The Dark Knight, part II

As promised, here is a follow up post.

First, a response to the (im)poster, who says the following:

"Quoting Batman, 'Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserve more than the truth.' The Church agrees with Batman here; it teaches that some things are more important than the truth:

Elder Packer has said, 'There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not...Some things that are true are not very useful.' ("The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect")

I gather from this statement that the truth is not always the ultimate reward for someone's faith. That's why the Church teaches 'faith-promoting' history as opposed to true history. I am not saying I agree with this, just that that's how it is."

My response:

It seems inaccurate to call what President Packer describes "more than the truth." Revealing truth "line upon line, precept upon precept" is not the same as lying, which is what Batman referred to when he spoke of "more than the truth." Consider two examples:

First, we teach kindergarten students that 1+1=2. All well and good, but the truth of the proposition "1+1=2" depends on what base number system you're using, as well as on certain postulates of linear algebra. Even that truth that seems most basic is only conditionally true.

Second, let's turn to that great source of wisdom: Return of the Jedi. In it, we have the following conversation:

Luke: Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

Obi-Wan: Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.

Luke: A certain point of view?

Obi-wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Earlier, speaking with Yoda about the same thing (that Luke learned that Vader was his father), we have:

Yoda: Unexpected this is, and unfortunate.

Luke: Unfortunate that I know the truth?

Yoda: No! Unfortunate that you rushed to face him, that incomplete was your training, that not ready for the burden were you.

I remain convinced that to some degree, we have to choose to believe something before we can know anything. And I remain steadfast in the faith that, as the hymn says, "all now mysterious shall be bright at last."

This post also having gotten long, my final point will have to wait for part III.

The Dark Knight

Through no fault of my own, I saw this movie thrice in theaters. Having seen it that many times, I've formed some thoughts on it. Having shared those thoughts with others and thus encountered their thoughts, and finding some interest in those thoughts, I thought I'd share some here.

Being that it's me writing, these thoughts are almost all about the ideas and the dialogue. You'll find very little here about the visual effects, hot girls, general scariness, etc. Yes, I am a dull and dry man, and yes, I think that might have affected my success with the ladies.

THE GOOD

Here are the ideas I liked from The Dark Knight.

1) There remains a general spark of goodness in humanity. This was what Batman put his faith in in Batman Begins. The Joker failed to extinguish that spark in The Dark Knight.

2) Good guys can make extremely difficult decisions and emerge not only unscathed, but transcendent in their goodness. Both Batman and Gordon found a way to do this. Harvey Dent did not, and thus failed to meet his test. He wasn't the best of the good guys, as Batman painted him in an attempt to appeal to Dent's better nature. Dent was the weakest.

3) There are evil people. It's difficult and dangerous to judge whether or not another person is evil, and such judgment must be undertaken with caution. But there are, in fact, people that are not to be reasoned with, but fought against.

THE BAD

The following ideas I find erroneous and/or just plain bad.

a) The Joker isn't a schemer--he's just a mad dog chasing cars. Why do we assume that the Joker is telling the truth? In fact, his entire discourse to Dent in the hospital was part of a scheme to push Dent to evil. Everything the Joker carried out required meticulous scheming. He avows himself, in his final conversation with Batman, to be engaged in a battle for Gotham's soul. It's foolhardy to take statements from evil people as truth without thoroughly examining them. Among other wrong things the Joker says that we shouldn't take at face value are the following: the bit about morality and rules being a game that people will throw away at the first sign of trouble, and "you won't kill me through some misguided sense of self-righteousness" (he calls it that because he can't understand it. To those who do not understand righteousness, it is always self-righteousness. Unsurprisingly enough, such people are often selfish).

b) Harvey Dent: "You wouldn't dare try to justify yourself if you knew what I'd lost." Just because you suffered doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for the suffering or for the actions of others that somehow connect to that suffering. Sympathy and suffering should not forestall all counterargument.

c) Batman: "Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserve more than the truth. Sometimes they deserve to have their faith rewarded." Maybe I'm being picky, but does that mean that the truth cannot be a sufficient reward for people's faith? Of course, it depends on the objects of people's faith, but that seems like an awfully cynical sentiment, especially coming from the fellow who just acted in the firm belief that two shiploads of people--one of which was full of criminals--would refrain from blowing up other people so that they would not be blown up themselves. And had his faith rewarded without having to be lied to.

NOTE: there's more, but this is already a long post. I'll do a part II. Anticipate please.

Humoresque

For those of you who might have trouble appreciating/loving classical music, and for those who just want to listen to something beautiful: observe!

This is Antonin Dvorak's Humoresque. Violin/cello duet by Itzhak Perlman and Yo Yo Ma.
I think this is one of the most beautiful musical performances I've ever heard.

Also, some of the faces they make are really funny.

Ratings and Media Choices

Our media choices affect the spirit we carry with us on a personal level. Perhaps even more importantly, they affect the spirit that can and will be present in the home wherein we make them. I submit these premises at the outset, appealing to my own experience for evidence of their truth.

I broach the subject only to point out two apparent incongruities in both my own choices and my friends' choices.

First: we avoid rated R movies to comply with prophetic counsel (well, some of us do). However, especially in the realm of comedy, many movies that are not rated R are, morally, significantly worse than most rated R movies I have seen. To take a metaphor, mirth acts as a lubricant: with it, we are willing to let a lot more slide than we otherwise would. Humor is just one of several considerations leading to the result that sometimes actions don't match up with intentions in media choices.

Second: We actively and carefully avoid sexual content in movies and games. As we have been warned against pornography, so we avoid it. This is good and proper. However, while we are careful against the temptation to misuse or be too casual with our power to grant life, we are not so careful to avoid becoming too casual about the power to take it. For example:



We like this game. Yet I don't see how, even granting that movies/games that remind us to fight evil are good to some extent, it's proper to seek after things like this.

These incongruities lead to my question: how can I change my taste so as to improve my media choices, thereby improving the spirit I carry with me?

Unmasking an (im)poster

So Damien always brings up interesting things on his blog. Recently he posted about situational ethics. I wondered about his position and a small conversation has ensued. Here's his latest:

"On my post, With All Your Getting, Get Understanding, B. Zeller sought a clarification of my belief in not making decisions until I must:

'Also, just to give a counterpoint, how similar is not carrying around convictions to not deciding whether or not to drink until someone offers you a beer?'

My position is not just similar to your example, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think that creating blanket statements (I will never do x or y) is a bad idea. Here's how my decision-making philosophy works: I gather obligations/devotions/desires through the course of life and when it comes time to decide, I weigh them against each other."

And I decided I'd like to have the glory of posting a reply on my own blog rather than on his comments. So here we go.

I guess I'm not too sure we disagree here; the argument may be simply semantic.

You call the religious obligation a consideration--one of many that enters into any decision. But how is that different from a conviction you carry around? After all, aren't your religious obligations based on a conviction you carry around?

If people have "pre-made" a decision not to drink, isn't that just a very strong consideration--one of many--when the moment of decision actually comes? Their having "pre-made" the decision doesn't destroy any other considerations, it simply strengthens the religious obligation.

I see how you're arguing for open-mindedness here, I'm just not sure that "pre-making" decisions in the way you describe is as closed-minded as one might think.

Random Texts

So last night I was sitting around with my friends...there may or may not have been a movie playing...and I got a random text from a number I didn't recognize:

"Hey you whats up"

In days of yore, when I used to use AIM, sometimes I would get messages from people I didn't know. The game then was to just make conversation until the other person provides enough inadvertent hints to reveal his/her identity. So I went for the same thing here. I text back:

"I'm crossing my legs." (I was). "How are you?"

I figured this was a strange enough reply that how the mystery texter replied to it would reveal whether or not I knew him/her well. Most people I know well would take that kind of reply in stride. The mystery texter replies:

"There a reason they need crossed. . Lol and i'm wet"

This told me a few things: first, the mystery texter does not share my commitment to proper grammar inasmuch as it is possible in a text message. No big deal, but it eliminates everyone I know who texts with proper grammar. Also, the mystery texter didn't seem to take the strangeness in stride. Further, either the mystery texter had just gotten out of the shower--an odd time to be texting me, especially without drying off first--or they got in a water fight, or...well, it's anyone's guess as to how the mystery texter got wet. But I took the wetness as a bad sign. Anyway, I decided to continue with the strangeness approach. I text back:

"Popular demand. How come you're wet?"

Thus far, the mystery texter has not yet replied. I'll give further details as they become available.

Ouch! for Obama

In the NYT, no less!