SmartWatchin

REVIEWS OF THINGS SMART PEOPLE WATCH WHEN THEY ARE BORED (Like LECTURES, INTERVIEWS, RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL DEBATES) smugness abounds  / ALL just my opinion (or yours, SUBMIT)

[smartpeoplewatchin]

DEBATE: Noam Chomsky vs. Michel Foucault “On Human Nature”

This titillating and even edge-of-the-seat debate between two great minds from opposite sides of the pond will fascinate and provoke any hopeful intellectual on the subject of human nature. Unlike other debates, the viewer is never hoping one side will shut up so that the other can continue; the best debates approach the quality of simple discussion. Foucault’s deconstructionist narrative about the reasons the human mind is as it is meet up against Chomsky’s sort of post-structural account of the same plot question: How do we become the way we are? Foucault builds an argument from a set foundation of ideas, and Chomsky attempts to shake the foundation, and thus change the results from the bottom, giving a new and well-challenged position on the nature of our human minds as products. The subtitles shouldn’t bother the dedicated. A delightful and brilliant debate that one could call required viewing.

5.0 GAMECHANGER

[smartpeoplewatchin]

INTERVIEW: Slavoj Zizek “How to Examine Films”

Though it has a very misleading title, this interview still proves engrossing. Film is the subject for about half the length, but Zizek’s intriguing arguments about globalism and ISIS and the religious right will hold your attention once you realize that it’s difficult for him to stay on point- perhaps because the point doesn’t matter; there are a thousand points, and titles are inherently nonsensical if you are truly pluralistic. The films discussed are of a broad range, but not of equal depth. Armageddon and Pacific Rim edge their way in- often for longer- than masterworks by Hitchcock, Altman, and Von Trier. A deep cinephile will certainly be disappointed by the outcome of this “interview” which is more of a lecture in the first place. Tarkovksy, Kurosawa and Bergman are barely mentioned. What is discussed is better discussed in Zizek’s highly intellectual set of films “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema” and “The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology.” But if you have seen those films and enjoyed them, you will probably enjoy this talk; if you come for the cinema, stay for the Zizek.

3.9 COOL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

GOD DEBATE: Richard Carrier vs. William Lane Craig “Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?”

A satisfactory accompaniment to Carrier’s lecture on the Christ myth theory where both speakers give well-informed speeches from very different perspectives; Carrier interprets the acts of the disciples and early Christians psychologically and regards the Gospels with a materialist assumption, while Craig responds adeptly with his knowledge of biblical history (some may consider that an oxy moron) and the methodical processes of scholarship for ancient history. Overall, it is enjoyable, but just as easily dismissible. The Christ myth theory does seem very fringe and narrow in the debate and Carrier’s arguments often feel incomplete, but equally dubious to an agnostic viewer will be Jesus’ divinity. In simple words, this will only be interesting to the interested. Carrier does not appear to have a killer, cutting-edge argument that truly removes Jesus as a historical figure. Craig debates expertly and illuminates some secrets of biblical scholarship; this viewer admittedly found him to be the clear winner. But that does not mean his full thesis on Jesus stands.

2.9 CHILL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

LECTURE: Dr. Richard Carrier “Did Jesus Even Exist?”

Dr. Carrier’s creed of extreme skepticism towards Jesus is well-spoken, but in the end it appears to preach to the choir. While his lecture is mired in eyebrow-raising, incredulity-inspiring analogies, it is still an entertaining and fairly substantial watch. Carrier seems unable to find one whole killer argument, so he compensates competently with several cumulative stacks of argument. The level of scrutiny, as well as the constant references of “read my book” are often disheartening. Some of the questions are interesting, and there is some good information to be had, but the conclusion, named in the title, may not convince those who are skeptical of this brand of skepticism. However, this is the sort of lecture that appeals to the viewer’s bias exorbitantly, and this reviewer may have allowed his personal brand of skepticism to supersede that of Carrier unfairly. The open-minded will know to search in several places for truth; not just one.

2.6 CHILL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

GOD DEBATE: Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox “Has Science Buried God?”

Both Lennox and Dawkins recount popular bits from their respective books in this above-average debate. Though debates of this sort often fail to reach the purported topic, this one, by its title, lives up to the question. A mathematician and an evolutionary biologist would, it seems, share separate frames for viewing the world, and if a curious mind is new to debates of this ilk, then this amiably unorganized conversation is hardly a poor place to start. Dawkins attacks Christianity as unscientific purely by its grounded beliefs, putting the perspective on religion at 0, and thus revealing some of its absurdity, but Lennox defends from the top down, and irons out some of pure atheism’s perceived absurdities. The duel seems to be between what is the “better” (or lesser) absurdity: the idea that the universe is a “freak accident” or that it was created by a personable deity. Worthy of a casual listen to the jaded, and more worthy of a view for the newly interested.

3.3 COOL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

RETRO GOD DEBATE: Christopher Hitchens vs. Dinesh D’Souza “What’s So Great About God? Atheism vs. Religion”

A dull debate best made for fans of Hitchens. D’Souza, as usual, middles and meanders in his defense of religion and the idea of God, mostly disregarding those on a higher intellectual plateau than he in his ho-hum arguments. Hitchens delivers a typically good introductory argument, but it will be heard before by anyone who frequents his debates and lectures on religion (and not in the order that the Youtube channel states.) The Q & A and exchange is better but still feels lost in the wind of a clearly mismatched debate. This one will be better for those who want to see an easy win for Hitchens; those with a desire to see a more salient and heady intellectual exchange would best look elsewhere- Hitchens’ debate with his own brother Peter Hitchens, for example.

2.3 CHILL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

LECTURE: Chris Hedges, “Calling All Rebels: The Moral Imperative to Revolt”

Hedges delivers a terrific crowd-stirring call for revolution, but admittedly one that will mostly appeal to those, like him, of the far, far left--especially socialists. A long section of the speech ends repeatedly with the words, “If you do not (blank), you are not a socialist.” In the Q&A Hedges repeats many heard-before tidbits about himself (”I do not own a television” “I teach in prisons”) that sound a bit self-promoting, but nonetheless the first bunch of questioners pose terrific questions; the second bunch seem younger and more naive. This is clearly a lecture for those of the left, and socialists especially will get the most out of it; to others it may seem depressing, pessimistic, but undeniably intellectual. Hedges is exceedingly well-read, so to the open-minded of the right, it should be an interesting watch as well.

3.8 COOL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

DEBATE: Sam Harris vs. Robert Wright “Seculars on Questions of Religion and Belief”

A head-nodding and extremely dull affair that may be interesting to fans of Harris, but even then the length would rightly kick any remaining inquirers back out the door. Wright almost immediately clarifies to the audience that he is a much better writer than he is a speaker, and the viewer might end up wishing a food fight would break out rather than this tedious discussion of uninteresting perspectives on religion--mostly Islam with a little Christianity. Wright makes a couple of good points but rarely discusses his more intellectual books and anything of note is buried deeply as the talk is almost 2 and a half hours long. By the end I was begging for the two speakers to talk about something else; it was as though they felt bound and gagged by the title of the discussion. Dr. Richard Carrier appears at the very end of the Q&A, clearly overestimating his importance and conducting an “experiment” with the audience. This tidbit is not worth skipping to the end for. Not recommended.

1.1 WHACK

[smartpeoplewatchin]

INTERVIEW: Groucho Marx on the Dick Cavett Show

A delightful and very funny interview with Groucho telling many amusing stories about the behind-the-scenes happenings on his films, briefly discussing the degeneration of modern morality, and singing a few of his songs, most notably “Lydia.” Cavett seems almost like a prop here--it may feel, at times, too long, but for any Marx Brothers fan, this is essential. An early funny anecdote Groucho tells involves a rabbi shaking his hand and saying, “I want to thank you for all the joy you’ve brought into the world.” Groucho wittily retorts, “I want to thank you for all the joy you’ve taken out of it.” Only if you are uninterested in The Marx Brothers (and therefore, a dung-flinging neanderthal) will this seem an insubstantial interview, but to the majority of comedy lovers, it will be a treat.

3.8 COOL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

GOD DEBATE: Peter Singer vs. John Lennox “Is There a God?”

A well-matched but mostly routine debate. Lennox gives a new speech (Thank God or whomever for that) but there is still nothing to write home about; Singer also does not offer many new ideas about why not to believe in God. Any viewer will only be interested in the “sport” of the debate, which is interesting enough, but intellectually, there is nothing new here and one begins to feel the vexingly large amount of God debates that there are as a pressure-- maybe at some point while gazing out the window and away from the conversation. Not bad, but the question will press the casual viewer at some point during the debate: “Where ARE the new ideas?”

2.5 CHILL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

INTERVIEW: Thomas Sowell on Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.

One of the few full Firing Line episodes available on Youtube and a stimulating conversation that is VERY relevant to the political climate of today. Buckley is more in the backseat as Sowell takes intriguing stances on economics, feminism, and poverty that will likely lead the viewer to click on Sowell’s more contemporary videos where he has very visibly aged. It seems quite risible that the economist’s work didn’t receive sufficient action and attention at the time of the interview, and now today his work is markedly more relevant as the climate argued against in his work has clearly worsened to an absurd degree, leaving Sowell coming off as almost prophetic in the interview. Highly recommended. This writer just found that Firing Line episodes are available in full on Amazon Prime and recommends this highly intellectual TV show while fervently denying that he is advertising for Amazon.

4.6 GAMECHANGER

[smartpeoplewatchin]

GOD DEBATE: Richard Swinburne vs. Herman Philipse “Is there a God?”

This disappointing but not awful debate is often difficult to hear and always a bit underwhelming. Philipse’s points seem dull and routine--perhaps partially because of the language barrier--and Swinburne’s speeches leave almost as much to be desired. Both speakers seem to ignore what they each separately see as the lesser points of the opposition, but this does not result in a stimulating conversation, as each side pulls where they should push and vice versa. Some of the more interesting points--such as Philipse’s ideas about the odd placement of Saturn and Jupiter in a supposedly designed world--get less attention than they deserve. Even so, though there is little depth, this debate is agreeable enough for a background listen, say on a smart phone while organizing the living room. It might ask for dismissal in favor of a better debate, but if the viewer has conquered many of the other better God debates, he/she could do much worse than this one.

2.3 CHILL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

LECTURE: Richard Swinburne, “Plausibility of Physical Determinism”

You’ll wish there was dissent from an equally informed scientist in this lecture, but even without one, the lecture is a heady drive through a fascinating and head-scratching intellectual formation. One gets the idea that this should be discussed more; this writer found himself yearning for a discussion between Swinburne and Thomas Nagel; how fascinating it would be to hear this thesis discussed by two differing world views who have come to similar conclusions. Science and philosophy are happily met in Swinburne’s unbeatable but droll take on the nature of the world we live in. This lecture fills most of its potential with zeal, and will leave the viewer hungry for more, but more from a different perspective. 

4.0 KILLER

[smartpeoplewatchin]

DEBATE/INTERVIEW: William F. Buckley, Jr. vs. Noam Chomsky

Buckley is on the defensive in this fascinating debate that covers many Chomskyian topics. The morality of Vietnam, communism, the Military Industrial Complex, the financial gain of imperialistic war, and much more pass lips. It is important to give Buckley a bit of sympathy as much of Chomsky’s work was theory and only theory in 1969, but today has taken a stronger hold. Less a debate, it seems preferable to think of the episode as a heated interview between a strong liberal political theorist and a strong conservative intellectual who is, nonetheless, not as specialized as Chomsky. A very absorbing interview; a few of the points lose relevance to today, but it’s still very worth your time.

3.9 COOL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

INTERVIEW: Christopher Hitchens on Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.

Hitchens’ wit is seen to be even more present at an early age in this very entertaining episode of Firing Line. The second speaker, a pimply adolescent-sounding argumentatively flaccid anti-libertarian, has a name that seems unimportant here. He mostly serves as a bouncing-off board for the wit of Hitchens and occasionally, Buckley, who attempts to defend him at one point or another out of sheer pity. The discussion is on liberalism and its effects on society, and especially Noname’s (Everett’s?) recent book condemning liberals, which Hitchens comes close to tearing to shreds. If you came to watch for Hitchens’ fire on religion, you’d be disappointed, but it is interesting to note his demeanor before that stage of his career, and also intriguing to note one’s feelings about liberalism today, over 30 years after this broadcast. A great deal of intellectual fun.

4.4 KILLER

[smartpeoplewatchin]

INTERVIEW: Swinburne, O’Conner “Neuroscience and the Soul”

This is an interesting but meandering conversation on the relation between Christian philosophy, the existence of the soul, and the applied mechanics of the human brain on what is traditionally called the soul. Though I found myself constantly waiting for Tim O’Connor to shut up so Swinburne could speak, by the end I liked several things that O’Connor had to say. Even so the conversation dips and rises, often going over well-understood or dull topics in too much detail and only meandering into what is truly fascinating about the connection between the implications of neuroscience and the usually religious idea of a soul, as well as the survival of death. Still worth a look for a fan of either one or both of these new–and old–Christian intellectuals.

3.1 COOL

[smartpeoplewatchin]

GOD DEBATE: Michael Shermer vs. John Lennox

A so-so debate. Lennox repeats several of his usual spiels about Auschwitz, the problem of suffering, and how science and religion should work together. Shermer makes many disappointing jokes, a few excellent points about morality, but in the discussion he returns to mediocrity. The conversation and questions are better than the debate, but the quality wavers even then. Shermer goes on a long bit about morality with a dull and seemingly unnecessary story, then there’s a bit of overlap, and the rest of the questions are ho-hum. Overall, only worthwhile for Lennox fans in the second half; otherwise the discussion is at best, mediocre.

1.8 WHACK