The theif is evil only in the act of stealing, not in being a living being — MysticMonist

Is one actions not to be encompassed in their 'being'?

I sense a trap and getting out of my league here. This is what I get for just studying monists — MysticMonist

No its not a trap and if it was out of your league I wouldn't bother discussing it with you. Ist got nothing to do with your choice of study it's got to do with what you are saying.

Umm... the no is an action, right? The theif is evil only in the act of stealing, not in being a living being. God sustains the thief’s material body as well as his soul with His loving kindness, so it’s not evil. — MysticMonist

So is their evil or not? And if not, for what reason would one be condemned?

ultimately subjective, for whose reason are we speaking of? And human reason, limited as it is, cannot construct moral laws — Modern Conviviality

What limit do you put on human reasoning??
It is a theist human reasoning "limited as it is" that has him believing in his "God". If it was not his human reasoning that led him to his belief in his god's dictated morals then why was it his particular "god" that he choose to follow rather than the many others gods that have been portrayed in men's script?

Sorry
What is goods counterpart?

I say as a monist there is only good and evil doesn’t exist itself — MysticMonist

If evil or bad doesn't exist how would you distinguish good?

What's Ingrid's counterpart?

I say as a monist there is only good and evil doesn’t exist itself. It’s only a fleeting No to God’s eternal and all-powerful Yes — MysticMonist

Is the fleeting No in 'a fleeting No to God’s eternal and all-powerful Yes' Good then?

You're in a life because, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there's one about you. ...one with you as is protagonist.

That explains why you're in a life. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see how that explains why you're in life.

Possible stories is that pertaining that there is something beyond this life where in which this life is just a story, If so what bearing would this story/life have apon that other existence. This question would be great to have answered so that I could logically steer this life's story/experiences to best advantage/meaning of that other existence.

If that other existence is not a 'truth' I would still find it wise to desire the meaning for my existence in this realm so that I could steer this life's story/experiences to better suit it meaning.

Without an answer I try live and experience life as enjoyably as I can but seem to constantly encounter a balance of good and bad. A balance I understand as necessary I don't think you could understand something as 'good' without also understanding what it counterpart 'bad'.
One would say that these experiences are all in the process of learning. The process of learning what? And for what end? Again without knowing this what good or bad experiences should I pursue in order to best attribute this learning?

Understood and agreed(Y)

Some people are desperate and vulnerable. Philosophy, which turns your mind back in on itself, might be exactly the wrong thing for them. I think for philosophy to be a help, you need to be standing on a stable platform. Are you? Is Cynical Eye? We need to treat everyone respectfully, but we also have a responsibility to look out after each other. Insight into other people is not necessarily the strong suit of some people on this forum. — T Clark

OK yes, In hindsight I often feel very foolish and kick myself for getting to caught up in my own thoughts. This can definitely be detrimental That is a good point.
It is also true Iinsight into other people is not a strong suit for most people, but when someone appear asking for help or guidance should one not offer the a well thought out advise.
OK I guess there it is - not everyone's advise is well thought out.
I hope I did not come across as disrespectful this was certainly not my intention, I can certainly empathize with these problems and mean no harm.

I think there is danger of using philosophy as a kind of therapy — T Clark

I agree that these forums may not be the safest place for someone struggling but I don't understand why philosophy itself would not be safe. A search for a different view and a better understanding would be the best place to start in my opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just not sure what u mean by this.
When struggling your view or actions are evidently not working for you and change should be subscribed, certainly listening to just one person's opinion would not be advised but a scope of different views and evidence would be required to make change would it not?
I often in questioning myself find my own faults but more often question my own thoughts whilst listening to others.
Please elaborate.

Hi all,
Like most of us I have suffered with my emotions and been diagnosed with numerous 'diorders' from anxiety & manic depressive to aspergers, No diagnosis exactly fitted and no diagnosis or treatment ever helped (this is not to say that it would not be of assistance to others).
In my experience in this chaotic and messed up world the problem lies in emotional responses both responses of other and my own.
I think emotions both positive and negative are very important and I don't think effort should be spent trying to control them but spent understanding their source.
I have found success in accepting my emotions and trying to understand how I got to the emotional state that I would currently be in. I understanding that our emotional responses are generally deeply embedded from previous experiences a lot of them from a very young child. These automatic response once thoroughly understood and understood as fallible can be changed.
For instance i quite often watch people when a fault we have made is pointed out, In a matter of second go from a feeling of embarrassment to ashamed and self loathing then to victim and defence then to anger and aggression.
Our emotions very quickly snowball and rather than accepting a fault and being grateful for now knowing better we have lashed out in anger all because we initially felt embarrassed.
If we look back and think about this embarrassment and see we should have never felt that emotion in the first place because making mistakes is all part of learning then next time we have a fault pointed out to us we may be more likely to appreciate the correction instead of feeling horrible and lashing out in anger or aggression.
I could give many examples of this snowballing effect as I see it every day and I still subject myself to it constantly.
What I'm trying to get at is that if we spend time tracing our emotions back to the original response we will find that it is open derived from one emotion which did not served the situation appropriately in the first place. In the same respect when someone appears to be reacting irrationally try to think about how they may have came to that place emotionally.
It is astonishing how much most of us are emotionally inept. I am certainly still far from stable in this respect but am constantly working at it.
Taking the time to trace back my own and other people irrational emotional responses has made people around me somewhat easier to understand and deal with.

I know I don't articulate my thoughts very well I am a little messed up.
I will strongly urge anyone struggling with emotions to firstly read 'As a man thinketh' by James Allen and also 'thinking fast and slow' by Daniel Kahneman.

I've come to a place a few time where I I thought my thinking to much was hurting me but I kept thinking about it I learnt a little more and now lonely isn't so lonely.

A lot of us are a bit crazy, I think acknowledging, exploring and playing with it is healthier than suppressing it with drugs.

How would a conclusion in this instance benefit you. Sure there is much evidence to support a theory that consciousness survives the body but there would certainly be many questions which could not be answered which would/should make one hesitate in making any conclusion especially if making a conclusion was not necessary.
Even with everything we know about body and mind today without actually crossing the threshold of life and death this is question that could not be answered conclusively.
I do tend to believe that there is a continuation of our consciousness as I believe there are many things in this world that our society tend to reject regardless of the abundance of evidence. All these thing with all their evidence can not however be undoubtedly proven.
As stupid as it sounds I still ponder these thing continuously but this has never been a fruitful exercise. (I will certainly continue to ponder aswell)
Debating this or trying to convince someone this without more than a blurry picture and idea and with no means of obtaining indisputable evidence is questionable.
Certainly explore and ponder, it would be foolish to ignore what's happening around you but again I don't believe you can possibly find an answer.

I would enjoy little more than you proving me wrong though.

Logic is a process and as fallible thinkers we will not always considered everything.
As is the beauty of such a forum, We often miss evidence or ideas, study and these debates helps provide us with a better picture with which we can make our conclusions. But at what stage does a philosopher decide he has all the information required to make a decision.
In order to act/live decisions need to be made and one needs to logically decide how to act/live with the ideas and evidence currently on hand, if you wait until you have the whole picture you may be waiting forever.
So the world/life is not a contradiction.
Our logic from one person to another will differ only because they are incomplete and may appear to contradict but should you both see the same complete picture and incompass all evidence and ideas you would inevitably have the same logic.

Not Unlike 'Zero' the word 'Nothing' is the word we use to quantify an absence i.e. "they said nothing" - 'Nothing' quantifys the absence of speech.

Used without context 'Nothing' is an oxymoron.

Even as a theory 'Nothing' or 'Non-existence', If one could possibly explain what it is, then in explination it would exist and that would be a contradiction.

I can't think of one situation where I could not question it's authenticity as reality. Just because you are unable to prove deception does not mean it is not deception. Deception requires a hidden reality, However with all the possible tools available to you and with every attempt made you can't prove deception this does not mean it doesn't exist. If you do find what appears to be deception would it not be prudent to question what you have discovered to ensure you are not being deceived. I believe this is a dangerous cycle of thought which envite little more that despair.

I feel that with many issues in our societies today, People have gone beyond wanting to be accepted, We have become righteous, expecting others to recognise, understand and agree with our choices.
We are all different, Within every community wether Homosexual, Transgender, religious ect these communities are all filled with a diverse range of people. I don't think these are the things we should lable ourselves by or judge others by.

Your morals and ethics, your beliefs, the way you interact with others, how you contribute to your society, How much thought and effort you put into everything. I think this is what make you. To me your sexual orientation or wether you feel like a man or woman has little to no bearing on what I think of you because they have little to no effect on my life.

Having said that, these choices of yours 'should' have no bearing on my life. Wether I agree or not they are a person's choice and should be of absolutely no consequence to me.

The issue as bought to us is excessive and equality.
Expecting everyone to accept and agree with your choices seems foolish to me, I would if anything anticipate that at least 90% of people would disagree with and dislike the way I live. This is fine because I don't require anyone's acceptance I don't feel the need for anyone to hear about or understand the way I live and I don't need anyone to change for me, my choices don't effect others.

In most issues of the likes today it seems that when someone identifies as par of a 'different' community (some not all) they are happy to flaunt it proudly and wish to be recognized for their differences. Whilst at the same time want to be complain about feeling uncomfortable in the community and should be treated equally. Firstly these are personal thing with others shouldn't be concerned by, that's your life. Secondly parading who you are is pretentious, being proud however is fine but proud and uncomfortable/shamed is an oxymoron, Wanting to be recognized for your differences and at the same time wanting to be treated equal is also contradictory.

So I think you do you, be true to yourself but don't make it an issue for others we really don't need to know and in a lot of case don't want to know. No special treatment everyone shouldn't have to change for you. Equality, Meh we are all clearly different if everyone was treated equally we would loose identity and no longer would we be able to benefit from people strengths and weaknesses.