's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Only in America(32 posts)

Only in AmericaBrian C.
Nov 15, 2001 4:40 PM
Perhaps some of you will be taking your kids to see a movie this weekend featuring some youngster named Harry Potter.
While the rest of the world will be munching on popcorn rapt by the exploits of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," poor Americans will be seeing something called "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."
Seems the United States is only the country in the world where that movie will be known as " Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." For kids in every other nation it will be "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."
So the story goes, someone - a Hollywood bigshot? - decided that American children would not have a good comprehension of "philosopher," but they would have a better grasp of the meaning of "sorcerer."
Go figure.
it's a (non)cultural thingDog
Nov 15, 2001 4:45 PM
I was a philosophy major in college -- the only one among 10,000 students. What does that tell you?

It tells you that...Doughnut
Nov 16, 2001 1:33 AM
People like you and me end up being lawyers 'cos there's not a lot else you can do with a philosohpy degree...
Not entirely trueJekyll
Nov 16, 2001 8:13 AM
Almost went to law school but ended up running an IT firm... Maybe spoiled from law school by a concurrent Poli Sci degree... Maybe just lazy...
not reallyDog
Nov 16, 2001 8:45 AM
FYI, I planned to be a lawyer from about age 12. I began as a business major, and then for 2 years planned to be a doctor. I took most of the math and science for that. Changed my mind back, and finished with a philosophy degree. So, I didn't become a lawyer because there is nothing else to do with a philosophy degree, but rather I took philosophy as I thought it would be helpful in the practice of law. My emphasis was logic and linguistics, btw, not historical philosophy.

Steve Martin was a philosophy major. So, there are some other things to do with the degree. :-)

What's really funny...mr_spin
Nov 15, 2001 5:14 PM
That's pretty funny, because the word "sorcerer" has got some Evangelists all worked up about how Harry Potter is going to lead kids to Satanism and black magic and all that crap. There are people seriously protesting the books and movie! It's hilarious that the title was actually changed. Maybe someone did it on purpose just to stir things up, as if they needed any more publicity.
What? An American stirring things up? Who'da thunk it! (nm)Kristin
Nov 15, 2001 9:22 PM
I'm just wild about Harry....Me Dot Org
Nov 15, 2001 9:13 PM
Well, I think we should blame Scholastic Press rather than Warner Brothers.

The first book was published in the United States as 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' before there was a movie deal.

But I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment that everyone seems to want to 'dumb down' anything put out for mass consumption in America.

And there certainly have been some amazing attempts to ban Harry Potter books in the United States. To read more about it visit:
Sartre, a philosopher, said:Rusty McNasty
Nov 16, 2001 8:09 AM
i "Je pense, donc Je suis."

or "I think, therefore I am." Unfortunately, Americans usually don't think. as a result, we must 'dumb-down' everything to the level of the dumb@$$es among us.
Nov 16, 2001 8:39 AM
It was a little bit before Sartre.

His point was that I know I exist, because I believe I do. Sort of a truism, anyway.

Nov 16, 2001 8:46 AM
Also full of rubbish and going round in circles.

Philisophy humour is a little limited....

"I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam", for example.
Nov 16, 2001 8:58 AM
Descartes and friends are sitting around a table having just finished dinner. The waitress comes to the table and asks everyone in turn if they would like dessert, when she gets to Descartes he replies, "I think not" and disappears..

About as good as Descartes jokes get....
Ho Ho! Two goldfish sitting in a tank...muncher
Nov 16, 2001 9:02 AM
one says to the other "do you know how to drive this thing?"

That was ajudged to be a phisophical joke in my first term as an undergrad. It was a long year....
I don't get it...but <u>this</u> is funnymr_spin
Nov 16, 2001 9:32 AM
But it reminds me of an old Far Side cartoon, where three fish are standing outside their bowl, watching their house burn, inside the bowl.

One fish says to the others: "Well, thank God we all made it out in time....'Course now we're equally screwed"

See it here

I hated philosophy in college. Hated it. Hated it. Hated it. I was at a community college at the time and I had to take it. For some reason I don't remember, the only option was a logic class, in Inductive Reasoning. The teacher was this really anal guy who was eternally pissed that his brilliance hadn't gotten him the Philosophy department head job at Harvard. He rambled on and on, talking to us like we were grad students. I don't believe I understood anything he said for the entire term. The last thing I remember is a long discussion (if one person rambling counts as discussion) in detail about Einstein's theory of relativity and a segue into 4th dimensional geometry. I have no idea how this related to anything we were supposed to be doing. But then how would I know? The subject itself is absurd. You can make stuff up and the reasoning is still valid? Huh? Whatever. Somehow I passed.

Years later I was in school, in Paris, reading Sartre in the original French. I may have been sitting on his cafe stool in his cafe in St. Germain des Pres (Les Deux Maggots or something like that). Now that's the way to learn philosophy!
my experience exactlytarwheel
Nov 19, 2001 7:42 PM
I had a philosophy class that was the absolute worst class I had all the way through college. The class had a reading list that required us to buy about 10 books, costing me more well over $100, and it was the most boring stuff I've ever read in my entire life. Totally incomprehensible, and I was a serious student. To top it off, the book store wouldn't buy back any of the books. I expected the class to have all these fascinating discussions, but instead the instructor would write formulas on the board like If p = q, then... Gad, it's putting me to sleep just thinking about it.
What did the Buddhist say to the Hot Dog Vendor?Me Dot Org
Nov 16, 2001 9:17 AM
Make me one with everything...
LOL - good one (nm)Jekyll
Nov 16, 2001 9:20 AM
Rene Descartes4bykn
Nov 16, 2001 10:44 AM
Rene Descartes
was a drunken f@rt,
"I drink, therefore I am".

Monty Python
My favorite.Sintesi
Nov 16, 2001 12:36 PM
"God is dead." Neitzche

"Neitzche's dead. " God.
Nov 16, 2001 12:56 PM
its just a laughable misunderstanding of Nietzsche..
LMAO nmDog
Nov 16, 2001 1:22 PM
Dunno if you'll read this...nova
Nov 21, 2001 9:46 AM
'cause the thread is relatively old.

But what are your perceptions of the Ayn Rand Institute and the philosophy which it puts forth?

I know that some libertarians have adopted Objectivism (Rand's philosophy?), but the ARI official denies any political alliances.

Disclaimer: I have no opinion on this one way or another, yet, and I will not use your response to engage in any sort of debate. :-) Peace.
Nov 21, 2001 4:04 PM
Not familiar with it. I'm familiar with Rand's fundamentals, but I wouldn't say I'm an enthusiast or anything. I have my own fundamental beliefs, formed quite a long time ago, and I don't really keep up on other's philosphies.

Thanks, though. I'll check it out.

Came across this quote, which I really like:

"I'm virtually free to do whatever I want,
But I try to remember so is everybody else..."
-- Todd Snider

as a quasi-objectivistDuane Gran
Nov 28, 2001 6:09 AM
I was for a time a student of her philosophy and really enjoyed it. It is a very clear-cut way of living life, and if practiced faithfully it can work very well. Of course, the same could be said of many life principles.

Regarding the Libertarian and Objectivist rift, the reason is that Libertarians seek to change society through politics. Objectivists aren't concerned with politics, but instead want to change society through a grass roots understanding of the principles of liberty. In short, Libertarians seek change at the top and Objectivists seek change at the bottom. The differences are in fact much more complex, but that explanation covers the gist of it.
>;o)Js Haiku Shop
Nov 16, 2001 10:38 AM
"How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech."
Sorry, was putting descartes before the horse (nm)Rusty McNasty
Nov 16, 2001 12:37 PM
I really wouldn't lose a lot of sleep....muncher
Nov 16, 2001 8:15 AM
The creative imagination of Ms Rowling has not blessed the chronicles of the antics of young Master Potter with an overwhelming amount of philosophical import in any event.

Perhaps a better title might be "Harry Potter and the Marchandising Wizard's dream"?
LOL - ThanksKristin
Nov 16, 2001 8:30 AM
That needed to be said. I pondered for a moment on the content of the book - the first book - which I read thru last Christmas. Depth is not a quaility that children will obtain from this book.
LOL - ThanksMe Dot Org
Nov 16, 2001 9:28 AM
I wouldn't say that J.K. Rowling is the equal of E.B. White (Charlotte's Web), and she certainly borrows from other authors, but her books are well-constructed, humorous, and suspenseful.

We can all do without the merchandising, but at least the Harry Potter series is responsible for getting a lot of children to discover the magic of reading, and that is all to the good...
Re: Sorcerers vs. PhilosophersJon
Nov 16, 2001 12:09 PM
Intellectual luddites, all of us!
You can say that again.Brian C.
Nov 16, 2001 1:21 PM
My 11-year-old has read all four of them and it's so gratifying watching her read a book.
(Ashamedly, I haven't read one yet, so her mom's taking her to the movie - ahem ... Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone")
similar storyDuane Gran
Nov 28, 2001 6:12 AM
About 4 or 5 years ago the James Bond movie "License to Kill" was originally planned to be named "License Revoked", however the pointy haired bosses determined that not enough of the populace understood the meaning of "revoked." Sad, but true. Safe to say, there will never be a movie (at least produced in this country by Hollywood) with a name such as "The Glass Menagerie."