Pascal's wager attempts to cuts past through a superficial issue in order to get a more practical one. To an atheist, God's existence is a wholly unknowable proposition. Whether or not that atheist is right or not does not matter because there is no amount of proof that will meet their standard, but Judeo-Christian (as well as every other religion's) beliefs have value removed from what they see as their ultimate reward for their faith. Living a pious life, a truly pious life, would be a rewarding one as you would "treat other's as you wish to be treated yourself" or more bluntly "depart from evil, and do good; seek peace and pursue it." The outcome of such a life (in terms of heaven or hell as an eternal resting spot) is secondary to the acts that such a life would left in its wake, those of charity and kindness.
What this means in terms of using a central organizing principle to defend and explain my film is that the ability to boil down the movie to a single line is only as important as the process of figuring out what movie it is I intend to make. The correctness of my central organizing principle as an explanation of my movie matters less than my having spent a significant amount of time thinking about what the I need to say.
In this way, Pascal can not be wrong. Either their is a God and you should act accordingly, and if not acting like there is a God is more preferable than someone not acting like there is a God. Even if someone were not to believe in the validity of the central organizing principle as the most important tool in a film-maker's bag of tricks, they would still benefit from analyzing their story in a high minded way.
COP: Nostalgia becomes reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment