This is a discussion on Stream of Consciousness/Vent Thread within the INFP Forum - The Idealists forums, part of the NF's Temperament Forum- The Dreamers category; Originally Posted by lokasenna Do your health issues interfere with your ability to fall asleep or is it a trauma-related ...
Finally! Someone agrees with me. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...of-prince-hans Okay, each time I watch the movie Frozen the plot twist of Hans bothers me more.
While, no you shouldn't get engaged to someone you met a few hours ago (or run off into the woods at night with a guy you just met for that matter), and yes some people use good acting skills for devious purposes, I really dislike the way they animated, voiced, and characterized Hans with zero trace of ulterior motives even when Anna's not there. They didn't have to knock us over the head with it, but I really don't think they did a good job accomplishing the plot twist when you can't watch it the second time around and catch the hints and little red flags now that you know. There's nothing fishy, nothing off, nothing unconvincing or awkward Other than their quick infatuation. We’re shown an accidental meeting where he doesn't even know who she is at first. They show him smiling genuinely after she's walked away, like he's really in love, not like his gears are working hard plotting how to capitalize on this unforeseen opportunity. They show him as kind and concerned for the people while Anna’s gone looking for Elsa, no hints of taking advantage of his position like he’s itching for power. Could I believe Anna is a bad judge of character because she's so eager to be liked and has no experience? sure okay, but they didn't portray that well if that's the argument for the sudden flip of Hans’ character because they don’t give her or us any clues to miss. I don’t think this plot twist was clever, I think it was clunky and out of place.
I don’t think he really needed to be a bad guy anyways. There were other people who could have tried to kill Elsa, or he could have sincerely thought he was protecting Anna. He could have kissed her but it wasn’t actually what she needed to be cured for various reasons. I just think there were other options that would have felt consistent with the character they showed us in the rest of the film. I don’t have a preference on who Anna might eventually marry if he wasn’t a bad guy, I just don’t buy the sudden flip. I don’t think it was a brilliant plot choice, but I would have been fine with it had they actually made him consistent.
I get really tired of people praising how great it is that you never saw it coming, when I just don't see it as complex and brilliant character development, it feels like a slap dash cop out so she doesn't have to make a hard choice between Hans and Kristof, it feels like they didn't have a handle on the bad guys they were setting up so they last minute tried to shove a new one into the plot. I don't know, I just really don't see it as an asset of the film. To me it is a glaring problem I'm finding harder and harder to ignore.
I know I've ranted about this before, but it's just really annoying me again tonight and nobody I know will ever listen to me on this. They just brush me off because Disney can do no wrong, which is also annoying. It annoys me that people are like 'but it's so great it's true sister love that broke the spell' as if that couldn't have been the case had they not suddenly turned Hans into a different person.
My inner balance was always restored, eventually, so I hope it's the case with you too.
The thing is, I'm already 30 but I've never been given any responsibilities in life. And I could go on like this for five more years, ten if I economize well in terms of time, energy and money. The lightness is unbearable. It's like I want to steal somebody else's cross just to blend in with the suffering crowd. "My heart bleeds for you," and all that crap.
It sounds like you've been through a variety of different circumstances that have impacted you in different ways, as opposed to having the same issue resurface, and dealing with it in the same way. I think it's very healthy to let things affect you like that. People who don't let much get to them just seem to go through life tuning everything out. It seems like such a missed opportunity to learn and become humble.
And thank you for your kindness. It always does for me too, and it will soon again. I believe that balance can't be achieved until you've experimented with the weights on both sides of the scale. :P
Hans was lazy writing. You could have certainly shown that you don't need to run into marriage (or any relationship really) without the person in question trying to kill you!
Lilo and Stitch already did the sister bond thing without a 'twist', so it isn't new to them.
The last 'twist' I can remember currently is Zootopia. Just highly unnecessary, with the same lazy character background. It came out of nowhere, and actually soured me towards the movie more than I expected to be (ignoring the racism / predator slant too..).
I've been disenchanted with Disney recently (the last one I really enjoyed was Moana, oddly I thought that was 2018...apparently that was Wreck It Ralph 2). Wish they could get these live action remakes out of their system.
Utilitarianism is the ethics of the capitalist economy and it is just as invasive and collectivist as the many crude depictions of the historical alternatives.
All are subsumed into such an ethic, way of life against their wishes to have their existence replicated by such an abstract schema/instrumental rationality.
http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/...s_ETD_2011.pdfhttps://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablu...lourishing.pdfThe core of Bentham's Utilitarian theory is what has come to be known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” the doctrine that a moral action is good or bad according to the extent to which it maximizes utility, bringing about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people78. According to Marx, Utilitarianism obliterates the unique aspects of different products and different relations between people and reduces them to one thing: utility, or “usefulness”. Utilitarianism, he argues, is tailor-made for a society based on capitalist exchange, in which the particularity of specific products and of the needs of specific persons is dissolved into one mode of expression, that of money.https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablu...rks/ethics.htmWhen Economics builds its science on the assumption of an independent, individual economic agent who makes decisions to maximise their own utility they take as given a society in which the norms of Utilitarianism are universal. In the event that the subjects of a community do not act as individuals maximising their own utility, then the science fails. But perhaps more importantly, governments and firms which make policy on the basis of economic science, and therefore Utilitarian ethics, are acting so as to foster this ethos in the community, with all the consequences in terms of inequality and social disintegration.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/w...fhWillAgaiUtilUtilitarianism, which dates from the late 18th century, is the doctrine that an action is moral if it tends to promote the sum of human happiness (or "utility"). Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill as its most celebrated exponents. The definition of this "happiness" is somewhat problematic, and there are many different tendencies dealing in one or another way with the contradictions and interpretations arising in trying to work out a consistent system on this basis. Some economists define "utility" in the same terms as economic value, as "preference" or in Mills' term, utility in the same sense in which Mill referred to the magnitude of use-value as "utility". So it is natural that this concept of "utility" has undergone the same development in Ethics as it has in economics. That is, "utility" means value in the sense of how much people are prepared to pay for something. The ethical doctrine of Utilitarianism takes its name from the concept of "utility" which means, in the lexicon of those who founded the doctrine, economic value, and when we talk of the "sum of utility" we are quite definitely talking about the sum of values added in the economy. Thus, Utilitarianism is today more or less the doctrine that the guiding principle of any person's life is the maximising of the Gross National Product.https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablu...macintyre2.pdfHere, Williams’ commitment to the importance of subjective authenticity is on full display. “The most literal sense” of “integrity” is, according to Chambers’ Dictionary (1977 edition), “entireness, wholeness: the unimpaired state of anything”; then “uprightness, honesty, purity”. For our purposes the latter three senses in this dictionary entry should be ignored. It is the first three that are relevant to Williams’ argument; the word’s historical origin in the Latin in-teger, meaning what is not touched, taken away from, or interfered with, is also revealing.
An agent’s integrity, in Williams’ sense, is his ability to originate actions, to further his own initiatives, purposes or concerns, and thus to be something more than a conduit for the furtherance of others’ initiatives, purposes or concerns—including, for example and in particular, those which go with the impartial view. Moreover, integrity is an essential component of character, since, for Williams, an agent’s character is identical to their set of deep projects and commitments. Williams’ point, then, is that unless any particular agents are allowed to initiate actions and to have “ground projects”, then either the agents under this prohibition will be subjects for manipulation by other agents who are allowed to have ground projects—the situation of ideological oppression. Or else, if every agent lies under this prohibition and all agents are made to align themselves only with the ground projects of “the impartial point of view”, there will not be any agents. To put it another way, all will be ideologically oppressed, but by the ideology itself rather than by another agent or group of agents who impose this ideology. For all agents will then have lost their integrity, in the sense that no single agent will be an unimpaired and individual whole with projects of his own that he might identify himself with; all agents will have to abandon all “ground projects” except the single project that utilitarianism gives them, that of maximising utility by whatever means looks most efficient, and to order all their doings around no other initiatives except those that flow from this single project. What we previously thought of as individual agents will be subsumed as parts of a single super-agent—the utilitarian collective, if you like—which will pursue the ends of impartial morality without any special regard for the persons who compose it, and which is better understood as a single super-agent than as a group of separate agents who cooperate; rather like a swarm of bees or a nest of ants.Thomas Merton | Philosophical ExplorationsIn each of the historical settings that MacIntyre investigates, he is able to show that the type of justice and the type of rationality which appears to the philosophical spokespeople of the community to be necessary and universal, turns out to be a description of the type of citizens of the community in question. Accordingly, the justice of liberalism and the rationality of liberalism is simply that justice and that rationality of the “citizens of nowhere” (p. 388), the “outsiders,” people lacking in any social obligation or any reason for acting other than to satisfy their desires and to defend the conditions under which they are able to continue satisfying their desires. Their rationality is therefore that of the objects of their desire.“If technology really represented the rule of reason, there would be much less to regret about our present situation. Actually, technology represents the rule of quantity, not the rule of reason (quality=value=relation of means to authentic human ends). It is by means of technology that man the person, the subject of qualified and perfectible freedom, becomes quantified, that is, becomes part of a mass–mass man–whose only function is to enter anonymously into the process of production and consumption. He becomes on one side an implement, a ‘hand,’ or better, a ‘biophysical link’ between machines: on the other side he is a mouth, a digestive system, and an anus, something through which pass the products of his technological world, leaving a transient and meaningless sense of enjoyment. The effect of a totally emancipated technology is the regression of man to a climate of moral infancy, in total dependence not on ‘mother nature’ (such a dependence would be partly tolerable and human) but on the pseudonature of technology, which has replaced nature by a closed system of mechanisms with no purpose but that of keeping themselves going.
If technology remained in the service of what is higher than itself–reason, man, God–it might indeed fulfill some of the functions that are now mythically attributed to it. But becoming autonomous, existing only for itself, it imposes upon man its own irrational demands, and threatens to destroy him. Let us hope it is not too late for man to regain control.”
And although my wife in actuality doesn't really behave as a utilitarian, she expresses that she think it is correct without much reflection.
It's not something you opt into, it is simply a given by the state of how things are, and to choose otherwise necessarily makes one an antagonist of the way things are should they sincerely aspire for something different, a life not governed by a reductionist sense of happiness as utility. And when we act as such, we aren't concerned with people as subjects, they merely become objects of the impartial system which is inconsiderate of human beings but of itself.
We live to serve the economy and no one stands above it, but can only act in accordance with it until they seek to break the social relation of capital itself.
We're all but objects, no matter the experience as subjects, we are but means to the perpetuation of the economy in the last case. Our lives are governed by things and express in actuality despite any wish to contrary, the mutual valuing of objects over people themselves. Wishes against do not suffice to make actuality, one must act in accordance with the state of things.
There's a special brand of white passive aggressiveness that will always amuse me. It's different and you cannot convince me otherwise. I've obviously never experienced white privilege before until today thanks to my professor, and I cannot believe people actually LIVE like this every day .... that's so FUN. I would be so snarky.