Fernandel: Hey, you guys like Greek philosophy don't you? Good, so do I!
Uncle Eddie asked me to tell you that he really liked the two "Kill Bill" movies but when a commenter asked him to defend them he cringed, and for good reason. The fact is that it takes twice the energy to defend something than it does to attack it.
That's because Greek philosophy, which shaped the way we make arguments, never devoted much time to the defense side. The Greek philosophers arose during a time of change in Greece and their job was to pave the way for that change by attacking the establishment. The poor establishment never got it's share of philosophy.
The best the Greeks could do for the defense side was to come up with rhetoric and oratory. Rhetoric teaches the arguer to flatter the audience and establish himself as a likable and trustworthy speaker. He's saying, in effect, "If you like me then you should like my argument. Trust me. "
That seems like a shabby way to argue but really, what choice is there? Surely the establishment can't always be wrong. Surely revolutionaries can't always be right. There has to be some way to argue the defense side of things and the Greeks haven't given us much to work with.
Actually the Greeks came up with another way to argue for the defense. That way was to limit the people debating to the landowners. The thinking was that people who had a financial stake in stability and tradition could be trusted not to carry attack arguments too far. 
I don't agree with this but you have to admit that it's interesting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEddie Fitzgerald... Philosopher King? I'm just a philosopher peasant, but I propose that we examine the Socratic method. With the Method, the attack is the defense. Basically, Socrates would have a mental concept that he wanted to support/defend (In your case "Kill Bill is a good movie.") Socrates would ask, "What is the BEST movie?" People would answer quickly, then Socrates would attack their answers with more question like, "Yes, but does your film have Samarai sword fights?' and "Wouldn't you agree that attractive women beating the stuffing out of each other is the mark of movie excellence?" Socrates is talking about "Kill Bill", but no one knows that he's talking about Kill Bill until all objections to the movie have been dismantled in advance. Once he has safely disarmed his foes' arguments, Socrates is free to declare, "Kill Bill is the finest film ever made!" The attack is the defense. But, ya gotta be sneaky to pull this off.
ReplyDeleteI think if you have a difficult time defending something it makes you consider how much you actually like it, which I think is a good thing a lot of times. I mean you can always just say you like something "because it's pretty" or
ReplyDelete"because it's bad-ass." You might be questioned as to why it's pretty or bad-ass but that's something that's usually easy to answer.
Those brats in the Apple Jacks commercial's arguments wouldn't hold up in any court of law though.
I don't agree with this theory, I think it's easy enough to defnd things. Let's try it, ask me to defend something you hate that I like, Eddie.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, how come I saw two films in the same day with the hack "comedy" line "The best defense is a good offense, or is it the other way around?" ARGGH!!!
Hey, defending something you -like- should be water off a ducks back. Even if it is some sort of vague emotional gut reaction.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find to be more difficult, is to get someone to tell you why something is not good, when they say "It sucks!".
You might think, with the amount of negative criticism one reads everywhere, that the question, "Mmm, not so good? How?" wouldn't be like pulling teeth, but I think it is, at least in conversation. I find folks do not want to relive (or possibly re-examine) their negative take on something, as the response was often a visceral reflex in the first place, and they do not feel the need or desire to justify an opinion of "Blecch!"
Which is, I think, a bit of a shame really. Maybe they think they would waffle? I dunno.
Curly: All this, just to explain why "Kill Bill" is hard to defend! That's like coming up with a new theory of time to explain why I was late to work today. I got an explanation that's a lot simpler than that. Nyuk, nyuk!
ReplyDeleteJack Benny: Well, plus the fact that the two Greek philosophers who left to most writings behind, Plato and Aristotle, spent a lot of pages defending things. They weren't that interested in attacking. Isn't that right Rochester?
Rochester: Sure, Boss! Plato's Republic was an elaborate defense of his view of the ideal society, Aristotle's Organon was mainly about how to prove that something is true. Only a relatively small part was about how to attack other people's fallacies, the Sophisitici El..
Jack: Thanks Rochester! Now finish polishing the Maxwell.
just babbling of course: attacking and critiquing something is aggressive, signals to the world that it's there to be conquered, it's to be drunk on possibilities, alternatives, it's the best:), defending something on the contrary could mean you've made your choice, you're hooked, the walls are closing in... alas you're too vulnerable...
ReplyDeletethis is about the most badass way of not answering a question. i think next time i'm late to work, i'll open into a spiel about how the greeks didn't teach me to defend myself.
ReplyDeleteI have no high-falutin' theories on this subject whatsoever. I just wanted to say that Fernandel looks a lot like Mr. Horse. Do you suppose he may be interested in some rubber nipples?
ReplyDelete"I just wanted to say that Fernandel looks a lot like Mr. Horse."
ReplyDeleteWow... Pete is right! I knew he looked familiar.
By the way, Fernandel is so perfect for caricature. He's already more than half way there naturally.
Rodd: I agree!
ReplyDeleteJorge: OK, defend this propsition: a mother's love is a good thing.
Even that fundamental truth is vulnerable to attack. What about all the pschotic or suffocating mothers? What about the fact that single mothers raise a greater number of disturbed and anti-social children? What about...
I could probably think of half a dozen more arguments that would make the defender look ridiculous. And if I argued with a fast, aggressive tone I could make the defender look like a wimp.
And yet we know that mother love is a good thing.
Argument always favors the attacker. The safest stance is always to be on the attack but never defend anything. If a potential attacker asks what you believe deflect it by saying, "Hey, you're trying to put labels on me," or Hey, you're trying to make value judgements." This is a very dishonest way to argue.
The Greeks were right about one thing. A lot depends on the integrity and good character of the debaters.
Lester: Jack Benny was right! Aristotle is exceptional, even among the Greeks. That's because he believed in common sense and would break off his own argument at the point where the logic was leading to absurd conclusions.
Eddie:
ReplyDeleteYou win. I find your argument indefensible.
Hmmm... a constant attack by either side without establishing a firm position sounds like Hegel's Dialectic. It's not greek philosophy but it is a response to greek philosophy. Dialectic says that any 2 propositions will come head to head in argument and essentially destroy each other with attacks until a new proposition is formed. That proposition is not necessarily true, but it will be truer than the previouse 2 probostions. It believes that knowledge is constantly being refined by this argumentation/attack. Hegel thinks you're wicked smaht Eddie. Thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...And if I argued with a fast, aggressive tone I could make the defender look like a wimp.
ReplyDeleteThat's persuasive appeal, not argument. The argument being posed is false.
I think thinsg hard twice as hard defend when it strictly comes down to personal taste or sentimental feelings.
ReplyDeleteAmazing and thought-provoking insight into the glue of our world! One of your best entries ever!
ReplyDeleteIDRC: True, although that kind of thing is usually combined with argument.
ReplyDeleteMatty: I like what you wrote here but I have to say that I'm not a fan of Hegel's. I like his energy and his obvious desire to improve things but he introduced dense, ponderous, mystical prose to philosophy and made it inaccessable to the common man. I blame Hegel for sloppy thinkers like Heiddeger.
William: Thanks!
PC: True!
About twenty five years ago i read a quote that i believe with Woody Allen.
ReplyDeleteHe said something to the effect that he could no longer qualify why he liked such-and-such book or disliked such-and-such a movie because he could find cases where his arguments arrived at the exact opposite reaction in other works. In the end he just like what he liked and disliked what he disliked.sonality of the artist and it's effect on our humor.
I've kind of been in this camp ever since.
Marvellous photographs.
Will: Those photograhs are by Halsman, the guy who did the most famous photo of Marilyn Monroe. He did a whole book on Fernandel.
ReplyDeleteI concede that Eddie is right, this was pretty hard.
ReplyDelete>The Greeks were right about one thing. A lot depends on the integrity and good character of the debaters.
In that case, I'm gonna lose this debate because I don't have any integrity or good character.
Why a mother's love is a good thing:
I don't think I have to explain in detail the good a mother's love does: It gives children a sense of belonging and acceptance in a cold world, it teaches children self esteem and even into adulthood fills you with warm fuzzy feelings. Only mothers have this unique and all-important bond with their children.
Psychotic mothers? Suffocating mothers? I'd say that these are not example of a mother's love, but rather a mother's flaws. Perfect love may be an ideal that no mere human can achieve ALL the time but it is a good thing when it happens. When a mother doesn't treat her child good or devotes too much time to her child so that she feels trapped, that is not an example of a mother's love and therefore has no place in this argument.
What about the fact that single mothers who raise maladjusted kids? That is because all children need both a male and female influence on their lives. Again, the mother's love for their child is not the problem, but rather, the realities of the world.
Also, remember, correllation does not equal causation. Single mothers tend to have a lower standard of living, less economic opportunities, and in general can lead harder lives which can cause any social problems wiht kids. In a case such as this, the mother's love would probably be one of the child's stablizing influences. Without it, he'd be far worse off!
I suspect 'm having trouble mkaing sense right now, I shouldn't try to write immediately after waking up!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Eddie!
ReplyDeleteI sorta went through stuff like this in a classical philosophy subject I did last year. I wish you were the lecturer, though. You're making it way more interesting.
And Halsman can do some cool looking stuff. Have you seen the 'jump' series? where he got all types of celebrities to jump up in the air, then he took a photo of em. I'll try put some up..
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJorge: A very good argument for mothers (I believe the same thing), but...you're still fatally vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteYour tone is defensive and quietly reasonable. For an attacker that's like a lamb tied to a stake as bait for the lions.
Debate is like a boxing match. The public naturally sides with the more aggressive fighter. If I were debating you I might start with a little humor, just to get the audience on my side. I'd restate you're argument in my own words, making you seem a little bit like a bumpkin. I could make your reasonableness and undogmatic tone seem like bumbling indecision and plant the idea that you're wasting the reader's time.
For variety I could then darken the tone and make your defense of mothers seem like an attack on fathers. I could take the grandstand and piously talk about all the great things fathers do for kids and make you seem like an ingrate. I could dredge up quotes from past comments that, taken out of context, would make you seem like a monster who rebels against authority because you have a screw loose somewhere.
Just to vary the tone I could switch to logic. I could take any concession you made to my side and repeat it in a litany of even-he concedes-thats, and make you seem stupid for neglecting to draw the inferences from your own statements.
After a joke or two I suddenly and explosively renew the attack. You're not only stupid, you're evil. I could paint your endorsement of mothers as an implied attack on childless working women. You want to turn the clock back and wipe out a century of feminist advances. Again you're the monster. You lash out against other people because of your own pathetic inadequacies.
I could go on but you see what I'm getting at. The defense position is inherently weak. Your best defense would have been to attack me but, being a decent guy, you'd be reluctant to do that. It would seem like it was cheapening the argument, which it is. In Greek-style conflict Your own decency works against you.
I love the Greeks but they weren't always nice guys, and their debating tactics have done harm as well as good in the world.
All the dirty tactics I used above can be found in Demosthenese's "On the Crown" speech. Buy it if you can find a copy that also contains his opponent's speech.
If you didn't study this speech in school, or some similar thing like Cicero's Cataline speech or Brutus and Antony's speeches in "Julius Caesar", then you had a seriously flawed education and you should get mad about it.
WH0AH!!! Great analysis, Eddie! Yeah, I got the rage, as you've probably seen but in case I tried to approach it more cerebrally and you were right, it was a tactical mistake.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of using war tactics in debates because nobody gets hurt.
>Your best defense would have been to attack me but, being a decent guy, you'd be reluctant to do that.
Eddie, you are as wise as you are kind. Have you seen 300 yet?
>If you didn't study this speech in school, or some similar thing like Cicero's Cataline speech or Brutus and Antony's speeches in "Julius Caesar", then you had a seriously flawed education and you should get mad about it.
I have had a flawed education, it's a "modern" one where the teachers aren't allowed to correct students if they say the protagonist is the same person as the antagonist. My peers are whiny pussies.
But luckily, THIS VERY BLOG inspired me to take both an Ancient Greek civ AND an Ancient Roman civ class in my first year of university! I start in two weeks!
Jorge: I influenced you to take classical courses in school!? Holy Cow! That's a real compliment. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI liked "300." I also liked "Troy" but i don't think it made it's money back.
Jorge's defense of Mother Love was an excellent argument.
ReplyDeleteI see what you're getting at, Eddie, but I think Jorge would win the argument. He's defense is logical and well reasoned, while your rebuttal would appeal solely to emotions. You might win over people who are more emotional than reasonable, while Jorge would quitely win out over people who are logical, educated, etc.
The emotional argument works well for the deceitful, though, and we have lots of politicians and lawyers who benefit from that type of appeal.
Hunsecker: A good answer to your reply would take a whole blog post.
ReplyDeleteYou should read the author Vincent recommended a couple of days ago. According to his "Propoganda" book the group most susceptible to psychological manipulation is the educated class. In college you're taught to be skeptical of tradition and you loose your natural immunity to strange sounding ideas.
Jose: I did a post on Halsman's jumping book. Maybe 6 months ago.
ReplyDeleteYou liked Troy? Wow! What of the extreme Americanization? Only one character had black curly hair and the Achilles/Agamemnon relation was accurate in tone, but likely accidental- it felt like the Maverick/Bald Admiral relationship in Top Gun.
ReplyDeleteBrad Pitt would buzz the commander's tent, Agamemnon would spill mead on his tunic, and he'd scream "ACCHILLEEEEEES!"
On top of that, you can't get much more American than when Brad grufmps out "Immortality! Take it! It's YORRS!"
Eddie: You like "300" ? I didn't care for it at all. I think the dialogue,acting,and direction was laughable. The fight scenes had too many slow-mo affects and at some points,they felt claustrophobic.And the CGI blood took away alot of the gruesome nature,it just looked phony.
ReplyDeleteAnd one last thing,all the characters were as flat as cardboard.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, PC: I don't know if "300" deserved to be liked. I just liked the subject.
ReplyDeleteI liked "Troy" because of the way it depicted one aspect of Achilles. Just like every galaxy needs a black hole at the center, every craft that's vital needs a charismatic, gifted, mystically obsessive person at its center. That person becomes a nucleus that energizes and motivates everyone else.
According to Homer that person must eventually pay the price for his necessary single-mindedness, as Achilles did in the film. I can think of real-world exceptions to that, but that's Homer's opinion...and the film managed to convey that.
Boy, I can't believe we get into subjects like this in a cartoon blog! The internet is truly an amazing thing!
300 was great! First of all, the film was beautiful in colour, lighting, virtual sets, special effects, costumes, and camera angles!
ReplyDeleteThe characters were flat, the Spartans aggrandized, and the Persian demonized because it was told through the perspective of the one eyed Spartan telling the story. He was, in the words of the director, "The kind of guy who doesn't ruin a good story with truth." They even said this to some effect in the movie. Also, I refer you to Eddie's "Dare to be 2D" post from way back.
Sure, the film was facist, but I don't believe the filmakers themselves were facists. They had balls to not water down the way things were in Sparta back then. I applaud Frankie Miller and Zach Hodges for not succuming to the PC trend in movies that water down true history in order to make it more palpable for a few over sensitive hippies. And if we can appreciate the films of Leni Riefenstahl, surely we can stomach a action popcorn flick like 300, right?
The acting was a little...wooden, some would say, but it didn't distract from the movie and it served its purpose. Plus, Gerard Butler was handsome as hell and radiated leadership, charisma, and hero qualities.
The dialogue was great! There were tons of quotable lines that needn't be realistic. These lines, if they were from a movie in the 40s or something, would become classics. Alot of them were true, spoken by actual Spartans from way back. I just love over the top lyrical dialogue in films.
The fight scenes had too many slow mo effects? That was the best part of the whole film! And the blood was cool! Those were some of the best fight scenes in film since The Matrix and Spider-man! I still can't get over how cool this film was! Arggghh!!! I'm gonna go watch my bootleg DVD of it for the 4th time!
but where were the gods in 'troy'??
ReplyDelete"And the blood was cool!"
ReplyDeleteI want to quote this somewhere in an academic journal one day.
"The characters were flat, the Spartans aggrandized, and the Persian demonized because it was told through the perspective of the one eyed Spartan telling the story. He was, in the words of the director, "The kind of guy who doesn't ruin a good story with truth." They even said this to some effect in the movie. Also, I refer you to Eddie's "Dare to be 2D" post from way back.
ReplyDeleteSure, the film was facist, but I don't believe the filmakers themselves were facists. They had balls to not water down the way things were in Sparta back then. I applaud Frankie Miller and Zach Hodges for not succuming to the PC trend in movies that water down true history in order to make it more palpable for a few over sensitive hippies. And if we can appreciate the films of Leni Riefenstahl, surely we can stomach a action popcorn flick like 300, right?"
Maybe they should have made the story be told from the POV of a person with a brain and two eyes. That just seemed like a weak excuse of not putting much depth into a film,a cop out. You can make movie alot darker when you give the caharacters humanity. If you are going have the story told in a biased Spartan's POV, at least have Spartan's be far less one-dimensonal.
"The dialogue was great! There were tons of quotable lines that needn't be realistic. These lines, if they were from a movie in the 40s or something, would become classics. Alot of them were true, spoken by actual Spartans from way back. I just love over the top lyrical dialogue in films."
I rather well constructed, natural written dialogue I found it to be corny and juvinille. But then again,it's Frank Miller so maybe excepting anything above that maybe too much.
"The fight scenes had too many slow mo effects? That was the best part of the whole film! And the blood was cool! Those were some of the best fight scenes in film since The Matrix and Spider-man! I still can't get over how cool this film was! Arggghh!!! I'm gonna go watch my bootleg DVD of it for the 4th time!"
The Slow Mo effect were over used, even during the non fight scenes. Seriously, someone could be just sitting down and they would use slow-mo effects.I felt none of the fights had any instensity, the CGI blood made them feel phony and far less extreme. And also the way they show at points seemed like no one was directing them, they had camera at random place and started shooting. The only thing I loved was the rain of arrows.
>>Hunsecker: A good answer to your reply would take a whole blog post.
ReplyDeleteYou should read the author Vincent recommended a couple of days ago. According to his "Propoganda" book the group most susceptible to psychological manipulation is the educated class. In college you're taught to be skeptical of tradition and you loose your natural immunity to strange sounding ideas.<<
You couldn't give me the Reader's Digest version?
Also, I think anyone is susceptible to propaganda, especially if the message is somehow comforting to them or reinforces their own biases. That cuts across all class lines, just like in Nazi Germany.
>>I applaud Frankie Miller and Zach Hodges for not succuming to the PC trend in movies that water down true history in order to make it more palpable for a few over sensitive hippies.<<
ReplyDeleteJorge,
"True history"? But you already mentioned that the movie is narrated by a Spartan "who doesn't ruin a good story with truth."
>>Plus, Gerard Butler was handsome as hell...<< (emphasis added)
I remember our last conversation where you disparaged homosexuals, so that line above really jumped out at me. It makes you sound a little...well, you know.
Gay? yes.
ReplyDeleteIt bears imminent mentioning that 300 was not written to be a historical movie at all- Frank Miller wrote it as a romantic tale, one that would be told as the Spartans themselves would tell it like over a campfire. It's idealized and completely in the Spartans' favor. It's old-school bias romanticization- which is good.
In that context, the movie was very enjoyable.
Eddie: That analysis is great! (It also explains some of your character!) Is your admiration of The Fountainhead related to this in any way?
We should open a discussion on this blog on the merits of romanticism and not hero worship, but hero admiration. It's a deep subject, heroes! Even anti-heroes, in the old sense, can be heroes.
William: I love "The Fountainhead" but I think I'll refrain from talking about it here. This just isn't that kind of site. Heroes and the heroic, on the other hand, have a long history here.
ReplyDeleteWilliam: The history inaccuracies I can excuse. I don't mind fun subsituting fun for fact or even the bias. It's just that I whish they would have at least some sort of depth into the film, I don't think that would have affected the romaticism.Also,as I said before, the direction of the fight scenes were inept and that was were the film was suppose to shine.
ReplyDeleteFernandel — The Frenchman!!! I have this book (and can't quite recall, but I think I've mentioned it in the comments before). Love it. I've been meaning to post some stuff relating to these photos for some time... Hopefully I'll get around to it sooner than later. Hmmph!
ReplyDeleteLee: I was hoping the person who turned me on to this book would write! I didn't even know about this guy til you commented on him! Thanks much!
ReplyDeleteIf it was the Ellul book, "Propaganda", I think you may have skewed his meaning slightly. He points out that the most "informed" elements of the population, (i.e., the biggest consumers of media) who are the most propagandised & who are also most likely to believe that they are immune to propaganda.
ReplyDeleteNo one's immune to propaganda. The best we can do is resist the temptation to be willfully ignorant.
Pappy: That must be a different book. There must be several books with that title.
ReplyDeleteMy guy is Bernays. I'm listening to an audio memoir of his in the car.
Oops, sorry Eddie.
ReplyDelete