cardboard adolescent

I guess it´s worth pointing out that I didn´t just pull this out my ass, Hinduism, Schopenhauer, Borges, Leibniz, Edgar Allen Poe and Erwin Schrodinger agree with me

sleepy jack

On the other hand I think that's equally hard to prove.

If your "soul" was to enter another body though would it carry your memories and intellect? If were defined by our thoughts and actions and we don't carry those over with us when we, well reincarnate, then is it really you living after your death? Or just an essence that is in us all moving on to another temporary vessel? Also if you take away the brain from this soul; are you just sort of...a general but ultimately unthinking and unfeeling force? I guess what I'm getting as is my basic problem with this idea. If your brain is gone and you don't carry your personality (I use personality not to describe random quirks but your intellect, thoughts, idealism, actions, memories, etc.) with you and you no longer have the thing (your brain) you use to experience everything you can never really know what happens and you can't really live or be aware of your existence; which I'd consider death.

__________________

cardboard adolescent

I think pure self-awareness is consciousness of the self as nothing, in the sense that Sartre says. I don´t really define myself by my personality or intellect, that´s how other people define me. I feel like I could lose all my memories, my likes, my appearance, my opinions, and there would be something left (a general force, sure) that I recognize as being more fundamentally me. If all my personality experiences is ultimately my diffracted selves, then once I discard of it every personality would still be there, since they must in some sense be in the will/soul, ready to unfold. As such, I´d still be aware of what used to be `Tom´ but defining myself by what is ultimately just a perspective would seem absurd. The brain would just be a symbol Tom has constructed to attempt to understand himself, which seems equally absurd.

sleepy jack

I just have a hard time grasping that sort of idealism. I feel that ultimately everything I am is in my brain and once that dies the only way I'll live on is other people's brains but I won't be conscious of it so that's useless to me.

Though I do find one thing curious about that sort of thought. I just finished reading Pascal's Pensees which (you probably know this but for anyone else reading it) presents an idea that since we can't actually know for sure what there is after death we should wager that there is God exists and we have everything to gain in following his teachings and nothing to lose. Now I have several problems with this (there fairly obvious though, how do you know which religion is the correct one being the big gaping argument and then once you determine that somehow you have to hope that form of religion doesn't have a problem with your rather self-centered motives for following) but it seemed to be to be a commonly practiced idea even though most people aren't aware. I often hear sort of scaremongering arguments into following religions and rather selfish purposes for getting into religion, particularly Christianity (I hear from every kid in high school who argues with an atheist how do you comfort yourself without god and that just doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand how your primary motive for a belief is a benefit of the belief, you'd think that would come with a more concrete idea for it. I just think it's useless; its as if believing will simply make everything better. If you could manipulate reality like that so easily I think the world would've been blown up or something long ago.)

Anyway uh, what I was getting to it's interesting that that belief isn't motivated by the superficiality you typically see in most religious thought. Though I guess that has a lot to do with the lack of a moral code, or bible, or any sort of hint at a conscious interest in the human race. It kind of makes the idea seductive to me.

__________________

cardboard adolescent

Lev Shetov makes an interesting point in Athens and Jerusalem, where he says that reason relies on essentially the same threats to justify itself.

A bit long, but definitely worth reading:

To Necessity all things are indifferent, but to Parmenides all things are not indifferent. On the contrary, it is infinitely important to him that certain things should be and that certain other things should not be — for example, that the hemlock should be dependent on Socrates and not Socrates on the hemlock. Or rather, to make the matter still clearer, let us say this: in the year 399 B.C. the aged Socrates, condemned to death by his fellow citizens, took from the jailer's hands the cup of hemlock and in that very moment, by Socrates' will, the hemlock became a healthful drink. And this is not imagination or fantasy but reality, that which actually was. Imagination and fantasy, rather, are all that is related of Socrates' death in the history manuals. And similarly, what Aristotle teaches us, "Necessity does not allow itself to be persuaded," is also only an invention. Necessity does listen and does allow itself to be persuaded, and it cannot oppose itself to Socrates; it cannot in general oppose itself to any man who has discovered the secret of its power and has enough audacity to command it without turning backward, to speak to it as "one who has power."

Aristotle would certainly have paid no attention to thoughts of this kind. And Seneca and Cleanthes would have completely ignored them as being of no concern to themselves. But Epictetus, perhaps because he was more sensitive or perhaps because he was less well-bred, would have been enraged by them. Is this not an attempt to escape the principle of contradiction? In his eyes, as in Aristotle's, this was clearly a mortal sin, and he considered that he had the right in this instance to give free reign to his anger. "I should have wished," he said, "to be the slave of a man who does not admit the principle of contradiction. He would have told me to serve him wine; I would have given him vinegar or something still worse. He would have become angry and complained that I did not give him what he asked. But I would have answered, ‘You do not recognize the principle of contradiction; hence, wine, vinegar or any loathsome thing are all the same. And you do not recognize Necessity; therefore, no one has the power to compel you to regard the vinegar as something bad and the wine as something good. Drink the vinegar as if it were wine and be content!' Or again, the master orders me to shave him, and I cut off his nose or his ear with the razor. He would again cry out, but I would repeat to him my argument. And I would do everything in the same way until I forced my master to recognize the truth that Necessity is invincible and the principle of contradiction omnipotent."

We see that Epictetus repeats what Aristotle said or, more precisely, gives a commentary of Aristotle's words. And, as almost always happens with the Stoics, Epictetus, in commenting, discovers what in Aristotle had been intentionally left in the dark, and so betrays the secret of the philosophical foundation of the Aristotelian truths. The principle of contradiction, as well as Necessity and the truth itself, with a capital letter or a small letter, are supported only by threats: one cuts off your ears or your nose, one pierces your eyes, etc... Before such constraint all living beings — men and devils and angels, and even the gods — find themselves equal. Epictetus speaks of an imaginary master, but he would say the same thing of Heraclitus, of Parmenides, of Socrates and of God Himself.

cardboard adolescent

Yes, Athens and Jerusalem is really worth reading and was a big influence on Camus and others, plus it´s available for free online. It´s a great overview of philosophy in general, especially re the Greeks.

cardboard adolescent

The problem is that youre essentially making God in the image of man to justify man. We are plagued by seemingly unanswerable questions but if they were all answered what would be the point in thinking at all? The ultimate satisfaction would quickly become ultimate boredom. The reason why thinking is valuable is because it never ends, it continues to hit walls, paradoxes, contradictions and continues to struggle. If there were a point of resolution everything would collapse into undifferentiable nothingness, and the fate you seem to fear would be inevitable. Becoming one with God would be dissolving into absolute nothingness, which is pretty much the atheist conception too.

Anteater

Isn't it only a supposition that becoming one with God would be the same as dissolving into a state of emptiness though? (just trying to clarify here. )

Otherwise I completely agree, though I've never thought that even if a supposed entity is somehow brought to light through discovery, it would justify the existence of mankind. There's no way to know such a thing, and perhaps it would be for the best if we simply continue to search.

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

cardboard adolescent

I tend to look at life very dialectically, so pleasure only means something when contrasted with suffering, thesis when contrasted with antithesis, master vs slave, etc. So a state of absolute unity, where both sides of the duality collapse, ie man into God, subject into object, must be a state where experience is no longer possible, and hence a state of emptiness.

Of course if becoming one with God meant becoming God and still being aware of people beneath you, the duality would still be intact and experience could continue, only now you´d be master instead of slave

sleepy jack

I don't think a higher power necessarily implies a sense of purpose...there's just a much a chance this space god of yours sneezed and we know more to him than some bacteria in Russia means to you. Is that why you're Christian? Because you need to think that the beginning has to do with you to feel a sense of purpose?

__________________