Recent Posts

Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
11
Math and Computers / Re: Have you guys seen the newest robots?
« Last post by Baruch on Today at 12:59:31 PM »
For you technophiles ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Given that no computer is conscious, nor has any computer passed the Turing test (of human gullibility) ... can you believe this is anything but fake news?
12
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Glad to see you post.  Hope you and yours are safe.

Hey Baruch, thanks. I am OK.
13
Religion General Discussion / Re: Mormons Don't Want to be Called Mormons
« Last post by Baruch on Today at 12:54:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL, you know what, probably the only reason they demand this because of the close spelling with 'moron' if you ask me. I mean if it was something that fills the mouth and eyes, something starting with A or E, not too short, not too long it wouldn't be a problem I think. 

They are just saying 'we are now rich enough to build this in time as an issue'. :p

Glad to see you post.  Hope you and yours are safe.
14
LOL, you know what, probably the only reason they demand this because of the close spelling with 'moron' if you ask me. I mean if it was something that fills the mouth and eyes, something starting with A or E, not too short, not too long it wouldn't be a problem I think. 

They are just saying 'we are now rich enough to build this in time as an issue'. :p
15
The new wonderwoman is a very forced character. The motivation is not the feminist agenda, it is the huge money to be made from the last years of social media gender wars bullshit.

The hpocrisy is that they used historical myths to create a female superhero to 'justify' her super powers to begin with. Considering she is 77 years old, probably they thought it would make more sense a female character having super powers in those days. And the fan base has always been male anyway. In short, hypocrisy is making her an amazon, instead of exploding a lab in the first place.

A superhero does not need to have a bad or good opinon about a gender to be realistic from a popular feminist or anti-feminist agenda. Then again, while you can say that as a strong female character she is a symbol for feminism (you can write a lot of lines for her), from anti-feminist perspective you can produce a lot of popular arguments that she likes those other men (superheroes) because they are blue pill guys. Because they are all white knights; all superheros are white knights by definition.

 
16
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I was thoroughly disgusted with the ending.

Oh I don't think this movie would actually work now though. It is something when you watch it in the big screen, when you don't know what's it all about and that it is a new idea. Other than that, you'd sleep through it,lol.
17
I was thoroughly disgusted with the ending.
18
I was at the university, last grade when The Blair Witch Project came to here. It exploded. Everyone was crazy about it. It was regarded as good, creative art. I think still is. They hype was that I think there wasn't anything like it before. 

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
19
Religion General Discussion / Re: Theist Morality is Subjective
« Last post by Simon Moon on Today at 11:30:38 AM »
Matt Dillahunty gives a talk on a secular morality that has an objective basis, that being, the objective facts about reality.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


20
I'm rusty, haven't used English for ages, so bear with me. I'll throw a few random thoughts. Hakurei pretty much nailed it. I get Shiranu's point, but yeah as traditional definition of 'civilisation' goes, they are all going to get filed under the most influential and long lasting ones. In this case, unless there is a very distinct, hard evidence about the culture that built Göbeklitepe, it won't be named under a new civilisation. 

It seems that there is this idea, actually a strong feeling, most modern people have when they look at these monuments. In a nutshell, 'how the fuck they managed to do that thousands of years ago'. I don't know if it would make any sense to you, but the thing is they managed to do that because it was thousands of years ago. Building religious monuments of these scale, tombs is the result of not being 'advanced'. Because this is about religion. All these monuments are for/about faith-belief which makes the life itself in a nutshell. If it is the technical scale, to me after humans discovered to put one stone on another, rest is imagination and planning. I don't see anything 'mind boggling' or 'impossible'. (And an architect who lived in 19th century had a very good explanation about how architecture actually was born, which he was strongly persecuted for it, but that's another subject of course.) 

You are talking about Ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptian culture is based on a funeral cult. Everything is for the after life. It's a closed society. For example, they have an idea of human anatomy, but they never depicted it or sculpted it in a natural looking way. They have refused to imitate nature. When I look at the three pyramids the only thing I see is challenging time; endurance. Well every civilisation have a problem with time; we humans have  big issues with time. But look at the pyramids. It's the best, refined, economic form of saying 'this must survive!'. When I say economic, I mean if you want to build something huge and want it to last for thousands of years, don't you think pyramid is a very good solution to go?           

But on the other hand, look at the Greek and Roman civilisations. Their life is based on religion too. But their culture produced the best imitations of nature in terms of architecture and sculpture.

There is a very famous cliché example given to underline the differences between these two 'opposite' cultures. There is this Greek bas relief depicting Aphrodite's birth. It's something like this:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Look at it. There this half naked female body emerging from somwhere. It could be a woman getting out of a bath. Of course nudity is important but the most important part is goddess or not, the relief is showing a momentary action. yes there are countless formal, iconographic, dull, motionless scenes in Greek or later Roman art, but this manner of depiction only found in these cultures.

You can't find anything resembling this in Ancient Egyptian art or the art of the cultures it influenced. Can't they technically do that? Of course they can. But the point is they didn't. Because it didn't make sense to them. 

I'm not making this comparison to praise one of them or to imply one is superior to the other. I am making it because these are not just two different form of expressions, they are two different forms of interpretation of a world vision; life. And that is what makes a civilisation, civilisation. Also consistency. And evidence to prove that consistency. We use the term 'civilisation' very loosely, but if you take it in this sense there has actually been a few civilisation in human history. 


 

 
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk