| | Further, this movie tries to put this altruism in its best light, implying anything he would have done for his own sake would have been a much lesser value to all Bah! The movie does no such thing. What it did show is how his little neck of the woods would be affected if George had _never been born_, not if he made a different career choice!
George's happiness was achieved despite his early reservations to the contrary.
I need to go back to another claim you made:
You missed the point of what I was saying. Yes, he functioned well, superbly so - and was proud of what he did. BUT - it was, bottom line, for the sake of others... and he allowed himself to consider the well-being of others as more important than his own. How does George consider the "well being of others" more important than his own in the movie? In what way? I'm starting to believe you'd of thought better of George if he'd just taken the money and run. Screw everyone else! Fuck um! Suckers!
Phil nailed George's benevolent, heroic nature this way:
Another thought on productivity: It is an optional choice, but it is a worthy productive goal to try to create a world in which you raise people up around you, make them happy and successful, whether in the country or society you live in or, depending on productive choices, in the community you live in, be in Bedford Falls or Chippewa Falls or San Diego. You can do this as a banker, as a teacher, or as a novelist or a philosopher. George Bailey has an -enormous- benign impact on his own little world, not necessarily on the whole state or country, given his profession. Whether he personally formulates it in Christian terms or not (and I don't recall him doing that in the movie!), that can be an enormously satisfying, rational, selfish, productive, non-sacrificial achievement. To have a direct, personal, hope-giving impact on the world like that is not necessarily narcissism. (Bold added by me)
Are you suggesting a career in which one "lifts others up" isn't a worthy path? That it's somehow inherently a sacrificial undertaking? Phil demonstrated in the above that it's not. I'm interested in discovering why you or others think it is. I'm guessing that it's got something to do with George not seeking to get rich himself and that he really cared about his customer's and fellow townfolk. But you'll have to show how that's somehow a moral fracture.
Teresa
|
|
