Adulthood

[Mark W]

(To many quotes = italicised quotes)

What I'm saying Mark is that I think people often (not always!) believe they are judging something on the same basis, according to the same rules and then they implicitly or explicitly argue that the other person should share their view because they've understand the true nature of the thing. I think we certainly should share our understanding or feelings about how we feel in response to experiences but I think the expectation that people have neccesarily shared them in that same way is erroneous. Consequently, if people haven't shared your basis yet you argue with them as though they have, you have made an incorrect assumption. Previously Kris seemed to suggest that good acting is judged on hollywood standards. Yet I don't judge it that way. I just obseve acting and get a feeling about if it convinced me or not - this can differ from person to person. I think, as I have previously stated, that this situation arises in part because language is not adequate in describing the situation of response to situation.

If Kris's viewpoint is incorrect, then your's is as well, and the way you disagreed with him is incorrect too. You keep mentioning the whole 'language doesn't describe it correctly' thing, but the whole point about language is that language isn't the be-all and end-all, and we read meanings into it through how we use language in general, and from actually thinking about what people are saying, and knowing the context, etc.

When you say somebody might be wrong about being misinformed about the subject you kind've imply that there is a right subject?

That made no sense.

People can have their own subjects with which to view the world and this is the point. We all have our own terms. Perhaps an analogy is two people from different cultures pointing at a cat and each respective individual saying the word that indicates cat in their respective languages. Would you find point in their arguing that each person had the right word for a cat?

No, but that's something entirely unrelated to anything we've been talking about.

Or would each person be right in their own terms? Basically, the question is, do you want to argue about the goodness of something when we are both deciding what is good in different ways?

Again, this is something unrelated to what we were talking about, and indeed unrelated to the first part of your arguement. Differences in language aren't a 'good' vs 'bad' thing, and I doubt there are many people left who'd say that "chat" isn't the correct word for "cat" because it's French. Either way, it's still nothing to do with what we were talking about?

Ultimately, this is your choice! I'm only trying to point out how I think the situation is structured. From this you can turn argument to just simply expression of how you feel. There is no need to try and convince somebody that they've come to the wrong conclusion about their experience of something.

No, and not many people would? People just talk about their experiences, and although they might say 'you were wrong' or 'you heard that wrong' or whatever, it's still not denying that someone else experienced something in a certain way, but either way, that's still not what we were talking about before, really?

Yeh sure it saves time but I think it also warps our perception of the situation.

If you excessively read into a situation and let pedantry over-ride the ability to accept what people are obviously trying to say. Should I not type "I'm" because it's warping your perspective of what I am saying?

It's well known that language shapes thought - in fact they are kind've co-dependent or asepcts of each other.

No shit? We use language when we think, and it's our main way of exchanging ideas between people, so it's not surprising that the way we articulate ourselves and how we're taught forms how we think?

Certain Asian languages are better equiped to deal with the concepts pf quantum mechanics because they lack the subject-predicate nature of our language where we adjunct qualities to things. An interesting example is energy (the battery has energy) which almost seems like something which exists in things as its own entitty but actually energy is the action of things (energy is an expression of something) - it should only be an adjective rather than a noun. I used to think energy was something additional - like a soul almost I guess and this situation arose through our language. Also, think of the expression, "it is raining". What is this it? How strange!

Not especially - the way we speak of 'it' seems weird to them, and the way that they talk appears weird to us, but commenting on a same situation just in a different language doesn't change what the situation is, it's just that we deal with it one way, and they another.

You say you have viewed badness of goodness in music but I really have to emphasise that I think you have not. That was some event which an idea of goodness or badness arose in response!

Refer to my description of the problems with language and this point should become apparant - "the music is bad" (subject-predicate) suggests the badness is in the music. But remove yourself from the situation and is any goodness or badness still with the music?

No, but as I said, and as you acknowledged, and as the whole world - apart from those who suffer from the curse of needless pedantry - seems to be able to understand, if I say "That music was shit", I obviously mean that "I think that that music was shit", which would of course be based upon what my idea of "good music" would be. We don't go into that much detail simply because I think we'd all like to assume that the person we were talking to wasn't mentally retarded and could work out the idea of 'context' when people are speaking about a subject?

I think on this point is why you are comfortable with saying that there is evidence of something being done badly, but this is still according to your terms, even if shared by a greater proportion of the society. Perhaps somebody loves musicians to f**k up! Then somebody experiences good as a reaction to that f**k up Even if everyone agreed, this would still only make it bad in terms of lots of individuals with constructed ideas.

Which is what I was saying?

[fredrico]

Having met an array of members of different gangs from South London, I doubt that many of them possess the intelligence that they'd need to actually learn anything a film, let alone morality tales or 'This could happen to you' sorta stuff.

I know and what you say is very true, which is a shame because it doesnt say much for society today (but we wont get into that again) all I was saying is that for someone who can spell their own name will notice the message its trying to get across

Edited June 21, 2008 by ocirderf

[br3n]

anything whihc includes someone saying..

"look at him trying to friends up jay" cannot be taken seriously, kidulthood was a comedy, fairly amusing at that and ill watch adulthood for a laugh.

im sure it'll be better than indiana jones... what a bad film

[1a2bcio8]

(To many quotes = italicised quotes)

What I'm saying Mark is that I think people often (not always!) believe they are judging something on the same basis, according to the same rules and then they implicitly or explicitly argue that the other person should share their view because they've understand the true nature of the thing. I think we certainly should share our understanding or feelings about how we feel in response to experiences but I think the expectation that people have neccesarily shared them in that same way is erroneous. Consequently, if people haven't shared your basis yet you argue with them as though they have, you have made an incorrect assumption. Previously Kris seemed to suggest that good acting is judged on hollywood standards. Yet I don't judge it that way. I just obseve acting and get a feeling about if it convinced me or not - this can differ from person to person. I think, as I have previously stated, that this situation arises in part because language is not adequate in describing the situation of response to situation.

If Kris's viewpoint is incorrect, then your's is as well, and the way you disagreed with him is incorrect too. You keep mentioning the whole 'language doesn't describe it correctly' thing, but the whole point about language is that language isn't the be-all and end-all, and we read meanings into it through how we use language in general, and from actually thinking about what people are saying, and knowing the context, etc.

I'm not sure how you mean because Kris is wrong, I am wrong. You need to be more specific in the sense that you mean. Regarding language I never said it was the "be-all and end-all". In fact I'm agreeing with you what you're saying there. But it doesn't mean that our usage of language doesn't affect our perceptions because we use it in such a way as to, through representation, warp the way the relations between things in a situation actually are.

When you say somebody might be wrong about being misinformed about the subject you kind've imply that there is a right subject?

That made no sense.

It makes sense to me. As far as I can tell you are saying that when we consider a subject or situation (this is your meaning of "subject" I am assuming) people can misunderstand that situation. I think this is what is occuring in terms of understanding the relations between where people think value lies and what underpins the nature of value. But I think that you are suggesting, in terms of music, a misunderstanding of that situation with regard to its intrinsic value in terms of good and bad. I am still continually witnessing this assumption with you and others that there is good or bad value of the music within itself such as if the musicians miss a few notes despite you also saying something otherwise.

People can have their own subjects with which to view the world and this is the point. We all have our own terms. Perhaps an analogy is two people from different cultures pointing at a cat and each respective individual saying the word that indicates cat in their respective languages. Would you find point in their arguing that each person had the right word for a cat?

No, but that's something entirely unrelated to anything we've been talking about.

Actually Mark it's an analogy and if you take the time to consider it, it might help you understand the point I'm trying to make. In this instance, language has decided the reaction of different individuals to the same event (a cat). Their reaction has been different according to different language. In the same way, an individuals response to a piece of music in terms or pleasure or displeasure differs according to the 'language' of their subjectivity or peculiarity, so to speak. Now they may well share some of the same 'language' in coming to like or dislike but ultimately the net consequence will be decided according to the totality of their subjectivity and the aspects that differ from somebody else - it is likey to differ between individuals in the same language differs between countries. Unless we stringently agree to a set of rules by which to judge something, this will always occur - but then who can really change their enjoyment of music which leads to a definition of good or bad, byadopting some rules by which to judge it? If I judge hip-hop according to the rules of classical music I'd probably say that hip-hop is bad music but that wouldn't change my enjoyment and my saying it is good in that sense. Typically I think people are unaware that they are arguing about their reaction to a situation based on different 'language', so to speak. Now consider the analogy again. It's only when we agree to a set of stringent rules we begin go get somewhere with deciding between us if something is good or bad, right or wrong. But there are no ultimate rules to enjoying music or being convinved by an actor - we all certainly haven't agree upon them like we do with mathematics. All that happens is some event is labelled as actor or music, we watch it or hear it and then based on our feelings or thoughts of it we say, "I am convinced by the actor" or "I like this music because the bass makes me feel nice". Other people can say the complete opposite at the same time. They are all right in so much as they accurately describe the way they feel. My point is that people always argue against each other in this sense, suggesting that the way somebody is feeling is somehow wrong because it doesn't correlate with them in relation to their terms?

Again, this is something unrelated to what we were talking about, and indeed unrelated to the first part of your arguement. Differences in language aren't a 'good' vs 'bad' thing, and I doubt there are many people left who'd say that "chat" isn't the correct word for "cat" because it's French. Either way, it's still nothing to do with what we were talking about?

See above but understand that analogy by definition is never the same situation but carries with it enough similarity to potentially illuminate understanding. The point stands; despite people using different systems of judgement they argue as though they are speaking the same lanuage! It's like my assuming that a French person is really trying to speak English and so every time he say "Chat", I say "No! it is a cat!" and the French person thinks I am trying to speak French and so he says again, "Chat!". People are more than welcome to engage in this type of behaviour, if you want to!

No, and not many people would? People just talk about their experiences, and although they might say 'you were wrong' or 'you heard that wrong' or whatever, it's still not denying that someone else experienced something in a certain way, but either way, that's still not what we were talking about before, really?

See above. I think people are suggesting that others are experiencing or trying to understand things in the same. And yes this is what we are talking about.

If you excessively read into a situation and let pedantry over-ride the ability to accept what people are obviously trying to say. Should I not type "I'm" because it's warping your perspective of what I am saying?

I certainly can be a pedant That's what reading academic philosophy will do to you. Philosophy engages in trying to clear up misconception and can attempt so to a fine degree. But I don't think people are saying what you suggest and I don't feel myself as being overly pedantic. I think this is quite a large mistake easily done because of how intrinsically pervading our langauge usage is.

No shit? We use language when we think, and it's our main way of exchanging ideas between people, so it's not surprising that the way we articulate ourselves and how we're taught forms how we think?

Sure, but then if the language isn't so great at describing then we run into potential confusion. The point I keep trying to make which I don't think you're entirely understanding. I prefer to avoid confusion where possible, I don't know about you?

Not especially - the way we speak of 'it' seems weird to them, and the way that they talk appears weird to us, but commenting on a same situation just in a different language doesn't change what the situation is, it's just that we deal with it one way, and they another.

The point is that when we say "it" we create a phantom in order to say that rain is occuring. Show me this "it" Mark? I'm just trying to bring emphasis to language and how it contains problems such as the one this discussion is centred around. Yes it still may indicate an event but it may also create problems - the construction or thought addition to a situation. If we are dependent on language to think of the world and we use bad language, then ultimately we think of the world badly!

No, but as I said, and as you acknowledged, and as the whole world - apart from those who suffer from the curse of needless pedantry - seems to be able to understand, if I say "That music was shit", I obviously mean that "I think that that music was shit", which would of course be based upon what my idea of "good music" would be. We don't go into that much detail simply because I think we'd all like to assume that the person we were talking to wasn't mentally retarded and could work out the idea of 'context' when people are speaking about a subject?

This is why I think you don't understand what I'm trying to communicate. People DO argue that music is shit or not shit. They do this, I strongly believe because they think each other is describing how the music actually is alongside the same usage of terms with which to judge that music. Objectively, the situation is that somebody experienced it as this or experienced it as that. Trying to argue that somebody else actually experienced it differently to how they felt it seems more than slightly nonsensical. If I say to you "I feel good" would you really say to me "No actually you feel shit". Most likley you would not do this unless you knew me to be in complete denial based on some evidence that presented itself. But this is what is happening. This situation is so well ingrained into our behaviour, we are often like a fish in water and miss it.

Edited June 21, 2008 by rowly

[James-M]

The downside for me is that I'll never be able to see this film, simply because the stereotypical 'gangster' London accent f**ks me right off, and the use of London-originated slang equally f**ks me off. Seriously 'peng', 'nang', 'bare', 'blud', 'brair' (However the f**k you'd spell it), 'allow' (A particularly annoying one), 'chirpsing', 'mandem', 'wasteman', etc. - learn to f**king speak properly you stupid cunts!

How can this language be tolerated in a public forum?

There are many biased opinions. Why not just watch it like any other film and not pick out all these little things? Everyone's different, with different points of view. Look at different political parties arguing, different countries arguing. There is no end to this arguement. To be fair, if you like something and someone else says "It's crap", it can be annoying, and it's hard to just say to yourself, 'it's just their opinion', 'cus you know they are judging you for having that opinion, but you've just got to put up with narrow minded people who say things like this. Kinda like people who say 'Chavs are dicks', or 'Emos are skanks'. It happens...

Edited June 21, 2008 by James-M

[Krisboats]

How can this language be tolerated in a public forum?

There are many biased opinions. Why not just watch it like any other film and not pick out all these little things? Everyone's different, with different points of view. Look at different political parties arguing, different countries arguing. There is no end to this arguement. To be fair, if you like something and someone else says "It's crap", it can be annoying, and it's hard to just say to yourself, 'it's just their opinion', 'cus you know they are judging you for having that opinion, but you've just got to put up with narrow minded people who say things like this. Kinda like people who say 'Chavs are dicks', or 'Emos are skanks'. It happens...

I don't think anyone has said that the film is crap, just that based on the 4 minute long trailer on youtube that if those are the highlights of the movie, then it doesn't look like it will be as good as the first (don't start rowly you know what i mean ). I think a lot of people prefer to watch one or two trailers for a film then make an informed decision about whether or not they'll like it and ultimately either saving themselves £6 or spending it well depending on if they like the look of it.

[Luke Rainbird]

Seriously, can we get this thing closed already?!

[BenLeacock™]

Seriously, can we get this thing closed already?!

LOL

[Davetrials]

Kris, it represents what it's like, fully. Seriously, the acting is exactly how it is in real life. That's good acting i'm sure.

Uve lost a point for thinking you live in the hood.

[ilikeriding]

kidULTHOOD Was a good film.

I shall be going to watch adultHOOD tonight.

same, anyone who doesnt like those films is a dick head

Edited June 21, 2008 by jebend

[Simon]

same, anyone who doesnt like those films is a dick head

Wow, you do live up to your username don't you. Anyone that thinks someone is a dick head for their personal opinion on a film is a 'unt.

[James-M]

I don't think anyone has said that the film is crap, just that based on the 4 minute long trailer on youtube that if those are the highlights of the movie, then it doesn't look like it will be as good as the first (don't start rowly you know what i mean ). I think a lot of people prefer to watch one or two trailers for a film then make an informed decision about whether or not they'll like it and ultimately either saving themselves £6 or spending it well depending on if they like the look of it.

Nah I didn't mean anyone said it was crap, that was just an example for instance of what I was trying to get across.

[Fixed Pants™]

Your telling me that a lass would go into a school kick the shit outa a lass for no reason ? as badly as she did ?

In that case London should be removed from the uk, with the exeption of a the cool riders, fatty feel free to go with it lol !

A mate was fatally stabbed a year ago in 2 days 'cos he lived in a place with green lamp posts.

[NicP]

I agree, shit like this does happen in london,

Please don't go and say to me "oh f**k off mate you live in telford what would you know?",

all my mum's family live chingford, and my dad's in hackney.

So yeah, it does happen alot like it's portrayed in the film.

NicP

[G-baby158]

Well im going to see it on friday and i think its going to be good, good to see how other people live

[BenLeacock™]

A mate was fatally stabbed a year ago in 2 days 'cos he lived in a place with green lamp posts.

Yer i agree somethings might happen, but still think that kidulthood was over the top.

[Adam L]

The films ARE over-exaggerated and it's purely for viewing pleasure.

Okay the streets of London may be bad in reality, but not THAT bad and i've been to some of Londons roughest area's as my family lives down there.

Personally, I loved Kidulthood and will be watching Adulthood soon, if others don't like it then fair enough.

But I did laugh when the lads jumped them huge men down the alleyway, yeah right they'd get hammered if they actually did that.

Adam

[Hendrix]

I enjoyed Adulthood to be honest. Wasn't amazing, nor did it suck.

It, from my limited experience is exaggerating, but to what level is another matter...

Hendrix

[Danny Kearns]

Just got back from seeing Adulthood and jesus. What a complete and utter let down. I was so looking forward to this film and it was terriable

Gutted.

[BenLeacock™]

Just got back from seeing Adulthood and jesus. What a complete and utter let down. I was so looking forward to this film and it was terriable

Gutted.

explain mate ?

[Danny Kearns]

explain mate ?

I think the majority of it was to do with Kidulthood been such a massive success. This really wasn't on the same wave length. Fair enough, the story line was great on how Sam was trying to change and become a better person and live a normal life. But they said this was the follow to Kidulthood, yet, nothing seemed to fit in my opinion and the ending, didn't understand it at all.

[mr ailsbury]

To be honest I think for you it will have been like I said yesterday

Your expectations will have been so high that you were dissapointed that it just didn't live up to them like

you'll watch it again when it comes out on DVD and be like wow, mint this is lol

[Danny Kearns]

To be honest I think for you it will have been like I said yesterday

Your expectations will have been so high that you were dissapointed that it just didn't live up to them like

you'll watch it again when it comes out on DVD and be like wow, mint this is lol

Seriously Tom and the WHOLE of the cinema just sighed and said "what the f**k was that all about ?" and everyone walked out bitching.

[BenLeacock™]

I think the majority of it was to do with Kidulthood been such a massive success. This really wasn't on the same wave length. Fair enough, the story line was great on how Sam was trying to change and become a better person and live a normal life. But they said this was the follow to Kidulthood, yet, nothing seemed to fit in my opinion and the ending, didn't understand it at all.

Cheers man, first time i watched kidulthood i thought the ending was abit weird didnt understand it. maybe it was just missing important parts ? that like linked it all together ? Or maybe it was just generaly gash

[Danny Kearns]

Cheers man, first time i watched kidulthood i thought the ending was abit weird didnt understand it. maybe it was just missing important parts ? that like linked it all together ? Or maybe it was just generaly gash

I generally can't understand how you found the end of Kidulthood wierd ? Sam was seeking revenge for them doing him over etc. He went at Trief with a baseball ball, took it abit too far and killed him, Like it states in Adulthood

"Im not a killer, nor are you Jay, your like me"

. Then it does follow on from Kidulthood in Adulthood, But around midway of the film, everything just goes on the piss and off storyline and nothing makes sense.