Adulthood

[Krisboats]

Wont be going to see it, mate who was organising it got the times wrong, last show was 1830 (why so early, cineworld you arse)

Target audience have a bedtime of before 10pm?

[/cheap shot]

[1a2bcio8]

There is a clear difference between good and bad acting. It might get hazey around the middle but its undeniable that some people are terrific actors and some people can't act to save their lives.

I would strongly disagree. If I find somebodies performace superb and you say otherwise how is it that one of us is wrong?

I think what we need to do is consider what acting means. Essentially it means to convince a person who watches you that the situation is other than it is (in some sense). Now, if I am convinced by one actor and you are not then between myself and the actor I have experienced what I would label good acting (the language we have is a bit poo for this) and between yourself and actor you have experienced what you wuold label bad acting. You have to consider that part of the experience involves YOU and/or ME and not just the actor. It is meaningless to talk of acting without the viewing of acting but viewing is a relative experience that carries with it the peculiarities of somebodies disposition. You can't know of stuff within itself, only in terms of yourself which makes the situation relative. This is clearly evident by the fact you two have different feelings about the acting. You are both right in so much as you refer to your own experience of being convinced or otherwise.

Edited June 20, 2008 by rowly

[Krisboats]

That covers the section i classed as hazey yes, but there's still room for good and bad actors that are defined by the majority. Acting is the same as singing. You might not appreciate the type of music someone produces but if someone is a good singer and has clear talent then they are a good singer. If someone can't hit a single note its clearly showing they are a bad singer. Whilst acting isn't easily distinguished through the use of visible scales as singing can be, it all boils down to the same thing. You seem to be insinuating that all acting is to be viewed in the same way as performance artwork which is much more opinionated in the way its received, where as in actuality there are quantifiable aspects of hollywood style acting that can define a good or bad actor.

[1a2bcio8]

That covers the section i classed as hazey yes, but there's still room for good and bad actors that are defined by the majority. Acting is the same as singing. You might not appreciate the type of music someone produces but if someone is a good singer and has clear talent then they are a good singer. If someone can't hit a single note its clearly showing they are a bad singer. Whilst acting isn't easily distinguished through the use of visible scales as singing can be, it all boils down to the same thing. You seem to be insinuating that all acting is to be viewed in the same way as performance artwork which is much more opinionated in the way its received, where as in actuality there are quantifiable aspects of hollywood style acting that can define a good or bad actor.

Sure, if you subscribe to those "aspects of hollywood style". Fatpants however is subscribing to some other standard and in accordance with that, he finds the acting good. My point is it depends on your disposition and the ideas you carry. In terms of singing, if I enjoy the singing, to me, it is good singing. I've heard plenty of singing styles over the years that in terms of achieving the "correct" notes are off but in terms of my enjoyment I have labelled as good.

It really depends on you and the rules you (consciously or otherwise) use to judge a situation, which makes the whole thing relative and in so much as you are using different rules, arguments about good and bad are nonsensical.

Even when you talk of the majority this is still something called "intersubjectivity" which means lots of individuals sharing the same idea. Even if we agree it still has an individual basis and anyone outside of that majority can still have a differing and valid value judgement based on their individual disposition that is still correct based on their rules.

Edited June 20, 2008 by rowly

[BenLeacock™]

Kris, it represents what it's like, fully. Seriously, the acting is exactly how it is in real life. That's good acting i'm sure.

Your telling me that a lass would go into a school kick the shit outa a lass for no reason ? as badly as she did ?

In that case London should be removed from the uk, with the exeption of a the cool riders, fatty feel free to go with it lol !

[Simon]

Wont be going to see it, mate who was organising it got the times wrong, last show was 1830 (why so early, cineworld you arse)

Went to Brighton for the 8:50 one and was sold out. Chavs f**king everywhere, went and had Pizza Hut instead, glad too, looks like an awful film.

[Krisboats]

Sure, if you subscribe to those "aspects of hollywood style". Fatpants however is subscribing to some other standard and in accordance with that, he finds the acting good. My point is it depends on your disposition and the ideas you carry. In terms of singing, if I enjoy the singing, to me, it is good singing. I've heard plenty of singing styles over the years that in terms of achieving the "correct" notes are off but in terms of my enjoyment I have labelled as good.

It really depends on you and the rules you (consciously or otherwise) use to judge a situation, which makes the whole thing relative and in so much as you are using different rules, arguments about good and bad are nonsensical.

Even when you talk of the majority this is still something called "inter subjectivity" which means lots of individuals sharing the same idea. Even if we agree it still has an individual basis and anyone outside of that majority can still have a differing and valid value judgement based on their individual disposition that is still correct based on their rules.

You seem to be sidestepping the point though. It is entirely possible to have a good singer, that's how people win competitions like the x-factor. They are judged by a panel of experts, who judge them on their actual singing ability not on whether or not they like them (at least they should be). What I'm trying to say is the same thing is possible of actors. Your opinion based on life experiences and what you draw from the experience is irrelevant. If someone can convey something well and change from different styles and emotions quickly they are a good actor who can clearly act. If someone has the same face and doesn't change the tone of their voice throughout a whole film they are a bad actor. It really is as simple as that.

I don't honestly care what ethereal answer you hope to bring back. I completely disagree with what your saying. Personal experiences and what you draw from the experience might alter your perceptions but if your truly assessing someone's ability to act and watch a film with a clean opinion and no previous memories or pre-conceptions then its definately possible to ascertain whether or not they are a good actor. I can't believe your trying to say there is no such thing as good or bad actors, when there clearly is.

You might as well say that no rider is better than another in terms of skill and performance because it depends entirely on your own pre-conceptions. A newbie rider who can just hop onto a curb and a top level rider like the coust guys is clearly a large difference and one is clearly better than the other. But given what your saying that isn't the case... which is gibberish.

[The Duck]

showing what the streets of London are like.

Riiight... Shows you live over 150 miles away a bit now...

Anyway, I'll go and see it. Just because the other one was a good laugh. Used to go round mates houses, watch it in big groups, and just laugh at it. More of a comedy for me really.

[Mark W]

The downside for me is that I'll never be able to see this film, simply because the stereotypical 'gangster' London accent f**ks me right off, and the use of London-originated slang equally f**ks me off. Seriously 'peng', 'nang', 'bare', 'blud', 'brair' (However the f**k you'd spell it), 'allow' (A particularly annoying one), 'chirpsing', 'mandem', 'wasteman', etc. - learn to f**king speak properly you stupid cunts!

[Krisboats]

Ha ha, nice way of not auto correcting there mark... sneaky

[Mark W]

I felt that people deserved to know my full feelings on the matter.

[1a2bcio8]

You seem to be sidestepping the point though. It is entirely possible to have a good singer, that's how people win competitions like the x-factor. They are judged by a panel of experts, who judge them on their actual singing ability not on whether or not they like them (at least they should be). What I'm trying to say is the same thing is possible of actors. Your opinion based on life experiences and what you draw from the experience is irrelevant. If someone can convey something well and change from different styles and emotions quickly they are a good actor who can clearly act. If someone has the same face and doesn't change the tone of their voice throughout a whole film they are a bad actor. It really is as simple as that.

I don't honestly care what ethereal answer you hope to bring back. I completely disagree with what your saying. Personal experiences and what you draw from the experience might alter your perceptions but if your truly assessing someone's ability to act and watch a film with a clean opinion and no previous memories or pre-conceptions then its definately possible to ascertain whether or not they are a good actor. I can't believe your trying to say there is no such thing as good or bad actors, when there clearly is.

You might as well say that no rider is better than another in terms of skill and performance because it depends entirely on your own pre-conceptions. A newbie rider who can just hop onto a curb and a top level rider like the coust guys is clearly a large difference and one is clearly better than the other. But given what your saying that isn't the case... which is gibberish.

The trouble is all current experience is mediated by past experience to some degree. The simple situation of dividing up the world requires conceptualisation and therefore pre-conceptualisation when we re-experience a type of event - the absence of pre-conceptualisation would mean attempting to figure stuff out over and over again. Even the idea of this and that (dualism) requires conceptualisation. If we remove the idea of this and that you'd get lost unable to divide the world and make any sense of it. So we are always bringing to any situation, ideas about it and judging it using those ideas or concepts.

Essentially I think your misconception is with the standard fallacy of misascribing qualities to the thing or event within itself. Personally though I have never see this badness or goodness in anything. Unfortunately our language is limited in the sense that it is structured as such to indicate that qualities exist within things. For example, "it is good" suggests that "it" has an additional "good" but where is this good in the "it"? I have never seen this good in anything. Has anyone ever really seen good? Or alternatively have people just had good feelings or thoughts in response to the observation of some event that was perceived in certain terms laid fown by past experience (culture and its medium, language)? The latter is all I have experienced not the former. Based on our language use and what it implies, we tend to forget that we've never seen these qualities within something and that we construct our reaction to what we see and think that we are then actually finding qualities in things separate to ourselves and our terms.

With regards to trials riders, again this relates to the terms we set down prior to watching somebody ride. If you watch a trials rider with no pre-conceptions you won't even see a trials rider because you need preconceptions to see him as such. Furthermore, your evaluation has be to constructed along ideas such as "a good rider can do a 54" sidehop a worse rider cannot". These are made up ideas that come individually or in this instance will probably be shared by almost everyone. Regardless of how pervading this made up view is though, it's still made up and I can disagree and be perfectly valid in the terms I provide as a separate individual.

I can't write anymore though and furry muff if you don't agree. Please take some time to think about it though!

[Luke Rainbird]

Ooh err Mrs...

[Krisboats]

The trouble is all current experience is mediated by past experience to some degree. The simple situation of dividing up the world requires conceptualisation and therefore pre-conceptualisation when we re-experience a type of event - the absence of pre-conceptualisation would mean attempting to figure stuff out over and over again. Even the idea of this and that (dualism) requires conceptualisation. If we remove the idea of this and that you'd get lost unable to divide the world and make any sense of it. So we are always bringing to any situation, ideas about it and judging it using those ideas or concepts.

Essentially I think your misconception is with the standard fallacy of misascribing qualities to the thing or event within itself. Personally though I have never see this badness or goodness in anything. Unfortunately our language is limited in the sense that it is structured as such to indicate that qualities exist within things. For example, "it is good" suggests that "it" has an additional "good" but where is this good in the "it"? I have never seen this good in anything. Has anyone ever really seen good? Or alternatively have people just had good feelings or thoughts in response to the observation of some event that was perceived in certain terms laid fown by past experience (culture and its medium, language)? The latter is all I have experienced not the former. Based on our language use and what it implies, we tend to forget that we've never seen these qualities within something and that we construct our reaction to what we see and think that we are then actually finding qualities in things separate to ourselves and our terms.

With regards to trials riders, again this relates to the terms we set down prior to watching somebody ride. If you watch a trials rider with no pre-conceptions you won't even see a trials rider because you need preconceptions to see him as such. Furthermore, your evaluation has be to constructed along ideas such as "a good rider can do a 54" sidehop a worse rider cannot". These are made up ideas that come individually or in this instance will probably be shared by almost everyone. Regardless of how pervading this made up view is though, it's still made up and I can disagree and be perfectly valid in the terms I provide as a separate individual.

I can't write anymore though and furry muff if you don't agree. Please take some time to think about it though!

He's still a crap actor.

[1a2bcio8]

He's still a crap actor.

Ok, I'm convinced

[Krisboats]

Ok, I'm convinced

If ever you meet me remind me to get you a beer for being as stubborn as me.

[Mark W]

Personally though I have never see this badness or goodness in anything...

With regards to trials riders, again this relates to the terms we set down prior to watching somebody ride. If you watch a trials rider with no pre-conceptions you won't even see a trials rider because you need preconceptions to see him as such. Furthermore, your evaluation has be to constructed along ideas such as "a good rider can do a 54" sidehop a worse rider cannot". These are made up ideas that come individually or in this instance will probably be shared by almost everyone. Regardless of how pervading this made up view is though, it's still made up and I can disagree and be perfectly valid in the terms I provide as a separate individual.

To quote you:

All round great job. Funny, upbeat music and good trials riding. Make another

I only got about 5 gcses, then I dropped out of college about 7 times but recently I have managed to stick my at my present course (Access course) and have a place at Bristol Uni to study Neuroscience - providing I manage to organise my portfolio and hand it in on time. However, I intend to change to philosophy when I start Uni as I've realised that the method of learning science doesn't particularly interest me. Accumulating facts to regurgitate in an exam =

Ah, thanks for saying that Tomm because it's been a struggle for me to choose a subject (philosophy) that doesn't much lead onto something else (unless I achieve my probably unrealistic ideal of becoming a writer/lecturer) but to be honest, I'm the sort of person who can't perform unless very interested in what I'm doing. Although I find the subject matter interesting and love to learn about Neuroscience/science in my own time, formal learning of Science this year has kinda sucked (for the reasons stated) and when we were set a 4000 word essay on whatever we liked as part of my course, I wrote on the philosophy of mysticism/consciousness and it f'ing rocked to be honest. I think I'm much more likely to come out with a better degree if I'm doing what I enjoy. I only hope Bristol Uni are cool with my changing subjects.

Props for becoming a medical doctor though - I envisage that as being very rewarding. I've certainly considered it before but I'm not sure I could handle the workload. I can barely manage my life when I'm neither working or studying! I like the idea of becoming a Dr. of Philsophy though

It seems to me you've essentially spent a pretty long time saying "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and no-one's opinion can be called wrong"?

[1a2bcio8]

If ever you meet me remind me to get you a beer for being as stubborn as me.

Will do chief

[Tylerlovesalex]

Just got back from watch AdULTHOOD was pretty good..

not sure if it was a good as kidulthood, but even so its was well worth watching..

its worth spending your pocket money on

[1a2bcio8]

To quote you:

It seems to me you've essentially spent a pretty long time saying "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and no-one's opinion can be called wrong"?

Yes that's kinda right. And I think you've previously told me off for that Mark but I think people totally forget. I frequently hear people arguing about matters of subjective opinion because of a misudnerstanding of the reality of their situation - for instance that this song is crap or good. Our language does not very well represent the situation. Instaed of saying I have good feelings or thoughts from my experience of this music, we say this music is good, attributing our feeling or thoughts to the thing itself. But have you ever seen the goodness of badness within something? We'd save ourselves a f**kload of time if we realised this. We'd also be far more understanding to peoples views. I forget about it all the time and it's definitely easier to recognise it in others than yourself. I really have to emphasise though how I think people forget this a hell of a lot - I know you disagree with me Mark!

When people can be wrong is when we lay down a set of rules and consider something in relation to the terms of those rules. Such as the laying down of mathematical rules and then the expression of mathematics. The latter has to conform to the former in order to be right (or good). Now, we each have our own type of rules just like mathematics on an subjective and intersubjective level. But we never escape the subjective even with a group of subjects.

Edited June 20, 2008 by rowly

[Mark W]

It's not necessarily a 'misunderstanding of the situation' though, is it? If you imagine two people going to a gig, and Person A has seen the band play well many times before, but Person B hasn't seen them before, if the gig happens to be awful because of, say, the guitarist f**king up repeatedly (Not at all drawing on my own life experiences ), then Person B might think "Damn, they're shit live", make that point to Person A, who might say "Well, I've seen them play well live before, so they can play well live." They're still arguing subjective opinions, but through their discourse, one (or indeed both) of them are able to learn more about a subject, and to increase the depth and potential validity of their positions. You're interested in philosophy, which would appear to be the ultimate "I think _____"/"Well I think ____" kind of subjective arguements, yet I doubt you'd say discussions in philosophy weren't useful?

I'm not saying we shouldn't be receptive of other people's views, as that's what the above was about, it's just that people's views can be 'wrong' simply through being misinformed about a subject.

Regarding "Instead of saying I have good feelings or thoughts from my experience of this music, we say this music is good, attributing our feeling or thoughts to the thing itself. But have you ever seen the goodness of badness within something?", surely that's just a matter of saving time? In the same way as I've said before I don't put "IMO" after every post, simply because what I'm saying is obviously my opinion, people don't say, to use your example, "I have good feelings from my experience of this music" simply because it's a lot easier to say "I think this is good", and you'd sound a lot less like a dick? From my own point of view, I have seen the 'goodness' or 'badness' in a piece of music - badly played, unintentionally out of time, people not being tuned to each other's instruments and so on - they are, in 99% of cases, signs of something being done badly, and as such they're likely to trigger a 'this is bad' response, simply because not only would it probably sound shit to our culturally influenced ears, but within the 'rules' of music they'd also be 'bad'?

When people can be wrong is when we lay down a set of rules and consider something in relation to the terms of those rules.

My music example is a key example of this - our cultural upbringing and society tend to create rules that we either consciously or subconsciously follow, and they are what people indirectly refer to when they express feelings of 'good' or 'bad' on a subject, simply because that's where their ideas of 'good' or 'bad' come from (obviously)?

[fredrico]

Having seen the film now i have to say that all the talk about it being about gangs of chavs is true but does teach/tell an important message, and maybe one more for youths that are into that 'life' style. Definitely worth a watch.

[Max Quinn]

You obviously haven't seen any of this first hand.

Lmao! Trust Fatty, he's a badaman from the ghetto

[Mark W]

Having seen the film now i have to say that all the talk about it being about gangs of chavs is true but does teach/tell an important message, and maybe one more for youths that are into that 'life' style. Definitely worth a watch.

Having met an array of members of different gangs from South London, I doubt that many of them possess the intelligence that they'd need to actually learn anything a film, let alone morality tales or 'This could happen to you' sorta stuff.

[1a2bcio8]

It's not necessarily a 'misunderstanding of the situation' though, is it? If you imagine two people going to a gig, and Person A has seen the band play well many times before, but Person B hasn't seen them before, if the gig happens to be awful because of, say, the guitarist f**king up repeatedly (Not at all drawing on my own life experiences ), then Person B might think "Damn, they're shit live", make that point to Person A, who might say "Well, I've seen them play well live before, so they can play well live." They're still arguing subjective opinions, but through their discourse, one (or indeed both) of them are able to learn more about a subject, and to increase the depth and potential validity of their positions. You're interested in philosophy, which would appear to be the ultimate "I think _____"/"Well I think ____" kind of subjective arguements, yet I doubt you'd say discussions in philosophy weren't useful?

I'm not saying we shouldn't be receptive of other people's views, as that's what the above was about, it's just that people's views can be 'wrong' simply through being misinformed about a subject.

What I'm saying Mark is that I think people often (not always!) believe they are judging something on the same basis, according to the same rules (when they are not) and then they implicitly or explicitly argue that the other person should share their view because they've understand the true nature of the thing (relating back to the influence of inadequate language usage). I think we certainly should share our understanding or feelings about how we feel in response to experiences but I think the expectation that people have neccesarily shared them in that same way is erroneous. Consequently, if people haven't shared your basis yet you argue with them as though they have, you have made an incorrect assumption. Previously Kris seemed to suggest that good acting is judged on hollywood standards. Yet I don't judge it that way. I just obseve acting and get a feeling about if it convinced me or not - this can differ from person to person.

When you say somebody might be wrong about being misinformed about the subject you kind've imply that there is a right subject? People can have their own subjects with which to view the world and this is the point. We all have our own terms. Perhaps an analogy is two people from different cultures pointing at a cat and each individual saying the word that indicates cat in their respective languages. Would you find point in their arguing that each person had the right word for a cat? Or would each person be right in their own terms? Basically, the question is, do you want to argue about the goodness of something when we are both deciding what is good in different ways? Ultimately, this is your choice! I'm only trying to point out how I think the situation is structured. From this you can turn argument to just simply expression of how you feel. There is no need to try and (implicitly or explicitly) convince somebody that they've come to the wrong conclusion about their experience of something.

Regarding "Instead of saying I have good feelings or thoughts from my experience of this music, we say this music is good, attributing our feeling or thoughts to the thing itself. But have you ever seen the goodness of badness within something?", surely that's just a matter of saving time? In the same way as I've said before I don't put "IMO" after every post, simply because what I'm saying is obviously my opinion, people don't say, to use your example, "I have good feelings from my experience of this music" simply because it's a lot easier to say "I think this is good", and you'd sound a lot less like a dick? From my own point of view, I have seen the 'goodness' or 'badness' in a piece of music - badly played, unintentionally out of time, people not being tuned to each other's instruments and so on - they are, in 99% of cases, signs of something being done badly, and as such they're likely to trigger a 'this is bad' response, simply because not only would it probably sound shit to our culturally influenced ears, but within the 'rules' of music they'd also be 'bad'?

My music example is a key example of this - our cultural upbringing and society tend to create rules that we either consciously or subconsciously follow, and they are what people indirectly refer to when they express feelings of 'good' or 'bad' on a subject, simply because that's where their ideas of 'good' or 'bad' come from (obviously)?

Yeh sure it saves time but I think it also warps our perception of the situation. It's well known that language shapes thought - in fact they are kind've co-dependent or asepcts of each other. Certain Asian languages are better equiped to deal with the concepts pf quantum mechanics because they lack the subject-predicate nature of our language where we adjunct qualities to things. An interesting example is energy (the battery has energy) which almost seems like something which exists in things as its own entity but actually energy is the behaviour of things (energy is a type of thing that something does). I used to think energy was something additional - like a soul almost I guess and this situation arose through our language. Also, think of the expression, "it is raining". What is this it? How strange!

You say you have viewed badness of goodness in music but I really have to emphasise that I think you have not. That was some event which an idea of goodness or badness arose in response! Refer to my description of the problems with language and this point should become apparant - "the music is bad" (subject-predicate) suggests the badness is in the music. But remove yourself from the situation and is any goodness or badness still with the music?

With regards to culture and society defining our rules I would say this is true to an extent in consideration of the peculiar asepcts of an individual separate to society and its ideas. I think on this point is why you are comfortable with saying that there is evidence of something being done badly within itself, but this is still according to your terms, even if shared by a greater proportion of the society. There is no bad separate to you. Perhaps somebody loves musicians to f**k up! Then somebody experiences good as a reaction to that f**k up Even if everyone agreed, this would still only make it bad in terms of lots of individuals with constructed ideas.

I really need to stop, I'm seriously having trouble concentrating now. Will probably have to amend in the morning!

Edited June 21, 2008 by rowly