Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by max_freakout, Jul 17, 2008.
YES! exactly, as i have said a zillion times
everything is nothing
ok, there is nothing to explain
What is true is you're a prick who's not worth a second of my time, let alone hours and I've run out of booze so I'm off to bed.
there is shit loads to explain Max, at least from your end.
Try reading some Peter J Carroll, seems to be the removing brain type of magick you're into.
The things they said about the two of us were lies
I knew they couldn't see the love lights in our eyes
They said I wouldn't dare, to show how much I care
They didn't know that we were just two angels in disguise
That's what my brain was thinking and then it happened!
When I see inane blather like "nothing stays the same, nothing changes" I feel as though I'm reading a koan composed by a three year-old: the mind-fuck is there, but there's nothing behind it-- nothing at all, save smarm, the desperate need to make a noise and to be thought of as somehow "deep".
When I was a lad, shit like this went on in teenagers' bedrooms with Marillion on in the background*. Now, thanks to the great gift of the internet, we can all have a sniff of adolescent brainfart.
* Apparently .
hopefully not with Marillion.
This is marilion, that's the point. Expanded education i hate you.
"Fast drinks two cans of stella"
As visual representations of max' and i-h-n-i's arguments, you have to admit that these are spookily accurate: -
It'll take more than that brother
the latter seems appropriate.
It's Agaric Glitter.
meaning is motivation.
"Mythology is often thought of as "other peoples" religions ... Religion can be defined as mis-interpreted mythology"
No they don't.
Proof you never read the Bible and you never read Al Qur'an
Sorry, can't read all posts in this thread since I left. I can see confirmed though that you have no clue. By the way, did you already overcome the shock that you dismiss the existence of (at least one) person(s) with recorded history about their existence?
If you are so out on talking as if you know something about relationships between relgious ideas and dogma (for example Christianity and an adopted Roman religion) you could take a look at mithraïsm, to name one.
Has he written anything decent?
What a strange reasoning for a philosophy graduate.
The definition "muthos " originally had no religious connotation. It was a collective for "saying, orally explained exposition", in its core about the same as logos. Religious and a-religious didn't exist. It is only since the fifth century AD that (in the Western sphere) within the frame of history writing and philosophy the word myth came to be used as meaning the opposite of logos.
Clearly you also chose to dismiss the option that places the transfer from the time of the myths to the time of reason (= the philosophical approach)as coinciding (at least in the Western sphere) with the transfer from oral culture to culture with written texts. This at the same time caused a change in attitude concerning tradition. (Read for example Xenophanes and Pindarus; More explicit example even in the Oedipus story as by Aeschylus and Sophocles)
Oh I dunno, philosophy graduates can have very strange reasoning. Or behaviour, so I'm told.
I had enough close encounters with philosophy to know that those who are really involved in it don't have strange reasonings. Behaviour is of course an other matter
Huh? How is it possible for someone who displays such massive ignorance of the most basic tenets of world religions to become a "philosophy graduate"?
Separate names with a comma.