Words are like the ski posts that you go through down a hill - they are like guides vs. not having guides / words. Everyone has a different run, due to ability, strength, muscles, experience . . . but you can get together in the same place with them, with words.
@Neuromance27 If words are dead, then how can you use words to vociferate that meaning? I don't think the meaning is complete or literal here. Her meaning is symbolic -- words by themselves are symbols. It's only when they're attached to genuine emotion/ abstract meanings that they have meaning in themselves.
Its all lucid dreams, Navajo tradition teaches us about the spiritual side of life. Peoyote meeting tought us that such thing do exist. Skepticism is a way of keeping the truth from being heard. Science exist everywhere, the fall of man is what happen to the true nature of things.
It's imperative your safe with her actions, I remember this feeling that i was being lassoed by a cosmic force, i would move away but i always seemed to move closer, I tell you it was like a magnet pulling me in. Wow with such passion and raw energy...She grabbed me. I then instantly was in a groove, I knew my position and I played it with the highest caliber of control. We locked eyes and we started to Argentine tango right in the middle of the dance floor.
"You have to be able to bring something to the table, one must be daring, affectionate and in tune/ in sync. One most take something in as well, that could be a signal to make a move, everybody knows she is telling you to honestly massage those sparkling Tits since her body language is asking for coitus, it's okay though because you have the incarnated understanding of tantra sex , she is in good hands since you know all the spots.
Language preoccupies the body, a still moment will arise and the logistics of the brain start to formulate memories of conversational flow.. Flashes of photograph lenses surround the moment. Which might even send shivers down the spine. But this is only a matter of releasing comfort and a sense of conversion that leads to a relationship bond between two vessels. "Smooth talking" is an emotion that adheres to thought.
But the facto is the face, the face of your next image, the image starts having overlapping layers . Opportunity to know each other. This layer has the characteristics of transverse expressions. One that will lead to."Me being Noah"carving nails onto the body of her." Within the work there will need to be dialogue. and with dialogue there will be a multitude of translations and a transfer will occur. Sharing enlightenment will occur.
"I activate to assimilate the insubordinate acceleration of my subjective will to dominate what is exonerate and excavate what I thought would alleviate my hate, but the acridity of my sanity's complexity (within such simplistic carnate machinery) is seamlessly woven into ending continuity by arguing congruity in a derisive missive for minute masses too astute to actualize that in birth is despise, and in verity lies envious demise." - cf.
you all need to listen to the Radiolab episode called Words. A lot of you are touching on topics that they actually research in that episode. Listen to some actual facts then you can argue and have a better background to support your theories or lack of. :)
Very good point on the lack of stasis or of a mutually agreed upon definition! And if I misunderstood what you meant by "But you wouldn't need it to actually DO philosophy or science," then i apologize, but just let me know and we'll go from there.
I guess I would say that even in your own head you must be using some set of symbols or languages to even have those thoughts on philosophy or science...but what about somebody without knowledge of any language or symbols? Though I suppose they wouldn't know about science or philosophy either. So I guess my stance stands that without first having a language and an ability to use that language (a rhetorical process), then you can't do philosophy or science.
So essentially that's what you said with your spiciness and temperature disagreement. And onto creating stasis: for me, rhetoric is any use of language, even if it's simply for conversation, or even if it's symbols representing a deductive argument. Your take on "doing" philosophy is an interesting one though. I interpret it as you questioning whether or not internal (in your own mind) philosophy or science is still considered rhetoric. Interesting...
Ah and I think we've landed at precisely our disagreement: the definition of rhetoric. And then I anticipate our next disagreement involving the scope of rhetoric. In fact, there's a whole area in rhetoric called Stasis Theory, which revolves around the idea of establishing a common ground for discussion--reaching a stasis before proceeding with arguments. Without a common ground, all future discussion is nullified because we could be arguing two totally different ideas, and could both be right!
Just to make my point clear, here is a relevant quote from the Wikipedia page on Rhetoric: "Individuals engage in the rhetorical process anytime they speak or produce meaning. Even in the field of science...scientists must persuade their audience to accept their findings by sufficiently demonstrating that their study or experiment was conducted reliably and resulted in sufficient evidence to support their conclusions." I.e. logic P->Q
However I don't study philosophy directly, and it appears you do, so I can understand why, for you, the movie didn't have many meaningful things to say. But that doesn't mean it's pretentious pablum for everybody, and if this is the only outlet into philosophy that some people get, well then hey, it's better nothing and it gets them thinking about things they might not be exposed to otherwise.
I think it's a good movie to watch sober as well. I am aware that not everything in the movie should be taken as Truth, but look at the intelligent and worthwhile discussion it sparked between us. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and it got my brain thinking about some complex and deep things while at the same time I was entertained. I applaud the director for accomplishing that. And additionally, for me, the movie had something meaningful to say.
And if we're arguing about the scope, then my stance would be that the argument of P->Q is actually a use of rhetoric, and indeed it's a very specific use that we call logic. Logic is essentially a standard method or use of rhetoric that everyone has agreed is useful for finding an "objective truth". So in philosophy, theorists use rhetoric (a method of argumentation or proof) to make their arguments legitimate. Again, I'm not talking about vernacular rhetoric or the stuff of politics.
Well i've enjoyed the conversation, Alexsteen. I think we are agreeing, but I also think perhaps you're missing my one point on rhetoric. I study Writing and Rhetoric at university, and anytime you make an argument, you are using rhetoric. So it would be impossible to have zero rhetoric in philosophy because there would be zero philosophy. So essentially I suppose we are arguing over the scope of rhetoric. A quick wikipedia search on "rhetoric" can sum up the different views on that.
@scottae21 Interesting... I'm not saying rhetoric is useless (And I'm not saying that you're saying that I am). No it's certainly the opposite. Especially in today's world you have an edge in almost any line of work if you have a solid grasp of rhetoric. But I just have to disagree that rhetoric is essential in doing science or philosophy. You'd need it to inform or sway a lay audience. But you wouldn't need it to actually DO philosophy or science.
@scottae21 Here's an argument without the use of any rhetoric. [Ex(Hx . Mx)] You can represent all deductive arguments symbolically like that. Also what we've failed to do is define what exactly we mean by rhetoric and the scope of its definition. A lot of disagreements actually stem from there not being a mutually agreed upon definition, whether knowingly or unknowingly, of what is being argued. "It's too hot!" "No it's not.." One can mean spiciness while the other can mean temperature.
But that is only my opinion, and we're no longer discussing an abstract theory of rhetoric, so I don't expect you to agree with me; my concept of "high" vocabulary is perhaps different from yours. But in terms of opinions, I'll offer another: If this movie were filled with philosophical arguments that would suit your degree of sophistication, then it would likely be a boring movie. This is entertainment, not a philosophical thesis.
@scottae21 There should be absolutely ZERO rhetoric in philosophy. At least in good philosophy. The aim of philosophy is to use language and logic as precisely as possible to analyze arguments or to assert one. Arguments should be presented in a neutral tone and should not be muddled by gobbledygook or extraneous words. But again, clarity is just one piece of the puzzle. P->Q is the most important thing in philosophy. Establishing or analyzing how strongly a premise supports its conclusion.
So in that sense it's really quite irrelevant if your vocabulary is simple or complex; all that matters is whether or not it's precise and gets your point across clearly and effectively. I would agree with you that flowery vocabulary is not effective, but I wouldn't agree that the language she uses in this video is flowery. I think, in fact, she uses quite mundane, though effective, vocabulary. The most complex word she uses is "transient."
@scottae21 ore philosophy and less sophistry would make the movie more boring but it would have something meaningful to say. And it'd be challenging. This is why Sartre, Deidera etc, appeal to the masses more than say, Bertrand Russell or Quine. They may be more entertaining writers but certainly are not better philosophers (If you'd even consider them that). I guess it's all about what your expectations are for this movie. Personally, I think it's a good movie to watch high. But that's it.
And I argue that the best way to make a strong argument is not to use plain, spoken English, but instead to use precise language. Plain spoken English is allowed to be imprecise because much of a speaker's meaning can be understood through body language. In writing you don't have that luxury of body language, so if you use plain, spoken English (which often involves slang and colloquialisms), then much of your argument could be misinterpreted.
Sure, there is a distinction between rhetoric and philosophy, just as there's a distinction between a shovel and a hole--the former being the tool, and the latter being what you can create with that tool--but you would be hard pressed to make an argument (the creation) in philosophy without utilizing rhetoric (the tool). I think you're hung up on the colloquial version of rhetoric, in which it's generally considered to be a deceptive, persuasive tool. Rhetoric is really just effective writing.
@sostony Ahh the irony. You're the one that uploaded this clip that's filled with verbal diarrhea. When you hear someone calling an EAR a byzantine conduit red flags should go up. People that have something of substance to say, say it clearly, people who don't use obscurity to hide that they have nothing to say. I just did not like the "philosophical" conversations in this movie because they were rants, not philosophy, like something you'd hear from some sophmore art student.
@Alexsteen I think there's a significant distinction between using a precise, polished rhetoric to efficiently get a point across and using a phony sophistication and eddying vocabulary to create obscurity so that your theory might get some credit for appearing intellectual. I think the purpose of using a byzantine conduit to describe an ear was to create a vivid image that's able to convey and highlight the intricacies of something so complex. That description is not as ambiguous as "ear".
@scottae21 I agree with you. What she's talking about is very polished rhetoric i.e. a polished turd. There's a huge distinction between rhetoric and philosophy. You use flowery language and obscure prose to try & sell your argument whereas in philosophy or science you focus on building a strong argument to support a certain conclusion i.e. P->Q. And the best way to do this is with clarity and plain spoken english. There are zero philosophical arguments in this movie. Just dressed up ramblings.
@Alexsteen This is true, it can get pretentious... but it can be beautiful, if you let it. I would recommend letting it :) and I hope you watch, or have watched, the whole movie before deciding
No, it's a collection of varied opinions that you can choose to watch or not.
Why is it that anything which advocates open-mindedness and the pursuit of knowledge these days gets labeled as "pretentious" by the dull and uninterested?
Pretentious means having the pretense of being important. Where at any point in this movie does it scream "PLEASE YOU MUST BELIEVE EVERY WORD I SAY."
It doesn't. In fact, it tries to show as many different kinds of people as possible.
@Npowell01 My opinion is just one of many varied opinions. You can choose to listen to it or not. Derp. See what I did there? Part of being a good critical thinker is having the ability to discern truth from bullshit. Some arguments have more weight to them than others. It's important to have that ability to judge. I don't think this movie is pretentious because it advocates open-mindedness (lol whatever that means), I think it's pretenious BECAUSE it does have this pretense of being important.
Can you tell me how it could've been less pretentious, since its only goal was to animate interviews with a wide variety of people?
And yes, many of the ideas in this film are misinformed. But that doesn't mean they're useless. The fact that some people walk around clinging to misinformation and emotion is VALUABLE INFO, even if it's frustrating to hear them talk. Understanding how everyone thinks is the first step to getting everyone on the right page. That's why I like this film.
Also, this movie can aid a person in being able to "discern truth from bullshit." Hearing a wide variety of ideas over the course of a couple of hours can get your mind working, noticing contradictions, noticing evidence, getting motivated to look into the ideas presented, etc
It seems to me like many people who are already objective, scientific, and intelligent are impatient with those who are not, and their impatience (though understandable) ends up putting-off those who need to learn.
"OH, I already heard all the shit in this movie. Half of it is bullshit. This movie is pretentious for even presenting it."
But the value of the movie isn't in whether or not it's content is bullshit, but becoming aware of JUST HOW MANY people embrace bullshit, and setting your mind to work on how to approach each of the different types of people presented in the movie. If you curb your approach, you can level the playing field. It's hard to explain w/ this character limit.
@Npowell01 "It seems to me like many people who are already objective, scientific, and intelligent are impatient with those who are not, and their impatience (though understandable) ends up putting-off those who need to learn." this is very true...intelligent people with egos are the worst people I know..humility must balance that wisdom/knowledge
Communication IS the key to human survival, because with it comes peace/freedom if it’s done right! haha Which sometimes can be a bt difficult to do. But keep practicing because fighting will never win or, it’s a complete waste of time and very upsetting to everyone involved. Believe me I've learned this over a long period of years and I was so very happy when I finally 'got it' and ceased fighting all-together. Communication is magical in words and body language/oh yes, listen with your heart!
our interest in the environment must not be transient transitory, temporary, short-lived, short-term, ephemeral, impermanent, brief, short, momentary, fleeting, passing, here today and gone tomorrow; literary evanescent, fugitive. See note at temporary . antonym permanent.
noun
the plight of poor transients hobo, vagrant, vagabond, street person, homeless person, down-and-out; traveler, drifter, derelict.
I want to describe what this scene and this entire film and life mean to me. But words can't describe.
spaulding625 1 month ago 2
Byzantine Conduit, i like that.
nomobius1 1 month ago
Words are like the ski posts that you go through down a hill - they are like guides vs. not having guides / words. Everyone has a different run, due to ability, strength, muscles, experience . . . but you can get together in the same place with them, with words.
slack7639 3 months ago 2
I am way to sober for this. Pass the good good.
tinainfla 3 months ago 3
Comment removed
XUndeadGunslingerX 3 months ago
anyone here astral travel?
SeanNolan5 4 months ago
@SeanNolan5 A like flying high
UniqueWeekend 1 month ago
THANK YOU... words are dead. That's more profound to me than Nietzsche's God is Dead
Neuromance27 5 months ago
@Neuromance27 If words are dead, then how can you use words to vociferate that meaning? I don't think the meaning is complete or literal here. Her meaning is symbolic -- words by themselves are symbols. It's only when they're attached to genuine emotion/ abstract meanings that they have meaning in themselves.
TVPSOLOMON 3 months ago
Comment removed
markitymark90 4 weeks ago
Excepting the fact that your ideas were influence by ideas in true wisdom.
fuhqlyfe666 5 months ago
killuminati.isgreat.org
PoliticalBoondock 5 months ago
Its all lucid dreams, Navajo tradition teaches us about the spiritual side of life. Peoyote meeting tought us that such thing do exist. Skepticism is a way of keeping the truth from being heard. Science exist everywhere, the fall of man is what happen to the true nature of things.
fuhqlyfe666 5 months ago
@fuhqlyfe666 killuminati.isgreat.org /spirit,html
PoliticalBoondock 5 months ago
AA-12 Fully Automatic Shotgun lmao
xXxWickedJugglaxXx 5 months ago 5
the man who knows most knows he knows nothing at all
JonnieHaywardChannel 6 months ago
I like to discuss and philosophize about language because it is still a giant fuckin' mystery.
texasB666 6 months ago
It's imperative your safe with her actions, I remember this feeling that i was being lassoed by a cosmic force, i would move away but i always seemed to move closer, I tell you it was like a magnet pulling me in. Wow with such passion and raw energy...She grabbed me. I then instantly was in a groove, I knew my position and I played it with the highest caliber of control. We locked eyes and we started to Argentine tango right in the middle of the dance floor.
plan101 6 months ago
"You have to be able to bring something to the table, one must be daring, affectionate and in tune/ in sync. One most take something in as well, that could be a signal to make a move, everybody knows she is telling you to honestly massage those sparkling Tits since her body language is asking for coitus, it's okay though because you have the incarnated understanding of tantra sex , she is in good hands since you know all the spots.
plan101 6 months ago
Language preoccupies the body, a still moment will arise and the logistics of the brain start to formulate memories of conversational flow.. Flashes of photograph lenses surround the moment. Which might even send shivers down the spine. But this is only a matter of releasing comfort and a sense of conversion that leads to a relationship bond between two vessels. "Smooth talking" is an emotion that adheres to thought.
plan101 6 months ago
But the facto is the face, the face of your next image, the image starts having overlapping layers . Opportunity to know each other. This layer has the characteristics of transverse expressions. One that will lead to."Me being Noah"carving nails onto the body of her." Within the work there will need to be dialogue. and with dialogue there will be a multitude of translations and a transfer will occur. Sharing enlightenment will occur.
plan101 6 months ago
I just wrote a university paper on the study of etymology in the Germanic Language . This scene makes sense.
plan101 6 months ago
Well of course... durr brains!
melon00000 6 months ago
Yeah, this is probably my favorite clip from this movie.
havabighed 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I activate to assimilate the insubordinate acceleration of my subjective will to dominate what is exonerate and excavate what I thought would alleviate my hate, but the acridity of my sanity's complexity (within such simplistic carnate machinery) is seamlessly woven into ending continuity by arguing congruity in a derisive missive for minute masses too astute to actualize that in birth is despise, and in verity lies envious demise." - cf.
meineEdelstein 7 months ago
Comment removed
meineEdelstein 7 months ago
you all need to listen to the Radiolab episode called Words. A lot of you are touching on topics that they actually research in that episode. Listen to some actual facts then you can argue and have a better background to support your theories or lack of. :)
girlskatecomp 7 months ago
Intellectual pap? really Mr. Alexsteen? What are you trying to prove? That you know any better? Please. You are but a mere mortal.
thewatcheroutoftime 7 months ago
Comment removed
thewatcheroutoftime 7 months ago
i dont know, i feel like words are very real...
treemonster123 7 months ago
I enjoy the irony of her explaining this concept to us in words.
Chessykatzenz 8 months ago
@Chessykatzenz how else could she explain? lol
fredinhu 7 months ago
1 person was too busy downloading The Expendables to pay attention.
sbkotch22 8 months ago 2
Very good point on the lack of stasis or of a mutually agreed upon definition! And if I misunderstood what you meant by "But you wouldn't need it to actually DO philosophy or science," then i apologize, but just let me know and we'll go from there.
scottae21 9 months ago
I guess I would say that even in your own head you must be using some set of symbols or languages to even have those thoughts on philosophy or science...but what about somebody without knowledge of any language or symbols? Though I suppose they wouldn't know about science or philosophy either. So I guess my stance stands that without first having a language and an ability to use that language (a rhetorical process), then you can't do philosophy or science.
scottae21 9 months ago
Comment removed
scottae21 9 months ago
So essentially that's what you said with your spiciness and temperature disagreement. And onto creating stasis: for me, rhetoric is any use of language, even if it's simply for conversation, or even if it's symbols representing a deductive argument. Your take on "doing" philosophy is an interesting one though. I interpret it as you questioning whether or not internal (in your own mind) philosophy or science is still considered rhetoric. Interesting...
scottae21 9 months ago
Ah and I think we've landed at precisely our disagreement: the definition of rhetoric. And then I anticipate our next disagreement involving the scope of rhetoric. In fact, there's a whole area in rhetoric called Stasis Theory, which revolves around the idea of establishing a common ground for discussion--reaching a stasis before proceeding with arguments. Without a common ground, all future discussion is nullified because we could be arguing two totally different ideas, and could both be right!
scottae21 9 months ago
Just to make my point clear, here is a relevant quote from the Wikipedia page on Rhetoric: "Individuals engage in the rhetorical process anytime they speak or produce meaning. Even in the field of science...scientists must persuade their audience to accept their findings by sufficiently demonstrating that their study or experiment was conducted reliably and resulted in sufficient evidence to support their conclusions." I.e. logic P->Q
scottae21 9 months ago
However I don't study philosophy directly, and it appears you do, so I can understand why, for you, the movie didn't have many meaningful things to say. But that doesn't mean it's pretentious pablum for everybody, and if this is the only outlet into philosophy that some people get, well then hey, it's better nothing and it gets them thinking about things they might not be exposed to otherwise.
scottae21 9 months ago
I think it's a good movie to watch sober as well. I am aware that not everything in the movie should be taken as Truth, but look at the intelligent and worthwhile discussion it sparked between us. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and it got my brain thinking about some complex and deep things while at the same time I was entertained. I applaud the director for accomplishing that. And additionally, for me, the movie had something meaningful to say.
scottae21 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And if we're arguing about the scope, then my stance would be that the argument of P->Q is actually a use of rhetoric, and indeed it's a very specific use that we call logic. Logic is essentially a standard method or use of rhetoric that everyone has agreed is useful for finding an "objective truth". So in philosophy, theorists use rhetoric (a method of argumentation or proof) to make their arguments legitimate. Again, I'm not talking about vernacular rhetoric or the stuff of politics.
scottae21 9 months ago
Comment removed
scottae21 9 months ago
Well i've enjoyed the conversation, Alexsteen. I think we are agreeing, but I also think perhaps you're missing my one point on rhetoric. I study Writing and Rhetoric at university, and anytime you make an argument, you are using rhetoric. So it would be impossible to have zero rhetoric in philosophy because there would be zero philosophy. So essentially I suppose we are arguing over the scope of rhetoric. A quick wikipedia search on "rhetoric" can sum up the different views on that.
scottae21 9 months ago
@scottae21 Interesting... I'm not saying rhetoric is useless (And I'm not saying that you're saying that I am). No it's certainly the opposite. Especially in today's world you have an edge in almost any line of work if you have a solid grasp of rhetoric. But I just have to disagree that rhetoric is essential in doing science or philosophy. You'd need it to inform or sway a lay audience. But you wouldn't need it to actually DO philosophy or science.
Alexsteen 9 months ago
@scottae21 Here's an argument without the use of any rhetoric. [Ex(Hx . Mx)] You can represent all deductive arguments symbolically like that. Also what we've failed to do is define what exactly we mean by rhetoric and the scope of its definition. A lot of disagreements actually stem from there not being a mutually agreed upon definition, whether knowingly or unknowingly, of what is being argued. "It's too hot!" "No it's not.." One can mean spiciness while the other can mean temperature.
Alexsteen 9 months ago
But that is only my opinion, and we're no longer discussing an abstract theory of rhetoric, so I don't expect you to agree with me; my concept of "high" vocabulary is perhaps different from yours. But in terms of opinions, I'll offer another: If this movie were filled with philosophical arguments that would suit your degree of sophistication, then it would likely be a boring movie. This is entertainment, not a philosophical thesis.
scottae21 9 months ago
@scottae21 There should be absolutely ZERO rhetoric in philosophy. At least in good philosophy. The aim of philosophy is to use language and logic as precisely as possible to analyze arguments or to assert one. Arguments should be presented in a neutral tone and should not be muddled by gobbledygook or extraneous words. But again, clarity is just one piece of the puzzle. P->Q is the most important thing in philosophy. Establishing or analyzing how strongly a premise supports its conclusion.
Alexsteen 9 months ago
Comment removed
Alexsteen 9 months ago
So in that sense it's really quite irrelevant if your vocabulary is simple or complex; all that matters is whether or not it's precise and gets your point across clearly and effectively. I would agree with you that flowery vocabulary is not effective, but I wouldn't agree that the language she uses in this video is flowery. I think, in fact, she uses quite mundane, though effective, vocabulary. The most complex word she uses is "transient."
scottae21 9 months ago
@scottae21 ore philosophy and less sophistry would make the movie more boring but it would have something meaningful to say. And it'd be challenging. This is why Sartre, Deidera etc, appeal to the masses more than say, Bertrand Russell or Quine. They may be more entertaining writers but certainly are not better philosophers (If you'd even consider them that). I guess it's all about what your expectations are for this movie. Personally, I think it's a good movie to watch high. But that's it.
Alexsteen 9 months ago
And I argue that the best way to make a strong argument is not to use plain, spoken English, but instead to use precise language. Plain spoken English is allowed to be imprecise because much of a speaker's meaning can be understood through body language. In writing you don't have that luxury of body language, so if you use plain, spoken English (which often involves slang and colloquialisms), then much of your argument could be misinterpreted.
scottae21 9 months ago
Sure, there is a distinction between rhetoric and philosophy, just as there's a distinction between a shovel and a hole--the former being the tool, and the latter being what you can create with that tool--but you would be hard pressed to make an argument (the creation) in philosophy without utilizing rhetoric (the tool). I think you're hung up on the colloquial version of rhetoric, in which it's generally considered to be a deceptive, persuasive tool. Rhetoric is really just effective writing.
scottae21 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Man this movie is such pretentious pablum.
Alexsteen 9 months ago
@Alexsteen
Settle down mr. obscure word fancy pants..
You take yourself way too seriously..
sostony 9 months ago 53
@sostony Ahh the irony. You're the one that uploaded this clip that's filled with verbal diarrhea. When you hear someone calling an EAR a byzantine conduit red flags should go up. People that have something of substance to say, say it clearly, people who don't use obscurity to hide that they have nothing to say. I just did not like the "philosophical" conversations in this movie because they were rants, not philosophy, like something you'd hear from some sophmore art student.
Alexsteen 9 months ago
@Alexsteen I think there's a significant distinction between using a precise, polished rhetoric to efficiently get a point across and using a phony sophistication and eddying vocabulary to create obscurity so that your theory might get some credit for appearing intellectual. I think the purpose of using a byzantine conduit to describe an ear was to create a vivid image that's able to convey and highlight the intricacies of something so complex. That description is not as ambiguous as "ear".
scottae21 9 months ago
@scottae21 I agree with you. What she's talking about is very polished rhetoric i.e. a polished turd. There's a huge distinction between rhetoric and philosophy. You use flowery language and obscure prose to try & sell your argument whereas in philosophy or science you focus on building a strong argument to support a certain conclusion i.e. P->Q. And the best way to do this is with clarity and plain spoken english. There are zero philosophical arguments in this movie. Just dressed up ramblings.
Alexsteen 9 months ago
@Alexsteen
wow you must be so fucking enlightened...
lol
z0diak1990 8 months ago
@Alexsteen This is true, it can get pretentious... but it can be beautiful, if you let it. I would recommend letting it :) and I hope you watch, or have watched, the whole movie before deciding
4aboybrushedred 8 months ago
@Alexsteen If that's not the pablum calling the cereal bland then I don't know what is.
schef1el 6 months ago
@Alexsteen
No, it's a collection of varied opinions that you can choose to watch or not.
Why is it that anything which advocates open-mindedness and the pursuit of knowledge these days gets labeled as "pretentious" by the dull and uninterested?
Pretentious means having the pretense of being important. Where at any point in this movie does it scream "PLEASE YOU MUST BELIEVE EVERY WORD I SAY."
It doesn't. In fact, it tries to show as many different kinds of people as possible.
Npowell01 6 months ago
@Npowell01 My opinion is just one of many varied opinions. You can choose to listen to it or not. Derp. See what I did there? Part of being a good critical thinker is having the ability to discern truth from bullshit. Some arguments have more weight to them than others. It's important to have that ability to judge. I don't think this movie is pretentious because it advocates open-mindedness (lol whatever that means), I think it's pretenious BECAUSE it does have this pretense of being important.
Alexsteen 6 months ago
@Alexsteen
Can you tell me how it could've been less pretentious, since its only goal was to animate interviews with a wide variety of people?
And yes, many of the ideas in this film are misinformed. But that doesn't mean they're useless. The fact that some people walk around clinging to misinformation and emotion is VALUABLE INFO, even if it's frustrating to hear them talk. Understanding how everyone thinks is the first step to getting everyone on the right page. That's why I like this film.
Npowell01 6 months ago
cont.
Also, this movie can aid a person in being able to "discern truth from bullshit." Hearing a wide variety of ideas over the course of a couple of hours can get your mind working, noticing contradictions, noticing evidence, getting motivated to look into the ideas presented, etc
It seems to me like many people who are already objective, scientific, and intelligent are impatient with those who are not, and their impatience (though understandable) ends up putting-off those who need to learn.
Npowell01 6 months ago
cont.
Kind-of like
"OH, I already heard all the shit in this movie. Half of it is bullshit. This movie is pretentious for even presenting it."
But the value of the movie isn't in whether or not it's content is bullshit, but becoming aware of JUST HOW MANY people embrace bullshit, and setting your mind to work on how to approach each of the different types of people presented in the movie. If you curb your approach, you can level the playing field. It's hard to explain w/ this character limit.
Npowell01 6 months ago
@Npowell01 "It seems to me like many people who are already objective, scientific, and intelligent are impatient with those who are not, and their impatience (though understandable) ends up putting-off those who need to learn." this is very true...intelligent people with egos are the worst people I know..humility must balance that wisdom/knowledge
JonnieHaywardChannel 6 months ago
@Alexsteen So is philosophy, religion, dogma and ideology
earthwormjah 5 months ago
@Alexsteen pessimistic vapidness is so unappealing, you're welcome.
SneakyBadness 4 months ago
I don't have the words...ha...to express how this makes me feel.
Thank you.
ForeverEhvan 9 months ago
Communication IS the key to human survival, because with it comes peace/freedom if it’s done right! haha Which sometimes can be a bt difficult to do. But keep practicing because fighting will never win or, it’s a complete waste of time and very upsetting to everyone involved. Believe me I've learned this over a long period of years and I was so very happy when I finally 'got it' and ceased fighting all-together. Communication is magical in words and body language/oh yes, listen with your heart!
TheHooDooQueen 9 months ago
Comment removed
JixXxJiTyc 9 months ago
Comment removed
JixXxJiTyc 9 months ago
Comment removed
JixXxJiTyc 9 months ago
Comment removed
JixXxJiTyc 9 months ago
Comment removed
JixXxJiTyc 9 months ago
That feeling..
sostony 10 months ago
It's what we live for..
sostony 11 months ago
transient
adjective
our interest in the environment must not be transient transitory, temporary, short-lived, short-term, ephemeral, impermanent, brief, short, momentary, fleeting, passing, here today and gone tomorrow; literary evanescent, fugitive. See note at temporary . antonym permanent.
noun
the plight of poor transients hobo, vagrant, vagabond, street person, homeless person, down-and-out; traveler, drifter, derelict.
sostony 11 months ago
tran-sient |ˈtran sh ənt; - zh ənt; -zēənt|
adjective
lasting only for a short time..
noun
a person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time..
sostony 11 months ago
mind = blown, fuck, this shit speaks to me
Jeanms247 11 months ago 8
thanks for not adding annoying background music or anything! too many people fuck with the original and it kills me on the inside
CReedProductions 1 year ago 27
Thank you so much for the high quality post! :-)
LandofBoheme 1 year ago 2