In Reply to: Re: A.I. posted by Alan on July 12, 2001 at 09:46:53:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: A.I. - caa 19:00:13 07/12/01 (0)