Originally posted by Palynka Unpopular as it may sound, I actually think the first Matrix is a hell of a sci-fi movie. The sequels are utter crap, though.
That said, the plot itself is not particularly original.
The Matrix is just fine, as long as you don't drag Lacan into it.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi YEC assumes(among other things) that God created the world about 6000 years ago. Any isotope dating is irrelevant because God in his infinite wisdom created all things as if having history. as such, trees have rings and rocks seem to be having 4 billion years. What would the reason be god created things this way is another story. perhaps just to make fun of ...[text shortened]... res.
To me, the logic(so to speak) of both theories is exactly the same. what do you think?
Come to think of it . . . I don't remember anything before last Thursday!
Originally posted by Zahlanzi interesting point. how meaningful are our lives if all beyond last thursday is a lie, or simply information fed to our brain. if all we know is what the senses tell us, how can we be sure the past happened. how can we be proud of the sidney opera house if it wasn't humans who built it but god did it last thursday.
and according to the last thursdayism, ...[text shortened]... recreated by god and next universe will have memory of creating last week and the weeks before.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage His work partly inspired the film but he didn't say much about it.
Lacanians write like this:
http://www.lacan.com/zizekloaded.htm
I'm curious to know what you think.
I don't know Lacan so I can't really comment.
Most exercises like that one, however, tend to cherry pick to support certain views. Focusing on matching specific details and willfully ignoring the 'bigger picture' so to speak. The Matrix throws everything in but the kitchen sink, so if you cherry pick you can almost justify anything.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage His work partly inspired the film but he didn't say much about it.
Lacanians write like this:
http://www.lacan.com/zizekloaded.htm
I'm curious to know what you think.
i agree with the author's comparisson between the matrix and the Rorschach test. "Vat do you zee?". And yes there are inconsistencies in the matrix, statements insufficiently explained and/or contradicted elsewhere. But i believe matrix represents more than one philosophy, attempts at defining reality or part of it. And like all things, there is no absolute truth. Just a nice debate at a joint smoking club.
I liked "The Matrix" but not the next two boring sequels; kinda expecting more from the dualistic approach "reality/ fantasy", where fantasy itself seemed to be equal to a unique reality/ non reality situation. Instead of a smart continuation exploiting the good ole ontological issue, the Wachowskis produced two worthless movies -but money talks. And I agree with that author, Zizek.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi YEC assumes(among other things) that God created the world about 6000 years ago. Any isotope dating is irrelevant because God in his infinite wisdom created all things as if having history. as such, trees have rings and rocks seem to be having 4 billion years. What would the reason be god created things this way is another story. perhaps just to make fun of ...[text shortened]... res.
To me, the logic(so to speak) of both theories is exactly the same. what do you think?
I think you are using a strawman.
I think you will be very hard pressed to find a YEC that thinks (or admits as such) that God created the world in such a way as to look like it is older than it really is. Most YECs I have discussed it with claim that there is plenty of evidence for a young earth and very little evidence for an old earth (and evolution etc).
Of course we could play the same game with all Christians and point out that God in his infinite wisdom made it look as if there is no God, making Christianity virtually indistinguishable from any other religion that believes in supernatural beings as none of them have any real evidence whatsoever. To me the logic of such religions is the same. What do you think?
Originally posted by twhitehead I think you are using a strawman.
I think you will be very hard pressed to find a YEC that thinks (or admits as such) that God created the world in such a way as to look like it is older than it really is. Most YECs I have discussed it with claim that there is plenty of evidence for a young earth and very little evidence for an old earth (and evolution ...[text shortened]... any real evidence whatsoever. To me the logic of such religions is the same. What do you think?
i agree. my argument that the logic is similar is based on YECs who actually consider the isotope dating and other proofs the real scientists throw at them. most of them like you said flat out dismiss them.
and yes, common sense tells us that we shouldn't do any action that depends solely on the existence of God for its success.
however, like last thrusdayism, it isn't provable. the god problem is as provable as "are we in the matrix or is this real, real?"
26 Aug '08 12:37
Comparing Last Thursdayism with YEC
Back to Top