Karkat Vantas
Virile God-Snake Tower of Masculinity
"Fiction, 90% of all music and all non-documentary films" are all things that qualify as what is. They're fictional, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
What could be, or what is
- Thread starter Minnow
- Start date
"Fiction, 90% of all music and all non-documentary films" are all things that qualify as what is. They're fictional, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Minnow
If you're gonna dig, dig to the heavens!
Remember, I didn't ask which was more important; I asked which do you believe has more power.
It's true that it's important to recognize what already exists, but it's equally important to recognize the power of what could be and what might happen and how it influences human decisions.
EDIT:
Yes, but what I think Coroxn means is that all those things are people portraying or commenting on what could be. Yes, the pokemon games exist, but the pokemon world doesn't; the games just portray a place that cpuld be.
It's true that it's important to recognize what already exists, but it's equally important to recognize the power of what could be and what might happen and how it influences human decisions.
EDIT:
karkat vantas said:
Yes, but what I think Coroxn means is that all those things are people portraying or commenting on what could be. Yes, the pokemon games exist, but the pokemon world doesn't; the games just portray a place that cpuld be.
Last edited:
ignore_this_acct
Active member
- Pronoun
- she
what could be, because the realm of what could be holds so many more fascinating ideas and inventions than what is.
don't get me wrong, the ideas of what could be don't mean anything in the practical sense unless they're what is, but what is wouldn't exist without what could be. what are we without imagination?
don't get me wrong, the ideas of what could be don't mean anything in the practical sense unless they're what is, but what is wouldn't exist without what could be. what are we without imagination?
The Omskivar
chah, dude
What could be. What is cannot be changed, and it's a concrete factual concept. What could be is imaginative and malleable, completely up to the observer (though 'what is' is also this, to an extent).
It's also a lot easier for most people to speculate and hope for the future than to accept the present.
It's also a lot easier for most people to speculate and hope for the future than to accept the present.
Valerunner
Probably shouldn't be here.
- Pronoun
- She/her
- Pronoun
- she/her
presumably: do you focus your life on what could be (that is, the future) or what is (the present). It could have been worded a little less ambiguously, though - 'the power of what is/what could be' does sound like it's trying very hard to sound 'deep'.
I... don't understand how anyone can really 'believe' in the power of just one of them but not the other. ?_? you can't solely live in the future or the present; if you live in the future, you obviously need to consider ways to realistically get what you want, and if you live in the present, your future's going to be pretty unrewarding if you don't consider the future and aim for something. :| there's no point ~believing in the power of what could be~ if I can't start changing things with ~the power of what is~ so I can get the things I want? I don't get this question. It's so ridiculously general and nonspecific that you can't really answer it properly.
additionally, if you're not independent enough to be able to fully take control over your own present (for example, if you're still at school, living with your parents) then... this question becomes kind of irrelevant unless you think about it on a small scale.
What? is it just me or have you ... misinterpreted what Harle actually meant? When did he say anything about fiction/music etc? I thought he just meant that it's kind of silly to want things if you can't realistically make them part of your present; I can wish for unicorns all I want, but it's not really going to happen, is it? wanting to write about things that aren't real isn't the same as (realistically) wanting things that aren't real, no?
It's pointless to set goals you know you can't meet; it's unhealthy and it sets ridiculous expectations upon yourself.
Valerunner
Probably shouldn't be here.
- Pronoun
- She/her
Minnow
If you're gonna dig, dig to the heavens!
I didn't mean to sound ambiguous or pretentious; I was just trying to be concise.
Also, I didn't say you only had to believe in one of them, just which do you give more weight.
As for whether or not you can 'believe' in either of them, it's obvious to me. Either thing can affect people and drive change in the world, and basically guide the life experiences of every human being. It's generally accepted that humans are set apart by the scope of their imagination, which is what allows us to think of what could be, whereas most animals only deal with what is. When I ask which you believe in more, I'm asking whether the existing world or the potential world holds more stock in your mind towards guiding your own life and that of others. Are you more human or animal?
And as for the bit about it being irrelevant if you not independant, I couldn't disagree more not only does the way you live your life as a child affect your future directly (ie, grades, scholarships, family relations, connections) but affects you mentally as well. Your attitude towards life is generated and often cemented during those years, and what you believe in then can echo across your whole life. It doesn't matter if you can't do much to practically explore your potential; it still matters inside.
And, lastly, I don't think it's pointless at all to set extremely high goals; how else will you ever find out how far you can go unless you aim for the top? Also, theres a difference between setting goals.and wishing. Yes, if you wish for unicorns, it's astoundingly unlikely that any will appear. But if you set your life goal as to create a unicorn (idfk how, maybe study biology and try to cross a horse with a narwhal or something. The point is it's your job, as the setter of your goal, to iron out details like that), not much is stopping you.
If you couldn't tell, I'm not a very practical person.
Also, I didn't say you only had to believe in one of them, just which do you give more weight.
As for whether or not you can 'believe' in either of them, it's obvious to me. Either thing can affect people and drive change in the world, and basically guide the life experiences of every human being. It's generally accepted that humans are set apart by the scope of their imagination, which is what allows us to think of what could be, whereas most animals only deal with what is. When I ask which you believe in more, I'm asking whether the existing world or the potential world holds more stock in your mind towards guiding your own life and that of others. Are you more human or animal?
And as for the bit about it being irrelevant if you not independant, I couldn't disagree more not only does the way you live your life as a child affect your future directly (ie, grades, scholarships, family relations, connections) but affects you mentally as well. Your attitude towards life is generated and often cemented during those years, and what you believe in then can echo across your whole life. It doesn't matter if you can't do much to practically explore your potential; it still matters inside.
And, lastly, I don't think it's pointless at all to set extremely high goals; how else will you ever find out how far you can go unless you aim for the top? Also, theres a difference between setting goals.and wishing. Yes, if you wish for unicorns, it's astoundingly unlikely that any will appear. But if you set your life goal as to create a unicorn (idfk how, maybe study biology and try to cross a horse with a narwhal or something. The point is it's your job, as the setter of your goal, to iron out details like that), not much is stopping you.
If you couldn't tell, I'm not a very practical person.
Valerunner
Probably shouldn't be here.
- Pronoun
- She/her
I'd say I'm equal, because I always think that in order for my future, the future I want, to take shape, I have to focus on what is. Basically, I want to shape what could be, so I focus on what is. If I gave one more weight than the other, it would be very wrong for me to do so because without my future aim, then what's the point of the present? And vice versa; I can't just aim for the future and not do anything now. As I've read somewhere, the future is what the past throws back.
Coroxn
An extremely equivalent exchange.
He stated that what could be was only important if it could be turned into what is. This works for things like my writing career-I can imagine being published all I like, but unless I buckle down and write a book, it's not going to happen. But it doesn't work for say, Harry Potter-that will never be real. But it has sparked creativity in a great number of people. My friend and I can trace our fondness of writing back to those books, and being a writer is one of the most important things about me.
So, sometimes imagination for imagination's sake is important, as imagination can affect people in profound ways, like inspiring a career or changing a lifestyle.
- Pronoun
- she/her
Hrm. I'm a very what-could-be-oriented person, in that I tend to spend most of my time thinking about fiction, hypotheticals and future plans rather than things that are actually happening right now. However, you seem to be asking about power to affect the real world, which to me isn't the point of what-could-be. I prefer fiction that is purely constructed to stimulate minds with an imaginary scenario of events over fiction that's made explicitly to convey some sort of a message or change how people behave in the real world, for instance. So it's not that I think what could be has more "power".
I actually think it might be more interesting to ask about that distinction: if we count everything aimed at actually affecting what is on the what-is side, are you a what-could-be or a what-is person? I think then a lot of people currently counting themselves on the what-could-be side would switch, but I actually wouldn't. Which isn't to say I dismiss reality as unimportant (which would be nuts), but that that I care very deeply about fiction for fiction's sake, more so than I care about a lot of real-world issues I care about.
I actually think it might be more interesting to ask about that distinction: if we count everything aimed at actually affecting what is on the what-is side, are you a what-could-be or a what-is person? I think then a lot of people currently counting themselves on the what-could-be side would switch, but I actually wouldn't. Which isn't to say I dismiss reality as unimportant (which would be nuts), but that that I care very deeply about fiction for fiction's sake, more so than I care about a lot of real-world issues I care about.
Last edited: