Read and Enjoy

Jul 30, 2005 02:09

"...Schopenhauer believed that our world of space and time was merely the 'phenomenal' world of appearances and that the world as it really is outside of the way we represent it to ourselves is timeless and spaceless. We subjectively add space and time to the world just as- to re-use a well known metaphor- in wearing red-lensed glasses we add the ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 15

earthshattered July 30 2005, 12:17:18 UTC
call me when you are available today.

Reply

nottoofar July 31 2005, 05:57:51 UTC
I called you when I was available today.
You didn't pick up because you were busy smoking pot.

Just a friendly reminder, from your local neighbourhood, or semi-local, pot-free ranger: dont smoke pot, it makes some, if not all, of your, and other people's, brain cells go bad.

Reply

earthshattered July 31 2005, 13:02:12 UTC
thank you ranger. now i know the evils of the marijuana.

and i called ya right back punkass.

'member that one time the air was broken at the beanery and it turned from a coffeehouse to a desert? yeah. its now.

Reply


windsweptvoid July 31 2005, 19:12:42 UTC
Time yes, but space? I accept we created an easy frame for things and that because we can't possibly comprehend the components of something so complex/simple as our existence we've developed disposable units like time. But space... this seems more complicated to me... hmm i guess he might be right. I guess i can see it hte same as time, circling back in upon itself, our universe being infinitely large and infinitely small all at the same time until you realize that the units are all just constructs. you know, circling back in on itself just like this journal entry has done... shit what the fuck is the point of posting this? in closing "Yes ( ... )

Reply

nottoofar August 1 2005, 17:40:38 UTC
Ok, because you angered me with this comment, I'll address it first. You can't call him narrow minded from a few, very small things that I picked to write down in here. You should know that he is a lot better than that, especially since he is my favourite philosopher. But, I suppose, if you think that about him, then that must reflect what your views on me are. Therefore, I guess you'd be calling me narrow minded, also. Actually, I was just kidding about all of that. But really, don't call him narrow minded until we talk about him more ( ... )

Reply

windsweptvoid August 1 2005, 19:29:05 UTC
i didnt call him narrowminded, I said that reducing the human form to nothing but a creator of lust is narrowminded. Which I stand by.

and really i think um that i made a bunch of unformulated statements and that this is a rather unformulated argument as a result haha.

They are just different kinds of art. I will fight with you about art if you like. You are wrong and will lose even if you dont think you have. hehehhehe

Reply

nottoofar August 1 2005, 21:40:00 UTC
Yeah, I know what you said. I just wanted to start an argument based on nothing but the sake of arguing. Then I got bored with it.

And I totally agree with your second statement here. We'll have to actually talk about it, or, better yet, let me tell you about him, one day instead of you doing this. haha.

Blah blah, you think someone splashing purple and pink paint onto a bowl of rice is art.

Reply


windsweptvoid July 31 2005, 19:16:15 UTC
further more due to difficulties with the complex spelling schopenhauer will thus forth be referred to lovingly as "shopie"

Reply

nottoofar August 1 2005, 17:41:23 UTC
Hahaha, how is that complex? I think Charley is complex. From now on, you will be referred to as "Choo"

Reply

windsweptvoid August 1 2005, 19:30:00 UTC
hahaha that's pretty damn funny.

Reply

i just happened to reread this windsweptvoid August 19 2005, 08:36:06 UTC
and "choo" still made me laugh out loud

Reply


Leave a comment

Up