Jubatus Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Wrote the following on another thread in another forum but would like to start up a philosophy thread here. Could bring about some interesting debates for those interested. Gonna start this by copying/pasting what I wrote in the other forum. Philosophy, eh? Man's continued quest to rationalize existence through observance and contemplation. I'm not a follower of any philosophy/philosopher(s), I have my own view on things so bear with as I rant on with lack of an academic approach. The meaning of life. I believe there is none other than what each individual creates for themself. In order to believe so I don't necessarily need to dismiss the existence of dieties (or a single diety). Like us they could simply be entities cast into creation by chance. Such creatures are per definiton more powerful and insightful than mere mortals thus enabling them to create reasons for existence for us, but not necessarily for themselves beyond that of ruling our fates nor any reason different to those we mortals might create for ourselves. Even an entity or group of entities being responsible for creating 'the all' may not claim any convincing meaning for their own existence. It all boils down to knowing. How can anyone in perfect truth claim to definately know anything other than existence is? Let's take the Christian God; he is claimed to be creator of everything, and to be the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. How can he truly know that? He may feel that he is one with everything, he may feel that he is the ultimate being knowing all of what he perceives to be. But how can he ever know not to be a victim of an illusion like we might be? A more elaborate illusion in nature but not necessarily in craft. I say 'we' even though there might only be this one 'me' in existence. Despite all the revelating visions and boosts of enlightenment one might be exposed to, and of which none can be truthfully stated as being true, one can never truly claim allcertain knowledge. So, given that you truly can't know anything beyond the fact that something exists, why even bother trying to find meaning and truth? Because everything is relative. Truth is in the eye of the beholder by simply not even questioning its truth (Truth's truth...weird term). What we perceive as truth is truth for us, even if it's not truly true. Free will. I believe there is no such thing. Every thought and action is inevitable, a product of our inheritage and the influence of our surroundings. To claim a free will is simply not bothering with looking beyond a very, very complex system of action/reaction that is our behaviour. Chaos is only chaos until you can perceive the entire complex structure as it is. (As a sidenote this argument can be used to nullify the existence of God. Goes as this: No free will -> no responsibility -> no guilt -> no judgement, and since God is the Big Judge in the Sky, he can therefor not be.) But again, we're moving into the realm of relativity in the understanding that any accusation of guilt can be traced back to Creation if thus inclined; he killed because of his upbringing, his parents raised him like that because of their upbringing, etc. etc.. Balance. Everything in existence seeks balance, although not always obvious and at times even unbeknownst to itself. If existence is the continious result of the conflict between opposing forces then everything is justified if existence must be justified. Alot of classical oppositions are wrong in my belief, because anything merged with its opposite must per definition result in the annihilation of both, snuffed out of existence so to speak. Black and white does not annihilate eachother, they just merge into a new thing, gray. To find the opposite of anything simply put anti in front of it; anti-white, anti-good (not evil, because evil is motivated by the same as good, selfinterest, but I'll return to that later), anti-down. It sounds abstract and to find the opposition to everything we need to look at the idea of an anti-Universe, something not easily understood nor imagined beyond the notion. How do you picture anti-white in your mind for example? Egocentricity. I believe everybody to be egoistic, nomatter how noble your actions and motivations are. An urge to do good is a selfserving desire to feel good by doing good. An example: A compassionate man gets the offer from Satan to replace another soul in Hell, the other soul will be freed but the man will take his place in eternal torment. His choice to do so is still egoistic; he knows he will feel bad about not rescuing a soul from Hell when he had the chance, he would be tormented by his own consciousness. Serving his own egoistic need to do good in order to feel good he takes the soul's place knowing that although he is now trapped in Hell he has rescued another from it. Hence evil is not the opposite to good, since both are motivated from selfinterest. Evil and good are only defined by what different actions we take in order to fulfill our needs and wants. Some actions will please your surroundings, others will hurt them, but basically they serve the same purpose - to quench desires. Freedom. This is linked to free will in the essence both are non-existent in my belief. Freedom is subject to relativity as everything else, you're as free as you feel, but true freedom only comes with non-existence quite paradoxically. Needs and desires are bonds binding you from freedom. Having your desires and needs fulfilled to contentment might make you feel free, but nonetheless you're still binded by them. Only by not existing will the needs and desires seize to be, but you're not there to enjoy that freedom. A paradox. True freedom cannot by nature be experienced. Edit: Did forget this little tidbit: Logic and emotions are eachother's greatest enemies. Here endeth my ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 I wrote this a long time ago (the copyright shows 1996 - when it was lasted edited to html - but I wrote it when I was 16 years old): http://www.geocities.com/c4guide/some.html and: http://www.geocities.com/c4guide/really.html Many years ago .. I don't necessarily think that way now - I'm much more neutral and apathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divine Spirit Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Sometimes im in a mood for philosophy and sometimes im not... im usually in the mood for it in the early afternoon but not during the night its kinda weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Abstraction level is directly proportional to the caffeine intake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 <starts reading> <gets to second para> <faints from exhaustion> a synopsis please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 because Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divine Spirit Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Absurd Abstraction level is directly proportional to the caffeine intake? Yes, that probably right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 27, 2002 Author Share Posted August 27, 2002 Absurd, read your 2 pieces and I'm with you through it all, but wanna address 2 issues. 1. You use the word 'choice' in the common nature as consensually accepted truth. No need to elaborate with my view on this as I have addressed the matter of free will in my initial post. 2. Why fear nothingness and the end of self? If you were to be snuffed instantly out of existence would you regret it? Will it hurt you? No, because you won't be there to regret nor experience anything. I assume it's in human nature to fear nothingness before actually transcending to it. It's the irrational fear of the unknown, because we actually do not know if we'll ever reach nothingness down the road of consciousness/awareness. Perhaps, as religion and spiritualism advocates, we're eternal through alternate states of being, though recollecting former states of being only in the subconscious. But fear of nothingness is especially irrational given that there is in essence of nothing nothing to fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Jubatus 2. Why fear nothingness and the end of self? If you were to be snuffed instantly out of existence would you regret it? Will it hurt you? No, because you won't be there to regret nor experience anything. I assume it's in human nature to fear nothingness before actually transcending to it. It's the irrational fear of the unknown, because we actually do not know if we'll ever reach nothingness down the road of consciousness/awareness. Perhaps, as religion and spiritualism advocates, we're eternal through alternate states of being, though recollecting former states of being only in the subconscious. But fear of nothingness is especially irrational given that there is in essence of nothing nothing to fear. You state that this so-called 'nothingness' will not hurt or we will not conciously experience it, but you have already said that it is the unknown...we do not know what will happen, and you agree with that, and yet you assume that we will be unable to experience anything...yes it is all in the unknown, so how can you make such radical and conclusive predictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 27, 2002 Author Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Darklighter You state that this so-called 'nothingness' will not hurt or we will not conciously experience it, but you have already said that it is the unknown...we do not know what will happen, and you agree with that, and yet you assume that we will be unable to experience anything...yes it is all in the unknown, so how can you make such radical and conclusive predictions? I didn't equal nothingness to the unknown - you read wrong. Nothingness is known, how can one not? It's nothing! What is unknown is whether it will ever be the state we can transcend to. The unknown I referred to is simply that we do not know what is beyond 'life', this state of being. Could be nothingness, could be an alternate state of being, or some third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 But you said it would not hurt...but if it is the unknown, how do you know it will not hurt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Jubatus Absurd, read your 2 pieces and I'm with you through it all, but wanna address 2 issues. 2. Why fear nothingness and the end of self? If you were to be snuffed instantly out of existence would you regret it? Will it hurt you? No, because you won't be there to regret nor experience anything. I assume it's in human nature to fear nothingness before actually transcending to it. It's the irrational fear of the unknown, because we actually do not know if we'll ever reach nothingness down the road of consciousness/awareness. Perhaps, as religion and spiritualism advocates, we're eternal through alternate states of being, though recollecting former states of being only in the subconscious. But fear of nothingness is especially irrational given that there is in essence of nothing nothing to fear. In that case any attempt to disprove nothing is futile since it doesn't exist. It's all about living in fear, not "being nothing" and in fear - obviously. P.S. I wasn't responding to the arguments in your post - I merely was responding to philosophy with an 'anti-philosophy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Darklighter But you said it would not hurt...but if it is the unknown, how do you know it will not hurt... Supercalifragilisticexpedaladocious. It has the same meaning as nothingness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 That didn't really answer my question, but thanks Absurd:)lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 28, 2002 Author Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by Darklighter But you said it would not hurt...but if it is the unknown, how do you know it will not hurt... Do you even read what I write? Read it again, please, and you'll have your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 28, 2002 Author Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by Absurd P.S. I wasn't responding to the arguments in your post - I merely was responding to philosophy with an 'anti-philosophy'. Never said you did, I just commented on your writings. That aside, it seems you're the only one coming out of the closet joining this debate, if you can even call it that at this point. Surely there must be others of all the forum users, who might have something philosophical to contribute. Don't be shy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSO_DarthVader_ Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 I have a little thing I want to say, it has to do with, what is right and what is wrong. "If you believe, theres no after-life or supernatural beings or anything like that. Well if it is true, then I (a Christian) haven't lost anything. Let me try to explain... Atheistic thinking (if I'm right), theres no such thing as a after-life, supernatural beings, nor etc. Atheists can do whatever they want (if it is inline with the law, but hey people still break it), and they won't be corrected of it, since there is no higher power that'll judge them. So I can "believe" that there is a God, and practice my rituals, and my acts can't be wrong, since I'm doing what I "want" to do. This what I wonder, and want someone to try answer this to me. How can a Atheist judge something that is right or wrong, if there is no higher power that said so in the first place? Its what you call "Writing Your Own Rules Of Life". Let me put this in a small routine... Figure #1: "You want to write your own rules of life?" Figure #2: "Yeah." Figure #1: "You can do that if you like, but in that case, why can't I kill you?" Figure #2: "What the heck!? You can't do that!" Figure #1: "Why not?" Figure #2: "Because its wrong of course!" Figure #1: "Why is it wrong?" Figure #2: "Because it ain't right." Figure #1: "Why ain't it right?" Figure #2: "Because it's wrong." Figure #1: "WHY is it wrong?" Figure #2: "Because it's against the law!!" Figure #1: "Why?" Figure #2: "Because the people who formed the law, wanted that way." Figure #1: "Why's that?" Figure #2: "Because if we all killed each other, there will be no one left!!!" Figure #1: "So?" ...Basically, what if "Figure #1" didn't care? Because to him, the extinction of the human race is "technically" not wrong or right. Because there is no law in the Universe itself, that says killing is wrong in itself (or extinction). Basically, "how" can Atheists claim something is right or wrong, if there is no higher power to enforce it or say so? What I'm trying to say is, generally if there is no such thing as a supernatural being (God), then there is no such thing as a right or wrong. Not even the Universe itself, has anything, saying that there is a difference between a right and a wrong. Also another example, what if your girl friend or boy friend cheated on you? It ain't wrong. Because the concept of having 1 date was a idea from a person or persons. So then it really isn't defined in the laws of the Universe, that cheating on your boy friend or girl friend is wrong. But in Christianity, those laws are in the Universe itself, because a supernatural God, who made the Universe, implanted them into the laws of Life. So I ask you this, WHAT is right and wrong?" ...I would like a answer under 48 hours, lol j/k. But seriously, what do you have to say about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=nihilism See #1 and #2. When you split enough hairs, that is the true philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 28, 2002 Author Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by SSO_DarthVader_ So I ask you this, WHAT is right and wrong?" Relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Sorry if I offended anyone...I just like joining in whether I'm write or wrong lol:D I really wonder though about what happens after death, where you go...from what I have learned from science, I think that you will just descend into nothingness...that is just my opinion...I say that people should make the most of their lives...compared to the age of the universe our lives are microscopic, so we should make the most of the time we have...but if there is nothingness afterwards, you will not be able to rejoice of regret either... ...it is all puzzling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reb Starblazer Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 To me "nothingness" is an abstract concept, because there is no place where there is truly, absolutely "nothing", as in the absence of anything at all. Even in space, which is supposed to be a giant "nothingness", is full of dust, particles, and things that we cannot yet percieve. So even when there is supposedly "nothing", there is always "something". "Nothing", the absence of anything at all, doesn't exist, therefore, the only place where "nothing" holds true, is in the definition of "nothing" itself. Follow me? I sure hope so... EDIT: well, these are still my thoughts on nothingness, but not quite relevant. See below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSO_DarthVader_ Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by Jubatus Relative. But, if you compare the two together, it still doesn't judge between right and wrong. Because people have different views on different things. For example, some people think public nudity is wrong, while some think it isn't wrong. Because in there own minds, its the opposite answer. So I don't believe that, "Relative" comparison, is such a accurate answer. Since, like I said before. People have different ways of percieving things, and look at certain issues in a different way, then others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 28, 2002 Author Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by SSO_DarthVader_ But, if you compare the two together, it still doesn't judge between right and wrong. Because people have different views on different things. For example, some people think public nudity is wrong, while some think it isn't wrong. Because in there own minds, its the opposite answer. So I don't believe that, "Relative" comparison, is such a accurate answer. Since, like I said before. People have different ways of percieving things, and look at certain issues in a different way, then others. What I mean by saying right and wrong are relative is exactly what you yourself is saying; they're relative to each individual. Wasn't saying they were relative to eachother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 28, 2002 Author Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by Reb Starblazer To me "nothingness" is an abstract concept, because there is no place where there is truly, absolutely "nothing", as in the absence of anything at all. Even in space, which is supposed to be a giant "nothingness", is full of dust, particles, and things that we cannot yet percieve. So even when there is supposedly "nothing", there is always "something". "Nothing", the absence of anything at all, doesn't exist, therefore, the only place where "nothing" holds true, is in the definition of "nothing" itself. Follow me? I sure hope so... To avoid any further misinterpretations to the term nothingness, please replace all my uses of this term with non-existence/non-awareness/non-consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSO_DarthVader_ Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Sorry but I didn't understand what you said. It sounded like just what I said earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.