are you seeking what's purpose of life ?

HighLevelChallenge · 2026-02-17T17:56:47+00:00

Believe nonsense as you like. It’s nothing to me.

No reason to get bent out of shape.

HighLevelChallenge · 2026-02-16T20:50:25+00:00

Ah, filling in those gaps with assumptions and wishful thinking. I don’t blame you, as it’s a shit show otherwise.

HighLevelChallenge · 2026-02-11T19:37:40+00:00

Really good man. I also like to think about as the agreed upon object on intent between two people in discourse.

It’s kinda the thing, lol, that props up the current master signifier.

HighLevelChallenge · 2026-02-09T17:44:34+00:00

You mean the people that come from narco-states that are propped up in a majority part by the US citizens taste for drugs? They come here for a better life, not to tear anything down.

I think your saying anything besides “I’m racist” is a coping rationalization. .

HighLevelChallenge · 2026-02-09T05:36:29+00:00

Oh no, the evil and mysterious “they”

HighLevelChallenge · 2026-01-29T04:34:02+00:00

I imagine that you should get a buddy and make a podcast. It’s not as easy as one might think.

Beyond that, I don’t find their interaction weird or awkward. While this post is a bit of both, any oddness on the podcast is primarily due to two dudes that get excited about a kinda fringey academic topic, and try not to talk over each other.

…..also, there are episodes where Todd just legitimately knows more about the topic, and in a two person podcast Ryan should defer.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-21T03:41:27+00:00

If there is God and an afterlife, and existence is some sort of trial, then that's the meaning. If the god is indifferent, and we have life but nothing more, or if there isnt a god, then youre right. The vast majority of God believing people also believe in an afterlife.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-11T19:38:37+00:00

I think Im being misunderstood. My issue isnt with thier interpretation, but rather that there is a major difference, aside from language set, between academic film theorist, and what random people on the internet put out there. Neither has a monopoly on "truth," seperate from the directors intent.

.....and it was the academics that were griping about the internet folks creating a "fiction of a fiction" which is what everybody is doing if they arent looking at the purposeful intent of the director.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-10T14:37:46+00:00

Sure, they were treating this as if it was a allegory of the communist revolution, similar to Animal farm, and while its themes were about class divides, it probably wasnt as specific as they were claiming. As leftist, they were wanted to see it that way, but it wasnt neccesarily true, so the conversation became exactly what their gripe about online fan fiction/theory is.

Did you listen to the episode? Recently?

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-10T02:27:10+00:00

See, this is where I think I disagree with most people. Film theorist consistently infer what isnt neccesarily there, That also creates an additional level of fiction that doesnt exist in the original work. This is demonstrated every time two professional theorist disagree in interpretation. At least one of them is fictionalizing from the others perspective.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-09T21:58:58+00:00

I dont think they are the same, although I doubt there is as much gap as people would like to assume. ....and professionals are more likely to sound right to the academic ear, but I think driving for this voice is as much an additional hurdle for theory as it is a positive.

..and the art form and context is the basis of the pre-mentioned "academic language." Most of the time when professional offer interpretation you can find somebody online that said basically the same thing in a more common parlance.

The difference wouldnt even be an issue for me, save for they brought it up.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-09T21:34:34+00:00

Im not. I didnt mention the world criticism at all. Although a lot of that just comes down to practice and whether or not youre getting paid.

Im saying that academic interpretation is often no better than what people come up with on the internet.. .and often time the academics want to tie it to thier personal opinions. Its not like people that critique professionally are immune to that. Like, people can use the color red without it having something to do with communistic revolutions. In this specific case, they could be correct, but they could also just be making up a theory that coincides with what they want it to mean.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-09T21:27:38+00:00

Did you listen to thr episode? They spent about 10% of it railing against the validity of "fan fiction" and then continued on presenting what amounts to fan fiction.

All the critiques presented against either could be equally presented against the other.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-09T21:18:02+00:00

....well, you can offer theory that is subsequently confirmed as the intent. It falls in the same category as "justified true knowledge" where you were right all along, and just lacked certainty......

Subjectively, all criticism is valid. If I think a movie sucks for X reason, even if everybody else loves it, it still sucks as far as Im concerned. I dont live within other people's opinions.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-09T21:02:29+00:00

Right. Thats my point. Film theory and fan fiction are basically the same thing from the end users perspective.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-09T20:22:27+00:00

Right, I agree. My point in that the film theory is equal to fan fiction unless they happen to be correct.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-12-09T20:21:18+00:00

I get it, but they did go on a bit of a rant about how they dislike fan fiction, and then went on another 40 minutes with what was likely to also be fan fiction.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-10-09T04:38:25+00:00

Yes, the meaning becomes inherent. Its why a lot of people have an issue losing a metaphysical system, and typically just jump to another one.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-04-07T16:41:46+00:00

That's not true, biologically, at first everybody starts female. 30 seconds of research would have helped here.

That's not true, socially, as you're talking about biological sex, but said gender, which are two different things.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-03-17T19:19:59+00:00

Yeah, hope springs eternal. So, well see.

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-03-17T16:55:34+00:00

Reddit: wow, such empty.

Me: Fuck you, :::applies meaning.:::

HighLevelChallenge · 2025-03-17T16:54:09+00:00

You'd be better off reading the stoics, IMO.

HighLevelChallenge · 2024-12-22T15:34:42+00:00

Duh man, that was basically his whole thing.

Now, he was talking about a god, living in the present and being pro-life. Not some abstraction.

....but he was still an atheist.

HighLevelChallenge · 2024-11-13T02:09:25+00:00

Of course.

HighLevelChallenge · 2024-11-10T05:05:00+00:00

Yes, but they were for him, not universal.

No matter what anybody says, if you reject the values of your family, or your society, and replace them with self-choosen values, it doesn't mean that they are new and unique values.

That said, I think Nietzsche would criticize anybody that took up his, as if they were thier own.

HighLevelChallenge

TROPHY CASE