MichaelVipperman
Glandeuse Pinéale
- Inscrit
- 1/8/11
- Messages
- 226
For the record, my lack of participation in this thread has not been out of discouragement, animosity or even disagreement with any of the comments made, I've just been super busy. Apparently I might be winning an award for a rap song I wrote to count as an essay in an upper year anthropology course! Hurray for alternative formats!
Regarding the topic, the issue at hand is that it's incredibly complicated. The comments about epiphanies always being true in one sense or another, as well as highlighting the complexity of belief, authenticity, insight and perception, are important and multifaceted. In the article I tried to hint at some of that complexity and to avoid giving any kind of uniform answer to the question: if you look closely you'll notice I tucked some anti-ontological non-sense around the corners of it, hinting at the frailty and inapplicability of rational explanations in certain situations.
That complexity is why I kind of balked at Sticki's comments, which seemed to be simplifying me to holding a single position, largely based on what I understood as a misreading of a thread title. Considering the article is complex, my feeling was that if somebody thought I was saying something straightforward, they probably hadn't read it, and should do so before criticising me.
Anyway there've been lots of good comments here, most of which I at least roughly agree with. Good stuff!
Regarding the topic, the issue at hand is that it's incredibly complicated. The comments about epiphanies always being true in one sense or another, as well as highlighting the complexity of belief, authenticity, insight and perception, are important and multifaceted. In the article I tried to hint at some of that complexity and to avoid giving any kind of uniform answer to the question: if you look closely you'll notice I tucked some anti-ontological non-sense around the corners of it, hinting at the frailty and inapplicability of rational explanations in certain situations.
That complexity is why I kind of balked at Sticki's comments, which seemed to be simplifying me to holding a single position, largely based on what I understood as a misreading of a thread title. Considering the article is complex, my feeling was that if somebody thought I was saying something straightforward, they probably hadn't read it, and should do so before criticising me.
Anyway there've been lots of good comments here, most of which I at least roughly agree with. Good stuff!
