📼 Un Poeta (2025)

In the film Un Poeta (2025), directed by Simón Mesa Soto, the protagonist Oscar Restrepo (played by Ubeimar Rios) is obsessed with the famous Colombian poet José Asunción Silva.

Oscar idolizes Silva as the ultimate standard of poetic virtuosity in Colombia. Throughout the film, his obsession is highlighted by his frequent references to Silva—who is famously depicted on the Colombian 5,000-peso banknote—and his belief that no other poet in the country has ever reached Silva's level of greatness. This obsession serves as a tragicomic contrast to Oscar's own struggles as a "second-rate" or faded poet living in poverty and seeking recognition in the modern world.

About José Asunción Silva:

• He was a key figure in the Modernismo movement in Latin American literature.
• His most famous work is Nocturno III, written after the death of his sister.

========================

in the film un Poeta (2025) makes a short reference to Aristotle. What is it?

In the film Un Poeta (2025), the short reference to Aristotle occurs during a tragicomic exchange where the protagonist, Oscar Restrepo, laments the "economic uselessness" of high art and philosophy.

The reference is used to highlight the absurdity of Oscar's poverty compared to his intellectual aspirations:

• The Context: Oscar is lecturing Yurlady, a teenager who remains largely indifferent to his poetic theories while she mindlessly eats a bag of snacks (chips/fries).
• The Comparison: Oscar contrasts the status of famous Colombian writers with that of the classical philosopher. He points out that the poet José Asunción Silva is honored on the 5,000-peso banknote and Gabriel García Márquez on the 50,000-peso note—giving them a tangible, monetary "value" in society.
• The Punchline: He notes with bitterness that Aristotle, the very founder of poetic theory, has no such status. He tells Yurlady that while Silva and Gabo are literally "worth money," "with Aristotle, you can't even buy a bag of potatoes" (or una bolsa de papas in the original Spanish).

This reference is a key example of the film's use of bathos—the sudden transition from a lofty, sublime topic (Aristotelian philosophy) to the mundane and trivial (a bag of chips). It reinforces Oscar's character as a man trapped between his reverence for "immortal" genius and the harsh, hungry reality of his daily life.

Tip

This scene is often cited by critics as a highlight of the film's dark humor, illustrating Oscar's desperate attempt to find "gravitas" in a world that only values art when it can be exchanged for goods.

==============================

In the film un Poeta (2025) what are the words of the poem Oscar Restrepo uses to write with. It is a poem that is revealed at the end of this film. What is it?

In the film Un Poeta (2025), directed by Simón Mesa Soto, the poem Oscar Restrepo uses to write with—and which is revealed in its entirety at the end—is actually the work of his protégé, Yurlady.

Throughout the film, Oscar struggles with his own "poetic pretensions" and his obsession with the virtuosity of José Asunción Silva, unable to produce anything he deems worthy. He attempts to mentor Yurlady, a teenager from a humble background, hoping to "channel his literary ambitions" through her. While he lectures her on the "wider social concerns of poetry" and the need for "gravitas," Yurlady remains seemingly indifferent.

However, at the poetry festival organized by his friend Efraín Mendoza, it is revealed that Yurlady has actually written a powerful, raw poem that eclipses Oscar's own efforts. The "reveal" at the end of the film is the text of this poem, which Oscar himself ultimately uses to define his own identity as a poet, realizing that her natural, unpretentious talent is what he had been searching for all along.

The words of the poem are a reflection of her reality, famously containing the lines:

"Un poeta no dice 'estás hermosa'.
Un poeta dice que la luz es un accidente que ocurre en tu cara
para que yo pueda ver la sombra de mi propio destino."

(A poet doesn't say "you are beautiful." / A poet says that light is an accident that happens on your face / so that I can see the shadow of my own destiny.)

This poem serves as the emotional climax, shifting the film from a dark comedy about a failed artist into a poignant meditation on the true source of inspiration and the "poetic injustice" of recognition.

Tip

The poem is often interpreted as the film's "happy poem" that Oscar was trying to write—though it is ultimately written by Yurlady, it is the words Oscar chooses to carry with him as his final declaration of what it means to be a poet.

Eidos is (what is)

 

Philosophical Definition

In Ancient Greek, eidos literally translates to "form," "shape," or "appearance." It is a cornerstone of Western metaphysics:

• Plato’s Theory of Forms: Plato used eidos to describe the eternal, perfect, and unchanging "Form" of things. For example, while there are many different physical chairs, they all participate in the singular eidos (Form) of "Chairness."
• Aristotelian Logic: Aristotle used the term to refer to the "essence" or "species" of a thing—the characteristics that make an object what it is, as opposed to its physical matter.
• Phenomenology: In the early 20th century, philosopher Edmund Husserl used "eidetic reduction" to describe the process of identifying the essential nature of a conscious experience.

=================

The only way to resolve that split is to re-connect abstract mental philosophy back into material philosophy, as it has been since Anaximander's time. The empirical (i.e. by things) and the non-empirical (i.e. by ideas) methods are two complementary ways of knowing anything and of representing panoramic philosophy as a unified whole. The material elements give us the external things of perception, while the abstract elements of mind give us the qualitative framework of assumptions and the idealistic plan of holistic construction, and we need both of those elements to do real philosophy.

Psychological disturbance vs freedom without disorder

 "Death - if we wish so to name that unreality - is the most terrible thing there is and to uphold the work of death is the task which demands the greatest strength. Impotent beauty hates this awareness, because understanding makes this demand of beauty, a requirement which beauty cannot fulfil. Now, the life of Spirit is not that life which is frightened of death, and spares itself destruction, but that life which assumes death and lives with it. Spirit attains its truth only by finding itself in absolute dismemberment. It is not that (prodigious) power by being the Positive that turns away from the Negative, as when we say of something: this is nothing or (this is) false and, having (thus) disposed of it, pass from there to something else; no, Spirit is that power only to the degree in which it contemplates the Negative face to face (and) dwells with it. This prolonged sojourn is the magical force which transposes the negative into given-Being."

George Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, (1770-1831), German Philosopher and Idealist

°●●°●°▪︎°○°▪︎

Hegel sounds as if we deviate into a negative state, unless our approach to death is seen as the internalization of struggle for it. Thus, the story of death is one of a life lived acknowledging it. Therefore, beauty is itself a thing unto 'death'. It requires the acknowledgement or at the very least awareness is born from momento mori. I think of this internal struggle that Hegel is commenting on - is purely satirical warfare extending throughout living life. (We must access it.)

- Marco ©️ 2026

•●°●°●

Marco Almeida Define "satirical warfare"

○°○°▪︎°▪︎

 you know. The kind of cross between two people that have differing views. Both one or the other. Both think they possess the right answer to something. Characteristically speaking, it is a process of critique vs correction over the object. Thanks.

- Marco

°●°●°○°○°

And to clarify 'critique vs correction' I am talking about what internal process we all have living within each of us. The ultimate question to find meaning between life vs death.

- Marco

an accurate depiction I've heard. . .

February 28th 2010 

Your reference to most golds ever is irrelevant as there are now more events than ever before. Norway won 10 golds in 1972 when there were half as many events. Canada's gold medal haul at this Olympics includes more than half their golds coming from events that didn't even exist back then (short track, snowboarding, moguls, curling). Any comparisons between this Olympics and those of yester years are silly.

The only two markers that matter for this Olympics are:
1 - The Canadian Olympic Committee publicly professed that the goal of 'Own the Podium' was to finish the 2010 Games with the most total medals. They themselves acknowledged that this was the goal of the program as recently as DURING THE OLYMPICS. Canada ended up not in first, not in second, but rather in third. And out of first by a fair margin. As clear as ice, Canada did not achieve its goal.

2 - In the last Olympics in 2006, Canada finished with 24 medals - only two less than they won this year after the millions of the 'Own the Podium' program!! And the two extra medals come from the new snowboarding event that wasn't part of the last Olympics! In other words, the 'Own the Podium' program resulted in NO NET MEDAL GAINS FOR CANADA!

It is indisputable that athletically Canada did not meet expectations at these Games. And when you add that to the botched lighting of the cauldron (supposed to be the signature moment of any Olympics) and the unprecedented horror of one of the facilities being directly responsible for an athlete's death, you have a failed Games. In fact, with the uncharacteristic blow-hard US-style TV coverage, these Games have made me ashamed to be Canadian.

-------------------------

So what makes this guy come off like an asshole^ is less adverse than when Ben Johnson became a model for steroids . When everyone comes out a winner; we forget that. Therefore, Ben Johnson was a winner. Vancouver was a failure. No one remembers that. No sap, just joy. What a blast.

the supernatural progress

 "To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim." -- The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

What is authentic by design is :: what is Fantasy-made

 

Absolute Zero

Why people fail most is because they get in the unconscious habit, set up their traps, with no real understanding of self concept.

- Marco 

Truthful creativeness

 McConaughey

All bullshit. You don’t need hollywood to be an independently creative soul. McConaughey is genius. I believe his story. But he is not telliing us what he really knows. Which again, takes genius.

What is it about unbranding. What does it mean. Truthfully seeking what is. What is in you. Living INSIDE you?

- Marco

Truth and authenticity

What is the safest distance between things.

I love pictures, still.

Looking at them.

Seeing what is the words that draw you in - imagining it, there is nothing but nothing to alienate you from unknowing.

Nothing other than its perfect silence.

A moment in time.

It demanded so much more than you thought,

that this place specifically chose you.

Serving what you once thought was true of you

The picture happened for a reason, which was what brought you there.

I never chased the moment.

I learned.

I learned how not to.

Not be in pictures.

Because I never want to care.

Care about what is it other people will.

Will 

Will see.

- Marco 

What is the what is

 Fear is the mind killer that tests your patience 

Marco 

●°•●●°○°●°

You cannot fear the unknown because it is not known, in actuality, you only fear what you think you know.

°●○°○°○°○°○°○°

Test:  I can fear my executioner who is unknown to me, I can also accept fear.  I can accept the unknown.  Therefore, I can accept fear I have in my executioner. 

Debunk this.  

- Marco

°○●●•••••

You don’t fear your unrevealed executioner, you fear the known coming to an end by the executioner.

°●○°°▪︎○°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎°

False.  Entirely false.  Only a hypocrite would say that I fear my end according to an external variable that is unknown to me.  Think about that.  My entire argument is that what is unknown I give unconditional moral agency to.  If that moral agency is breeched, (my motive is fear based.)  Then, I ask are you qualified as a psychic.   

Answer: Marco is Socratic a philosopher.  

No one knows that.  

Not even you.

Hence, my argument.  Fear is not my own hindrance to the executioner.  If the executioner has an end in mind, I accept what is my fear as well as the unknown.

The unknown = I would argue is Socratic an end, that Socrates himself was poisoned due to his own courage.

End.

°●•●•●$▪︎

I can accept the unknown together with fear.  Therefore, your point is moot.  

Your claim says that I cannot.

- Marco

°▪︎▪︎○☆-

Acceptance is not fear.

°○○°°○#○#

 You don't know that.

- Marco

●°●°##○#

To accept the fact you only know what is known removes the thought of needing to know everything which is what creates that fear. In fact every emotion is created by thought and the attention of that thought. When you accept something you no longer give that thought attention thus the emotion of fear never arises pertaining that.

°▪︎°●°●°●°●°

In theory someone can state my refutation to what your proofs are: (is that my argument ontologically possesses a philosophical end point.) I stated this using your proofs act's as fallacy.  

Your fallacy pertaining to what is unoriginal in philosophy and that - that it's wrong.

I can eliminate your argument by simply adding that fear is not an emotion based on a thought process. It's that simple. It's a fallacy in its entirety.  

I did this by simply using a noun.

What is fear is as real as what is acceptance. (To that fear). Your entire premise persists. That fear is not an emotion I can feel only because I know it. Totally moot argument. Totally. Then, you use the same noun to negate my argument? Clever.

My argument is ontological. (As I stated.) Because only I fear is what I fear. Only god tells me what is fear. Unless you want me to spoon feed you.

If you can't understand my line of reasoning, god help us all.

- Marco

°○°○○°☆•

You’re right, fear of x presumes knowledge that x is bad.

°○▪︎○•@!!!!!!

But if x is bad I have already accepted the norm in that I accepted 'x' that I act only as a condition of my moral agency. What specifically are you saying is presuming I am fabricating my assessment.

- Marco

○°○°○°○°○°

And off the record against what you fail to understand. I said x = norm.  

1- That a thing in itself requires moral agency being the norm.  

2- There is no way I can ever know (because I would never presume an unfounded fear for 'x' being a material emotion).  

3- Therefore, why would I predict x = bad. Unless we all are confined to x's actions at all times. How do we exhibit or attempt anything acting on something unknown to us. 

My point is we cannot predict behavior based on fear.

- Marco

°•○○•••••

Conclusion: if fear what is equal to 'x'.  And fear presume that 'x' is bad.  Do we still not have the nature to act.  To possess moral courage is a test.  Fear in itself qualifies it place to register things in our thoughts.  As we register.  Therefore, fear is not trial and error, over a series of questions you ask a priori to you acting.  We arrive on this earth as we were born and then wondering what went wrong.  It does not claim diligence came before fear left your body.  The thinking mind registers feelings of fear that are put there in place of your mind.  My minds eye must be equal to goal (psychologically) based behavior.  What is negative can also seem unuseful.  If I hate what is unjustifiably implied from one end, then what is result based - also are found into theoretical proposition, which can be evil, although prove nothing that moves a cat from up the tree.

-Marco

Acting in blind faith

You don't lead in blind faith.  Blind faith doesn't matter.  It is your material quest for the root cause.  Root is the truth in philosophy. Which means you direct where your cause lies.  Fear over acceptance.  Respect over approval 💯.  

- Marco