What was it made out of?

What was it made out of?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_and_religious_beliefs_of_Stanley_Kubrick#Religion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

unobtanium

eggs

Chocolate.

love

BREAK!!!!

Kubrickium

Stars

This.

the same stuff chalkboards are made of

Olde english and swishers

Bags of coins and sand

recycled plastic

plasma and bone marrow

Obsidian

That shit that leaked out of Gary Oldman's head when he was talking to Mr. Shadow on the phone in The Fifth Element

Bismuth

100% U.S. steel, baby.

chocolate

This

BIG OL' NIGGerian minerals

Kangzidium.

In the novels Clarke constantly refers to the monoliths with the word "ebon", as they are normally perfectly black and nonreflective. Sometimes they do light up, though, when they're "doing" something.

They may be voids in space, though just like this scene they are alternately depicted as being conventional, inert objects. They would seem to manifest as either one when appropriate.

Stay tuned for the prequel to find out!

Primitive CGI.

space jizz

midichlorians

basalt

Who cares. Vastly overrated sci-fi that ascribes the advent of intelligence to a deity. Literally reinventing Christianity from the top down in the most asinine way possible.

Kubrick was and always will be a hack.

Kys

...

LSD

Carbon, Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Iron and Selenium.

t. Triggered brainlet

Notice the lack of argumentation from the actual brainlets

Whereas I articulated my position perfectly in three sentences.

So any form of alien intervention would be "reinventing Christianity" to you?

>butthurt christfag detected

No, just the way it's done in 2001. Ape touches monolith; is imbued with a "divine spark" that makes him superior to the other apes.

It's about as subtle as Ridley Scott's Engineers but it's wrapped in enigmatic shit. In the end it hardly matters, the only thing people remember is pic related.

But isn't everything made out of stars, user?

(You) need to leave.

shut up fag

Yes more or less. Everything except stars themselves anyway.

Those are made out of hydrogen, which begat stars which begat shit heavier than helium.

>It took me three sentences to get (You)s

Congratulations.

vibranium, the same shit that woke ass nigga from Black Panther had his lip plate made out of

you didnt really make an argument either

>le stupid Christianity is bad, no deities either that is not allowed

is literally not an argument you pseudo-intellectual mook.

Carbon nanotubes

Diamond, the hardest metal known to man

and where did the hydrogen come from ?

>the hardest metal known to man
>not DragonForce

What is it in your life that makes you think it is a "divine spark"?

There is certainly nothing in the film that suggests divinity.

Big bang stuff chillin' out

There was lots more but 99% of the shit got wiped out by anti-shit

There's nothing in particular to suggest it's not divine.

The monoliths defy all rationality.

Jamie pull that shit up right now

>There's nothing in particular to suggest it's not divine.

And yet you went with the "divine" option, why was that?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

Because of lack of evidence to the contrary

I guess you could posit "maybe it was ayyliums" to which I retort, "for what purpose?"

Money.

>Because of lack of evidence to the contrary

There was lack of evidence for the idea that MLPs were responsible, and yet you went with divinity. Why are you skirting round the issue that the "divinity" idea came from you and your life experiences?

The prop was wood

Light

The books confirm it was literally aliens. In 3001 they make the decision to destroy humanity.

Why are you so triggered by the word divine? Are you still mad mommy made you get up early to go to church?

>be aliens
>can make monoliths that zoom around the universe and make dumb shits intelligent
>takes you 150,000 years of human evolution + 1000 years of them shitting up space to realize it was a mistake
I don't buy it.

Properties of both rubber and gum

They are still bound by psychics and the speed of light. The monoliths were all checkpoints designed to report back to the alien race, that's why they put one on the moon and one at Jupiter, to see what humans were like at that point in time.

So after the events of 2010 the monolith sent information back which took 500 years each way.

That's not an argument and you know it

>yfw the monolith is actually a movie screen

At the same time Kubrick hated the ending to the book and disregarded it for the film. I wouldn't use the book to interpret the film.

Ok but why does the monolith make the apes smart

Kubrick, while a genius, was a cantankerous coot who hated anything he didn't personally create.

The two were created together, two interpretations of the same story.

Lol. You're a fucking retard.

To advance the race. The aliens advance by discovering new species and bringing their uniqueness into their own.

Hmm, what is this... what is this not...

this is not an argument

It doesn't "make them smart", it just gives them a little nudge in the next evolutionary direction. The monolith makes the apes figure out how tools work. The rest occurs naturally.

I'm not triggered, user. Just curious as to where the "divine spark" idea came from as it certainly wasn't the film.

Ok familiar, I'll spell it out...

What you decided to call 'a deity' could simply be a transcendental species or their tech. Aliens. Or a stage of humanity that managed to reach out through time.

You also failed when you assumed that an ancient hebrew fable was in any way relevant to the teachings of Christianity.

In short: You're a fucking retard.

Happy?

Dude... literally nowhere in the movie is/are the monolith(s) presented as having anything to do with a deity. The nature of the monolith is left a complete and utter mystery. The books explain it, but I ignore the books since the movie is light years greater as a work of art. And in any case, the monoliths are not made by deities in the books. You've misunderstood the movie. That's if you've ever even watched it.

O

>inb4 the retard replies

It confirms the notion that man's intelligence is not intrinsic to man, but granted to him by an outside authority.

I only said divine because Kubrick, an atheist, was deconstructing the mythos by turning God into ayylmaos.

You're reading one particular interpretation into that scene. Another, equally valid interpretation is that the ape is stirred into a higher consciousness, not by anything the monolith does to it, but simply by the geometric/artistic merits and awe-inspiring mystery of the monolith as it stands there contrasting with every other thing on that plain

You should be careful about how you pick your words, if you even slightly imply that something like a god could exist the turbo atheists like that guy will throw a hissy fit.

I completely ignore the books. All due respect to Arthur C. Clarke - his was a powerful intellect. But compared to the film, the books are so trivial and mundane that I don't consider them to take place in the same universe. The film is a mystic experience and an elevation of consciousness. The books are just standard sci-fi.

And that's why I like the two together; Kubrick brings you the feelings and awe and wonder of the story while Clarke gives you the foundation and facts of it. The two very different ways of telling the same story is interesting to me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_and_religious_beliefs_of_Stanley_Kubrick#Religion

>I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of God, once you accept the fact that there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, that each star is a life-giving sun and that there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in just the visible universe. Given a planet in a stable orbit, not too hot and not too cold, and given a few billion years of chance chemical reactions created by the interaction of a sun's energy on the planet's chemicals, it's fairly certain that life in one form or another will eventually emerge. It's reasonable to assume that there must be, in fact, countless billions of such planets where biological life has arisen, and the odds of some proportion of such life developing intelligence are high. Now, the sun is by no means an old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic age, so it seems likely that there are billions of planets in the universe not only where intelligent life is on a lower scale than man but other billions where it is approximately equal and others still where it is hundreds of thousands of millions of years in advance of us. When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made in a few millennia—less than a microsecond in the chronology of the universe—can you imagine the evolutionary development that much older life forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities—and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans.

Two interpretations, yes, but one vastly better than the other. The film is one of the greatest works of art ever created. The books are forgettable sci-fi.

hardened compact monkey turds.

I respect Clarke for his intellect and ideas, but damn he writes boring books.

His style certainly was a bit ponderous I'll admit, but for me at least the content makes it worth reading through still.

It's just called being precise, you dipshit. My guess is you're not really into scientific methods.

How long have you been a member of LessWrong?

>Kubrick, an atheist, was deconstructing the mythos by turning God into ayylmaos.

State your source. Your Pastor isn't a viable source.

Original research, get fucked white boi

...

Cite your sources.

...

See, my problem with shit like this is that these people are saying they believe it's possible for a being we would think of as a god to evolve from nature, but they don't believe that nature could have been created by such a being. I'm not a Christian, for the record, but so many of these "intellectual" types say shit like this that is so logically inconsistent and basically hypocritical....it irritates the fuck out of me.

Like how do they not realize how retarded they sound? You believe that a being far above us, "pure energy and spirit", could eventually evolve out nothing, but you dismiss the idea that such a being could have existed before the natural world and brought it into existence. Like....why?

Well done, but this wasn't the other user's source otherwise he would have linked it instead of telling me to get fucked. The other user is just an argumentative twat who claims to have researched something but in reality just has a religious chip on his shoulder since he specifically mentions Christianity.

Digits.

actually "renaissance" is a french term.