readers, often responding to readers' questions, input and criticisms.
I will miss him. Rest in peace, man.
HelloHello on 5/4/2013 at 11:09
He's gone to a better place, which begs the question. In heaven do you regenerate lost body parts and get full mobility/functions back when you pass the pearly gates or is for example a wheelchair bound person forced to complain about lack of ramps and disability discrimination for eternity?
faetal on 5/4/2013 at 15:18
Which begs the question "is there a heaven?".
demagogue on 5/4/2013 at 15:36
Which begs the question "Is there anything?", which itself begs the question "Is?" or even "?"
To answer the question though, Christian eschatology (building off Hellenist & Zoroastrian strands) has two traditions, one that the afterlife is incorporeal and another that it is corporeal and we'd have entirely new, reconstructed bodies, either of which was designed to deal with that type of issue, the latter probably "better" of the two. Then Locke gave the classic argument for what happens to identity in a new body. It's a fun exercise in historical philosophy to think through the logic of it, though the whole discussion is pretty obsolete to modern philosophy.
Re: Ebert, I was never the biggest fan of criticism for the masses. I always admired the old-school highbrow criticism from like the '30s-'50s, sans the pretension and arrogance; but I liked how it recognized the stakes & how art and media connected to the culture as a whole. But I definitely respected, if you're going to do criticism for the masses at all, that you do it with integrity, enthusiasm, and take genuine pleasure in it, which is what Siskal & Ebert both stood for. But for that matter, they were cultural icons in their own right, too, and did have a kind of very American way of looking at movies & "living the good life" that's worth remembering. I liked reading his articles anyway, which I can't say about many other movie critics.
faetal on 5/4/2013 at 17:19
Quote Posted by demagogue
Which begs the question "Is there anything?"
My default response to deconstruction is to recommend drinking a cup of bleach. Unless we default ourselves to this reality as a starting point, discussing anything at all becomes technically without merit. The refusal of bleach assumes the acceptance that we're using what we collectively think of as "real" as the base frame of reference.
quinch on 5/4/2013 at 17:42
Genuinely sad at this news. I will miss him very much. A very inspirational man. It's a hefty loss for the world of film. :(
Also, I agreed with him when he thought that 'The Happening' was a watchable film lol.
ZylonBane on 5/4/2013 at 17:59
Quote Posted by HelloHello
He's gone to a better place, which begs the question.
Quote Posted by faetal
Which begs the question "is there a heaven?".
Quote Posted by demagogue
Which begs the question "Is there anything?", which itself begs the question "Is?" or even "?"
That's not what "(
http://begthequestion.info/) begs the question" means.
TTLG, I am disappoint.
demagogue on 5/4/2013 at 18:35
FFS, it's not formal sentential calculus. Nobody cares what colloquial terms mean anymore. Meaning is nothing more than usage, cf. Wittgenstein, and popular usage has bent its meaning away from its origins. That site just needs to get with the times and accept lexical defeat. If you did want to be precise about it, you'd use sentential calculus.
