There being an isn't is worthy of the same amount of burden of evidence/explanation. And to say there isn't an is would be supposition based off your standards. Supposition is defined as an uncertain belief, this would make both there being an is and an isn't a supposition; this wouldn't/shouldn't make anything being a supposition not worthy of ones consideration just because both there being an is and an isn't suppositions based off metaphysical assumptions.
So you're saying scientific theory is not worth the time and energy to even consider? Scientific theory being based off metaphysical assumptions. If so, you're saying The Big Bang wasn't worth not only the time and effort to think up in the first place, but not worthy of anyone's consideration?
From you point of view, the claim that there is no "why" would also be an assumption; a supposition.
From you point of view, the claim that there is no "why" would also be an assumption; a supposition.
Why bother with philosophy at all then, if not to ask why?
I remember when I held the same perspective. I like how Gandhi put it: I've made it through the "Sahara of atheism."
It's not about me.
How does one deliver their opinions in a detailed way without falling into the label of pontificating? Why would it matter if it is pontificating? Does that make whatever is being pontificated hold any more or less value? And if so, why?
I wish you'd at least consider it.
A lot of science and philosophy are a supposition.
"Science is the knowledge of today, discredited tomorrow." - I forget
What do you feel as though I'm assuming?
i think intelligent life exists—on any planet, to reason and act for goodness sake. To even suffer for it, if ones willing.
Sense organs+environment+conscious mind>imagination>knowledge>influence>desire>morality>vanity.
"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon. The basis of vanity is morality; the basis of morality is influence; the basis of influence is knowledge; the basis of knowledge is imagination; the basis of imagination is our sense organs reacting to our present environment, and the extent of how concious we are of this happening.
The more open one's mind is to foreign influences, the more bigger and detailed its imagination can potentially become. It's loves influence on our ability to reason that governs the extent of our compassion and empathy, because it's love that leads a concious mind most willing to consider anything new (your parents divorcing, and your dad going from cowboy boots only to flip flops for example). Thus the extent of its ability—even willingness to imagine the most amount of potential variables, when imagining themselves as someone else. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue.
When one strikes us accross the cheek, and we stike back in retaliation, we appeal to the more instinctive, barbaric mammal within all of us. But when we lower our hand, and offer our other cheek in return, we appeal to the logical, reasonable thinking being within all of us instead.
I think the only evidence needed to prove my claim made in the title is to use the "skin" that holds the wine of the knowledge of everything we presently know now as a species: observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, concious minds on a planet, presently holding the most capacity to not only imagine selflessness to the extent we can, but act upon this imagining, and the extent we can apply it to our environment, in contrast to anything—as far as we know—that's ever existed; God or not.
What would happen if the wine of our knowledge of morality was no longer kept separate from the skin we use to hold the wine of everything else: observation, and poured purely from the perspective of this skin? Opposed to poured into the one that its always been poured into, and thats kept it seperate at all in the first place: a religion. There's so much logic within religion, that's not being seen as such because of the appearance it's given when it's taught and advocated, being an entire concept on what exactly life is, and what the influences of a God or afterlife consist of, our failure to make them credible enough only potentially drawing people away from the value of the extremes of our sense of selflessness—even the relevance of the idea of a God or creator of some kind; becoming stigmatized as a result.
There's a long-standing potential within any consciously capable being—on any planet, a potential for the most possible good, considering its unique ability of perceiving anything good or evil in the first place. It may take centuries upon centuries of even the most wretched of evils and collective selfishness, but the potential for the greatest good and of collective selflessness will have always have been there. Like how men of previous centuries would only dream of humans flying in the air like the birds do, or the idea of democracy.
"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luthing King Jr.
"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi
"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." - Leo Tolstoy
"Never take an oath at all. Not to heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (humans)...Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (regarding these influences); anything more than this comes from evil (a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness, i.e., a religion). - Jesus, Matt 5:33
"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates
I think what we call time is a consequence of conciousness—the extent we're concious of our surroundings via our sense organs reacting to our environment; our ability to conjure images of the past and the future—our imagination.
Of course the content is important, that should go without saying.
Yes that's something that can happen, so what are you saying? We shouldn't do good at all and the "value of virtue" is nonsense just because there's a potential of that happening?
Of course there's more to it. It's far from simple, I'm not arguing that at all. Especially when it comes to the way we organize ourselves. But we can never imagine a future where ourselves are no longer the emphasis if the way we organize ourselves contradicts with it so much, and even forces one in the opposite direction of the true life lived most in the present that a life of selflessness has to offer anyone of any belief. Selflessness is far from being beneficial from only the beneficiaries side of things.
I'm saying in contrast, our capacity to not only imagine selflessness in our heads, but to even toil and suffer for it, not to mention the extent we can then act to apply it to our environment—this especially, is clearly significantly more profound. Stopping other species—not to mention our own, from ceasing to exist for example, or to even pet a cat, etc.
Humans are how any amount of love exists in the world; if everyone's so busy being so content and comforted with their peace, or to busy willingly blinding themselves via ignorance to remain in a blissful state, who will be there to worry, even suffer for others to find theirs? "The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates
Good thing I clearly wasn't calling what Socrates had to say as unquestionably true considering there being no man made things holding what he had to say as unquestionably true, because what he had to say was to never hold any man made thing as exactly that, especially via the influences of a heaven.
What I have to say regarding all hate and evil being an ignorance is what Socrates (debateably the founding father of philosophy) had to say, as well as the Christian and Hebrew Bibles. I can't speak for any other man made thing being held as unquestionably true via the influences of the idea of a heaven however.
I equate what we call wisdom as logic, and logic doesn’t become any more or less logical or significant when considering its source. 2+2 is still 4 regardless if it came from Hitler or Jesus; meeting hate with love is significantly more logical than meeting it with the age old hate, even if its Hitler suggesting it.
Star Wars is based off multiple differnet real world theologies: https://writerbuddha.tumblr.com/post/655761886122475520/george-lucas-buddhist-methodist
I'm obviously referring to those that cause anyone any amount of suffering, starving children in this case, apparently. Humans are where any amount of morality in the world originate.
While you do that, I'm going to be toiling, even suffering over teaching the youth of today the knowledge that's required to gain the incentive that's needed, to even consider the will that's necessary to be selfless to the extremes of it. And the irrelevance and the hell that comes with living a life revolved around yourself, ultimately.
From the knowledge that comes from experiencing or learning of great hate, evil, and selfishness comes the knowledge and a newfound appreciation for the potential of great love, goodness, and selflessness; even to the point of giving your life for it. I'm sick and tired of hearing about stories like these:
https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-christopher-collings-f5a027c86c53725556a5a66751abd36d
Only when we no longer see the fulfillment of our greatest desires as being our highest happiness—individually, are we able to move beyond the inherently self-obssessed barbarian that's still within all of us, to a future where at least violence is considered obsolete—collectively.
A lack of knowledge is what's at the core of suffering.
Conciousness>selfishness>fear>anger>hate>suffering.
What would be the remedy of fear, and the selfishness that creates it? Knowledge, but of the value of virtue and selflessness specifically. Therefore, all hate and evil would be a lack of knowledge—an ignorance. This is what inspired Socrates (debatably, the founding father of philosophy) to begin teaching strangers around his community, because he knew that it's a knowledge that needs to be gained thus, taught, to the point where he even took his own life to die a martyr to what he had to say. And the knowledge that the fear that would've otherwise have stopped him from even teaching anything at all would be a selfishness. This is what warrants hate and evil to any degree infinite forgiveness, and why it's so important to teach it the error of its ways, through love. Whether through meeting what you would consider as hate when you're met with it, with love, or exemplifying it via selfless actions. Because some people don't even have the ability to tell their left hand from their right (Jonah 4:11), but we can use the influence of an Earth (what a collection of people are presently sharing in—society, driving cars, holding the door open for strangers etc.) to teach the more difficult to do so; if everyone were sharing in selflessness and virtue, wouldn't it be seen as typical as driving a car is today? Therefore, nowhere near the chore it would be seen as otherwise, considering everyone would be participating in it. And what does a cat begin to do—despite its, what we call "instinct"—when raised amongst dogs? Pant. We are what we've been surrounded with, like racists, they just don't know any better, being abscent of the other side of it. And love (selflessness) is the greatest teacher, it renders the ears and the mind of a conscious, capable being—on any planet, to be the most open-minded, thus the most willing to truly consider foreign influences.
"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Tell me of all the people Don pardoned.
Man I knew assuming so much was the wrong way to go but I went and did it anyway lol sorry about that. That's so amazing you were a pastor by the way, I call them all the time and I praise they're (not all obviously) warm, massive hearts of gold.
Id add: to see selflessness, including the extremes, as a path not only to begin to stop considering it as suffering at all, but almost as a pleasure; I think the idea of a God or creator of some kind, takes the knowledge that leads to the incentive to do good—set yourself aside and resist yourself, and gives a concious mind the will that's necessary to live up to it the most. Especially regarding the extremes of it like anger, retaliation, self-sacrifice; in times when it's the most difficult.
I think it's love that renders a concious mind most open-minded, and I think it's the idea of an infinitely forgiving—due to all hate, evil, iniquity being an absence of knowledge—creator or shared origin of everything and the appreciation that comes with seeing a God as having a parents kind of love for you, always cheering you on, opposed to something to fear you into being selfless; an appreciation and a respect for the God sized amount of peace and love it has waiting for you, regardless of anything—I think it's things like these that lead to the knowledge of the value of virtue and selflessness being taught the most effectively; it being transfered with a concious mind most ready and wiling to consider any newfound influence. I believe this is what determines the extent of one's ability to imagine, and I believe it's this that determines one's capacity for empathy and compassion. This is why I think, amoungst plenty of other reasons, never taking oaths—so to speak, as Jesus put it in my opinion, is so important. Oath taking (considering things as unquestionably true) only hinders the potential of new knowledge, thus a concious minds imagination, and subsequently the extent of its ability to empathize. Just a theory I like sharing due to its potential importance.
What do you think of interpreting what Jesus said regarding "the sign of Jonah," as him saying that the knowledge to be selfless (the incentive) is an ignorance (a lack of knowledge) and needs to be taught; as well as ignorance (all hate and evil in this case) being infinitely forgiven as a result?
I completely agree regarding existence, even to the point that the nature of existence doesn't even need explaining, and the need to do so only comes from our inherent sense of self; a worry, fear or need for ourselves; a selfishness; an "evil." I think this is the level of selflessness Jesus was suggesting. Why even bother, when "we can't even turn a speck of hair on our head from black to white?" (I think it makes more sense as: from black to white opposed to the opposite) With ultimately, selflessness being what's most important. And only potentially—due to our uncredibility via our blindness, being men—drawing people away from the idea of a God or creator of some kind, thus a shared origin and a shared purpose: to strive to be as selfless as possible; to be able to acknowledge any of your potentially most barbaric desires, and abstain from them for a purpose other then yourself—God or not. Because it would make sense from any point of view; dare I say: it's the truth. We absolutely are the most capable of either ourselves or everything else on this planet, so of course the lesser barbaric or more righteous way to live, would be to consider it as exactly what it is: a desire stemming from one amoungst an entire collection of concious beings on a planet—and even toil to resist it.
Hey there philosophy! Regarding the question of using philosophy to end suffering: what if a concious mind is meant/made to "suffer?"
So I realized: what if the most logical explanation as to why a concious mind exists—on any planet, is to suffer? Suffer, however, based off our more fortunate standards specifically: to suffer the—what we would consider—"pains" of things like inconvenience, discomfort, misfortune, and displeasure.
Its the incessant indulgence in these things that lead a concious mind to be completely blind to the woes of such, thus the compassion and ability to empathize that comes with the experience (or knowledge) of suffering. It's hardly just an "eye for an eye"—the inherent need for ourselves to retaliate due to being concious of ourselves—that leads the world to be blind, it's our sense organs reacting to our environment and any desire for ourselves conjured from this reaction that is the most blinding; it's this that leads to the vanities we imagine in our heads, that we end up revolving our lives around, and make most important, that leads away from the "true life" a life of selflessness has to offer: a life most lived in the present, opposed to stuck in our heads, the images of what we consider the pain of our "past" and the thirst or fear for the "future" (our sense of time being yet another consequence of consciousness—like selfishness) dominating how we feel today.
It's our sense organs reacting to the extent we've presently manipulated our environment that leads to an addiction to it, even happiness, to the point where we become convinced that it's even lifes meaning: to become as happy as possible, but when we make our highest happiness the satisfaction of our greatest desires, we're only lead to an inevitable, massive disappointment, due to all exploitation of desire only being temporary. This begs the question: out of all the desire, and vanity that's bred from it, would there by any that don't end in inevitable disappointment due to being temporary? Love—but not Disney World kind of love, no, the Gandhi, MLK, Leo Tolstoy kind: selflessness—is the only desire that not only holds the ability to potentially last as long as man does, but also doesn't lead to inevitable disappointment. Dare I say: it's what the idea of a God or creator of some kind (not any man made God, but the substance of them)—its will: selflessness, to even it's extremes like self-sacrifice, that is the only desire worth seeking. But if you're someone against the idea of a God or creator (good luck finding the will to be selfless to the extremes) then let the fact that we're the only living things that have ever existed (on this planet, as far we know) that can even begin to consider abstaining from itself for any reason at all, be enough.
It's this that would end all suffering, but not by ending it, but by normalizing it I suppose you could say; to suffer for the sake of selflessness. To take the empty, ultimately only disappointing desire of stimulating our sense organs and fulfilling our vanities—for the sake of ourselves, and replace it, with the logic and alternative perspectives and behaviors that our inherency to selflessness breeds, that comes from our inherent ability to logic and reason.
What if we're designed to not be comforted or pleasured incessantly? Just look at the rich, most upper to lower middle class, even the poorest in a nation crippled by convenience; people of fortune (in life or in wealth) in general (like me): obese or crooked in some way or another, the idea of their temporary lifestyle they've become so attached to no longer being an avenue to being comforted and pleasured, saps or corrupts their concious mind, to the point where their willing to even kill to keep it—in some cases. Could a life of abstaining from your sense organs, and teaching yourself to thirst, desire and fantasize for the least, be what ultimately leads to a life of the most?