#ciritiques

[just-an-enby-lemon]

I can see and even agree with a lot of tmagp critiques specially from disapointed tma fans except the ppl saying it's too conspiracy board interconected mystery compared to tma, like excuse me, ppl lit revised tma to identify the fears like i'm sorry what?

[48787]

mmmhhm... haven't been drunk in a while.. Makes me wanna read Hegel.. love me some immanent critique.... maybe a little too mcuh.. mayybe i should find something on Gauss instead i lovem e some guassian math. You fuckers know howw much of a little shit gauss was? an old math professor of mine who would fall aslseep in the middle of giving lecutres would talk about gauss and tell legends of him inventting theories on the spot just to fuck withh his professors. I dunno how true it is but i like the myth of little shitter guass. i should read more into him and see if anyy of it was true or if he was a super terrible guy or whateverr. i couldd do mix myy immaenent ciritique lust withh peoples writing about gauss!! he could be likee cartwright, the baseball guy who wass probably definitely a missionary/missionary-proffiting-assholee butn oeone but a couplle historians wrote it down, and i wouldnt knoww until ive read shit about himm!! i supposee i dont know about cartwrightt for sure yet either, i took a bit of a baseball break... iff only i was better at reading actual books thatsd make sthis shit so much easier

[lescritiqueschelous]

Le cinéma dit "adulte" (à savoir, des films un peu sérieux gravitant autour de thèmes suffisamment forts et matures pour convaincre votre papa et votre maman de lever leurs culs du canapé et de délaisser Netflix et ses docu-séries sur des serial-killers blancs et assez sympatoches au fond (les serial-killers, hein. Pas les docu-séries...) pour aller payer un ticket à 12,86 euros de moyenne dans le multiplexe le plus proche) se voit opposer la concurrence toujours plus redoutable des plate-formes de streaming et de ces petits salopiauds de grand-huits numériques, j'ai nommé les blockbusters Marvel. Pour rester relevant dans ce marketplace disrupté, il a fallu procéder à des benchmarks, reseter le mindset et rebrander le turnover (je suis pas très sur du dernier...). La solution : Mais ! Les films d'auteur aussi peuvent constituer des expériences ! Voyons !

J'ai déjà dit par le passé mon aversion, non, le mot est trop fort, attendez... circonspection quant à ces parti-pris parapluies (ici, 1917 se compose uniquement de longs plan-séquences collant le plus possible à l'enfer vécu par deux petits troufions des tranchées), souvent plus paralysant que libérateurs créativement. Mais rassurez-vous, en tant qu'objet filmique, 1917 s'en sort trrrrès bien. Il faut dire qu'il y a que des numéros 10 dans la team. Thomas Newman à la bande-son, au top de sa forme, flirtant délicieusement avec l'abstraction concrète (c'est bien simple, je l'ai mise dans ma playlist pour faire les carreaux). Roger Deakins à la photo, bien sûr, qui désormais cannibalise de sa maestria tous les projets auquel il prend part. Même le monteur, Lee Smith, est un pointure ! Débauché de chez Nolan, on lui a confié la tâche ardue d'assembler 11 raccords et demi. On espère qu'il a fait ses heures, le pauvre chou. Des bisous. Tout ce petit monde, chapeauté par la science du cadrage franchement pas dégueu de Mendes, allie son savoir-faire tel un aréopage de Power Rangers acculés par un énième auxiliaire de l'infâme Rita Repulsa pour un remarquable effort commun qui trouve son apogée dans une sublime séquence nocturne dans un village ch'ti dévasté. Éclairages à la bougie, ombres portées et violence sourde à la clé.

Cependant, en tant que "film" à proprement parler, 1917 peut laisser dubitatif. Dans ses meilleurs moments, le bidule évoque une version coupée à l'eau des errances métaphysiques et cradingues de Sokourov ou Guerman (qu'Aronofsky par exemple, malgré ce qu'on peut penser de lui, émule avec autrement plus de guts) et manufacture bon an mal an le vertige qu'on peut ressentir chez Cuaron et Nolan, les deux maîtres indépassables du film d'auteur d'attraction contemporain. Mais dans ses moments les moins inspirés, comme piégé par son propre hubris, Mendes rame un peu, panotant laborieusement d'un pan de réalité à l'autre, tentant de caser un découpage classique au sein d'un dispositif qui exigerait une refonte totale de son approche. On entend souvent que le film évoque un jeu vidéo. Il ne faut pas l'entendre dans le sens le plus flatteur : on pense à un GTA par exemple, pour ces moments un peu lunaires qui voit votre avatar lentement marcher d'une étape à l'autre de sa mission pendant que, pour combler le vide, son N+1 de la bratva lui fait douloureusement la conversation à coups de small talk ragoteux ("Il est pas un peu sur les nerfs, Dimitri, en ce moment ?").

Il s'agit d'une approche au final très américaine : penser qu'il y a UNE meilleure façon de raconter une histoire donnée. Mais on est pas obligés de verser dans le temps réel pour espérer communiquer l'expérience des tranchées. Le génie de Nolan avec Dunkerque l'a fait partir d'une pure construction temporelle et intellectuelle (la définition d'un film, quoi) pour toucher à une vérité qu'aucun autre médium n'aurait pu retransmettre. Avec un zèle presque contre-productif, Mendes, s'imaginant probablement s'inspirer de son prédécesseur, achève l'exact inverse, rabaissé à prospecter benoîtement quelques (beaux) instants de grâce au sein d'un réel artificiel et toc.

[0dnznd0]

Okay so exactly about 2 years ago, i got an amazing idea for a comic book. I've literally spent the last 2 years of my life basically doing research, questioning people and everything, listening and reading all about the contents that will go into this comic since its based on real life historical events and they are pretty complicated.

and in 2020 while i was just starting research i came across "bandırma füze kulübü" (translation: Bandırma missle club).

Long story short: in 1959 this club was formed by Bandırma highschool kids to make missles, they first made a small missle on their own witht the resources they had at that time and the club expanded over time with new kids joining. Then they presented their missle projects to İstanbul Technical university then they presented their project to the Turkish military. Now its already hella impressive that bunch of Turkish highschoolers created a club related to such a cool idea but also expanded upon it to even reach the militarty but sadly for some unkown reasons, a fire basically destroyed all of the plans and the projects. The investigation is said to be nearly nonexistant to even begin with and the whole project was put to the shelves.

when i first came across this i was both sad to hear the way that everything ended and the way that it was handled.

like even in 2022 Turks are pretty far behind when it comes science stuff let alone space stuff, (due to reasons i cant talk about the reason why we buy missles from other countries instead of making our own, the reasons why are pretty politic and i dont want to get in trouble for saying anything. For legal reasons i am gonna mention that this post is about NO ONE but the bandırma missle club!!!!!!!!!!) like there was a whole weird ass situation with Turkey trying to buy s-400 missles from Russia and america then gettin on our asses about it since we are in nato (again for legal reasons i have to mention the fact i have nothing against both nations pls i swear to god) but like what if we MADE our OWN missles?? we are like the ball in a strategic football play, you know?? and thats why like this club was so interesting to me cuz for the last whole year all of the news were about these god damn s-400's like anyways im gettin too off topic here damn

I already had a bigger comic project idea so i had to put this comic idea to onhold due to that. But yeah i had the idea of writing about this club for a few years now.

today while i was stuck in a weird writers block for my main comic project i thought to myself "oh you know why dont i revisit this highschool missle club thing and write the script for a little comic about it maybe that will help my writers block" and i decide to do a re-research on them before hand as always and BAM-

i saw that there was a movie coming out about them this year????? you can imagine my shock LMAO

i have to say that in the trailer the visiuals, costumes, sets and set design already looks pretty good. The dialog and the editing of the trailer kind of gives me hope that this might be an actual good movie made by Turks. I'm a pretty harsh ciritique when it comes to Turkish cinema/Turkish entertaintment industry cuz like there is so much potential in it but its wasted most of the time. a lot of the things produced by the Turkish enetrtaintment industry are mid at BEST so thats kind of why. but this movie, you know might give me hope, i really hope it doesnt dissapoint man.

anyways i might not write the comic about this club im not sure. should I????? idk

[unissonmag]

THE GOLDEN FASCINATION – RICHARD ANDREWS If meditation had a musical equivalent, it would probably be Richard Andrews' new release, The Golden Fascination…

[hamliet]

Hi, Kate, sorry to bother you about this, I haven't been following TG fandom for a while, so I didn't read all the discussions on the final arc. Although I enjoyed it overall I'd love to read some ciritique on why other people didn't, do you have any metas I can read?

I’m glad you enjoyed it! There were things I enjoyed as well, honestly. 

You can find a few of my metas on the final arc here. My one on the thematic tightrope is pretty repetitive and verbose, but I think it overall does convey what my issue with it was... those not super clearly admittedly! 

[upsidedowntowncomics]

  In which Mrs Daner returns papers, Jacobs makes a prediction and M.C. wants to argue.

[definegodliness]

can/will you critique my work for my creative writing class.? My professor just wants us to write. haha .. he says " just continue writing , bring in any piece of work you're are currently working on " ... and well im working on a piece. A love poem .. i just sent you an anon question about creating a love poem, based on forbidden love. Im almost done with mine, but feel my words aren't so ... " deep ". help?

Certainly. Go off anon and drop it in my ask box. Or send it to me through instant message, if you can. I’ll be good for a few pointers and ciritique. I’ve helped a couple of students during my time on here. That’s also why I feel I have to give the disclaimer that I won’t do your homework for you haha, wouldn’t want to rob you of the joy of learning and finding your own style.

Now the anon question you mentioned was: “Can you write a love poem about sort of a forbidden love? Like a soldier/knight who fell in love with a random woman he bedded ..”

The woman cannot be random if it were to be a forbidden love in medieval times, and if the woman isn’t random it is very unlikely the soldier/knight has bedded her before establishing a love connection strong enough to let the yearning be stronger than responsibility, duty, and common sense. Forbidden love is very much about the tension of wanting to give in to a constant, maddening craving versus listening to the voice of reason speaking of dire consequences, or causing a moral dilemma. An excellent example of forbidden love in the time of knights and princesses is the story of Tristan and Isolde. There is a very good movie available and I am sure you will get more inspiration out of it than any of my poetry ever could.

[interwebsfamous]

My Review of Todd VanDerWerff’s Review of Kong: Skull Island. SPOILERS GALORE for both.

I went to see Kong: Skull Island this weekend and loved it. It was not the world’s greatest cinematic triumph. It wasn’t even the best movie I saw in the last two weeks, which was Logan. However, having sat through a significant amount of films about giant robots and/or monsters punching each other, I can say definitively, that it is at the height of the genre. So, it surprised me to read Todd VanDerWerff’s review of Kong: Skull Island this Monday.

VanDerWerff is someone whose work I have been reading since his days at the AV Club. I frequently agree with his takes and find his writing style to be clear and concise, yet almost luminous and lyrical in its artistic quality. What I mean to say is that VanDerWerff is one of the greatest journalistic writers working today. However, I had such an odd reaction to his review that it compelled me to write a review of his review.

I have recently been following Alex Jones on social media. It has given me the stereotypical insight into how the other side thinks. One of the things I’ve noticed is the number of takes Jones provides that are simply accurately describing something I would be pleased with or disappointed in and then providing the exact opposite emotional response. In that sense, and only that sense, VanDerWerff’s review struck me as oddly Alex Jonesian.

IF YOU READ FURTHER, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS! GIANT, END OF THE MOVIE TWIST-TYPE SPOILERS!

I don’t know what VanDerWerff was expecting from this movie, as he accurately lists movies that I would compare it too. He notes Gareth Edward’s Godzilla, which is vastly inferior to Edward’s movies Monsters and, of course, Rogue One. He also compares it to the previous King Kong films, particularly the 2005 remake, and Apocalypse Now. I think Kong: Skull Island compares favorably to all those movies.

VanDerWerff’s primary complaint is that this particular version of King Kong is not really faithful to the original story of King Kong. I’m not really sure why VanDerWerff makes this complaint. I’m sure that there are plenty of movies VanDerWerff has seen that he thought were improved by playing loose with the source material.

I absolutely loved the 2005 movie Kong. I have admittedly not seen the original 1933 film. However, the 2005 movie felt to me like it was about something, specifically, show business. In that movie, Kong was the pitied victim of the greed and voyeurism of the show business industry. Kong was a romantic lead in that movie. However, he was churned up and spit out by the modern entertainment industry.

What I’m saying is that this story has been told. We do not need another reboot or remake rehashing the details of King Kong’s rise and fall in 1930s Manhattan. We most certainly do not need yet another version of What About Eve, Gypsy, or Showgirls walking us through the rapacious apathy of the entertainment industry towards its subjects. Also, in terms of robots and/or monsters punching each other, we’re getting a Pacific Rim 2, Transformers Infinity?, a Power Rangers reboot, and whatever the Cloverfield monster is up to next. That genre is being fully exploited.

While I agree with VanDerWerff that the character of Kong was compelling in this movie, it is precisely because he does not get much screen time. The filmmakers wisely leave us wanting more. The glimpses we get of this monster are awe-inspiring. The scene where a downed American chopper pilot watches Kong take a drink from a lagoon was to me the most amazing use of special effects and a simulacrum of the normal laws of physics to both humanize and exaggerate a monster.

The biggest problem with movies about robots and/or monsters punching each other is that, by the third act, we frequently get bored of watching them fight. The traditional solution to this problem is to create even more ridiculous fight scenes involving even yet more preposterous monsters. What Kong: Skull Island did is that it told a relatable and thematically unified story about people that occasionally has fight scenes between monsters. The fact that this movie is holding back more details about Kong for inevitable sequels merely forced it to do better story-telling. Also, by showing us the corpses of Kong’s parents, we are reminded of both his mortality and his ultimate loneliness. Additionally, the final fight scene was really cool.

VanDerWerff, in fact, identifies the thematic unity of the movie in his review.

“Thus, Skull Island deliberately takes much of its central idea from perhaps the best Vietnam movie ever made: 1979’s Apocalypse Now. Like that movie, this one is about a long trip into the jungle to find a legendary figure…

“Jackson plays a very human monster, a man who gradually comes to be obsessed with having his revenge, which makes for a potentially intriguing flip of Apocalypse Now: Instead of having to find a monster in the jungle, what if the monster was in the search party all along?”

I would agree with everything VanDerWerff says here except for “potentially.” What he sees as a lost potential, I see as a potent retelling carrying a powerful critique of the original. The problem of Apocalypse Now, and, its source material, Heart of Darkness, is that both works attempt to understand the problems of imperialism and colonialism by “othering” the imperialists. Both Colonels Kurtz are seen as madmen who have lost touch with the civilizing forces of white civilization. They have lost themselves in a jungle, literally, becoming the savages they seek to rule.

This Eurocentric and patronizing view of colonialism merely buys into a racist narratives of the colonized as inferior and deserving of their suffering. If they were stronger and more civilized, they would have driven the Europeans away. Instead, they are unable to avoid the predation of the most savage of white men. Therefore, it is up to the superior white man to restrain the impulses of their own fellow whites. If you need more arguments along these lines, just Google “noble savage.”

However, Kong: Skull Island flips this narrative on its head. Jackson’s Packard is totally powerless in the face of Kong. Kong swats the helicopters from the sky as one would swipe away a particularly bothersome insect. Toward the end of the film, where Packard seemingly has Kong in his grasp, Kong is shown to be perfectly capable of protecting himself. He does not need the noble white man to save him. By naming Tom Hiddleston’s character Conrad, presumably after Joseph Conrad, author of the Heart of Darkness, the movie makes this implicit critique almost explicit.

Instead, it is the various good liberals who are problematic here. Every one of them plays a role in this hopeless journey of colonization. The scientists are doomed by their curiosity that does not carry with it a respect for the lives and feelings of those they are investigating. Conrad suffers from a lack of forcefulness in confronting Packard throughout the movie. Additionally, there are a number of moments in the film where the “good�� characters inadvertently make Kong’s life harder, by lighting a cigarette or informing Kong’s adversaries as to their location.

Weaver, the photographer played by Brie Larson, is depicted as hopelessly naïve about the power of media to defend the powerless. Hiddleston critiques her for being a “war photographer,” which she reframes as being an “anti-war photographer.” Also, at a crucial moment in the film, Weaver herself fires a flare that alerts Kong’s adversary to their presence, endangering Kong and all the people left alive on the island. At the end of the film, Weaver appears to agree that she will never share any of the images that she has taken on her journey.

The reason why Kong is the most sympathetic character is because he’s the one hanging out at his house mostly keeping to himself and the humans are the ones that invade his homeland either for science, military aggression, or pure noxious curiosity. None of the people is quite as bad as Packard, whose brooding cruelty Jackson has a blast projecting onto the screen. These other characters are bad precisely because they are bland. All of them are depicted as simply going along with the mission even though they knew it was a bad idea because they did not have the guts to say no. To the extent these human characters suffer in this movie, it is clear that their own ignorance and lack of humility is the cause. VanDerWerff’s critique that they seem to be left with nothing to do ignores the fact that they are doing something important with that nothing.

However, the second best human performance of this movie belongs to John C. Reilly’s Hank Marlow, a sort of anti-Kurtz pushing a further ciritique of Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness. Marlow has learned to survive on Skull Island for decades by becoming humble. He made friends with the Japanese pilot who shot him down. He shows respect for the customs and traditions of his adversaries and the population of the Island. While he longs to escape, his considerable wisdom is ignored.

He is ignored precisely because he is somewhat out of touch with Western manners. He plays his character’s unhingedness with the kind of deft touch that Reilly brings to any portrayal. Reilly is at the same time both heavy handed and compassionate toward all his characters. The fact that Marlow is somewhat insane keeps the other humans from listening to his good advice. However, Marlow has actually gone somewhat saner than all the other humans by learning and respecting the world in which he was trapped. To the extent VanDerWerff thinks Marlow resembles Dr. Steve Brule, he has it backwards. Brule is a goofy know-it-all who doesn’t really know anything. Marlow is full of goofy humility, but actually understands what is going on.

[mehmetsahodemis-blog]

FELSEFE NEDİR

Bilinen Felsefe tarihi:Neden Sokrates: Önce Felsefe nedir'den başlayalım:Tabiat hakkında toplu bir görüş araştırılması,(külli)bütün bir izah(açıklama) denemesidir;aynı zamanda,hem ilimlerin (hulasa)özeti ve tamamlanması,hemde umumi ilimdir ve,büyük kardeşleri din ve şiir gibi,manasıyla ilimden farklı,insan dehasının görüşleri dizisi arasında ayrı bir dal teşkil eden bir ihtisas şubesidir.Belli olay guruplarını konu olarak ve bunların sebeplerini gözlemek,kendilerine göre meydana geldikleri kanunları ifade etmek gayesini güden ilimlerden farklı olarak,felsefe,alemi bütün olarak izah etmek,(külli)bütün(vakıa)Hadise veya olayı anlatmak için,bu gurupların ve onların hususi kanunlarının üstüne yükselen insan zihninin çabasıdır:Başka bir tabirle o,bütün ilimlerin temelinde bulunan şu soruya cevap vermek ister:Niçin bu alem vardır ve nasıl oluyor"da olduğu gibidir?Ve bunun diğer görünüşü gibi olan şu soruya cevap vermeye çalışır:Neyi bilebilirim ve ilim nasıl meydana geliyor? varlık ve onun örttüğü ince sır perdesi,bilgi, şartları,metotları:Felsefe araştırmalarının çift konusu işte budur. Fakat felsefenin kendisine mahsus bir konusu ve ayrı bir sahası olması,en sıkı bir bağla, positiv (doğrulama olumlu)ilme daha az bağlı olması demek değildir; diğer taraftan ilimde de,zarar görmeksizin,bu bağı koparmaz.İlimden ve bilhassa psikolojiden ve psikolojiye bağlı olan ilimlerdendir ki felsefe metotlarını ve sistemlerinin ilk maddesini alır. Felsefe olmasa ilimler, birliği olmayan bir küme,cansız bir bedendir;ilimler olmasa felsefe bedensiz bir ruh kalır ve şiirden ve şiirin rüyalarından hiçbir suretle ayırdedilemez .İlim felsefenin temeli ve onun kumaşı gibidir; ilim,Aristoteles'in dilini kullanmak gerekirse,kuvve(edim) halinde (en puissance)bir felsefe akımı, felsefesidir;diğer taraftan felsefe fiil halinde (en acte) güç, ilimdir,alimin en yüksek fonksiyonu, ilmi zihniyetin ve onun her şeyi birliğe götürmek isteyen tabi temayülün en yüksek tatmin şeklidir. Mahiyet ve menfaatleri gereği birbirlerine yakından bağlı olan felsefe ve ilim,başlangıçlarında ve kaderlerinde de gene böyle birbirlerine bağlıdırlar. Sebepleri ayırdetmek ve onlar bir ilk sebebin birliğine irca etmek hususunda aynı olan çok kuvvetli bir içgüdünün sürüklediği insan zihni,fizikte, matematikte, ahlakta basit birkaç hakikat elde eder etmez,onların terkibini yapmaya,bunlardan külli teoriler,ontoljik ve kosmolojik sistemler meydana getirmeye,yani felsefe ,metafizik yapmaya savaşır. Varlık hakkındaki bilgisizliğine gerek muhayyile ile,gerek çocukluğun çocukluğun ve dehanın,hakikati tahmin eden ve aramıyan o harikulade insiyakiyle çare bulur. Eskilerin felsefesinin apriorist,idealist ve fantastik karakteri buradan, fakat reketi meydana getirir; düşmanlık eşsiz büyüklüğü de gene buradan geliyor.Positiv bilgi yekünu arttıkça,ilmi çalışma bölündükçe,ve bu sayede geliştikçe,felsefe şiirden daha çok ayrılır, metotları kuvvet bulur,ilimlerin genişledikleri nispette felsefe teorileri sağlamlaşır. Her ilmi hareket bir felsefi hareketi meydana getirir; her yeni felsefe ilim için bir kuvvet kaynağı olur.Eğer ortaçağda bu bağlılık kopmuş görünüyorsa,çatışma sadece görünüştedir;ilme karşı düşmanlık veya ilgisizlik varsa,bu,mektebin resmi felsefesinden gelmektedir; Yoksa bu hiçbir vakit müstakil hıristiyan,Yahudi,Arap filozoflarında yoktur. XIX asırda da Roqer Bacon ve Verulam'ın devirlerinde olduğu gibi,ilimle belli bir felsefe arasında aykırılık olabilir.Hakiki ilim ve hakiki felsefe her zaman tamamıyla uyuşmuşlardır ve rekabet gibi gelen görünüşler arkasında, onların anlaşmaları bugün mümkün olduğu kadar tamdır. (1) Bu soruların birincisine karşılık olmak itibariyle felsefe,spekulativ metafizik,ontoloji (varlık teorisi) adlarını alır. İkincisiyle uğraşınca,.transsendetal,tenkit (ciritique),noolji (düşünce teorisi) Yani mantık,yahut varlık veya düşünülen şeyden ayrı olarak işleyişinden düşünce teorisi,ve bilgi teorisi, yahut varlıkla münasebetinde nazarı itibara alınan düşünce ve onun araştırma metotlarının teorisi olur. Metafizik düşüncelerden vazgeçerek matematik ve tecrübi ilimlerin terkibi olmakla yetindiği vakit felsefe,positiv veya positivisim adlarını alır. sadece sistemler arasında daima çelişme bulunduğunu gösteren tarihi olaya dayanabilir,yani sade tecrübeden gelen bir temel malik olabilir,yahut insan zihninin akıl tarafından yapılan bir tahliline dayanabilir: Birinci halde şüphecilik (scepticisime) ikinci halde tenkidcilik (criticisme) adını alır.Şüpheciliğe zıt olarak doğmatism vardır, bu insan zihni için eşyanın ve onun ilk sebebinin objektiv bir bilgisinin mümkün olduğuna, her türlü düşünceden önce veya muhakeme neticesinde inanır.Akılcılık bu bilgiye a priori(nazariye) düşünce ile varılacağını iddia eder; tecrübecilik (empirisme) muşahede ve induksiyon veya a poteriori düşüncede her türlü varlıktan önce veyüksek olan ilk olayı gören idealism"in tercih ettiği metottur: Empirisim bunun aksi olarak düşünce,sebep veya ilk olay olmak şöyle dursun,bunun daha önce bulunan bir varlıktan geldiği fikrine dayanır (kelimenin yeni manasıyla realism.ve onda bulunan malzemenin başka her hangi bir kaynaktan gelmeyen (idealism'in doğuştan (inne) fikir veya aksiomları mistisism iç duyu veya dini hissi ve ilah...)ona duyular tarafından verildiğini söyler (sensualism). Şüphecilik.Eğer ilk sebebin tesiri,teolojik veya bir gaye gözeterek meydana gelen faaliyete zıt olarak,şuursuz ve iradesiz gibi düşünülürse,realisim,meterialisim ve mekanism olur. Diğer taraftan ilk sebebi bir şahıs haline getirerek,onda yalnız meydana gelen bir fikir değil,fakat eşyanın üstünde duran (Supranturalisme, transcendance)duyular üstü,doğuştan gelen)ve onları serbest iradesine göre (teism) veya değişmez kanunlar vasıtasıyla (deism) idare eden bir varlık gördüğü vakit idealism olur:Bu panteism'e(mantıkla elde edilen sonuç) naturalism'e(doğayı inceleyen bilim) monism'e (her alanda çoklukları birliğe indirgeyen genel öğretilere verilen genel ad...) İşte birbirine zıt olan bu üç görüş günümüzde hala partilerin ve okulların kavgaları alem hakkındaki genel görüşün ilerlemesi,işte kısaca felsefe tarihi budur.