Be a Supporter!


rated 3.17 / 5 stars
Share Links:

Click on an icon to vote on this!

Credits & Info

Feb 24, 2009 | 4:36 PM EST

If you liked this, check these out!

Author Comments

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 /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.



Rated 4 / 5 stars

The Big Bang

Was a super-compaction of mass & energy, which then exploded itself back outwards. It provided the resources needed for various expressions of matter & energy through-out the universe. However, that does not mean everything is the same. It may have one orgin, but doesn't mean it's all the same expression.

A better analogy would be that if an artist uses the same pallet for each picture he paints, does that mean all of his pictures are the same? No. They were created with a foundation of raw materials (paint, color, etc), but each painting was a unique expression, putting together colors, paint, etc in unique ways. This is from a "time/space" perspective.

However, from a philisophical perspective, you make an interesting point. Unfortunately, life itself is about survival. A life form exists to breed and carry its genetics into the next generation. To do so, it must exert its strength (relatively speaking) to overcome and/or utilize the environment around it. When it comes down to feast or famine, basic life forms (like bacteria, etc) don't care about anything but themselves, unless they want to eat something else. When competing for the same food source, two species will gladly crowd each other out if need be (if there isn't enough food source to go around). We as humans (and other species that form collectives), start to optimize how we survive, with tools, etc, and we can afford more morals. When you're not starving, hurting, looking for shelter (IE: trying to fulfill the lower parts of Marlow's Hierarchy of Needs), then you have more time to focus on other people's suffering. Some may think, "who cares about other peoples suffering".

However, look at it this way. The human mind and body are still the most advanced pieces of hardware/software we know of to date. Having someone dig a ditch, die of starvation, etc ... it's an immense waste of resource and potential. If you have mastered your own survival (IE: you have food, shelter, etc), then it makes sense to help others master theirs, since they spend less time/energy on that, and more time working towards a higher goal. What that goal is, we don't know yet. Technology is working towards the Singularity. Astronomy is working towards space travel. Philosophy is working towards defining who "we" are. When you take the human population as a whole, all these people doing menial labor, starving, etc ... you are wasting a lot of valuable resource that could be devoted to working on larger problems ... problems that would help the human species as a whole transcend "life" and "survival" and go beyond into a) mastering our universe around us, and b) altering it.

So, I don't really view your question as philisophical. I view it more as practical/functional. A sovereign is someone who makes decisions for the good of themself, and it happens to benefit others. A sovereign leader would look at this as "I don't care about people starving from a philosophical/moralistic standpoint, but I do care about people not living up to their full productive capability. Thus, we need to treat others well, provide housing, food, etc, so they can focus more time on bigger issues." This can be looked at from several angles, and there's really no right or wrong answer.

Jewelz123 responds:

Ye dude, interesting read :) Like you said, there is no right or wrong answer its just our perception of it.


Rated 5 / 5 stars

yes...but no

we are indeed all the same. We are one unit, the entire universe is an organism of sorts, a form of organization, a machine in which we are just one small part. Kind of like our cells our just one part of our body. still, your question a certain extent..invalid. we only feel what we feel, and suffering is not anything tangible, it is a feeling. the reaction to suffering may be tangible, but suffering itself? Not so much. Because of this, it is not our inherent nature to step out of our comfort zone to help others. we have evolved to survive, thus we often choose ourselves over others, since our own survival a certain extent...the end goal. this is why it is very commendable to help others. I am not saying that it shouldn't be must be done, it just isn't inherent. So for us to step out of our inherent nature and help each other, this would take a movement of sorts. A revolution. You can't just tell people they are the same and expect them to help eachother, you need to change peoples ways of thinking, you need to take people out of their comfort zone.
Nice animation, interesting question. I think you should read "The Universe in a Single Atom" by the Dalai Lama, and perhaps the "Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies, and especially "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. The Selfish Gene touches immensely on the helping eachother subject, and goldilocks enigma deals with the universe, big bang, singularity of nature and stuff. the dalai lama book is just awesome.
Nice job, again, and interesting question, though the view of the big bang you have is somewhat debatable.

People find this review helpful!
Jewelz123 responds:

Thanks for the feedback, I will definitely grab a copy of those books and have a read for myself. I didn't realise that I brought up a whole new argument about morality and human behaviour so will base my next flash on morality and trying to find the foundations of that and perhaps another on what is morality. Just need to brush up my flash skills to make it appeal more.


Rated 4 / 5 stars

Great job on the idea

As you said, the idea is great, animations not so much. But the question you ask is very vague. Since one of my Majors is philosophy, I love the idea of injecting philosophy into ppl ^^ But you did good asking "are we *ultimately* the same ?" instead of asking "are we the same?" But as it's better to use the word ultimately you have to describe what you mean by ultimately. If you meant ultimately as overall, then no we are not the same, though i do believe we are equal in some prospects. Overall, we may add up to the same thing, but we add up to the same thing with different numbers.
Ultimately can also mean 3 or 4 other things, so I really can't answer all of them ^^

Either way, the question is a good start.

Jewelz123 responds:

Thanks dude, ye I'm gonna keep working at my animating to get it better and I kinda wanted to make it brief such that the basic person can grasp the concept without me having to go into the meanings of each word I pose and having to critically think and proof read it a whole bunch of times to check for the flaws and faults in my argument that's why I posed it as a question instead. That may not have made complete sense but I have been replying to so many comments that my brain is dieing xD

The responses I've got from the people are very good and its nice to hear that so many people are interesting in debating topics such as this one so I am very anxious to get the next one done and improve my flash skills to get this even more popular :P


Rated 4.5 / 5 stars

I <3 Debate

i think this is a unique way of looking at equality, though i feel the main way to look at equality is to have a hybrid theory of Big Bang Theory and religious ethics (i.e. do unto to others, etc.) i think a that the only way to adiquitly approach justice. Though there is more to it, I really want to commens you for breaking the mold
Hopefully there will be more positve feedback, and possible an apportunity for cooperation with a skilled flash artist in order for you to get a more populairity amongst newgrouund regulars.

Jewelz123 responds:

Thanks dude, ye I wasn't too sure about posting this on ng as I didn't know what reaction to expect from the viewers but its all been good so far and has helped me understand things a bit better now :D It would be great to collab with an artist but doesn't look too likely atm so will just keep working on my own animations till I get noticed by someone or I've developed my skills enough to become pleasant to look at. I'm ok at drawing with pencil and paper but with the mouse its just a completely different story! :P


Rated 1.5 / 5 stars

Not a great question.

Two paintings, because they both utilize oil paints, are not the same. And who in his right mind would argue that two human beings are the same? They can be similar, in terms of personality and chemical composition, but no two human beings can ultimately be identical to one another. I'm all for helping out my fellow man, but this is a bad argument.

Jewelz123 responds:

Ye fair enough, I see where you are coming from, I wrote this to another comment earlier just to try and clear up a bit of what I think at the moment

"after some thought I've come to the conclusion that we are not all the same on the level that we see one another but we are all rather than just 1 person, millions of atoms so when we see someone else, we represent them as 1 person whilst they are millions of molecules and on a molecular level, going even further the electron level, we are all made up of the same fundamental things just arranged differently and this arrangement and combination is what makes us distinct from what another, yet if we zoom out and see the universe as a whole, it is all the same thing, just with a variety of arrangements. Dunno if this is right but this is what I think at the moment."

Kinda like lego, all the blocks are the same, but they are arranged differently, is it not this that makes us different from one another on one level but on another level makes us basically the same?

Ok now I'm making no sense at all, will have to think more about it :) Thanks for the comment