The Incredibles

[coalescent]

Tom requested a poll on the philosophy of The Incredibles. But, given that I'm me and not him, I'm going to preface his simple enquiry with a whole load of other quotes and questions.

Exhibit A:

The superhero was dreamt up by Nietzsche during the 1880s, and has been summoning humanity to transcend itself ever since. Does Mr Incredible's renunciation mean that the superman has finally despaired of the midget, puling race he was meant to lead onwards and upwards?

Exhibit B:

Is Dash, the supersonic third-grader forbidden from racing on the track team, a gifted child held back by the educational philosophy that "everybody is special"? Or is he an overprivileged elitist being forced to take into account the feelings of others?

Is his father, Mr. Incredible, who complains that the schools "keep inventing new ways to celebrate mediocrity," a visionary reformer committed to pushing children to excel? Or is he a reactionary in red tights who's been reading too much Nietzsche and Ayn Rand?

Is Syndrome, the geek villain trying to kill the superheroes, an angry Marxist determined to quash individuality? Or is his plan to give everyone artificial superpowers an uplifting version of "cooperative learning" in an "inclusion classroom"?

Exhibit C:

Who would have thought that an animated film would finally touch a nerve, putting egalitarians on the defensive? That is the achievement of Pixar Studio's new hit, The Incredibles, the story of a family of superheroes who struggle against the reign of mediocrity and finally break free to excel. Along the way it skewers the dumbing down of schools, the mantra that everyone is special, and the laws that give losers special status as victims.

Exhibit D:

The movie does come to some interesting philosophical conclusions, not least among them the way it advocates full-on Nietzschean ethics. The "Supers" -- literal Ubermensch -- are the strong, endowed with special gifts that place them beyond the range of normal men. The Supers also possess unimpeachably noble spirits, just as Nietzsche described. While competing amongst themselves to be the finest hero, they devote themselves and their gifts entirely to protecting the weak from themselves.

And, as mentioned in my earlier post, the Guardian has a roundup of comment here.

[Poll #399598]

Note that if you answer 'other' to question three, you should explain that in the comments, too. Myself, I'm undecided. So, convince me, one way or the other!

Comments

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Butting in ...

My answer? Context. Nothing more, nothing less.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Explain

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Is this where somebody mentions primordial misogyny? :-p

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Happy to debate that one as well :-)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

I read books and write about them a lot. Joshua is a plumber. Joshua and I go to a literature seminar together. He cannot contribute, and I can. Joshua and I go to a house in which water is spewing from cracks in every available pop. Joshua can contribute, I cannot.

Neither of us is inherently better than the other - it depends on the context. The idea of the 'inherently better' person simply does not work on a skills-based level. To look at Peter Hitchens again (for I despise him), and to use a deliberately morally dubious example ... he no doubt considers the lowest echelons of my old comprehensive school to be just the sort of losers the 'system' attempts to elevate at the cost of lowering the horizons of, say, people in my peer group. But if I were in a fist fight, I'd rather have Gareth Kingscott with me than I would Peter Hitchens.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I should start with a caveat - I have niether seen the film, nor read Nietzsche, so I may arguing at cross purposes here. But since that has never stopped me before, I'll get on with my point.

Taking your first paragraph - I would argue the use of the phrase "better person" in that context. Much like Geneva (see her comment in this subthread), I would generally use "better person" in a moral sense. I would use "more useful at this point in time", "person with more suited skills", or some other equally anodyne phrase to describe those situations - each of you has learnt skills and knowledge that are more applicable in some situations than others. That does not speak to which of you is "better". If, after contributing to the discussion and stopping the flood, you habitually return home and torture kittens, whilst Joshua routinely staffs a soup kitchen for homeless people, *that* may speak to which of you is "better".

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was going to tackle the moral sense of 'better person' in my reply to you - but I wound up going off on a tangent about moral relativism so deleted it. :P It seems to me, though, that many of the right-wingers who are so excited by what they see as Bird's message do indeed place that almost moral quality on the people they consider 'superior' - largely academic, bourgeois intelligences or highly-trained, sports-oriented athleticism.

We agree, I think - 'superior' and 'better' are meaningless terms when applied to a person's skills base. But this, it seems to me, is the undercurrent of much of the commentary to which Niall linked.

And, of course, the superman is often morally ambiguous. He owes his position not to his unassailable morality but this abilities.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I wound up going off on a tangent about moral relativism so deleted it.

Which was unfortunate, because now you're going to have to type it all back in again :-p

We agree, I think - 'superior' and 'better' are meaningless terms when applied to a person's skills base. But this, it seems to me, is the undercurrent of much of the commentary to which Niall linked.

Yes, I think we are agreeing. Skills, knowledge, etc are essentially value-neutral. It's what you do, not what you *can* do that counts. So where you originally answered "context", I would have answered "motivation, intention, action, reaction, instinct", more or less in that order. But probably at more length. [1]
I did notice that much of right-wing reaction that Niall linked to was overly concerned with the "if everybody is special, then no-one is" discussion. I have to say, I find this to be an entirely specious argument. The basis would seem to be that all "specialness" is the same; that to tend to the dying, or write beutiful poetry, or achieve sporting greatness, or to help someone across the road are all indistinguishable. That each act devalues the others; that each peron who is special makes everyone else that bit less special. I just wish that some of these people would realise that life is not a competition - there's no prize at the end. Whoever has the most toys still dies. Striving to be the best "you" is still a worthwhile goal [2], regardless of whether other people are better or not. This "someone has to be identifiably the best" attitude diminshes us all, and my heartfelt reaction to those who believe it is "fuck you" (and not in the nice squishy way).

[1] *snerk*
[2] I'm making myself feel nauseous here

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Have I told you lately that I loff you? :)

I think the 'if everyone is special no one is' argument is based on a very narrow definition of 'specialness' - as far as I can tell, Hitchens and company define it by exam grades and potential for high political or corporate office. Arses that they are.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Have I told you lately that I loff you? :)

Not lately enough :-p

Arses that they are

Amen to that

Dammit!

[applez.livejournal.com]

We think too much alike!

My point to the question would've been: what makes one person superior to the other is doing more for others at the right moment of need, usually with little self-interest served. As a general rule, anyway.