|
Why are there so many Nietzscheans on TL?
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
edit:
"superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle"
Not at all. The relief is real, and it is the idea of "lifestyle" which is vain. When you release yourself from desires, the world ceases to have power over you. Giving up your attachment to outcomes is in an important sense an empowering process, not a self-denying one.
|
On May 26 2012 06:54 Danglars wrote:I want to bite, but seeing your willingness for this: Show nested quote +Curious, if that is the case (similar to the matrix) then why is there so much distress? The one thing I remember from the matrix was absolute order inside the matrix, with a few "renegade's" fighting against the machines. Don't you think all of this "freedom" would be smacked down? You're just in it to critically analyze each other's views on the meaning of life and life after death. I mean, let's not argue which religion is right, which one has the real story ... let's talk whose is more likely. You're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking on this forum to prove 10+ religions illogical and unbelieable. I mean, so sure, I'll pop you a Jesus youtube video, tell you that the universe was created with purpose, and He came to give everyone a second shot at paradise. Public opinion poll registering responses to the (philosopher?) Alan Watts? You have mine. I believe the thought that everything is nothingness to be absurd. Great images in the movie though, always like those.
I'm "just in it to critically analyze other's views"...
Interesting, it seemed like this was a discussion on that exact point, to critically analyze peoples opinions... He said he believes it's the matrix, I asked "how could that be" presenting things I believe would cause disorder in a matrix type system, he simply left it without clear explanation... Am I suppose to not discuss what reality is "during/after/before" in a thread based on that very subject?
Please, before you generalize me, realize that I never said anything was the most likely, I never once chastised any religion (in fact my disclaimer was specifically protecting peoples right to believe in faith, but arguing faith (which is faith, so requires no proof) is very hard so I said please state your point but don't discuss how mine's better than your's....) so again, perhaps you are being;
1. Very defensive and passive aggressive for no reason (perhaps you hold beliefs that this video contradicts, so it offends you? Which is why I said you never had to agree with it, it was just the topic starter)
2. Having trouble understanding the topic so you are misreading it, perhaps try and read through a bit deeper before, again, you generalize my reasoning for creating this thread.
Thank you.
|
On May 26 2012 05:40 Mossen wrote:
Its just hard for me to believe they'd be preaching what they do if they didn't have a living space and daily food and health care all provided for free.
Yes, so our goal should be to provide this for everybody!
edit: before the inevitable - yeah, it's hard, but humans are kinda badasses so I bet we can figure it out.
|
On May 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote:
Why are there so many Nietzscheans on TL?
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
edit:
"superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle"
Not at all. The relief is real, and it is the idea of "lifestyle" which is vain. When you release yourself from desires, the world ceases to have power over you. Giving up your attachment to outcomes is in an important sense an empowering process, not a self-denying one.
To be fair to Nietzche the type of Buddhism in the West at his time was all about asceticism.
|
Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though.
|
On May 26 2012 07:12 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote:
Why are there so many Nietzscheans on TL?
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
edit:
"superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle"
Not at all. The relief is real, and it is the idea of "lifestyle" which is vain. When you release yourself from desires, the world ceases to have power over you. Giving up your attachment to outcomes is in an important sense an empowering process, not a self-denying one. To be fair to Nietzche the type of Buddhism in the West at his time was all about asceticism.
That is, as you say, fair.
For Nietzsche. Nietzscheans, on the other hand, have no excuse 
|
On May 26 2012 07:12 furerkip wrote:
Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though.
I believe perhaps you misunderstood "nothingness"... It isn't about importance, I am as important as you are, as important as everything is, but in the end, as the video attempts to explain with the poetry contest, you aren't polishing a mirror at all, everything you attempt to "value" and "perfect" is polishing your mirror, whereas the mirror doesn't exist, so you simply don't have to polish it because no dust can come of it.
I find your perspective compelling though, but the question I ask is... What makes you decide what has "value"? What does have value? Perhaps the values you have, are what everyone believes are values, but aren't values at all?
My example is love, love is an irrational human function that forsakes logic and generally is just a connection on a chemical level that is near impossible to explain, and yet it happens... But love can be as brief as the snow melting from season to season to as infinite as the universe... Why does this value change?
Another thing, you discuss mass (losing and gaining) but what is mass? Where does it come from? Scientists believe the "big bang" (which is being highly debated) but generally the "higgs field" creates matter... What is the higgs field? If it is not "matter" (mass) than what, might that be?
All we can ask are questions, it is a very curious topic.
|
On May 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote:
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
"Enlightenment" and "dharma" are affective descriptors based on the hypnotic experience (self-induced, in the case of meditation). Confidence arrived at in moments of meditative thought does guarantee epistemic value (the fact that it is conceived in meditation does not assure it is a "correct purpose"), only ascetic fulfillment.
When "enlightened" ideas conflict with logic, the only response for the ascetic is to go further inward into him/herself --- to seek greater enlightenment. Deny pleasure, deny romance, deny emotion, because they must be clouding your inner wisdom.
Contrast this with a "Call of the Wild" sort of primality. It is not ascetic because the animal doesn't seek to deny what is in its nature. If a crane appears serene because it is still, that's great for the crane --- humans are not cranes: their wants and needs are different, which is why the conflict of primality with modern angst is such an interesting discussion: in short, our brains are too big. But the meditative life rejects willfull action as well as the projects of modern humanity: love, progress, virtue.
Why should humans emulate the serenity of cranes if something else is in our nature? Perhaps willful action, perhaps angst?
In my opinion, the enlightened human should not seek to deny what makes him/her human. Embracing asceticism is a rejection of your genetic design (for good or for angst), and a rejection of the value of a fulfilling life (love, progress, virtue). If the thought of living an unfulfilling life worries you, meditate more until it no longer worries you.
|
"You are nothing. So the nature, the inmost nature of the self, when you have gone through all the layers of the self, the essence is nothing. You are nothing. Right? On that nothingness thought has imposed the super structure of consciousness. Consciousness being the content, without the content there is no consciousness - the content being you are a Hindu, Buddhist, your religion, your particular god, your puja, your anxiety, your sorrow, your pain, your hate, your love, all that is the content of your consciousness. Obviously. And the idea that you are super atman, or super, super consciousness is part of that content. You understand what thought has done. We are absolutely nothing. All this super structure has been built by thought. And thought is the response of registration. Of course. You understand registration, like a tape. See what thought has done."
When you are born you are nothing, a blank slate, when you die you become nothing. Everything else is a superficial comparison. I think its important to try and live every moment of life without comparison (trying to be as open-minded as you possibly can). Trying to not judge, trying to be compassionate towards others, trying to understand without letting your own content interrupt what "is". It is hard, but so is life.
In the words of my brother (when he was 12 and had just had his appendix removed). "Life is hard" bahahahah makes me smile to this day.
|
In answer to (b) my opinion is similar to that found in the movie 'Waking Life'.
It is unthinkable to me how as a human being, built to 'percieve' the world around me, that i could similarly percieve it when i am dead. That makes no sense. Surely this means that perception is eternal. Where is the cut-off point where your brain stops working and switches off, what is our perception in that moment? My favourite idea is that the brain's perception of time is stretched off into infinity at this moment. There is no possible way of experiencing the switching off itself, so we instead experience a kind of infinite dream. Obviously this is all just theory, and pretty simple theory at that, but it's one that i like, and i think it's one that will stick with me.
|
On May 26 2012 07:25 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote:
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose) When "enlightened" ideas conflict with logic, the only response for the ascetic is to go further inward into him/herself.
If they conflicted with logic, they would not be enlightened
edit: one does not contemplate in order to find dharma, but contemplates in order to find HOW to find dharma
edit again: logic is deeply problematic. Have you read much in the phil of logic by any chance? e.g. Wittgenstein's Tractatus?
|
The problem with logic is that it allows room for assumptions, and those assumptions are different from person to person. Therefore one man's logical assesment of a situation and can be very different from the next man's.
|
On May 26 2012 07:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
In answer to (b) my opinion is similar to that found in the movie 'Waking Life'.
It is unthinkable to me how as a human being, built to 'percieve' the world around me, that i could similarly percieve it when i am dead. That makes no sense. Surely this means that perception is eternal. Where is the cut-off point where your brain stops working and switches off, what is our perception in that moment? My favourite idea is that the brain's perception of time is stretched off into infinity at this moment. There is no possible way of experiencing the switching off itself, so we instead experience a kind of infinite dream. Obviously this is all just theory, and pretty simple theory at that, but it's one that i like, and i think it's one that will stick with me.
Oooo I enjoy this, reminds me of... the movie is on the tip of my tongue... SOURCE CODE! Where at the end, he dies but his reality continues on with what he was doing at that exact moment.
That is a very interesting way to look at things, and would be (if I hoped for a specific) my hope... But what if, on that night you "pass on" to this new reality, it is a nightmare? Perhaps then that is "hell" and "heaven"? A divide between dreams of good and evil, nightmares and general dreams?
So many questions
|
A) The video aligns relatively closely what how I feel on the subject.
B) Death seems most likely to me to be an identical state before I was conceived. That is the most likely explanation. To claim something different would require a wealth of evidence, much of which would likely contradict our current understandings of the brain and the universe. To me personally, I have almost no fear of an instant and painless death. Naturally I don't prefer it over life, but that is because I can foresee the current path of my life producing far more pleasure than displeasure. If it were the case that I was locked in a room to be tortured for the rest of my days then immediately taking my own life is by far the most reasonable course of action. Non-existence is just null pleasure and null displeasure, which is to say that it is far more agreeable than an existence of displeasure. If life is more pleasurable than non-existence, then to continue living is a reasonable choice. At any time I could find myself whisked into the torture chamber, in which case it would have been better to die just prior to that moment.
So yea, its a pretty indifferent stance on the whole subject.
|
Well i would prefer to think of the final perception as dynamic rather than a fixed 'dream or nightmare' situation. For me, my hope is that it would be a sort of 'letting go' of my body. Similar, i guess, to the buddhist idea of a wave rejoining the ocean.
Also dude, please edit your post and put that movie spoiler in a spoiler tag :D
|
On May 26 2012 07:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 07:12 furerkip wrote:
Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though. I believe perhaps you misunderstood "nothingness"... It isn't about importance, I am as important as you are, as important as everything is, but in the end, as the video attempts to explain with the poetry contest, you aren't polishing a mirror at all, everything you attempt to "value" and "perfect" is polishing your mirror, whereas the mirror doesn't exist, so you simply don't have to polish it because no dust can come of it. I find your perspective compelling though, but the question I ask is... What makes you decide what has "value"? What does have value? Perhaps the values you have, are what everyone believes are values, but aren't values at all? My example is love, love is an irrational human function that forsakes logic and generally is just a connection on a chemical level that is near impossible to explain, and yet it happens... But love can be as brief as the snow melting from season to season to as infinite as the universe... Why does this value change? Another thing, you discuss mass (losing and gaining) but what is mass? Where does it come from? Scientists believe the "big bang" (which is being highly debated) but generally the "higgs field" creates matter... What is the higgs field? If it is not "matter" (mass) than what, might that be? All we can ask are questions, it is a very curious topic.
This is difficult xD, I hadn't thought so deeply about this.
But I'll try to answer you to the best of my ability.
The value change of love in regards to time is inconsequential to the argument, or rather, according to my definition of nothingness. If we notice a value change, we can regard that as a reaction between things that are not nothing. If we look at it from that standpoint, the effect and affection are of no importance in clarifying the nothingness state but are only important of deciding value. But that doesn't answer your question, probably only makes this rather annoying because it seems like I'm dodging. To tell you the truth, the only way I can imagine your question to be resolved according to the idea of something, because the idea of nothing won't answer your question I think, is if you think of the world in terms of vectors.
And not just some Cartesian plane vectors that follows Euclidean geometry or the vectors involved in Einstein's theory of relativity that exists 3 dimensionally under the affection of time. We have to think in the identity the world is filled with many, many dimensions; that is to say, vectors be drawn from almost anywhere to anywhere with the displacement of the vector being considered the "change." I can't quite say it perfectly, but just understand what I'm talking about is an incredibly complex matrix which I don't exactly know how to formulate into words.
In such a matrix, to plot it on a field, the points can be anywhere; vectors can point anywhere as well. However, due the fact there are so many dimensions, these points can cross each other or not at all be related; also, they can have differing amounts of magnitude. In such a field, we can denote 1 dimension as "love", and then know that things that exist/cross into that specific dimension, regardless of magnitude in terms of time, are and can be called "love."
Not quite sure if that answered your first question well enough, I'm hardly the man with all the answers, I'm just trying to give a good idea of what I think >_>.
As for the question about mass and its creation, it is relatively unsolvable to me. I wouldn't know much about the Higgs field as I'm not really much of a scientist in any regard lol. But I guess the only real response that I have is that we have to realize that the existence of mass can not come from nothing; that is the only thing we can really be sure of. For it to come from nothing would be to say that mass is nothing, and cannot thus be exchanged in any reaction, but I think we can say that's not true just from general observations.
|
Which is to say that you either (1) "bravely" confront the problems and angsts of modernity, (2) hide your head in the enlightened sand and deny there is a problem, or (3) mix the two, the way Western cosmopolitanism prefers balance in all consumer tastes (a little spirituality & a little philanthropy to counteract the obesity of nihilism).
(1) gives those with fighting or romantic spirit some pride (e.g. Nietzsche types), but leaves them horribly overconcerned and stressful. They stress over issues they have no power over, nor should they have power over, to the point of inaction.
(2) tries to transcend problems, as though they were never problems. That's great if your life is comfortable enough for vain idleness, but where your life is imperiled you must respond to your problems with willful spirit. In the case of denying problems of pride, class, and conflict -- e.g. the poor masses, I would prefer to think that people take greater concern for their selves. If you disagree, move to North Korea and take part in the massive dancing spectacles. I don't doubt the spectacles are a transcendent experience of collective conscience, but a popular revolution would do the NK people good, not ascetic virtue (blaming the self). Maybe you disagree, but I think this question should be the focus of the discussion.
(3) Is possibly the the only pragmatic way to look at the world, but it is insincere to (1), and secretly wishes for a world where (2) was possible. Camp (1) derides camp (3) for being insincere to "the Truth" (whatever that means for (1): God, progress, objective knowledge). People in camp (3) strive for a world where (2) is possible: that they can completely escape from the world (but of course utterly fail, the way US liberals organize political protest via iPhones & Twitter, then stop by Starbucks afterwards).
I personally belong to camp (1): the thoroughly miserable, but "self-honest". Meditation is a form of self-hypnosis, where you get your mind to shut up. It is calming, a nice time until you get hungry or need to take a piss, but fetishizing "nothingness" as spirituality is harmful.
|
On May 26 2012 07:46 Jockmcplop wrote:
The problem with logic is that it allows room for assumptions, and those assumptions are different from person to person. Therefore one man's logical assesment of a situation and can be very different from the next man's.
But logic is all about validity of the assumption by proof of the way between the assumption and conclusion. Therefore, one can be misled by the incorrect assumptions of the situation or can be wrong by the use of incorrect methods to arrive at the conclusion. Logic has no problems in my eyes; to deny the use of logic is to deny of philosophy, science, and mathematics which so heavily rely on logic and deny our discussion progression.
|
I am not denying logic at all. I am just saying that you have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from a logical arguement, that the logic has not been 'contaminated' by an assumption at any point.
|
On May 26 2012 08:09 Jockmcplop wrote:
I am not denying logic at all. I am just saying that you have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from a logical arguement, that the logic has not been 'contaminated' by an assumption at any point.
Not exactly. What you do is clearly define your assumptions.
edit: and the validity of the most fundamental assumptions cannot be proved (because they are prior to proof), instead they make themselves manifest
to put it another way, think about why logic IS logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
