ChristNolan wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

so 4 year olds are really just participating in philosophical exploration

Why should I act morally.

Dodd wrote:Contrary to popular belief having milk with pasta products is actually pretty good. In my experiences anyways.

Discuss.

Does it have to be milk that you drink from a bottle, cup, carton etc.? Or can it be milk products? Something like cream sauce, ice cream etc.

I like cream sauce with pasta.

Memento and Zodiac are like brother films in subject matter.

Roughly, they're both about:
-Identity
-how memory defines identity
-how passing of time defines memory and thus defines identity

In detail, they're also both about the process of investigation and more importantly about the role and validity of media in that process. Leonard can't trust his internal world because he can't trust his memory so he ends up trusting a system of using external media for investigative problem solving. Similarly the characters in Zodiac spend decades gathering evidence in the form of media (prints, handrwiting in letters, photos, posters, library catalogues, even bloodied patches of cloth become media and in that sense also the zodiac symbol itself becomes media for some kind of meaning) in order to figure out someone's identity. There's also strong emphasis in both films on how easily forged, falsified or misinterpreted media can be.

Furthermore both Leonard and Zodiac's main character in varying extents go through an existential crisis in which they 'search' for the sake of 'searching'. Time in Zodiac is shown to always be on the move as opposed to how stuck everyone is in the attempt to solve the mystery. Time in Memento moves both backwards and forwards simultaneously so in both films there's an aspect of timelessness that's supposed to represent the lost sense of purpose of the characters.

Which brings me to their desperate expectation of catharsis. Although Leonard trusts tattoos, notes and photos more than he trusts his mind he investigates driven by the naive idea that upon killing John G he'd go through an internal catharsis that would let him stop running wild. In that sense he puts the role of media above that of perception and under it at the same time but the film ends up agreeing with the latter. Meanwhile Zodiac ends with the main character walking into the store where the real Zodiac works as a clerk. About 30 minutes before that we hear him tell his girlfriend that all he really wants is to look the Zodiac in the eyes and be sure that he's found the right person and that's what he does. Then he walks away. Before the credits roll we read that the criminal gets a heart attack and ofc never went to prison. Not only that but the case remains open because of further inconsistencies that never proved the Zodiac's real identity. What's important though is that the movie ends with the main character finding sollace and resolution internally in a world where nothing ever gets solved externally and that is again and indirectly a matter of media versus perception.


EDIT: shit i thought this was the movie thread
god damn you cilogy

ChristNolan wrote:Why should I act morally.

The ethic of reciprocity. Essentially, if you're kind to others, they will in turn, reciprocate. Needless to say, that'll make your life a hell of a lot more enjoyable.

Now, if you want to discuss if paying your taxes is moral (it's not, because government taking your property without your permission is the definition of stealing), or if there is an overall "bigger-picture" to your life, then we'll be having a totally different discussion. But I think it is natural to want to be accepted, be kind, and apply the concept of the Golden Rule.

Sooo...I just found this article.I'm pretty sure the things mentioned in this article are controversial opinions about the world. Please discuss.
http://meberumen.blogspot.com.au/p/cont ... nions.html

Havoc1st wrote:Sooo...I just found this article.I'm pretty sure the things mentioned in this article are controversial opinions about the world. Please discuss.
http://meberumen.blogspot.com.au/p/cont ... nions.html

I don't find them controversial at all. I pretty much agree with everything he says except the God and slightly the Religion part where I have a different view. I think he's pretty rational.

People -especially those like me and you- need to understand that discussing God and Religion are two different things. After that they need to understand that ANY bit of knowledge you have about these two topics is important so the least knowledgeable you are the more you should avoid arguments and just be neutral or keep whatever opinion you have to yourself. If you are knowledgeable enough to actually argue on these two topics, then you need to understand you need to go way back, you need to first understand the barebones of these topics. The foundations. Then you need to understand the history. Then you need to understand the impact. Then you need to understand the psychology behind it. Then you need to understand the reaction. Then you need to understand the present. Then you need to understand the possible variations for the future. You need to be rational. But there's a flaw in being rational as well... especially when you're on the opposing side, when you're a man of science. Men of science always think they are the ultimate rational people so whatever they say must be THE rational thing. And here's the ultimate error that you notice in hundreds of intelligent debates. If one's rational then he should also look at things from the perspective of faith and psychology. And if you're really honest about what you're going to notice... then you won't be as radical as you might be now when it comes to God and religion. It's extremely hard to understand and argue these two topics.

Probably the hardest thing to do for an intelligent and rational person (and here lies the frustration and roots of ridiculous atheism). And this is why these topics can't be handled with just statements, tantrums, or put to rest after 20 pages of arguments. These topics need 2000 pages of arguments and more. And not everyone can handle that.

lol reminds me of the religion thread

what a fucking mess that was

if anyone wants to explore some of my regrets, just skim that thread

RIFA wrote:

Havoc1st wrote:Sooo...I just found this article.I'm pretty sure the things mentioned in this article are controversial opinions about the world. Please discuss.
http://meberumen.blogspot.com.au/p/cont ... nions.html

I don't find them controversial at all. I pretty much agree with everything he says except the God and slightly the Religion part where I have a different view. I think he's pretty rational.

People -especially those like me and you- need to understand that discussing God and Religion are two different things. After that they need to understand that ANY bit of knowledge you have about these two topics is important so the least knowledgeable you are the more you should avoid arguments and just be neutral or keep whatever opinion you have to yourself. If you are knowledgeable enough to actually argue on these two topics, then you need to understand you need to go way back, you need to first understand the barebones of these topics. The foundations. Then you need to understand the history. Then you need to understand the impact. Then you need to understand the psychology behind it. Then you need to understand the reaction. Then you need to understand the present. Then you need to understand the possible variations for the future. You need to be rational. But there's a flaw in being rational as well... especially when you're on the opposing side, when you're a man of science. Men of science always think they are the ultimate rational people so whatever they say must be THE rational thing. And here's the ultimate error that you notice in hundreds of intelligent debates. If one's rational then he should also look at things from the perspective of faith and psychology. And if you're really honest about what you're going to notice... then you won't be as radical as you might be now when it comes to God and religion. It's extremely hard to understand and argue these two topics.

Probably the hardest thing to do for an intelligent and rational person (and here lies the frustration and roots of ridiculous atheism). And this is why these topics can't be handled with just statements, tantrums, or put to rest after 20 pages of arguments. These topics need 2000 pages of arguments and more. And not everyone can handle that.

The reason why us "atheists" and rationalists have an issue with religious people, is in large part, due to the stereotype they have brought about themselves. They're largely judgmental, and not just in a personal way; many in the religious community want to go further and repress individuals who don't believe their religious perspective by passing laws that prohibit their equal rights (the gay marriage argument).

I don't want to restrict religious people from doing anything, and therein lies the difference between the two. I NEVER hear a rationalist or a atheist try to take rights away from a religious group. But the religious groups are constantly fighting these fights in the name of God. "You'll burn in hell, and the BIble says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," are very common statements made by religious individuals. That's largely here in the United States. We all know the Israel-Palestinian conflict is largely religious based as well. Not to mention the radical religious view of Islam with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, who believe killing non-believers in their Allah is called for by their holy texts.

This is a blanket statement but it holds a lot of validity: if the average person understood the concepts of natural law, non-aggression, and liberty, wouldn't you think it would be a lot more peaceful and accepting place to live on this planet than what we have today?

There's a reason why the studies show that more educated individuals are less religious.