Noisewar Internetlainen

A Critical Analysis of There Will Be Blood: Intensional Godhood
Anonymous writes:

hi u people are rlly gay u know that?

A Critical Analysis of There Will Be Blood: Intensional Godhood
Anonymous writes:

After watching the movie for my third or fourth time I came across your analysis. I enjoyed it very much. Thank you for your insights.

A Critical Analysis of There Will Be Blood: Intensional Godhood
Brian writes:

So glad to see this thread still running. I was fortunate to watch the movie again and loved it just as much. It has to be up there in my top 3 favorite movies along with Revolutionary Road and Black Swan, yet more movies to draw endless conclusions from.

I have skimmed most all the comments and have gained insight and opinions from these and of course the movie itself. I would love feedback on my observations/questions.

*Mary plays a mysterious character to me. It is intriguing how often Daniel Physically touches her. Much can be drawn from this but her character baffles me.

*I don't see Eli as a fraud, or one who is fake in his Christian beliefs. At the town meeting his authenticity of asking about the road leading to the church seems sincere. What I see most with the Eli/Daniel spat is the Power struggle. Eli is Daniel's only threat (competition). Daniel doesn't want respect from the town, simply complete control. At the opening of the well Eli is expected to get the big stage in front of the towns people but is blown off by Daniel. Notice Eli does not ask really, it's more of a demand with specifics on how and when to introduce him. We know later that no one tells Daniel what to do and how to do it (standard oil confrontation). When Daniel goes to church and sees Eli's control over the congregation it makes him furious. Eli acts as competitor to the threat of the town worshiping something other than oil. Remember the speeches Daniel gave of what oil could do to a community? This was his version of a Prophecy but using Oil as worship instead of religion. The last power struggle attempt to "leverage" Daniel came in the final scene where Eli assumed he could name a price for the final piece of land. Not only does Daniel "win" by not needing the land but he was able to exploit the fault of Eli. Eli was money hungry and would alter his beliefs because of it. When Eli admitted to these things of being a fake he does not believe this but is under complete control of Daniel in order to get the money.

* Lastly, Daniels "brother form another mother." What is everyone's take on the scene before his death. They appear to be in some kind of Brothel in which he asks Daniel for money, and then has to ask again. Why the repetition and what is the significance in the Brothel.

Thanks

Bioshock Explained
Sam writes:

Hello from 2012 (Odd how great games can have such lasting impacts, huh?)! I thoroughly enjoyed your explanation of this very thought provoking game! In support of one argument of Ryan casting aside his morals for the best in Rapture, there is a tape in the Farmer's Market of Ryan deciding to use the ADAM to make people open to suggestion, which is one reason he's able to control the splicers himself. Upon my first playthrough, I agreed with most of your ideas presented here. However, I saw a connection between Ryan and Fontaine as a conflict between Capitalism and Socialism. Ryan clearly presented a capitalistic idealism through his following of both Smith and Rand. Fontaine was the people's man, he fought for the working class. However the game shows the horrid atrocities of both. In a socialist society, we have the splicers who've gone crazy and often fight each other for any and all ADAM. On the other hand, we have capitalists that established monarchies in business because others could not feed off another's idea, these elitests let the working class suffer. Either side they chose, the splicers suffered through the greed and selfishness of others. In a society that was ideally selfless as people worked for themselves which, in turn, benefited society, selfishness reigned true as people like Fontaine abused the system. In addition, Fontaine's world made people think they had a choice, that they could choose to better themselves through exploitation of others, yet they only made him stronger and hurt others. Ryan alike, made people think they had many choices, yet the elites forced the layman to work for them and made it impossible for their choice to lead anywhere but to the bottom of the ladder. Sorry if my ideas seem a bit off, I'm not sure how to phrase it other than the faults of Capitalism versus Socialism. Perhaps the faults of government today would be better. One side proposes free market, the actual outcome is one of exploitation. Was Hobbes or Locke correct? I think the game argues for human nature being "tainted". Bioshock isn't just a political critique but a human one, too.

Bioshock Explained
Anonymous writes:

The meaning i got from this nightmare is "Your choice is never truly your own. Your will is tainted by even existing. To have true free will would to not exist."

A Philosophical Approach to a Better Mass Effect 3 Ending
Cyrgaan writes:

I completly agree with your deduction. Free will unity is the option I've missed from the whole picture, yet I couldn't explain the plot on the level you did.

Lack of this option (method, more likely) in the ending is the main inconvenience for me, because that was the way I always walked on in the whole story. There was one other point in the game, when this method was not present: at the choice you erase/rewrite the heretic geth. Though with Legion's explanation about the rewrite way is acceptable for the greater good, it's still a renegade method. There should be a way to communicate with the heretic geth, for example using Legion as an interpreter, and persuade them with reasons to bridge over the schism without forcing. Though, in fact, the lack of this option is logical because of the presence of the Reaper code (it can be seen as "indoctrination for synthetics").

(Sorry, if my bad english rendered my explanation to something uncomprehendable. I hope you can understand what I've tried to explain.)

A Philosophical Approach to a Better Mass Effect 3 Ending
Max Payne writes:

1hundred stars to this

I can agree with this

this make sense,

Inet is full of nonsense "indoctrination theory"
Too much people are persuaded to it and using 2sided blade arguments, ignoring facts, on first look you can see that they are justifying themselves that "destroy" is right choice and other are you loose and be full indoc.

Our race is still too young

A Philosophical Approach to a Better Mass Effect 3 Ending
Ruffian writes:

very good fix, in my opinion, This is more along the lines of what I was actually expecting. This and an actual final mission of some sort, where your intergalactic fleet did something or some kind of decisions to make regarding your crew. The lack of the latter wouldn't have been so bad though with the inclusion of the former.