people playing: 115, servers online: 38, games played: 136,873,831 Top Player: Savior4

  Toribash Community » General » Discussion
Register FAQ General Rules Community
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 7, 2017   #21
+Ele
Community Manbanger
 
2nd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,292
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by Lazors View Post
Is it possible to translate a painting to a text without losing its original intent?

If not, you have to accept at least that the communicative value of art is different from the communicative value of text.

I think it is possible. I reckon' most authors of the painting could easily do that (unless they're the sort that just paint whatever, randomly). Will viewers of the art be able to do that? Likely not, but that's not because words can't explain it, it's just because rarely will an interpretation of art be in line with the artist's intention.

That said, yeah, there's different communicative value between pictures and words. I still think words are not on the 'low' end of the 'communicative value scale' (sounds fancy).

Originally Posted by Lazors
I expected this sort of criticism. Of course, trying to explain with words that words can explain what words can explain isn't really convincing to me.

Well apparently it was.
Originally Posted by Lazors
You're right, I was sloppy in distinguishing between science and abstract thought.

Originally Posted by Lazors
If you swallow the idea that art is beyond science and reason, and there are ideas that cannot be translated into words, you must accept that there is something bigger that we cannot understand. If that isn't the definition of God I don't know what is.

This wasn't addressed to me, but that's just classic 'God of the gaps' thinking.

Originally Posted by xero901 View Post
Well it is solipsism. If reality existed independent of my senses, what proof do I have of that other than my senses?

If you want to indulge in that degree of self-delusion then there's nothing I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise.

Originally Posted by xero901 View Post
yada yada Qi-gong, yada yada third-eye, yada yada vision of Alex Gray paintings, yada yada

Mhm.

Originally Posted by xero901 View Post
Edit: Another thing, if people aren't asking for your help. And if you think 'helping' someone is flexing your own ego at them, attempting to invalidate their opinion as drug-fueled rambling, you got too much to work with in your own head to be working in mine brah.

You said yourself that your opinion was supported by your drug-use. Fuck me for repeating you, ey? I wasn't aggressive with you at all. Fuck me for trying to get you to realise that that the world exists beyond your senses... I'm a real cunt, ey?
Ele is offline  
Old Jul 7, 2017   #22
enexen
Junior Member
 
Green Belt
Join Date: Jun 2017



My father said that he only believes of the creator of heaven and earth and he doesn't believe in God. Does It make sense? And murdering people is obviously a massive sin in your whole life. And, you go to prison after that.
mai zigmachure es duomb ayend dozent mayk seyns *dut*
enexen is offline  
Old Jul 7, 2017   #23
WeooWeoo
Family Dog Beater
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,838
Clan: Catalyst



Oh Boy, another religion thread.

Okay, so, the question is "Do God Exists". Does a God exist?
We can't answer that. No one can prove God is real and no one can prove that he isn't real. For the sole fact that we have no idea why we are even alive.

Everyone likes to have their theories, and quite a few choose a religion - a higher being, if you will. My theory is that, Aliens are to blame or some shit and that's all. Everything exists because it does. It's always been there forever.

All religions are weird, but the hardest I find to believe is Christianity. It's just... heh.. No. Read the Bible or something from the Bible and you'll see. Do I believe in God? No, I classify my beliefs as an Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe in any religion but I can't say there definitely can't be a God.

If you like thinking someone all mighty and powerful made us, go for it.
"Let me keep you here for an hour, okay pick a number" - Pouffy
"Weoo is correct unfortunately." -Icky
WeooWeoo is offline  
Old Jul 7, 2017   #24
hayabusa8
Senior Member
 
3rd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 658



[QUOTE=MisterDarky;9165924]I would say that I believe more into the religion logic but in my mind, we have no proof that God exists. Well, as you say God isn't visible but still. We still have no proof.
-----

I never said he exists nor 'still' exists

As i said, questioning about his existence is pointless as we cant prove him to exist

God can exist : Nature, Flora, natural cataclysm, etc .. for some people
but not for all others
[LoP] | [TMM]
hayabusa8 is offline  
Old Jul 7, 2017   #25
Chuck
 
3rd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,577



if u think about it how can the world (earth) be created when theres no god?

i think it can many scientist guys proved that there needs nothing to be something (hard to explain hope you get it)?

but like others said heaven and hell are real so they replaced god so good people can go to heaven and bad people to hell . but who says people are good and bad? thats where i think god will be alive again and say who is bad and good and then everyone who goes to hell will be there and the good people (like me i think i am a good person i never hurt anyone) will go to heaven,
<ego>holy fuck a bat is in my room
- ego quit (Ping timeout)
Chuck is offline  
Old Jul 7, 2017   #26
xero901
Member
 
3rd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 241



Originally Posted by Ele View Post
If you want to indulge in that degree of self-delusion then there's nothing I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise.
Mhm.
You said yourself that your opinion was supported by your drug-use. Fuck me for repeating you, ey? I wasn't aggressive with you at all. Fuck me for trying to get you to realise that that the world exists beyond your senses... I'm a real cunt, ey?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...ominem-Abusive

You're not being aggressive? You're totally ego tripping right now brah. My rambling might have been had some drug usage along the way, but I assure you I've read, studied, and researched enough to understand at-least the broad paradigm of which the New Age beliefs sits in. While I recognize I truly don't know as deeply as I want to on these different subjects, I know enough to see legitimate evidence backed up behind certain trains of thought. Of which, I've attempted to communicate to you. But you're continuing to invalidate my argument without attempting to understand my perspective at all.
Ignorance.
A samurai of the oldest kind, watch me shine, but don't get blind from the light that exists behind.

Last edited by xero901; Jul 7, 2017 at 05:19 PM..
xero901 is offline  
Old Jul 7, 2017   #27
Alpha
Chatterbox
 
3rd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,717
Clan: Amaterasu



mmh
does god exist ?
ye, i think so.
any proof?
yes in quran
you can look this thing (its full of sientific proofs):http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic%2...0El-Najjar.htm

i guess everyone are free to believe if god exist or not and you wont get a proper answer from asking people.
go seek it by yourself
thats the only way
jisse's replay gave me chills
Alpha is offline  
Old Jul 7, 2017   #28
Lazors
Chatterbox
 
7th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,533
Clan: duck



Originally Posted by Ele View Post
I think it is possible. I reckon' most authors of the painting could easily do that (unless they're the sort that just paint whatever, randomly). Will viewers of the art be able to do that? Likely not, but that's not because words can't explain it, it's just because rarely will an interpretation of art be in line with the artist's intention.

What if the art is beyond the artist's immediate intent and intended meaning? Art can be just as much of an exploration for the artists to develop a meaning that's beyond both the artist's and the viewers understanding. The fascination with abstract art is partly trying to approach the dormant ideas of the universe, that the artist explores. Maybe you believe the fascination is purely scientific, that there are bodily functions that cause art to be appealing. It's probably so, but it would take a hell of a lot of explaining to understand how a piece of art is developed by the painter, and how it causes people to feel. And even then there are ideas in art that are unintentional perspectives, or "potential perspectives" that are unreachable for humans.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
This wasn't addressed to me, but that's just classic 'God of the gaps' thinking.

If you want to read it as a fallacy, that's fine. If my interpretation is that God is the universe, from the matter to the subjective ideas about it, both discovered and undiscovered then God isn't just in the gap, but the gap itself.

I guess you could say I don't have to call it God because of the meaning the word has today. Maybe people would understand me better if I didn't use the word. However, the idea of something that is beyond understanding is both sacred and secular, fascinating and boring, maybe depending on how exposed you are to the cliché.
I do wonder if this is an older interpretation, considering expressions like "God has 99 (infinite) names", "God is an idea that cannot be approached by the human mind" or "God is in all things".
-----
Originally Posted by AlphaN00b View Post
mmh
does god exist ?
ye, i think so.
any proof?
yes in quran
you can look this thing (its full of sientific proofs):http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic%20Editorials/2007/September/The%20Scientific%20Evidence%20That%20God%20Exists% 20and%20the%20Holy%20Qur'an%20Is%20His%20Message%2 0to%20Humanity%20By%20Hassan%20Ali%20El-Najjar.htm

i guess everyone are free to believe if god exist or not and you wont get a proper answer from asking people.
go seek it by yourself
thats the only way

10/10 read
So take your wings off, sisters, get down and jam
And let the nymphs be the judges of our poetry slam!

Last edited by Lazors; Jul 7, 2017 at 06:34 PM..
Lazors is offline  
Old Jul 8, 2017   #29
+Ele
Community Manbanger
 
2nd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,292
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by xero901 View Post
You're not being aggressive? You're totally ego tripping right now brah. My rambling might have been had some drug usage along the way, but I assure you I've read, studied, and researched enough to understand at-least the broad paradigm of which the New Age beliefs sits in. While I recognize I truly don't know as deeply as I want to on these different subjects, I know enough to see legitimate evidence backed up behind certain trains of thought. Of which, I've attempted to communicate to you. But you're continuing to invalidate my argument without attempting to understand my perspective at all.
Ignorance.

I've told you that I'm not attacking you personally and in response you refuse to accept that I'm being truthful and you rant that I'm ego-tripping. I don't know what to tell you.

You gotta calm down in Discussion. Don't let your emotions get the better of you. You're the only one with aggressive energy here, I can assure you.

As to your claim that I don't understand your perspective and where you're coming from, I do. Remember at the very beginning, when I talked about how you had similar ideas to my mate? I talk with him about things like this regularly (sacred geometry, drugs and reality, consciousness etc.).

Only difference between the conversations I have with him and the one I'm having with you is you getting overly defensive because you think I'm attacking you personally. I'll say it again, trust me, I'm not. If you get defensive again and can't accept that, there'll be no reason to continue our discussion.

Also, I don't really think you're a solipsist. If I don't exist, then why were you so annoyed at me? That'd just be a waste of energy.

Originally Posted by Lazors View Post
What if the art is beyond the artist's immediate intent and intended meaning? Art can be just as much of an exploration for the artists to develop a meaning that's beyond both the artist's and the viewers understanding. The fascination with abstract art is partly trying to approach the dormant ideas of the universe, that the artist explores. Maybe you believe the fascination is purely scientific, that there are bodily functions that cause art to be appealing. It's probably so, but it would take a hell of a lot of explaining to understand how a piece of art is developed by the painter, and how it causes people to feel. And even then there are ideas in art that are unintentional perspectives, or "potential perspectives" that are unreachable for humans.

That's one way of looking at abstract art. Yeah, the artist might not know what they're making while they're making it, but they know that everybody is going to come up with their own interpretations of what it means.

That just means that paintings, as a communicative form, lend themselves to lots of different interpretations (unless the author specifies their intent). I'd argue it's possible to do the same with words. Think of all the classic works of literature that allow for different literary interpretations. So I think words don't fall to far behind paintings in that respect.

An advantage words have over paintings is that they can do the opposite really well. You can be extremely specific and leave no room for any alternative interpretations (e.g. you can give extremely detailed instructions to your friend on how to drive to your house).

Last edited by Ele; Jul 8, 2017 at 06:22 AM..
Ele is offline  
Old Jul 8, 2017   #30
Oracle
Chatterbox
 
8th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,649
Clan: [T]



Originally Posted by Lazors View Post
What if the art is beyond the artist's immediate intent and intended meaning? Art can be just as much of an exploration for the artists to develop a meaning that's beyond both the artist's and the viewers understanding. The fascination with abstract art is partly trying to approach the dormant ideas of the universe, that the artist explores. Maybe you believe the fascination is purely scientific, that there are bodily functions that cause art to be appealing. It's probably so, but it would take a hell of a lot of explaining to understand how a piece of art is developed by the painter, and how it causes people to feel. And even then there are ideas in art that are unintentional perspectives, or "potential perspectives" that are unreachable for humans.

First question, when is the interpretation of anything, images or words or what have you, in any way significant because it cannot be expressed appropriately? I can't express what red looks like to a blind person, or even remotely well to a regular person, yet that doesn't make red mythical or divine in any sense. Color in general is impossible to describe without resorting to associating the color with a word. Yet saying something is red doesn't necessarily describe what I'm seeing, since what I see as red is not the same red as somebody else. Even describing it as a wavelength of light, while it's a constant quantitative value that everyone can objectively measure and agree upon, still doesn't convey what I'm seeing to another person. Because my interpretation of red has no guarantee of being interpreted the same way as somebody else.

This is before we're even discussing art, which is the combination of colors within space and time in patterns that form an aesthetically pleasing appearance. If we can't even interpret, or share the experience of, color the same, why is the inability to interpret art or convey a meaning to it in any way significant? What makes art special in that regard, when the entire experience of experiencing anything is subjective? Is it the intent to create the art that separates it from just existing? In which case, what separates the intent of art from the intent of words or actions? Or is it actually the intent of actions, since actions are necessitated for the creation of art? But these actions are caused by impulses within a complex multi cellular organism triggering in a specific pattern in response to stimuli. But this stimuli is itself an interpretation of surroundings. Which comes back to the initial problem. This interpretation is itself already subjective by it's very nature of being an interpretation. So why is it the interpretation of a specific set of stimuli is somehow more "godly" or "spiritual" or what have you than some other interpretation of different stimuli?

Basically, any interpretation of any medium can be reduced down to a simple, biological response to external stimuli, which may have been produced from a previous biological response to external stimuli, repeated near ad infinitum. What makes any response more relevant to godliness than another? Where does this godliness begin, in the interpretation or the response? Is it the interpretation of the art, or is it the response that created the art that is godly? Or is it the stimuli that gave way to the response to create the art that is godly? Or is it the interpretation of that stimuli that gave way to the response to create the art that is godly?

Which leads to the problem. How do you determine where the influence of a god would begin? If you can't determine this beginning, then what's to say that a god even exists? An absence of presence means an absence of being.

Which leads to the obvious retort that you'll always hear of a god being infinite. Yet this would contradict art being somehow closer to godliness. If every action and stimuli is a part of a god, then why would any one stimuli or action be closer to this god? Why would the lack of interpretation of art bring you any closer to godliness if the very act of observation to perform the interpretation is itself godly?

Which leads to the banality of an infinite god. If the god is infinite, then why is any action significant? In the face of an infinite god, why would any one action be of greater value? An infinite god has no need of morals, values, right, wrong. Why then, would any action be assigned greater value to this god? It is all inconsequential to an infinite being.

And thus, it reaches the final false conundrum, the one that impacts every individual. Do you believe in an infinite god, and thus are forced to come to terms with your life and all your actions being meaningless? Do you believe there is no god, and thus no overarching power to give you direction? People will spend entire lives pondering these questions, taking sides, adhering to dogma, and wasting time. I believe that wrestling with either question is pointless, since either interpretation, and everything in between, ultimately leads to the same conclusion.

Regardless of it all, nothing matters. If there is an infinite god, then all actions are meaningless due to providence. If there is no infinite god, then there is no absolute purpose to guide reality, and everything is a product of chaos and chance. As such, nothing you do will objectively matter in the grand scheme of things. Which means that the only thing that matters is to reach your own subjective interpretation of what matters. Since your interpretation of reality is ultimately subjective, and all of your actions will be based on this interpretation, then the only thing that can possibly matter is your subjective interpretation of your own reality. All meaning in your life is up to you to decide because, god or no god, that meaning really only matters to you.

Which can lead further down the nihilism rabbit hole, in that your subjective beliefs are the product of objective responses to objective events. As such, even your beliefs may not matter, and may be predetermined due to infinite beings or the product of reality's functions. But it seems silly to go that far, since going this far assumes that reality is entirely pointless, since subjectivity is the product of objectivity, and everything being the product of objectivity means reality is predetermined. At which point, why is the interpretation of reality at all something I should perform? Yet it is this interpretation which matters most for me, since this interpretation of reality is my only "window" into reality, and my interpretations have already concluded that viewing reality through this window is preferable than not viewing reality at all. Yet this interpretation should mean nothing, since it's still just the product of objective events.

However, this still leads to an equally great conclusion. Regardless of whether my interpretations are subjective, or predetermined from the start, it still means nothing matters. So my interpretations on the subjectivity and objectivity of reality don't matter, and the reason these interpretations came to be don't matter. As such, I have no reason to worry about whether my interpretations are right or wrong, since it ultimately doesn't matter anyways. So I'm free to believe whatever I want because, ultimately, my beliefs either don't matter because they were already decided, whether by a god or by events, or they don't matter because they're the subjective interpretations of an insignificant being in an objective reality that just doesn't care. Which is liberating, because it means I do not need to hold my values or interpretations to any standard other than my own, because there is no purpose in doing so other than that I am willing to provide.


tl;dr: it doesn't matter if there is a god, because nothing matters either way, therefore everything you want to matter should matter because you want it to matter to you. I'm a nihilist.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Oracle is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ragdoll fighting game physics fighting game ragdoll fighting physics funmotion joints martial arts karate pc mac free game turn based game