|
On July 15 2010 03:58 XeliN wrote:
I hear you loud and clearly brother may your words forever resonate in the hearts and minds of the chosen.
Atroll iconfess
Sarcasm brother is the other tool of fools, you will get no were while your ego controls your every thought and action it is in your best interests to ask yourself why you responded as you did was it really you or a result of your lifes experiences and how you interpeted it from the infuelences around you? We are no joke we are who we say we are what I tell you in this forum is what will occur it is for your benefit that this occured, do not laugh at others for the one who laughs at another is a fool in themself.
Adonai bless
|
|
|
Self serving activity of judgement without objective investigation leads to ignorance brother, such effort to find thread and link could been spent better, we cant prevent you being a fool but we can tell you what being a fool leads too.
Those who look into topics such as one being discused here are of higher intellect. Even if that person does not have as good as english writen ability as one such as yourself they are of higher intellect to use there mind to question reality itself.
Adonai bless
|
wait in 8 pages, nobody has given the classic answer yet?
the answer is...42 =D
in seriousness though. zhuangzi is a personal favorite, he has some very interesting views. as far as i see (which could be rather little, being an engineer with a rather practical mindset), its kind of an attitude that what we know and what we can do is not very much, but that there's nothing wrong with that. but at the same time, its no excuse to remain ignorant, and to be as open to new viewpoints, and as little judgmental as possible.
|
On July 15 2010 03:43 Gnosis wrote:
I see, I get what you're saying now. So suffering, why is it undesireable, and why is pleasure (or happiness) desireable, if these things do not exist inherently?
Well to answer that question we have to define what suffering and happiness are based on which are judgments by the mind on phenomena. Anything at all can be happiness to you and suffering to another. So really we are saying what have you judged to be good and you want to experience and what you have judged to be bad and do not want to experience. Desire is empty of inherent existence
It is not that you want happiness and do not want suffering, in terms of happiness and suffering somehow existing outside of your reference point, what you want is what you have defined to be good and do not want what you have defined to be bad.
Taken from this view point what you are chasing to get at, happiness, will not actually make you happy because you have mistaken what you are really chasing which is an empty desire.
In Buddhism, suffering comes from attachment/desire/clinging and because we live in an impermanent world no matter what you try to achieve or hold onto for happiness will eventually be taken away, this is assured. And because of this you will experience suffering. Trying to run away from suffering also puts you into more suffering because you reaffirm your belief in the inherent existence of suffering.
For Buddhism the definition of happiness is really the absence of delusion. If you no longer believe in inherent things you will no longer be attached to causes and conditions and will affirm the wholeness of your existence. In the absence of delusion a deep compassion and understanding for other beings develops and a great peace. This is because the mind no longer races after things to either get happiness or get away from suffering and you see in your fellow beings the suffering that they experience for there delusions and know that this is not necessary nor even warranted.
|
http://reocities.com/amosapient/rand.html
So I've been reading this in-depth. I just have to laugh. The article is your typical article trying to determine Objectivism as being incorrect. The problem with said "typical article," is that the person writing it has no idea what they are talking about.
|
On July 15 2010 04:16 Jazriel wrote:http://reocities.com/amosapient/rand.htmlSo I've been reading this in-depth. I just have to laugh. The article is your typical article trying to determine Objectivism as being incorrect. The problem with said "typical article," is that the person writing it has no idea what they are talking about.
Objectivism is required to use what knowledge you have available to create a understanding on your enviroment, your ability of using knowledge is determined by your wisdom which is aquired by your experience, but it is only useful if done with a mind that is open to growth one that is a full cup cant not be refilled.
But dont laugh at another, it is there current understanding allow them to have it share what you know to be truth but also always be open to questioning your own perspective of truth as well.
Adonai bless
|
I think we should keep this thread open to all view points even ones that people might think are out there like the Law of One. It is a philosophy whether or not you believe it to be and making insulting comments to it is a form of prejudice. One of TL's philosophies is to respect all view points.
The Law of One is not that bad of an idea and reading anything at all even if you don't agree with it will always expand your own knowledge, it will never harm you.
If you have serious criticism of the Law of One you should read up on it first and then try to take it apart in an argumentative fashion like a 'real' philosopher would do rather than resorting to insults.
Maji you should respect others as well. Don't call them fools. lol.
|
On July 15 2010 04:15 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 03:43 Gnosis wrote:
I see, I get what you're saying now. So suffering, why is it undesireable, and why is pleasure (or happiness) desireable, if these things do not exist inherently? Well to answer that question we have to define what suffering and happiness are based on which are judgments by the mind on phenomena. Anything at all can be happiness to you and suffering to another. So really we are saying what have you judged to be good and you want to experience and what you have judged to be bad and do not want to experience. Desire is empty of inherent existence It is not that you want happiness and do not want suffering, in terms of happiness and suffering somehow existing outside of your reference point, what you want is what you have defined to be good and do not want what you have defined to be bad. Taken from this view point what you are chasing to get at, happiness, will not actually make you happy because you have mistaken what you are really chasing which is an empty desire. In Buddhism, suffering comes from attachment/desire/clinging and because we live in an impermanent world no matter what you try to achieve or hold onto for happiness will eventually be taken away, this is assured. And because of this you will experience suffering. Trying to run away from suffering also puts you into more suffering because you reaffirm your belief in the inherent existence of suffering. For Buddhism the definition of happiness is really the absence of delusion. If you no longer believe in inherent things you will no longer be attached to causes and conditions and will affirm the wholeness of your existence. In the absence of delusion a deep compassion and understanding for other beings develops and a great peace. This is because the mind no longer races after things to either get happiness or get away from suffering and you see in your fellow beings the suffering that they experience for there delusions and know that this is not necessary nor even warranted.
good, yes souls define own interpetation of what is given hence 'freewill', this is within the limits created of course. We will also add that at any moment you can change a affect on yourself by seeing it in a different light, since time in truth is non linear it is all frames of moments occuring simintanously your past still exsists at a different position on the wave, your future exsists as a temporal possibility that as consciousnes flows into becomes the experience of reality. It is possible for you at any moment to change how you responded emotional to a event which you may have percieve at the time as suffering which may have created imbalance in yourself in which you aloud.
Above poster has a grasp on truth of situation it is good to see.
Adonai bless
|
On July 15 2010 04:27 Epsilon8 wrote:
I think we should keep this thread open to all view points even ones that people might think are out there like the Law of One. It is a philosophy whether or not you believe it to be and making insulting comments to it is a form of prejudice. One of TL's philosophies is to respect all view points.
The Law of One is not that bad of an idea and reading anything at all even if you don't agree with it will always expand your own knowledge, it will never harm you.
If you have serious criticism of the Law of One you should read up on it first and then try to take it apart in an argumentative fashion like a 'real' philosopher would do rather than resorting to insults.
Maji you should respect others as well. Don't call them fools. lol.
Intent is not to call them fool brother but to use a analogy to reveal to them how they are acting...
Adonai bless
|
I would like to make it explicitly clear that Maji is trolling.
Feels quite nice to justifiably use that term given the new rules on it.
|
On July 15 2010 04:14 n3mo wrote:
wait in 8 pages, nobody has given the classic answer yet?
the answer is...42 =D
in seriousness though. zhuangzi is a personal favorite, he has some very interesting views. as far as i see (which could be rather little, being an engineer with a rather practical mindset), its kind of an attitude that what we know and what we can do is not very much, but that there's nothing wrong with that. but at the same time, its no excuse to remain ignorant, and to be as open to new viewpoints, and as little judgmental as possible.
Read a bit of Zhuanzi as part of an Asian history class. Being a philosophy major at the time it was a pretty fun side-dish. I have to say however that I found the whole thing completely alien and discouraging.
I don't think we gain much in including him in the western thought cannon. Yes it has some interesting paradigms but it really doesn't offer the same level of reason and logic we have come to expect from later western philosophy. I don't like saying that without delving too deep into it but like I said, what I read was discouraging.
|
Lol, it is possible. He seems to know a lot about it though.
|
On July 15 2010 03:54 Jazriel wrote:
Sigh, an now an analogy because of this fact:
I'm pretty sure no one will disagree with me that if they train at Starcraft everyday for the next X years, they will not be as good as Flash or <insert progamer here>.
I wouldn't agree with this.
There's not that much empirical data to support it, and there's not that much empirical data to detract from it - but anecdotal evidence suggests that the 'inherent' capabilities people have matter much less than the work they put into things.
[edit] Which is, in fact, precisely why the free market is more egalitarian than people give it credit for.
|
I am for real can predict future events as required too as well.
The philosphy of One epsilon is very good to adapt you are on right path, I would also advise look into hidden hand material but do not judge the source.
|
On July 15 2010 04:51 Maji wrote:
I am for real can predict future events as required too as well.
The philosphy of One epsilon is very good to adapt you are on right path, I would also advise look into hidden hand material but do not judge the source.
Hidden hand material as in a person? Or object?
|
United States41964 Posts
Maji, just a polite suggestion that you may take or ignore as you wish. If you wish to add a signature to posts on tl you can do so by going to your profile at the top left and adding one. In fact, I see you have already done this. If you wish your signature to say Adonai bless you can go to your profile and change it. This may save you time in the long run.
The angels have the phone box
|
On July 15 2010 04:51 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 03:54 Jazriel wrote:
Sigh, an now an analogy because of this fact:
I'm pretty sure no one will disagree with me that if they train at Starcraft everyday for the next X years, they will not be as good as Flash or <insert progamer here>. I wouldn't agree with this. There's not that much empirical data to support it, and there's not that much empirical data to detract from it - but anecdotal evidence suggests that the 'inherent' capabilities people have matter much less than the work they put into things. [edit] Which is, in fact, precisely why the free market is more egalitarian than people give it credit for.
It was a weak analogy, to be sure.
A better analogy would be that a person born without legs cannot walk. Prosthetics aside.
|
On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions
then how do you explain cell apoptosis? why are we programmed to die?
|
On July 15 2010 05:12 AncienTs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2010 05:49 zizou21 wrote:I am a philosophy major, and I have found that the theory of evolution answers most of these questions then how do you explain cell apoptosis? why are we programmed to die?
magnetic centre not in alignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
