What does Fight Club really teach you?
Strip away the flashy quotes delivered with deadpan cynicism.
I first saw the film at 14, and I just switched off my television an altered person, very slightly, but nevertheless altered.
What I got out of the movie the first time:
- That we are all just dying slowly unless we create something purposeful in our lives worth living for, makes you question what's making you awaken every morning. The movie sort of promotes existenialism, which I think we all tried to adapt after seeing the movie.
- To question our inherent beliefs. Why is "x" right and "y" wrong? Is there right and wrong et cetera.
Sidenote: The movie started me off on a path that led me to eventually converting from Roman Catholic to Weak Agnostic or Skeptic Catholic? Whatever floats your boat.
- The movie preaches against monotony which forces one to re-evaluate one's daily activities.
I'll edit later.
Sidenote #2: When I was 14, I saw the movie and I just fucking wanted to wear Tyler Durden's skin. I took on this apathetic facade and started delivering these sardonic one liners.
I saw the movie at 15 again and then I realized that Tyler Durden was never the protagonist. He was simply the narrator's way out of monotony, our of the petty things in life that we place too much value in , and the narrator's alter ego wanted the same way out for everyone else, all at once. Thus the demolition of the conglomerates' offices. Come to think about it, he was a rather well developed and empathetic person if you look at it in that way, but I digress.
Anyone else see anything that I missed?
'Technically' according to what is that not a conversion?
If you're desperately looking for a category to lump me into, I might still probably be fucking Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that I can't be just because it's embossed on to my passport because I choose to suspend belief in your imaginary friend upstairs until further evidence. Thus Weak Agnostic/ Empirical Agnostic according to the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. How do you like them apples now?
Religious conversion typically denotes moving from one faith (or lack thereof) to another, usually with some sort of ceremonial significance attached. One can simply "become" agnostic or atheist. "Skeptic Catholic" and "weak agnostic" are not religions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion
and THAT's the end of that story...
"To fail to embrace my dreams now would be a disgrace so great that sin itself would not be able to find a name for it." - Werner Herzog
I might still probably be fucking Catholic
I'm definitely fucking a Catholic.
"To fail to embrace my dreams now would be a disgrace so great that sin itself would not be able to find a name for it." - Werner Herzog
Fight Club doesn't teach you anything you couldn't learn elsewhere. It's just repackaged in an appealing way.
Also, the subjectivist line 'nothing is right or wrong' is an objective conclusion, not consistent with subjectivism.
Join the Non-Violent Evolution!
Fight Club doesn't teach you anything you couldn't learn elsewhere. It's just repackaged in an appealing way.
Also, the subjectivist line 'nothing is right or wrong' is an objective conclusion, not consistent with subjectivism.
Brilliant mate.
That's exactly it.
What your doing, maple syrup man, is a thing called 'reaching'.
Monkeywright.....your funny.
When the last living thing Has died on account of us, How poetical it would be If Earth could say, In a voice floating up Perhaps From the floor Of the Grand Canyon, "It is done. People did not like it here"
Keep your stick on the ice.
Fight Club doesn't teach you anything you couldn't learn elsewhere. It's just repackaged in an appealing way.
Also, the subjectivist line 'nothing is right or wrong' is an objective conclusion, not consistent with subjectivism.
Time out. I think 'nothing' needs to be defined.
Love,
Joe Tonigh
Fight Club doesn't teach you anything you couldn't learn elsewhere. It's just repackaged in an appealing way.
Also, the subjectivist line 'nothing is right or wrong' is an objective conclusion, not consistent with subjectivism.
Time out. I think 'nothing' needs to be defined.
Semantics, schemsmantics.
When the last living thing Has died on account of us, How poetical it would be If Earth could say, In a voice floating up Perhaps From the floor Of the Grand Canyon, "It is done. People did not like it here"
Keep your stick on the ice.
I'm a fan of semantics, but I don't see anything wrong with my quote. JT, what definition issues do you foresee?
Join the Non-Violent Evolution!
I'm a fan of semantics, but I don't see anything wrong with my quote. JT, what definition issues do you foresee?
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean 'defined' as in 'meaning of the word' but as in 'given a value'. 'Nothing' has no identity, therefore 'nothing is right or wrong' cannot be an objective conclusion.
And I apologize to Andrew, but Ob/Subj caught my eye and I was off on a tangent. You ask if you missed anything and I wanted to answer-
Yes... The book! It's even better than the movie. And I think it's great that you 'got' something out of it. Most people just turn their brains off and want to be entertained.
Love,
Joe Tonigh
The movie started me off on a path that led me to eventually converting from Roman Catholic to Weak Agnostic or Skeptic Catholic? Whatever floats your boat.
Technically that's not a conversion. How old are you now? Because all of those changes you described, they'll pretty much happen once a year, every year that ends with an "n"
"To fail to embrace my dreams now would be a disgrace so great that sin itself would not be able to find a name for it." - Werner Herzog