why do you use pictures to show what you mean, please use words, have debates, communicate, express your concerns, write about your scare for this city, write it in obejectivity, in intersubjectivity, but don't use pictures, because pictures are showing us only one facet of the story. Peace for all.
my friend,no need to talk, it's beirut and not afghanistan, it's an occupation,it's against lebanese people,many people left beirut because they lost their work , money...
my friend " a picture is worth a thousound word" do u know this quote? pictures dont take sides bro by definition they capture a certain time frame of history with no alterations to it whatsoever(i mean the non edited pictures)there no such thing more inert than a picture pure objectivity my friend these scens cannot be interpreted otherwise . do u really know another face for the story? destruction only has one face for me , chaos too .I would appreciate if u can enlighten me with any.
1 - There are quite much ironies related to the use of such proverbs, the thousand words describing the picture you are seeing is in fact biased by the finiteness of the image (what you can actually see) and by your previous knowledge on the subject defined by the picture, these put together bring you far away from understanding objectively the situation in which the picture was taken. This is regardless of the pres.or abs. of alterations to the picture or to the subj.of the picture. subjective!
concerning the finiteness of the picture uve got a point but it is based on this finiteness that a picture limits whatever interpretations to it u might have or suggest since no overintepretation is possible based on the finitude of it.On the other hnd words and specially over the net are quite deprived of any intersubjective quality and thus are more apt and open for misinterpretations,moreover, the previous knoweldge and the previous background one might have will be of a much higher impact
First of all, what is overinterpretation? if it is a biased-and-extended-form-of-the-analysis then what you say is totally wrong because the more the image you see is restricted (definite) the more it is subjected to biased interpretation. Remember, there is what you see and there is what you know, in this case what you see is lesser than what you are asked to know.
i didnt quite get the argument in here u got the definition of overinterpretation as i meant it but i failed to follow the link between that and the argument u proposed if u could please elaborate more on this point.:)
Reply to "on the other hnd": I usually encourage people to engage each other in debates, family debates, village debates, regional or national debates. These debates can be supplemented with physical evidence such as images. In this case misinterpretation is lesser because in a debate you can talk about facts (yes, which could be misinterpreted) but there will be a reply and someone will judge the accuracy of both side's point of views... no need to explain how this works.
the only thing i have to say about this point is in fact that the person that will judge as u implied might not be qualified to judge furthermore you are adding more subjectivity to the issue thus rendering it less objective which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
1 - There are quite much ironies related to the use of such proverbs, the thousand words describing the picture you are seeing is in fact biased by the finiteness of the image (what you can actually see) and by your previous knowledge on the subject defined by the picture, these put together bring you far away from understanding objectively the situation in which the picture was taken. This is regardless of the pres.or abs. of alterations to the picture or to the subj.of the picture. subjective!
2 - What I am simply suggesting is communication through frank and direct debate, where everyone can tell about their preoccupations and where no place is left for misconceptions and prejudgments. That's when room is left for intersubjectivity and where we can analyze and understand each one of us' actions, such as the demonstrations in Beirut. We need to talk.
what u said doesnt go beyond what is considered to be (and not by me ) a failed attempt to disguise the mere reality using the causality theorie which i personly find unapplicable in this situation.:)
well you were implying that we cannot limit ourselves to these pictures disregarding the actions that might have been responsible of the establishment of such reality. This is the causality theorie were you implied that we have to go back to the causes in order to be able to understand thus trying to justify these consequences by claiming that the causes of such destruction might be just or whichever term u find appropriate. This exactly were i cannot agree. No cause can justify such a thing.
much higher impact when the case will be that two beings are debating since speaking or debating involves by far more subjectivity that interpreting pictures, the same applies for prejugments. what i simply meant by my 1st reply was limited to the sphere of interpreting the ictures shown disregarding any sociopolitical act that my have been responsible of what these pictures show. I personly consider that no one can interpret destruction as a good thing,no one can claim that chaos is appreciated
About the influence an image of destruction can have on someone. Let me remind you of the horrific pictures of Berlin after the 2nd world war... I think it's a good thing they got rid of the Third Reich...
what i was suggesting is how caan you or anyone interpret destruction as something good i.e not bad the horrific pictures where here judged as horrific and bad and this is y the reich was overthrown and this is exactly what i was saying. You cannot interpret the destruction seen in these images in any possible plausible optimistic form it cannot be seen, disregarding the context of it ,in any other way than bad
ليش بعد فيها حيل بيروت لتغفر
marmari 2 years ago
ayri b beirut
hshejase 3 years ago
nabatye a7la?( mech bel daroure nabatye ta ma 7adan yekheda chakhsye bas heik tol3it ma3e:p)
alikhoury 3 years ago
قرفتونا وقرفتوا البلد ... يا وسخين
liban9 3 years ago
why do you use pictures to show what you mean, please use words, have debates, communicate, express your concerns, write about your scare for this city, write it in obejectivity, in intersubjectivity, but don't use pictures, because pictures are showing us only one facet of the story. Peace for all.
nhraim 3 years ago
my friend,no need to talk, it's beirut and not afghanistan, it's an occupation,it's against lebanese people,many people left beirut because they lost their work , money...
georgeskifai 3 years ago
my friend " a picture is worth a thousound word" do u know this quote? pictures dont take sides bro by definition they capture a certain time frame of history with no alterations to it whatsoever(i mean the non edited pictures)there no such thing more inert than a picture pure objectivity my friend these scens cannot be interpreted otherwise . do u really know another face for the story? destruction only has one face for me , chaos too .I would appreciate if u can enlighten me with any.
alikhoury 3 years ago
1 - There are quite much ironies related to the use of such proverbs, the thousand words describing the picture you are seeing is in fact biased by the finiteness of the image (what you can actually see) and by your previous knowledge on the subject defined by the picture, these put together bring you far away from understanding objectively the situation in which the picture was taken. This is regardless of the pres.or abs. of alterations to the picture or to the subj.of the picture. subjective!
nhraim 3 years ago
concerning the finiteness of the picture uve got a point but it is based on this finiteness that a picture limits whatever interpretations to it u might have or suggest since no overintepretation is possible based on the finitude of it.On the other hnd words and specially over the net are quite deprived of any intersubjective quality and thus are more apt and open for misinterpretations,moreover, the previous knoweldge and the previous background one might have will be of a much higher impact
alikhoury 3 years ago
First of all, what is overinterpretation? if it is a biased-and-extended-form-of-the-analysis then what you say is totally wrong because the more the image you see is restricted (definite) the more it is subjected to biased interpretation. Remember, there is what you see and there is what you know, in this case what you see is lesser than what you are asked to know.
nhraim 3 years ago
i didnt quite get the argument in here u got the definition of overinterpretation as i meant it but i failed to follow the link between that and the argument u proposed if u could please elaborate more on this point.:)
alikhoury 3 years ago
Reply to "on the other hnd": I usually encourage people to engage each other in debates, family debates, village debates, regional or national debates. These debates can be supplemented with physical evidence such as images. In this case misinterpretation is lesser because in a debate you can talk about facts (yes, which could be misinterpreted) but there will be a reply and someone will judge the accuracy of both side's point of views... no need to explain how this works.
nhraim 3 years ago
the only thing i have to say about this point is in fact that the person that will judge as u implied might not be qualified to judge furthermore you are adding more subjectivity to the issue thus rendering it less objective which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
alikhoury 3 years ago
1 - There are quite much ironies related to the use of such proverbs, the thousand words describing the picture you are seeing is in fact biased by the finiteness of the image (what you can actually see) and by your previous knowledge on the subject defined by the picture, these put together bring you far away from understanding objectively the situation in which the picture was taken. This is regardless of the pres.or abs. of alterations to the picture or to the subj.of the picture. subjective!
nhraim 3 years ago
2 - What I am simply suggesting is communication through frank and direct debate, where everyone can tell about their preoccupations and where no place is left for misconceptions and prejudgments. That's when room is left for intersubjectivity and where we can analyze and understand each one of us' actions, such as the demonstrations in Beirut. We need to talk.
nhraim 3 years ago
what u said doesnt go beyond what is considered to be (and not by me ) a failed attempt to disguise the mere reality using the causality theorie which i personly find unapplicable in this situation.:)
alikhoury 3 years ago
Theory of the causal: Can you explain to me the rlationship between this theory and what I said?
nhraim 3 years ago
well you were implying that we cannot limit ourselves to these pictures disregarding the actions that might have been responsible of the establishment of such reality. This is the causality theorie were you implied that we have to go back to the causes in order to be able to understand thus trying to justify these consequences by claiming that the causes of such destruction might be just or whichever term u find appropriate. This exactly were i cannot agree. No cause can justify such a thing.
alikhoury 3 years ago
much higher impact when the case will be that two beings are debating since speaking or debating involves by far more subjectivity that interpreting pictures, the same applies for prejugments. what i simply meant by my 1st reply was limited to the sphere of interpreting the ictures shown disregarding any sociopolitical act that my have been responsible of what these pictures show. I personly consider that no one can interpret destruction as a good thing,no one can claim that chaos is appreciated
alikhoury 3 years ago
About the influence an image of destruction can have on someone. Let me remind you of the horrific pictures of Berlin after the 2nd world war... I think it's a good thing they got rid of the Third Reich...
nhraim 3 years ago
what i was suggesting is how caan you or anyone interpret destruction as something good i.e not bad the horrific pictures where here judged as horrific and bad and this is y the reich was overthrown and this is exactly what i was saying. You cannot interpret the destruction seen in these images in any possible plausible optimistic form it cannot be seen, disregarding the context of it ,in any other way than bad
alikhoury 3 years ago
kis ikhtun bi ayri shou 3imlo.
luci54321123 3 years ago
allah yel3an kess Okhton 3ars
Lebneneh 3 years ago