Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

tor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#51

Post by aninhumer »

MikeTaylor wrote: post #4

This is dead on target. It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his ev…

I don't see that as a failing, because I don't think that's what Angel's character arc was ever trying to do. His character arc is about guilt.

Besides, if you want a vampire character at war with his own evil nature, surely that's basically Spike's arc?

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#52

Post by golangnews »

dTal wrote: post #23
scandox wrote: post #3

This is all absolutely correct, but what I feel it misses is that the mythic power of the story lies in our enjoying it, reading it naively. In other words we deliberately read it ourselves in repressed mode. If we read it the first time with the kind of clarity suggested here then we don't actually feel its power: we are merely interested - rather than complicit.

Astute observation, succinctly put. I would additionally add that it also works the other way; if a story's themes and metaphors are too clear before the story is over, it can damage suspension of disbelief and hurt enjoyment. This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually giv…

When you take something apart to understand it, of course you can never quite put it back together again the same way and see it holistically. But there's no other way to gain a good understanding of the component parts, so this is a worthwhile exercise, even if they don't enjoy it in the same way as other reading.

I'd contend very few teenagers are really ready to enjoy Sense and Sensibility or similar texts anyway because of their different and short experience of life, but they are in a position to learn some of the techniques and vocabulary used.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#53

Post by mcguire »

johnsonjo wrote: post #48
mcguire wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully suggest that, if he left it at that, there is something wrong with your teacher. Further, I'll suggest that there is something wrong with that take on altruism, simply because that's not how altruism feels .

Genuinely curious, what part did I get wrong about altruism? How would you describe it?

The idea that it only exists due to incentives. Behaving altruistically doesn't feel like it depends on external rewards. In fact, one of the reasons I chose not to be altruistic is the costs of doing so.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#54

Post by johnsonjo »

moosey wrote: post #49
johnsonjo wrote: post #46

"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?" It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing…

There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered. A good example might…

Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right.

I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#55

Post by johnsonjo »

mcguire wrote: post #53
johnsonjo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious, what part did I get wrong about altruism? How would you describe it?

The idea that it only exists due to incentives. Behaving altruistically doesn't feel like it depends on external rewards. In fact, one of the reasons I chose not to be altruistic is the costs of doing so.

Yeah I think that's true. Maybe the point my economics book was trying to make was altruism doesn't exist and it only appears to exist due to incentives. I agree with you true altruism shouldn't depend on incentive.

Also, I disagree with my economics book I believe true altruism does exist. I just believe people aren't perfect, but their desires and character can make them truly altruistic.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#56

Post by psyc »

moosey wrote: post #49
johnsonjo wrote: post #46

"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?" It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing…

There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully." It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered. A good example might…

A slightly different wording of that last one would make it compassionate, IMO. "Because I can't be happy if I have merely 'won' the soc-ec game, while so many around me have 'lost' and are suffering."

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#57

Post by deadmetheny »

deanCommie wrote: post #5

The 2010's version of this is a well-educated, well-raised, mild-mannered, socially-liberal, employed, tech-savvy millennial who starts on 4chan, moves on to /r/redpill and /r/mensrights, graduates to trolling and doxxing women on twitter, all for the LULZ. Eventually his freedom to "act as he can't in real life" leads to electing Donald Trump and a full on embracement of the alt-right agenda.

>starts on 4chan, moves on to /r/redpill and /r/mensrights

You have that in reverse. All of the worst subreddits of that nature are just Diet /pol/ at the end of the day.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#59

Post by Tactic »

johnsonjo wrote: post #46

"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?" It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing…

You should do the right thing because it is the right thing.

However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)

Post reply on HN