Philosophy Discussion Forums

This is a topic to disscus your opinions on not just the philosophy involveds in the aspects of the series, but your thought on the ending, the overall message put forth by J. J. Abrams, ect..

So let's start with the ending. The people who crashed created an alternate reality after they died defined as purgatory. This was so that they could ready themselves to "pass on". Kate didn't commit the crime, Sawyer chose to be a cop rather than a con-man, Hurley was the luckiest guy in the world, Desmond recieved Penny's father's approval, ect.. My biggest problem with this is that is makes the island pointless to the story. They never elaborated on the light more than vague descrpitions making allegories to the goodness in mens' hearts.

I suppose the point of the island could have been a way to form a connection or bond between the characters that went deeper than just crashing on the same plane. But what was the point of the light then?

I also want to talk about the Man in Black. He grew up with Jacob. To them, all they knew was the island. And when a group of men come on the island, it is revealed that Jacob's and the MIB's mother was killed by the person raising them currently. The MIB runs off to the people who landed on the island, but then when his mother kills them all when he is around thirty, he kills his mother. Before this happens, Jacob becomes the new gaurdian of the island, and gains near-immortality. When he find out his mother is dead, he throws his brother into the light, and he becomse the shape-shifting pillar of black smoke. Neither able to die, nor kill the other.

So after all that time of being stuck on the island, not knowing what lies beyond, can you really blame him for what he did? He was most likely even a bit insane.

Kingcool, yours is a very good innovation for philosophyclub, to take a work of art such as a novel or a play as a basis for interpretations of life problems. It's ages since I saw Lost on TV and cannot remember it, so will have to hope that someone else takes up the torch here.

Belinda wrote:Kingcool, yours is a very good innovation for philosophyclub, to take a work of art such as a novel or a play as a basis for interpretations of life problems. It's ages since I saw Lost on TV and cannot remember it, so will have to hope that someone else takes up the torch here.

Thank you. I certainly hope someone does, for I have no one else to talk to, and it has been pressing me for a long time.

I'm sorry, but i'm going to bash on Lost and J.J. Abrams for a little bit here. First of all, Lost is a poorly interpreted rendition of Stephen King's Dark Tower book series, his entire usage of time travel and parallel/alternate realities stolen from the afore mentioned series. Although I did watch the first and second season, I either never saw or don't remember the "Man in Black", although that already ticks me off due to the fact that one of the major antagonists in "Dark Tower" is the Man in Black, aka Randall Flagg (The Stand, Eyes of the Dragon). This would've been okay for, and it was for a while, because J.J. Abrams was due to direct the "Dark Tower" movie that was originally set to come out this year. Unfortunately he deemed the project "too epic" and sold the rights to Ron Howard and Universal Studios. Who then gave the project over to Warner Bros. If you're going to use someone else's work, it's usually kosher to pay at least a small sum of tribute. J.J. Abrams must've forgotten his wallet in the car.

Sorry I can't participate. Only saw the first season before I lost interest. I agree with Belinda that Kingkool's idea of using literary or filmed stories as the basis for analyzing philosophical ramifications is a good one. It may be hard, however, to find something as universally known and loved as Lord of the Rings.

Shakespeare's plays, perhaps? Or how about Frank Herbert's Dune? (I'd love to debate whether the Butlerian Jihad was really necessary!)

A Poster He or I wrote:Sorry I can't participate. Only saw the first season before I lost interest. I agree with Belinda that Kingkool's idea of using literary or filmed stories as the basis for analyzing philosophical ramifications is a good one. It may be hard, however, to find something as universally known and loved as Lord of the Rings.

Shakespeare's plays, perhaps? Or how about Frank Herbert's Dune? (I'd love to debate whether the Butlerian Jihad was really necessary!)

I attempted to start a disscussion of Romeo and Juliet to no avail.

A Poster He or I wrote:Sorry I can't participate. Only saw the first season before I lost interest. I agree with Belinda that Kingkool's idea of using literary or filmed stories as the basis for analyzing philosophical ramifications is a good one. It may be hard, however, to find something as universally known and loved as Lord of the Rings.

Shakespeare's plays, perhaps? Or how about Frank Herbert's Dune? (I'd love to debate whether the Butlerian Jihad was really necessary!)

Dune. Frank Herbert's masterpiece, no doubt, although I must say I was very disapointed in all of the sequels. The Butlerian Jihad was necessary in my opinion for the survival and well-being of the human race. If there's one thing Hollywood has taught is it's that thinking robots are bad (except Robin Williams). In any kind of conflict I can't see human beings coming out on top. Have you ever tried playing your computer at chess on the hardest difficulty? Impossible to defeat, even when you go back again and again undoing your moves. After the abortion of the Bene Gesserit's fetus I think mankind realized that the machines were up to something. With probably malicious intentions. In any sci-fi where A.I. is involved there's always the dilemma of whether or not they're actually alive. In my opinion no, they're not. Unless actual sentience is formed it's not alive. You can program something to think, but only to an extent. The Dune Encyclopedia goes into depth about that if I remember correctly, but I can't remember any specifics about the robots.

It was definitely important to kill off the robots if the humans wanted to retain their dominance over the universe.