47

If, on the other hand, you are referring to the comment above, well, I can't speak ill of something I am unaware of... (Disney? Really?)

s4doll: maybe reread my comment: I only said that I don't know them, and that before I was referring to Evangelion by that Anno as an example. What is unclear to you?

I tell you that I don't know them, honestly. If I post in a review about Evangelion, I refer to the manga - consumer product.

Honestly, I believe that manga, anime, and any derived works are "minor" literature geared towards a lightweight and somewhat nerdy audience. It’s just my opinion, but what I've seen/read has only confirmed what I think; in particular, I can't stand the superficial "cheap" philosophy thrown in the face of the audience between one explosion and another, along with the usual super-deformed characters and the stereotypical style.

I’m glad I’ve never heard anything about these guys.

I hadn't noticed her before, very beautiful. A greeting :)

I posted simultaneously with the last two posts.

@rebelde: The discussion about religion, particularly Christianity, doesn't concern me much, and I'd tend to agree with comment no. 45 and the now-vanished role of spirituality/sensitivity, (not just the senses, though) which seems central to me. By "soul," I don't refer to the simple spiritual aspect that develops alongside evolution and cultural achievements, but to that part of us that "is" beyond the body, understood as just a physical entity. Taking science as the true philosophy reduces all aspects of existence to their demonstrability and empirical verification. By denying the existence of the soul, the concept of ethics becomes arbitrary, or worse, it considers man a mere animal. That’s mainly what I wanted to say, aside from evolutionism (which I don't believe, though I wouldn't deny the possibility of changing my mind). Contrary to you, for Larrok, Darwinism renders the concept of the soul obsolete, while creationism sees it as fundamental to its "credibility"; for Macaco (if I understood correctly), "evolution" (besides biological evolution) occurs in the metempsychosis of the soul, which, from life to life, acquires knowledge in a cycle for spiritual elevation. My position is fundamentally anti-materialist, and I try to give myself fewer definite answers, (which close off discussions, as something that is cannot be a thousand other things). Paraphrasing Nietzsche, I would say that today's world is so small and ideologically limited as to be "an indelicacy for us thinkers" (not as the existence of any god should be banally).

I do not reject the scientific mindset, but it should only refer to what truly needs to be studied. Phenomenology as what occurs, that's it. The sciences are limited, and the nature devoid of properties of the concept of infinity (which we all have) is proof of this, along with the fact that mathematics cannot explain what exists from zero to one (what would be the transition from nothing to a whole in relation to a reference system) and that infinity can be used as a sign in operations, but it is a sign into which it is never possible to "enter" or modify. All things said and done, but I feel it's important to voice certain things and not others.

@rebelde: no, I didn’t relate Darwinism to the existence of the soul. Evolutionism suggests that there are "links," transitions from one form of life to another, more "evolved" one. The human organism eliminates anomalies, preserving its genetic characteristics unchanged. Based on this, many former Darwinists now claim that humans fell to Earth from an alien planet. (which sounds very Superman) By asserting the animal derivation of humans, we highlight only the physical aspect, the body as the sole characteristic of being. The soul as a product of the mind, just like ethics. And thus, inequality becomes justifiable based on new orders of magnitude (success, power) and consequently the excesses and barbarities indebted to the thinking from the 20th century to today.