@@Fordham1969Everything is connected, nothing is separate. All attributes and morality can be attributed to anything that exists, whether it be a thing, action or thought, depending on perspective. And all perspectives are of equal value, for they exist, existence being the only knowable truth of the universe. In some form, we, whatever we are and whatever this is, exist. We cannot prove that any one religion, philosophy or scientific fact to be correct or superior to another, due to the limitations of our vessel. We can, however, acknowledge that in some form that the universe, and all it entails, exists.The we can accept the many gifts and deprivations of the world, free of judgement, and we may find eternal beauty in the eclectic paradox that is reality.
Superb and underrated film with a great performance from Caan. Really captures the desperation of the compulsive gambler perfectly. The scene where Caan has taken a big loss and then on the way home bets on a game of street basketball in a desperate search of some kind of win, now that's fine filmmaking
Compare the street basketball game in The Gambler with the same in Mississippi Grind. In Mississippi Grind, Ryan Reynolds bets that he can beat a street player one on one same as Caan, and then when he loses claims he can't pay, even though he's carrying about ten grand. The street players beat him up and then are surprised to find that he has more than enough on him to pay. I believe the scene was somewhat of a tribute to The Gambler, the concept of putting yourself deliberately in a bad situation just to feel the edge.
That scene when he is in the bathtub with the radio was classic. Listening to those missed foul shots with the radio in the tub said it all about his addiction.
@@capitanfuturo594 The Whalberg movie was cartoonish and over the top. The James Caan movie seemed to be more of an accurate portrayal of someone in the throes of addiction and self-destructive behavior.
Dostoevsky doesn’t say this. The character of the underground man who Dostoevsky literally prefaces the book to say is not himself says this. So many people misrepresent Dostoevsky by assuming he just uses his characters as mouthpieces for his own opinion. He was a great writer, not a propagandist
I believe that the “manuscript” part of notes is to be taken quite literally. It is still tinged with irony in parts but the whole philosophy that it is speaking about does make sense. Whatever the character in this scene interpreted it as, however, is not at all what the passage means.
that is part of why it is so amazing that he can produce such rich characters that are all different. Karamazov is so good because of how the brothers are different.
@@rune.theocracytell that to Universities that refuse to adapt a failing system to an ever-changing world. As an MIS student, the entire basis is change. Most of your standard majors will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years. It's ironic that they claim to champion the works of Darwin yet aren't able to adapt. That's why they push all this liberal crap to get the impressionable youth to go there but that's a bandaid on a severed leg.
@@lolwtnick4362 What union? I wasn't aware there was one singular monolithic union. And it's not like those unions have actually helped most teachers, seeing as how budgets are constantly being cut and teachers making less and less money. The problem is that education has become controlled by for-profit interests.
It doesn't take over where reason cannot operate it is the driving force behind rationality. Desire tells you what you want and THEN rationality tells you how to get it. Impulse->feeling->thought->action in that order.
I feel like everything post 80s Caan is awful. He had some amazing performances early on, but most of his career was bad performances. The Gambler is obviously not one of those.
@@callumgillies9611 Everything? Nah. What, *Thief* , *Misery* , *Flesh and Bone* , *Honeymoon in Vegas* , were all bad performances?? *Thief* may have been his best, and it was his personal favorite. His performances were generally all good, although some of the movies may have stunk.
James Caan's last good role was probably, in the 'Elf' movie with, Will Ferrell. Caan, was in some stinkers in the latter part of his career, but the good out weighs the bad.
Something about when leading-man types go into silly comedies in their later years. It just works. like DeNiro (and Hoffman) in Meet the Parents. Caine had some good ones I think. @@ACD1994
@@ResistanceQuestRemember that scene where Tár attempts to educate that dumb@ss SJW student? Well, according to the director, Tár is wrong and the SJW is right Ruins the whole thing, as far as I'm concerned.
I've never ever seen a black guy kill a white guy (Clint Eastwood/ Bruce Willis style )in the movies, ditto I've never seen a black guy have the love interest in a film. The black guy in 'Tar' as is _this_ black guy in 'The Gambler' are both unsympathetic and rather contemptible. Yeah there are a lot of dumb tropes in hollywood.
@@rodycaz8984Nah, *the medium IS the message* . We (the audience) are _meant_ to identity with Tar, we are _meant_ to find the SJW Black guy (what with his off putting nervous tics and mediocrity) utterly contemptible. The director knew what he was doing. He's full of "it" if he suggested Tar was wrong.
the lesson here is that to be a good “gambler” you need to be a mathematician and leave your feelings at the door. whoever said “insanity” in the beginning was right. to deny reason for desire and pure will is in fact insanity which is what james caan becomes.
Thats true. However i think your also missing something. That thing is called faith. Athletes know. Before u took ur shot. You dont know if its gonna go in or not, to even began to take that chance u have to believe you got it. You have to have faith in yourself even if reason try to tell u that ur too weak, that its too far.
@doritosbobloblaw The difference is the power of self manifestation through determination, and you could say self-delusion. For example, you can look at andrew tate and his attitude. He believes depression is fake, so he can not get depressed. He chooses a version of reality that suits him. By doing so, he gained the confidence and willpower to succeed in life. If you go around believing your the best then u will act the best and then attract the best thing to come to you...its called the law of attraction.
I agree, the film seems to endorse irrationality which I don't think is a great message. But since it was made in the 70s, when postmodernism was really starting to take root, I'm not surprised. Now we're paying for it in our current society.
That's why you also have to be balance and grounded in the philosophy of science law and reason and reality BUT a good healthy sense of imagination and willful desire manifests the industrial complex society.. you got to be you have to be balanced on both sides
All there is is desire (self interest) anyone who hasn't realized that yet is still asleep. Dostoevsky wrote these books to try and prove that wrong but critics often say in trying to do so he actually made a stronger argument in favor of it.
Yup. Almost like blind faith, putting it all on the line, or throwing a Hail Mary. It doesn’t matter if it will be true or not, what matters is that the desired outcome is what you want to come true. To strive for better things, greatness, or something even beyond your regular rationality. You must have a strong will and desire to make it come true to push your fantasy into reality
He misinterprets Dostoyevsky, who often wrote from a foolish protagonist POV who has come to the wrong conclusions. In his novel "Crimes and Punishment, the main character thinks by murdering a skinflint old woman who is mean will be doing the world a favor. The character also from panic kills another person who was an innocent witness. Too late he realizes what relying on his selfish "will" has made him do. So yeah, I think this scene is wrong in the conclusion it makes. Which is ironic, becasue Caan's character is addicted to gambling, and he believes his magical intuitive thinking can beat the odds, which is why casinos get rich off such superstitious beliefs of their gambling customers.
that is really interesting, and its not just superstituous belief is it? Its an actual possibility that you might win the big lottery in casino, and such possibility, even the gambling functioning itself, is something properly dervied from playing around with mathematical algorithms, thus, from "proper" rationalistic thinking. And its this possibility that reigns in the brain, this potential outcome, and guides all of our actions towards it, and finally makes us addicted if we cannot let go of it, which sometimes even is too late to let go of because of the underlying physiological conditioning/orientation of those "brain"-structures governing human motivation, the reward systems or however you wanna call it. I remember raskolnikov saying (or dostojevsky narrating) that the mere chance and mere stubborn insistence on the goal, on this hypothetical action, the murder, is what posseses him, drivne, i think, pushed by, or in the least facilitated by the undesirable circumstances he is in (poverty, low social status, pride in the acceptance of financial support..). i do not understand how exactly it is that ideas can posses an individual to such an extent. how come that positing an abstract goal orients our entire interaction with the world towards this particular direction, and how come that some ideas are stronger than other, and how exactly does the individual itself actively fuel the fire by insisting on this goal, as you called it "relying on his selfish will" (question of sin, inviting sin crouching at ones door, as peterson describes it. I think you might love this scene in conjunction with your argument: www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjLw92pzN6BAxWvxAIHHcIIDCgQtwJ6BAgQEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dpd6SAGRzeVo&usg=AOvVaw0AErC3FMOwjLyDYc-8Prpw&opi=89978449
Look at the mad respect between blacks and whites in this scene! And this movie was made decades ago! Today you could never have such intelligent dialogue!
I'd say it's not about his will to believe he's right and much he has the right to have, and more importantly, voice his opinion and to state his beliefs even though he may be wrong. Too much censorship everywhere these days.
Because some of the comments are paid by kremlin? They need Dostoevsky now more than ever. They can't bring up Tolstoy, he was a pacifist and a borderline anarchist. So there you go.
Maybe it's a bad translation (or worse: bad "artistic license") but Dostoevsky used the word "will" not "desire". And the example of the long-shot doesn't quite fit as an example of the meaning of the passage either, and it seems like the problem in more semantic imprecision. For those interested, he's reading from "Notes from the Underground". It's not as inspiring/optimistic as Caan is making it out to be.
For all the people saying this is Communist or Post-Modernist. Dostoevsky was STAUNCHLY against Communism and Post-Modernism wouldn't exist for another 100 years. The reason Dostoevsky had a character called "The Underground Man" voice this opinion is a reaction against 19th century rationalism and philosophical materialism that rejected tradition, religion and spirituality in favor of only that which could be measured and was "known" to be true by the scientists of the time. Karl Marx, who founded Communism, was a materialist. Someone who would say that 1+1 always must equal 2. For Marx, a massive lower-class uprising, and the death of capitalism was an inevitable fact based on a Hegelian view of history. Notes from the Underground, which is the novel they're discussing was written to show that human beings are not only imperfect but fundamentally irrational creatures, which is why utopian ideologies such as Communism, are doomed to fail.
This is interesting, I'm glad this came up on my feed. Isn't 2 + 2 =5 something Dostoevsky would have objected against? I always thought it came from Orson Welles 1984.
It is funny...if more hilarious that this is from 50 years ago. This line is take from Dostoevsky's Demons and is coming from a madman descending into utter nihilistic insanity. Kudos to whoever's wrote this script.
@@marknewbold2583 woopsies!! Ha ha! Yes yes, George Orwell. I always get those two mixed up! Orson Welles narrated a documentary about Nostradamus in 1984 predicting nuclear war in 1999 and it really freaked me out as a kid. Freudian slip? I'm really a dumb ass.
@@___xyz___ who are you responding too? I'm forty and thats the plot of the movie. What he's saying in this speech is bogus and he uses it to justify his addiction.
There's only one good Mark Wahlberg movie where he acts as opposed to playing himself, and tragically/hilariously he disowned it because he was too dumb to understand it. Boogie Nights.
I am sorry, but this is a complete distortion of Dostoyevski's idea: it is not about the will of a human. But God's will. The 2 + 2 indeed might make 5. But not without God's intervention. Which is a miracle. Dosotoyevski is rebelling against the idea of a rational world. It is truly a hard idea to swallow in this atheist age.
Several objections: God's will is ineffable and inaccessible to human beings by definition. If one claims to perceive God's will, this can be used as a defence for any absurdity. Secondly, the view of Descartes and similar individuals, that God has bestowed upon us reason and the capacity to apply it independent of the physical world, is a fundamental pillar of our modern understanding of the world, predating atheism or anything similar. Thirdly, the idea of a rational, mechanistic clockwork universe existed concurrently with God throughout history: look at the Enlightenment, as the most notable.
@@surengrigorian7888 I am not sure why you are arguing with me on a statement I didn't make. I merely pointed out the misrepresented ideas of Dostoyevsky in that film, not whether I agree with them or whether they are the truth. That's a matter of whole separate discussion.
i love how in 1984 by george orwell when Winston questions the idea of 2+2 making 5 and going absolutely against it hence against "big brother" he is called a lunatic, a minority of one. Its a bizzare idea, but the same idea is portrayed so differently by another philosopher in a positive light. i absolutely love how everything and literally EVERYTHING in philosophy is a huge grey matter, neither on the good nor on the bad, just neutral.
It’s funny I took a course in philosophy a couple of years ago and the professor said something like ”In philosophy we don’t really make any progress, we discuss the same topics now that we did 2 500 years ago and we still can’t reach any definite conclusions.” It’s like the opposite of ”settled science” 😅
IKR its so cool I love philosophy myself and while many others say that it's useless ngl i think it should b needed today Cuz for eg. Ppl here in the comment section dont rlly get the point and just use this as a sort of testament to prove their beliefs about the current world, when in actuality theyre sorta proving dostoeyesky right by doing so... Ppl today just dont know how to think about things in a philosophical manner and so they just kinda make these very out there takes with no actualy rationality behind it outside of belief. They believe theyre being rational when in fact, theyre just believing
@@incizor1273 I don't know what r't'rd held your course but unless your are in some esoteric fringe group there is very tangible progress in philosphy constantly happening
I feel shallow but the analogy sucks. A low percentage shot is entirely different from an impossibility like 2+2=5. It’s like saying betting on a pair of aces in is the same as betting on getting five aces: one is gambling the other one is impossible and just a purely meta philosophical performance
Because the screen writers of that generation actually received a proper education and were immersed in a culture that actually valued such an education.
Desire actually means "of the Father" . De Sire. Sire. Father. We were created by the Bible God with healthy desires... and we were given a moral conscience and moral standards... but we "fallen from grace" mortal humans chose to cast aside God's moral standards and deviate, pervert or degrade our desires. I'm just saying 😊
Desire does not derive from your listed etymology, but from an astrological relation in Latin. "De sidere", from the stars, as the pagans understood the idea of desire.
@surengrigorian7888 Well ok...I'll look into it...thanks for your input. Though Im not quite sure what you're trying to say here? To me, there are God-given normal, healthy human desires for food, shelter, sex, etc, and there are deviated perverted inhumane desires that turn souls into gluttons or anorexics, cruel land barons and real-estate moguls, porn addicts and bi sexual, etc,...so is the same Lat8n word used for both? Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English? No difference? Is all desire just a Pagan or animal impulse? What about the desire to lay down ones own life that another might live? That is not a Pagan belief. Pagans sacrifice other things to get what they want... even when they're willing to die for another its often a transaction with their God... a kind of "if you, my Idol, will scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Or not?
@@marknewbold2583 ...all things considered, the way you asked that question, I would think it's rather probable you would never be satisfied with my answers, so I wish you well on your journey of discovery. Just avoid religion, even Bible religion, as all it ever really says, as do all man-made belief systems, "WE educated enlightened FEW must think for and direct YOU uneducated unenlightened MANY". Why is this? Even Bible religions? Mainly because all man-made belief systems and/or institutions (Biblical, Pagan and Humanist) are self interested, self serving, self promoting, and anti-salvation to one degree or another...yes, even Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Genuine Believers follow Jesus right out of dead merely theological religion. Jesus is not religion, He lives, He is Divine, Creator, Savior and King and His "good news" of forgiveness...and a way out of enslavement to the world of men...is found only in Testament Christianity. The Old Testament is valuable and worth studying, but, it's end was the end of an era... God's 6000 year Plan of salvation came in three parts, approx 2000 years each part... All belief systems are valuable...they either reveal some truths or they reveal some evil, or both, just like individuals, either way, some learning is offered and worth knowing. E.g. Voodooism at least acknowledges the demonic realm, even if they prefer it to a Savior, whereas, some "dustless, unruffled, citified" Protestants act as if there are no demons at work in the world of men, which of course delights Satan, who operates best in the darkness of lies, deceit and human laziness, deliberate human ignorance or human arrogance. Only the humble get to meet Jesus...only the humble. And will you any of believe this? No. But, hey...I'm not bitter 😞😏😉❤️
![The Gambler (1974) Original Trailer [FHD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/veTaDgOd48Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Gambler (1974) Original Trailer [FHD]](/img/tr.png)
Im glad Sonny went back to finish his degree
After you get shot a few hundred times it makes you a little bit more philosophical.
Think it was the kick to the face that really got him pondering
Oh yeah
What are you talking about! This is Paul Sheldon!
I tought he is in nursery home after ski accident
I love the connection he makes between poetry and athletics. There's beauty in the possible, disappointment in the actual.
No there's beauty in the actual too, you just fail to see it because you reach beyond it, you walk past it.
It strikes me that there can be both beauty and horror in both the possible and the actual.
@@Fordham1969Everything is connected, nothing is separate. All attributes and morality can be attributed to anything that exists, whether it be a thing, action or thought, depending on perspective. And all perspectives are of equal value, for they exist, existence being the only knowable truth of the universe. In some form, we, whatever we are and whatever this is, exist. We cannot prove that any one religion, philosophy or scientific fact to be correct or superior to another, due to the limitations of our vessel. We can, however, acknowledge that in some form that the universe, and all it entails, exists.The we can accept the many gifts and deprivations of the world, free of judgement, and we may find eternal beauty in the eclectic paradox that is reality.
@@Fordham1969because it's all mind and mind has no limits aside from the imposed ones
no dummy, it's called a false equivalency... schools are failing the idiotic masses
Superb and underrated film with a great performance from Caan. Really captures the desperation of the compulsive gambler perfectly. The scene where Caan has taken a big loss and then on the way home bets on a game of street basketball in a desperate search of some kind of win, now that's fine filmmaking
Compare the street basketball game in The Gambler with the same in Mississippi Grind. In Mississippi Grind, Ryan Reynolds bets that he can beat a street player one on one same as Caan, and then when he loses claims he can't pay, even though he's carrying about ten grand. The street players beat him up and then are surprised to find that he has more than enough on him to pay.
I believe the scene was somewhat of a tribute to The Gambler, the concept of putting yourself deliberately in a bad situation just to feel the edge.
@@mdawgrules3279 Great point. Buffalo Bill is defunct...
Bets 20 bucks to a dime.. what a sucker
Paul Sorvino is money in this film. His delivery of his great lines is superb. "Don't kid yourself. Once you ain't a virgin no more you're a who-ah."
sounds like a precursor to Uncut Gems
Best gambling movie ever. Hands down. RIP James Caan
That scene when he is in the bathtub with the radio was classic. Listening to those missed foul shots with the radio in the tub said it all about his addiction.
The original movie with James Caan was better than the remake with M. Whalberg.
@@capitanfuturo594 The Whalberg movie was cartoonish and over the top.
The James Caan movie seemed to be more of an accurate portrayal of someone in the throes of addiction and self-destructive behavior.
Dostoevsky doesn’t say this. The character of the underground man who Dostoevsky literally prefaces the book to say is not himself says this. So many people misrepresent Dostoevsky by assuming he just uses his characters as mouthpieces for his own opinion. He was a great writer, not a propagandist
I believe that the “manuscript” part of notes is to be taken quite literally. It is still tinged with irony in parts but the whole philosophy that it is speaking about does make sense. Whatever the character in this scene interpreted it as, however, is not at all what the passage means.
@@stevowilliams8279what does it mean
@@alfredo2lepe a warning against rationalism/Utopianism.
that is part of why it is so amazing that he can produce such rich characters that are all different. Karamazov is so good because of how the brothers are different.
Yes, and Caan's character is exactly someone that would misrepresent it for his own psychological reasons!
James Caan was an amazing actor.
Rollerball is a very underrated movie.
I agree.
It's because it's aged so badly.
@@user-hp6ls8qy6dit has a cheesy quality, but also a creepy 1984ish urgency
One of my favorites as a kid. 🙌
Great teachers are gifts to the world
Great educators will save the world!
@@rune.theocracytell that to Universities that refuse to adapt a failing system to an ever-changing world. As an MIS student, the entire basis is change. Most of your standard majors will be obsolete in the next 10-15 years. It's ironic that they claim to champion the works of Darwin yet aren't able to adapt. That's why they push all this liberal crap to get the impressionable youth to go there but that's a bandaid on a severed leg.
it's scripted. lots of educators are pawns to the union. go against their policy and see how that works out for you, even if reason makes sense.
@@lolwtnick4362 What union? I wasn't aware there was one singular monolithic union. And it's not like those unions have actually helped most teachers, seeing as how budgets are constantly being cut and teachers making less and less money. The problem is that education has become controlled by for-profit interests.
@@jon8004 there's a surprising lack of quality educators, why that is I will leave for others to ponder on!
"Desire encompasses everything" and will take over where reason cannot operate. Good moral.
It doesn't take over where reason cannot operate it is the driving force behind rationality. Desire tells you what you want and THEN rationality tells you how to get it. Impulse->feeling->thought->action in that order.
Sonny explaining Dostoyevsky. My life is fulfilled.
Excellent performance by Caan. Never get tired of watching this movie. James Caan never had a bad performance.
And Paul Sorvino delivers his lines masterfully: "It ain't just numbas."
I feel like everything post 80s Caan is awful. He had some amazing performances early on, but most of his career was bad performances. The Gambler is obviously not one of those.
@@callumgillies9611 Everything? Nah. What, *Thief* , *Misery* , *Flesh and Bone* , *Honeymoon in Vegas* , were all bad performances?? *Thief* may have been his best, and it was his personal favorite. His performances were generally all good, although some of the movies may have stunk.
James Caan's last good role was probably, in the 'Elf' movie with, Will Ferrell. Caan, was in some stinkers in the latter part of his career, but the good out weighs the bad.
Something about when leading-man types go into silly comedies in their later years. It just works. like DeNiro (and Hoffman) in Meet the Parents. Caine had some good ones I think. @@ACD1994
As a gambler I'd like to say I always liked James Caan. Great actor.
You would NEVER see a scene like this in any film made today. Just never. Underrated film, R.I.P. James Caan.
That is some absolute bullshit you’re trying to sell
Generally you're very correct. "TÁR" from last year gives it a shot though
@@ResistanceQuestRemember that scene where Tár attempts to educate that dumb@ss SJW student? Well, according to the director, Tár is wrong and the SJW is right
Ruins the whole thing, as far as I'm concerned.
I've never ever seen a black guy kill a white guy (Clint Eastwood/ Bruce Willis style )in the movies, ditto I've never seen a black guy have the love interest in a film.
The black guy in 'Tar' as is _this_ black guy in 'The Gambler' are both unsympathetic and rather contemptible. Yeah there are a lot of dumb tropes in hollywood.
@@rodycaz8984Nah, *the medium IS the message* . We (the audience) are _meant_ to identity with Tar, we are _meant_ to find the SJW Black guy (what with his off putting nervous tics and mediocrity) utterly contemptible. The director knew what he was doing. He's full of "it" if he suggested Tar was wrong.
cant believe hes gone
9 February 1881
"2 + 2=5 because i want to" it's a perfect description of these times. Insanity times...
The difference is that now, they are trying to make everyone else see 5, not just themselves.
2 + 2 = 5 indictments@@blazel462
@@WaryofExtremes-realoriginalperfect dialogue for the times, alas...just because they want a worldview to be true, they disregard reality
Also explains that at the moment he places the bet he believes he will win even if the odds really are against him.
You missed the point of the video, then.
The best gambling movie ever made. Show this movie to your family. Rip legend.
RIP 2 legends (Caan and Sorvino).
Caan was a great actor showing off his range...greatly missed.
the lesson here is that to be a good “gambler” you need to be a mathematician and leave your feelings at the door. whoever said “insanity” in the beginning was right. to deny reason for desire and pure will is in fact insanity which is what james caan becomes.
Thats true. However i think your also missing something. That thing is called faith. Athletes know. Before u took ur shot. You dont know if its gonna go in or not, to even began to take that chance u have to believe you got it. You have to have faith in yourself even if reason try to tell u that ur too weak, that its too far.
@@PhotTheLawbut the probability of one scoring and the other making 2 plus 2 being five is not even comparable.
@doritosbobloblaw The difference is the power of self manifestation through determination, and you could say self-delusion. For example, you can look at andrew tate and his attitude. He believes depression is fake, so he can not get depressed. He chooses a version of reality that suits him. By doing so, he gained the confidence and willpower to succeed in life. If you go around believing your the best then u will act the best and then attract the best thing to come to you...its called the law of attraction.
yeah he succeeded at sex trafficking lmfao scumbag@@PhotTheLaw
I agree, the film seems to endorse irrationality which I don't think is a great message. But since it was made in the 70s, when postmodernism was really starting to take root, I'm not surprised. Now we're paying for it in our current society.
Be careful if you believe desire is life, there is no end to desire. It is always hungry for more.
That's why you also have to be balance and grounded in the philosophy of science law and reason and reality BUT a good healthy sense of imagination and willful desire manifests the industrial complex society.. you got to be you have to be balanced on both sides
All there is is desire (self interest) anyone who hasn't realized that yet is still asleep. Dostoevsky wrote these books to try and prove that wrong but critics often say in trying to do so he actually made a stronger argument in favor of it.
Fantastic. Greate explanation about subjectivity of willing and desire, nothing linked with rational things.
Saved me a lot of reading.
Will to power!
if ur ever struggling in a maths class, or whatever class, just desire whatever you want guys
I love this
Yup. Almost like blind faith, putting it all on the line, or throwing a Hail Mary.
It doesn’t matter if it will be true or not, what matters is that the desired outcome is what you want to come true.
To strive for better things, greatness, or something even beyond your regular rationality.
You must have a strong will and desire to make it come true to push your fantasy into reality
R.I.P.
dostoevsky had a bad time with gambling so if two and two made five, someone was not playing with a full deck...
I've seen the remake, but I haven't seen this one. I was always a James Caan fan. Like to see it sometime.
Did you see it yet?
I have to read this book every slowly
Cool quote: "Desire is life".
Feelings over Facts. That's a slippery slope boys and girls.
Rest In Peace James Caan 😔😢
Oh, jesus, I need to see this movie now.
He misinterprets Dostoyevsky, who often wrote from a foolish protagonist POV who has come to the wrong conclusions. In his novel "Crimes and Punishment, the main character thinks by murdering a skinflint old woman who is mean will be doing the world a favor. The character also from panic kills another person who was an innocent witness. Too late he realizes what relying on his selfish "will" has made him do. So yeah, I think this scene is wrong in the conclusion it makes. Which is ironic, becasue Caan's character is addicted to gambling, and he believes his magical intuitive thinking can beat the odds, which is why casinos get rich off such superstitious beliefs of their gambling customers.
Dostevsky uses the term “casuistry” in the book to describe an unsound line of reasoning to justify the protagonist’s actions.
that is really interesting, and its not just superstituous belief is it? Its an actual possibility that you might win the big lottery in casino, and such possibility, even the gambling functioning itself, is something properly dervied from playing around with mathematical algorithms, thus, from "proper" rationalistic thinking. And its this possibility that reigns in the brain, this potential outcome, and guides all of our actions towards it, and finally makes us addicted if we cannot let go of it, which sometimes even is too late to let go of because of the underlying physiological conditioning/orientation of those "brain"-structures governing human motivation, the reward systems or however you wanna call it.
I remember raskolnikov saying (or dostojevsky narrating) that the mere chance and mere stubborn insistence on the goal, on this hypothetical action, the murder, is what posseses him, drivne, i think, pushed by, or in the least facilitated by the undesirable circumstances he is in (poverty, low social status, pride in the acceptance of financial support..).
i do not understand how exactly it is that ideas can posses an individual to such an extent. how come that positing an abstract goal orients our entire interaction with the world towards this particular direction, and how come that some ideas are stronger than other, and how exactly does the individual itself actively fuel the fire by insisting on this goal, as you called it "relying on his selfish will" (question of sin, inviting sin crouching at ones door, as peterson describes it.
I think you might love this scene in conjunction with your argument: www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjLw92pzN6BAxWvxAIHHcIIDCgQtwJ6BAgQEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dpd6SAGRzeVo&usg=AOvVaw0AErC3FMOwjLyDYc-8Prpw&opi=89978449
The scene isn't wrong, Caan's character is wrong.
Desire is life.Rational faculties are second and in some people almost not present at all.
I love the 1970s.
Me too very much.
Look how they educated my boy!
damn i gotta hit the slots again wish me luck guys its goin down
Learning is strictly business not personal.
Holy crap, I have the same edition of the book James Caan character is holding.
Who is the translator of that book?
An alternate reality where Sonny becomes the college kid of the Corleone family
"Look at how they massacred my boy."
James Toback remade this movie 3 times. It was autobiographical. He did it with Harvard Man, and parts of Black and White
that's two times.
@@plasticweapon one plus one equals three
@@donovanjones4175 sometimes.
Perhaps dostoevsky was suggesting the simple idea that a person has the right to be wrong.
That's a very good one too As a scientist I have not never really fully explored both.. in psychological and in philosophical terms
By that reasoning, you also have be the right to be a duck.
@@slappy8941 quack lol
Nah dostoevsky is just saying people are stupid and there's nothing you can do about it..
I loved that book sooo much, do not know this movie though
How astoundingly parallel to the political climate in the US right now.
Look at the mad respect between blacks and whites in this scene! And this movie was made decades ago! Today you could never have such intelligent dialogue!
Nice deleted flashback scene from ELF
I’m with the brother…
I'd say it's not about his will to believe he's right and much he has the right to have, and more importantly, voice his opinion and to state his beliefs even though he may be wrong. Too much censorship everywhere these days.
Rip Jimmy😊
Just man's reach exceeds his grasp.
Sonny educating the family
Which only holds so long as you do not try to re-arrange the equation :-)
The loud black guy being a basketball player lmao
Jonathan! Jonathan! (Organ: Toccata In D Minor)
Look how they massacred my boy's lecture :.(
Sonny and that kid were on a collision course from minute one. No way too guys with Afros that big weren't going to bump heads in a hall that small.
Well said. But you can sense the tension is lined with respect (for big Afros).
@@Elcore Very true. "Big Afros" was actually the original title of the film until the focus was shifted (idiotically) to gambling.
"save it for the library."
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
He should use some quote directly in “The Gambler” instead of note from underground
The remake with Mark Wahlberg and John Goodman is also very good.
It’s 100% better
Tight trousers!!
It didn't take much, back then.
Now analyze dostoevsky's "The Jewish Question." I wonder why every russophilic intellectual overlooks such a gem
Because some of the comments are paid by kremlin? They need Dostoevsky now more than ever.
They can't bring up Tolstoy, he was a pacifist and a borderline anarchist. So there you go.
Hmm not sure a scene like this will be in the next marvel movie
Maybe it's a bad translation (or worse: bad "artistic license") but Dostoevsky used the word "will" not "desire". And the example of the long-shot doesn't quite fit as an example of the meaning of the passage either, and it seems like the problem in more semantic imprecision.
For those interested, he's reading from "Notes from the Underground". It's not as inspiring/optimistic as Caan is making it out to be.
For all the people saying this is Communist or Post-Modernist. Dostoevsky was STAUNCHLY against Communism and Post-Modernism wouldn't exist for another 100 years. The reason Dostoevsky had a character called "The Underground Man" voice this opinion is a reaction against 19th century rationalism and philosophical materialism that rejected tradition, religion and spirituality in favor of only that which could be measured and was "known" to be true by the scientists of the time. Karl Marx, who founded Communism, was a materialist. Someone who would say that 1+1 always must equal 2. For Marx, a massive lower-class uprising, and the death of capitalism was an inevitable fact based on a Hegelian view of history. Notes from the Underground, which is the novel they're discussing was written to show that human beings are not only imperfect but fundamentally irrational creatures, which is why utopian ideologies such as Communism, are doomed to fail.
Those must be a tall set of lifts.
1984
This is interesting, I'm glad this came up on my feed. Isn't 2 + 2 =5 something Dostoevsky would have objected against? I always thought it came from Orson Welles 1984.
Orson Welles 1984? Lol
@@marknewbold2583 lmfao..it's kinda funny tho..
It is funny...if more hilarious that this is from 50 years ago. This line is take from Dostoevsky's Demons and is coming from a madman descending into utter nihilistic insanity. Kudos to whoever's wrote this script.
@@marknewbold2583 woopsies!! Ha ha! Yes yes, George Orwell. I always get those two mixed up! Orson Welles narrated a documentary about Nostradamus in 1984 predicting nuclear war in 1999 and it really freaked me out as a kid. Freudian slip? I'm really a dumb ass.
Its from Radiohead in 2003
Who played Spencer? Looks like the guy from Dawn Of The Dead
Hear hear
This scene really shows how acting and performance matter more than content.
Dude makes that sound brilliant when it's utter nonsense.
ok boomer
@@___xyz___ who are you responding too?
I'm forty and thats the plot of the movie. What he's saying in this speech is bogus and he uses it to justify his addiction.
Don't tell Trump it's nonsense. It's his guiding principle 😔
@@mikejohnson3338 I didn't realize he was a postmodernist but that would explain a lot.
@@Loreweavver and that's exactly the point of notes from underground
Orwell hated that concept
If sonny didnt take his fathers route
Yes... Ok... But in the end the ball is outside the basket... You know...
Will may not contravene or confute logic
that he controls the figures
Lol what an absolutely brutal misunderstanding of Dostoyevsky
I like the fact that the sneaker has a well worn sole; keeping it real like Dostoevsky 0:56
Bro... It's a remake if this? The one with mark damon?
What about his other book?
The original movie with James Caan was better than the remake with M. Whalberg.
There's only one good Mark Wahlberg movie where he acts as opposed to playing himself, and tragically/hilariously he disowned it because he was too dumb to understand it. Boogie Nights.
I don't know why this was in my feed, but I'm definitely going to watch this movie. I believe it's destiny. I'm certain of it.
…and every gambler
Which Dostoyevsky work is it?
Caan went to Rhodes School, so of course he knows what he’s talking about.
He knows the shot is probably out of his range but what is he going to do just not take it? Chuck the ball to the side?
I am sorry, but this is a complete distortion of Dostoyevski's idea: it is not about the will of a human. But God's will. The 2 + 2 indeed might make 5. But not without God's intervention. Which is a miracle. Dosotoyevski is rebelling against the idea of a rational world. It is truly a hard idea to swallow in this atheist age.
Several objections:
God's will is ineffable and inaccessible to human beings by definition. If one claims to perceive God's will, this can be used as a defence for any absurdity.
Secondly, the view of Descartes and similar individuals, that God has bestowed upon us reason and the capacity to apply it independent of the physical world, is a fundamental pillar of our modern understanding of the world, predating atheism or anything similar.
Thirdly, the idea of a rational, mechanistic clockwork universe existed concurrently with God throughout history: look at the Enlightenment, as the most notable.
@@surengrigorian7888 I am not sure why you are arguing with me on a statement I didn't make. I merely pointed out the misrepresented ideas of Dostoyevsky in that film, not whether I agree with them or whether they are the truth. That's a matter of whole separate discussion.
God doesn't exist
2 and 2 are five... is that a reference to George Orwell's 1984?
No. Dostoyevski wrote about 75 years earlier.
Please excuse my ignorance. But can you please introduce me to Dostoyevski?@@robertmadison1205
i love how in 1984 by george orwell when Winston questions the idea of 2+2 making 5 and going absolutely against it hence against "big brother" he is called a lunatic, a minority of one. Its a bizzare idea, but the same idea is portrayed so differently by another philosopher in a positive light. i absolutely love how everything and literally EVERYTHING in philosophy is a huge grey matter, neither on the good nor on the bad, just neutral.
It’s funny I took a course in philosophy a couple of years ago and the professor said something like ”In philosophy we don’t really make any progress, we discuss the same topics now that we did 2 500 years ago and we still can’t reach any definite conclusions.” It’s like the opposite of ”settled science” 😅
The more things change, the more they remain the same.@@incizor1273
This is a bad understanding of Dostoevsky
IKR its so cool
I love philosophy myself and while many others say that it's useless ngl i think it should b needed today
Cuz for eg. Ppl here in the comment section dont rlly get the point and just use this as a sort of testament to prove their beliefs about the current world, when in actuality theyre sorta proving dostoeyesky right by doing so...
Ppl today just dont know how to think about things in a philosophical manner and so they just kinda make these very out there takes with no actualy rationality behind it outside of belief. They believe theyre being rational when in fact, theyre just believing
@@incizor1273 I don't know what r't'rd held your course but unless your are in some esoteric fringe group there is very tangible progress in philosphy constantly happening
look what they did to my boy
“A shooter with a range of only 20 feet is no shooter, he is a madman” - Dostoevsky
I feel shallow but the analogy sucks. A low percentage shot is entirely different from an impossibility like 2+2=5. It’s like saying betting on a pair of aces in is the same as betting on getting five aces: one is gambling the other one is impossible and just a purely meta philosophical performance
Whoa no one writes screenplay like this any more.
Because the screen writers of that generation actually received a proper education and were immersed in a culture that actually valued such an education.
Damn Caan was hot.
what movie is this
Desire actually means "of the Father" . De Sire. Sire. Father. We were created by the Bible God with healthy desires... and we were given a moral conscience and moral standards... but we "fallen from grace" mortal humans chose to cast aside God's moral standards and deviate, pervert or degrade our desires. I'm just saying 😊
Desire does not derive from your listed etymology, but from an astrological relation in Latin. "De sidere", from the stars, as the pagans understood the idea of desire.
@surengrigorian7888 Well ok...I'll look into it...thanks for your input. Though Im not quite sure what you're trying to say here? To me, there are God-given normal, healthy human desires for food, shelter, sex, etc, and there are deviated perverted inhumane desires that turn souls into gluttons or anorexics, cruel land barons and real-estate moguls, porn addicts and bi sexual, etc,...so is the same Lat8n word used for both? Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English? No difference? Is all desire just a Pagan or animal impulse? What about the desire to lay down ones own life that another might live? That is not a Pagan belief. Pagans sacrifice other things to get what they want... even when they're willing to die for another its often a transaction with their God... a kind of "if you, my Idol, will scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Or not?
@@catherinecastle8576 what if there's no god?
@@marknewbold2583 ...all things considered, the way you asked that question, I would think it's rather probable you would never be satisfied with my answers, so I wish you well on your journey of discovery.
Just avoid religion, even Bible religion, as all it ever really says, as do all man-made belief systems, "WE educated enlightened FEW must think for and direct YOU uneducated unenlightened MANY". Why is this? Even Bible religions? Mainly because all man-made belief systems and/or institutions (Biblical, Pagan and Humanist) are self interested, self serving, self promoting, and anti-salvation to one degree or another...yes, even Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Genuine Believers follow Jesus right out of dead merely theological religion. Jesus is not religion, He lives, He is Divine, Creator, Savior and King and His "good news" of forgiveness...and a way out of enslavement to the world of men...is found only in Testament Christianity. The Old Testament is valuable and worth studying, but, it's end was the end of an era... God's 6000 year Plan of salvation came in three parts, approx 2000 years each part...
All belief systems are valuable...they either reveal some truths or they reveal some evil, or both, just like individuals, either way, some learning is offered and worth knowing. E.g. Voodooism at least acknowledges the demonic realm, even if they prefer it to a Savior, whereas, some "dustless, unruffled, citified" Protestants act as if there are no demons at work in the world of men, which of course delights Satan, who operates best in the darkness of lies, deceit and human laziness, deliberate human ignorance or human arrogance.
Only the humble get to meet Jesus...only the humble.
And will you any of believe this? No. But, hey...I'm not bitter 😞😏😉❤️
1+1=3
-Lacan
Mark Walhburg's remake of this movie is a textbook example of missing the point.