My Philosophy

Miguel

I am intrigued by Eastern Philosophy but my own personal philosophy has been influenced most drastically by firstly, Spinoza, and secondly, Nietzsche. I would like to present to you my philosophy and look forward to your criticisms, disagreements and agreements. Keep in mind that this is a rough draft. It's the first time I've written down my philosophical thoughts and it all just came about in a burst of inspiration. If you need clarification on a certain part of the upcoming few paragraphs or even on the whole thing, just ask.

(Beware that this is not a theology but a philosophy. I use God for lack of a better word. Spinoza uses the word God as well as (maybe more fitting?) Nature, Shankara uses Brahman/Atman, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche use Will. I use the word God simply as a word for something that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

I arrive to the conclusion that there is this ‘God’ because of the fact that we are all connected—not only connected, but one. If all things are one, then that One is omnipresent, because it is all things. Furthermore, if you add up the knowledge of all things—every stone, plant, animal, human, planet, star, molecule and atom—then you will have all knowledge, therefore that One is omniscient. And if that One is everything then it is all-powerful, because it has all power over itself and there is nothing outside of it: omnipotent.)

My philosophy:

I think the world—the geological and the biological, the mountains, trees, animals (including humans), bacteria, oceans, volcanoes, even laws like the law of gravity, and molecules, atoms, protons and neutrons and electrons—they are all GOD. My mom used to think God was INSIDE everything and everyone, but I take it a step further: everyone and everything IS God. Also that which we do not understand as fully yet, that which we cannot see as clearly—our thoughts, emotions, convictions, personalities—are an aspect of God.

“God is a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligence, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence.” (Spinozan pantheist view)

Our thoughts and emotions are the thoughts and emotions of God; therefore we mustn’t ask where they come from, for they have always been, for they are part of the same God that everything that burst forth from the Big Bang is a part of.

And in fact, can the universe not be seen as an organism, growing and developing until it’s grown old, then shrinking again and ‘dying’? But then many things can be seen as organism—the Earth alone, for example, though I would argue it is more like an organ within an organism—and there may be an even larger system that we do not know of. Also that is God. All is God. All is one.

Science can be incorporated easily, for science is God. Example: the theory of evolution is God, for evolution is one of God’s many ways to grow and expand and develop itself.

Now that we have established all this; what implications does it have for us as ‘individual’ human beings? I used to stumble on this one. Do we therefore have no path in life, can we not rely on our surroundings to help us on the path of our life? This was a flaw in my understanding of my own philosophy.

We ARE everything around us and everything around us is us! This includes our thoughts and emotions, our convictions, hopes and dreams. We can affect our surroundings directly but also with our thoughts, because they are just as much a part of God. If we WANT something enough, hard enough, loud enough, even if it’s almost a subconscious kind of longing, then we will begin to affect our surroundings.

The world bends to our deepest wants. Not because we are on a pre-destined path and it is simply accomplishing its role in that path: but because we are shaping a path with our mind and our surrounding reality with it. Of course, that said, God has free will: we have free will. That we have shaped a path does not mean that we must walk upon it, or walk it to the end. So then the two most important things to gain from this are these: we must want something so badly that that the world has no choice but to help us there, and: once that path in our life has begun to form, we must be fearless and confident enough to take it.

In the end, then, we must always believe in ourselves, for to believe in ‘signs’, to believe in the world, is still to believe in yourself, for you ARE the world and you have created the signs. ‘Believe in the world: it will take you where you must be’ and ‘believe in yourself, do what must be done’ can be seen as equal statements and for maximum effect must be combined. The prerequisite, of course, is to believe in something and want something so strongly that you ‘bend reality’ with your longing.

Barry Etheridge

To me 'my philosophy' is an entirely vacuous phrase.

they are all GOD — Miguel

So not philosophy but theology?

Miguel

↪Barry Etheridge

Why vacuous? And no, not a theology but a philosophy. I use God for lack of a better word. Spinoza uses the word God as well as (maybe more fitting?) Nature, Shankara uses Brahman/Atman, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche use Will. I use the word God simply as a word for something that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

wuliheron

A philosophy without any reference to physical reality is just someone's fantasy. Zeno's followers merely used reductio ad absurdum arguments to entertain the mindless masses. The One Greater Truth is that the truth is never merely content, but the greater context that sheds light upon everything.

Terrapin Station

↪Miguel

What does it mean in your view to say that "we are all one"?

Buxtebuddha

↪Miguel

Keep in mind that this is a rough draft. It's the first time I've written down my philosophical thoughts and it all just came about in a burst of inspiration. — Miguel

Mmm, sounds so orgasmic, bruh O:)

(Beware that this is not a theology but a philosophy. I use God for lack of a better word. Spinoza uses the word God as well as (maybe more fitting?) Nature, Shankara uses Brahman/Atman, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche use Will. I use the word God simply as a word for something that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. — Miguel

I wouldn't say that Shankara or Schopenhauer are but describing God with other words like Atman or Will. There is a reason why they use the words they do, and not God (especially for Schopenhauer who would have read English.) Similarity does not infer two or more things to be the same.

I think the world—the geological and the biological, the mountains, trees, animals (including humans), bacteria, oceans, volcanoes, even laws like the law of gravity, and molecules, atoms, protons and neutrons and electrons—they are all GOD. — Miguel

everyone and everything IS God. — Miguel

So, trees, volcanoes, and the tiny dirt particles under my fingernails are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? If all things are God, rather than being of or from God, then where lies one's ability to parse an object or idea's qualities? Were I to stretch your logic to its limits, then you must admit that you yourself are God (all knowing, all powerful, and all present), just as I am, or as Pepe the Frog is. And if you didn't already know, you are NOT all knowing and all powerful, sweetie!

My mom used to think God was INSIDE everything and everyone, but I take it a step further — Miguel

God, remove your penis, please!

I dare say your mother's panentheism makes more sense than your pantheism...

And in fact, can the universe not be seen as an organism, growing and developing until it’s grown old, then shrinking again and ‘dying’? — Miguel

Very much indeed!

and there may be an even larger system that we do not know of. Also that is God. All is God. All is one.

What could be thought of as being more than omnipotent, omniscient, etc.? Perhaps being itself? Hummmm...

Science can be incorporated easily, for science is God. Example: the theory of evolution is God, for evolution is one of God’s many ways to grow and expand and develop itself. — Miguel

Well, I suppose so...

Now that we have established all this; — Miguel

Wait, we? I seem to have fallen off somewhere and can't get back up, halp! :’(

We ARE everything around us and everything around us is us! — Miguel

And here I thought only strange SJW people could identify as attack helicopters, silly me.

because they are just as much a part of God

You said it! Being of God is distinctly different from being God!

The world bends to our deepest wants. — Miguel

I'd argue instead that we bend to the world's wants...such as the world wanting us to want, :o

Of course, that said, God has free will — Miguel

Really, of course? Why do you say this?

we have free will

Did you freely will your being born?

Wayfarer

The world bends to our deepest wants.

I suspect you're young. In any case it seems rather an egocentric view of life. I think the element that is absent in your OP is the sense of something that needs to be discerned by philosophical reason. 'Everything is God' is not an example of that, because by purporting to explain everything, it really says nothing. Whence suffering, death, unfilled wants, and all of life's difficulties? I don't think you address those at all.

andrewk

↪Miguel

Gosh there are a lot of critics around today aren't there! Your philosophy sounds like a decent starting point to me.

As an attempt at a constructive suggestion, I think it would be more useful if you add an ethical angle to it. There appears to be no statement of values and without that it is hard for the philosophy to be any sort of guide as to how to act.

Metaphysician Undercover

The world bends to our deepest wants. Not because we are on a pre-destined path and it is simply accomplishing its role in that path: but because we are shaping a path with our mind and our surrounding reality with it. — Miguel

Let me see if I have this straight. We are part of God, and everything else is part of God. When we want something bad enough, we can cause it to happen by influencing God who acts with free will, and may make that which we want to happen, happen. Is this the same thing as prayer?

Miguel

↪andrewk

That's a good point. I haven't focused enough on the ethical angle and today realized that with this current philosophy, everything 'morally wrong' we do to each other and to the planet would be okay. I'll get back to you on that.

Shawn

Do away with the metaphysics and call everything Nature instead of Ggod (with a lower case 'g').

Kazuma

(Beware that this is not a theology but a philosophy. I use God for lack of a better word. Spinoza uses the word God as well as (maybe more fitting?) Nature, Shankara uses Brahman/Atman, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche use Will. I use the word God simply as a word for something that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. — Miguel

Schopenhauer's and Nietzsche's Will is not God. Let alone the fact that your interpretation of God is completely different to their interpretation of the Will. So there is no similarity there.

I arrive to the conclusion that there is this ‘God’ because of the fact that we are all connected—not only connected, but one. If all things are one, then that One is omnipresent, because it is all things. Furthermore, if you add up the knowledge of all things—every stone, plant, animal, human, planet, star, molecule and atom—then you will have all knowledge, therefore that One is omniscient. And if that One is everything then it is all-powerful, because it has all power over itself and there is nothing outside of it: omnipotent.) — Miguel

How do you come to the conclusion that everything is one in the first place? If everything is one, does that also mean that nothing is one as well, therefore nothing is everything and vice versa?

And in fact, can the universe not be seen as an organism, growing and developing until it’s grown old, then shrinking again and ‘dying’? But then many things can be seen as organism—the Earth alone, for example, though I would argue it is more like an organ within an organism—and there may be an even larger system that we do not know of. Also that is God. All is God. All is one. — Miguel

This seems very contradictory to me. Organism has certain parts and those parts separately are not the organism itself. If all is one, then that would mean every little part of the organism is the organism itself which does not make sense.

We ARE everything around us and everything around us is us! This includes our thoughts and emotions, our convictions, hopes and dreams. We can affect our surroundings directly but also with our thoughts, because they are just as much a part of God. If we WANT something enough, hard enough, loud enough, even if it’s almost a subconscious kind of longing, then we will begin to affect our surroundings. — Miguel

That is merely a reaction of our surroundings. It does not support your idea of 'We are everything around us'.

The world bends to our deepest wants. Not because we are on a pre-destined path and it is simply accomplishing its role in that path: but because we are shaping a path with our mind and our surrounding reality with it. Of course, that said, God has free will: we have free will. That we have shaped a path does not mean that we must walk upon it, or walk it to the end. So then the two most important things to gain from this are these: we must want something so badly that that the world has no choice but to help us there, and: once that path in our life has begun to form, we must be fearless and confident enough to take it. — Miguel

If we are one, then why do we 'must want something so badly that the world has no choice but to help us there'? It sounds like we are going against some sort of force of the world.

What are fearlessness and confidence here for? They add nothing to your ideas.

In the end, then, we must always believe in ourselves, for to believe in ‘signs’, to believe in the world, is still to believe in yourself, for you ARE the world and you have created the signs. ‘Believe in the world: it will take you where you must be’ and ‘believe in yourself, do what must be done’ can be seen as equal statements and for maximum effect must be combined. The prerequisite, of course, is to believe in something and want something so strongly that you ‘bend reality’ with your longing. — Miguel

Is the reality separated then? If we are reality as well, why do we need to bend it/us?

MJA

Miguel, One is One.
The Oneness we speak of has been proven scientifically, mathematically, empirically, spiritually, and justly. Where should I begin?

My Philosophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions