I cannot cure our ignorance. That is your job. Bye bye

Just to be clear … ‘depression’ is actually an ‘illness’ of sorts. People are not depressed for a reason if they are clinically depressed.

Depression is feeling extremely low for no viable reason. It is a chemical imbalance (physical brain condition) rather than feeling sad/upset about something in your life.

Husserlian Intentiionality.

We are not simply ‘conscious’. We are, more accurately, ‘conscious of something’.

Stating ‘to be’ is ‘to be perceived’ seems like one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard tbh. Maybe there is a bit more depth to that line than I’m aware of though?

1. Life is good over all.
2. Who is Jannet? :D
3. Thinking can make you happy or sad depending on subject matter and knowledge.

I think ‘happiness’ is a trivial thing tbh. Humans seem to excel when challenged rather than sitting in paradise idly playing with themselves.

The main item I’ve found to be the cause of ‘displeasure’ is fear. Fear stops us from trying. If we don’t try then the dark clouds form.

I’m happy to discuss with Eugene. You appear to be here to poke fun and present yourself in a poor light for some reason.

Congrats!

nice example of meaningless word salad.

Next you will claiming pain and suffering are not ‘necessary’ whatever that means? Nah! You just go ahead and make a word salad and leave me out of it thanks.

The OP is garbage. That is the truth. I explained why.

Bye

Wars exist. No use pretending they do not.

The egg

As a way of looking for some agreement I would say that in the opposite direction I think merely parroting other philosophical thoughts is not exactly ‘philosophy’ as you seem to see it. By this I mean they are scholars of philosophy but generally learn by reading what others say about others.

I’ve conversed with people about Kant who have never actually read Kant first hand and refer entirely to someone else’s commentary on Kant … I find that kind of approach strange/delusional if one then says ‘I am a philosopher’ after that when really they are just knowledgeable about said philosophy (which isn’t useless). It it something like watching a movie and then acting like you’ve read the book. At least it isn’t as bad as reading a review of a movie and acting like you’ve read the book (those are the ‘lazy’ ones). Of course there are geniuses, but they are not exactly common.

I think the most fruitful path is the harder path. Read the original text without any commentary and draw your own conclusions/questions from it. Once you’ve done that then look at commentary. Sadly, in reality, students and those interested in such mostly skim over things because there is just too much to look into.

If you haven’t read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, at least three works by Nietzsche and have a pretty solid reading history of Plato and Aristotle, then you are not a ‘philosopher’ worth listening to but you might be a decent point of reference for the works you have some knowledge of or as someone to bounce ideas off for a ‘philosopher’.

They are not ‘categories’ just examples of how the term can be, and is, used. A ‘philosophy of life’ is colloquial whilst scholarship is technical by nature.

I hear this kind of thinking from people who are just too lazy to put the work in tbh. You might be different. I just don’t think it makes any sense for anyone to label themselves as a ‘philosopher’ if they have never actually read ( and I mean REALLY read) an actual work of philosophy.

Note: Lots of people don’t know how to read, they just ‘read the words’ and think they have read and understood something. Sadly it is skill most people don’t develop much beyond teenage years - if that!

Too many people out there (including myself) here some brief excerpt from a philosopher and think themselves enlightened because ‘we thought/knew that already’.

I don’t regard people who have been to university to study philosophy as ‘philosophers’ though. Just stating it is pretty damn silly to paint yourself as something without having partook in some rigorous and active sense with what is already there.

Stoicism is like electronics is to physics. Someone can specialise in electronics and know very little about cosmology … I have no idea where any line of distinction could be between specialist subjects and a more broader overview? I probably would not approach a stoic to get feedback about most epistemic issues as I have a fairly decent suspicion that the discussion would lead into ethical realms and that might not be of focus for me.

I have a horrible feeling we’ve talked before if you are going to lead into some long ramble about ‘creation’? If so hope you have managed to express it better (go ahead).

Either way, prove me wrong and explain what you know of the supernatural. I don’t see anything to suggest there is anything other than what is nor can I personally see a way justify dualism - ie. Supernatural (beyond nature) because I frame everything in the universe as ‘natural’ and don’t side with ‘supernatural’ as a replacement for ‘we don’t know therefore god’. That just makes no sense to me.

I don’t really ‘believe’ things I know them to some degree based on experience. So when I talk to people and they say ‘god’ I understand as I know the term (as symbolic of something human) because I cannot claim to know of some being in possession of ‘supernatural’ powers. I have no issue with someone proposing an alien race superior in intellect and knowledge to the human race. It is just speculation though based loosely on some knowledge of the universe.

I just think everyone should make some kind of effort to engage with people they clash with and try and understand the other’s perspective rather than resorting to insults and/or violence.

Basically, a modicum of respect for a fellow human being. If lines are crossed insults and violence can be a necessary deterrent whether or not we view it as an ideal place to arrive at.

In todays internet/social media age there is a rather noisy minority ready to do away with context which does nothing other than conflate the problems in society by creating imaginary narratives that are used to fuel hatred.

Note: Understanding something does not mean we need to agree with it. It just serves us better to understand I feel.

If they are not eternal and not infinite then they are just like us. So then what is the difference? We are effectively ‘gods’ in the sense you seem to have outlined.

Correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll read when I get back.

See you later :)

okay, so we’re gods. No disagreement there tbh.

Thanks. Gotta go and get some food now.

I can make some sense out if that view. We just seem to differ in what we define as ‘god’. I presume to know beyond my limited senses, so the ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ are not for me to comment upon much.

It is a proposed and incomplete response the question. Answers are not really part and parcel of a phenomenological investigation.

I’ve already stated this twice at least. You are talking about ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ as if you have personal experience of such (which you do not). And the ‘gods’ are infinite and eternal (as you say), but that means you cannot possibly know about their motivations and reasoning because you are not eternal nor infinite.

This is like asking what it is like to be a bat but on a level akin to asking what it is like to be a unicorn - I would have an easier time imagining what it would be like to be a unicorn though.

In the sense that you are framing the term ‘god’ I agree. The most common problem, as I stated, it people ‘defining’ god in low resolution so that it is pretty hard to question them about it.

Very often, for those that do make more of an effort, their view of ‘god’ is not really that much far removed from a physicists view of the universe - although the language and terminology is quite different and varied (but to be fair the same kind of goes when we get deep into cosmological talk on the physicy side!)

My story is me I guess? In that sense the culmination of all human stories is ‘god’ (as I understand it in a religious sense), but I don’t believe many people who talk of this or that god see it in that way.

My view is more like the Jungian view of the collective unconscious - we create the world we live in as much as the world creates us. The idea/archetype of ‘god’ is more or less the Heirophant (the process that delineates between them.

Is what I just said ‘true’? No. It is a theory of why we have a such strong impulses to believe in things like ‘god/s’ as ‘real’ rather than as symbolic representations of humanity. I am not dogmatic about this just fascinated by human beliefs and various other things, and this is where it generally leads me.

I don’t. My point is that if such beings exist they are beyond my conception so talking about them is futile just like talking about square circles.

I know there are things beyond my immediate experience, and certainly beyond my finite existence. That does not then give me a clear and definitive reason to state with certainty what such items ‘beyond me’ are.

The obvious question is then what makes your story real and mine a fantasy? What if other people believe their story to be true and your’s fantasy? How do we judge between them?

There are many differing religious stories. I say they all carry something that makes them undeniably similar … they are human stories. I start from that point because it is true or we wouldn’t know the stories in the first place.

We have a rather limited and finite experience of the universe. There is no evidence to suggest what you are suggesting. It is a story only.

Homosexuality was also framed as such. Times move on.

When there are numerous cases of addictions, schizophrenia and other brain disorders being cured by use of psychedelics, as well as their use in helping people live more meaningful lives, I wouldn’t call such instances as being purely ‘mental illnesses’ when they cure said ‘illnesses’ in various examples.

It is an area that is seeing more and more research thankfully. It could all just be meaningless delusional mental sludge … it might be more than that though. My personal experiences lead me to believe there is more than simply a negative effect of such experiences (although not something that may be apparent or true for all!).

I think you are making too much of a leap from story to reality. Telling a story doesn’t make it true. I could tell you a story about how I lived in a giant shoe for a year but it doesn’t make the story real. The ‘truth’ in the story is in the reason I may have chosen to express myself this way.

There can be powerful meanings in stories that are stories about actual events. The power of meaning is not the same as making something true. We can watch a movie and know it is a complete fiction yet take something profound away from it. That doesn’t make it ‘true’ just useful to us in a certain way.

The definition of ‘god’. You said they/it is ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ but we have no direct experience of such concepts so it does not make sense to talk about what such beings do anymore than a race of people would be able to see colour.

If something is beyond us it is nothing to us. To speak of what is nothing is a fruitless exercise.

It is the conviction of being ‘misled’ I would have some qualms with. The fact is such experiences happen (hence my phenomenological approach rather than stating what is or isn’t ‘real’).

Maybe it is merely a … damn! I forget the term … originally an architectural term that referred to spaces between arches that serve no structural purpose yet were used for decoration … my minds gone blank!

Anyway, … Ah! There it is … Spandrel. Maybe it is a Spandrel, and some people suggest that art is a spandrel.

Either way there are benefits to ASC’s. Like with nuclear power we can destroy or create. There is a powerful property to such experiences either way and the main thrust of my point here is that it serves us to investigate. The most commonly reported and featured experiences appear to have been recorded in religious doctrines and I am saying the practices listed seem beyond coincidence in how they align with known triggers for ASC’s.

I don’t understand what truth has to do with a story in the sense you seem to be framing it?

As a little story it is fine. As some comparison to lived experience it leaves a lot to be desired. As I ah e mentioned there is a lack of validity in referring to beings that are literally beyond your comprehension as they are ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ (concepts used by humans to express something outside of experiential comprehension).

It does not hold up as a reasonable argument for the existence of said ‘god/s’ if the definition is so abstracted from human experience that it makes it impossible to confirm or deny. What would intrigue me more is what it is that makes you believe in such beings. I cannot imagine infinite or eternal beings any more than I can imagine a square circle, a sound without pitch, a physical object without surfaces or a colour without shade. I can of course ‘make up’ some abstract approximation of each of this but they would all fall short of meeting the said requirements (for example I can imagine a square shape with rounded corners and convince others that it is fine ti call it a ‘square circle’ but in technical terms it would neither be a square or a circle in mathematical terms.

That is just a story you made up.

Well, I would not put it like that exactly. It is more of an expression of human existence. A natural means of dealing with the immediate environment and possible otherness beyond our sense of selfhood.

‘Substance’? I stories have a certain impetus/‘substance’ to them. If you are trying for some kind of dualism I simply do not go into that any more as the phenomenological view on that suffices - as in I don’t care much about ‘the material’ nature of nature just the human lived experience (in the sense of religious practices and the general weltenschuuang).

As with stories, cultures and traditions, they chop and change over time. If there was some ‘god’ within this that I wished to put a label on it would to attempt to suggest to you that the ‘god’ you seem only able to vaguely define is more or less nothing more than the process of spontaneously creating narratives to map onto the world and said narratives affect through feedback.

That is why I view what you seem to call ‘god’ as the communication between sacred and profane (not that there is a real delineation between the two as humans implant some degree of ‘sacred’ upon every experience they have that moves them - and everything ‘moves’ us in some way.

A guy called Derren Brown refers to certain actions we make as ‘pantomimes’. One example he gave was if you walk down a street and realise you forgot something you articulate it by gesticulation or saying something out loud before turning around and walking back in the direction you’ve just come from. You will also act out such .pantomimes when alone. This is a step towards the ‘sacred’.

For a more obvious set of examples … birthdays, your bedroom, a classroom, a necklace and such. All have haboured within them memories and meanings that make mere places/items have more meaning beyond the ‘profane’.

Note: when I talk about ‘communicating’ between profane and sacred I don’t mean this literally. It is just an abstract way of expressing this. I’m not a dualist in this sense of the discussion because I’m coming at it from a phenomenological perspective.

What are you talking about? There is plenty of scientific literature about such states. Alter states of consciousness are not ‘in a different house’ as you put it. I assume you are implying that the term means something happening ‘outside the brain’ … absolutely not.

If you take various drugs you can induce this state. Again, various other triggers can induce such states.

Try telling someone tripping on mushrooms that experience is not ‘altered’ in any way. That is what I am talking about and why your response seems bafflingly uninformed. The term Altered State of Consciousness is a scientific term to describe (funnily enough) an altered state of consciousness.

If you have never heard of the term before a quick glance here should suffice (not that I’ve read it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness

Not just me. A number of prominent neuroscientists.

Triggers include:

- sleep dep
- fasting
- dancing
- intense focus
- hyperventilation

Basically, things that stress the body. These all feature in religious practices and they have some beneficial uses but can obviously be dangerous.

You think neuroscience is bullshit? ASC’s are known phenomena. They are not woo woo, just certain brain states that do weird things.

I’ve experienced ‘bliss’/‘heaven’ and I exist within the universe. If you are talk about something beyond my comprehension then it is beyond my comprehension.

I don’t understand how you can say some beings have ‘good reason’ without knowing what he reason is? If you do know the reason then you must have the mind capable of fully understanding infinity and the eternal (which I cannot except for obvious reasons I hope).

I find it hard to justify the existence of some such being/s in anything other than a wholly abstract sense. In that category I have no issue with framing some fundamental unknowns/unknowable aspects of nature as x or y to serve as place holders though.

My view is more or less the reverse of yours. I see humanity as creating god/s and this doesn’t make them ‘lesser’ as they are cumulative aspects of all humanity expressed in multiple ways - and it is telling that there are common features across all cultures too.

I view a lot of religious belief as a kind of ‘narrative’ that straddles the Profane and Sacred aspects of human life.

In terms of ‘theism’ I think polytheism makes more sense as people can role play certain things and deal with problems piecemeal rather than try and ‘act out’ being Jesus or some such thing.

The relevance in what I mentioned above is that this is something innate to humans and can be seen in all cultures. It might therefore be worth paying attention to it if we are interested in ourselves, our place and the general meanings we foster life.

Religion fascinates me no end. There are some common features across all cultures that related to altered states of consciousness. Key triggers are key to rituals within religious institutes alongside numerous mnemonic techniques.

I’ve found hitting yourself and screaming works best :D

People avoid crazy people. Derren Brown had a good way of dealing with such by talking nonsense so someone.

BS, more like sublimation, rationalization on steroids. Trying to make yourself feel better about... — Agent Smith

Not sure what that means? I was talking about instances where members of the ‘audience’ took on the role of one of the representations on stage - sometimes they would kill, kill themselves eat feces or numerous other things. Full on Dionysus crap

I have a strong interest in this area. I have no intention of ‘rejecting’ answers only questioning their meaning. (See Above)

Okay. But can you comprehend ‘eternal’ or ‘infinite’. I argue you cannot so your definition is imprecise and mostly meaningless because of this.

I have no issue with you believing that some beings created other beings. I cannot except that you have knowledge of ‘infinity’/‘eternal’ matters though.

What do you mean by ‘heaven’?

Note: thank you for replying. Most people think I am poking fun sadly :(