He used to wonder what friendship could be, and after several days of sustained argument with the cleverest, most friend-having ponies around, he's still not entirely sure, and neither are they.
Do you even art? Plato is the old dude at the foot of the bed.
I'm sure Jacques-Louis David had an excellent reason for portraying Plato as a super old guy, but I won't pretend to understand what it was.
>he's still not entirely sure, and neither are they.
I read this and really wished you said "n-n-n-n-n-neigh-ther" instead of neither.
Fuck it. I'll do it then. See you in a couple months.
See this isn't a helpful answer. Like, what did she read in a book?
Does she have some sort of training? Is she some pseudo-Kantian or something? Or is she somebody who has given no thought at all to it and will just say what seems obvious?
Naw man, the Greeks thought their gods were around and could do things in the world. Go to an Oracle, they talk to gods. Where is Zeus, you could point to him in the sky. Where do they live, on that mountain.
Even Socrates had a divine sign that told him to not do things. Both Xenophon and Plato agree on this, and it implies Socrates was favoured by the gods.
Nobody saw Zeus, but people thought this was a thing that could happen. So it wouldn't be that different for Equestria with Celestia and Luna and them.
Religion would be weird, though.
Imagine how much different Jews, Christians and Muslims would act if the Abramic god not only was definitely a corporeal being but also coming by once every now and then for cakes and tea.
"So.. I've been thinking about making child soldiers an-"
>"Don't be a dick. Commandment number eleven."
>"No child soldiers. And stop saying going on about the Holy Land thing. It was metaphorical! Go live somewhere without mines everywhere."
"But mooom.. I mean, but Goooodd.."
>"No buts. Now finish your peas, they're good for you. And I'll be expecting those friendship reports first thing tomorrow Hussein."
>The Abrahamic religions all refer to a God who is no longer active in the world.
That's now. What if he came down from heaven like George Burns and dispatched the Seraphim around to do stuff. I mean, Gabriel would probably have to have at least a hotline to the UN security council, or vice versa really.
"Mister Gabriel, are you feeling musical over this new nuclear treaty?"
I COULD PLAY A FEW BARS, CHAIRMAN.
"Okay, let's re-negotiate everything! Now! Meeting adjourned!"
Announcing the newest arrival to Ponyville at the special request of Twlight Sparkle and an orangatan with reading glasses, I present to you a Mr. Socrates from Dirt. Pardon, I mean Earth.
Twilight is a princess, is easily available in a library, and is supposed to know all about friendship. Isn't she even the princess of friendship?
So what is friendship. What is she the princess of?
Oh yeah, Nietzsche was so great and totally not just Protagoras all over again.
And explain to me something Kant thought that isn't a pleb tier understand of the categorical imperative, or a similarly pleb tier understanding of Analytic and Synthetic propositions.
Sadly, I'm actually a huge fan of Descartes so I can't get snippy about him.
Except that Descartes isn't interesting the way Socrates, or maybe Diogenes of Synope would be in this sort of context. Irritating question mongers and indecent philosopher hobos make better Pony stories than a guy who holed himself up for a while and just through really hard.
>Diogenes of Synope
Rarity meets Ponogenes of Saddle-up.
>You are Socrates.
>You had just been telling Crito to give Asclepius a rooster, before the world darkened.
>Now you find yourself in a world of bright colors and relative quiet.
>Looking around further shows yourself to be in a town of sorts.
>Small and colorful equines surround you in all observable directions, including above amongst clouds and even with some small ones at your feet.
>The uncomfortable silence is broken by one of the small ones. The yellow one, to be precise.
"Can ya talk, mister?"
>For a moment, you are stunned that such a creature is talking to you, having never seen such before.
>Regardless, your reply soon follows:
"I believe I can."
>With that small uttering, a barrage of questions and noise from the other small ones, along with the others a ways off, assaults your ears.
>One of the far off ponies, presumably an adult, walks up to you and beckons you to follow him to an individual suitable for dealing with you.
>Antisthenes go with Socrates
>Socrates call him dog
>Anttisthenes piss over him like a dog, the end.
>You see no suitable reason to not follow the creature.
>The pair you form slowly makes progress through the town, the crowds needing to move out of the way, only to form behind you and follow.
>You wonder why they stare at you.
>It is possible that these creatures stare at everything in this fashion.
>The sun has moved in the sky by a small but noticeable distance by the time your guide stops you in front of what appears to be a tree.
>The creature enters the tree and leaves you with the crowd.
>You take the time to observe your surroundings.
>You have never seen a tree such as the one before you. Not even the gods were said to have something so grandiose, albeit rather ugly.
>You turn your attention to the sky and the winged equines flying across it. They look rather nice.
>You are curious as to why the sun moves differently here, but you are interrupted by your guide instructing you to enter.
>You are led through the structure and are eventually shown to an equine different from the others.
>The appearance of the creature and exchange between it and your guide would suggest royalty or something of that sort.
>Your guide leaves you and the remaining inhabitant of this world clears its throat.
"Hello. My name is Twilight Sparkle. What is your name?"
"I am known as Socrates."
"It's nice to meet you, Socrates. We have never seen a creature such as yourself before. Would you tell me how you got here?"
Answer? There are so many ways to tell the truth. You are not necessarily obligated to tell the truth either. There is also the option of countering with a question of your own. Your options appear infinite and of various consequence.
If I had to make a wild guess, he was doing an idealized portrait of two legendary people, and therefore depicted both as of equal age.
It seems unlikely he was unaware of their actual ages.
Well, for one thing, he wouldn't put up with all their bullshit if he existed and actually had the attributes that all three religions ascribe to him. He'd bust some heads.
A major difference between monotheism (IMO one of humanity's worst inventions) and the Greek deities is they were fallible and imperfect. Much like Celestia and Luna. They could be tricked and even defeated, held grudges over their setbacks and otherwise acted like jerks.
However, I imagine both Celestia and Luna would outright deny being deities. There is no indication that they are worshipped or considered to be anything other than particularly powerful ponies.
I'm Chrysippus of Soli and I approve this message.
>You scratch your chin in thought.
"I can't begin to say how I got here without first knowing where here is."
>The purple horse looks bewildered, perhaps wondering how to explain something she had never explained before.
>She's silent for a good while, not that you trust your sense of time here.
"We are in the magical land of Equestria. Um, let's see ..."
>The purple presumed ruler goes on to explain the history and culture of this land.
>It is surprisingly less violent world than what you are used to, despite what violence you have now heard of generally being rather large.
"So, er, now do you know enough to tell me how you got here?"
>You scratch your chin again.
>The muses are ignoring you for the time being.
"I ... do not know the cause of my arriving here."
>The purple one looks up at you quizzically.
"Well, do you remember what happened before you came here?"
>There's a great many ways to answer that question.
>You will not lie, but there is no need to let them know everything.
>Well, she went silent.
"I would prefer not to go into detail. It was not pleasant."
>The short creature nods in understanding.
>You continue with a question of your own:
"Why is it that I was brought to you?"
>At first, it looks as if you may have offended the creature.
>Thankfully, it brushes off the perceived callousness and answers:
"I'm the local princess. I'm also the most learned here."
"Would you say that you are wise?"
"I don't like to laud myself, but yeah. I guess so."
>Indeed. That's very interesting.
>Your fear of being killed again has left you, mostly in part to the "again" in that.
I'm going to eat breakfast. I suppose I'll also ponder the meaning of life and horsepussy while I'm at it.
There's a part in the Symposium where a guy shows up and goes on for paragraph after paragraph about how butthurt he is that he couldn't get Socrates to fuck him no matter what he tried. I don't think that Socrates gettin all up in Sunbutt's butt or whatever is a realistic possibility.
Some think that Platon or Socrates existed, but not both, and that the other one is an imaginary figure that replaces whoever was present when the ideas were told the first time. I dont say thats the case, I just wanted to point to the fact that our knowledge of that time isn't perfect and that some facts are unclear.
>A variety of sources have given accounts of Plato's death. One story, based on a mutilated manuscript, suggests Plato died in his bed, whilst a young Thracian girl played the flute to him.
>Wise in what area? I have met pottery makers who were wise in the area of pottery making, and house builders wise in the way of building houses. But rarely were they wise outside of their own domain, though they often believed themselves to be.
Socrates was considered unwashed, unkempt, and believed not to believe in the Olympian gods.
I.e. he was the progenitor of modern neckbeards. Only because the fedora had not yet been invented did he not wear one.
Obviously he was waiting for a superior religion.
According to the exposition at the start of S1E1, Celestia's intention was to banish Luna to the moon forever.
>Using the magic of the Elements of Harmony, she defeated her younger sister, and banished her permanently in the moon.
Permanent banishment actually seems like one of the most severe punishments available in ancient Greece, also permanent banishment.
It was considered in some respects even worse than actual execution.
They don't have to be compelling per se; they just have to sound good enough that Socrates's interlocutor would plausibly agree to them. I'm reading Republic right now and some of his arguments are such obvious bullshit.
The only bullshit argument Socrates ever made was the argument against escaping execution.
And that's only because Plato wrote the Dialogues. Plato couldn't understand why Socrates would not flee. "It would destroy the State" is as good as he could muster.
The man lost a friend. I don't think one should intend to tear that dialogue apart. Aside from that, Socrates has unbeatable logic because the answer is always "there is no answer." That's just how philosophy works, inherently.
The specific argument I was thinking of was early in Book 1, right before Thrasymachus interjects, where Socrates concludes that because injuring a horse makes it worse at the virtue of being a horse, and so on, that injuring a person makes him worse at the virtue of being a person, that is, more unjust, and that it is not the work of good men to injure, but the opposite, and that just men are good, therefore it is never the role of just men to injure anyone, friend or not. Which would seem to mean that if I were robbing a bank, or raping or murdering someone, that it would be unjust to use physical force or even harsh language to prevent me from doing so, as that could cause me injury, and just to stand by and do nothing.
If you want to claim that good people sometimes injure others, you're going to have to either explain your morals, abide by someone else's, or admit that your claim is meaningless to anyone other than you.
It's not a BAD argument. It's just a natural consequence of the way Socrates viewed the nature of things' thingness. Something cannot admit its opposite. Good cannot do bad. Injury is bad. Only an unjust man would injure.
Now, Socrates never argues his own opinions (some say he does, but I disagree). He simply brings up opposing points and follows trains of thought.
I think his proto-social contract argument that he used against escaping execution was pretty poor though.
Also, rereading that section, he never explicitly states what injury IS. He simply says that someone doing something good and just CANNOT be doing something unjust or injurious. Ergo, it's very possible that killing/injuring someone in good conscience is not necessarily "injurious".
Remember, he lived in a place of laws, and sought to uphold and follow these laws, so much so that he let himself be executed despite the fact that he could've left with ease. He was given an out by his friends. No one would have stopped him. Execution injures you, but I suppose he didn't see his execution as unjust (despite the fact his judging was rigged as fuck).
So, knowing that, "injury" does not have to mean "harm" or even "execution". They are not one and the same. Injury of a man is whatever brings a man further into the unjust.
We already know Socrates doesn't know what justice TRULY is, so no answer there. You've got to go to Plato and the forms, or wait all the way 'till Aquinas if you want another objective-objective answer on universal natural law.
"Why would you say that you are wise?"
>It is taken aback.
"Well, I take great pride in my education. I'm always reading a good book."
>You never did like the written word.
>It tricks the mind into thinking itself knowledgeable.
>Nevertheless, you need to communicate this effectively.
>Firstly, you should try to avoid misconceptions.
"You have said this is a magical land. Do these books talk?"
>She gives you a confused look for a moment.
"No. They're normal books. I read books about magic, but never really read any magical books."
>Now you don't think you will have many misconceptions about this.
"Well, how does one gain wisdom?"
"Through learning," the creature beams.
"How does one learn?"
>The creature pauses for a moment and raises an appendage to its chin in deep thought.
"Well, the saying goes that we learn by doing. Teachers are a great help though, since they've already done things."
>You already have your next point ready.
"Tell me, would you learn from a teacher who had never done and who only repeated themselves, without end? Would you learn from having no questions you have answered?"
>The creature looks confused, but says that they would not.
"Then tell me how you would learn from a book that, when questioned, refuses to defend its words, choosing merely to repeat them; A book that has never and will never do anything more than exist cannot teach, only remind."
>The creature retorts:
"Well, that's different."
>Your response is a simple:
>It scrunches its face.
>That's an oddly appealing gesture.
>After a time, the creature speaks:
"It's different because books aren't teachers. You don't _need_ teachers to learn anyways. I don't."
"So you learn by doing?"
>It nods, thinking itself victorious.
"Do you experience everything told in your books?"
>It looks confused.
"Well, I can't. It's impossible. I read too many books."
>You start scratching your chin again.
"Then you only do some of what you read of?"
"Then cannot be said to have learned most of what you claimed to."
>It scrunches its face again.
"I still learn magic by doing. It's my special talent."
>You recall her explanation of "cutie-marks" and the ideas surrounding them.
"Do animals here follow natural patterns of behavior?"
>The creature nods and almost goes into a speech, before you stop it.
"Does an animal following its instincts learn through doing so?"
>The creature ponders for a moment.
"I wouldn't think so. It doesn't really seem special. Besides, those things aren't really important."
"You say that magic is your destiny, correct?"
>Again, the creature nods.
"Then you would not be learned, for you are no different from an animal following its destiny. If you are not learned, then you would not say that you are wise."
>The creature opens its mouth, before scrunching a third time.
"I'm going to go contact Princess Celestia. She's certainly _wise_ and would probably need to come here anyways."
>It leaves to a different room.
>Injury of a man is whatever brings a man further into the unjust.
Yeah, one could argue that shooting someone in the face to prevent them from murdering someone isn't injurious from a certain point of view because it prevents them from behaving in an unjust way, i.e., it's "for their own good".
>You look around at the high ceilings.
>The interior is no better than the exterior.
>An odd laugh sounds through the room and sends a cold breeze at you.
>You hear something fall behind you.
>It is a brown and green bound book.
>You ignore it.
"Oh c'mon. Read me. Let's have a _real_ discussion," the voice has a mocking tone.
>You finally do so and, from the actions described, recognize the creature the book describes as a villian that you had been told of.
>The pages start to move and you drop the book from fright.
>An entity rises from the pages and stares at you until it has become much taller than you are.
>It kicks the book off its foot and stretches.
"It's very cramped in there. I can see why you don't really care for books.
>You are bewildered and merely watch.
"Oh where are my manners?"
>It looks around and produces a bag of food labelled "manners."
>It eats messily and offers some to you. You decline.
"Suit yourself," it belches and throws the bag away, scattering its "manners" across the room.
>You are curious as to nature of this ... chimera?
You won! The prize at the end of the philosophical journey is nothing!
It's hilarious, really. Thousands of years of philosophy, all of it building upon each other. More and more, pure logic is being used. Natural law, objectivity, syllogisms. During the Enlightenment, they thought they literally knew everything. They thought they just proved God's existence. Then they thought harder. Then they fell into existentialism as they realized you couldn't truly put value on anything or on any concept.
The answer is that, if you think hard enough, the answer is that everything is meaningless and there is no "right." Which means existentialism is wrong. Which means there is no answer. You turn to the greatest Theistic traditions of logic, Catholicism, and you still end up with "it's a paradox, but God I guess?"
Yup! Nihilism is inherently self-defeating, which is hilarious.
You cannot have a proper philosophy without assumptions of objective truth. Either there is objective truth, or there is nothing. Man has the inclination towards belief in objective truths. Perhaps for the best. Perhaps because it's right. Socrates would argue so, and so would most philosophers up until very recently. Mostly by use of the function argument. But it assumes too much.
It's technically a CYOA in that we, the audience, make choices that affect the course of the story, but it's not like any of us are actually going to say "No, I don't want to read about Purple Curple getting #rekt by the father of Western philosophy." We have the illusion of free will, just like in real life.
Get yourself some Action Philosophers.
>You continue staring at it.
"Oh, you're no fun. Here, let me get things started."
>The creature disappears for a brief moment, only to reappear in a robe similar to yours.
>However, this robe is mismatched with odd colors and holes, yet is entirely without seam.
"I'll have to warn you, I'm always up for a little word game like you played with the princess there. She seemed awfully huffy towards you for a princess of friendship of all things."
>Your brow furrows.
"There is a princess of friendship?"
>The creature laughs.
"Of course. There's a title for practically anything you want here. I'm the spirit of chaos and disharmony, albeit a little bit less so after being reformed."
>The creature places a strange emphasis on the last word it uttered.
"How does one act as the spirit of such?"
"Why let me show you!"
>Music begins, coming from no direction in general. It is loud and only works to accentuate the words the creature soon begins to sing.
>The world starts to melt and you begin falling.
>The chimera gets what you somehow now know to be a kazoo, makes as if to play, and swallows it instead, before clearing its throat in a buzzing fashion.
>It begins yelling and throwing you around an invisible field with brief spots of clarity.
-----When you're wondering or amusing, you may find it to be bemusing to have your cup of tea full of honey tell you to _buzz off_.
-----When you're about to sleep in a field, you may be surprised if you're almost killed by a cannibalistic band of 10-foot tall carrot _buccaneers_.
-----If you go for a drink, don't even think when that drink decides to _drink you_.
-----If you do decide to go outside, don't fear when everyone looks exactly _like you_.
-----Never be surprised when you see yourself and find that you're inside of a _mirrooooooooor_.
-----Show no fright, it may be alright, when you don't know and no one else does _eiiiitheeeer_.
>The beast reaches a crescendo.
>Your face itches and you move to scratch it, only to find your hand made of flowers and your face made of bees that soon transfer themselves. The rest of your body isn't there.
>Your robe is discarded on the ground.
>Your vision goes black, only to come back to light.
>You are a statue of yourself, but you are made out of soap.
>The chimera is dressed as what you know now is a sterotypical art critic.
"Hmm ... beautiful! It needs something though."
>It produces what you now know to be a chainsaw and begins cutting into you, although you feel none of what it does.
>Soon, you are shaped into what you now know to be called "abstract art."
>You can no longer see.
"Sorry, SoccerT. I got bored midscreech and decided to do this instead. I hope you don't mind. Here, let me fix that for you."
>With a bright flash of light, everything is how it was before.
"So, does that answer your question?"
>It takes you a moment to collect yourself.
>The creature is grinning maniacally at you.
"No. I don't see how it could."
>The creature starts laughing.
"How is that?"
>You move to scratch your chin, but look at your hand first.
"Chaos is the opposite of order."
>The creature nods while inspecting its claw.
"You carry out all of this supposed chaos through your various plans."
>It agrees again, still paying you little mind.
"You call yourself the spirit of chaos, yet carry out all of this supposed chaos through structured actions and thoughts. Thusly, it is not chaos that you cause."
>The beast starts laughing. It's sides seperate and wiggle their way out of the room.
"How is this not chaos? Ahahahahaha."
>It continues laughing.
"How is it?"
>The laugher slowly dies down.
>He now appears to have on some manner of formal wear that doesn't suit him.
>He smacks his lips loudly around a pipe that he produces from the ether.
"Y'see, these ponies love having control over everything: magic, weather, farming, every bit of it. That's order. I go in and I take that control from them. That's chaos."
>He's snuggling himself against your back, before sliding off to the floor and laughing again.
"What you do is merely place your order in place of that of the ponies."
>It stands upright.
"I wouldn't call what I do order."
"It's certainly not chaos."
>The creature goes silent for a moment.
"You know what you're problem is? You always want to make sense of things. That's no fun at all."
"The truth is the only good."
>The chimera snickers.
"Well, I don't care for it. I'm perfectly fine lying all day long. Besides, I'll outlive you, so whatever."
>You wonder about this creature.
"You are not beyond the truth. Nothing is."
>It shoves corks into its ears.
"Lalala, can't hear you."
>At that moment, the purple one returns.
"Princess Celestia is on her way. What are you doing here Discord?"
>The chimera looks at you with contempt.
"I was just talking with him."
>It leans itself on one of the thrones.
"He's dreadfully boring, if you ask me. Always wants to make sense."
>The purple one glares at him.
"Discord! Making sense is the only way we can lear-"
>It scrunches its face a fourth time.
>You wonder what this Celestia princess is like.
>You will find something to discuss in the meantime.
>So, this purple one is the "princess of friendship?"
>You can't remember if you've ever wondered what friendship could be.
>But, who else would be better to ask?
>There is no indication that they are worshipped
The ponies use Celestia's name for oaths. "With Celestia as my witness", 'thank Celestia", et cetera et cetera. There's also iconography of them scattered about everywhere.
I'd like to take this thread to comment on the touches of ancient greek principles that seem apparent in the show's metaphysics, sometimes. For example, the pre-socratic philosopher Empedocles proposed that the universe was put in eternal, cycling motion by the opposing forces of Love and Strife - or, to translate them a different way, Harmony and Discord.
Holy shit, how did you guys get this far along without something like this being made
How does neo-/mlp/ live with itself?
>The ponies use Celestia's name for oaths. "With Celestia as my witness", 'thank Celestia", et cetera et cetera. There's also iconography of them scattered about everywhere.
True, but there is also iconography of Mao in China. That doesn't mean he's literally worshipped as a god.
And in Greece and Rome after it, there were temples to the various deities, where they were actually worshipped. Each had their own cult.
There is no indication of, for instance, rival cults to Celestia or Luna, or for that matter, Discord, arguably the most powerful of the lot.
It is my autistic headcanon that Celestia would deny being a deity and would actively discourage worshipping her because
she thinks religion is a bad thing. *tips fedora*
So how does one define godhood Anon? Surely it can't be temples since there are still pagans around in America, and I have yet to see a house of worship for Odin or Thor, but they are certainly practicing a religion. Wouldn't reverence be enough?
Then again, if that's all it took then you could turn around and say Mao and Reagan are gods. Especially Reagan since I've read about the Red Party talking about what a cocking mess Mao made of things, but there are still Americans today who practically worship the idea of Reagan.
Mentions of Celestia aren't a religious thing, they're what happens when you take a long-lived royal figure and compound the effect of generations worth of casual mentions, cultural references, and so on.
Queen Elizabeth, for example, has been on the throne 62 years, and that's been enough to make her a cultural touchstone pretty much anywhere in the English world, with references in movies, songs, TV shows, art, and so on.
Friendship and, by extension, love are established as forming some of the strongest magics in Equestria. It's not that cheeselegs is a goddess herself, she is merely able to siphon and concentrate this power from other beings. She herself was surprised when she managed to beat Celestia.
I still would have rather seen some excuse for why she wasn't there, some kryptonite type plot device, than see her basically lose pathetically. It just felt wrong.
That is far from the only thing about that episode that bugged me, though. I didn't like that Celestia was so mean to Twilight and basically left her sobbing on the floor, then never apologized for it later.
>some excuse for why she wasn't there
You mean like the one that Luna had?
>than see her basically lose pathetically
Her loss was to establish that the power of love and friendship is stronger than the power of any individual pony. It's not that she was weak, it's just that weaponized love was stronger.
>That is far from the only thing about that episode that bugged me
The episode certainly had it's share of flaws, but this should be a discussion on the nature of the world and the characters that inhabit it, discussion of the episodes themselves would be better suited for a different thread.
godhood doesn't imply omnipotence, Loki submitted to the horsecock and dam sleipnir like the filthy little broodmare he was , quetzalcoatl had just the physical fitness of a regular human male and shiva was once emasculated for raping some girl.
sure, most sun gods are usually unbeatable or omnipotent, but Hermes wasn’t, he was just an astral truck driver. Celesta’s godess-hood would be more akin to a sun maintenance technician, she just make sure it rises moves and sets in time and keeps the heat and brightness in check. she was already doing this work by the time starswirl and the unicorn council appointed her princess.
Oh you, Philosophy, once again you have rekt my brain, and given me no solid answers!
>believe in nothing or
>believe in assumptions
Either way, it cannot be proven beyond doubt if i am not willing to believe in something unsubstantiated.
I guess you could spend your entire life pondering this, but i prefer following whichever philosophy that is needed in the moment.
one little thing i remember reading somewhere always sticks with me:
>you are born with one right only, the right to do whatever the fuck you want to.
>and one responsibility, to take the consequensces of your actions.
In the end, its the simple, applicable philosophy that gets shit done.
Its still a treat to see this thread though...
philosophy is not a means to an end, faggot, is a process. if you aim to reach a measure of truth philosophy may help in weeding out the flaws in your reasoning but it will not make predictions or statements about the real world or ay other so called truths.
wait,wait,wait, i thought Loki was only supposed to lure that six legged beast away, but the got caught by said beast and raped?
this is the origen of the Kraken right?
my memory is a bit fuzzy on that story but im sure Loki wasn't willingly taking that...
you've never read Alice, have you? If you feed bullish assumptions it will spew bullshit conclusions, it's your responsibility ensuring your premises are themselves factual.
nope,Loki lured the giant horse of some mortal worker who was building some building for them in order to screw him over the payment. so he decided to turn into a lusty mare and have the Colossal Clydesdale follow him to the wastelands, on the way there oestrus kicked in so the filthy slut Loki took the flare so deep and thoroughly he birthed a colt with twice the horsepower. he only regretted it when the other gods began requesting for mounts of their own.
>the filthy slut Loki took the flare so deep and thoroughly he birthed a colt with twice the horsepower.
why do i have the feeling there are those amongst us that would not mind taking Lokis place...
also, do you have any recommendations for mythology or even philosophy texts anon could read while waiting on the return of SiE?
aim to be happy, not rich. poor people are usually not happy, but being miserable in order to add numbers to the bank record that says they owe you some amount of buying potential is pointless. have enough money to ensure you have a comfy and happy life, including some extra if you have to pay something real fast to ensure it , like medical bills and mob protection money. if you're slaving away to pay up debts because you couldn't be austere or you have unnecessary expenses you dun goofed.
Socrates was executed by poison.
By the way he took it himself, without being forced to. They just give him a cup with poison and he drinked it.
His students even bribed a guard to let him escape. And then he said "True philosopher don't scared of death".
So keep being a pussy, faggot.
One was. And I cannot even remember his name.
But he was first to say "Earth is not center". He was inprisoned for this and then burned on stake.
They even asked him to disown his idea about "Everything is not going around our fucking planet", but he told them to fuck off.
Bravo 4chan,you always find new ways to impress me.
I think your thinking of Galileo who was not killed but put under house arrest. Even so, it can be argued that it was less about the idea of a Heliocentric solar system and more about him calling the Pope retarded in one of his books.
bumpin for general interest, and to suggest the writefriend ask about what exactly magic is.
or...for that matter, why don't we talk about what it is? ...or not...whatever...
Like any other encyclopedia, it's as valid as its sources. If someone has an actual valid objection to one of the sources, or that the source is misrepresented in the article, they should point that out instead of just braying "hurr durr Wikipedia."
I've found mistakes in the Britannica, too, for that matter.