As a man in his seventh decade whose childhood was in the the late 50's and early 60's, my well intentioned authority figures discouraged me from reading comics. I knew in my early teens about the origin stories of Superman , Batman and Spiderman and, intuitively like any rational being, recognized a nobility in them . Looking at Marvel's Ironheart origin story, which you strategically placed at the start of your video, made an old man shed a tear for a generation of youth that is presented this corrupted story as a heroic example to be emulated. This is unbelievably sad.
The mantra of "You can do anything" is not liberatory; it's a burden. Because if you can do anything, yet fail at some things, then you have only yourself to blame. (Either that or you have to invent a scapegoat, which explains much of the rage and emphasis on victimhood in current progressivism.) Recognizing and accepting natural limitations makes us much happier because it allows us to make appropriate choices grounded in reality. The ultimate case for this is whether we accept the inevitability of death--and notice how many stories there are, even up to the present day, about how terrible it would be to live forever in our current physical existence. (I'm not talking about the Christian afterlife, which transforms the basic terms of our existence and is somewhat unimaginable to us.)
Absolutely brilliant! You have informed an idea that was strangling around in my mind, unformed just enough to keep me scrambling in the carpark of my hypocampus. thanks!
Choice Paralysis is the term you're looking for to describe having so many choices that you can't make one or it doesn't matter which choice you make, which stems from the observation in supermarkets that the ideal variety of product is 3 to 5 of a certain type of product as one or two seems to not give choice to customers while 6 or more gives so many choices people just walk past without wanting to think about which to pick.
Also referred to as choice overload, or paradox of choice. Given the number of even simple choices we make throughout the day, it has a tendency to make any choice seem meaningless.
My Steam library is a good example of this. Two hundred or so games (not including demos) bought in sales or bundles, and I’ve only completed a fifth of them. And it takes a long time for me to stop just playing one game over and over again and pick something untouched.
And it’s a very frustrating thing, too. It’s why, for example, all my favorite types of Hamburger Helpers have been replaced by variations on Cheeseburger Macaroni or my favorite flavors of Ocean Spray juice have vanished for the four varieties that sell the best.
Quark: “"Let me tell you something about hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people - as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..." Nog: "I feel sorry for the Jem'Hadar."
I love that quote from Quark from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It explains why the Vulcans had to become the human race's chaperones for a century after they had discovered how to make a warp speed starship. They already knew what kind of an alien species that the human beings are. They saw how they damaged their planet and almost exterminated their own race with global thermonuclear war. And that is why while they helped the humans rebuild their destroyed home world, they also spent time trying to enlighten humans. Not only to help them evolve into higher life forms like themselves, but also to try to prevent them from potentially become another equivalent of the Romulan Empire or the Klingon Empire. That would be the last thing that they needed because if there was anything that Earth humans truly excelled at, it was killing.
@Heavy Metal Pulp Well ... I speak about Star Trek. Which is TOS, TNG DS9, VOY and maybe Enterprise, and their respective movies. The rest is ... meeeh
@Incubus Time Lord My primary loyalty in Star Trek is to the Terran Empire where profit isn’t a dirty word. #2 is the Klingon Empire. #3 is the Ferengi Alliance before Grand Nagus Zek ruined everything. #4 is the Talarian Republic.
I've mentioned this on other pages, but: writers write what they know. if all they know is themselves and they are unlikable, weirdos that most people don't like, it will show on the page. And, here we are.
Recently, I was thinking about an old Batman one shot, "Alfred's Return." During the middle point of the "Knightfall" mega-arc, Bruce (still injured) is traveling with Alfred outside of Gotham to track down Sandra Kinsolving (his personal doctor who was vital in his spine healing) and at one point ended up in the hospital. When Bruce was about to start pulling himself out of bed to keep hunting down the bad guy of the moment, Alfred made it clear that he needs to heal and rest. But when Bruce explained that he can't lay back and do nothing, Alfred said that he would not stand by and allow Bruce to destroy himself and resigns. We all know how "Knightfall/Knighquest/Knightsend" wrapped up of course with Bruce getting his back healed, retraining with Lady Shiva, getting back in the classic suit, stopping Jean Paul, etc. But Alfred was still gone and Bruce felt he had no right to ask Alfred back. Dick Grayson on the other hand, felt Alfred was HIS family too and went to look for him and eventually tracked him down to the UK. There was a whole adventure involving a secret criminal group, the Crown, etc. Nightwing and Alfred settled the whole thing, of course, and by the end of it Alfred felt like the world outside the Bat-Family was a little less noble. Alfred says that he's gotten so used to working and living with people who fight for justice and put the lives of others first that it's affected his view of more average people. If Bruce has really changed and maybe he's less of a jerk, Alfred's ready to come back home. It got me thinking about how I've so buried in the more vintage comic stories (as recent as the 2000s, anyway) it's affected how I can't get into the more modern hero stories, be it comics, movies, tv, etc. I can tell the difference between heroism and narcissism in spandex. I find myself asking, "OK, who's the villain?" and if the answer is "misogyny" or "racism" or what have you, that tells me everything I need to know and I decide to just give something else my attention. Maybe my generation is used to studios fighting in the octagon for my dollar as opposed to those same studios now judging me from on high if I decide to take my money elsewhere.
You can see how new creators have a very limited scope of what is like to be in healthy relationships. They cannot write about these concepts they cannot comprehend.
@Heavy Metal Pulp As much as we mock Social Justice's idea of 'Nazi Money' There IS Some truth to the idea if you look at the Stages of Corruption in Developing Governments and the term 'Blood Money' and 'Dirty Money' Its just that this particular iteration of dirty money pretends to be virtuous and exists entirely to promote Societal Engineering.
They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son. - Jor-El - Superman
He should make a whole comic about that: the female heroes challenge all the male heroes and discover the males were going easy on them, then they form a female only superhero team and the results are the bad guys don't hold back and defeat them. They realise they could have beaten the bad guy if they actually tested all their theories properly by doing simulations and strength tests and other scientific experiments to prove their own beliefs about themselves. And the story ends there with the villains having imprisoned the females heroes and the males don't save them because the feminists said "they don't need no man's help". The sequel takes place in a dystopian world where the villains own the planet and the male heroes have waited for the females to break from their prison. The resistance forces the males heroes to act and this becomes the counter point to the first comic where female heroes are brought in but who actually tested their abilities before going into battle and they are the exception to the rule whereby they can match a male in most areas through hard work and devotiong to compensating for lack of power through another thing. Moral of the story: This teaches the young crowd that heroes are limited like us but we must always test ourselves against each other to see who is in fact superior to determine who is leader or authority. If we trust in an authority, we obtain structure. If we do whatever we want the bad guys take advantage of our narcisissim and we are weaker as a team. Yes female heroes can be as good as males. But let us "trust but verify". We don't just believe in something with blind faith or it results in a millions of dead humans who can't fight the super villains by themselves. All decisions have CONSEQUENCES! This is a common thing in manga where a hero makes a mistake and the paragon character tells them what they did wrong and they correct the behavior by the end of the story and see a positive result. As the hero ages he get wiser and becomes a leader himself.
Their concept of female heroics is penis-envy. These types of women can't comprehend what It means to sacrifice and go through adversity- some of the main tenets of heroism.
@@UToobUsername01 well written a female hero can be just as good as a male hero barring they operate realistically within the limitations or disadvantages that comes with the differences of being female ex: a female batman like character is less realistic because of the limitations of a trained peak female athlete compared to a peak male athlete, however something like a female punisher is actually more realistic since the barrier between sharpshooting and using fire arms between genders is much smaller.
@@jenpachi2408 Yes and don't forget the mecha genre where the pilot is essentially just the brains of the battle and the mecha is the muscle. It come down to skill in these types of shows. When you have a good character you don't care really whether they are "realistic" but that there are limitations within the universe that make battles interesting to think about philosophically. A fast but highly skilled guy should be able to overcome a strong but slower character. Just by being a better skilled warrior within the scene. You can then add realistic reason for why the hero might lose the fight, eg they are tired from the last fight they had and the bad guy is still fresh and gets the better of him/her so was able to win that one battle and imprison them. (it shows you the bad guy is not a pushover like his minions and introduces depth to the levels of threat that can exist.) The next chapter can then introduces the solution to the problem of low energy: more advanced powers that are gained by limiting your movement to only necessary moves to make the hero act with more efficiency so he can last 2-3 fights without tiring out. And that becomes a lesson within the story of how to manage groups of villains so future fights are a pushover. ..but the need to ilustrate that point must come from them losing the initial fights to demonstrate that the hero has limits that fit into the logic of the lore. One example of this is the hero in Tekkaman Blade. As powerful as he is, the longer he stays in the powered up form, the more he loses his humanity so the time limit keeps him sane. This adds an element of danger to all battle since he can't just sustain that level of power indefinitely. It's a realistic rule to make fighting more interesting. That's what you can do with stories: you let the hero fail, let them see the mistake after a brutal loss, and later correct the problem so they can beat the bad guy by gaining intelligence to compensate for the shortcoming. It shows they are vulnerable, they can't do anything they wish. and that there are consequences for ignoring the limits. (just as in mecha shows the pilots can be killed and the machines destroyed despite having powerful machine to ride in) In real world when we watch combat sports we know each athelete has varying level of skill, stamina, strength, fight IQ, speed, and will power. A guy who isn't motivated to dominate his opponent because its his fifth championship trophy, might still lose to a hungry underdog who still has to get his first championship win. He knows his limits plays smart and to his strengths, and never makes any mistakes. There is a science to it and this should be applied to fights in fictional universes too.
Why do you consider the Mythological Thor a villain? I’ve always considered him heroic (yet violent) due to the context. He was a father figure and protection for the Norse people.
@Heavy Metal Pulp Odin’s army was justified. It was to make sure Fenrir was dead. How he gets said army is the grey part. Even Thor confronts him about it. So no I wouldn’t say they were villainous.
"One more day" sounds like a terrible exchange rate. Even if peter were a sociopathic bastard thats a deal he'd only take if he hated his wife regardless of his opinion on aunt may
I would describe all of these different groups of woke people attacking different aspects of society as different colonies of termites. The different colonies aren't coordinating to destroy the entire house but if you get enough of them around enough parts of the house you will eventually destroy the whole thing.
That death spiral of self hatred expressed by taking it out on others is so telling. As a Christian I see humans who want to be God and are supremely angry that they are not God instantaneously and immediately. They are so proud that they can not see or more concretely will not see the danger in it.
definitely encouraging me to go through aristotle faster. I appreciate the frequency coverage of poetics and ethics. I've read those, politics, categories and on the soul just starting book 4 of physics. It's sad how the young can be lured so easily into favoring novelty over the tried and true.
Great informative video, but I really wish you hadn't used DS9 as an example. Until recently, Star Trek's always been a series built on optimism (albeit idealistic and perhaps naive) that even the aforementioned series ultimate agreed was worth upholding. That kind of pessimism about human nature, or rather the inability to refocus and overcome human nature is what's contributing to the degradation of pop culture and society as a whole.
The way you define a story seems to be more restrictive than how the word is used coloquially. Heroic narrative or something might be closer in level of specificity to your definition
Once again I have to point out that no, virtue is not based on right reason, however much the ancient Greeks might have wished it to be so. Virtue is self-denial, which runs directly counter to right reason. To be virtuous means to deny the baser instincts of man and _not_ indulge the id's desires to get whatever it can in the simplest manner possible. Example: that person over there has something I want. The id's response, and right reason, would suggest that knocking him over the head and taking it would be the quickest and easiest way to get it. Virtue, on the other hand, would mean keeping those base desires in check and not assaulting someone and stealing his property. But reason doesn't enter into it, except as an after-the-fact rationalization for doing something virtuous, such as, "Well, I don't want to go to jail, so I won't do that." Edit: Note, too, that virtue has to be learned long before the reason is developed, i.e., if you don't teach the child to leave the cookie jar alone at the age of 3 or 4, he sure isn't going to learn it when he starts to develop the ability to reason at the age of 12. Edit 2: Also note that the ancient Greeks labored under the same misapprehension as the modern liberals, that man is basically good, and that it is something other than basic human nature that turns men bad. The Jews and Christians have it more correct, that man is born into sin and is incapable of being good without God's help. This actually makes the hero even more worthy of admiration, because s/he is denying his/her own human nature to be virtuous. Question to ponder: Why are the very smart and the very dumb good people with very little training, while the average and above average have to taught again and again to be good, and the below average only taught to be good with the most dedicated training, and many never learning to be good at all? Almost 100% of the criminal class come from the IQ group between about 75 and 90. Below 75 and they are little trouble... above 115, and crime is virtually unknown. (This is the most basic mistake the ancient Greeks were making, taking people whose IQ's were 115+ as representative.)
Counterpoint. Wouldn’t you need reason to distinguish the happy median of virtue over the vices of excess and emptiness of absence? Self-denial is indeed a virtue, in moderation. One could argue it is the ultimate virtue for fallen humans, whose nature is corrupt and prone to excess. However too much self-denial is self-destructive (akin to Buddhism’s Nirvana). Reason is an essential element of living the virtuous life. I don’t think RJ is denying the value of self-denial, but is focusing on reason as it has been discarded in the postmodern liberal dogma and is in desperate need of being restored. To be clear, I am aware reason is not the be-all-end-all of virtue. Otherwise stoicism would be the best one could hope for.
@@SorryFace Thanks for reading and responding. If you mean that too much self-denial (starving yourself to death, for example) is not a virtue, I agree with you, but the question here is whether reason is necessary for virtue, and I contend that it is not, virtuous people can be dumb and smart people can be quite evil, as we have seen. The use of reason is a lagging phenomenon, i.e., we post-hoc rationalize our behavior after we have done it, we don't think first and then act.
@@anonygent On self-denial you understand me correctly. I’d argue that post-hoc rationalization is not a certainty. Yes it is sadly common (fallen nature and everything), but that doesn’t mean that one can’t preemptively reason ahead of situations. Your example of stealing from someone in your original comment is instructive. You state right reason would require you to steal from him. But that’s not necessarily true. You could reason that the value of the good you desire is less than the value of the individual’s well-being and conclude that stealing the item from him would not be the most appropriate thing for you to do. And you could do all that before you chose not to steal. You are correct that the core of truth that virtue is built upon is not reason, but reason is not useless for the development of virtue. Virtue is like Michelangelo’s David. It starts with the core rock of truth, the artistry of design is the guidance of tradition and revelation (for this example this is actually a perfect metaphor as the David is the result of both artistic tradition and religious revelation), and reason is the tool used to whittle the rock into the shape determined by tradition and revelation. Without reason you can imagine the David but not actualize it. With only reason you could actualize something, but not necessarily virtue (which is the strength of your point).
Touché......Coz I believe I could "fly"!! Yeah......only in my dreams! Hurray.......we've succeeded in creating modern day robots. The difference is?? It's flesh and blood, (HUMANS) that's why "THEY" can do and become "anything. The more technologically advance WE as a society become, the more artificial and ruthlessly inhumane "they" make US into. By making moral, compassion and virtue a malignant weakness, and empty hollow words. And to me, the only "Utopia" is ......HEAVEN!! The only way to reach it, is by doing: Humanely Good Deeds! And being judged by~ Almighty God in the Hear-After! RJ, what can I say? besides.......You make SENSE, in these senseless times!! Thank You RJ!! 🙏👍
Humanized heroes isn't a problem but it needs to be done properly
When I think of humanized heroes I think Spiderman.
The Woke don't know how to Humanize only Corrupt.
As a man in his seventh decade whose childhood was in the the late 50's and early 60's, my well intentioned authority figures discouraged me from reading comics. I knew in my early teens about the origin stories of Superman , Batman and Spiderman and, intuitively like any rational being, recognized a nobility in them . Looking at Marvel's Ironheart origin story, which you strategically placed at the start of your video, made an old man shed a tear for a generation of youth that is presented this corrupted story as a heroic example to be emulated. This is unbelievably sad.
Kids aren’t reading Marvel Comics
So it’s all good
The mantra of "You can do anything" is not liberatory; it's a burden. Because if you can do anything, yet fail at some things, then you have only yourself to blame. (Either that or you have to invent a scapegoat, which explains much of the rage and emphasis on victimhood in current progressivism.) Recognizing and accepting natural limitations makes us much happier because it allows us to make appropriate choices grounded in reality. The ultimate case for this is whether we accept the inevitability of death--and notice how many stories there are, even up to the present day, about how terrible it would be to live forever in our current physical existence. (I'm not talking about the Christian afterlife, which transforms the basic terms of our existence and is somewhat unimaginable to us.)
Absolutely brilliant! You have informed an idea that was strangling around in my mind, unformed just enough to keep me scrambling in the carpark of my hypocampus. thanks!
Choice Paralysis is the term you're looking for to describe having so many choices that you can't make one or it doesn't matter which choice you make, which stems from the observation in supermarkets that the ideal variety of product is 3 to 5 of a certain type of product as one or two seems to not give choice to customers while 6 or more gives so many choices people just walk past without wanting to think about which to pick.
I believe there are also studies showing that, at a certain point, the more choices we have the less happy we are
Also referred to as choice overload, or paradox of choice.
Given the number of even simple choices we make throughout the day, it has a tendency to make any choice seem meaningless.
My Steam library is a good example of this. Two hundred or so games (not including demos) bought in sales or bundles, and I’ve only completed a fifth of them. And it takes a long time for me to stop just playing one game over and over again and pick something untouched.
And it’s a very frustrating thing, too. It’s why, for example, all my favorite types of Hamburger Helpers have been replaced by variations on Cheeseburger Macaroni or my favorite flavors of Ocean Spray juice have vanished for the four varieties that sell the best.
I'm sorry to hear that...
Quark: “"Let me tell you something about hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people - as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..."
Nog: "I feel sorry for the Jem'Hadar."
All you need in life, you can learn from Star Trek
I love that quote from Quark from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It explains why the Vulcans had to become the human race's chaperones for a century after they had discovered how to make a warp speed starship. They already knew what kind of an alien species that the human beings are. They saw how they damaged their planet and almost exterminated their own race with global thermonuclear war. And that is why while they helped the humans rebuild their destroyed home world, they also spent time trying to enlighten humans. Not only to help them evolve into higher life forms like themselves, but also to try to prevent them from potentially become another equivalent of the Romulan Empire or the Klingon Empire. That would be the last thing that they needed because if there was anything that Earth humans truly excelled at, it was killing.
@Heavy Metal Pulp Well ... I speak about Star Trek. Which is TOS, TNG DS9, VOY and maybe Enterprise, and their respective movies.
The rest is ... meeeh
@Incubus Time Lord My primary loyalty in Star Trek is to the Terran Empire where profit isn’t a dirty word.
#2 is the Klingon Empire.
#3 is the Ferengi Alliance before Grand Nagus Zek ruined everything.
#4 is the Talarian Republic.
@@francoiseeduard303 Okay. 🤷♂️ Good for you. 👍
I've mentioned this on other pages, but: writers write what they know. if all they know is themselves and they are unlikable, weirdos that most people don't like, it will show on the page.
And, here we are.
Recently, I was thinking about an old Batman one shot, "Alfred's Return."
During the middle point of the "Knightfall" mega-arc, Bruce (still injured) is traveling with Alfred outside of Gotham to track down Sandra Kinsolving (his personal doctor who was vital in his spine healing) and at one point ended up in the hospital. When Bruce was about to start pulling himself out of bed to keep hunting down the bad guy of the moment, Alfred made it clear that he needs to heal and rest. But when Bruce explained that he can't lay back and do nothing, Alfred said that he would not stand by and allow Bruce to destroy himself and resigns.
We all know how "Knightfall/Knighquest/Knightsend" wrapped up of course with Bruce getting his back healed, retraining with Lady Shiva, getting back in the classic suit, stopping Jean Paul, etc. But Alfred was still gone and Bruce felt he had no right to ask Alfred back.
Dick Grayson on the other hand, felt Alfred was HIS family too and went to look for him and eventually tracked him down to the UK. There was a whole adventure involving a secret criminal group, the Crown, etc. Nightwing and Alfred settled the whole thing, of course, and by the end of it Alfred felt like the world outside the Bat-Family was a little less noble. Alfred says that he's gotten so used to working and living with people who fight for justice and put the lives of others first that it's affected his view of more average people. If Bruce has really changed and maybe he's less of a jerk, Alfred's ready to come back home.
It got me thinking about how I've so buried in the more vintage comic stories (as recent as the 2000s, anyway) it's affected how I can't get into the more modern hero stories, be it comics, movies, tv, etc. I can tell the difference between heroism and narcissism in spandex.
I find myself asking, "OK, who's the villain?" and if the answer is "misogyny" or "racism" or what have you, that tells me everything I need to know and I decide to just give something else my attention.
Maybe my generation is used to studios fighting in the octagon for my dollar as opposed to those same studios now judging me from on high if I decide to take my money elsewhere.
...the intentional deconstruction of heroism and heroics...
By people with no understanding of virtue.
@@joshuarichardson6529 They have a very good and intimate relationship with hate. They know how to write that quite well.
Heroes are about SELF-Sacrifice,Villains are about Sacrificing Others to Get What they Want.
Ah, so the Cpt. Marvel or She-Hulk method of super heroing.
You can see how new creators have a very limited scope of what is like to be in healthy relationships. They cannot write about these concepts they cannot comprehend.
@Heavy Metal Pulp As much as we mock Social Justice's idea of 'Nazi Money'
There IS Some truth to the idea if you look at the Stages of Corruption in Developing Governments and the term 'Blood Money' and 'Dirty Money' Its just that this particular iteration of dirty money pretends to be virtuous and exists entirely to promote Societal Engineering.
They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son. - Jor-El - Superman
You make them sound like the Borg. "We will add your unique identity to our own."
They basically are the borg, just without the cohesion within their attempt at a collective.
I am going to save enough money to buy your comics.
Always fun to find there's a new Fourth Age video.
I’m already liking, because I just KNOW it’s going to be 🔥 as usual.
Hope you’re okay now, post hurricane.
About Thor. He is sure not the goodie two shoes Marvel wrote. But he's still one of the nicer aces.
I think need a deconstruction of the feminist power fantasy
He should make a whole comic about that: the female heroes challenge all the male heroes and discover the males were going easy on them, then they form a female only superhero team and the results are the bad guys don't hold back and defeat them. They realise they could have beaten the bad guy if they actually tested all their theories properly by doing simulations and strength tests and other scientific experiments to prove their own beliefs about themselves. And the story ends there with the villains having imprisoned the females heroes and the males don't save them because the feminists said "they don't need no man's help". The sequel takes place in a dystopian world where the villains own the planet and the male heroes have waited for the females to break from their prison. The resistance forces the males heroes to act and this becomes the counter point to the first comic where female heroes are brought in but who actually tested their abilities before going into battle and they are the exception to the rule whereby they can match a male in most areas through hard work and devotiong to compensating for lack of power through another thing. Moral of the story: This teaches the young crowd that heroes are limited like us but we must always test ourselves against each other to see who is in fact superior to determine who is leader or authority. If we trust in an authority, we obtain structure. If we do whatever we want the bad guys take advantage of our narcisissim and we are weaker as a team. Yes female heroes can be as good as males. But let us "trust but verify". We don't just believe in something with blind faith or it results in a millions of dead humans who can't fight the super villains by themselves. All decisions have CONSEQUENCES! This is a common thing in manga where a hero makes a mistake and the paragon character tells them what they did wrong and they correct the behavior by the end of the story and see a positive result. As the hero ages he get wiser and becomes a leader himself.
and the entirety of the socialistic base of ideology.
Their concept of female heroics is penis-envy. These types of women can't comprehend what It means to sacrifice and go through adversity- some of the main tenets of heroism.
@@UToobUsername01 well written a female hero can be just as good as a male hero barring they operate realistically within the limitations or disadvantages that comes with the differences of being female ex: a female batman like character is less realistic because of the limitations of a trained peak female athlete compared to a peak male athlete, however something like a female punisher is actually more realistic since the barrier between sharpshooting and using fire arms between genders is much smaller.
@@jenpachi2408 Yes and don't forget the mecha genre where the pilot is essentially just the brains of the battle and the mecha is the muscle. It come down to skill in these types of shows. When you have a good character you don't care really whether they are "realistic" but that there are limitations within the universe that make battles interesting to think about philosophically. A fast but highly skilled guy should be able to overcome a strong but slower character. Just by being a better skilled warrior within the scene. You can then add realistic reason for why the hero might lose the fight, eg they are tired from the last fight they had and the bad guy is still fresh and gets the better of him/her so was able to win that one battle and imprison them. (it shows you the bad guy is not a pushover like his minions and introduces depth to the levels of threat that can exist.) The next chapter can then introduces the solution to the problem of low energy: more advanced powers that are gained by limiting your movement to only necessary moves to make the hero act with more efficiency so he can last 2-3 fights without tiring out. And that becomes a lesson within the story of how to manage groups of villains so future fights are a pushover. ..but the need to ilustrate that point must come from them losing the initial fights to demonstrate that the hero has limits that fit into the logic of the lore. One example of this is the hero in Tekkaman Blade. As powerful as he is, the longer he stays in the powered up form, the more he loses his humanity so the time limit keeps him sane. This adds an element of danger to all battle since he can't just sustain that level of power indefinitely. It's a realistic rule to make fighting more interesting. That's what you can do with stories: you let the hero fail, let them see the mistake after a brutal loss, and later correct the problem so they can beat the bad guy by gaining intelligence to compensate for the shortcoming. It shows they are vulnerable, they can't do anything they wish. and that there are consequences for ignoring the limits. (just as in mecha shows the pilots can be killed and the machines destroyed despite having powerful machine to ride in) In real world when we watch combat sports we know each athelete has varying level of skill, stamina, strength, fight IQ, speed, and will power. A guy who isn't motivated to dominate his opponent because its his fifth championship trophy, might still lose to a hungry underdog who still has to get his first championship win. He knows his limits plays smart and to his strengths, and never makes any mistakes. There is a science to it and this should be applied to fights in fictional universes too.
I’m doing well.
Well said sir. Thanks
Why do you consider the Mythological Thor a villain? I’ve always considered him heroic (yet violent) due to the context. He was a father figure and protection for the Norse people.
Most Pagan gods, Greco-Roman or Norse or Egyptian, were actually super fucking villainous.
@Heavy Metal Pulp Odin’s army was justified. It was to make sure Fenrir was dead. How he gets said army is the grey part. Even Thor confronts him about it. So no I wouldn’t say they were villainous.
@@duncanmcokiner4242 I wouldn’t call the Norse, Hindu, and (1st+2nd Dynasty) Egyptian pantheons villainous. The Greco-Roman though yeah.
@@ironrex6979 Odin literally causes wars to feed his armies new warriors.
@Heavy Metal Pulp That’s basically the Story of Satan
Funny you mention it. I stopped buying Marvel comics at the end of civil war whenever Peter forsook Mary Jane for his Aunt.
Could you do a video about Nietzsche? How exactly is he wrong when it comes to heroes?
Thank you so much
"One more day" sounds like a terrible exchange rate. Even if peter were a sociopathic bastard thats a deal he'd only take if he hated his wife regardless of his opinion on aunt may
So as a typical gangly Scot, your physical ability is... pole tossing?
I still think that the "not-thor" is still a defender of earth, but also a villainous jerk.
I would describe all of these different groups of woke people attacking different aspects of society as different colonies of termites. The different colonies aren't coordinating to destroy the entire house but if you get enough of them around enough parts of the house you will eventually destroy the whole thing.
That death spiral of self hatred expressed by taking it out on others is so telling. As a Christian I see humans who want to be God and are supremely angry that they are not God instantaneously and immediately. They are so proud that they can not see or more concretely will not see the danger in it.
I can become a attack helicopter! I'm having the rotary guns installed tomorrow!
definitely encouraging me to go through aristotle faster. I appreciate the frequency coverage of poetics and ethics. I've read those, politics, categories and on the soul just starting book 4 of physics. It's sad how the young can be lured so easily into favoring novelty over the tried and true.
I thought of that Ironheart panel just before you showed it. it's ridiculous 😒
You can argue that those utopian ideals that they espouse is actually evil. Those ideals aren't truly ideals but nightmares.
When a person can't control themselves, they instead seek to control others. That's the source of all tyranny.
I suggest the essay "Christ and the Nothing" by David Bently Hart. It is a very good discussion of this and associates it with nihilism . Very good.
I would say that the why is still just as important as the what though, Aristotle never was capable to answer that one.
Thinking one is a cylinder does not change the shape of the square.
Great informative video, but I really wish you hadn't used DS9 as an example. Until recently, Star Trek's always been a series built on optimism (albeit idealistic and perhaps naive) that even the aforementioned series ultimate agreed was worth upholding. That kind of pessimism about human nature, or rather the inability to refocus and overcome human nature is what's contributing to the degradation of pop culture and society as a whole.
God bless you. Your videos are not fun, but they are so fulfilling.
LOL! Thanks.
Huh... All I know is that this is why I don't deal with marvel
How can you make Tor a bad guy...he is the most benevolent deity in the entire Norse mythology but maybe it is interesting.
variation is always good
Kim Jong Un on line one.
You are truly a philosopher.
Wow. Ironheart sounds dumber than I could have imagined. And transparently about replacing (white) (men) the old guard with young want.
The way you define a story seems to be more restrictive than how the word is used coloquially. Heroic narrative or something might be closer in level of specificity to your definition
Once again I have to point out that no, virtue is not based on right reason, however much the ancient Greeks might have wished it to be so. Virtue is self-denial, which runs directly counter to right reason. To be virtuous means to deny the baser instincts of man and _not_ indulge the id's desires to get whatever it can in the simplest manner possible. Example: that person over there has something I want. The id's response, and right reason, would suggest that knocking him over the head and taking it would be the quickest and easiest way to get it. Virtue, on the other hand, would mean keeping those base desires in check and not assaulting someone and stealing his property. But reason doesn't enter into it, except as an after-the-fact rationalization for doing something virtuous, such as, "Well, I don't want to go to jail, so I won't do that."
Edit: Note, too, that virtue has to be learned long before the reason is developed, i.e., if you don't teach the child to leave the cookie jar alone at the age of 3 or 4, he sure isn't going to learn it when he starts to develop the ability to reason at the age of 12.
Edit 2: Also note that the ancient Greeks labored under the same misapprehension as the modern liberals, that man is basically good, and that it is something other than basic human nature that turns men bad. The Jews and Christians have it more correct, that man is born into sin and is incapable of being good without God's help. This actually makes the hero even more worthy of admiration, because s/he is denying his/her own human nature to be virtuous.
Question to ponder: Why are the very smart and the very dumb good people with very little training, while the average and above average have to taught again and again to be good, and the below average only taught to be good with the most dedicated training, and many never learning to be good at all? Almost 100% of the criminal class come from the IQ group between about 75 and 90. Below 75 and they are little trouble... above 115, and crime is virtually unknown. (This is the most basic mistake the ancient Greeks were making, taking people whose IQ's were 115+ as representative.)
Counterpoint. Wouldn’t you need reason to distinguish the happy median of virtue over the vices of excess and emptiness of absence? Self-denial is indeed a virtue, in moderation. One could argue it is the ultimate virtue for fallen humans, whose nature is corrupt and prone to excess. However too much self-denial is self-destructive (akin to Buddhism’s Nirvana). Reason is an essential element of living the virtuous life. I don’t think RJ is denying the value of self-denial, but is focusing on reason as it has been discarded in the postmodern liberal dogma and is in desperate need of being restored. To be clear, I am aware reason is not the be-all-end-all of virtue. Otherwise stoicism would be the best one could hope for.
@@SorryFace Thanks for reading and responding. If you mean that too much self-denial (starving yourself to death, for example) is not a virtue, I agree with you, but the question here is whether reason is necessary for virtue, and I contend that it is not, virtuous people can be dumb and smart people can be quite evil, as we have seen. The use of reason is a lagging phenomenon, i.e., we post-hoc rationalize our behavior after we have done it, we don't think first and then act.
@@anonygent On self-denial you understand me correctly. I’d argue that post-hoc rationalization is not a certainty. Yes it is sadly common (fallen nature and everything), but that doesn’t mean that one can’t preemptively reason ahead of situations.
Your example of stealing from someone in your original comment is instructive. You state right reason would require you to steal from him. But that’s not necessarily true. You could reason that the value of the good you desire is less than the value of the individual’s well-being and conclude that stealing the item from him would not be the most appropriate thing for you to do. And you could do all that before you chose not to steal.
You are correct that the core of truth that virtue is built upon is not reason, but reason is not useless for the development of virtue. Virtue is like Michelangelo’s David. It starts with the core rock of truth, the artistry of design is the guidance of tradition and revelation (for this example this is actually a perfect metaphor as the David is the result of both artistic tradition and religious revelation), and reason is the tool used to whittle the rock into the shape determined by tradition and revelation. Without reason you can imagine the David but not actualize it. With only reason you could actualize something, but not necessarily virtue (which is the strength of your point).
Hey RJ what do you think about Putin's hatred of Western-Liberalism and wokeness? I'm curious about your opinion.
Touché......Coz I believe I could "fly"!! Yeah......only in my dreams! Hurray.......we've succeeded in creating modern day robots. The difference is?? It's flesh and blood, (HUMANS) that's why "THEY" can do and become "anything. The more technologically advance WE as a society become, the more artificial and ruthlessly inhumane "they" make US into. By making moral, compassion and virtue a malignant weakness, and empty hollow words. And to me, the only "Utopia" is ......HEAVEN!! The only way to reach it, is by doing: Humanely Good Deeds! And being judged by~ Almighty God in the Hear-After! RJ, what can I say? besides.......You make SENSE, in these senseless times!! Thank You RJ!! 🙏👍