There is freedom. But there are two. Positive liberty and negative liberty. Positive freedom is the desire to choose one of two or more choices. Negative freedom is essentially escape, which means that even if there are two or more choices, since all choices are equal (there is no specific desire), it can be regarded as equal to no choice, or only one choice. Therefore, negative freedom is no longer free to some extent. Then, there is the question of determinism. Primitive determinism claims that if the present state of all atoms in the world is known, then the future can be completely predicted. In other words, everything is determined and there is no freedom. Then came quantum mechanics, which claimed to be unpredictable, but determinism cannot be replaced by quantum physics - although unpredictable at the micro level, events at the macro level can still be considered predictable (slip, fall) ; and unpredictability does not equal freedom (if I start hitting people unpredictably, obviously I can't say I'm free). And consciousness seems equally inescapable of determinism: any conscious decision can be seen as the result of a mixture of a series of previous stimuli and inner character (again generated by countless stimuli since birth). It seems that there is no freedom.
From another perspective, however, it can be said that a person has a certain degree of freedom: if in making a decision, all the decisive factors come from within the person, then he can be regarded as free. This is if determinism. Example: A person is psychologically charged and decides to jump off a building. At this time, it was obvious that there were current external stimuli that led to the desire to jump off the building. However, what is important is that at the moment of jumping off the building, there are no external factors acting on people and restricting people's choices (for example, no one physically forces the jumper to jump off the building), then all the factors at this time come from the jumper's internal. It can be objected that the interior is also inspired by the former exterior. But this objection goes beyond the bounds of weak determinism - the former external stimuli have now completely become the internal stimuli of the jumpers themselves - when all the determinants come from within (which is what happens now ), then man is free.
Further, a person should be defined as a combination of memories with external stimuli. Depending on the personality, people choose their own memories to match their own way of life (faced with the same thing, a negative person chooses to remember the sad part, a positive person remembers the happy, and a meticulous person remembers what touched him details, while the negligent person does not incorporate much into memory). Although it can be said to be deterministic about what happens to a person (that is, the external stimuli that shape his character), the person has taken the external stimuli into his body, transformed them into his own character and memory, and used this as his own. Benchmarks to determine their future actions. It is at this level that a person can be said to be "to some extent" free. (Formally, therefore, "one should be held accountable for one's actions" has plausibility.)
So, there is no denying that Nana has freedom. But most of her freedom is negative freedom. Unable to (or think they can't) act in response to their situation, degenerate step by step, and eventually die. But she still has moments when she uses her positivity and freedom; even as a prostitute, she accosts people, dances, discusses philosophy, listens to men recite sentences about painters, which are all positive aspects. What is this positive nature? A combination of two events is required to answer. First, a conversation with a philosopher, about thought and discourse. Philosophers say: "Thought and discourse are one thing, and only discourse can think; but discourse makes thought impure." I think this can be understood with Bergson's folds. In Bergson's philosophy, there is a fold between pure memory and present action as polarities. Pure action represents the unconscious, the absolute spiritual realm, which can be the so-called soul; the present action represents complete practicality, focusing only on the present moment, without any memory at all (the poles we are facing now are actually all dualisms. The skepticism we have to face - if there are polarities of body and mind, how do they communicate?). Bergson argues that the two poles are not static, but are in a constant swinging transition process. When people want to act, pure memory will become narrow bit by bit according to the current situation, and finally only the memory that has an effect on the current action remains, and at this time, it is impossible to distinguish whether it is a memory or a heartbeat. On the contrary, when people do not need to act at all (such as in dreams), pure memory diverges, and unconscious memories appear one after another.
Going back to language and thought, these two poles also form a fold. Thought is pure and unspeakable, similar to pure memory, while language is a tool of expression and is closely related to action. When people think, what happens is that a pure thought takes shape in the mind, but this is fleeting because the thought is quickly transformed into language in the mind. Then many languages are understood by themselves, turned into a pure thought, and then read again by language. It is an endless cycle, between the real and the potential, the pure and the mundane. So what is seen here is the ever-changing, ever-changing stream of becoming of the ego in time, as Nietzsche said: A real man will understand that he never ceases to lie.
But where does this flow lead? How is the individual defined in this flow? To answer these questions, I think I can go back to the line at the beginning of the elementary school student's composition: "The bird exists outside and inside. Stripped of the outside, the inside is left, and the inside is stripped away and the soul is left." Maybe it can be understood like this: the inside is the mind, Is the subconscious mind, the outside is the behavior. In the folds of the two that are created, what governs its direction and defines the person is the soul. Explaining the soul, one can return to the question of freedom - when all stimuli originate within a person, the choices he makes represent the freedom he desires, that is, his soul. At the same time, it can also be understood as the kind of love that the philosophers said, or the state of the painter when he paints - in a word, I think it can be summed up as a kind of attitude, or what Wittgenstein said, can make you Feel the good things in life.
Finally, analyze the form. According to Deleuze's theory, films are roughly divided into two categories, classical films and modern films. The distinguishing mark of classical cinema is the interaction between the situation and the behavior of the characters. The two constitute a logical system, winding up along two spirals, reaching the apex, forming a perfect organic structure, which is what can be seen in the film. The frame of the story from beginning to end. On the other hand, modern cinema seeks to break down this story framework, the relationship between action and situation. Modern cinema focuses on the state of inability to act when an unbearable situation is applied to the characters. Specifically, it could be what happened to Nana, her tragic fate. In this situation, the characters cannot move, but struggle back and forth, showing the folds of the whole world here, pure time-specifically to the image, Nana does something and doesn't do something, her soul It's defined by what she's done (in the movies we've seen), but that behavior doesn't take her anywhere - except death. So through modern narrative means, what Godard brings to the audience in this film is the true face of pure life-the flow of generation, the soul established here, and the freedom of this soul to do whatever it wants, it must be It is grand, equal to the universe, equal to death.
View more about Vivre Sa Vie reviews
