Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-03-2005, 01:16 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Sklansky\'s Godot

Riddle: What’s the difference between Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” and Sklansky’s unnamed theory (about geniuses being correct) when applied to geniuses’ religious views?

Answer: One is a play in two Acts that intentionally says nothing (yet, it does). The other acts intentionally to say something (yet, it does not).

Sklansky’s theater of the absurd, here on the forum, has indeed lived up to the genre. Once Sklansky’s Godot is deemed meaningless*, child-like antics such as name calling** is resorted to. Arguments dissolve into insults. (Ironically) Sklansky becomes like Beckett’s simple fellow Vladimir (Didi).

Sklansky’s desperate attempts to show any value for the use of his theory in said context might prove him right, thought, in at least one thing he stated (although at the time I thought he was joking): He might indeed be semi-senile.

One often quoted review of Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” said something to this effect: Nothing happens…twice (referring to its two Acts).

Here nothing happens ad nauseam . It is time for this drama’s run to end. (Either way this, character (RJT) is exiting the stage.)



*Although, Sklansky never implicitly states that any conclusions can be drawn, he seems to imply such. Sklansky’s theory in this context says absolutely nothing. It is moot and he is well aware of this.

** Quote from Sklansky (posted in the thread titled "Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on 'thought' "): “Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion.”
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-03-2005, 01:46 AM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 241
Default Re: Sklansky\'s Godot

Are you saying it is name calling to say that someone who cheats on their husband is a "ho"? If so then you are right. But it is not name calling to say that the Catholic religion is ridiculous. Unless you say the same about similar comments about believing in astrology, scientology, etc. It is also not analgous to saying something like "your father is a crazy", even if it was true. That WOULD be impolite because you can't choose your father. However, any Catholic can choose to stop believing in his religion any time he wants. If he does, he is better off, because he has stopped believing in something that is almost certainly incorrect. If even one person stops believing in something that is incorrect because I called it ridiculous, that noble goal more than makes up for any impoliteness. And of course, you can replace Cathlocism with any other religion.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:33 AM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Double whammy

I would humbly suggest that you have neither understood the "nothing" of Beckett's play nor the "something" of Sklansky's endeavors here.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-03-2005, 02:56 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: Sklansky\'s Godot

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying it is name calling to say that someone who cheats on their husband is a "ho"? If so then you are right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I am not saying that. ( Although, of course I could say that it is name calling. One who cheats on her husband is not by definition a whore.) Like I said in my response to your post where you made this remark: If you knew anything about the marriage customs of Mary’s day you would realize your remark makes no sense. I suggest you consult with one or your genius friends who has “… studied the field…” (I am not even sure we need the additional … “…almost as hard as the other guy…” ) to see why it was wrong.


[ QUOTE ]
But it is not name calling to say that the Catholic religion is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not. Here you are correct. That is a opinion. It has been obvious that it is an opinion that you probably (You never stated that you do share it. I learned a while ago, not to assume anything that you do not directly state) share. I figured that was your opinion from the start when I entered into the discussion you originally started. I have no problem with that.

My real problem here is 1) Your remark was unnecessary, it served only to insult those who you invited into (when you starting the whole subject) your discussion . 2) It was in a reply to my post that was totally out of context. In my post, I wasn‘t even talking about my religion. Your remark was out of the blue. I did not appreciate hearing it at all, but to direct it to one of my (in particular) post was uncalled for. I think I have been as objective as a believer can possibly be, if not in all of my posts then, in most of them. (The one’s where I might have used subjective language would have been due to my misunderstanding of the subject.)


[ QUOTE ]
If even one person stops believing in something that is incorrect because I called it ridiculous, that noble goal more than makes up for any impoliteness. And of course, you can replace Catholicism with any other religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel the need to educate the world against religion, go for it. (Quite frankly I had no idea the issue held such importance. I never joined the discussion to evangelize my religion. Most of my post about any specifics of my religion were simply to informed the reader things that were either misinterpreted or flat out wrong.)

I had assumed the discussion was started simply for logical exercise. For that, I found it interesting and am grateful to have been able to partake. I also found it enjoyable to discuss such matters with those of different views and (more) often with those of a higher caliber of intellect than mine. This particular topic has ceased to be any of these for me. So, in addition to the fact that I think the topic is just about exhausted, I am finished with the discourse.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-03-2005, 03:01 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: Double whammy

[ QUOTE ]
I would humbly suggest that you have neither understood the "nothing" of Beckett's play nor the "something" of Sklansky's endeavors here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You deduction that I do not understand Godot would seem logical. It is in fact not true. I used Godot simply for a literary technique in my post.

Regarding the second part of your sentence, that might indeed be true.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-03-2005, 05:49 AM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Estragon explains

Disclaimer : I'm not vying for the position of prophet of sklanskyanity. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
(I have better suggestions than that!)

[ QUOTE ]
If you knew anything about the marriage customs of Mary’s day you would realize your remark makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ] Sklansky's dismissive remark was obviously in the same context as "The Life Of Brian". It made perfect sense in our chaotic universe.

[ QUOTE ]
Your remark was out of the blue. To direct it to one of my posts was uncalled for.

[/ QUOTE ] When making a remark about something generally observed in a thread (or in other threads) or a remark that has a more general application, the man has to post somewhere! Consider your post as the one where Sklan happened to go over the top. Not the one that caused that, necessarily.

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel the need to educate the world against religion, go for it.

[/ QUOTE ] All this is ego shiatsu for Sklansky, more than anything, I would guess. Which, in some people's opinion, can also be beneficial for the participants in or the observers of the discourses here.

But it is more "about" than "against" religion. His recent "outburst" seems untypical but that's what sometimes happens when one summarizes.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.