Posts: 435 |
Rhoobarb Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 7:10 PM |
Lemon Grinner wrote: I just think it's a crap song anyways.
I'll second that sentiment. |
|
|
Posts: 3778 |
megg_inc Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 7:12 PM |
Moray wrote: Oohh yeah, without possessions I wouldn't be able to buy Megg or Goosey flowers. Judgement delivered - Imagine loses.
I like your thinking, heehee ;P |
|
|
Posts: 1667 |
Typing to Reach You Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 7:43 PM |
Hmm. Well, the possession thing first. I don't think we should confuse 'no possessions' with having no 'stuff'. It just means we don't own the stuff - we share it. Which I think is nice in principal, it's just not practical lol. But that's what Image is - it's a 'principal' song, as the title suggests.
No countries I could live with. They cause all sorts of problems. But it does come quite close to also getting rid of the world's various cultures, which would make things a bit boring.
In terms of religion, well I'm religious myself so it's important to me. The problem is that people see religion as causing al sorts of wars - in actuality, the teachings in religion almost always condemn violence as far as I'm aware. It's just problems come from those misguided and extreme types that claim to be religious but blatantly aren't at all.
But I like the song. I agree with others - got a good melody. |
|
|
Posts: 8142 |
minnmess Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 7:55 PM |
I love Imagine and think it is one of the great songs of all time. But it is true that many of the concepts are probably a Buddhust/hippie/60s ideal and probably not possible or even desired.
And on a completely unkind and nonpeace loving level, i would like David Archuleta (sp?) to go away. |
|
|
Posts: 2782 |
Hanne Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 8:05 PM |
Turtleneck wrote: Do you think that greed is actually a motivator and can be a good thing in some cases?
If there were no possessions, it would causes several problems.
I think the whole idea was that you'd be responsible and do thing out of the goodness of your heart and for the sake of the community. If people were to do that, it would need a fundamental change of human nature. I don't really believe in it, but it was the ideal of the hippie movement.
|
|
|
Posts: 7598 |
weirdmom Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 8:49 PM |
Great melody for sure. I've always just tried to take the lyrics in a more general way. The meaning I take from it is that if we put each other above all these things, cultural differences, and beliefs maybe there'd be a chance for peace. Of course the chance of all of us doing this at the same time is, I'd say, slim.
When I lived in Germany I was with a group of students touring Berlin. We were on a bus and the the tour guide pointed out some flame that "will burn until there is world peace." We all started laughing. |
|
|
Posts: 7404 |
Turtleneck Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 9:05 PM |
Typing to Reach You wrote: The problem is that people see religion as causing al sorts of wars - in actuality, the teachings in religion almost always condone violence as far as I'm aware.
Did you mean condemn instead of condone? |
|
|
Posts: 7556 |
I Came in Through the Bathroom Window Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 9:46 PM |
NOTE: Sorry for the lenght of this post. And I'm sure it doesn't make sense, it's very hard for me to talk about these things in english, and I have to go, so I didn't even revise it to see if it's well written.
That said, feel free to ignore it, I really don't mind haha.
I agree with TTRY, no possessions doesn't mean no stuff. Communal property worked for ages before capitalism. Right now there's capitalism in most part of the world, and the technological developement is a very important part of people's lives nowadays, and is a result of the capitalist production system. So it'd be quite problematic to try comunal property in this context. But I don't think it'd be impossible, it just needs to be thought more.
I do think that an egalitarian distribution of property and wealth is INDISPENSABLE.
That greed you talk about, Kayte, is a characteristic of life under a capitalist system. It was not always there. Nor was the thought of "it doesn't affect me, it doesn't matter to me". I'm not saying life before it was better, I'm trying to point out that it has a begining date.
The "no religion" part. I'm an atheist. But I'm also a sociologist (or soon to be one, at least). And I know that religions play a very important role providing values and they're something people can rely on. Having something to rely on is so important to be able to live in this crappy world. However, the discussions over religion, which one is true, which one is the real one... it's pointless and it can only do harm. Plus, religions all over the world are used (and were used) to hide economical or political interests. So I can understand the "no religion" part.
No countries... I don't think the lines that divide countries sepparate different cultures. The whole african continent was divided in countries trying to fragment cultures and making those fragments coexist with different and rival cultures. That way there would never be peace there, and the control of the colonies would be easier.
Plus, the difference between cultures is bluring right now with globalisation.
And I think that nothing to kill or die for is an very good principle, very "pro-peace".
So all in all, I think some of the values of the song are pretty good.
|
|
|
Posts: 1667 |
Typing to Reach You Posted Wed 21 May, 2008 11:53 PM |
Turtleneck wrote: Typing to Reach You wrote: The problem is that people see religion as causing al sorts of wars - in actuality, the teachings in religion almost always condone violence as far as I'm aware.
Did you mean condemn instead of condone?
haha yeah. Rather an ironic error there, being the complete opposite of what I meant. :s *edits* |
|
|
Posts: 7404 |
Turtleneck Posted Thu 22 May, 2008 1:02 AM |
I just can't imagine (rim shot) the idea of communal property. It'd be like in grade school, sometimes teachers had the communal crayon box everyone was supposed to share. The crayons were always broken, people colored too hard and wore them down and didn't sharpen them.
I want my OWN crayons, darnit! I take care of my crayons and I don't want to share them and have other people mess them up. So there!
|
|
|
Posts: 1918 |
Moray Posted Thu 22 May, 2008 8:35 AM |
| Or that kid with the chocolate on his hands, who's always touching your stuff and making it sticky. With his sticky choolate hands. |
|
|
Posts: 10115 |
ricv64 Posted Thu 22 May, 2008 1:57 PM |
Lennon was such a flip floper it's not worth arguing about . During the Peoples Park demonstrations , in BEZERKELEY , he stated , " it's not worth dying for "
Whereas Joan Baez said it was worth dying for .
35 plus years later Lennon was proven correct though |
|
|
Posts: 7556 |
I Came in Through the Bathroom Window Posted Thu 22 May, 2008 5:30 PM |
I just read my post for the first time and it sucks. So many mistakes and it's so poorly written hahaha.
I shouldn't post things like that. Sorry! xD.
I agree with you Ric, John Lennon is definitely not a very consistent example of revolutionary ideals. |
|
|
Posts: 8468 |
AbsolutPurple Posted Thu 22 May, 2008 5:32 PM |
I Came in Through the Bathroom Window wrote: I just read my post for the first time and it sucks. So many mistakes and it's so poorly written hahaha.
I shouldn't post things like that. Sorry! xD.
I agree with you Ric, John Lennon is definitely not a very consistent example of revolutionary ideals.
This thread has become too difficult for me to understand. Sorry. |
|
|
Posts: 7556 |
I Came in Through the Bathroom Window Posted Thu 22 May, 2008 5:41 PM |
AbsolutPurple wrote: I Came in Through the Bathroom Window wrote: I just read my post for the first time and it sucks. So many mistakes and it's so poorly written hahaha.
I shouldn't post things like that. Sorry! xD.
I agree with you Ric, John Lennon is definitely not a very consistent example of revolutionary ideals.
This thread has become too difficult for me to understand. Sorry.
Are you mocking me Absy? :oP |
|
|
