Why do I have to help other persons? — Jackson

You don’t. But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so, you would be amoral.

Christianity is a religion that sees itself as a promise of life, hope, comfort, and love. "Gospel" in English is from Old English gôd, "good," and spell, "tale." This translates Greek Euangélion, "good news" -- whence the term "evangelism."

Many people, however, see the promise of Christianity as a threat, not as good news. If you don't join this religion, you are going to Hell, no matter how good a person you may otherwise be. Outside the Church is damnation. Jesus said (John 14:6), "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Faith is the foundation of things hoped for,
and the evidence of things not seen. :flower: :death:

On the other hand…

Just as the boatman sits in his small boat, trusting his frail craft in a stormy sea that is boundless in every direction, rising and falling with the howling, mountainous waves, so in the midst of a world full of suffering and misery the individual man calmly sits, supported by and trusting the principium individuationis, or the way in which the individual knows things as appearance. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Getting the distinct feeling that Ortega's book has been abused vulgarly — ZzzoneiroCosm

I am agree. Ortega’s essay about masses (I guess one of the most important works for the Western civilization in the beginning of XX century) tend to be misunderstood by an incredible number of people. I even heard of some saying: Ortega is just defending the elites. Sorry if I a mad man but I bet my hands that is literally the opposite: how the masses can react against the angry bourgeois (señorito insatisfecho)

On the contrary! We're the best, and, although on the brink of annihilation, there is hope for the new times arriving before too not too long. — Hillary

Oh, Hillary, I am jealous of your positiveness

The Scarlet Gang of Asakusa by Yasunari Kawabata (川端 康成)

It is not only about masses or elites. Ortega made an important study on the señorito insatisfecho: This Spanish slang can be translated to unsatisfactory bourgeois. The one who did not see the state as a political or culture entity but as their pure own interests.
According to Ortega this would be one of the most threats of European, USA, or Western states. The fact these entities would give up on their values could let the "markets" or "banks" only governing themselves. Forgetting the culture and values which were the cause of the born of Western civilisation could let these states in a context of being governed by a nonsense.
Sadly, it looks like this situation is what has been established. Keep in mind that politics are based on market/monetary rules doesn't caring for cultural or historical aspects. The European Union, for example, doesn't seem to pursue cultural benefits but only eurosystem one.

We cannot put monetary value into our lives because we are not worthy of it. The life of a person is worthless since they born until they die.
Whenever I think in the act of survival it only comes to my mind pain and uncertainty.
I guess you cannot satisfy those feelings with just a few bucks. It is impossible. Some states and entrepreneurs overrated money and the monetary system. I guess it is due to speculation.

Yukio Mishima, a right wing fascist who killed himself when he came to the realization that Japan has moved on — Wittgenstein

If you really think our lord and leader Yukio Mishima is a "fascist", you misunderstood everything. Give it a try and read more about him. He would change your thoughts and life. Believe me.

You are disappointed with modernism — Wittgenstein

I am disappointed and I hate all related to modernism. We are the worst generation ever. But it looks like doesn't matter at all because the people are not aware of it and it turns out I am the mad man here... but you know? I no longer want to be angry. If they want to be happy in their blindness is ok for me. I don't know how to help them.

Diogenes was a real example of a "hermit" and not those fake religious fans who only act for businesses and private concerns

It is interesting how you classified the suicide as outright rejection of the game. Sorry, but I am disagree with you in this specific point. You express it as a failure, a defeat, an act of giving up by someone. It looks like a scape from the rules they are forced to play in the game. I think you are not appreciating suicide in his most beautiful aspect: freedom.

In my humble opinion, I would describe suicide as an act of freedom where an individual decides to end his life. Inside this context is important to understand what has been occurring until the last the day. But... I don't see it could be for lack of production inside a community. A suicidal does not have the aim to live grouped. They prefer to live in loneliness because they understand that it is better to live off from society. We can be agree here and say they are not producers because they don't take part in this issue since the beginning.
I personally see suicide as very personal ending, very respectful and even aesthetic depending on the context (I can put some Japanese writers as examples: Kawabata, Dazai, Mishima, Akutagawa...)

Conclusion: I can't connect a suicidal/loneliness individual on your philosophy of production.

Once you know it's not possible to proof the existence of anyone ( yourself, the universe and God ) . You stop with the childish disputes of theism vs atheism. — Wittgenstein

It is not even worthy at all. There are more realistic aspects to focus in. The existence of myself or God is limited to a simplistic debate

Have you ever thought that, the musicians, artists, poets also have something to teach you about life. They are not here to entertain you. Learn from them — Wittgenstein

Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking

I don't think it's easy to proof the existence of the universe or even yourself if you want to go down that path.

Neither God's existence.

He should have wasted less time on philosophy and spent more time on love before condemning it and if love is a mental illness,

Damn believers. You waste so much time hating philosophy and knowledge

They surely don't exist in the same way we do. It's not weird to assign different categories/degrees to existence itself.

and then, you also pointed out:

the universe exists but in relation to God [...]

Two basic steps:
A) the universe itself doesn't need to be compared with that imaginary subterfuge called God because the universe exists and will exist doesn't matter if we live in earth or not.
B) you use contradictory arguments to pursue God's omnipotence, but do not worry, I do understand you can only achieve it through faith, not knowledge. What all you are writing is related to your own beliefs.

l wish l was capable of loving God

Be careful! Love is a serious mental disease - Plato.

God's mercy and love keeps the universe in a state of pseudo existence.

According to this proposition... The war, inflation, COVID pandemic, unemployment, and other serious issues are upon to God's mercy... Or what?

the universe is brought to the realm of psuedo existence from non-existence, but it has never tasted absolute existence which belongs to God only

Excuse sir, but what the f*ck is going on with your thoughts? :down:

1. Existence

2. Nonexistence

3. Physical

4. Nonphysical — Agent Smith

If you think about it more deeply you would end up with the conclusion that all of those characteristics are contradictory towards God's existence. I cannot put an argument about existentialism if I am using, at the same time, that this object could be physical or nonphysical at the same time. Like you have to choose one or another. Not both.
Aristotle: contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense

What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence. — Agent Smith

Because of faith. They just have beliefs, theists do not want knowledge. Even, when they use that, they tend to commit terrible paradoxes about God's existence.

To be honest, I don't know!

You're welcome, friend. I wish you can get some time and read more about Hinduism. I also enjoy reading all types of Asian culture/philosophy. It amazes me.

Good OP with a sage ending. I want to add a few words:
Six Schools" or "Six Doctrines" of "orthodox" Indian philosophy are the schools that accept the authority of the Vedas and thus religiously are considered part of Hinduism:
THE "SIX SCHOOLS" OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

• Mîmâṁsâ: "Interpretation," or Pûrva Mîmâṁsâ "Prior Interpretation,"
• Vedânta, , "End of the Vedas," or the Uttara Mîmâṁsâ, , "Posterior Interpretation,"
• Sânkhya, , "Counting, Reckoning, Reasoning, Knowledge," the School of Theoretical Knowledge.
• Yoga, , "Yoking, Vehicle, Equipment, Discipline,"
• Nyâya, , "Analysis," the School of Logic
• Vaiśeṣika, , "Individual Characteristics," the School of Pluralistic Metaphysics

Accepting the authority of the Vedas, however, does not mean actually using them. Mîmâṁsâ and Vedânta are specifically the schools of interpretation of the Vedas; the other four are based on independent reasoning. "Heterodox" schools, which reject the authority of the Vedas, are found in separate religions, like Buddhism and Jainism, or with the rare, reviled "materialists," whose own texts have all been lost. The treatment follows P.T. Raju's The Philosophical Traditions of India [University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971, p.35].

If a person means more than what they say, can a claim ever be justified?

I do not understand what you were asking for here. Do you mean in terms that we should express every action we take or in the claims we answer about.

A brief update on this topic.

I've found another interesting point of view from Irwin C. Lieb: Past, Present, and Future,
A Philosophical Essay

The past consists of what was becoming definite in a present; it became fully definite in being past. The past consists of what is fully actual. While individuals are present they are becoming definite and actual, and the completion of that process is their being past. Individuals are transformed when they become past, and the most prominent change in them is that their singularity is lost. In the present, individuals are singular and extended; they resist and oppose one another. They are spatial and outside one another. None of these features becomes past. What becomes past is the definiteness the individuals have achieved from inside themselves, and the definiteness of each individual is joined with the definiteness of all the other individuals that were their contemporaries. Together, they are the achieved definiteness of a moment of the entire world, joined to the past to which they have conformed. There is one whole past. There is no space in it and it has no length; duration and spatiality are only in a present time. [p.126] :100: :sparkle:

They feel time, but it is different from visual or audible perceptions.
It is kind of intuition, or feeling rather than sensory perception.

:up: :100:

Ok. Thank you Rocco, I have learned something new today.

Regards,

Javi.

I wonder what I did that caused you to ask that question? — Rocco Rosano

The structure of the text that you have used remembers me from an AI program.
Exactly, this part: ※→ javi2541997, Constance, et al,
What does it mean?

Thank you. Appreciated it! :heart:

I am agree with you. Past is one of the main reasons of what is happening in our present.

I also read public documents from the 1970's to not forget what happened back in the past.

It deserves to be considered for. But not so deeply because you cannot modify what happened previously...

Can we ourself look at our past? — Hillary

It is not even worthy at all. Which happened back in the day remains in the past. We cannot change it neither fix it. We only can learn thanks to the experience

Don't feed the incel. — RogueAI

:death:

My incel heart is full of love. I can definitely give you some, but only if you let me. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

:eyes: oh boy

We're alive but we're obsessed by death! Memento mori but don't forget memento vivere! — Agent Smith

Good one! :fire: :100:
Another one: Tempus fugit! The life is short and time flies so fast.

There's a thin line betwixt panic and excitement, oui? — Agent Smith

Exactly! Si! I would feel excitement whenever I pass an important exam (or I pursue the ability to travel through the time!) But panic comes with fear and it can be caused by an earthquake or other natural disaster

There's this paradox in mathematics called the Interesting Number Paradox. Have a read, if you like — Agent Smith

Thanks! :up:

No births/deaths of the movers & shakers of our planet, no disasters, no wars, nada, zilch, nothing! — Agent Smith

Well if that is the criteria... I wish we could have more boring days as 11 April 1954 :rofl:

If what's involved is going through mountains of data, a computer (AI) is the right person for the job. — Agent Smith

Indeed. But that data was implemented by us. So we are the guilty fellows here :chin: some programmers put a lot of information in the AI but we are ones who put the subjective portion.
I wish we could know what happened that day and then conclude if it was a real boring day or not!

Could there be a way of witnessing that would not disturb the physical setting at a particular instant? Since there appears to be time symmetry at the quantum level this might not be a problem. — jgill

So interesting argument indeed. :up:
Related to your question and opinion, the article I have shared previously, says:

Every instance of time travel generating an infinite number of alternative universes might be thought to violate Ockham's Razor, especially since the idea that an alternative universe could be generated in the first place has disturbing consequences for the metaphysics of identity. Simplicity and common sense rebel against such principles -- although serious versions of such metaphysics have been produced to deal with quantum mechanics, and multiple real universes were proposed by the philosopher David Lewis to explain possibility and necessity (after Saul Kripke used Leibniz's idea of "possible universes" to produce a quantified version of modal logic.

An AI made that judgment. I'm dying to know what its criteria for interesting/exciting were. — Agent Smith

Oh boy the AI again... they are always surprising me. What would be the next? The most philosophical day ever?

11 April 1954!

I did quick research and I found out what happened that day all over the world. Here is a brief examples:

Was April 11, 1954 the Most Boring Day in History? :chin:

Hello and welcome to this forum. I have enjoyed reading your OP. Very well structured and written. Thanks for sharing it. To be honest, I do not how to answer in order to start a debate with you but I would like to share a brief personal note:

Why may they want to lie to us? — Virus Collector

Because they know is necessary. I want to put the question backwards: Are we ready to live on the truth?

Are you an AI philosophical program or what?