Posts by mistyfox812

It really comes down to two main players, Stulic and Koja.

Brian Sanchez44 said:Sending condolences isn't some kind of political statement...

I mean, Frank's entire world just collapsed in that moment anyway. Honestly, even if Radovan Karadžić himself had reached out to offer sympathy, Frank wouldn't have even noticed...

The movie definitely has political undertones, sure, but that doesn't make it "politically motivated" per se...

Look, the director didn't just film a real-life event by accident.🙄
He chose to show those Mexicans being right there at that exact moment. Having them present in that specific scene actually serves his narrative. And that whole setup? That's where the political message comes in.

So, I just finished watching both The Gold Rush and Intolerance. Honestly? The Gold Rush was way better for me.

Brian Sanchez44 said:How is that supposed to be pathetic? You wouldn't just sit there and say nothing if someone you actually knew passed away right in front of you, right?

Give me a break. If that wasn't a political statement, then movies have never had a political message in them. Period.

Oh man, it just hit me.
In some deep philosophical way, you could say the whole "to have or to be" debate is basically just "to grab or to grow."

steelcanyon2 said:man, just be whoever you want to be!

At the end of the day, I am what I do.

Kenneth Ward8 said:🤣

Why use such big, fancy words anyway?

Ext said:Nah. We *are* everything we've lost!

Then I guess I'm just mistyfox812!

It’s actually pretty consistent if you think about it. Like, it feels to Sophia Williams like there’s nobody left worth talking to here, so she just starts debating those old legends from centuries ago.
I mean, philosophy is basically just a massive conversation—that's why Plato wrote all those dialogues. It can be your soul talking to itself, or maybe to other souls—assuming they even exist.
The real headache with chatting with the ancients is that they’re dead. No matter how you phrase the question, they always give you the exact same answer. Plato laid that whole struggle out perfectly in Philadelphia.

Keith Phillips3 said:Going to extremes is never the move.

Honestly? Success is all about overdoing it!
I mean, if you don't push things to the edge, how are you ever gonna figure out where the limit actually is? 😉

So, the whole idea of 'nature' (physis) in philosophy—not like how we use it today, but the actual deep stuff—really starts popping up alongside the concept of 'law' (nomos) in Greek works. You had these Sophists constantly tripping over themselves asking: is this just how things are naturally, or is it just because of some rule? It’s wild. For them, a 'natural law' was basically as unchangeable as a block of wood.

Look, we’re talking about two totally different things here.
That whole idea that nature follows "laws" basically stems from the mindset of a monotheistic God—this Creator and Lawgiver figure who's treated just like some earthly king who hands down the rules.
In my opinion, ancient civilizations didn't see nature as having "laws." They saw it as necessity.
There’s this stuff by John Needham, where he was digging into Chinese natural science and wondering what would've happened if they never used that "law" metaphor. He tells this one story about how, back in the Middle Ages, animals born with deformities were seen as being punished for breaking "divine" laws (which is basically what we call "natural" laws today).

Maybe go practice your maieutics a little. Even Socrates didn't have anyone at first, and look how that turned out—he had a whole crowd following him a few decades later. Plus, I’m guessing you’ve got some kind of teaching instinct kicking in, otherwise why else would you even be sending in your stuff?

I gotta say, I actually find your lectures super interesting👍 , but maybe—since you’re hanging out here on the forum (you know, the digital agora)—you could try making things a bit more of a back-and-forth dialogue instead of just delivering one long monologue after another.😉

hiddenpuma75 said:Dyson describes the internet as this massive, globally interconnected, ELECTRONICALLY SENSITIVE BEING😲

That’s wild!🙂
Okay, but if it's actually alive... are we living in symbiosis with it, or is it just some giant parasite?
What's the word from Dyson? Or anyone else got an opinion on this?

Eric Wells3 said:And I just don't get how people had enough memory to memorize those massive books, especially since there was no writing in India 5000 years ago.

Yeah, totally—that’s why everything was passed down in verse. It makes memorizing stuff way easier. It wasn't until writing actually took off that deep philosophy really started to bloom, you know? Like, you can actually pause mid-sentence, ask a question, or loop back to an earlier point. Giovanni Reale breaks this whole thing down perfectly in his book ''Socrates''.