Reason to hold positions are always underpinned by presuppositions, and there are no unbiased presuppositions. People usually have great difficulty in identifying their own presuppositions and find it much easier to identify those of others.

I can't defend the religious narrative here, because it is vulnerable to criticism and I am critical of it myself. However I can offer some perspective on the issue, something which I think is hard to see due to it being so engrained in our world.

The main vulnerability in religion is that it has been exploited relentlessly by power brokers and priests who loose the piety it teaches. Although this is understandable if one considers how unpleasant life was in the past, certainly in the northern climbs, for all but the few who managed to get into a position of relative privelidge and comfort. Anyway, an analysis of religion will only ever result in a discovery of aspects of human nature and how promises of heaven or paradise can be exploited.

There is though a thread of insight to be gleaned from the teachings and the history, which like in the spiritual analysis, can give us some perspective and sight of our predicament in this world.

Secondly I would point out a naivety in your reasoning, you criticise the anthropomorphism while then resorting to it to make your case. It is quite reasonable and philosophically astute to recognise our limited intellectual understanding of our predicament in finding ourselves in this world. This would entail a realisation that we cannot make any presumptions in terms of purpose about any purposes that we may be subject to. Indeed it strikes me that an apophatic analysis of what we don't know and can't say would be an appropriate starting point, so as to avoid those very anthropomorphic assumptions.

To address the two points you raise;

The restlessness of humanity, the will, is as I pointed out in the other thread a result of evolutionary pressures in shaping life. It is only the relentless, the resourceful and sometimes the ruthless which survive and outlive the rest. So it's no accident that a restless and resourceful species has come to dominate the ecosystem. This doesn't however say anything about our soul or any purposes we are subject to.

Secondly, that any cosmic purposes may not have any care for, or require the suffering etc of humanity, or that it is out of our control etc. Well this is all based on assumptions as I outlined above. We really can't say what requirements there are in our being here and the reality of our existence may be existentially far more complex and subtle than we can realise. Making any assumptions irrelevant to the truth of it.

Secondly I would point out a naivety in your reasoning, you criticise the anthropomorphism while then resorting to it to make your case. It is quite reasonable and philosophically astute to recognise our limited intellectual understanding of our predicament in finding ourselves in this world. This would entail a realisation that we cannot make any presumptions in terms of purpose about any purposes that we may be subject to. Indeed it strikes me that an apophatic analysis of what we don't know and can't say would be an appropriate starting point, so as to avoid those very anthropomorphic assumptions. — Punshhh

I'm not sure you are making a valid point based on what I said. A God that has a purpose and design we can never know is a relatively moot one. As I said above, "God is such an alien being to us, that his goals may be inimical to human happiness, and that effectively means nothing for the living/breathing human. Just because a cosmic/spiritual aspect of things supersedes the physical human, does not make my lot as a physical human any better. If my suffering matters because of a cosmic game that is beyond my control, it effectively means I am shit out of luck in terms of life being anything for me, the human. Purpose in a grand sense becomes meaningless for the human."

And I already told you that it is convenient how we know just enough from these ancient prophets that had this magical ability to tell us some partial truth of it. It is convenient that it is in ancient times, it is convenient that when we ask for justification, we can never know the whole truth, but just enough to keep the carrot and stick of following this or that.

So BOTH points are at a loss here.. If it is as you say, beyond human comprehension, it loses any matter for the living breathing human who must endure life as the mortal human. We become but pawns in a greater scheme that is beyond our control for something is never for us. At the same time, most of what religion does IS anthropmorophize the deity, and this is certainly true in how MUCH it cares about humans in the actual religions that we see. So both fronts have flaws in them.. The first one may be true, but we would never know it.. Just like we can be a brain in a vat or something.. The second objection we know to be true because it is not hard to see how being humans, our deity seems to care a lot about our human affairs and has characteristics like humans and resembles a lot of ideas that were floating around in the region that the concept of the Judeo-Christian god was conceived. By logic, if we humans can think of a concept ("moksha"..union with a godhead..worlds beyond our mere mortal world) it is not in fact beyond our comprehension... If it is beyond our comprehension.. then we can never know it anyways.. The cop out argument is to say... prophets in the past were given a glimpse that was comprehensible to us but we don't know the bigger picture.. and this I said just sounded a bit too convenient. That was my argument.

As far as your objection to my restless point.. That isn't really an objection. I agree about evolutionary pressures perhaps, but the Garden of Eden story, if taken literally is about two people who wanted more than what paradise had to offer.. Which seems like we were pretty bored, even in paradise. This does not provide much hope as nothing offers true satisfaction according to this story. If everything was redeemed, would we just get bored again in paradise? Anyways, even these ideas of paradise, or a more pristine time.. or a better time.. this is all so human, going back to the anthropomorphizing point.. It can even be an analogy for early hunting-gathering societies. The longing of early civilizations for an even earlier time when things were less complicated.

Looking beyond the religious discussion here, my theory is that we are essentially striving at nothing.. we survive and then get bored and these two sides of the pendulum motivate us to make goals. We are put into the stress of living life and then must contend with the energy to deal with surviving and then keeping ourselves entertained. The Garden of Eden story as an analogy for this fits nicely in that framework.

I'm not sure you are making a valid point based on what I said. A God that has a purpose and design we can never know is a relatively moot one. As I said above, "God is such an alien being to us, that his goals may be inimical to human happiness, and that effectively means nothing for the living/breathing human. Just because a cosmic/spiritual aspect of things supersedes the physical human, does not make my lot as a physical human any better. If my suffering matters because of a cosmic game that is beyond my control, it effectively means I am shit out of luck in terms of life being anything for me, the human. Purpose in a grand sense becomes meaningless for the human."

You assume here that God is an alien being to us. This has not been established, because God might be inside us, moving in us, the very quick of us. Also you assume that we can never know the cosmic purpose of God. But this does not mean that God, or someone who does know it can't tell us, but rather we are currently blind to it. Yes purpose in a grand sense may be distant, or meaningless for the human, but it might also be something more immananet and have a mysterious, or subtle correlation. Essentially I am saying that you are presenting a point of view on a situation which could be any number of ways. There is as I can see nothing definitive showing that the life of a person is meaningless, or hard luck. Yes, it might be, but not necessarily.

And I already told you that it is convenient how we know just enough from these ancient prophets that had this magical ability to tell us some partial truth of it. It is convenient that it is in ancient times, it is convenient that when we ask for justification, we can never know the whole truth, but just enough to keep the carrot and stick of following this or that.

Again this is your point of view, however I am not going to defend religion, only to say that there is a grain of sense running through it.

If it is as you say, beyond human comprehension, it loses any matter for the living breathing human who must endure life as the mortal human. We become but pawns in a greater scheme that is beyond our control for something is never for us.

As above, I am saying the cosmic purpose might be beyond our comprehension, the truth is we don't know. It might simply be like the plot of a Sherlock Holmes story, impenetrable at first sight, but when revealed the dastardly plan of Profesor Moriarty might be quite simple and obvious, even in plain sight. Anyway the point looses traction if one consideres that for example the cosmic purpose is the same purpose being played out in an individual human life, but on a larger scale, so equally relevant. Indeed there are numerous ways in which it could be imminently present and critical.

By logic, if we humans can think of a concept ("moksha"..union with a godhead..worlds beyond our mere mortal world) it is not in fact beyond our comprehension... If it is beyond our comprehension.. then we can never know it anyways..

Just because a person is not aware of the relevant purpose in their action does not prevent them living a constructive and caring life etc. Personally, even though I am not aware of my cosmic, or divine purpose and have to craft my own personal purpose in life. I feel a deep reverence for this life and what experiences and opportunities I have been afforded. Not to mention my exploration of the subtle ways that those purposes might run through my being and body in this world.

but the Garden of Eden story, if taken literally is about two people who wanted more than what paradise had to offer.. Which seems like we were pretty bored, even in paradise. This does not provide much hope as nothing offers true satisfaction according to this story. If everything was redeemed, would we just get bored again in paradise? Anyways, even these ideas of paradise, or a more pristine time.. or a better time.. this is all so human, going back to the anthropomorphizing point.. It can even be an analogy for early hunting-gathering societies. The longing of early civilizations for an even earlier time when things were less complicated.

There is a deep meaning in the story and I certainly don't see it having anything to do with getting bored in paradise. It is more about an inadvertant loss of innocence, or more precisely a step change in our development as autonomous animals(agents). Resulting in us having the capacity to step outside, beyond, our instinctively conditioned behavioural responses in our environment. Resulting in a crisis of agency and our having to take responsibility for our own actions within the ecosystem. So in a way Eden is our ecosystem before we got to clever and messed it up.

Looking beyond the religious discussion here, my theory is that we are essentially striving at nothing.. we survive and then get bored and these two sides of the pendulum motivate us to make goals. We are put into the stress of living life and then must contend with the energy to deal with surviving and then keeping ourselves entertained. The Garden of Eden story as an analogy for this fits nicely in that framework.

Yes, I am happy to leave religion behind here and focus on agency and our limitations in terms of insight and analytical thought. I agree with your summary here, although in the light of my ideas about Eden, it might add a twist in its use as an analogy. However I do think that some people do seek a vision of a grander purpose, even sense it, or realise it on ocassion. Also there is the farsighted pragmatic vision which I pointed out in the other thread. One in which humanity secures peace, its long term survival and acts as custodian to the ecosystem.

Yes, I am happy to leave religion behind here and focus on agency and our limitations in terms of insight and analytical thought. I agree with your summary here, although in the light of my ideas about Eden, it might add a twist in its use as an analogy. However I do think that some people do seek a vision of a grander purpose, even sense it, or realise it on ocassion. Also there is the farsighted pragmatic vision which I pointed out in the other thread. One in which humanity secures peace, its long term survival and acts as custodian to the ecosystem. — Punshhh

And what then?

And what then?

I don't know.
Presumably some greater (cosmic) purpose would emerge at some point. Unless there is no purpose, but only happenstance(because cosmic purpose is speculation)

Do you/we require a purpose?

I can make no sense of this.

You ask me to suppose that the point of existence is to avoid suffering, then inform me that the only way to realize that point is to cease to exist?

Does not add up in my book.

I don't know.
Presumably some greater (cosmic) purpose would emerge at some point. Unless there is no purpose, but only happenstance(because cosmic purpose is speculation)

Do you/we require a purpose? — Punshhh

Instrumentality.

That would seem an ideal these days. We are a colony though, so there's no escaping it.

That would seem an ideal these days. We are a colony though, so there's no escaping it. — Punshhh

I have my own definition that I've used on this forum for that concept. We suffer from many things, including people, environment, circumstances, our own bodies.. We go through every day for no reason except we are alive and need to survive and be comfortable in our cultural/envirionmental setting and entertain ourselves. It really is not worth going through in the first place. There is no reason to force people into one day then the next then the next until death. Better never to have been.

But did i sign up to serve the universe? If i did why can't i remember it? Do we need to unlock some kind of powers we have, or follow the scriptures( which there are many of different religions, hundreds of years old and heavily edited by men).
Great minds said you're a free man but now i find on this post i find that i am not free. I have to serve the universe and thus taking my life would be not moral?

Suffering is more negative than pleasure is positive. — dukkha

This depends on what you mean by these terms.

would you experience one hour of the worst suffering imaginable in return for one hour of the best pleasure? — dukkha

What is the pleasure in question? There are some pleasures I don't want to experience, such as those found in the traditional list of deadly sins, and there are some pains I don't mind experiencing, such as those derived from fasting, exercise, surgery, and so on. And to anticipate an objection to the latter claim, I do not experience such pains as pleasurable nor do I submit to them in order to feel pleasure.

nappy training session — Punshhh

I must say that this phrase sounds so annoying.

There are some pleasures I don't want to experience, such as those found in the traditional list of deadly sins — Thorongil

>:O The interesting question is why are they called pleasures in the first place? Clearly I presume you don't want to experience them because you'd find them hurtful in some way.

there are some pains I don't mind experiencing, such as those derived from fasting, exercise, surgery, and so on — Thorongil

(Y)

And to anticipate an objection to the latter claim, I do not experience such pains as pleasurable nor do I submit to them in order to feel pleasure. — Thorongil

No, but you find such pains beneficial instead of hurtful. The pleasure/pain dichotomy is more superficial than the benefit/harm one.

Yes, too often people assume that pleasure is the highest good, as apparently the OP did, and so are really hedonists or sensualists, whether they realize it or not.

.
We all want to avoid suffering. Even more so than we want to chase pleasure (one must first attend to their broken arm before concentrating on feeling pleasure). Suffering is more negative than pleasure is positive. Consider, would you experience one hour of the worst suffering imaginable in return for one hour of the best pleasure? Suffering is the stronger of the two values.

.
So why not just suicide? Suicide will free you from all suffering, ever. You'll never suffer ever again.

.
You really believe that?
.
Even if you’re an Atheist and a Physiclist, and you’re sure of your Atheism and Physicalism, are you sure that suicide will free you from all suffering, and that [with suicide] you’ll never suffer again?
.
What was it Hamlet (from Shakespeare) said?:
.
”…to sleep, perchance to dream.
.
Aye, there’s the rub.”
.
Quite aside from evidently being too sure of your beliefs, you’re guessing about the end of life. Don’t be so sure that it’s as simplistic as you think, or that your guess about the resulting experience is reliable.
.

Suicide is a the ultimate pain reliever, better than heroin. And the good thing is that it doesn't even matter that you wont experience pleasure again - because this is a kind of suffering, and you are dead. The dead can't be deprived.

.
In several topics, I’ve posted this description of the end of lives:
.
Your body will be shutting down. But, at the extreme of that body-shutdown, you won’t have any idea that there was ever such a thing as a body. …or that there was ever such a thing as time, events, identity, problems, needs, insufficiency, incompletion, dangers, threats, suffering, hardship, etc.
.
Yes, that sounds pretty good.
.
It will arrive in its own time. …when it’s time for it.
.
…when someone has reached a (far away, for most of us) point at which there are, already, even in life, no more needs, and no more of the consequence-producing kind of involvement in life, or the un-exhausted consequences thereof.
.
At least it’s said that there are some people like that, and that every one of us will get there eventually. I can’t comment on that, because I only have 2nd-hand information about that claim that we’ll all get there.
.
But do you think that you can force it, by suicide? The only thing you’ll force is a really bad time for yourself.
.
…and that remains true even within the beliefs of Atheism and a Physicalism.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now, what follows is just my own explanatory suggestions, and you needn't agree with them:
.
I suggest that you're here in this life because you wanted or needed life. You'll be done with it when you're done with it. Suicide only produces a bad time.

Why were you born into this Land of the Lost? Like all of us who were born in this world, this birth is probably consistent with each of us having badly messed up, and having badly messed-up our lives.

That's just an explanatory suggestion. Disregard it if you want to.

In the first section of this post, I said things that don't depend on what your beliefs are.

Michael Ossipoff

We all want to avoid suffering — dukkha

That's the linchpin - want. It goes against fact and truth - that suffering is impossible to avoid - and therein lies its flaw. Is it wise/reasonable to want the impossible, in this case the total liberation from suffering? How do you respond to the child who thinks he can fly like superman? You don't preach suicide, rather you explain the foolishness of the want to fly.

The view above is also enunciated in Buddhism - that suffering is irrational and arises from a disconnect between reality (truth) and our expectations (wants).

So, anyone who advocates suicide as a solution to suffering is being totally irrational. Not that I'm saying suicide should be completely off the table - it's a rational choice when faced with extreme psychological or physical pain. However, your argument is not about these exceptional cases. Rather it's about all life and that is a falsehood.

Suicide is NOT rational (except in extreme situations) or if you prefer, suicide is rational in extremis but not in MOST situations.

If one is thinking rationally he/she is going to ask how to best respond to suffering.

One does not have to be suffering to want suicide. One could think that dying on his/her own terms rather than nature's terms is preferable. One could see that famous people took their own lives and want to be like them. One could think that he/she is a burden to others and is doing them a valuable service by ending his/her own life.

Suicide is not the norm. Everybody suffers. Therefore, assuming that suffering is never good, if suicide is a rational response to suffering then the overwhelming majority of people must be irrational.

Or it is more like this: life is neither rational nor irrational. Life is a thing that we do not have the ability to predict. The appropriate response to suffering depends on life. Therefore, suicide as a sufferer's response to suffering is an illusion. The reality is that the occurrence and timing of suicide is simply how life works. In other words, suicide is itself a natural death.

"Yes, too often people assume that pleasure is the highest good, as apparently the OP did, and so are really hedonists or sensualists, whether they realize it or not."

Here we have another reason why I love Nietzsche

Here we have another reason why I love Nietzsche — Beebert

As if Plato didn't say pleasure isn't the highest good thousands of years before Nietzsche :P

Hmm?

No, for him pleasure was in his fantasy world of ideas and virtue

It's well to recognize a distinction between suicide and medically-justified auto-euthanasia or requested euthanasia.

If any individual feels that an injury or disease has spoiled hir (his/her) quality of life, then s/he should be able to get physician-assisted auto-euthanasia or requested euthanasia.

...and the judgement regarding whether or not that person's qualify of life has been unacceptably lowered should rest entirely with that person.

Michael Ossipoff

No, for him pleasure was in his fantasy world of ideas and virtue — Beebert

But that's a very facile & superficial reading of Plato...

I made an ironic joke. Of course it is. But I am not sure Plato was aware in depth about all the hidden motives behind why he wrote what he wrote

I made an ironic joke. Of course it is. But I am not sure Plato was aware in depth about all the hidden motives behind why he wrote what he wrote — Beebert

Which dialogues of Plato have you read?

Plato wasnt infallible. He was human, and it is pretty obvious when reading him. His worshiping of distinctions between what is and what becomes but really isnt is in a way a prejudice, and his worship of opposites is something worth questioning. Just because I can imagine a straight line doesnt mean there must be one. And if there is, who cares in the end? He is one of those philosophers whose hatred of the body and the physical I cant stand. Nor can I stand what seems to be an underlying death wish. He was definitely one of those great men of many true insights who loved wearing many masks. Even in his quest for truth and virtue one can smell something hidden... A mask(referring to our discussion in the other thread). I still really like Plato though, especially for his great prose. I also hate his hatred of arts and agree with Popper's criticism of him.

I have read Apology, Crito, Phaedo Gorgias, Symposion, Phaedro and the Republic. I Will soon read Timaeus, which I have heard many consider to be his greatest work.

Plato wasnt infallible. — Beebert

Sure. Nietzsche wasn't infallible either :P

His worshiping of distinctions between what is and what becomes but really isnt is in a way a prejudice — Beebert

But this distinction seems to me to be absolutely vital. When we're looking for the Truth, are we looking for something that is today so and so, and tomorrow different? Or are we looking for something permanent and unchanging? When we're looking for morality, are we looking for something that is right or wrong only today, or something that is right or wrong any time?

Just because I can imagine a straight line doesnt mean there must be one. — Beebert

I don't think Plato thought there must be one.

He is one of those philosophers whose hatred of the body and the physical I cant stand. — Beebert

lol - I have quite the opposite impression. The Greeks, including Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were lovers of the body. Sure, Plato did say that the realm of the senses is inferior, with regards to knowledge, compared to the realm of ideas. But Plato's conception of virtue as harmony of the tripartite soul necessitates that the body be satisfied too. And Symposium does treat about the gradation of love, from the spiritual to the physical.

Nor can I stand what seems to be an underlying death wish. — Beebert

I don't follow.

Even in his quest for truth and virtue one can smell something hidden... A mask(referring to our discussion in the other thread). — Beebert

But his quest was deeper than this - it was the quest for the Agathon - the Form of the Good. Plato was a lover of Good.

Sure. Nietzsche wasn't infallible either :P
Never Said anything else. But he is far more misunderstood and mistreated by those who do not appreciate him. And by blind fanboys too for that matter.

Would you Btw call Socrates superior as a human being to Plato or the other around?

"lol - I have quite the opposite impression. The Greeks, including Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were lovers of the body"

Aristotle I agree, and he is in many ways preferable to Plato. Though I prefer Plato in the end because of one very important aspect: Beauty.
Though I must ask you: Are you kidding me regarding Plato's view of the physical?

Would you Btw call Socrates superior as a human being to Plato or the other around? — Beebert

We don't know much about Socrates except through Plato, so to me Plato and Socrates are one.