Posts by Sophia Williams

mistyfox812 said:I actually find your lectures quite fascinating👍 — though, given you're posting here on the forum (essentially Times Square) — perhaps you could approach your philosophy more as a dialogue, rather than just delivering a monologue...😉

Well, who exactly am I supposed to talk to?
If the top tier isn't composed of our best—Slavko, Essenca, Jonathan Brooks8, George Washington, and at the very peak—myself, the lonely genius in "Times Square," or the local players?!
Even my idol Martin Heidegger wasn't exactly known for his conversational skills; people either worshipped him from afar or absolutely tore him to pieces...
I'll admit, maybe I just lack the knack for back-and-forth...
Come on, someone suggest a direction before I dive deeper into this topic—purely in a solitary, Heideggerian style...😁 😉 😎

UM

Philosophical thought is rigorous—in a very specific sense—even more so than scientific inquiry. While philosophical knowledge possesses rigor, it isn't based on empirical data; rather, it deals with "certain uncertainty and uncertain certainty"...
...
And the guarantor of that rigor is—the MIND. Hmm...! Hegel relies on the mind, and then there’s Fichte..! Nowadays, everyone seems obsessed with mocking the intellect—claiming it’s just idle daydreaming and that our gadgets will tell us everything we need to know.

...

"The ontological encounter of being with Being itself—which is the true subject of philosophy—ontologically precedes the distinction between being and existence..."

Because the power of cognition isn't some isolated faculty separate from others—like love, rage, or artistic talent... In short, the MIND is a totality, not just a cognitive exercise...

That is, if you will, a new definition of the mind.

The logic of identity is gone; we are moving past the definitions of truth established by Descartes and Aristotelian logic.
...
Nietzsche: "Parmenides said: 'One cannot think what is not,' but I say: 'Whatever can be thought is certainly not—it is merely garbage and delusion!'"

Instead of the mind acting as an organ for truth and cognition, we have SPIRIT—claims Nietzsche. Man as a whole. Not some single organ—a human THINKS AS A WHOLE. Nietzsche was arguably the greatest fighter against nihilism, which he believed was embodied in Greek metaphysics and Aristotelian logic.
...
"The non-existence of a thing is the reason why that thing exists, not the other way around!" he says.
So, how are we supposed to engage in philosophical thought now, you lovely masses of this absolute circus of a forum that falsely calls itself an agora?
Unfortunately, *petitio principii* is necessary at the start of any philosophical journey. Even Heidegger began that way... 😁
An introduction to philosophy is an adventure.

Eugen Fink: "It is not about an introduction to philosophy, but an introduction to—PHILOSOPHIZING! ... You have to dive into philosophy—there is no course for it, no step-by-step guide; either you philosophize, or you get lost!"

Kant: "One does not learn philosophy, one learns philosophizing!"

Even Plato, with the "Cave" from his REPUBLIC, showed that entering philosophy requires a leap. You can't do it if you're some lazy guy praising nature while digging septic tanks. Personally, I'm too busy fixing a leaky faucet in my bathroom just to avoid getting ripped off by a plumber...
...

😎

Before we even attempt to define what philosophy actually is, we really ought to take a look at the nature of knowledge itself. Most cognitive experts would say it consists of three parts—1) the information known, 2) the knowing subject (the UMA), and 3) the relationship between them. That’s how standard sciences work, at least—but in philosophy, these three factors have to be treated differently. Because our philosophical inquiry deals with Being as a whole—as Aristotle says.

And I’m sure Heidegger would agree that all other sciences merely "carve out a slice of Being and observe its accidental, manifest forms within the world."

Hegel noted: "Philosophy therefore lacks those advantages held by other sciences—namely, having clear, distinct objects of study."

Which is why certain narrow-minded people insist I should just focus on "rambling" instead of picking up a wrench and a hammer to fix some plumbing...
Check out my other thread regarding THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY...
...
So, the fundamental task of philosophy is the question of Being (in its entirety!). Being as Being. And further, the Being of beings. The sciences grab just ONE CATEGORY of being and manipulate it through formal logic—which has frankly degenerated thanks to Aristotle and the sheer mental laziness of his later followers—alongside natural sciences and technical tools. Heidegger would probably love to bring up the idea of the "concealment" of scientific "objects" here...
...
However, man is condemned to interrogate his own existence, which—to put it ontically for this level of discussion—influences the study of philosophy. Knowledge is essentially smuggled in as if it were a fundamental attribute of Being itself.
...
Hence, the inherent reflexivity found in Husserl!
...
Man is mortal. And his philosophy is too, if you ask me! Philosophy strives to transcend the boundary between Being and Nothingness.

Heidegger said: "Either we go to the VERY END, or there is no philosophy!"
Like most philosophers, Plato demanded UNASSUMPTIVENESS at the beginning of the world—and by extension, at the start of any philosophical investigation.
Even phenomenology couldn't quite reach that ideal of unassumptiveness; it ended up lingering on the subject's consciousness as the "founder of the world"...
...
Yet, human finitude brings us four modes of human knowledge—that is, philosophy itself: (1) HISTORICITY, which is the inevitable result of temporality; knowledge is always historical. (2) PROJECTIVITY—which could easily be replaced by the phrase the Petrović arrival, signifying an openness to new possibilities... On the horizon of our lives, we always have a choice. (3) DISCURSIVENESS; this refers to language, which enables MEANING AND PURPOSE—allowing us to battle ideas and forge our worldview into linguistic signs, which then collide with the worldviews of others... Sartre would sing about inter-subjectivity here, while Jaspers remarked: "Philosophy seeks... eternal truth... Being is given to us only in TIME... Truth is always a phenomenon that vanishes—therefore, it is historical." (4) CRITICALITY, which is the unavoidable consequence of UNASSUMPTIVENESS. Nothing is absolute; nothing should be taken for granted, and we must constantly return to our primary findings—pushing thought to its very limits is essential.

...

Man is the only being whose essence is the boundary between himself and the world (Nothingness).
That is yet another definition, alongside Heidegger's...

😎

Blackadder said:I need some clarification here! Are we choosing the most iconic actor or the most iconic character? I might be able to pull something together for the first one—but for the second... I just don't have enough info.

The character!!


Nobody even brought him up—and yet, he’s saved the world at least three times...
😎

This film stands as a living monument to the art of cinema...
😎

Rebecca Brown28 said:Mel Gibson 👍

Apparently, Gibson only saved the Scots 😁 and those mutated Australians, while Nicholson gets cast as the villain...
Well... It’s a good thing they mentioned Cruise... But what about Reeves?!
😎

Sandra Moore said:My Bruce Willis 😁 wipes out all the villains—and then somehow still finds the energy to crack a joke 👍 respect!!!

Yeah, I actually hesitated about including him... He played far too many bad guys over the years—though in Last Boy Scout he’s a true hero, a real American type—family comes first, then everything else, then friendship, then principles, and finally everything else...
😉 😎

If you had to pick one of these superheroes to watch your wallet, your spouse, your house, or even your dog... who would it be?
A few of them have played the villain at times—though most were strictly world-savers and protectors of the innocent. What do you all think?...

It’s surprising how nobody seems to be asking about this particular piece—I’d be more than happy to shed some light on the details for you all...😉

ruggedstag84 said:I'm with you there.
No matter how hard he tries to convince us otherwise—Sophia Williams is just a total fraud (and a blatant, vulgar, obnoxious one at that)—fine, I’ll just ignore him from now on, and as for the rest of you... 👋

Sophia Evans76, Vinko, and Vinko Heraklitović are all the same person...

How exactly did I offend you, Ftritze? It’s not like I built a monument to your Star Wars obsession or anything. When someone critiques Citizen Kane, they aren't attacking me—that's just their right. You could have made your own post about composers or whatever else you wanted, instead of demanding that I think exactly like you do...

If I’m being annoying, fine—don't read my stuff. If you want to claim I’m being arrogant or vulgar, that’s your call, but then I'd essentially be descending to your level of what you consider "film criticism" (love it or hate it)...

But you're the real poser here—making lists like we're at some middle school party when you've barely even seen three whole movies...

If you actually tell me what I did to offend you, I'll apologize...

Nancy Morales2 said:Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha... yeah, you really are a genius...😁 ...you've pushed logic so far into the extreme that you've somehow circled all the way back to pure stupidity... congratulations!!!🙂

To Vinko Heraklitović—that delusional Marxist who clearly knows nothing about Marx and just keeps hunting me down like some desperate stray... read this and think about it:

Mental illnesses are biologically based brain disorders. They cannot be overcome through "will power" and are not related to a person's "character" or intelligence.
Maybe try getting some actual help, because
without treatment The consequences of mental illness for The individual and society ara staggering : unnecessary disability, unemployment, substance abuse, homelessness, inappropriate incarceration, suicide and wasted lives; The economic cost of untreated mental illness is more Than 100 billion dollars each year in The United States.

So, what happened? Did they let you stay home without your meds this weekend, or did a Doctors Without Borders foundation hand you a Soros-esque laptop just so you could babble on the Net?!
What a pathetic excuse for a person.
Nancy Morales2, I love you, truly... everything is forgiven... Just have some tea, maybe some milk... etcetera... and please, try not to make a mess on the floor.
👋 😎 😁

Jeremy Flores4 said:After mentioning Morricone, I listed a few composers who are impossible to ignore—like Tiersen. I actually swapped Tiersen for the director because it was nearly 2:00 AM, and since I haven't slept properly in almost a week due to some obligations, I made a slip-up. I realized the mistake first thing in the morning and corrected it immediately.
Between Morricone and the score for Amelie, there were three other massive film composers—I mean legendary works, not physical proportions—so I'm honestly still not sure how you managed to see Morricone-no as being okay with that...

I’m just curious why you quoted my post to bring up John Williams when I didn't mention him at all.

Look, I’m exhausted too—completely wired and frustrated by some work issues—trying to get things done while this looming deadline hangs over me...
😁 😎 I should also mention Marvin Hamlisch, who composed the score for "The Spy Who Loved Me"... Right before Moore plunges into the abyss on those skis, and before the parachute even opens... That music really feels like Moroder + Morricone—that's probably how they would have scored a Bond film...
👋

I didn't even need to include your Williams in my poll—but I did anyway—and now I’m still getting blamed just because I didn't build him a monument. Well, fine... why don't you fans of Star Wars go ahead and build one yourselves...

Look, picture books, baby babble, and those silent little gestures from infants—they're all incredibly useful for human development, sure—but nobody is ever going to compare a toddler's crayon scribble to a masterpiece by the Great Masters, nor will anyone equate a child's nursery rhyme to Bach. And that’s exactly what you’re doing—equating the Lucas-esque and Tarantino fluff with true titans of cinema. If you don't like that, fine. Personally, I'm not exactly thrilled about how "trendy" it is to obsess over Iranian films, Georgian cinema, Chinese movies, or Italian Neorealism either...

But sticking to those childhood fantasies like Star Wars—it’s honestly just laughable and quite pathetic, really... they aren't even on the same level as a decent comic book!
👋

northernotter3 said:😕

I have that album. But what were you actually trying to get at? I honestly don't follow your point at all. What's the punchline?! 😕

northernotter3,
I’m "well-acquainted" with those kid-friendly flicks of yours from that Lucas-esque series, and I know plenty more about cinema than that; you seem stuck on just a handful of names—Tarantino, Lynch, Lucas...
And if I mentioned both "your" and "my" composers, then fine, I’m the ignorant one—whatever—which is why I won't agree with you on every single comma!

You brought up the crew from the film, and sure, they're a solid group—though I suppose fans of Star Wars are a bit like the local football team this season...

It seems you're one of those "tough guy" types who only knows how to make lists; it’s your way of showing ATTITUDE!
If you're scoffing at > and > while putting someone from so-called "B-movies"—oh, how sophisticated and "in" that sounds—right at the top, then you're truly lost...
Try dismissing Wyler and then we'll talk...

Besides, you skipped over the entire history of film—from Dreier and his > to Capra, Wyler, Clair, and Renoir....
I wasn't trying to compile some mindless list; I wanted to spark a conversation about film scores, and lists are usually the best way to do that since everyone loves them—but when you only have 10 SLOTS, you can't please everyone.

Instead of trying to lecture me and corner me with your arguments, you're just taking a swing at me regarding >. It's always "Williams and that's that" with you and that guy... as if I've personally offended your whole family!
We could talk about Lynch—I see he's considered "cool" too. His > is arguably the most profound religious film ever made; such an inventive, dreamlike vision of heaven—almost like a "dark infinity." It's heavy stuff, but worth it.
As for >, I'm not feeling it; he's delivered another pedantic, half-hearted utopia, and you can already sense his morbid mannerisms creeping in. Now, > was a genuine hit—he captured the story and created compelling, believable characters, something he hasn't managed to pull off again. Then there's >, which is clearly his obsession with religious themes—the idea that redemption is impossible, that sin lies in betraying a loved one rather than, say, knocking out some obnoxious jerk... I followed the debate surrounding that film; someone wondered what the cowboy meant when he said, "If you're good, you'll see me once; if not, you'll see me twice." Based on another user's comment, I think they caught the hint, but it’s all a bit too prosaic—basically, Lynch believes too much in "white light" and some eternal soul-existence or the merging of heaven and hell, similar to the second part of >. It's all quite mystical and naive...

And regarding >, neither Eno (Brian + Roger) nor Toto really did it for me.
But getting back to this poll, instead of cheering like you're at a stadium, you could have actually written something meaningful about Williams. But I guess for you, the height of ATTITUDE is just ranking things #1 or kicking them off a list, rather than actually composing a thought or two.

I wasn't trying to prove I'm a genius (trust me, I know!)—I just wanted to talk about movies.
And I didn't want to turn it into a science, BECAUSE YOU DON'T NEED AN ACADEMY DEGREE TO ENJOY A MOVIE... BUT FOR ME, TALKING ABOUT FILM IS SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST SAYING "I LIKE IT," "IT'S GREAT," OR "IT SUCKS"...

How is it that I can't have a conversation with you, yet I can talk to my son's friends?! Maybe you aren't as young as you think, and maybe you're just bad company!
...👎 northernotter3

northernotter3 said:😕

I have that album—but I'm not quite sure what you were getting at there. What was the point of that sentence? I don't follow... 😕

I was simply extending an olive branch—this is the soundtrack to my son's generation, after all—so if you're going to lecture me about those who grew up on Shirley Bassey... well, that was my point, but you seem worked up to the point of total irrationality...
...🙂

Nancy Morales2—who is actually Vinko Heraklitović, that famous Marxist from Greenwich—wore head bandages during his childhood, just like these, and for far too long... they honestly thought it was just a cap...

01 Where do i Begin awayTeam mix 02 Goldfinger Propellerheads mix
03 light my Fire Kenny Dope Remix
04 Diamonds ara Forever Mantronik 007 mix
05 Easy thing to do Nightmares on Wax
06 never never
armada mix 07 Big Spender
Wild Oscar mix 08 spinning Wheel DJ Spinna
Remix 09 light my Fire Twelftree's Lady mix 10 if you go Away DJ Skymoo mix

☕

northernotter3 said:My absolute favorite 007 soundtrack (and the movie itself!) has to be The Man with the Golden Gun.
Right up there with it—neck and neck—is the Goldfinger score.
And following those, I'd say Thunderball and A View to a Kill come next.

I actually thought about having a little chat with you, Sophia Williams, regarding Bond music—but you just kept going with those unreasonable, frankly insulting jabs at Star Wars films, Williams' compositions, and us fans... myself included.
So, honestly—I'm done talking to you. You're being unkind. 👎

I was hoping you might provide some extra details about the artists on this record...

northernotter3 said:My absolute favorite 007 soundtrack (and the movie itself!) has to be The Man with the Golden Gun.
Right up there with it—neck and neck—is the Goldfinger score.
And following those, I'd say Thunderball and A View to a Kill come next.

I actually thought about having a bit of a chat with you, Sophia Williams, regarding Bond music—but you just kept up with those irrational, frankly disgusting insults toward the Star Wars films, Williams-esque scores, and us fans... including little old me.
So—I'm done talking to you. You're just being mean-spirited. 👎

I don't know what it is with you guys—so young, yet somehow so old-fashioned in spirit! I took your teasing as being pretty cool, but I suppose you're actually looking for blind worship, aren't you?
Maybe I was also getting ready to dive into discussions about Nirvana, Shirley Bassey, or Blur with you, but if you're not interested... fine...
☕

Jeremy Flores4 said:Who said Morricone wrote it? I actually meant Jeunet—I just mixed things up because I was typing this at 1 AM... When I saw what I’d written this morning, I had to correct myself. As for where you saw Morricone paired with Amelie, I honestly—truly—have no clue.

I see you caught that it wasn't Morricone for Amelie. Fair enough.

After mentioning Morricone, you listed a whole stack of films, so it could easily look like you thought he scored all of them; personally, I knew Jeunet directed "Amelie," so it didn't even cross my mind that you might have confused Tiersen with the director...