philosophy is a sick joke

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

And how do you know that? And how do you justify your justification for claiming that? And do you only have a vague idea of what you're trying to convey, or could you spell it out in very precise detail?

I gather you're claiming that thoughts can't lead to truth, since thoughts require multiple moments (like how a movie requires multiple frames). Is this accurate?

So what led you to this conclusion? Surely it was thought. But wait!! Thought can't lead to truth!!! That's bad news for your theory--

Since truth can't be found through thoughts, and since thinking led you to the claim 'truth cannot be found through thoughts', then that means your claim ('truth cannot be found through thoughts') must be false. So that means truth CAN be found through thoughts, hmm?

I believe that this discussion has its source in a difference in perspective based upon experience. I believe that truth cannot be found through thoughts. Why do I believe that, you might ask? Well, I believe that because when I quiet my thoughts, and just notice what I am, an experience shows up. That experience is beyond thoughts. It is the experience of myself; others might call it mindfulness. That experience comes with a 'knowing'. From that space of 'knowing' all of the 'thinking' shows itself to be totally inadequate -- a mind-diversion rather than something that is helpful, almost a bore. At least this is how it shows up for me.

Because I enjoy the sense of the experience of myself more than the experience of playing with mind thoughts, I cultivate the 'knowing'.

In my life, philosophy has shown up to me as a gentleman's way of being clever and playing within the realm of the mind. The mind cannot grasp the 'experience' or the 'knowing'. It looks for thoughts and concepts, logic strings, etc. It tries its best, but IMHE this experience, this knowing cannot be contained or explained by concepts and thoughts.

Now, you will surely disagree -- and why wouldn't you. If your perspective is limited to the realm of the mind, you have no other point of reference. My perspective will all sound new agey; and why wouldn't it? The experience I describe is not about the mind or thoughts; the mind won't get it, and never will.

That is most why all of the machinations of the different aspects of philosophy lead only to good thinking -- which is an excellent destination -- just not one I find terribly helpful. Although I do like the Plato's The Cave allegory.

I'm not putting philosophy down, just recognizing that, from my perspective, it is limited -- it reminds me of a blind man trying to describe an elephant.

Anyway, just my perspective. I've been enjoying the good debate -- so thanks, and blessings from Belle,

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

. . . . At a more abstract level, take away philosophy/philosophizing, and there would be no reflective thought of any kind. Seriously, try to imagine the scope of that. Every reasoned action that you take is the result of philosophizing (aka reasoning) about what you should do. And guess what? The very rules of reasoning itself are under the domain of philosophy, so without them, you have to give up all the tools for proper reasoning.

Take away philosophy from humanity, and you'd be left with purely unjustified randomness...which would quickly lead to mass extinction and degeneration to a non-thinking animalistic state of affairs. . . .

Ohhhh, this viewpoint is just sooooo far away from my view of reality -- I can't even take it seriously.

Rather than look to the philosophers, I look to the mystics. Honestly, I think they have a better grasp of reality than philosophical logicians. The best philosophers, IMHO, are those who are mystics to begin with. They begin with the experience, and then translate as best they can, their experience into stories, allegories; like Plato.

Also; a couple of points. So, you think that because we think that means we are NOT headed for mass destruction as a species? Frankly, I think just the reverse -- because we do think, and have developed the ability to overrun the earth as a species, and have developed nuclear weapons, etc., etc., etc., we are probably more firmly planted on the road to mass destruction than we would ever be if we didn't think. This ability to disassociate our minds from our hearts and pursue such wildly destructive courses of activity -- well it doesn't seem very logical to me; and yet we do think. . . . Also, this suggestion that use of the mind makes us non-animalistic -- well, what is so wrong with animals, and what makes you think we are any way shape or form superior to them? Such a western-european paternalistic attitude. To me, your perspective is just befuddling.

Anyway, sorry you're so preoccupied with the mind -- in my experience, the mind can be a cruel, self-centered and egotistical master. I don't wish that on anyone.

Blessings from Belle,

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

I believe that this discussion has its source in a difference in perspective based upon experience. I believe that truth cannot be found through thoughts. Why do I believe that, you might ask? Well, I believe that because when I quiet my thoughts, and just notice what I am, an experience shows up. That experience is beyond thoughts. It is the experience of myself; others might call it mindfulness. That experience comes with a 'knowing'. From that space of 'knowing' all of the 'thinking' shows itself to be totally inadequate -- a mind-diversion rather than something that is helpful, almost a bore. At least this is how it shows up for me.

Because I enjoy the sense of the experience of myself more than the experience of playing with mind thoughts, I cultivate the 'knowing'.

In my life, philosophy has shown up to me as a gentleman's way of being clever and playing within the realm of the mind. The mind cannot grasp the 'experience' or the 'knowing'. It looks for thoughts and concepts, logic strings, etc. It tries its best, but IMHE this experience, this knowing cannot be contained or explained by concepts and thoughts.

Now, you will surely disagree -- and why wouldn't you. If your perspective is limited to the realm of the mind, you have no other point of reference. My perspective will all sound new agey; and why wouldn't it? The experience I describe is not about the mind or thoughts; the mind won't get it, and never will.

That is most why all of the machinations of the different aspects of philosophy lead only to good thinking -- which is an excellent destination -- just not one I find terribly helpful. Although I do like the Plato's The Cave allegory.

I'm not putting philosophy down, just recognizing that, from my perspective, it is limited -- it reminds me of a blind man trying to describe an elephant.

Anyway, just my perspective. I've been enjoying the good debate -- so thanks, and blessings from Belle,

That is probably one of the most clear and succinct explanations of the world beyond thought that I've heard yet. Certainly the best in this thread, by far.
Thank you !!

[september]

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

A couple of thoughts:

1) Philosophy saved my life. I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown before discovering serious rigorous philosophy at my university. I quite literally might have died face-down in a ditch by now without it. The primary benefits were twofold. First, it let me know that I was not alone in having the sorts of serious philosophical concerns and thoughts that dominated my mental life. Second, it allowed me to converse with the greatest thinkers in recorded history and learn about their responses to the same problems I was wrestling with.

2) A lot of people get turned off to philosophy because their soft thinking gets exposed pretty quickly when held up to the light of reason. Most people blissfully wallow around in fluffy nonsense and don't want to (or lack the mental capacity to) really engage the problems with precise, rigorous thinking. (Let me explicitly state that I'm not accusing you of that, Plato.)

Philosophy is hard. Damn hard. The pursuit of truth will scare the pants off you and take you to the brink of madness if you're perceptive enough to really understand the problems, and it will make no promises of a happy ending. If you're really gonna pursue truth, you've either got to suck it up and deal with the consequences, or cop out and turn to one of the fluffy la la land fantasies that most others choose to delude themselves with.

Gleefully seconded. I'll note that I'm not a proponent of subjective reality because of (2). Philosophy is amazing, and its benefits have caused my cup to overflow many times over, but it is incredibly difficult to remain competent in, especially when you are in the position of building systems while critiquing others at the same time -- then your worldview can end up in some serious flux ("Can I be a foundationalist and an error theorist at the same time? Should I opt for the Buddhist variant on mereological reductionism, or is Parfit's formulation sufficient?"). While that's led to some bad times for me, the pluses significantly outweigh any minuses.

[september]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

I believe that truth cannot be found through thoughts. Why do I believe that, you might ask? Well, I believe that because when I quiet my thoughts, and just notice what I am, an experience shows up. That experience is beyond thoughts. It is the experience of myself; others might call it mindfulness. That experience comes with a 'knowing'. From that space of 'knowing' all of the 'thinking' shows itself to be totally inadequate -- a mind-diversion rather than something that is helpful, almost a bore. At least this is how it shows up for me.

Look at what you've said. You're equivocating on what it is to know. You don't talk about thinking in this post, you talk about believing. Believing is something we do as an article of faith. But the knowledge helpmestartauniversity is talking about surely uses a different definition of "know". Looks like you guys are talking past each other. hmsau (to abbreviate) seems to be saying that "knowing" constitutes reasoning to facts, while you are aiming at a definition of "knowing" consisting in some more mystical kind of state of assurance.

See, it doesn't take a subjective reality to understand the differences in what you're saying. Now, if you want to deny her/his definition of "knowing" entirely, you need to be talking in their terms.

Plato's Cave argues for an objectively prescriptive non-natural kind of moral fact. However, those moral facts do, according to Plato, exist in a mind-independent world. Don't take the force of this allegory to be the phenomenological experience of entering the light from the cave -- that's not what Plato's argument is structured around.

[september]

Originally Posted by yossarian

IMO most of the "great philosophers" ((define "great", define "philosopher")) worked from a place of no-mind anyway which is why they were actually able to make useful advances in the world. At this point in time however we have exhausted "pure thought" and all logical systems are exposed for what they are. The great philosophers of today are not called "philosophers" unless you want to get into an endless argument about "what makes philosophy" which is so incredibly useless.

These are actually questions that most philosophers in their respective traditions have agreed on. It's why we study Russell, Frege, Quine, etc. in the analytic tradition, and not just some idiot. We also don't argue about "what makes philosophy". Take a class at a well-regarded university in philosophy and you might find yourself less ready to hold these whinging stereotypical views. Plenty of advances are made a priori or with "pure thought", as you say. Philosophers are commonly regarded as second-order interdisciplinary watchdogs methodologically and ethically for other fields, including science, medical, engineering, and environmental fields, among countless other practical fields out there. In science it's especially helpful -- the discipline of cognitive science has been borne out of the need of computer scientists, neuroscientists, philosophers and psychologists to synthesize their work into innovative new avenues of understanding the mind.

Think some more before senselessly bashing a plethora of historically-validated well-crafted thought again.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by september

Look at what you've said. You're equivocating on what it is to know. You don't talk about thinking in this post, you talk about believing. Believing is something we do as an article of faith. But the knowledge helpmestartauniversity is talking about surely uses a different definition of "know". Looks like you guys are talking past each other. hmsau (to abbreviate) seems to be saying that "knowing" constitutes reasoning to facts, while you are aiming at a definition of "knowing" consisting in some more mystical kind of state of assurance.

See, it doesn't take a subjective reality to understand the differences in what you're saying. Now, if you want to deny her/his definition of "knowing" entirely, you need to be talking in their terms.

Plato's Cave argues for an objectively prescriptive non-natural kind of moral fact. However, those moral facts do, according to Plato, exist in a mind-independent world. Don't take the force of this allegory to be the phenomenological experience of entering the light from the cave -- that's not what Plato's argument is structured around.

Hmmmm, well there is a very big difference between 'knowing' and 'believing'. When a bear comes running at you, do you know you are afraid, or do you believe you are afraid? When I speak of 'knowing' I speak of an experience, not a belief or a thought.

If you have never had the experience of this 'knowing', then you are going to try to conceptualize what I said through your thinking mind. However, the words a giant bear is chasing me are very different from the experience of being chased by a giant bear. Obviously, you have never been chased by the particular bear I spoke of in my post. If you had, you would have a different perspective on what I was saying, a different view. If you have not had the experience, it means nothing to you except for the words which are totally inadequate.

So I just don't know what you are defending, as I really was not attacking philosophy, nor this other gentleman's stand on philosophy. I merely pointed out what I view as its limitations -- which to my mind are quite real. How do you know what Plato's Cave argues for? You only know through your filters, your view of the world, and your understanding of philosophy. How do you know that is all there is? You don't, really; because you can't know everything. No one can.

I never denied that gentleman's view of philosophy, and I never said there was anything wrong with philosophy, only that it has limitations -- limitations to me which are rather gaping. It also leads to very good thinking -- that is a good thing in my mind.

Like most people, I like my own point of view -- but I try not to make other's views wrong. Because they aren't wrong, and my view isn't right. They are just views that differ; a person's view has everything to do with perspective and is not a SR issue (ask any photographer.) So, what are you defending here? If you want to be right, go ahead. I freely give you the 'rightness' of your stance and your beliefs within your experience of life and your belief system.

And when that bear chases you, you just let me know how close the words were to the real experience.

Blessings from Belle,

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

I believe that this discussion has its source in a difference in perspective based upon experience. I believe that truth cannot be found through thoughts. Why do I believe that, you might ask? Well, I believe that because when I quiet my thoughts, and just notice what I am, an experience shows up. That experience is beyond thoughts. It is the experience of myself; others might call it mindfulness. That experience comes with a 'knowing'. From that space of 'knowing' all of the 'thinking' shows itself to be totally inadequate -- a mind-diversion rather than something that is helpful, almost a bore. At least this is how it shows up for me.

Because I enjoy the sense of the experience of myself more than the experience of playing with mind thoughts, I cultivate the 'knowing'.

In my life, philosophy has shown up to me as a gentleman's way of being clever and playing within the realm of the mind. The mind cannot grasp the 'experience' or the 'knowing'. It looks for thoughts and concepts, logic strings, etc. It tries its best, but IMHE this experience, this knowing cannot be contained or explained by concepts and thoughts.

Now, you will surely disagree -- and why wouldn't you. If your perspective is limited to the realm of the mind, you have no other point of reference. My perspective will all sound new agey; and why wouldn't it? The experience I describe is not about the mind or thoughts; the mind won't get it, and never will.

That is most why all of the machinations of the different aspects of philosophy lead only to good thinking -- which is an excellent destination -- just not one I find terribly helpful. Although I do like the Plato's The Cave allegory.

I'm not putting philosophy down, just recognizing that, from my perspective, it is limited -- it reminds me of a blind man trying to describe an elephant.

Anyway, just my perspective. I've been enjoying the good debate -- so thanks, and blessings from Belle,

I agree with you that the mind and the symbolic interface we identify with is limited. Here comes the "butt". But, the mind is part of experience and existence. To reach an authentic state of non-duality, it would have to include duality and not repel from it. If I go back far enough, I am just being. I see the rise and fall of causality, the inter-dependent co-arising of form, as the rise and fall of my breath. I am also a very limited, mortal human being with a particular persona and limited understanding of the world

Philosophy today is almost strictly sophistry. It is a game of semantics. Philosophy originally was a way of life, akin to that of the yoga masters from the same time period. I always wanted to be a philosopher and not a scholar of philosophy, which is why I chose not to get a degree in the subject.

I've often felt that Westerners have over-looked some real gems in their culture for the more readily available Eastern versions of the same things The parallels between Stoicism and Buddhism are unbelievable, for example.

[12345]

In my personal experiences with the subject of philosophy, I must say that it is way more harmful than helpful to both individuals and society as a whole. I know everyone will bash me for saying this, but there is one, and only one, meaning to life, and that is God. If philosophy could always keep God as the foundation of its purpose, I think life could be a lot simpler for everyone.

We should be content with *not knowing* things, simply because we are not God. It’s just like in the bible, when Job questioned God. God *lovingly* responded by saying that He was the one who created the world and its people; if Job could not understand the framework of creation, he could not possibly demand answers to the minute details of life.

Trust me, I have mulled and mulled over things that didn’t make sense in both my own life and the world, but like Job, I have had to acknowledge the omnipotence of God and pray for the faith to be at peace with this. I truly believe people should cease questioning life so much and place more emphasis on helping those in need and focus on living as Godly a life a possible.

I am in no way suggesting that philosophy does not have its proper place and time—it just seems that it is overstressed most of the time, which I think has led many people to believe that they are usurping God Himself with their self-proclaimed knowledge. We *will* have all of our questions answered in heaven by God, but until then, we must humbly submit to His power.

[shnu]

Originally Posted by 12345

We *will* have all of our questions answered in heaven by God, but until then, we must humbly submit to His power.

While I respect many Christians, I regard the idea of a heaven, where all is good, and all questions are answered, as a childish fantasy. Epicurus had a grown up view of humanity's place in the world: the gods do not obsess over weighing up our every action and devising rewards and punishments for them.

God will not answer your questions if you make no effort to. And he might not help even if you try.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by september

Think some more before senselessly bashing a plethora of historically-validated well-crafted thought again.

If you think I'm bashing philosophers you've got it all wrong. I *like* the old philosophers and many of the things they've written that I have read. But most of the good philosophers were not themselves accepted by the mainstream, just like the good philosophers of today tend to be ridiculed by modern philosophy professors and their disciples.

It's the modern philosophy departments I find to be trite.

From Plato to Pythagorus to Newton - our modern science was founded on occultism. We physicists laud Newton's Calculus and then shyly cover-up his alchemy as a personality flaw. Pythagorus is constantly worshipped by us mathematicians but we fall silent when his Nostradamus-like prophecies are mentioned or how he taught meditation.

How many of our idols have to be occultists before we notice that there is a connection, and lower our mental drawbridge?

The modern popularity of Buddhism among Atheists is simply that it expresses the same concepts in translated language and therefore doesn't remind us of our own Western occultism - which speaks the same truth but uses familiar language heard in childhood fairy tales.

And of course any criticism of "philosophy as a department" immediately causes all those who's ego is bound up in the word "philosophy" to circle the wagons and start accusing people of being weak minded. You probably derive a significant source of "self" from that famous statue The Thinker - the one with the elbow on his knee.

The irony is that this icon of Philosophy was meant to portray Dante at The Gates of Hell.

Plenty of advances are made a priori or with "pure thought", as you say.

That is NOT what a priori means! Sheesh! Unless you are a Lawyer, that is, which I understand uses a wrong definition (define "wrong" lol) of the word due to legal reasons.

A priori in the sciences, math, and in social sciences such as economics refers to something which can be held to be self-evident and therefore is basically the exact opposite of pure thought.

In Logic, when we say a priori we are talking about self-evident tautologies.

Pure thought is pure logic, something a computer can do. And we need starting assumptions to work with any kind of logic, and we take these assumptions to be a priori. The result of your logic is always dependent on your initial a priori assumptions as well as the a priori definitions given to the symbols involved.

I speak as a mathematician, physicist and computer scientist however, perhaps this has a different usage where you're from. I'm guessing you're a lawyer who took philosophy in undergrad. (You probably went light on the Logic classes and tended towards Ethics)

I guess your actual claim is that reasoning through logic has made important advances. The fault here is that all reasoning has assumptions and a trained monkey could work out the logic a posteriori the a priori assumptions are made. It is the a priori assumptions that are themselves the most valuable. These assumptions also happen to be the hardest thing to learn, the hardest thing to teach, and the hardest thing to express. This is why the ancient tradition of truth seeking has so often ended up looking like mysticism - because the truth is naturally mysterious.

Some philosophers boldly play with the mysterious but in the modern day they quickly leave the PHIL department because they are not welcome.

Famous philosophers who we admire not only played with the mysterious but bathed in it every day from tip to toe. We tend to extirpate the stuff which modern conditioning teaches us to find distasteful but the fact is that these hard-to-swallow aspects are actually crucial aspects.

In any case, the ancient fact remains:

"Meditation brings wisdom. Lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward, and what holds you back." - The Buddha

[shnu]

Originally Posted by yossarian

In Logic, when we say a priori we are talking about self-evident tautologies.

Good logicians don't appeal to self-evidence. Aristotle gave his syllogistic logic extensive justification through argument, and he ultimately regarded the foundations of logics to lie in metaphysics.

When somebody starts talking of self-evidence, it is a signal that they can't be bothered to think their argument through.

[Freelancer]

Philosophy=bunch of words trying to describe a tiny part of reality.

Funny stuff although I doubt most of the words are that usefull.




Ps. I have no interest in proving this to you. There is after all more value in being illogical then logical. Oh and truth is hidden inside a bunny, ponder that one.

[12345]

Originally Posted by shnu

While I respect many Christians, I regard the idea of a heaven, where all is good, and all questions are answered, as a childish fantasy.

Likewise, while I respect non-Christians, these two bible verses actually affirm that we *must* have the faith of a child to enter heaven.

Mark 10:15 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Luke 18:17 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

God bless you, shnu.

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I agree with you that the mind and the symbolic interface we identify with is limited. Here comes the "butt". But, the mind is part of experience and existence. To reach an authentic state of non-duality, it would have to include duality and not repel from it. If I go back far enough, I am just being. I see the rise and fall of causality, the inter-dependent co-arising of form, as the rise and fall of my breath. I am also a very limited, mortal human being with a particular persona and limited understanding of the world

Philosophy today is almost strictly sophistry. It is a game of semantics. Philosophy originally was a way of life, akin to that of the yoga masters from the same time period. I always wanted to be a philosopher and not a scholar of philosophy, which is why I chose not to get a degree in the subject.

I've often felt that Westerners have over-looked some real gems in their culture for the more readily available Eastern versions of the same things The parallels between Stoicism and Buddhism are unbelievable, for example.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on philosophy. I agree completely. Philosophy leads to good thinking; and that is definately a good thing. But it isn't everything. For me, there is a lot more that is of more importance to me. However, I wouldn't dismiss philosophy, or say to someone that it is a waste of time. Because it is, like many things, a very good tool. One that I appreciate learning about, and having a basic understanding of. The only view that I disagree with most heartily is that it is everything.

There are deeper truths, IMHO. The mind to me is like water. When it is dense and unyielding it is like water that is held at a really cold temperature; i.e., ice. This is where, it seems to me, modern philosophy is today. Not a bad thing, but it is what it is. Water appears solid, impenetrable in its ice stage. Then you warm it up a little, and it is like spring water. Its properties are entirely different from ice, yet underneath its makeup is the same, except the temperature is different. Now it flows, it has movement. It follows a path, gravitating to the lowest point in the landscape. Then you take that water and heat it up even more. Now you can't see the water, but is it gone? No, now it makes the air moist, and floats in the clouds.

If you say that water is only hard and unyielding, cold, and solid, then it is obvious you've only seen and interacted with water in its ice state. Would that statement be correct; well yes and no. Yes it is correct if you are viewing ice. No, not correct if you are looking at flowing water or mist. You see where I'm going with this. Now there is nothing wrong with water in any form, but it has entirely different properties depending upon what the underlying temperature is. The only error one can make here is to say that one state of water is the only state. However, if you never experienced ice, ever (perhaps you live in the tropics and there is no refrigeration), it would be pretty hard to believe that water can be rock-solid. This is not a SR issue, but perspective is limited to the view being seen or experienced.

To me it seems like this is how the mind is. The mind is a great tool, as is philosophy. It just isn't the end-all, be-all; or perhaps I should say there are different levels of the mind to be found.

You said:

I always wanted to be a philosopher and not a scholar of philosophy, which is why I chose not to get a degree in the subject.

Me too. What I was looking for, however, I didn't find in philosophy. I did find it in the writings of Christian mystics, buddhist teachings, ACIM, Rumi, etc, etc.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Blessings from Belle,

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I agree with you that the mind and the symbolic interface we identify with is limited. Here comes the "butt". But, the mind is part of experience and existence. To reach an authentic state of non-duality, it would have to include duality and not repel from it. If I go back far enough, I am just being. I see the rise and fall of causality, the inter-dependent co-arising of form, as the rise and fall of my breath. I am also a very limited, mortal human being with a particular persona and limited understanding of the world

Philosophy today is almost strictly sophistry. It is a game of semantics. Philosophy originally was a way of life, akin to that of the yoga masters from the same time period. I always wanted to be a philosopher and not a scholar of philosophy, which is why I chose not to get a degree in the subject.

I've often felt that Westerners have over-looked some real gems in their culture for the more readily available Eastern versions of the same things The parallels between Stoicism and Buddhism are unbelievable, for example.

By the way, I was very intrigued with Stoicism when I read about it. But I couldn't find much out there on it, as it is no longer being used as an approach to life by anyone. Also, I always loved Mr. Spock, who to me embodies Stoicism.

Hey what can I say -- the philosophy that has meant the most to me is perhaps best embodied by TV characters from my youth. . . .(So now you know -- I'm a closet trekkie -- my secret is out of the bag.)

Blessings from Belle,

[shnu]

Originally Posted by 12345

Likewise, while I respect non-Christians, these two bible verses actually affirm that we *must* have the faith of a child to enter heaven.

Touché! Who better to enter into a childish fantasy than a child?

The Christian idea of heaven is not my cup of tea, but I must reconsider my objections...

[shnu]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

By the way, I was very intrigued with Stoicism when I read about it. But I couldn't find much out there on it, as it is no longer being used as an approach to life by anyone.

Seneca's letters to Lucilius were my introduction to Stoicism (as part of Robin Campbell's Letters from a Stoic). Learn from Nero's tutor!

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by yossarian

If you think I'm bashing philosophers you've got it all wrong. I *like* the old philosophers and many of the things they've written that I have read. . . .

In any case, the ancient fact remains:

"Meditation brings wisdom. Lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward, and what holds you back." - The Buddha

I just wanted to compliment you on this incredibly thought-provoking post. Beautiful considered and executed. Well done! It was really lovely, and I enjoyed reading it and digesting your thoughts on this topic.

Thank you very much! Belle,

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by shnu

Seneca's letters to Lucilius were my introduction to Stoicism (as part of Robin Campbell's Letters from a Stoic). Learn from Nero's tutor!

Wow, thanks very much -- I'll definately check it out. Thank you very much for posting this information!!!! Belle,

[12345]

Originally Posted by shnu

Touché! Who better to enter into a childish fantasy than a child?

The Christian idea of heaven is not my cup of tea, but I must reconsider my objections...

The bible verses I quoted affirm that we must have the *faith* of a child to enter heaven. Being a child and having the faith of a child are two very different concepts. Although I am an adult, I consider my ability to still have the faith of a child (and thus to believe in God) as my greatest accomplishment.

Here’s one adult with a child’s heart who’s hoping you (and anyone else reading this) really will reconsider . . .

Once again, God bless you, schnu.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by 12345

The bible verses I quoted affirm that we must have the *faith* of a child to enter heaven. Being a child and having the faith of a child are two very different concepts. Although I am an adult, I consider my ability to still have the faith of a child (and thus to believe in God) as my greatest accomplishment.

Here’s one adult with a child’s heart who’s hoping you (and anyone else reading this) really will reconsider . . .

Once again, God bless you, schnu.

I find it interesting that you consider your childlike faith YOUR greatest ACCOMPLISHMENT.
It's one of the things I find distrurbing about most Christians. The bible clearly says that Faith in God is a GIFT from God, so that no one can boast. Yet you boast of your great accomplishment.

Most Christians will tell you that the majority of sentient beings will spend eternity in Hell, because somehow they lacked the good sense to have your accomplishment ( faith in god ). What they don't realize is that their own bible states that faith in that god is given by that god and is not an accomplishment at all.
Which, if you think about it, means that the choice is strictly in the hands of said god who has faith and lives, and who doesn't have faith and spends eternity in hell.
Not my kind of god for sure, but I digress. I just find your greatest accomplishment something interesting.

[12345]

Originally Posted by fwellers

I find it interesting that you consider your childlike faith YOUR greatest ACCOMPLISHMENT.
It's one of the things I find distrurbing about most Christians. The bible clearly says that Faith in God is a GIFT from God, so that no one can boast. Yet you boast of your great accomplishment.

Most Christians will tell you that the majority of sentient beings will spend eternity in Hell, because somehow they lacked the good sense to have your accomplishment ( faith in god ). What they don't realize is that their own bible states that faith in that god is given by that god and is not an accomplishment at all.
Which, if you think about it, means that the choice is strictly in the hands of said god who has faith and lives, and who doesn't have faith and spends eternity in hell.
Not my kind of god for sure, but I digress. I just find your greatest accomplishment something interesting.

Floyd,

I just wanted to clarify my post—it was not my intention at all to “boast” about my faith. You are absolutely right about faith being a gift from God. I was actually just wanting to convey that I am in no way ashamed of having a childlike faith. However, I *still* consider it my greatest accomplishment—*through God*, that is, for all good things (and thus good accomplishments) are only possible through Him.

While faith (and every other thing that is good) is a gift from God, we still have free will to either accept this faith or reject it. Although God is omnipotent, He has not predetermined who will go to heaven or hell, as I believe you are suggesting. I agree—that wouldn’t be my kind of god either, but luckily, He is a loving God. I would compare faith to a birthday or any other tangible gift—the recipient always has the choice to return it if he or she doesn’t like or want it.

As someone who *attempts* to be a Christian (because I don’t believe anyone other than Jesus truly fulfilled this title on this earth, but in heaven everyone will be made perfect and thus Christians), I would never say that the majority of people will end up in Hell. Only God can truly exercise justice. Every person is different, and only God knows every person’s life circumstances—the roads that led them to make the choices they made.

I think that “good sense”, as you said, is a *gift* from God that is within *every single one of us*. It is called our conscience, and I truly believe this is how God speaks to our heart. However, we have free will, and we certainly don’t have to listen to Him if we don’t want to. I have never seen or heard God, and I honestly can say I am even skeptical of those who claim they have. But I still believe.

God bless you Floyd, and thanks for pointing that out.

[fwellers]

I just wanted to clarify my post—it was not my intention at all to “boast” about my faith. You are absolutely right about faith being a gift from God. I was actually just wanting to convey that I am in no way ashamed of having a childlike faith. However, I *still* consider it my greatest accomplishment—*through God*, that is, for all good things (and thus good accomplishments) are only possible through Him.

12345,
I still cannot reconcile the 'your greatest accomplishment' part of it. If the faith was given to you, then you accomplished nothing.

While faith (and every other thing that is good) is a gift from God, we still have free will to either accept this faith or reject it. Although God is omnipotent, He has not predetermined who will go to heaven or hell, as I believe you are suggesting.

I think a careful reading of a decent translation of the bible would disagree with that. If you have been given belief ( faith ), or for whatever reason, if you have belief in something, then you just believe it. There is no will or acceptance involved. If God planted faith inside your skull that says ( I EXIST ), then it's there. Plain and simple. You can no more reject that, then you can reject any belief you have. You simply believe it.
And that, means that according to the bible, God has pre-determined who will go to hell, simply by pre-determining who he 'gives' faith(belief) to.

I would compare faith to a birthday or any other tangible gift—the recipient always has the choice to return it if he or she doesn’t like or want it.

That is what all Christians say. I reject that as intellectual dishonesty.

12345,
I know I am harsh with you. Sorry for that. Having escaped from the clutches of christianity, I have real issues with it, and I always try to get my jabs in on Christians whenever I see an opportunity.
Come on man, eternal hell ? If you've been hanging around this forum for a while, how can you believe in eternal hell ? How can a personal God, be so vindictive as to make humans imperfect, ( flesh is weak ), ( you can never satisify God without the Spirit [which is also a given gift btw] ), etc.., and then punish them for all of eternity without any hope of reprieve or parole, because they were too stupid to believe in him during this blink of an eye physical existence.

To me, if anyone steps out of the trap for a second, they can see how silly and outright mean such beliefs are, and how ugly, and tyrannical of a god that is.

Oh well. Peace on you anyway.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by bellemeadows

By the way, I was very intrigued with Stoicism when I read about it. But I couldn't find much out there on it, as it is no longer being used as an approach to life by anyone. Also, I always loved Mr. Spock, who to me embodies Stoicism.

Hey what can I say -- the philosophy that has meant the most to me is perhaps best embodied by TV characters from my youth. . . .(So now you know -- I'm a closet trekkie -- my secret is out of the bag.)

Blessings from Belle,

LOL. I must have missed the episode when Spock waxed philosophic on Advaita Vedanta.

I'm more of a Star Wars geek myself. The philosophy behind those movies does mean quite a bit to me as well, however pathetic and sad that sounds.
In terms of TV shows, I'm somewhere between Quantum Leap and Kung Fu.

Anyway, Stoicism:

"We are disturbed not by events, but by the views which we take of them."

Epictetus said that. His writings are worth a look. Just browsing this forum, I would say that Stoicism is alive and well. We just don't happen to call it that anymore.

Kind of like the way we don't call Jesus "Horus" anymore, but that's another story

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

LOL. I must have missed the episode when Spock waxed philosophic on Advaita Vedanta.

I'm more of a Star Wars geek myself. The philosophy behind those movies does mean quite a bit to me as well, however pathetic and sad that sounds.
In terms of TV shows, I'm somewhere between Quantum Leap and Kung Fu.

Anyway, Stoicism:

"We are disturbed not by events, but by the views which we take of them."

Epictetus said that. His writings are worth a look. Just browsing this forum, I would say that Stoicism is alive and well. We just don't happen to call it that anymore.

Kind of like the way we don't call Jesus "Horus" anymore, but that's another story

Hmmmm, I said Mr. Spock embodies it, I never said he embodies it well.

I love Star Wars too -- my fav was The Empire Strikes Back, although I'll never forget the experience of watching the first one in a theater.

Thanks so much for the link, and the info. All the best to you. Bellle,

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by fwellers

12345,
I know I am harsh with you. Sorry for that. Having escaped from the clutches of christianity, I have real issues with it, and I always try to get my jabs in on Christians whenever I see an opportunity.
Come on man, eternal hell ? If you've been hanging around this forum for a while, how can you believe in eternal hell ? How can a personal God, be so vindictive as to make humans imperfect, ( flesh is weak ), ( you can never satisify God without the Spirit [which is also a given gift btw] ), etc.., and then punish them for all of eternity without any hope of reprieve or parole, because they were too stupid to believe in him during this blink of an eye physical existence.

To me, if anyone steps out of the trap for a second, they can see how silly and outright mean such beliefs are, and how ugly, and tyrannical of a god that is.

Oh well. Peace on you anyway.

I don't know if I would exactly qualify as a Christian, but I do appreciate Christ's teachings.

I think you have it all wrong. Christ was all about freeing people from this reward/punishment system. He taught people to see things as God sees them, which is through unconditional love. He taught them to create as God creates, which is through faith.

If you take a look in most areas of this forum, people refer again and again that it's what you believe that matters. People's problems arise from self-defeating and nihilistic beliefs. People become enslaved to money, sex, work, food and so on because they believe they need these things. People's reality becomes whatever they believe themselves to be. Reasoning can only conform to whatever it is we believe. Reason can not create, it can only dissect, analyze, categorize, compute. Change the central belief and a whole new lattice of rationale is constructed.

Whatever I am, I have always been a man of faith. And in that capacity, I have never understood the man of reason. We are subjective, creative, feeling creatures and instead of utilizing that we want to be objective, reductionist, insensitive, mechanistic. That's what I find interesting: the man who so dearly wishes he was his machines.

[fwellers]

I think you have it all wrong. Christ was all about freeing people from this reward/punishment system. He taught people to see things as God sees them, which is through unconditional love. He taught them to create as God creates, which is through faith.

I have no problems with Christ. Christianity has very little to do with his real teachings.

[12345]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

If you take a look in most areas of this forum, people refer again and again that it's what you believe that matters. People's problems arise from self-defeating and nihilistic beliefs. People become enslaved to money, sex, work, food and so on because they believe they need these things. People's reality becomes whatever they believe themselves to be. Reasoning can only conform to whatever it is we believe. Reason can not create, it can only dissect, analyze, categorize, compute. Change the central belief and a whole new lattice of rationale is constructed.

Sadly, it took me years to realize this. I was always chasing after the next high, only to discover that God is the only thing that can fulfill me.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Whatever I am, I have always been a man of faith. And in that capacity, I have never understood the man of reason. We are subjective, creative, feeling creatures and instead of utilizing that we want to be objective, reductionist, insensitive, mechanistic. That's what I find interesting: the man who so dearly wishes he was his machines.

I completely agree—and I do think this echoes what I posted earlier about humans believing they can usurp God with their knowledge. I truly believe that people just need to cease questioning and reasoning so much, because it’s only making life more complicated and turning us away from our Godly purpose. A coworker of mine I think said it best—“people have become so educated to the point that it has made them stupid”.

I have no problems with Christ. Christianity has very little to do with his real teachings.

I can very well understand why many people become disillusioned with Christianity. Hypocrisy abounds--in my experiences, the people who claim to be 100% purebred Christians actually indulge in more activity contrary to their religion than those who claim they aren’t Christians. While I think it is ideal for a person such as myself who is attempting to be a Christian to find a good church to attend, I myself have yet to find one that doesn’t flaunt hypocrisy. I haven’t been to church in years—instead I have tried to study the bible on my own, and watched some of the few Christian televangelists that I truly believe are sincere in their beliefs and teachings (Charles Stanley is my favorite).

I think disillusionment with Christianity also occurs because it has been force-fed to so many people. There are parents who make their children go to church before they can fully comprehend the idea of even being alive. Interest and learning should be a natural progression, and exposure, rather than force, should be its medium.

God bless to all.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by 12345

God is the only thing that can fulfill me.

Accepting for a moment the possibility that God doesn't neccessarily exist, could you be certain that this is true? If so how do you know? I suspect it is only possible to know if one has lived through many of the possible atheist, or "non-personal god" belief systems and assessed how fulfilling they are from an insider's perspective.
Anyway, good for you that you've found beliefs that make you happy.