I suppose you think you choose to speak with that accent, or in English?
The word “totalitarian” isn’t mine, hence the quotation marks - it’s the term Pincus uses in his blog, and as I read it refers to the sonar surveillance that Batman uses to find the Joker. I accept it is an extreme concept, but I think it has some meaning in this context; as Fox argues, the Batman crosses a line in adopting those tactics, but then this is another of those things that he, as the Batman, can do.
As for the Joker, how you view this depends on your understanding of “chaos”, which I believe, like Pincus, that we should not see as simply “bad” or “evil”. The Joker represents an extreme version of chaos - anarchy - that is a destructive force, but within the context of the film this serves as an essential counterpoint to the Batman’s extreme brand of integrity. Remember that this is a poetic and not a literal example.
There is no self-deception involved, it’s quite clear the Batman knows exactly what he’s doing - he wants to give the people “hope”, the strength to fight instead of giving in. The “affirmation of necessity” is not about submitting to circumstances but transcending them through what they are in themselves. That’s a paradoxical understanding, but if Chaos and Complexity Theory teach us anything, it’s that life is never simple.
Judging by the rate that we are being destroyed economically by the socialists, intentionally, it appears that Lies will suffocate the Truth. As for that case, or your example, it will ultimately be evil (humans who value themselves over Truth) that brings us down. Has a good, truthful regime ever attempted a Scorched Earth?
???
I wasn’t sure whose words were whose, but assumed you agreed with them. And the only reason Fox argued against the sonar was the fear of absolute power. Of itself, it isn’t evil and more than the first gun, or the first club. Such potential total power is different from actual total power no matter. Evil is the abuse of power on an individual or universal scale. Can we say for certain that no one can assume it without being corrupted? I think the US did during that period it could have exploited it’s extreme nuclear advantage–or maybe we can blow it off to the bureaucratic tendency toward the status quo.
But Alfred showed that he didn’t know what he was doing. He showed that he didn’t understand or the Joker or didn’t want to–same difference. What is false hope, hope not based on Truth, worth? I think the US is finding out right now. We’ve elected the Joker and his minions to run the country–socialism, even if it causes the World to burn, though he probably sees himself as benefiting to a degree from a scorched Earth. They all know that’s where we’re headed, Democrats and Republicans (a cowardly Batman) alike.
But this is not the whole of “the truth”.
It is possible that the child in question will fall and injure himself when attempting to operate the bicycle. It is also possible that he will not, given the fact that you (as a presumed parent) will be steadying his balance until he learns. It is also possible that the child is articulate and well-balanced enough to learn himself.
And it is estimably possible that the child will not find injury particularily terrible or traumatising.
The truth is not necessarily negative, as you are representing it; what is this but an inserted valuation?. Neither is it necessarily harmful. As pointed out, the child may have injured himself well enough already to have the experience and knowledge to foresee the negative possibilities of an action such as bike-riding. If he does not, then it means he has been pampered and protected from the aspects of reality which you as a parent will want to protect him from.
This however will weaken and do further harm to the child when he is harmed and you are not there to protect him, to insulate and protect him from reality.
What this philosophy represents is a willful deceit in the interests of “protecting” those who are deemed too weak minded, or impressionable, to adequately grasp and process knowledge of the realities of humanity.
That even the noblest can be twisted into their antithesis if hurt enough.
A bit late… but curious about some stuff.
xzc asked: “Why doesn’t Bman just kill the Joker?”
If Batman is ‘justified’ in killing the Joker, is everyone else?
Tab responded: “If Batman intentionally killed the Joker, he would also have to kill himself.”
When murderers are executed, should all involved in turn execute themselves?
-Thirst
If there’s any person who anyone would be justified to kill, it’s the Joker. I mean, suppose there’s a serial killer on the lose, who you know will escape and kill again if you turn him to the authorities to be due processed. What reasons are there to NOT kill such a person? I mean, lets say you have two options once you’ve caught the joker.
- Turn him in to the authorities, or any do anything that will keep him alive.
- Kill him.
Are you justified for 1 supposing you know he will escape and kill again? If you do 1 with that kind of knowledge don’t you become culpable in the Joker’s future murders?
PS
And we’re talking about a comic book world here. If the villain isn’t killed off, then it’s pretty damn certain he’ll escape and keep doing what he does. Without the Joker dying, any other alternative is guaranteed to have him come back and start killing people.
If something is broke (note: not arguing they are the only options):
a. fix it
b. replace it
c. burn it
I think I’m a fan of “a” or “b” and not so much of “c”.
If jailing a prisoner like the Joker will fail (the system is broke); then we should probably fix it or replace it.
So, if Batman is justified and if everyone is justified in killing the Joker; is everyone justified in killing Poison Ivy (a woman that would likely kill all mankind)? If so, where does it end? Should the court system be abandoned for psychotic murderers only or also sociopaths? Should Batman come across Tony Soprano, should the Bats kill him?
Which reminds me, how the hell are criminals prosecuted in the situation where the Bats was the only witness?
NOTE: I suppose a part of me thinks it’s justified to kill Poison Ivy and the Joker but not sure about Tony Soprano.
-Thirst
Everybody knows the Joker is a bad guy. He’s been caught, convicted and sentenced to jail countless times. Basically, any time he’s not in jail, he’s a wanted fugitive, and any time he’s not in jail (and even when he’s in jail) he’s causing people to die.
Besides that, batman is no ordinary Joe Shmoe. He does things other people would be morally unjustified in doing. He’s the goddamn Batman, and as the goddamn batman he takes on special responsibilities. He took it upon himself to spy on everybody in the Dark Knight, and if he can justify that, he can surely justify the murder of the Joker. Only this one time, he says, otherwise people are going to die. Okay, Bman, why not say the same thing about killing the Joker? You’ve got a rule? Is your rule worth more than the lives of countless innocent victims? If you break your one rule, is the consequence going to be worse than, say, 10 innocent people needlessly dying at the hands of the Joker?
I’m all for that, but what if there’s someone who can’t be stopped by the legal authorities and who, because he can’t be stopped, keeps killing people? Doesn’t the batman and every single citizen in that country have an obligation, or at least aren’t they permitted to take things into their own hands since the legal system is incapable of protecting them?
Tony Soprano can be kept from killing by being locked up. Poison Ivy and the Joker can’t be kept in jail, or from killing.
Batman doesn’t kill the joker prob because society won’t when he does get caught. He’s NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity )or unfit for trial, and gets slapped between jails and asylums.
I see that my assumptions have led us to this point.
I was engaging under the assumption that you were talking about the Joker of The Dark Knight and not “Joker” the archetypal psychopath with all his due past (to my recollection, Joker of TDK had not been convicted, sentenced, nor incarcerated–the temp police jail is not a prison and is hardly incarceration).\
In light of my assumptions, I wonder if this conversation would have gone different… If we are discussing merely Joker of TDK, then your points about Joker’s murder may be less palatable; afterall, the circumstances in your scenario that presumably justified both spying on all and the murder of the Joker have changed.
Your question is interesting because it forces me to ask myself questions about vigilante ‘justice’ and about privacy vs. security. After all, Batman hardly holds privacy sacrosanct. Batman spies on everybody all the time. Batman doesn’t get warrants. I’d almost wager that if Morgan Freeman hadn’t objected, the Bats would have kept on spying on everyone to help reduce crime.
Is Batman justified to continue to spy on everyone because he feels the need for it? I can almost imagine the government’s Agent Smith telling me the reason they can tap my phones is because they aren’t Joe Schmoe.
People have a right to protect themselves. I think Batman would have been right to use any force necessary to stop the Joker in light of the fact that so many lives were actually threatened. I think its justifiable homicide in this scenario, but that’s a tough one.
These people can order their hammers to whack someone from jail. Capisce?
-Thirst
Thirsty!!!
Still there with the batman fetish huh…? 
As for joker/batman time to apply dialectic:
thesis: Batman.
antithesis: joker
synthesis: Redistributive Justice
:-"
PT really compared “socialists” to the Joker, didn’t he?
ps. this film is still bloody brilliant, however many repeat viewings it gets.
I’m bumping this thread because I saw this new animated batman movie, and it is BY FAR the best batman movie ever made. It surpasses even The Dark Knight in terms of depth. The movie deals with all the issues raised in this thread, and seems like it was custom made for us. I suppose I have to warn people and say it’s not your typical batman movie. People do die.
trailer
youtube.com/watch?v=A2c9MsP3OVs
clip
youtube.com/watch?v=CTwUp2Io … re=related
actual movie if you want to watch it/download it for free
stagevu.com/video/rraoolzoifdv
TPT,
This reminded me of Nietzsche and also Plato. The truth is incompatible with Faith. The truth is unbearable. Life is filled with lies, with expedient mendacity. It is an essential part of life. For example the idea of a Self, or identity is a lie, and yet without it life could not be conducted. So the falsity of a concept is not a sufficient reason to avoid it, nor the truth of a concept sufficient reason to embrace it. For batman and Nietzsche the most important thing is not “Truth”, but Life, and if that means telling a white lie, for the sake of life, then so be it. Life would be unbearable, or unegotiable.
What Batman aimed to do was not to blindfold “faith with irrationality”, for irrationality actually destroys the foundations of faith. It is the truth that is irrational, which is represented by the character of the Joker, who, as Alfred states, is beyond logic, reason, meaning. Yet, it is the Joker that appears to be right for the most part. He was certainly right and spoke the truth about two-face. But that sort of truth destroys faith in man, in our systems, our laws and everything else that confers meaning to Life. So Batman takes upon himself the burden of sustaining a beneficial/benevolent lie for the sake of giving the people of Gothman a justification for their faith. He gives them a nice, rational narrative, he gives them meaning, and that is what all meaning ends up being= falsehoods.
And also…
— He doesn’t do evil to make a point. As Alfred said, some men just want to watch the world burn. And what point anyway? So someone on one boat blows up the other one.
O- His point is that people are only as good as their circumstances would allow.
I just watched the red hood online, and yeah, it was one of the better animated batman’s I’ve seen. Ending a bit unsatisfactory I thought.
What didn’t you like about it?
SPOİLERS
[tab][size=75]The whole “this ending is constrained by not being able to kill any of the characters involved” thing. I mean - that was a big fucking bang. Yet the joker, not even a flesh-wound. Batman, torn suit and maybe a loose tooth or two. Red hood…? No-where to be found. Stank of ‘red-hood’s return’ all over the place. And the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” of kill-red/kill-joker choice was avoided, too neatly. If I’d have written it I’d probably have had the joker squirm out of his rope while bats was searching his conscience interminably and blow red-hood’s face all over the wall, just to add to Bat’s already sizable load of existential angst.
My other bone to pick was the ‘magical’ nature of red-hood’s regeneration - one of the things I like most about the batman is his being a ‘science-hero’ a’la Tom Strong - if you’ve ever read that - he’s wholly human, augumented by gadgetry, rather than being some super-powered magician. The magic doesn’t gel.[/size][/tab]
That’s a law in superhero movies, and you can’t blame them for it. Who would waste a character like Red Hood just to make Batman more angsty? THINK OF THE POSSIBILITIES, MAN!
Speaking of magic, how did you do that with your post?
Use the ‘tab’ button on the posting toolbar - new feature from the ILP Gods. It works like the quote process - just highlight the text of your post you want to hide-reveal and whammo. You bin’ tabbed.