Friday Free-for-All #58: Movie love, movie hate, major useless, and “normal”

The next in an ongoing series in which I answer random questions generated by a website. Here are this week’s questions. Feel free to give your own answers in the comments.

What terrible movie do you love?

This one is easy. A lot of critics and others think that the movies Caligula is total crap, despite the all-star cast. But the thing is this — it is actually a really faithful retelling of Suetonius’ The lives of the Twelve Caesers.

Sure, Suetonius may have been totally full of shit and he may have libeled the fuck out of Caligula for the sake of kissing up to later Emperors. Still, ignore that part of it, and the film’s story follows the source pretty closely.

In fact, if anything, the producers actually held back on the sex and violence. But, come on. What’s not to love about this flick? Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O’Toole, and John Gielgud, plenty of eye candy for all genders and preferences in the supporting cast, and script by Gore Vidal – even though he disowned it — but he shouldn’t have.

Seriously, ignore the scissor sisters BS that Guccione snuck into it because he could just before he had to smuggle the footage out of Italy to avoid obscenity charges, boom, done.

One really interesting aspect of the anniversary edition I own is that one of the features on the DVD is raw footage from a scene set in Tiberius’ (infamous) grotto on Capri, where it looks like all kinds of bizarre sex acts are going on in the background – but unedited and from angles not used in the film, it’s quite clear that what you thought you saw was far more graphic and nasty than what was really happening. The magic of film!

What is the most overrated movie?

Oh, there are many, but two stand out because they won Best Picture and had absolutely no goddamn business doing so.

Exhibit A: Forrest Gump.

Exhibit B: Gladiator.

I mean, come on. In the case of the first movie, it’s the glorification of stupid, and I did not ever for one second connect with or empathize with Gump. Why would I? He obviously has mental problems and, given the era, if his Mama wasn’t able to help, he would have been put into an institution, preventing the rest of the movie, period.

Still… Forrest’s character through the rest of the film is an object lesson in this: The mentally ill, despite their condition, are still quite capable of being total assholes.

Second film, Gladiator… as a Roman History buff, this stack of shit just loses from the get-go. And it only gets worse from there, for ten thousand reasons. One big one beyond the rape of history at the end?

Well, true Gladiators were not slaves. They were celebrities. Think MMA fighters now, or social media influencers. So if they got tossed into the ring, it was not to die. It was to play up a high-profile slap fight at the most.

But don’t even get me started on the whole “Pissed off Gladiator killed Commodus in the ring, in public” bullshit.

Anyway, long story short: No way in hell that Gladiator deserved a single accolade, much less “Best Picture.” Nope. It was a steaming pile of crap then, and it still is now.

What is the most useless major in college?

I’m going to have to go with Philosophy – and not that I’m pegging it as a major, not a course of study. I absolutely think that everyone should have to take two philosophy courses in college, one general and the other more specific – but beyond that, majoring in it is pretty pointless.

You learn that when you take your lower division general philosophy course and realize that quite a lot of these philosophers were basically talking out of their asses, and most of them were stuck in the same error that wasn’t even discussed in philosophy until the 20th century.

That is, they forget to include themselves and their own experiences in seeing how their philosophies formed, and instead tried to create these grand mystical rules for what is “reality.”

And it all started with the worst of them, Plato, and his “ideal” forms. This meant that for every object, there was an ideal version of it that existed in some invisible ethereal realm, and that version was the one invoked every time an earthly imitation was created.

Carpenter makes a chair? He’s just copying from that ideal. Singer creates a song – echo of the ideal, and so on. Of course, he never talked about whether that dump your kid just took was a copy of the ideal ethereal shit. What he implied, though, was that everything ever yet to be invented was just floating out there somewhere, waiting to be invoked down here.

He did have one good bit though, his parable of the “slave in a cave.” In it, a slave is chained to a rock in a cave, constrained so that he’s facing the back wall with the entrance behind him. Way beyond the entrance is a bright fire. All the slave can see of the outside world are the shadows on the wall, created by people and animals and the like passing between the fire and the entrance.

In other words, he was saying, we could not perceive the real world of these ideal forms because our perception was limited. And that’s a kind of yes, kind of no, although I’d think of it more in terms of things like we couldn’t conceive of germ theory until we’d made the microscopes to see them, or couldn’t fathom the skies above until we had telescopes and math. Lots and lots of math.

There is, though, a great parody of Plato’s Cave that I first heard from the late, self-proclaimed “guerrilla ontologist,” Robert Anton Wilson. In that version, a slave and a Buddhist are chained up in the cave, just watching the shadows. Then, the Buddhist suddenly slips his chains off and walks outside, staying there for a while.

The Buddhist finally returns to the cave calmly, sits down and puts his chains back on.

“What did you see out there?” the slave asks, excitedly.

The Buddhist replies, “Nothing.”

Anyway, don’t major in Philosophy. It’s not worth it and doesn’t translate to anything marketable.

What seemed normal in your family when you were growing up, but seems weird now?

How rarely my parents had any kind of dinners or parties or invited guests, to the extent that the few times we did host something really stand out in my mind. And the lack of invited guests growing up extended to my friends. I was expected to go play elsewhere, and god forbid that I invite one of my friends into my Mother’s Holy of Holies.

I think we did host a couple of extended family Thanksgiving dinners, as well as my Mom’s older brother when he was in town with his college debate team (he was the professor/coach, who came with his two students, and I can still remember their names to this day: Vinnie and Tim.) Mom’s mom came and stayed with us twice, and one of my cousins (my mom’s niece) came and stayed with us once.

My mom did plan to host my 4th birthday party, but that happened to be the year that we had a bit of a flu epidemic, the end result being that the only guest who finally was well enough to make it was a kid down the street named Scott, whom I didn’t really know. Yeah, awkward!

When I was in Kindergarten, my parents did invite my teacher, Miss Jones, over for dinner and it wasn’t until I became an adult that I wondered. Jones was my father’s mother’s maiden name. Any relation? Although it’s such a common name, who knows.

Anyway, this all seemed normal until I grew up, and then saw friends who were constantly hosting parties of get-togethers, or frequently had relatives or distant friends visiting for a few days, and it blew my mind.

People did this? How weird. How… intrusive. And, unfortunately, I think I wound up inheriting the “No guests!” gene (definitely from my mother), and I cannot come up with more than maybe one time I hosted an overnight guest – an old friend and former roommate – and I’ve never hosted a party. Keep in mind, I’m only counting the times when I’ve lived alone. I’ve had plenty of roommates who were really into the parties and weekend visitors and the like.

And I don’t mind that. I think I was just not programmed on how to do this shit. Of course, I used to live along in a two-bedroom apartment back when that was affordable, but nowadays, it’s a one bedroom, so unless I’m really intimate with an overnight guest, there’s really nowhere to put them.

Friday Free-for-All #12

In which I answer a random question generated by a website. Here’s this week’s question Feel free to give your own answers in the comments.

What is the best path to find truth: Science, math, art, philosophy, or something else?

I suppose it depends upon how you define “truth,” but if we take it to mean objective facts that cannot be refuted by any subjective evidence, then the hands down answer is math, period.

Yes, our terminology for things is arbitrary, but what’s happening beneath it all is objectively true. 1 + 1 = 2, although you could just as easily express it as pine cone + pine cone = melon, blarf + blarf = smerdge, or whatever.

Note that those are metaphorical pine cones and melons, of course. The idea is that the symbol for a single thing plus the symbol for another single thing equals a total of a double thing.

The circumference of a circle has an absolute and fixed ratio to its radius, easy as pie. The sides of a right triangle will always compare to each other in the same way in Euclidian geometry — likewise with trigonometric functions. And it doesn’t matter what kind of numbering system or base you use.

When it comes to simple math, you’ve probably seen those online puzzles that will show something like two ice cream cones equal ten; an ice cream cone and a hamburger equals seven, and so on. Well, this is just simple algebra, except that the typical Xs, Ys, and Zs are replaced with emojis.

That doesn’t make any difference, and you’re still going to get the same answer once you solve it all out.

Let’s try one right now — although since I can’t embed emojis easily here, we’ll stick with the classics. Just imagine hotdogs, eggplants, peaches, whatever. Solve the last equation:

X + X + X = 15

X + X + Y = 13

Y + Y + Z = 10

X + Y = Z + ?

It’s all a lot simpler with reductions. The first equation is the same as 3X = 15, so X is obviously 15/3, or 5. In the second, 2*5+Y = 13 is exactly the same as 13-2*5 = Y. 13-10 = 3. In the third, 2Y + Z = 10, or 10 – 2*3 = Z, so Z = 4.

And in the last equation, 5 + 3 = 8, which is 4 + 4, or Z + Z.

Math like this has given us a way to measure the world, but it doesn’t give us the “why” behind any of it, just the “what.” This is where the next step to truth comes in, and that is science, which stands on the back of math.

The job of science is to ask questions, and then use all of those irrefutable truths of math to get to the next level of truth, which is not objectively true, but which is demonstrably true until falsified.

Note that math gives us a way to measure, because that is very important in science. Science is all about measuring. It’s about coming up with the hypothesis of “The degree to which A happens is affected by both B and C,” and then creating an experiment to test that, then measuring the results over and over.

For example: The hypothesis is dead cats bounce higher if the person who dropped them donated to the Calico party.

How to test it: Get a bunch of people to drop a bunch of dead cats over and over. Record which party they donated to, correlate to how high the dead cats bounced, gather enough data points to establish a pattern, publish results.

Preliminary theory: Yes, donating to the Calico party seemed to have an effect that made the dead cats bounce higher.

But let’s say you’re skeptical of that result. How to make sure it’s true? Time for a double-blind study. First, we make sure that the people dropping the cats have no idea that we have any interest in which party they donated to, so we ask them a ton of innocuous questions for “demographic purposes.”

We might even lead them to think that we’re interested in their hair color.

Second, we make sure that the people recording the results have no idea what we’re looking for either.

Finally, we make sure that we don’t know who falls into which category by issuing each test subject a random and anonymous ID that is tagged to their party, but locked away until later.

Then the cat dropping commences.

And guess what? Once the results are tabulated back to the data on party donations, it actually turns out that party donation has absolutely no effect whatsoever on how high the dead cat bounces.

But at this level, in order to get to the truth, it took a lot of maneuvering around human bias and whatnot to find it. And — surprise — all those steps in creating the double blind procedures came from… math.

And you hated it in eighth grade? Don’t worry. So did I. It took me a long time to understand why it’s so important.

Anyway… with enough of the scientific method going on, we can get to a pretty good semblance of the objective truth, although really not quite, although a bunch of it sticks.

For example, the theory of gravity. You’re not about to step off of a tall building to test it, are you? Nope. You’re going to trust that this would just lead to a short, fast fall, a hard splat, and death.

This brings us to art and philosophy, and I’ll frankly dismiss the latter as just so much intellectual jerking off, no matter who’s doing it. The only school of thought I could ever come close to agreeing with was Empiricism, which basically felt that knowledge could only come from direct experience.

Or, in other words, I can only know it if I’ve experienced it through my senses, or humans can only know it if they’ve measured it. That is, science. So the empiricists basically managed to establish their own field as complete BS. Nice job, really.

As for art, it will never discover any objective truths, because that’s not what it’s about. But what it can do is take the objective truths of math and science and turn them into relatable and subjective truths for their audiences, and do it by creating an emotional reaction in that audience.

The scientists who have spread the truth the best have also been artists in that they have performed and created an emotional reaction. Just look at Carl Sagan and how he enflamed interest in science with his series Cosmos, or how Neil deGrasse Tyson repeated that success in the 2010s.  And everybody loves Bill Nye, the Science Guy.

But, again, why? Because art swoops in to popularize science. And while art only ever leads to subjective truths, art in service of science education will always lead to objective truth.

So… what is the best path to find truth? If you happen to be mathematically or scientifically inclined, then those. But if you’re artistically inclined, follow those artists who create a lot of stuff about science, and you’ll get led back eventually.

Most definitely, though, ignore the person on the soapbox who is saying that their way is the only way without backing it up, because they are a philosopher, and they are just yapping to hear themselves talk.

Trust me. I met their kind at university, and it wasn’t pretty.