With a proper therapist, you should be able to drill down to the stuff that's tucked away in the sub-conscious. I think you need to dig up all the crap from the past in order to fully heal and move on in a healthy way. — CasKev

(Y)

This can also take months to years in order to achieve.

You're looking for one thing? Just a origin? Every problem is a snake pit.

No, I'm asking you to analyze your life in order to determine whether or not your suicidal thoughts have an origin in the way you conduct yourself.

They're leaking out of me and causing me distress. — Question

In other words, find the holes which leak, and figure out whether those holes can be plugged by yourself, or if you need help.

You won't grow out of suicidal thoughts by ho-humming in a thread like this, man. The more you dwell on it, the more it will consume you. It would seem that you're fed up with constantly thinking about suicide, yes? If so, then you should sit down and parse your life and see what's in your control, and what's not. I've found it helpful to separate things that I can work on from things that I can't work on. If you don't do that, all the shit's just crammed together, making for too high a hill to climb over. It doesn't mean that you're able to fix what you're able to work, though. I fail every day at fixing the things that need fixing, but it's a good start. For you, maybe stop making threads about suicide, here and perhaps elsewhere, don't read books about it, or talk to people about it. Think about it only when it pops into your head, and when it does, figure it why it popped into your head. Don't think about the thought, but why that thought was had to begin with.

And if suicide has become a topic that is as normal for you to think about as, "what am I going to eat for breakfast?" then you have to work toward making suicide a more outlying, rare thing to think about. Walruses. I dunno why, but I just thought of walruses. Do I think about walruses all day, every day? No. Would it be silly for me to contemplate walruses all day, every day? Yes. So, if I was thinking about walruses all the time, I'd stop and try and figure out why the fuck I was thinking about walruses so much. If I then discover that I've been watching nature documentaries about walruses, was reading a book about someone surviving a walrus attack, putting up walrus wallpaper in my house...then it'll become quite clear why I've been contemplating walruses so intensely and what I should do in order to stop thinking about walruses so much.

Question is, Question, do you really want to stop thinking about suicide/walruses? You first have to be willing to dispel such thoughts in the first place before you know whether or not you are able to get rid of them.

and the author writes: "truth is primarily a property of judgement not of propositions" — Modern Conviviality

The way this is written make it sound like truth is not a property of a proposition, which would be false. Why'd you pick this quote in particular? Do you disagree with it or..?

Perhaps Shyster Eggfart is fond of organs. — John

I'm sure Meister Eckhart was, O:) (Y)

Edit: Also, I'll be honest, I read organs as "orgasms."

I got Dietrich Buxtehude right away, but why not Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf? — Bitter Crank

Oh, I had forgotten him! Hmm...

I haven't felt bitter-crankish for quite a while. Any suggestions of what I might change my name to? — Bitter Crank

Carl Bitters von Bitterscrank?

I guess nobody listens to classical music anymore.

"Good" and "bad" are merely subjective judgements based on your current goal which could be your survival or passing on your genes. Morals are simply the rules of the society you find yourself in. In order to survive and pass on your genes, you must learn the rules - or it would be good to learn the rules - as that helps your achieve your goals. — Harry Hindu

Merely? lolno.

Figure it out oh wise one, dispeller of falsity.

How do you mean by love? — Cynical Eye

To will the good of another.

What's the meaning of your life? — Cynical Eye

To love as fully as I am able to. Every other meaning that I derive from my life ought to be in service to bringing about love, which would be, and is, quite a long list!

Yes, because he doesn't let you spew falsity — Agustino

You are sooooo full of yourself, dude. How about you go drop a pizza and then pick it up. That'll force you to stoop a little low for a change.

I am not sure I understand this. Theism in general proclaims the existence of any god or gods, not necessarily one particular god, or a certain set of gods. Wouldn't the declaration of a particular god be beyond what theism is generally? — Lone Wolf

As a position, theism doesn't proclaim every defined and categorized God as being real and believable, merely that at least one is held to be real and believable. So, if one is a theist, that person believes in the realness of at least one God or god. This also works the same for atheism, in my mind - an atheist doesn't believe in any of God or god, but at the same time does not, or at least ought not, wager that they aren't real, only that they aren't believable. In the end atheism is an imperfect label for those that try and push it past what the definition allows for, which is why I'm an atheist among other things. For instance, if one strictly uses the definition of atheism, an atheist can disbelieve in Yahweh, Allah, etc. but still have the freedom to believe in ghosts and phantoms and super naked broccoli men. Why? Because atheism as a label can only apply itself to one's disbelief in any God or gods, that's it! If one wants to add in supernatural entities, the supernatural at all really, or anything else that might be seen as silly to believe in, then that guy's trying to make atheism what it's not.

Additionally, I've found that atheism has increasingly become the dumpster bin for people's disbelief in "x, y, z" rather than it just being their singular disbelief in God. Intriguingly, at least to me, the term "God", on the other hand, is generally used as the dumpster bin for people's belief in "x, y, z" - you can insert love, justice, freedom, intellect goodness, bacon, any combination of these and more, into any of those variables and it'd be difficult to refute what God is, as a concept and definition, in of itself, which is why, as I wrote earlier, I don't venture to go down that route. Yet, I do think atheism is a knowable concept that can be defined, which is why I go out on a limb and, well, I guess "believe" in atheism, though that's slightly oxymoronic I think.

The more Agustino writes, the more a thread becomes intolerable to participate in.

The Muslim God is not the same as the Christian God.

Now fuck off Agu, I don't feel like arguing with you and your emoticons today.

Hmm, very interesting. You do identify as an atheist, and think that if a god exists, that one can't know it, correct? I think your definition of yourself as an atheist is accurate, but you seem to be open minded on the matter. — Lone Wolf

Note that one can also believe in God but claim to have no knowledge of him. My position is the opposite, and more coherent, I'd argue.

But if theism is belief in God, then I don't see how one can be atheistic, yet believe in a possible god. — Lone Wolf

Every theist is an atheist seeing as belief in one God rules out belief in all others. That is, the Christian is atheistic with regard to Allah, and vice versa.

I'm someone who would appear to be both atheistic and agnostic, but you'd similarly find that every religious person is both a theist and an atheist. And if you object, citing that everyone who believes in God does believe in God, just different Gods, then what difference does it make what God one believes in if they're all essentially the same? Clearly they're not, which is why I've said that everyone is, at least in some sense, an atheist.

What do you mean possibility? That weird kind of logical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow? — Agustino

The sun failing to rise tomorrow is not a logical proposition, dipshittus.

ou are the one who denied that atheists reject the belief of a god, which is in direct conflict with atheism. — Lone Wolf

Atheism rejects theism, it doesn't necessarily deny the possibility of there being, or not being, a God(s).

Sappy, you had linked Bertrand Russell earlier in this thread (I think?), have you read this piece by him? It's a pretty concise little followup to his "Why I Am Not a Christian" -

http://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_6.php

To both of you, I'll share my own thoughts on the matter. I myself identify as an atheist with regard to the many theistic conceptions of God (and gods), all of those that are found in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism to an extent, and so on. That is, I do not believe in Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, yada yada yada. Yet, at the same time, I do not posit that I, or anyone, can have knowledge of "God" as a concept in and of itself. So, am I an agnostic or an atheist? Maybe both. If someone dares define this or that as being God, then I'll sit down and decide whether or not I believe in it. And if someone does not define God, then there's nothing for me to either believe in or not believe in. This has me ending up being labeled an ignostic I think, which is fine by me.

But the opposite isn't true, that misfortune and malfunction requires goodness - or put another way, suffering exists whether goodness is applied to it or not.

Yes. So much the worse for them. — Thorongil

How worse? Not as barebones a meal or like hell?

I wouldn't mind arguing this, though. The asceticism of Sufis, Christian monks, Buddhist monks, Jain monks, Hindu sadhus, and so on may indeed be of the same quality. The difference lies in the belief structure that motivates them. One chooses a religion based on determining, as best one can, the truth of that belief structure, not the quality of asceticism resultant therefrom. Though the latter may still be a factor in that decision (and is a large one for me), it can't be the primary one. — Thorongil

This then has more to do with the religion than the asceticism.

There is physical asceticism, aimed at reducing the demands of the body, and mental asceticism, aimed at reducing the demands of the mind, so both I guess. — Thorongil

I think you need both, as I don't see how a millionaire pimp who fails at reducing the demands of the body could also be mentally ascetic at the same time.

The more interesting question to me, since there clearly have been a small number of ascetic figures with no identifiable religious commitments, is whether asceticism can flourish only within religion. In other words, do the exceptions prove the rule, that asceticism has vitality only within religious traditions. — Thorongil

If you posit that the fullest ascetic vitality can only be achieved through one's adherence to a particular religion, then I think you've immediately judged the ascetic vitality of nonreligious ascetics to be less full and subsequently inferior.

An isolated ascetic can do nothing to maintain asceticism, whereas an organized institution, like a religion, can. — Thorongil

If this is true, then asceticism isn't an end in itself if it can only be attained to its fullest within an established religious framework. Yet, is mere religious affiliation and adherence all an ascetic needs in order to fulfill the most robust asceticism? I doubt that you'd argue that a Sufist ascetic is as equally, robustly ascetic as the Christian, or the Buddhist, or even the Jain, as Wayfarer mentioned. Clearly one must pick a single religious path with the presumption that its asceticism has more vitality than the others, at which point you've cut down the amount of "proper" ascetics by a huge margin. The nonreligious ascetics would be as shallow, then, as the religious ascetics who aren't of the same religion as you.

I hope this isn't your best objection.

Look at the stoics. For instance, Seneca is not a religious man. — Pacem

Seneca the Younger? He's probably the least ascetic stoic imaginable! What makes you think he's ascetic?

There are people (not too many) who practice voluntary poverty who are not religious, and are quite capable of earning a decent income. It isn't just 'simple living'. Their live styles are ascetic by necessity, but asceticism as such isn't their goal. — Bitter Crank

This reminds me of this guy, http://www.heavyblogisheavy.com/2010/08/26/things-that-are-fucking-metal-poverty-homelessness/

He's clearly given up money, and I guess bath water and soup too, but is he really living a life aimed at limiting unneeded indulgences? Seems to me that he's not, and I doubt he'd even consider himself "ascetic" at all. Can he be considered an ascetic even if he doesn't label himself one?

They have opted to be poor as a way of largely freeing themselves of the expectations of the market. Their motivation is ethical and they do not sponge off parents or social benefit programs. Generally they do work to maintain themselves in independent poverty (food, shelter, minimal essentials).

Not many people do this because it is difficult, and one needs a very strong motivation to fail marketplace expectations. I know maybe a half dozen people who have done this for a period of time (the longest was about 15 years).

It has become increasingly difficult to succeed at this. The cost of minimal food and housing have risen enough that unreliable episodic or part-time work no longer produces enough income. One ends up needing to work close to full time (in low paid, low-commitment work) which undermines one of the goals of voluntary poverty--ample free time. The other effect of rising costs is to push the would-be ascetic back into more demanding work, which requires them to meet marketplace expectations. — Bitter Crank

I have heard and read about these sorts of people as well, but I wonder what their motivations are for living a poor life, a life that is more than just being monetarily poor? If there isn't a religious conviction, is their choice purely selfish? If it is selfish, then I find that contradictory with asceticism's goal, which is to limit one's desires and attachments to the world and what's in it, which includes one's own self!

What Men Live By.

As for the placebo effect, I can see how it could apply to someone in a depressed state. For example, telling someone they are being given an effective antidepressant, and instead substituting a sugar pill. The expectation and hope tied to the possibility of recovery could have an effect on the brain's functioning, even though there has been no real change in present circumstances. — CasKev

This would only confirm that the depression is attitude-based. But if there's a chemical imbalance in the brain, then the sugar pill won't do anything to alleviate that depression because the sugar pill wouldn't have targeted the primary source of the person's depression.

I think for many people depression starts with the brain, which then, invariably, infects their attitude, outlook on life, and so on. Equally many people will then try and fix their attitude, but can't because that's not the source of their depression. Those who overcome their depression are the ones who work on their brain and their attitude at the same time, so that in the end they're on top of themselves.

It is not about loving a narcissist, it is that the narcissist is incapable of loving others. They are trapped in their own ego and any expression of affection on their part is only due to the pleasure they feel because someone loves them. When they are told that there is something wrong with them, it is impossible and you are suddenly viewed as an enemy, monstrous even. Reality is a negotiation between good and bad and only one capable of seeing both can really understand 'reality' and enjoy lived experience. — TimeLine

I don't think it's fair to say that narcissists can't love at all. Surely they can love, just not as fully as others might be able to, no?

What is an 'honest heart'? Is that your way of saying that you seek to protect someone from being hurt, the latter of which you think is 'bad'? — TimeLine

Not bad, but worse. That to lie would be the most loving action to take, to not lie being worse than lying.

It is like breaking up with a partner you do not love; you care about them and you don't want to see them hurt, but by staying you indirectly form a type of implacable resentment hidden within a numb exterior and a mindless dependence. You lose yourself, your humanity in the process of surviving these confused feelings. But that hurts the person more and if you really cared not just for her but also for yourself, you would be honest because indeed in the long run it will give her a chance to move on and find someone who will care for her better than you as you find what it is you are looking for. You both become happier people. — TimeLine

In this case lying wouldn't be the most loving, so the most honest thing to do would be to tell the truth, yes.

This is why in the long run such people do all sorts of immoral things such as cheating, because they are capable of lying mostly to themselves, comfortable with the numbness of a dishonest reality. You end up in the long run doing more damage only because you believe that your decision is coming from an 'honest heart' or a loving and caring place. It is, yes, caring, but irrational and cowardly, which is rather selfish of you in what appears to be an outwardly appearing unselfish act. — TimeLine

Mmm, I don't think so. I doubt the cheater would look at my argument and think he's being honest by not telling the truth, by cheating, etc.

This is wisdom; a combination of reason and a loving heart, otherwise a loving heart without knowledge is blind and knowledge without love is vicious. You need both to be courageous enough to take responsibility for such decisions and to be Epicurean viz., being honest enough to understand possible outcomes. It is like pouring vinegar over a jellyfish sting; the pain is immeasurable, albeit the pain subsides and the sting eventually dissipates, but in doing so you save a life. This is why I agree with you when you say: — TimeLine

I'm not convinced yet that lying can't be poured vinegar on a jellyfish sting. Why can't lying be loving, and therefore be honest, if it is judged earnestly by the lying party that to lie is to bring about the least hurt and the most love?

none will admit to what needs to be done to reverse it. — noAxioms

Because damage done is damage done. The best we can do is stop future failures from occurring. We can't bring back extinct species or make a glacier in the laboratory, which is why no one talks about doing such things.

I may be one, but I don't think so. Low probability. — Agustino

I read this in Trump's voice.

Absolutely! I don't know if I will be in Heaven. But I do hope I will be. — Agustino

I hope we won't be together. Otherwise, I'll have to pull a Satan.

~



1 Corinthians 13:6, Love [...] keeps no record of wrongs.

Sounds like hell is empty of souls, methinks. If God is love, then I wonder why he is said to keep a record of our wrongs throughout our lives in order to then judge which afterlife we go to. It appears as though God is, in fact, all forgiving, which is a quality I on't think Buddha can match, so Jesus > Buddha.

Indeed, I am righteous by nature — TimeLine

Oh, that's a bold claim! How'd you come upon this righteous nature, eh? Who did you bully for it? O:)

But my knowledge does not descend into the bottomless pit of the grotesque. I don't want to hear about the weird shit people willingly do to themselves and each other, neither do I want to hear the whinges of the privileged crying that their plastic surgery hasn't helped secure the affections of their nasty boyfriend. Fuck off. — TimeLine

You, me, and Agustino have been in a threesome for a few weeks now, I'd say that's some pretty weird shit!

without moral consciousness and a capacity for honest self-reflection, one can easily deceive themselves. — TimeLine

Okay, I agree to an extent, but the worry I have here is that even for morally conscious, honestly self-reflecting individuals, they aren't always that - they also will screw up and will fail to be good people. In other words, an honest and moral person may still lie to themselves by lying to another even though they might think that they're being honest! I suppose this goes back to whether one should seek to never lie, or to figure out when to lie honestly and when to not lie at all.

For instance, a person who witnesses a crime but looks the other way — TimeLine

This person wouldn't be honest in the first place, so they wouldn't fit with my "honest liar" figure, as per the OP.

or the narcissist who is a loving person only to those who love him. — TimeLine

Hmm, I'm unsure about this characterization of narcissism. I think one can still love the narcissist even when the narcissist stops their reciprocated love. For instance, I've loved a narcissist before, quite recently too, but I didn't stop loving them after our friendship ended. I'd like to think that I still love what was and is good in them, and that that love didn't evaporate merely because (she) stopped loving me.

It could be that one deceives himself into thinking that he is protecting the interests of a loved one, but really he is protecting his own interests and there are a number of people that put on a show - think paedophilia and those Catholic priests that pretend to holiness - so it is about ascertaining that subjective honesty that wills the good. — TimeLine

Absolutely, but the pedophile's actions are evidently and obviously immoral. Whether or not a lie ought to be said in order to will the good of the lied-to is far murkier a moral dilemma I think. An instance wherein "lying honestly" is a viable option wouldn't be as clear cut a judgement call as saying, "aye, raping a child is unquestionably wrong, I'mma not do dat."

There is a unity in giving love, where people become one in a universal sense and you do not selectively give to one person and not the other, otherwise the love itself remains egotistic. So, it is about calculating the right decision according to this universal moral in a Kantian sense. I have turned my back even on family members because they are not good people, despite the fact that we are related because of my determination to adhere to universal principles like justice and righteousness. — TimeLine

I'm going out on a limb here and proclaiming it true that calculating the right decision is far and away more complicated than rocket science, :)

in the end I am confident that honesty to oneself will assuredly mean that you would be honest to others, even if it means that you will hurt them because that is what being virtuous is; taking responsibility. — TimeLine

Beautifully put, (Y)

But this must mean that you agree with the OP, and that a lie can be said with an honest heart, right?

Yes I do have such knowledge — Agustino

orly?

but I do not have the knowledge of who actually is an unrepentant criminal. — Agustino

Oh, so maybe you're an unrepentant criminal. Better prepare yourself for the possibility of the flames.

I cannot tell you this man or that man, etc. won't be in Heaven. — Agustino

Okay, good, which includes you too, (Y)

How could they be? Is it possible to be forgiven of your sins if you do not repent? The Bible and Christian tradition certainly doesn't indicate so. — Agustino

I don't know, and neither do you. That has been my point.

I don't know which individual people will go to Heaven, I agree. — Agustino

Um, no you don't agree. You've already said that unrepentant criminals won't go to heaven which entails you having knowledge of such being a certainty.

No, I actually said UNREPENTANT criminals are not going to Heaven. And yes, I hold by that statement. All unrepentant criminals will not be in Heaven. — Agustino

It's a judgement, not a statement. Also, how do you know that unrepentant criminals won't be in heaven?

Have you left your logic in the drain? — Agustino

No, I thought that was you, considering the tenor of your posts yesterday.

If I am not an unrepentant criminal, it wouldn't follow that I'm going to Heaven necessarily. If A is a B (an unrepentant criminal is a hell-destined sinful person), it doesn't follow that C (something other than a criminal) isn't a B (a hell destined sinful person). — Agustino

None of this follows at all because you have no knowledge of who does and does not go to heaven. Period. Only God does, which means that you are in no place to pass judgement on those whose fates you have no knowledge of.

You said that you were certain that criminals weren't going to heaven. This is not a statement, but a specified judgement of all criminals. Furthermore, if you are so certain of who will and won't pass through the pearly gates, I'm sure you've decided for yourself that you are heaven-bound, for you aren't a criminal, amirite?

Stop playing dumb or I'll stop replying to you.

The soul you think you can decide whether or not it goes to heaven or not.

I haven't judged my neighbour, I've judged abstractly. — Agustino

Judgement is judgement, and you're judging a soul into hell, which is not your place to do.

James 4:12, There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?

Take logic away, and anything is possible. Yet, clearly you don't believe every possibility.

Agu, just c'mon, please stop being dumb.

I do believe in the Trinity, so I'm not sure what you mean — Agustino

the Trinity is a logical contradiction — Agustino

2+2=5 is a logical contradiction, do you believe that, too? >:O