Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Cironian Peralogue | joined 11 July 2008 | 37 posts


Cironian posted 15 July 2008 in WelcomesCironian by Cironian, Peralogue

Hey there, I'm Ciro, and not only am I new to this forum, I'm new to online community in the first place! (I've been resisting the pull of the online community networks because of a moderate paranoia, but NOBODY ELSE I KNOW HAS READ THESE BOOKS.) So hopefully I'll get the hang of this, and please bear with the slowness of my future writing.

Ciro view post


sranc posted 15 July 2008 in The Darkness That Comes Beforesranc by Cironian, Peralogue

I picture the Sranc as tall and thin. In the prologue of DCB, it's said that they have narrow shoulders and dog-shaped chests. They have horns, but I always pictured them as sleek, unobtrusive horns, contouring the head, instead of the big curly sheep kind. It also states that Khellus nailed one of them to a tree with his sword, indicating that not only should they be light enough for a Dunyain to lift (of course, that's not necesarrily saying much), but that it should be able to stay stuck to a tree with only the support of a thin piece of steel. They use predomanantely (perhaps even SOLELY) arrows as weapons, so they don't appear as brutish to me.

I believe that the Sranc were created by one of two means:
1: Naturally, through evolution. (A wonderful proccess, really. Heard of it? (jk) <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> )
2: Artificially, by another race, equivalent to the creation of the Orcs in LotR.(Likley by the Nonmen, given the response to the death of the Sranc in DCB's prologue by the Nonman. Or the Consult, because.... well, just because.)

The problem with the latter theory, though, is the fact that the Sranc don't collectively DO anything. The most they really do is raid Scylvendi tribelands and kill, capture and/or enslave travellers. If someone intentionallly created the Sranc, then what was the purpose of doing so?

I think I'll stop right now, as many have likely stoppped reading this, and I may be at risk of being deemed a sranc sympathizer.


Ciro view post


Is God Flawed??? posted 15 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionIs God Flawed??? by Cironian, Peralogue

(First, let me sart by saying that I don't believe in a singular God, but I will refer to higher entities/spirits as such in this post for convenience's sake.)

God is not a seperate entity from the rest of exsistence. God is in everything. God IS everything. God is what we make of him. You and I are God, in the sense that we are Creators of our own path (although I do believe in Fate and its influence on the happenings of the universe, to counterbalance the Dunyanity of that last little blurb). God is matter. It cannot be created or destroyed, and makesup absolutely everything. God is also things not of the physical realm, such as the soul, the thought, and the feeling. God is Fate itself. Name something, and it is God. Furthermore, we can also say that since God is everything, everything is one, or at least connected to everything else.

So is God flawed? Is this like saying that everything is flawed, and that nothing is perfect? Yes to both questions. I hate to delve again into my perfection rant, but perfecton, by definition, is he absence of flaw. Given that flaw is a matter of opinion, like beauty is, there will always be conflict to whether something is flawed. Unless complete unanimity is decided, perfection cannot exsist. Perfection, also by definition, is unattainable. we cannot have perfection for the same reason that someone will always disagree, even if just for the sake of disagreeing. and no, we can't have a split decision on perfection, becausethis like saying there can be a difference in fact. (There really shouldn't be any such thing as fact either, but I must restrain myself from delveing into ANOTHER notion of mine right now, or I will never post this in this lifetime.)

Given that perfection is unattainable, this means that everything is flawed, and that God is indeed flawed. However, this is not such a bad thing. If, on the hypothetical, perfection were attainable, everything would have to be perfect, and God would have to be perfect (seeing as how God is everything, and everything is connected). If everything were perfect, opinion could not exsist, and therefore thought could not exsist. Lack of thought is imperfect, but this does state that flaw is essentially variation, and that flaw is what keeps God in everything. We need variety for the universe to exsist, for the soul to exsist, for God to exsist, and thus for the universe to exsist.

So, in short, God is flawed, but GOD HAS TO BE FLAWED, for God cannot exsist without flaw. God cannot exsist without the flaw of variation, of thought, of soul, and of faith. For flaw in itself IS God, and vice versa. Were the universe perfect, the Concept of God would not be necessary. view post


sranc posted 16 July 2008 in The Darkness That Comes Beforesranc by Cironian, Peralogue

Oh yes, the hammers. I'd forgotten. I don't know about the horns, but I think I heard something about them somewhere in the book, but like you say,Almighty Tallest, it could be referring to a sound-making horn. Aroows were indeed mentioned, in prologue of DCB.

&quot;He turned as the Sranc broke from the bush, howling as they loped across the snow. ... So clear, this place. Arrows hissed by him. He picked one from the air and studied it. Warm, as though it had been pressed against skin.&quot; (pg 27)

Although it never occurred to me, I can definitely see the Sranc as having double jointed legs. view post


Do the powers in control suck at their jobs? posted 16 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionDo the powers in control suck at their jobs? by Cironian, Peralogue

The universe was created because a need for variation, for thought, for exsistence. All matter and everything that exsists is God (as I've said in 'Is God Flawed??'), and is also flaw incaranate, due to flaw being lack of perfection, being presence of opinion, being variation, being exsistence. (Read previously mentioned post in 'Is God Flawed??' for elaboration.)

Whether higher power &quot;sucks at its job&quot; is rather speculative: What is its job? If it's job is to exsist, as the universe does quite well, I do believe, it is doing its job quite swimmingly. Perfect? No. Perfection is unnattainable. (Once again, the other post.) But just fine. view post


Infinity, destiny and The Prince Of Nothing's philosophy posted 17 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionInfinity, destiny and The Prince Of Nothing's philosophy by Cironian, Peralogue

Everything is predetermined by Fate. The future is already determined, because everything and everyone has already moulded it. But we cannot strictly say that Fate manipulates us. We manipulate Fate just as much.

When one attempts to change the future for any reason, they are following the path of Fate (or destiny, or whatever you'd like to call it), and the fact that one will do this has already been decided by Fate. Fate changes with time as the universe sees fit, but as you change Fate, it has already destined you to change it.

About the Logos, Khellus merely determines probability and circumstance, calculating variables and acting accordingly. He does not see into the future, to see what Fate has planned. Much like defying a prophecy, Fate intended for prophecy to be defied, and gave the defier an incorrect prophecy so said defier would follow the path meant to be followed. Khellus is still follwing a path. The only difference is (I believe) he knows where the path leads next.

About infinity in PoN...
I haven't read enough yet, but I can't recall talk of infintity in the books. My concept of infinity: Matter cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed. I believe the universe, and all within it, to be the same. Thus, I don't believe that the universe can end, merely become something else or move somehow. But I digress. No, I don't think PoN talks about infinity much, or of time much, except to keep one in understanding of when events unfold. view post


Your First Time posted 17 July 2008 in Off-Topic DiscussionYour First Time by Cironian, Peralogue

I was born into an entire family of avid readers, and I have to say I've gladly followed suit. Although I can't remember any first book that &quot;hooked&quot; me, 'Catcher in the Rye' changed my life small-scale, possibly. I still don't know whether it was for the better or for the worse, but I'm guessing there were both. I was 15 when I read it, and it was so much better than 'Lord of the Flies,' the other classic we were supposed to read in English that year.

If I had to say there was a first book, I'd say it was 'Silverwing', by Kenneth Oppel. I was about, oh what, 10 at the time? Great book, no matter how old you are, although much more catching when you're young. Lacking in thick plot and philosophy, but still an awesome book, in my opinion. view post


Is God Flawed??? posted 18 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionIs God Flawed??? by Cironian, Peralogue

Nay. Perfection is unattainable, hence God can't be perfect. The concept of perfection is flawed, meaning also that God isn't perfect, and is flawed so. True, though, perfection is flawed, but that wasn't exactly th point I was aiming for. view post


George Bush posted 19 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionGeorge Bush by Cironian, Peralogue

I could rant on and on about Bush and what he does to the country...
And his grammar... (&quot;The childrens is learning...&quot; No joke, he ACTUALLY SAID THAT.)
And the war... (spending $3000/second on it)
And his attitude... (ego bigger than his ears, and thinks he's so smart...)
And... well, you get the idea. view post


His Dark Materials series posted 19 July 2008 in Literature DiscussionHis Dark Materials series by Cironian, Peralogue

I read the trilogy earlier this year. It's okay. There's a lot of controversy about it, because apparently all of the books are &quot;Anti-God.&quot; I only saw religiously contreversal stuff in the third book, when they said that the Authority wasn't the Crreator, etc. It actually was a rpetty good series, but I was a bit disappointed by the ending. Although sad, it was really predictable, and rather cliche, I find. view post


Is the idea of a &quot;god&quot; inherent in our minds? posted 22 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionIs the idea of a &quot;god&quot; inherent in our minds? by Cironian, Peralogue

What of the lawn mower?

(Not trying to poke holes or anything, just curious. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> ) view post


Cironian posted 23 July 2008 in WelcomesCironian by Cironian, Peralogue

Quote: &quot;Cironian&quot;:2gfs7qj5
I've been resisting the pull of the online community networks because of a moderate paranoia...[/quote:2gfs7qj5]

Thus, I'm afraid I can't let myself tell anyone where I am, except somewhere in Canada, and I mean no offence, but my (irrational) fear is that if I start telling people my name, the MAN will track me down and lock me up for no reason. (This is moderately inspired by how some wbsites at our school were blocked under &quot;educational content&quot; or &quot;containing free spech&quot;. No joke. I worry I may offend someone somewhere with my thinking, and the MAN might lock me up for speaking my mind.)

Neah, just kidding. My name's Edgar. <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> view post


The Reaction of a New Religion posted 31 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Reaction of a New Religion by Cironian, Peralogue

I think that were a new religion to spring up, it would be so obscure and unknown to all but a slight few indidivduals. That's how all religions start. Thus, I think it'd need some time to build (usually being adopted by those who believe in its philosophies, or those who strive to be different for difference's sake) before being squashed. After appearing in the media (ie. a celebrity converts to it), it would have a lot against it, but I don't think it could be squashed completely. view post


What introduced you to philosophy? posted 31 July 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat introduced you to philosophy? by Cironian, Peralogue

I really have no idea, but the most likely contributer would have to be that on my mom's side of the family, it's common to have huge debates around the dinner table (never getting personal or violent, mind), and these often branched into thinking both deep and broad. On my dad's side, (and with my dad especially,) engages in plays on word an wit are extremely common, which has contributed to my habit of disecting meaning from words and so on. If that makes any sense. Anyways, I think I just got into philosophy because I was influenced in the past by my family.

That, and I have an addiction to complex and deep thinking. view post


The problem of evil posted 04 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Cironian, Peralogue

(Foreword: I wish in no way to insult or befoul any reader's mind, faith, or viewpoint, only to provide my own. I hope this not offensive, but if it happens to be, I have not intended this. The following is strictly an opinion.)

I think that the &quot;God = all-goodnes and benevolence&quot; and &quot;Satan/the Devil = all-evil, the seat of sin and unvirtue&quot; theories are somewhat... too insistant. I myself am agnostic, but I will adopt some terms in this post to abbreviate and/or simplify my thoughts, simply so this post makes a little more comparative sense to me. I belive the ideas of good and evil were created to appease the human consciousness, as were the shaping of the God and the Devil concepts. The human mind seeks balance (i.e. symmetry), and thus the concept was developed that all good and evil stem from seperate and conflicting entities. Neither is perfect. In fact, both are comprised of flaw, because they exsist at all. (Flaw being the lack of perfection, being variance, being exsistence. If you need some further explanation on this, please see the attached file.) In any case, I believe that these entities are the same being (assuming we refer here to the embodiments of good and evil), or the same beings, given that everything in exsistence is both at once good and evil. Everything must have balance between the two forces, surely as night does not vanish from our sky, it merely moves to another.

God is you and me. God is everything. Voltaire


Alternatively, if you believe that God and the Devil are indeed seperate and opposing entities, and that God creates all, is perfect (impossibly), and is omnipowerful, has not destroyed the devil because he chooses not to. If no evil were to exsist, then what? I believe that were there to be no evil, the universe would cease exsistence. The bbalance would upset, and thus things could no longer be. Goodness would experience its own internal conflict, and potentially destroy itself too, because there would be no opposing force. This is similar to the relations between the sea and the sea floor. were either to be removed, the other could no longer be what it once was. Also similar to this, each harbors its own life that feeds off of the other, in a vital ecosystem. I recommend you read Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. It's amazing and makes this point brillliantly.

But really, there is isn't necessarily two poles to this enigma, but, as I see it, a massive globe. Both good and evil are omnipresent, hence PURE evil and good cannot exsist. Higher entity is equally good and evil, as is Fate, Spirit, Time, and everything else known and unknown in existence. But really, this rather begs the question: What is good and what is evil, and do they really exist in principle?
God is neither Good nor Bad. Voltaire
view post


The problem of evil posted 05 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Cironian, Peralogue

That is quite the interesting scenario! I haven't the foggiest what would happen were our society to become free of negativity. Improbable, true, but quite possible.

(That does really bring into question the good/evil debate's entire exsistence. I find something funny, a question that has been on my mind for a while now: Do animals (apart from us) hate each other at all? Could animals be living in an evil-free environment? It may sound silly, but I think that non-humans evolved more efficiently than humans. But I digress...)

Anyways, this concept makes me wonder what humanity would be like if the concept of evil was nonexistant. Would that mean that good is also non-existant? (The ocean and the ocean floor thing, one needs the other to be compared to, to be what it is.) This intruiges me. Tis a good scenario, though. view post


The problem of evil posted 06 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Cironian, Peralogue

Quite possibly. view post


The problem of evil posted 15 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Cironian, Peralogue

Exactly! (Wow, very eloquently put!) view post


A meaningful life... posted 16 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionA meaningful life... by Cironian, Peralogue

In my opinion, to simply be is what makes a life worth living. view post


A meaningful life... posted 17 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionA meaningful life... by Cironian, Peralogue

Most people I see, when they think they have a life they deem meaningless, are actually just bored or depressed about their lives, perhaps because their lives aren't what they idealize them to be, or simply because of a relatively monotone life. But see, even if you think you don't make a difference in the world, based on how you view your life singularly, you actually do, to say, other people. I'm amazed at how happy people are when I hold a door open for them because they walk through it right behind me, for example. In that sense, your life has meaning. Even in a way as little as that, (but realistically, everyone makes a little imprint on a life ten thousandfold every day), your life can be deemed meaningful. Heck, the fact that one even exists makes a life have meaning! (Of course, negative actions, causes, effects, etc. also make a life have meaning. Hope this balances my potentially annoying optimism prior.)

In short, for a life to have meaning, to have purpose, it needs definition. By simply existing at all, we provide definiton of ourselves to the universe. I believe that over thousands of years, the vast majority of humankind has overlooked this almost subconcious detail, thinking much more elevatedly (on an existensial, defining level) than this base concept. We need not look beyond ourselves to see life, purpose, and life as purpose. view post


The problem of evil posted 17 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Cironian, Peralogue

But could not one argue that good does not exist either? Technically, one could say that Good and Evil are BOTH abstracts. This makes sense, as contemplative man seems to be the only species who views these &quot;two forces&quot; (as far as contemplative man knows). Man contemplates his doom, yes, but also his salvation. Beasts, as you say, leave to Fate what becomes of them, not having belief in good or evil. This is because one could say that Good and Evil do not exist, and are merely an invention of contemplative man.

(About Callan S.'s concepts around extinction, it is &quot;doom to a species,&quot; yes, but cannot necessarily be considered &quot;evil&quot;. Perhaps the species needed to become extinct for another to thrive? Or perhaps, as the human race may eventually learn, extinction can simply be consequential.)

Referring to what Chirios said earlier, that man defines is what seperates man from beast, man attemted the definition of the universe's effect on themselves (Fate). Mankind also seeks balance and order, so it assumed the existence of good and evil, two seperate forces that oppose one another. But see, exticntion and salvation are not good or evil, they just simply ARE. Beast may never have thought of good and evil, simply that what is to come is to decide what is to come of beast (with animal striving, willing the pull of fate so as it might not give beast its own doom). So really, one might say that good and evil both are increbibly abstract, devices born by man's need for explanation. view post


The problem of evil posted 18 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Cironian, Peralogue

Indeed, but why are these inventions unnecessary as of the present? What is so different about the minds of men now that makes redundant the machinations of good and evil? I believe that the majority of humanity is now and has always had a need to name and categorize things into the opposites of good and evil. However, I believe there have always been a relative few who have not taken up this concept, accepting the effects and others in the world as simply what IS, and not as &quot;good&quot; or &quot;evil&quot;.

Good and evil are not altogether necessary applications, but they have worked themselves into the human conciousness en masse, because of natural human necessity to define, control, explain, order, etc. It's possible that this contemplation could be considered unnatural, really; beasts tend not to contemplate the workings of existence, only the preservation of it. It's quite likely that some may have always seen what is as exactly that. view post


The problem of evil posted 20 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe problem of evil by Cironian, Peralogue

Agreed. Someone could even deem something good or evil by saying it isn't particularly its opposite. (eg. &quot;It's not really evil, so it MUST be good!&quot;) Higher Power really can do away with evil, in a sense. Both evil and good are merely notions, and the Higher Power over notion is the mind. When the mind tries to banish one notion (usually evil), the other is banished (i.e. good) simultaneously, and the mind can see the way the universe really exists, the lack in category of it all. We don't need to seperate actions from each other by means of notion, but most do so by human instinct, that need for order and definition. For the entire species to erase these notions would be spectacular indeed. view post


Is God Flawed??? posted 22 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionIs God Flawed??? by Cironian, Peralogue

(I wish in no way to offend anyone with the content of this post. I do not believe in a God, but will refer to higher entity and power as God within this post for the sake of convenience.)


So is God flawed? Is this like saying that everything is flawed, and that nothing is perfect? Yes to both questions. I hate to delve again into my perfection rant, but perfecton, by definition, is he absence of flaw.

I do not agree with this definition, however I cannot venture a more complete one so I will accept it for the purpose of this discussion.


Allow me to make clear this issue:
&quot;Perfection: Completion; making perfect; full developement; faultlessness (to perfection, exactly, ...&quot; p. 820, The Oxford Concise Dictionary, circa 1976

Last time I checked, fault meant flaw. I hope this makes my definition a tad less obscure. Anyways...

Given that flaw is a matter of opinion, like beauty is, there will always be conflict to whether something is flawed.

Please note that this implies that there is no objective truth in the universe, only subjective opinion.


What is your point here? Alright, assuming that there is only subjective opinion in the universe, then there is no such thing as fact. Because we can't truly be sure of what is and what isn't, as the universe is a place of endless possibility. So really, what does it matter that this statement implies such; is it not entirely likely?

Given that perfection is unattainable, this means that everything is flawed, and that God is indeed flawed.

Alternatively, it could mean that everything is perfect, because nothing is flawed, because flaws are not real outside of the human mind. As such, God would only be flawed within the scope of human perception, or rather the human mind is not capable of grasping the perfection of God. Which certainly doesn't mean that God isn't perfect.


But might not God only exist at all within the scope of human perception, perception that made God in the minds of man, in order to explain miracles, phenomena, our existence, etc? And if the human mind is incapable of perceiving the perfection of God, who is to say that that perfection is there at all?

Unless complete unanimity is decided, perfection cannot exsist. Perfection, also by definition, is unattainable. we cannot have perfection for the same reason that someone will always disagree, even if just for the sake of disagreeing. and no, we can't have a split decision on perfection, becausethis like saying there can be a difference in fact. (There really shouldn't be any such thing as fact either, but I must restrain myself from delveing into ANOTHER notion of mine right now, or I will never post this in this lifetime.)

This only means that there cannot be a universal agreement on what is perfect...


Contraire! What I said was that in order for something to be truly perfect, there can be no argument that it is perfect. A killer might think he/she lives a perfect life, but is their life not flawed when they kill someone, ending the victim's life and devasting the lives of others? Perfection is a viewpoint, but it also must be fact for it to be true perfection (or at least in the matter of God, as God is omni-present). given the implication of something I said previously, nothing can truly be fact, as we only see through our filter of perception. we percieve the universe in a unique way, and thus, everyyone has a unique opinion. If anyone were to argue that something was not perfect, it would not be perfect, as it does not appease to everyone's perception.

I suppose this concludes my all too long post response. I wish merely to leave with the statement that flaw is not a bad thing. Flaw is the root of subjectivity, of our perception, our existence. Perfection means to be without flaw, but nothing is truly perfect, is it? God is all, and all is not perfect. Were all perfect, human perception would not have created the fundamentals of God, or the concept of Flaw. view post


About philosophy... posted 29 August 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionAbout philosophy... by Cironian, Peralogue

Well, I can't remember how, why, and when it came into my head, but this thought struck me: How do we go about thinking in a philosophical way? Mostly, this referrs to where thought is reaching. When we think philosophically, are we thinking far deeper into things than the human mind usually thinks, or are we thinking much less deeply, thinking back up through layers of more basic thought, so that we ingore the assumptions of the assumptions of the human mind? Do we think beyond the assumptive human standpoints, or do we think without them entirely? Is it a combination of both, does it vary from one to the other, do these questions make any sense at all?

On a related note, these two quotes had me thinking also:

The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. ~Bertrand Russell

Proverbs often contradict one another, as any reader soon discovers. The sagacity that advises us to look before we leap promptly warns us that if we hesitate we are lost; that absence makes the heart grow fonder, but out of sight, out of mind. ~Leo Rosten


Thoughts on these quotes, and on these thoughts? view post


the bible is the solution posted 12 September 2008 in Philosophy Discussionthe bible is the solution by Cironian, Peralogue

Quote: &quot;luciferi&quot;:31cd0mmv
1. According to Genesis god commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowlegd of good and evil. How could God fairly give this command? To disobey could not be a sin, because Adam could not comprehend a sin until the ate of the fruit which would reveal to him the differences of right and wrong.[/quote:31cd0mmv]

I see this (in my my own opinion) as a story with a moral, the moral being: &quot;OBEY YOUR ELDERS WITHOUT QUESTION!!!&quot; This a typical Daddy-Knows-Best story (as the bible is just that, a collection of tales), a story that tells the readers that if you don't do exactly what your elders tell you, you will lose everything.

More optimistic is my other hypothisis. Perhaps God wanted to test his creation, humankind and its nature, its curiosity. Perhaps God was making sure that Adam possessed freedom of thought, so that humankind may survive as beings upon Earth. Perhaps God wanted to see if Adam would question authority when it gives no reason to its demands. He wanted to see if man would think for itself, and if would take the fruit anyways, just to see what would happen; to take risks, to make mistakes, to truly LIVE!

So really, there are many ways of seeing the point to God's action here, of giving Adam the conundrum he did. Perhaps it means that humans must obey the god without question, perhaps it means that to question is to be human. Perhaps something completely different? There are many meanings to something as vague and metaphorical as this tome of stories.


(P.S. This post is based purely on th hypothetical that God exists, and that the tale of Eden was actually true. I myself do not believe it is, or that God exists at all, but I have posted on these hypotheticals for sheer convenience.) view post


Skaeos...huh? posted 15 September 2008 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeSkaeos...huh? by Cironian, Peralogue

I think the Emperor arrested Saeos so quickly because of what kind of person the Emperor is. I highly doubt he knew that Skaeos was a spy, but Xerius is so completely and utterly paranoid that he'd lock Skaeos up for something as simple as what he did looking at Khellus. He might even suspect Skaeos of treason moreso than more minor slaves, simply because Skaeos is closer to him, and knows much more about Xerius and his scheming.

(Also, he could've just been a sore loser, what with his Indenture plan not working out, in addition to having Cnaiur in higher standing than his nephew, and needed to find someone to blame.) view post


Is God Flawed??? posted 16 September 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionIs God Flawed??? by Cironian, Peralogue

Quote: &quot;luciferi&quot;:33h7x4pm
Epicurus the philosopher said this: &quot;Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, and does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how comes evil in the world?&quot; So as you can see many people both great and small from all ages of the earth have pondered upon this question. As others have somewhat said if there is a god then you must consent that he is at least a little bit more powerful than you. Therefore how can it be possible for us to try and understand/judge him when we cannot know the end of all things. However this does seem like a bit of a copout. I have still yet to see who god is but unlike most agnostics (which I am one) I do believe there is evidence of some sort of god, but I am but a human so how can I understand the cruelties that plague this planet on both the evil and pure.[/quote:33h7x4pm]

If you're intereted, take a look at one of the other topics in the Philosophy Corner, The problem of evil. Several have stated their viewpoints as to this over there. view post


The upcoming election posted 19 September 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe upcoming election by Cironian, Peralogue

This post is likely a tad les knowledged than most, for I live in canada, and am not of legal voting age. However, I must say that the entire election process is far too immense a deal this time around. Talk of the election began in November of LAST YEAR. They're still not done yet. In Canada, campaigning was started just last week, and the entir process will only take six. Also, news about the American election, or about any of the candidates, no matter how minor or trivial, ALWAYS make the news before absolutely anything about canadian politics is aired. I'm referring to the Canadian news channels. If Obama's former teacher's mother-in-law's cousin sneezed on someone in public, Canadian newscasters would tell us about it before news of our Prime Minister being shot. Okay, maybe I exaggerate slighty, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Not only this, but they seem to extort even the most irrelevant and non-essetial tidbits of information about the candidates, to make everything seem so blatantly awful. (I believe this may be why the public is generally more reluctant to vote come the time to cast ballots.)

The whole thing makes me just sick of American politics, however much fun it is to poke at the leaders of the so-called land of oppourtunity. No offense meant here, I poke at most world leaders who make terrible decisions. The American ones just seem to be more publicized than everybody else. view post


The upcoming election posted 23 September 2008 in Philosophy DiscussionThe upcoming election by Cironian, Peralogue

Quote: &quot;CnaiĆ¼r&quot;:psfhsphm
Quote: &quot;Cironian&quot;:psfhsphm
news about the American election, or about any of the candidates, no matter how minor or trivial, ALWAYS make the news before absolutely anything about canadian politics is aired. I'm referring to the Canadian news channels.
[/quote:psfhsphm]

That's because almost all (if not, all) TV channels are owned by foreigners to Canada. The owners probably don't even know where Canada is on the map, and probably think we're all a bunch of Inuit Eskimos living in igloos and dressed in seal skin and don't even know what a tell-a-vision box is.

Quote: &quot;Cironian&quot;:psfhsphm

Not only this, but they seem to extort even the most irrelevant and non-essetial tidbits of information about the candidates, to make everything seem so blatantly awful. (I believe this may be why the public is generally more reluctant to vote come the time to cast ballots.)
[/quote:psfhsphm]

They do it in Canada also. The last time Canadian elections were going on, before Harper was PM, the Toronto Sun had a large picture of Ricky from The Trailer Park Boys TV show on the front page with a blurb that stated Ricky was a fifth cousin to Stephen Harper... [/quote:psfhsphm]

Good points both, there. I'd forgotten about the first, and I'd no clue of the second. Thank-you for the info! view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown