Chilly Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Okay, so, I saw 2001 tonight for the first time at the Alamo Drafthouse (best theateR EVAR), they were showing an original print of it. What the !@#$ happened in the first 15 minutes, and how the hell does it relate to Nietzsche? (I should note that I've got some ideas about human morality, the place of such morality in philosophy, and such, but no idea if its correct) Anyone else think its a Nietzschean film? Completely Nietzschean: Ape signify's the transition to Human, but with a puzzle humans cant solve Humans are the mediation to the ubermensch Hal > Humans (chess) last part: Dave signify's humans as a dying species, giving way to the new ubermensch
Cugalabanza Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 There is a Jack Nicholson quote that I don't necessarily agree with 100%, but which I think is applicable to this film: "People who speak in metaphors should shampoo my crotch." I have not read the book, but I have seen the movie. The Nietzsche's Superman bit seems like a reach to me. Like over-intellectualizing to make an idea fit. But maybe that theme was worked more in the book.
Sketch Soland Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Okay, so, I saw 2001 tonight for the first time at the Alamo Drafthouse (best theateR EVAR), they were showing an original print of it. What the !@#$ happened in the first 15 minutes, and how the hell does it relate to Nietzsche? (I should note that I've got some ideas about human morality, the place of such morality in philosophy, and such, but no idea if its correct) Anyone else think its a Nietzschean film? Completely Nietzschean: Ape signify's the transition to Human, but with a puzzle humans cant solve Humans are the mediation to the ubermensch Hal > Humans (chess) last part: Dave signify's humans as a dying species, giving way to the new ubermensch Whether or not Clarke had Nietzsche in mind when he wrote the book is a question I can't answer. I would be very surprised if he wasn't familiar with Nietzsche, though. I would also say 2001 was written and exists within the same spirit and thrust of consciousness. The monolith is the intermediary through which the apes' begin to "overcome" their apeness and "evolve" with more "complex" uses and interaction with the world around them. The apes discover something in the world can be used to do other things, i.e., they discover "tools". This is a "jump" in consciousness and can be fairly correlated with a utilitarian expression of the will to power. The monolith, however, could be anything. It has an exoteric existence in the world of the novel/movie, but, when push comes to shove, it is a metaphor for how consciousness seems to develop and augment over time: "outside" experience births "inside" awareness, and "inside awareness" fosters new consciousness interaction with the "outside". In regards to Dave, the monolith becomes the intermediary for "overcoming" his present consciousness and augmenting it via being "born again" (for lack of a better phrase) as a "new child" of consciousness. The "odyssey" is both exoteric (the space voyage) and esoteric (the journey within to discover the "new child" within, which, ironically, is analogous to developing ubermensch traits). The monolith, imo, is Clarke's symbol for an aspect of the universe "intervening" in another aspect of the universe to foster augmentation of consciousness evolution. In the sense that Nietzsche and Clarke both privilege transformation of present consciousness as fundamental to what it means to be a conscious being in the universe, I would say that 2001 can be fairly said to be of a Nietzschean vein.
Bullpen Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Ummm ..... Dean? Exactly, this subject has Dean written all over it. Here's an idea. Read the book. What is this "book" you speak of? Is it a precursor to Al Gore's Inner-net? Again your avatar is too distracting!
Wacka Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 I don't know philosophy, but got the beginning. I didn't understand the ending until I read the book. What is this "book" you speak of? Its a thing with pieces of paper and lots of words in it.
Chilly Posted April 16, 2008 Author Posted April 16, 2008 Whether or not Clarke had Nietzsche in mind when he wrote the book is a question I can't answer. I would be very surprised if he wasn't familiar with Nietzsche, though. I would also say 2001 was written and exists within the same spirit and thrust of consciousness. The monolith is the intermediary through which the apes' begin to "overcome" their apeness and "evolve" with more "complex" uses and interaction with the world around them. The apes discover something in the world can be used to do other things, i.e., they discover "tools". This is a "jump" in consciousness and can be fairly correlated with a utilitarian expression of the will to power. The monolith, however, could be anything. It has an exoteric existence in the world of the novel/movie, but, when push comes to shove, it is a metaphor for how consciousness seems to develop and augment over time: "outside" experience births "inside" awareness, and "inside awareness" fosters new consciousness interaction with the "outside". In regards to Dave, the monolith becomes the intermediary for "overcoming" his present consciousness and augmenting it via being "born again" (for lack of a better phrase) as a "new child" of consciousness. The "odyssey" is both exoteric (the space voyage) and esoteric (the journey within to discover the "new child" within, which, ironically, is analogous to developing ubermensch traits). The monolith, imo, is Clarke's symbol for an aspect of the universe "intervening" in another aspect of the universe to foster augmentation of consciousness evolution. In the sense that Nietzsche and Clarke both privilege transformation of present consciousness as fundamental to what it means to be a conscious being in the universe, I would say that 2001 can be fairly said to be of a Nietzschean vein. Good stuff, thanks.
/dev/null Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Its a thing with pieces of paper and lots of words in it. You mean like Cliff Notes?
stuckincincy Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Whether or not Clarke had Nietzsche in mind when he wrote the book is a question I can't answer. I would be very surprised if he wasn't familiar with Nietzsche, though. I would also say 2001 was written and exists within the same spirit and thrust of consciousness. The monolith is the intermediary through which the apes' begin to "overcome" their apeness and "evolve" with more "complex" uses and interaction with the world around them. The apes discover something in the world can be used to do other things, i.e., they discover "tools". This is a "jump" in consciousness and can be fairly correlated with a utilitarian expression of the will to power. The monolith, however, could be anything. It has an exoteric existence in the world of the novel/movie, but, when push comes to shove, it is a metaphor for how consciousness seems to develop and augment over time: "outside" experience births "inside" awareness, and "inside awareness" fosters new consciousness interaction with the "outside". In regards to Dave, the monolith becomes the intermediary for "overcoming" his present consciousness and augmenting it via being "born again" (for lack of a better phrase) as a "new child" of consciousness. The "odyssey" is both exoteric (the space voyage) and esoteric (the journey within to discover the "new child" within, which, ironically, is analogous to developing ubermensch traits). The monolith, imo, is Clarke's symbol for an aspect of the universe "intervening" in another aspect of the universe to foster augmentation of consciousness evolution. In the sense that Nietzsche and Clarke both privilege transformation of present consciousness as fundamental to what it means to be a conscious being in the universe, I would say that 2001 can be fairly said to be of a Nietzschean vein. Nitzie was one of those Prussian Junkers...and I know a lot about that crowd... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker By all means, read him but don't excuse him. His words in part empowered deep evils and by extension murdered millions.
Wacka Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 This is what I know about Philosophy: Immanuel Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed. John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away-- Half a crate of whisky every day. Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle. Hobbes was fond of his dram, And René Descartes was a drunken fart. 'I drink, therefore I am.' Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed, A lovely little thinker, But a bugger when he's pissed.
Sketch Soland Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 This is what I know about Philosophy: Immanuel Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed. John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away-- Half a crate of whisky every day. Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle. Hobbes was fond of his dram, And René Descartes was a drunken fart. 'I drink, therefore I am.' Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed, A lovely little thinker, But a bugger when he's pissed. :lol: Awesome Wacka!
Sketch Soland Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Nitzie was one of those Prussian Junkers...and I know a lot about that crowd... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker By all means, read him but don't excuse him. His words in part empowered deep evils and by extension murdered millions. I'm familiar with the Junkers. Nietzsche was born in Prussia. That's a fact. However, it is a rather facile understanding of Nietzsche and his thought to label him as proto-fascist or to label him as an avatar of the Nordic Nationalism that culminated in National Socialism. I will not disagree that there have been those who have bastardized Nietzsche's thought for their own purposes, nefarious or otherwise. Nietzsche's own sister, Elizabeth, took Nietzsche's writings after his death and manipulated them for her own reasons, which included fomenting sympathy for German nationalist causes. This co-opting was where the persistent falsehood of his proto-fascism took root. It is not Nietzsche's fault that lesser minds see identity between his thought and National Socialism. He is certainly one of the most misunderstood philosophers of recent memory. The "radical" nature of his ideas and the destruction that his thought rained on established modes of discourse has caused lesser minds to seek to pigeonhole him into a readily available historical template. The irony is, of course, that the very thrust of Nietzsche's life and thought was to dismantle and transform these historical templates so that new modes of thought and life could be erected in their place. In other words, Nietzsche was not a proto-nazi. The Nordic history and tradition that culminated in National Socialism has its roots long before Nietzsche ever was born. Nietzsche, if anything, was the harshest critic of such fanatical, mindless zeal, a zeal that Nietzsche saw as being detrimental to the transformation of consciousness and the reevaluation of all values.
Andrew in CA Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I'm familiar with the Junkers. Nietzsche was born in Prussia. That's a fact. However, it is a rather facile understanding of Nietzsche and his thought to label him as proto-fascist or to label him as an avatar of Nordic Nationalism that culminated in National Socialism. I will not disagree that there have been those who have bastardized Nietzsche's thought for their own purposes, nefarious or otherwise. Nietzsche's own sister, Elizabeth, took Nietzsche's writings after his death and manipulated them for her own reasons, which included fomenting sympathy for German nationalist causes. This co-opting was where the persistent falsehood of his proto-fascism took root. It is not Nietzsche's fault that lesser minds see identity between his thought and National Socialism. He is certainly one of the most misunderstood philosophers of recent memory. The "radical" nature of his ideas and the destruction that his thought rained on established modes of discourse has caused lesser minds seek to pigeonhole him into a readily available historical template. The irony is, of course, that the very thrust of Nietzsche's life and thought was to dismantle and transform these historical templates so that new modes of thought and life could be erected in their place. In other words, Nietzsche was not a proto-nazi. The Nordic history and tradition that culminated in National Socialism has its roots long before Nietzsche ever was born. Nietzsche, if anything, was the harshest critic of such fanatical, mindless zeal, a zeal that Nietzsche saw as being detrimental to the transformation of consciousness and the reevaluation of all values. Very true. It's easy to read Zarathustra and link it to Naziism, Uber-mensch=Nazi Supermen or whatever nonsense. But if there is any common thread in his philosophy, it's break down and question all forms of thought, down to the most basic ideas of good and evil. I can see where a casual reading of Zarathustra might lead to a nationalist German identity, but to think that was his thesis is severely flawed.
rockpile Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Okay, so, I saw 2001 tonight for the first time at the Alamo Drafthouse (best theateR EVAR), they were showing an original print of it. What the !@#$ happened in the first 15 minutes, and how the hell does it relate to Nietzsche? (I should note that I've got some ideas about human morality, the place of such morality in philosophy, and such, but no idea if its correct) Anyone else think its a Nietzschean film? Completely Nietzschean: Ape signify's the transition to Human, but with a puzzle humans cant solve Humans are the mediation to the ubermensch Hal > Humans (chess) last part: Dave signify's humans as a dying species, giving way to the new ubermensch I am not a philosopher. I did however see the movie and read the book (both several times), along with 2010, 2061, and 3001. 2001 was co-written by Clarke and Kubrick. They fed off each others ideas a lot. Clarke wrote the next three novels himself. My take is that when one "tribe" of apes found the monolith, the experience triggered a genetic code of some kind that tweaked them from simian to Homo sapiens. Ironically their first tool also became their first weapon, used for food and killing the "other" apes. It immediately fast forwards to the moon and the monolith there. This one is not a "trigger" it is signal to a civilization an unimaginable distance away: "the apes made it to the moon!" Along with this activity is the detection of another monolith out near Jupiter. Dave Bowman eventually encounters the monolith and is transported in some way to a place where he has HIS genetic code tweaked. The result is a Star Child, as far above Homo sapiens as Home sapiens was to simian. The next level of human evolution, perhaps.
Steely Dan Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Awesome Wacka! I hate to take away Wacka's accolades but this is a Monty Python song. Lookie here; Whether or not Clarke had Nietzsche in mind when he wrote the book is a question I can't answer. I would be very surprised if he wasn't familiar with Nietzsche, though. I would also say 2001 was written and exists within the same spirit and thrust of consciousness. The monolith is the intermediary through which the apes' begin to "overcome" their apeness and "evolve" with more "complex" uses and interaction with the world around them. The apes discover something in the world can be used to do other things, i.e., they discover "tools". This is a "jump" in consciousness and can be fairly correlated with a utilitarian expression of the will to power. The monolith, however, could be anything. It has an exoteric existence in the world of the novel/movie, but, when push comes to shove, it is a metaphor for how consciousness seems to develop and augment over time: "outside" experience births "inside" awareness, and "inside awareness" fosters new consciousness interaction with the "outside". In regards to Dave, the monolith becomes the intermediary for "overcoming" his present consciousness and augmenting it via being "born again" (for lack of a better phrase) as a "new child" of consciousness. The "odyssey" is both exoteric (the space voyage) and esoteric (the journey within to discover the "new child" within, which, ironically, is analogous to developing ubermensch traits). The monolith, imo, is Clarke's symbol for an aspect of the universe "intervening" in another aspect of the universe to foster augmentation of consciousness evolution. In the sense that Nietzsche and Clarke both privilege transformation of present consciousness as fundamental to what it means to be a conscious being in the universe, I would say that 2001 can be fairly said to be of a Nietzschean vein. I am not a philosopher. I did however see the movie and read the book (both several times), along with 2010, 2061, and 3001. 2001 was co-written by Clarke and Kubrick. They fed off each others ideas a lot. Clarke wrote the next three novels himself. My take is that when one "tribe" of apes found the monolith, the experience triggered a genetic code of some kind that tweaked them from simian to Homo sapiens. Ironically their first tool also became their first weapon, used for food and killing the "other" apes. It immediately fast forwards to the moon and the monolith there. This one is not a "trigger" it is signal to a civilization an unimaginable distance away: "the apes made it to the moon!" Along with this activity is the detection of another monolith out near Jupiter. Dave Bowman eventually encounters the monolith and is transported in some way to a place where he has HIS genetic code tweaked. The result is a Star Child, as far above Homo sapiens as Home sapiens was to simian. The next level of human evolution, perhaps. Both are great interpretations. I also read all the books. From what I read you see at the beginning of the movie the apes underfed looking for roots and berries while pigs roam unafraid very close to them. An extremely advanced alien experiment is done to see what they can make of these apes. The aliens look at different tribes and pick the strongest and smartest tribe to experiment on. The monolith reprograms their brains so they can see that the pigs can be food too. This change in diet helps to ensure their future. As Rockpile points out above, the aliens bury a monolith on the moon and when it's unearthed it sends a signal, as soon the sun hits it, to a monolith on Io, a moon of Jupiter, that is a receiver for this signal. This let's the aliens know that the apes have developed space travel and the ability to find the monolith. When Dave Bowman is drawn in he becomes a powerful entity that reports back to the aliens on the progress of the human race so they can decide whether to let us continue to evolve or to eliminate us. As a side note in 2010 you find out the reason HAL goes nuts is because Dr. Chandra, HAL's inventor, programmed the computer to never lie. However, the government men in charge of the mission don't want the astronauts to know why they are being sent specifically. So HAL is programmed to carry out the mission if anything happens to the astronauts. So his having been programmed not to lie while also being programmed to keep a secret from the astronauts makes him go insane. I would highly recommend reading all of the books they're great.
Wacka Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 I hate to take away Wacka's accolades but this is a Monty Python song. Lookie here; Right Bruce! I thougt everyone knew that.
Tcali Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 There is a Jack Nicholson quote that I don't necessarily agree with 100%, but which I think is applicable to this film: "People who speak in metaphors should shampoo my crotch." lol
Chilly Posted April 18, 2008 Author Posted April 18, 2008 There is a Jack Nicholson quote that I don't necessarily agree with 100%, but which I think is applicable to this film: "People who speak in metaphors should shampoo my crotch." I have not read the book, but I have seen the movie. The Nietzsche's Superman bit seems like a reach to me. Like over-intellectualizing to make an idea fit. But maybe that theme was worked more in the book. This movie *has* to be about Nietzsche, in some sense.
Recommended Posts