Martin Daniel Treplev

Someone is shy

Martin Daniel hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Martin Daniel Treplev
Posted over 1 year ago
Are Religions and Science mutually exclusive?
Hello, I really like the debate you are suggesting. I will begin my response with a short answer, they most certainly not. Things are and they can only be and in their being they are regardless of our opinion. With this I mean to say that there is a truth, you may have one opinion and I may have the same or a different, now the truth may be what one of us believes or yet different to whatever either of us thought. Some people believe that there is a god, some people believe that there is no god; there is a truth in answer to this question and it will remain regardless of either opinion. If God does exist, will still do regardless of the opinion of those who believe that does not (and viceversa). Science relates to the scientific method which requires an empirical proof, from this perspective you can deny the existence of something you cannot find an empirical proof of. No scientist would assume then that it is impossible the existence of what cannot sense as there are always limits to what we can find and experience, technological progress have allowed us to proof wrong the conclusions of previous scientists. The main issue is that science is in constant search and it should question itself as well, religion requires faith, scientists rely on pieces of information on which they put faith such as physical law, i.e. gravity. Then again, scientists should question everything they know, even these laws. This means that a religious person would have a difficulty as a scientist although every other human being would too. This does not mean that science itself is against religion, science itself is a concept, it does not have feelings and by its definition is neither the antonymous of religion (that would be atheism), science is the intellectual search of truth and we must be open to whichever outcome even if it means proving our hypothesis wrong.
Noface
Martin Daniel Treplev
Posted over 1 year ago
Is It Good for Artists to be pushed Outside Their Comfort Zone?
I think this relates to artistic and individual freedom. Does the artist have the right to do something and then burn it? What about after publishing it? It is also related to freedom of speech and I think lastly also linked to the responsibility that the artist has towards society and vice versa. With this I mean, is it okay for a filmmaker to make an incredibly boring film not caring about the audience or making a film intentionally boring trying to annoy the audience? I suppose it depends what answer we give to questions like those then we may be able to get an answer to this one. I think artists have a responsibility to enrich their craft, to enhance themselves and essentially to improve as artists. For this reason they must travel, they must practice other arts, the must experience everything and feel everything. It is incredible to see the progress of songwriters from their early years to their mature work (Neil Young, Mark Knopfler, Silvio Rodriguez...) what an amazing thing would have been having Kurt Cobain to add to that list! I love the idea of taking artists out of their comfort zone because they create something amazing. Take Spielberg for example and Schindler's List. Lars Von Trier did an exercise of this sort with his project The Five Obstructions where he took his film The Perfect Human and asked director Jorgen Leth to remake it giving him specific obstructions, the result were a number of very peculiar short films where Leth was forced to overcome certain obstacles. In summary, I believe artists can create within their comfort zone but we seem to find their exceptional work when they dare to come out of this zone.
Noface
Martin Daniel Treplev
Posted over 1 year ago
Should California and Texas be allowed to secede or split?
I believe every country have issues of this sort, cities or states that seem to wish to become independent countries. In the one hand there is the importance of freedom but in the other why would you add another frontier since clearly one of the major issues of our global society is patriotism? I like that you ask if they should be allowed. I think that we tend to find very attractive and interesting debates when we haven't first agreed on much more basic issues. Some of these issues would be what society allows the individual to do and what the individual allows society to do, who owns who, are we allowed to choose our careers and where we live? We accept that there is a voting system which is possibly democratic but I frankly doubt that it truly represents the current society. With this in mind I am not convinced that we would be able to find out from a referendum how the people of these states felt about this topic. So in conclusion I believe we would need to first agree if we are allowed to tell these people if they can leave or not and after this we would need to find a way to find out how everyone feel about it. Thank you for question, it is certainly a good debating topic. Regards, MD