MANALIVE

C.S. Lewis // The Great Divorce (via theclivechronicles)

1453

Sleep

St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (via by-grace-of-god)

i’ve been invited to meet the pope and i have a gift that will strike a victory for atheists everywhere: a graven image of their sky fairy being tortured to death

so, back from meeting the pope, and LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I FOUND OUT about catholic iconography,

“Peter did not feel very brave; indeed, he felt he was going to be sick. But that made no difference to what he had to do.”

-The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis

I think this sums up Peter’s personality the best. He has to do his duty. There is no other option. Note how whilst Peter is definitely brave his bravery is really just a side affect of his dutifulness.

This is important, because Peter’s title was not anything related to bravery–Lucy’s was. His title was magnificent, which from its etymology, can be considered “made great.” Peter didn’t feel brave most of the time, but he pushed past that and ended up doing amazing feats. That’s why he was magnificent. Putting duty and need over his own feelings made him one of the greatest kings of Narnia.

Actually, the Latin “magnificans” is definitely the present participle active, which means that “magnificent” means “greatness-maker” and not “made-great.”

“Made-great” would be “magnificatus.” Know your Latin!

but it’s not actually latin, it’s english, so it’s still related to being made-great, right? i mean it’s related to both (and the other poster said considered not “definitely is”) and i feel like made-great is more in line with Peter’s relationship with Aslan, who makes him great 

Well, “magnificere,” the verb, comes from “magnus” (great) + “facere” (to make). And it’s an active construction.

My point is that “magnificent” comes from the active participle, magnificans/magnificantis. So there’s really no way, etymologically and morphologically, that magnificent can, strictly speaking, have a passive meaning.

It’s all nice and poetic to affix a passive meaning to an active form, but it doesn’t quite fit the bill. We can’t change the meanings of the morphologies to fit a literary theme.

Magnificans means something more like “the doer of great things.” It doesn’t necessarily–by means of its language–communicate any being-made-great. “Made-great” may be more in line with Peter’s character, but it’s not in line with the whatness of his title. Does that make sense?

it does make sense i’m just not sure i agree because magnificent is an english adjective not a latin verb so I think it’s valid to interpret it either way 

and i’d argue we do use language in a  flexible way particularly in literary interpretations (just talk to lewis carroll about morphologies in literary works ;D) 

Actually wait @closertothelost doesn’t latin itself  have an adjective magnificus?

Yes, it's an English word, but it comes right from the Latin verb and its derivative participle/adjective/noun, which is an active form!

And yes, language is flexible, but I'm not sure it's so flexible that it can change from an active to a passive meaning with the same form.

Also, yes, there's "magnificus" but magnificent clearly comes from magnificans, magnificantis! (The -nt gives it away, but I'd love to be proven wrong, I'm just a lowly amateur linguist)

“Peter did not feel very brave; indeed, he felt he was going to be sick. But that made no difference to what he had to do.”

-The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis

I think this sums up Peter’s personality the best. He has to do his duty. There is no other option. Note how whilst Peter is definitely brave his bravery is really just a side affect of his dutifulness.

This is important, because Peter’s title was not anything related to bravery–Lucy’s was. His title was magnificent, which from its etymology, can be considered “made great.” Peter didn’t feel brave most of the time, but he pushed past that and ended up doing amazing feats. That’s why he was magnificent. Putting duty and need over his own feelings made him one of the greatest kings of Narnia.

Actually, the Latin “magnificans” is definitely the present participle active, which means that “magnificent” means “greatness-maker” and not “made-great.”

“Made-great” would be “magnificatus.” Know your Latin!

but it’s not actually latin, it’s english, so it’s still related to being made-great, right? i mean it’s related to both (and the other poster said considered not “definitely is”) and i feel like made-great is more in line with Peter’s relationship with Aslan, who makes him great 

Well, "magnificere," the verb, comes from "magnus" (great) + "facere" (to make). And it's an active construction.

My point is that "magnificent" comes from the active participle, magnificans/magnificantis. So there's really no way, etymologically and morphologically, that magnificent can, strictly speaking, have a passive meaning.

It's all nice and poetic to affix a passive meaning to an active form, but it doesn't quite fit the bill. We can't change the meanings of the morphologies to fit a literary theme.

Magnificans means something more like "the doer of great things." It doesn't necessarily--by means of its language--communicate any being-made-great. "Made-great" may be more in line with Peter's character, but it's not in line with the whatness of his title. Does that make sense?

“Peter did not feel very brave; indeed, he felt he was going to be sick. But that made no difference to what he had to do.”

-The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis

I think this sums up Peter’s personality the best. He has to do his duty. There is no other option. Note how whilst Peter is definitely brave his bravery is really just a side affect of his dutifulness.

This is important, because Peter’s title was not anything related to bravery–Lucy’s was. His title was magnificent, which from its etymology, can be considered “made great.” Peter didn’t feel brave most of the time, but he pushed past that and ended up doing amazing feats. That’s why he was magnificent. Putting duty and need over his own feelings made him one of the greatest kings of Narnia.

Actually, the Latin "magnificans" is definitely the present participle active, which means that "magnificent" means "greatness-maker" and not "made-great."

"Made-great" would be "magnificatus." Know your Latin!

Jesus to Saint Faustina in her Diary, Divine Mercy in My Soul (via troublesfarbehind)

Emoji’s aren’t supposed to have races or genders! They are generic smiley faces meant to express emotions in an annoying way! Smiley faces are yellow! And not in a racist Asian way! I mean literally yellow! As in daffodil color! Yellow is not white! Which is really obvious when I shout it like this! They could be anyone!

I don’t need emoji representation! No one needs emoji representation! No one needs emojis! Smileys and emoticons are bad enough! We just need the written English language, which is versatile enough to represent anyone who knows how to use it!

See! See how I am overusing exclamation points! Even when I should use a question mark! That is representative how I am so done with everything but am trying to make a joke about my own outrage! It’s hilarious! Also it’s a gross misuse of the English language that will probably annoy everyone! Sorry! I should stop!

In defense of emticons I have tacked on an occasional XD to let the world know I’m a doofus who thinks I am funnier then I really am. It is easy to misread the tone of the written language (My uninformed opinion is that this is a lost art that we should try and regain.) and attempts to replace body language make sense.

I still hate emojis though.

I like certain emojis because I'd like to think that that's the face I'd make if I'd said what I'd just typed.

Which is why the laughing/crying emoji is on my no-fly list.

pornography is a seriously fucked up thing. you have men filming other men violently penetrate women in every orifice while calling them slurs and totally disregarding their humanity. then men sell it and profit it off it while the women and girls are paid a nominal fee (if they are paid at all) so men can jerk off to it and then walk around interacting with women while this shit that reinforces patriarchal virgin/whore dichotomies and rape myths grows in the back of their minds.

and it just gets worse. it’s a multi billion industry with hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of men expecting to a) replicate the behaviour and ideology of pornography and b) encourages them to recreate pornography in their own lives with the ease of access to recording devices.

and in all of this, women and girls don’t matter for shit. they’re not fully developed (or developing) human beings with rights, hopes, dreams, aspirations and potential. they’re reduced to a series of orifices that exist solely to serve men. whether ‘professional’ or ‘amateur’ -  pornography sees and treats girls and women like sexual objects to be bought, sold, pirated, raped and abused.

GOODBYE.