Lost Season 6 - The Final Season: LOST - A Philosophical Review

Pun Intended?!


Your Ad Here

I am a...


Friday, May 28, 2010

LOST - A Philosophical Review

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, peels back the philosophical layers behind one of the most successful television shows of all time



    I can't believe this nonsense - and I quote - 'mysticism is a form of human predation'. Let me get this right - this guy thinks that the economic and political catastrophies ensuing around the world are due to mystic thought? He thinks that we save the world by everyone thinking in an an entirely rational sense? Understand this di**head - LOST THE TELEVISION SERIES WOULD NOT EXIST IF IT WERE NOT FOR SO CALLED 'HUMAN PREDATION'. YOU ARE NOT PEELING BACK ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR OWN FORESKIN. YOU ARE PREACHING JUST AS BAD AS ANY RELIGOUS MINISTER WHAT A MORON YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE WEARING A ROMAN COLLAR AND A LITTLE CAP. You're not the only person who knows that if you use big words and construct points with examples you can make anything sound like it makes perfect sense. Go and read some R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz and understand this; as long as people try to understand life using only cerebral thought or only intelligence-of-the-heart it is like trying to dig a hole in the sea using an axe. Like the Bridge of Sirah, we must walk a fine line between the two and therein we find what you're looking for, what you think you're talking about. If you don't believe me, ask some of your heros, e.g. Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Pythagorous, Aristotle and so forth, who apart from creating modern science as we know it today (and to whom you owe your precious 'reasonable intellect') also were all involved in deeply spiritual practises and had wrote whole books about theories you would dismiss in a heartbeat for being 'irrational'. talk too much and you forget to listen. I think that's what happened to my man.

  2. @thawatcha... EXACTLY !!!!
    THANK YOU for writing this. Because your absolutely right. Lost was all about mysticism and spirituality mixed with some rational thought.
    If you take that away from the world you take away our souls. Oh but I forgot, atheists don't beleive in souls. Or love. Or anything at all. #*&^$

  3. Hmm,
    I'm not convinced this is an analysis of LOST so much as a diatribe of one man's philosphical viewpoint imposed upon random elements of a popular TV show to gain some listners...

    If anything I'd say the writers of LOST were trying to inject credibility of sorts into the idea of mysticism by splicing science and esoteric elements together.

    And what has this gentleman got to say about the final scenes of LOST. How does rationality sit with the overtly spiritualist culmination of the show?

    As a thinker, this video blogger has some interesting ideas that I'm inclined to listen to and think about. As a 'review' or philosophical analysis of the show LOST this video post is about 90% nonsense...

  4. For the rational fellow you seem to think you are, you come off a bit like L Ron Hubbard.

  5. The posts to date appear to be angry posts. It is as though when we don't hear what we like we strike with force and hate. Toward this end, his point about children is interesting. Isn't it the case that by forcing people to believe certain things is not much different than threatening them if they don't believe what you do. What has he actually said?

    I heard him argue that

    1> Mystic thoughts are not rationalized, and this is dangerous as outlined by our cultures use of religion, nationalism and racism for violence and war. This point is interesting and i wonder if children in the 30's would have hated black people, or jews if they had not be brain washed to some extent. Toward this end, is he saying anything false?

    2> I hear him indicating that lock rejected rationale or reason for his recovery. I was confused by how he could walk, but to ignore a rationale explanation to some extent is contrary to progressive society isn't it? If we thought pushing a button to make a television turn on was magic and mystical... would we analyse the reason behind it?

    3> it appears that there is a struggle with unknown events. when we don't know something we appear to be 1) fearful and 2) uncomfortable. So, either resolve in reason and if you can't find reason, believe that it is not because there isn't a reason, but instead because you haven't found it. (Sun's lost ring? it was lost or did it disappear like magic because the island wanted it that way?) only with continued search was it found. If it was not found, would the watchers believe it to have disappeared? So the point is, with fear and confusion people turn to mystic belief (according to this individual), and well... it also appears true..

    Finally, it appears that the island was viewed like a god like being. In fact, on that island, if you did not follow the islands commands.. you were punished... does that not sound familiar? Also, only a very select few could ever get the message from the island.. is that also not familiar? And finally, did this not create some, like ben, to pretend to get messages from the island in order to lead and manipulate??? is this also not similar to what we get from religion, cults, nations... I mean, is what he saying really so crazy in this video???

    now having said all this.. i do agree that this individual appears not to be explaining lost or peeling back any specific layers from that show. That type of thing can only be done by those who actually know why they wrote it the way they did... I believe that this is only his own personal belief and yes, he has used a popular show to get interest and listeners... (something that is often done by your local church???)... however, this is also only my believe, and i am unable to be sure of it... and so, i position it only as my own hypothesis.

    So in conclusion;
    1) I do not think attacking his position is appropriate, as unfortunately, that reaction only furhter substantiates his argument and strengthens it.

    2) I do not think this is an uncovering of lost as much as it is a philisophical perspective, which would be intersting to furhter understand and only once fully understood... addressed from other philisophical perspectives...

    long and short... ease up on people with ideas... we all have them, and to attack an idea is to force people to follow... and this does not create leaders or free will.

  6. "1) I do not think attacking his position is appropriate, as unfortunately, that reaction only further substantiates his argument and strengthens it."

    This seems like an intelligent comment but it is actually an attempt to silence the opposite point of view. I can write, "All scientists are bias people who will never accept the idea of the supernatural." Then when a scientist makes a logical argument about why he does not believe in the supernatural, I can say, "See, you proved my point." But in reality I'm not answering his argument at all. I'm just attacking him.

    Regarding the video, I feel this individual is making the same mistake that many anti-religious people make. He assumes that there is an irreconcilable conflict between faith and reason. "Reason" in this case refers to science and logic. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most successful religion in history has been Catholicism, and Catholicism has always said that there is no conflict between science, logic (philosophy) and religion. They are simply different ways of discovering the same truth.

    The Big Bang Theory, for example, has provided a compelling proof for the existence of God. Many scientists changed their position on the existence of God when this theory was verified by scientific evidence. Ironically, the theory was first proposed in the nineteen-thirties by a famous physicist and priest named George Lemaître.

    My critics will no doubt bring up Galileo. I have no time to go into that argument now. I will say that the historical accounting of the conflict between Galileo and the Church have been grossly distorted by people who have an irrational hatred for Christianity. I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's (Phd) book, "What's so good about Christianity?" It is very well researched and provides a fair accounting of the "Galileo incident".

    Finally, the Catholic Church believes in logic. Its moral positions are not based on the Bible alone. They are based on logical moral reasoning. One of the greatest logicians in history was St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was named a "doctor of the Church" for his contribution to Catholic theology.

    There are a few protestant groups who reject obvious scientific facts live evolution and the age of the earth. These people are a minority in Christianity. Like atheists, they promote the idea that their is a conflict between religion and science. They do this because they believe the Bible is the dictated word of God, just like Muslims believe the Koran is the dictated word of God.

    The Catholic Church also believes the writer's of the Bible were divinely inspired, but that means just what it says. They were inspired. They were not spoken to by God or told exactly what to write. The Bible writer's interpreted what God told them using their limited minds and understanding. Hence, we must take in to consideration the historical period and literary style of the authors when deciding what the Bible is trying to tell us. We should not take all parts of it as absolute historical truth. The original authors of the Bible never intended this.

  7. God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.
    God Himself is Creator.
    He/She/It created Everything.
    So God must be Scientist and must use Physical/
    Mathematical Laws and Formulas for His/Her/Its work.
    For forty days and forty nights Moses wrote the tablets
    of ‘ The Ten Commandments’.
    Which Commandments are they?
    They are moral, ethical Commandments.
    Can be written ‘Ten Scientific Commandments’ ?
    I think ‘ Yes’, God has given to us everything that necessary
    to understand Him and His Genesis using Physical /
    Mathematical Laws and Formulas.
    Ten Scientific Commandments:
    Fundamental Theory of Existence.

    1 The infinite vacuum T=0K. ( background energy space: E ).
    2 The particle:
    C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
    3 The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi
    4 The photon, the inertia
    5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
    6 The gravitation, the star, the time and space
    7 The Proton
    The Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton
    a) electromagnetic
    b) nuclear
    c) biological
    The Laws
    a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
    b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
    c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
    The test.
    Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
    a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness / unconsciousness)
    b) Practice : Parapsychology. Meditation.
    Best wishes
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus
    The secret of God and Existence is hidden
    in the ‘ Theory of Vacuum & Light Quanta ‘.
    I want to know how God created this world
    I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
    in the spectrum of this or that element
    I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
    / Einstein /

  8. hehehe...

    it is nice to see people trying to understand the universe, after all our purpose or is it?! to the mathematicians; if the universe/multiverses/(multi)membrane(s)/whatever...is infinite, then where on the grid of knowledge do we stand?

  9. Lost TV Show is one of the best and unique show. One must watch this show. Still I am hooked up with this series.