Stephen Clarke talk to Philosopher’s Zone’s Alan Saunders about What fundamentally divides Liberal and Conservative? as a pretty consistent liberal i found the divide very agreeable.
here are some money quote
[C]onservatives think that there’s nothing wrong with being unable to articulate their concerns. They think that morality is typically a matter of an implicit knowledge that’s encapsulated in intuitions, and we might not be able to unpack that. But just because we can’t state what it is, doesn’t mean that there isn’t something there…Whereas a liberal is going to say, if you can’t explicate what the problem is, then it’s not a problem that ought to be taken seriously.
which lead to the conclusion
[Prominent moral psychologist, John Haidt] suggests that American conservatives have much more in common at least when it comes to moral reasoning, with the Islamic fundamentalist, than they would with an American liberal.
so in essence, liberals are willing to use reason to examine their moral intuition, whereas conservatives champion their inability to articulate the bases of their moral intuition. Understands that our moral intuition comes from two sources:(1) genetics that are selected to fit past environment. and (2) information digested since birth. We know that (1) is outdated, and unfit. and (2) is often propagated by those who benefit from the dissemination of those information. which means that conservatives are either living in the imaginary past or are pawns to somebody else (conservertive hacks)’s scheme.
Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” was an instant classic for me. Not unlike the lead character Caden Cotard, after series of successful films – Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind – Kaufman earn a chance to direct a movie to define his legacy. Kaufman dint disappoint. Kaufman took on a plot so grand and ambitious it felt overwhelming and exhausting even to a ardent fan like me. To audience who is unfamiliar with his previous work will probably felt confuse by his characteristically blend of interchanging real and imaginary reality. My company to the cinema who is watching Kaufman for the first time was confused by it and frankly so was i. I however was able to accept the obscurities as just Kaufman being Kaufman, she could not.
while in one layer the film displayed an artist’s life at the peak of his career – longly, sick, domestically dysfunctional and obssese with his death and legacy. Properly a reflection of Kaufman’s own life (Kaugman did that also in Adaptation). The story is also about the existential conflict between the projected reality in our mind and the reality (hat tip Roger Ebert). we live by interacting most immediately with an projection of the real world in our own mind. Our project of the world is generally flawed and fill with what we want to see. So when the real world clashes with the projected world unexpected consequences is expected (like Sammy is suppose to love Tammy not Hazel, and Tammy is not suppose to jump and die).
Although i love this movie, i will only recommended if you have seen either one of his Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and liked it.