Thread replies: 5
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
Confused Matthew General 2017-06-20 02:55:24 Post No. 84093330
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Confused Matthew General 2017-06-20 02:55:24 Post No. 84093330
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Confused Matthew thread 1.jpg (157KB, 1302x500px) Image search:
[Google]
157KB, 1302x500px
Last thread 404'd while I was away, so I'm going to continue it from here.
First I'll answer the one other posters question or statement.
While Matthew is little embarrassed about the way he went about with his reviews of 2001 and NCFOM, and though I disagree with him about the quality of the film, I felt Matthew did a great job explaining why the films did not work for him to point of making him furious.
To clarify in one sentence, Matthew's problem with such films is the alleged use of obscurantism in them.
Obscurantism is Matthew's pet peeve in all froms of art, one instance vagueness being central and intrinsic in any any media is enough for him. I'll cite sample in another post.
Also Matthew did not take down his videos. Blip did. Blip did because blip got shut down. There was nothing he could do about it. But for the record, from experience, Matthew always engaged in debate and discussion with fellow youtubers, patiently listening to their problems and counter points and offering rebuttals to such counter points. TL;DR he's no Chris Bores or Anita Sarkeesian. The only time he blocked anybody, was when this stalkerish SJW type was accusing him of being Anti semitic just because he thought Mel Brooks sucked.
>>
On the subject of obscurantism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism
Obscruantism is defined as the deliberate practice of making certains facts about a subject matter unknown. In art or in any entertainment media, it is deliberately making the meaning or intention behind the work vague.
While I find this kind of acceptable in personal projects and abstract works, I get Matthew's beef with certain movies that utilize being vague, and win acclaim for "screen writing" or "character development."
For instance, one such author that Matthew loathes is David Lynch. I kinda like David Lynch because his movies can be spooky due to his use of scare chords, timing, and pacing. However, people think David Lynch is a good writer, because they think they see some hidden meaning behind his works, but the truth is that there is no deeper meaning behind Muholland Drive nor Eraser Head, other than what the audience perceives. They are abstract movies to the fullest.
>>
whogiveslefuck
>>
File: Newman-Who's_Afraid_of_Red,_Yellow_and_Blue.jpg (5KB, 256x400px) Image search:
[Google]
5KB, 256x400px
Matthew was a philosophy major is college. It did not yield him any useful practical career building skills, but it did give him the ability to reason and to rationalize, which really helps in debate. Matthew reads all kinds of philosophy and considers himself an Aristotlean philosopher, going by the lines of Mortimer J Adler's line of thinking.
Matthew's detest of Obscurantism rises from his days as a philosophy student, because he did not like to read books of long pages that had no meaning. One such person would be Jean Beaudrillard whose works made sense only 5% of time, has been alleged as a person who likes to hear himself talk, and served as the inspiration for the Matrix films. Other philosophers in this camp would be post modern feminists like Donna Harraway who is so infamous, she was depicted as babbling idiot in Ghost in the Shell innocence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S25YpTaowsU
>>
Nobody cares: the thread
Thread posts: 5
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2