Berserk 309 - Ghost Ship 2

[The Herald]

Atheism means abscence of theology, so if zen is a state of mind and not a religious doctrine then an atheist can use and understand its practice and application.

What does this have to do with Berserk?

[Sandman]

and when did guts cut down to two throwing knifes????
Thats weird if you ask me.

Thanks for jogging my memory Rolos... I must not have been paying attention

[The Prince]

Atheism means abscence of theology, so if zen is a state of mind and not a religious doctrine then an atheist can use and understand its practice and application.

What does this have to do with Berserk?

Wasn't Griffith reicarnated as..........ergh......Griffith.

And didn't Gutts fight Buddha way back in chapter 187?

.....or maybe that was in Gantz.

[Aetherfukz]

and when did guts cut down to two throwing knifes????
Thats weird if you ask me.

Thanks for jogging my memory Rolos... I must not have been paying attention

2 on his chest. 3 on his leg. All in all 5 knives, just like when he started using them.

[Rolos]

I wouldn't relate to that seeing as I'm an atheist, not a Buddhist. Not familiar with zen philosophy.

Since when (classical) atheism and Buddhism have been mutually exclusive?

Well, I'm not all that familar with Buddhism, but I would think the ideas on reincarnation, the true nature of reality (as opposed to the veil of illusion in which we currently exist) and other such aspects would clash with atheism.

Not necessarily. It depends on what do you understand for the word atheism. Etymologically speaking, is just means "without god".
Classical atheism denies the existence of a god, of an absolute being that is the primal cause of all reality. Since Buddhism has no gods, they should be perfectly compatible.
On the other hand, Atheism nowadays usually carry the implication of not believing in a higher order, an extra-universal order, in which case it would definitely clash with Buddhism.

On a completely unrelated note: Where does the tendency to portray pirate speech as hilariously illiterate come from?

[rubberchicken]

On a completely unrelated note: Where does the tendency to portray pirate speech as hilariously illiterate come from?

Illiterate One Piece fan translators?

[Istvan]

On a completely unrelated note: Where does the tendency to portray pirate speech as hilariously illiterate come from?

Illiterate One Piece fan translators?

Nah, I'd blame "Talk like a pirate day" myself.

[The Herald]

I'm sure it started in the 1700s when sea faring men with bad upbringing and no literacy started to steal other mens' stuff and carried on down through the years.

[Istvan]

I'm sure it started in the 1700s when sea faring men with bad upbringing and no literacy started to steal other mens' stuff

You know, I understand the point you're making Herald, but I'd be willing to bet almost any sum of money that "sea faring men with bad upbringing and no literacy" have been "stealing other mens' stuff" since way before the 1700s. Piracy is in no way a new or recent concept.

[Thanatos]

This chapter was great. I really liked it when the tentacle things were eating the crew members. And as always the art was fantastic. I cant wait to see Gatts kick some ass next time.

[Rolos]

I'm sure it started in the 1700s when sea faring men with bad upbringing and no literacy started to steal other mens' stuff

You know, I understand the point you're making Herald, but I'd be willing to bet almost any sum of money that "sea faring men with bad upbringing and no literacy" have been "stealing other mens' stuff" since way before the 1700s. Piracy is in no way a new or recent concept.

Even without taking that into account, the fact that actual pirates were illiterate (in an age where most people were anyway) does not necessarily mean they will be portrayed in media as such.
Medieval knights were ignorant as shit, and they are still usually portrayed as poetry reciting morons on most media.

[Starnum]

What makes you think knights were ignorant? Only nobles could be knights, and as such, you would think that they, unlike the peasants, had the right and the means to be educated. I don't really know for sure though, just sayin'.

[lon3vvolf]

And just to throw in my 2 cents on this...

This wasn't the case for all pirates but vile, evil, pirates from one country were considered heroes from another. For example a Spanish ship was attacked by a British ship who ended up killing everyone and taking their booty back to the crown. In Britain the crew and captain would be considered courageous 'good guys' who attacked the vile Spanish. Spain would have the opposite feeling and etc. This doesn't take into account 'freelance' pirates who had no backing, but think about it. To run and operate a ship for extended periods of time takes masssive* amounts of funds a mere pirate would not have.

All this pirate talk has been romanticized anyway. I'm sure pirate talk didn't go to such lengths as its though of now.

* extra S for emphasis addded.

[Rolos]

And just to throw in my 2 cents on this...

This wasn't the case for all pirates but vile, evil, pirates from one country were considered heroes from another. For example a Spanish ship was attacked by a British ship who ended up killing everyone and taking their booty back to the crown. In Britain the crew and captain would be considered courageous 'good guys' who attacked the vile Spanish. Spain would have the opposite feeling and etc. This doesn't take into account 'freelance' pirates who had no backing, but think about it. To run and operate a ship for extended periods of time takes masssive* amounts of funds a mere pirate would not have.

You are thinking of corsairs.

What makes you think knights were ignorant? Only nobles could be knights, and as such, you would think that they, unlike the peasants, had the right and the means to be educated. I don't really know for sure though, just sayin'.

Political power in the middle ages was basically an institutionalized monopoly of military strength, and knights, as lower noblemen, were the greatest exponent of that.
If you were born son of a knight, you had to learn how to fight, and try to excel at it, in exchange for an opportunity to rise in the social ladder.
Only if you failed at that, or if your family couldn't afford it, you could get a decent education, since it was cheaper.
Training, horses, and armor were considerably more expensive than learning stuff from the clergy.

[The Prince]

What makes you think knights were ignorant? Only nobles could be knights, and as such, you would think that they, unlike the peasants, had the right and the means to be educated. I don't really know for sure though, just sayin'.

Political power in the middle ages was basically an institutionalized monopoly of military strength, and knights, as lower noblemen, were the greatest exponent of that.
If you were born son of a knight, you had to learn how to fight, and try to excel at it, in exchange for an opportunity to rise in the social ladder.
Only if you failed at that, or if your family couldn't afford it, you could get a decent education, since it was cheaper.
Training, horses, and armor were considerably more expensive than learning stuff from the clergy.[/quote]


FYI this was not always the case......

I saw a movie in which a peasent was able to defy his hereditary status and rise to knighthood through jousting. I believe it was based off a true and story, and starred Heath Ledger in what would be the greatest performance off his short-lived acting career. On a side-note it contained an authentic Medieval dance sequence that was the inspiration for the Macarena....I believe.

[Aetherfukz]

What makes you think knights were ignorant? Only nobles could be knights, and as such, you would think that they, unlike the peasants, had the right and the means to be educated. I don't really know for sure though, just sayin'.

Ignorance, or a lack thereof, isn't linked to education though. George Dubya Bush graduated from Yale, yet still was an ignorant piece of shit. Lots of high-ranking nazis were really well educated, yet still completely ignorant on certain topics. Those examples probably chose willfully to be ignorant, but it was still ignorance.

I saw a movie in which a peasent was able to defy his hereditary status and rise to knighthood through jousting. I believe it was based off a true and story, and starred Heath Ledger in what would be the greatest performance off his short-lived acting career. On a side-note it contained an authentic Medieval dance sequence that was the inspiration for the Macarena....I believe.

LOL. I always kinda liked a Knights Tale though

[Istvan]

What makes you think knights were ignorant? Only nobles could be knights, and as such, you would think that they, unlike the peasants, had the right and the means to be educated. I don't really know for sure though, just sayin'.

Ignorance, or a lack thereof, isn't linked to education though. George Dubya Bush graduated from Yale, yet still was an ignorant piece of shit. Lots of high-ranking nazis were really well educated, yet still completely ignorant on certain topics. Those examples probably chose willfully to be ignorant, but it was still ignorance.

Um. I can only partly agree with you here. It's true that having an "education" (or a diploma that declares you have had one) does not guarentee a lack of ignorance; that requires both the willingness to learn and decent educational opportunities. However, if you never have a chance to learn, there's no way to be anything but ignorant. So I would say that a lack of education is linked to ignorance, even if the reverse is not necessarily true.

[lon3vvolf]

I saw a movie in which a peasent was able to defy his hereditary status and rise to knighthood through jousting. I believe it was based off a true and story, and starred Heath Ledger in what would be the greatest performance off his short-lived acting career. On a side-note it contained an authentic Medieval dance sequence that was the inspiration for the Macarena....I believe.

LOL. I always kinda liked a Knights Tale though

I have no idea why this has so little hits:

[thepeaguy]

Since when (classical) atheism and Buddhism have been mutually exclusive?

The founder, Siddhartha Gautama, was a royal Hindu prince before he lived a life of humble solitude, spreading his teachings and helping others. Buddhism is basically an off-shoot of Hinduism since the founder still considered himself a believer of Lord Brahma, Vishnu, etc. He was no atheist, but probably an agnostic theist.

Buddhists believe in reincarnation (a Hindu belief), which is absolute bullshit. When we die, we simply decompose by microrganisms as a process to recycle minerals in our bodies for plant life, etc. No different from any other animal.

[Aetherfukz]

I have no idea why this has so little hits:

Nice. But hearing an english native trying to say "Ulrich von Lichtenstein" sounds oh so wrong

[Rolos]

Since when (classical) atheism and Buddhism have been mutually exclusive?

The founder, Siddhartha Gautama, was a royal Hindu prince before he lived a life of humble solitude, spreading his teachings and helping others. Buddhism is basically an off-shoot of Hinduism since the founder still considered himself a believer of Lord Brahma, Vishnu, etc. He was no atheist, but probably an agnostic theist.

Core Budhisms beliefs do not include gods. They can be added as a sort of local adaptation, like earlier christians did by "creating" saints and festivities that matched local deities and festivals. Siddhartha Buddha is a teacher, not a god.
If you do not believe in a higher order or a first-cause god, that doesn't mean you are an atheist. I think there is a word for that. Google it.

On regards to the pirate-speak thing, I found an article about it: http://www.slate.com/id/2167567

[Istvan]

Core Budhisms beliefs do not include gods. They can be added as a sort of local adaptation, like earlier christians did by "creating" saints and festivities that matched local deities and festivals. Siddhartha Buddha is a teacher, not a god.

I think the order here is reversed. Original (ealiest version) Budhism did include gods (it was based/developed off of hinduism, after all), but they are not essential to the philosophy itself, and so different regions may change the nature of the deities in question and/or exclude them. Doesn't it still require a belief in reincarnation, though?

If you do not believe in a higher order or a first-cause god, that doesn't mean you are an atheist. I think there is a word for that. Google it.

I believe the word you are looking for here is "agnostic."

[Rolos]

I believe the word you are looking for here is "agnostic."

Nope, agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. It's the philosophy of doubt, like skepticism, but taken to existential levels.
A = without
Gnosis = Knowledge

Is there something external to the Universe? Is there a God or a higher order?
Agnosticism is the suspension of judgment in regards to those questions, the equivalent to saying "I don't know".
That's why agnosticism works philosophically, but not theologically.
A person can be an agnostic philosophically speaking, but in practice, in his/her everyday life, since we work based on assumptions, he/she has to state "I believe in higher order (which will guide all my actions) or "I don't believe in a higher order (and my actions will be guided by things that exist within the Universe) ".
Doubt is static, and we are not static beings.
Which is why you will find pedantic assholes that, when asked about their point of view regarding existence, will answer "From a philosophical standpoint, A, but form a theological one, B" and then take another seep at that bottle of rum everyone's passing around.
They might add "We are all like, you know, like..you know, like dots on the sea, you know, because space is like the sea and we're like dots on it. Like dots. Yeaaaah man! Like dots!"

sigh

Fucking college hippies.

[The Herald]

I have no idea why this has so little hits:

Nice. But hearing an english native trying to say "Ulrich von Lichtenstein" sounds oh so wrong

He was Australian actually, doing a bad English accent. But I loved that video, nice find.

[Aetherfukz]

I heard english is the native language of australians, too.