 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 374 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614103 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fair enough, but why do you think nature gave us intelligence and self awareness to begin with? In one theory one could say that man is bound to fail if it continues to do this, and thus consciousness will cease to exist with humans - natural selection of consciousness failed the test and now the universe is moving on. Another way to look at it is that we take responsibility for absolutely everything, and in a rational way we develop our intelligence to be as smart as it possibly can. In this way we may be able to eradicate war and suffering, both through internal enlightenment, but also through our actions, which we willingly do based on our smarter choices. If we follow the latter, it is impossible right now to predict what would happen, but let's say as a thought experiment that everyone on earth suddenly became enlightened, and everyone were peaceful and beyond our primitive ways and emotions. (Yes I do believe emotions can be a trap sometimes) Do you think humanity would be happy? What would happen? As opposed to if we all lived as if we were closer to animals, we hunted what we needed, didn't kill for sport, we basically didn't have the bad mix of "smart animals with guns" period that we have now, but rather a more natural consumption level, and a natural relationship to animals around us, and nature. It could be said that current times is a transition period, and that in the future we will go back to either one of these two above. Either because we kill everyone and go back to the stone age, or because we successfully reevaluate everything we know, and thus become enlightened. I do believe however, that consciousness is capable of a lot of things, far beyond what we are doing now, in terms of society, fairness, violence and emotional control. What our purpose is, or what we are able to do remains to be seen, but personally I hope we reach other levels of intelligence and reasoning and peace. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think there is a reason as to why nature "gave us" intelligence, more likely an accident. Other animals are intelligent too, ours is merely more sophisticated - I don't think it's wise to make too much of a division between ourselves and other animals. Technology is really a very superficial form of progress. Nature has no investment in human consciousness. As far as humans are concerned the only question is "how do we want to live on this planet?". At the moment, the thinking mechanism is in chaos - you are full of fear, insecurity, anger, jealousy. Society is a mirror reflection of that. Could we live a different way? I'm not sure it's possible to under the current value system that we are so deeply embedded in - it seems we have taken the wrong route completely. Annihilation is a much bigger likelihood than world peace that's for sure. You cannot attain peace through the construction of organisations, societies, foundations and armies. Historically, that has been a proven failure. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Philosophy is one tool we use as a society to prune, sharpen and advance ourselves. It is as natural to us as echolocation is to a dolphin or a web is to a spider. How we view the world and our responsibility to it, how we relate to each other, what we think about the big unknown are all critical to us finding ourselves as a people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"finding ourselves as a people" What's that supposed to mean? These are just thoughtless words. It is only man's boredom that imagines a necessity to find himself. There is nothing to find - you are an animal, that's it! An eating, sleeping, fucking machine. If you really want to find yourself I suggest you look in the mirror and say hello. If philosophy is a tool to advance ourselves, what an outright failure it's been. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I no longer feel like reading philosophy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You really think we are worse off than we were in the dark ages, the spanish inquisition, babylon, rome, WWII and the holocaust. And go the other way. Do you think it is as bad now as it was in the 50s when everyone was repressed and were hiding under their desks with the red scare? We are finding balance, thresholds, tolerance, so that everyone can have their little nook in the world and be happy. For every depravity we have in our society at least it is more controlled than anything like that. History, dialogue, philosophy, it does have an effect. It does make it better. I understand you and some others here are probably atheists. That is fine, and when I read your posts or reply I take that into consideration when I read things like no absolute right or wrong it is all a majority rules value system or when talks about their being this order to the universe get dicey, because there can't be an order, really. Where would it have come from? I'm not gonna get preachy BUT whether you are christian, hindu, whatever, intelligent design is real and what we think, say and do does count. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am not an atheist. Are we as badly off as were under Hitler - depends where you live really. Maybe you should ask an Iraqi? Ask someone who lives in Afghanistan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Nigeria. Would you like to live in South Korea? Would you like to live in Africa where 60% live with AIDS. Would you like to be starving? Is their fear any less real than someone living through a world war? Human beings have been around 200,000 years. The tyranny of Hitler was only 60 years ago, and you say we are making progress. Intelligent design may be real to you, but there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. To believe in it is preposterous - the key word being "belief". Of course, you don't believe at all, you pretend to believe. If religious people really believed they would not behave the way they do, it's farcical. If you had total conviction in your beliefs that you would burn in hell for disobeying your god, would you gamble? curse? steal? lie? cheat? swat a fly? Would you sit on your arse eating cream cakes and playing Nintendo when there are starving people to feed! Yes, what you say counts in that your contribution to the world is to perpetuate a never ending cycle of violence, ignorance and misery. You may not pick up a weapon, but believe me you are very much a cog in the wheel of medieval barbarism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
up until a couple hundred years ago people were sweetening their food and drink with LEAD ACETATE!. Boiling their food in LEAD POTS! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, I am not a religious person. and I do gamble, curse, steal, lie, cheat, swat flies. and I also sit on my arse eating cream cakes and playing Nintendo when there are starving people to feed (usually xbox anymore). I also download porn, smoke weed, and make up excuses when I don't feel like hanging out with someone. I was also late filing my taxes 2 years in a row and still owe money. I never said I was holier than thou I just said I believe in God and think there is design in the universe :P I'm kinda like Peter Callahan or Cheech's character in Machete. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not peter, donald. Father Donald Callahan from Salem's Lot/The Dark Tower. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol fair enough |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This ferral children stuff is crazy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
barcode, it appears we have a lot of fundamental differences, many of which i really dont have the energy of addressing right now. but put in short, i do not think we are 'just' animals, i do think our intelligence and self awareness separates us, even if it is just like any other animal except more complex. i also think that we are capable of taking responsibility for our thoughts and actions way more than many people do, and i also think many people are aware of the consequences of what they do, when they do bad things, but they still do them. an animal would see no consequence or have no conscience over what it did, and if it did it would be to a much lower significance than with a human. a human is CAPABLE of a lot more than currently displayed around the world, and that gives me hope that maybe we can maybe not reach this cheesy enlightenment thing, but rather develop a better working society, and more reflected and respectful relationship to others. and this is all fully possible even if we are just categorized as animals.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, until science figures out a way for humans to use over 80% of our brains and we start licking our own assholes and rolling around in dirt for reasons we can only guess today. We will be a more evolved species and also have a little more respect for dogs and cats |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Which also brings me to another point, i think barcodes meaning was that meaning is added subjectively, and that enlightenment is subjective, which makes it meaningless, because everyone can have their own idea of it. " Well, now, that's just bullshit. 1: Meaning is intersubjective. Subjective meaning wouldn't make sense. Significance is a wholly different thing. 2: That everyone can have (are able to have) their own meaning about something doesn't make it meaningless. It makes it contestable or disputable, something we can argue over, but not meaningless. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1: To the wild animal, presumably, there is no such thing as truth, even in your use of the word; for there to be truth, there needs to be untruth. 2: That the instinctual life is truthful is a claim you make, and it's not a matter of instinct, so you're automatically contradicting yourself. In light of those two points, the rest of your post doesn't make sense, and I'm sure the ensuing discussion shares these traits. Even though I'm usually opposed to just recommending stuff instead of having people try to use their own minds, the two of you could use some basics.. the kind you can get from reading a bit of philosophy. It may help you see beyond your own reflections on the water's surface. Loath as I am to say it, what you would benefit from the most, I think, is if you could learn something about method and structure, and perhaps use it to make certain important distinctions, and to avoid just muddling yourself in contradictions. Sometimes contradictions sound nice, sometimes a contradictions is just the way it is, but sometimes is not most times, and when a person is consistently self-contradicting, it's usually a sign of something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
one thing i dont undestand is, an ego trip, what really is an ego trip? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I still recommend Aristotle. His ethics are quite nice, even if you don't agree, and they are still some of the most easily applicable and understandable ethics around. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats fair enough drunken mastah, i do like your way of analyzing though.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have read much philosophy, trust me. All the so-called greats, from Jung, Freud, Nietzsche, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti (UG and Jiddu), Gibran, Maharaj, even Wilhelm Reich. They all have their contradictions, thought is a contradiction generator. The discussion now revolves around what constitutes truth. The way I see it, "truth" is inextricably linked to "fact" and "reality". In human beings thinking obscure one from seeing reality or truth. A soon as a human sees an object, it is named and objectified, a division has occurred between what the human sees with the physical eye and how he then interprets it through thought before taking action. The impulse is immediate but nevertheless there is a clear division there. With animals, the thinking mechanism is not as sophisticated. They are not able to form an opinion upon or objectify what they are looking at. They respond purely instinctually. Therefore, in my opinion, they live a more truthful life, as their response to stimuli is completely at one with the reality of their environment. In humans, the division I talked about earlier, where everything is viewed via a pool of knowledge, removes them from reality, distorts reality Therefore, it is has become almost impossible for humans to live a truthful life. Truth, or reality, exists alongside them at all times, but the search for truth using thought as an instrument can only take them further away from truth for the reasons mentioned previously. Only stripping away the activities of thought and unravelling ones conditioning will bring you further to truth/reality. The more instinctually a human acts the closer to truth he becomes. Thought is the violating instrument. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
philosophy= Hippos Holy |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Truth is propositional. Fact and real can act as conditions for determining the truth of a proposition, but the biological need for food or some absurd theoretical "pure" perception of something isn't truthful. Anyway, you seem to believe that since some impossible way of life is truthful, that it is the ought that we ought to live by, but, as Hume already pointed out, to go from is to ought just doesn't make sense. You also seem to imply that absurdity means we shouldn't strive for meaning, but you would have to justify this assumption; from the absurd any conclusion can be made. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I vote Sophist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The (western) philosopher has the burden of demonstrating the difference between philosophy and non-philosophy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I conclude hamburgers |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's actually less absurd than you might believe. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like what barcode said, it reminds me of meditation, because that's how you enter that state, that thoughtless state of pure conciousness, where you experience the self. But it takes years to practice this, but you have to wonder, what good would it do you? to experience this emtpy void, that nothingness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is "pure conciousness" - the absence of thought? Thought is the only tool you have with which to experience anything. Experience is the collation of thoughts, therefore it's impossible to "experience" their absence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of all the philosophers you listed, you sound like U.G. the most, which is fine I guess, but it can easily become dogmatic nihilism which, in itself, is a comfortable position, of course, but marred by a kind of sense of completion or closure... this is not as much a criticism of anyone in particular as an observation on anti-transcendentalism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's true I greatly admired U.G., such a character. There is a hypocrisy there - he loved the attention, but he also cut through the bullshit more than anyone I've ever read or listened to. You could call it nihilism, but only because people want to romanticise everything. I'd prefer to call it realism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yea i've enjoyed his talks myself, and i appreciate the ambiguity in being both anti-guru and guru at the same time. But I think many "masters" have been like that, denying the whole position of passing down knowledge - zen masters, for example: many of them don't even believe in enlightenment. And even Osho had an effect like that, right between hypnotism and dehypnotization. It's like that unlikely messiah, Brian, in Life of Brian, innit? "He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But ironically enough we can never escape our true nature. You are adding elements to consciousness, not me. You say consciousness is capable of escaping the nature of humanity, but say then that we shouldn't do this, as if consciousness is the warping element. (But in reality thought is humanity's natural nature) The errors in your thought process is thus that 1. why should we deny our own nature, ie stop thinking actively, and 2. who said this isn't natural? Furthermore, even though we have thought processing and abstraction associated with stimuli, it does not mean we are not at one with nature or our stimuli. Once again you are applying some kind of mysterious force to consciousness, and denying us access to it.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you can also replace natural with 'true' or whatever here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You must have misinterpreted me. Consciousness is not the warping element. Animals (not humans) are conscious, they are not warped. The warping element is thought. I'm not saying we should deny thought or try and get rid of it - as you say it's natural so that would be pointless and unachievable - what I am saying is that our application of thought is false. Our understanding of thought as an instrument is false. For me philosophy, religion, belief systems are examples of how thought is inappropriated. Like I said before, we have the sophisticated tool that is thought, now how do we apply it to live the life we want to live. To date, the human application of thought has been a disaster. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
less of a disaster but more of chaos |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
disaster=divine plan=the rules of karma=xltronic time |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thats pretty deep. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think you were misinterpreting me.. i said The errors in your thought process is thus that 1. why should we deny our own nature, ie stop thinking actively, and 2. who said this isn't natural? Furthermore, even though we have thought processing and abstraction associated with stimuli, it does not mean we are not at one with nature or our stimuli. and you didnt address that.. you also said in another post that we should not think actively about something, but rather live as one with nature like animals. you then proceed to say in your next post that we should find a way to use our thinking most efficiently because its been disastrous so far. but in doing so you are using thought as a tool, but denying everyone else the possibility to use it as such too.. and of course that humanity's application of thought has been a disaster is just your opinion, and you should have some evidence to back it up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think lolcats are evidence that it was all a great success |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't address the things you said because I never said at any point "deny nature" and I did not assert that we are not at one with nature. You are drawing false conclusions from what I wrote. How can you deny that humanity's application of thought has been anything but disaster? Try looking further than your own nose. Mankind has practiced warfare as a way of life. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered for an idea. And recently too - 60 million in world war II, never mind all the other wars that re going on unabated. Then you have all the other conflicts and divisions in the name of religion, racism + social conflicts, never mind the inextricable self-induced psychological conflicts of insecurity and fear that ensure humanity is locked in a cycle of almost daily misery. Anyone who can escape all that is extremely lucky, and such people are few and far between. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
damn.. very dark view of humanity there.. im not denying that there's been A LOT of 'disaster', but what i think you are forgetting is that humanity has also done a great deal of good to itself. ultimately just chilling at the park with some friends at night with some beers is enough to live for. its all those small moments that people even bother to live for. i also separate mentally between the people who create and the people who consume and destroy. some people create things, whether it be technology, ideas, arts, anything that gives something. the big guys we've had up through the ages have mostly always tried to create a better world, and their ideas stand today as true. examples would be ghandi, einstein, newton, jefferson, many of the old philosophers, many or any of the old academics or other people in the same vein. there have been many unique personalities through the ages, and i think those are the people we should strive for to lead humanity. a lot of the leaders since the dawn of leadership have been.. well, poor choices, at the least, say hitler, but i do think humanity is capable of becoming much more. to just get such a pessimistic view, with a sense of eh, nihilistic optimism (?) just when humanity is starting to become much more aware of everything is a bad choice imo. im not saying we're bound to succeed and become better, but damn it, why not be a little optimistic, even if things look dim. the more awareness, the better we're off, and the more safefails we will have for people in need. right now there's a ton of charities/non profit orgs, tons of people trying ot better the world aorund war ridden parts, donations are being run, and heck, google is trying as well, a big corp.. i just think there may be tough times ahead, but then maybe good times after. or it could all go straight to hell with nukes all over the place. OPTIMISM FOR THE ENLIGHTENMENT. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, I know what you're saying. I probably sound like a manic depressive, but that couldn't be further from the truth. To be honest, there is no conflict in my life but I am nevertheless despondent about the world and the state of society and the way it is all heading. As long as people are relying on others to show them the way, show them the light, show them how to live, then humans doomed. These billions are just being manipulated and used as pawns for those seeking power and wealth. I think the problem is that people do not separate the physical from the psychological. If they have a toothache they go to the dentist, a cold they go to the doctor and if they're afraid of death or don't know how to live they go to the church, the temple or a guru and get exploited. Where we differ is that I don't see any room for optimism as long as people are waiting to be led. That's the entire problem. For society to change, each individual has to change of their own accord - take total responsibility for themselves. The whole value system is corrupt to its very root, whilst religion and culture merely atrophies the brain. I feel this is only likely to change when something absolutely catastrophic happens - a wake up call if you like. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's because cats are superior to humans, in every sense of the word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Baruch Spinoza , end of discussion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I feel this is only likely to change when something absolutely catastrophic happens - a wake up call if you like. i hope that you - cx, glasse, and all - didn't go through something catastrophic to elaborate those points. For society to change, each individual has to change of their own accord - take total responsibility for themselves. did someone impose it to you or it's the product of your thought? in the second case, you became immediately responsible to tell your view the ones that will come after you. the dog girl has been taught to bark, and that's the only thing she can do regardless of the fact that she has a human brain cos nobody has taught her to speak. we have been taught to think/act in a certain way but the only fact that you talk about it means that there is something humans can realize, and something that humans can do, as you said taking full resposibility for our thoughts and actions instead of costantly turning our back and crying about our own hypocrisy. we couldn't be that lucky to live in a world at peace or to move objects with the power of thought but at least we could begin tryin' to leave the earth we've been walking on in a better way than the one that we found it. forcing a positive thought in the mess of your mind that inevitably affects some other's one by the things that you say, and the things that you do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck, hours rereading and full of errors anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't worry about the planet, it's not worried about you. It survived the ice age and meteoric annihilation, how does a few percent rise in temperature compare to that? The planet isn't in danger - not in the slightest, humans are. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry but i need to care about the little pieces of planet i live in. i feel good, they feel good. i feel bad, they make me feel good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why should it matter what the planet does or doesn't worry about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
