Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

[Moral Orel]

Well, I'm sorry, but you come across to me as a saboteur rather than simply being jerky, as if you have to prove of your mental mettle if you can somehow slice and dice your opponent's comments and/or arguments and essentially take him down a peg or three. Isn't this kind of what you implied in your comment to Todd over in Gradyll's thread?

I knock Grady down pegs because he's... well... Grady. He has a lot of undeserved arrogance. I think you're overconfident in your position, but I can't be sure because it's too hard to nail down. But if you're a little cocky here and there, it isn't a big deal because you're a smart guy. How it seems to me though, is that your position is hidden behind a lot of obfuscation and sophistry. When I ask for clarity on something you've said you only do so begrudgingly. When I ask about one topic you redirect to another one. When I pry too much you tell me to look it up myself.

Why would I talk "trash" about deductive logic. I've never said it was trash. If anything, I've stated that it has its time and place but that it shouldn't be relied upon exclusively like Descartes did, no matter how brilliant the person using it may be (again, such as Descartes, or in similar respects, perhaps yourself.)

If it can't be deduced, then it isn't known. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be believed.

****sigh**** I very much do not appreciate the assumptive comment you made above about how you think I "just didn't want to have a conversation with someone who hasn't done all the reading." WRONG-O!!! What I want to sense in some way is that my interlocutor at least gives a "care" about what I'm saying, whether he agrees with it or not. Otherwise, I feel I'm just wasting my time with a covert scoffer who merely wishes to play mind and semantic games over and over again.

I don't assume it, you've given enough clues for me to conclude inductively that you aren't interested in that conversation. After all the times I've asked in so many different ways, did you notice that you haven't once confirmed that you are interested? You've offered compromises as to just how far you'll explain things. But you never get into any conversation too deeply. Even with Silmarian who's read all the same kinds of books you have, I've seen you two comment repeatedly that "Someday we'll have that conversation". But you never do.

You know I argue around here for sport, so in a way it's a "game" to me. But I do my best to play by the rules of logic, even if you think I rely too heavily on deduction. I don't play semantics. And the only time I'm playing "mind" games is when I'm rude to folks that I think are rude. Just because I get annoyed when it seems you're trying to divert our conversation down rabbit trails doesn't mean I think you're a jerk and I'm trying to make you look stupid. When folks want to have a discussion and explain things to me, I gain a better understanding, even if I don't agree that I should believe that position is the right one. How many times have you seen me argue for the reasonableness of Christianity versus the other atheists? I'm on the side of good reason, I'm not here to score cheap points.

Moreover, you often come across as one who attempts to ply his trade of deductive cuts upon my general statements, vanilla type statements intended to cover some ground, otherwise we'd be going through dozens upon dozens of pages of intensive and detailed writing which, honestly, unlike gradyll, I don't have time for. Besides, it's not like you're in need of remedial attention or like you're someone who needs a play-by-play recount of every itty-bitty detail in order to come to some kind of concrete understanding.

Yes, I use "deductive cuts" to challenge other viewpoints. Most viewpoints have some fatal flaw when you get down to it, that's why I'm a hard agnostic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I knock Grady down pegs because he's... well... Grady. He has a lot of undeserved arrogance. I think you're overconfident in your position, but I can't be sure because it's too hard to nail down. But if you're a little cocky here and there, it isn't a big deal because you're a smart guy. How it seems to me though, is that your position is hidden behind a lot of obfuscation and sophistry. When I ask for clarity on something you've said you only do so begrudgingly. When I ask about one topic you redirect to another one. When I pry too much you tell me to look it up myself.

If it can't be deduced, then it isn't known. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be believed.

I don't assume it, you've given enough clues for me to conclude inductively that you aren't interested in that conversation. After all the times I've asked in so many different ways, did you notice that you haven't once confirmed that you are interested? You've offered compromises as to just how far you'll explain things. But you never get into any conversation too deeply. Even with Silmarian who's read all the same kinds of books you have, I've seen you two comment repeatedly that "Someday we'll have that conversation". But you never do.

You know I argue around here for sport, so in a way it's a "game" to me. But I do my best to play by the rules of logic, even if you think I rely too heavily on deduction. I don't play semantics. And the only time I'm playing "mind" games is when I'm rude to folks that I think are rude. Just because I get annoyed when it seems you're trying to divert our conversation down rabbit trails doesn't mean I think you're a jerk and I'm trying to make you look stupid. When folks want to have a discussion and explain things to me, I gain a better understanding, even if I don't agree that I should believe that position is the right one. How many times have you seen me argue for the reasonableness of Christianity versus the other atheists? I'm on the side of good reason, I'm not here to score cheap points.

Yes, I use "deductive cuts" to challenge other viewpoints. Most viewpoints have some fatal flaw when you get down to it, that's why I'm a hard agnostic.

That's fine if you want to challenge my viewpoint, but I don't like being expected to catch a sky-full of snowflakes in order to demonstrate any level of competency when skiing down the slope of deliberation. As far as I see it, my job here isn't to field every .... single .... question .... that someone can possibly dream up, and all at once at that. It's simply to show that I, too, can ski even if I won't win any medals in doing so.

Perhaps you and I get under each other's collars because we have some similarities in the way in which we envision our respective epistemic goals, but it's the differences that end up making me the Yin of your Yang, I think. As far as I can tell, we both want to challenge every other viewpoint if possible; but we both have different conceptions about how this whole endeavor is to be done. We both also wonder about the nature of the Christian faith; but we both have different philosophical understandings about how and why faith should even come about within a person's brain in the first place. Both of us also believe in moral evil and the power of deception; but in connection to this specific thread about "the Devil," we seem to be on relatively different angles of approach and vary in how we each see the essence of the problem as well as how it might even be diffused, if it even can be.

So, I don't know. Maybe there is a "fatal flaw" in my overall framework as compared to yours, but I'm not aware of where that would be exactly, especially if from the outset I've admitted that because we are ALL human beings I don't think anyone [other than God] can ever have the last word on these issues, including me. Then, to add to this, it doesn't help that you classify me as one who practices obfuscation and sophistry as I attempt to explore, expand upon and explain, however incompletely I may do so, the complex (and at times complicated) issues we're looking at, issues that I, myself, haven't created but rather, like you, still have to live with. Think: Spider-man, as of late!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good. I think the MEU has been suffering from power-creep for a long time and I'm getting sick of it. Conversely, I was disappointed with what a wimp they made Apocalypse, so really I'm more excited to see New Mutants for an original story outside of the running story that's been going with the X-Men gang.

Power-creep? Do you mean the characters as represented in the movies seem to be a bit under-powered? If so, I'd have to say I agree with you. They've also been "under-dressed," but I guess we have to consider just how many tickets we think that a Wolverine dressed in his traditional yellow and blue spandex suit could sell?

You are right about Apocalypse, I think. From what I remember of him back from back when they first introduced him in the late 80s and then to what I saw of him in the 1990s cartoon, and then in an X-men video game I played over ten years ago, the movie version seemed to show only a "two trumpet" Apocalypse.

I'm looking forward as well to the New Mutants movie that will be (or would have been) coming out, especially since I loved the more psychologically edgy impression that Bill Sienkiewicz put on the characters back in the early 80s. But as it's looking, the New Mutants might be in need of an overhaul ...... I guess it didn't have enough "devil inside of it.

Disney Is Reportedly ‘Unimpressed’ With The New Mutants

 

[Moral Orel]

Power-creep? Do you mean the characters as represented in the movies seem to be a bit under-powered? If so, I'd have to say I agree with you. They've also been "under-dressed," but I guess we have to consider just how many tickets we think that a Wolverine dressed in his traditional yellow and blue spandex suit could sell?

"Power creep" is a video game term for giving characters bigger, more powerful abilities, without doing anything creative or inventive. Like when a game comes out with a new weapon touting, "Hey, you know that Golden Broadsword with 100 damage? Now we've got a Crystal Broadsword with 1000 damage! Isn't that amazing?!" Spider-Man: Far From Home was a good example in the area of movies. I still love Spider-Man, but instead of playing up the potential paranoia that they sort of hinted at, the crux was just giant flashy CGI sequences. Jake Gyllanhal is actually a really good actor and he could have done an outstanding job given something more challenging than what they settled for. Donnie Darko, amirite?

Logan was a masterpiece, and he was in plain clothes the whole time.

I'm looking forward as well to the New Mutants movie that will be (or would have been) coming out, especially since I loved the more psychologically edgy impression that Bill Sienkiewicz put on the characters back in the early 80s. But as it's looking, the New Mutants might be in need of an overhaul ...... I guess it didn't have enough "devil inside of it.

Disney Is Reportedly ‘Unimpressed’ With The New Mutants

One thing I read is that it wasn't "scary" enough, which gives me hope. Making a creepy horror movie that happens to have mutants with superpowers in it is a novel direction to take the superhero genre. Of course, I've always been partial to really dark stuff.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Power creep" is a video game term for giving characters bigger, more powerful abilities, without doing anything creative or inventive. Like when a game comes out with a new weapon touting, "Hey, you know that Golden Broadsword with 100 damage? Now we've got a Crystal Broadsword with 1000 damage! Isn't that amazing?!"

Oh, good to know! (And honestly, I didn't know this term because I really don't play video games hardly at all, but now that you've put it in A.D.&.D terms, I "get it"! But really, what's wrong with the +10 magical flaming Two-Handed Sword that not only does double damage against the Undead but also gains 3x the damage potential when in the hands of a Paladin (or whatever it is that T.S.R. has dreamed up these days)?

Anyway, thank you for informing me of your view on Marvel's "power-creep."

Spider-Man: Far From Home was a good example in the area of movies. I still love Spider-Man, but instead of playing up the potential paranoia that they sort of hinted at, the crux was just giant flashy CGI sequences. Jake Gyllanhal is actually a really good actor and he could have done an outstanding job given something more challenging than what they settled for. Donnie Darko, amirite?

I haven't as yet seen Donnie Darko. I remember from the trailers back when that it had something to do with some metaphysical 'rabbit' creepily standing outside someone's window, but I've yet to see it. Maybe it'd be a good choice for an upcoming Halloween movie, or something.

As for the recent Spider-Man movie, while I understand their 'abuse' of the computer and drone inter-connectivity topic, I thought they did justice with the way the formulated Gyllanhal's Mysterio and I was pleasantly surprised. It reflected much of the Mysterio character which I was familiar with as a kid.

However, as for my observation that Marvel has also suffered some power-loss rather than power-creep, let's face it: Dark Phoenix should have been a more massive, Thanos type event! But at least they tried, I guess.

Logan

was a masterpiece, and he was in plain clothes the whole time.

Yes, unlike the previous two Wolverine movies, Logan was an existential jewel. So, I think we have some agreement there, for sure!

One thing I read is that it wasn't "scary" enough, which gives me hope. Making a creepy horror movie that happens to have mutants with superpowers in it is a novel direction to take the superhero genre. Of course, I've always been partial to really dark stuff.

I think you know that I have a penchant for some of the Darker stuff, but without getting all Punisher-fan-like about it. No, I'll stick with the interesting psycho-dynamics of Wolverine, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Phoenix, Dr. Strange, and especially the Hulk, as well as the Bill Sienkiewicz version of the New Mutants (such as below--Oh Yeah! Who needs to fight a scary bunny when you can have this: )

 

[zippy2006]

Good. I think the MEU has been suffering from power-creep for a long time and I'm getting sick of it. Conversely, I was disappointed with what a wimp they made Apocalypse...

Why do you see him as a wimp?

 

[Moral Orel]

Why do you see him as a wimp?

Compared to Apocalypse of the comics? You don't see it? He didn't actually do anything the whole movie. Even when he did his grow-to-a-giant power, it was just in Charles' mind. I remember him being a god-like figure that they were barely able to contain in the comics, but then they just killed him before he did anything memorable.

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh, good to know! (And honestly, I didn't know this term because I really don't play video games hardly at all, but now that you've put it in A.D.&.D terms, I "get it"! But really, what's wrong with the +10 magical flaming Two-Handed Sword that not only does double damage against the Undead but also gains 3x the damage potential when in the hands of a Paladin (or whatever it is that T.S.R. has dreamed up these days)?

Anyway, thank you for informing me of your view on Marvel's "power-creep."

Let's say you're playing D&D. You've got your paladin and his flaming sword with double damage to undead. Now they come out with a new adventure and the new sword is electrified and does 1000x damage to undead. Amazing right? Now all the stuff you ever did before is pointless. You can't take your paladin back to do adventures with any of the old content because why wouldn't you use your new sword? And did it really take any effort on the part of the content creators to add some zeroes to a character sheet? Nope. It's just laziness.

I haven't as yet seen Donnie Darko. I remember from the trailers back when that it had something to do with some metaphysical 'rabbit' creepily standing outside someone's window, but I've yet to see it. Maybe it'd be a good choice for an upcoming Halloween movie, or something.

It is a good choice for a Halloween movie, actually. It's set back in the 80s during the Halloween season, actually. Funny enough, Jake did a movie called Nightcrawler that he did an amazing job acting in, but it doesn't have anything to do with the X-Man Nightcrawler.

As for the recent Spider-Man movie, while I understand their 'abuse' of the computer and drone inter-connectivity topic, I thought they did justice with the way the formulated Gyllanhal's Mysterio and I was pleasantly surprised. It reflected much of the Mysterio character which I was familiar with as a kid.

I just thought he was boring. Maybe I would have found Mysterio boring in the comics too, I only kinda sorta remember him from the cartoon.

However, as for my observation that Marvel has also suffered some power-loss rather than power-creep, let's face it: Dark Phoenix should have been a more massive, Thanos type event! But at least they tried, I guess.

Yeah, I was disappointed in Dark Phoenix too. She was kind of watered down powers wise, but they should have really played up the crazy too. Toiling with an inner demon, split personality style stuff. That's too hard to write and act if you're just trying to pump out another summer blockbuster though.

Yes, unlike the previous two Wolverine movies, Logan was an existential jewel. So, I think we have some agreement there, for sure!

I'm excited to see The Joker that everyone is calling a masterpiece, but I only watch movies at home after they come out on DVD/streaming. So I've got a while to wait.

I think you know that I have a penchant for some of the Darker stuff, but without getting all Punisher-fan-like about it. No, I'll stick with the interesting psycho-dynamics of Wolverine, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Phoenix, Dr. Strange, and especially the Hulk, as well as the Bill Sienkiewicz version of the New Mutants (such as below--Oh Yeah! Who needs to fight a scary bunny when you can have this: )

The bunny in Donnie Darko was definitely creepy. But it's a tough call whether he was creepier than Donnie or not...

I hope they do a new Ghost Rider too. Nicholas Cage has done some great movies, but I'd rather see him replaced. 8mm was one of his best and it explores the depths of human depravity and raunch culture. It's not for the faint of heart though. My wife was actually too "tough" and didn't get the point of the movie because of that. Hey look! I'm actually sort of on topic!

 

[zippy2006]

Compared to Apocalypse of the comics? You don't see it? He didn't actually do anything the whole movie. Even when he did his grow-to-a-giant power, it was just in Charles' mind. I remember him being a god-like figure that they were barely able to contain in the comics, but then they just killed him before he did anything memorable.

I was just curious. I haven't read the comics, but I found him to be an interesting character. The nuclear arms scene was good. His goal was a kind of mind control of the whole world. I don't mind the fact that they didn't pepper his actions with excessive CGI and "power creep." He was basically too powerful for frills.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's say you're playing D&D. You've got your paladin and his flaming sword with double damage to undead. Now they come out with a new adventure and the new sword is electrified and does 1000x damage to undead. Amazing right? Now all the stuff you ever did before is pointless. You can't take your paladin back to do adventures with any of the old content because why wouldn't you use your new sword? And did it really take any effort on the part of the content creators to add some zeroes to a character sheet? Nope. It's just laziness.

I must say, this is a good analysis.

It is a good choice for a Halloween movie, actually. It's set back in the 80s during the Halloween season, actually. Funny enough, Jake did a movie called Nightcrawler that he did an amazing job acting in, but it doesn't have anything to do with the X-Man Nightcrawler.

Alright then. I've suggested to my wife that we watch Donnie Darko as this years Halloween choice, and since we're fans of Jake Gyllanhal, we'll have to rent it. As for Nightcrawler, we've seen that and we thought it was definitely an interesting movie.

I just thought he was boring. Maybe I would have found Mysterio boring in the comics too, I only kinda sorta remember him from the cartoon.

Well, true. Mysterio is no Doctor Doom, that's for sure.

Yeah, I was disappointed in Dark Phoenix too. She was kind of watered down powers wise, but they should have really played up the crazy too. Toiling with an inner demon, split personality style stuff. That's too hard to write and act if you're just trying to pump out another summer blockbuster though.

I suppose you're right.

I'm excited to see The Joker that everyone is calling a masterpiece, but I only watch movies at home after they come out on DVD/streaming. So I've got a while to wait.

Even though I typically cringe at anything with the Joker in it, I'm also an on and off fan of Joaquin Phoenix, so that aspect of it draws me to want to see the film. I might wait till it comes out on DVD, and I might see it in the next week or so. Don't know yet.

The bunny in Donnie Darko was definitely creepy. But it's a tough call whether he was creepier than Donnie or not...

Now, now! Don't give too much away!

I hope they do a new Ghost Rider too. Nicholas Cage has done some great movies, but I'd rather see him replaced. 8mm was one of his best and it explores the depths of human depravity and raunch culture. It's not for the faint of heart though. My wife was actually too "tough" and didn't get the point of the movie because of that. Hey look! I'm actually sort of on topic!

....Now you're getting a handle on this stuff, Moral. Although, 8mm, ay? Hmmmm. I don't know. I'd have to think twice before watching that, not that I don't occasionally watch a psychotic thriller like, No Country For Old Men, but I'm not much into all of that on a really deep level. Besides, Criminal Minds seems to fill in for us on quite a variety of topics, and it does so by presenting it all in a more constructively framed, law enforcement kind of way.

 

[Moral Orel]

Alright then. I've suggested to my wife that we watch Donnie Darko as this years Halloween choice, and since we're fans of Jake Gyllanhal, we'll have to rent it. As for Nightcrawler, we've seen that and we thought it was definitely an interesting movie.

As a movie on the whole, I agree Nightcrawler was just okay, but it's a good example of Jake showing off his acting chops. Nocturnal Animals was a good one for that too. But he also did Brokeback Mountain and Prince of Persia, so I can't say I like him as an actor in general either.

Well, true. Mysterio is no Doctor Doom, that's for sure.

They could have done more with him though. It's fine with me if characters change and evolve as long as they keep the elements that are important. If a character was boring to begin with, it would be hard to change that character in a bad way. They do all these movie remakes lately of really good movies... They ought to remake bad movies and fix them. All these producers with their "notes" think they've got these brilliant ideas on how to make amazing movies even better, but they take out the good stuff. Netflix's Deathnote movie was a good example, same with Spike Lee's Oldboy. How about redoing Battlefield Earth? Can't do any worse, right?

Even though I typically cringe at anything with the Joker in it, I'm also an on and off fan of Joaquin Phoenix, so that aspect of it draws me to want to see the film. I might wait till it comes out on DVD, and I might see it in the next week or so. Don't know yet.

Cringe at the Joker?! You didn't like Heath Ledger's joker? I guess I'm kind of partial. I've always loved how various shows have explored his insanity, so he's by far my favorite villain. Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, even Mark Hamill doing the voice in the cartoons. All great.

I generally don't like Joaquin, so I was kind of worried they were going to do a bad job with it. I saw previews for that movie Her and thought it looked like the stupidest thing ever.

....Now you're getting a handle on this stuff, Moral. Although, 8mm, ay? Hmmmm. I don't know. I'd have to think twice before watching that, not that I don't occasionally watch a psychotic thriller like, No Country For Old Men, but I'm not much into all of that on a really deep level. Besides, Criminal Minds seems to fill in for us on quite a variety of topics, and it does so by presenting it all in a more constructively framed, law enforcement kind of way.

Help me get a gauge here. You said you had a penchant for dark stuff. What are the top few darkest movies you actually liked?

As for 8mm, it isn't any good if you don't appreciate the psychological aspect of it. It had plenty of sex and violence to appeal to a lot of folks' baser instincts to sell tickets, but the deep dark level is where it shined. Since you don't plan on seeing it, I'll go into further detail that will kind of ruin it, but I'll hide it in a spoiler in case you're still on the fence, and for any lurkers that might be reading this and haven't seen it yet.

Spoiler: 8mm spoilers

Nick Cage plays a private eye that is hired to investigate a film that seems to show a young girl being murdered. He hires Joaquin Phoenix as a consultant that takes him around to the illegal/underground inappropriate content industry to investigate "snuff films". The real point of the film isn't about the sex and inappropriate content, it's about the toll that murdering another human being takes on a person's psyche. My wife has watched too much Die Hard (best Christmas movie ever), so when she saw Nick Cage struggling with the idea of murdering a person, she just said, "So what? Kill the bad guy, what's the big deal?". What's the big deal?! Taking a life is a big deal, honey...

I recently showed it to my kid this summer. I had forgot what an ensemble cast it had: Nick Cage, Joaquin Phoenix, James Gandolfini, Katherine Keener, Peter Stormare, even a young Norman Reedus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a movie on the whole, I agree Nightcrawler was just okay, but it's a good example of Jake showing off his acting chops. Nocturnal Animals was a good one for that too. But he also did Brokeback Mountain and Prince of Persia, so I can't say I like him as an actor in general either.

Your assessment of Nightcrawler is accurate from what I remember of it, and I can't say that Prince of Persia was my cup of tea, mainly because many of the 'live-action' Disney movies typically put me to sleep ...

They could have done more with him though. It's fine with me if characters change and evolve as long as they keep the elements that are important. If a character was boring to begin with, it would be hard to change that character in a bad way. They do all these movie remakes lately of really good movies... They ought to remake bad movies and fix them. All these producers with their "notes" think they've got these brilliant ideas on how to make amazing movies even better, but they take out the good stuff. Netflix's Deathnote movie was a good example, same with Spike Lee's Oldboy. How about redoing Battlefield Earth? Can't do any worse, right?

I like what Marvel did with one of the more boring heroes, Ant-ma. I those his two movies were an improvement from the comic book character. As for the other movies you mention, I've never seen them, but I did hear about how bad Battlefield Earth was supposedly.

Cringe at the Joker?! You didn't like Heath Ledger's joker? I guess I'm kind of partial. I've always loved how various shows have explored his insanity, so he's by far my favorite villain. Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, even Mark Hamill doing the voice in the cartoons. All great.

The Joker is an entertaining villain and I've always liked Mark Hamil's voicing of him in the Batman cartoons, but I'm just not big Joker fan, not even of Heath Ledger's rendition.

I generally don't like Joaquin, so I was kind of worried they were going to do a bad job with it. I saw previews for that movie Her and thought it looked like the stupidest thing ever.

Actually, I like Her and it was a kind of mild psychological exploration on the dysfunctional side of human relationships.

Help me get a gauge here. You said you had a penchant for dark stuff. What are the top few darkest movies you actually liked?

Oh. Well. I wasn't referring to movies in general; I was referring to the kind of characters I like: e.g. Ghost Rider, Hulk, etc.

As for 8mm, it isn't any good if you don't appreciate the psychological aspect of it. It had plenty of sex and violence to appeal to a lot of folks' baser instincts to sell tickets, but the deep dark level is where it shined. Since you don't plan on seeing it, I'll go into further detail that will kind of ruin it, but I'll hide it in a spoiler in case you're still on the fence, and for any lurkers that might be reading this and haven't seen it yet.

... I think I'll pass and stick with Cage's two Ghost Rider movies. I LOVE those! I especially like the way Ghost Rider handles the criminal traffickers in the Spirit of Vengeance movie by setting ablaze and using a 70 foot tall elevator crane against them ... But personally, I'd rather see Galactus.

I recently showed it to my kid this summer. I had forgot what an ensemble cast it had: Nick Cage, Joaquin Phoenix, James Gandolfini, Katherine Keener, Peter Stormare, even a young Norman Reedus.

Sounds like quite a line up, and who knows, maybe I'll see it someday.

Oh, since I'm thinking about it, I'll just let you know that we just finished watching Donnie Darko. That was interesting, but I kind of thought Drew Barrymore's character was the main heroine of the movie.................................besides, she's the one who helped produce the movie in the first place.

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh, since I'm thinking about it, I'll just let you know that we just finished watching Donnie Darko. That was interesting, but I kind of thought Drew Barrymore's character was the main heroine of the movie.................................besides, she's the one who helped produce the movie in the first place.

You know what? I kind of agree with you. Donnie was more of a hapless pawn than he was a hero, or even an anti-hero. She was a consistent force for good, even if she was more behind the scenes than Donnie and his little friend.

"Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit?"
"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know what? I kind of agree with you. Donnie was more of a hapless pawn than he was a hero, or even an anti-hero. She was a consistent force for good, even if she was more behind the scenes than Donnie and his little friend.

"Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit?"
"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

I really liked the lines that Drew Barrymore's character (Karen Pomeroy) gives to the head-master of the school. In fact, one of those lines Karen says seems to serve as the main, quintessential point of the whole movie, and she said, "I don't think that you have a clue what it's like to communicate with these kids. We are losing them to apathy... to this prescribed nonsense. They are slipping away."

More importantly, Karen's character and the things she says play into our understanding of the overall motive of Donnie Darko and the kind of person we, the audience, see him ACTUALLY be and become by the end of the movie. Upon reflection of the movie's entirety, and all that transpired in it, I think that Donni Darko is a rather billiant sociological and spiritual tale, even if it is wrapped in a Sci-Fi / Gothic blanket.

What was your take overall on Donnie Darko?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Someone said not too long ago that "these are the times that try men's souls," or something to that effect. I suppose he was right in some capacity because, let's face it, we all seem to be languishing in a world gone awry, and even if someone doesn't presently adhere to some form of Metaphysics and/or Religion, surely we can all agree that we're immoral in the way we not only treat each other but also in how we abuse the natural ecology of our shared planet.

On the Christian side of things, the tendency (rather the strong tendency) among the faithful is to think that there is a Devil behind much of the evils in the world that we have to contend with, not the least of which is his claimed and vaunted power for mass deception.

On the Skeptical and Atheistic side of things, there seems to be the idea that if there is a Devil, then we might not be able to be 'sure' that the Bible itself is not a deception, that what we think is good isn't really evil, and vice versa. If this is true then we're in for a doubly deep dose of deception … not only corporately, but also from within our individual perceptions of mind.

So, how do I Kill the Devil Inside of Me and begin to untangle this epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological mess?

Kill The Devil, by The Letter Black [...sounds a little like Rhianna on steroids! ]


Any suggestions? Anyone, anyone?

Mathematician and Philosopher, Rene Descartes had one. And his suggestion, or rather his piece of logical deduction, was that no such skeptical view of the Devil [or 'Evil Demon God'] could really be entertained for very long and remain cogent …

[Note to the concerned: Don't worry! I'm not going Cartesian; I'm still Pascalian! ]

What evils do you think mankind wouldn't do if the devil didn't exist?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What evils do you think mankind wouldn't do if the devil didn't exist?

If I didn't really have a dislike for hypothetical situations, I might be tempted to answer that, but as it is, I won't venture a guess since, frankly, not only do I not know but I don't .................................................. have time to ponder it since I have to read another chapter of The Prince.

 

[Moral Orel]

If I didn't really have a dislike for hypothetical situations, I might be tempted to answer that, but as it is, I won't venture a guess since, frankly, not only do I not know but I don't .................................................. have time to ponder it since I have to read another chapter of The Prince.

Bah! That was a good question. I'll rephrase it so that you can answer it without it sounding like a hypothetical.

What evils can only be caused by a supernatural Devil?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bah! That was a good question. I'll rephrase it so that you can answer it without it sounding like a hypothetical.

What evils can only be caused by a supernatural Devil?

What does the "Bible" say about it, Moral? I mean, all of the atheists around here seem to 'know' and 'understand' the Bible better than I do. So, I'm just wondering: from whence does this question come?

And if the Bible just so happens to not provide an answer for the above vaunted question, why would it be expected that I'd have an answer? It wouldn't follow that I do or should. Besides, it's not as if every human question a person could possibly come up with will have "an answer." It always makes me chuckle when atheist (and some Christians) act as if there could be.................................

Talk about "power-creep"...................................

 

[Moral Orel]

What does the "Bible" say about it, Moral? I mean, all of the atheists around here seem to 'know' and 'understand' the Bible better than I do. So, I'm just wondering: from whence does this question come?

And if the Bible just so happens to not provide an answer for the above vaunted question, why would it be expected that I'd have an answer? It wouldn't follow that I do or should. Besides, it's not as if every human question a person could possibly come up with will have "an answer." It always makes me chuckle when atheist (and some Christians) act as if there could be.................................

Talk about "power-creep"...................................

I thought it was a good question particularly for you because you've said that when you look at The Problem of Evil, you see the evil as evidence for the existence of a supernatural Devil. Surely there must be some evils that you think we humans aren't capable enough on our own to accomplish. If all these evil acts could be accomplished by humans alone, then it isn't evidence for a Devil.

As far as what the Bible says, I'm not sure. I don't know if it goes beyond saying, "The Devil did X" which isn't the same as saying, "X only happened because of the Devil".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought it was a good question particularly for you because you've said that when you look at The Problem of Evil, you see the evil as evidence for the existence of a supernatural Devil. Surely there must be some evils that you think we humans aren't capable enough on our own to accomplish. If all these evil acts could be accomplished by humans alone, then it isn't evidence for a Devil.

I think some of the problem here is an imputation that human sin is, or could be, seen Biblically as some kind of either/or dichotomy in Christian Axiology [and Ontology]...... which is a way of framing human sin that I reject, and I think the Bible, from its beginning to its end also rejects this false dichotomy, along with other various epistemological assumptions that are foisted by ignorant atheists upon the bible and upon the nature of the Christian faith.

So, is it any wonder why I say I'm NOT going to answer the question? It's not because I don't want to....

As far as what the Bible says, I'm not sure. I don't know if it goes beyond saying, "The Devil did X" which isn't the same as saying, "X only happened because of the Devil".

Well, if Jesus says that the Devil has been a murderer since the 'beginning,' then I'm not sure what else there is to say. He's still a murderer.