A Cold Hell

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

Maybe you are. What do I know? Only what I've been through. Don't take any notice of me - or anyone else for that matter. Take your own path. Better yet, make your own path. That's what I honestly think - and I mean no offense to you or anyone else by it, except perhaps Didymos Thomas.

iconoclast.

I will take notice of you, just as I will take notice of all others that offer their ideas. We can all learn from eachother, while still taking our own paths. I meant no offense to you either, I just wish you would consider.

But please, don't make this the end, as I'm really interested on your philosophy of life.

So, let me clarify: You go to great lengths shielding yourself from all outside ideas, and believe that if you were to seek ANY information, it would make you a sheep? That is, the act of seeking knowledge from anywhere else but yourself (this is contradictory in itself because 'yourself' isn't a separate entity; you are a reflection of your social environment), is the mark of a fool, an unfulfilled being?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

Quote:

You go to great lengths shielding yourself from all outside ideas, and believe that if you were to seek ANY information, it would make you a sheep?

No, I didn't say that, or mean that. It's more subtle. It's like my parents told me the fire was hot - but what's hot? That's what I had to know. That difference between knowing about something and knowing something from personal experience. I think religion kills that, because it's concepts are so emotionally loud you can no longer hear the whispers of your own heart. How then can you know yourself?

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

No, I didn't say that, or mean that. It's more subtle. It's like my parents told me the fire was hot - but what's hot? That's what I had to know. That difference between knowing about something and knowing something from personal experience. I think religion kills that, because it's concepts are so emotionally loud you can no longer hear the whispers of your own heart. How then can you know yourself?

iconoclast.

Ok, but where was the correlation when you made the comment you made to me (regarding the kneeling)? When I asked concerning some advice, you perceived that as me not attempting to think on my own. You perceived that as me being religious in a sense and not listening to the whispers of my own heart, correct?

All this boils down to my belief that you can still hear the whispers of your heart, while considering others whispers. I am not steadfast in anything, and constantly attempt to consider all possibilities. That is why I don't see myself as ever being religious - or at least a religion that refuses consideration (this is where we agree... I also find most religions to be too loud on the mind!) Buddhism, as I've noted, does allow consideration! Sure, it advocates peace and kindness to others (which you can make the argument is poisoning), but for the most part Buddha advocated EXACTLY what you're saying. Don't believe something on a whim, listen to yourself first!

Consideration <> Blind Obedience

I thank you for sharing your thoughts, iconoclast. You appear very true to yourself and for that I admire.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... the universe is lifeless ... dead as a doornail ... was at the Big Bang; still is now ... yet here is life ... so the lifeless universe must contain the potential for life ... the Earth is a realization of that potential ...the evidence is clear: life can erupt from utter lifelessness ... so let's move to the next level ... life is meaningless ... no purpose whatsoever ... none when the first amoebas formed in Earth's oceans; still none now ... yet here is meaning ... a mother nursing her newborn ... meaning absolutely radiates from them ... we palpably feel it ... so meaningless life must contain the potential for meaning ... humankind is a realization of that potential ... the evidence is clear: meaning can erupt from utter meaninglessness.

From such a perspective, "If the universe doesn't judge, why do I, why do we all?" is not a reason to despair ... it is a cause for open-mouthed wonder ... pause and take a moment to look around - the evidence is clear.

I've never thought of existence in that manner. It's funny how some finely tuned perspective can evoke such thought.

Thank you.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Quote:

I also find most religions to be too loud on the mind!

Any louder than philosophy? And here's another one to consider - what is the difference between philosophy and spiritual teaching? This second one isn't easy. Take time to run through the potential counter examples.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Any louder than philosophy? And here's another one to consider - what is the difference between philosophy and spiritual teaching? This second one isn't easy. Take time to run through the potential counter examples.

I guess I don't perceive philosophy as a study, or some kind of belief system. Self examination is my life, really. My gain of knowledge through one perspective helps my entire life. I suppose if I were to stay on one facet of philosophy for too long, and devoted my mind to said philosophy, it would be no different than religion. Then again, we could say this about anything... so where do you draw the line? We could make the argument that we are all brainwashed and there is no escaping the influence - there is, in essence, no free thinking. It's a possibility, you're right. Thanks for the insight.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Quote:

I guess I don't perceive philosophy as a study, or some kind of convocation.

Religion doesn't necessarily require a group of people. In Mathew Jesus says to pray in your closet. Alone.
Philosophy and religion can both be studies. But, as you point out, philosophy doesn't have to be a formal study... and religion doesn't have to be a study, either.

Quote:

Self examination is my life, really.

This is interesting. From what I can tell, instead of being a formal study, you see philosophy as self-examination and exploration. And this is very much a part of philosophy, and a part of religion. Again, we find this overlap.

Quote:

I suppose if I were to stay on one facet of philosophy for too long, and devoted my mind to said philosophy, it would be no different than religion.

How so? Is religion any more narrow than philosophy?

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Same with the electric socket.

... hmmmmmmmmm - self-inflicted electro-shock therapy ... that explains a lot ... (I'm kidding!!! ) ...

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Religion doesn't necessarily require a group of people. In Mathew Jesus says to pray in your closet. Alone.
Philosophy and religion can both be studies. But, as you point out, philosophy doesn't have to be a formal study... and religion doesn't have to be a study, either.

This is interesting. From what I can tell, instead of being a formal study, you see philosophy as self-examination and exploration. And this is very much a part of philosophy, and a part of religion. Again, we find this overlap.

How so? Is religion any more narrow than philosophy?

I changed convocation prior to you replying (see above), as it didn't fit what I was trying to say - I didn't mean to imply any amount of people or religious association.

Let me first clarify that I don't enjoy using the word philosophy, nor am I always comfortable using the word religion. We've discussed this in past threads, if you remember. I see the potentiality for overgeneralization, and miscommunication, on both counts.

As for your last question, my gut tells me, it depends on the person perceiving. A person can make any study, any belief system, what they will. This transcends the philosophy vs. religion debate. Both studies can be as limiting or as expansive as one makes them.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

You got close to what I was driving at. I do not see philosophy and religion as being any different. People tend to approach them differently because of the emotional baggage the terms carry, and I think that is a mistake. Taoism is the great example - is Taoism a philosophy or a religion? Certainly, some have taken Taoism and turned it into an elaborate, magical cult. But when you break it down, get to the core - was Chuang Tzu a philosopher or spiritual writer? Both. Even Aristotle - he developed a god notion, the prime mover. To give up one, religion or philosophy, is to give up the other. It's better to cut out the bad aspects of religion and philosophy; keep the baby, toss the bath water.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You got close to what I was driving at. I do not see philosophy and religion as being any different. People tend to approach them differently because of the emotional baggage the terms carry, and I think that is a mistake. Taoism is the great example - is Taoism a philosophy or a religion? Certainly, some have taken Taoism and turned it into an elaborate, magical cult. But when you break it down, get to the core - was Chuang Tzu a philosopher or spiritual writer? Both. Even Aristotle - he developed a god notion, the prime mover. To give up one, religion or philosophy, is to give up the other. It's better to cut out the bad aspects of religion and philosophy; keep the baby, toss the bath water.

Your point is well noted, but I do have a question:

You say to give up one is to give up the other. Well, how do you perceive people that stray from all spiritual endeavors at all costs, and attempt to use reason and logic from philosophy alone? (or conversely! just meaning they have given up one, and have decided to base their existence and actions on the other)

Also, how do you draw the line as to what is the **baby and what is the ***bath water? It appears this is also dependent on the person, as everyone looks out their own window. The reasoning in order to even make this decision will have most likely spawned from either religion or philosophy, no? It appears to shape your perceptions of philosophy or religion (reasoning to decide what is the baby and what is the bath water), one already has to have a *base... which appears contradictory in itself, if of course all bases spawn from something spiritual or philosophic as I believe they do. This means in order to shape your personal truths (the baby), you must either rely on the base you already have (which I've witnessed many do), or not decide on the baby, as you further examine all bases and considerations.

I haven't come to the epiphany that is the baby. I'm that guy. I won't settle for the base currently influencing me and am not satisfied with the limited knowledge I have in order to make a decision. I fear I may never find this base, hence my current state: A Cold Hell.

*Base - Moral code, sense of purpose, philosophy of life which influences decision making
**Baby - The root, the heart, a truth that one finds to be 'true' in a study or belief system and contributes to the base
***Bath Water - The needless ideas, the skewed perspectives that are thrown out from consideration, for whatever reason by the individual

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Quote:

You say to give up one is to give up the other. Well, how do you perceive people that stray from all spiritual endeavors at all costs, and attempt to use reason and logic from philosophy alone? (or conversely! just meaning they have given up one, and have decided to base their existence and actions on the other)

I do more than perceive them - I've been one of them. They miss half of their subject.

Quote:

Also, how do you draw the line as to what is the **baby and what is the ***bath water?

The bath water is the unnecessary emotional baggage attached to our terms religion and philosophy.

Quote:

It appears this is also dependent on the person, as everyone looks out their own window. The reasoning in order to even make this decision will have most likely spawned from either religion or philosophy, no?

Oh, absolutely. But as you pointed out earlier, philosophy (and I would say religion, too) are not just studies, but also self-exploration. It's up to you, me, individually to explore this. Sharing ideas helps, but can only take us so far.

Quote:

This means in order to shape your personal truths (the baby), you must either rely on the base you already have (which I've witnessed many do), or not decide on the baby, as you further examine all bases and considerations.

Or be open minded enough to allow the baby you have at the moment to change, grow up perhaps, as you further examine all bases and considerations.

Quote:

I haven't come to the epiphany that is the baby. I'm that guy. I won't settle for the base currently influencing me and am not satisfied with the limited knowledge I have in order to make a decision. I fear I may never find this base, hence my current state: A Cold Hell.

Eh, you worry too much. You may not, as I sure don't, have a fully developed, air tight moral philosophy. But then again, there are no absolutes. So, we go with what we know and we try as best we can. For example, I might be uncertain about a particular moral issue or circumstance, but I can still know that I should have compassion for others.
In other words - you don't have to have a den, swimming pool and billiards room built on the house to sleep in your bedroom and cook in your kitchen.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Zetherin,

Well, it would seem you've driven me into a paradoxical corner where telling you to think for yourself would itself be advising you to follow the advice of another. I can only restate that I think the journey is a personal one that follows from the question posed by your own existence, that it's a difficult but worthwhile journey, and that religion is a false guide that would lead you along someone else's path.

I admit that this a huge generalization solely from personal experience, very little of which is experience of Bhuddist teachings, but I've known a few Bhuddists, and found them less than coherent and tranquil. I believe this is because one cannot achieve Nirvana as it were, until you've settled the question of your own existence in the world and come to terms with it, and that religion in general is an abdication from involvement in the world, as it really is.

This is where I'd refute Didymos Thomas's argument:

Quote:

Any louder than philosophy? And here's another one to consider - what is the difference between philosophy and spiritual teaching?

It would be to oversimplify to say it's the distinction between rationality and emotionality - but it's whether the emphasis is on epistemology or metaphysics.

I know I've talked a great deal about introspection, your own truth and the whispers of your heart - but I see epistemology, ontology and identity as interrelated. It's not merely about knowing your truth but why it's true, and what that means for you. I think religion, or spiritual teachings emphasizes idenitity over epistemology and ontology and that it's incorrect to do so.

The first thing I said to you, 1 of 7.5 billion, is that you're insignificant, and that's the truth. You won't get any false comfort from me - it's for you to seek your own accomodation with the facts. And that's the journey, that's why it hurts, and that's why people seek comfort in religion, because they fear to look reality in the eye.

That's what I meant by kneel down at the side of your mom if you feel your knees weaken at the prospect - and while you'd have my understanding you wouldn't have my admiration, not that I'd think you any less of a person, but because I don't admire badly constructed ideas.

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Quote:

I know I've talked a great deal about introspection, your own truth and the whispers of your heart - but I see epistemology, ontology and identity as interrelated. It's not merely about knowing your truth but why it's true, and what that means for you. I think religion, or spiritual teachings emphasizes idenitity over epistemology and ontology and that it's incorrect to do so.

You'll have to elaborate on this. You say spiritual teachings emphasize identity over epistemology and ontology; how? And is the misplaced focus universal to spiritual teaching, or local?

Quote:

The first thing I said to you, 1 of 7.5 billion, is that you're insignificant, and that's the truth. You won't get any false comfort from me - it's for you to seek your own accomodation with the facts. And that's the journey, that's why it hurts, and that's why people seek comfort in religion, because they fear to look reality in the eye.

Well, you're figure is off by about a billion - the number is closer to 6.7 billion. But that's neither here nor there; one billion or ten billion, the one individual is comparatively insignificant when set up against the whole. But that doesn't mean that the individual is insignificant. Of course the individual is significant, not to mention unique. The mistake people make is thinking of themselves as special; none of us are special.
The individual must have some significance if the whole has significance, and if the whole is made up of the individuals, then the whole must be more significant than the individuals.

Realizing our relative insignificance as compared to the whole can be difficult for people. And for some, this sets them on a search, a search that often leads to religion and philosophy. But it is a mistake to assume that religion is pursued only as a comfort against the weight of relative insignificance. Just as it would be a mistake to assume that philosophy is pursued only as a comfort against the weight of relative insignificance.

But let's take those who do pursue religion as a comfort against the weight of relative insignificance. What's the problem? Aside from your concerns about the emphasis of religion (identity over epistemology and ontology, which I am interested in discussing), surely you agree that, upon recognizing our relative insignificance, the individual's perspective on life changes dramatically. Whether the individual turns to religion, or philosophy, or some ideology, don't they need to reevaluate, in some way or other, their place in life? And isn't that what religion, philosophy and ideologies do? Help provide context for human life? Basically, even if you do not think religion is the best route, don't people need to find for themselves some path? Not necessarily a paved road, one traveled by many; like you, I think people need to find their own way.

3 Replies

@iconoclast,

Iconoclast,

Thank you for your insights.

I just want to note that the disparity amongst us wasn't because I didn't understand your philosophy on personal experience, it was that I argued that you can still seek knowledge while on the journey (personal experience, whatever) and that the sharing of ideas can help. It doesn't mean that the person is bowing down to the other's ideas, or being blindly obedient; it's simply a learning experience.

"and that religion in general is an abdication from involvement in the world, as it really is."

That right there doesn't sit with me well, as the world really is how the person perceives the world really is. If the person finds comfort in religion, let them. So what if they do? They have chosen their path, and just because it may correspond with a set religion or doctrine, does not mean it isn't unique. No one's path is any better than anyone's is my point. Yes, we all have to find our paths and we all do. You both are making it seem like this is an option or something. You live, your life is your path, and regardless what routes you've taken, you have made a journey. What routes you want to take are up to you, and you may not be as 'enlightened' as you may believe.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

But let's take those who do pursue religion as a comfort against the weight of relative insignificance. What's the problem? Aside from your concerns about the emphasis of religion (identity over epistemology and ontology, which I am interested in discussing), surely you agree that, upon recognizing our relative insignificance, the individual's perspective on life changes dramatically. Whether the individual turns to religion, or philosophy, or some ideology, don't they need to reevaluate, in some way or other, their place in life? And isn't that what religion, philosophy and ideologies do? Help provide context for human life? Basically, even if you do not think religion is the best route, don't people need to find for themselves some path? Not necessarily a paved road, one traveled by many; like you, I think people need to find their own way.

The argument over significance is simply personal perspective - as simple as the glass full or glass empty bit. You can arrange the puzzle as you may, and find what you want to find. If you feel you are significant, there are many ways to appear significant. If you feel you are insignificant, you can make arguments for that, too.

People do find their own paths. This isn't an option - even living completely bound to a set of doctrines with no consideration whatsoever is a path. Some paths are longer than others, some may even be more thought-out, but in the end, who's to say any were better?

Yes, people search for that ideology or base that I spoke of earlier. Otherwise the person is completely chaotic, with no set boundaries, no philosophy of life, and have that empty feel (like I do). And yes, I feel it's good to find that base, not because you *should* but because it helps comfort until death. Iconoclast is comforted because he thinks he has completed some personal journey, and that brings him fulfillment. A person devoted to Jesus may feel fulfilled thinking he's a chosen disciple. To each their own, and I truly don't feel any is better.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I really loved the bit about meaning emerging spontaneously from meaninglessness. I'm going to consider/remember that for a long time.

Like you, ZETHERIN, I see the (somewhat) harsh reality of how "good", "evil", "norms", and "beaten path" are all just constructs of popular opinion and infectious bits of brain information, but it brings me extremely great satisfaction in some ways to know that I have to define meaning for myself, and that I am free to do as I please (at least on a level of universal judgementlessness)...

Anyway, I'm impressed with how you articulated all of your thoughts, I don't think I could do the same quite so well (as you can see Smile

). Just don't stick me with ALL the bills from the holes in our walls please, since you might let it go while meditating out with Team Fortress 2.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Quote:

No one's path is any better than anyone's is my point.

I'm not so sure. I think we all have to find our own unique path, but some roads do seem rather destructive. What of the man who's path is hate and violence? The man who has a path of love and peace seems to me to have a better path.

Quote:

Yes, we all have to find our paths and we all do. You both are making it seem like this is an option or something. You live, your life is your path, and regardless what routes you've taken, you have made a journey. What routes you want to take are up to you, and you may not be as 'enlightened' as you may believe.

You make an excellent point - where we like it or not, we do have to live our lives, and every life is unique. But consider the nihilist who is absolutely unconcerned with his path, with his life. Shouldn't we at least take notice that we are alive and that we have various options in life? Try our best to be the best we can be?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

Should we start a new thread in the viscous arguments section because that's where this is going. Or will you allow me my opinion of religion? I know you don't like it, and everyone knows you don't agree with me - and I don't agree with you. Maybe it's best we agree not to see eye to eye - and in this thread you give Zetherin your advice and I'll give him mine. If you want frank exchange of views on the subject that's fine with me, but elsewhere, don't you think so? Or leave it up to Zetherin - it's his thread we'd be hijacking.

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Quote:

Should we start a new thread in the viscous arguments section because that's where this is going. Or will you allow me my opinion of religion?

I've never denied you your opinion of religion. But it's funny, you asked me to leave you alone and then you come back for more. Anyway, I am genuinely interested in your concern about the focus of religion, so a new thread sounds like a great idea.

Quote:

I know you don't like it, and everyone knows you don't agree with me - and I don't agree with you.

I do not like or dislike your opinion. The issue doesn't get personal with me because I do not shove my personal spiritual beliefs in the direction of others. My path is my own, I keep it that way.

Quote:

Maybe it's best we agree not to see eye to eye - and in this thread you give Zetherin your advice and I'll give him mine. If you want frank exchange of views on the subject that's fine with me, but elsewhere, don't you think so? Or leave it up to Zetherin - it's his thread we'd be hijacking.

If Zetherin prefers the conversation take place here, that's fine. Otherwise, a new thread is a good idea.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know