The Philosopher's Gazebo

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

I haven't been keeping up with this for a while (last time I checked in was the Mars colony talk) but I just thought of a question that I hope will be interesting.

If someone has a crime committed against them but they don't really care or it hardly effected them, should they still report it?

Let's say for example Person A breaks into Person B's house and steals a watch. Person B doesn't care, because they have plenty of other clocks in the house plus a phone for telling time. So on a personal level, this pretty much means nothing to person B other than maybe they should tighten their security before someone steals something that actually matters to them.

I'd say they should still report it because even though Person B didn't have anything they consider of value taken from them, Person C or so on might. It's not just about what happened to Person B, but what could happen to other people.

Edit: I probably could've used a better example because even without the stealing, knowing that someone broke into your home would freak most people out. But I think my question was clear enough to be understood.

[Ironbound]

Two words: Civic Duty. Everything in the world revolves around the concept of Dharma, of which duty is one aspect.

This brings us to a larger question: what is society? We can generally conclude that society is a collection of organisms, usually of one kind, which aggregate and coexist together for their common benefit. An ideal example would be an ant colony: there are various heterogeneous members with their individual responsibilities that are each part of a larger whole. Human society is vastly more complex than an ant society; for one, we aren't such altruistic communists, we have our individual goals, and E are so highly complex that the degree of our tolerance for, and consequently our contribution to, society, various from person to person and can even be a negative figure where criminals are concerned.

Society is very rarely anarchistic, and even then there are generally certain norms that are necessary to adhere to for society to be meaningful. One such law in most places is the law against stealing.

You understand what I'm driving at, then. Even if person B in your example does not care, or is not materially affected by, the theft in question, he is morally incorrect to ignore the aspect if he resides in a society where theft in unlawful. Merely making sure of his own security for the future is not enough; even were B not interested in the materiality of the recovery of the item stolen, he is morally obliged to play his appointed part in seeking the criminal's retribution, for the good of the society at large.

Of course, in a dystopia what the rulebook days one thing and the reality is another, one has no choice but to like it or lump it, but the theoretical, moral aspect in the same: a wrong is a wrong, whether you are affected by it or not, and as a citizen it is your duty to take action under normal circumstances.

This doesn't apply only to theft, of course. I think I know what you're referring to. If a person has had certain injustices committed against them, even were they not concerned or even if they do not care about such abuse levelled against them, it is STILL their duty as a member of society to correct a wrong, at least in my view.

[Fitch]

The word wonderful in this instance is used mainly in a sarcastic tone, Nihilism being a rather depressing reasoning.

I don't believe in Nihilism, nor that is a good way for someone to base their live. I just find it interesting to how people live in that certain lifestyle while others tend to live a different way. The very concept that they can live "without purpose" intrigues me.

I think that everyone has a purpose in their life, and that purpose can be found and filled by that individual.

While we are small and insignificant, as you have put it, we do have our places to fill in this world. Only a handful of individuals get to make a "big difference" as seen by the public eye, but we all contribute in our own ways to the endeavors of this world.

I simply enjoy learning the ways of other people.

"Everyone you will ever meet knows something that you don't."

-Bill Nye

[Ironbound]

Right. A tad neglected for a while, but let's address the trolley problem.

In my view, pure utilitarianism dictates that it is obligatory to steer to the track with one man on it, because such a decision would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all.)

An alternate viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, moving to another track constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise no one would be responsible (the question being, "Why should I dirty my hands by being complicit?") An opponent of action may also point to the incommensurability of human lives, since after all, how do we say that any one life is greater or lesser? We can't measure lives.

However, under my interpretations of moral obligation, simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. I cannot disclaim myself from 'dirtying my hands' if I am in such a position, for to not act would br to allow a tragedy to happen when a lesser tragedy could have been influenced by your deed to prevent a greater one. If this is the case, then deciding to do nothing would be considered an immoral act if one values five lives more than one!

If, however, there is prior knowledge about the parties on the tracks, there will obviously be a bias on the part of the decision-maker, and there we enter pure subjectives. For instance, in my case, if there were five people I know nothing about on the original track, and one pregnant woman, about whom also I know nothing, I would not act to divert the trolley onto the woman, because to me the life of the unborn child is the most sacred priority, and I would willingly accept the moral consequence of not acting to save five lives over two.

Let us examine the most popular corollary, the fat man problem.

As before, the trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.

Unlike the original case, this involves an active murder of an innocent who would otherwise be unharmed in the pursuit of what is in your view a potential greater good. Again, even when assuming we know nothing of the people in question, one clear distinction is that in the first case, one does not intend harm towards anyone – harming the one is a 'side effect' of switching the trolley away from the five. However, in the second case, harming the one is an integral part of the plan to save the five. Committing willful murder, in fact, for an objective.

I have a very bourgeois attitude towards murder: I disapprove of murder. No one has the right to kill a life through willful action (and that includes suicide also, by the way, but that's a discussion for later...) So, I will not accept the claim. This is explainable via what is called the Doctrine of Double Effect, a thought experiment which states that you may take action which has bad side effects, but deliberately intending harm (even for perceived good causes) is wrong. That way lies the arrogance of the dictator, to decide based on personal judgment who should live and who should die. Note that in this case, Pure Utilitarianism is not, at least to me, morally superior: morally or legally committing or allowing murder of an innocent person in order to save five people is insufficient justification.

Of course, it is very subjective, and if one has prior knowledge of the parties concerned, it may differ. In this case, if the fat man in question is known to be a villain who has done much evil to society, it may be morally justifiable to some to push him to his death to save others. Not to me, however. As I said, I disapprove of murder, be it off any person of any character for any reason whatsoever. Even were there five pregnant women on the track, I personally would not push the fat villain to save them. I do not murder, and it is NOT my place to decide who should live and who should die. This is not the same as being a doormat, and there are of course exceptions in case of self-defense or acting to right a wrong levelled against an interested party, but in this sterile situation, such an act would be condemnable in my eyes.

If you are more interested, I suggest reading, "The Limits of Morality", by Shelly Kagan, a professor of Ethics at Oxford. That work details moral dilemmas in extension, including this one.

Of course, this, like most philosophy, has an element of subjectivity, and I do not expect others to agree with me. As always, this discussion, as well as any fresh ones or any older ones even, are open to continuation. I await your opinions, readers.

[Zargerth]

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.

Would the presence of Shakti in everyone (and everything) mean that everyone's lives and every thing's purpose is pre-determined by Shakti? I mean, does Shakti somehow control people to seek Atma? Is it Shakti that makes trees grow from saplings? If we assume Shakti affects or even controls, the choices of animals and people, then in this sense a person would be the same as divinity. Could people be imperfect forms of Shakti? Wouldn't that make them at least part of Shakti?

I'm just speculating, but in this light the point of view of the divine and mortal being one and the same is not that far-fetched. Seeing as it's God who not only gives people their "shape", but also their "duty" and "purpose". One question is that if people are imperfect forms of Shakti, why would they be created imperfect by the "perfect", as in God?

I see similarities to Aristotle's philosophy: the "potential" in a person is tapped or realised when they aspire to become the best possible human being they can. In other words and simply put, do good deeds. The similarity is that in both philosophies people and animals alike pursue a greater purpose by doing their duty. This is what gives their life purpose.

I have to ask, out of curiosity, are there non-religious people in where you live? Religion has never been in a particularly important role in my life. Oh, and if I misinterpret teachings of Hinduism, I apologize.

Right. A tad neglected for a while, but let's address the trolley problem.

In my view, pure utilitarianism dictates that it is obligatory to steer to the track with one man on it, because such a decision would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all.)

An alternate viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, moving to another track constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise no one would be responsible (the question being, "Why should I dirty my hands by being complicit?") An opponent of action may also point to the incommensurability of human lives, since after all, how do we say that any one life is greater or lesser? We can't measure lives.

However, under my interpretations of moral obligation, simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. I cannot disclaim myself from 'dirtying my hands' if I am in such a position, for to not act would br to allow a tragedy to happen when a lesser tragedy could have been influenced by your deed to prevent a greater one. If this is the case, then deciding to do nothing would be considered an immoral act if one values five lives more than one!

If, however, there is prior knowledge about the parties on the tracks, there will obviously be a bias on the part of the decision-maker, and there we enter pure subjectives. For instance, in my case, if there were five people I know nothing about on the original track, and one pregnant woman, about whom also I know nothing, I would not act to divert the trolley onto the woman, because to me the life of the unborn child is the most sacred priority, and I would willingly accept the moral consequence of not acting to save five lives over two.

Let us examine the most popular corollary, the fat man problem.

As before, the trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.

Unlike the original case, this involves an active murder of an innocent who would otherwise be unharmed in the pursuit of what is in your view a potential greater good. Again, even when assuming we know nothing of the people in question, one clear distinction is that in the first case, one does not intend harm towards anyone – harming the one is a 'side effect' of switching the trolley away from the five. However, in the second case, harming the one is an integral part of the plan to save the five. Committing willful murder, in fact, for an objective.

I have a very bourgeois attitude towards murder: I disapprove of murder. No one has the right to kill a life through willful action (and that includes suicide also, by the way, but that's a discussion for later...) So, I will not accept the claim. This is explainable via what is called the Doctrine of Double Effect, a thought experiment which states that you may take action which has bad side effects, but deliberately intending harm (even for perceived good causes) is wrong. That way lies the arrogance of the dictator, to decide based on personal judgment who should live and who should die. Note that in this case, Pure Utilitarianism is not, at least to me, morally superior: morally or legally committing or allowing murder of an innocent person in order to save five people is insufficient justification.

Of course, it is very subjective, and if one has prior knowledge of the parties concerned, it may differ. In this case, if the fat man in question is known to be a villain who has done much evil to society, it may be morally justifiable to some to push him to his death to save others. Not to me, however. As I said, I disapprove of murder, be it off any person of any character for any reason whatsoever. Even were there five pregnant women on the track, I personally would not push the fat villain to save them. I do not murder, and it is NOT my place to decide who should live and who should die. This is not the same as being a doormat, and there are of course exceptions in case of self-defense or acting to right a wrong levelled against an interested party, but in this sterile situation, such an act would be condemnable in my eyes.

If you are more interested, I suggest reading, "The Limits of Morality", by Shelly Kagan, a professor of Ethics at Oxford. That work details moral dilemmas in extension, including this one.

Of course, this, like most philosophy, has an element of subjectivity, and I do not expect others to agree with me. As always, this discussion, as well as any fresh ones or any older ones even, are open to continuation. I await your opinions, readers.

I assume we have no prior knowledge of the people who are about to be spared or die in the trolley dilemma. If we had (or assumed we have), it would, in my opinion, diminish the value of the dilemma, especially if we adopt black and white point of views of some people being bad or villainous while others are good.

Does this "side effect" free you from, strictly speaking, committing murder? Technically speaking, your actions still lead to the death of one person, and lack of action to the death of five people. In this case, you are aware of the fact that there's one person tied to the railroad, and that switching the trolley away from the five others results in the death of this one person. It's a matter of interpretation if the intention here is simply to just save the other people or to save the five others while sacrificing the one person.

What is the definition of "deliberately intending harm for perceived good causes"? Let's say I have stepped on glass, and shards of it are stuck on my feet. The act of removing them is a good cause, but doing so might (and let's assume it does) cause me pain. Is this pain "side effect" of the act of removing the shards of glass, or is the infliction of pain integral to this act? As long as causing (temporary) pain can be seen integral to an act of greater good, then one deliberately causes pain for (perceived) good causes.

[Ironbound]

I'll answer the first part of your post first. No, you haven't said anything offensive, so don't worry.

Shakti is sentient, yes, and all-pervasive, but it remains an energy that, at least with respect to the portion of it within us (the individual Atma), is nevertheless under the control of the individual consciousness. That's the realm of psychology, now, to decide what it is that makes villains and saints alike from the same mold of the innocent baby. It's not explained by the concept of Shakti, that is, there is no micromanaging Fate. There's just a general law, which lays certain 'paths' in front of the Atma, and it decides where to walk and at what pace and in what direction for what time, in the journey of each lifetime. Sticking to the 'truest' path, I.e, the one that is closest to the instinct or nature or Dharma, will minimize this. So goes the logic, and the extent of my ability to interpret it at this time and stage. I certainly don't think my actions are not my own, and that whatever I do is preordained by a string-puller entity. To put it simply, I will use a Spanish proverb:

"Take what you want", said God, "and pay for it."

The Atma is free, but the consequences of its actions are governed by the working of Shakti. It's more like a science: dissipate the energy and it takes longer to focus it back into the concentration necessary for its conversion into a purer form, and so ad infinitum until it is pure enough to rejoin Shakti. That's my interpretation, at the very least. To ask "why did this happen" will not elicit any answer from me. It happens because life happens, and because energy must keep changing and cannot be stagnant. Change, so to speak, is the only real constant in the working of Shakti.

The understanding of Shakti has been a question of Indic philosophy for time immemorial, and people far older and exponentially more knowledgeable that I have debated upon it for millennia. I am not possessed of greater comprehension of these matters at this point in time. Perhaps I myself can evolve my understanding with time and thought.

The point you make is indeed one of the ideas of Advaita, that the individual soul is the same as that of God, but in fragments and in imperfect form. That I cannot accept personally, for the reason I had told earlier: God is not impure or imperfect, and since we certainly are, we cannot be God Herself. We have the Shakti within us, but She herself can never be impure, rather it is our own minds which are. Which leads to the conclusion that our souls are different from, but ultimately become one with, Energy, in a cycle akin to the conversion of energy from one form to another, with each container or vessel offering a different amount of resistance and leading to different amounts of dissipation or wastage or impurity, until it eventually escapes as pure energy.

This is getting very long winded now, so let it suffice to say: I don't know.

Quite simply,I have not the knowledge to answer you, if you ask me the nature of Shakti. I have told you what I believe works, but anyone may have a different idea.

As for non-religious people in India, if that's what you mean, why, there are a great deal of atheists and agnostics, like in any of the other communities. There are also a huge number of people who have no faith or who have a blinkered one limited to lip-service, again like any other society. The level of spirituality in general is higher, though, owing the very culture of India, you can say, that has been alive for a very long time indeed. I owe my own spiritual connect to my upbringing and family, and of course that is probably unique.

I've rambled on too much. Make of it what you will. I'll answer the trolley bit later, if I can and if nobody else does in the meantime.

[Ironbound]

It's been a while and activity on this thread seems to be dipping. I'll accept its eventual Denise of no one has anything to talk about, but since I highly doubt that, I'll try keeping it alive.

A reminder to anyone and everyone that this is a thread where anything can be discussed, personal or worldwide, news or opinions, be it what it will. I'm hoping to see more talks initiated here.

So, to start off afresh, I'll open that old can of worms: what's your opinion on free will?

[Tartar]

It really depends on how you look at it.

I don't believe in anything like fate controlling individuals, but at the same time I know that life is just a hugely complex chemical system of interlocking cause and effect reactions. Therefore you could argue that free will isn't real, or cannot exist solely due to the fact that like any chemical reaction, the outcome can be predicted since it's bound by rules. So from a philosophical standpoint I deny determinism, but from a chemical standpoint I have to concede that free will cannot exist.

But in either case the existence of free will is kind of a pointless question. If free will exists, then we're discussing a hypothetical question, and in turn wasting our time since we in fact do have free will. But were determinism to be true and free will not, in that case our discussion would be already be predetermined and therefore once more useless. If anything its better to assume that free will exists and live life according to said principle rather than speculate on what might or might not be, since the knowledge of the existence of free will has no has no effect on an individual's life.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Tartar

[Alchemia Chan]

tfw when you have written a long essay and you accidentally close the tab while typing, So I'll just summarize

In my opinion, laws of uncertainty can be considered as one of the facets of free will which allows us to theorize multiple outcomes from certain situations. This alongside our highly developed human intellect allows us create deviations in outcomes in a chain of events. Such is a feat which is exhibited by sentient creatures

From what I comprehend, free will is the basis for reasoning which is what separates the conscious from our subconscious mind. Conflicts with emotion (subconscious) and reasoning (conscious) allowed us to question our existence and develop philosophy. When the two aspects of consciousness work together in harmony, creativity and imagination is born, which led humans to desire knowledge and wisdom. Our sentience allowed us to explore the subjects of art, science, and culture which becomes more complex as we develop more as beings.

I think that at some level, all creatures capable of thinking have free will. However, they are limited by their capacity to learn and interpret things, because of their underdeveloped brains. Thus, their instincts is the basis for their behaviors.

These are just my opinions. I am not that knowledgeable at the topics which I may have covered in my statements.

#[scree will

[Brave]

Okay so I'm starting a new topic because I'm impatient and it's taking me too long to read all the topics and replies here so let's a-go!

I was scrollin' through Tumblr earlier today, as one does, and I came across a post that disgusted me to my very core. It began...innocuously enough, if not a little abrasively, with the phrase "Liberalism is the modern face of evil". I'll include the link to the post later; you really have to read this for yourself to see how ridiculous it is. Aside from ridiculous, though, there was a distinctly conservative borderline fascist tone to the post that I just could not comprehend. Which brings me to my main point:

Conservatism.

WHY?

Briefly defined, "Conservatism [is] a political and social philosophy [that] promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.". It's easy to understand the reasoning behind such a philosophy but I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody thinks that this is a good idea. Imagine if the Roman Empire existed in the modern day as it was in its prime, completely unchanged from that point. How long do you think it would be before it imploded in a glorious spectacle of civil unrest and revolution? I don't think it would take more than a decade because in that time, the rest of the world would have advanced ten years in terms of science, technology, society, education, etc while the Romans would have remained exactly the same. To change at all would be to change the very idea of what it meant to be Roman and it would sure as fuck screw up the status quo. Powerful people don't like it when the status quo is disrupted so it's no surprise that most powerful people are also conservative. Conservatives think that so long as they keep to the same course they've been on since time immemorial, everything will be A-OK but that's objectively not true.

I'll use the US as an example because the state of US political discourse and activity is deplorable and it's actually a great model for this. Conservatives (at least social conservatives) in America hold in high regard, among other things, traditional family values and 'the sanctity of marriage' (whatever that is), traditional notions of sexuality and gender, and a balance of power that allows them to enforce their beliefs as the law of the land. It's when things change within a population with time that you begin to see the flaws in that stance. Conservatives are in an uproar that the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the United States; that people are arguing for more gun control in the wake of all these terrible mass shootings; conservatives hate that a woman is now able to choose whether or not she wants to carry a child, and that trans people are being given the same rights and liberties as them. All of these advances in society that you would view as positive are antithetical to the notion of conservatism. Years ago and still today, conservatives argued against the Civil Rights Act because giving black people basic civil liberties and treating them as equals was a massive change to the status quo that said discrimination and violence against us was totally acceptable. Conservatives argue for more war in an era where warfare is becoming less and less of a viable strategy on a global scale. I could go on but then this post becomes an analytical diatribe or a research paper and I ain't got time for that.

I submit the following: [American] Conservatism is the modern face of evil [in America!]. It stands against all forms of social progress and equality separating us from the rest of the developing would. It advocates we keep using fossil fuels and denies the definitive science behind global warming, vaccines, and evolution. It loves the idea of small government because then the government cannot make individual states fall in line with federal anti-discrimination mandates or any other policies meant to move us forward as a nation or protect the average person. Conservatism is, in effect, a desperate attempt to cling to the ways of a bygone era that have no place in a modern civilized society. It would have us backslide into the 1950s and stay there forever, because the (excuse the terminology) old white racist patriarchal mentality that fuels American conservatism had been the dominating ideology for centuries. Now that things are changing, they feel their power slipping. I feel as if conservatism in contemporary discourse is a philosophy reserved for closeted bigots and ignorant people who refuse to be educated, or to treat others with the respect they are due, or want to be able to say and do whatever they want without consequence or regard for who they hurt. Conservatism is about keeping power in the hands of the powerful majority and a refusal to adapt to a changing world.

Conservatism, contrary to popular opinion, is not the opposite of liberalism. It's the opposite of progress. I'm not saying that liberalism is everything and perfect and without its flaws because it isn't, but it's a damn sight better than refusing to change. It's an ultimately futile endeavor that hurts more than it helps. Two of the only certainties in the universe are

1) that change is the only constant; to resist is futile

and

2) those who fail to adapt to their environment are doomed to extinction.

You can only keep a group of people down for so long before they get sick of it and revolt. You can only keep doing the same damn thing for so long before it stops working. So my question is: why? What purpose does conservatism serve besides that which is detrimental and outdated?

EDIT: oh shit, I forgot the link. Sidenote: This is my personal tumblr; feel free to follow or not.

http://blueskygazer.tumblr.com/post/149011128186/perks-of-being-lebanese-pragula-glimmii#notes

Edited August 16, 2016 by Kurohada Raiga

[Ironbound]

"Moderation in everything, including in moderation"

That's an old watchword of my father and his family, and I've seen that that statement generally applies to most media.

Conserving certain traditions and cultural mores is certainly a good thing, in order to preserve a history or knowledge, or to inculcate a particular practice or attitude in successive generations. For instance, the tradition of offering food to the needy, of reading, or of performing yoga, or some such, are good to keep in particular cultures and stand to mark the civilisation.

The trouble of course begins when moderation fails and conservationiam evolves into hidebound-ness and rigidity, intolerance and stagnation, resistance to change. Cultural traditions no longer remain traditions but become mere rituals or habits, shackling society from expansion. History has shown that such restraints are often more evil than good, and that the new wave of revolution sweeps them away all the more.

Taking a different example, a society which is moderate and tolerant of external stimuli, and which keeps an open mind, is not only easier to adopt a new or improved way of life, but is also rather ironically better at retaining its own traditions for longer, as peaceful amalgamation does not call for a forceful revolution. I could here give the example of how the Indic civilisation has retained certain core cultural traditions over millennia, despite assaults from varied invaders such as the Greeks, Afghans, Mongols, and even the British and Portuguese (though that last is a matter for another time...)

To put simply, conservation of a tradition is good as long as it serves the purpose of preserving culture. That same culture, however, can never grow and evolve if the so-called conservatives are never open to genuine change, if the new mode is a betterment of the old. Sticking to an older way of life purely because it is old, and refusing to accept a new thing simply because it is not what was done eaelier, is no longer logical and descends into stubbornness and reactionary consequences as history has doubtless shown.

I am not very much aware of the term when applied in US polity, but in any regard, conservativeness and innovation must find a balance for any civilisation as a whole to progress in a healthy environment.

[Brave]

My earlier post might run counter to this but I do agree with the doctrine of moderation, and with the notion of preserving what makes your culture unique. You've perfectly summarized the ways in that conservatism can be a good thing that helps a culture persist throughout time; I'm just struggling with the concept of such stubborn refusal/animosity toward anything foreign or new. Logically, anyone can conclude that all that is old was once new, so an irrational hatred of new concepts can only serve to destroy someone from the inside out. They always lead to a violent revolution with the goal of overturning the current order and that, as you've also said, ironically destroys a culture more than anything else.

And yet, conservatism is alive and strong here. I understand preserving custom and tradition but American conservatives do not have a leg to stand on here. Custom and tradition are no justification for targeted discrimination or anything else I've cited. It's like with that whole Confederate flag debacle a while back; the people who wanted to keep it flying cited their desire to keep their culture alive as well as the memory of their ancestors. Their ancestors whose entire motivation and justification for the Civil War - which was basically treason against the US - was "fuck you, don't take our slaves". At that point, you're not trying to preserve a culture; you're just being a bigot and denying truth. The bad thing is there is a balance to be found here but they refuse to see it.

[Ironbound]

This thread needs a revival. I shall initiate a new topic, and more besides.

I should like to talk to you all about your conceptions and beliefs on life and living. What drives you? What do you think is life? What is your philosophy? And more importantly, what are your goals and how does your way of life help you reach there?

Feel free to expand and elaborate as much as you'd like. The more you say, the more I can understand.

[Chase]

Ready for a video from the controversial "Christian philosopher" in these parts?

Ready or not, here I come.

Using that above video - Life is either a gift in all forms - or an incredibly near-impossible mistake.

This seemingly designed facet of our universe has driven me to defend the lives of human beings in conjunction with my faith from conception to death. It motivates me because it's a buffer against depression knowing that my life is so improbably chance that there may be meaning attributed to it by someone or something other than myself from the very beginning.

The phrase "I live to serve" is almost vanilla by now - but it's so true. I'm loyal almost to a fault. I'm defiant in coming to defense of me, my friends, and my Master - whom I one day hope tells me "well done".

---

My philosophy?

Regardless of what I believe in, encourage others to THINK about what they believe in. While I would LOVE for everyone I met to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior - the reality of the situation is that I'm not called to make that decision for others - and that other "Christians" are going to say and do things that would counteract my efforts.

That doesn't mean I will stand off to the sideline while the atheistic or purely naturalistic schools of thought are represented. I will - as a theist - do philosophy justice and make you think about any and all options and nooks and crannies and absolutely challenge you.

If you ARE CERTAIN God does not exist. I won't let you off the hook. That's as definitive as me saying He does.

If you are unsure - then I will be there bouncing concepts and ideas with everyone else - in hopes of a fantastic discourse. It's just who I am.

[Ironbound]

Well said. For the most part, I may not myself be of the same mould, but understanding, as it if said, breeds empathy and friendship. Though my own ideas of what divinity is and what is the basis of life and living have already been told, to some extent, a little earlier; I find that the same summary can continue.

The fact still remains, and to be acknowledged, that divinity's existence and nature, like the Buddha's philosophy tells, is quite beyond the scope of men as they are, and so the counsel of Bushido's agnosticism boils down to a gentle rap on the knuckles and a homily on doing your duty and not asking questions about things over your head. Though this was palatable to the public at a time when the parent philosophy of Sanathana Dharma was forgotten amidst the throng of ritualistic rigours, and the public were disconnected from Hindu spirituality, which decay fostered the rise of simplistic condensation in the form of Buddhism and Jainism. They preserved the Dharmic philosophy, but did away with the knowledge of the Vedas, and as such remain wilfully silent on that regard.

The discussion, turning now towards mythology and historical relevance of philosophy, can be allowed to flow naturally that way. I am not yet approaching the advent of later faiths and their origins, such as Islam or Christianity, or indeed even of the Graeco-Roman pantheon, which marks the western indistinction between Mythology and Philosophy, and which made the mould, so to speak, of Judaism and Christianity seeking to impart knowledge through faith, and not faith through knowledge as is the case with Indic philosophy and lore.

To return to that aspect, the nature of the divine is beyond human knowledge, certainly, but not beyond human inference. As I come from the lineage of the Madhva school of Brahmanic thought, the idea of duality or Dvaita between the Soul and the Divine (atma and the Paramatma) is the acceptable one to me. Setting intricacies aside, the condensation of its logic is that the soul, which is never perfect, cannot be the same as the divine, regardless of how much it seeks to refine itself through Dharmic harmony, and regardless of how many cycles of rebirth it progresses through, until and unless it loses its own identity upon salvation and nerves with the Divine Energy. Think of it rather like the conversion of energy from one form to another, through different vessels or conductors, each with a variable 'resistance', for indeed God in Indic thought is represented by Shakti, a device energy, the mother of all matter and thought. All the 33 million deities, and all their lore and graven forms, in Indic mythology serve to manifest particular aspects of the one philosophy, in order to better enable the masses to understand divinity and draw inferences to a better Way of Life.

Life, according to my understanding of what I have read of the Upanishads and modernist scholars such as Vivekananda and even Gandhi (when he was yet in his lucid moments), is chielfy to be happy. Now, if you would say that 'living to serve' is vanilla, then 'live to be happy' is even more 100% genuine vanilla, and all the truer for that.

And yet, "moderation in all, even in moderation" is a truly wise notation. Happiness is subjective, and yet true happiness is only derived by adherence to our Dharma. It is unfortunate that in these enlightened times, man (and woman) seek happiness in mundanities, trivialities and even banalities, varying from limited to downright abusive sources, but the satisfaction of a 'job well done', as you also acknowledge, is the ultimate happiness. That engenders the age old question, "what, then, is our job?", which is where my interpretation steps in.

I am not a believer in Fate per se, in that I do not imagine that all actions are predefined and ordained. Nor do I think God to be any one overarching entity which micromanages our lives like a vast AI playing a universal video game. As stated above, God is energy, presentiment, omnipresent and omnipotent, a vast reservoir that is everywhere and everything. Defining that is utterly complex and yet inordinately simple, seeing as how simplicity is the ultimate efficiency, and God by definition being purest energy, is efficiency personified. To quote Einstein, "God does not play skittles with the world" (taken in a philosophical sense, not with regards to the bizarre world of himan understanding of quantum physics!)

God being energy means that She is present in every entity, including us. There is undeniably divinity in us, and that is manifest in our true, noble nature. As Vivekananda simplified it, "ye are all the Children of God, pure, sinless and happy in divine light". Analysing the context, we infer that humanity is a part of divinity, and vice-versa. Here the schools of Dvaita (dual), Advaita (undivided) and Visishtadhvaita (severally divided) philosophy differ in interpretation. I have already elaborated the distinction, so it will suffice to say that Advaita defines Man and God as indistinguishable, and to proclaim that man himself was divine. Reasons for Madhvacharya's dissent has been told already, and Visishtadhvaita sought a compromise with the logic of sentient existence being several, and not just dual or singular. My assertions stands with the Dvaita school; divinity may be in us and we may hear it and feel it as our conscience and morality, or instinct in lesser life forms, but to say "Godhood is in me" and to say that "God is me" is fundamentally different and in my view, proven arrogance.

So, since my personal belief is to live happy, and not in unproductive or nihilistic ways. True happiness is to be found by obeying our Dharmic conscience (or instinctive law, for an animal or plant), the soul evolves from lower to higher life, from one body to another, from higher resistance to lower resistance, until the objective of reunion, Moksha Sadhana, is attained. Explained therein is the motivation to do good, not as an absolute commandment, nor as an incentive for future reward or divine favour, as some would interpret, but merely because such is the natural behaviour of life; water does not flow in a cycle and convert from form to form because it is commanded to do so or because it is seeking a reward, but merely because that is what is natural truth, the Dharmic state of being of water. Of course, I speak to personify it as an allegory. Which is why there is no conceot of Hell or Heaven in Indic philosophy, merely an increase or decrease in the number of birth and rebirth cycles a soul has to undertake until it is sufficiently true to its nature to progress to a next level. Similar to an electron in various energy levels, perhaps, as the atom itself evolves.

There lies the interpretation of free will of the soul; akin to the choice of obeying or disobeying a law, and therein lies the pairing of Dharma, duty, with Karma, consequence. A soul which deviates from its Dharmic nature must suffer its Karmic consequences in the Eternal Cycle. The more intelligent the organism, i.e., the more evolved the soul, the greater the scope of it deviating from its nature. An ant, we can assume, has lesser scope of immorality than a human, and the smaller the rise it gets from adherence. Risk v Reward, in a crude sense, though again reward is not the way to think of such progression. The irony, which perhaps only humans who think about it can comprehend, is that doing a deed is not merely enough to be pure, but rather the motivation of the attempt.

Amd so there lies my Philosophy of life; doing such duty as circumstances place us in, and seeking not for reward but to enjoy the journey as we go along. Happiness is in loving and living, I say, not life or love in seeking happiness. I consider myself a spiritual person, not a religious one, though here I may also admit to knowledge and study of Indic mythology and indeed a study of religions itself. I believe that the sequence of human thought must progress from the physical, to the psychological, thence to the faiths of their choice and stature, and thence to spirituality, which in and of itself may be as varied as stars in the sky and yet all be the same in fundamentals. Who I am, is what I am, so to speak, and what I am is up to the one who interacts with me to understand for themselves. My underlying instinct is to desire to know more, and that, in part, is a primal motivator.

[Ironbound]

This thread shouldn't lie dead for too long, it grows funny if it gathers dust.

Let's talk something a little more personal; what would you all say is the value, of doing nothing? Have you ever done nothing, and what would you define as 'doing nothing'?

[HughJ]

I would say that outside of the occasional activity to refresh the mind, there isn't much value in doing absolutelty nothing. I'd define it as relaxing every muscle, lying still, breathing deeply, and clearing the mind.

Some might argue that we are still acting by breathing, and therefore not "doing nothing," but that's kind of absurd. Every time we speak we carry a certain amount of assumptions to our statements, and in the case of describing a person as "doing nothing" we are presumably excluding actions that would result in the person's death. Besides, if they were dead, they wouldn't be a person anymore, they'd be a corpse.

This realization - that we carry assumptions with every statement - really became clear to me when I weighed the value of the word "must" (or "have to"). Those words are valueless unless we assume circumstances and/or states of mind. I don't have to do anything unless I have some goal in mind. It's always "you must do X, if you want Y." The Y is just not always explictly stated.

Back to the subject matter, I have "done nothing" (at least as far as I would consider it) in the past, and realized I could slow my breathing greatly - I could breathe comfortably just once a minute, or even longer. If was very refreshing.

I suppose it's worth introducing to the discussion the idea of whether thinking falls within the range of doing.

[Ironbound]

Of course, it is true that certain minimal actions can't be done away with to preserve a living body, so the closest we can get to doing nothing would be physical inaction and omission of responses to external stimuli ad far as possible. That includes not focusing, nor listening, not observing and not speaking...and yes, not thinking.

Thinking is within the ambit of doing, since it involves effort and channels the mind to some activity. The object of meditation and doing nothing in general is to disperse that channel, and focus on nothing. The mind is made still, or as still as humanly possible.

It is said that the mind of the average human being is closest to that meditative state of perfection when it is in dreamless sleep. Those who perfect the art of meditation and yoga are able to enter a like state even when awake and conscious...or at least, that's how the theory goes. Despite my own practice for the better part of a decade, I've not succeeded entirely on entering that almost comatose state. However, it can't be denied that I've come very close to doing nothing in the most minimal sense, save breathe slowly and assume a neutral posture. With practice, my mind drifts off, and narrows its attention down into a single, miniscule aspect, usually watching one's breath subconsciously. That, at least for me, is the closest experience to doing nothing.

I theorise that it's impossible for the mind and body to do less than when it is perfectly asleep, and still be alive. So the most absolute state of calm and inaction would imply that; a meditative state when one is still aware of the world, and yet one isn't doing anything beyond minimal actions. The mind finds it difficult to stop thinking, so it instead is suitable to make it run as little as possible, by thinking of something repetitively rhythmic. The best example would be one's breath. The mind, initially conscious of watching itself as it breathes, slowly becomes lax as it becomes comfortable with the monotony of regular breath, and can soon relegate even that singular task to the subconscious while it itself 'forgets' that it is watching anything at all. That, I think, is the closest the human mind can come to conscious inactivity.

[HughJ]

Not sure where we go from here, in terms of subject matter

We seem more or less in agreement on meditative practices

Do you want to open up a new prompt?

[Ironbound]

Read the first post of this thread; it's laissez-faire round here. Anyone can start a new tangent, and it is not obligatory to answer or participate in an ongoing one. But yes, feel free to state, question, or reflect upon anything you might like, provided it abides by the admittedly very lax rules of this thread. Again, I'd point to the first post.

[HughJ]

I'll borrow this from an excerpt of Plato's The Republic: I found it a fascinating prompt and want to discuss it at length.

Would you rather be an unjust person at heart, and live in a society that condones or rewards your actions (recognizes them as "just"); or be a just person at heart, and live in a society that ridicules/punishes your inclinations and actions (recognizes them as "unjust")?

Socrates defined "justice" as "fulfilling one's appropriate role, and consequently giving to the city what is owed." This took place in the context of him constructing a theory revolving around cities though, so more broadly I think we can take "just" to mean upholding values such as a moral system, the furthering of knowledge (your own and society's), and other admirable pursuits. Unjustness would be abusing others, destroying knowledge, murdering, etc.

[Strider]

How does one even define someone as just or unjust at heart? I think that(most) people create their morals based on their upbringing, and that under differing circumstances, they would have a different moral compass.

As for my personal feelings, I would rather be a just person at heart, in an unjust society. Either you live in an unjust society as an unjust person or you live as a just person in an unjust society. In either case you are stuck in an unjust society, and I'd rather be a just person, to decrease the harm caused by the societies ideals.

[Ironbound]

The definition of what is just and unjust is subjective and as such impossible to debate with any conclusion. Generally, society as an aggregate of individual values leads to a statistical approximate of the beliefs and modes of the largest subset, and thus assumes upon itself a broad set of social tenets of 'justice'; this develops into culture, and in turn continues to evilve and mutate based on the necessary of change with time.

Broadly, the Dharmic concept of life applies here too, as it does almost everywhere. The idea is that a soul obeys its Dharma, its duty/tradition/instinct, as a natural urge. In lower life forms this urge is in the form of instinct, which is a strong driver of action, but in humans such instinct is a weaker driver than intelligence. Indeed, people have the strength of will to disobey instinct, and act accordingly. Dharma is individuality, and the basic tenets of living life are thus to identify one's duty or reason for living, live accordingly, and acceot the consequences that arise thereof.

Therefore to attempt an answer to that question, being just and unjust is something that is determined by the individual with context to society. On the one hand, whatever society seems the norm of behaviour can be considered just. On the other, the individual may dissent with particular aspects of societal tradition and develop his own idea of a better one, which he believes to be more just than the prevalent system. Doubtless he will earn ridicule and hatred, even, but that is how many changes are born in culture and society, changes that often turn out for the better as society and its moral systems undergo a revamp. Social change and the evolution of societal concepts of justness are both catalysed and poisoned by the ideas of the individual, provided he has the strength of will a d the opportunity to broadcast his views.

[HughJ]

I can comment on the unjust/just discussion another time, but for now, here's my response from The Wasteland regarding my belief system:

It's a mix of Rastafari, Judaism, and Quakerism (3 big influences in my life); and bits and pieces from everywhere else.

I believe people have souls that exist outside the parameters of this world, and operate chiefly through human bodies - although other vessels, after reaching a certain state of complexity, could also hold a soul; and likewise, human bodies that become extensively damaged can no longer hold one. I borrow from Rastafari and Jewish beliefs in my convictions about damaging the body in this way (Leviticus 21:5); I don't do drugs (poison), get tattoos (deformation), or otherwise change my body (e.g. get haircuts) as doing so could potentially damage my soul's contact with this world.

I don't think I can know if people truly have souls, because we cannot see beyond the bounds of this reality. We can even question this reality to the point of discrediting everything outside our mind. I'm developing in the way that I'm deciding what I'll believe: whether there is a collective consciousness, or a God, or similar higher power. I like the idea of God being the soul of the Earth, as Earth seems a complex enough vessel for a soul to act through (although there is no apparent consciousness, only predictable systems).

Now that I've spoken on humans and God, I'm not sure what awaits us after death. My belief that we have souls operating from another world would imply that souls survive after the death of the body - I don't know where they would go after, however. Perhaps the soul would face judgment before God (the soul of the Earth, the ultimate referee), and their overall positive or negative actions would be considered in any further action. I don't like the idea of Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell; their eternally unchanging nature unnerves me, although I have believed in them for a good part of my life. I prefer the idea of reincarnation, as I do feel that some people's souls seem older or younger than others in the way they become accustomed to the body and the world around them.

I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly, Hindu belief dictates that a person's actions in their life as a human determines their soul's placement in the next - positive actions lead to you being born into fortune, or living a life as a majestic animal, while negative actions could lead to you being born into squalor, or living life as a fly. I weigh this belief from time to time, as it is comforting to imagine your good actions being rewarded (and maybe even your bad actions being punished), but it also opens up some uncomfortable societal structure such as the caste system (where Untouchables were considered to have been born into servitude and squalor as a consequence of their past evils).

It may sound selfish or strange, but I am crafting my belief system under the pretense that we cannot know anything outside of our own minds. I want my belief structure to:
1. Comfort me as a just system, as I believe it is the individual's choice to decide what to believe and why - so why wouldn't they make it at least somewhat good for themselves?

2. Fit what I can know or seem to know about the world: respective examples include that mind and body are separate, and that people who use drugs damage their minds (the soul/body bridge)

3. Not seem too arrogant in its formulation - as solipsism, while remaining justifiable in my eyes, is.

[Ironbound]

Untouchability is the greatest perversion of a system of beliefs that I've ever had the misfortune to study. Thankfully it has been aboloished.

As such, it is always the twisted dogma of those who choose to interpret any codex for their own gain that spawns social evils. The caste system was simply a democratic segregation based on occupation; only when kings wanted dynastic rule to be ensured only to their own kin did they twist it to make it hereditary, preventing a grocer's son from being anything but a grocer, or a servant's anything but a servant. It's a sad chapter in history, but it is not to be alluded to in a discussion about Hindu philosophy, which itself is blameless for being twisted by those of evil mind...as always has happened in history.

I'll ask you to read my earlier posts in greater detail to get a better idea of what all I said about our philosophy; I won't repeat all that again. However, the idea of a natural succession or recession of the form of life a soul embodies is directly related to the way it conducts itself according to its Dharma.

There is no singular God-figure in Hinduism who decides judgments upon people, no 'referee', as you say. God is an infinite concept, not something that humans can understand or associate with unless they themselves transcend to a higher or purer form of life. It's more like a natural system, the flow of souls is like that of concentric rivers. In higher life, Dharma is more complex, being moulded by intelligence and desire and not merely by Instinct, and being either catalysed or poisoned by the strength of one's morality. A soul which stays truer and truer to its Dharma--there is no true English equivalent for the word--progress up these rivers, until it is finally pure enough to rejoin what we believe is God, Shakti, the omnipotent and all pervasive Energy. God, therefore, is defined as the Mother Energy (Shakti is accorded a female pronoun), which converts from form to form just as any energy does, to keep the flow going. Souls are parts of the same that cycle through various births and deaths, each vessel acting like a conductor with different resistance and different dissipation. A soul which doesn't abide by its Dharma loses energy and drops a bit to a simpler life form, which is more linear and more guided by Instinct, thereby making it easier for it to stick to its Dharma this time and try to get purer again. It's very like a water cycle in a layered filtration device. As the universe is infinite, so is energy, and so is God, and so are we and our souls...far more than merely the earthly concerns we have, which is but an infinitesimal part of an incomprehensible whole.

True Hinduism is pantheistic, impartial and even agnostic, a philosophical science of morality and universality. It is not a religion in the narrow sense of the word, it is spirituality, and there's all the world of difference between the two. Don't confuse the Sanatana Dharma with Indic Mythology and our myriad colourful gods and deities. All mythology in any culture exists merely as a medium to convey philosophy to the masses in forms they can understand. 'Hinduism' is just an Anglicisation of everything the Indian believes in, for the west did not seek to differentiate between our philosophy and mythology, and lumped it all under one head. The Sanatana Dharma (everlasting way of life), as Hindu Philosophy is truly named, is just that: a way of life, not a set of dogmas or rituals, a philosophical science which seeks to understand and explain the much-touted "what is the meaning of life" question...and to me, at least until this stage in life, it answers it satisfactorily.