@Noble Dust@darthbarracuda

If you read the confessions to its end you will find that Tolstoy comes to quite a different conclusion to that which he starts out with. So by the end of the book he proably strongly objects to the 4 types of people binary. However his salvation is in God, so treat it as you may. I certainly found the book worth while reading along side Albert Camus the myth of sisyphus. Both this books a generally dismissed by philosophers, but i find them to be of great value because they teach us, each in its own way, reasons for living. Reasons to continue living in this absurd world. Without a reason to live the rest of philosophy seesm to fall away, which is probably why Camus said that there is only one serious philosophical question, suicide.

Huh...Sounds like me :-#

Not really. Although I certainly find solitude attractive and never seem to get enough of it. On the other hand i hear that total isolation from other humans makes people go crazy so it cant be that good... Ask a psychologist.

@Napoleon Bonaparte

Hmm interesting idea....

"If you cant do it give up"

what this quote also Demontrates is that if it is indeed possible for an action to be done, unless we have other reasons for inaction (no motivation), there is nothing stoping us from achieving our goals.

Given that actions occur, and that we act, it is thefore necessary to discover the reason behind why we act. If as you claim there are no motifs, I would be interested in your explanation for why we do what we do. Even if this takes the form of a long essay

@schopenhauer1

Generally, we are motivated by three basic things (two of which are deeper- one of which is immediate).The deeper motivations are survival and boredom. The immediate motivation is dissatisfaction

This sounds about right. I think im right in saying that the motivation to surrvive can be called the Schopenhauerian will to life. Is it at all possible to loose the motivation to survive? one might argure that a suicidal person has lost the will to life, but im not sure, hence why im asking. It seems to me that death is inevitable so unless we stive for something greater than life, our actions are futile, that is those caused by the will to life.

Additionaly can it be said that all humans, if possible will act to alleviate dissatisfaction or are there cases when people rather suffer. If so why?

P.s. Im self taught so im not entirely sure if my interpretation of schopehauer is right.

@Posty McPostface

Woops totally meant to post that on the American school sytem thread. Im smart :s

@Posty McPostface

What your really asking here is whether the human condition can be shaped and formed like Playdough. I don't think that is something that can be imposed or forced onto people, only cultivated and nurtured

Completely agree with you we cant impose wisdom/knowledge and im not saying that we should. It wouldnt be very wise. But i think that the school systems completely ignores that most central aspect of human development and so public schooling should try to "nurture" wisdom/knowledge. it wont be successful 100% of the time, but it will make a difference.

Perhaps the system is failing because the expectation is that education = Job. That is the aim of modern education to pull people out of poverty or bad ecconomic circumstances, and to ensure that those, well off stay that way. What happened to education = knowlegde/wisdom. If we focused on Teaching usefull knowledge and wisdom the former problem would sort itself out. I think weve lost sight of the purpose of education, Now theres just social indoctrination.

@Wayfarer

Although i would suggest that people often blurr Moral Nihilism with Nihilism. It is possible to be a moral nihilist withput bein nihilist.

I would suggest to @Particle thing that he is probably bothered by his nihilism due to a hangover of societal values, it is hard to embrace nihilim when everyone around you, in society, demands that you have an ethical stance on all matters.

"To repeat abstractly, universally, and distinctly in concepts the whole inner nature of the world , and thus to deposit it as a reflected image in permanent concepts always ready for the faculty of reason , this and nothing else is philosophy."
-Schopenhauer

@Thorongil

No the third alternative is that neither heavan or hell exist. I do not need to claim like sartre that hell is other people, hell just doesn't exist.

@Thorongil

Yor point about eternal hell does araise serios questions about procreation. If it is in anyway possible that two people may create a new consince that will be damed to an eternity of suffering it does not seem moral in anway to permit that action.

But to believe that one is condemed to eternal suffering one must first believe in God, Christian or otherwise, I will merely focus on the Christian standpoint, since it is the one being talked about. The christian doctrine states that God is an all loving being. God loves every individual so much that he was willing to sacrafice his son so that or sins may be forgiven etc etc

My question is what kind of "All loving God" condemns anyone to an eternity of suffering? Either no one shall go to hell or God is not "All loving". If the former we have nothing to fear, in fact it might even be a moral act to raise children. But if the Later; in everysingle way it would be Immoral and wrong to bring a new conscience to this earth. If God were Condemning i would rather Suffer eternity in hell than to live in heaven with an evil God.

My conclusion is that afterlife does not exist, but since this has shattering implications to the foundations of almost all religion i shall not delve into the third alternative. (Unless asked).

@Agustino
I am not familiar with the horse forgive me of my ignorance.
It feels condescending of us however to judge the actions of people who have liveid in the past, but i shall leave it at that.

However i would be interested in hearing a response to my other question which i shall repeat.
What is righteousness? Since it is by "righteousness" that we are condeming peoples ideas.

@Agustino
I dont think Aquinas Kierkegaard or Socrates would want to be considered "righteous"

What is righteous anyway? And whos righteousness. Im sure Nietchze would have been impeccably righteous according to his own ethics. In fact i think it is can be said that Nietchze remained true to his ideas.