Tired of waiting?
Click here to disable ads!
You are not logged in. If you sign up for an account,
you can gain additional voting power over time, allowing your vote to have an even
greater impact on submission scores!
This is my first in hopefully a series of philosophical questions to ask and I thought I might as well start with one of my own.
The music is done by myself along with the animations but look beyond this and try to criticise the philosophy more so than the flash itself.
If you want to listen to the song again here is the link http://www.newgrounds.com /audio/listen/215843
Thanks for your time.
Edit: The bit rate of the song isn't good at all, if you like it then go have a listen to it seperately.
P.S. Thanks for all the insight and comments, you have got me thinking, will reply to all the posts tomorrow, need to catch up on sleep. Will spend a lot more time animating next time.
This fails...philisophically... on so many levels.
Step one: Learn the term 'contingency' and this all falls apart.
i.e. The bird gives birth to another bird. The human gives birth to another human. Thus the bird and human share a common origin.
Now, this isn't exactly what you said, but your cosmology states we came from a singular origin, and you have taken THIS position in a univocal sense. This flash has a similar, albeit strange, approach to Spinoza.
I'll admit that logical syllogism above isn't great.
But, to claim that from the same origin we are all the same is to say that 3 children from their parents are the same. THEY are contingent on their parents (and the parents before), yet the are in many ways different (although admittedly the same).
The next problem:
Misconception of the big bang and matter that constitutes objects runs rampant, but I'll allow you to work those out.
I can't explain it in this small place. What I can say though is that this 'thinking' is the tip of the iceberg...a seeker of truth questions the premise, method, and conclusion so that it may yield the best fruits.
nice drawing, although having a simple animation, the meaning serves as an interesting introduction to philosophy.
I believe that currently we don't have enough technology to define how it "all" started(big bang), even such a thiin was proved, the problem of the people and the other people, some just don't embrace science and prefer religion, should we respect their point of view? should we force them to believe this?
asuming the big bang as a fact, then yes, once we were the same, but take in consideration the present, we are separated, and in the special case of humans, we are mentally separated (at least in this universe), should we take care for others because in the Genesis we were the same??? (check out the analogy with the Origin of the Homo in Africa for example)
it made me think but in my personal opinion i believe in the bible so yea. srry about that but overall very good question. I actually liked the animation though because it gave it a abstract feel to it.
keep up the good work! -BublMastr
I dont like these posters of me.
First 10dollarMAN if you read closer then you would have realised that RP207 was quoting someone else in the quote you took. Where she herself disagreed with it to a point.
Second of all Im not made out of stone. Thirdly I dont belive in the big bang theory I belive in the bible and even there people where screwing each other.
Now then RP207, I think both societies would crumble. A mixture of types of people is what we need.
To the actual video, I was hoping for a more in depth question that made me ponder. Even if we are made of the same stuff it doesnt mean we have a link to people. Families are the closest to genetics and even they break down after a few generations.
Lastly, Im not made of stone. Even if the big bang theory was true then we would come from a few bacteria, not sand and wind. Wind? Really now? I breath but Im not made of air.
Lol, fair enough dude, I was just posing the question to hopefully evoke a response and I have done. Sorry for keeping it brief I just wanted everyone to be able to grasp the concept.
you sparked quit the debate
''RP207-I also do not believe that our lives are merely to survive. I believe that to be pure nonsense. There is far more to living than surviving, and history is filled with untold BILLIONS of people that have put their needs aside for their friends, family, and total strangers. There are many who have sacrificed their lives, possessions, and status for others, or even for nothing other than the sake of right and wrong. That is FAR from being focused on survival.''
I disagree, and my proof is made by your argument. Al tho we have evolved enough to be self aware and add many dimensions to life, we exist only to survive. The untold billions of people who help others are focused on the survival of humanity as a hole, rather than their self.
Their sacrifice over right and wrong = their group, religion, nation ect, is being put at a disadvantage for their chance for survival. An individual giving their self survival for the survival of a larger group individuals.
Context? Context is for casuals.
Hexagon Puzzle Game
An old style, pixel-art noir adventure, inspired by classical point-and-click games.
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.