As a kid growing up in a poor, rural community, I wasn't exposed to much intellectual writing. The exception was the reprint in the local paper of Ebert's movie reviews, and of course seeing him on one of the two channels that came in on the antenna.

When so many around me thought that being dissatisfied with the intellectual equivalent of McDonald's was elitist, Ebert reminded me that it wasn't cynical to look down on thoughtless garbage; rather, it was hopeful to demand that movie studios realize that we weren't as dumb as they think we are.

Particularly relevant I feel in a world of comment thread polemics

0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability

[1]: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16893.The_Crack_Up

http://www.pajiba.com/videos/watch-roger-ebert-was-a-total-d...

His personality kept at arms length throughout the 80's and 90's.

However when he could only speak through his writings, people saw some sparks of brilliance and began paying him attention. The bravery he showed by appearing at the Sundance Festival after losing his jaw was noticed. And over the last six years he has been recognized as last great critic.

The problem with Ebert's reviews is that they offer very little in the way of insight, analysis, or depth. Instead, they are generally straightforward expositions of the film crew, setting, characters, and plot. This means that you cannot read them before watching a film, unless you want to be spoiled, and afterwards, if you were paying any kind of attention, you've already grasped everything that he points out. He doesn't usually explain what he thought the central message of a film is, so it can be unclear if he got it or not. He isn't big on interpretation.

He wasn't an idiot, but he didn't do the hard intellectual work of coming up with something new to say about films. Even the most hyper-intelligent person would have a hard time coming up with "intellectual" things to say at the rate he churned through movies. I think he was writing something like one review per day by the end.

Ebert's reviews are to film criticism what Ebert's one-pot cooking is to a full kitchen. He could make something reasonable, and it would appeal to lots of people, but the structural and time constraints meant it would never have the sophistication of an in-depth treatment. Ask someone in film studies, ask someone in culinary school.

The positive side of a lack of depth is breadth, which means we have a massive number of star ratings from a single source, and as such his work is a reasonable encyclopedia of film. Much of what he details in his reviews isn't available in Wikipedia, or appropriate for it.

But I'd pause before stipulating even that his review writing was broad. Even within the medium of mass-market reviews, Ebert was impactful. Think about how his star system worked, so that Donner's Superman shared a rating with Herzog's Aguirre, The Wrath of God, and that somehow still made sense. Or the way he managed his brand, or syndicated his show with Siskel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_studies_journals

Don't get me wrong. Reading is important, the classics are important. But the idea that you have to focus in "old stuff" to be intellectual is absurd.

This is the same guy who said "video games cannot be art, and I will not consider debate about it". The second part in particular was what I found disturbing.

He also clarifies that he thinks video games can in principle be art, but that no video game yet made could hold its own among the great works of art.

I don't mean to restart the debate here, I'm just pointing out that his arguments are insulated and prejudiced, and hence my main point: that by denying any debate on the topic (it's the first sentence in your link - relented only by sheer volume), he refuses to learn about the topic. Again, I think this is in stark contrast to the quote I was initially responding to. I think it is profoundly anti-intellectual to behave in this manner.

I don't care whether or not he likes games, or whether he thinks they're shit art or not. Each to their own. But for an influential person in a related field to make such a contentious, declarative statement, and then refuse to entertain debate... that's anti-intellectualism, in my opinion. Just like the layperson who doesn't get cubism and calls it inferior as a result.

He did change opinion over time and concede that they could be 'non-traditional art', which suggests that yes indeed, engaging in debate (even if it has to be forced upon you) can actually change your views; help you understand why people say what they say.

PS: the snarky person in me had to laugh at Ebert's characterisation of games as 'not art' because the audience's actions can change the outcome or plot. Clearly he never played Mass Effect :D

Isn't the fact that he supposedly said he doesn't consider them art and doesn't want to debate it an indication that he views it as just a personal opinion, and not something he wants to force on other people? He has his reasons, no doubt, but not everybody in the world needs to embrace everything in it. If he was happy with the art that he knew, good for him.

I didn't say otherwise on what made him happy. But when you're an influential public figure making public statements, the rules are a little different for you. If a politician or a leading business figure said "I think latinos are lazy and worthless. I'm not going to debate that, it's just a personal opinion", would you still say that no-one would have a right to ask them to justify the statement or hold them to account?

No, because I hold the rights of races of people not to be discriminated or slandered against far, far more important than the right of video games to be considered art. Calling a race of people lazy promotes racism and actually affects people's lives. Whether video games are art is mostly an academic question. That's the difference.

I don't think journalists should have to answer questions on any topic that comes up. He clearly didn't know much about video games and he was happy with the art that he knew. People who think video games are art have a right to reply, but not a right to expect him to debate it with them.

I don't think games had any reason to feel threatened by him.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

The closest we get to such a statement is from Nichomachean Ethics 1094b23-25:

> "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible." -- Aristotle Actual

It's attributed to Metaphysics (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2479557), Nichomachean Ethics -- as you said (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/aristotleworks/a/121610-A...), and Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle). cmd+f (or ctrl) for 'educated' to find it in the last two links for it also appears slightly different from your version.

The quote you provided has zero primary sources. It doesn't even have secondary sources. All it has is a bunch of Google results, where its misattribution is repeated (as if that makes it therefore true). Have you ever noticed how you never see that quote with an actual reference?

In the Nichomachean Ethics, irregardless of translations, your quote is absent. That quote you've shared is made up, not the product of a translation. Consult the Ethics themselves. A translator does not take a 30+ word sentence, cut it by a third, alter the meaning of the statement, and then let it pass. That is a paraphrase--and the one you've quoted is not even a paraphrase of any translation of the Ethics itself.

Look at the content of the statement from the Ethics. It is not the same as what you've posted. That should give you a full stop right there.

Goodreads is wrong. Your acceptance of the attributed quote is an error. When you're looking for a 'fair amount of sources' regarding quotations attributed to a philosopher who wrote in another language in another time, it's best to stick with the consensus of those who study and translate that philosopher and the primary and secondary source material available. There are myriad Aristotle experts who specialize in his works and translate them. You will find that none of them attribute your quote to Aristotle.

Note how the Wikipedia page does not include the quote you posted. Note how the Ethics does not contain the quote you posted--not in any translation. Why? Because Aristotle never said it, and the quote you've picked up from the internet is not saying the same thing.

I really wasn't trying to be rude. The rational thing to do here is to update your beliefs based on evidence. Your quote is not a bad quote. It's just not Aristotle's. The translations, though they may differ in some wording, carry the same meaning (which the internet-Aristotle-quote does not):

[paraphrase mine] > An educated mind is noted by its ability to be satisfied by the precision allowed by a given subject, while not demanding exactitude where only approximation can be attained.

Of course, there's the second part of the quote (in some translations), where Aristotle expounds (again, paraphrase mine):

> The educated person would not ask a rhetorician for scientific proof of his statements; neither would she ask a mathematician to reason in probabilities alone.

--- I was trying to be helpful, not argumentative. Since you're still wanting to stand your ground that your quote is actually from Aristotle, I have to point out that your sources are unreliable to reference in proving your point. Go to the primary sources, not other websites that are re-quoting the same quote you did. That's as kindly as I can put it without just dismissing this as you refusing to update your beliefs based on sufficient evidence.

The ability to hold mutually contradictory ideas at the same time and continue to function is something we all do - it's a fundamental part of the human psyche. There's nothing special about it. It's just that we generally do it by compartmentalising the ideas to different parts of our lives.

Dealing with multiple contradictory ideas at the same time and knowing and accepting how they contradict, is very different.

Some of my favorites are Glenn Kenny, David Bordwell, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Kent Jones, and others I'm missing.

Check out his "Sex and the City 2: The Movie". Legendary among his fans.

1. http://web.archive.org/web/20130130054900/http://blogs.sunti...

2. http://web.archive.org/web/20130324015956/http://blogs.sunti...

3. http://web.archive.org/web/20130117072812/http://blogs.sunti...

"I cannot believe in God. I refuse to call myself a atheist however, because that indicates too great a certainty about the unknowable."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/03/how_i_am_a_roman_cat...