Philosophical Phinking: The Truth of Truths

Recently, I've been considering a lot for stuff about my views of the world. Stuff like: why/how do we exist? Is there a god? How do we know that science is true? Yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah. And so on, and so forth until my brain hurts. But it's weird, thinking stuff like this. It fills you up with this strange sensation of nausea and excitement; the wonder at whether what you're pondering is either fascinatingly genius, or dangerously psychotic. In the end, it leaves you with both a worrying paranoia about the "point" of it all, and a satisfying shot of intelligence. The problem comes with distinguishing one from the other, much like the ol' "red wire or blue wire" debate in that arduous task of defusing a bomb (I'm sure you've all been there).

   What I'm struggling with though, is trying to define what exactly it is I think. But then it is hard to pin down the exact thoughts I have. I don't reject God, yet I don't accept him. Surely that makes me Agnostic, right? But then I think of how I'm mostly on the side of rejection than faith, and how it's not God per se, but maybe just some "Higher Being(s)". However, upon deeper thought, I don't think we'll ever know what makes the pure idea of living, as humans, which points toward something called Absurdism: to believe that it is humanly impossible for us to ever understand the meaning of life, as such. Perhaps life is humans, is what my mind now leans to, promoting a Humanist philosophy within me. Are we responsible for giving our own lives meaning? Because that question leads down a very long, very confusing road known as Existentialism.

 And from there, well then anything is possible, as long as you give it the thought. I could be the only real person, with everyone else just created to service the path I've been given within this sole, central universe. We could all be figments of each other's imaginations, we could all be living inside a tiny hologram of the universe, we could all be dead, passing onto the next stage. One radical idea a friend suggested to me, was that we are all one person, who - despite the billions of paradoxes it would create - is just going back in time after each life to live within another person, with no memory of the life before. It sounds absolutely ridiculous, completely insane, and utterly bat-crap crazy, I understand that. But how do you know? Surely everything we currently believe is just based on a single idea, no matter how ludicrous, and has slowly expanded over time to the point of almost pure international truth.

    Take our current views on chemistry and physics. We're not certain of these, they aren't the absolute truth of why the universe is like that. They are, instead, just the human truth of it, until something else comes along to change that. Take religion, any kind you like. Now think about 1000 years ago, where literally everyone believed in a deity of some kind, and imagine trying to explain science. You'd be laughed at, for sure. And in 1000 years from now, when science has advanced or something entirely new has come along, they may laugh at every single fact we think we have procured today. What I'm saying is that, despite whatever, there is no truth: everything is just Human understanding and the evolution of that.

  Numbers are another great example. The way people believe that the 21/12/12 will be the end of the world, just because the Mayans wrote it down. But the Universe does not submit to numbers, because ultimately that's all they are. But it is not the opposite either, because it is only Humans that numbers submit to; no more, no less. There could be alien races that have entirely different number systems, countless variations of counting, infinite possibilities of infinity. The world still works and moves forward (as we currently believe), no matter if we have clocks or not.

The exit is to your mind...

       In the end, you just need to ask yourself what your truth is, what you want to keep as personal truth, just so we don't all kill ourselves from curiosity and the prospect that death equals answers. It's confusing and vast and mad and, often, too much, but the real truth is your own, regardless. After all, belief is just what we give as an answer to life, to tide us over for our time in this universe. It keeps us sane, it keeps us right and above all it keeps us Human. No one can take away truth, meaning or reality from anyone else, because it is true to them, so what's the point wasting life away attempting to disprove something that's only created to get through life. Everything is true, nothing can totally, honestly, really be disproved, as long as it lives inside someone's belief.

So, technically, my Philosophy is what I want. I don't need to put a label on it like it's some kind of cheesy, High School drama. Facebook may ask for just one "Philosophy or Belief" on my profile, but I know there is  so much more to that. So I guess, when the Sun finally sets on our short times upon this world, we will go out with the truth that is our own personalised truth. Be it what it is, at least it was your Human truth.

And that my friends, is my Philosophy.

ATR

RE:View: Immortals

The hype based around Greek-mythology-action film Immortals was a tale of two halves. The first, with obvious reason, was whether this could be the natural successor to 2006's swords-and-sandals epic, 300, boasting a visual flair and some truly spectacular slow-mo fight sequences. The other buzz-inducing topic was its lead actor, Henry Cavill. The rising British born star (a relative unknown for most) will be donning the cape and tights for Zach Snyder's Man of Steel in 2013, and as such, Immortals was seen as a proving ground for the 28 year old, as to whether his performing prowess can lend itself to a believable and relatable Clark Kent. While they're both lofty asks, it's safe to say that Immortals does indeed deliver to a certain extent on either side.

   The story is straight forward enough, as it follows Greek hero Theseus (Cavill) on his journey to prevent the evil forces of Hyperion (Mickey Rourke, no less) from unleashing the God-forsaken (literally) Titans and bringing about war between the worlds of God and Man. Putting new spins on ancient legends along the way (such as the Minotaur), Theseus finds himself in love with a worshipped oracle (Freida Pinto), leading a mass army of men, and battling alongside the gods themselves.

The plot and story-telling, however, doesn't hold so strong against its epic prose. The script can be sloppy in places to the point where things get a little tedious, with the narrative feeling more like a scrapbook of bits and pieces, rather than a ravelling novel of grandeur. Sure, Theseus is out adventuring the lands, but there's a lot of to and fro between places, a back and forth cycle of sets and scenes.  And although they look great, thanks to the unique style of director Tarsem Singh, the golden back drops and luscious colour contrasts get tired because of these flaws, teasing the viewer with a fresh, even grander picture on the horizon, but never pulling through.

Visually Stunning

That's not to say that the art direction is sub-standard by any means. Singh has a definite vision throughout the film, which is evident in the richness of cinematography involved. Despite the repetitive discrepancies, we're given some bizarrely fantastic situations to look at that will resonate in the mind for a little while, be it a clash of golden-clad gods or the sight of blackened drenched heroes by the sea. Coupled with the mesmerising costume design, ranging from red, vibrant Indian gowns and gold, shining armours to the swathe of  the iron grey drab of Hyperion's menacingly masked army, and you've got a sure spectacle of a movie.

At its heart, of course, Immortals is an action film, taking no prisoners in its execution of blood, guts and gore, as warriors exchange blows and gods exchange mega-blows. Masterfully choreographed and beautifully shot, these battle sequences provide the movie's best moments - especially when gods get involved. Heads explode, flesh rips and screams fly; often in a show of awesome slow-mo. It may reverberate that of 300's unforgettable action scenes, but when it looks this spectacular and exciting, who can blame them?

May the best god win!

 But when we get outside of the action, the quality sags again. It's not that these parts aren't necessary, it's just they are staggeringly boring. Don't get me wrong, I hate pure action movies where the characters don't stop for a breather once in a while, but here it just doesn't flow so well. And its for one good reason; I don't particularly care about these people. The characters are never given enough chance to flesh themselves out, coming off with an alarming lack of depth. Theseus never questions "Why me?", we never really know why Hyperion is the evil bastard he is, and the attempts of humour by Theseus's newly befriended roguish thief fall flat because his personality is so one dimensional.

A small step...

  Regardless of the near transparency of his character, Cavill manages to pull off a decent performance, playing out emotions of anger, sorrow and determination confidently and fluently, especially in this selfless, leader-warrior role. His ability to perform well in action is an indication of his overall talent, proving himself worthy to be the next Son of Krypton as well as everyone's favourite Daily Planet reporter. Meanwhile Mickey Rourke gives us a frighteningly grim Hyperion, capable of the dirtiest of deeds thanks to his dedicated execution, and John Hurt drops by as the archetypical old man with his usual graceful ease.

If you just take Immortals as what it is - 110 minutes of action pumped, CGI prettiness - then you can't help but walk away from the cinema happy. Those hoping for a bit more depth and a journey into some deep mythology should look elsewhere, but at least stick around to check out Cavill's performance. 3D, once again, is a 'meh', but the look and feel of the thing is a rare breed entirely and one that can be admired for many a year.

It may not be winning awards any time soon, but at least it's not Clash of The Titans:
3/5 Stars

  Either way, I think Supes is in safe hands...


ATR

 MORE RE:VIEWS

MORE SUPERMAN

   

RE:View: Thor

 

    The God of Thunder gets the Hollywood treatment in Marvel's latest comic-book adaptation of the mighty Thor. Directed by Kenneth Brannagh and boasting a high-profile supporting cast of Natalie Portman and Sir Anthony Hopkins, Thor aims to take the super-hero movie by storm with it's whizzy effects and complex Norse back-story. But does it live up to the hype and expectation? Will it leave you hammered with disappointment, or struck with excitement? And, most importantly, can it manage to pull off fantasy-like Norse costumes without coming off overwhelmingly camp?

God and Satan: An Editorial Piece

Arm Wrestle or Arm Union?

After listening to Biffy Clyro's God and Satan, I got thinking.
Just listen to this first line:

"I talk to God as much as I talk to Satan, because I want to hear both sides."

For some reason, I found this really powerful. Just think, throughout time religion has always been very biased toward the God side of things. Even the bad stuff, like the floods and plagues were supposedly him "teaching us a lesson". But could it not be that certain things aren't as Black and White as the bible makes it out to be? That often things happen because God just felt like being a jerk? Or Satan's just a misunderstood angel, crying out for help?  Now I'm not a religious guy myself, and I don't want to offend anyone here, but I'd like to go a little deeper with this.