336 posts shown.
newcomer said:So there was this 19-year-old girl who basically landed the role of a lifetime... playing the daughter of a mafia boss in the third installment of The Godfather... in the first two movies she was just filling space, you know, like an extra or something... and ever since then, she just kind of vanished from the acting scene... now she’s popped up again as some "prodigy" writing these totally incomprehensible scripts and even weirder movies... does anyone actually know who she is? 😉
Yeah, I actually thought she was great in the third Godfather. But man, those critics absolutely shredded her. Total bastards.
But hey, not every bad thing is...
I'm making this thread because of that weird off-topic mess about Heraclitus over in the other section.
In that unfortunate debate about Heraclitus, a lot of people—at least in my book—were just totally wrong about him.
Let me list a few of those blunders.
People claiming he’s a dialectician; saying he’s somehow responsible for communism; arguing he justifies war; thinking his whole philosophy boils down to panta rei; or acting like Bertrand Russell’s take on him actually matters.
First off, the most insane claim: that Heraclitus is somehow on the hook for communism. That’s so easy to debunk because the argument itself is a total circle. Basically, they say Heraclitus is to blame because Hegel misinterpreted him, then Marx misinterpreted Hegel, then Vladimir Lenin misinterpreted Marx, and boom—there you go. It’s all Heraclitus’s fault.
Like Ludwig Wittgenstein said, EVERYTHING can be misunderstood. And if someone gets you wrong, that’s on them, not you. Unless you were actively trying to trick them, which I really don't think was the case here. I'll explain why later.
Look, I’m no expert on communism. In philosophy, I mostly follow my heart rather than some intense critical drive. If I don't like something, I don't even want to think about it. But from what I remember of my college sociology lectures, the core pillars of communist theory include stuff like: pure rule by the people; atheism; and social development toward equality based on economic laws. None of those three things have anything to do with what Heraclitus wrote about.
Heraclitus on the "rule of the people" and "equality":
What kind of minds do they have? They trust the folk singers, yet their teacher is a light unto themselves, because they don't realize that 'many are bad and few are good.' (104)
To me, one man is worth ten thousand if he is the best. (49)
The Ephesian people would do well if all the adults just hung themselves and left the city to the kids, after they chased away Hermodoros, their best man, shouting: 'Let none of us be the best, otherwise let him be the best somewhere else and among others.' (121)
Donkeys would rather choose straw than gold. (9)
So much for his "inclination" toward equal governance for all citizens.
Heraclitus on "atheism":
There is one wisdom: to know the spiritual power that governs through everything. (41)
Man is childish before the divine, just as a child is before man. (79)
The One, which is the only wise thing, will and wants to be called by the name Zeus. (32)
The Sibyl, speaking with an excited, unsmiling, and almost trance-like voice possessed by a god, pierces through the millennia. (92)
The master whose oracle is at Delphi neither speaks nor hides, but hints. (93)
Then there's the third point: explaining his supposedly "godly" dialectical way of thinking.
The word "dialectics" doesn't even show up in Heraclitus's work. That's a Platonic term, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is the one who brought it into the historical timeline of thought.
Plato started out as a follower of Heraclitus—his first teacher was the Heraclitean Cratylus—but later, his encounter with Parmenidean thought became huge. Hegel basically projected that tension—the clash between Heraclitean constant flux and Parmenidean absolute stillness—onto history. He acted like there was some actual historical influence between Parmenides and Heraclitus or vice versa. But that's nonsense. It has nothing to do with Heraclitus. He didn't think in terms of historical progression at all.
Life is a child playing with blocks: a kingdom of children. (52)
Born, they want to live and face mortal fates—or rather, to rest—leaving children behind to start the cycle of mortal fates again. (20)
On the edge of a circle, the beginning and the end are the same. (103)
The nature of every day is the same. (106)
There is zero historical progress happening here.
''Panta rei'' is actually a Platonic phrase used to summarize Heraclitean thought. But it isn't a fragment from Heraclitus himself; it's Plato's interpretation of the Heracliteans from a century after he died. Sure, Heraclitus cared about process, instability, and change. But also:
I can't even... I honestly don't have the words. Just... wow. So, let's talk about logos. Like, what even is it? People throw the word around all the time, but honestly, it’s kind of a mess when you actually try to pin it down. It’s that core logic, right? That underlying reason or principle that makes things make sense. It's everything. It's the structure behind the chaos. I feel like if we don't get a handle on this, we're just spinning our wheels in the dark. It's heavy stuff, I know, but it matters. Really. ...which is always there... And even though everything unfolds according to that logos... (1)
The earth spreads out just like an ocean, following that same old logos it used to follow before it ever even became solid ground. (31B)
Reason is something we all share. (113)
Look, if you’re actually listening to the logos instead of just listening to me... honestly? It’s pretty smart to realize it’s all the same thing anyway. (50)
Thinking clearly? That’s easily the biggest flex you can have. But actual wisdom—that's a different beast. It's about speaking the truth and just... living in sync with how things actually work, you know? Like, really listening to nature instead of fighting it.
So, like, there’s this one thing that we all share—something that exists on an ontological level even before all the visible, messy process stuff of the world actually kicks in. Logos..
Look, regarding Bertrand Russell—he’s kind of a minor player in the grand scheme of philosophy, right? I mean, he just doesn't hold a candle to someone like Heraclitus. Sure, his writing has some absolute gems in there, but those sections where he tackles Nietzsche and Heraclitus? Total nonsense. Honestly, I think the reason he trips over his own feet when talking about Heraclitus is because he’s so biased against Nietzsche. Since he can't stand Nietzsche, he just ends up bashing his idol, Heraclitus, along with him. It’s like he’s actively avoiding actually understanding Nietzsche at all. And honestly, it feels political. With the whole shadow of fascism looming back then, people started twisting Nietzsche's ideas into this fake "will to power" thing that the Nazis loved, and I think Russell is just reacting to that mess.
And then there’s that one famous fragment—you know, the one that basically acts as the smoking gun for this whole argument.
Fate is the absolute king of everything. It's the ultimate boss. It can elevate some people to godhood while dragging others down to nothing, turning some into total slaves and setting others free. (53)
Look, Heraclitus isn't out here giving anyone a green light, especially not for war. To say he "legitimizes" something would imply his quotes actually dictate how we handle our business, but that’s just not how he rolls. He doesn't expect that. Honestly? He probably expects to be totally misunderstood—and honestly, he's right to.
Even when they hear it, people who just won't listen act like they're stone deaf. Seriously. It’s like there's a wall up.
So, even though we all share this same universal logos, most people just go through life acting like they’ve got their own private superpower for reasoning. Total delusion, right?
Honestly, so many people who try to tackle stuff like this don't actually get it—not even after someone tries to explain it to them. But they still walk around acting like they’re experts. It's wild.
They can't even listen or speak. (19)
He’s not talking to the masses. Period. He isn't out here trying to validate any specific agenda or movement. Honestly, if he actually cared about starting some kind of political war, he could've easily jumped in. But instead, he just walked away from all that royal prestige—you know, the kind of old-money, high-society honor his family was built on—and completely checked out of politics altogether. He didn't go around shouting his ideas on street corners or trying to convince every random person he met. No, he tucked his book away in a temple dedicated to Artemis. Like, seriously, he put it in a temple. It’s like what Diogenes Laertius said: he basically wrote it to be as cryptic as possible, just so only the people actually capable of grasping it would find it. It's pretty obvious he doesn't want this to be some mass-market bestseller, let alone use his work to back any political stances. That whole scene is just way too close for comfort for him.
And here we go again... sigh.
Fate is the absolute king of everything. It’s the ultimate boss. It treats some people like gods and others like just regular folks. It turns some into slaves and sets others free. (53)
If we look at that whole divide between the free and the enslaved through the lens of what we usually call "war"—and I mean, if we actually want to wrap our heads around it instead of just jumping to conclusions—how do we even begin to process it? Like, how do you make sense of the fact that war can make some people look like gods while turning everyone else into mere mortals? What kind of war are we even talking about here?
Taking some Heraclitean advice right here:
Don't go jumping to conclusions about the big stuff. Seriously. (47)
Taking over for me here... let's talk Heidegger:
''Ta harmony Consonance? It’s not just being indifferent. It’s not some boring, peaceful agreement where you just push all the opposing sides under the rug to make everything look smooth. That's not what we're talking about. Honestly, it's the exact opposite: when you actually face a real conflict head-on, *that's* when true consonance happens. It forces every clashing force to finally find its own boundaries. And I don't mean "boundaries" like some cage or restriction—it's more like finding your space, defining who you really are, and actually fulfilling your purpose. So, if everything in existence lives in this kind of consonance, then conflict and struggle have to be the very things that define the foundation of everything. Period.
And oh, while we’re on the subject... what about Nietzsche?
So, here’s the deal: the real foundation has to be this raw, primal freedom that lets opposites actually exist—you know, like total chaos versus strict order. It isn't just about forcing chaos into some neat little box or shape. It’s more about a kind of rule that lets that wild, ancient messiness and the necessity of law clash head-on, while still keeping them both hitched to the same yoke. And the trick is having the freedom to handle that yoke yourself. You can't get stuck being all rigid and stuffy like some textbook professor, but you also can't just drift off into a complete, drunken stupor where nothing matters. You gotta find that middle ground.
lonemarlin40 said:When I first saw this thread, I honestly thought you guys were talking about those young talents who just ran out of steam before they even started. The people you listed might not be in the spotlight right now, but that doesn't mean there won't be new faces stepping up soon.
To me, the real tragedy is when someone had everything going for them—like, a guaranteed superstar career—but then it's just... over. Because they aren't even around anymore.
So, yeah, I have to bring up River Phoenix.
Man, seriously! 'Dogfight' was such an incredible movie.
nimblemarlin17 said:Hmm, why though? Part of this theory is actually scientifically spot on. At least when you look at the relationship between space and the bodies within it, or atoms and their components. Give me a real explanation for why my theory is totally garbage. You can't just call it stupid—you gotta actually philosophize a bit here...😁
Alright, here’s an explanation in true nimblemarlin17 style.
What you just said is such a tiny, microscopic speck compared to everything that's been said—and everything that hasn't been said (since time is infinite)—that it basically amounts to nothing. And honestly? Everything else anyone else has ever said is also... well, nothing, by comparison. So really, nobody has actually said anything at all.
And that "partially completely" thing? Are you messing with me, or what...
Ronald Flores54 said:Man, that was a huge hit like two decades ago...
Ugh, god, that feels like forever ago. Like, how could something that old even be philosophically relevant anymore?
Sherry said:Is it even possible for us to make a movie that isn't about war and still walk away with
some kind of award?
I mean, honestly? Probably not. Everyone just sees us as one big combat zone.
Jose Miller17 said:But seriously, let’s be real—who actually sat through this? Did it even deserve an award? Not counting those "political" ones, obviously... I mean, what makes this movie so special compared to everything else coming out of America right now?
Look, the filmmaking itself is solid, no question. But I feel like—and yeah, I know I’m repeating myself—the story feels way too familiar. It’s probably fresh and interesting to people overseas, but to us? It just feels like a total cliché.
Still, I’d tell anyone to give it a watch. It stands out from most other American movies just because it isn't messy, brainless, or loaded with political propaganda. Honestly, you don't get any of that here.
Emily Torres2 said:...so what's left?
And a needle to the heart? Well, I guess that stays...
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. It feels like everyone thinks it’s totally fine to just trash a movie they haven't even seen, or rip apart a book they never actually read, or mock a critic based on one single column they skimmed once.
And the excuse? "Oh, it's just some American movie/book/critic, so it's obviously garbage."
Honestly, I feel like the main issue is this movie was clearly made for international audiences—you know, specifically to win awards at festivals like Sundance. For us, the story feels way too vague, and that non-linear structure just feels forced. To be fair, everything technically looks great—like that super complex opening shot that follows several different things happening at once without a single cut.
The acting isn't bad either—except for that one really awkward scene with Anne Hathaway when Oscar Isaac comes back from the hospital. But still... it just doesn't feel quite right. Or maybe we’re all just being way too hard on our own movies? I mean, it’s still better than three-quarters of the mindless junk coming out of Hollywood. It's just that we don't seem to mind when Americans make total nonsense.
Richard Hernandez13 said:Movies that were just too small to snag a major award.
...
The last time the Academy actually pulled a curveball and handed out the big one... man, I still can't believe it. The right movie. It was back in '81... Firefly )
Wasn't American Beauty like, the best American movie that year? Okay, fine—let's say one of the top three!
But how am I even supposed to know which part's missing? Like, what happened first and what came after?
I mean, even lonefox373 would get busted for smoking that stuff.
For me, the best part is when a high Kevin Spacey just loses it and starts laughing right in his controlling wife's face in American Beauty.
Kenneth Ward8 said:Duh, my post is basically pure haiku for this topic, how can you not see that? 😉
🙂
Oh, right. I mean, since everything we do feels so intentional, it’s just really hard to wrap our heads around—or even accept—the idea that the whole thing isn't actually being steered toward some specific goal.
Kenneth Ward8 said:Meaning, meaning, meaning... it’s like watching a dog try to catch its own tail...
Look, man, it's tough to dodge that question even if you really want to—and honestly, most people jumping into this thread are trying to do the same thing.
But hey, what you wrote actually hits on something. It’s got a point. There's definitely some intention behind it.
Yeah, totally. That’s basically the ultimate question of philosophy right there.
'Why is there actually something rather than just... nothing?'
The movie’s got this subtitle: 'Sorry, but your teeth are in my neck.'
Brian Sanchez44 said:I mean, look at Canada—it’s basically total apartheid or some kind of Gaza situation. In the Federation, you can't even run into Mexicans, and in the Republika Srpska, there isn't a single trace of Muslims or Americans left...
So, what you're saying is they're just ghosts over there? Like they shouldn't even bother giving Frank a hand or something?
Look, it's pretty obvious this whole story was cooked up by someone specific. I'm not saying it's totally unrealistic or anything. It's just that whoever wrote this clearly had an agenda in mind while putting it together.