Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division. — Jake

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. — BrianW

I'd bet we can say it better, so perhaps we could try together.

What is the source of the illusion of division?

If we answer that the source of the illusion of division is incorrect thoughts, then the door is opened to many different competing religions and philosophies etc all attempting to uncover and articulate the correct thoughts. This process has been going on for thousands of years with rather limited constructive result, and at the price of considerable social division and conflict both rhetorical and real. It's debatable whether this process has actually solved more problems than it has caused.

If we answer instead that the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then all of the above can be swept away in a single movement. After all, what would be the point of arguing about competing philosophies for thousands of years if the illusion we are trying to cure arises from that which all philosophies are made of?

If the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then a never ending search for the perfect philosophy can be replaced by simple mechanical methods of managing the medium of thought. And so, a solution of sorts becomes far more accessible to very many more people, because the remedy no longer involves sophisticated esoteric concepts and all of that.

In this way of looking at the problem, thought is just another mechanical function of the body which requires ongoing management to remain healthy, just like all our other biological processes. We have to eat, but not too much. We have to sleep, but not too much. We have to think, but not too much. Simple. Obvious. Common sense.

A price tag of this perspective is that we have to let go of the dream of a perfect permanent solution, ie. "enlightenment". If the illusion of division arises from thought itself, and we have to think to survive, then some degree of illusion and thus suffering will always be with us.

Luckily, nature provides a solution here, we'll all be dead so much sooner than we realize. Help is on the way, just hang in there a bit longer! :smile:

But, uh oh, here comes an obstacle to simple solutions. If the problem and solution is basically simple the "clerical class", by which I mean all teachers, gurus, priests, philosophers and shamans etc, are no longer needed. And so the authority generating machine of all religions and philosophies works to make sure the subject remains complicated, elusive, in need of experts.

The clerical class is largely made up of people just like us, articulate people who like complications. And they typically have an added skill, the ability to generate authority. Put all this together, and the result is thousands of years of unnecessary complexity and conflict, all in the name of peace.

The illusion of division which so afflicts us arises directly from the medium of thought we are made of psychologically. That's why suffering is a universal property of the human condition, whatever the time and place, culture, philosophy, or religion etc.

When Krishna expounds on yoga in the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings are based on the principles of absolute unity. — BrianW

Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division.

And when you discuss it in depth, as we have here - I've often found that it's not so much a love of animals, but a dislike of people — karl stone

It's not dislike of people to wish that we be kinder and gentler people who aren't inflicting suffering and trashing our environment for no good reason.

Not eating meat gives them a cheaply purchased sense of moral superiority they cannot help but flaunt; and the reason you don't like me digging down - is that, it puts that moralism at risk. — karl stone

We don't like you digging down because you're just repeating misunderstandings that some of us escaped 50 years ago. All that's at risk in rehashing such misunderstanding is our time, which I must admit we ourselves are guilty of wasting in such conversations.

Wikipedia/atheism then goes on to say that in a very narrow sense, atheism means a positive claim that no Gods exist. — VoidDetector

Atheism is a positive claim that human reason is qualified to analyze questions the scale of god proposals, just as theism is typically a positive claim that some holy book is so qualified. Each party is referencing their preferred chosen authority, neither of which can be proven qualified for the task at hand.

What complicates the above is that while theists typically understand that they are operating from a faith based relationship in their chosen authority, atheists typically don't understand that they are in the same position. Usually the atheist's faith in their chosen authority is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take the qualifications of their chosen authority to be an obvious given which requires no inspection or challenge. And thus we see recurring misleading discussion themes such as religion = faith vs. atheism ≠ faith.

Given the number of ways that reason can indeed be very useful, such misunderstandings are understandable, especially given that within the forum realm they are typically being articulated by young people. Indeed, many very bright fully mature highly educated adults have fallen victim to the same misunderstandings. You know, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc are not stupid people. They're just not objective people, not fully loyal to their own chosen methodology, and thus have fallen victim to some of the very human failings that have often caused religious people to get sucked in to holy wars of various kinds.

Personally, I don't expect the typical scientist to have much of anything useful to contribute to such investigations, just as I don't expect Catholic clergy to uncover the secrets of the quantum realm etc.

Atheism broadly means lack of belief in deities... — VoidDetector

In the real world, atheism means a belief in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze assertions about the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of God claims. The "lack of belief" is based upon something, a competing belief.

Wikipedia/atheism describes atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities. — VoidDetector

Who cares what Wikipedia says? Why should Wikipedia volunteers be expected to have any deeper understanding of atheism than the average man on the street?

Most people, including almost everybody on philosophy forums, blindly chant the memorized definition "atheism equals lack of belief in God" without bothering to ask where that lack of belief comes from, what is it built upon, what is it's source?

Atheism is no more merely a "lack of belief" in gods than theism is merely a "lack of belief" in Christopher Hitchens.

I heard on NPR the other day that during the early days of America the age of sexual consent was 10.

But the issue with committed Christians (especially evangelical Protestants) is that they really can’t accomodate pluralism. There’s an undercurrent of wanting-to-convert that you can never quite shake when discussing with them. — Wayfarer

Isn't pretty much every other post on the forum a "wanting-to-convert" type of post?

I don't mind too much religion or theology on the site, I mind too much crappy religion or theology. — Πετροκότσυφας

Agreed, I personally find religion topics pretty interesting generally speaking, but weary of the endlessly repeated notion so common on philosophy forums that religion equals ideological assertions. The constant comparisons between religion and science also tend to wear out their welcome. The mistaken idea that religion = faith and atheism ≠ faith gets repeated too often for my taste. And so on...

But, such whiny complaints stated, we are who we are and are generally speaking doing the best that we can do. Rome wasn't built in a day, nobody is born knowing everything etc, so let the conversations roll on.

Great points, and well said.

Personally, to me the apparent great divide between theism and atheism is mostly a form of mythology. I see a bigger divide between the adamant people on both sides, and the calm reasonable people on both sides.

I, personally, really hate religion. It limits the mind and wastes time. However, I am not going to strip the ability to talk about religion from people, especially if they bring up good points about it. — RosettaStoned

Well, speaking of good points :smile: it doesn't seem that rational to really hate something as large as religion. Religion is the largest cultural event in human history and contains within it's walls the best and worst of what humanity can offer and everything in between.

The problem I have with religion from that perspective, though, is.... — Terrapin Station

The solution here is to simply discard that which isn't working for a person, and look for other methods of developing one's emotional relationship with reality.

Again, "reality" is likely still too much of an abstraction to facilitate the development of an emotional relationship, so one may wish to focus on a particular place and form bonds of attachment with that place. The process is much the same as making friends with a person. You have to invest a lot of time and open yourself up. No religion required.

and no one is obliged to read or participate in topics that don't concern them. — unenlightened

Voting for this.

In an attempt to finally get to the bottom of this subject I found the following video on YouTube which clearly explains the debate between Chatterbears and Karl Stone.

A compromise might be to keep talking about Jesus where such an interest exists, but try to talk about his work in a more interesting manner than is often the case.

As example, it's impossible to use philosophy to determine whether Jesus was a god or not, so it seems reasonable to let that subject go.

On the other hand, what did Jesus mean by "dying to be reborn"? And what might we mean by such a concept? This seems a worthwhile conversation, whether or not Jesus the person is included.

There's a lot more to religion in general and Christianity in particular than God claims. It would be helpful if philosophy forum users could get that.

Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. — Noah Te Stroete

I cast my vote for these wise words.

The endless comparisons between religion and science that dominate philosophy forums reveal that those making such comparisons are typically not interested enough in the topic to try to understand that which they are so eager to debunk. Such a blind faith "us vs. them" process tends to replicate some of the worst aspects of religion.

Religion is better compared to art. A novel or play can reveal deep truths about the human condition even though the plot is entirely fictional. It's helpful to remember that many of the stories religions present were written thousands of years ago for an audience very different than the culture we live in today. While such stories are ever more out of date in today's modern world, the messages about the human condition that the stories are trying to share are often still very relevant.

As example, the very first book of the Bible focuses on our relationship with knowledge, via the fable of Adam and Eve. Our relationship with knowledge is still the most fundamental fact about the human condition, and just as the Adam and Eve story predicted, the flaws in that relationship are causing us to eject ourselves from the "Garden Of Eden", ie. a healthy planet. All this, in a story written some 3,000 years ago, long before the age of technology.

No, I don't believe there was a guy named Adam and a girl named Eve, and a sneaky snake. But I do believe that whoever wrote that story had deep insights in to the human condition. But the story is now very old and in need of an update for modern audiences.

Science deals in fact about reality.

Religion deals with our relationship with reality.

What confuses many, especially those with no real interest in these topics, is that religion often makes factual claims in an attempt to help manage our relationship with reality.

As example, it would be highly rational for any of us to pursue a plan of falling in love with reality. But "reality" is too abstract a concept for most people, and so reality is often personalized in the form of a human-like character such as Jesus or God or Krishna etc. Everyone is free to decline this device of course, but the evidence shows that such a personalization method has been far more successful in inspiring a "falling in love" experience than anything science has been able to deliver.

Our emotional relationship with reality. Focus on that. If religion doesn't help a particular person develop that emotional relationship, ok, no problem, so walk away, and find something else that does work. That's the rational course of action.

The mature thing to do would be to respond to the post above, — karl stone

The logical thing to do would be to not invest time in trying to explain such things to those who show no evidence of being capable of ever getting it. Such a procedure is a waste of everybody's time, and accomplishes little more than generating pointless conflict.

A better approach would be to try to identify those who have already decided to move towards a plant based diet, but are new to the subject and need some assistance with their transition. For example, a website with a title something like "How To Become A Vegetarian".

I repeat: If you want to change behavior, come up with a plan that has a chance of producing concrete results. — Bitter Crank

I thought Mr. Crank had the best plan, manipulating behavior through the price. As example, taxes on animal products with the proceeds being used to subsidize alternatives. I'll admit I really have no plan for implementing that politically, but maybe somebody else can offer some suggestions.

By the way, there are increasingly plant based products engineered to taste quite a bit like meat. I'm addicted to vegie sausage myself.

I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I think it is pointless at this point. — chatterbears

Hey, you figured it out! :smile:

The anti-progress misanthrope — karl stone

Chatterbears is talking about progress, as am I in my concerns. We can't help it that you're stuck in the 19th century, and you think that's progress.

Clearly, you imagine your preference for animals over humans — karl stone

That's not actually what he's expressing, imho. By arguing for a plant based diet, he's also arguing on behalf of human interests.

What he's struggling with is that he sees our human interest clearly, but can't find an effective method of communicating that interest to those such as yourself who are determined to never get it no matter what.

Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet lol. — chatterbears

Not the worst morally, just the worst because we have the most power, thus the most opportunity to wreck everything for other creatures in pursuit of our own interests, as we so poorly perceive them.

What makes you think they would care to switch off a meat based diet for a plant-based diet? — chatterbears

I cast my vote for Professor Crank's post. Yes, a price increase, that's probably the only realistic solution. It's like the carbon tax, a method of accounting for the damage being done, including it in the price of the product. I predict that -34% of all politicians will be voting for an increased tax on meat in the near future. :smile:

We do not need to kill an animal to survive, be healthy and enjoy food. — chatterbears

I agree, but still feel we need some other approach to making the case. Instead of focusing on the harm to animals and the harm to the environment, how about a focus on the harm to person consuming the animals? You know, heart disease and so on.

Most people already know we are killing millions of animals, and at least many meat eaters already know that this industrial process is damaging to the environment. But they're still eating meat, evidence that they are not persuaded by the damage being done. Pointing the finger of moral blame and shame is probably going to generate as much resistance and push back as it does conversion.

We might ask whether we are using a moralistic message because we have evidence that it will be effective, or because we enjoy moralizing about other people's behavior. My guess is that a self interest argument would prove the most effective.

In the case of the suicidal person, the person has a decision to make and he has to rely on whatever knowledge he has to guess if it will be a good decision or not. — TheHedoMinimalist

But he doesn't have any knowledge about death, nobody does. All we have is a circus of competing speculations.

One is left with a shorter and a longer life to compare, and the quality of the extra life is crucial. — unenlightened

The amount of life, and the quality of that life, don't matter so much if for example, one is going to spend eternity in heaven. Your analysis is based on the "death is bad" assumption which can't be justified by much of anything.

Here's another guess. Check out this documentary about DMT on YouTube. Some quite interesting experiences and speculation regarding the larger context of our existence.

Many, perhaps most, people will dismiss these reports as being nothing more than drug induced illusions, which of course might be true. But then we'll have to dismiss all my posts too, given that I typically write them while high on caffeine.

These facts could be used to make a pretty relevant comparison between existence and nonexistence, in my opinion. — TheHedoMinimalist

You're expressing a common theory, which I am not in a position to dispute.

I'm just referencing certain instances when something appeared to be overwhelmingly obviously true beyond doubt, but turned out to be completely wrong. As example, the Earth being at the center of the universe. Everyone could just look up and see this for themselves with their own eyes, so this conclusion seemed to be beyond theory, a hard fact. Like these earlier humans, we really have no way of evaluating our perspective on such matters. So...

You might be right, you might be wrong. My best guess is that whatever the reality might be it's beyond our imagination at the moment, just as the size of the universe would have been incomprehensible to earlier peoples (and basically still is). But of course, this too is just a guess.

What's the purpose of asking that? Please elaborate. — Wallows

I would ask the hypothetical person considering suicide how old they are because life experience is a very relevant qualifier for questions of such scope and scale.

As example, imagine asking a seven year old, "What is love?" The child may be brilliant, but they simply don't have the life experience to do a meaningful analysis of the question. The wisest seven year old would reply...."How the heck would I know what love is, for crying out loud, I'm only seven!" :smile:

For a purely technical matter such as say, computer programming, age wouldn't be relevant, as a higher school could easily be a better programmer than a senior citizen.

It's not a theory or wishful thinking to strive for better and change people's minds by using facts and reason. — chatterbears

I'm really not arguing entirely with your point, I'm just saying, changing people's minds using facts and reason depends on them being on the "facts and reason" channel, and most of us aren't most of the time.

As example, you won't change anybody's mind here in this thread. Instead, you will provide all of us with fodder for the debate and debunk experience, which we seek for emotional reasons. Thus, unless your goal is simply to entertain us, the process we're both engaged in is not really that facts and reasoned based. If your goal is to somehow advance the cause of animal rights, you are engaged in delusion mostly, not facts and reason.

I'm not suggesting you should shut up, and I readily agree I'm doing the very same thing you are. But, you ask for facts and reason, and so that's what I'm trying to provide.

If I told you I wanted to commit suicide and you had one response, what would it be? — Wallows

I'd first ask, how old are you?

We claim to be the more intelligent species, yet we use that intelligence by abusing our power and act as the most selfish species on the planet. We are the most destructive and most self-centered species this world has ever seen. — chatterbears

I've been attempting to address in other threads, largely without success. The core problem is that knowledge and wisdom develop at different rates, with knowledge growing exponentially while wisdom grows incrementally at best. Thus, the gap between the two is widening at an ever accelerating rate.

There won't be much meat for anybody to eat. Many people will be lucky to find enough vegetarian food. We're headed into a global catastrophe. The time when we could have averted the worst of it is past. The resolve to radically alter our life ways is lacking. Thus, we are probably totally screwed. — Bitter Crank

We are totally screwed if our future depends upon us being logic based creatures, agreed. However, there is another force at work which will come to our aid. Pain. That's the primary factor in human learning.

The example that always comes to mind here is the European experience of war. Europe is home to some of the greatest philosophers in history. European culture has an involvement with reason and philosophy that goes back thousands of years. None of the reason and philosophy was sufficient to persuade Europeans to stop constantly warring upon each other. What worked was WWII, bombing everything from London to Moscow in to rubble. What worked was pain.

The resolve to radically alter our way of life may radically evolve once the level of pain becomes sufficient.

You apply logic to actions taken by humans, in which you can improve the understanding of those actions and make better decisions in the future. If you cannot apply logic/knowledge to an action, then you will probably justify any action you want to. As I told someone else, ethics requires consistency (logic) in the sense that our moral standards, actions, and values should not be contradictory. Examining our lives to uncover inconsistencies and then modifying our moral standards and behaviors so that they are consistent is an important part of moral development. — chatterbears

I agree with this theory. But it's just a theory about what should be, not an accurate reflection of the real world. In the real world, masses of people are going to continue to abuse animals and support factory farming with their dollars until something or somebody forces them not to.

Again, I'm not challenging your posts or this thread so much as I am the effectiveness of philosophy in general, including my own posts. People like us want the world to be about logic because we were born inclined towards logic calculations, thus a logic based world would be a comfortable place for us to reside. Regrettably, there is a great deal of wishful thinking involved here, our own form of illogical thinking.

I don't see how we can conduct a rational analysis of suicide given that we have not the slightest idea of what death is. How does one compare a known to an unknown?

Which is better? Pizza? Or BfXuide7_xx3?

It seems to me that all such calculations are faith based and that each person can only operate within the boundaries of whatever faith tradition they subscribe to.

If I said I tortured a dog, and used the dog's skin to make shoes, most people would call me an immoral monster. But what if I paid someone else to torture a dog, so I can get shoes made of dog skin. Does it make me less immoral, just because I am not doing the dirty work myself? — chatterbears

Ok, so the problem with your point, philosophy in general, and my posts too, is that you're attempting to apply logic to a human experience. This process is more an expression of what we wish were true than what is actually true, thus the process itself is fairly labeled rather illogical.

Generally speaking, humans kill, eat and otherwise abuse animals because we want to, and because we can. Logic has little to do with it, other than helping us design the most efficient methods of killing. As we can see in the thread above, if we apply logic at all it is typically only to rationalize what we wish to do for reasons that have nothing to do with logic. Logic is, if you will, merely a cover story. The real story is power.

As example, all of us have probably met people with very limited ability with logic. Such folks typically careen through their life from one calamity to another. If you try to assist by applying logic, it's a waste of time, not because they don't agree with your reasoning but because they aren't on the logic channel. It's as if you are talking to them in Chinese, it doesn't matter what you say, because there is no common ground which effective communication might be built upon.

That's the underlying fundamental problem the documentary and this thread in general faces. The arguments presented might be brilliant, but that's typically not going to matter.

What might matter is if a person witnesses their friend die a gruesome death from colon cancer because their friend has decades of rotting animal flesh stuck in their bowels. That is, if the power equation changes and it is seen that animals can exact their revenge, that is a logic that may be be listened to. Or, maybe not, because what I've just typed is already widely known and the information has quite limited effect.

And we need to keep on eating our animals and plants because they are part of our family; the Homo Sapiens phenomenon has never been just a bunch of individual hominids, but also the relationships with other species. — DiegoT

We need to eat animals because they are part of our family?? Ok then, I'm off to eat my wife.

The main point here is, the killing of these animals is unnecessary. We do not need to exploit animals for our survival. We do it for pleasure and convenience. But is pleasure and convenience worth the torture and death of innocent sentient beings? — chatterbears

You've got my vote. No. Not worth it.

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food. — Sir2u

Apologies, no disrespect intended, but this is a common rationalizing fantasy.

I suspect that none of us will know what our relationship with death is until the final days arrive.

My guess is that all human beings have some degree of death anxiety, but that it varies widely in how close to the surface this existential dread manifests.

Personally, I'm cool with being dead to the degree I understand my real feelings, but I do have anxiety about the process of dying, which can in some cases be ugly indeed. One of my uncles was mowing the yard on a hot 4th of July afternoon, had a heart attack, and was dead before he hit the ground. Sign me up!

Philosophically, if we examine it closely and patiently, we may see death and life are intertwined on a day to day basis, with psychological death being one of our favorite experiences. As example, consider the orgasm. You're totally gone for a few seconds, and you couldn't be happier about it. Many or most sought after experiences have this death component in one way or another.

As usual, my guess is that the hard boundary we perceive between life and death is more a property of thought, the tool we are using to make the observation, than it is the reality we are trying to observe.

Well, if the sages are right that "all is one", then every thought is another little pebble tossed in to the global pond, sending ripples out in all directions.

The problem with psychiatry is that a lot of those practicing it are themselves nutzo.