Search the Community

Joy (2015). Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Bradley Cooper. I saw this movie recently. It is good. There are fantastic philosophical topics raised but not addressed. If you have someone in your life with whom you discuss (or would like to introduce to) RTR, peaceful parenting, ethics, feminism, or capitalism watch it together. Joy provides a firm context for conversation, but because it is a fictional setting it provides a safe context for talking about principles. The editing is a great melange of styles with the story context the only guide. The person I saw the film with didn't notice this, you might not either. For me it doesn't detract it adds greatly. I won't go into it more. The story is about Joy and her family. Joy is inventive and brilliant, brave, and highly productive woman in her mid thirties. She is surrounded by what initially appear to be eccentric extended family members all living under one roof in the late 1980's Pennsylvania. The film focus is on the invention, manufacture, marketing, and security of a labor saving device invented by Joy. It is very loosely based on the life of Joy Mangano. Despite a few misplaced and confused metaphors the movie is quite good and well worth your time and money. Beyond this paragraph I will be writing about a few specifics of the movie. Spoilers. The opening is all about establishing Joy and the extended family she permits around her. It opens with a scene from a fictional soap opera, a thematic element that will be used throughout Act 1 and 2. Danica says to Clarinda, "When someone sees a weakness in me I turn that weakness into a strength." This one minute scene is a summary of the entire movie. Clarinda is an analogue for Joy, Danica for Jackie, Ridge as her ex-husband Tony, Bartholomew for the yet unrevealed villain, yet who resembles Joy's father (more on that later). Throughout this movie the gun is used as a blunt obviation for assertiveness and determination. I really wish they'd deleted all the firearm scenes due to superfluity. Also not needed is the young Joy stating "this is my special power, that I don't need a prince" while the camera stays on an origami bird. This, despite clearly stating seconds before that her value was based on "the things that she make". Since this theme only returns in the final minutes of the movie and only by inference (the origami bird is again shown in context) it is a forgivable nod to Feminists. That Joy's family is dysfunctional is clear. What isn't is for how long. Joy is the candle, whose light is concealed by the bushel of her family oppressive needs. Or as put forth in the exposition of the gift of the cicada book by Jackie to Joy's daughter: a cicada nymph who has been living underground for 17 years and is about to emerge in noisy cacophony. Joy becomes irrationally upset and angry because of the book. Again unstated is for how long Jackie had been trying to rekindle the spark of Joy's drive. How many conversations met by equivocations, gifts not understood. It is possible Jackie had almost given up on Joy and was working to enrich the daughter instead. Jackie is a philosophical preparer, an assistant. She isn't a primary. She lacks the ability, but recognizes, appreciates, and craves the ability of others. Unlike the members of Joy's family she desperately wants Joy to succeed. It is unknown why Joy and Tony divorced after perhaps a decade of marriage. Likely the reason is Joy not consciously understanding the stressors she accepted by not living a lifestyle consistent with her philosophy. And Tony is rather one dimensional, but that dimension is virtue. Joy's mother and father are... evil. Her mother hobbles Joy with psychological powerlessness and projection of her fantasy and non-acknowledgement of reality. Her father is a serial monogamist who secretly hates Joy. Triggered by the cicada book Joy emerges. Her noise is to inconvenience her family by asserting her values and needs. She makes prototype drawings of her invention. Her family can't or claim not to understand. The invention doesn't exist in the crude drawings it exists in the mind - and they haven't any. Instead of being able to procure investment from her family on the basis of the virtue of the idea she has to resort to a distasteful guilt trip. That being the language understood should say a lot. Her family doesn't understand virtue but does understand manipulation. From this moment she is in a fight to produce her product. At first it seems that her family is nominally helping her. In reality they are using it as a leash. Her fathers girlfriend, and her mostly nonsense four questions. But in the practical things all they do is hinder her and isolate her from those who are share her philosophical values. In the guise of helping her they just continue doing what they have been doing for the last two decades of her life. But now, she is indebted to them in money not just by way of an unjust morality of family loyalty. They want her to try - and fail. Her failure indicating the death of her virtue and her productiveness forever bridled to the reins of familial control. Her efforts and persistence alarm them and when she is devastated by the death of her beloved grandmother they pounce. In immediate and purposeful countermanding her they treat with Joy's business enemies and try to forge a deal that would both kill the business but also Joy's spirit. In the end, Joy wins. But does she? She never pays her treacherous family in the coin they deserve, instead letting them maintain as dead weight, hangers on, jealous of her productiveness and acuity, seeking ever her downfall. Thematically the movie treats them as the tempering required to forge the strength in Joy. But this is actually never the case. Their actions in fact annealed her consistently, making obvious things obscure. This ultimately is what saves them: she is weakened just enough that they may parasitically feed off her, secure that she will never cast them off. Thanks for reading.

How has philosophy changed your life? And have you been able to surround yourself with like-minded people? Just curious

Hello all. I've recently been doing some thinking about how to discuss feelings with another person. I listened to the RTR audiobook and I get as far as 'I feel X' without immediately putting the blame on them (ex. You pissed me off). I get a lot of 'Why are you sad/angry/mad/irritated (insert feeling here)' after that and I'm at a bit of a loss as how to respond to it in an appropriate manner. I'm not sure if it would be right to say 'Well I'm irritated because I don't think I'm being listened to' but without doing that I'm not sure how to discuss my feelings beyond what I am feeling. How can you discuss why you have a certain feeling that you might think is related to the other persons actions without blaming them (leading down to a chain of bashing each other rather than actually talking about the feelings and finding a productive solution). If anyone has a good example that might help too. Thank you very much in advance.

My mother messaged me on Facebook today with an article about environmentalism. seems like something you could get behind… http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/28/young-people-are-taking-the-government-to-court-over-its-failure-to-address-climate-change/ This is what I replied. They are only petitioning the courts and criticizing the EPA for not having enough environmental legislation when it's environmental legislation that is the problem! AND the US government, and governments around the world, pollute far more than any business or factory ever could. If these kids really cared about the environment they'd want to disband and end the EPA because it's those regulations that cause the problem in the first place. If there's more legislation, all the corporations will just lobby to exempt themselves, and environmental alternatives and small business start ups won't be able to compete and the monopoly is maintained. This is the problem with thinking that the violence of the state can do anything productive. Violence is not the way to solve social problems, and violence will in fact exacerabate the environmental issues. The USSR had the most enviromental regulations on the books of any nation in history, and, surprise surprise, they polluted and destroyed their lands faster than any other country as well. Well intentioned opposition to a non solution? yes.. but trying to fight violence with more violence doesn't solve anything, in fact, it usually makes things worse. her response: They are not going to be able to disband the EPA so instead of doing nothing, they are trying to work within the system to make change. Some change. Your philosophy reminds me of born again christians who just claim that this system is unacceptable at the core and so they wait for the great by and by (in this case heaven) while you're and others are waiting for the dissolution of the state… neither will happen anytime soon. meanwhile, people who could use your help (or animals, the environment) still suffer cuz you're waiting on a different system to be put in place. I felt myself gearing up for a big political discussion and was ready to whip out my big libertarian book of studies and facts, but suddenly remembered to connect with my feelings, 'what was I feeling just then?' I was hurt. I was really hurt. I let go of all the libertarian rage that fuels my political discussions and I could do was cry for a few minutes. I haven't read all of RTR, but I've heard Stef talk about the basic premise and decided to try something new. I'd tell her how I felt. "Your philosophy reminds me of born again christians who just claim that this system is unacceptable at the core and so they wait for the great by and by (in this case heaven) while you're and others are waiting for the dissolution of the state…" When you say things like this, I feel incredibly hurt. I try to approach things logically and empirically and all I get is chastised and compared to born again christians. "waiting for the dissolution of the state" "people who could use your help (or animals, the environment) still suffer cuz you're waiting on a different system to be put in place." again, this is really hurtful. It seems that you characterize my position as just sitting on my thumbs, and sitting idly by while people suffer. Do you understand why that is incredibly insulting and inflammatory? I really don't understand the need for that, and, it really makes me feel dismissed and my love for philosophy trivialized. Not to mention that it's not true. This is what she replied I'm sorry, sweetheart. I am not trying to hurt you. But I think the parallel is an interesting one. I wonder if you can stand outside of the feeling of hurt and see the connection I am proposing. Purely theoretical in that you are very 'certain' with what you think/ believe what the solution is. I don't find certainty compelling whether it comes from the left or the right. Also, and this is not new, I tend not to value standing outside of the system and complaining or chastising if at the end of the day nothing is much different. Again, I see similarities at a meta level regardless of the issue and I tend to point out those things. It's what I do in my work and so it comes second nature to me. Ok honey. I don't know what else to say but 'sorry'…. I am not used to you getting hurt so easily on topics of philosophical nature. I didn't mean to do that and am not really that invested in the topic to continue. Sorry to have drudged this up. You know you better than I do. My response I see the connection you are making, that's what is hurtful. If I compared you to Neo-nazis or african dictators or the spanish inquisition, you get how that would just be more inflammatory and hurtful than productive right? isn't this what you get so upset with your mother about? being unneccesarily inflamitory? This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I don't want to continue feeling like I have to self erase and self censor around you because I get attacked every time I share my thoughts with you, at least on topics that you disagree with. We don't have to talk about it now, I know I'm having a strong emotional response that might make things more difficult. To which she gave an unsatisfactory apology, and signed off. I'm shaking now as I type this message... this really rattled me and I would *so* greatly appreciate other's insight. Feel free to ask any questions about history or what have you. This follows about 5 months of really head-butting over political issues. Thanks for everyone's support and empathy, I know it's a lot to read. Love, James. Edit: sorry for the font being a little schizophrenic, I was copy/pasting from Facebook, I tried to make it as clear as possible.

I really liked this. It shows that people can come to their own understanding of RTR in different ways, I think. http://www.upworthy.com/a-4-year-old-girl-asked-a-lesbian-if-shes-a-boy-she-responded-the-awesomest-way-possible