DO NOT discuss the source material beyond this episode. If you want to discuss future events or theories, please use separate threads.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
| I'm not even mad at it for being bad anymore. For the first 8 episodes it was boring as all hell, but apparently that was all for the sake of throwing in all the dumbest and most cliche plot twists known to man. The last 2 episodes were hysterical; I cannot believe it tricked me into thinking it was bland so I wouldn't expect it to be so stupid at the end. I really can't think of another series that has made me feel both completely bored and laughing my ass off at how stupid it is, all within 10 episodes. It's incredible. |
GenesisAria said: Spaceship said: A 2yo is ignorant and unaware of anything, and no it's not in abundance, it has noting until you give to it, cuz it has no ability to get it's own needs - you have to teach someone how to fish (or say use a replicator) before they can get fish without asking for it, and obviously they have to be cognizant enough to understand. The idea that humans are selfish and destructive is a bias and fallacy.i didn't say JUST needs met, i also said wisdom. Human nature is neutral. People are good under good conditions and are bad under bad conditions. Also a baby's abundance is more like a rich person's, it's not a real abundance, it's illusory due to ack of comprehension of it. For example if a rich guy deep down wants love, but doesn't realize it and only feels a hole in their life, if they are under the false impression that money brings happiness, they'll keep endlessly accumulating it thinking it'll eventually make them happy, when really all they ever needed was some decent non-material love.Well, it's a larger debate really, but those aren't really the grounds on which people come to realize that human nature is fundamentally selfish and destructive. If you want to make the argument that humans would all get along if only we had all our needs met, my 2-year-old toddler would have some words for you, even though he's provided for and loved in abundance. If human nature were eminently perfectible, the "hands-off" parenting approach would be ideal... But anyway. The subject is a lot more sophisticated and nuanced than just "people tend to be elfish and destructive, therefore human nature is such" when in reality humanity has never had an ideal society, other than maybe some renditions of the Hindu perhaps, so there isn't much of an example to go on. Pikslap said: It's the same thing i am saying to spaceship here, assuming that to be fundamental is a falsehood through through a biased lens of human history. For example, people are getting worse in present day, why is that? It's because society is deteriorating. We don't live in a golden age, we live in a dark age presently.I actually agree with about 80% of what you said. You come off as very well-versed. However, I do think you underestimate the natural greed and meanness some humans possess. I don't think natural greed and meanness will go away. If we can manage to make it "go away", we still have the problem with greed being prevalent in politicians. The problem is, society needs leaders to sustain itself (or at least a society as big as ours). If we manage to get rid of greed, it will pop back up in people who attain power. Not all people in power, but it will still be there. I don't really have any studies to back up what I am saying though. I doubt we will ever see a united peace in our timeline though, and I don't think our world would recover enough from a nuclear war to create a united peace, as the world in Kanata No Astra apparently did. No we do not necessarily need world leaders to sustain ourselves, that is a belief by those in favour of a power system. If you suddenly killed off all leaders in a world that depends on leadership, then yes there would be pandemonium. But if the society was built to live that way, as ours was built ti live with leaders, it could just as easily work under a balanced philosophy. I mean if you think about it, mist towns and villages all throughout history were mostly anarchic, and they rarely felt the control of their rulership amongst their daily lives unless they were drafted for a war or if they were in a city with significant legal guard/policing. There's loads of philosophical discussions that exist on this very topic; it's one of the most discussed topics in philosophy: what is the best way for society to run, and no philosopher has ever been able to give a true answer, and no group of philosophers have been able to completely agree. >For example, people are getting worse in present day, why is that? It's because society is deteriorating. We don't live in a golden age, we live in a dark age presently. I agree with this through and through. I think it has a lot to do with our divide in politics. Combine that with mass pollution, regressive progressiveness, Big Brother-esque governments, and a bunch of censorship. I may be off, but peak Western society to me was probably around the range of 1946-2007. >No we do not necessarily need world leaders to sustain ourselves, that is a belief by those in favour of a power system. If you suddenly killed off all leaders in a world that depends on leadership, then yes there would be pandemonium. But if the society was built to live that way, as ours was built ti live with leaders, it could just as easily work under a balanced philosophy. I mean if you think about it, mist towns and villages all throughout history were mostly anarchic, and they rarely felt the control of their rulership amongst their daily lives unless they were drafted for a war or if they were in a city with significant legal guard/policing. Yeah, but I would argue the quality of life was even worse in those times then today. I assume you're talking about village days, so I might be assuming too much, but even if you were talking about as recently as the wild west, I would still say we are better off today, despite the flaws. Not to mention, you need someone to enforce this balanced philosophy. "Power to the people" countries never end up truly giving power to the people, because if they did, they would not be able to enforce their ideals. In order for everyone to share a peaceful philosophy, there would still need to be enforcers. >There's loads of philosophical discussions that exist on this very topic; it's one of the most discussed topics in philosophy: what is the best way for society to run, and no philosopher has ever been able to give a true answer, and no group of philosophers have been able to completely agree. This is true. It's hard to be objective on something like this, because we all come from different backgrounds and have been shaped by different experiences. This is another reason I am against a world government.  |
PikslapSep 9, 2019 4:38 PM
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD oh im not laughing because i think its bullshit its just phrased in a really wonderful way that makes it sound hilarious because essentially that is human nature i totally agree |
You son of a .. turtle  |
| For me this anime has surpassed Dr Stone and is only second to Vinland Saga. I like how everything comes together and how the background stories in the earlier episodes were necessary. I also like that I care for all of the characters even if they started as generic tropes. |
| @Spaceship You won't alter or improve what you believe cannot be altered. A flawed system will continue to be flawed so long as you assume there can be no better. Everything you say about this is pessimistic and a strict belief that authority is necessary. Babies are not destructive, they can just cause damage in ignorance... It's not making the baby "civilized", that's hilariously absurd lmao! Parents are terrible these days, nobody can raise a kid properly anymore, most of the time they hardly do squat... A baby is born learning, destruction is part of learning, you do not have to interfere with a baby and it will learn many things about the nature of the universe, what a parent has to do is teach it how to function within the arbitrary confines of society. Saying a baby is destructive is the same as saying any and every animal is destructive because they are born, cause a mess, eat everything, etc etc. Star Trek's Starfleet is not a utopia in any regard, that's an illusion of perspective, it's merely a post-scarcity situation in which money is obsolete. Endless abundant energy is not a pipe dream, we could have it today, the only thing holding back is corporate interest and ignorance (specifically ignorant to the actual nature of electricity). Firefly is a fantastic show, but Whedon is not correct, and he is no philosopher. The state of humanity in Firefly is unideal because it allowed a power structured elite to form, and a class gradient between those who could afford pristine terraformation and those who couldn't. Honestly, spreading across that many planets is ridiculous, there's no reason for there to be western-style mini-settlements on so many planets. Planets are bloody huge. Human nature is defined by it's conditions. Saying humans are destructive selfish and otherwise bad by true nature is a BELIEF, not a fact. If you can admit this, i can in an instant step back and accept that you feel that way and understand how you would come to that conclusion. You must not have seen enough people in good conditions (so many people are more than willing to give when they can and aren't so heavily burdened with their own issues, and even sometimes when they are), and you also must not be aware of the history of cultures like the Hindu. Harmonious non-conflict peaceful society IS achievable, and it has been done more than once only reason it fails to survive is because some foolish war-mongering others come and destroy it. It's not because of human nature, it's because of whatever formed them into warmonger, or what motivated them to invade, etc. For example Nazi Germany didn't default on debts and invade Europe because they wanted to be assholes, they did it because they were rebelling against their own famine, it's only later that it turned corrupt as wars fuck humans up in many different ways; good people become bad people, overzealous good intentions pave the way to hell. Pikslap said: It's more to do with the loss of wisdom and degradation of the sciences. The engine of prosperity is elevated thought, wisdom, and science, without which a civilization will decay significantly. Science died during the WW era, when true science was forsaken for pseudoscientific mysticism, magical fabrics and leprechaun particles. These days reading something like the Harvard Classics, which used to be a crude inferior brief substitute for introductory to high education, is now above the best you can get in the system. People can't identify their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to higher thought and philosophy and sciences. When logic and higher thought fades, then the populous will regress and devolve into superstition and mysticism, and lose sight of reality. A civilization cannot prosper if all it's occupants are delusional.>For example, people are getting worse in present day, why is that? It's because society is deteriorating. We don't live in a golden age, we live in a dark age presently. I agree with this through and through. I think it has a lot to do with our divide in politics. Combine that with mass pollution, regressive progressiveness, Big Brother-esque governments, and a bunch of censorship. I may be off, but peak Western society to me was probably around the range of 1946-2007. Pikslap said: Wild west is a bad example, because it was populated mostly by the uneducated and unintelligent who were fleeing europe. Having a guiding philosophy under a unified system does indeed benefit society's functionality, but that does NOT mean there needs to or should be any distinct control. The issue here is that nobody has really successfully constructed a society with everyone involved, discussing all of high philosophy, making sure as many people can understand, and constructing a system that is flexible and adaptable - it wouldn't even look drastically different from what we have, just with all it's major issuer squeezed out and polished. For example in a society i'd want to make, i'd have sets of basic rules, but they would all have full explanations as to why they are the way they are, why it's beneficial to do so, etc. It would be part of everyone's younger education to understand how and why things are ideal certain ways for most. This society would be one without ignorance or elitist knowledge segregation and esotericism, it would be one without any form of self-enforced currency system, by that i mean a currency which can have it's value controlled at will by how much is in circulation; it would be one without any form of selling or industrial merchandising or advertising, the entire economy would be donation-based. What people pay for continues to exist, what nobody pays for ceases to exist. If you want it to exist, you pay for it in the value you see it worth; things need to be made to have worth. That is just some small tidbits and examples of aspects of it, and the point is it's structured around the nature of human psychology, and designed to always promote comfort and positivity in everyone- not to brainwash, but in a way that the human mind is naturally at ease in and without stress or dissonance.>No we do not necessarily need world leaders to sustain ourselves, that is a belief by those in favour of a power system. If you suddenly killed off all leaders in a world that depends on leadership, then yes there would be pandemonium. But if the society was built to live that way, as ours was built ti live with leaders, it could just as easily work under a balanced philosophy. I mean if you think about it, mist towns and villages all throughout history were mostly anarchic, and they rarely felt the control of their rulership amongst their daily lives unless they were drafted for a war or if they were in a city with significant legal guard/policing. Yeah, but I would argue the quality of life was even worse in those times then today. I assume you're talking about village days, so I might be assuming too much, but even if you were talking about as recently as the wild west, I would still say we are better off today, despite the flaws. Not to mention, you need someone to enforce this balanced philosophy. "Power to the people" countries never end up truly giving power to the people, because if they did, they would not be able to enforce their ideals. In order for everyone to share a peaceful philosophy, there would still need to be enforcers. Pikslap said: It's possible to construct it in a way in which it is unified and everyone gets along, and that is if it's a fractal system. By that i mean it branches. At the top you have the largest scale managers and those whose job is to make sure everything runs smoothly and everyone gets along. Below that it would get continuously divided into sub-philosophies and versions and offshoots, in a way everyone can have a place that is suited to them, and with the only condition that they accept others or leave them be. Some of them could even be completely isolated if that is what they want.>There's loads of philosophical discussions that exist on this very topic; it's one of the most discussed topics in philosophy: what is the best way for society to run, and no philosopher has ever been able to give a true answer, and no group of philosophers have been able to completely agree. This is true. It's hard to be objective on something like this, because we all come from different backgrounds and have been shaped by different experiences. This is another reason I am against a world government. Again, the 2 primary causes of conflict are: A) Lack of abundance of necessities and comforts (endless energy would make this not difficult to achieve). B) Lack of understanding that you are not your beliefs, you are not your thoughts/memories, you are not your body, you are you regardless of these conditional factors. When people are convinced that they are their beliefs, any disagreement is psychologically reacted (and this is a neurological fact as well) the same as a physical threat to personal safety. Most conflicts are started out of fear and retaliation for emotional reasons, which is also where hate comes from. People underestimate the ability to solve these issues. They are all 100% solvable on the small scale, doing it on large scale is where it becomes a challenge, but not impossible. It's really a shame people don't understand these things, and deteriorating society plays a huge role in less people learning or comprehending. |
❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| Looking at the massive intake of acceptance vs. defiant belief of this episode to everyone, it's safe to say that we're divided in the world-building that this anime has thus far and progressed to this moment. Shout-out to @TheDeedsOfMan for dissecting EVERY movement of history contemplated, and having also read the manga, it's an unfortunate plot to say that the world-building isn't all that elegant, and the author (Kenta Shinohara-san) knows it all too well, that's why if this subject took over the explanation space, it would wreak havoc in the story that has been built right to this moment, that's why I like it when it's not into that concise space where he knows that the entire futuristic "asteroid crashing" isn't the crux, but instead a plot device meant to tell that the world that Paulina had lived in, was non-existent by the time Kanata and the others of the expedition had ventured in time and space distorted. With that said, going into this episode prior, I'd expected the crossover between Kanata and crew with their Planet Astra mentality, being former Earthlings whom in history changed, went to find another planet to live in good riddance. The thing is, Paulina's memories are subjected to when Earth was still around and no other inhabited planet existed till then, but time and space was distorted even to Kanata and the others in religion, mortality and being, ALL OF IT. That was a move to incite the fact that there is still hope for Paulina, since they had much of the knowledge of the Earth covered, just brainwashed in some way or form. The point being: THAT WAS THEN, AND THIS IS NOW. And with the artificial wormholes that we saw in Episode 1 that transported Kanata and crew into a different time, along with finding the Arc (which is their ship Astra), that was an attempt to evade the foreseeable future, which when come to think of it, there's too little a time gap (current 2063 vs. asteroid 2057). So...FTL transport then. The final planet before reaching Astra, Planet Galem (which on hindsight looks A WHOLE LOT like Earth). Their final planet expedition. Haha Aries being Aries, flustered at Kanata and the parents introduction...MAYBE??? The sphere wormhole chasing Kanata and disappeared when he's with Aries, seems that it has a weakness or control, and Kanata's right on the dot. ONLY this time, the wormhole carries around with the user, and the REAL criminal is on the loose this time...and it's not the assumption that confirms it, but the shock that is quite (un)expected. The player Ulgar vs. the real fake Charce. All the pieces of the puzzle are now put together. Aries (or Seira)'s photographic memory, Kanata's quick reaction and thinking, conspired with Ulgar's stealthy behaviour, and the rest knowing it from Kanata, Charce didn't had a chance right from the get-go. But yet, he did. His post-credit emotionless face the few episodes prior DID look like a traitor's face...and now we know why. Quite the episode to clear most (if not all) of the questions, and is still good nonetheless. 2 episodes to go, and Charce's backstory to follow. |
KANLen09Sep 6, 2019 3:57 AM
 |
Espio74 said: Not only is this show underrated but it also rated too low for others to give it a watch. It's second only to Vinland Saga this season and deserves an 8.3-8.5 rating. I wish a big YouTuber like Gigguk watches it and makes a video giving this show a much needed boost. Vinland Saga was rather MEH so far. Hype has just too much impact on scores. On airing scores, at least. |
| Why are so many people suspicious of Aries reeeeeeee! Unless you know some spoilers, there is absolutely no reason to suspect her. Thus far she is the only one other than Quitterie, Funicia, and Kanata who never had any reason to suspect them, and no hints or clues or foreshadows. If they made Aries a perpetrator, not only would it feel like a betrayal to readers/watchers, it would also feel like a painful ass-pull. I knew from the beginning that Ulgar wouldn't be the guy, because his actions seemed too embittered and vengeful against someone other than the crew/gang even before that reveal with Luca... Yunhua was potentially suspicious when she was super recluse early on (possibly as someone forced into the job)... Charce was always the most suspicious and seemed to have the most to hide. They tried to pulll a fake red herring when he did the nasty glare when they first suspected him, then he dazzled them all with a story and they stopped suspecting him, making this a foreshadow disguised as a red herring. Considering the mystery solving detective aspect of this story, only a complete fool would pull a sudden reveal that had no build up or no clues for suspect - it might be a clever ploy/deception, but there is always SOMETHING. Also remember Aries would have been totally screwed had Kanata been so bold/determined. She has been nothing but grateful and helpful. Not to mention she has been the one who wants everyone to get along together the most. If she had any kind of plan, it would not involve sabotage of the party; all of her actions, along with Kanata's, have promoted the team getting stronger. |
GenesisAriaSep 6, 2019 3:59 PM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| Great episode. The plot twist continues, and its best episode of the series so far. Charce is the culprit, and he reveal that he is the double of the king. Overall the mystery thickens and thats great. To the next episode |
 |
Tatsuya said: Universal atheism would result in dramatically lower birth rates? Do you have any empirical evidence of that?Erasing religion is literally impossible without driving humanity dangerously close to inability of reproduction and thus extinction, but every man, woman and child just simply forgot something that not only was the cornerstone of human civilization for it's entire existence, but was behind many of the innovations that would have lead to the exodus from earth, it's something i can't get over, What innovations has religion come up with, exactly?not to mention that even science now believes that humans are hardwired to believe in something, if a person loses faith in a higher power, they will place it in a governmental body or a person, hence how god-kings come about (this is also used as a argument for the extremist political movements that have popped up recently). Err, no. I have faith neither in God nor the moral authority of government. And you are using the word “faith” in two entirely different senses, so your whole argument is misleading. Faith in the existence of something and considering it a moral authority are entirely different things. GenesisAria said: Where to even begin here...Atheism is a dogma of anti-religion. It's a belief in the non-existence of theos, god or heavenly/metaphysical existence - ie dogmatic materialism, it's fundamentally a religion that pretends not to be. 1) Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not a belief of any kind. 2) The absence of belief is hardly dogmatic if people are weighing evidence or the lack thereof. 3) Even if a belief is dogmatic, it doesn't imply that it's religious. 4) Atheism and materialism (materialism in the sense of only physical substance existing) do not logically imply each other. 5) Finally, being anti-religious is called anti-theism, not atheism. GenesisAria said: Episodes of Star Trek constantly feature entities that can't be replicated (there are many such things if you think about it, even in the production chain of Starfleet's ships), people wanting the genuine (non-replicated) article regardless, or services that rely on interaction with other people. There were a few episodes in DS9 specifically to point out why you sometimes need money and trade.If the conditions are idealized, humanity will also become ideal. Humans will not steal if they have abundance, they will often give instead (monetary wealth is not real abundance, it is usually a mental sickness of illusory abundance)... just as humans will not usually give if they are void of abundance. Star Trek's world works in the context communism would work if there was a system of automation that could supply the needs of everyone within it. If nobody has to do any dirty jobs, if nobody has to work hard for food, if it's all there at the push of a button, then stuff like economy is mostly obsolete (aside from art trade i guess). It would be difficult to achieve and is thereby improbable, but not impossible. GenesisAria said: Many stories already did that. That was the point. You are explaining the joke here.TheDeedsOfMen said: Red Alert already did that.What next? Going back in time and killing Hitler? Spaceship said: What Firefly lacks though is detailed normative analysis of whether these deep-rooted human beliefs are justified. Even if a belief remains popular, it doesn't mean that the author has to give it a free pass.On a related note, that's part of the reason I love Firefly so much. In creating the show, Whedon said, "nothing will change in the future: technology will advance, but we will still have the same political, moral, and ethical problems as today." Right on. |
| I can't believe some people are considering this boring... lol if there's one thing this show is not that is a boring show |
TheDeedsOfMen said: GenesisAria said: Where to even begin here...Atheism is a dogma of anti-religion. It's a belief in the non-existence of theos, god or heavenly/metaphysical existence - ie dogmatic materialism, it's fundamentally a religion that pretends not to be. 1) Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not a belief of any kind. 2) The absence of belief is hardly dogmatic if people are weighing evidence or the lack thereof. 3) Even if a belief is dogmatic, it doesn't imply that it's religious. 4) Atheism and materialism (materialism in the sense of only physical substance existing) do not logically imply each other. 5) Finally, being anti-religious is called anti-theism, not atheism. 1) Atheism is the belief that there is no god or soul - agnosticism is the lack of gnosis, ie voluntary ignorance, choosing not to know. 2) That is a belief in the requirement of empirical evidence, empirical aka physical - materialistic. 3) Religion is defined by dogma, the only thing that makes it a religion is just that it's structured. 4) They necessitatively imply eachother. Atheism, various forms of empirically restricted thought, what you can call "this-is-all-there-is-ism", which is synonymous with materialism. I should note that theos doesn't technically mean god necessarily, it's a reference to the absolute nature of the metaphysical. Rejection or denial of the metaphysical using physical terms as "proof" is materialism. The only true wisdom is in understanding the larger picture - neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism; understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin. 5) Theism does not imply religion. Nor does atheism imply non-religion. For example, modern buddhism is atheistic religion; it is mysticized nihilistic materialism (it denies the soul). TheDeedsOfMen said: Trade and currency is not NEEDed, it can be useful when in a state of imbalance. For example, trade is not all that necessary within Starfleet, but it is needed between species, cultures and nations.GenesisAria said: Episodes of Star Trek constantly feature entities that can't be replicated (there are many such things if you think about it, even in the production chain of Starfleet's ships), people wanting the genuine (non-replicated) article regardless, or services that rely on interaction with other people. There were a few episodes in DS9 specifically to point out why you sometimes need money and trade.If the conditions are idealized, humanity will also become ideal. Humans will not steal if they have abundance, they will often give instead (monetary wealth is not real abundance, it is usually a mental sickness of illusory abundance)... just as humans will not usually give if they are void of abundance. Star Trek's world works in the context communism would work if there was a system of automation that could supply the needs of everyone within it. If nobody has to do any dirty jobs, if nobody has to work hard for food, if it's all there at the push of a button, then stuff like economy is mostly obsolete (aside from art trade i guess). It would be difficult to achieve and is thereby improbable, but not impossible. |
GenesisAriaSep 7, 2019 4:04 PM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| It's stunning...stunningly inept. How can such a reveal scene supposed to be intense and important be so flat and lifeless? How can a story with such a large scale and elaborate theme be so dereft of character and feel? |
| Oh the truth about Charce... i can't wait for the next episode |
 |
TheDeedsOfMen said: Tatsuya said: Universal atheism would result in dramatically lower birth rates? Do you have any empirical evidence of that?Erasing religion is literally impossible without driving humanity dangerously close to inability of reproduction and thus extinction, but every man, woman and child just simply forgot something that not only was the cornerstone of human civilization for it's entire existence, but was behind many of the innovations that would have lead to the exodus from earth, it's something i can't get over, What innovations has religion come up with, exactly?not to mention that even science now believes that humans are hardwired to believe in something, if a person loses faith in a higher power, they will place it in a governmental body or a person, hence how god-kings come about (this is also used as a argument for the extremist political movements that have popped up recently). Err, no. I have faith neither in God nor the moral authority of government. And you are using the word “faith” in two entirely different senses, so your whole argument is misleading. Faith in the existence of something and considering it a moral authority are entirely different things. GenesisAria said: Where to even begin here...Atheism is a dogma of anti-religion. It's a belief in the non-existence of theos, god or heavenly/metaphysical existence - ie dogmatic materialism, it's fundamentally a religion that pretends not to be. 1) Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not a belief of any kind. 2) The absence of belief is hardly dogmatic if people are weighing evidence or the lack thereof. 3) Even if a belief is dogmatic, it doesn't imply that it's religious. 4) Atheism and materialism (materialism in the sense of only physical substance existing) do not logically imply each other. 5) Finally, being anti-religious is called anti-theism, not atheism. GenesisAria said: Episodes of Star Trek constantly feature entities that can't be replicated (there are many such things if you think about it, even in the production chain of Starfleet's ships), people wanting the genuine (non-replicated) article regardless, or services that rely on interaction with other people. There were a few episodes in DS9 specifically to point out why you sometimes need money and trade.If the conditions are idealized, humanity will also become ideal. Humans will not steal if they have abundance, they will often give instead (monetary wealth is not real abundance, it is usually a mental sickness of illusory abundance)... just as humans will not usually give if they are void of abundance. Star Trek's world works in the context communism would work if there was a system of automation that could supply the needs of everyone within it. If nobody has to do any dirty jobs, if nobody has to work hard for food, if it's all there at the push of a button, then stuff like economy is mostly obsolete (aside from art trade i guess). It would be difficult to achieve and is thereby improbable, but not impossible. GenesisAria said: Many stories already did that. That was the point. You are explaining the joke here.Red Alert already did that. Spaceship said: What Firefly lacks though is detailed normative analysis of whether these deep-rooted human beliefs are justified. Even if a belief remains popular, it doesn't mean that the author has to give it a free pass.On a related note, that's part of the reason I love Firefly so much. In creating the show, Whedon said, "nothing will change in the future: technology will advance, but we will still have the same political, moral, and ethical problems as today." Right on. I think you misunderstand something, without spoilers, for universal athiesm to take hold in the next 1000 years would require genocide of vast amounts of the population(and no ww3 wouldn't do it either, even if every nuke was used on earth humanity would survive it, though civilization would end), and no, leaving a bunch behind on earth to die wouldn't work either, a good deal of scientists (overall around 50%, though ironically, it's far higher than the normal population in atheistic countries such as china) classify themselves as at least a deist. What innovations has religion made? Well for one the big bang theory was discovered by a catholic priest, and current gravitational theory wouldn't exist if it wasn't for issac neuton laying the steps for current understanding of gravity, which he did for trying to understand "god's creation" This isn't even getting into astronomy, which was heavily researched for religious reasons, the only field that, at least in the west, didn't have anything to do with religion in some form arguably is the medical field. Actually yes you do, everyone is hardwired to put their faith in something, if it's not a god or a religion it will be social issues such as the current identitarian movements on the left and right of politics, again, we literally are hard wired for it, considering your statement your belief is probably that there is no god or higher power, and in turn, no higher order than what we make it, humanism if you will. And no, faith means belief and trust, whether you admit it to yourself or not, it doesn't have to be a god or a religion, it can easily be non-faith/atheism, or the power of the human spirit, but current consensus in the scientific field is everyone does in fact have "faith" in something. And before you say it, atheism IS a belief, because by definition, you cannot confirm or deny the existence of a afterlife, god etc, to claim otherwise is a belief in itself, the closest you can get to that is agnostic, as GenesisAria said. @GenesisAria Buddhism is a special case, as it depends on the sect whether it is atheistic or not, many sects are in fact syncretic and have syncretized either from christianity or hinduism, as such depending on the sect, you could find Buddhists who put trust in the teachings of buddha and at the same time worship jesus, while another might worship the Trimurti, and of course in japan the shinto gods and Buddhism have been syncretized by some sects, it's one of the reasons many people like to compare buddhism more towards a philosophy instead of a religion, in the west we're more experienced with Tibetan Buddhism, which takes more of an agnostic approach. generally speaking, buddhism doesn't dissuade the worship of a god or adherence to another religion, it just doesn't concern itself with it one way or another at the base teachings of Gautama. |
TatsuyaSep 7, 2019 7:07 AM
WordIsBond said: ricksed said: Wait so Charce tried the wormhole on the first planet and the last planet, that I got. But did he also use it on the second? I mean maybe he wasn't fully invested in the team yet? Also assuming he didn't want to kill everyone off in a simpler manner like poison because that's not his style? Die with the stars and all that. Anyway this messed up alternate history is confusing and hopefully gets clarified. I mean were there no images or anything to correlate Earth from Astra. Did every adult/teen just agree to vow of silence? Or is this Attack on Titan memory rewriting. I thought the plan was to have them die in space and keep their bodies intact for the brain transfer or whatever. I'm guessing the parents were going to swing by Earth and pick them up? Since the ship wasn't supposed to be there they might notice the kids are gone soon. I guess we’ll know for sure what the plan was once Charce reveals his mission. I thought the plan was just to discard evidence of clones. Plus if you’re brain has no oxygen (as it wouldn’t in space) then hypoxia will destroy it. So they wouldn’t be able to mind transfer. Their bodies would be unusable too |
 |
Ferien said: I can't believe some people are considering this boring... lol if there's one thing this show is not that is a boring show No action, no blood, no killing so its boring. |
| Dub = fake crap. Always. |
GenesisAria said: 1) The standard definitions used by most modern philosophers are:TheDeedsOfMen said: 1) Atheism is the belief that there is no god - agnosticism is the lack of gnosis, ie voluntary ignorance, choosing not to know.1) Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It is not a belief of any kind. 2) The absence of belief is hardly dogmatic if people are weighing evidence or the lack thereof. 3) Even if a belief is dogmatic, it doesn't imply that it's religious. 4) Atheism and materialism (materialism in the sense of only physical substance existing) do not logically imply each other. 5) Finally, being anti-religious is called anti-theism, not atheism. 2) That is a belief in the requirement of empirical evidence, empirical aka physical - materialistic. 3) Religion is defined by dogma, the only thing that makes it a religion is just that it's structured. 4) They necessitatively imply eachother. Atheism, various forms of empirically restricted thought, what you can call "this-is-all-there-is-ism", which is synonymous with materialism. I should note that theos doesn't technically mean god necessarily, it's a reference to the absolute nature of the metaphysical. Rejection or denial of the metaphysical using physical terms as "proof" is materialism. The only true wisdom is in understanding the larger picture - neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism; understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin. 5) Theism does not imply religion. Nor does atheism imply non-religion. For example, modern buddhism is atheistic religion; it is mysticized nihilistic materialism (it denies the soul). Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Agnosticism is a lack of adequate knowledge of gods. People are often both at the same time. An agnostic atheist lacks belief in gods and he lacks adequate knowledge of gods. Often the latter is the justification for the former. Incidentally, Kanata and co. seem to be agnostic atheists by the definitions above. They aren't atheists by your definition though. If you change around definitions of words, you change the substance as well. 2) Are you trying to say that requiring evidence is dogmatic? For instance, if someone claims that they own a Ferrari, is it dogmatic to ask for proof before believing it? Really? If that's the case, then the word “dogmatism” has lost its meaning. 3) There are various definitions of “religion,” but they usually involve belief in gods at the very least (sometimes belief in spirits is also considered sufficient), and those are what I was using. Not all dogmatic beliefs involve those. 4) Atheism only deals with belief in gods specifically. That is far too little to imply anything of beliefs in the existences of other things. How do you reach "this-is-all-there-is-ism" from that premise alone? The logic doesn't work. Even if you included a lack of belief in spirits, it still wouldn't imply "this-is-all-there-is-ism." By the way, empiricism doesn't imply "this-is-all-there-is-ism" either. An empiricist can easily accept that there can be all kinds of things out there that haven't been discovered, even things that are dramatically different from the things that are currently known. He just demands evidence of them before believing in their existence. I should note that theos doesn't technically mean god necessarily, it's a reference to the absolute nature of the metaphysical. “The absolute nature of the metaphysical”? This is starting to sound like Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling. Not really my favorite lineup.Rejection or denial of the metaphysical using physical terms as "proof" is materialism. What is more relevant here is “An empiricist lacks belief in the existence of entities if their existence is not supported by sufficient empirical evidence.”The only true wisdom is in understanding the larger picture - neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism; understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin. I am always wary of people who are calling something “true wisdom.” Good philosophy is not about discovering truly profound things; it is about finding solutions to less ambitious problems.I should note that theos doesn't technically mean god necessarily, it's a reference to the absolute nature of the metaphysical. Rejection or denial of the metaphysical using physical terms as "proof" is materialism. The only true wisdom is in understanding the larger picture - neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism; understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin. In “understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin,” a less confusing word would be “non-physical” or “immaterial.” Metaphysics studies existence, so physical substance falls under metaphysical study too. That said, you don't have to blindly guess the number of metaphysical substances in existence, physical or otherwise. Empirical science can produce predictions regardless of their number. So the denial of metaphysics is really about not committing to any list of substances. Bundle theory is one example of operating without physical substance. (I suppose it technically is a metaphysical theory too, but zero-substance theories are the ones with the fewest substances.) 5) You are using a strange definition of “religion” here. Atheism implies non-religion as long as religion involves belief in gods. Likewise, with that definition, theism doesn't imply religion, but religion implies theism. If you want to include belief in spirits, then the lack of belief in them has to be added in too. The arguments still work similarly though. Also, the word “anti-theism” is sometimes used to refer to being anti-religious specifically. I admit that the language is a bit vague. modern buddhism is atheistic religion; it is mysticized nihilistic materialism (it denies the soul). Speaking of definitions, sounds like a weird definition of nihilism here. Metaphysical nihilism denies all existence or alternatively all substance, including physical matter. The latter option isn't really that dramatic for the reasons outlined above. I guess you could call it soul-nihilism or something. It isn't the usual definition though. Trade and currency is not NEEDed, it can be useful when in a state of imbalance. For example, trade is not all that necessary within Starfleet, but it is needed between species, cultures and nations. DS9: In the CardsJake needs money to buy a particular baseball card in a trade between individual people. To add insult to injury, he has to ask Nog to pay. "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money." "I'm Human, I don't have any money." "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." "What does that mean exactly?" "It means… it means we don't need money!" "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!" DS9: Treachery, Faith and the Great River Nog is running around doing bilateral trade within Starfleet to get missing components for Sisko's ship. Sure seems like trade within Starfleet, and the cause is that (surprise, surprise) the number of those components is limited. If Starfleet really had no scarcity, why do they ever run into trouble against alien fleets to begin with? Just replicate a few million ships more and there you go. (Of course, the other side would be able to do it also.) There are also more mundane things like a limited number of holodecks, so you need to ration them somehow. That is scarcity right there. Tatsuya said: Oh, you were referring to some kind of mass murder scenario. I thought you meant people voluntarily turning atheist in that context.I think you misunderstand something, without spoilers, for universal athiesm to take hold in the next 1000 years would require genocide of vast amounts of the population(and no ww3 wouldn't do it either, even if every nuke was used on earth humanity would survive it, though civilization would end), and no, leaving a bunch behind on earth to die wouldn't work either, a good deal of scientists (overall around 50%, though ironically, it's far higher than the normal population in atheistic countries such as china) classify themselves as at least a deist. Tatsuya said: The fact that some religious people have made innovations doesn't make them religious innovations in the sense I meant. A religious innovation is something that was made by religious methods. Motivation isn't enough to qualify.What innovations has religion made? Well for one the big bang theory was discovered by a catholic priest, and current gravitational theory wouldn't exist if it wasn't for issac neuton laying the steps for current understanding of gravity, which he did for trying to understand "god's creation" This isn't even getting into astronomy, which was heavily researched for religious reasons, the only field that, at least in the west, didn't have anything to do with religion in some form arguably is the medical field. Tatsuya said: Having normative preferences doesn't by itself qualify as faith in moral authorities. Or what specifically do you mean by "faith"? It is still vague.Actually yes you do, everyone is hardwired to put their faith in something, if it's not a god or a religion it will be social issues such as the current identitarian movements on the left and right of politics, again, we literally are hard wired for it, considering your statement your belief is probably that there is no god or higher power, and in turn, no higher order than what we make it, humanism if you will. For instance, do you think that “I like the color silver” is a matter of faith too, then? Really? Tatsuya said: The word “faith” can be used to refer to all sorts of things, and it seems you use multiple in different contexts. That's why your arguments remain too vague.And no, faith means belief and trust, Also, if any belief is faith, the word has completely lost its meaning. If I can see and touch the desk in front of me and believe that there's a desk, would you call it faith? Really? Tatsuya said: First of all, which field is this? Psychology? Sociology? Cite their definitions of “faith” in the relevant contexts then. We can't get anywhere until I know what you mean by the word. You keep using the same word in many different senses and fudge it all together. We need conceptual clarity here.And no, faith means belief and trust, whether you admit it to yourself or not, it doesn't have to be a god or a religion, it can easily be non-faith/atheism, or the power of the human spirit, but current consensus in the scientific field is everyone does in fact have "faith" in something. Tatsuya said: I am an agnostic atheist. Both of you use non-standard definitions of the words. Check above.And before you say it, atheism IS a belief, because by definition, you cannot confirm or deny the existence of a afterlife, god etc, to claim otherwise is a belief in itself, the closest you can get to that is agnostic, as GenesisAria said. |
TheDeedsOfMenSep 7, 2019 4:52 PM
Tatsuya said: That's beginning to change in the medical field as the religious metaphysics of body circuits is finally starting to be taken seriously. Also the Lambda-CDM model, nicknamed "Big Bang" (which was originally a derogatory name making fun of the stupid model) is flat out false; also it wasn't discovered, it was created in the armchairs of academics. Without Hubble expansion, ΛCDM cannot work, and without redshift theory, Hubble expansion cannot work - redshift has NEVER been experimentally proven to be able to measure distances and relative velocities in space. There is heaps of evidence (especially by Halton Arp) that also is directly to the contrary. Big Bang was dead before it started, and it's now getting full assault on all sides as new empirical data routinely breaks the model. This example is not one of progress or productivity.Well for one the big bang theory was discovered by a catholic priest, and current gravitational theory wouldn't exist if it wasn't for issac neuton laying the steps for current understanding of gravity, which he did for trying to understand "god's creation" This isn't even getting into astronomy, which was heavily researched for religious reasons, the only field that, at least in the west, didn't have anything to do with religion in some form arguably is the medical field. Tatsuya said: False. This is a state of ignorance, it's easy to slip into, but not something you cannot escape. But yeah a lot of stuff ends up turning into human supremacy belief - that we are either connected to god and therefore more special than the rocks, or that there is no god and therefore we are special because we can know the universe unlike anything else. Both sides of this dichotomy are human supremacist and false.Actually yes you do, everyone is hardwired to put their faith in something, if it's not a god or a religion it will be social issues such as the current identitarian movements on the left and right of politics, again, we literally are hard wired for it, considering your statement your belief is probably that there is no god or higher power, and in turn, no higher order than what we make it, humanism if you will. Tatsuya said: Agnosticism means a (not) gnosis (knowing/understanding), which is the high-brow greek way of saying you are stupid. It's a belief that one doesn't need to know - choosing ignorance (hence the -ism).And no, faith means belief and trust, whether you admit it to yourself or not, it doesn't have to be a god or a religion, it can easily be non-faith/atheism, or the power of the human spirit, but current consensus in the scientific field is everyone does in fact have "faith" in something. And before you say it, atheism IS a belief, because by definition, you cannot confirm or deny the existence of a afterlife, god etc, to claim otherwise is a belief in itself, the closest you can get to that is agnostic, as GenesisAria said. Tatsuya said: Ancient proto-buddhism in the original doctrinal Pali texts never denied the soul and was an extremely advanced high-understanding monism. @GenesisAria Buddhism is a special case, as it depends on the sect whether it is atheistic or not, many sects are in fact syncretic and have syncretized either from christianity or hinduism, as such depending on the sect, you could find Buddhists who put trust in the teachings of buddha and at the same time worship jesus, while another might worship the Trimurti, and of course in japan the shinto gods and Buddhism have been syncretized by some sects, it's one of the reasons many people like to compare buddhism more towards a philosophy instead of a religion, in the west we're more experienced with Tibetan Buddhism, which takes more of an agnostic approach. generally speaking, buddhism doesn't dissuade the worship of a god or adherence to another religion, it just doesn't concern itself with it one way or another at the base teachings of Gautama. Modern buddhism is a nihilistic pursuit similar to that of the star wars jedi, that is detaching from everything emotionally and spiritually, leaving yourself with simplistic "this-is-all-there-is-ism", along with touchy feely be nice to your neighbour kind of basic layman moral code. The focus is basically always to find nothingness, shedding everything, but never going beyond that to attain true enlightenment in oneness, ie monistic metaphysics. Also Hindu isn't a religion, it's a culture. TheDeedsOfMen said: GenesisAria said: 1) The standard definitions used by most modern philosophers are:1) Atheism is the belief that there is no god - agnosticism is the lack of gnosis, ie voluntary ignorance, choosing not to know. 2) That is a belief in the requirement of empirical evidence, empirical aka physical - materialistic. 3) Religion is defined by dogma, the only thing that makes it a religion is just that it's structured. 4) They necessitatively imply eachother. Atheism, various forms of empirically restricted thought, what you can call "this-is-all-there-is-ism", which is synonymous with materialism. I should note that theos doesn't technically mean god necessarily, it's a reference to the absolute nature of the metaphysical. Rejection or denial of the metaphysical using physical terms as "proof" is materialism. The only true wisdom is in understanding the larger picture - neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism; understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin. 5) Theism does not imply religion. Nor does atheism imply non-religion. For example, modern buddhism is atheistic religion; it is mysticized nihilistic materialism (it denies the soul). Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Agnosticism is a lack of adequate knowledge of gods. People are often both at the same time. An agnostic atheist lacks belief in gods and he lacks adequate knowledge of gods. Often the latter is the justification for the former. Incidentally, Kanata and co. seem to be agnostic atheists by the definitions above. They aren't atheists by your definition though. If you change around definitions of words, you change the substance as well. 2) Are you trying to say that requiring evidence is dogmatic? For instance, if someone claims that they own a Ferrari, is it dogmatic to ask for proof before believing it? Really? If that's the case, then the word “dogmatism” has lost its meaning. 3) There are various definitions of “religion,” but they usually involve belief in gods at the very least (sometimes belief in spirits is also considered sufficient), and those are what I was using. Not all dogmatic beliefs involve those. 4) Atheism only deals with belief in gods specifically. That is far too little to imply anything of beliefs in the existences of other things. How do you reach "this-is-all-there-is-ism" from that premise alone? The logic doesn't work. Even if you included a lack of belief in spirits, it still wouldn't imply "this-is-all-there-is-ism." By the way, empiricism doesn't imply "this-is-all-there-is-ism" either. An empiricist can easily accept that there can be all kinds of things out there that haven't been discovered, even things that are dramatically different from the things that are currently known. He just demands evidence of them before believing in their existence. 1) Absence of belief in something requires you to believe in the absence of it. This is inherently dogmatic. You are not an atheist if you are truly void of belief, you are no label, you are simply wise. You cannot objectively deny "god" (lowercase) once you understand the original intentional nature of the concept, which is the principle of unified existence, which accounts for everything, not some isolated entity beyond the universe. Being atheist means you deny this. The issue with this is that to understand reality you must understand the phenomenal and noumenal, aka the physical and metaphysical, are 1 and the same thing. To remove metaphysics from the picture is existential materialism, empirical dogma. To remove physics from the picture is existential mysticism, or spiritual dogma. 2) Empirical evidence can only exist in physical terms. For example a magnetic field, you can only measure the effects of a field over vectors and relations with given magnitudes over time, you cannot directly observe the field itself; the field is a metaphysical existence. You cannot see light, you can only see illumination, light interacting with things; light is metaphysical in nature. It's not dogmatic to require proof, it is dogmatic to require EMPIRICAL proof. Metaphysical proof is logical proofs by necessitative inevitabilities - there must be light for there to be illumination, there must be fields for there to interaction at a distance. 3) Religion is secularized metaphysics, it's a structured belief system of concepts based on rigid philosophies which people put faith in. Strict adherence to materialistic empiricism is a structure of rigid philosophies, which people put faith in. Religions use their own internal logic to justify and "prove" their premises, which is the same as what materialistic empirical systems use; they define their terms, have an internal structured logic system of concepts in which they "prove" their own premises, and then consider it objective fact, the same way religions do. 4) The issue here is you trying to separate and isolate things. Nothing in reality exists in isolation, it's all relative and subjective; merely being in the same universe makes this an inescapable fact. By "this-is-all-there-is-ism" i don't mean what we know is all there is, it means the assumption that only that which can be physically observed or detected can exist; belief that extrinsic attributes of a principle are the principle itself. Though there are those who believe that nothing outside the human frame of knowledge is relevant until discovered, which is absurd. You don't know what you don't know, and you can't know it's impact on what you think you know if you don't know it. TheDeedsOfMen said: No, this is literally one of the fundamental laws of logical thought: the Law of Identity, aka A=A, or 1=1. This is the only true absolute that can be known, and due to it being a non-empirical concept, it is thereby metaphysical.I should note that theos doesn't technically mean god necessarily, it's a reference to the absolute nature of the metaphysical. “The absolute nature of the metaphysical”? This is starting to sound like Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling. Not really my favorite lineup.TheDeedsOfMen said: "I believe that there is nothing that exist which can't be empirically provided as evidence." It's circular logic. This is saying "the universe is empirical because it needs empirical evidence to be true." Who decides you need empirical evidence for everything? Yeah, arbitrary decision by humans. Science is a very useful tool, but it's only half the picture.Rejection or denial of the metaphysical using physical terms as "proof" is materialism. What is more relevant here is “An empiricist lacks belief in the existence of entities if their existence is not supported by sufficient empirical evidence.”TheDeedsOfMen said: Read some ancient texts, like Pythagoras, neoplatonic thought, ancient writings of india, study the metaphysics of taoism... Your brain will explode as all this jumbled mess of arbitrary empiricism and metaphysical abstraction will burst into clarity and all make sense as the true state of unified existence. It's truly sad how little understanding gets through anymore, as everyone digs too deep down their self-affirming rabbit holes, building an unrounded narrow-sighted limited comprehension of the nature of things.The only true wisdom is in understanding the larger picture - neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism; understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin. I am always wary of people who are calling something “true wisdom.” Good philosophy is not about discovering truly profound things; it is about finding solutions to less ambitious problems.TheDeedsOfMen said: Not exactly. Physics and metaphysics are 2 branches of natural philosophy. Natural philosophy is the holistic study of every aspect of reality, existence, etc, the ontological mecca of thought. Metaphysics is useless without physics, as physics is useless without metaphysics. Physics uses metaphysical concepts to define the phenomenal (though this is almost never understood), and metaphysics uses physical terms to convey the noumenal.I should note that theos doesn't technically mean god necessarily, it's a reference to the absolute nature of the metaphysical. Rejection or denial of the metaphysical using physical terms as "proof" is materialism. The only true wisdom is in understanding the larger picture - neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism; understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin. In “understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin,” a less confusing word would be “non-physical” or “immaterial.” Metaphysics studies existence, so physical substance falls under metaphysical study too.TheDeedsOfMen said: That would be areligious, not atheistic. Theos refers to the "divine" immaterial, the nature of the metaphysical as a definite existence. If you follow that thread of logic to it's end you arrive at the conclusion of god=universe (in metaphysical terms). The word "god" or "God" has been harshly distorted by the New Testament. Areligion and atheism can overlap, but they are not the same thing. Atheism implies materialism by definition.5) You are using a strange definition of “religion” here. Atheism implies non-religion as long as religion involves belief in gods. Likewise, with that definition, theism doesn't imply religion, but religion implies theism. If you want to include belief in spirits, then the lack of belief in them has to be added in too. The arguments still work similarly though. Also, the word “anti-theism” is sometimes used to refer to being anti-religious specifically. I admit that the language is a bit vague. TheDeedsOfMen said: No, that would be absolute nihilism, i didn't say that, i said nihilistic. It denies the soul and metaphysical analog to anything real, and seeks to shed preconceptions leaving you with nothing but wordless empirical observation.modern buddhism is atheistic religion; it is mysticized nihilistic materialism (it denies the soul). Speaking of definitions, sounds like a weird definition of nihilism here. Metaphysical nihilism denies all existence or alternatively all substance, including physical matter. The latter option isn't really that dramatic for the reasons outlined above.TheDeedsOfMen said: I know the scene, it's not a commentary on fact or reality, it's the opinion of the ferengi. Limited number of holodecks is not a scarcity, they are already a luxury (the way they are used in the star trek universe, even though they'd be an unparalleled military training machine), and therefore a bonus. Abundance doesn't mean infinite, it means more than you need. Starfleet doesn't have internal scarcity, because everything is delegated, taken care of, everyone's needs are met, it's communist.Trade and currency is not NEEDed, it can be useful when in a state of imbalance. For example, trade is not all that necessary within Starfleet, but it is needed between species, cultures and nations. TheDeedsOfMen said: You use misinterpreted connotative, aka non-denotative definitions. That's not your fault though, academia as a whole has this issue.Tatsuya said: I am an agnostic atheist. Both of you use non-standard definitions for the words. Check above.And before you say it, atheism IS a belief, because by definition, you cannot confirm or deny the existence of a afterlife, god etc, to claim otherwise is a belief in itself, the closest you can get to that is agnostic, as GenesisAria said. . . . Long story short, the whole reason for this topic in the first place is that it is hypothetically possible for them to have arrived at their star trek-like misconception of "the removal of religion" when in fact it more means the removal of competing ideas leaving only one world philosophy, which could be done with a smaller population and a couple generations, Battlestar Galactica style. |
GenesisAriaSep 7, 2019 5:53 PM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| Dear Lord, those sure were some crazy first 8 minutes. I swear, if this show were of my favorites, I'm sure I would have had an stroke due to the amount of revelations mentioned in so short period of time. Overall, I wouldn't say this episode was good. There were still some inconsistencies but at least, the first half had me quite entertained, being honest. |
| KEWL! another more revelations this episode! so the true enemy is Charce! LOL at the different but almost similar modified history of Earth compared to the memories of the clones! 5/5. |
 |
GenesisAria said: No, those two are logically distinct. The absence of proposition A is distinct from proposition “not A”. Simple propositional logic. Good luck formulating the same truth table for them or a truth table in general for the former.1) Absence of belief in something requires you to believe in the absence of it. This is inherently dogmatic. You are not an atheist if you are truly void of belief, you are no label, you are simply wise. Again, not the definition I was using, so it's irrelevant. Choosing different definitions changes the substance you are referring to.You cannot objectively deny "god" (lowercase) once you understand the original intentional nature of the concept, which is the principle of unified existence, which accounts for everything, not some isolated entity beyond the universe. The word “god” is misleading here. Usually, atheists don't believe in gods in a more conventional sense of the word.Being atheist means you deny this. The issue with this is that to understand reality you must understand the phenomenal and noumenal, aka the physical and metaphysical, are 1 and the same thing. To remove metaphysics from the picture is existential materialism, empirical dogma. To remove physics from the picture is existential mysticism, or spiritual dogma. I already told you that “metaphysics” is a misleading term here and “removal of metaphysics” better describes a zero-substance theory. Why did you ignore it?EDIT: I think I'll spell it out in a bit more detail. Empiricists need not be materialists in the sense that materialists believe in the existence of some physical substance in some kind of metaphysical sense ("metaphysics" referring to the philosophical study of existence). Empiricists don't need to believe in any substances. Zero substances suffice. Empirical observations and properties suffice without material substance. This isn't even a new idea. Even Hume in his bundle theory already endorsed a zero-substance approach. Claiming that "existential materialism" is somehow inherent to empiricism makes no sense. 2) Empirical evidence can only exist in physical terms. For example a magnetic field, you can only measure the effects of a field over vectors and relations with given magnitudes over time, you cannot directly observe the field itself; the field is a metaphysical existence. You cannot see light, you can only see illumination, light interacting with things; light is metaphysical in nature. It's not dogmatic to require proof, it is dogmatic to require EMPIRICAL proof. Metaphysical proof is logical proofs by necessitative inevitabilities - there must be light for there to be illumination, there must be fields for there to interaction at a distance. You shouldn't take fields with such metaphysical seriousness. Many physicists don't do either. Fields are mathematical tools; the observations are the actually empirical part. I already argued that you can avoid committing to any number of metaphysical substances. Why did you ignore it? Also, if metaphysical facts are logically necessary, they must be logical tautologies and can be proven logically without any genuine premises. You postulate premises all the time, so it doesn't seem to be working. 3) Religion is secularized metaphysics, Completely different than my definition again, so it isn't relevant.it's a structured belief system of concepts based on rigid philosophies which people put faith in. Strict adherence to materialistic empiricism is a structure of rigid philosophies, which people put faith in. Religions use their own internal logic to justify and "prove" their premises, which is the same as what materialistic empirical systems use; they define their terms, have an internal structured logic system of concepts in which they "prove" their own premises, and then consider it objective fact, the same way religions do. Why did you ignore my Ferrari example? I am asking you to spell out in more concrete terms whether you are really committed to calling every burden of proof dogmatic. If so, we can all at least see where you stand.EDIT: I think I'll spell out again that empiricists need not commit to the existence of any material substance. Zero substances suffice. The rants about materialism are beside the point. 4) The issue here is you trying to separate and isolate things. Separate conceptually, yes. Isolate, no. That's how analysis works. Break something into smaller pieces and see how they relate to each other. You can't just analyze complex systems at a single glance; good luck with that.Nothing in reality exists in isolation, it's all relative and subjective; This statement is too vague.By "this-is-all-there-is-ism" i don't mean what we know is all there is, it means the assumption that only that which can be physically observed or detected can exist; Yes, I got that part. Atheism and empiricism don't imply that. They can easily believe that there can exist physically undetectable things. Of course, that is different than firmly believing that such things exist. “Can exist” and “exist” are different modalities.belief that extrinsic attributes of a principle are the principle itself. It is unclear what this even has to do with the previous statement.GenesisAria said: You seem to using the word “metaphysical” in a way that dramatically differs from modern philosophical terminology. TheDeedsOfMen said: No, this is literally one of the fundamental laws of logical thought: the Law of Identity, aka A=A, or 1=1. This is the only true absolute that can be known, and due to it being a non-empirical concept, it is thereby metaphysical.“The absolute nature of the metaphysical”? This is starting to sound like Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling. Not really my favorite lineup. GenesisAria said: Yep, seems that way.Usually, modern philosophers would call the Law of Identity logical, not metaphysical. There are concepts that are neither empirical nor metaphysical, and not being empirical is not sufficient for a concept to be metaphysical. Not to mention, this has nothing to do with atheism in a relevant sense anymore. Where do you even find atheists who define it in relation to the Law of Identity? GenesisAria said: Those are not the same proposition, nor are they logically equivalent.TheDeedsOfMen said: "I believe that there is nothing that exist which can't be empirically provided as evidence."What is more relevant here is “An empiricist lacks belief in the existence of entities if their existence is not supported by sufficient empirical evidence.” It's circular logic. This is saying "the universe is empirical because it needs empirical evidence to be true." Actually, this new version is slightly different. The previous version is more like a premise or postulate. Even if it's unjustified, people wouldn't usually call it a circle.Who decides you need empirical evidence for everything? Yeah, arbitrary decision by humans. Science is a very useful tool, but it's only half the picture. I'd really like you to answer the Ferrari example so that we know where you stand on the burden of proof in more concrete terms.TheDeedsOfMen said: Read some ancient texts, like Pythagoras, neoplatonic thought, ancient writings of india, study the metaphysics of taoism... Your brain will explode as all this jumbled mess of arbitrary empiricism and metaphysical abstraction will burst into clarity and all make sense as the true state of unified existence. It's truly sad how little understanding gets through anymore, as everyone digs too deep down their self-affirming rabbit holes, building an unrounded narrow-sighted limited comprehension of the nature of things.I am always wary of people who are calling something “true wisdom.” Good philosophy is not about discovering truly profound things; it is about finding solutions to less ambitious problems. TheDeedsOfMen said: Not exactly. Physics and metaphysics are 2 branches of natural philosophy. Natural philosophy is the holistic study of every aspect of reality, existence, etc, the ontological mecca of thought. Metaphysics is useless without physics, as physics is useless without metaphysics. Physics uses metaphysical concepts to define the phenomenal (though this is almost never understood), and metaphysics uses physical terms to convey the noumenal.In “understanding physical and metaphysical as 2 sides of the same coin,” a less confusing word would be “non-physical” or “immaterial.” Metaphysics studies existence, so physical substance falls under metaphysical study too. For instance, if I say that "2+2=4," it sure seems to be a dramatically different kind of statement than "physical substance exists." Almost like logic and the study of existence are dramatically different. TheDeedsOfMen said: That would be areligious, not atheistic.5) You are using a strange definition of “religion” here. Atheism implies non-religion as long as religion involves belief in gods. Likewise, with that definition, theism doesn't imply religion, but religion implies theism. If you want to include belief in spirits, then the lack of belief in them has to be added in too. The arguments still work similarly though. Also, the word “anti-theism” is sometimes used to refer to being anti-religious specifically. I admit that the language is a bit vague. Theos refers to the "divine" immaterial, the nature of the metaphysical as a definite existence. If you follow that thread of logic to it's end you arrive at the conclusion of god=universe (in metaphysical terms). You need additional premises to arrive at that conclusion, and as a result it is not a purely logical fact.And again, this has nothing do with the atheism in the sense that people are atheists in real life or in Kanata's world. The word "god" or "God" has been harshly distorted by the New Testament. The presence of different definitions of words doesn't necessarily mean that the definitions have been distorted. It is just language being rich in definitions.Atheism implies materialism by definition. Different definition than what is relevant here.TheDeedsOfMen said: No, that would be absolute nihilism, i didn't say that, i said nihilistic. It denies the soul and metaphysical analog to anything real, and seeks to shed preconceptions leaving you with nothing but wordless empirical observation.Speaking of definitions, sounds like a weird definition of nihilism here. Metaphysical nihilism denies all existence or alternatively all substance, including physical matter. The latter option isn't really that dramatic for the reasons outlined above. By the way, atheists and empiricists don't usually claim that they completely lack preconceptions. That would be a bit extreme. TheDeedsOfMen said: I know the scene, it's not a commentary on fact or reality, it's the opinion of the ferengi.Without trades, O'Brien would have been unable to get the component for Sisko's ship in time. We can literally see this unfolding onscreen. How would you have solved the situation without money or the bilateral trading that took place? Limited number of holodecks is not a scarcity, they are already a luxury (the way they are used in the star trek universe, even though they'd be an unparalleled military training machine), and therefore a bonus. Abundance doesn't mean infinite, it means more than you need. Starfleet doesn't have internal scarcity, because everything is delegated, taken care of, everyone's needs are met, it's communist. Sure, if you arbitrarily consider some goods and services luxuries and others not. Why should we blindly assume that Starfleet's centralized decision-making is making the correct decisions? For the record, there is no guarantee that a free market (however it is defined) would make the correct decisions either, but that doesn't spare your defence of Starfleet's system from criticism.TheDeedsOfMen said: You use misinterpreted connotative, aka non-denotative definitions. That's not your fault though, academia as a whole has this issue.I am an agnostic atheist. Both of you use non-standard definitions for the words. Check above. Also, people using different definitions than you is not misinterpretation. It is simply different. You are choosing to go with ancient and rare definitions. You can't expect everyone else to do the same. . . . Again, the sense in which Kanata and co. are atheists is not about the Law of Identity, the number of metaphysical substances, or anything of the sort. They don't believe in conventional deities, and they are atheists in that sense. This makes most of your arguments pretty irrelevant to the original point.Long story short, the whole reason for this topic in the first place is that it is hypothetically possible for them to have arrived at their star trek-like misconception of "the removal of religion" when in fact it more means the removal of competing ideas leaving only one world philosophy, which could be done with a smaller population and a couple generations, Battlestar Galactica style. GenesisAria said: Just to mention again, this isn't the definition I am using, so it's irrelevant to what I was saying about agnosticism.Tatsuya said: Agnosticism means a (not) gnosis (knowing/understanding), which is the high-brow greek way of saying you are stupid. It's a belief that one doesn't need to know - choosing ignorance (hence the -ism).And no, faith means belief and trust, whether you admit it to yourself or not, it doesn't have to be a god or a religion, it can easily be non-faith/atheism, or the power of the human spirit, but current consensus in the scientific field is everyone does in fact have "faith" in something. And before you say it, atheism IS a belief, because by definition, you cannot confirm or deny the existence of a afterlife, god etc, to claim otherwise is a belief in itself, the closest you can get to that is agnostic, as GenesisAria said. |
TheDeedsOfMenSep 8, 2019 4:16 AM
| This was a nice episode. I think there’s something about what “he” said in past behind this. |
 |
| I would not count Astra as a diamond of a series or as my personal fav title of the year but it is a welcome of fresh air compared to standard type of shows these days and it has managed to create a decent storyline as far as sci fi goes. I really hope we get more titles like this and Dr.Stone a little more often as a lot of anime today focus to much on either slice of life, fantasy(isekai) or supernatural elements. Like in the old days where sci fi shows were common in anime. hope it end's well. EDit i read ahead//i could not resist. Im surprised how people are already calling them plotholes when they still have 2 episodes left to explain, i have a feeling the astreoid thing might just be another ploy for another reason... |
-ShadowClaw-Sep 9, 2019 7:34 AM
| I'll just drop the logomachy stuff. TheDeedsOfMen said: Metaphysics wasn't misleading, i clarified my terms of phenomenal vs noumenal.Being atheist means you deny this. The issue with this is that to understand reality you must understand the phenomenal and noumenal, aka the physical and metaphysical, are 1 and the same thing. To remove metaphysics from the picture is existential materialism, empirical dogma. To remove physics from the picture is existential mysticism, or spiritual dogma. I already told you that “metaphysics” is a misleading term here and “removal of metaphysics” better describes a zero-substance theory. Why did you ignore it?EDIT: I think I'll spell it out in a bit more detail. Empiricists need not be materialists in the sense that materialists believe in the existence of some physical substance in some kind of metaphysical sense ("metaphysics" referring to the philosophical study of existence). Empiricists don't need to believe in any substances. Zero substances suffice. Empirical observations and properties suffice without material substance. This isn't even a new idea. Even Hume in his bundle theory already endorsed a zero-substance approach. Claiming that "existential materialism" is somehow inherent to empiricism makes no sense. And saying empiricism is existential materialism makes perfect sense and is accurate. Materialism is defined by empirical-only, and empirical is defined by requiring observational evidence from physical(material) factors only. TheDeedsOfMen said: You do not understand fields at all. Maxwellian field equations do not define a field, they do not explain the behaviour, they merely describe it's extrinsic attributes with measurements and relations between magnitudes. The true field is not something that can be observed, the pattern, the noumenon of the apparent geometry, the cause... only the physical effects are seen. The assumption that the field is nothing but the physical attributes that are measured, is materialism; a direct denial of the invisible form which imprints the shadow of something physical.2) Empirical evidence can only exist in physical terms. For example a magnetic field, you can only measure the effects of a field over vectors and relations with given magnitudes over time, you cannot directly observe the field itself; the field is a metaphysical existence. You cannot see light, you can only see illumination, light interacting with things; light is metaphysical in nature. It's not dogmatic to require proof, it is dogmatic to require EMPIRICAL proof. Metaphysical proof is logical proofs by necessitative inevitabilities - there must be light for there to be illumination, there must be fields for there to interaction at a distance. You shouldn't take fields with such metaphysical seriousness. Many physicists don't do either. Fields are mathematical tools; the observations are the actually empirical part.TheDeedsOfMen said: What are you talking about?I already argued that you can avoid committing to any number of metaphysical substances. Why did you ignore it? Also, if metaphysical facts are logically necessary, they must be logical tautologies and can be proven logically without any genuine premises. You postulate premises all the time, so it doesn't seem to be working. TheDeedsOfMen said: How can you say that X exists because human physically observes X, without assuming the physical? Assuming the physical/empirical is all that exists, is the definition of materialism. Saying everything is made of æther as a metaphysical 'material'/medium is not materialism.EDIT: I think I'll spell out again that empiricists need not commit to the existence of any material substance. Zero substances suffice. The rants about materialism are beside the point. TheDeedsOfMen said: It's not to vague, it's literally universal, it applies to everything, physical, conceptual, etc.Nothing in reality exists in isolation, it's all relative and subjective; This statement is too vague.TheDeedsOfMen said: No they can't. Empiricism literally means it has to be observable/detectable by some physical means. If it is not detectable by any means it is by definition, metaphysical.By "this-is-all-there-is-ism" i don't mean what we know is all there is, it means the assumption that only that which can be physically observed or detected can exist; Yes, I got that part. Atheism and empiricism don't imply that. They can easily believe that there can exist physically undetectable things. Of course, that is different than firmly believing that such things exist. “Can exist” and “exist” are different modalities.TheDeedsOfMen said: If an invisible entity is creating waves in a pond, to assume the waves ARE the entity, the extrinsic attributes defined as the thing, is a fallacy.belief that extrinsic attributes of a principle are the principle itself. It is unclear what this even has to do with the previous statement.TheDeedsOfMen said: You cannot observe a concept, or even logic itself, therefore it is, in comparison to the physical universe, metaphysical. This isn't hard to get. Maybe you need to read more classical philosophy, modern stuff isn't very potent. It's just connecting the logical dots, not explicitly what they say.GenesisAria said: You seem to using the word “metaphysical” in a way that dramatically differs from modern philosophical terminology. No, this is literally one of the fundamental laws of logical thought: the Law of Identity, aka A=A, or 1=1. This is the only true absolute that can be known, and due to it being a non-empirical concept, it is thereby metaphysical. GenesisAria said: Yep, seems that way.Usually, modern philosophers would call the Law of Identity logical, not metaphysical. There are concepts that are neither empirical nor metaphysical, and not being empirical is not sufficient for a concept to be metaphysical. Not to mention, this has nothing to do with atheism in a relevant sense anymore. Where do you even find atheists who define it in relation to the Law of Identity? GenesisAria said: Those are not the same proposition, nor are they logically equivalent.TheDeedsOfMen said: "I believe that there is nothing that exist which can't be empirically provided as evidence."What is more relevant here is “An empiricist lacks belief in the existence of entities if their existence is not supported by sufficient empirical evidence.” TheDeedsOfMen said: Doesn't really matter if they don't call it a circle, it still is... it's a logical equivalent of a dog chasing it's own tail.It's circular logic. This is saying "the universe is empirical because it needs empirical evidence to be true." Actually, this new version is slightly different. The previous version is more like a premise or postulate. Even if it's unjustified, people wouldn't usually call it a circle.TheDeedsOfMen said: Must have missed that... burden of proof is a 2 way street, not all on the one on the "offense".Who decides you need empirical evidence for everything? Yeah, arbitrary decision by humans. Science is a very useful tool, but it's only half the picture. I'd really like you to answer the Ferrari example so that we know where you stand on the burden of proof in more concrete terms.TheDeedsOfMen said: You do realize that most of neoplatonism is yet still untranslated... Only 2 attempts resulted in partial translation, in the case of plotinus, and the rest lost their minds because they couldn't decypher the incerdibly abstruse shorthand. Also hardly anything in ancient Pali is sufficiently translated as far as i know. What they give you in the education system is extremely watered down and distorted through the lens of academia and consensus. Reading the text as is by dictionary definitions and your own interpretation of that is one thing, but actually decyphering what they're trying to say and their thought process? Yeah whole other can of worms.Read some ancient texts, like Pythagoras, neoplatonic thought, ancient writings of india, study the metaphysics of taoism... Your brain will explode as all this jumbled mess of arbitrary empiricism and metaphysical abstraction will burst into clarity and all make sense as the true state of unified existence. It's truly sad how little understanding gets through anymore, as everyone digs too deep down their self-affirming rabbit holes, building an unrounded narrow-sighted limited comprehension of the nature of things. I am a grad student in philosophy, and I have read some ancient metaphysical texts, though obviously not all of them. There was no brain explosion in the sense you are describing.TheDeedsOfMen said: Not exactly. One of the biggest issues i've seen in modern philosophy is not only the mistaken separation of physics from metaphysics, but also turning each of them into a quasi-religious structure of reasoning and conversation in which everyone is expected to abide by. What really matters and where truth lies, is not the heads of tails, it's the coin itself, in which you have to cease the distinction and isolation of physics fro metaphysics. You have to understand them as cohabitors, a symbiosis, that they can be understood separately but cannot exist without the other. Damaging this cohesion causes a serious disconnect and a problematic dive into an academic rabbit hole, similar to what mathematics as done, going through equation after equation, formulating all kinds of amazing elaborate structures, that ultimaetly have little to no relation to reality.Not exactly. Physics and metaphysics are 2 branches of natural philosophy. Natural philosophy is the holistic study of every aspect of reality, existence, etc, the ontological mecca of thought. Metaphysics is useless without physics, as physics is useless without metaphysics. Physics uses metaphysical concepts to define the phenomenal (though this is almost never understood), and metaphysics uses physical terms to convey the noumenal. The reason why these definitions are usually not used in modern philosophy is that they are too vague. For instance, that is why modern philosophers draw a distinction between logic and the study of existence. If you don't, it is hard to tell what you are trying to say at any given point.For instance, if I say that "2+2=4," it sure seems to be a dramatically different kind of statement than "physical substance exists." Almost like logic and the study of existence are dramatically different. TheDeedsOfMen said: I was simply trying to make clear that theos does not mean religion, nor does it technically mean 'god' in the way people normally think about it, as it's more like japanese "kami" which is a term that refers to divine spiritual presence, not necessarily an entity or being. It would be difficult for me to substantiate to you how and why this is the case, but if you can understand this to be the case, then what i'm saying about theism vs religion is correct, and that theism and religion are not synonymous. Divine existence, the higher spiritual nature of the universe, is an ancient analogue for what the greeks codified in the context of metaphysical logic.That would be areligious, not atheistic. People still use the definition sometimes. For the sake of clarity, we can go with “anti-religious” here, not that it matters much for the other arguments.Theos refers to the "divine" immaterial, the nature of the metaphysical as a definite existence. If you follow that thread of logic to it's end you arrive at the conclusion of god=universe (in metaphysical terms). You need additional premises to arrive at that conclusion, and as a result it is not a purely logical fact.TheDeedsOfMen said: That only applies to connotation,. not denotation. What the etymology or the Oxford dictionary says the word means, is what it means, period, end of story. There is no other definitions that are denotatively correct.The word "god" or "God" has been harshly distorted by the New Testament. The presence of different definitions of words doesn't necessarily mean that the definitions have been distorted. It is just language being rich in definitions.Sorry, not an evasion, i just don't feel like going back and rewatching that DS9 scene and readressing all of this, just kinda want to let it go. There is always a way, but not in the mood to construct one for you. TheDeedsOfMen said: It's not that arbitrary, in star trek, holodecks are recreational, entertainment, unnecessary, them existing is an abundance overtop the necessities. Modern humans in capitalist societies have t work their butts off just for necessities because the economy/system can't currently support everyone's basic needs; that isn't abundance. Starfleet can provide for everyone easily under normal circumstances.Limited number of holodecks is not a scarcity, they are already a luxury (the way they are used in the star trek universe, even though they'd be an unparalleled military training machine), and therefore a bonus. Abundance doesn't mean infinite, it means more than you need. Starfleet doesn't have internal scarcity, because everything is delegated, taken care of, everyone's needs are met, it's communist. Sure, if you arbitrarily consider some goods and services luxuries and others not. Why should we blindly assume that Starfleet's centralized decision-making is making the correct decisions? For the record, there is no guarantee that a free market (however it is defined) would make the correct decisions either, but that doesn't spare your defence of Starfleet's system from criticism.TheDeedsOfMen said: That is not how language works. That is a serious misconception to the nature of language, and one mostly present in english specifically too mind you. Most other languages don't have all these ultra flexible wishy washy use the word however you feel like definitions. Frankly, neither does english, but people like to think it does. As i said, Oxford dictionary or etymology, there is no other accurate non-bastardized definition for words.You use misinterpreted connotative, aka non-denotative definitions. That's not your fault though, academia as a whole has this issue. What a weird thing to say. Just because a definition is different, it doesn't make it connotative.Also, people using different definitions than you is not misinterpretation. It is simply different. You are choosing to go with ancient and rare definitions. You can't expect everyone else to do the same. TheDeedsOfMen said: That doesn't make any of what i said about it incorrect, it just means you misused the terms.GenesisAria said: Just to mention again, this isn't the definition I am using, so it's irrelevant to what I was saying about agnosticism.Agnosticism means a (not) gnosis (knowing/understanding), which is the high-brow greek way of saying you are stupid. It's a belief that one doesn't need to know - choosing ignorance (hence the -ism). |
GenesisAriaSep 10, 2019 5:43 AM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
| Man lemme just say this adaptation started off a bit too fast paced for my liking, but these last few episodes have been executed perfectly and I'm looking forward to re experiencing everything again lol |
| “I love heroes, but I don't want to be one. Do you even know what a hero is!? For example, you have some meat. Pirates will feast on the meat, but the hero will distribute it among the people! I want to eat the meat!” - Monkey D. Luffy |
| I am bundling some of these parts together because they have similar answers. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: Metaphysics wasn't misleading, i clarified my terms of phenomenal vs noumenal.I already told you that “metaphysics” is a misleading term here and “removal of metaphysics” better describes a zero-substance theory. Why did you ignore it? EDIT: I think I'll spell it out in a bit more detail. Empiricists need not be materialists in the sense that materialists believe in the existence of some physical substance in some kind of metaphysical sense ("metaphysics" referring to the philosophical study of existence). Empiricists don't need to believe in any substances. Zero substances suffice. Empirical observations and properties suffice without material substance. This isn't even a new idea. Even Hume in his bundle theory already endorsed a zero-substance approach. Claiming that "existential materialism" is somehow inherent to empiricism makes no sense. And saying empiricism is existential materialism makes perfect sense and is accurate. Materialism is defined by empirical-only, and empirical is defined by requiring observational evidence from physical(material) factors only. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: What are you talking about?I already argued that you can avoid committing to any number of metaphysical substances. Why did you ignore it? GenesisAria said: The usual definitions for “materialism” in this context, more specifically “substance materialism,” are either:TheDeedsOfMen said: How can you say that X exists because human physically observes X, without assuming the physical? Assuming the physical/empirical is all that exists, is the definition of materialism. Saying everything is made of æther as a metaphysical 'material'/medium is not materialism.EDIT: I think I'll spell out again that empiricists need not commit to the existence of any material substance. Zero substances suffice. The rants about materialism are beside the point. 1) The belief that material substance exists, or 2) The belief that only material substance exists. Now, you instead talk about “physical” or “material factors,” but what are those, really? Empiricist philosophers tend to believe that we have sensory experiences, but where does the matter come in? It doesn't, really. Theories like Hume's bundle theory and Russell's logical constructivism don't assume the existence of matter in a strict sense. “Matter” without explanation is a vague term. To take this line of thought further, I'll describe it like this: What physicists (in the sense of the modern field of science) call matter is really only a collection of sensory experiences. According to this theory, the desk in front of me is a collection of sensations of touch and vision that I interpret as a desk because of my subjective systems of classifying sensations. Now, does the desk have material substance? Who knows? Do other types of substance exist? Who knows? No stance taken either way. No stance on the number of substances or their forms. If that is what you call dogmatic, the idea that we have sensory experiences that we classify in some subjective way, then that is the lowest bar for dogmatism that I have ever seen in my life. This is the conversation you are trying to have with empiricists: “I am an empiricist. I define 'empiricism' in sense A.” “No, I define 'empiricism' in sense B. Therefore, your beliefs are in accordance with B.” “No, I don't. That's your definition, not mine. My beliefs are in accordance with A.” You are trying to argue against a nonexistent strawman that doesn't actually represent the beliefs of the people you are trying to argue against. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: No they can't. Empiricism literally means it has to be observable/detectable by some physical means. If it is not detectable by any means it is by definition, metaphysical.Yes, I got that part. Atheism and empiricism don't imply that. They can easily believe that there can exist physically undetectable things. Of course, that is different than firmly believing that such things exist. “Can exist” and “exist” are different modalities. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: If an invisible entity is creating waves in a pond, to assume the waves ARE the entity, the extrinsic attributes defined as the thing, is a fallacy.It is unclear what this even has to do with the previous statement. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: You do not understand fields at all. Maxwellian field equations do not define a field, they do not explain the behaviour, they merely describe it's extrinsic attributes with measurements and relations between magnitudes. The true field is not something that can be observed, the pattern, the noumenon of the apparent geometry, the cause... only the physical effects are seen. The assumption that the field is nothing but the physical attributes that are measured, is materialism; a direct denial of the invisible form which imprints the shadow of something physical.You shouldn't take fields with such metaphysical seriousness. Many physicists don't do either. Fields are mathematical tools; the observations are the actually empirical part. Empiricists don't really take any stance on matters like that. They don't like making assumptions on what counts as a genuine entity or what kinds of undetectable things exist. They make observations and move on with their (probably mathematical) analysis of them. That isn't a denial per se, more like leaving the matter unresolved. GenesisAria said: Whether something exists in isolation first requires some clarification of what counts as a connection. The same for being relative or subjective; those words are used with too many different meanings.TheDeedsOfMen said: It's not to vague, it's literally universal, it applies to everything, physical, conceptual, etc.This statement is too vague. GenesisAria said: Logically necessary facts are tautologies (true in every possible world), but you probably don't believe in modern logic either. By postulates, I am referring to your assertions that have been placed as premises and not been logically derived from other propositions.TheDeedsOfMen said: What are you talking about?Also, if metaphysical facts are logically necessary, they must be logical tautologies and can be proven logically without any genuine premises. You postulate premises all the time, so it doesn't seem to be working. GenesisAria said: You only reach the conclusion that logic is metaphysical because you define “metaphysics” the way you do. Then it is easy to get how your argument follows from your premises, by modern logic, no less. However, the conclusion isn't particularly interesting. Logic is not physical? So what? Basically nobody will disagree on that.TheDeedsOfMen said: You cannot observe a concept, or even logic itself, therefore it is, in comparison to the physical universe, metaphysical. This isn't hard to get. Maybe you need to read more classical philosophy, modern stuff isn't very potent. It's just connecting the logical dots, not explicitly what they say.You seem to using the word “metaphysical” in a way that dramatically differs from modern philosophical terminology. Yep, seems that way. Usually, modern philosophers would call the Law of Identity logical, not metaphysical. There are concepts that are neither empirical nor metaphysical, and not being empirical is not sufficient for a concept to be metaphysical. Not to mention, this has nothing to do with atheism in a relevant sense anymore. Where do you even find atheists who define it in relation to the Law of Identity? The actual problem is that it has very little to do with your talk of substances. The fact that people sometimes carry out logical arguments doesn't say anything about the number or forms of substances one way or the other. All you did was define a word in a particular way and point out an obvious tautology. Of course, it sure sounds like you believe that logic has some kind of substance. Why would logic need substance to work? Logic is a human invention, a convenient tool of sorts. I don't see any reason to assume it has substance. If you believe that we should assume so, well, at least accept that you are the one making the assumption here. GenesisAria said: They use different definitions than you, but we already heard how strongly you believe in the correctness of your definitions.TheDeedsOfMen said: Not exactly. One of the biggest issues i've seen in modern philosophy is not only the mistaken separation of physics from metaphysics, but also turning each of them into a quasi-religious structure of reasoning and conversation in which everyone is expected to abide by. What really matters and where truth lies, is not the heads of tails, it's the coin itself, in which you have to cease the distinction and isolation of physics fro metaphysics. You have to understand them as cohabitors, a symbiosis, that they can be understood separately but cannot exist without the other. Damaging this cohesion causes a serious disconnect and a problematic dive into an academic rabbit hole, similar to what mathematics as done, going through equation after equation, formulating all kinds of amazing elaborate structures, that ultimaetly have little to no relation to reality.The reason why these definitions are usually not used in modern philosophy is that they are too vague. For instance, that is why modern philosophers draw a distinction between logic and the study of existence. If you don't, it is hard to tell what you are trying to say at any given point. For instance, if I say that "2+2=4," it sure seems to be a dramatically different kind of statement than "physical substance exists." Almost like logic and the study of existence are dramatically different. Physicists seem to be able to keep trains running, planes flying, and computers ready for arguing on anime forums. At least most of the time. If ignoring the existence of substances is really such a terrible thing, why does physics seem to work? It doesn't seem like an academic rabbit hole when the planes actually fly, etc. GenesisAria said: Of course not. The whole point is to argue that empiricists don't believe in what you think they do and present an alternative. That's why it's an entirely different proposition.GenesisAria said: Those are not the same proposition, nor are they logically equivalent."I believe that there is nothing that exist which can't be empirically provided as evidence." GenesisAria said: Someone walks up to you and claims they own a Ferrari. If you want to find out whether this is likely to be true or not, what will you do? Ask for evidence? Now apply the same idea to other things.TheDeedsOfMen said: Must have missed that... burden of proof is a 2 way street, not all on the one on the "offense".I'd really like you to answer the Ferrari example so that we know where you stand on the burden of proof in more concrete terms. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: That only applies to connotation,. not denotation. What the etymology or the Oxford dictionary says the word means, is what it means, period, end of story. There is no other definitions that are denotatively correct.The presence of different definitions of words doesn't necessarily mean that the definitions have been distorted. It is just language being rich in definitions. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: That is not how language works. That is a serious misconception to the nature of language, and one mostly present in english specifically too mind you. Most other languages don't have all these ultra flexible wishy washy use the word however you feel like definitions. Frankly, neither does english, but people like to think it does. As i said, Oxford dictionary or etymology, there is no other accurate non-bastardized definition for words.What a weird thing to say. Just because a definition is different, it doesn't make it connotative. Also, people using different definitions than you is not misinterpretation. It is simply different. You are choosing to go with ancient and rare definitions. You can't expect everyone else to do the same. GenesisAria said: TheDeedsOfMen said: That doesn't make any of what i said about it incorrect, it just means you misused the terms.Just to mention again, this isn't the definition I am using, so it's irrelevant to what I was saying about agnosticism. Taking the Oxford dictionary so seriously? Really? That is the biggest, most obvious dogmatism in the whole thread! It is only a book written by a bunch of people. Why assume that it holds some profound truth on “correct” or “incorrect” definitions? Yeah, I guess we have a philosophical difference there. Besides, which edition are you using? For instance, a simple search yields the following: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/metaphysical metaphysical: "connected with the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence, truth and knowledge" Hey, it's the definition I was using earlier. Go, me. GenesisAria said: Sorry, not an evasion, i just don't feel like going back and rewatching that DS9 scene and readressing all of this, just kinda want to let it go. There is always a way, but not in the mood to construct one for you. The idea is really simple though. Some people have item X that you want and are demanding something in return. You can't replicate it. So if you want to obtain it voluntarily, you have to obtain currency or something else to trade. It isn't just Ferengi opinion, it is a result of the demands of the other party. As a bonus, the trading is taking place among humans and the DS9 staff in one instance and among a broader group of Starfleet officers in another. And in both cases, all of the people involved end up happier as a result. It's a win-win. Even Star Trek is pointing out why Star Trek's extreme anti-trade stance doesn't work. GenesisAria said: To put it more bluntly, provide an objective, universally verifiable method of determining what is a necessity and what is not.TheDeedsOfMen said: It's not that arbitrary, in star trek, holodecks are recreational, entertainment, unnecessary, them existing is an abundance overtop the necessities. Modern humans in capitalist societies have t work their butts off just for necessities because the economy/system can't currently support everyone's basic needs; that isn't abundance. Starfleet can provide for everyone easily under normal circumstances.Sure, if you arbitrarily consider some goods and services luxuries and others not. Why should we blindly assume that Starfleet's centralized decision-making is making the correct decisions? For the record, there is no guarantee that a free market (however it is defined) would make the correct decisions either, but that doesn't spare your defence of Starfleet's system from criticism. Not to mention, issuing money would make life easier for Starfleet too. Then they wouldn't have to micromanage holodeck usage quite so much. Surely they have more important things to do than fiddle around with holodeck quotas, such as fighting against yet another hostile alien fleet. Priorities. |
TheDeedsOfMenSep 11, 2019 11:42 PM
| Wlep for the 44 who voted for Charce, give yourselves a pat on the shoulder. https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1792251 |
| @TheDeedsOfMen I'm just gonna cut all of this short... You spent more wasteful time dancing around in logomachy like a pedant. Once again, no other language gets to constantly butchered and changed by random idiots everywhere reinventing words, even in academia, than in english. Most languages everyone knows what the words mean, yet in english we have this delusion that we can keep changing word meanings, and that whatever the colloquial use today is the best definition. This is absurd. Also, just because someone is branded a philosopher, doesn't mean they know their stuff. Metaphysics Meta (beyond/outside), physics (physical/empirical study). It's very simple. Denial of that beyond the physical/empirical is exactly what i've said since the very start, it's materialism, the belief that only that which is physical ie material, exists. Hypothetical or conceptual metaphysical materials like æther are not included as materialism. Materialism is atomism, everything is built of physical entities like lego. Materialism is a mechanical human-centric view, as for there to be a structure, there must be a builder, and physically building is a concept known by humans primarily. Why is this so hard for you to get? Empiricism and materialism may be independent concepts, but they are not mutually exclusive, neither can exist without the other. TheDeedsOfMen said: In the eyes of a materialist (as Starfleet was very materialist, that's kind of a caveat of communism), necessities include what you need to physically survive and perform well - healthy diet, exercise, clean environment, etc.GenesisAria said: To put it more bluntly, provide an objective, universally verifiable method of determining what is a necessity and what is not.It's not that arbitrary, in star trek, holodecks are recreational, entertainment, unnecessary, them existing is an abundance overtop the necessities. Modern humans in capitalist societies have t work their butts off just for necessities because the economy/system can't currently support everyone's basic needs; that isn't abundance. Starfleet can provide for everyone easily under normal circumstances. TheDeedsOfMen said: Holodeck is a plot gimmick which totally breaks Star Trek in every way the more you think about it. Especially with the "safeties off" factor. Just line your halls with holo emitters, and when there is boarders, isolate them and make those areas a vacuum or pure plasma, or whatever you want, instant clear of boarding parties... That's not even the tip of the iceberg. In Star Trek canon, holodecks are 100% recreational facilities, it's like having a VR room or a movie theatre, if your ship has limited space, you don't have room to fit more than a couple recreational rooms. Ships like the galaxy class were an exception because it's a glorified quasi-militarized luxury yacht. You are completely pussyfooting around the entire thing to make it relevant to your argument when it's not.Not to mention, issuing money would make life easier for Starfleet too. Then they wouldn't have to micromanage holodeck usage quite so much. Surely they have more important things to do than fiddle around with holodeck quotas, such as fighting against yet another hostile alien fleet. Priorities. |
GenesisAriaSep 12, 2019 10:55 PM
| ❀桜舞う空〜 Cute is Power. 🔗CosmoGenesis Project “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” “A truth seeker has no patience for BS.” I seek only to improve myself and others. |
GenesisAria said: You keep ranting about how important it is to use “correct” definitions, even in your very same post. That is pedantry and logomachy. You can't have it both ways, both insisting that precise, correct definitions are important and then claiming to oppose pedantry and logomachy. It is the most blatant contradiction you have committed so far and makes your position untenable.I'm just gonna cut all of this short... You spent more wasteful time dancing around in logomachy like a pedant. Moreover, how else should we do philosophy? There has to be some conceptual clarity to get anything done. Your method seems to be ignoring much of the specifics and going with broad dismissals. You call modern philosophical theories wrong and modern philosophers idiots, yet you don't address the specifics of their arguments. Anyone can say “you are wrong” or “you are an idiot.” That doesn't cut it. For instance, you claim that physics is an academic rabbit-hole that doesn't work but skip the arguments about physics-based technology working. You also claim that not believing in something is the same as believing in its negation. The moment the discussion turns into logical propositional analysis, you skip it. You claim that empiricists believe in the existence of matter. When confronted with well-known theories by empiricists that refute this, you skip the whole thing. I mean, sure, it takes time to reply to them and effort to define concepts in more detail, but that's the only way to get things done. Calling people wrong and idiots is fast and easy, sure, but it won't win you any debates or make you look good in general. Incidentally, the reason why this particular conversation branches off so much is that you keep making more and more claims with new content that wasn't addressed, justified, or well defined in any of the previous posts. If you focused more on the key points, it would go faster. Just look below at the paragraph that I split into many pieces. It's because you make a large number of new claims in a few short sentences without much argument. Explaining them in more detail and providing arguments immediately would actually make the conversation faster. GenesisAria said: Provide an objective, universal method to determine which definitions are deeper and which more shallow. To begin with, “properness” and “depth” sound like very subjective and normatively loaded terms, “bastardized” even more so. Why do we even need properness or depth? What benefit does it yield beyond accuracy and functionality?The definitions i use are the proper denotations from source and subject. I don't care what modern people use it like. People bastardize and misuse words all the damn time, that's why the language deteriorates and deeper meaning is lost, to be replaced with shallow vague practical farces. That's like comparing the practicality of cuneiform text with the philosophical depth of Hebrew or Old Chinese... Cuneiform writing cannot say nearly as much with as few words, it's just not possible. Vagueness? Modern terms provide more detailed subcategories. For instance, that is why they call both “2+2 = 4” and non-material substance non-material but also call the former logical and the latter metaphysical. You call both metaphysical, which is why your definition is more vague. When you call something metaphysical, I need to check the context more carefully to figure out to what you are referring. This is how precision works: something is more precise when it identifies a smaller set of elements than the alternative. GenesisAria said: If modern terminology is not useful, you have to demonstrate it beyond “because I say so” and calling people idiots. Where are the negative consequences? For instance, physicists and engineers keep the planes flying just fine with their own definitions. You said that they were detached from reality, which allegedly leads to terrible consequences, yet the planes don't usually crash. Where are the terrible consequences? Does the crash rate of planes somehow hinge on the adoption of more ancient terminology?When you have a bunch of idiots poorly interpret words, then corrupt them further and further through passing on, with a similar effect to the telephone game (aka chinese whispers), where every new iteration strays farther and farther from the intended meaning, and in the end nobody will have anything useful, as words are perpetually adapted to the lowest common denominator. Also, a definition being older doesn't mean that it is more useful. It is also strange how you assume that the newer audience is dumber. Based on what? GenesisAria said: The etymology is more relevant than the Oxford, and Oxford didn't refute what i said, it was far less specific. Hey, I am not the person who claimed that the Oxford dictionary holds profound truths. You are. GenesisAria said: This seems to suggest that the Oxford dictionary is a valid source of reference. I used “metaphysical” in the following sense:That is not how language works. That is a serious misconception to the nature of language, and one mostly present in english specifically too mind you. Most other languages don't have all these ultra flexible wishy washy use the word however you feel like definitions. Frankly, neither does english, but people like to think it does. As i said, Oxford dictionary or etymology, there is no other accurate non-bastardized definition for words. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/metaphysical metaphysical: "connected with the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of existence, truth and knowledge" You said that modern philosophical definitions are wrong, that one included. Therefore, it directly contradicts what you said. The same is true of many of the other terms. Why did you even mention the Oxford dictionary if you want to insist that ancient definitions are correct? Doesn't make any sense. The book usually lists common contemporary definitions as its top picks. Surely you should have seen coming that I'd simply start citing the thing and throw it right back at you. By the way, I like etymological analysis too, but asserting that it somehow reveals the correct meaning in some profound sense is an unjustified assumption. Dare I say, it is dogmatic. Provide some basis why we should believe in its correctness. Why would old age or original intent be relevant here? Sure, you seem to subjectively like older definitions, but why would other people be beholden to your personal preferences? GenesisAria said: Most other languages don't have all these ultra flexible wishy washy use the word however you feel like definitions. Frankly, neither does english, but people like to think it does. GenesisAria said: ”Everyone knows what the words mean”? Ridiculous. Good luck asking people in various languages what “metaphysical” means. My native language is Finnish, and most native speakers have no clue whatsoever of what “metafyysinen” means. Also, people use vague definitions and invent new ones all the time. English is not a special case. I can also speak Swedish, Spanish, and some German, and I will insist that the same applies to all of them. Many of my foreign friends and contacts say the same. Where on earth (in this case, literally planet Earth) did you get the idea that English is special?Once again, no other language gets to constantly butchered and changed by random idiots everywhere reinventing words, even in academia, than in english. Most languages everyone knows what the words mean, yet in english we have this delusion that we can keep changing word meanings, and that whatever the colloquial use today is the best definition. This is absurd. GenesisAria said: Well, obviously. I never intended to argue out of authority, only out of strength of argument, and history is full of incompetent philosophers. Current philosophy departments have plenty of incompetent people too.Also, just because someone is branded a philosopher, doesn't mean they know their stuff. GenesisAria said: Metaphysics Meta (beyond/outside), physics (physical/empirical study). It's very simple. Denial of that beyond the physical/empirical is exactly what i've said since the very start, it's materialism, the belief that only that which is physical ie material, exists. You've said so from the start, yes, but the problem is that people who call themselves empiricists don't often believe in your versions of empiricism or materialism. They very often don't believe in matter in a philosophical sense, and their indifference to substance does not imply denial. They often don't equate “physical” with “material” either. If you define “empiricism” the way you do, many people who have usually been called empiricists are not empiricists at all. That is why I called it a strawman: it no longer applies to the people it was supposed to. Even if you insist on defining empiricism the way you do, you should then concede that many of the the people usually called empiricists are actually not empiricists. You can't at the same time assert that empiricism means what you claim it means and act as though it is applies to the same group of people as other definitions. You are arguing against a caricature of empiricists. There are probably some people like that, but you can't prove all empiricists wrong by only attacking a carefully selected subset. Also, as noted, you need to define more precisely what “existing” actually means. You go with a simple “exists” / “does not exist” dichotomy, which ignores more detailed classifications. This is why I talk about substances, properties, observations, concepts, etc. I have still kept it relatively simple, but I need to do at least that much. GenesisAria said: I assume you are using the word “material” here in a sense that differs from “physical,” unlike further above. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.Hypothetical or conceptual metaphysical materials like æther are not included as materialism. There are many different things that “aether” can refer to, and I can't really judge its metaphysical status so easily. What do you mean by a “metaphysical material” anyway? Metaphysical substance, maybe? GenesisAria said: Not necessarily. You could have continuous matter without any atomic building blocks. And how would atomism even apply to modern physics? They don't think of all physical phenomena with lego models. It is a common joke among physicists that “atom” is a misleading term in physics. Actually, “matter” too because it differs from our common conception of everyday matter.Materialism is atomism, everything is built of physical entities like lego. GenesisAria said: Materialism as defined by you (the belief that only matter exists in some sense) doesn't imply human-centricity. Actually, I am not sure about it being mechanical either. Depends on your definition, I suppose.Materialism is a mechanical human-centric view, as for there to be a structure, there must be a builder, and physically building is a concept known by humans primarily. Empiricism as defined by me is a human-centric view in the sense that humans construct conceptual structures based on their empirical observations. That is not the same as physically building though. GenesisAria said: There are different versions of empiricism, and some of them imply materialism, like yours. However, then the group of people you can call empiricists is different.Empiricism and materialism may be independent concepts, but they are not mutually exclusive, neither can exist without the other. It is easy to demonstrate that it's possible to be a materialist (in your sense) without being an empiricist. Just imagine someone who believes that all existence consists of material substance but believes in various material things without justifying it with empirical observations. GenesisAria said: These matters are too complex to be answered with simple yes/no answers without further explanation and detail. Note how I had to split your paragraph into smaller pieces because you make a great number of new claims in a few sentences, and they all need different responses. Broad, unspecific denials don't work.Why is this so hard for you to get? GenesisAria said: Whether that division to necessities and luxuries is normatively justified is itself subjective. People might easily feel that they need holodecks and starships to have a life that is meaningful for them.TheDeedsOfMen said: In the eyes of a materialist (as Starfleet was very materialist, that's kind of a caveat of communism), necessities include what you need to physically survive and perform well - healthy diet, exercise, clean environment, etc.To put it more bluntly, provide an objective, universally verifiable method of determining what is a necessity and what is not. GenesisAria said: Then you misunderstood my argument. I was speaking of holodecks as recreational facilities. You say that it isn't necessary to experience recreation (it is not a necessity), but many people disagree and feel that it is necessary for them to have a meaningful life. If it is entirely subjective, you should acknowledge it as such.TheDeedsOfMen said: Holodeck is a plot gimmick which totally breaks Star Trek in every way the more you think about it. Especially with the "safeties off" factor. Just line your halls with holo emitters, and when there is boarders, isolate them and make those areas a vacuum or pure plasma, or whatever you want, instant clear of boarding parties... That's not even the tip of the iceberg. In Star Trek canon, holodecks are 100% recreational facilities, it's like having a VR room or a movie theatre, if your ship has limited space, you don't have room to fit more than a couple recreational rooms. Ships like the galaxy class were an exception because it's a glorified quasi-militarized luxury yacht. You are completely pussyfooting around the entire thing to make it relevant to your argument when it's not.Not to mention, issuing money would make life easier for Starfleet too. Then they wouldn't have to micromanage holodeck usage quite so much. Surely they have more important things to do than fiddle around with holodeck quotas, such as fighting against yet another hostile alien fleet. Priorities. |
TheDeedsOfMenSep 13, 2019 6:58 AM
| Hmmm... not surprised at all. They already showed Charce in a suspicious light before so this reveal didn't really have any impact to be honest. |
| 臭い- |
| The fuck this show is so good. My anime of the season now is 1. Astra 2. Dr. Stone 3. Fire Force from 1. Dr. Stone 2. Fire Force 3. Vinland Saga |
 |
WordIsBond said: I thought the plan was to have them die in space and keep their bodies intact for the brain transfer or whatever. I'm guessing the parents were going to swing by Earth and pick them up? Since the ship wasn't supposed to be there they might notice the kids are gone soon. I'm pretty sure that was never the plan. Their goal was to dump the kids so far away from Astra no one would ever find them. Going to Earth isn't exactly easy. It would take months and a lot of money to reach it, then come back. Besides, I don't think they would be in any usable condition after being exposed to the vacuum of space for more then a couple of minutes. If they tried to hold their breath their lungs would burst. Not to mention the radiation poisoning. They talked about this more in the manga. The clones had to be at least 22 before they could do the memory transfer or else they risk losing the memories. Also this meeting was an update about the current state of their cover up plan and dissolving their partnership. |
| So, Charce actually was the evil one all along, and has the technology to create those worm hole spheres. It's rather unfortunate, so what will the crew do with him? |
 |
| The twists just keep on rolling. First Earth and now Charce....but now the question is why? |
 |
| i 100% fell for that act |
| wow the lifeless cold planet was earth. wait Ulgar turns out to be traiter? whoa. Something seems off though. Oh it was Charce, this seemed more likely. Ah as far as I remember, Kanata was shown to be the last to enter the wormhole. Guess it could be conjectured that its Charce if observed who gets sucked into the wormhole and also Kanata's reasoning was taken into account. Oh so Charce is the king's clone hmm. |
| FUCK this was an incredibly good episode, THE best episode so far. So many twists were introduced, resolved, early foreshadowing explained, and without jebaiting us with stupid cliffhangers or chasing red herrings (like Ulgar, who I knew couldn't possibly be the traitor) for needlessly long, all while introducing even more questions to keep me hooked. Like the suggestion that Astra is Earth's "clone," so to speak, because there are too many things that don't add up, like how these 17-year-old people who would've been present for the mass migration have no recollection of it, nevermind how it would've been possible to rebuild in such a short timeframe. There's been an impressive attention to detail, and while there are a couple of plotholes and some mildly irritating conveniences in the early half, these aren't the sorts of things that would be unresolved. This was just a really damn fine episode of television. And I loved the Kingdom Hearts-esque BGM. |
 ☩ Discord: the.path.to.pathos ☩ RateYourMusic ☩ last.fm |
| Wow that so cute moments of Kanata and Aries ... damn twist over twist lol, as i expected Charce really kinda off since he told his background story, and there are something off with him. but another shocking truth.. that he was the clone of the King, i wonder what those adult were thinking haha.... i'm still curious who's original person of Aries. is she Seira from Charce story.. or... more more 2 episodes more... i like it. |
r16fourarmOct 12, 2019 8:11 AM
| Aries is the real enemy, mark my words. |
| We finally have our culprit! |
| I'm Bruneian and I like anime. And Manchester United. And fat cats. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Kanata no Astra Episode 9 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 )Stark700 - Aug 28, 2019 |
202 |
by DebiPS
»»
Apr 18, 7:58 PM |
|
Poll: » Kanata no Astra Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Sep 18, 2019 |
347 |
by naturalbrawler
»»
Mar 20, 8:24 AM |
|
Poll: » Kanata no Astra Episode 2 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Jul 10, 2019 |
304 |
by Sakagami_Tomoyo
»»
Mar 3, 5:10 PM |
|
» how this is not more popular.Sayms - Jan 15, 2022 |
21 |
by asalkur
»»
Jan 2, 10:45 AM |
|
Poll: » Kanata no Astra Episode 3 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )Stark700 - Jul 17, 2019 |
168 |
by asalkur
»»
Jan 2, 5:40 AM |