3 ms·
> "serious misreading" This is profoundly disrespectful to me. Please do not speak to me as though you're the keeper of The One Correct Interpretation of Fight
by kaycebasques 8y ago
> "serious misreading"
This is profoundly disrespectful to me. Please do not speak to me as though you're the keeper of The One Correct Interpretation of Fight Club. It's absurd to me that you'd try to speak authoritatively on something as subjective as how I interpreted a story. Your interpretation to me, likewise, seems far away from (what I think are) the main themes of the story, but I'd never label your view as a "misreading."
It's not like I'm coming out of left-field with my interpretation, either. The main character says "the things you own end up owning you." A good chunk of the movie depicts a man who seems to be genuinely happier, freer, and more alive because of his radical rejection of material possessions. E.g. not caring about his condo enables him to stop working a job he hates, and so on. Yes, he ends up being an ethically-ambiguous extremist, but to me that doesn't invalidate the freedom and happiness that he seemed to achieve along the way by renouncing material possessions. Renouncing material possessions does not inevitably lead to becoming a terrorist, either. There's a lot of precedent in Buddhist thought [1] that material possessions keep a person suffering in this world, and only through freeing oneself from attachment to material possessions can that person achieve enlightenment.
P.S. I'm talking about the movie, not the book. I've read the book, but this is one of the rare instances in my opinion where the movie was better than the book.
[1]: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1578&context=jrf https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
- paulcole 8y ago> A man who seems to be genuinely happier, freer, and more alive because of his radical rejection of material possessions. This man is a terrorist and is responsible for the death of Robert Paulson, and (possibly) many other people in the explosions at the end. Most Buddhists AFAIK do not supplement their Buddhism with terrorism.
- kaycebasques 8y agoAt the end of the movie they say that they evacuated all of the buildings before the explosions. We could sit here and argue "well maybe they didn't get everyone out" (which I'm guessing is why you said "possibly") but the movie explicitly says that the buildings are evacuated. Sorry if I came off harsh or aggressive in my other reply. I just got heated. I'm going to stop here, because in my opinion your perspective is too black-and-white for us to have any constructive conversation.
- stevesimmons 8y ago> Most Buddhists AFAIK do not supplement their Buddhism with terrorism. FYI, Buddhism is associated with significant political and ethnic violence in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#Regional_examples https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#Region...
- paulcole 8y agoIf I say, > Most Christians AFAIK do not supplement their Christianity with terrorism. Will you link me to the wikipedia on the KKK? There's a difference between some and most.
- barry-cotter 8y ago> Most Buddhists AFAIK do not supplement their Buddhism with terrorism. People do violence, even Buddhist people. Most people are profoundly ignorant of the religion they claim to follow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence