Philosophy

Suffering\Hate\Anger\Fear\Selfishness\Conciousness

What would be the remedy of fear, and the selfishness that creates it? Knowledge. "When you can understand things, you can forgive things." - Leo Tolstoy

The first of only three maxims inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Know Thyself."

The more we understand ourselves the better we can understand everyone else; an example of how to go about this would be by asking yourself the question: "what is it exactly that leads me into behaving the way I do in any way?" And following it up with being brutally honest with yourself, then begin seeking the origins of why you become sad or angry, desire xyz, or behave and think in any way, etc.

This is where the knowledge of what's captioned as The Golden Rule and considered the Law and the Prophets that were meant to be fulfilled comes in: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12. This knowledge instills into a conscious mind an ability unique to humans: empathy, by asking the simple question: "If i were them, would I want it done to me?" And all its variations of asking the question, regarding any situation whatsoever. It's by imagining yourself in someones shoes specifically, and going about this in one's mind but not only for a moment, but by giving it an extended analysis, trying to gather by considering the most amount of potential variables while doing so; this helps an individual to best understand the behaviors of all the other individuals surrounding them, especially when contrasting it with the knowledge we've found in a deeper understanding of ourselves. And when we can understand things, we can forgive and shed the hate or fear of things.

This precept also instills a standard into a conscious mind as to how to decide what exactly is good or evil, love or hate, right or wrong, regarding any situation, any circumstance, whatsoever.

Sin (selfishness) is bred from a lack of knowledge

All hate, evil, iniquity, and selfishness to any degree can be categorized as a lack of the knowledge—an ignorance, to the true value and potential of selflessness and virtue. This is what inspired people like Jesus (in my opinion, considering the "sign" (story) of Jonah) and Socrates (debatably, the founding father of philosophy) to begin teaching strangers around their communities, because they knew that it's a knowledge that needs to be gained, thus, taught, to the point where they even gave their lives dying martyrs to their deeds and what they had to say; and the knowledge that the fear that would've otherwise have stopped them from even teaching anything at all, would be a selfishness, i.e., an evil.

This is what warrants hate, evil, and selfishness 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 (the influence of our peers and 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 absent the other side of it especially. 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. It's this that governs the extent of one's imagination, and it's imagination that governs the extent of one's ability to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes—to empathize, thus, to love.

"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Some of the, what I consider of course, philosophy and logic found within religion:

Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you can not make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV

We can't even change a speck of our hair from black to white (our hair turning from a dark shade, to white ultimately); anything more than 'yes' or 'no' we've ever said regarding the influence of the idea of a Heaven—God(s) or an Afterlife, and the influence of an Earth—humans, our peers, contemporaries, family, friends, and the wieght their influence has upon us (hence racism), only comes from a worry, a need, desire, or fear for ourselves: a selfishness; it would only be "blind men leading other blind men." This would, of course, include questions like: "what does this God(s) or Afterlife truly consist of, and what does it mean for me, and/or my contemporaries?" Or: "what is absolutely true?" The peace we find in taking oaths to the man made answers we find to these questions only comes from evil: a worry, need, fear or desire for ourselves—a selfishness. I believe in an unimaginable God(s) or creator(s) of some kind, just for context, but I agree with Jesus that anything more then this would only come from selfishness in some way. I rest my head on the precepts of Leo Tolstoy's completely objective interpretation of The Sermon On The Mount (linked above, chapters 5-7), and it alone in becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak—for our hearts, as a species.

Oath-taking—considering things as infallibly or as unquestionably true; "the absolute truth"—leads us into things like racism, slander, misinformation, hate between one portion of people and another, war between nations, not being united in selflessness—divided 40k different ways in its regard, not to mention all the other man made things being held as unquestionably true; potentially defiling ones mind into thinking just about anything, like Paul, convinced persecuting early followers of Jesus' teaching was right, true and just beyond any shadow of a doubt—due to the oaths he's taken, both either figuratively and literally to either himself, or anything else; throwing the supposed Messiah (not to mention anyone at all in the first place) up on a cross; to be convinced what the Pharisees have to say is as true as what the Pastors or Fathers of today have to say, especially regarding the influences of the idea of a Heaven—a God and an Afterlife.

The third maxim inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Give a pledge and trouble is at hand." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims

Oath-taking, so to speak, only holds the potential to divide us—in fact, it's exactly this that invites heresy into the world at all in the first place—(40k different ways, apparently, yes there's roughly that many sects of Christianity) and even leads us into iniquity to any degree; iniquity defined by the precept captioned The Golden Rule and even described as "the Law and the Prophets" that were meant to be fulfilled: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

We can't even change a speck of our hair from black to white, so why even bother only setting the stage for the evil of either today or tomorrow to take advantage of those influences? And only stigmatize our capacity for selflessness not only individually, but especially collectively as a species by claiming our or anyones more than 'yes' or 'no' regarding those influences is absolutely true beyond any doubt; when the question comes from evil and is an irrelevance to begin with, and only the substance of our more than 'yes' or 'no' really matters, ultimately, which can be sumed up simply as: selflessness, to even and especially, the most extreme degrees. Why bother taking an oath in any way regarding the influences stated? Considering the extent we can't even guarantee anything in life; what is it that causes this principle to fall short when considering what exactly the idea of an Afterlife consists of? And a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind? We can't even change a speck of our hair from black to white, so why bother taking oaths to things completely beyond our ability and comprehension? Like toiling over trying to guarantee exactly what our future will be or what exactly an Afterlife, God(s) or creator(s) of some kind consists of? Wouldn't the substance then therefore of something we can absolutely comprehend: love (selflessness), and our ability to reason and logic that serves as its basis, be significantly more important then anymore then our yes's and no's regarding the influences of a Heaven (God and an Afterlife) and an Earth (our contemporaries) that have only proven to divide us more then unify? To hate and kill each other over even.

It's the opposite of oath-taking, and a close mind that's led to Christianity at all in the first place; how ironic the extent it presently advocates the very kind of oaths and close-minded state of mind that would've led to it never being considered to begin with, and Jesus himself not being able to see past the fear for himself that was inculcated into him by the dogma of his day, to see past what was presently being held as infallible, to find the truth that's been smothered by it, becoming yet another Pharisee himself otherwise. Jesus, with an open mind, and seeing the dogma of the day as questionably true, opposed to unquestionably true—like how most sects of Christianity consider their interpretations presently—like the Pharisees would and even teach others to do the same, was able to find the truth that wasn't The Nicene Creed (in my opinion, obviously), but our capacity for love as a species, and the knowledge of the relevance and potential of returning any degree of it, for evil done; to potentially reach a day where violence, at the very least, is considered a laughable part of our past like the idea of a King is to us now, or not being able to fly around in airplanes; to potentially even cure the world of at the very least the majority of hate, evil, and division within it, but especially to lead us away from this life of hell we ultimately dig for ourselves when we—out of instinct and taking oaths—build our house (our life) on the sand, and make life about squeezing out as much as possible from it for the sake of oneself (selfishness), like most people; and to instead take the path that's more difficult, and inherently less attractive: a life of selflessness, and build your house (your life) up on the rock, becoming a son or daughter of "our Father" yourself; a "Son of Man." People like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi. Men that gave up their personal welfare and a life of themselves to toil, suffer and even give their lives for teaching and exemplifying—influencing men to be good for any reason (peacemaking), leading them out of iniquity, selfishness and this hell on Earth we're inherently drawn to, being mammals and abscent this knowledge; their names given new life after death, via our unique ability to transfer knowledge, living on for eternity or at least for a time, inspiring men out of a life of iniquity, ultimately becoming a prisoner to their mind, or to men otherwise.

The Golden Rule

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Matt 7:13

"Satisfaction of one's will is not necessary for true life. Temporal, mortal life is the food of the true life—it is the material for a life of reason. And therefore the true life is outside of time, it exists only in the present. Time is an illusion to life: the life of the past or the future hides the true life of the present from people. And therefore man should strive to destroy the deception of the temporal life of the past and future. The true life is not just life outside of time—the present—but it is also a life outside of the individual. Life is common to all people and expresses itself in love. And therefore, the person who lives in the present, in the common life of all people, unites himself with the father—with the source and foundation of life." - Leo Tolstoy, The Gospel In Brief

Time being a consequence of conciousness; the way we inherently are able to perceive the past and future, and organize it the way we did. Our imaginations being another consequence of being able to be as concious as we are to our surroundings, as well as ourselves—however, too much time spent in our heads, with no source of love to keep us in the present, can also become our undoing.

A life of selflessness offers anyone of any belief a life most lived in the present, opposed to becoming a prisoner of our minds, stuck in our heads, the illusions or images of our past and future bred from our inherent worry, need, or fear for ourselves (selfishness), governing how we feel today. This is what a life of things like selfishness, self-obsession, and self-indulgence have to offer, and that Jesus warned us of; one where there's no one around anymore to keep you out of your head, so in your head you remain. And if you don’t become a prisoner of your mind by making yourself the emphasis throughout your life, than a prisoner to men you ultimately become, labeled one amoungst the sea of what we presently consider—based off our still more blind standards: "the worst of the world."

Jesus did save us, but from ourselves, by warning us with a knowledge; not from a literal hell that men only a few centuries later invented, but from a hell we potentially make for ourselves in this life. To warn us that our inherency of building our house (our life) on the sand—like most people, shaping and making our life about all that we can squeeze out of it for ourselves, is exactly what leads us to this hell. When it's building our house (our life) on the rock, squeezing out as much as we can for the sake of others, this is the life that leads us away from this life of hell we all become convinced is right, true and just beyond any doubt. It's in the incessant participation, and our inherency to organize ourselves around the idea of quid pro quo: "something for something" (eye for an eye), opposed to "something for nothing" that leads us to the death of this "true life."

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." - Matt 7:13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV

The influences that lead us most away from this life most lived in the present are "taking oaths" to the influences of a heaven—the more than 'yes' or 'no' we've said and proclaimed as unquestionably true regarding the ideas of a God and an Afterlife, and the influence of an Earth: people, our contemporaries, our peers, our loved ones, our families, and what their presently sharing in—slavery, slander, considering vengeance or revenge as justice, and iniquity in general. It's in convincing ourselves that all what these other people have to say about anything (especially regarding a God and an Afterlife) is so right, true and just that it leads us to become so sure of its infallibility that the thought of re-examaning it is the last thing on our minds—it's not even on our minds at all. It's in doing this that leads us into war between nations, racism, victims of slander and collective hate, divison to any degree, and so on. Consider everything and anything as true as you'd like, but not to the point where it's no longer up for questioning or a re-examination, otherwise leading you into iniquity to any degree; iniquity based off the standards set by the precepts of an objective—more philosophically profound—interpretation of the Sermon On The Mount (chapters 5-7): https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=ESV Debately the most publicized point of his ministry, thus the most accurate.

"Do not take an oath at all." - Matt 5:34

Cross-posted from "Epicurean" by @[email protected] in [email protected]

Source

More seriously though, nowadays when people call themselves Epicurean, they mean just the life philosophy stuff, not the physics stuff :D

That should be the biggest argument against the rise of tech bro neo feudalism. Feudalism only has a hierarchy of lesser and greater lords that hold a right to ownership of any kind and have a licence to exploit the peasantry, and everyone else is a serf of no relevance or rights of autonomy or ownership.

The only way feudalism can possibly play out is empoverishment of the masses in the long term.

Leo Tolstoy suffered over the same question: "I am a man, how should I live? What do I do?" His non-fiction on the very topic contains the very simple answer, thats been right there under our noses all along: love (selflessness), but it's become easy to miss due to its disguise of spiritual/supernatural this or that and incessant answers to the ideas of a God and an Afterlife—opposed to the value and capacity of our inherency to selflessness—being held as unquestionably true via these influences, only blinding the masses of the truth that's hidden underneath all the dogma.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/06/03/tolstoy-confession/

His non-fiction he wrote on his long quest for truth: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel in Brief, and The Kingdom of God is Within You.

Some translations can be a bit of a chore to read, therefore I humbly suggest the ones linked below:

Confession: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Ivan-Ilyich-Confession/dp/0871402998

What I Believe: https://www.amazon.com/My-Religion-What-I-believe/dp/B0863TFZRN

The Gospel In Brief: https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X

The Kingdom Of God Is Within You: https://www.walmart.com/ip/The-Kingdom-of-God-Is-Within-You-Warbler-Classics-Annotated-Edition-Paperback-9781962572439/5323130468?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&wmlspartner=wlpa&cn=FY25-ENTP-PMAX_cnv_dps_dsn_dis_ad_entp_e_n&gclsrc=aw.ds&adid=222222222985323130468_0000000000_21835691471&wl0=&wl1=x&wl2=m&wl3=&wl4=&wl5=9019109&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=5323130468&veh=sem&gad_source=1

Vanity\Morality\Desire\Influence\Knowledge\Imagination\Conciousness+Sense Organs+Present Environment

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon.

"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi.

If morality serves as the basis of vanity, then I think the basis of morality is desire; the basis of desire 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 true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein

The more open ones 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 upon dating someone new your dad goes 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; and of how detailed it is. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue. Because our imagination needs to be exercised by let's say reading books or imagining yourself in someones shoes as a couple examples.

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've ever presently known as a species: observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, concious beings 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 knowledge 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’ve been talking to people about the ship of Theseus and the transporter problem and the subject of what makes something distinct. Are there any good sources accessible to a non-philosophy person that talk about this issue? Preferably not from a religious lens but I’m open to whatever fits best.

Throughout my life I've struggled to find meaning. I've wondered, am I alone in this? I'd like to hear what others have to say. Particularly others that are more knowledgeable in philosophy.

A lot of this I learned and thought out through reading Tolstoy's hard work in his non-fictions: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God is Within You

"Socrates believed that his mission from a God (the one that supposedly spoke through The Oracle Of Delphi) was to examine his fellow citizens and persuade (teach) them that the most important good for a human being was the health of the soul. Wealth, he insisted, does not bring about human excellence or virtue, but virtue makes wealth and everything else good for human beings (Apology 30b)." https://iep.utm.edu/socrates/#%3A%7E%3Atext=He+believed+that+his+mission%2Chuman+beings+%28Apology+30b%29.

The story of Jonah in the bible (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah+1&version=NIV) teaches that the knowledge of the value of virtue, selflessness and goodness needs to be taught; it's a knowledge that needs to gained. Because like it teaches at the very end of the story: some people don't even have the ability to "tell their right hand from their left" (Autism Spectrum Disorder for example or a complete lack of education). Or in other words: ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability; nobody can know until they know. The now pejorative term is neither an insult, nor is it insulting; it's nothing more than an adjective to explain my, yours, or anythings lack of knowledge to anything in particular, or as a whole. All hate and evil can be catorgorized as this inevitable lack of knowledge—thus, warranting any degree of it infinite forgiveness, because again: you don't know until you know, this would of course include the lack of knowledge to the value of virtue that leads to hate, evil, and iniquity to any degree. Socrates on ignorance and evil: https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/apology/idea-nature-of-evil/

Jesus references the story of Jonah in The Gospels when being challenged to show a sign of his divinity: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” - Matt 16:4 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=ESV

Jesus would always refer to God as "Father" because that's how he was taught about what this God consists of, as having a parents kind of love for you—rememeber the very beginning of The Gospels, where he becomes lost and is found at a temple as a child? And is taught of God as being his "Father;" if you had a child and they committed suicide, would you want them to burn eternally in a lake of fire for it? Of course not. And Jesus didn't know who his real father was, correct? Interesting, right? Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that everything we know of God now has came from a collection of blind men, telling other blind men that what they have to say should be held as unquestionably true via the influences of the idea of a God and an Afterlife (of a "heaven"). Everything after Jesus—Paul's letters, The Gospels, The Nicene Creed, The Book of Revelation, the idea that a God of love unconditionally would bother with conditions like having to believe Jesus was divine or any of the seemingly infinite amount of external conditions that need to be met to call yourself a "true Christian." Despite Jesus calling the Pharisees hypocrites every chance he could get and when his disciples told him of some external thing that they needed (bread in the circumstance linked) he would dismiss it as completely unnecessary: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A5-20&version=NIV

Jesus calling out Pharisees: 8"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers (to "our father"). 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." - Matt 23:8 25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean." - Matt 23:25 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+23&version=NIV

The Woes of Taking Oaths

"Socrates believed that the most important pursuit in life was to constantly examine one's beliefs and actions through critical thinking," (lest you find yourself throwing the supposed messiah up on a cross—like the Pharisees, or persecuting early followers of Jesus' teaching convinced it's right, true, and just—like Paul, or in a war between nations, or collectively hating someone or something, etc.) "and he would not back down from this practice even when it made others uncomfortable." https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/no-apologies/#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+Examined+Life%2Cstill+less+likely+to+believe.

Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g] - Matt 5:33 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV)

Anything more then yes or no regarding the influences that come from the idea of a heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (people and what they're presently sharing in), only comes from a worry, a need, a fear for oneself: a selfishness. Questions like that only come from our sense of selfishness, and only lead to division, i.e., religion or even more theoretical sciences and philosophy; this is why it's so important to always consider anything man made as questionably true, opposed to unquestionably true, and that it's no longer up for question, or whats called: infallible (no longer capable of error). Questions like what does a God or Afterlife consist of or how exactly did the universe begin, pale in comparison to the truth that is our capacity for selflessness not only individually, but especially, collectively; God or not.

It's only what a person thinks that can truly defile them: "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." - Matt 15:11 "Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” - Matt 15:17 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15&version=NIV

It's "oath-taking," so to speak, that leads to slander and the collective hate that's bred from it—racism, hate between cities or their high school sports teams, hate in general if you think about it enough, quarrel at all between nations and any potential war between them, and the list goes on. We're all humans; one race, brothers, and sisters. The worst thing to come from "oath-taking" in my opinion is the hinderance of foreign influences or new knowledge and an open mind along with it. Because it's this that determines the capacity and how detailed ones imagination is, and it's imagination that serves as the basis of our ability to empathize, thus, love.

The third maxim inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Give a pledge and trouble is at hand." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims

Interesting how neither Jesus or Socrates wrote anything down, and both even went as far as giving their lives dying a martyr trying to teach what they had to say.

"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates

Supposition is defined as an uncertain belief. Therefore, there not being a reason for things or a why would be just as much of a supposition as if I were to say that there is.

There being no why or reason for things is worthy of the same amount of burden of evidence/explanation for if I were to say the opposite. And to say there isn't a reason or a why for things wouldn't/shouldn't make anything being a supposition not worthy of ones consideration just because anything born from an is or an isn't can be considered as supposition 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 even worthy of anyone's consideration?

"The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare). The whole history of the ancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The whole history from the time of the Roman Empire and the appearance of Christianity is the history of the transition, through which we are still passing now, from the social view to life to the divine view of life." - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You

"Blessed (happy) are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." - Jesus, Matt 5:5

Not the traditional Christianity; Revelation, Corinthians this or supernatural, spiritual that. One that consists of a more philosophical—objective interpretation of The Gospels that's been buried underneath all the dogma. One that emphasizes The Sermon On the Mount (chapters 5-7 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV), debately, the most publicized point of his time spent suffering to teach the value of selflessness and virtue, thus, the most accurate in my opinion. Tolstoy learned ancient Greek and translated The Gospels himself as: The Gospel In Brief, if you're interested. This translation I've found to be the best:

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Brief-Harper-Perennial-Thought/dp/006199345X

This is a joke about Quine https://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/lang/Quine(1956).pdf

The vast majority of people reading this right now subscribe to Presentism. Presentism is the view that only the present time exists and so only present objects exist. Every moment, as time passes, objects that come to be in the present come to exist and objects that fall out of the present cease to exist. The past and future, as well as past and future entities, exist no more than fictional characters or the objects in dreams.

One problem with presentism is it becomes difficult to make sense of assertions about other times. How can I make sense of the claim that, "Socrates was taller than Descartes" if neither person exists? How can I make sense of the claim that, "The sun will come out tomorrow" when there is no tomorrow? We might be tempted to say that claims about non-existent entities are meaningless in that they do not have a truth-value. But to say these claims are meaningless seems to go against our intuitions about our own speech acts.

Another objection comes from physics. According to special relativity, simultaneity between objects or events depends on the frame of reference that you use to view them. Events happening at the same time from one perspective will be happening at a different time from a different perspective. The popular example is that the people riding in the ambulance hear the sirens earlier than the people standing on the sidewalk. Special relativity tells us no frame of reference is privileged. Therefore, there is no fact of the matter as to whether two events are happening at the same time. This seems to imply that there is no fact of the matter about what counts as the present.

In response, we could adopt a different ontology of time. The Growing Block Theory argues that the past and present exist. More precisely, it argues that, as the present moves forward, the past and past objects continue to exist (and the future does not exist). So every past instance of you exists just as much as you do in the present. You are "spread out" in time, so to speak.

Another popular theory in the metaphysics of time is Eternalism. This theory says the past, present, and future all co-exist equally. Hence, past, present, and future objects, events, and relations all exist. On this view time never passes; we live in a frozen universe. Differences in time are only perspectival (like how people seem smaller when you look at them from far away). Eternalists do, however, admit that events are structured by temporal relations such as "before" and "after".

There are other theories (such as rejecting the existence of time entirely) but this is enough for our purposes. Given these considerations, what is your metaphysics of time?

Suffering\Hate\Anger\Fear\Selfishness\Conciousness

What would be the remedy of fear, and the selfishness that creates it? Knowledge. "When you can understand things, you can forgive things." - Leo Tolstoy

The first of only three maxims inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Know Thyself."

The more we understand ourselves the better we can understand everyone else; an example of how to go about this would be by asking yourself the question: "what is it exactly that leads me into behaving the way I do in any way?" And following it up with being brutally honest with yourself, then begin seeking the origins of why you become sad or angry, or desire xyz, or behave and think in any way, etc.

This is where the knowledge of what's captioned as The Golden Rule and considered the Law and the Prophets that were meant to be fulfilled comes in: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12. This knowledge instills into a conscious mind an ability unique to humans: empathy, by asking the simple question: if i were them, would I want it done to me? And all its variations of asking the question, regarding any situation whatsoever. It's by imagining yourself in someones shoes specifically, and going about this in one's mind but not only for a moment, but by giving it an extended analysis, trying to gather by considering the most amount of variables while doing so; this helps an individual to best understand the behaviors of all the other individuals surrounding them, especially when contrasting it with the knowledge we've found in a deeper understanding of ourselves. And when we can understand things, we can forgive and shed the hate or fear of things.

This precept also instills a standard into a conscious mind as to how to decide what exactly is good or evil, love or hate, right or wrong, regarding any situation, any circumstance, whatsoever.

Sin (selfishness) is bred from a lack of knowledge

All hate, evil, iniquity, and selfishness to any degree can be categorized as a lack of the knowledge—an ignorance, to the true value and potential of selflessness and virtue. This is what inspired people like Jesus (in my opinion, considering the "sign" (story) of Jonah) and Socrates (debatably, the founding father of philosophy) to begin teaching strangers around their communities, because they knew that it's a knowledge that needs to be gained, thus, taught, to the point where they even gave their lives dying martyrs to their deeds and what they had to say; and the knowledge that the fear that would've otherwise have stopped them from even teaching anything at all, would be a selfishness, i.e., an evil.

This is what warrants hate, evil, and selfishness 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 (the influence of our peers and 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 absent the other side of it especially. 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. It's this that governs the extent of one's imagination, and it's imagination that governs the extent of one's ability to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes—to empathize, thus, to love.

"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.

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?

"Comfort is the worst addiction." - Marcus Aurelius

To those people saying "normalcy bias could lead to our doom".

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18148967

A review of this amazing philosophy of science book on the omnipresence of intelligence and life.

what the title says

Thesis My personal moral philosophy is a garbled mess.

Premise 1 I am, as any college student who has taken one or two philosophy classes is, a dyed-in-the-wool utilitarian.

Premise 2 When my wife is annoyed by something I did, or forgot to do, I invariably argue that my motives were pure and, thus, should be free of blame.

Conclusion Premise 1 posits that I adhere to a utilitarian ethical framework. Premise 2 posits that I argue against being blamed for my actions from a deontological perspective. Thus, I am a wishy-washy yahoo who uses whichever moral philosophy is convenient at the moment; QED.