And here we are, in the first comic of Molly Beans, Season 2.
Why, after over two and a half years, and 270 comics, did I suddenly decide that this would be the proverbial second season? Well, there are a number of reasons, but first and foremost I decided that I needed to give our girl’s strip a bit of a stylistic, dynamic boost; the kind of things I wanted to do before the final curtain wouldn’t fit well into the format of a strip rather than a proper graphic novel page (at least for me).
For another, I decided it was time to really start going hard in the paint, so to speak, as far as the practical applications of our girl’s deeply held philosophies and values. To this end, I’m going to be emphasizing, hopefully in an entertaining way, the various aspects of the Chuck/Kim dichotomy.
Molly was or still is in love with both of these individuals, both of which represent opposing poles of philosophical (not necessarily political) values. How Molly feels toward them both will hopefully go a long way towards enabling her to find her own unshakable center, since as she herself said, Love is our involuntary response to virtue in another, if we are virtuous ourselves. Who we love or who we are attracted to shows us a lot about ourselves, whether we choose to see it or not.
I hope that you will continue to read and enjoy as I continue down this road with Miss Beans.
As always, thanks for stopping by, reading, supporting, and letting me know where I go right and where I go wrong.
2 thoughts on “Identity”
Uhm I hate to be that guy… but you can’t prove an axiom.
Axioms are usually used as the starting point for logical reasoning since they can not be deduced from anything else.
To be fair one could argue that I’m leaning too much to towards the mathematical definition of axiom with that statement.
In mathematics axioms are the fundamental assumptions for system of logic reasoning which can not be deduced from anything else in the system.
However in classical philosophy axioms are statements which are so evident or well-established, that they are accepted without controversy or question.
While the latter definition is broader and can encompass more statements, one can still argue that an axiomatic statement would become a deduction once you are able to prove it.
Fair point. It would be more correct to say that you cannot speak the term she refers to without using those axioms or concepts derived from them. Such as attempting to use logic to prove that logic is invalid, you cannot say that you are aware of something without accepting that existence exists, since you must exist to have the thought. To be aware of something you must have consciousness, and that you yourself are yourself. I always start from that foundation. The law of identity, consciousness, and existence exists must be accepted if we are to have any rational, reasoned discussion about anything. If not, you self detonate.