Who is a liar

Leatha 2022-01-03 08:01:59

Just say that the screenwriter is still very awesome. The female doctor is materialistic in her life, and she only has a second of doubt when she treats her son, and this second can destroy her own beliefs. Assistant Tom, a man who truly possesses superpowers, struggles with persistently denying his superpowers. They don't hesitate to dismantle the pseudo-master at all costs. The pseudo-master is true materialism and understands people. It is a bit wrong to say that he is deceiving, but what if you are willing to believe it.
People are irrational, and the necessary condition for exploring the truth is that they should not expect specific results. (Otherwise, a person will only see what he wants to see). It's against human nature, how difficult it is, especially high-level intellectuals are good at denying it. If you don't mix in the mud that deceives yourself when exploring the basis for negation, you can only bury yourself directly alive. Scientists are also ordinary people. So the doctor can't pass his son's level. Little Tom went crazy directly. The liar master is thinking that this must be a liar more advanced than me. I still have a lot of knowledge to learn. He is the least painful, just insist on studying.
Let me wait for the illiterate to accept my irrational nature. Don't move and say that I am very objective, and become a liar.

View more about Red Lights reviews

Extended Reading
  • Mabelle 2022-03-28 09:01:06

    The director was a bit overdone. The filming was too vague and harsh. In the end, Murphy exited the stage, and De Niro realized it only when he roared. I was so tired!

  • Jean 2022-01-03 08:01:59

    The ending was reversed and suddenly turned into a sad story.

Red Lights quotes

  • Simon Silver: We dream 27 times a night. An intricate neurological protection mechanism which makes us forget. What protects you? A line of salt? From the time of ancient Greece to the present day, philosophers and scholars have argued man is essentially rational. I don't happen to agree. If one observes and studies another person without having first studied oneself, how do we know whether out instruments are appropriately set? How do we know we are reliable? We have no proof. There's only one way of gaining access to the truth, and that's not to expect anything. If our intentions aren't pure, we might end up creating monsters.

  • Simon Silver: We called Ptolemy insane, we spat in the face of Galileo, we burned Giordano Bruno... What did we need? What do we need in order to learn? What makes us be what we are? What finally makes us come to accept? What makes us believe?