»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
"The Dark"
| Philosophy 101 |
|
"The Dark" |
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois 
|
If "The Dark" is nothing to be afraid of, because of it not being an acctaully object.. Then why is it called "The Dark" it sounds like an object to me.. or a thing.. why are we afraid of this.. does the dark represent the unknown things that we are afraid of? And why do we fear the things unknown? This is just a question I've had on my mind for a while. And i wanted to see what you guys thought of it.. ~Zach~ |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Zach Booker-Scott - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
The Shadow in Blue Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493EL, Michigan |
In my opinion, the dark, or rather "the dark" is, as you said, represents the unknown. But why we fear "the dark"/the unknown, I don't know. I would hazard to guess that it is in our nature to want to be in control and prepared for what lies ahead. But when faced with the unknown we lose that control and sometimes overreact. This forces us to be dependent on the fates as it were. In a round about way I'm guessing that fear of the dark/unknown is a compensation for losing control. ~J.N.S. JNS |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
The "dark" doesn't so much represent the unknown, as it does the inability to know it. If you don't "know" something then you can't possibly determine what its nature is. Even a good and helpful thing in such a state may cause pain. So fear results from the potential of danger or the certainty of frustration that comes from the inability to see something as it is. Stephen |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
However the dark also represents helplessness to us humans. If you can't see you can't react. To be afraid of the dark is to be afraid of helplessness in general. The inability to act and react. Sanity is NOT a matter of statistics. The earth is round, germs cause desease, and God speaks. I am insane of course BUT STILL!! [This message has been edited by Earl Robertson (06-04-2008 11:48 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think there is also a "fear of light" but that's another topic. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm not one of the "we" who are afraid of the dark. I'm nocturnal by nature. But it occurred to me that perhaps some of this fear is indoctrinated: "Be home before dark!" and grinnin' at Stephanos--I was never really afraid of the light--I just shruggishly switched to Bloody Mary's (<--um, what is the proper plural of "Bloody Mary"?) and called that breakfast.  |
||
|
eternally_singing Member
since 2007-12-18
Posts 123PA, United States |
I agree “the dark” is definitely a fear of the unknown. Without sight, a sense we rely on, we become nervous and helpless resulting in the use of imagination. Our imagination, fired by the feeling of helplessness, fills our surrounding with fears or hazards- intensified by the fact that one does not know what is there and cannot react to it. We think of everything that could go wrong or of the things we fear the most to the point that every unidentifiable creak, shadow or bump in the night is magnified and distorted into what we fear. In the dark, we cannot even be reassured by familiar surroundings we must depend on other senses which we are not always satisfactory in identifying a source of comfort. Thus we freak out and fear the worse. = ] Or at least, that is my guess. However, sometimes the dark is welcome. I always wonder at that. |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Wow all are valid suggestions and theories.. some of the mi understood others were too intelectual for my little mind to comprehend lol... Enternly singing your's made the most sence.. lol or that i could understood!! lol
|
||
|
RedNail Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 65Stockholm, Sweden |
To me, "The Dark" is what we fear and what is unfamiliar to us. This reminds me of a part of the lyrics in the song "Overrated" by Three Days Grace. "You’re thinking way to slow So we’re creating Answers on our own" Similar to the fact that we seem to fear what we don't know, we also fear to be wrong about what we though we knew. Life is a rollercoster, live for the ride. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
When light is not bright we call it "the dark", but it is still light. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, No it isn't. Dark is the absence (more or less) of light, not light, and not another kind of light. If you say "dim light", what you are really expressing is that there is very little light to be seen. Review your physics, light is a photonic substance that travels at an actual speed. There is no such thing as "dark light". Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Which part of my comment contradicted that, Stephanos? I didn't deny anything of it being a photonic substance nor anything of its speed. All I said is that light when it is not bright is what we call "the dark", but it is still light. I don't mind discussing this more, but hope you will state things in your own words, (as you usually do) instead of just referring to "Physics". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: But "Light when it is not bright" makes no sense to me. Light is always bright. The degree to which someone says "dim" or "dark" has to do with the ratio of its absence. That's why it is possible for there to be literally no light, such as in a subterranean cave. Is that situation also "dark light"? No, it is dark. quote: Essorant, I did use my own words. I didn't quote anyone. I am only asking you to review the physics of light, which challenge your idea of there being "dark light". Unless I'm misunderstanding you, and you are just being poetic. But otherwise this doesn't make sense to me physically, nor linguistically. Commonly people do not speak like this (of 'dark light') do they? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, When you look at the stars at night, you can see light freshly coming out of the stars is brighter than light that is travelled far from them. The light that is no longer immediately or freshly coming from them, but is travelled at distances away from them, bears the appearance of blackishnes, and therefore is "the dark" "darkness" "night". If it were as bright as the other light, then I imagine the whole sky would uniformly be as bright as the stars and we would be blinded by an undimming brightness travelling through the universe. Imagine going to an Earth in another solar system, and rising for morning when you see the sun of this solar system rising as a star in the sky over there. The "morning" light from this sun (and others), over there, won't be quite as bright! You might even call it it "night", or, "the dark"  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There you go talking physics again. What you're describing is called the Inverse-Square Law. Light doesn't get tired from traveling, it just spreads out and becomes "diluted." Each individual photon, however, is the same as it was when it started its billion-year journey (barring any collisions). Sorry, Essorant, but Stephen is right. You either have a photon or you don't have a photon. There is no in between. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, I don't find so much difference, Ron. You seem to be saying "diluted" almost the same way I say "less bright". But the main point is that it is light. Whether undiluted, or diluted, it is light. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-10-2008 03:20 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: I could be wrong, (I can't speak for Ron) but it doesn't seem that you two are saying the same thing. When you speak of "dark light", it seems that you are suggesting that the light itself is darker, rather than that the ratio is less. In reality the light itself is still the same brightness, it is merely diluted, much in the same way that salt diluted in water is not "less salty salt", but literally "less salt". Your language is misleading here. quote: Test your model and see if it works with all possibilities ...What about the subterranean cave, where there is no (or virtually no) light? Can such a darkness sensibly be called "dark light"? The model of darkness as the absence of light (not dark light) works in all of the possibilities, ranging from a few miles off from the sun, to a candle lit concert hall, to the center of a collapsed mine shaft. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: No, it is light. So I don't think that it is natively dark, but I think it is extended into a condition, in distant or much less direct things and places, in which it appears dark in contrast with the conditions where light appears bright. quote: My model works well, at least for me. I would say the light in the subterranean cave is simply is in a different condition and therefore is different with the condition. It is not able to get there as directly as light may get to many other places that you see, therefore, it simply shows up in a different way. It shows up in a way that we call "the dark". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But in this case it isn't showing up in a "different way". It isn't showing up at all. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Let me explain it in one final likeness Essorant (which also demonstrates the Inverse-Square-Law that Ron mentioned): A water sprinkler at 15 feet away gets you less wet than at 2 feet away. Having moved from 2 feet to 15 feet away, would it more correct to say you are now getting sprayed with less water, or that you are getting sprayed with less-wet-water? Then let's say that someone turns off the sprinkler at the spigot (or puts a large umbrella immediately in front of the sprinkler). Would it be more correct to say that you are now being sprayed with no water, or with dry water? The answer is obvious. Well, in the same way, a person's eye at a farther distance from a light-source is being bombarded by less photons of light (because of the dispersion), not dimmer photons of light. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Brightness: (More) light Darkness: (Less) light = light |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, Stephanos, and other interested Folk, It's not a question that thousands of years of logicians were able to settle with the use of logic. Some of them were almost as bright as were are today. They had to switch gears and actually figure out ways to check it out and see what the facts were. It turns out that it depends on how you deal with it. You can either measure how fast a piece of light is going or where it is but not both on the same piece of light. You can also offer a piece of light a choice of which of two tiny doorways to go through and it will actually go through one and not go through the other but pretend to act as though it did. It's enough to give any decent poet nightmares and delusions of theology. It is pretty clear, though, that light is given off in little gift wrapped packages that may be bigger on the inside than they are on the outside. There are places where the packs actually seem to be at any one moment in time and places where they aren't. The places where the packages are, for the sake of convenience, we call Light. The places where the packages are not, we call Dark. This is pretty much purely for convenience, because even in a vacuum little pieces of matter are constantly popping into existence out of nothingness on a regular basis while elsewhere in other places little piece of matter are popping out of existence. What these pieces of matter may be, I certainly haven't the least idea, though there may be physicists who do. Have I shared my confusion with you sufficiently yet? I believe that when we're talking about "The Light" and "The Dark" we are talking about concepts that have only some overlap with the presence or absence of photons in any particular place. While the few pieces of information I've shared about my shaky understanding of the nature of light may have some tangential interest, I don't think they have addressed the root of the question we're trying to talk about, which is why are people scared of "the dark?" and what is "the dark" that it should have this effect on us anyway? Under different circumstances I may be afraid of the absence of photons, but I think I'm more afraid of what dire persons, thoughts and things my imagination will use to populate my own personal darkness. Those contents may or may not overlap with yours. Probably they do, somewhat, but conveyor belts may not feature strongly in your personal darknesses. Your notion of the function of disorder in your darknesses may differ from mine. And what about your personal fears of not having sufficient compassion for others? Or attitudes about race or strangers or religion? What about the nature of evil? I suspect that's probably "The Dark" that is the darkness most disturbing. I offer for your consideration this link to a small masterpiece by Anthony Hecht: http://plagiarist.com/poetry/2403/ And I pray bless us all. Sincerely yours, Bob K. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, it's out of those kinds of thoughts that I mentioned that there is also such a thing as fear of the light. Darkness and Light are not purely physical phenomena to me, but strong spiritual entities, not less real but more real than their physical counterparts. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ess? I'm not trying to kiss the Ronmeister's arse, but? He's right. To see a star clearly you have to look to the sides of it. |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
(rolls eyes) unless I am very much mistaken, all of you are right...and none of you disagree. Essorant refered (loosly) to "dark-light" a term which, as has been suficiantly demonstrated, is complete nonsence. However I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that what he meant was that if you walk from a room with lots of photons bouncing around, to a room with only a few, the latter would appear to be in darkness. In reality there is only "less light" but until your eyes adjust it will be (and is) darkness. (But not "Dark-light") My two cents. Only the insane are strong enough to prosper... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
