You didn't list everyone.......how about me? OK....but not everyone...there are so many....I like pieces and bits of many...like spices....Spices of life.
Last edited by debbiejo on Jul 29th, 2005 at 10:21 PM
Leatherface Vs. Michael Myers: The Halloween Chainsaw Massacre
moustapha akkad if your reading this i am a big halloween fan ive been watching it for years. I hope that you please make the halloween 9 or the halloween 10 to be Leatherface Vs. Micheal Myers: The Halloween Chainsaw Massacre . The would be the ultimate gift to me. michael and pinhead or jason would suck. I know its just a rumor for now that its even coming out but please if you can make it happen i would greatly appreciate it. i even have a plot for it Dr. Loomis orders Michael from a maximum security prison to mexico to await to get executed but on the way michael kills all the guards and they end up in texas where michael meets the sawyers and leatherface. meanwhile killing other bystandards micheal and leatherface battle it off to the finish what a movie that would be. Laurie Strode son is the nephew of michael myers so he gets scared every halloween but her son wants to marry the girl who survived the texas chainsaw massacre killings back in 78. And they both are in for the time of their lives while they get michael myers and leatherface face to face to bury their nightmares for good.
Mine are Plato (his theory of Forms is immaculate, as it touches on the very essence of being and the paradox of the absolute) and Nietzsche for his incredibly sensible moral philosophy, views on society, ideas on truth and interpretation, view on Christianity, and many more inspiring ideas.
Why does nobody here post their own original philosophical theory? Here's mine:
Philosophia Effugiturus
Being as such is in any instance of an ontological cogitation, in an absurd struggle towards escaping from itself. If it is the case that Being as such is such a fundamental, unintelligible problem then in the event of its own resolution to its being at all, it will dissolve into non-Being as such. For if the complete and absolute conception of itself as the Presence and Absence at all has been reached - thus, if there is no greater possibility than itself, i.e. that which makes it as Being possible at all - it would not Be anymore at all, for it would have dissolved itself out of the sheer infinite transcendence beyond its own possibility. There would as well be no nothingness or non- existence, because there would be no Being. But now there arises the problem of to whom or to what instance this property of problem and resolve really belongs. Is it merely a psychological dilemma? It cannot be merely psychological as Being as such is Being as such through and through. It means that there are no gaps of nothingness in between Being as a whole. Being, as we shall see, is a solid, static continuity.
It is one essence. No individuals can have predicaments as there are none. Any problem as such is a struggling not even within Being, but as Being itself. From our point of view there is only one abstract essence; and our perspective is no perspective at all. It is continuous in and as Being – present and absent at the same time. Moreover, if being is essential an unresolved problem – it is an infinite singularity, as we shall see, of presence and absence at all -it is an oneness absurdly struggling as itself. And it seems not capable of escaping itself and its possibility. For every resolve is merely an event that is allowed by something greater - indeed another problem - than itself. And it is indeed all there really is, for it is Is. Is is as itself. As presence is something there need not be, it is a problem trying to become nothing. But it can not as it requires an anticipation of non-Being which is ontologically not a possibility. Indeed non-Being is not a possibility as possibility as such is existent.
The fundamental condition on which all previous philosophical endeavours has been actuated is that of the problematic cogitation subjected to the absurd absolute of unintelligible infinity of existence as such. While this ontological contemplation is eventual not via Being as such, but continuous in and as Being proper, it has not in any instance (as in the history of philosophical participation) really expressed itself literally as possessing the will or anticipation towards the ontological escape proper, where this escape is not an abandon of life, but indeed an escape from existence or, Being as such. For is it not the true sense of any instance of ontological analyses to resolve itself, i.e. to ultimately free the entire problem from existing at all. If that is the case, then existence or the ontological dilemma itself which is such a fundamental problem, as we are beings subjected to the forces and unknown of mere nature and are as such smaller than our environment and as we are not in any way capable of viewing existence from above or creating our own existence or being as such, should be the one true subject and object from which we would want to escape from into complete non-existence. But indeed there is the impossibility of such an absurd event. It is the problem of existence we are dealing with and not the problem of non-existence. We merely have to ask the question: Can there be or are there non-existence as such? The reality is that the idea of non-existence is generated by an existing entity or process. Existence as such can not contemplate non- existence as such – it is contra-definitive, i.e. defeating the essential definition and dimensions of existence as such. Existence does not posses qualities of non- existence in order to anticipate non-existence as such, for existence is wholly existence without any non-existential attributes. No entity or Individuality can anticipate its entire, absolute opposite, because the object of definition of opposites as such are to completely distinguish between to complete opposites - there are no common qualities. But then, opposites proper are not possible.
That would mean that the two supposed opposites originated from two opposite Beings as such, for if they did not then they do have a common origin or essence and consequently are not entirely different from one another. In other words, throughout the whole of existence, nothing can be opposite of the other - all must be tints or mere reflections of one fundamental Being. And the upshot of such a conclusion is that the whole of existence simply must be a solid oneness or unit. There can not be open spaces of discontinuity or non-being in between Existence as such. Existence is existence through and through.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 29th, 2005 10:10 PM
