 abailart says: Those who haven't got it - intelligence, sex appeal, power etc - have to throw their lives away making money to buy things that they can use to pretend they have the things they haven't got. While a "winner" does what? Wastes away their life bemoaning and judging those who spend and consumere? Please. Cry me a river. Love this clip and the two comments above...such a great example of how people can see the same thing from two entirely different perspectives...neither are right or wrong, but both entirely valid and worthy of consideration. Exactly what clipmarks is about.  I think the appropriate response to the Lost is more usually one of pity. But responses do indeed vary: whereas there are those who lament the loss of soul in one who has gained the whole material world but missed the point of life, others are less charitable, such as Samuel Beckett in 'The Lost Ones.' Mind you, if you are freely given over to a cycle of work and consumption (see Arendt in 'The Human Condition') you will probably be so won that you will have no space or time whatsoever to consider what it is that the quality of Loss in the clip alludes to, nor remotely consider a further and inverted concept of Loss which brings rivers of life and joy. clip-on-tie said: While a "winner" does what? Wastes away their life bemoaning andegoldstein said: such a great example of how people can see the same thing from twoeg, why do you assume clipontie sees things differently by his comment? He/she may, I don't know. I don't know what clipontie believes about consumerism. However, abailart is making a materialist judgement about consemerism. How ironic is that? It is such a simplistic clip. Stupid really. Abailart's comment is equally stupi... oops, I did not finish this thought: Also, i would not say Abailart's coment at 3:59 is misguided, except in....is equally as disastrous and life-wasting as self-indulgent consumerism. Not sure where sitting under trees reading books comes in (nor as a bad thing). The reference to Arendt may remind of her distinction between work and labo(u)r. Work is as in a life's work, a work of art, a great human work: labor is what is engaged in through a cycle of production and consumption, this dehumanised way of being one of the central foci of cultural critique for a century or two. A 'clip', or a snippet may, as here, be thought provoking and is certainly intended to 'invite comment'. Sometimes a clip will arouse a spinal reflexive hostility but sometimes, even if for only one or two readers, the clip will present itself to the brain and invite reflection and considered thinking. I do not disagree with the clip or the general assessment that self-indulgent consumerism is destructive, or at least small-minded. I have no need for a Rolex over a Timex. I own neither. I tend to fall to the mid spectrum of product-quality based on a personal decision about value. Abaiart, many who share your petty disapproval may be interested to know that most of the people who buy a Prius do so because of "what it says" about themselves. Owning a Prius projects an image, the image of one who cares. A Prius is not about saving the planet, which is ridiculous on a whole other level, it is the new status symbol. My point about sitting under a tree etc... is that self-absorption has many ... Maybe I should add the obvious: a clip, a snippet is also an invitation to read the source article. In this case you will find a review that is not blindly sympathetic to the condensed thesis contained in the clip, or, of course, the polemical complement of my comment. To my mind it is quite an accessible and interesting review. Lest readers be put off by what has been referred to as my own stupidity, hatred and intolerance (see above) please be assured that the tone of the full source is courteous, intelligent, and typical of the respectful equanimity one grows used to encountering in educated discourse. It is a decent read. However, a narcissistic display does not a loser make. On the other hand, intolerant displays of the need to control or categorize people unjustly....? Is there anything narcissistic in your opinion? How about -display intellectualism-? Well, I guess if you display your mind you display your mind. 'Intolerant displays of the need to control or categorize people unjustly' would most easily be ascertained by attention to diction, imagery, syntactic function (refracted through grammatical patterns) and evidence of hostility via negative affective attribution and the use of emotive language as an attempt to compensate for low self esteem. Forensic psychiatry is a fascinating area but my own feeling is that the present clip, as the review articulates, is more in the area of bio- or evolutionary psychology. Interesting discussions you two, but are you both finished. |
View the Top Clips from May 22, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
