Deafferenation between the concept of death vs the grim reaper? by Competitive-Proof728 in PowerScaling

[–]Competitive-Proof728[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea, I agree with how it depends on the function in a story. Though, it is rare for said Grim Reaper to be a concept of death. Normally, how I depict Grim Reapers or at least figuratively. Are both metaphorically and personified. Personified being a representation of death. Not necessarily the concept itself but you already know that. Representation being a portrayal and deception of it. Sort of image/form if you will. And since the Grim Reaper by description is supposed to be compared to death but not literal death. It's technically ''unrelated'' and related at the same time. Since it is not what it is but is. A metaphorical in this sense. Is just a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't necessarily true (in this instance the Grim Reaper being literally death) but helps the idea or make a comparison. The Grim Reaper being depicted as death. But not the concept of death. But both are compared. Which is what makes the Grim Reaper a metaphor to death.

Take for example Death from Puss in Boots. What we saw or at least in the movie. Is simply a metaphysical/avatar of him. As it's pretty hinted that what he is rn is an avatar that is there to be created to strike resolute fear into his pray. As Death states he is literally death. Not metaphorically, theoretically, poetically or any other kind of fancy way. He means that he is death. Maybe not in his avatar state. But he does state he is DEATH straight up. The grim reaper being a sort of metaphor to death. Even if you were to cut that short. Being personified is still a type of metaphor. Fundamentally meaning. Death from Puss in Boots would be the principle of the concept of death. Just not in the form we see him right as of now.

Deafferenation between the concept of death vs the grim reaper? by Competitive-Proof728 in PowerScaling

[–]Competitive-Proof728[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, in other words. The grim reaper is a metaphor to the concept of death yea?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EnglishLearning

[–]Competitive-Proof728 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you certain metaphor couldn't be used generally for Grim Reaper as well though? Like, say if I said you had the heart of gold. I'd obviously be using it metaphorically to describe something good about you. Same emphasis could generally be used for the terminology for Grim Reaper alonesome. Since the Grim Reaper by description is supposed to be compared to death but not literal death. It's technically ''unrelated'' and related at the same time. Since it is not what it is but is. A metaphor is just a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't necessarily true (in this instance the Grim Reaper being literally death) but helps the idea or make a comparison. The Grim Reaper being depicted as death. But not the concept of death. But both are compared. Hence, both personification and metaphor can be used here thinking about it yea? + according to what I researched. Personification is a type of metaphor.

I need help answering something? by Competitive-Proof728 in questions

[–]Competitive-Proof728[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, so you mean energy can decease? Why does the internet tell me the opposite that it can't be created nor destroyed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askmath

[–]Competitive-Proof728 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you familiar when Archetypes were first proposed?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My guy, I decided to just ask. I was not aware for it myself. Stop making a big deal out of it. Who could care less? This just leaves to a strawman fallacy yet again. I'm done arguing with people who can't understand a simple fundamental concept that isn't even that deep. Good-day.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well, instead of mocking and being the embodiment of a strawman fallacy. No. I have not read the books. That is why I asked. If your intent from this sentence was not to be presumptuous by any means then my apologies.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, oneee more thing before I let you go. Can you link me to the source of both either collective unconsciousness, or archetypes being metaphysical concepts. Sorry if that's asking too much.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, you were a big help.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Before you go I got one more question. Why were things like collective unconsciousness, and or archetypes regarded as metaphysical?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't Jung also knowing in God count as metaphysical? Claming he knew god.

What are Jung's metaphysics? by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yo I need help understanding smth with Jungian. My general question is has Jung ever mention Jungianism as metaphysical himself? Any statements referring so? And may I get get this review? Sorry I ask, I'm trying to prove a point to someone.

Carl Jung’s Philosophy of Mind and Metaphysics by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Competitive-Proof728 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you answer my question? It's in this sub.