Which one of these is the famous philosopher Nietszche (sp.), and which is Happy Noodle Boy for the Johnny The Homocidal Maniac comic books?
"Stare deep into the Abyss of my Individually wrapped slices!"
"You spirit of gravity!... Do not take it too lightly! Or I shall let you squat where you squat, Haltfoot, and I carried you high!!!"
When shovling it, wear gloves.
Actually, I've found a new appreciation for the N-man...
I can't spell very well.
Moment of philosophical pride for Remy, as well as a rant on group work begins............ here.
Okay, so in my Existentialism class we've got a plethora of assignments, including two group based presentations. So tonight, my group got together to prepare for next Tuesday. Let me give a quick summary of group projects in the past.
Group: "Here's the assignment. Remy... take parts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, we'll (between 2-4 people) do part H."
Remy: "Kay. Sounds like a plan to me."
Remy: "You know... I don't like the way those guys did part H... I'll do it over."
Now, I admit, there's some control phreaking involved, because I don't generally trust the others to do it the way I want to. But they're always more than ready to turn control over, and that's okay, because usually, I'm the best qualified one.
So anyway... lets skip to tonight. I show up at the group project, and surprise surprise, people are kinda expecting me to carry the group (not to brag, but some of my insights in class have eliceted muttered "Oh wow's"- take it how you will). But then... oh then... we set to working... and my group gets active. We start bouncing ideas back and forth. We start swapping interpretations of the text. It was productive! We got somewhere! It started with me kinda prodding, then we took off. I was definitely leading the group... but I wasn't doing a groups worth of work!
I loved it.
I don't mind being in charge, but I hate positions of authority. I like to be in charge because the people around me want me in charge, not because they're upholding an election or anything like that.
And the winner is...
I'm not telling.
I just noticed something. I'm an LJ-user. Not someone who uses LJ, but on LJ, I turn into a user. When I'm scrolling through the random button and stuff, I look for the journals that edify me that interest me. I'm not interested in immaturity, so I blast by it. I'm irritated by "cuz", "r u 4 reel?", and the like- so I bounce out quickly.
Is it wrong of me to only keep track of friends who interest me?
At least I still have not stooped to locking entries, nor shall I.
Ignore the last... I have to redo the oath after finding a walking stick. A nice cane will do for me... mmmm....
Should read more carefully.
This morning, as I slowly rose to consiousness, I found myself having.. a computer experience. I was interacting with a computer, and by the time I was fully awake, I had what is either an LJ name or an AIM name (these two mediums of communication are synonymous in my mind) that was some derivation of Tesla, and it carried with it some mystical intent. MorningTesla, MourningTesla, AwakenedTesla, AwareTesla, TeslaAnon, RisenTesla, InfinteTesla, DraconicTesla...
Okay... time for a bit of a philosophical gripe. People have comepletely garbled the terms "platonic relationship" and "platonic love" into meaning a relationship with no romantic overtures.
Foolishness. Quick philosophy lesson:
Plato is know for the "Platonic World of Ideals". It works like this, the world is divided into three realms. The first is the representation of objects. Pictures, sculpture, words in a book, even our language are symbolic for actual objects (objects being defined as physical things or physical processes).
The second world consists of the objects themselves. Instead of a picture of a car, we actually have a car; instead of a souvineer statuette from the Statue of Liberty, we have the statue itself.
The third, and highest world is the world of ideals. This is where we can contemplate the essense of an object. The nature. It is a world of abstraction, where instead of being concerned with an individual car, we are concerned with the nature of "car-ness".
So, what does this mean for platonic love? It is a love of ideals. It is an interaction between individuals on a completely spiritual level.
How can you say that isn't romantic?