

Philip K. Dick, Sci-Fi Philosopher, Part 2 - dnetesn
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/philip-k-dick-sci-fi-philosopher-part-2/

======
debacle
Only slightly off topic, but anyone who hasn't should read Philip K Dick.
Reading an anthology of his short stories is like reading the plot summary of
almost every major Sci-Fi film in the last 30 years.

~~~
FlailFast
Quite true, and sometimes in a very literal[1] sense![2]

[1] Literal in the classic sense, not the contranymical nonsense that has been
thrust upon it thanks to teenagers who "can't even"...read a dictionary.

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adaptations_of_works_by...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adaptations_of_works_by_Philip_K._Dick)

~~~
cbd1984
Wow. You know nothing about English. Dickens used "literally" in a figurative
sense:

[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3007](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3007)

Looks like you literally can't even read a dictionary:

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/literally)

> 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to
> combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

It's fun to take illiterate pedants down a peg. Everyone should try it for
themselves.

~~~
FlailFast
Okay, so I came across a bit strong there, and I apologize for that. Yes,
language is fluid, and meanings "flip polarity" all the time ("nonplussed"
comes to mind).

Yes, there is ample evidence that it was used to mean "with emphasis, but not
in reality" for some time. I was wrong. I was attempting to make a glib remark
without much consideration for facts...next time I'll endeavor to either keep
my snide commentary to myself, or at least do a bit of fact checking.

...but in the mean time/back to the parent topic, people really should read
Phillip K. Dick. He's a fantastic writer and visionary, and uses language far
better than I can.

~~~
irremediable
Haha, good on you for recognising where you came across badly and backing
down.

And yeah, I'm completely in agreement: PKD is amazing.

------
dvt
> Christianity, lest it be forgotten, is a metaphysical monism where it is the
> obligation of every Christian to love every aspect of creation

This is fundamentally incorrect. As far as Judeo-Christian theology is
concerned, there is a clear distinction between God and creation.

Incidentally, this is also why Spinoza (a Sephardic Jew and monist) was
excommunicated.

~~~
ThomPete
What do you mean clear distinction?

~~~
gknoy
> to love every aspect of creation

He means that Christianity canonically differentiates a Creator (God) and that
which was created (universe, people, etc). So, this person or tree is not God,
nor is it an aspect of God.

~~~
ThomPete
Thats not what I read in that sentence at least.

What I read is the act of _creating_ not _what_is_created_

But I could obviously be wrong.

------
jchrisa
His Gnosticism reminds me of
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-
moloch/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/)

