quote
follow
|
23-12-2011 I think many today don't even think to look down this path. I'm surprised when I see others like yourself that even questions it anymore. I'm impressed by your insight. There are so many distractions these days, i.e. getting a new Iphone, sports, facebook, videogames, films, fanclubs, et al. To me it's like ants not wanting to look up at the elephant standing over their hive. I thought the Matrix was a good metaphor for this. Their existence after leaving the matrix was not as nice as being in the matrix, but at least they saw the reality of their existence. "With much wisdom comes much grief." You don't hear much about the great philosophers being the life of the party types. Like a drug though, pleasure becomes less the longer you pursue it. Living a shallow life without introspection, for some, like me, becomes dull. Facing the meaning of existence forces us to increase our intelligence in order to contemplate it. I had more fun when I was young and didn't think and just did what felt good to me. But I have more self satisfaction and pride now that I am more introspective. I am now more aware of the plight of others, and more sympathetic. I may have less friends, but better quality ones. We seem to sometimes see the negatives more than the positives. I often feel that my life is more depressing now that I have looked over the expanse of our existence and see only fleeting joys that will decrease as we get older as we watch our health decrease. But, I also felt depressed when I was younger and didn't get what I wanted and was unrealistic. At least now the negatives I see and feel are realistic. The big question is, would we know happiness if there were no unhappiness? They say a fish doesn't know it's wet until it leaves the water for the first time and experiences something other than wetness. They would have no point of reference. Happiness would have no meaning without anything to compare it to. Perhaps if we were born and remained perfectly content, we would have no reason to better ourselves. The native Americans say that all wisdom comes through suffering. Sometimes negatives help us to not be so selfish and wake us up to the suffering others feel. When one trains their body, it hurts at first, leaving the comfort of one's sofa, to make their muscles sore, but in the end, you have become stronger, and the more you become used to small pains, like getting used to being in cold water, the less you notice the pain. The less one notices pain, the less pain they experience. Another big question is, "What is the point of bettering ourselves if we are all eventual worm food?" I will probably discuss that in your afterlife post. |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
Another big question is, "What is the point of bettering ourselves if we are all eventual worm food?" Exactly. Does it matter what you do in your sleep if you forget it in the morning and will never be able to recollect it? I mean, in one of those dreams I don't remember I could have been experiencing the greatest happiness or sorrow or understanding Einstein's theory of relativity, but the dream is over and everything ive learnt, understood or felt in it is lost. People who've lived here hundreds of years ago - ordinary people - whats left of them? Nothing. By this time, theres most likely noone alive to even remember them. Its like they never existed at all. Does it matter if the sufferring they've experienced made them better? For whom? Of course I agree sufferring does sometimes make people wiser, more empathetic etc. I just think its a cruel way to train people. |
|
24-12-2011 "Of course I agree sufferring does sometimes make people wiser, more empathetic etc. I just think its a cruel way to train people."Can you imagine an alternative? |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
Sure. I can imagine a world were people can learn through listening to bird songs, or don't need to learn at all because theyre good enough already. In this f*cked up place - not really. |
|
24-12-2011 If you were born "good enough already", how could you appreciate it?Like the fish that doesn't know it's wet because it's never known any than else, being born perfect, one would never know if it was good or bad. It would be completely neutral or worse it would have no meaning and not even be noticeable. Good is only good because it is better than something else, so one would have to have something to compare it to. What we have no experience of, to us doesn't exist. |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
With your fish analogy you're describing how things are in our world. Surely, you don't want to say that because this is how we are wired on the planet Earth, this is the only way living organisms could possibly be built. When I'm saying I could imagine a world where everything is good enough already Im also implying that sentient creatures there are equipped with a capability to experience good sensations without having to know any negative ones. Hard for us to imagine, I know. But then, its hard for us to grasp the meaning of infinity, but that doesn't mean that therefore it can not exist. |
|
24-12-2011 Take fiction. I often over rationalize fiction. For example, this is a corny example but here you go. Lord of the Rings. The object is destroy this ring the is the embodiment of evil. The characters face adversity and the story is quite long covering the trial and struggles they go through to accomplish this.I noticed at the end, the two protagonists were about to die after completing their task, when eagles came and saved them. I thought, why couldn't the eagles just have flown them there in scene one, chucked in the ring, and then came back and had some tea. The book would be four or five pages, and all that suffering could have been avoided, but would it have been a good book? Would it have been exciting? Would the characters have learned about themselves or grown as individuals? Would they have developed any character? Another example. Erin Brockovich. A poor woman can barely feed her children ends up defeating a large evil corporation that is killing people for profit, and gets 2 million dollars as a reward and the love and admiration from all the people she helped. Change Erin to some guy who was born to wealthy parents and already had millions of dollars and makes some more. You're basically saying that you would want a world were you wouldn't need the story or the excitement of the journey to betterment, that in some other dimension you could have the same appreciation and release without the tension buildup and suspense. You acknowledge that just being giving everything good at the onset in this world makes you a Paris Hilton, but you're saying that you would want a world where the Paris Hilton's would have the character and integrity of those that live the adventure of betterment without having to go through the process that leads to it? |
|
24-12-2011 "When I'm saying I could imagine a world where everything is good enough already Im also implying that sentient creatures there are equipped with a capability to experience good sensations without having to know any negative ones."Again you're imagining a fictional dimension without negatives. It would have to be unlike our dimension in all aspects to the point of defying logic as we know it. the problem is that positive and negative are not separable. Something is only positive because it is better than a negative. The is no pleasure without pain. But in this hypothetical dimension there are no negatives. The moment you brought a positive into it, it would become like our existence thus defeating the nature of it. the only absence of negatives would be in neutrality. That would be oblivion and lack of any form of consciousness. |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
You acknowledge that just being giving everything good at the onset in this world makes you a Paris Hilton
Copied from Irina Uriupina's blog Read more: http://uriupina.com/philosophy-psychology/existential-depression Again, I understand how hardships sometimes build peoples spirits. Same way excercise builds muscles. But the only reason why we need muscles is to adjust to the world with gravity. Muscles have no merit in themselves. Same way a strong character is only valuable in a world where there are challenges and struggles to be faced with. You acknowledge that just being giving everything good at the onset in this world makes you a Paris Hilton No. And money is not 'everything'. Not everyone from the rich family ends up being Paris Hilton. And you can find plenty of 'Paris Hiltons' in the poor neighbourhoods. At least some philosophers and artists were from the rich families, no? You need at least the luxury of free time for introspection and growth, for any creative activities. If you have to work 8 hours and come back exhausted you are too tired to be pondering existential questions, your mind is occupied with how to feed your family. Would it have been exciting? Would the characters have learned about themselves or grown as individuals? Would they have developed any character? We only find it exciting because we are living in this world where everyone has to fight to stay alive and escape dangerous situations. Theres no need to be finding the stories of how someone escaped the grusome fate exciting per se. We do because were all in danger here, so it appeals to our psyche. That however doesn't mean that the skills of bypassing traps are valuable in themselves. Muscles are good if one has to run or lift heavy weights, wings are great if one has to fly, eyes - if theres a need to see. Building character if ... I don't know... you tell me why its worthwhile. Why is 'growing as an individual' a good thing? unlike our dimension in all aspects to the point of defying logic as we know it. yes, it would The moment you brought a positive into it, it would become like our existence it wouldn't since all the aspects of it would be different from our dimension the only absence of negatives would be in neutrality. That would be oblivion and lack of any form of consciousness. Well, that wouldn't seem too awful to me. Ever heard of Nirvana? Are you sure consciousness is the best of all states? Or at least the consciousness as we know it. Have you had the chance to compare? I've seen Erin Brockovich movie. (Loved it btw) But life is also full of much less inspiring examples where peoples struggles end with nothing as glorious. They fight, and suffer, and suffer some more just to rot in the ground. Sufferring isn't all so romantic. While some are possibly building character and 'growing', others just perish under the weight of their ordeals. That's why I'm saying that sufferring is a cruel way to achieve an aim of 'bettering' people, especially since the point of bettering them is unclear. |
|
24-12-2011 I don't think you're getting my point. I'm using metaphors to point to a larger truth. If you dissect the metaphor, you're defeating the purpose of it.Muscles aren't the point. Improvement and the ability to appreciate good is what I was trying to illustrate. I find character not only needed in a challenging world. Character is what I believe gives us beauty and identity. There would be no use in knowing if there was nothing to know. Without knowing, we are back at oblivion, which may or may not be your definition of Nirvana. The point of Paris was to illustrate that being given everything without earning it makes us spoiled and those types generally don't learn value of what they have, much like if we were given everything without earning it. You're not saying that you find it inspiring that Paris is famous and rich for nothing than being stupid, pretty and having a rich father are you? "Why is 'growing as an individual' a good thing?" You said, "But even more so it is meaningless when you do not live it with your full potential." How do you get to your potential if you don't grow? Growing as a resident of this world, as a whole, as a group, together with others, all imply something other than static. To arrive at a positive static is the ideal, like your idea of existence of positive without negatives, but my point is that to originate there would make it impossible, without your conceptual miracle of a another dimension where on it we would equipped to enjoy it without a point of reference. I'm saying that this existence may have purpose not in itself, as I see everything here as meaningless, but to give us a frame of reference in order to appreciate a Nirvana. It's like camping. We live in the city and can't wait to get out in the nature. We find our apartments restrictive and sterile. We go camping and enjoy it for a while and then miss our beds and showers and internet and when we get home we appreciate what we had taken for granted. Maybe this is our camping trip, or our apartment, take your pick. It may serve to help us to appreciate that which would have been ordinary without it, and make it seen for its sublime characteristics. Can I prove this? No. I consider myself agnostic, but spiritual. Can you prove that art, or humor exists? No, they are conceptual and exist only in our minds. They are subjective, but so is beauty and so may be other concepts beyond the physical that we haven't fully grasped. If this is all there is, then nothingness after it will be a welcomed rest. What would you prefer, to lose consciousness in your idea of Nirvana, or have the previous ideal of positives with no negatives? Suffering isn't romantic at all if it's pointless. Getting back to appreciation. I saw a young boy in a upper middle class life on Christmas get about 20 presents, but sat and cried because there was one he didn't get. On the contrary, I saw a young child in Africa in pure poverty asked what he would wish for if he could have one wish, what would it be? He said a toothbrush. He was given a toothbrush and I'm sure he was happier than the boy that got 20 presents. I had a rough life. Bad family, bad bosses and relationships and generally unlucky. But, the irony is that in comparison, little things don't bother me so much. People who have had an easy life are annoyed when all isn't easy. They seem petty to me. I didn't like going through the suffering I went through, but I like that very few things upset me now, which means in some ways, I am happier than those who haven't suffered. I have a friend with multiple sclerosis. He says he finds it better than when he had to work. People come to do his shopping for him and he has made more friends than I have in the last 2 years which he wouldn't have had without his illness. Clouds often have silver linings and people often disregard irony when trying to be logical. If one was to enter this theoretical dimension of good with no bad, who do you think would enjoy and appreciate it more, the one who had a comfortable easy life beforehand, or the one who left suffering into ecstasy? Again I don't know if any of this is true. None will know until we leave this life. But I personally am not closed minded to the idea of something beyond nature. I again, believe humor and art are conceptual and not a part of the physical universe. Perhaps there's even more, perhaps not. Either way, I will either sleep well leaving my conscious, or have my anticipation for something better satisfied, or something else entirely. Sure hope it's not reincarnation. I'm not up for this shit again. But I don't think it's illogical to say there is a possibility for something beyond this insanity. The idea of imperfection seems to imply the possibility for perfection or we wouldn't know we were living in imperfection. Whew, nearly hit the max letter count there. Thanks for this conversation, by the way. It's very rare to have philosophical conversations these days |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
I don't think you're getting my point. I'm using metaphors to point to a larger truth. I've already acknowlege that your methaphors are valid if we discuss strictly how things are in this world. But ever since you've asked if I could imagine an alternative we've been discussing a fictional world where rules would have been different. And there, as I have already mentioned, the rules of how everything is built here wouldn't apply. Improvement and the ability to appreciate good is what I was trying to illustrate. You don't need to keep illustrating what I have agreed with in the firts place by saying 'With your fish analogy you're describing how things are in our world.' I know were able to appreciate good things in comparison to bad ones here. And also, when you asked if I could imagine an alternative to learning thru sufferring I said that in this f*ed up world - not really. So the point of the role that sufferring plays here today was accepted from the beginning of the discussion. I see no point arguing that the rain is needed to moisten the ground - that's a fact we can observe. But saying that this is the only way life could ever exist is to apply our limited understanding of whats possible to the whole Universe, whatever that is. When Im asking why is 'growing as an individual' a good thing I mean - apart from this world, intrinsically? I can see benefits of growth in this world, same way I see benefits of regular excercise. (btw, i better get to it, or ill loose the shape that i still have ) but my point is that to originate there would make it impossible, without your conceptual miracle of a another dimension where on it we would equipped to enjoy it without a point of reference. And that's all Im talking about. I can see some point in people growing as individuals in this life. It matters for them, it matters for people surrounding them. One has to do something in this life - might as well be growth and exploring own potential, especially since we seem to be wired to enjoy life the fullest when we 'self-actualize' - discover and develop our skills and talents and live true to ourselves. I'm just saying when one looks at this crazy race from far, one has to wonder whats the point of it all. Not whats the point for the individual X to work at expanding his horizons and growing - hes free to define the meaning himself - but the point of there being such a world with bunch of weak and vulnerable living beings forced to keep finding ways to stay alive and become better adjusted to the place they're gonna leave in a few decades anyway? Especially considering how some are never improved, they're just tortured and killed. Collateral damage? Its like imagining a box with mice. You define the world for them, throw them in there and train them to jump and crawl through the obsticles on their way to food. They can keep betterring themselves and take pride in how well adjusted they become to the place. Some of them may become super adjusted and surpass their potential. And at that point you may say that its great: they were imperfect and became less so. But the greater point of that? For whom besides possibly the mice themselves that journey from imperfection to perfection would matter? Theres no way of saying going from imperfection to perfection is intrinsically good for everyone and everything, in any possible world. Only if you're talking about our particular world and how our human psyche today is wired. Yeah, thanks for contributing to my blog, and I I absolutely love meaningful discussions)) |
|
24-12-2011 "And there, as I have already mentioned, the rules of how everything is built here wouldn't apply." So basically you're acknowledging that in this universe, good without bad is impossible, or at least the appreciation of good without bad.The appreciation is an intrinsic impossibility, not merely intrinsic to this universe, but to logic and reason. But the fact that good can be appreciated or be spawned due to a negative, doesn't validate any meaning in this universe, according to you. According to you, If this universe had any meaning, it would be completely different where intrinisic impossibilities of this universe, would be possible in another universe. I find intrinsic impossibilities, where intrinsic applies to logic and reason, by definition, not possible in any universe. I hate to use words like "God" because of their implication, and more so because of those that normally use them and how it separates religion from philosophy, so I use this merely as a metaphor. A conundrum has been posited asking "Is God powerful enough to create a stone so infinitely heavy even it can not lift?" To say this is impossible does not imply that God would be not Omnipotent. It merely is asking a logical contradiction and the question itself is nonsense. It's a selfcontradciting question. It says nothing about the topic it addresses, it merely is a logical mirage. To say that oringiating in a universe with no negatives and being able to appreciate a positve, is to me also a logical contradiction in any universe or dimension. It is the idea itself that is wrong, not the universe that doesn't facilitate it. You admit that we can't imagine this because we live in this universe, but in another universe or dimension all things could be different. Without logic to explain how this would be possible, even in another dimension, you would require what to us would be considered miraculous by our standards. Now this is where it all dead ends, because I can no longer argue logic, because in your miracle, logic isn't necessary. I find this ironic, because that is normally the criticism skeptics make of those of faith when coming to a dead end in their logic. For example, God said "Thou shalt not kill." and then flip a few pages, and God says, "Go out and kill all the men, women, children and animals" of these people living in the desert that haven't done anything to you. You present this contradiction to a non-critcal thinking believer and they will say, well God is Omnipotent and whatever it says is good, despite logic. Snakes can't talk. virgins don't give birth."Well, God can do anything, because it is God." It's a logical copout to the miraclous when logic doesn't fit. You can no longer argue with them, because they escaped out the back door into a magic world where logic dissolves, and the argument can go no further. "Especially considering how some are never improved, they're just tortured and killed. Collateral damage?" I can't speak for every individual experience, as I said before, negatives are relative. Nelson Mandela suffered but a greater good came out of it. If there are those that never come to terms with their existence and live a completely pointless existence without irony. That's a tough question. Perhaps the Gnostics are right and this is all like a dream or illusion. Maybe Life of Brian was right, "You come from nothing, you go back to nothing, what have you lost?" "For whom besides possibly the mice themselves that journey from imperfection to perfection would matter? Theres no way of saying going from imperfection to perfection is intrinsically good for everyone and everything, in any possible world. "For whom besides possibly the mice themselves that journey from imperfection to perfection would matter? Theres no way of saying going from imperfection to perfection is intrinsically good for everyone and everything, in any possible world." Well if you factor in the whole picture, you can factor in love. Take a house pet, most feel a pseudo love with their pets. Not like human love, but more so than an animal in the wild. When I say love, I don't mean the oxytocin bonding hormones that create an involuntary attachment, but a higher love based on choosing someone based on commonalities, and to understand each other, where others may not. Choosing one who is good to you and for other positive traits you see in them. Without building character and becoming something more than a non sentient computer program, there would be no differences and no ability to experience the pleasure of being understood. |
|
24-12-2011 My overall point is that I see two types of people.Both want the comfort of the simplicity of the concrete. There is definately a supernatural, or there is definitively no chance for a supernatural. I don't make the arguments I do because I want to believe one way or the other to make things feel comfortable. I merely see that an agnostic stance that looks at all possibilites and is open to even other possibilities, as the less egocentric one, not based on my desires, but on pure logic. A scientist is a fool to say they have all the answers, they should always be open to new possibilities. In a world full of irony, a fixed position seems to be short sighted for scientists, philosophers and people of faith. |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
So basically you're acknowledging that in this universe, good without bad is impossible, or at least the appreciation of good without bad. Yes, Im leaning towards this conclusion. Not that I find it particularly pleasing though.)) Without logic to explain how this would be possible, even in another dimension, you would require what to us would be considered miraculous by our standards. Now this is where it all dead ends, because I can no longer argue logic, because in your miracle, logic isn't necessary. I find intrinsic impossibilities, where intrinsic applies to logic and reason, by definition, not possible in any universe. I don't. We define whats possible and not possible to the extend were currently able to understand it. Centuries ago our understanding was more limited than today, but things that were aware of today were still there even when we werent able to grasp them. So I wouldn't be so sure we're so evolved now that we can apply our logic outside our tiny planet. With your fish analogy, it would be like fish judging the world by what it sees in the ocean. I'm not saying we should therefore believe that something beyond what we have the evidence for exists or is possible. But see nothing wrong with assumming that something might be possible seeing how there still are lots of things beyond our current understanding, however uncomfortable it may feel. I personally do not believe the world I mentioned actually exists. You asked if I was able to imagine it - and I am. Nothing follows from this leap of imagination. And surely theres no point trying to apply logic to something that was defined as surpassing it. All I was talking about was that I could imagine a better world (subjectively better?). I do not think that pointing to the fact that sufferring is preprogrammed into this world's design suffices to conclude that it therefore is wise or admirable, or worth anything. To me it just points to how poorly this world is structured. Not being able to enjoy anything unless one suffers - sucks. Especially if you take into account that the amount of good and bad in persons life isnt always proportionte. ...as I said before, negatives are relative. Nelson Mandela suffered but a greater good came out of it. so negatives are relative but there is an absolute 'greater good'?;) |
|
24-12-2011 Again, thanks for your continued well thought out articulate responses. : D"I'm not saying we should therefore believe that something beyond what we have the evidence for exists or is possible. But see nothing wrong with assumming that something might be possible seeing how there still are lots of things beyond our current understanding, however uncomfortable it may feel." That statement seems to validate many possibilities, including ones you have never thought of, or ones you may disagree with, thus negating your current stance, if you have one, or do consider yourself also agnostic? "so negatives are relative but there is an absolute 'greater good'?" Hmm, thought I had explained that quite a bit. The question is a straw man. I believe the two aren't separate, they are intertwined, like two different sides of the same piece of paper. |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
That statement seems to validate many possibilities, including ones you have never thought of, or ones you may disagree with, thus negating your current stance, if you have one, or do consider yourself also agnostic? Thats right. Lots of things I disagree with could still be possible. I mean, I wish they weren't but Yep. Agnosticism it is. The question is a straw man. I believe the two aren't separate, they are intertwined, like two different sides of the same piece of paper. No, it was just in the way you phrased the sentence stressing on the relativity of the negatives but right there using the greater good that prompted me to note it. If negatives are relative, positives must be as well. I get the intertwined position, although, I wouldn't use the sides of the paper or coin analogy, because it kinda suggests one side is exactly the same in size as the other. I would speculate the amount of the two in the world is not exactly 50/50, at least not on the individual level. But thats a whole new topic..))) Was a pleasure to have a discussion with you, thanks!))) |
|
24-12-2011 "Thats right. Lots of things I disagree with could still be possible. I mean, I wish they weren't but Yep. Agnosticism it is."Curious. A bit confused then about some of your contributions, i.e. your current post on FB and comments about it. I wouldn't consider that agnostic. "it kinda suggests one side is exactly the same in size as the other." I didn't mean to imply that, only that they are reliant on each other to exist. That being the case, using them in existential arguments can often result in paradoxes. Any greater good would not be found within them, but in the idea that the by product is elements of understanding, learning, and identity. Not absolutely, but without them these may not be possible. Yes positives are also relative as I explained with the Erin B analogy, vs a wealthy man earning the same reward. 1+9 = 10. That is an increase by 9. 9+1 also equals 10, but is only an increase by 1. It is relative based on one's original position. It's kind of like the arguments for Child Free. The negatives don't outweigh the positives. One could get lucky and have a great situation, but a reasonable person generally won't take that risk. If that was completely relative to life, then it would be wise to end my life right now and cut my losses. Despite the negatives of my life, which are many, something keeps me from doing that. I believe my consciousness has expanded and I have seen life more clearly and am less and less shackled by the false hopes of soul mates and kids making one happy. Trust me, when one gets to my age, it gets far worse. Your friends and family only talk about their children. It's becomes very difficult to find good conversation and other like minded people, which I'm embarrassed to say is why I've spent so much time on your blog in the past few days. ; ) I do thank you for the talks, they are like water in a desert. It's reassuring to know there are people like you out there. Despite my logic and reason, there is something in me, that resides in the same place as my belief in art, humor, love and beauty, that tells me this may not be for nothing. |
[ link ] |
24-12-2011
A bit confused then about some of your contributions, i.e. your current post on FB and comments about it. I wouldn't consider that agnostic. Do you mean my liking the Atheist Experience show? Don't see any contradiction. One can be agnostic about god (no way to know if/she/it exists) and do not believe that he does. Same way one can be an agnostic theist: cant prove he exists (agnostic) but believe he does (theist). Not sure if thats what u meant anyway, so I wont elaborate further.
The perception of death as the ultimate negative maybe? ;) People do not always act rationally, we're also emotional and instinctive creatures, and one of the strongest instincts is to avoid death at all costs, including overemphasizing the positive things in life to rationalize the decision to continue it and to even keep passing it on to future generations. Ok, antinatalism is going to be a separate post, no need to get to it now))) Trust me, when one gets to my age, it gets far worse. Your friends and family only talk about their children. This always reminds me of George Carlin: "folks, nobody cares about your children"! Yeah, thats partly why I decided not to go to our college classmates meeting. Anticipate a lot of topics centered either around marriage/divorce or giving births. Booring. Some of my friends though are childless in their 30ies, and some male friends - in 40ies and 50ies, so I have a circle of people to talk to about something beyond procreation. Despite my logic and reason, there is something in me, that resides in the same place as my belief in art, humor, love and beauty, that tells me this may not be for nothing. Well, hold on to that I guess)) I also appreciate those things, theyre the best this place has on menu Also passion. And a spicy tea. And black caviar. |
|
25-12-2011 You're English is magnificent, BTW. Better than 90% of those that actually speak English. Yeah, I personally find the Atheists, especially the "New Atheists" like those guys and the 4 Horsemen, almost as nuts as the people they criticize. Any critical thinker knows that taking 3000 year old texts as literal is ludicrous. You might as well argue with a dog. Most of the people the Horsemen debate even admit and share the same disdain for the criticisms in religion brought up by the Horsemen. Actually, I've never seen Daniel Dennett debate but have seen his seminars and find him quite reasonable, although also fixated on organized religion. Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens, I want to pull my hair out when I hear them talk. Hitchens admited to being a contrarian and I'm sure he was more into it for the sport. He somewhat admitted to a common cognitive dissonance amongst people in general. I find that the bigger issue. Religion to me is like a knife. It can be used to cut your bread or stab a little old lady to death. The danger lies in the person wielding it, not the knife itself. It's like politics. If politics are corrupt, that doesn't mean we need to get rid of government, it just needs to be reformed. The new atheists also seem to almost entirely exclude philosophy, namely ontology. They claim anything other than what can be empirically defended exists and believe that anything else is delusional, but I have stated, humor, art, beauty , love are not logical and only exist at an ontological level, but no one in their right mind would call anyone who believed in them, delusional. So the cognitive dissonance seems a two a way street. All, I believe, were married and have kids. They talk about how they love their kids. Any CFer knows the reality and the cognitive dissonance there. To me, it's the cognitive dissonance that's the problem. It manifests in religion, in family, in politics, in media. Wanting attention and to feel special, and accepted at any cost, even the expense of truth, is our problem as a species imo. We will listen to lies, and propaganda and watch shitty television and listen to shitty music, and put ourselves through the hell of family life, and the dishonesty of a religious life, work shitty jobs, all to be accepted by others. We will completely lie to ourselves and others for acceptance in some mass delusion that hurts society, and makes us prisoners of our own making. "The perception of death as the ultimate negative maybe? " I don't view death as negative. I figure I either get to shut off completely or move on to a better dimension. So, I welcome it. I'm not married, have no kids and have done everything fun I can imagine to the point of them becoming common place. I mean there's a chance of winning the lotto or something, but I'm talking within reason. "Some of my friends though are childless in their 30ies, and some male friends - in 40ies and 50ies, so I have a circle of people to talk to about something beyond procreation." If you have lived in a certain area for a long time, it's probably not problematic. I have moved around a lot and have to always make new friends. It wasn't hard in my 20s and 30s, but now, all my peers are at home with kids. They don*t get out that much, and are hard to find. Being a guy, even harder. I know a lot of single women in their 40s that can always date younger guys, not so easy the other way around. "Well, hold on to that I guess)) I also appreciate those things, theyre the best this place has on menu Also passion. And a spicy tea. And black caviar." Actually, I'd prefer to drop it and pick a side. I would rest easier. It holds more onto me, than I it. Usually when i come to a mental realization, the emotions follow and case closed. With this, it won't fall so easy. Maybe its merely the last pillar keeping existential depression from completely wiping me out and it's some kind of defense mechanism, maybe not. I look at life like a book. I guess I want to read up to the last page, no matter how shitty it is. Look forward to your next post gorgeous. Chris |
|
25-12-2011 P.S.I also find the "new atheist" movement guilty of trying to simplify things too much. Reality is complex and sticky, full of irony and paradoxes while trying to dissect it. Again, I think people believing fiction of all kinds is the problem. There's as much insanity in people believing Grimm's fairy tails, and happily ever after, prince charming stories as reality as believing what happens after you die, to me. Of course those things CAN happen, but for all to believe they will have it, or be a rock star, or millionaire, is ridiculous. |
[ link ] |
25-12-2011
I have a lot to say on religion/atheism topic, but its best to do it elsewhere (under a related post or on facebook...) I didn't say that you 'view' death as negative, I said 'perceive', meaning more of a biological response to it. I also have no problem with death per se, on a logical level. But the fear of it can hardly be cured by reason. (Only by 40 virgins maybe. Hehe.) We agree on the importance of acceptance. I actually talked about self-acceptance in one of my long videos on youtube. Oh and thanks for the magnificent English, I love being proud of myself, feeling accepted ;)
|
Comments to Existential depression and the meaning of life