That is not what Dostoevsky meant. He meant that if it was proved to him that Christ wasn't God, that christianity wasn't true, he would still follow Christ rather than Truth — Beebert

Depends what you mean by "true".

You haven't read all of the Bible? — Michael

No, there's a few OT books that I haven't fully read.

A book of such significance — Sapientia

>:O >:O >:O Says Sappy without ever having read the work...

but her comment on Dostoevsky's statement was that he committed blasphemy when he said he wanted Christ more than truth. — Beebert

I would think that D differentiated between truth, and Truth. So yes, D would reject the truth of this world for the Truth of Christ. The will-to-power can be thought of as the truth of this world, and that is rejected for the Truth of Christ, like Alyosha and Fr. Zossima.

Heraclitus - On Nature — Thorongil

You mean the Fragments that remain of that? Why did you pick it? It seems to be quite popular, you're not the only one :P

Personally, I've found very very similar wisdom and much more detailed in the Chinese and Asian cultures. The Tao Te Ching, Zhuangzi, Art of War, etc. are quite similar in nature to H's Fragments. That's one of the reasons why I've chosen the Tao Te Ching in mine (and maybe it should have even been higher up).

Camus - The Stranger — Thorongil

It's surprising that you picked this one. Why so? I didn't like The Stranger, and I've read it multiple times, in 3 different languages actually (including the French original). It's too hopeless and depressing. The Plague and Myth of Sisyphus, I enjoyed much more from Camus, and they both had a bigger effect on me.

What Men Live By. — Heister Eggcart

Interesting, never read it, but looks very good. I will have a read, thanks for sharing that! (Y)

That's eleven, but I notice you cheated too. — Thorongil

X-)

None of that makes me weak, it just makes me human. You are going in circles with that. — Sir2u

Calling it human does not change its wretchedness.

So it doesn't reveal itself so that I will think I have free will, but because it exists and is hidden I don't have freewill? Or does my freewill expire when it reveals itself to me? — Sir2u

How could you choose to not believe if God fully revealed Himself? If you cannot choose to not believe (except in bad faith), then on this question you wouldn't have free will.

But is Pascal's point correct? Does what he say actually apply to everyone? — Sir2u

Yes, I certainly think he was.

I asked you some specific questions, but in this post of yours you've gone on an entirely different path which has little to do with what I was asking. So please try to answer each question individually, otherwise the conversation cannot be productive.

Was his "will to health" helpful in achieving health? In other words how is "willing" something helpful at all? — Agustino

How shall we handle this then? — Agustino

Yes and probably, we can never be happy — Beebert

Right, so you don't have any goods to sell then, why should I be interested?

And also that it Said "Suffering is bad and its opposite good". — Beebert

:s - quite the contrary, suffering for God is good in Christianity, why do you think Christianity has all the martyrs that it does?

One shall affirm life despite suffering. — Beebert

Yes, N was incapable to do this. He had no means.

The test of whether he succeded or not is if he would have embraced the idea of re-living this life and fate of his time and time again in all eternity. — Beebert

A childish and stupid idea in the end, for no one can re-live his life anyway.

Life was, in a sense, just because of his physical health, horrible for him If he would value it in terms of "This is the amount of power I have if I equal power with complete Control over my material physical health and pleasure", but he yet wanted to embrace life. — Beebert

Yes, he did want, but he never could.

He refused other-worldliness because it was for him a Sign of giving up embracing his life despite all his suffering. Him Walking around in his physical pain and waiting for something better Beyond was for him equal to nihilism. — Beebert

Nietzsche wanted to know the Truth apart from Christ, but there is no such Truth. That is why he concluded that truth is ugly. Yes, the truth of the human condition is ugly, that's exactly why we need the Truth. Instead, he abandoned the Truth for truth - whereas Dostoyevsky would abandon the truth for Christ if he had to (his own statement). This was interesting.

You should read Simone Weil. She is brilliant. — Beebert

I've read some quotes from her, may even have taken a look at Gravity and Grace (I remember someone recommended it awhile ago), but didn't go in more depth yet.

The Birth of Tragedy--Friedrich Nietszche — Thanatos Sand

In my opinion this was N's best work :P

Who says I am weak? — Sir2u

You are. Any day you could become a bed-ridden person. ALS, a stroke, a car accident - who knows man, who knows. You can't control it.

If my only hope is a god that refuses to even prove it exists — Sir2u

If He proved that He exists, then you would have no free will, for you would be forced to believe. The whole point is that there should be enough light for those who want to believe and enough darkness for those who don't - that was Pascal's point.

his will to health — Beebert

Was his "will to health" helpful in achieving health? In other words how is "willing" something helpful at all? Maybe I "will" to have 10 billion dollars... where are they?! :s

One of his most important concepts is Amor Fati. He knew in a sense man's powerlessness, he wasn't stupid. I find that quite obvious. He spoke about how to handle this situation, one's attitude to life. — Beebert

How shall we handle this then?

And regarding the will to power, the most important thing there is his Conviction that it was basically what life was. — Beebert

Yes, I disagree with that. If life is will-to-power then we can never be happy, because we can never achieve power.

There exists some other substance that our minds consist of, and the reactions in our brains are some kind of "projections" of that mind/self. — BlueBanana

Would this substance be physical or? And how are the reactions of our brain correlated with that mind/self? In other words, how is that mind/self attached to our brain, and only our brain?

While asleep, that self does not disappear, it just hibernates. — BlueBanana

I agree with this.

The consciousness is there, just not conscious of anything. — BlueBanana

But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? This goes to the point I was discussing with unenlightened before:

You create a division between "the fact of consciousness" and the "contents of consciousness", but I think no such distinction can be drawn in the first place. How can consciousness be conceived to exist without the attendant intentionality - or better said directionality - towards particular contents? If so, then it would seem that consciousness cannot be conceived without reference to the constituents of consciousness. One is always conscious of something, one cannot simply be conscious. — Agustino

I don't need to blame anyone for the problems in life, unless I know that someone actually caused them.
So I don't need a god, no contradiction at all. — Sir2u

Right, but what does this have to do with your weakness? You're weak, you don't want to be weak, therefore your only real hope is God - no other hope can even be conceived.

Strangely enough actually, the very first book of the Bible that I read was the Apocalypse (Revelation), when I was 8ish. I found an old Bible at my grandparents' place, and I was interested in end-of-the-world stuff (I know strange interests for an 8 year old), and when I read it's about the Apocalypse, I was like woah woah, so cool! :P >:O I started reading the rest when I started on my way to becoming a Christian, which was say 16ish onward.

1. Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky
2. Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche
3. Baghavad Gita
4. The Gay Science by Nietzsche
5. Poems by Leopardi
6. The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer
7. Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche
8. The Bible (Or more specifically the Book of Job if I must choose one thing from the Bible)
9. Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard
10. Gravity and Grace by Simone Weil — Beebert

1. Read.
2. Read.
3. Haven't read.
4. Haven't finished.
5. Haven't read.
6. Read.
7. Read.
8. Read (not everything though).
9. Read.
10. Haven't read.

:P You have too much Nietzsche in there, and too little Kierkegaard. You should read Works of Love :P

He does not NEED to, but most people blame their screw ups on someone or something.
Bad luck, god's displeasure with them, allah's will, Murphy' law all get the blame. — Sir2u

But you told me before that that's what he NEEDS God for. But if he doesn't need to blame anyone, then he doesn't need God, so it seems that you're now contradicting what you first said.

The fact that people seek someone to blame is something that must be questioned, because they unfairly presume that they deserve something in the first place. So granted that this supposition has no foundation, they should rationally drop it. Instead they should affirm the truth - they desire so and so, and their desires can get frustrated. But they have no "right" to have their desires fulfilled in the first place.

They also seem quite willing to let them take the credit for the things that happen in their lives.
I was lucky, god has been good to me, it was allah's will. — Sir2u

In many cases that's absolutely true. I have no clue how some situations quickly and out of nowhere turned from hopeless to my favour. What am I supposed to say? It was due to me? I know it wasn't...

Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Morals — Beebert

I've read these two.

The Gay Science — Beebert

I've never finished The Gay Science.

I dont mean to be rude, but you have, it seems to me, either misunderstood the real depth behind his thought or you just dont like what you read and judge it by that. — Beebert

Perhaps you can enlighten me then, what a splendid opportunity for both of us! You can teach me and get joy out of sharing your knowledge, and I can learn something new!

Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming. — BlueBanana

The other question you have to consider is, that if this is so, and the self disappears in dreamless sleep, then it would follow that one commits no wrong if they were to kill you while you were in dreamless sleep, for there would be no "you" to be harmed in that case. And I think we can both conclude that this is wrong, and thus identifying consciousness with the self must be rejected.

Got a citation? — Wayfarer

It's in there, please read it more carefully. It's in Pascal's quote, a citation from Isaiah :)

Right. So everyone should believe the same, think the same, in accordance with revealed truth, which is the same for everyone, and those who don't should be outcaste? — Wayfarer

You're mixing up a whole different set of issues here. On the one hand there is the Truth, and what or Who that Truth is. On the other hand is how people relate to that Truth (which is individual). And finally there is the question of how society should be organised (whether those who reject the Truth should be outcasts). These questions have little to do with each other. So which one do you want to address?

A Philosophy Forum is not the place for proselytizing. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's why I said it's a fact that God WOULD reveal Himself (if He exists) across the whole planet.

Because he has no control he needs someone to blame for everything. That is what he NEEDS god for, a scapegoat. — Sir2u

Why does he need to blame someone in the first place, unless he presupposes that he deserves to have strength & control to begin with? :s

Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming. — BlueBanana

So then how does the same self return when you awaken, and where does it go while you're asleep?

The self, which is the same as consciousness. Consiousness is conscious of itself. — BlueBanana

So when you sleep your self disappears? :s

No, quite the contrary, monogamy is the only stable arrangement which is capable of fulfilling human nature.

*Draws the sword out...*

Progressives... :-O

Existence is a property. One simple reason can be drawn from science. Entities are theorized, predicted and then sought for. Imagine a hypohetical particle x. We look for its existence. In that sense ''existence'' is a property and finding x we assign the property ''existence'' to x — TheMadFool

In my opinion, concepts are concepts and the things they signify are the things they signify. For example, a circle can be taken purely as a concept. A circle as a concept is not round, it doesn't have a radius, etc. - it's just a concept. However, that which the concept of the circle signifies does have a radius, is round, and can exist or not exist. We get confused because we don't have two different words to distinguish between the circle, and the concept of the circle so we equivocate. It's one thing for a concept to exist, and it's another for that which it signifies to exist.

The principle of sufficient reason. — Cavacava

How come? As far as I see, the only reason why existence being a predicate or not was ever philosophically interesting was because people were interested in the ontological argument.

I hope you don't get upset at me, but why should we care about answering this question? What is the ramification of it that makes it an interesting problem philosophically speaking, apart from appeals to authority (other philosophers have dealt with it), and the trivial reason that it just happens to be a question we dreamt up (cause I'm sure we don't pursue every question we dream up)?

Most people do not remember their birth, but apart from Agustino, few deny that they were born. — unenlightened

I deny that our real self is born, not that what we most commonly attribute in common language as the self was born. That self was indeed born.

They're 'anatta' which means 'not self'. — Wayfarer

Indeed, and they are also anicca - impermanent.

Buddhism doesn't accept reincarnation, strictly speaking, in the sense of there being a person or soul which transmigrates. — Wayfarer

I haven't even mentioned this, I was talking about your assertion that the Five Skandhas don't reincarnate. If the Five Skandhas don't reincarnate, and reincarnation does not happen on a soul (read permanent essence), then on what does it occur?

Clearly the answer is that the real self, which Buddha doesn't talk positively about, the same way he doesn't talk positively about Nirvana for example, isn't one of the Five Skandhas, and therefore does not reincarnate, nor is it impermanent.

What does reincarnate are the things which are anatta - matter, desires, etc.

Now, Dharma, Buddha, and Nirvana are not anicca and anatta - they are permanent. That's why morality is not ever changing in Buddhism but rather permanent, like the Law of the Old Testament. In fact, I take the Asian religions to be contemporary revelations along with Judaism, all which are completed by the Fullness of Christ.

Well, there's your authoritarian tendency again. — Wayfarer

That might be my authoritarian tendency, but the fact that it is "authoritarian" doesn't mean it is wrong. It is a fact that the religions make exclusive claims. It is also a fact that God would revealed himself across the whole planet, not only in one place. But these revelations are partial.

You would think if the revealed truth of Christ was obvious, how could that have happened? — Wayfarer

Who said that the revealed truth is obvious? On the contrary, it is not obvious, and this is an argument for Christianity not against Christianity. Is it not Christianity which tells us that God is a "hidden God" a God who hides Himself?

Let them at least learn the nature of the religion they are attacking, before they attack it. If this religion boasted of having a clear vision of God, and of possessing Him plain and unveiled, then to say that nothing we see in the world reveals Him with this degree of clarity would indeed be to attack it. But it says, on the contrary, that man is in darkness and far from God, that He has hidden Himself from man’s knowledge, and that the name He has given Himself in the Scriptures is in fact The Hidden God (Is 45:15). Therefore if it seeks to establish these two facts: that God has in the church erected visible signs by which those who sincerely seek Him may recognize Him, and that he has nevertheless so concealed them that He will only be perceived by those who seek Him with all their hearts, what advantage can the attackers gain when, while admitting that they neglect to seek for the truth, they yet cry that nothing reveals it? For the very darkness in which they lie, and for which they blame the Church, establishes one of her two claims, without invalidating the other, and also, far from destroying her doctrine, confirms it — Blaise Pascal

How could it be otherwise in a pluralistic world? Of course there is new age rubbish, but it's also a fact that human culture and consciousness really has crossed a threshold into a completely new kind of culture - a new age, in fact. — Wayfarer

A "pluralistic" world is just the effect of pride and selfishness, of man who thinks he can, alone, by his own efforts, reach up to God. A man who wants a God who is in His own image, rather than the other way around. That is much of what you yourself are doing. But on the contrary, Christ says the He is the Way - and none will come to the Father but through Him.

Our consciousness did not cross into a new kind of culture at all - largely what you're witnessing is the effect of capitalism praying on man's selfishness and encouraging diversity in order to open up new markets, create new desires, and therefore create new streams of income. Our moral consciousness has not evolved at all - we're more brutal, selfish and individualistic than ever, so I'd say quite the contrary, our moral consciousness has darkened if anything. Remember that there is always enough light for those who want to believe, and enough darkness for those who don't want to believe.

The skandhas don't reincarnate, as their nature is temporary. — Wayfarer

Are you sure? To my knowledge the skandhas are supposed to account for a person's material and mental existence. For example "rupa" which is the body's matter clearly does reincarnate, because when you die, your atoms go and become part of other bodies. Is this not "reincarnation"?

It seems you also suggest that if something's nature is temporary, then it does not reincarnate, but how do we arrive at this link? Why do only permanent things reincarnate? Because to me, it seems that quite the contrary, permanent things do not reincarnate, for reincarnation implies birth, and as you yourself cited, unborn things don't get born.

It's worth recalling the original statement as to what constitutes escape from the 'wheel of life and death'. As this was presented in the EBT's, beings were doomed to continuously suffer and die until such time as they escaped from the wheel of suffering, which was an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and the chances for which exceedingly rare. — Wayfarer

It may be exceedingly rare, but it seems to me that to "escape" from the cycle of birth & death is to escape from reincarnation.

Religious studies scholars will note that the idea of 'the uncreated' or 'unborn' is also found in Patristic theology, whereby in the final stages of theosis, the disciple is said to reach union with 'the uncreated light of God'. — Wayfarer

Well we don't need the idea of the Taboric Light to have something "unborn" and "uncreated" for God is in any kind of Christian theology unborn and uncreated.

You will find similar polemics in diverse religions, denouncing 'new age' religions and promising to represent the 'original and pure faith', straying from which will inevitably result in hell. Doubtlessly a Buddhist equivalent could also be cited. — Wayfarer

Well I think such denunciations are good, because the religions do, in the end analysis, make exclusivist claims to the truth. This doesn't mean they don't each contain some truth, but it does mean that only one has access to the fullness of Truth.

I think New Age is a very unfortunate phenomenon. Spirituality was never meant to be an "individualistic" affair.

Have we? I don't remember establishing that. If reincarnation, then something survives death. — unenlightened

Yes, your atoms, thoughts, desires, etc. re-incarnate - they "survive" your death. But not you (you are beyond the need to "survive").

Then It seems to have no connection to me, because I was born, Mummy told me. — unenlightened

Yes, in a common sense of speaking, since that's what people mis-identify the self to be.

It's philosophy, not revealed religion. It's a question of identity, a matter of examining one's life, and the answers from books are just theories about someone else's notion of their identity. — unenlightened

So philosophy cannot involve revealed religion? What if philosophy itself points towards, or rather necessitates, revelation? Plato certainly thought so for society cannot be governed without the philosopher king, nor can there be a philosopher king who did not have the mystical vision of Agathon - to whom Agathon hasn't revealed itself.

So absolutely, by all means by looking at my life, I can see that I am not my consciousness, not my body, not my mind, not my thoughts, not my desires. I am not my consciousness because my consciousness can be taken away from me, and yet, I would not cease to be who I am. I am still myself while I'm asleep for example.

I'm not sure what you are pointing to here. Not body, not consciousness, not memory, but...? — unenlightened

Well if you could point to it, it would no longer be the self, but rather an object or property in the world, wouldn't you think so? In Kantian terms, the self would be a condition for the very possibility of the world. One reason why it leads into antinomy - the self can never be captured, for who would be there to capture the self? Whatsoever you can "see" cannot be the self, for then who is the one seeing it?

Take consciousness. If consciousness is the self, then who is the one who is conscious?

I said the self cannot be reborn, because the self is never born, for whatsoever is born must die. And we've already established that when we're looking for the self, we're looking for something permanent. That is why Buddha stopped at anatta - no-self. The meaning, in my eyes, is that this world, with everything in it, is impermanent, and hence cannot be self.

In Christian terms, the self is the soul, which is God's breath. Genesis 2:7 :

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

So that's as far as Buddhism goes. This real self, which is light compared to the world, but darkness compared to God - for it is solely an image of God, His Breath - but not the essence of God.


Or you can have a look at this book.

That is interesting, but not sure that I agree, for Nirvana is the cessation of reincarnation and rebirth. The Bodhisattvas that the DL is talking about take the Mahayana path, and refuse to "cross the river" into Nirvana until all beings are saved, however if this was really so, there should be more and more Bodhisattvas around as time goes on, and this isn't what we see. I think all rebirth, in Buddhist terms, is ultimately illusory, for the real self never reincarnates - only the Five Skandhas do - meaning your atoms take a new form, your thoughts/desires are taken on by other people, and so forth. But there cannot be a rebirth of the real self, given that the real self is not part of this world.

There is however a rebirth of the "self" people typically mis-associate with (thoughts, desires, tendencies, consciousness etc.). But these things are actually anatta - empty of self.

What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society? — Reformed Nihilist

Oh dear... :s

So to answer your question directly, if the contents and the container are one consciousness, then I am not the same person who started writing this reply, and the person who reads it will not be the Agustino of yore. And that is just as unbelievable as that we are one. — unenlightened

But what if we are not our consciousness to begin with? That is really my entire point, that consciousness too is impermanent, and thus, as Buddhists would say, anicca - impermanent, and anatta - empty of self. That's why in Buddhism consciousness is taken to be one of the Five Skandhas - which cease to exist in Nirvana.

So yes, effectively my consciousness of today, is not my consciousness of yesterday. So consciousness is not "me". Rather consciousness is something that I have - or I don't have (when I sleep for example). That's why your consciousness reincarnates in other people, but your real self doesn't. (Buddhists would say the Five Skandhas reincarnate).

My consciousness is filled with any number of fleeting things from moment to moment — unenlightened

But would you not say that your consciousness is as fleeting as those things with which it is filled?

Rather, I identify as some sort of thread (to use another image from container for a moment), on which these fleeting impressions and pearls of speculative wisdom are strung. And, as I mentioned, I see this thread projecting into the future, and make an identification with tomorrow's unenlightened wanting his breakfast that is strong enough to propel me to the shop for eggs and coffee. — unenlightened

I can agree with this. To me it seems that you are that which is conscious of X or Y (or perhaps better said, that which HAS consciousness of X). But consciousness isn't the self.

Your Unenlightened Majesty,

I've read your posts through this thread, and while I find your position interesting, I think it's suffering of at least one deficiency that I myself perceive. You create a division between "the fact of consciousness" and the "contents of consciousness", but I think no such distinction can be drawn in the first place. How can consciousness be conceived to exist without the attendant intentionality - or better said directionality - towards particular contents? If so, then it would seem that consciousness cannot be conceived without reference to the constituents of consciousness. One is always conscious of something, one cannot simply be conscious. It seems to me that quite the contrary, consciousness is individual, and not collective and shared. Consciousness is also impermanent. It disappears while you sleep for example.

One can then ask, what is the difference between your consciousness and mine or a mouse's? And the answer would always be in the contents, not the container. — unenlightened

What if the contents and the container are one consciousness together?

I always have a few books (mostly philosophy) that I have read and/or am no longer interested in for sale on eBay. At the moment I have 3 Heidegger books and a biography of Foucault. :) I have probably at least a thousand books I will attempt to sell over the next few years. — John

Cool - I also sometimes sell mine, but I should sell a lot more than I do. It's just that I'm often worried I might want to come back to one in the future, even though I don't actually have any reasons why I would come back to them atm. I also have a ton of Kindle books (or other electronic format ones) - the only way to monetise those would be to give people access to my Kindle library :P

If Amazon or eBay are not used then it would be financially better for the seller and buyer and The Philsophy Forum. — John

Exactly ;)

That coupled with extreme public shaming and even banning abusers from the site altogether. >:) — John

X-)

Is it inauthentic? Sure, but who the fuck cares? Life hurts and alcohol helps with that. — darthbarracuda

Weakling... :P (jk)

What's more important than preserving the very institutions and ideals that the US was founded upon? — creativesoul

Those ideals are long gone my friend - for most people. You think Obama was preserving the ideals the US was founded on? Give me a break...