The Philosopher's Gazebo

[Zargerth]

--

To broach yet another subject, where do we stand on the question of governance? What is your opinion of the way the world is being run, without particular reference to any one country, and where do you see it going? Do you believe any of us can have an impact? What do you wish to do or not to do with that regard?

I cut some of your comment in this quote, as I am referring to this part only.

I'm no expert of politics, my knowledge of it is rather limited. Still, here's my two cents on this question:

The Greek philosophers said that "democracy is the best option out of bad options." I'd say this means that in democracy the pros outweigh the cons. Is democracy really the best system of government? Those who wish to get elected do everything in their power for that to happen, even give false promises or outright lie.

Is a system of government even needed? Is dictatorship doomed to fail? Many of history's notorious people are dictators, but is it possible for a dictator to remain reasonable?

I prefer not to make predictions of future, like I said my knowledge of politics is (ironically) not that good. What I can say is that I have somewhat conflicting/mixed feelings: on the other hand, I'm starting to lose faith in democracy. Then again, I don't have it worse; I don't know what's it like to live in, say, North Korea. I don't know what a better system of government - in the long run, that is - would be like either.

[Spineblade]

Ah, I'm happy that when I awaken in the morning I am greeted by birdsong and complex discussions on this page. Beats Sudoku and the less cryptic crosswords anyway.

While we're on the topic, I'll throw in another question: there's increasing possibility of us colonizing Mars. Tesla's chappie, Elon Musk, even went so far as to suggest dropping a nuke or two over Mars' poles to 'stabilize' temperature and induce climate change. What's your view on the thing, as a concept, as a possibility and from a moral angle or whether or not to actually do it?

We still have a ways to go before we can start thinking about colonising another planet on a large scale. Nevertheless, unless there is some terrible catastrophe here on Earth that will knock us back a couple of notches on the Civilisation scale, I feel it likely that it will happen eventually.

The good thing about colonising Mars is that, unlike some of our own continents, there isn't the moral issue of invading someone's homeland (as far as the consensus goes anyway, assuming there is no life or no significant life on Mars). As a (presumably) uninhabited planet, Mars doesn't really belong to anybody, so possession isn't an issue. Some people would doubtless have their concerns about tainting a celestial body that has been (mostly) untouched by human influence for billions of years; they might consider our spread be the start of the human pests' invasion of the galaxy, or whatever. Or maybe they just don't want to see us potentially ruin the natural beauty of another celestial body.

If you look it from a scientific angle, it currently seems to be little more than relatively insignificant lump of rock with a pretty tall mountain and a nice red colour. Beneath the surface, it could be a valuable resource, so why not go there and make use of it? It wouldn't hurt anyone. No ecosystem to preserve, not much of an environment to look after. Heck, in a few hundred years we might have the terraforming technology to make it significant. As for the question of dropping nukes on Mars? Well, maybe double and triple check that we're not messing with any microbial life first.

[Ironbound]

That's fair, to be frank I think we should be focusing on -not- messing up our own home instead of seeking for new places to colonize. Until the fundamental nature of human beings changes, and until we stop exploiting the earth and start behaving responsibly, we are only going to invade and pollute any place we seek out.

Stepping back from the theoretical and moral angle, we must all be aware of the project initiated to take volunteers on a one-way trip to Mars, in a bid to start a colony there. I think this will come to pass soon, maybe within our lifetimes, and perhaps even sooner. The theory, of course, is to create biomes there, like giant fishbowls that sustain a controlled atmosphere and plant life for humans to depends on. The idea of dropping nukes on the poles is supposedly to create a 'mini sun' over each pole's atmosphere (since the Sun, as Musk points out, is just one big nuke) which can melt any frozen CO² and create an atmosphere of the greenhouse gas, which can trap heat and induce water vapour from the ice caps on the poles, thereby causing a stable climate change that can potentially result in liquid surface water.

As eccentric as that idea may be, I cannot blame people for wanting to go to Mars. Some may do it out of a quest for adventure, some out of scientific curiosity, and some simply because they are fed up of how humanity has botched up earth.

[Spineblade]

If I remember correctly, the problem with just 'making an atmosphere' for Mars is that it would be unstable; Mars has a much weaker magnetic field than that of Earth, meaning solar winds can much more easily displace gas particles at the top of the atmosphere, since there isn't really anything protecting them. For this reason, even if we made an artificial atmosphere there, it would deteriorate very quickly, so it would require constant replenishment (a massive drain on resources) or some kind of technology to create an artificial magnetic field (currently technologically unforeseeable on a planet-wide scale).

So basically, our current technological abilities mean that biomes would be a must for large-scale survival there.

Although I personally agree with your point that we should prioritise the maintenance of Earth over the colonisation of other planets, I doubt that we as a species will be able to resist the idea of the exploration of other worlds. Exploration and curiosity are in part what lead us to becoming the dominant species on Earth, and I don't think it will stop there if we have the means to do so.

[Ironbound]

Quite fair, indeed.

A new morn and yet another tangent. As I look upon my desk and behold all the textbooks and sheets that have to be read, I will ask the question: what is resolution?

How do we stay determined and stick to a decision? What makes us do work? What keeps us resolute?

Is it a force? Is it a state of mind? Is it a physical sense? Or is it knowledge?

In any case, we can't just all have three goats teach us how to use a Secret Sword in order to become resolute. So, this is both an objective and subjective question. I'd like to hear your thoughts before I express my own view.

[Chase]

Objectively, my resolution comes from the fact that human life itself is worth defending from all threats - even if that threat is one's own decision-making. The lone exception being if one life threatens many others.

I say this because in my experience, when one passes it wasn't just the one person that was taken away from me - but the part of me that attached myself to that person. Family, Friend, Acquaintance, and even Foe hold a bond of at least some degree of strength with me. While I understand that life is fleeting, there are many facets of life lost where it feels like that part of me was stolen.

In other words, keeping those around me with me is enough fuel for my resolution. If I were to sit idly by and let a piece of me be destroyed, it would genuinely cause me great anguish.

I guess if you want to take it to the ethical standards of topics such as assisted suicide - I oppose such notions because of my point. You're taking the part of me that is attached to you with you.

Selfish? Possibly - but if there's a chance someone in a constant vegetative state or a coma can be brought back among the living, I'm one that will fight tooth and nail, from defense to encouragement to keeping the plug in the wall.

- to the death, depending on who it is.

---

Unobjectively though - is the degree. I wish I could say that I would die for my enemies as equally as I would those I love. That's not rational or possible because there's more of a strength and dependence on those who I've opened up to.

Loyalty isn't cheap with me, and it's one that if I do give it to you, I tend to make good on it whether wanted or otherwise. There's more hesitation with those that oppose me in comparison.

[TimTim]

Some may do it out of a quest for adventure, some out of scientific curiosity, and some simply because they are fed up of how humanity has botched up earth.

Humanity is humanity, it is still gonna botch up Mars or wherever human race has ever come into contact with, the latter bunch would probably be disappointed for what they are expecting, look just how we treated supposed outsiders like we did in movies, we demonized and fought aliens on the presumption that aliens automatically are hostile in nature. Assuming peaceful or diplomatic alien sentient species is actually out there, they wouldnt even want to visit Earth seeing how vile human nature is. Humans are intrinsically xenophobic, just look at our track record of history. I probably have gone off trail from the topic but eh just how much i loathe mankind...

P.S. I like this thread btw, good job with the thread Viri

[Ironbound]

What you say reminds me of this:

In that what you say is perfectly just, Hushie. Also, thanks for the appreciation!

[Halloween]

I'm down for castrating donald trump supporters, but what real, rational explanation would you give for trampling on people's rights to believe and/or choose whatever they wish?

What does it take to be considered criminal, insane, etc? Actions and beliefs are two separate things. Justification is a tricky business.

If it wasn't, racism would either not be a thing anymore or it would be THE thing.

Even if you trust yourself to make the right decisions if given ultimate power, how would your successor be chosen and theirs after that in such a way that the answer is clear? Would you simply appoint someone and trust their judgement and continually trust whoever they chose beyond them? Or do you leave specific qualifications behind you. Does that make you a tyrant or a person who strictly listens to the people you govern? Because doesn't the consideratopm of others make you fit to the rule the masses? And what about those times when you feel the masses are being incredibly stupid, such as liking and accepting music by Justin Bieber? seriously, wtf, the dude is a douchebag. But SAO is perfect in every way, you peons.

because listening to the masses makes you a democratic/republic leader, even if it is stupid, and forcing beliefs on others, despite the masses, makes you an inconsiderate a-hole dictator with no thought for the happiness and well-being of the masses. because what they want is always well thought out and in their best interests.

kappa

These people have the freedom to listen to and believe what they want to, and act upon this as they choose, barring certain basic rules against killing for no reason, monopolies, etc.

To preserve freedom for yourself, you must preserve it for it for others too, whether you agree with it or not. How often has the masses been correct about a thing? How often have they not?

Again, I say unto you whippersnappers... you don't truly understand what it means to have freedom, to preserve it, or to disregard it. Few of you have ever thought... what if you were wrong, and what it would take for the body of people you are ruling, to make you see you are wrong.

How do you define the balance. To yourself and to others?

Power. Responsibility. Ethics. It is all incredibly complicated.

YES, I agree with this!! (and i don't actually wanna castrate trump supporters... just some maybe) I actually talked about it in the original thread, and since I wanna dig into space science, I'm just gonna copy some of what I said there to save some time:

I'm of the opinion that everyone must be able to share their opinions with no legal consequence, because individuals should not have the right to judge what's right and wrong. Then it's up humanity as a group to make sure they don't spread – a great example are the nazi demonstrations in suburban western Europe – they should have the right to have their demonstrations, but I almost see it as a duty to be there and make sure the bullshit they spew don't get heard.

But it's interesting you bring it up! I've been thinking about it myself lately, some kind of introspective self-interrogation – can one really support their views without fully understanding the other side? For example, I'm raised social democrat, with leanings towards marxism; I know the first page or so of the communist manifesto at heart, and my father explicitly told me I'd get to sleep in the shed if my political leanings were to change, so the furthest I've ever drifted was to read some communist papers before swaggering back into Eduard Bernstein's warm, manly embrace. Of course I've followed what some capitalistic leaders have been saying, and disagreed, but I haven't actually gotten into how it would work, because on a fundamental level, I disagree with it. Class gaps is the devil, free speech is the future etc etc.

So the question is, does my strong belief in socialism diminish in value because I haven't also studied Ayn Rand?

So yah, our entire society is built upon smart folks fighting for what is right – the suffragettes, black panthers – and prosecuting someone from doing that is worse than internet monitoring, it's worse than NSA spying on us – once that happens, it'd be a literal dystopian society. Welcome to 1984 losers, all hail the king.

While we're on the topic, I'll throw in another question: there's increasing possibility of us colonizing Mars. Tesla's chappie, Elon Musk, even went so far as to suggest dropping a nuke or two over Mars' poles to 'stabilize' temperature and induce climate change. What's your view on the thing, as a concept, as a possibility and from a moral angle or whether or not to actually do it?

Anytime the suggested solution is "nuke it", I recoil a little.

I'm pro colonizing Mars, but putting a nuke somewhere that no humans have ever set foot is crazy; we are already killing our own planet, is this really the angle we should start with on Mars?

There is definitely things we could do on earth to drastically improve our chances at survival – eat way less meat, change our means of transport and energy, etc – but I feel like a fundamental lack of understanding, forward thinking and respect is preventing this from happening. We aren't acknowledging that a limited amount of natural resources that we don't fully comprehend are allowing us to live the way we do.

If we nuke Mars, we will, inevitably, destroy a shitload of natural resources there is there. We will also destroy the atmosphere that has allowed the current environment on March. And sure, you can say that "it's just rock anyway", but there are traces of water already there. Humanity has already taught itself how to make sunlight into energy, harvest winds, make artificial intelligence and predict earthquakes. We have no need to make Mars livable next year. Given a little more time, surely we can solve this without blowing it up?

Not to talk about, we don't know if there's anything buried under the surface on Mars that won't doom us all.

As for resolution.

Motivation is overrated. Probably even more so than intelligence, haha. Self-discipline is where it's at, motivation to discipline is like drunken one-night stands to a happy relationship. It's a to some small part inherited, but largely just trained trait what will make everything better, seriously, there should be late-night commercials for this shit. I'd define it as a mindset. It's also one of those beautiful things grows as you nurture it with realistic short-time goals that you work towards, pre-set consecutive rewards and a healthy lifestyle. (Do I sound like I do yoga and eat chia pudding yet?)

"Have a vision of life that inspires you, then try every day to grow closer to the fulfillment of that vision."

- Deepak Chopra

Chase, you and I disagree on pretty much every political issue imaginable. I have respect for you because at least you take politics seriously, and you're very coherent in your arguments, but one day we should have an epic irresistible force paradox showdown.

Hey Viri, just out of curiosity, are you familiar with chacha Nehru?

I'd also like to introduce yet another topic. 1945, Walt Disney made a collaboration with Salvador Dalí, that, of course, turned out pretty tits. You can watch it here, or under the spoiler cut below. It's six minutes long. What do you think it's about?

Edited May 17, 2016 by Halloween

[Ironbound]

Yes, I am familiar with Jawaharlal Nehru. I am highly familiar with every aspect of Indian political history, making something of a specialized study outof it. And you ask me where my cynicism comes from.

Why bring up Nehru? That man is responsible, among other things, for nearly seventy years of corruption, a political quagmire, absolute riving of the community spectrum and for being the start of nearly five decades of nepotistic, strangling, crippling 'government'. You can say that I have little respect for Nehru as both leader and person, however high his supposed morality -and naivety- may have been.

[Halloween]

To ruin a perfectly good thread, that's why.

No, but I feel like I've heard him being brought up a lot lately, now that the world is finally starting to see the good in social democracy (yay). Nehru is, like the Marxism's Che Guevara, someone you can kind of get unwarranted cookie points for. There's fairly few countries that have been "successfully" ruled by social democrats outside of Scandinavia and Germany, Nehru and his daughter being two of them, both ruling for a fairly long period of time, while maintaining a strong bias against the cast hierarchy and supposedly still cultivating some kind of "cheche" image among the Indian population.

But it doesn't take a whole lot of digging to see that he might, in fact, be a tard overrated in terms of his political success, especially if you compare to Japan or China during the same time period (and that even considering he pretty much tried to rip off China's agriculture politics). So I was curious about what you thought of him, especially since my knowledge is limited to political decisions, while remaining ignorant about his actual cultural impact.

[Ironbound]

He was a goddamn plague and it's an open secret that he was a philanderer to boot. Someone ought to tell you about Edwina Mountbatten someday, and when I have more energy, I should rant about the horror of India's political history since our independence from the brutish-- I mean, the British.

Indira Gandhi was the only good one out of the line, and able as well. Notice that she was conveniently removed, as were both her sons, and an Italian became the string-puller for decades, entrenching us with the worst kind of corruption . These people sell the country for their own gain.

Don't believe what the history books tell you about other nations' political backstory and the character of its 'leaders'. If you want a True Hero™, please direct your attention to Subhash Chandra Bose. There was the best son of India, in my frank opinion.

Anyhow, this is not primarily a place to discuss politics. I would have started that, but I don't want to be frustrated every day by reminders of my country's plight even here, the one place where I can find temporary comfort in talking of Magnezones and other assorted diversions.

[Halloween]

Mhm, you said that before, but then you asked what we thought of governance and how the world is being run, so I thought this thread was fair game. Anyway, I apologize for bringing it up again. Wikipedia says Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose: The Forgotten Hero has a great soundtrack, so I'll see if I can find it subtitled.

[Ironbound]

If you're actually interested, there are a great deal of unsung heroes in Indian history and politics. Enough blathering about Nehru and Gandhi has been done by bigits and charlatans; neither are really that great of a human character, not even the much-vaunted Gandhi. I suggest you read, read and read more to understand the true position of India...if you are that interested. I don't blame you if you aren't. Most of my own peers and countrymen aren't either.

Anyways, to remark on something I noted earlier...what do you think is the reason behind resolution? I have asked this afore, and only Hunter responded. This is a topic that I want to talk more about, so I ask it again, in the hopes that more voices are heard before I state my own notions.

[Samalet]

The Mars conversation was a few days back, but I just want to stress something: We can NEVER EVER fuck Earth up so much that colonising and living on Mars would be the better option. Even if we turned our atmosphere into pure poison Earth would still be easier to live on with its comfy 1.013 hPa atmosphere and an actually existent magnetic field. Mars "atmosphere" is pretty much a vacuum, which makes building enclosed biospheres much harder, you get fried by cosmic rays and it's freezing cold most of the time. Until we can find and get to an earth-like planet there won't be viable space colonies, if we consider that humanity might not ever make it beyond our solar system because of purely physical constraints alone, having a sustainable population outside of our home planets atmosphere is pretty much a pipe dream.

[Halloween]

But... I did answer.

As for resolution.

Motivation is overrated. Probably even more so than intelligence, haha. Self-discipline is where it's at, motivation to discipline is like drunken one-night stands to a happy relationship. It's a to some small part inherited, but largely just trained trait what will make everything better, seriously, there should be late-night commercials for this shit. I'd define it as a mindset. It's also one of those beautiful things grows as you nurture it with realistic short-time goals that you work towards, pre-set consecutive rewards and a healthy lifestyle. (Do I sound like I do yoga and eat chia pudding yet?)

"Have a vision of life that inspires you, then try every day to grow closer to the fulfillment of that vision."
- Deepak Chopra

but if you simply deemed that an unsatisfactory (because let's face it, it kind of was) answer, then:

I don't think there's a definite source of long-term resolution, just a list of things that make habit-making easier. Telling people your goal. Setting realistic short-time goals. Keeping track of your progress, and rewarding yourself for it, without inflicting punishment for failures. Like, at the bottom of it all, it's just a matter of making a habit and sticking to it; they say it two-three weeks of hard work to do this, but after those weeks it's easier to just roll on.

And then there's callings. Things you just have to do. I don't have a logical explanation for them, but I get them a lot, haha. I think there just are things that resound with our subconscious, and that different people are drawn to different things; some people have things they just have to buy, study or explore.

edit: I've made so many post edits in this thread now that my contributions are merely a frayed shadow of what they used to be... But yes, I'm interested in Indian history & governance! I watched 15 min that Bose documentary already, before I came to the conclusion that, hm, I might need subtitles for this. Now downloading a version that has them.

Not to dismiss your urge to read, normally that'd be my first course of action, but seeing as I've never been to India it's easier to get the feeling of the of the situation through visual media.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Halloween

[Zargerth]

If I may, I'd like to suggest a topic. What's your stance on god/God/gods? It's worth noting that I don't mean religious points of view, but rather, the concept/idea of god/God. Religion could be used as a background for inspection, I don't mean to cause debate over whose religion is "correct".

To clarify: does god exist? If so, is it/he (usually referred as a he) sentient? Is god omnipotent, or just watching by the domino or snowball effect he caused? Is god benevolent, malicious or neither? What if god is not, in fact, a sentient being but rather, a cluster of (abstract) ideals or such, or some sort of ultimate force of nature?

If this topic is deemed too religious, then it most likely will be deleted. While I hope that doesn't happen, I understand if that happens.

[Ironbound]

I am glad to see the thread pick up again. I shouldn't be the only one who initiates things, after all.

And no, I don't think the topic is improper; discussions here can include anything and everything. Religion is not a taboo thing to discuss, but of course, one should stay respectful. I can always say I believe in Magnezone and you and I both believe that to be a ridiculous thing, but you still can't deny me for praising the Magnet Lord.

To answer you seriously, I do think what one calls God exists. To me, it makes more sense to believe that something came from somewhere rather than to say that it came from nowhere.

Indic mythology details 33 million vedic gods, from major ones like the Trimurtis to minor ones like one who represents doors and one who represents pillars and flooring (not joking.) The idea, of course, is explained by Hindu philosophy (which is very different from our mythology, do keep that in mind) as God being of various forms but fundamentally a single concept.

God in Hinduism (or properly speaking, the Sanathana Dharma, the word 'Hinduism' being another clear-as-mud Anglicisation) is fundamentally viewed as nothing but pure Energy. Shakti is the name given, and it means not just energy as we know, but a conscious, sentient, omnipresent force that exists in everything and everyone. Shakti is what created the universes and all within, Shakti is what runs the world and permeates it, Shakti is what birthed all the gods' avatars and Shakti is what is revered and worshipped in temples, not a stone idol itself. The idol itself is an embodiment of that particular deity, one of the forms of the divine Energy, and is merely our mortal beings' attempt to give an understandable form to Energy, a device through which we describe its infinite powers and forms. Shakti being a sentient energy is regarded by a female pronoun, being the Mother of everything.

Everything in the world was thus energy. Before matter, before whatever science is now proving, what has already been deduced in our philosophy, energy is the purest and most fundamental state of existence, which always was and always is as God. (Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, etc etc) therefore the purpose of all life is to take form in diverse forms of this energy, converting from one to the other, and aim towards the ultimate reunion with the fundamental Shakti.

The philosophy of Karma (meaning loosely in English 'action', 'fate' or 'consequence') explains the cycle of the continued birth and death, that is, passage of a soul in this physical dimension and lifetime from one cycle to the next, until it can eventually unite with God and become part of pure Energy. That, then, is the goal of every soul or Atma: to unite again with the Paramatma or Ultimate Soul, meaning, Shakti, or God. This is done via being true to one's Dharma, which again English cannot find a true word to describe, but which can be incompletely referred to as 'duty', 'nature', 'tradition', etc. So in short, a being which is truest to its nature and lives its life in such self-mastery and self-truth will minimise the number of cycles it has to pass through before it is pure or true enough to rejoin with Shakti. This is a matter of conscience or instinct or what have you; a tiger which kills and sires offspring and lives to adulthood is true to its nature and does its duty; likewise, a banker who is diligent, conscientious, intelligent and of impeccable honesty, and a warrior who is dutiful and fearless and unhesitatant to obey his leige are both also true to their natures and can die happy. Ultimately, doing ones duty makes one happy or content in the long run, and by achieving this kind of contentment one is a step closer towards enlightenment and bliss, which is supposed to be the last stage prior to the last death, after which the soul is once again pure energy. Life then, is happiness, and true happiness is in duty. Doing things averse to one's duty only prolongs the cycle of life and death, so the soul simply has to try again. There is no Heaven or Hell of simplified reward and punishment in Hindu philosophy.

God, therefore, is within us. The schools of thought are three in Hinduism: Advaita (meaning 'undivided'), which states that the divine and the mortal are one and the same, and that 'God is me, I have the energy in me.'; Dvaita (meaning 'split in two' or 'dual'), which states that the divine and the mortal are two fundamentally separate things, and Visishtadhvaita (meaning 'severally divided') which believes that there is a divine aspect in various means in mortals.

I am of the Dvaita school of thought, in that the divine and the mortal are different. How can the mortal soul, being so incomplete and argued by vices, ever be the same as the purity of Shakti which is worshipped? Logically unpalatable to me. Sure, God is within me, but God is not me. That's a huge difference. There is purity and divinity in everyone, and everyone can have the divine as a part of them, but one cannot BE the divine itself. We can seek to join Shakti eventually, but we can never become Shakti itself.

Aaaand that's it. Make of it what you will, but that is my explanation of why I exist, and I am pleased with it. God, when defined as Energy, cannot be said to not exist, for energy is there and everywhere, and energy is alive, and we are alive because of energy.

[Tartar]

That's some really interesting thoughts, or rather, an interesting school of thought you subscribe to, Viridescent.

But at the same time I think that it's rather far away from reality, and everyday life, as those thoughts are mostly concerned with the divine. You describe that being diligent in ones actions and living a virtuous and honest life leads to a "unification with god" which results in satisfaction because it brings us closer to our divine nature. But can't living a virtuous life be a reward in and of itself because we decide for it to be the way of life we want to lead? I'm not saying that your way of think is wrong, I'm just implying that a god isn't really a necessary part to live one's life as you describe.

God, my origin, the nature of the divine etc. relates in no way to how I live my daily life, and therefore I've decided that thinking about these questions is pointless, and that I should just try to live my life to the best of my abilities. I do not reject the idea that a god may exist, but at the same the existence of such a figure wouldn't change how I live my life in the slightest. Therefore I live my life in accordance to the morals and principles that I've decided for myself, and just try to live as true to these beliefs as I can.

Perhaps a god exists, perhaps not. In either case I'll just continue living my life apathetic to the existence of a deity.

[Ironbound]

"Quest not for the fruit of reward, worry not for the result of labour; do thine duty and do it efficiently for its own sake."

- Krishna to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3, Karma-yoga (the discipline of action)

I agree inasmuch that to talk of the divine is beyond daily needs. As long as you ascribe to the philosophy of abiding by one's Dharma, it matters not whether you investigate into the concept or whether or not you wish to acknowledge a divinity (after all, by universal definition, God, whatever it may be, doesn't need an ant to believe in it to exist if it is truly God!)

Indeed, it can be argued that to talk of these matters is beyond man's ken, and thus the Buddha's theory of agnosticism; it is not man's place to question or debate the existence of greater beings; it is sufficient for us to be good for good's own sake.

"Service to mankind is service to God."

- Vivekananda.

[Halloween]

Religion and me is like one of those friends you look back on with a lump of nostalgia lodged behind your suprasternal space and you think "we could have been dating, but it just didn't happen." i was close with a priest when i was young – not in the way priests has gotten a reputation of being close to younglings. this priest is female, soft-spoken, drives a harley davidson and moved in with a guy she's not married to less than a year after she buried his ex-wife – for a while, i lived with what roughly scrapes the parameters on the definition of a 'cult', and i've read the bible more closely than i sometimes suspect actually religious people has.

And i do believe there's bigger fish out there; forces of nature and physics, too enormous for the mortal mind to wrap around. Energies, perhaps even souls. But the idea that those things are sentient seems to me like a terrible invasion of privacy rather than a comfort. The universe is so vast and paramount to compared our existence, and the time we live is so exceedingly short – even if a sentient life-force existed, why would it care if i passed a beggar 2 bucks? I think that on the big whole, humanity itself is insignificant, piss in the ocean, i just can't imagine there's a divine being wasting it's time on us. And if it does, first of all, ew, secondly, welp, i'm screwed.

Which sounds like a pessimistic approach, but i think there's a peace in knowing that in the long run, there isn't anything my life is set out to accomplish, so I'm free to do whatever I like with it, within the boundaries of the society i grew up in.

There are, however, things that i remain agonistic about; the aforementioned soul being one of these things. There are stories about re-birth that have a scientific value; many enough for them to count. Of course, i cannot ignore that they push a certain narrative because they have motive to do so; a discordant number of the stories seem to occur in countries that at large support rebirth as a theory, or have emotional reasons for it – dead husbands reborn into their kids, dead sibling re-manifesting in newborn ones – but alongside ghosts and the stories not following the common patterns – i'm not excluding it from the realms of possibility. But it's not up there with "water is blue because it reflects the sky" either.

So as the sun sets and the birds travel north and all that – i'm not religious because it doesn't tickle my scientific outlook enough. And the state of religion, especially Christianity, for all it has become today, saddens me – instead of evolving as a moral code, with all those actually significant stories about virtue and respect, it's a segregation. I think we could still have a benefit to religion if humanity at large just acknowledged it for what it is, as i've seen members of this community do, instead of pushing an agenda with it. I don't think religion at large has outlived it's overall purpose just because the early guesswork has received logical explanations; I think that at the bottom, it's a framework for living our lives with decency towards nature and other human beings, and the stories were just fables to begin with.

"Quest not for the fruit of reward, worry not for the result of labour; do thine duty and do it efficiently for its own sake."

- Krishna to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3, Karma-yoga (the discipline of action)

as such. im sorry for using your quote out of context, but it's a good one.

All that being said, Viridescent, you are what they call an old soul, no?

[Ironbound]

"The Sun has entire planets in his care, who depend on him and follow him, and yet he knows how to ripen a bunch of grapes as if he had nothing else to do in the universe."

- Galileo Galilei

By definition, a God is omnipotent and omnipresent, whatever be the concept that we mortals can hope to conceive of it. By definition, a God does things beyond mortal comprehension or capacity. God is here and everywhere, in the past and the future, and permeates everything, be it ever so trivial as an individual ant's needs. My conception of God as divine Shakti, that is, Energy, substantiates this. The same energy which drives a nebula also fuels a microbe as it slimes its way across a petri dish. And it can do both things simultaneously, just as it does everywhere and everywhen.

Now would also be a good time to draw the distinction between religion and spirituality: between dogma and philosophy, between Heaven and Earth.

And, Halloween, if I could say how old my soul was in that context, I should already be enlightened! And I am a far cry from that, when even the Buddha had to be born in and die as several bodhisattvas before being Buddha.

[Kamina]

i found this and i thought it would be appropriate here.

http://imgur.com/a/4hYfa

what would you guys do in the trolley problem? I am not certain myself.

[Fitch]

i found this and i thought it would be appropriate here.

http://imgur.com/a/4hYfa

what would you guys do in the trolley problem? I am not certain myself.

To quote Harrison Ford, "I'd kill myself."

To suggest a topic, has anyone delved into the wonderful world of nihilism? I am intrigued by the philosophy so much, and yet it feels defeated somehow.

If you've never heard of it, it is a philosophy that basically states that no one exists, life is pointless, and all the experiences in our universe contributes to nothing. I've known a few people with this philosophy, yet they are happy with their lives because knowing that we live for nothing made them feel as if they have everything to live for.

I'd like to hear what you think about the subject.

[Ironbound]

"It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things."

- Leonardo da Vinci

If you have read my previous post on what I construe as the God in this world, which also explains my philosophy of living, you will know that I condemn nihilism.

To think that everything is pointless, to think that one can do whatever and have no consequence "in the long run", to be an utter douche knowing, or rather believing, that regardless what one does, it "doesn't matter"...these are not wonderful. These are condemnable ways to lead a life: one without a goal, one without responsibility, one without love. I would not imagine leading such a life, drifting in my own morass of emptiness with nothing to await but an eventual death.

Is not life beautiful enough to live and care for something? Is not the fleeting moment we spend crucial? Can an ant claim that it being insignificant absolves it of the need to work to better its life and colony? What then, are you even alive for? "Nothing" is a very terrible answer, and I pity those who say that. They will surely indeed contribute "nothing" to their world, should they believe all endeavours to be futile.

I will say this: we are alone and insignificant, yes, but we have our own worlds and responsibilities. We cannot compare with the greater picture and try to adjudge our life's meaning based on whether or not we have done anything to affect the movement of the universe; that is arrogance at its peak. No, we are ants, we have our ant-world and our and we had better enjoy it to the fullest.

I do encourage you to read my previous post or two. Perhaps you'll understand my point of view on life through that, instead of me having to repeat myself.

"Some people truly do not contribute anything save their own waste to the world they inhabit."

-Leonardo da Vinci, again.

As for the trolley issue, I'll get back to that when I have more time.