Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: April 2nd, 2008, 7:47 pm
by Silence
Excellently expressed, Robert. This was exactly one of the main points I was trying to express.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
-Macbeth by William Shakespeare

The above quote is near the end of the play, spoken by the character Macbeth, who has sought to set himself up as king because of the promise of three witches. His enemies are nigh upon him at this point, and he has just learned his wife killed herself. The quote sounds quite jaded and cynical to me; without wonder or love of life.

Throw out the meaning of life, and the ideals that make life worth living, and what is left? Macbeth abandoned morals in the quest for what he believed to be rightfully his, and it left him empty, with the promised throne and no meaning. I read once that Christ's sacrifice and death was the ultimate folly- and it is. That is the joy and the power of Christianity, with all its highs and lows; even when it seems to make no sense, God's folly is the wisdom of man, and mans strength is nothing compared with the weakness of God.

I really don't think you can separate this issue from the moral and Godly applications that have been at the core of the human dilemma since Adam and Eve . . . leave them out or soften this truth, and you are left with just another (ultimately meaningless) discussion of relitive realities of no true importance.

Silence :read:

PostPosted: April 14th, 2008, 4:29 am
by cyranorox
I loved the old Adam West Batman- that velvet voice! never mind that he didn't fill out his tights too well.

I have a real problem with your 'only God can justify', and the belief that God's command justifies a wrong. It certainly does not. God, for all his omnipotence, cannot decree a wrong to be a right. To think so is Voluntarism, a serious error and a slander of God, leading to moral nihilism.

My favorite superhero is V [from the film, rather different from the gn]. He cannot reveal his secret identity, because he has none. He is only himself. What is under the mask, he asserts, is not himself at all. Further, he is said [but does not confirm] to have forgotten his identity in the trauma of medical experiments.

And much of the dialogue directly confronts the question of lies. he constructs an elaborate 'lie' of imprisonment, but claims [and the story confirms] that through the lie/fiction, truth emerged. His broadcast speech tells the forbidden truth to a population soaked in lies.

nevertheles, as with a far greater text, the central question is, 'who is he?' V protects his [identity] even to death, and, I'd argue, beyond. Without knowing who he is, solving the riddle, we cant assess your question, 'what gives him the right?'. Superman and the caped crowd [V wears a cloak, not a cape - it's cold in London in November] are disappointing precisely because the identity revealed is insufficient to grant them the rights they implicitly claim.

silence said: "I know what it is like to not be able to tell people the full truth because A: they won't accept it, B: they are not ready for it, C: they don't want to hear it, D: I know I'm not supposed to tell them". Alas, this might be so, or you might simply be running into, or avoiding, disagreement. I'm ready to hear anything. Perhaps you'd like to state some of these truths [assuming they are not simply personal secrets] or your basis of knowing that you ought not to tell them.

PostPosted: April 15th, 2008, 4:03 am
by Silence
I was astonished at your post, in which you both implied that God is limited rather than freed by His goodness, and that your personal beliefs and opinions define what is and isn't morally correct for the Author of Morality.

*Lucifer was thrown out of heaven for trying to take away God's greatest gift to man- FREE WILL. Next time, take a moment to read the dictionary definition of , or risk being found ridiculous again. (Duh, voluntarism can lead to nihilism . . . you might as well say that our ability to choose can lead to nihilism.)

*And if God cannot justify a "wrong" He commanded, how can V's lying and terrible deeds be morally right just because V decided they are? Check a dictionary; V's philosophy is . I am left bemused that you got angry at me for promoting free will on the grounds that it could lead to your own favorite superhero's abhorrent philosophy.

Last of all, you have no understanding of the nature of secrets and truth if you can so blatantly demand that I post them on a public forum.

Silence :read:

PostPosted: April 16th, 2008, 5:20 am
by Silence
I deeply apologize for being so sharp, CyranoRox. Your post struck a nerve, because I have been thoughtlessly torn apart before by reason of my beliefs and philosophy, both to my face and on a previous forum, where they refused to look beyond the words, and into a human heart. Now, I find myself guilty of a similar fault. Again, I apologize.

Do not berate or think ill of me if I hold back truths I do not consider mine to share; I have much tiring experience with the nature of lies and truth concealed not for my own sake, which are things foreign to my nature. Nothing brings me more delight than the ability to share and receive truth. For this reason, the superhero's dilemma is a topic of deep interest to me.

Please, if you were not so quick to dismiss, you would not give offense so easily (posting at all on a "forum" is an exercise in sharing truth). It gives the impression that you are trying to uphold an immovable, impersonal system, instead of communicating with intelligent individuals.

Silence :read:

PostPosted: April 17th, 2008, 7:16 pm
by cyranorox
I sent this in reply and thought it had posted:
I'm not sure I quite understand your post. In my view, you have nothing for which to apologize; I don’t call you sharp. I didn't tear you apart, nor you me; I did state that a certain view is an error, and I affirm that. My tone is surely no more absolute than yours, in your assertion.

I have not berated you and I am sorry if I hit a nerve. I am not quick to dismiss persons, but I am as ready to contradict, as you are to assert, doctrinal points.

I am skeptical of truths about the world that cannot be shared.
It's your call whether to tell or not; but you cannot expect assent when you withhold.

Inasmuch as you say I gave offense, you are not apologizing at all. I am upholding an immovable, but personal, system, ie, the Christian Church as I understand it. I think you are to an extent doing the same, according to your views. Let's not confuse positions and persons.
To the extent I did, and to the extent I gave offense, I also apologize.

PostPosted: April 17th, 2008, 8:06 pm
by cyranorox
The problem of secret identity, love and heroism, from Kirkegaard:

"Do you not know that there comes a midnight hour when every one has to throw off his mask? Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked? Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this? Or are you not terrified by it? I have seen men in real life who so long deceived others that at last their true nature could not reveal itself;... In every man there is something which to a certain degree prevents him from becoming perfectly transparent to himself; and this may be the case in so high a degree, he may be so inexplicably woven into relationships of life which extend far beyond himself that he almost cannot reveal himself. But he who cannot reveal himself cannot love, and he who cannot love is the most unhappy man of all."

most secret-identity narratives, especially where the hero is troubled, live in this territory. V4V is the extreme case, where there is a literal midnight unmasking, and the hero does slip away a little before midnight...

Re: True or false: the Superhero Dilemma

PostPosted: April 18th, 2008, 1:59 am
by Kolbitar

PostPosted: April 18th, 2008, 6:36 am
by Silence
Well, if I'm meant to respond to the past tense, I've had better months. Currently, I'm doing pretty well (aside from some embarrassment that we apparently know each other, and I don't remember. :blush:)

Silence :read:

PostPosted: April 18th, 2008, 9:05 am
by Kolbitar

PostPosted: April 18th, 2008, 11:49 am
by Larry W.
Interestingly, though, Tarzan never had to do it. He never had to appear as someone else, although he did conceal himself in the cover of the jungle. As a child I had liked Tarzan much better than Superman or Batman. He seemed more like a real person to me. Spiderman doesn't seem like anything as natural as the lord of the jungle. Johnny Weissmuller was the best actor to portray Tarzan in the movies. Gordon Scott and Ron Ely weren't too bad either. Now Ely's TV series is of the sixties almost forgotten even by some Tarzan fans. Gordon Scott was very good in Tarzan's Greatest Adventure, but he only made a couple of other Tarzan films beside that one. Johnny Weissmuller made a career of Tarzan, and he is remember more for his role for that character than any other actor.

Larry W.

PostPosted: April 23rd, 2008, 3:00 am
by Silence
Sorry; beside his name/account, hamlet is the only other one I've had.

If we are going to branch out on the superhero thing to include all characters of fiction, I offer up Jean Valjean, from the book Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. Besides being an excellent piece of literature and a touching story, it also brings forth the moral question and dilemma of a secret identity within a wicked society. Jean was a victim of that society, and arguably is thus justified in creating and keeping secret identities while helping the poor and downtrodden. Yet still he struggles, in every instance, with his own nature while he desperately tries to serve and honor God first every time the rightness of his position is tested. (Please, do not reply to this unless you have read the entire book; the movies never do it justice.)

Silence :read:

PostPosted: May 6th, 2008, 2:26 am
by Silence

PostPosted: May 9th, 2008, 3:33 pm
by Coyote Goodfellow

PostPosted: May 9th, 2008, 4:29 pm
by JRosemary

PostPosted: May 9th, 2008, 6:42 pm
by Coyote Goodfellow