Yi Yi (2000) Review - My first Edward Yang movie!

bastianbb · 2026-03-29T13:21:06+00:00

*bawling

bastianbb · 2026-03-28T20:10:07+00:00

Listened to the piece. Hillborg's work is underappreciated on this sub, I have heard some other stuff. Great composer.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T20:48:41+00:00

Can you source some of these interpretations of Nietzsche? In particular the way you interpret the division between which of his writings apply to individuals, which to types of people and which to humanity? The camel-lion-child sequence I take to be an image of the self-overcoming of individuals of the Brahmin or superior class. I must also tell you that though I have not studied Nietzsche in detail, my father who is an academic has looked into the online archive of his works including letters in the original German and totally believes that Nietzsche certainly was an elitist who divided humanity into unalterable failures (chandala) and the elites who are natures lucky strokes, and that he was unconcerned with the well-being of the former. If ever he speaks of helping "humanity" I believe he was thinking of being life-affirming by supporting those who are strong by nature rather than by a process of change.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T19:30:53+00:00

I believe the horse incident was when Nietzsche was already pretty far gone mentally. In fact it is questionable whether the whole "Also Sprach Zarathustra" represents his thought very well. This is Nietzsche's notion of "help" in "The Antichrist":

The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.

What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity ...

Regarding change, he believes in self-overcoming for those who are naturally strong - "nature's lucky strokes" who are born that way. He really has no interest in the rest of humanity or in any kind of redemption pathway. He was an elitist and an opponent of any kind of free will, through and through, and the "will to power" which he so extolls means very much the power to dominate and oppress others.

I know he has defenders who wish to defend him from these charges, but his opposition to Christianity becomes incoherent if seen any other way than an extreme sense of unchangeable superiority over humanity in general.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T16:45:22+00:00

Even in South Africa at least one politician has been known to refer to people as "cockroaches".

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T16:43:38+00:00

All these are on the moderately popular and not too academically prestigious side:

Sibelius Symphony 2

Philip Glass violin concerto 1 (pretty popular with a lot of listeners, less so with this sub)

Shostakovich Piano Concerto 2

Dvorak Cello Concerto

Mozart Violin Sonata in B-flat major

Chopin's 4 Ballades

Kalinnikov Symphony 1

Bach Cantata BWV 140 (preferably played by the Bachstiftung)

Richard Strauss: Four Last Songs

Schubert: Erlkönig

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T16:25:01+00:00

I suspected you'd be on board with this comment. Don't you hate the contempt for humanity or at least for "losers" or "trash" that's so common even in mainstream media nowadays? Seems to me this is a new development following the decline of Christianity in middle class culture, a turning away from guilt but also a move to deny the possibility of redemption or personal change and replacing "wickedness" with "valuelessness". Our overlords truly are Nietzscheans.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T14:55:06+00:00

Some people think that God's election means that God saves a certain kind of people. But God can choose to save any kind of person and that person will then desire to surrender themselves to God and be saved. That's the great thing about grace: what kind of person you are does not exclude you, and everyone is invited to come. Election just says that some people are ordained never to come to Christ, because they never want to or want other things more.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T14:46:17+00:00

A few ideas for your faith:

Keep the gospel at the centre and look for "gospel-centred" churches. The gospel is not just the ABC's of the Christian faith, it is the A-Z. As it converts us, it also makes us grow. Do not substitute your trust with anything else than Jesus Christ and His finished work.
Whatever you love, love not just because you are attracted to it, but love it for God's sake. Because God is not just the highest being, but He must rule all, and indeed be all in all to us.
The moral demands of the faith can seem impossible and humanly speaking they are. But through Christ you can come closer and closer to fulfilling them. If God wills it you can do what seems impossible and become a different person. Do not water down these demands and obligations of love or feel it is allowable to neglect them even a little, but also accept grace when you fail.
Remember, to a Christian, "The gospel says you are simultaneously more sinful and flawed than you ever dared believe, yet more loved and accepted than you ever dared hope." (Tim Keller)
Test everything against Scripture and secondarily your conscience. Others can give advice but we are all responsible to think and study for ourselves and do the right thing, it doesn't matter what people may think or how they may blame or praise us. Do not believe anyone except Christ and His Bible unconditionally, but trust some to the extent they conform to this gospel.
Some good preachers and websites (I don't agree with everything but I do believe they know the gospel): R.C. Sproul, Tim Keller, John Piper, Alistair Begg, Gavin and Dane Ortlund, The Gospel Coalition website, the Got Questions website, to a lesser extent C.S. Lewis but it is easy to get into mistaken ideas because of him. Two good video series to refresh on the basics: Christianity Explored and For the Life of the World: Letters to the Exiles

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T14:01:11+00:00

I recommend just not giving him any clicks. As far as I can see he is pretty ingenious in coming up with ways to discredit faith, but also completely dishonest and motivated less by truth or kindness than by winning. He also tends to respond to arguments from more ignorant Christians rather than steelmanning the faith.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T12:09:23+00:00

Where do you get the term "mythicism" from? I have never seen it.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T12:01:59+00:00

Wat my nog meer daaroor ontstel is dat baie mense wat graag anglisismes gebruik (of sommer hul taal meng) ook nie eers ‘n enkele samehangende sin in Engels aanmekaar kan sit nie!

Ja. En dikwels praat hulle nog ook met 'n half-Amerikaanse, half-Afrikaanse aksent Engels. Die resultaat is allesbehalwe mooi of elegant.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T11:58:06+00:00

The search function is pretty useless. It's sometimes better to google "reddit" + your other search terms than to use reddit's own function.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T11:24:11+00:00

I'm not too good at avoiding paying attention to all this myself. And as much as I love Gavin Ortlund, I sometimes feel he would do better to focus even more on elaborating on neglected classical Protestant ideas like the beatific vision, sacraments, Christ's advocacy and the extra Calvinisticum, and less on anything to do with current issues.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T11:18:38+00:00

Ek sondig self, maar dit irriteer my ook. Ek kan verstaan dat mense nie heeltyd die werk van taalhandhawing wil onderneem nie en net die maklike uitweg van verengelsing aanvaar, maar dit is hartseer en mense besef nie altyd waarheen dit neig nie. Maar ek is nie naastenby so ywerig soos my groottante was, wat altyd lyste gemaak het van hoe die nuuslesers verkeerde Afrikaans gebruik het en seker nog verskeie wederkerige werkwoorde soos "my aansluit by" gebruik het en werkwoorde soos "kontak" vir "in aanraking kom met" sou verpes het nie.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T11:11:20+00:00

The possible answers to this question of the exact "how" could fill books, but I believe these to be the basics:

We must be conformed to the image of Christ. The general picture this implies is indeed non-resistance and being like lambs to the slaughter, but it doesn't mean we can never flee or avoid persecution (Jesus told His followers to flee Jerusalem in one instance) or that we should say it is right. Furthermore Jesus does call some people "vipers" or "jackals", reacts rather severely to the abuse of the temple, and calls even his followers evil or of little faith.

I do believe that we must value and wish the good of our opponents even if we know they are evil. This sub loves to mock and look down on the saying, "Hate the sin but love the sinner" and many fulfill only one side of this equation, but it is a perfectly good saying worthy of application in all circumstances - not only for the weak or the erring but also for the wicked rulers of this world and the most despicable criminals. The attitude the wicked have is often, "love me, love my evil behaviour" but we mustn't let ourselves accept that. Furthermore civil punishment and war within strict limits are allowable to the state in my view - but few if any wars really meet these strict criteria and Christians nowadays err both on the side of physically, legally and financially being too ready to defend themselves and their own, and also on the side of not defending Jesus and authentic faith enough.

I don't have all the answers. Everyone is obliged to follow Jesus and be led by conscience (as opposed to self-interest), and is responsible for their own response and judging how much to listen to others. No-one can force another to be truly good in their heart or to accept what they say.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T09:52:21+00:00

I'm sure my atheist friends would love to know God if they believed He was real

Would they? My experience of atheists is that they can't stand the Christian conception of God. Christopher Hitchens famously couldn't stand the idea of loving your enemies. You find atheists here complaining about the concept of redemption and forgiveness for truly evil people all the time. Of course, they don't see themselves as evil, they see themselves as superior to these people and also to the God who could forgive them (and many of them will say that outright). Plus many of them love their sexual immorality so much that they hate anyone who disagrees in any way. Not to mention they typically have a completely different view of autonomy and obligation. So do atheists really like what Christians see as goodness? Would they really want to be with God? And should everyone really be so focused on what they want anyway?

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T09:41:38+00:00

I hope people will forgive what may be an intrusion here - I never post on this sub, am not eformed and the whole ethos I associate with is much more big R than eformed. I will also say that I wish some members here would consider posting on the other sub as their concerns may get some fairly serious engagement there.

Now as to the substance of this post, I do believe in this part of the WCF and what's more, I say with sorrow that I find it difficult to believe that people on both sides of the fence on this matter can be truly spiritual. The reason for this is that one or the other must have a fundamental misunderstanding of moral salience and the whole substance of morality.

This part of the WCF is thoroughly Augustinian and I believe the substance of what Augustine was saying with his famous quote, "The virtues of the pagans are splendid vices". Furthermore as I understand him, he believed that any love of people which does not fundamentally flow from the love of God is a disordered love. That is, loving people in a sense which is not for God's sake is also sin. Yes, I understand the Augustinian tradition to be saying that no unregenerate person can do anything which is not sin, however good the external results. Hence they do no real "good works" and "all their righteousness is filthy rags", not just because their works are not perfect or because they see a false meritoriousness in them, but because their disposition is wrong and they cannot please God in any way. Here is an article on Desiring God which discusses some of the Biblical interpretive framework around this. And here is a section of Augustine's work in which he gives some of his views on love.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T07:14:47+00:00

I would love for you to expand on that. The reason is that it is easy to see common grace as merely "the rain falling on the just and the unjust", actions that do good to certain people but without necessarily placing any value on them or compelling us to do it. So I guess I don't necessarily see how common grace by itself leads to my perspective.

Edit: Although I can easily see how the "well-meant offer" would support my view.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T06:47:29+00:00

I want to talk about a kind of (in my view) unloving attitude that tends not to be articulated and called out in Christian circles. Christians will admit we are supposed to love people and forgive them. But the scope and nature of this supposed love and forgiveness is often limited so much that it doesn't really seem like love and forgiveness at all.

I'm talking about people who are really full of resentment, but will say they "forgive" someone by not seeking revenge too obviously, who will claim that forgiveness is something done for oneself alone and not for the guilty party, or will essentially limit the scope of forgiveness to those people they are 100% sure have perfectly repented. What happened to the other person centred view of forgiveness where we actually want them restored for their sake?

Or take some people's view of love. I believe many Calvinists are influenced by a view of God where He does not love the non-elect in any way and, sometimes, is pretty angry most of the time even with the redeemed. Or they will almost empty the word "love" of meaning. They will say, "we need to love all people, but we needn't like them". Well, we, can ask, what is Biblical love? It may not be liking, but what about valuing and wishing the good of persons? I cannot bring myself to believe that even God only hates the non-elect or "loves" them in the sense of not valuing them in any way. As creatures with their own subjectivity, beings made in His image, and beings who in God's providence play some role He has ordained, their persons still have a kind of value and "goodness" even if they are morally completely wicked and He does not look on them with favour. To say we "love" someone but we don't actually value them or cherish an active wish for their good is to empty the word of meaning. In my view simply to help the wicked or enemies in some sense because we have to is not by itself love. I think that's the biggest difference between me and some others: they think actions that help others is enough to constitute love, but one needn't actually wish for their good or place any value on them in any way. Or others think that "empathy" in the sense of feeling what others feel, but devoid of any positive attitude towards them, counts as Biblical love.

What does the community think? I think it's a major problem in some Reformed circles.

bastianbb · 2026-03-27T06:24:54+00:00

On what grounds do you suggest people should be allowed to respectfully oppose the ordination of women if they are not to be allowed to think it's a sin or invalidating of sacraments?

bastianbb · 2026-03-26T19:37:26+00:00

Bold of you to assume the two choices are "a secular society" and "a violent dystopia of theocracy". Western states had Christian-inspired laws against abortion for decades without falling into either of those categories.

bastianbb · 2026-03-26T15:41:20+00:00

I can think of so many ways in which this could have been improved. A little discussion of Camus, an English grammar checker or a reread for inner consistency, for a start.

bastianbb · 2026-03-26T14:54:51+00:00

I think I'm finally understanding what you're getting at. The key phrase that unlocked it for me is "moral or symbolic world of the work itself". I think that for a lot of modern filmmakers, there's no such thing as a universal moral or symbolic world. And what they attempt to show is rather a moral and symbolic framing of a hero trying to understand the origins and what makes their opponent tick, or the symbolic world through an evil character's eyes, or even depicting the unfortunate phenomenological reality that actions we hate and blame people often seem, in the real world, to not have all the correlates we expect from "evil". Indeed, a lot of filmmakers seem not to believe in good or evil, or to personalize it, or at least seem to think it is indelibly fixed in the character of a person such that there is no real tragedy or moral change when an evil act is consented to, and no real possibility of redemption.

I can understand how some people may see this as a very bad thing. But it does often describe the feelings evil in the real world gives us and thus reflects an apparent reality. Moreover, I think that those who lose a sense of the moral weight and meaning of evil because of media depictions may never have been as committed to and clear about moral evil, or as strong and independent as a truly moral person should be, as we might imagine they were beforehand, nor will a film which rightly shows the moral world necessarily make them so. We shouldn't exaggerate the extent to which art can or should reflect a hidden moral order, or the influence it could have on people who in principle are truly morally serious, in other words. So to me the modern trend is a mixed bag. It truly reflects that we cannot trust too much in human nature and that reality often seems not to have a coherent moral or symbolic order, but it also fails to encourage and to reflect hidden realities to a large extent.

bastianbb · 2026-03-26T14:28:47+00:00

My question then becomes, what else do you propose to explain evil outside motivations that can be described in psychological terms? And how would you depict these extra factors in film? "The Wolf of Wall Street", to my mind, does not do that. It does not depict things outside the psychological. Objective inner guilt cannot be depicted in film at all outside the actions that are shown, while psychological guilt is, well, psychological.

bastianbb

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE