Then of course there is the idea that our flawed universe is the product of a Demiurge. The Gnostic accounts suggests a creature of some malignancy. — Tom Storm
Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything?
The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety. — schopenhauer1
The idea of a god who is not all powerful, who sacrificed himself to become Jesus, who in turn was sacrificed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, belongs to a respectable theologian whose work I read and whose book title and name I can't remember.
I do like to write with some levity and in a jokey way. I'm not trying to make my "thought" more accessible -- I'm expressing an idea which includes the advisory that we should not take all this stuff too seriously.
I don't know whether I believe in god -- omnipotent, hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin -- or not. Most years not, some days yes. The family and institutional programming we receive early on is generally hard to overwrite. So, I used to like to read theology (a limited sample, anyway, mostly very liberal stuff). I haven't read any for maybe 20 years. Is there a Theology Anonymous group? I could get a 20 year pin. — BC
I see, but note that Christian Universalism has a quite peculiar 'take' on this. As I understand it, these thinkers see the whole history as a sort of educative process and the whole creation is seen as a pure act of love. Punishments are not seen as retributive but as remedial, educative, purifying, i.e. a corrective punishments. So, the suffering that human beings endure is seen as having a purpose, a particular aim.
Also, human beings are rational creatures and choose what they think is good for them. The 'corrective punishments' are, as far as I understand, seen as a way to learn what is really good for them (i.e. that God is what is really good).
Considering that the aim is an 'eternal blessedness' and that we finite creatures cannot have it by our own efforts and merits, according to these christians (on this point they agree with the traditional view), suffering, endurance etc have all an ultimately good purpose for all human beings (although the 'corrections' can be very long, hard etc according to them). Also, in my understanding, they see Jesus' (and therefore God's) own suffering as a necessary step for salvation. — boundless
Of course, I guess that you can retort that God may have chosen to create human beings in an even different way, where even these corrections are not necessary. But, again, how can we know that it is even possible to do that?
Finally, regarding the whole thing being being 'all to human', I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand why you would think so. On the other hand, I think that, after all, if one accepts a Personal God, the relation between he/she and God must have some kind of analogy with the relation with another human being. So, the spiritual 'journey' and the relation between humans and God might necessarily be framed in an apparently 'too human' way in order to be useful to humans. — boundless
Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything?
The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety.
Yes. I'm aware that Spinoza's 17th century worldview predated both 19th century Darwinian Evolution, and 20th century Big Bang theory. So I have updated my own worldview to include those challenges to the standstill world of Spinoza-God. Perhaps God's omniscient view of the world is like Einstein's Block Time*1, in which all possibilities exist concurrently, yet unchanging. But humans, observing only from inside the world system (limited perspective), can only see one snapshot at a time, then merge those stills into an ever-changing illusory movie. For all practical purposes, I assume the "persistent" illusion of ever-changing Time is true. But for philosophical interests, I can imagine a god's-eye-view of the Cosmos, as illustrated in the image below*2 {note --- Enfernity is my mashup of Eternity and Infinity}. Of course, these imaginary metaphors should not be taken literally. :smile:Ok, I think that your view shares some similarities with Spinoza's but isn't compatible with it. After all, there is no 'real' cosmic evolution in Spinoza's view. Change is an illusory appearance that we percieve because of our limited perspective. In the highest way of seeing the world, there is no change. — boundless
Again, this is a matter of perspective. From God's perch outside the physical universe, all things, including humans, are totally dependent on the Source, the Potential, the Omnipotent. But, from a human perspective inside our little world bubble, rational creatures have developed some independence from Absolute Determinism. We "little gods" are indeed dependent relative to God/Omniverse, but independent relative to our local environment, as indicated in image *3. That doesn't make us Autonomous substances, but Relative instances. We are Free only relative to other creatures. :wink:I see your point here. But Spinoza would deny any kind of autonomy for human beings. He would say that if we have free will, we would have some kind of independence from God and, therefore, we would be individual substances — boundless
I see, but note that Christian Universalism has a quite peculiar 'take' on this. As I understand it, these thinkers see the whole history as a sort of educative process and the whole creation is seen as a pure act of love. Punishments are not seen as retributive but as remedial, educative, purifying, i.e. a corrective punishments. So, the suffering that human beings endure is seen as having a purpose, a particular aim.
Also, human beings are rational creatures and choose what they think is good for them. The 'corrective punishments' are, as far as I understand, seen as a way to learn what is really good for them (i.e. that God is what is really good).
Considering that the aim is an 'eternal blessedness' and that we finite creatures cannot have it by our own efforts and merits, according to these christians (on this point they agree with the traditional view), suffering, endurance etc have all an ultimately good purpose for all human beings (although the 'corrections' can be very long, hard etc according to them). Also, in my understanding, they see Jesus' (and therefore God's) own suffering as a necessary step for salvation. — boundless
Of course, I guess that you can retort that God may have chosen to create human beings in an even different way, where even these corrections are not necessary. But, again, how can we know that it is even possible to do that?
Finally, regarding the whole thing being being 'all to human', I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand why you would think so. On the other hand, I think that, after all, if one accepts a Personal God, the relation between he/she and God must have some kind of analogy with the relation with another human being. So, the spiritual 'journey' and the relation between humans and God might necessarily be framed in an apparently 'too human' way in order to be useful to humans. — boundless
If suffering is endless then we cannot reach the state of absolute peace but we can reach the state of relative peace.Ok, I see. But if suffering is literally endless, how can such an endless effort be something desirable to us? — boundless
If suffering is endless then we cannot achieve a state without suffering.For instance, IIRC, Kant's view was that the progress to ethical perfection is endless but I don't think that after a certain point, it involves suffering. — boundless
Well, it depends if experience is necessary for any sort of dynamic progress. If progress can be achieved without experience then there would be no suffering otherwise there would be. Change to me however is not possible without experience. The argument for this is very long and technical. If you buy this argument for the sake of discussion then it follows that suffering is involved in any sort of dynamic progress.This leads to me to another question. Do you think that any kind of 'dynamic progress', so to speak, necessarily involves suffering? If so, why? — boundless
We can reach a state of relative peace even if suffering is boundless.But if such a goal is utterly unachievable and suffering cannot be eliminated, why we should seek it? — boundless
they are all varieties of fanfiction of course — schopenhauer1
At this point, it's like we are just interpreting poor rules made up by a Dungeon and Dragons designer on a poorly thought new early edition... — schopenhauer1
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
-Uncle Karl-
It may be amusing to you because you have seen images of Earth from above the Firmament, and no God in the picture. That's because God was standing behind the camera. :joke:↪Gnomon
The juxtaposition of the multiverse versus the limited universe of the ancient Near East is amusing. — schopenhauer1
First of all, I have to say that I don't have an argument for a God who is the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning of time. All I am saying is that if there is a God who is perfect, whether perfection is bounded or boundless, in all his attributes would not create any lesser agent than God who is subject to suffering since the suffering cannot be justified. This however requires the existence of a God who can create another God and It is Just. If these two conditions (a God who can create another God and a God who is Just) do not meet then we are dealing with a variety of Gods so creations also look different depending on the type of God. For example, we can have a God who is Just but cannot create another God. So, such a God can create a universe in which agents within are subject to suffering. Such a God however only creates a universe if suffering can be justified. This however requires that suffering is fruitful and something positive would come out of it. There could be a God who is Evil or Good too. A God could also be malicious. What could we do with a malicious God? Nothing but accepting our fates and suffering eternally.This all makes no sense, so I'll leave you to your own musings unless you want to explain your use of "against wisdom" here. — schopenhauer1
Well, that depends on the definition of God (the types of Gods as it was discussed in the last comment) that we have to agree on. The act of creation is positive if something positive comes out of suffering for example.Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything? — schopenhauer1
I think that the whole, what you call God, is boundless and I have an argument for it (you can find the argument in my threads). So, any sort of agent that can be imagined exists if the whole is filled with stuff. Therefore, I agree with this part of your statement that there could be spiritual agents that for example in charge of enforcing Karma.The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety. — schopenhauer1
So, such a God can create a universe in which agents within are subject to suffering. Such a God however only creates a universe if suffering can be justified. This however requires that suffering is fruitful and something positive would come out of it. There could be a God who is Evil or Good too. A God could also be malicious. What could we do with a malicious God? Nothing but accepting our fates and suffering eternally. — MoK
I understand that a perfect God does not need anything but that does not mean such a God would not want to create a universe with positive outcomes. The creation of the universe does not add anything to a perfect God but it adds to existence if existence is positive. So I don't understand why a perfect God would not want to create.All we have to admit then is that THIS god you describe, the one Just-Centric god that rules this universe is not perfect. Our disagreement comes from our definitions of perfection. For me, a perfect being has no needs, is not dissatisfied with its own supernal nature. Thus, whatever deity it is that devises a plan whereby they play out acts of goodness and badness, and acts of godliness and sins and acts of "Holy Hosannas!" and repentance to appease the God. A god that has a plan for a universe whereby people must act in a way to bring about a future World to Come apocalypse, where he then reveals himself in his full glory after an absence.. Whatever else it is, that is not perfection in that it is a designer of a game that it is playing. He creates the players, he creates the systems, and wants to see the players play ball in the system and see how it turns out.
That is a very human-like god. That makes sense since humans created it. A god that needs humans (to play his game), is a god that NEEDS things. — schopenhauer1
I understand that a perfect God does not need anything but that does not mean such a God would not want to create a universe with positive outcomes. — MoK
The whole point is why would a perfect god create this kind of game of hide-and-seek of his "blessedness" and "good and evil"? It doesn't matter if the game ends in eternal damnation/bliss, or temporary purification/purgation, or whatnot. The idea of eternal damnation or temporary (the rules of the game) don't matter here, just that THERE IS A GAME. — schopenhauer1
But this is quite evasive of the question I am asking and putting on the human. Why would God give a shit to have creations that need to go on a journey? He's perfect right? He has needs to see this VERY HUMAN STYLE game play out? This isn't very lofty. Kinda what a human would make up if playing a game of "do good" variety. And GUESS WHO IS THE CENTER OF ATTENTION IN THE GAME- HUMANS!! OF course! We truly are images of God, who is a reflection of us, that is. — schopenhauer1
The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. — schopenhauer1
Yes. I'm aware that Spinoza's 17th century worldview predated both 19th century Darwinian Evolution, and 20th century Big Bang theory. So I have updated my own worldview to include those challenges to the standstill world of Spinoza-God. — Gnomon
Perhaps God's omniscient view of the world is like Einstein's Block Time*1, in which all possibilities exist concurrently, yet unchanging. — Gnomon
But humans, observing only from inside the world system (limited perspective), can only see one snapshot at a time, then merge those stills into an ever-changing illusory movie. For all practical purposes, I assume the "persistent" illusion of ever-changing Time is true. — Gnomon
Again, this is a matter of perspective. From God's perch outside the physical universe, all things, including humans, are totally dependent on the Source, the Potential, the Omnipotent. But, from a human perspective inside our little world bubble, rational creatures have developed some independence from Absolute Determinism. We "little gods" are indeed dependent relative to God/Omniverse, but independent relative to our local environment, as indicated in image *3. That doesn't make us Autonomous substances, but Relative instances. We are Free only relative to other creatures. :wink: — Gnomon
If suffering is endless then we cannot reach the state of absolute peace but we can reach the state of relative peace. — MoK
Well, it depends if experience is necessary for any sort of dynamic progress. If progress can be achieved without experience then there would be no suffering otherwise there would be. Change to me however is not possible without experience. The argument for this is very long and technical. If you buy this argument for the sake of discussion then it follows that suffering is involved in any sort of dynamic progress. — MoK
It matters.You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. — schopenhauer1
Well, God could be both good and evil. Such a God however is Just. By Just I mean God delivers good or evil in a proper amount depending on the situation. So the existence of suffering in the universe is not a problem for such a God as far as suffering leads to a positive result. That is correct that a good God wouldn't want to see suffering but even such a God might want to create a universe full of suffering if the outcome of suffering is positive and good.So here we have the following:
1) A perfect god wouldn't have needs
2) A good god wouldn't want suffering — schopenhauer1
I agree that a perfect God does not lack anything and creation does not add anything to a perfect God but that does not mean that such a God wouldn't want to create a universe if the outcome of creation is positive.Now you can contest this, but then that's my point, what is a perfect and good god? Generally, a perfection doesn't lack anything. — schopenhauer1
I agree that the whole is boundless and there could be any agents one can imagine.Now if I was to be real abstract about it, I would again point to the idea of a multiverse whereby everything that exists is god, and thus, at the least, one of the universes has to have the shit end of the stick with suffering. If not one, then vastly infinite amounts perhaps, and we are but one of them. — schopenhauer1
There is no guarantee that we don't lose it. It is a constant challenge to stay in a state of relative peace.Ok. But if this peace is 'relative', as you say, what guarantee we have that we do not lose it? — boundless
I don't equate a state of peace with a state in which we experience more pleasure than suffering. A state of peace is neutral. By neutral I mean you neither suffer nor have pleasure.Also, is this scenario desirable because suffering is less than pleasure in this 'relative peace'? — boundless
Yes, we cannot avoid suffering if perfection is boundless.All I see here is an assertion that change always entails 'suffering'. For instance, the reason why I believe that transience entails suffering in this world is that there isn't an unbroken continuum of pleasurable/positive experiences. Sooner or later, the 'continuum' of positive experiences will have an end, due to illnesses, other kinds of suffering, and death. — boundless
Correct. But you ask whether we can make any progress without suffering. I mentioned that there could be progress without suffering if there is no experience. I then mentioned that change is not possible without experience. Progress is a change. Therefore progress is not possible without experience. I also don't think that you can make progress without suffering. That is how life is!On the other hand, if there were only positive experiences and the succession of these experiences would continue forever, I would say that there would be no suffering in this case. This is to say that I don't think that logically change necessary entails suffering. — boundless
Well, God could be both good and evil. Such a God however is Just. By Just I mean God delivers good or evil in a proper amount depending on the situation. So the existence of suffering in the universe is not a problem for such a God as far as suffering leads to a positive result. — MoK
I agree that a perfect God does not lack anything and creation does not add anything to a perfect God but that does not mean that such a God wouldn't want to create a universe if the outcome of creation is positive. — MoK
I agree that the whole is boundless and there could be any agents one can imagine. — MoK
I don't understand why you continue to use the 'game' analogy. It is more like a training or a learning process in my opinion. — boundless
The reason why I brought Christian Universalism here (a view that lately I feel drawn to BTW), is that ultimately in that view the end result is positive*. — boundless
But anyway, for your first question... well, I don't know. Maybe a 'loving, perfect God' creates because it is an expression of its nature (this doesn't imply that God is ontologically dependent on created things but creating is an expression of God's nature...). If this is the case, then, creation doesn't come from a 'need' or a 'lack' in God but it is simply an expression of the nature of God.
But also you might ask, why such a God created a world structured like ours and not another. Well, I don't know how to answer that, to be honest. Did God create other worlds, different from ours? Well, I don't know and I don't know how a universalist might respond to that (same as before).
(*also, I don't think that an universalist must say that all suffering has a 'purpose'. In my previous post, I was speaking about the concept of 'punishment' in this kind of view) — boundless
There is no guarantee that we don't lose it. It is a constant challenge to stay in a state of relative peace. — MoK
I don't equate a state of peace with a state in which we experience more pleasure than suffering. A state of peace is neutral. By neutral I mean you neither suffer nor have pleasure. — MoK
Correct. But you ask whether we can make any progress without suffering. I mentioned that there could be progress without suffering if there is no experience. I then mentioned that change is not possible without experience. Progress is a change. Therefore progress is not possible without experience. I also don't think that you can make progress without suffering. That is how life is! — MoK
I don't make any claim to be a "Spinozist". That would be absurd, since I have never read any of his work first hand, and I don't regard him as my Guru. I merely identified with his break from traditional religion without rejecting the logical necessity of a non-empirical preternatural First Cause of some kind. Since my "critic" did claim to be a Spinozist, I just noted that my personal worldview seemed to be generally compatible with Spinoza's, yet making allowance for advances in historical and scientific understanding since he wrote his "radical enlightenment" manifesto. :smile:Well, that's not Spinozism anymore IMO, lol. But of course, you still have a right to call your philosophy a modification of Spinoza's (there are after all analogies) or even say that it is 'Spinozist'. — boundless
I don't waste much time trying to imagine what Omniscience would be like. Since I have no direct or scriptural "revelation" to go by, I can only guess that Block Time might be something like omniscience.Well, the problem of 'omniscence' is, indeed, a difficult one. If God (whatever S/He or It is) already knows everything, how we can avoid an 'block time' and also the conclusion that free will is a mere illusion? It's indeed a quite difficult question. — boundless
Since, unlike Einstein, I am incapable of imagining omniscience, I would say that an ever-changing world is not an illusion but an empirical Fact of human understanding. To deny real world Change might be a sign of dementia, or of extreme Idealism. Why do we persist in such an illusion? Because it makes sense to our senses. Only philosophers waste time trying to imagine non-sense. :cool:Einstein maintained that the distinction between past, present and the future is an illusion, albeit a persistent one, but nevertheless considered the 'now' as the main problem of physics. If the passage of time is illusory, why we do have such a 'persistent illusion'? Our immediate experience is a strong argument against the block time, after all. — boundless
Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. Relative to mundane human understanding it's an undeniable verity. Since I have almost 8 decades of personal experience, I can't deceive myself that Aging & Death are figments of imagination. From my imaginary personal perspective, Death looks like a skeleton in a black hoodie holding a mean-looking scythe. :wink:So, you seem to agree that free will is an illusion, after all. And also the cosmic evolution is merely pespectival and ultimately illusory. If so, your philosophy is closer to Spinoza's than I thought before.
I thought that you asserted that the cosmic evolution is 'real', not illusory. Apparently, I misinterpreted. — boundless
That's the GAME then.. training, learning, etc. It doesn't have to look like Chess or Monopoly or Basketball! It's an obstacle course of choosing between options, and sometimes the game puts participants in vicariously tragic positions, despite seemingly good decisions. So, it's a game of obstacles, suffering, learning, etc. — schopenhauer1
In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1
God's nature? That makes it seem like God himself is following a rule he cannot escape. There goes the all-powerful part. Again, do you see why this God looks very human to me? And as with my question to MoK, are we talking the Biblical/Abrahamic God or some personal notion? — schopenhauer1
We are curious creatures so we are wondering why life looks like this. I don't think that there is any sort of suffering that leads to a completely negative end whether you believe in a God or not who is in charge of enforcing Karma. For a moment think that there is no God. Think of a situation in which a child is born with cancer. Both the child and relatives suffer in such a situation. What is the human response to such a situation? We try to find a medication to cure the child. So our overall state of life improves with time as we face challenges and sufferings.Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? — schopenhauer1
The same answer as above.In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1
We can discuss other sorts of Gods as well. I am open to discussion. I however have problems with Abrahamic God.But are specifically discussing the "Abrahamic" God from the Biblical narratives here or is this just MoK's own version of things? — schopenhauer1
Well, I mentioned that if perfection is boundless then we cannot possibly reach the state of absolute peace but relative one. There is nothing we can do about it.Well, in any case, your conception of 'relative peace' cannot be a real 'peace'. If we have to continue to struggle to maintain it, it inevitably involves suffering. — boundless
Well, I can imagine a state of peace and harmony (what I call perfection) as well but our current state of affairs is not like this.Well, at least hypothetically/logically I think that it isn't true. I can imagine an interrupted continuum of neutral and/or positive experiences. At least I do not see a logical impossibility here. — boundless
I don't make any claim to be a "Spinozist". That would be absurd, since I have never read any of his work first hand, and I don't regard him as my Guru. I merely identified with his break from traditional religion without rejecting the logical necessity of a non-empirical preternatural First Cause of some kind. Since my "critic" did claim to be a Spinozist, I just noted that my personal worldview seemed to be generally compatible with Spinoza's, yet making allowance for advances in historical and scientific understanding since he wrote his "radical enlightenment" manifesto. :smile: — Gnomon
Regarding Free Will, I can only agree with Einstein's comment on past-present-future Time --- that it's a "stubbornly persistent illusion" --- which 99% of humans accept as a pragmatic assumption. :joke: — Gnomon
Since, unlike Einstein, I am incapable of imagining omniscience, I would say that an ever-changing world is not an illusion but an empirical Fact of human understanding. To deny real world Change might be a sign of dementia, or of extreme Idealism. :cool: — Gnomon
Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. Relative to mundane human understanding it's an undeniable verity. Since I have almost 8 decades of personal experience, I can't deceive myself that Aging & Death are figments of imagination. From my imaginary personal perspective, Death looks like a skeleton in a black hoodie holding a mean-looking scythe. :wink: — Gnomon
Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1
Well, I can imagine a state of peace and harmony (what I call perfection) as well but our current state of affairs is not like this. — MoK
Well, the state of relative peace is better than nothing. The better you understand life it becomes easier to achieve relative peace.Ok, fine. But the 'relative perfection' you mentioned earlier didn't sound as something desirable, something to seek etc if it is a constant struggle. — boundless
Is there a downside to accepting that "feeling" of change in the objective world and the practical effects of willful behavior? I feel older and wiser than I did at 18. Am I just naive, or deceiving myself that I can be an agent of change in the world? When I imagine that I'm driving my car to the grocery store, was that destination destined by God or Fate 14b years before I was born? If my free agency is a mirage, will I go hungry waiting for the world to bend to my will? :snicker:Evolution and FreeWill are only illusory relative to Omniscience. ---Gnomon
But note that as I said, something can 'feel' very real but at the same time can be illusory. — boundless
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.