Blotter updated: 06/17/12Show/Hide Show All

Image

Tag History
(edit info)
Rating

Prev | Index | Next

Comments

WesternBirds
#347125
11 months ago
My personal thoughts were that the caramel in the opening sequence were like his superhero alter ego that he busts out shazam style when he actually has to do something productive but this works too
dragonSpike
#347126
11 months ago
wut.
Anonymous
#347134
11 months ago
Beyond awesome.
AdrianBrony
#347157
11 months ago
curse my inability to comprehend log blocks of metaphorical text. it was the same way when I had to read kafka in school... I couldn't make sense of any of it. makes me feel dumb.
Anonymous
#347161
11 months ago
Nah, you've got it all wrong. It's a result of DBZ fusion, obviously.
AdrianBrony
#347190
11 months ago
can someone explain the text? I've read through it three or four times now and it just isn't making any sense to me past the individual sentences. I hear it's awesome when applied here, but it just frustrates me when I'm too dumb to understand it.
Anonymous
#347229
11 months ago
AdrianBrony

The text is a philosophical discussion of love by Plato. It describes the sense of finding one's "other half", and being so amazed, enraptured and enthralled by each other that you both mutually become each other's worlds. Hephaestus, the God of Forges, then encounters the lovers and offers to meld them together, body and soul, so that they would forever be together in life and in death, reaching the afterlife as one soul rather than two. The lovers agree without question or second thought, because they know they can live no other way.

The image then is making a pun based on this concept. Basically, Big Mac and Caramel being gay lovers fused into one body, which becomes the Big Mac recolour you can see in the opening credits of the show right as Twilight jumps from the balloon.

Implying people are gay using ancient greek standards - always a classic!
AdrianBrony
#347249
11 months ago
#347229
image is explained, but I guess I'm just too simple to understand the philosophy. thank you for explaining it though.
Anonymous
#347268
11 months ago
wat
Anonymous
#347274
11 months ago
No problem!
AdrianBrony
#347277
11 months ago
#347249
I mean, if 2 people were melded together, wouldn't that be destroying the two and replacing it with someone else? where is the joy in that?
Anonymous
#347582
11 months ago
#347249 here, AdrianBrony!

There's a belief that was prevalent at the time, that all people once possessed two sets of arms, two sets of legs, two heads and, yes, two sets of reproductive organs. Mankind was happy, but then Zeus or some other god was acting like a douchebag struck them with a lightning bolt, severing them in two, body and soul.

Now, we are resigned to walk the world incomplete, unless you are to find your soulmate, the one who is made from the half of you you lost and from whom you were made from their lost half. Such is the purpose of life, to find the one who makes you complete.

That was the popular philosophy at the time.

As for destroying the two and replacing it with someone else, that's not the case at all. It's like painting a picture, joining paint and blank canvas to create art. It's a matter of synergy, that is, the product of the two is greater than the sum. 3 + 3 = 6, but 3 x 3 = 9. The joy in such a philosophy is to be one with your other half, to attain something greater, emotionally and spiritually, than what you could achieve working separately.
Meltheshadowlover
#347734
11 months ago
they made babies ^0^
AdrianBrony
#348052
11 months ago
#347582
I'm just saying when the combination becomes something new, the individual pieces won't be around to admire eachother or the finished product, anymore

and at the same time, I wouldn't find a ph9ilosophy of one separate half for everyone enjoyble at all. what if your separate half died? or is so far away you will never meet? I find it much more comforting to think that such things aren't carved in stone, and love is an effort, not a reaction.
AdrianBrony
#348061
11 months ago
what I mean is, I don't like relying on someone else for my own happiness. collaborating, yes, but relying and dependence is not what I see as romantic. I see romance as a choice. I don't need you. I could walk away right now and I'll be more or less fine, but I WANT you and ill stay with no obligation or need to you
CherryCheerilee
#348259
11 months ago
Don't blink.
Xuncu
#348290
11 months ago
^^"Different time," dude. By, like, several millenia.
Sobol
#349045
11 months ago
#347582

It wasn't "prevalent at the time". It's a tale invented by Plato himself, who put it in his work in the mouth of Aristofanes the comedian. It's a joke; it's not to be taken seriously, and, I think, nobody really believed in it at the time or took it literally. Aristofanes' speech in "Symposium" ends with a funny conclusion that, if people don't stop being jerks, Zeus will dissect us again so we will hop on one leg and have only one arm and so on.

But there's a grain of thruth in the joke. The idea of love as an aspiration for integrity, wholeness tell us - not literally, but metaphorically - something important about the nature of love.
Anonymous
#714641
7 months ago
Fusion. I ain't gotta explian shit