 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: A.I. posted by caa on July 11, 2001 at 23:55:44:
Again, I contend that within the context of the story, the use of robots is only a vehicle to explore the issue of how children are treated by adults. Sure, SS has sent a message that we must generally be careful with our actions (global warming for one), but the profound message is more specific to what happens to the children. If he's "rooting for the meca's", it's really, again, only a metaphor for identifying the real victims of adult human narcissism and greed. And one of the things we know from research and data is that a statistically significant percentage of victims become perpetrators, as do most of the human adults in the film. The William Hurt character, the mother, the father, the guy who killed his wife, the fans at the Flesh Fair, are all narcissistic perpetrators, to one degree or another.
>> "If you create something capable of loving you, are you morally
obligated to love it in return?" << Why would it be pretentious in any way to answer this question? It's probably the whole premise of the story. Of course we are morally obligated. We take on the obligation every time we choose to deliver a new being into the world. And for the most part we fail miserably at fulfilling our obligation. By the way, my face looked just like David's every time my parents made me eat liver.
I will again put forth my conviction that most of the complaints of structure, technological incongruities, and such, are ways we can distract ourselves from the painful truth of the story. It's just a simple story about how, if parents could create the perfect child, they would still find a way to screw it up.
Follow Ups:
I will again put forth my conviction that most of the complaints of
structure, technological incongruities, and such, are ways we can
distract ourselves from the painful truth of the story. It's just
a simple story about how, if parents could create the perfect child,
they would still find a way to screw it up.
That's a way to look at it, more specific than what I pointed out. As in any good story, there're many ways to look at it.
> > "If you create something capable of loving you, are you
morally obligated to love it in return?" < <Why would it be pretentious in any way to answer this question? ....Of course we are morally obligated. We take on the obligation every time we choose to deliver a new being into the world.
This is not quite the same. We are talking about robots. Still, the problem is in "the obligation to love". Some feel obligated to love their children; others just do. For me, its funny to have love and obligation hands in hands. I dont understand that. Do you? Do you think that we can presently answer questions about love? If so, great. If not, isn't it pretentious to assert having the mentality and understanding of such an advanced society to answer questions about love, espcially to the machines that we create . Isn't it pretentious to ask 'when God created the atoms, do we expect him to love them back'? Love or any type of hormone-induced action requires the specific mentality, lifestyle, understanding, together with a bunch of other mysterious things to even begin to hope to understand. How many here couldn't figure out why their daughters fall in love with a seemingly complete loser?
Spieldberg did a great job of underscoring the problems, but he gave answers for them too.
If he's "rooting for the meca's", it's really, again, only a metaphor
for identifying the real victims of adult human narcissism and greed.
My point here is that this shows Spieldberg's weakness. It seems as though there's a need for him to provide an answer, to have a proof to his thesis. When theyre too difficult, he forces them. Kubrick would still have forced the issue, but instead put it on the table and said, 'heres your problem deal with it'. But thats why Spieldberg is so beloved; he reassures so eloquently what most already believe; we feel mentally satisfied and agreeable after watching him.
There is nothing outside the text, which serves the same function as a Rorschach test in evoking your unresolved conflicts. I still contend that you feel melancholy when you touch yourself. I think you can take it from here. And please, no more transference -- you claim to be a pro.
Good job.
Boo hoo! Mine did too and I *liked* the stuff!clark
Me to...mum gave it to us when she thought we were sick (skip school to get liver). Cooked in a vinegar sauce with parsley accompanied with boiled new potatoes.(Looks at watch...)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
