Watching a very old-school spy movie, the final action of the hero is moving. I can only say something simple, because a good story is like a good music, and any kind of applause is only superficial and superfluous. So I know that war is definitely not a matter of hatred, but often the other way around. And the drama of tearing the devil is more than redundant. He doesn't deny his admiration for Westerners, at least about the war, and is willing to gamble to defeat the gentleman. If Yoshiko Kawashima considers herself to be a Manchurian, then calling her a traitor would be uninteresting. Victory means victory, why humiliate it. Just as Britain still boycotted Bach during World War I, Beethoven had been broadcasted to boost morale during World War II, instead of disdain. But this is still off-topic.
I think of another movie I watched last month, based on a German novella from the early 19th century. It was also late at night, and after reading it, I was quite unable to self-determination until I wrote a lot. The ancient Greeks did not regard those who meditated and introspect as having an inner world, but thought that those who were deeply involved in public affairs, who had share and responsibility, were able to learn their ambitions. That novella, the golden thread of a progressive literary historian, may be too short: he did not see the power of the peasants, and his anti-feudal revolutionary nature was not thorough enough, and so on, —— Those who know this kind of thing know it as a joke. What makes me indecisive and indispensable is the attitude of the characters, or virtue. If modern literature can be derogatory, I think that kind of virtue is not willing to "represent" the virtues of others. The daughter who was driven out of the house for her parents by accidentally conceiving in her natal family did not know that she could naturally represent who was oppressed, resist her parents, and smash who her parents represented in her eyes; his parents could not accept her daughter’s Being pregnant, and paying attention to fame, does not appear to be Wang Yuhui's ruthless scholar, or Lu Siye's hypocrisy and coldness. More clearly, conformity does not mean exemption from responsibility, and the rule is to be cautious, that is, to be responsible to God. Or more clearly, sin does not mean shame: sinners can still be held accountable, and those who are confident and innocent can still appeal: other people involved cannot give up their obligation to treat them as others. In other words, there is no right to abolish the equality of sinners as human beings. And these are purely between them. Just like classical drama, there are very clear conflicts, and everyone assumes that they can take full responsibility for their choices: otherwise, can they still die? Since the choice of death is also considered voluntary (Hamlet); other choices while still alive cannot be said to be forced, compulsory, and exempt from full responsibility. This is a kind of exclusivity from the classical age. Because if modern literature can be derogated, then the difference between it and the works of the classical era is like monologue and drama, like street and court. Drama is a clear conflict, a finite world, and what is said is audible; and what is audible must be answered: it is a whole sound, responding to each other, and each has its own end. The monologue means that the monologue does not feel that he has the obligation to "openly and workable understanding" of others, and he does not even believe that it is possible. The court deals with a clear matter, and the "relevance" is strictly tested: if it is irrelevant, there is no need to talk about it, and it will confuse, delay, and make people confused and weak. On the street, there are endless mouths and faces, one after another and indeterminate polyphony, and the public on the street can also watch and comment. The people in the court are only responsible to the people involved in the incident, only answering the interrogation of the other party and accepting the judge's ruling, but on the street, ha ha. I'm not talking about which is better or worse, because this will inevitably fall into another pit. The stale language is not a shortcut to expression, but a mud pit of ideas. Because shortcuts are for those who are diligent and fast, but stale language belongs to slackers. It's not about who is better or worse, but about what we found tonight. Tomorrow may also feel that classical works are clear and intense, but readers are not allowed to wander around, and no substitutes are allowed to hide. Instead, they want to read modern literature—but it does not cancel tonight's views. This is another virtue in the classical age. Take the story in that movie as an example: the winner does not have to pursue the right of the loser to start a war: unless his war is different from that of others. The winner does not feel that admiration of the enemy is contradictory to self-love and patriotism. To distinguish something does not mean a choice. What to choose does not mean good and evil. There is often an all-encompassing "reflection" temperament permeated in modern literature. In fact, it is just talking, self-deconstructing to nothing. I think that everything is questioned to the root, but in fact it is just willful. Because according to the understanding of people in the classical era, only people directly related to a matter have the right to completely choose and interfere. Just as the parliament is only open to the property owners, because the property owners have the ability and intention to be responsible to the community. So the "evil boy" of the classical era was only confiscated with his son-in-law and merchants during the war, but he never thought he could go against the war. In other words, the evil youth are also taxpayers, and they have the right to fight against the war, just as they oppose the government's indiscriminate spending of money. But this lawsuit is its authority to question, not a reason for questioning. At least in the classical era, anti-war on the grounds that war has brought about sacrifices is totally ridiculous, and it's not dry. Because war must have sacrifices, the wise should say that war cannot resolve hatred, counter-renewal, or avoid stupid end of the war, or must be unavoidable, death and injury are inevitable, then disinfection after the war, eliminate the plague, so as not to save the dead. It’s the responsibility of the survivor to be incapable of suffering. What to choose does not mean good and evil. There is often an all-encompassing "reflection" temperament permeated in modern literature. In fact, it is just talking, self-deconstructing to nothing. I think that everything is questioned to the root, but in fact it is just willful. Because according to the understanding of people in the classical era, only people directly related to a matter have the right to completely choose and interfere. Just as the parliament is only open to the property owners, because the property owners have the ability and intention to be responsible to the community. So the "evil boy" of the classical era was only confiscated with his son-in-law and merchants during the war, but he never thought he could go against the war. In other words, the evil youth are also taxpayers, and they have the right to fight against the war, just as they oppose the government's indiscriminate spending of money. But this lawsuit is its authority to question, not a reason for questioning. At least in the classical era, anti-war on the grounds that war has brought about sacrifices is totally ridiculous, and it's not dry. Because war must have sacrifices, the wise should say that war cannot resolve hatred, counter-renewal, or avoid stupid end of the war, or must be unavoidable, death and injury are inevitable, then disinfection after the war, eliminate the plague, so as not to save the dead. It’s the responsibility of the survivor to be incapable of suffering. What to choose does not mean good and evil. There is often an all-encompassing "reflection" temperament permeated in modern literature. In fact, it is just talking, self-deconstructing to nothing. I think that everything is questioned to the root, but in fact it is just willful. Because according to the understanding of people in the classical era, only people directly related to a matter have the right to completely choose and interfere. Just as the parliament is only open to the property owners, because the property owners have the ability and intention to be responsible to the community. So the "evil boy" of the classical era was only confiscated with his son-in-law and merchants during the war, but he never thought he could go against the war. In other words, the evil youth are also taxpayers, and they have the right to fight against the war, just as they oppose the government's indiscriminate spending of money. But this lawsuit is its authority to question, not a reason for questioning. At least in the classical era, anti-war on the grounds that war has brought about sacrifices is totally ridiculous, and it's not dry. Because war must have sacrifices, the wise should say that war cannot resolve hatred, counter-renewal, or avoid stupid end of the war, or must be unavoidable, death and injury are inevitable, then disinfection after the war, eliminate the plague, so as not to save the dead. It’s the responsibility of the survivor to be incapable of suffering.
I saw a sentence in high school, "Modern people will have his emptiness and loneliness, but this feeling of emptiness is completely different from the feeling of emptiness felt by the ancient Romans." This sentence is even clearer tonight. Just as the ancients had tragedies, modern people can only miss it if they embrace it. The ancients thought he had nowhere to go, and they didn’t want to go. Fate was for him, and the world was for him at a glance: Prometheus was willing to be pecked by a vulture, and Sisyphus would always push his stone. Socrates calmly drank his bad wine, and Hamlet also to be or not to be; but modern people always pretend to think that he is "somewhere else."
I know that thinking is greater than action, far greater than those who do. If I were reborn in the classical era, I am afraid that I will live on the edge of life than today. I watched movies from the shore, admiring the staunch and decisive of the classical personality, doing more than words, doing things with words; but if I am in it, I am afraid that I am just a free coward, or at most conscience discovers, but it also ends in entanglement and absolutely nothing. Can't be decisive. But this does not prevent me from admiring the heroes of the classical era. Sinners can also worship Jesus.
Finish.
2014-10-15
View more about Eye of the Needle reviews
